Historic Districts Review Board Field Trip Tue, Apr 28, 2026 ยท Historic Districts Review Board Field Trip https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1483 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board Field Trip covered several key items, including the approval of past meeting findings and conclusions, and a significant public comment regarding the board's future. Stephanie Beninato expressed strong concerns about a potential proposal to eliminate the board, urging members to defend its vital role in preserving Santa Fe's cultural and aesthetic heritage. Staff confirmed that a legislative request concerning the board's future is in process. The board also reviewed and made decisions on two new business cases. They approved the construction of a casita and carport addition at 1379 Central Gordo, and the demolition of a non-contributing accessory structure at 1062 Camino Sanakasio, despite public comment about "demolition by neglect." A third case, 120 Camino Santiago, involved extensive discussion and conditional approval for renovations, with specific requirements for window repair and the use of cementitious stucco. Finally, the board reviewed nominations for the 54th Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards across several categories, including Architectural Preservation, Compatible New Construction, and Cultural Preservation. Members were instructed to vote for one nominee per category, with a future discussion planned to consider multiple winners if merited. An upcoming meeting with a code consultant to discuss the future of historic preservation ordinances was also announced. == Key Decisions == - Approved the meeting agenda with one change: staff communications would be heard after new business cases. - Approved four findings and conclusions from June 2025 meetings. - Approved the construction of a 1,240 sq ft casita and a 225 sq ft carport addition at 1379 Sarra Gordo (Case 2026-012127 HDRB). - Approved the demolition of a 755 sq ft accessory structure at 1062 Camino Sanakasio (Case 2026-012133 HDRB). - Conditionally approved renovations at 120 Camino Santiago (Case 2026-01-2137 HDRB), requiring the historic window on the primary facade to be repaired (not replaced) and the use of cementitious stucco with a brocade finish and a color similar to the existing. - Decided that board members will vote for one nominee in each Heritage Preservation Award category, with a discussion on potential multiple winners to follow at a later meeting. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve Case 2026-012127 HDRB, 1379 Sarra Gordo, as submitted โ€” Passed (Yes from Simmons, Cherry, Benu, Bishide, Dman). - Motion to approve the demolition of 1062 Camino Sanio, finding that the criteria for demolition were met (not historically important, not an essential part of a unique street section, unacceptable state of repair, and not structurally sound) โ€” Passed 5-0. - Motion to approve Case 2026-01-2137 HDRB, 120 Camino Santiago, with conditions: the historic window on the primary facade must be repaired, not replaced; the stucco must be re-stuccoed with the same brocade finish and a color similar to the existing, using cementitious stucco โ€” Passed (Votes from Member Degen, Member Beach, Member Simmons, Member Cherry, and Member Ben). == Public Comment == Stephanie Beninato expressed strong concern about a potential proposal by Councilor Faulkner to eliminate the Historic Design Review Board. She urged the board to actively defend its existence, highlighting its importance to the city's cultural, economic, and aesthetic well-being. Another public commenter raised concerns about "demolition by neglect" regarding 1062 Camino Sanio. Ms. Benonato also commented on the 120 Camino Santiago case, raising concerns about the applicant's testimony, window maintenance, stucco appropriateness, and yard wall visibility. == Topics == - Historic Board Preservation - Heritage Preservation Awards - Demolition of Structures - Casita and Carport Addition - Land Development Code Update - Public Comment Procedures - Meeting Procedures - Appeals Process == Full Transcript == We are live. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Historic District Review Board. Today is April the 28th, 2026. May we have a roll call, please? Member Simmons. Member Cherry: Here. Member Rios: Here. Member Bishide: Here. Member Dman: Here. Member Benu: Here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Yes, Chair Rios. Item number seven, staff communications, will be heard after new business cases. Thank you. Any other changes? No, Chair. All those in favor of approving the agenda as just indicated, say "Aye." Aye. Those opposed, say "No." Thank you. We don't have any minutes in this particular packet, and we'll move on to findings and conclusions. There are four of them. Two of them are from June the 10th, and two of them are from June the 24th, all 2025. Changes to any of these, board members or staff? If not, is there a motion to approve? Move to approve all findings and conclusions as submitted. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, say "Aye." Aye. Opposed, say "No." Matters from the public. Is there anyone in this room that wishes to speak not in reference to your particular case, but in reference to something that might be bugging you in reference to H-Board banners? I didn't think so. You all look so pleasant out there. Is there anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios. Stephanie Beninato. Stephanie, you can unmute. Miss Beninato, if you... Yes, I think I'm unmuted at this point. