Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Aug 25, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1178-historic-design-review-aug-25-2026 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board convened on August 25, 2026, addressing several property applications and discussing concerns regarding a recent Governing Body decision. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the Governing Body's overturning of the HDRB's decision on a two-story dentist office, prompting Vice Chair Ben Vanu to express concern over the lack of specific findings and leading to a proposal for a study session with the City Council to educate them on historic preservation. The Board approved two applications for 1062 Camino San Acacio, a main residence and an ADU, both with a 2-1 vote, after extensive discussion on the use of steel and bullnose corners. They also approved the replacement of a slate roof with unified steel at 610 Don Gaspar Avenue, with a condition for copper gutters. A contentious application for 216 Maynard Street, Units A and B, involving window replacements and a garage conversion, was postponed due to insufficient detail. Finally, the Board reviewed the historic status of structures at 320 Camino Delora, ultimately designating the main house as 'contributing' and the shed, yard wall, and guest house as 'non-contributing' after a detailed discussion on alterations and architectural styles. == Key Decisions == - Approved the main residence at 1062 Camino San Acacio (2026012764HDRB) with conditions for accelerated rusting of metal elements. - Approved the ADU at 1062 Camino San Acacio (2026012765HDRB) with conditions for accelerated patina of metal elements. - Approved the replacement of a slate roof with unified steel at 610 Don Gaspar Avenue (2026012840-HDRB), with a friendly amendment that copper gutters remain or be replaced with copper. - Designated the main house at 320 Camino Delora as 'contributing' with the R6 facade as the primary facade. - Designated the shed, yard wall, and guest house at 320 Camino Delora as 'non-contributing'. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the main residence at 1062 Camino San Acacio (2026012764HDRB) with the exception criteria for metal in the portal and requesting accelerated rusting — Passed 2-1 (Degnan: No, Cherry: Yes, Simmons: Yes). - Motion to approve the ADU at 1062 Camino San Acacio (2026012765HDRB) with the use of steel for the trellis and requesting accelerated patina — Passed 2-1 (Degnan: No, Cherry: Yes, Simmons: Yes). - Motion to approve 2026012840-HDRB at 610 Don Gaspar Avenue with a friendly amendment that copper gutters remain or be replaced with copper — Passed 3-0 (Simmons: Yes, Degnon: Yes, Cherry: Yes). - Motion to postpone 2026012691 HDRB at 216 Maynard Street, Unit A and B, for the applicant to provide clearer window diagrams, installation details, a proposal for replica windows, and an alternate garage door option — Passed 3-0 (Simmons: Yes, Dignan: Yes, Cherry: Yes). - Motion to designate the main house at 320 Camino Delora as 'contributing' with the R6 facade as the primary facade, and the shed, yard wall, and guest house as 'non-contributing' — Passed 3-0 (Simmons: Yes, Cherry: Yes, Degnan: Yes). == Public Comment == Public commenter Stephanie Benonato expressed distress over the Governing Body's decision to overturn an HDRB ruling and suggested a study session to educate them on historic preservation. She also questioned the necessity of using a non-original material for the roof replacement at 610 Don Gaspar Avenue. Sharvien Benanato questioned the architectural style classification of the house at 320 Camino Delora, suggesting it was closer to a modified vernacular, and agreed with staff's recommendation for the main house to be contributing, also questioning if owners would be required to reveal a supposedly existing brick coping. == Topics == - Historic Preservation Ordinance - Governing Body Appeals - Property Status Review - Architectural Alterations - Staff Recommendations - Public Comment Concerns - Building Height Restriction - Historic District Boundaries - Board Member Role - Future Planning Initiatives == Full Transcript == IT. Please let us know when we are streaming. We are live. Jerry, you may proceed. Very well. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome, everyone in attendance. It's 5:30 PM, and I call this meeting to order. We are now in session in the Historic District Review Board meeting, duly noticed for August 24, 2026. Tonight, I'll be serving as acting chair in the absence of Chair Rios. May I have a roll call, please? Thank you, Vice Chair. I'm going to roll call from here. It seems that microphone's not working. So, Chair Rios? Excused. Member Besheide? Excused. Member Gagnon? Here. Vice Chair Ben Vanu? Here. Member Cherry? Here. Member Simmons? Here. Vice Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. We have an agenda that has been duly published. Are there any changes to the agenda? Yes. There is a repetition on the agenda. We were having technical problems with the technology when we were loading the packets on Friday. And so, if you'll note on page two of three, items A, B, and C are the same as E, F, and G. So I would like to remove items E, F, and G from the agenda because that's duplication. And then item D, which is 202612916 HDRB at 104 Camino Matias, that has been postponed until the next meeting. So the removal of E, F, and G and the postponement of D. Very good. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? Move to approve the agenda. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you. The motion is carried. Next on the agenda is approval of the minutes. We have minutes from June 23, 2026, July 14, 2026, and July 28, 2026, that have been included in your packet. Does anyone, do any board members have any proposed revisions, amendments, or objections to the approval of the minutes? I have a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second? Is there a second? Second. Thank you. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Next item on the agenda is approval of findings and conclusions. We have three. The first is 202511226 HDRB at 1323 Paseo De Peralta. The second is 202511227 HDRB 925 Canyon Road, and the third is 202511229 HDRB at 815. All of those have been included in your packet for your review. Are there any proposed revisions or objections? Hearing none, I'll take a motion to approve. So moved. Second? Second, Daniel. Used. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Very good. Thank you. That motion also carries, and the findings of conclusions are approved as submitted. Next item on the agenda, matters from the public. If there's anyone in the room that wishes to speak, please come to the podium. I'll ask you to limit your comments to two minutes, please. I see no one coming to the podium. Director Lamboy, is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to speak? Yes. One moment. I need to allow the attendee to speak, Miss Stephanie Benonato. And, Miss Benonato, you may unmute. Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. So I got something back from constituent services saying that I think it's 725 Don Diego somehow is not under the Historic Board's purview, even though 721 Don Diego was. And that was the building where they were not only re-roofing, but taking down some of what was a very unique parapet that was characteristic, character-defining of that building. And I haven't seen more work being done, but I also don't see a red tag. And I was hoping that you could direct your staff to follow up on that with me to give me some explanation because the person from constituent services, I don't think, has worked here very long. The other thing that I really want to point out is that appeal about the dentist office, the two-story dentist office. It was quite distressing because, really, it seemed that the council ignores the law, was really drawn in by all the family members showing up, et cetera. And I would suggest that maybe you could have a study session with council, not only just the board, some of the board members, but also maybe from the DCA and the Department of Tourism so that they could understand the importance of having historic preservation and that they could be educated about what is required under the law that is now in effect. And I do find it distressing that there's a hostility on the council towards historic preservation and the board, or just not knowing. And I think it's unfortunate because none of the council members have lived or do live in the historic zone, unlike previous councils. And so I think that's a real detriment. So, again, I'm asking that maybe you can suggest a study session. And then the last thing, this is... You can finish your sentence. Yes. Thank you. I was... Are you still there? Yes, I am. I was hoping that if you wanted to impress the council, that you could get a series of photographs from the New Mexican showing what San Francisco looked like, street looked like in the 1960s before the ordinance really started being effective. And it looked like Main Street anywhere else. And I think we need... Thank you, Miss Benonato. I don't think you probably heard, but the time was up. So if you just finish that last sentence, please. So, again, I just think it might be helpful to persuade the council to think differently about, you know, ignoring the ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Thank you very much. Okay. Next item on the agenda is matters, staff communications. Thank you, Vice Chair Bembanu, members of the board. I just want to bring to your attention, our next Historic District Review Board meeting will be at the Convention Center in the Peralta Lamy Room, and that is on September 8. Thank you. Anything else from staff? The only other staff communication is that we are working on the frameworks and scenario planning for the general plan update, and we'll be presenting an update on that in the near future. And also, we'll be returning for the land development code update. We had that one workshop with the consultants. We've gone around and shopped it with the Planning Commission and the Quality of Life Committee. So we're going to be reporting back on that issue in the near future as well. Okay. Thank you very much. Attorney Ruboli, did you want to report back on the appeal to the governing body? Thank you, Acting Chair. There was, as Miss Beninato brought to your attention, the hearing, the appeal on the proposal to build a two-story combination residence and dental office at 911 Royal Ball Street was heard by the governing body, and that was on July 29. And the governing body voted unanimously to overturn the Historic District Review Board and find that the exception criteria had been met. You'll recall that the applicant had sought an exception to the height restriction, and the height restriction was 14 feet and one inch, and the exception was sought for 24 feet. But the governing body voted unanimously that the appeal should be granted and that the exception criteria had all been demonstrated by the applicant. Okay. Thank you. I watched the appeal as I always do, and I have a few observations. So, first of which is, in my view, I didn't really hear the adoption of findings. I heard a last-minute insertion of, "Oh, shouldn't we also say we follow staff's recommendations?" But one thing that was very striking to me was the lack of any discussion about exceptions. I didn't hear a single question asked about any of them or any comment made as to why the exception criteria had been met. So I guess my main observation is that, you know, the reason I think it's important to watch the appeals to the governing body is because, as I try to emphasize, the H Board is a creature of the governing body. We are, the only authority we have is what's delegated to us. The governing body drafts the ordinance. The governing body has the members change, has the opportunity to revise the ordinance or leave it as is. It's had its revision since it was adopted in 1957. The H Board created, it was created by the governing body. The governing body delegated part of its authority to the H Board to act, and the governing body retains the right to hear every decision the board makes de novo on appeal. So the board is really, it's important for the board to know what the governing body thinks the ordinance says. That's why I watch the hearings because I want to understand, are we, is the board at odds with the governing body's interpretation of its own ordinance? And, you know, sometimes it's just a complete missed opportunity because in this case, I would say there's no way to know if we're at odds because the result was simply to grant the appeal without any real discussion. So I wouldn't, as a board member, have any idea what the governing body thought the board, where the board erred in its judgment in finding that the exception criteria had