Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, May 26, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1175 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board approved its agenda and past findings of fact. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the lengthy discussion and eventual approval of a complex addition project at 515 Peralta, which involved extensive revisions based on board feedback and public input, ultimately passing unanimously. The board also addressed two status review cases: 247 Baca Street, which was postponed due to unauthorized work and confusion over enforcement, and 426 Delgado Lane, where the board confirmed the contributing and non-contributing statuses of various structures and walls on the property. The meeting concluded with the postponement of another case and an announcement regarding an appeal for the Marriott Hotel project. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda. - Approved four findings of fact and conclusions of law from July 22, 2025, and August 12, 2025. - Approved the application for 515 Peralta, including exceptions for removal of historic materials, a rear addition, exceeding the 50% footprint, and a one-foot height allowance, contingent on the new building corners having a 1.5 to 2-inch radius. - Postponed the status review for 247 Baca Street until staff provides more information on unauthorized work and proposed remedies. - Confirmed the status of structures at 426 Delgado Lane: primary residence and shed designated as contributing (with specific primary facades), east yard wall as contributing, and south/west walls and guest house as non-contributing. - Postponed the case for 1062 Camino San Ysidro until the next meeting on June 9th. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda — Passed (unanimous "Aye") - Motion to approve the four findings of fact and conclusions of law — Passed (unanimous "Aye") - Motion to approve the application for 515 Peralta, adopting staff's findings for all exception criteria and granting the additional one foot in height, contingent on new building corners having a 1.5 to 2-inch radius — Passed (5-0) - Motion to postpone Case 202612413 HDRB247 Brella Street — Passed (3 Yes, 2 No) - Motion to confirm the status of structures at 426 Delgado Lane as recommended by staff — Passed (5 Yes, 0 No) - Motion to postpone the case for 1062 Camino San Ysidro until the June 9th meeting — Passed (unanimous "Aye") - Motion to adjourn the meeting — Passed (unanimous "Aye") == Public Comment == Public comments included a neighbor's concern about a 24-foot height variance impacting their view at 515 Peralta, a preference for wood railings over metal, and a retired director praising the 515 Peralta design as a magnificent aesthetic improvement. A historic architect criticized the city's review process as excessive and suggested flaws in the city's code. A homeowner expressed frustration with the lengthy and costly approval process for home additions. For 247 Baca Street, a public commenter emphasized that a "red tag" is an opportunity for improvement and that owners should be encouraged to "do the right thing," clarifying the property had always been non-contributing. == Topics == - 515 Peralta Addition - 426 Delgado Lane Status - Historic Preservation Philosophy - Unauthorized Work Enforcement - Wildland Urban Interface Code - Historic District Walls - Historic Window Replacements - Marriott Hotel Appeal - National Preservation Conference - Meeting Schedule Conflicts == Full Transcript == There we go. You may proceed, Madam Chair. Thank you. Good evening all and welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. Today is May 26, 2026, and I am calling this meeting to order at this point. May we have a roll call, please? Madam Chair Rios: Here. Member Bishide: Member DGEN: Present. Member Benu: Here. Member Cherry: Here. Member Simmons: Here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda? No changes to agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? Is there a second? Pai seconds. All those in favor say "Aye." Oppose say "No." We have no minutes on the agenda this evening, but we do have four findings of fact and conclusions of law. Two of those are from July 22nd, 2025, and two of them are from August 12th, 2025. Changes to any of these, either staff or the board? Anybody? If there are no changes, is there a motion to approve these? Do I hear a motion? Den move to approve. And do I hear a second? All those in favor say "Aye." And oppose say "No." Do we have anyone here that wishes to speak on matters that have to do with H-Board that do not have to do with your case this evening? If so, you can come to the podium at this time, and it appears no later when your case, when the case is heard. Is there anyone on Zoom? No, Madam Chair. On Zoom. Anything under staff communications? Madam Chair, I just wanted to let you know that I'm going to provide you with some information on the National Alliance Preservation Commission's conference. Not that the city can pay for it, but just as a point of information if you're interested in learning from other commissioners across the country. There's going to be a conference July 23rd through the 26th in Minneapolis, Minnesota. But that was the only comment other than we will be doing a presentation at the next meeting on the wildland urban interface, and we are currently working with the fire department to draft some code language relating to mitigating measures to help with the defensible space and prevent the spread of forest fires or even other fires similar to those lessons we had with the Palisades. This is a timely issue and will be considered as part of Phase 1A of, or I'm sorry, 2A of the code update. So it'll be the first round of review that we do as part of that package. That's it. Thank you, Heather. Anything else? We will move on to old business. We have one case under old business that's located at 515 Peralta, and Amanda Romero is going to give us the case report on this. Amanda, I actually will be doing the presentation, Chair Rios. I sent a share request. Thank you. Madam Chair, may I ask the staff if they could bring the screen a little bit more this way? I can't quite see what's on it. Thank you. Can you see it? Member D. Thank you, Chair Rios, members of the board. I am just going to provide a little, not orthodox, but I'm going to provide an overview of the site. There were story poles erected at the site for your review today so that you can understand the relationship between the two buildings. But this is a program that we have, an aerial mapping program, that these are images from November 2025, illustrating the relationship of this building to other buildings. As you can see, there's a pretty big difference between the elevation of the parking lot at Wells Fargo all the way across to the buildings that are immediately to the north of the subject site. And here is a view looking down the hill just so that you understand the relationships between the other buildings and the subject building. And it is the applicant's intent to sort of dig into this hillside. I don't know if you can see my cursor there, but just slightly. You can see there's a fairly large amount of grade that continues up behind the building, and the actual addition will be dug into the hill so that it will be the effect of one story above that sort of top elevation roughly. I'm sure Mr. Contractor or Ms. Wood can correct me if I'm wrong. And then this is just sort of a final view looking from the backside. I just thought that these might be helpful to our conversation today. Let me start the PowerPoint. One moment. I am going to be brief. I just want to go over what has happened with the subcommittee and some of the feedback that we've received at the subcommittee level, and then I'm sure the architect's team has a presentation that provides additional detail for you that I don't need to repeat. So, you may recall that the applicant has gotten approval for demolition of the two additions on the north side of the structure outlined in orange and some detached structures as well. And that's going to be the site of the proposed addition. Here is a floor plan of the proposed addition. I didn't include the second floor, but this is the footprint. And I wanted to communicate to you that the garage itself has been pushed back a little bit and lowered per the comments that were received from the subcommittee. That was one of the suggestions. The applicant actually had a conversation with the subcommittee on three different proposals, and the subcommittee had a conversation with the applicant about the merits of each, and that has resulted into today's conversation or today's presentation. The elevation drawings, when in true elevation, look like there's a pretty severe mass above the building site itself. But one has to keep in mind that one of the things we judge on our visibility from the right of way, not necessarily visibility right in front of the front door, which you actually wouldn't see it if you were standing right in front of the front door. But we have these situations where there's rooftop equipment that sometimes peaks above the parapet but isn't visible from the street. So it's a similar concept, just that that area of visibility. And these are some of the other elevations I'll skim through right now. But the applicant provided some additional information on the slope. The Nearmap images sort of communicate a very similar thing. One with a historic photo and then another one illustrating the current day situation. Keep in mind also that a development plan has been approved for two-story multifamily townhomes immediately adjacent to this site in that sort of overgrown area. And then it's approximately, I believe, eight units, six to eight units. It's nine units. Lanni Mccoli actually did that site plan when she was in current planning. So thank you, Lanni. And this is an illustration of the existing building. I think this is one of the important pieces to understand: the existing building with the attachment, the light touch addition that connects the two buildings, and then the proposed building. And you can see with the surface of the grade over at the left-hand side of the graphic, the grade pretty much takes up that first story. It's dug in, and then there's a second story there that peaks above the parapet of the existing building in true elevation. So this is the original proposal where the HTB requested that the applicant provide or collaborate with a subcommittee of the board. And so the concerns at that time really related to massing mostly. One of the simple solutions was to, there's a parapet wall above the garage. As you may or may not know, there's a certain fall protection height for railings, which is 42 inches approximately. And so, one of the simple solutions was to reduce that height and have a different railing solution for that second-level terrace. So the opportunity here was to, if you can see here, the mass of the garage is lowered and tucked in. You'll be able to see also that, just as a point of information, the mass that connects the two buildings, which is a light touch, is set back from the main primary, from the east elevation facade. Of course, these are all primary by 8 feet. And then, of course, it's substantially set back from the front of the proposed additional building. And so, this is an illustration of the addition from the street and an additional photograph just helping you to understand the relationship of the building to the street. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Heather. Board members, do you have any questions for Heather at this time? Anyone? They have no questions for you at this moment. Will the, yes, Heather. Chair Rios, just a quick sort of check-in with the subcommittee members. Is there anything that I may have missed that they want to add to the conversation, the presentation? The subcommittee members were members Joe Simmons. Heather, I think you, do you have anything to add? Nothing to add. I think you covered it pretty well. No, I don't. Thank you, Director Loway. Thank you. Thank you. Will the persons, the applicant or any other persons involved in this case, come forward and get sworn in? Contractor, 94 Street. Contractor, 924 Shoofly Street. Rebecca Wood, 924 Shoofly Street. Do you solemnly swear and affirm or declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? I do. Yes. Thank you. Thank you all for this opportunity to present this project to you. This will be our fifth presentation to you in the last 12 months. At our last meeting, we were requested to work with the subcommittee and want to thank all of you for that. Today we will be presenting these revisions and changes developed with your subcommittee and other responses to your previous comments. We wanted to start this presentation with a few thoughts on preservation and our approach to preserving this specific project. This project has always been about preservation of a significant historic building. Preservation can be construed to be an act of honoring the past, not as artifact, but through an intervention of sorts to make the past relevant, to allow the past to participate in the present and the past to contribute to the future. To engage in the act of preservation thoughtlessly or half-heartedly is nothing short of disrespect. Reading the historic report for this building and looking through the historic photographs of this home, this structure, one is struck by its presence and prominence in a nascent city, the capital of a nascent state. One can only imagine this building in dialogue with other buildings in the proximity: the Federal Courthouse, the Scottish Rite Cathedral, and the Cathedral