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you. Okay, great. Again, I brought up last week or two weeks ago about this mention of doing away with the Historic Design Review Board. There was an article in the paper shortly after that about Councilor Faulkner wanting to introduce something to do away with the board, and I and other people did write comments on that article saying that it would be a huge mistake. I'm not sure when that will come up to council. I have not looked at the agenda, but I believe there has to be at least two weeks or more for the Open Meetings Act to be complied with. And I don't know what you as a board can do, but it seems to me that there should be some reaction on the part of the board to save the Historic Preservation Board because it is essential to the cultural history, well-being, economic well-being, cultural well-being, and aesthetics of our town. And even though I disagree with some of the things you do, I disagree with when you allow two people to make a vote on what is a seven-person board, and I think that's a misinterpretation of law. I do appreciate your efforts to preserve the history, and that includes the architectural features such as windows and doors when appropriate, and that you are, I think, making more of an effort in the past few years to actually tie your decisions to your practices or the ordinance itself. And again, I'm just urging you, I don't know how you can do this, but urging you to speak up too, and not just think that members of the public are going to speak up for the board. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else online? No, Chair. Thank you. We don't have anything under old business, but we do have three cases under... Chair, just one item. I'd just like to respond to Miss Beninato's comment regarding... Absolutely. Please do. And just to give her an idea, the legislative request has been submitted, but it's going to take a while for staff to process that legislative request. So, it won't be within two weeks, and I doubt it will be within a month, but just to watch the agendas for that if it were to come to pass. But we are responding to that as... Thank you. Anything else, Heather? Sorry. No, thank you, Chair Rios. Thank you. So we will move on to new business. And I do need to tell you, if you disagree with the decision this board makes, you do have the option to appeal to the City Council. And do get together with staff because there are time constraints, and you need to follow those rules. So, moving on. And I do want to say, if you're a person from the public that wishes to comment on a case, we will have a two-minute limit. And somebody, such as Gary or someone, could you move that screen so that the board can see it a little bit better? Thank you. And the first case this evening is located at 1379 Central Gordo. I'm going to assume one of the applicants are coming forward, and Amanda is going to tell us about this case. Thank you, Chair Rios and members of the board. We're having a little bit of technical issues with this computer here. So, Director Lamboy is going to go ahead and play my presentation. So, I wanted to begin with this property. It is located at 1379 Sarra Gorda Road. It's in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. It's non-contributing. Steve McCormack is the agent for Wendy Laauo, who is the owner, and they propose to construct a 1,240 square foot casita and a 225 square foot carport addition to the height of 11 feet 4 inches, where the maximum allowable height is 21 feet 6 inches. The existing primary residence was built in 1989 and is non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The existing residence is 2,047 square feet, and the casita and the carport total will be 1,465 square feet. The casita will be stuccoed with stucco in a desert sun color, and the windows in a chutney color, and all exposed wood will match existing wood finishes. The new garage door will be painted to match existing headers, and the metal handrail will be dark bronze to match existing light features. The new drip edge along the carport will also be in dark bronze. And staff recommends approval of the proposed projects and finds the application complies with Section 14-4.6E, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-4.6G2, Downtown and East Side Design Standards. I stand for questions. Thank you, Amanda. What is the public visibility of the project? It is up on Sarra Gordo in the hill, but it is set back behind the primary structure. So I did not... I saw little visibility with the story poles, if none at all. Any other questions for Amanda at this point? Board members? Yes. Member Simmons: Thank you. Madam Chair, in the drawing packet, there showed some drawings of the elevations that looked like from a previous proposal. Was that approved by this board? For the original residence? For the addition? It looked like there were some drawings in the packet that there was a previous proposal for the addition that's now being revised. Am I seeing that correctly? There was a previous proposal that did not come before the board because the applicant and staff reworked the application, but I believe the ones that were in the packet were the most recent. Thank you. Yes, there are no other questions. Will the applicant come forward and get sworn in, please? Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Steve McCormack, 318 West Gomez Road, Santa Fe 8750. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Please proceed. Good evening, Mr. McCormack. Do you have further things to add to what Amanda just told us? I guess I would just reiterate that the proposed addition matches all existing finishes and is, I think, impossible to see from Sarra Gordo. You know, the first slide showed the visibility of the house from Sarra Gordo, and you can barely see the house, and we're behind the house. Yeah, those are the best views of the house from Sarra Gordo, the only views of the house. Is that grade where you're going to put the proposed house going to be disturbed to make it similar, to make it at the same grade as the existing? Yes, the carport is at the same level as the existing. I'm sorry. What did you ask about disturbing grade? Madam Chair, you're going to be removing dirt from the... Is that correct? Yes, over by the casita in particular. Any other questions? No other questions? Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this particular project? No one. Anyone online? Sorry for the delay. Too many windows. There are no hands raised, Chair. Okay. I will entertain a motion at this point. Member Cherry. Yeah. So in case 2026-012127 HDRB, 1379 Sarra Road, I would move that the application be approved as submitted, that it meets all the criteria set forth in the code, and the only comment I have is I think it's a good example of really appropriate design in the historic district. Is there a second? Thank you for your motion. Second to this motion. Each side seconds. If there is nothing further to add, may we have a roll call vote, please? Member Simmons: Yes. Member Cherry: Yes. Member Benu: Yes. Member Bishide: Yes. And Member Dman. Thank you, Dman. Well, thank you, Mr. Motion carries. I remember my name. Thank you. Thank you. Next case is located at 1062 Camino Sanakasio. Thank you. So this is case 2026-012133 HDRB for 1062 Camino Sanakasio. This property currently has two buildings on it. The front building is a contributing building and is not subject to this request. The second building is an accessory structure, which is about 755 square feet, and it is the subject of tonight's case. You want to switch slides for me? We can go on to the next slide. Sorry. So the southern structure in this image is the one that we're discussing. The request is to demolish this structure entirely. The structure is, according to the structural engineer, is... I don't have my... is derelict and is not capable of being salvaged. It is not a livable facility. It has no electric and no plumbing. So the applicant is asking to go ahead and demolish that so that they can use the lot for a residence. You can go ahead and change the slide. These are just images of it as it exists currently. Next slide. You guys get the idea of what it looks like. And I'll stand... Staff is recommending approval, stating that the demolition complies with Section 14-2.1G3 and 14-4.6D11, Demolition of Historic Structures. Thank you, Lanny. Any questions for Lanny at this point? Board members, there are no questions for you, Lanny. And applicant, would you step to the podium and get sworn in, please? Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Brown, 7604 Old San. Thank you, Gabriel. 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? Thank you, sir. Do you have anything further to add? Not much. I think Lanny did a good job of presenting it. We have a building that has been falling down for many years, used to be falling down. It's not of much value, even if it weren't falling down, and we asked for permission to remove it and beautiful home site. I stand open for questions. Was this used as a workshop or as a garage or what? I think both of those over its history. It has big doors on it. I was first there in the early '80s, and there was a furniture shop in that space, and the back of the space was full of sawdust. Furniture shops there in the '80s. Before that, I think it was really a shed for animals at one point, goats and donkeys on the... And I take it it hasn't been used for a while. It's mostly unused. I'm a general contractor. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? No questions. Anyone wishing to comment on this particular project? No one in this room? Anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios. Miss Benonato, please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Hi, Stephanie. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalty of perjury? Yes, I do. I understand that this building is now falling down, but if it was used in the 1980s, one has to wonder in the past 25 years why no one did anything to correct or maintain it. And again, it seems like we have too many buildings that there's demolition by neglect, and then somebody comes in later on and goes, "Whoops. So, guess what? The building's falling down. Now, we need to demolish it." I'm hoping there'll be a somewhat more usable building there and in keeping with the neighborhood, but again, I just raised this issue of demolition by neglect, especially since this contractor was aware of it in the 1980s, and then wonder what happened in the last 25 years. Thank you. Anyone else? I believe you should be ready to make a motion. Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. Case number 2026 01. No. Yeah. 012133 HDR. No. Yes, that's correct. I'll say it again. 202612133 HDRB at 1062 Camino Sanio. I would move that findings be entered that the demolition criteria set forth in our ordinance have been met in this case to justify demolition, specifically, the structure is not of historical importance as it was deemed non-contributing by the Historic Districts Review Board. The structure is not an essential part of a unique street section or walk since it has been disconnected from the residence and does not contribute to the district. And the state of repair has been shown through evidence from the applicant to be unacceptable, and the structural stability has been shown through an engineer's report to be not structurally sound. Therefore, I would approve the demolition and the application as submitted. Cherry seconds. Roll call vote, please. Member Simmons, Yes. Member Denon, Yes. Member Bishide, Yes. Member Cherry, yes. Member Benvvenu, Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you, sir. And the last case this evening is located at 120 Camino Santiago. And I see that the applicant is coming forward. Lanny, would you give us a report, please? Okay. So this is case 2026 012137 HDRB for 120 Camino Santiago. 