not all been met. Because this wasn't a simple case of, "Let's, we want to do something allowed under the ordinance," and the board said no. This was a case where what was being requested was something specifically prohibited by the ordinance in numerous respects, and which means that the governing body has already decided that this project should not go forward according to the terms of its ordinance unless the applicant carries its high burden of demonstrating that every one of six exception criteria have been met. And that's what the board does when it decides whether or not to grant the exceptions. It does site visits. It reviews the packet in detail. It looks at the story poles. It examines the ordinance. It discusses it with the applicant. It hears from the public. It hears from staff, and then discussion ensues. And then a vote is ultimately taken. So the board gives an enormous amount of time to the factual determination of whether the exception criteria, which is the governing body's role to determine what they should be, have been met in any particular instance. That doesn't mean that the board can't get it wrong, though if the board doesn't get it wrong in the governing body's view, it would be helpful to know in what respect that happened so that the board could decide to proceed differently perhaps in the future. But here, when no reasons whatsoever are given, I don't, I really don't see how I, at least, could reach any different decision than I reached the first time because we've been given no guidance as to any aspects of the decision that were actually erroneous. And it's a really important question because, you know, the board is not a discretionary body the way the governing body is. We're not politicians. We don't make policy. We only implement. We're a quasi-judicial body that implements the ordinance as it is written to specific facts. So we can't be result-driven. And here, it did appear that the result that was desired was to have live workspaces, but that is not something that's written into our ordinance. And it would be wholly inappropriate for the board to grant exceptions based on something that's not written into our ordinance. So, again, I think that was a missed opportunity. And if I were to read between the lines to try to understand why I think the governing body reached the decision, is that perhaps they disagreed, was partially because the staff had recommended finding that the exception criteria had been met. And I think there may be a perception sometimes that the board might be more demanding on applicants than staff professional staff is. And that, again, I think is a completely erroneous misperception. The board, I would say, just as often disagrees with the staff in favor of applicants as it does to deny an applicant's request. But the board, you know, the governing body would have no idea of that because those, of course, never go on appeal. They don't see those cases. The ones they see are the ones where we decided against staff's recommendation and against the applicant, not the ones where it's the other way around. And I think the other misperception that occurs at the governing body level is that extremely small amount of appeals that they hear compared to the number of cases that the board rules on. I would guess that this board probably rules on 150 to 200 applications in the course of a year, and each one of those often has two to 10 separate specific requests that the board has to decide on. And some of those appeals are not just one case among those 150 or 250, but one particular request among 10 requests that that applicant may have made, where all the other requests were granted. So I do think that that also gives a very misleading perception to the governing body as to how the board really operates. So again, I think it's disappointing. As an opportunity that's been missed, I would love to invite the governing body to give us, to give the board more feedback on what it thinks is the disconnect between the way they interpret the ordinance and the way the board does, or whether they want to. I mean, if they want us to interpret it in a way that achieves certain policy goals that are not compatible with what the ordinance says currently written, that's just something the board is not empowered to do. But short of that, if there are areas where it appears to the governing body that the board is getting it wrong, I would strongly encourage members of the governing body to contact Chair Rios. She's already been in contact with members of the governing body and offered to meet with them. As far as I know, that offer's not been accepted or taken up on, but I hope it will be. Any other comments? Yeah, I would agree with what you're saying, Vice Chair, and I just think if we're going to have, if we're going to have discourse about it, let's have discourse about it. Let's have, I'd love to see the board members, the city council members contact this board, or this board contact city council and set up some kind of session. Because, like you were saying, if you read between the lines, it seems like there's just a lot of vitriol toward this board that doesn't seem bounded in anything other than it just doesn't have any reasoning behind it that I can see. So it would be nice to see, to have a face-to-face with the city council and to see what the expectations are. Because without any founding or any information, like you said, there's no way to change. So to go out to the public and, you know, express frustration against the erroneous board just doesn't help change this board. I would say come straight to the board. Talk to us about it. Thank you. Yes, Director Lamboy. Sure. If it's the pleasure of the board, I'd be happy to organize, actually, with a subset of you, a meeting with some of the counselors who have expressed concern, just to facilitate that discussion. I can reach out. I think that would be appropriate. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is old business. I'd like to advise the applicants that decisions of the board may be appealed, as just indicated, to the governing body. Those deadlines, procedures, and parties who have standing to appeal are all set forth in the City Land Development Code, and staff would be happy to help with interpreting those provisions for you. The first case is 2026012764HDRB at 1062 Camino San Acasio. This is Senior Planner McCauley's case. Are you ready to proceed? Yes. Can we have the display? What do you need? IT. Can you connect the? That's nice. You guys can see my presentation. So this presentation is actually going to incorporate both cases, 2026012764 and 12765 at 1062 Camino San Acacio for construction of a main residence and an accessory dwelling unit. They're both in the same property, so I'm just going to do one presentation for both. 1062 Camino San Acasio is located on the south side of the road between Victoria Street and Camino Cirrito. The property was brought before the board on 06/09/2026 under case 26-012284. The board postponed the case for a redesign. The clarification that a pitched roof would most likely require an exception, the corners of the residence be rounded, and that additional windows on the street-facing facade be added to the ADU accessory dwelling unit. There was some conversation regarding the trellis at the front of the yard wall, but it was not determined if the board would disapprove this item. The board also asked that staff recalculate the heights and pitches on the streetscape to confirm allowable height and whether a pitch exception was required. Staff recalculated the pitches in the truncated streetscape, finding 42% of the eligible buildings had pitched roofs, and therefore, a pitched roof on this property would require an exception. With this recalculation, the applicant chose to redesign the structure with a flat roof. Recalculation of the maximum allowable height found that the height should not exceed 16 feet 4 inches. The applicant continues to request 4 feet of extra height for the main residence due to the slope. So he's looking for 20 feet 3 inches. The overall height of the structure has been lowered from the initial design by 6 inches. The applicant has also made changes to the stucco color and texture. The accessory dwelling unit is designed at 14 feet 4 inches. The front yard wall is requested at the maximum allowable height of 4 feet. The trellis is requested to remain as part of the project at a height of 8 feet. Other changes to the design include the parapets, canalis, solar panels, and windows. Prospective drawings have been added to the packet documents per the request of the board. Okay. So I'm going to go over the main residence request first, the accessory dwelling unit second, and finally, some renderings. Please note that a motion is required for each of the two cases, so two motions will be required. The applicant proposes new construction of a primary residential structure to construct a 3,441 square foot primary residence to a height of 20 feet 3 inches where the maximum allowable height is 16 feet 4 inches. The residence will consist of 2,213 square feet of heated space and 1,228 square feet of portals in a recent Santa Fe style. The site slopes 14 feet from the lowest to the highest portion of the footprint. The applicant is requesting additional height due to slope per section 14-4.6 F22F. Windows are planned to be simulated divided light on the publicly visible sides of the structure without divisions on the remaining portions. Windows and patio door exteriors will be aluminum clad wood in dark bronze anodized finish. While there are corner windows on the rear of the building, the publicly visible windows will meet the 3-foot from the corner requirement for section 14-4.6 G22B. The roofs are flat except for the shed roof over the portal on the north elevation. The garage door will be a metal door in dark bronze color. The garage door is not publicly visible in the south end of the west elevation. They will be stucco in elastomeric buckskin. Details on the portal roof overhang, space, and anomalies will be made of steel and will rust over time, match the exposed roofs. An exception is requested to have metal elements. This is our north elevation without and then with the other structures as we'll be seeing from this street. This is our east elevation, south elevation, and then the west elevation. Property does still terrace with low yard walls and low retaining walls. The lowest walls are actually planned to be made out of metal. The taller ones are planned to be stuccoed yard walls. So no retaining wall is planned to be over 6 feet in height. They're actually insulated concrete forms, which will be stuccoed over in the elastomeric adobe. And then there will be railings for and exterior stairs for access up the terraces. And one 6-foot high latilla fence at the driveway is planned. So the staff actually finds that the exception criteria to section 14-4.6 E42B have not been met and recommends denial for the use of metal for details on the portals, roof overhangs, and canalis, as well as the yard walls. The staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with the general design standards and the historic downtown and East Side designs. And now I'm going to go ahead and move over to the accessory dwelling unit unless you guys want to discuss them separately. We'll stop there and see if there are any questions. So is there an exception request for the height? No. The extra 4 feet is due to slope. Yeah. It's not required. No, it's not required. Well, it's not an exception per se, but it's still within the board's discretion whether to grant that. Correct. Mm-hm. There's a diagram as a site section that shows a couple of heavy dashed lines that indicate a 16-foot 4-inch height above the natural grade. I'm not sure I understand which elevation are you in reference to? It's a, it's a section drawing, and it's, it's called site section drawing number 113-1. Sorry. H3-1. Okay. That's probably in the packet, not in the presentation. Okay. So what this diagram shows is it shows the natural grade as it exists, and then it shows the building set on that grade, and then it shows an offset line 16 feet 4 inches above the natural grade. Not having it in front of me, I can't, okay, I can't, well, visualize it in my head. Sorry. Okay. Well, staff, staff has not questioned that, so I, I guess I just am I to assume that then there is no, because of this diagram, that, at no point is a piece of the structure higher than 16 feet 4 inches above the existing natural grade? So therefore, there is no exception needed? That is incorrect. The, the building is actually at 20 feet 3 inches from natural grade on the north side. I see natural grade at the front of the building? Right. Okay. I'm still trying just to understand exactly how, how these heights work. Okay. So the, the, it'll, so the height is measured either from the existing grade or the finished grade, whichever is the lowest, and then it's measured up from there. I see. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. Yes. Member Take. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify. The house proposed elevation is 20 feet 3 inches? Correct. On the north end of the building. 16 feet 4 inches is allowed? Yes. Thank you. Did you also want to address the corners? Yes. So I do note that in the case he's asking for sharper corners at a quarter to three-quarter inch corners. Staff would recommend that they be pulled most at between 3 and 4 inches. That would be staff's recommendation as a condition of approval? Yes. And, and do you know what the proposed corners are on the concrete retaining walls? I do not. What would your recommendation be? The same? Yes. It should be rounded as well. Thank you. The wooden note, I'm sorry. Because we didn't discuss this in the field, but windows should also be inset anywhere from 1 1/2 inches to 2 inches. 1 1/2 to 2. Is that what you said? Yes. Okay. That's also a recommended condition of approval from staff. Very good. We can wait for, why don't you go ahead and proceed to to B, which is 2026012765HDRB at 1062 Camino San Acacio, and then we'll hear from the applicant. Okay. All right. So this is for the guest house. So the applicants recommend, requesting to construct a 733 square foot accessory dwelling unit to a height of 14 feet 4 inches. The residence will be flat-roofed with parapets. Windows are aluminum-clad wood, simulated divided lights. Window and patio door exteriors will be in dark bronze. There will be nine roof-mounted solar panels. Canales will be steel, which will rust over time, and stucco in elastomeric buckskin. So this is the north elevation without and with fencing. There's the four-foot fence right in the front there. So west, south, and then this is kind of the southeast elevation. It's the inside of the L-shaped portion of the structure. In the east, so they're going to construct a 48-inch high fence along Camino San Acacio. The fence will have masonry pilasters with stone finish and a metal frame and three-inch cedar latias. There's going to be an at the exterior of the fence along Santa Casio. It will be stuccoed in elastomeric buckskin to match the residence. Install an eight-foot tall, 36-inch wide steel trellis attached to the back of the yard wall pilasters and install a four-foot high trash enclosure at the street by the driveway on the northwest side of the property. Staff is recommending approval of the project, finding that the application complies with our general design standards and our downtown and East Side design standards. Of course, again, with that condition that the corners of the building be bullnose and the windows be inset. And we would also like to ask that the trellis be made of wood rather than steel. Very good. So that would be an additional recommended condition of approval, that the trellis be made of wood. What about the, well, and also the corners? Is this trash enclosure shown on the renderings? I recall that I thought that was made out of steel in the original proposal as well. I believe it's Coyote Latias. But okay. I just didn't know if I saw it in the renderings. I don't see it in this rendering either. Well, we can ask. So these are the renderings. I just want to go ahead and share those. This is the property rendering within kind of an aerial perspective. And then our northwest corner of the lot, our northwest, yes, northeast corner of the storm. There are some gray structures in the background of each of these that they are to indicate the location of neighboring structures. Some of them fly. They're not really actually flying. And then our west elevation rendering, the east elevation. And just to summarize again, we are recommending approval with a few conditions, except for the denial of the metal elements. Okay. Thank you. Do board members have questions for staff? No. Member Jerry. Was there an exception request made for the metal elements? For on the main house, yes. It was part of the main house. Okay. So this is the, but on the guest house, it's proposed, but it would require exception, but there is no exception request. How's that work? The metal element on this house, on the guest house, is just the canales. And the trellis was asked as steel, but we did not ask for an exception. I missed that that was steel, so we would recommend it be a wood trellis. Or an exception request be made by the applicant? Right. If he requests for an exception, he will have to come back. The case would have to be postponed. Okay. Yes. Yes. Member Service. I have a couple of questions, following up on the metal. As I read the plans, the metal elements are columns and beams that are structural elements. Am I reading that correctly? They're the portal elements. Yes. Okay. Where in our code does it not allow that? It would be section 14-4.6. Hold on. G, nope. E, four, two, b. Am I correct in that the code refers to those as decorative elements? It's a support beam for the portal. I wouldn't call that decorative. I thought, okay. So our code is specific. It requires support beams to be made out of wood? I don't know that it's written specifically that way. What is the exception request for? Okay. Sorry. Were you talking to me? I was waiting for Frank to, right. I thought I was too. I thought maybe Attorney Rubalib was looking up the provision in the code. Right. It says subsection two under G under 14-4.6. It reads, "With rare exceptions, building are one story, etcetera, etcetera. Roofs are never carried out beyond the line of the walls except cover in an enclosed or taller porch formed by setting a portion back a portion of the wall or to form an exterior porch hall, the outer edge of the roof being supported by wooden columns." Okay. I think the other provision of the code that's normally cited for this proposition is that recent Santa Fe style attempts to achieve harmony with historic buildings by retention of a similarity of materials. Well, there's always inherent in codes and like that. There's also a stipulation that a new structure shall be, make a distinction between itself and the historic structures around. No. Yes. It is. Yeah. Not not here. But there is for additions, that is suggested. It's also not for freestanding new buildings. It's also part of the National Park Service guidelines that new structures be designed as a building of our time and not try to copy historic buildings to such a degree that there has created a false history. So I, as an architect, I believe that it really is appropriate for new structures to identify themselves as being something that is built. We walk through the, especially the East Side, and it's very difficult to tell the difference between a building that was built in 1926 or 1926 versus a building that's built in 2026. I think that it's important that new buildings be new buildings and that historic buildings be historic buildings and that we try not to dilute the character and the quality of the true historic buildings that way. And so, therefore, I believe that a steel post and steel beams are appropriate when used judiciously. I have those on my house in a historic district in the Guadalupe District, and I don't think that it's something that detracts. Such is my opinion about that. Then my next question has to deal with, where does the requirement to have a radius corner come in with new Santa Fe style? I know that this board has a preference for that, but I don't see that written in the code. And again, a sharp corner or a 90-degree corner is something that could make a distinction between itself and an adobe building nearby. Chair Bienvenu and Member Simmons, with respect to your first question on the new buildings being distinguished from older buildings, what that specifically reads is that on building additions, and this is under subsection E, 14-4.6, design, "Building additions that meet the standards of section 14-4.6 G2, Downtown Eastside Historic District shall continue to meet those standards and additions to the standards set forth in this section. 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 it does indicate that the original design should have a bearing on the new design. It's just it shouldn't duplicate the old structure so that it's distinguishable. With respect to the bullnose corners, there isn't anything specific about bullnose corners in our code. But what is important, especially with the downtown and East Side Historic District, there's no new Santa Fe style. There's a recent Santa Fe style. And what it reads is, "Recent Santa Fe style intends to achieve harmony with historic buildings by retention of the similarity of materials, color, proportion, and general detail. The dominating effect is to be that of adobe construction prescribed as follows," and it gives a bunch of information as to what constitutes adobe construction. And it has been the opinion of a number of board members, which I agree with, is that a sharp corner is not consistent with adobe construction. Adobe construction typically has bullnosed or rounded corners. We have innumerable structures in the historic districts, both the East Side and other historic districts, that do have sharp corners. It was also a motif, if you will, that John Gaw Meem himself did. We have, just on this site, is a territorial style building that has sharp corners. It has, unfortunately, a rusted metal cornice on top of the brick. So I don't believe that rounded corners are, I believe that rounded corners are a specific detail, not a general detail. I think the general detail is the sort of the gestalt of the neighborhood. And I think that that's really what our charge is, is to evaluate the differences between a new structure and historic structures as well as, I lost my train of thought. Go ahead. Member Bienvenu and Member, I'm sorry. Chair Bienvenu and Member Simmons, it's important to consider case law that can, with respect to code enforcement. There's a case called City of Santa Fe versus Gamble Stogmo Inc., and the holding of that is, "It is no defense to a prosecution for violating an ordinance that others have been permitted to violate it without prosecution or punishment." That is, the fact that there are some buildings in all of the historic districts that we're not sure exactly how they were built that are not consistent with the code should not be considered a precedent to violate the code when approving or disapproving other designs that have those same non-conforming elements. I'm not suggesting that it's a violation of the code. I'm just suggesting that the code is not that specific that it would preclude doing a square corner. Recto Lamboy. Thank you, Chair Bienvenu, Member Simmons. This is a good conversation that we can have when it comes to the update of the code, but I will just sort of provide a little history lesson on as to how the code has been interpreted by the H board. So there are two styles allowed in the Downtown Eastside Historic District, the one being Old Santa Fe style and the other one being Recent Santa Fe style, which tends, which, which purpose for recent is to emulate Old Santa Fe style. So in Old Santa Fe style, there is a criterion that states that exterior walls are not less than eight inches thick to emulate adobe construction and that geometrically straight facade lines are avoided. And so the board has traditionally, and certainly, we can have dialogue, and you can vote however you would like to in this particular case. But that geometrically straight facade lines, which includes the lack of a bullnose as that is typically found on historic buildings, that has been applied in the case of Recent Santa Fe style to be consistent with the overall character of Old Santa Fe style. Thank you for that. Nothing further? Okay. So I think we're ready to hear from the applicant at this point unless you had anything further to add. Okay. Applicant, may you please step forward? You sworn in. Hi. Please state, raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Gabriel Brown, 7604 Old Santa Fe Trail. Thank you, Gabriel. 