of St. Francis. Occupants of this building were involved in all of those projects. Buildings and the built environment enjoy an autonomy from intention and use. And this building and this property have gone through many changes since Judge Axel, one of the early governors of our state, first acquired the, a notorious governor, I should say, first acquired the property and constructed the home in the late 1980s. The building as purchased by our client now consists of three separate efficiency apartments, and the one stately brick building is once again in need of serious repair. We've had a structural engineer look at the property. It needs a lot of work. Our clients appreciate the historic significance of this home and the importance, the potential joy and responsibility of preservation of this structure. Alongside the repair and preservation of this historic house, the owners also wish this home to be a place for aging in place with amenities required for that. A living space for a caretaker, secure and accessible parking and movement, contemporary building systems and utilities, and privacy along busy Pojoaque de Peralta. Since the clients acquired this property, we have come before you five times. We had an initial consultation a year and a day ago, last May 27th. We shared our approach, and in many ways, the meeting was deferred until the status review had occurred. We then went through a status review, an initial conceptual review of our presentation approach for this project, a demolition review, and our last meeting was a design review, after which we met with a subcommittee. This will now be our sixth official HDRB meeting. We thought it would be appropriate to start this sixth presentation with a brief reminder about our specific approach to preservation for this project. Per city zoning code, our client would be allowed to construct seven living units on this property with a maximum lot coverage of 40 to 55%. That's what a 55% coverage would look like. Unlike the condo development which has been approved immediately to the west of this project that Lonnie had made a mention of, this is a lucrative possibility that our clients have chosen not to do, to celebrate the massing and dignity of this old historic building. While addressing our clients' functional and programmatic needs, we have developed a design where a single proposed structure is held away from the historic structure by 12 feet. In most neighborhoods, the separation between homes is required to be 10 feet to meet zoning, fire code, and building code. If you look at an aerial photograph of this neighborhood, that's how close buildings are. They're all houses are, they're all about 10 feet apart. The more private functions of the home are in this new structure 12 feet away from the historic home. In the historic home, which is where the more public spaces of the home are proposed, the historic structure will be opened up and preservation of the home will be celebrated. The two masses are lightly connected to allow the private and public aspects of the home to be integrated. This approach is in keeping with national and international best practices for preservation. While this connector unifies the public and private functional uses within the home, it forces us to consider the two masses as a single structure and requires us to seek an exception. There are many instances in preservation where a small connector like that would not force the two buildings to be considered a single structure. This is because the language of the code limits an addition of a significant building to 50% of the original footprint. Our proposed addition is 81% of the original historic footprint. The reason for that language in the code, in our minds, makes good sense. If you add something large onto an old historic building, you stand to damage not only the structure but the historic nature of the building. If the two masses were not connected, the single additional mass held 12 feet away from the original structure would be in compliance, and an exception would not be required, as it is a simple mass that blends with the surrounding structures. It contributes to the heterogeneous character of the neighborhood, and the garage doesn't even face the street. What is at issue here is the nature of the connector itself. The connector, which is about 7% of the area of the original footprint, yet this connector plays an important role in the preservation and restoration of the significant brick building. It allows us to minimize the impact of the addition to the original structure and restore the primary facade to the north. We humbly request that this board take into consideration this interpretation of the code and this approach to preservation of this specific structure. This is an approach which we believe to be in conformance with the spirit and intention of the Santa Fe Historic Building Code. We also request that this board recognize our client's desire and initiative to preserve this building in making it their home. It is an undertaking not unaccompanied by significant angst and unanticipated hardship. We'll now share our revised design with you. Thank you. **Speaker:** Thanks, Deandra. Members of the board, this slide has an area summary of some of the numbers that Deandra mentioned, and we can return to it. But after understanding better the historic footprint versus the added area, the exception we're requesting is for an addition that is 81% of the historic footprint where the code limits that to 50%. As Deandra mentioned, we're returning to you with a revised design after receiving feedback from this board and discussing further with the subcommittee. Heather did such a wonderful introduction. Some of this I can go through pretty quickly. But to summarize the discussion, the conversation focused on various aspects of context: what design guidance and limitations does the code provide, the neighborhood, the existing site? The neighborhood is and has historically been responding to slope. The site section shows the pattern of terraces and buildings stepping up the hill. Pojoaque is to the right, and north is to the left. Our site alone rises 30 feet from Peralta to the north property line. And you can see the sort of ray of visibility from a bystander across the street. From the street, this pattern is visible as well. Buildings step up the hill with layered fences and sight walls delineating the property boundaries. Looking at that same view, the board expressed concern in our last meeting in April that the previous design was too prominent and that its materials too similar to the historic house, risking confusion about what was original. Along with the subcommittee, we studied a number of ways to address these concerns, and the revised proposal makes several changes to accommodate those. Several of these Heather mentioned. The mass of the garage, which is on the east side, is set back two feet in plan. The upper level massing, visible a little bit on the left here, was set back five feet. The downstairs parapet was lowered by two feet, and a wood railing was added. Divided light windows were added to the south facade of the addition. The stucco color was darkened to a color that is related but distinct from the original structure. And the masonry parapet was removed. And finally, the picket sight fence in the foreground of this image was shifted to enlarge the yard and to visually break up the addition. So, I'll flip back to the previous proposal and then to the proposed. We have some updated views to reflect this new design. This image shows on the left the gray massing is the scale of the proposed or approved development plan for our west neighbor. We understand that that might change since that happened a couple of years ago, but it's a good reflection of the scale that is likely to be built on that property. To the right of the image, you can see the two-story buildings existing to the east. Another view from Pojoaque. You can see the addition peeking in on the right there. You can also see where the garage is stepped back in plan and where it's lowered so that the railing is more translucent and the appearance of the massing is less. The only major update to the material palette is that of the stucco that I mentioned. The proportion of the windows remains similar, and taking inspiration from the unique historic house windows. The massing and material changes to the proposed design are intended to background it and to ensure that the historic house retains its prominence on site. In conclusion, the code instructs us that a significant structure is a record of its time and that additions shall be compatible yet differentiated. And the proposed design we arrived at with the help of the subcommittee and after several studies is guided by these principles and by the desire to preserve and protect the original house. That's the end of our presentation. Thank you. **Speaker:** Thank you both for a very thorough presentation. It is very much appreciated. I'm sure the board will have questions, as I will start off with the questions that I have. The new addition is being proposed as a Pueblo Revival. Is that correct? **Speaker:** I guess it sort of blends. It has the windows of the Territorial style house. Its primary material is stucco. The original proposal had the masonry parapets that were received with mixed thoughts as being too similar to the distinctive parapets of the original house. And so in order to background the addition, we took those off and made it just a minimal. **Speaker:** How would you characterize the architectural style? Because I'm looking at very sharp corners. So I know you want to make a distinction between the significant house and the new proposal. And so that's what I am asking. If you are having, if you are proposing a Pueblo Revival home, we would require that you have, per the ordinance, that you have rounded corners. **Speaker:** I think looking at these images of the original house, it has sharp corners. And so that would be the reference that we're referring to. So I guess the question for you is what differentiates Pueblo Revival from Territorial? **Speaker:** Well, in Territorial you have the sharper corners, but I'm asking, are you proposing Territorial in the new part? **Speaker:** Well, we've been before you before, and I just want to say we don't do style, we look at the context, and as architects, I think we look at the context, we look at the neighborhood. So this is a building, the addition is in keeping with the neighborhood's buildings, the homes in the neighborhood. **Speaker:** But the new... **Speaker:** I would not describe it as a new Pueblo Revival. We're not using adobe on it, and it'll be representative of the materials of our time. **Speaker:** You're not putting parapet, correct? **Speaker:** No, but you'll notice where we're doing the guardrail, the wood guardrail, it picks up some of the proportionality of the Territorial piece. So, we're trying to be sensitive to some of the style of the existing building, but make it blend in with the new building, make it blend into the neighborhood. **Speaker:** And in reference to the historic footprint, I think I saw two different figures. Is the historic footprint 1560 or is it 2776? **Speaker:** 1560 is the amount that's being renovated. The other number was a larger footprint of the original house, including some of the rooms that will be demolished that we have approval to demolish. **Speaker:** So total, when you do have the footprint of the original home and the proposal, you will have 4,800 and some square feet. Correct. **Speaker:** So the proposed total, including revised historic house and addition, is 5,030. The historic footprint, which this plan shows, includes portions to be demolished, like Deandra said. And so if you compare the proposed total to the historic footprint, the net new area is 2258, which is where we get the 81%. **Speaker:** So from the first time that you came before us, can you tell us what, how much square footage you reduced this by? **Speaker:** We reduced a couple hundred square feet upstairs, but we did not actually reduce the square footage of interior space. We simply adjusted the massing to change its appearance. **Speaker:** And was there any reduction in height? **Speaker:** Yes, the reduction of the lower parapets, those were reduced by two feet. **Speaker:** And can you indicate to us what that was? **Speaker:** Sure. So if you can see where my mouse is, this line right here was previously two feet higher, which had been in alignment with the existing parapet. But in order to distinguish it and reduce the appearance of mass, we did this setback here shown by the shadow, we reduced this line. And you can see the more translucent wood railing providing the safety for the roof deck as opposed to the solid parapet we had before. And was there any other portion that was reduced? You can sort of see it here. Previously, there was a large covered walkway on the upper floor which carried the line across. The original intent was to just have simpler massing, but it made the building seem bigger, so we removed that, stepping back most of the south facade of the second story by 5 feet. Thank you. Lastly, can you give us detail in terms of the picket fence? What are the tops going to look like? That has not changed since our previous proposal. We took some inspiration from historic photographs showing a—there were a couple different photographs showing different kinds of fences. But in the interest of simplicity, we're proposing a simple flat-topped picket fence. And the color will be? The color will be wood, which is also stained or oiled, protected from the elements, but not painted white. Thank you. Other questions or