120 Camino Santiago is part of the Plaza Delonte historic compound. It is listed as contributing with the west facade as primary. The applicant is proposing to construct a 162-foot portal extension. The portal already exists, but they're going to make it larger. A 16 square foot addition underneath the carport. Replace windows and doors, stucco, re-roof, and remove a window awning, install some HVAC, construct some yard walls and gates, and some other minor work. They have a request and an exception to section 14-4.6E 4 I A for replacing windows on the primary facade. Staff will note that the window assessment shows that that window can be repaired rather than replaced. And then the second exception they have requested is to section 14-4.6e42 to change the stucco type, color, and finish. The existing building currently has a peachish colored brocade texture, and the applicant is requesting to change the stucco to a sand finish with cotton wooden color. I will note that the application had two different colors listed. One was cottonwood, one was tumbleweed. Both not really, they don't actually match the downtown and east side historic district colors. So staff is, staff finds that the exception criteria to section 14-4.6E41A have not been met and recommends denial of the replacement of the window on the primary facade. Staff also finds that the exception criteria to section 14-4.6E42 have not been met and recommends denial to the change of the stucco type, color, and finish. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-4.6E general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4.6 G2 for the downtown and east side historic districts standards. I stand for questions. Lanny, are there any walls part of this project? Yes, they have some yard walls planned in the rear of the building. Only in the rear part of the, The rear and the sides, not in front. And can you describe those, please? They range in height from 5'8 and then they come down to four feet four inches depending on which, where it's located on the property. You mean in the back? What is, So the back is going to be taller at 5'8, and then as it comes forward, it's going to lower. On the side, it's going to be 4 feet, or is it going to start at 5'8? Towards the front of the building, when it's coming towards the front, is when it goes lower. But is any part of that 5'8 on the side? On the side would be, so the back and the sides are going to be five feet eight, and then the front, and then it goes down. Any other questions? The exhibit on the yard walls is on the screen for you. It illustrates the step and the location to be the building. Okay. Thank you. So if there are no other questions, applicant, would you get to the podium and get sworn in, please? Hi, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Garcia, 7276 East Center. Fernando, 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? I do. Thank you. He has been sworn, Chair. Mr. Garcia, what do you have to add to what staff just told us? Just want to note that there are multiple homes within the same subdivision on the same street that have been remodeled with window replacement, which have windows that do not meet historic guidelines. Front window in question that we are hoping to replace will meet the same style and look of the existing historic window, just updated because according to the window system, these are all steel windows and they're posing to damage. And how many windows are you proposing to replace? All the windows, Which equals how many? Eight or none. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? No questions or comments. Anyone in this room wishing to comment? No one. Anyone online? Yes, Cherios. Miss Benonato, previously sworn. Stephanie. Yes. Hello. I couldn't hear a word that the applicant said at all. So I don't know what he was talking about in terms of windows or anything else. I think that the window on the primary facade, if it's in good condition, should be maintained. And, in terms of the stucco, you know, I think that people, I mean, unless the whole community has that same color, and it's, and it's, if it's visible from the street, perhaps the board would want to maintain it. But it would seem to me that an owner shouldn't be able to have a color that's approved for perhaps the texture, the brocade, which is, you know, part of the, probably the makeup of that compound, that that might be required. And then with the fences or walls that we, I guess walls, fencing that were not really talked about at all. I wonder how much you see from the front of the house. I know it doesn't go in front of the house, but it does seemingly go to the front of the house. And it would seem that the part that is facing the street and that is parallel to the front, that it should be lower and not just the gate. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on the, board members? You didn't have any questions. I don't know if you have questions now. I have a question for, Member Cherry. So the site visit today, it came up that there were some of these houses that this proposal is being compared to that were foam float or sand finish with the stucco that were done either unpermitted or outside of their, what was approved. Can you explain to us? I know I noticed two houses on the street. There's a house adjacent to the south and there's another house. Is that, are, were those houses approved for a sand finish stucco or, or what's the, what's the status of that? Because that's what's being used as a criteria reasoning for allowing this. So, So the units that you're talking about are 117 and 122 Commamino Sonicasio. I'm sorry, Santiago. Been doing that all day. And they are both listed as non-contributing buildings, but their approvals were for restucking with the brocade finish. So they did not follow the directions and approval. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Member Benu. Thank you, Madam J. I guess I do have a few questions now just so I can understand the situation with the windows. So the exception request is that just for window A, are all other window, None of the other windows are protected. Window A is the only one that requires the exception. Okay. And window A, I think in your staff, so all other windows staff agrees can be replaced as requested. Yes. In your, in staff's response to the exception request to replace window A, staff says the window assessment shows the window can be repaired, but the window assessment was fair, which we've had this discussion on multiple occasions. Doesn't that, does that mean it can be repaired or does that mean that it's more than 30% degraded? I am unsure of the answer to that question. Well, let's see his report. I should just be able to answer this myself. Yeah. His terminology is extremely confusing. So, we've gone over his reports before, but under his system, even though fair sounds like it is acceptable, he defines fair as some members are 30 to 40% completely deteriorated and putty glazing, cracking, and missing in 30 to 40% of the sashes. And under that general rule of thumb that staff has applied in the past, I thought that meant that staff considered those replaceable. I'm not saying I agree with that. This is a subject that I hope we clarify when we get together and develop our guidelines on windows and settle these issues once and for all. But I think that in the past, that's how staff has approached that question. Am I right? So I'm not sure percent, I'm sorry, Member Bianu, generally that is a rule of thumb, but it is up to the board to determine whether that is appropriate. Okay. But, but that is, but that rule of thumb would be in conflict with staff's recommendation in this particular case. I think if staff's rule of thumb is that anything more than 30% degraded can be repaired. I think the window assessment is putting it into that category. Member of INU, staff has reviewed the situation on the ground, done a site visit. Okay. And reviewed the record and the report and is of the opinion that that one particular window, and it's only one out of the entire building, can be repaired. Okay. That clarifies the situation for me. That's, you're not relying on the assessment. You're relying on your own assessment. Okay, that makes perfect sense to me. And then just for further clarification of the staff report, did you, you know, you went through the criteria individually and there are, I think three for windows, right? First one's did not damage the character of the district. You found that criterion was not, you recommended a finding that the criterion is not met. The second is they're required to prevent a hardship to the applicant. Staff response: staff finds that this criterion is met, but I think that perhaps that's a mistake and that you meant to say is not met. That is correct. It should say is not met. That's perfectly fine. I just want to make sure the record's clear that you found that all three criteria were not met. And the same thing is for number three: strengthen the unique, heterogeneous character of the city. Staff response says staff finds this criterion is met, but I think you meant not met, correct? That is correct. It's not met. So, not met in all three cases. Okay. Well, that clarifies it for me. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one more question about the staff's recommendation for the stucco exception. You mentioned that units numbers 117 and 122 had approval for the same color, but not the same finish. Is that correct? It's the finish that is the biggest issue. And so, just to clarify for this project, the color is acceptable to staff. Cottonwood is not generally acceptable in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. It doesn't, it's not in keeping with the rest of the district. But our biggest concern is changing the texture. Right. So, I, yeah, it's my understanding that Cottonwood was one of the colors, it's pretty close to white, that we don't usually approve for this district. So, is there a Cottonwood house in the streetscape? His neighbor is either a Tumbleweed or Cottonwood color. It's right in that. And was that done with approval? That was a, it was a staff approval. For the color? Yes. Not the texture. Can you talk to us about why that was acceptable? That was a previous staff member. I couldn't speak for why he did that. So, Chair Rios and Member Beach, the approval for that 122 Camino Santiago was supposed to be, it shows here as Buckskin. Yeah, it's been Buckskin and cementitious. The color is actually not. Thank you. A voting property owner to the south. So, I guess I'm confused now. It was approved as Buckskin and stuccoed in Cottonwood. It was approved Buckskin with brocade and stuccoed with Cottonwood sand finish. It was approved as Buckskin, and it's not Cottonwood. The color on site is not Cottonwood. Cottonwood is a very light greenish color, and that was a brown color. Right. That's the color I saw on that house. We're talking about the house to the south. In my opinion, the house to the south is not Buckskin right now. It is what in your? I don't know, but it's not Buckskin. Buckskin is much closer to all of the houses that were in that original area, the sort of lighter brown, you know, very, very light, light brown. And that house was a, was, I would think it would be either Cottonwood or, yeah, maybe Sahara or something. It was a, it was a more dark, kind of greenish brown on the house to the south. And Chair Rios, for Cherry, the, remember, keep in mind there's been