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 penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Brown. Thank you for working with the board on your project. Good to see you back. I see, if you're going to activate the Elmo, please. Chairman, members of the board. Thank you. Please let us know what you have to add to staff's presentation. Thank you. I was last in front of you two and a half months ago. I'm going to read my presentation so I make sure not to miss any details. Since that time, the staff has done a new height and pitch calculation based on several different streetscape definitions. The result of that investigation was with clear design constraints delivered to me on July 30, less than a week before the deadline for submittals for this meeting. In that time, I revised the design to reflect the revised height and pitch calculations and reflect some of the feedback I received at the June meeting. I've made the casita a flat roof structure. I made the portal bedroom and living room masses shorter in front of the residence, the home shorter, than they were in the previous design. Staff's report suggests that I have made the building six inches lower, but I think that expresses, I don't think that expresses clearly the changes I've made. Whereas before, I was requesting the street-facing living room mass to be at height, at the height limit, including the four feet of additional height allowed at the discretion of the board. Now I'm only asking for 23 inches of height at the discretion of the board, less than half, 11 inches of height at the front bedroom mass, and I'm asking, I am asking for 47 inches of the 48 inches, which is at the discretion of the board, but only at the guest bedroom, which is at the very back of the building, not publicly visible, and is excavated deeply into the hillside. Board member Simmons expressed several specific questions and design criteria in that previous meeting. I thank him for that feedback. I've made changes to the design, which I hope address these concerns. Member Simmons did not perceive a design dialogue between the three buildings incorrectly, and I, and asked that the three buildings tie together in a better way. I made all three buildings the same color as the existing shed color array. The flat roof casita reflects the flat roof design of the shed. I've added a brick coping detail on the main house portal balcony, and a similar coping detail along the code defense elements and the pilasters in the fence, and along the banco that I've added. Member Simmons expressed a concern that the intent of the rule, which requires that glazed openings be set back three feet from outside corners, was not being followed. Again, I accept that comment and believe he was correct. While I think the code is being followed, I have offered a design alternative, which I'll show you on iPad in a minute, which is more respectful of member Simmons' interpretation of the intent. I don't prefer the alternative, but I'll show it to you, and I would accept that, that way, the wish of the board. Member Simmons expressed concern about, that the front of the casita, especially, was not very friendly toward the street, is the way he expressed it. I think what he meant is, that there were, there was little fenestration. I've added a pair of windows in that facade, which I think helped a great deal along that, along that line. I also added a portal, I mean, a banco on the street, intended to offer my neighbors a place to sit. One of the blessings of Camino San Jacasio is that it's, I think, one of the most widely used pedestrian streets in the historic district. There are always people and their dogs walking along that street. I mean, I've lived there and worked there. I enjoy seeing that. So we're offering a banco there, and, and we want to do a little dog bowl since I'm a mother of dogs. Member Simmons expressed support of the steel detailing, and I appreciate that. I want to get back to the code and what it says specifically, I think, about that. But, I want to go through board member, also gave me very specific, very specific list of concerns or things that were concerning to her, and she had questions. The first was height and pitch, which obviously, have led to some significant changes. Member Bychkov expressed concern about the amount of glazing on the building and the mixture of divided and undivided lights. I hear that concern, but I have carefully followed the code and provided divided lights where they're required and left undivided lights where those are allowed. Member Bychkov expressed concern about the angles in the floor plan. I understand that concern and agree that sharp angles are not typical of our local styles. I hope she and other members of the board can see in the 3D model that the resulting design expression is of a simple step of those style masking. It doesn't express the kind of dynamism that you see in the floor plan because those elements are not for height. And, so while I do think the floor plan shows a kind of twisting or, or a number of angles, I don't think that is represented in the final three-dimensional design. Member Bychkov expressed concern about the steel face elements over the doors. I did not change this aspect of the design, as currently proposed, but I do point out that these aspects of the design do not violate the code and are not publicly visible. Members of the public expressed concern about the height-to-width proportion of the portal columns. Maybe they were sort of tall and skinny, which is not part of our, our local design conversation. I've eliminated the tall columns and lowered the portal significantly, which reduced the width of the, the proportion of width to height on the columns. The concern was expressed about the floating nature of the portal railing wall. Again, I'm a member of the public. I took that to heart and modified the design so that the portal railing wall returns to the building on the one side and returns significantly on the other side, which is more typical of, of masonry construction where the strength of the masonry comes from its corners. I have a question, exception for the use of steel for some decorative exterior elements on the building, or need not approve and some structural steel elements on the building, or need not approve or disapprove the of the metal elements as if they were all one design choice. Though the consistency of using steel on all these details contributes to a simple expression of structural intent and simplified palette of materials, and I think both of those are keystones to the style that we are trying to emulate. One of the things I want to point out is that in the beginning of the code, and I'm sorry I didn't bring a copy of the code with me, but in the opening paragraphs where it describes historic districts, one of the sentences that it puts forward is that every building is a record of the time in which it was built. And that's a two-sided sword, as I think member Simmons was trying to point out that historic buildings need to be thoughtfully and carefully protected for their historic value, and new buildings also need to represent their time. And that means a modification of the techniques and the materials that are being used, and, because we can, because we have those available to us. And those are expressions of, of this day and time, which I think is also appropriate. And I would put the steel elements solidly in that category. I then want to address each of the steel elements separately, again, because this is not one design choice, but a series of design choices. The recent, the recent Santa Fe style suggests a similarity of materials to the old Santa Fe style. So what Mr. Rubalit read was the old Santa Fe, the portion of the code references old Santa Fe style. And, the recent Santa Fe style suggests that it should have a similarity of materials to the old Santa Fe style. In terms of materials within the old Santa Fe style portion of the code, only two, I can only find two references to materials, wooden columns, which is exactly what Mr. read, and wooden lintels. There are no other references to material or materiality in the old Santa Fe style portion of the, of the description of materials that I can find. So the code here is making a clear statement that portal columns on recent Santa Fe style buildings should be similar to wooden columns. And I would suggest by using the form and the rhythm and the pattern and the proportion of typical wooden columns that you would find on historic buildings, that I am in fact creating something which is similar, which is the requestment, the requirement of the column, of the code. I also point out that there are two historic homes in the streetscape of this building, both of which are photographed in, in your packet, which have steel portal columns. I don't, I don't expect that those were approved under any sort of exception criteria, or these are old traditional homes that are still occupied by the original families that built them. One of them is contributing. I suspect the other one would be deemed contributing if it were brought before the board now. I don't think it would be brought before the board. So if you require that the columns be wooden, which I think there's one sort of stretched interpretation of the code, which, which might suggest that that is a requirement, I don't see any authority in the code to require that the beams be wooden, and I think setting a steel beam over a wooden column is odd. I see no mention of requirements for wooden canales. Certainly, there's no mention of that. You know, the only mention of canales is that they're typical of the style. Sheet metal canales are not uncommon in the historic district, and, certainly, sheet metal column canales predate the, the kind of hybrid wooden and sheet metal columns that we, that are typical that we buy from lumber stores these days. And in fact, often what you see is more sheet metal than, than, than wood. There are two areas where roof fascia over exterior doors is proposed in steel. Again, member, brought these up as a concern. These, this is a roof fascia. Code is silent as to the material applied to fascia on roof overhangs. There's simply no mention at all of what material that should be. But for practical purposes, metal is almost always universally used at least at the flashing of any roof fascia and an on a roof overhang. Finally, walls and fences visible from the street may be built of lots of materials, including wrought iron. This is not wrought iron. That's steel. But I think that, code were written today. I think it would be considered. That's really the presentation I wanted to make. I just want to show two things, one relative to height, one relative to the corner detail that I have prepared here. So excuse me while I step away. There are some extra lines in this rendering. I apologize for those, but this is simply a way that I can turn on and off kind of solid corner versus the inner corner that was originally proposed that does meet the three-foot requirements. One of the things about this corner, again, it's not visibly, it's, it's not visible from the street. So if I, if I go through the, the street view, totally. When you see this in the bird's eye views that you, that you see that, that, that corner is thin. So I would argue that, that the impact is minimal to the exterior and to the style, and, it's maximal to the interior. And then I have one more, one more. Member Simmons asked about the relationship of the natural terrain or the existing terrain to the top of the building. And, the answer is that where the site section is cut, which is through the bedroom, we never exceed the 16'4" above existing or natural terrain. That's where the site section is. We do exceed it. And so this image shows what we would see of the building if we took the entire three-dimensional existing terrain and, and lifted it 16'4" above its existing. So you can see that we are at that corner, we're about 15 inches above the 16'4" limitation and that a portion of the roof does exceed a portion of the portal, each roof does exceed the 16'4" limitation, but, essentially. And if I had, if I had created a smooth ground instead of a terrain model which is stepped, it would conceal a little bit more. But essentially, the building is just less than a foot and a half above, at any point on the building, above an envelope, which is 16 feet 4 inches above the natural. That's my presentation. Thank you very much for your patience listening to it. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Thank you for your presentation. Board members, do you have questions for the applicant? Member Cherry. Hello, Mr. Brown. So I just had a couple of questions for clarification, and then I wanted to share a few thoughts. So I heard it presented as elastomeric stucco, but you've got an El Rey stucco chart, which is a cementitious stucco. Can you just clarify? Is it because, and then El Rey is not making stucco anymore. They changed their name to La Habra. So what's the stucco? So, you weren't here for the previous meeting where I got an approval for the three structures on the property. The shed is a historic building that we're, if it's contributing, we're maintaining. We're going to be restuccoing that. We still can get the, help me out, buckskin? We can still get the buckskin stucco, which we will do in cementitious, with matching the existing texture on, pardon me, on the shed. We will be using the same color, but in elastomeric finish with an elastomeric material and a sand finish on the other structures. So we're using the same color, but it will be an elastomeric Dryvit or stucco or something. Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. So, and tell me again the corner radius that you're proposing. As Member Simmons was discussing, I prefer a sharper corner. I came before this board in June intensely proud of the building that we did across the street with the, in what's really a Northern New Mexico style building. It seemed to me like I was unique in my affection for that building in of the people in the room at that moment. But, in some ways, that's what I was trying to duplicate at least at the Casita here and in some ways, all of the structure. That building has a clay plaster finish. It has nearly sharp corners. I would say three-quarters of an inch to half inch. It is an, it is an 1880s Adobe double Adobe structure. It was built in the 1880s. We replastered it, with permission of the board, with a three-quarter inch radius at that point. I prefer those tighter radiuses. This is not the hill I'm going to die on. Okay. Well, I guess one of the reasons I ask that is, and I know this isn't sort of for this meeting to discuss code interpretation, but we are interpreting the code for your project. So I do think it's relevant. I've seen and worked on a lot of buildings in this town, and I've seen a lot of different radius corners from a lot of different eras. And I do think that the code is subject to interpretation. So my personal opinion is, it's not a big deal if it's a sharper corner. And I think the argument that it makes it distinct to this time is valid. I, the other thing I wanted to say is I would commend you for, it seems like, you know, you, I wasn't at the other board meeting where this was heard, but it seems like you took this feedback to heart. You went back, and you did a significant amount of redesign to accommodate the direction of the board. So I wanted to commend you for that. I think that's admirable. I guess the other thing I'd say in relation to your project, which also sort of dabbles into code interpretation, is the use of steel. I would feel very similar to it in regard to the bullnose. I see lots of buildings that it was used on historically and non-historically. Of course, like any other material, it can be used very poorly. One question I had regarding the steel that you're proposing is the color, texture, and because there's a lot that can go on with steel. Is it painted? Is it rusted? Is it a flat finish? Is it a gloss finish? Just The proposal was a natural to rust. So it would, it would be black when it was installed, but we would not be sealing it or painting it so that it would rust. So what you do is, are you wanting it to rust? Sure. Okay. I'm just curious because That's the intent, is that it would be rusty. Okay. So is it going to get a treatment like a ferric treatment or some kind of I didn't plan to patina it to rust. I was just going to let it rust. Gotcha. But it's almost all, you know, it's almost all white exposed and without a sealer of any kind. It's like a dark blue hot rolled steel that's just going to rust on its own. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. I think that's all I have to say about it without going on and on. Thank you. Any other comments from the board, questions? Member Simmons. Just a quick comment here. I do also want to commend you on the changes that you've made. I think you've really taken it to heart. I think you've made some improvements to the design. So thanks. Yeah. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak on this project? I see no one. Is there anyone on Zoom? Yes. Miss Beninato would like to speak. Miss Beninato, you can unmute. And please state your name and address for the record. Stephanie Beninato, PO Box 160 in Santa Fe. Stephanie, 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 penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. I have a, a few. I mean, I understand that the architect has done a lot of changes in it, looking at what the board members made comments about. But I'm very disturbed by the idea that somehow the historic parks regulation should play into what is being done here. It is a not a new Santa Fe style, but a recent Santa Fe style. And I think as pointed out by Mr. Rubelid, it is supposed to look like Adobe, but made from other more modern materials. And so rounded corners, recessed windows, these are things that, again, are important in preserving that style. And having a building with very sharp corners just sticks out and says, I just got built yesterday. It's not compatible with the district, and it's not compatible necessarily with the neighborhood. I find it to be a very large building. I mean, of course, if you have the lot coverage, you can do it. But, again, it just seems to overwhelm maybe the neighborhood. And, I also am wondering what that sort of, it looks like a box, a fairly large box. It's not the Banco, but it's there by the coyote sensing. And I really wonder what that is. It's a step up. Is it a step up from the street like a patio? Because, because, again, it seems like a lot of hard surfaces are still on that property. And to me, although, you know, it, it, it really feels like an apartment building rather than a house. And I don't think metal structures, metal supports are decorative. They are structural. And I don't think the portal, particularly at the street level or at right at the street should be allowed. I think that should be in traditional material. I definitely think the rounded corners, recessed windows are important in terms of having it emulate Adobe construction. Otherwise, why bother? Why even have this ordinance? Why, you know, again, you as the board are required to follow the ordinance, and that's what it requires. That it looks like Adobe construction, not looking modern. And there's plenty in there to tell people it is not in a historic building. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else online? No. It's Sherabin Vanu. Oh, someone from the room wishes to speak. I'll swing back to you. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. My name is Elizabeth West at 318 Center Street. Thank you, 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. She has been sworn, Vice Chair. You may proceed. I wanted to say something really nice about what the architect did in paying attention to, I was one of the people who mentioned the thickness of supports because they echo the strength that is required when an adobe house is being built, and that's part of the history that goes behind. So I appreciate the stronger supports that were added in. However, I'm very glad that Miss Beninato brought up a few comments. I completely was surprised by the great big box. I, I didn't know what that was. I'm not very good at reading these kind of, these particular sorts of renderings. That's my problem. But, the, there's one of them that looked like a Banco, and the other looked like a, a, I don't know, the top of a basement dwelling. I, I couldn't figure it out. So that's, I apologize for not understanding that. It just looked very rectilinear. I thought it was so much fun. You could play with it and move it around. That is pretty cool. But it, it, I really appreciate Miss Beninato's comments. And the, the subtlety, the relative subtlety of, of the corners depending on a bullnose to some degree does make a difference. It's subtle, but, obviously, it's very important for the modern aspect or a contemporary aspect to be sharp. However, in Santa Fe style, even recent Santa Fe style, there's got to be that subtle difference. And I think the eye sees it, and the brain doesn't quite understand what's going on, but it has, it's very effective. I want to underline much of what Miss Beninato said. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any further discussion on behalf of the board? I'll entertain a motion. Member Cherry. So in case 2026012764HDRB at 1062 Camino San Acasio, I would move to approve the application as proposed, noting that the exception criteria has been met or, all right, I'm going to have to reverse here to make sure I get my words right. The use of, it's for the use of, of metal. All right. For the use of, of the metal in, in the, in the portal. And then, I would, I would request that some treatment be made to those, to the metal components to accelerate the rusting, and, and that would be it. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? I'll have a roll call vote. Member Degnan? No. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Simmons? Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. Next case. Do I have a motion? I can, I mean, I can? Yeah. I can make a motion on that one as well. On case 20260127651026CaminoSanAcasio. I would make a motion to accept the application as proposed. And, there are no exceptions here, but, I would note that, that I would accept the use of steel for the trellis in, in the front and, with the same request that some treatment be used on the steel to accelerate the patina. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Roll call vote, please. Member Degnan? No. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Simmons? Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you. Next case is under new business, 2026012840HDRB at 610 Don Gaspar Avenue. This is Senior Planner Romero's case. Thank you, Member Bembanu and members of the board. This is case 2026012840HGRB. This is at 610 Don Gaspar Avenue in the Don Gaspar Area Historic District. So, this property is, as I said, located in the Don Gaspar Area Historic District, which is characterized by the earlier 20th century development, which utilized building materials brought into the region by the railroad. New materials included brick, larger gauge window, and a more traditional American style subdivision patterned on the streetscape. It also represented the, the introduction of new architectural styles, including Perry and bungalow styles of architecture, the region. Here, you will see a picture of the current roof. The applicant's request is to propose, to replace the roof with an alternative material and design. So, again, here is, what the roof looks like as it stands today. And this house was known as the Thomas Clausen House. Thomas Clausen served as a Santa Fe mayor between 1922 and 1924. In 1920, he built the side-gabled, brick-clad residence. The second story was built in the 1930s. This residence is designated as significant to the Don Gaspar Area Historic District. So, based on the history provided by the applicant, the roofing material was originally slate. This is a rendering of what they're proposing to do now. And this is a shingle, and it is colored in Ironwood, which seems to be the lightest gray that they could provide. Staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends the approval of 14.6.E.4.2.B. Otherwise, staff recommends all of the elements of the application comply with 14-5.2.D, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-4.6.G.1, Don Gaspar Area Historic District Design Standards. I stand for questions. And here's a little close-up too of the rendering of the proposed. I stand for questions. Thank you for your presentation. Do any board members have questions? Member Cherry? So, is this the original roof that's on the structure? I believe this was the original roof that was on the structure. I believe it was at least the 1960s, from what our research could determine. So, what was the year the house was built? The first floor was built in the 1920s. The second floor was built in the 1930s. Yeah. But the current roof is from the 1960s? I do believe so. Okay. So it's not the original roof? I believe the original roof was slate as well. Yeah. And does the proposal include the placement of the clay tiles as the ridge material? I don't have that shown on the rendering, but we can ask the applicant in regards to that. But they did not show the clay tiles. Okay. And then, do you know if there is a distinct copper flashing used around where the end wall of the roof meets the brick? Do you know if that's being proposed to be replaced in copper as well? I did ask the applicant that question, and they said that it was not proposed to be in copper, that there was a different material. Do you know what that material is? I believe that was the same material that's going to be used on the roof, which was a steel, like a carbon steel. Carbon steel. So it's not a powder-coated material. It's like a high-carbon untreated steel? Or… You may want to ask the applicant. Okay. That's the information that they relayed to me. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? I had one more. Sorry. And there was also a distinct copper gutter on the south facade. Is that being proposed to be reused or replaced, or what's the proposal regarding the gutter? The gutter is being requested to be replaced. With the copper gutter? I believe it's the same. You might want to ask the applicant in regards to that as well. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions from the board? Nope. Applicant, would you please step forward? Hello. Please state your name and be sworn. Sir, my name is Rudy Prieto. And address. Thank you. You raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. My name is Rudy Prieto. My company's address is 5200 Pasadena. Mine is 8 Milton Loop, Los Lunas. I don't know if it matters. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Yes, sir. I swear. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Prieto. What do you have to offer to the board? Okay. So, as far as your question in regards to what the steel was, it is 26-gauge carbon steel, and it is actually dipped in a zinc aluminum compound. It has a little bit of silicone in there. I don't know the exact figures. And then four laser layers of acrylic are put on both sides. It is cold-pressed to shape. The reason why they do that is to keep the integrity of the metal, keep the strength there. And then they do have granite granules that are going to coat it. And there's four more layers of acrylic put on top of that. Please. Thank you. Anything else that you wanted to add to the presentation by staff? No. No. Yeah. I'll add a little bit more to that for you. So, in regards to the drip edge, we wouldn't be putting a copper drip edge there just for… Member Cherry, this, I think, is being addressed to your question. But it will be locked together. So it's a completely interlocked system, and it's meant to be that way to, of course, keep water out as much as possible. So, the drip is actually going to lock directly onto that little clip you have right there on that piece. Every single screw is going to be covered as well. So there's not going to be any exposures to small leakage or anything like that. We are going to have an internal gutter system on the valley areas also, and also where the gables go. So, on the gables, there's going to be actually a pretty long rake edge. I believe it's five inches. 90% sure on that. That'll cover that to protect the fascia. In addition, we do have a waterproof underlayment we use, and also, we use snow and ice guard. We go three feet up the eaves, three feet down from the ridge, and around the AC, we'd go around three feet as well. Things like that, any protrusions also. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes. Yes. On board. Yes. Member Simmons. Just a quick technical question. Is the roofing material screwed directly into the decking, or is there a sleeper system? Is there any kind of a gap air gap between the deck and the material? So, in between where the decking would be and the metal material would be, that's where we would have both the snow and ice guard and the ultra-synthetic underlayment, which is waterproof. So that would be under, right between those two materials. So there's no airspace? There would be a little bit of airspace. Correct, sir. Okay. Number 10 there. Thank you, Mr. Graham. Sir. Yes, ma'am. Can you confirm for me whether or not this roofing material is a sheet of material, or are they individual shingles, if you will? They are going to be a longer sheet. So in reality, it's going to be quite literally about this long. So about four feet. Every panel is going to be that long. The height is actually what you're holding. Mhm. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Other questions? Nope. Yes, ma'am. Jerry. So, I'm trying to look at the products on this for the unified steel. Is this the only shingle pattern they make? No, sir. It does come in quite a few. We have a cedar shake mimic. We do also have, like, a terracotta tile mimic. We switched from that. It was originally proposed to be charcoal, but likely that wouldn't get approved. So we changed to this material because it was, I guess, similar to what a neighbor would have. But they don't have any bigger shingle shapes that more closely match the existing roof? No, sir. No. Did you guys consider another product, like metal roofing diamond-laid tiles, like that would mimic this roof? No, sir. Our metal doesn't come in that particular shape. We only have a few different profiles, about five. Each of them has all their separate colors. We just proposed what we thought would have the best chance in getting through, of course, and what Peter Comas would like as well. Okay. Member Benvenu and members of the board, or Vice Chair Benvenu, members of the board, I also want to make a comment in regards to the field trip today. There were two structures that, or calls carports that were in the backyard. I did research and did not find any permit or historic administrative approval or approval by the board. So we will be submitting over that to our historic inspector to give them a notice. Great. Thank you for that. Anything else from the board? No. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this application? I see no one in the room. Anyone on Zoom? Yes. Sharbi and Venu, Stephanie Benanato, who was previously sworn. Miss Benanato, you may speak. Thank you very much. I wonder why it is that, well, first of all, I wonder what the hardship is here. And I wonder why something that was the original material, a type of what is the original material, is not being required. I remember a building further down on this street. I think it's in the 800 block where there was a lot of discussion about how you really wanted them to use the original type of material, not something really new. These are not individual shingles. There are sheets of things that look like shingles. And it's a much darker color, at least from what we can see on what's being presented, which I think really changes the look of the building. And I'm wondering at least if there's something lighter that would match. I'm wondering if they're going to be, and I think it's actually just a bad idea because given climate change, having darker material on your roof is going to absorb more heat. And I'm wondering also given that there is this roof change, and you're talking about, like, if there's airspace under there or not. I'm wondering if there's going to be insulation provided that will meet code. So I know that's not really in your purview, but I think it's important to ask that question. And again, I'm wondering, is there a material that is the same or more closely related to the original shingles? And is there a way to do single shingles as opposed to sheets? Because even though the roof is from the 1960s, it is historic. And that look of the building is very distinctive, and the roof, because it's such a large area, definitely contributes to the look of the building. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else on Zoom wish to speak? Good. Thank you. Board members, further questions or discussion? No. I'll entertain a motion. Make a motion. Okay. Member Simmons. In case 2026012840-HDRB at 610 Don Gaspar, I move to accept the application as submitted. Is there a second? Second. Second. A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Yeah. I'd like to have, I'd like to ask for a friendly amendment that the, that the copper gutters remain or replaced with copper. I'll accept that. Second accept that. Any further discussion? Roll call, Bill, please. Member Simmons? Yes. Member Degnon? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member, motion passed. For that, and thank you, applicant. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We will move on to the next case on the agenda, which is 20260, oh yeah, 012691 HDRB at 216 Maynard Street, Unit A and B, Senior Planner Romero. This is your case. You have the floor. Thank you, Member Benvenu, members of the board. So if you remember this application, for 2026012691 HDRB 216 Manor, this is Unit A and B in the Westside in Guadalupe District, came before us a few months ago for a status review. Unit A was built in 1933, between 1933 and 1939, by the Vigil family. And later, the garage, which is Unit B, was built prior to 1944. Both were built in Spanish Pueblo Revival styles. And… Can I interrupt you for just a minute? Did you have a presentation? Is it not showing up on the screen? IT, if you could please show the podium. Thank you. We are. Thanks. Thank you, Chair Bembanu. So in April 26, again, this came before the Historic District Review Board, and this board designated Unit A as contributing with the east facade number one, south facades number two, three, four, and five, and the north facade number 11 as primary, excluding the non-historic materials. Unit B was also designated as contributing with the east facade number one as primary. So here is a primary facade, and this is the, it cut it off, but I believe this is the north facade of the building. And there are no changes to this facade. All the windows and doors will remain. And this is the south facade, where they are requesting—just go through the request here. One moment, please. Request to remove the green awnings on the building. You could give me one moment for, thank you. So, just jump back and forth here for a moment. Here we have, let's start with the front. It has a chain-link fence. It's approximately 55 feet long, and they're requesting to remove that and construct a new pony wall, approximately 55 feet in length and four feet in height. This is going to be a CMU block wall, cement stucco, and with Pueblo color, and it will have four-foot plywood gates in natural stain finish. So, it is on the east of the property, aligning the street. I'm going to go back here to Unit A. This is the east side of Unit A, and they are requesting to remove the non-historic paneling, the window, and that would be the window under the port hole. And here we go on to the south facade. They are requesting to replace that window on the south facade, and all windows are going to be replaced in kind to divided light. And then, so we again, we there's the south side, and then we go on to Unit B. So, Unit B, we have this old, was formerly a garage, and now they're requesting to change the garage into a window on, and this is the primary facade of that structure, and staff is recommending denial of that change. Otherwise, staff recommends all the other window changes in Unit A and Unit B. And so, staff finds the exception criteria 14-4.6 E4, 1A, replacing historic windows on primary facade have been met for Unit A and recommends denial of Unit B exception of 14-4.6 E4 1A, altering openings on a primary facade. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of other elements of this application as they comply with general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4.6 G5 West Side, Guadalupe historic districts and design standards. I stand for questions. Thank you, Senior Planner Romero. Does anyone on the board have questions? Member Degnan. Member Cherry. Yeah, thanks, Amanda. Is the, what's the construction of both buildings? Meaning, the adobe blocks and tile. Oh, the, of the type of building? Yeah. What's it constructed with? The walls? I believe they're CMU. I can, I believe a pen tile CMU. Okay. I thought I recalled the front building being, is that Unit A? The building on the street being adobe. I don't recall that, but I could, I could look up the original application, the HICB, if you would like. Sure. I think that was in April. I don't know if I, I recall seeing a hole in the wall on the driveway side and, like, there was an adobe construction. Let me see if I have this here. Will you remember, Terry? Rico? The front house is adobe residence. That's a good memory, sir. A square, the adobe, the front house is approximately 1,957 square foot adobe residence. And the rear panhandle extension added in 1950, doesn't mention its material. And what's the proposed stucco system? Because I remember there's an elastomeric stucco system over this adobe structure. If they, it's a traditional style, traditional adobe style. But is the material cementitious being, the material exposed or elastomeric? Okay. And is the existing elastomeric going to be removed? You would need to ask the applicant on that question. Because there's, there's a lot of, I would say, Layers? Well, no. There's, a lot of reasoning in the window assessment that the degradation of some of the walls is due to the windows. And my experience with adobe is a lot of the degradation to adobe is caused by the impermeability of elastomeric stuccos. So, but I don't see any, any specification on that as part of the restoration of this historic structure. Okay. And then my next question is you used the words "in kind" regarding the window replacement, and I noticed that they are Colby. So, are these steel windows that are being, being replaced with steel windows, or are they steel windows being replaced with aluminum clad wood windows? It is my understanding that they are aluminum clad wood windows. So, when you say "in kind," are you just referring to the light pattern and not the construction? Okay. Just to be clear. Yes, in kind to the light pattern. Okay. But not in kind to the construction of the window. The, the window assessor said that they are wood clad, and that's, and then I confirmed with the applicant that that's what they would be replaced with. What are wood clad? The, the windows. The existing windows? The existing windows. Oh, it, it says here in the photo, it shows steel casements. So, So, I can put up, even in the window, in the window assessment as well, it says they're steel casements. Triple steel casement, window G, window H, triple steel casement. So, the triple steel casements are being proposed to be replaced with aluminum clad wood windows. Is that correct? I believe that there are, there are a few windows that are in back of B that are the wood clad, and then I believe the windows in A are the metal. Yeah. I noticed a variety of different, different windows, and the windows in, in the back of B, or, I would say, to be more specific, on the west side facade, elevation of B were not clad. They're just wood. Yes. Wood historic windows of the vernacular of the edge of the building. On a non-primary. Got it. But the, but the, the steel casement windows on the primary facades are being proposed to be replaced with? Yes. With the, with the wood aluminum clad wood window? You might want to verify with the applicant on that. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Other questions? Nope. Applicant, would you like to step forward and be sworn in? If you're both going to speak, then we'll swear you both. Then if only one of you is going to speak. Okay. Up to you. Sergio Nunez. Start with your name and address, please. 216 Mainer AMB, San Aven, Mexico. Thank you. Sergio Nunez. Excellent. Could you just read the witness, please? Can you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Sergio Nunez. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Please proceed. Good evening. Please let us know what you have to add to staff's presentation. In regards to the windows, we just took the window assessor expert to, you know, give us, you know, what kind of windows we should use, and we went with that. So, we can replace all of them with wood and, you know, to match existing, you know? And we are replacing the window. We're not stucco-ing the rest of the, the property. We just want to remove and replace. And you're, you're not stucco-ing the building? No. Only the front of the panel wall with that three consistent array or the other kind of material because array is not existing anymore. Why don't you go ahead and just let us know all the things that you want to tell us in addition to staff's presentation, and then I'll find out what questions the board has. We've got just the pony wall. I mean, remove the chain link and add the, the front of the pony wall, the windows, the garage in the back, the Unit B. And, you know, if we can do the, you know, close the garage and add a window, we can do an existing, a new garage door, and that'll, that'll take care of everything. And, and that is four by four gate, Unit A. Okay. Thank you for that. Questions from the board for the applicant. Did you have anything else, Member Cherry, to ask? Yeah. I just thought maybe you did. I do want to clarify that, but I'm trying to look for it in the application here because it was presented, my understanding was it was presented as we're, it was going to be restuccoed with cementitious stucco. Is that, that's, that's not the case. We match in the existing Pueblo on the poly wall, match existing. And then inside the Unit B, there's a, like, like, T&G? Like, T&G, the little, you're going to cover that with a new stucco. Where you're proposing to infill the door and put the window, you are going to stucco that? Yes. Where we're canceling the wall. But just as a stucco patch, you're not going to restucco the entire building? Yep. Stucco patch. Okay. And then you're proposing to stucco onto the porta where the, where, where the, the wood is. Correct? And so what, how are you proposing to replace the windows without restucco-ing, I guess, is because they are the same size. We just removing in, in, patching. They're just removing the existing measurements. We're not, you know, adding or removing measurement. We're just going to match existing measurement in each window according to the window assessor expert. So, you're going to use, like, how, how are you going to flash the windows? We use the, or the way he did it, it was just too much existing the way they go inside and out. We're not disturbing around the stucco. Right. So, so, typically, when you replace a window on one of these buildings, these windows have, have a nailing fin on them. So, the existing windows don't have a nailing fin. So, the existing windows are removed, and then the new windows, the new installed, and then it's into a rough buck with a nailing fin around it, and then there's a, the nailing fin is an inch and a half wide. Inch and a half. Right? So, that needs to either be covered with flashing and window, with window flashing and then, and then a trim, or it needs to be covered with window flashing and, and, and stucco. So, I'm just trying to understand. I think we proposed to patch if the existing, because we have the color around the windows. Patch with stucco? So, you're going to patch around the windows, but because the, the, the city requires if you install windows and patch around the windows that you can't get a final without color coding that, which would be restucco-ing the, the building. So, I'm still just trying to understand. You know, if we have to restucco, then we restucco the entire building. But we tried this inside. I have the original color. I can attach around the windows. But if it's needed, we'll, you know, we restucco that. Okay. Okay. But it's not going to be the, you know, that's all I ecosystem. It is going to be, like, a fat coating around it. We just want final coat just to make it all fresh. Okay. Of cementitious stucco? So, you would use, like, a base coat and a fiber mesh and then a color coat? No. Because your, the existing is, is, is still good. We just want to color coat on top. You know? You put, like, a little primer, and you, you, you would, Okay. So, you're proposing to leave the existing elastomeric stucco and then use glue and then color cementitious over elastomeric. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. No questions. Anyone in the room wish to speak on this application? No one. Is there anyone on Zoom? Yes, Miss Stephanie Benanato, who was previously sworn, you may unmute. Benanato, you have the floor. Thank you. I think it's great that they want to take the wood paneling down. I do think that the garage door could be replaced, but the opening should be maintained as a garage door because I think that's characteristic of the building. I do think that the board, although it's not being proposed now, but that the board could allow them to put some windows into the garage door, you know, as part of the garage door, like carriage doors, that that could work. I find it confusing for staff to say that things are being replaced in kind when in fact they're not. And, really, staff, I think, needs to be more careful about how they word things. So, this is being replaced. Windows are being replaced wholesale with, from wood and steel with wood clad windows, but the design will be the same. And I think if you're on the primary facade and you can replace it with steel windows that you should, and use the new, you know, the divided light design. I find it confusing, really, about what they're going to do to the windows. And although they're talking about this window expert, I don't hear any assessment of how badly degraded the windows are. And I think that would be helpful for the public to know that, just so we know what you're really all talking about. So those are just some of my comments. I also want to point out that your vote on Santa Casa was improper. It requires a majority of the board present to vote for or against something. You have four people there. Three had to vote for or against. You are not recusing yourself, Chair. You are there. You just can't vote by law. So it's not a recusal. It doesn't say recusal. And so three of you all had to vote for it. Otherwise, what we have are two people out of what should be a seven-person board voting to approve something that's radically different than what really is allowed in the East Side. And I just want to point that out because it's an ongoing problem and really needs to be addressed, and you really need to look at the words in the ordinance and follow them. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else on Zoom? No. Sherry Bienvenu. Thank you. Board members, further questions or discussion? I'll entertain a motion. I have some comments, I guess, for discussion. Member Cherry, please. Just go ahead. Yeah. Just in general, my comments would be, I find it inadequate, I guess I would say, to replace the windows in the way that you described it. It's substandard to just stick a window in an opening and not flash it properly, which generally requires removing six to nine inches of stucco from around the window opening. My observation of the stucco there is it's pretty in fairly decent need of replacement. Also, the degradation of that building, I would say, is more caused by the elastomeric stucco that's on it as opposed to the condition of the windows. The windows have been there since the building was built, and it's lasted till now without the windows degrading the building. So, I think my comments are just, I think it'd be more beneficial to remove the elastomeric stucco in the window replacement. I also feel like the windows should be replaced with replicas. That's what's typically the board has done in this case and not sort of stretched in kind. I, and I, the other comments I would make in this conversation that we've been having this evening with the board members, which I think is great, I think this falls into the other category of it's not new construction. It's a building we're trying to preserve. So best practice preservation standards should be held to this structure as opposed to, in, say, the other case where the sort of maybe style takes precedent because it's, I'm just speaking to the board members about how I'm seeing this as, I see this as, to do what's best for the preservation of the building is, in my opinion, our responsibility. That's all I have to say for my comments. Okay. Thank you. So, I would say that we need a motion, and the options are to approve, approve with conditions, deny, or postpone for the applicant to come back with different options. Is there an option within the postpone? I guess the other thing that I left out that I would like to say is it would be helpful to have more detail since there, to me, there's a little bit of unclarity on how the windows are going to be replaced, and the window order that's presented in this document is not very clear. It's kind of a Xerox quality, what I would say to it. So if we could have some, do you see an option in that regard? Oh, absolutely. Postponement can have any directions to the applicant that the board desires for what to come back with. Okay. Then I'm prepared to make a motion. Okay. Please proceed. Member Cherry. In case 2026012691 HCRB 216 Maynard Avenue, Units A and B, I would propose to postpone this case and request that the applicant return with more clarity regarding the types of windows they're going to use, that they're proposing to use to replace the windows with, with clearer diagrams that show us exactly the construction of those windows, along with a detail drawing of how the window would be installed and how that would be weatherized into the existing structure or a proposal or how a new stucco system would be integrated into that window system in order to preserve the building. Anything regarding the issues that have been raised regarding the in-kind replacement? Oh, yeah. That, that, that they be, thank you for that. That, that, they be, my request would be that they be proposed to be windows to be replicated. The, the new windows to replicate the windows that are being replaced would be the clearest way to say that. Okay. And I, for my, I would add for clarity on that, that, that I don't think you're saying that's an absolute condition, but that would be a good, that's what you would like to see from. Yeah. That's what I would like to see. I would also, it is not the applicant, but it's free to decide they don't want to bring back that request. Yeah. And the other thing I would add is I would like to see a proposal for the garage door option. You mentioned you're amenable to replacing the garage door where a window was being proposed to be put with an alternate garage door. So it would be good to see some information and a detail regarding what you're proposing. It could even be a photo from a catalog or, but just something very, you know, so we can clearly understand what's being proposed. Great. That was clear to me. If it's clear to all the other board members, I'd ask if there's a second. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion by the board? Roll call vote, please. Member Simmons? Yes. Member Dignan? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, applicant. We'll see you when you come back. Next case on the agenda is 2026012839HDRB at 320 Camino Delora. This is Senior Planner McCully's case. Could we have the presentation up, please? Okay. This is case 2026012839HDRB for 320 Camino Delora for a status review. The single-family residence at 320 Camino Del Oro is located on the west side of Camino Del Oro, midway between Canyon and Camino San Acacio. We're not seeing the presentation. Just hang on a second. I think we have IT coming to the rescue. Thank you. The streetscape consists of Cristo Rey Parish Complex to the north and northeast, a vacant lot to the southeast, and residences to the south and further east. The residences are separated by yard walls of stucco and rock. The buildings range up to two stories with flat roofs, with the exception of a single pitched roof at the southern end of the streetscape. The Vicente and Petrita Brito House, located at 320 Camino De Lora, is currently listed as non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The property also consists of an accessory dwelling unit, shed, and yard walls, which have no status designation. The original footprint of the main house was constructed as a two-room adobe residence in the vernacular style in the 1930s. There were multiple additions on the rear of the structure with some showing in the 1960, 1966, and 1978 aerials. There was a large remodel of the main residence in the early 2000s under case H00129. The remodel included altering the style of the original structure from vernacular to Spanish Pueblo Revival. It also included replacement of windows and doors with opening changes, installation of new windows where there were none previously, three chimneys. Sorry. Too many buttons. And so there were the three chimneys, restoration of the brick coping, stucco, and construction of a portal with canalas on the east elevation. Oh, no. It is. Okay. They could read what I'm reading too. Yes. Okay. So to address some of the questions from the field trip, staff will add that the house was 550 square feet in 1945 and expanded to 790 square feet in the 1960s. The front door was moved to the north and replaced. The adobe interior wall was torn down and replaced with frame in the 1960s. All original windows were replaced with single-light aluminum windows in the 1960s. In 2001, the aluminum windows were replaced with custom-made divided light wood windows. Residents did have brick coping and was stuccoed over. Project in 2001 requested that the stucco be removed from the coping. This was not done at that time as the stucco still remains over the coping. The residents also once had overhanging eaves that were cut back and parapets were installed and stuccoed as noted in the 2000 case. The portals were enclosed after the 2001 case, which calls out that the portals will be reroofed. Staff tried to locate a photo of the resident showing the brick coping. Unfortunately, I was not able to find any, so I don't have proof of that at this time. It is evident from the 2026 HCPI by John Murphy that the original garage structure was present in 1960, and expansion and conversion of the garage were approved under case H01160. The expansion more than doubled the footprint of the original garage and created openings where none had existed. The garage door was replaced with French doors. Four portals were installed on the northeast and west elevations. The 2000s portion of the structure holds two sets of French doors on the north elevation and vinyl windows. The expansion and renovation of the building allowed for the conversion of the use from a garage to an accessory dwelling unit. A small shed is also located to the northwest of the main residence. The shed does not appear in the 1978 aerial of the property. The shed is obscured by a large tree in most aerials, so its state of construction is unclear. I will note it was not located on the drawings in the 2001 case. This was most likely constructed in the early 2000s with the property remodel, though it is not called out as part of the work. It is constructed of pressboard and planks with a pitched shingle roof. Staff recommends that this is non-contributing due to age, design, and uncertain origin. Yard walls on the property were constructed in the early 2000s along its east, west, and north sides. Yard walls were part of the project from case H00129 and include the construction of a stuccoed masonry wall along the east property line ranging in height between 43 and 60 inches in height. A round arch wood vernacular gate at 52 inches in height on the south end of the east wall. A six-foot, six-inch high pedestrian gate, a 52-inch high stuccoed masonry wall along the north property line with a 48-inch to 60-inch high cedar plate fence along the west property line. All of the yard walls should be considered non-contributing due to age. The applicant is requesting the status review with primary facade designation, if applicable, for the main residential structure and the accessory dwelling unit, and a status review for the yard walls. Staff requests that this shed is also designated. Due to the substantial changes on each structure, the recommends that the historic status of the main residence be maintained as non-contributing and the accessory dwelling unit, shed, and yard walls be designated as non-contributing for Section 14-4.6C designation status. It was discussed to some extent at the site visit that possibly the main house might be considered contributing due to it still having its original footprint. If the board does lean that direction, staff would recommend R6, which is the north facade as the primary elevation because it's the only elevation that retains the original openings. We stand for questions. Thank you for the presentation. Board members, questions for staff. Member Cherry, you have one. I didn't see a facade map in the packet. Is there a facade map in the presentation? It should have been in the packet, but it's usually in the staff report. It's also right here on the screen. Gotcha. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Any other comments, questions, Member Cherry? Not at this time. Okay. Anyone else on the board? Nope. Applicant, please step forward and be sworn. Are you both going to speak? Okay. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Richard Martinez, 925 PO Box 925, Santa Fe. Ma'am? Go ahead. Mary Harding, 320 Camino Dolores, Santa Fe. Thank you. Do you raise your right hand? Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And do this under the penalties of perjury. Right. Thank you. Ma'am? Thank you. May I be sworn? Great. Thank you very much. Welcome. You have the floor for anything you'd like to tell the board. Well, we have owned the house for about eight years, and we closed our business in Iowa two years ago. So now we're here permanently, and we would like to add on to the— I'm just cautioning you because people don't normally know this when they come before us, but this will be a two-step process where, first, we'll do what we're doing tonight, which is a status review solely for the purpose of the board determining what historic status the property should have. And then after that's done, if you have plans to do any alterations to the building, you'll come back a second time. And so I'll just stop you because we've always taken the view that the applicant's intentions regarding what they would like to do at the property are not properly before the board during the status review. So with that in mind, is there anything that you'd like to tell us about what's before us tonight, the status of the property? Just that we love the house and are glad to be here. Mhm. Great. Thank you. It's a beautiful house. Mr. Martinez? Thank you. We agree with the recommendations of the staff. The house has been greatly altered, as well as the guest house. The casita has been greatly altered. And it's a romantic idea of what Santa Fe style is, sort of Mexican, sort of Spanish, sort of Santa Fe, but it's not what the house looked like originally. And for that reason, we are in agreement with the recommendations of staff. Questions for the applicant? None? Great. Anyone in the room wishing to speak on this project, please step forward. I see no one. And is there anyone on Zoom? Yes. Sharvien Venue, Miss Benanato, who was previously sworn, you may unmute. Miss Benanato, you have the floor. Thank you very much. I find it unfortunate that the board in the early 2000s allowed so many changes to this building. But I do agree with staff's recommendation that facade six, since it's original, and it is sort of character-defining and that the main, the original historic footprint is still there, although encompassed by additions or, which are mostly behind it, not in front of it, that you could find this to be a contributing building with only that one facade being primary, which again would not inhibit any kind of additions that the owners might make. I wonder if you would require the owners to reveal the brick coping that is supposedly there, and that was supposed to have been done prior. And I also really have to say that Spanish Pueblo Revival style that this is much closer to a modified vernacular, or yeah. Spanish vernacular style, which is a one-story that has vigas usually, maybe exposed, maybe not, maybe with portales, maybe not. It depends on how, you know, who built the building and how much money they had, whether those kinds of details occur, but it's a one-story basically adobe building. Spanish Pueblo to me is something that has some kind of setback to it. At least, that is a partial second story. Thank you. Thank you. Board members, do you have any further— Would you like to add something? Oh, sure. Mr. Martinez. If there is a brick coping, I don't see any evidence that it's still there. Usually, when brick copings are covered by stucco, you can see, like, a bulge at the top of the parapet. I don't see any sign that that is, that that exists anymore. And also, contributing means it contributes to the streetscape, and I don't know that the, that the footprint being the criteria for any contributing would, would contribute at all to the streetscape. Thank you. Board members, Member Cherry. Thank you. I have a question for staff. Can you explain the, just the status of the guest house a little more clearly? Because it's, it's contributing with non-contributing addition. Is that— No. The, the guest house is not currently statused. Oh, it's not statused as well as the main— nothing yet. Okay. Thank you. Is the main house statused as non-contributing or not statused? The main house is non-contributing. Everything else is not designated. Thanks for the clarification. Okay. Thank you. Any further comments or discussion on the part of the board? I'll entertain a motion. I can meet Member Cherry? So I would say, I guess I would preface this by saying there was a vigorous discussion about, about this property, and it has been heavily altered. However, it does, it does maintain its footprint and mass that I believe gives it, maintains its, its character. And I, I understand staff's recommendation and why they recommended it, and I understand John Murphy's recommendation and why he recommended it. I, I respectfully disagree with, with him to some degree on that one. So in case number 2026012839HTRB, 320 Camino de Laura, I would move that the house be made contributing with the R6 facade as the primary facade, and that the shed and the yard wall and the guest house be non-contributing. Second, Dagan. You. Further discussion on the motion. Help. Roll call, Bill, please. Member Simmons? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. And thank you, applicants. We'll see you again. Next, that completes all of the applications before us. Next item on the agenda are discussion items. Are there any items to discuss on the part of staff or the board? No? Matters from the board? Any matters from the board? Board members wish to bring to our attention? Yeah. I would, I would just— Number three. Cherry. Thank you. I would make a comment that I, I found it valuable tonight to have the format that we had where we were able to discuss these issues, I felt, amongst board members to, openly to get clarity as opposed to the majority of meetings I've been at. That discussion hasn't existed. And I think that that was valuable to, it as opposed to the style where all the questions are asked, and it seems like a little unknown what everybody's position is until a motion hits the floor. So I felt like this was productive and valuable and added a lot of validity to the decisions that were made in a transparent way. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Next meeting is 09/08/2026. A motion to adjourn. So moved.