comments, board members? I have some comments, but I believe that it would be probably more appropriate after the public has spoken. I'm certainly willing to make comments right now. You can. Okay. Thank you very much. And I want to extend great appreciation to the applicants and the architects for really taking this to heart. We did have a very good session with our subcommittee, and I think that there's a great improvement. They've really incorporated the concerns that the board had previously. I have a kind of a differing opinion about this. In our code, under building additions, under design, it says, "Building additions shall have similar materials, architectural treatments, and styles, features, and details as the existing structure, but shall be distinguishable from and not attempt to duplicate the existing structure." So, I think the original proposal probably made that duplication a little more prominent. I appreciate what the architects have done. However, I think that the change of color and the lack of reference to the cornice—it doesn't have to be a duplication of a cornice. I think that you guys were, in my personal opinion, on a good track previously. I think there are some other subtle ways to make that reference, because what I see is the addition now looks more akin to the buildings that are next door and up the hill and in the context, and I think have drifted away from the character of the territorial style house here. So, I would like to suggest that there be some closer familial relationship between the addition and the historic house that ties those together, that makes reference. They don't have to, and I'm sure you guys are skilled enough to come up with plenty of ideas as to how to do that. Otherwise, I think that the preservation of the historic structure is well met, that everything that is being proposed is subordinate to the existing structure. I don't see that there's anything in the addition that competes or that detracts or that calls attention to itself. I think that it really kind of sets off the structure. The analogy I was using in my head is like going to a black tie affair where all the men are in tuxedos, and they are the ones who really set off the great outfits that the women wear. And I think that this is a case where I think that the analogy is appropriate. So, I think you've done a very good job with incorporating and doing what you could to respond to what the board had said. I especially agree that the little 12-foot hinge, if you will, is particularly appropriate in that it is so diminutive that anybody, the casual observer, would not even know that this is one house. So, that's what I have to say. Member Simmons, thank you very much for your comments. I have a question for you. Did you indicate those comments to—when you were part of the subcommittee, did you indicate those comments to the architects? Not about the differentiation of the style, but we certainly talked about the layering of the massing as it goes up the hill. That was really the primary conversation that we had. And then I did reflect in the subcommittee that there was some concern about the garage being too high. And then there was a comment—I don't know if it was made either here or—but to make a plane change and push the garage back a little bit, but that maneuver certainly does help reduce the overall mass of the addition. So, that's basically, I think, what we had to say in the subcommittee. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, thanks for all the work that you put into this. You did really take all of the board's comments to heart, and I think that it's a much improved project. I'm a little worried now that you're probably thinking, "Wow, have we gotten conflicting advice from the board here?" Because the last time you were given some suggestions that it needed more differentiation. Now you may be hearing otherwise. I personally am of the opinion that in this particular case, I think you're on the right track to differentiate it the way you have. I felt last time that even though I thought it was a smart idea to do the kind of a modernized version of the coping to nod towards that without duplicating it, to me it just didn't quite work in this case, and it did seem too much like these two buildings suddenly became one building, and you did lose the sense of the original structure. So, because of the fact it's a significant building as opposed to a contributing building, I do think that it's important to do more differentiation than it otherwise would be. I do think—I agree completely with Member Simmons that normally, I think it gets carried a little bit too far, the idea of differentiation on a contributing structure, because I think the standard is really intended just to show it to avoid confusion. You don't want an exact duplicate so you can no longer tell what's original or not, but it's not really intended to have contrast, per se, even though sometimes it's thought to be the case. That's the way I interpret that language, and I think that's the appropriate way to interpret that language. But with a significant building, we're not really supposed to have additions at all. So, I think what you've done really keeps the sense of the original structure intact. It really does read to me as another building behind it. So, that's exactly, I think, the right approach in this particular case. I think you've solved all the problems that at least I thought the original proposal had in terms of the overwhelming nature of the size of it compared to the original structure and the too close—too much closeness in design. I would just—I guess I do want to focus just a little bit more, though, on the specific design features of the new structure. Almost thinking of it as if, well, if this really was a separated structure on that street, what would we expect and or even demand in terms of the detailing of it? It seems to me that you have switched from a territorial style to something like a Spanish Pueblo Revival style, what's called in our code for this district the recent Santa Fe style, which does mean that, as Chair Rios was, I think, wondering about, that we do expect to see rounded corners on that style, even in a territorial style, because our code specifically says that even with respect to recent Santa Fe style, that dominating effect is to be of adobe construction. So, that is what we always look for. We give a little bit of leeway when there is territorial revival style because that is the one instance where John did push that boundary a little bit and had sharper corners in his design aesthetic for—and he created in essence that revival style. So, when it's a true territorial revival style, classical territorial revival style, we do accept sharper corners than otherwise. And that's kind of the one exception. So, in this case, I would say you probably need some kind of rounded corners on the new building. I do think, though, the unique circumstances of this particular conjunction of the two buildings means perhaps it could be a little less rounded than we would normally demand. So, not a sharp corner, but something in between the three-inch radius that we would want if it was a true Spanish Pueblo style building, because I do think that it might look a little—because they're attached, maybe it's nice to have some kind of a middle ground between the Spanish Pueblo Revival and the territorial in terms of its treatment of the massing. So, that would—that's what I would advocate for. Not sharp corners, but something like maybe a 1 1/2 to 2-inch radius for the corners. Recesses in the windows to make sure it continues to look as if constructed from adobe, which is what our code demands. And I guess finally, I might question the trim color on the windows. Was it black on the style sheet? Because we normally do not allow black or dark gray in the historic district for that. No, and this is just a photograph of the divided lights, the divided light door model that we're specifying, but it would be in this finish. Okay. I would find that acceptable. So, I'm really impressed with the work you've done. Thank you. Member Benu, we can—we'll take a look at the bullnose corners. That's an easy thing to do. Thanks. Other comments? Member Beachite. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your presentation and for your continued thoughtful consideration of this project. My—the concern I expressed at the last hearing was with respect to the garage massing and appearance from the east, and that's been more than addressed with the changes you've made. I think you were smart to approach it with the translucent railing and reduced or increased setback. I also like how you did the picket fence. Surprising how much difference a fence placement can make. I appreciate the skill that you've exhibited in making these changes. I really like the light touch approach to additions to historic buildings, especially significant buildings. I wish we saw more of it, but I think it takes a more creative and skilled approach that we don't always—applicants don't always have access to. So, I think this building is quite lucky to have you on its team. That kind of approach makes it really obvious what the new part of the building is. So, I think the differentiation maybe is less important to me, and I hope that you feel comfortable with the finishes that you've proposed in trying to meet that code requirement because I think that the massing itself and the placement with respect to the historic building has achieved that. With respect to rounded corners, I think if I'm not mistaken, the neighboring properties to the east of the building—I'm not sure if they have rounded corners or not, but they have quite modern windows, which you read more contemporary. And I think this house fits in—would fit in quite well with that. Also, looking a bit more like one of the neighboring properties and part of this historic preserved older house. Thank you very much. Thank you, Member Beachite and Member Chair. Yeah, thanks. I think you guys did a really good job. I don't have much to say in detail other than I think it looks really good. I would comment on the square corners. I would actually be an advocate for the more square corners because I think it marries it to this building, the existing structure, and keeps it sort of less differentiated. Making it look like it belongs with this structure more, but it's still different than that structure. So, that would be my only comments. I think you guys did a really good job. I like it. Thank you. Thank you. And with respect to the corners, I wish I had a better photo, but I think our inclination would be, as Deandra said, to take inspiration from the historic house. And as you probably know from having visited, it has a very thick coat of stucco and a very unique finish. And we're not proposing changing that. The addition will be a little bit smoother to create some of that distinction. But I think what we would probably propose would be to take a measurement from the original house and do something similar on the addition. Well, the returns at the windows on the original house are very square. I think it's unique and I do think it helps the new structure melt in a unique way with the old existing structure. It's not, there's a completely stylistically differentiated house behind it. So actually, I think that small detail, because what I'm noticing from the renderings are the corners on the windows of the new structure are also square returns. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. I think the square corners are a good add to this particular case. Thank you. Anyone else? Member Don. Thank you, Chair. Congratulations on intuiting our situation which entails not being able to advise design professionals on how to build things. We're not supposed to do that. And so, it's very gratifying to have you persist to respond to some of the comments in such a way that everyone is just smiling. So, congratulations. And I'm not presuming how this is going to go, but I'm just saying everyone said all the good things and I just want to concur that it's a good project and thank you for rising to a challenge. It's a very busy property. So that was well done. Thank you, Chair Denon, and for your and Chair, or sorry, Board Member Simmons' assistance on the subcommittee. Thank you. Is there anyone in this room that wishes to come forward and speak in reference to this particular project? Please come forward at this point. You will need to get sworn in. Hi, please state your name and address for the record. Elizabeth West, 318 Sena Street, Santa Fe. Hey, Elizabeth. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you. I came in a little bit late and I'm sorry. However, I got to hear enough and see enough excellent tail end of the discussion here and I agree with most of the comments that have been made already. I think the architects and the whole team have done a really good job and thank you, Member Simmons, and everybody for your comments. They're really helpful. I guess one thing that I do disagree with some of you about, and that is I actually think that having a little bit of a bullnose, or somewhat rounded corners, is going to be fine. And it's much better than extra sharp in my mind. It's going to look sharp even if there's a satisfactory bullnose, quite frankly. And part of the difference, of course, is acknowledged by or demonstrated by the coping edge of the roof. What is that called? That brick stuff. Anyway, it's that makes a real difference right there. I'm pretty surprised at how brilliant some small changes can alter the whole feel of a building. And so I agree with many of the, well, the board in general has been supportive about what you all have done and thank you very much. I'm a little concerned about the railing for the back part. As long as it's wood, that's going to read well, I believe. I find metal railings in relation to adobe sometimes problematic, especially when they're small or thin. Also, I know it's the rendering here, and on the south elevation showing the fence is very rectilinear, very, very, very rigid, and of course with time that will be mellowed. But thank you very much for being an example of taking an incredibly important property with awfully nice people involved. Always there are nice people involved, I assume. And having the, well, the brilliance to take a look again and who knows what you might have privately said after the last meeting when you were told, gosh, you've done a lot of good work, but this isn't quite what we meant. But whatever. You've done a really good job. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Hello. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record and speak right into the microphone, please. Max Skooler, 316 Oro Street. Thank you, Max. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. He has been sworn. Madam Chair, I can confirm that there are nice people involved. George and Tina are my neighbors and our most treasured neighbors. And I've met the vendor a few times and I know there couldn't be more great thought that's gone into this project. I live in the property immediately above and behind this and it was only yesterday that the blue flags went up and I was able to see from our back garden how this affects our view. Lily and I moved into 316, which was built in 1910, two years ago. And the back garden was really the one of the two things that attracted us most to the property. From it, you can see the plaza, you can see the capital, you can see St. Francis, you can see the mountains. And yesterday with the blue flags up, we could see where our view of many of the elements is impaired. I'm tremendously excited for you all for this project. I want you all to have your every dream. I really mean that. We wish that the height requirement would be observed at the 23-foot height as opposed to the variance requested for 24 feet. That amount matters in what we're able to see in our entire experience of our back garden. So that's our respectful request. We deeply appreciate the chance to put that into the process here. Thank you very, very much. Thank you, sir. Anyone else wishing to speak, come forward? Well, the elevation that the go ahead. Is it possible to share the? Sir, if you're not at the mic for Pony, you will not be recorded. I apologize. I apologize. Speak right into the mic, sir. Would it be possible just to show that elevation from Po that goes up because I think it really demonstrates how the top casita sits up relative to our property. Okay, he can do that in a while. Let's hear from the next person. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. My name is John Burkenfield. I live at 9 Elk. The microphone. John, please will you speak into the microphone, John? Thank you. John Burkenfield, 9 Elk Circle in Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I'm going to come at this perhaps in a little different way. Firstly, let me say I was, I'm the retired director of Lusco and Rinus. So I spent 25 years there really involved in historic preservation and it was dear to my heart. I very much admire the work that you all do and that this committee, this board has done for a number of years. Before I joined Lascolandrinus, I spent 30 years at IBM and I had at one time at IBM responsibility for the design program of the company which was architectural interiors, product design, and graphic design. So I'm very tuned to the aesthetics rather than to any of the code or detail. I don't know that at all. I also currently am the chair of a hospitality group in Santa Fe Hospitality Association. I don't think that any tourist is going to walk down on Peralta Street and take a picture of that existing building. It is physically to the public, it's not an interesting building. I know it's historic and it's 150 plus years old, but it sure is not a beautiful building. What you have proposed to build around it, I think is magnificent. And I say I admire, I admire the courage in addition to admiring the work that you people do on this board and the staff. I admire the courage of the applicants and their vision and their architect's vision for what might be in that space. That is not a pretty space. It really is not the building. You know, I was there this morning. There is not a detail that you look at, you know, from a doorknob to the door to a window that you say that's really marvelous. So, I think that that is such an addition to the aesthetic, to the visual aesthetic of our city. I think it's fabulous and I congratulate the architects for the work they've done and I really hope that all of you can work it out in some way that they can make that happen. Thanks very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else in this room wishing to come forward and comment? It appears not. Is there anyone online? If anyone online would like to speak, please raise your hand. Yes. Just one moment. There is or there is not. Yes, there is. Mr. Guido, if you can state your name and address for the record and please be prepared to be sworn. Anthony Guida, 1711 Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Hi, Anthony. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, sir. He has been sworn, Madam Chair. Good evening, board members. I do want to applaud the applicants for their design work on this project. I want to applaud them for their thoughtfulness, their thoroughness, their flexibility, and especially for their patience. I think the last time I saw this presentation, there was a lead slide that explained, I don't know, about seven or eight steps in this process extending all the way back to November of last year, if not before. And most recently, a subcommittee designated for a house addition. I appreciate their patience with all of this. I understand that this is a significant structure in our, as designated by the city of Santa Fe. I understand that, of course, there is a measure of sensitivity that should be invested in the design of any alterations or rehabilitation of that structure. I will have you know that as an architect or a historic architect for the National Park Service working on national historic landmarks, there is less scrutiny, less review, for the homes of presidents, for other buildings that have that highest designation. I think the city has kind of put these applicants through the wringer on this and we had a good project last time it was presented. We have a good project tonight. And I just want to kind of point out, you know, the value or lack of value in what we're doing. Both of the projects, both versions of the projects that we saw, follow the intent of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitations. These are qualitative standards. Our code, and I think some of the discussion tonight, points to some of the flaws in the way our code is written. We often look for quantitative excuses not to build. I've heard a lot about the area, the height, the definitions. Some of these things are in the code, some of them aren't. There is no requirement to follow either the Territorial Revival style or the Pueblo Revival style. The code only says old or recent, leaving open for some interpretation. There is no requirement for radiused corners on buildings. It is not true that significant buildings should not receive additions at all. I think the good discussion tonight, and I imagine on the subcommittee, has to do with the qualitative aspects of this building. That's really what we should be focusing on. Is this an addition that not only preserves the importance of the original structure and is complementary to it and the district, but is this something we're going to be proud of in Santa Fe for many years to come? One thing that would help that is if the city reformed its code, if the city adopted the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation like every other certified local government in the state of New Mexico does, and is a requirement at the federal level. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Guido. Anyone else online? Miss Young, if you could state your name and address for the records and be sworn. Yes. Jordan Young, I live at 652 Galisteo Street. Miss Young, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I missed, the sound has not been great on the Zoom side, just FYI. I had to turn the closed captioning on, but I was glad to hear from Joe Simmons and to have a professional architect on historic. Thank you, Joe, for serving. I am eager for a historian to also be appointed to fill out the board. As a homeowner, it feels really frustrating that it required a subcommittee to do a house addition. This is not a monument. Deidre is a well-known, reputable architect. The fact that it has taken a professional of this caliber this long to get through the process is a total embarrassment. It shouldn't take this long or this much money to build something in the historic district. Details like corners should not be hashed out in a public hearing. Neighbors losing their views. You do not own the air above someone else's property. We are so lucky to live in a place with expansive views everywhere. Requiring views to be preserved of a neighbor in the densest neighborhood feels highly personal and not progressive. Does it follow the code? Does it meet the requirements? Is it worth all of the resources of the city to scrutinize these homeowners for so long for a home addition? Please approve this project so we can move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? Neras. I think the gentleman wanted to see something from the architect, and in the meantime, Attorney Rubal. Frank, can you comment in reference to, like, quickly about viewsheds, what the law tells us about viewsheds? Madam Chair, thank you for that question. The law does not protect a viewshed. The law does place height restrictions. There's nothing in the height restrictions that indicates that we're there to protect viewsheds. But generally, you'll find that the basis for a height restriction is to protect the sunlight, adaptation to the natural environment, and possibly a viewshed was the intent of a height restriction, but that's not what the code reads. Thank you. Thank you so much for letting me just indicate on this. This is our property right here. Sir, if you can just. This is our property right here, sir. Okay. You see it? So, and this is, this is all new. So, Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay, good. So, this is our, this is our back garden. This is the new building, and this is the second story of the new building. You can see we're in our back garden. Now, what is the view will be impeded by the new building? I don't think we own the viewshed at all. All that we are requesting is that we, that the code be followed at 23 feet as opposed to 24 feet variance. And frankly, we don't understand why it needs to be 24 feet. And I don't know if you have any comment on that, but it's confusing to us. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. Members, I believe there is an amendment to the staff report about the height that wasn't mentioned earlier. We saw that in the revised, this, this memo that we got this afternoon, but I think it says, let me find it here. Staff has determined the height exception will not be required as the applicant will be allowed to up to 48 inches for building on a slope site, slope area per section 14-6, yada, yada, yada. Chair Rios, Member Simmons, that's correct. It is up to the jurisdiction of the board still. So, the height calculation is such that on a slope site, there can be some relief up to four feet based on the terrain and the project, but that is the jurisdiction of the board to determine what's appropriate. Thank you. I will ask if there are no further comments or questions, I will ask for a motion. However, I do want to make a quick comment, and that is that I feel that the applicant and the subcommittee worked well together. Yes, the applicant had to come here, has come before the board about five or six times, I believe, but in reference to design, this is only the second time that the applicant has come, and I believe that the project has improved, and I believe that the applicant, that the owners and that the applicant themselves probably would agree with us. And that's what happens, and that's why we have a board that works with the public. We are a volunteer board that gives of our time and our efforts and our knowledge. So, thank you all. And that's, you know, we're all community members. We're trying to work with you so that you achieve the project that you want and to keep the historic preservation aspect of the city alive and well. So, if, yes, Member Cherry, did you have something? Yeah, I just wanted to clarify the height. So, there is no exception being requested for height. Is this correct? Right. Chair Rios, Member Cherry, that's correct. No exception is necessary. Understood. Thank you. And Member Ben. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just, I just wanted to ask a question of the applicant following up on the corners. I don't want that to derail this. I do continue to have strong views on that, that I do think it's essential that there be something that's not too out of line with what we would approve for a building that doesn't have brick coping in this district, especially on such a prominent street. I said I could imagine that in this case, because of the building that it's being associated with, not requiring as much of a radius as would be a typical Spanish Pueblo Revival style, but I understood you to be indicating that there would be some rounding of the corner. Can you just specify what that would be or what you'd be willing to do so that we as a board know what we're approving? I think anyone who has done construction or plastering around town knows there's a standard bullnose bead that's available for stucco, and that's what we'd propose to use. So what, how that in inches, your fingers. Oh, no, let's put it this way. We know there is a very sharp corner on certain contemporary houses that's very prominent throughout, without outside of our historic districts. I would say it's, it's actually dominating outside of there. So we don't need to, you know, work around the bush here. You know, it's, it all comes down to the tectonics of how you do something. And in this case, it would be the standard bullnose bead that comes, I, I forget if that's an inch and a half. An inch and a half. Okay, that's. Somewhere in that range. I did. So, standard bullnose, not sharp, but one and a half to two inch range is what I, I mean, I don't have that sample in front of me. Right. But it's, I've, I've plastered a lot of houses with that, and it gives it a nice soft look to it. I think that's what you're after. But it doesn't make it, it's not, it's not a three-inch radius. You know, it's not the kind of bullnoses we're doing at the O'Keeffe Museum. Exactly. Right. That's what I was suggesting would be the middle ground between a truly sharp corner and and the edge off. And I think that's what you were looking for, right? Okay. I mean, actually, I would make a motion then if you want, unless someone else wants to. If you want to go ahead and make a motion, there are other exceptions that need to be addressed. Yeah, this. Let's see, where's case are we on? Okay, so case 2026 012126 HDRB at 515 Pío de Peralta. I would move to adopt the staff's findings that the exception criteria have been met. For the following, with respect to the height, height exception has been determined not to be required. However, I would still make a positive finding that the board finds that the additional one foot in height, which is grantable in its discretion under the ordinance, is hereby granted for the reasons set forth in the staff report. With the exception request for the removal of historic materials, respecting existing exterior entry doors, I'd move that we adopt staff's findings that all exception criteria have been met, or staff's recommendations, I should say. With respect to exception two, to construct an addition to the rear north facade, I would move that staff's recommendations be adopted and concluding that the exception criteria have been met with respect to that exception. And with respect to exception number three, allowing an addition exceeding 50% of the existing footprint. Again, in that case, I would move that staff's recommendations be adopted by the board as findings. And finally, I would move that the application otherwise be approved as submitted, on the understanding, based on the applicant's representations, that the corners of the new building will be somewhat rounded in the one and a half to two inch radius range. Second. We have a roll call vote, please. Member Bishide. Yes. Member Denon. Yes. Member Benvvenu. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Simmons. Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you all, and good luck on your project. We're going to move on to new businesses, and the first case is located at 247, and that is Lanny's case. I'll give you guys a minute to leave the room. Okay. This is case 2026 012413 HDRB for 247 Baca Street for the status review of the residential structure, accessory structure, and yard walls. The residence is located at the south end of the east side of the street. The 12,200 foot 1930s vernacular style single family residence is constructed of adobe. An addition was constructed on the northwest corner, no, I'm sorry, northeast corner before 1957. And in 1984, a solarium and extension on the south elevation along with the frame porch on the west were constructed. The residence is among the early residences in the Garcia addition and was historically associated with the property located approximately 25 feet to the east at 246 Casado Street. The residence was previously addressed as 246 1/2 Casado Street and exhibits a modest expression of the Pueblo style. Due to a series of changes over time, the property was classified as non-contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District during the surveying of the structures in the 1980s. The shed and yard walls do not have an assigned status. Staff finds the structure to be contributing to the district because of the original adobe construction material, the historic growth of the building including the rear portal and small addition from the 1950s, and the solarium addition in 1984, which retains the overall appearance of the residence, the deep inset windows and doors, and the unique or tall design. At the rear of the lot is a small shed which is not discussed in the 2026 HCPI. The shed is found in some of the photos therein. The west, east, and south of the shed have no fenestrations. The north has a simple door opening. Staff recently approved replacement of the door of the shed because it was falling out of the building and the building was having high water intrusion. The 1957 aerial on page 19 of the HCPI does not show a structure in this location. It cannot be established in the 1978 aerial, but there is a tree in the location where the shed would be. Therefore, it is presumed the shed was constructed in the 1980s, making it ineligible for status. The yard walls on the property were constructed after 1985 and are considered non-contributing due to age. In 2026, the property was issued a stop work order or red tag for unpermitted work, including the wholesale window replacement, enclosure of the solarium, alterations to the front entry porch, replacement of the canales, and other maintenance items. While the 2026 HCPI states that the residence should be non-contributing due to these alterations and as noted previous alterations from the 1985 survey, staff disagrees with this assessment. Until 2026, the residence held six light wood casement windows and maintained the historic integrity of the building. It was not until the illegal work in 2026 that the integrity was affected. The status review for the property was due before the work had begun in 2026, and staff finds that prior to that work, the building would have been recommended as a contributing structure. Therefore, staff finds that section 14-4.6C2V for restoration of status is relevant in this case. Staff finds the structure to be contributing to the district because of the original adobe construction material, the historic growth of the building including the rear portal and small addition from the 1950s and the solarium addition in 1984, the deep inset windows and doors, and the unique portal design. Staff recommends that the historic status of the structure be upgraded from non-contributing to contributing with the north and west facades 1, 2, 3, and 4, including the corner portal designated as primary, and the yard walls and shed be designated as non-contributing per section 14-4.6c. At the field trip today, we did notice that there has been additional work done on the structure, including the completed enclosure of the solarium and the destruction of the unique character of the portal. Staff did give permission for stucco, re-roof, and hardscaping work, which is how the property obtained its existing permit for interior work, stucco, and roofing. The permit is not for the window replacements, enclosure of the solarium, or the alterations to the portal. All of these items will need to be addressed under section 14-4.6 C2V for restoration of status. I stand for questions. Mayor: Thank you, Lenny. Lenny, could you describe on the front of the property the significant detail, the significant portion of the property, of the building that was removed? So, you can see here in the 1985 HCPI image, it had these, the portal was actually divided into three entryways onto it with the arches, and that's what we were looking at as the unique portion of that portal. Mayor: And have there been other significant details of this property that have been removed besides the arches? Right. So, if you, let me find a photo for you. So, this shows the wood pieces where those wood pieces are were wide open windows, which created the solarium. There's also a small door entry that they have enclosed both on the west and south sides of the building. And then they've replaced all of the wood windows now with a metal window. Mayor: Thank you, Lenny. They have also restuccoed and changed canales. Mayor: So, you would agree if this building is going to be contributing that these elements you just described should be restored, correct? That is correct. Mayor: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Board members. Member Beach. Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, the question for all of you staff members. I'm having some trouble understanding the recommendation. I don't think I've seen this before. It seems like the recommendation from staff is based on the status, on the form of the building prior to the work that's been done. Staff's recommendation is based on a contingency that the solarium be reestablished, the windows be replaced, and the canales be replaced. I thought we were to status buildings based on their current condition. So, I don't understand if we don't have any sort of authority to make these things happen, unless I'm mistaken, how we can recommend a status based on several things assuming to be changed in the future. Heather: Thank you, Chair Rios. So, this is a conundrum here because of the changes that were made to the property. Certainly, the most clear path is that it would be non-contributing. Current status is contributing if I remember correctly. Currently, it's non-contributing. Heather: It's non-contributing. Okay. Because there are special notice standards for non-contributing. I'm sorry, I was in error, but I was thinking that we might have to postpone and consider a status downgrade, but since it is non-contributing now, this is one of those tough cases that we don't have as much authority in the case of a downgrade impacting an existing contributing status. And how do we ensure that these things happen that seem to be essential to designating it as contributing? The characteristics that made it special apparently have all been changed. Is that right? Yes. They were not changed at the time that I did my site visit a month ago. They have been changed since the site visit with staff. Heather: Right. So, staff's determination was based off of the site visit that we had. Okay, that makes more sense. No permits issued were there. There is a permit for re-roof and stucco work. Heather: Well, it seems unfortunate that this has happened, but I don't see how we can base a status designation on something that's no longer preserved. But that's just my opinion. Thanks. If it is the pleasure of the chair and the board, we may have some additional discussion about reestablishing that character. Certainly, in other cases, we've had one building burned down and the status was reestablished even though technically it lost status altogether because it was gone, but it was reestablished. So, if it's the opinion of the board that the building before the changes, illegal changes, were made, then the board could consider it as contributing as it was, and then there could be more discussion about the changes that need to take place to reestablish what the historic footprint was. But it is a difficult situation. Heather: It is difficult. It seems the more logical path to me would be to designate this as non-contributing now and then when changes are made, assess whether or not it has been reestablished as previously seen, you know, a month back. Thank you, Member. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, this is a conundrum. I completely understand where staff is going with this because you're trying to sort of restore the status quo. I'm just, the more I read the code or ordinance though, I'm just not sure it quite works out that way because even if we designate it as contributing, our authority to then order it to be returned to the condition it was depends on us first designating it as non-contributing, which would be a very bizarre procedure. I guess we would say first a motion to designate it as contributing and then a second motion to designate it as non-contributing following the changes, which I think would be peculiar. I'm just wondering if it, what seems more logical to me would be that the city orders this unauthorized work to be undone and it return to the condition it was, which is completely separate from the board. That's just city enforcement of the code, and then it comes back to us down the road in its original, you know, its restored state, and we designate it at that point. Is that something that the city would, is that kind of the way the procedure should work for, if this wasn't in the historic district and someone had done this exact same work, would the city red tag it and tell them you've got to take all the work you've done and take it out and restore it? Would that be a normal procedure? Member Bianvenu: First of all, one of the things we'll do immediately tomorrow is issue a notice of violation if it hasn't been done already. And then it's the city's determination whether the permit that they apply for is going to comply with code, including the historic district's ordinance. So, once again, I'm struggling, but it is certainly within the city's authority to require that it go back or at least there be dialogue considering the design before anything is approved. I mean, it's, that makes, it seems to me the city should do that because the city is now making a recommendation that the board should order it to be restored to its earlier condition. So, rather, so you can, we, without the board doing that, the city can just go ahead and do that on its own based on the code violation, it seems to me, and then it comes before the board for a status review. Right, Chair Rios, Member Bianvenu, that's correct. And maybe the appropriate step is to postpone this until we've issued the notice of violation. Right, is that today? I mean, the whole situation would be different if this was a contributing structure already. Then it would be an easy call. Then we would just say, you have, we now find it's been downgraded to non-contributing, and we hereby order you under our authority under the ordinance to restore it to its previous condition. But the fact that it was contributing before, I don't think the board has the authority to take that action. Because it was non-contributing, I meant. Member Bianvenu: But the fact that there was a status review underway, and it qualified potentially as contributing. As director, I would probably state that they would need to restore or have additional dialogue with the board on how they would return that status. And maybe that can be done tonight, or maybe we would need to postpone it post discussion of an issuance of the notice of violation. Chair Rios and Member Bianvenu, this is just based on my experience with municipal courts. I've been a municipal prosecutor, and we have a municipal prosecutor at the city attorney's office. I covered for three months a couple years ago, and it's, it would be quite cumbersome for this board to wait for the municipal court's procedure to conclude. There are completely different procedures here before a land use board and before a municipal court. The municipal court can impose fines and jail up to 90 days. Most violations that are prosecuted in municipal court are classified as petty misdemeanors, and there's a lot more due process when a judge is imposing a criminal penalty such as a fine and jail time. You would think a petty misdemeanor would be resolved in a couple of weeks. Well, sometimes they get dragged on for a couple months, and this board has an interest in finality because it is a land use board. I can tell you the procedure: a notice of violation is issued, and then it goes to the municipal court. The municipal judge is frequently in a position to grant a postponement of the municipal court proceeding, even though there is a code enforceable speedy trial, which is six months. This can be a long discussion, I don't want to take up all night, but the defendant can waive their right to speedy trial, and the case gets postponed. The case is typically postponed to determine whether the land use board would have approved the construction that took place without the permit, which I think is appropriate for lack of any other more specific procedure. So, just generally, you'll find that's what the municipal judge does and has happened at least twice before that I recall. Also, there was something else I wanted to say about municipal courts, and it is that when they go back to the municipal judge and say, "Well, the board approved these elements," then it's up to the court to decide whether the elements that were not approved constitute this violation or whether a new violation has to be written and served on the defendant. So, it's not a good idea for one board to wait for another board to act if that other board is waiting for you to act, right? Because you could just, and so that is where I would limit it. I would say we send this to municipal court, and then if municipal court tells us we need to act, then I'd say we need to act and not wait for the municipal court. Well, I mean, the reason I'm bringing it up is I think we'd be happy to act tonight if we have the authority to act tonight. I think the crux of the matter is it's not clear we have the authority. Act on what, though? Act on both status and ordering it to be restored because of the way the language in the code reads. I'm not sure that we can status a structure as if it wasn't what it actually is, an imaginary version of it in the past. And then secondly, I'm not sure we have the authority to then say, "You have to tear down, you have to restore it to what we say it used to be," because the authority we have to do that only arises when we decide that we downgrade the status, but we just upgraded the status. So, it's the way the code reads, I don't know that we have the authority, I guess, is my problem. And it seems to me that maybe if the city just took enforcement action and said to the applicant, "Look, you need to restore it and then get it before the board," then it'd come before the board in the proper framework. I think that's correct. Okay. Yeah, if I may, real quick. Let me hear what Heather has to say. Chair Rios, Member Benu. It was brought to my attention by Mr. Romero that they actually had already been red-tagged. So they'd been given a notice. So the next step would be a criminal summons. And at this point, because they did this after the issuance of the red tag, city staff will proceed that way and then get input from the owner as to the course of action. Okay, okay. You're not at the podium, so just let them finish, and then we will. Yeah. Thank you. Apologies, Madam Chair, members of the board. When we went to the hearing, and Gary, correct me if I'm wrong, when we went to the site visit today, you mentioned that the red tag had been removed and a permit was given on the property, and you guys have what was approved on your desk in front of you there by staff. That did not include the changes to the portal. That was an approval for the stucco and the roof only. So, and that door on the back building, which Lani brought up at the site visit. So, those were minor maintenance things that were approved, not structural removal pending status review. Thank you. And the windows were replaced as well, correct? That is correct. So, Heather, you agreed that we should move forward on this with what Attorney Rubily indicated, to take it to the court first. Chair Rios, obviously there's been a violation of the law here, and they may have cured for the minimum maintenance, but they did not cure or have not cured for this issue. And so we would start the process to issue the red tag and then the criminal summons. And this may be solved tonight if the applicant, in their interaction with the board, makes certain statements or what have you. I think it would be good to give the applicant a chance to speak. Okay. Do other board members have any questions or comments of the audience? Yeah, I do. Thank you. I, well, first comment is just, Frank, I do think that I know we might be short on time, but this is the place we were instructed to discuss about this today. So I'd like to take the time to discuss it because I was confused at the site, just empirically, with this process of, and I believe I'm agreeing with Member Benu, and my understanding isn't that we're code enforcement, and it seems to me there's an enforcement step here that precedes a review by this board of status. So, I would be in agreement with Member Benu, if I'm understanding you correctly, to state that there's, to me, a city step before this that doesn't involve us because we're not code enforcers, which would be to take the steps to correct what was dismantled without a permit prior to this coming here. Any other views or members? Member D. Madam Chair, I just have a technical question for staff. It seems to me that a substantial portion of this existing building was built in 1984, which is less than 50 years ago. How does that enter into the determination? It was approved through the board, and the addition is in keeping with the rest of the house. What was the date of? The solarium section of the house was built in 1984. Okay. And other portions of the house? Was the early 1900s, 1930? 1930. Okay. Oh, member. Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel like I'm at a meeting of the Board of Adjustment, meaning this is not what we are being asked to do, and I would trust the judgment of the staff to work through this appropriately. I just want to make a comment. Where does preservation fit into all this? I mean, this is amazing. Are we going to, with all that has been happening and has taken place without permissions and all, are we going to have a historic property with integrity left? Just a question. Maybe no one has an answer right now, but I just thought I'd say that. Thank you. Madam Chair and Member Dignon, this project is on the agenda tonight for a status review. And the process for summoning the property owners into municipal court and what the municipal court will do is a completely different process. And if the board finds some reason why this should be postponed other than we need to wait for the municipal court, then that would be acceptable. But I just strongly discourage the board from waiting for a municipal court to act because I think the municipal court is going to rest on the decision that you make. And I don't know that the status as being contributing or non-contributing has anything to do with the fact that this work was done without a permit. I mean, I don't know that whether the house is contributing or non-contributing or significant or whatever will have a bearing on the question the municipal court has to decide, which is, was this work done without a permit, and is that a petty misdemeanor, and then ultimately if the defendant is found guilty of what the remedy will be. So you may want to revisit it after that, but my guess is it's going to be months, if not a year, more down the road. So Frank, you are saying that we need to address the status of the building. I think you do. I just, I don't. Clear. I thought you were indicating that it should go to the municipal court. Well, it should. Well, I'm sorry if I. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, it should go to municipal court. If the city decides it wants the petty misdemeanor of proceeding without a permit and making these changes without a permit to be prosecuted, it needs to go to municipal court. But I don't know that the municipal court's decision is going to be based on what decision you make about the house's status. And I discourage you from waiting for municipal court to take action on the case because you'll be waiting a long time, and I don't know if it will have a bearing on what the municipal court has to decide. Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, yeah, just to put a fine point on it, the reason we're talking about the municipal court and enforcement action is presumably that's where the order would be made to restore it to what it was before the unauthorized work was done. That was the question I had. If this was the exact same situation outside of our historic districts, would the city be attempting to not just get a fine, but to actually say, "You've got to undo the work, unauthorized work you've done?" Does the city have the ability to tell the applicant that? I see that happen because I also advise the Nuisance Properties Committee. And sometimes there are people doing work on houses that the houses are deteriorating so badly, and then a question comes. If somebody is doing work that doesn't meet the code, that doesn't meet the International Building Code or doesn't meet the city electrical code or plumbing code, the municipal court can tell them, and the Construction and Industries Division and a number of agencies can tell them, "Sorry, you got to go back and do it right." So it doesn't matter. Historic design doesn't matter. It's a code enforcement matter. Right. That's a precedent that the municipal court is telling them to restore to correct their issue, not the board, right? I mean, that would be a precedent saying that the municipal court, in those instances where they're not meeting the building code or that the municipal court are the ones who are going back and demanding that they correct the issue. Well, I think what is important is that on the agenda tonight, right, is a status review, right? I will have to discuss it with the staff about, you know, where we would proceed in terms of ordering them to restore, you know, to restore it to what it was. I think that may have to be placed on the agenda. So, you may want to postpone this for that reason. Right. I think that's where we're trending, but we're still just trying to get a sense of the procedures here so that we know whether to postpone or to rule or what, because I think what we're all saying, or the ones that have spoken so far, is that we don't think we have the authority, the way the ordinance reads, to first upgrade it and then downgrade it. And the only way we can ask them to restore it to what it was, which presumably we would want to do if we were deciding that before the unauthorized work it was a contributing structure and after the unauthorized work it was no longer a contributing structure. The problem is we can't do that until we first make it contributing and then undo that, which doesn't seem to make any sense in this situation. The other alternative to getting there, though, would be for the city to inform them that this work was unauthorized. You need to remove it all and get it back to where it was before. And if they refuse to do that, go to court to get an order telling them to do that. And then once you have the order in place, they do it. Then it comes before us for the status review. That's what I'm just saying would be the only way I would see it. Whether it takes a month or five years, I don't know, but it just seems to me that's the proper procedure. But then perhaps the best thing to do is we postpone so we can place a different agenda caption so that it is clear to the public that that's what we're deciding. And then we need to decide, are we going to write a municipal summons or not? But as it sits now, this structure is non-contributing. The structure is now non-contributing. Correct. Right. Wow. So I think there's another consideration too, which is the circumstances changed during this process. Meaning when the city was initially engaged for a status review, the deconstruction work had not occurred. So, it was applied for a status review in the status that it isn't in anymore. So, it just puts us in a very, to me, a very confusing and awkward position. And I agree with member Bianvenu that it seems more logical to me that the city would take care of the enforcement issue prior to us. I know it's here now and we need to do something now, but I'm just saying that the path to that makes a lot more sense to me than us trying to find a way to give this a status sort of post-hoc and then move forward from there. If you wish to iron out those issues tonight, it's on the agenda for a status review tonight, you can do that. Well, given all the discussion that has taken place this evening, this is, I mean, it'll... Maybe we should hear from the applicant. Yeah, each board member has to weigh what the city attorney said, what Heather had to say, and now what the applicant has to say. I guess if I could add one more thing, it is the summons to the municipal court may depend on the decision the H board makes with respect to the status. So, in other words, if you designated non-contributing tonight, we may decide, well, we're not going to file to go to municipal court. Okay. But just to be clear, we would be statusing what was, or are we statusing what is? The code doesn't, the code doesn't give us any guidance on that. Okay. Heather. Chair, I think it might be helpful in this conversation to determine that when they made the application, they had a certain project with no changes such as these. So I think you should act based on the application you have in front of you, and you may find that you can act accordingly in that regard. Okay. Memory chart, did you have... I mean, I don't want to prolong this. I think everyone is sort of equally confused. But I mean, if the guidance is to look at the application we have in front of us, it's based on a complete hypothetical at this point because the characteristics identified as contributing are no longer there. I don't understand how we can have a report that is for a different house and make a recommendation consistent with that report. Well, what Heather and what Lanny are saying is that when they made the recommendation, the house was intact. I understand that, but it's not anymore. I don't know how. Well, I do think that, oh, sorry. Yes. True. I do think that a motion could be crafted that says the board finds that the condition that it was in prior at the time the application was made, and prior to the unauthorized changes, the board would find that in that condition it was a contributing structure. I think the board, I mean, that for what it's worth, and that's challengeable, I think, from a legal perspective down the road because it's not clear the code, I say it's not crystal clear the code permits us to do that, but I think we could have a motion and a finding that that's the case if that's, I think that's almost what you're suggesting that we do in... Yeah, the board acting on the case that's before you and the record that's before you. The fact that there's been changes that have been made is a separate issue. And like in other status reviews, you don't talk about what the construction is going to be. You're judging the merits of the case at hand, right? So it just may be that you're judging based on the record that you have and maybe not what you saw on the... We'll pretend we didn't see it. Lanny, did you have anything further? No. Okay, I will... I will ask for the applicant to come forward. Hi, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record in the microphone. Jennifer Salamini, 125 Lincoln Avenue. Thank you, Jennifer. Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. She has been sworn. Thank you. And I apologize for my excitement earlier. I just really wanted the opportunity to speak. And just to clarify, I was informed by staff of concerns regarding additional work beyond the permitted scope this afternoon. I have not independently verified the extent of that work, so I do not want to speculate or misstate facts. And respectfully, my comments this evening are focused on the status review and the question of contributing versus non-contributing designation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, I do not agree with staff's recommendation to upgrade the residence from non-contributing to contributing status. I appreciate staff's analysis and the historic context provided. However, I believe the Hickby evaluations and the applicable code definitions more strongly support retaining the property's long-standing non-contributing designation. My comments are based on the following points: The property's long-standing official designation is non-contributing. The structure was classified as non-contributing during the original historic survey process in the 1980s due to alterations, and that designation has remained in place for decades. The professional 2026 Hickby prepared for this review also concludes that the recommendation should be to maintain non-contributing status. I believe significant weight should be given to that formal evaluation. Much of the structure consists of later additions or altered conditions. The Hickby notes that the west elevation consists entirely of post-1978 construction, significant portions of the south elevation postdate 1978, and the building has undergone substantial changes over time. This raises a legitimate question as to whether the structure presently retains sufficient integrity to meet the code definition of a contributing resource. Staff's recommendation appears to rely on future restoration rather than current conditions. Staff notes that integrity can be regained if certain corrective work occurs, including restoration of the solarium windows, portal datals, and canales. If integrity must first be regained through future restoration measures, that suggests the structure may not presently satisfy the threshold for contributing status under the existing conditions before the board today. Section 14-4.6 Six. Restoration of status does not appear to support upgrading the property. Staff cites the restoration of status provision. However, in this case, the property's actual former and long-standing designation was non-contributing, not contributing. I do not believe the restoration of status provision was intended to create a new hypothetical former status based on what staff believes may have been recommended prior to recent work. The Hickby recommendation, a requirement by city staff from a city-approved party, should not be lightly set aside. The commission Hickby reviewed construction chronology, aerial evidence, additions and alterations, architectural development, and integrity considerations. After that analysis, the recommendation remained non-contributing. In closing, I'm just asking, what are we trying to achieve by upgrading this to contributing other than creating difficulty for a multi-generational family to be in the historic district? For these reasons, I respectfully request that the board retain the residence as non-contributing while separately addressing any permitting, compliance, restoration, red tag, or corrective work through the appropriate review and enforcement processes. Thank you. Are you the architect? No, ma'am. From the agent. Mhm. For the owner, for Jeremy and Crystal Martinez. Mhm. Any questions for the agent at this point? Yes, I receive. I see that you have a business, Santa Fe Permits. Would you explain to us what your business is? Yes. I'm a liaison between the architect. I work a lot for contractors and architects so they don't have to do the legwork and the due diligence involved with permitting. And in some cases, I'm contacted, like initially in this case, by the client. They were red-tagged, and we got the permit and we submitted the appropriate paperwork for approval so they could do the emergency repairs, the roof and some stucco work. Any other questions? Yes, I'm addicted. I have a question perhaps for staff, maybe Director Lamboy, in terms of historic preservation. The efforts that have been engaged in in this property, are they going to alter that? We don't know what we're designating. I'm saying this is a little bit unusual. Has this happened before and what happened then? If it has that kind of, is this issue type of issue? Chair, yes, member Degen. There's nothing to alter in terms of non-contributing. So it's not like they're going to be requesting a downgrade as a result of these actions. Okay. So, thank you. There are no other questions for you. And is there anyone in this room wishing to comment on this particular project? Come forward. Elizabeth, you've already been sworn. Thank you. I've already been sworn in. I think a red tag experience is an opportunity to make improvements based on the guidelines in the code. And this seems somewhat complicated, but actually there's still an opportunity for this, I'm sorry, I've forgotten your name. This woman's clients to do something good. Obviously there are people who recently won an award for going back to something that had happened a long time ago, and it was mostly done on their own voluntary thinking. I am not saying that, oh darn, I wish that this group were wanting to go back to what was there before, but I want to reiterate that I think a red tag is a serious thing and it is not up to the board to enforce that. It needs to be enforced. However, it also can be enforced in another, less ridiculously complicated municipal way. And that would be for the owner of the property to say, I will make some changes that will satisfy not only the board and the code, but will get me out from underneath the red tag. And I don't know exactly what the procedure would be, but having had a red tag at an odd occasion after something has already been messed with is bad luck. And I think there's got to be a way to avoid going to municipal court. And there's got to be a way for the H board, whose job is not to enforce, but to send it to City Hall with a recommendation. The H board is allowed to make a recommendation. It's not necessarily binding, but the city, the governing body, can decide based on your strong recommendation to require these people to go back to what I understand was at one point contributing. Now, am I wrong about that? It was never contributing. It's always been non-contributing. Okay. Thank you, Elizabeth. I'm hoping that the people who have this property, which has potential, will decide to do the right thing. That has nothing to do with what you have to do. That's just my wish. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else in this room wishing to comment? Nobody. Anyone mind? No, Madam Chair. Board members, you are given the difficult task of making a motion. I just want to make a comment, but feel free to make a motion. I guess I'm trending towards the idea personally, but I'll wait to hear the motion of a postponement, not to a time certain, but to a time when the staff deems it appropriate to bring it back to the board so that we have more clarity as to what the situation is because it seems like it was just learned today that there was unauthorized work done. There's some dispute as to what was and what wasn't authorized. We don't know what the applicant is willing to do to remedy anything that was unauthorized. I personally like to see the city have an opportunity to work with the applicant first and bring a clear record to the board. That's all. Yeah, I just had a comment as well. Although I could make a motion, it just seems to me that based on staff's guidance, that we can simplify the issue by designating the status tonight based on what's in the packet in the report, which includes a HIC, and ignoring any planned potential changes. I mean, that's what we always do with status cases. We can't rely on what might happen to the property after this is what it is today. And I do think the enforcement issue is a separate issue from the board. I don't think we should connect the two. It's a really strange situation, but to make it less confusing, we can act on the status tonight. I mean, I actually tend to agree with the HIC regardless of what happened here, that the two complete facades or two almost complete facades were covered with the 1980s additions, that this really didn't qualify as contributing consideration, aside from these changes. So, I don't know that it can come back to us for status after changes are made, that seems appropriate. But to base it on something we don't know might happen with additional enforcement actions seems ridiculous. Okay. With all that discussion and all that being said, is someone ready to make a motion? Look to my right and I look to my left. I just have a comment, another comment. I just get concerned about the precedent, right? If, and this is a prime example, seeing as though it's changed since the application, is if we act, it sets precedent, right? For statusing a building that's been altered during the status review process. And so it's setting a precedent of, okay, well, just go ahead and dismantle the building so that it's, and that there may be a case, there may have been a case, like Member Bishide is saying, regarding the HIC, that it wasn't contributing anyway. But I just get concerned about the precedent that it sets of like, start the process, tear all the windows out, take a bunch of architectural details off, and then they can't make it contributing. So, what kind of precedent are we setting with just statusing it? So I actually feel right now that inaction is the best action. And what that looks like, I don't know, but statusing it will set some kind of precedent. And what that is, is I just don't feel like there's enough information. And so I'm tending to agree with John, with Member Bianu, regarding some type of postponement for more clarity based on the fluidity of the situation. Okay. I still have to entertain a motion. I'll take, I'll make a motion. Is that okay? Sure. Okay. Yeah. So I guess a comment first. Just saying, you know, I completely understand where Member Bishide is coming from, and I agree that if the board felt there was no question, but that it was a non-contributing building prior to the unauthorized work, I suppose they could just go ahead and say it's still a non-contributing building despite the unauthorized work. But for me, that's still an open question. And I think even the HIC says that one of the reasons for recommendation of non-contributing is the unauthorized work. So, the motion I would make, and I will make it, is that in 202612413 HDRB247 Brella Street, I would move that this case be postponed until such time as staff has determined it's appropriate to bring it back before the board for status review based on additional information. Specifically, what unauthorized work has been done, what the applicant is willing or what discussions have been undertaken between staff and the applicant for remedying any unauthorized work that has been done, and whether any enforcement action is intended to be taken by the city to rectify any unauthorized work that the applicant has not voluntarily agreed to undertake. And once that information is available and staff feels it has sufficient information for the board to make a status finding, that we would hear the case at that time. It's my motion. Is there a second to this motion? I'll second it. And will we have roll call vote, please? Member DNA. Yes. Member Bishide. No. Member Benu. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Simmons. No. The motion has passed. Thank you. Next case is located at 426 Delgado Lane. And may we hear this case? Madam Chair, if I may. Pardon me. Yes. We only have this room for a limited time. So I am honorably requesting that we postpone the last case of the evening to the next hearing. So we may, is that okay with the applicant? Is that, and that's my question, if that is okay with the applicant. I was delayed from the previous meeting forward with my case. Like we have time for it. We need to do what we need to do. Hold on a second. What time do we have to get out of here? Thank you. We have to be out of the room by 8:00, but it needs 30 minutes to shut down. And also, at the board, at the field trip today, the story poles were not up correctly. So we may be postponing this case anyway as a possibility. So there is that as well. So it's going to be what, 7:30 or what, 9:30, looking at the, no. So, well, let's see. I don't know. I want to see how we move on the next case before we postpone. That's what I want to do. So, let's hear the Delgado case. Okay. This is case 202612414 for 426 Delgado Lane for confirmation of status and primary facade designation, if applicable, for the primary residence, guest house, shed, and yard walls, and adoption of the 2026 HCPI. 426 Delgado is located on the west side at the end of the road. The single-family residence is known as the Russell House and was constructed of Adobe in late 1928, likely by Rose Park or Curtis. The residence is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District with the east designated as the primary facade. The guest house, tool shed, and site walls do not have a status assigned. The applicant requests no change for the status of the main residence, but confirmation is required with the new HCPI documentation. The original portion of the house is on the north end and is constructed of Adobe. It was first plastered in 1933. An open porch was added to the east entry in 1936. The east elevation once held veas that were cut off and covered in 1946. The in east enclosed porch entrance was constructed in 1954. The porch hall and French doors were added to the west elevation in 1958, and the wood double-hung single-pane windows were installed in 1964. A 1993 addition is located on the south end of the residence and steps 10 feet back from the original east facade. Staff finds that the main residence has not lost any integrity and should remain a contributing structure with the east facade as the primary. The guest house is located on the south end of the property and is in a Pueblo Revival style. The guest house was constructed in 1992 and 93 and is recommended as non-contributing due to age. The shed structure is present in the 1958 aerial. The form materials and fenestration are consistent with the historic period of the property's development. According to the 2026 HCPDI, quote, "Despite its minor scale, the shed contributes to the historic feeling and association of the site and is therefore considered a contributing resource within the district." End quote. Staff agrees with that the shed does contribute to the district and is unique in its age, form, and materials. The east perimeter wall is well documented as having been constructed in 1947 by the Eubank Construction Company. This includes the front gate. The west wall was constructed in 1949 by Linberry Contractors. Additional work from 1949 included the fireplace and bono at the northwest corner. The south property wall is constructed of Thomas block and was constructed in 1962 by John Gianardi, but was reconstructed by 1965. By virtue of age, materials, and design, the three walls contribute to the historic character of the site and the broader district. The east, west, and south perimeter walls also contribute to the street and to the estate of the property. The staff report shows the entire south as the yard wall. This is incorrect. The western side of the south property line is coyote fencing and should not be part of the designation. The staff recommends the historic status of the primary residence be maintained as contributing with the east facades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as primary. The shed be designated as contributing with the east facade as primary, and the three perimeter walls be designated as contributing, while the guest house be designated non-contributing due to age for section 14-4.6. We stand for questions. Thank you. Lenny, you indicated that the shed, you're giving the east facade as primary. Yes, the east facade happens to be the one that has the fenestration in it. Thank you. Any other questions for Lanning? No other questions. Applicant or applicants, please come forward. Hi, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Gayla Beto, 320 Aztec Street. Gayla, do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in references to this item? Is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. She's been sworn. Thank you. Good evening. It's nice to see you all again. I have a few, I don't disagree with any of Lanny's recommendations. However, I do have some questions. I want to make sure that it's in the record that the windows are all non-historic. They were all replaced in the 93 work. And also, I'm curious about the wall, specifically the east wall. There are a lot of, I have the photographs from the 1983 HIC and also another, the case and the profile appears to be slightly different, and I'm just wondering for my own, or for our future work, is it the profile, is it the height, is it what exactly, other than just its sheer location, is considered historic about that wall, right? I don't know who answers that question. Lanny: Well, I think it's all taken into consideration, right? It's all taken into consideration in the HCPI. He talks about the materials and the height, and the, well, not the height, but the materials and the location of it, as well as its age. Yeah. It's just a different profile. It's a different height because the road itself was lower. Okay. So I'm, it's just, I'm just wondering about that, but we're out of time. So thank you. Oh, Lanny, do you agree that the windows were put in in 1993, or do you have other? I didn't have documentation of 1993. I showed 1964. You think the windows were put in '64? Apparently, it's in the window assessment that I didn't read very well. But the, what is sort of, well, I can I tell you, you have to sign up for a new library card. The library will be closing in 30 minutes at 8:00. I can I comment? Sorry, what was present? What are you saying? City windows. Lanny: I'm sorry. Oh, no. I found where they were replaced in 1964. The window assessment is saying they were replaced in '93. With the exception of W1 and W15, which are historic. Correct. Which is it? Well, so your assessment, the assessment that we had that Ray Patterson did, is in your packet, which is why Member Cherry understands that there's only two windows left. The ones in the back of the building are historic. Everything else is from the '90s. One quick question. What did your case analysis, your case review, reveal? Were there any approvals? For approvals, I don't remember. I know that they had one case. All right. The staff report states, and I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Yeah. Oh, please. The property came to the HDRB in 1992 for a second-floor addition, which was denied, and a guest house, which was approved. And there's no administrative approval cases on file. So the windows were never formally approved. I believe they were actually, if you read Garrett, the architect whose name I've now forgotten, he actually, in his letter, it talks about all the windows being replaced. Okay. All right. Thank you. Additional research is necessary, but apparently they may have been approved. Any questions for Gayla, board members? Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this project? Nobody. Anyone online? No, Madam Chair. Online. I will entertain a motion at this point. Member Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 202612414 HDRB at 426 Delgado Lane, I move to retain the primary residence as contributing, designating the east facade as the primary facade. That's facades number one, two, three, four, and five as primary, excluding all windows that are non-historic. To designate the shed as non-contributing. I'm sorry, contributing with the east facade as primary. Designate the east yard wall as contributing per the HCPI, which indicates that that's the most historic and significant of the walls and reflecting the applicant's testimony and question about the differing styles and designating the guest house as non-contributing per staff's recommendation. Okay. Is there a second to this motion? And I need clarification in terms of the walls. Lanny indicated three walls as historic, and you are indicating only one wall, the east wall. Is there a second to this motion? Second. And is there anything else to add? Should there not be a designation of the other two, even if it's non-contributing? What, Lanny? Sorry. Thank you, Lanny. Yeah, I'll amend my motion to designate the south and west walls as non-contributing. Second. Except roll call vote. Hello. He's saying yes. Got red lights. Oh, there you go. Ah, yes. Okay, I have a yes for Member Benu. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Simmons? Yes. Member DNE? Yes. And Member Bishide? Yes. The motion has passed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Gayla. Thank you. And the last case this evening, we're going to try to hear it, but I don't know how far we're going to get, young man. So, I don't even think there's time for my presentation. This is a big project. I'm really sorry. I think we're going to have to postpone. Yeah. So, is there a motion to postpone this last case? I make a motion to postpone. And do I hear a second? Indicate the address, at least. Yeah. And the case number. Yeah. Do you have it? I have my, yes, my computer shut off. 1062 Camino San Ysidro and 10, in case 2025012284 HDRB 1062 Santa Ysidro. I make a motion to postpone till the next hearing. That hearing is June 9th. It's June 9th. Oh. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I oppose say no. Thank you. Do we have any discussion items? Thank you, sir. Can we, can we clarify? Can we request there were some story pole, um, I think they can, he can get together with staff that indicate exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Add some story poles to the corners of the building, please. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. And sorry about that. Any discussion items? Staff? Nothing. Any matters from? Chair Rios: I'm sorry. Chair Rios. I was asked to bring to the board's attention that the appeal filed by the Old Santa Fe Association regarding the Marriott Hotel, which was approved by the Planning Commission in February for 1000 Cerrillos Road. We are contemplating hearing that appeal before the governing body on June 24th. That'd be the second governing body meeting in June. Okay. Thank you. No matters from the board. Our next meeting will be June the 9th, and hopefully we'll be back at the chambers, city chambers. And do I hear a motion to adjourn? And do I hear a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Say no. Thank you. Thank you all.