no final inspection and it was not completed according to the approval. So, that's sort of not pertinent to the conversation we're having right now. Sort of not, but I think it sort of is because it's being compared to what's being asked to be approved for this house. And be considered as it is not permitted. Okay. Yeah, but. Color was permitted. You know, something different. Well, which is Buckskin. So, like the, the lighter peach color is not being required by staff, but the, the stucco pattern and texture was required by staff. Right. Understood. Just to be clear, too, that the next house to the south right now looks like it just has a brown coat on it, which is gray in color. It doesn't have a color code yet. Yes, I took a photo today. I was going to follow up. Okay. Peach, right? Just to continue my, that's like a discussion. Is, do we think the peach color is historic or why, because this is a, you know, contributing building with a primary facade. Did we not consider the stucco color to be part of that characteristic defining feature? Chair Rios, Member Beach, with reference to the color, I think it is historic based on the reviews we've already had. This was all developed as one compound as part of the Plaza Monte. I think there is, it does get addressed in the overall compound designation, but it was not formally ever designated as a compound. Unfortunately, that was never approved. So, there are some buildings in the compound that are contributing. There are some buildings that are non-contributing. So, I believe it is the non-contributing buildings that have been allowed for a different stucco color and that that is the reason it's not considered historically contributing, but it would have been preferred to have the same color as originally designed by Felipe Register in the 1950s. But sometimes the, the ordinance doesn't support us. Yeah, I understand that. That makes sense. My question about the colors, because I understood the staff recommendation to be specific to the brocade texture and that the color proposed would be a color change, would be acceptable. Is that, did I misunderstand that? Because my preference would be to stay with color and. Right. So, staff was not opposed to changing the color. It's that we would like a color that's more in keeping with the Downtown and East Side. I will point out that several of the properties there have already changed their colors even though they are contributing. So, it's not, it's not just the non-contributing. Is, do you know if those approvals were from, were by approval from the H-Board or staff? Some of them were H-Board and some of them were staff. But if you, if you could review the, when they made the buildings contributing, they did not call out specifically the, the stucco color, but the stucco texture. I see. Okay. Thank you. That helps. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? No further questions or comments? So, a motion is in order at this point. And remember there are exceptions involved in this case. Member Ben. Okay. So, thank you, Madam Chair. So, this is case 2026-01-2137 HDRB at 120 Camino Santiago. Let's see. There are requests for exceptions that I'll address separately. First request is to replace a window, a historic window on a primary facade. I would move to adopt staff's recommendations based on its staff's determination that the historic window on the primary facade is repairable. I would note that historic windows on primary facades are specifically called out to be protected in the historic ordinance. And that's been true since 1957 in recognition of the critical importance of historic windows to the character of our historic buildings. In order to replace rather than repair historic windows on primary facades, the an applicant has the burden of demonstrating all exception criteria having been met. In this case, staff recommends that these exception criteria have not been met with respect to this window because first, the, the replacement of the historic window will not be of the same material and the window is repairable. Therefore, the alteration and removal of historic materials on the primary facade in this instance would damage the character of the district. With respect to criterion number two, required to prevent a hardship to the applicant, staff recommends that this criterion is not met because, and it notes that the applicant did not address hardship in their comments, though by definition did not meet their burden of establishing that that criterion was met. And in any event, there is no showing of a hardship to the applicant or an injury to the public welfare that would result from restoration of this historic window rather than replacement. And finally, with respect to the criterion of strengthening the unique, heterogeneous character of the city by providing a full range of design options, again, staff has recommended that that criterion in its judgment has not been met by the applicant because the material will be different and historic materials will be lost and the window is repairable. So, based on all of those findings which would be entered into the findings and conclusions, that criteria has not been met, the criteria have not been met for replacement rather than repair. With respect to the second request, the alteration of architectural features, finishes and details, the, with respect to the stucco, again, staff has recommended that the three criterion have not been met and I would also have findings entered agreeing with staff's recommendations. And in addition, that I would add that the changing of the historic color would also, which is a character-defining feature of this particular historic property, would also require an exception and that criteria for that have not been met either. So, based on the criteria not having been met for the two exceptions, I would move that the applicant, the application be approved in all respects, except that there be an additional condition that the historic window on the primary facade be repaired rather than replaced and that the stucco restuccoing be with the same brocade finish and similar in color to existing. Chair, second. Wait, did you second? Secretary. Yeah, I'd like to, I'd like to make a friendly amendment. Same. I, I did. Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm happy to let you go first with your amendment if you want. I wanted to suggest that we, I, I believe the application proposes the use of a synthetic stucco and I wanted to suggest that we condition the motion to use a cementitious stucco instead. I accept that as friendly on the basis that I believe historically that has always been the position of the board on a contributing story. Yes. Thank you. And I have a friendly amendment that is also called out in the code, but just that the condenser be non-publicly visible. It's shown in the south. I believe I'm just confused as to where, where the new condenser location is. There's a condenser location shown in the south elevation on A24. But just that my amendment would be that that to reiterate that any, any rooftop mini split condensers be non-publicly visible. I have no objection to that amendment, but is it, is, doesn't the application already indicate that it'll be non-publicly visible or am I thinking of another case? If it doesn't, then I think that does need to be made part of the motion for sure. I, I think it, I mean, I think the, the mini split. Is that what you're talking about? The. Yeah. It's the application says the condenser will be on the ground and will be by the yard wall. That's what I thought of. Then. Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that. Okay. So, we don't need the amendment. We don't need my amendment. Sir, to book that. But I agree with. Anything else with Beach's amendment? Maybe. Member Degen. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Simmons. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Ben. Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. We're done with the cases this evening. So, we will move on to staff communications. This has to do with Heritage Preservation Awards. The fun stuff. Okay. If you could please pull up the podium. Thank you. So, we are back for the 2026 Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards. This is the 54th year of the Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards. The awards will be held at Sammy Gal Chapel on Thursday, May 21st at 5:30 p.m. And then after the awards, a reception at Alagwan at 545 Canyon Road. We hope you all can be in attendance. So, our first category tonight is the Architectural Preservation Award, and this is for outstanding examples of restoration or rehabilitation of a designated historic property. We have three nominees for this award. First, we have 4 Montoya Circle, which is located downtown in the East Side Historic District. It's contributing, and they constructed a 315-square-foot addition and Ramada, re-stuccoed, repaired the windows. Here is a picture of 4 Montoya Circle. They did a really good job on this property. We have 220 Rodriguez Street, which is a contributing residence in the Downtown and East Side Historic District, and they constructed alterations and additions and took this back to its original form and integrity with the mud plaster. I don't know if you guys can see it in the picture, but the texture is really cool. Then we have 423 Camino Don Miguel. This is in the Downtown and East Side Historic District, and it's non-contributing. They removed 1,570 square feet of non-historic element and returned the building to the original 860-square-foot adobe footprint. We received many nominations for this property. Next, we have the Compatible Remodel Award. I will make a note: there were a few changes from the earlier field trip document that you were given. A few were taken off when we did the site visit. There were a few that were removed. So, what is on your desk is the final list. First, we have 553 West San Francisco. This is in the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. It's a non-contributing building, and a 500-square-foot addition, yard wall, and fence alterations have been done. Next, for Compatible Remodel, we have 1027 Canyon Road. This is in the Downtown and East Side Historic District, a non-contributing building. We replaced the entry door with a custom wood door, stained. They moved the existing skylight and added additional skylights, installed a not publicly visible roof-mounted condenser mini-split system, and re-stuccoed the house with cementitious adobe. It looks really nice. Next, we have 350 Hillside Avenue in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. This is a non-contributing building, 755 square feet, a one-story addition on the east elevation and east and south elevation. This was, I believe, pre-manufactured, and that came out really nice as well. Next, we have 125 Don Street. This is in the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. This contributed, and they did an enclosure of their rear porch, and that was nominated as well. Next, we have Compatible New Construction, and this is an award that we give for outstanding examples of new construction that harmonizes with the historic structures in the historic districts. First, we have 213 Delgado Street. It's a 2,500-square-foot new residence and a 280-square-foot garage to the height of 13 feet and 6 inches. We have 213 and a half Delgado Street. This is a 2,485-square-foot building and yard walls. We have 215 Delgado Street, and this is also in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. They demolished the existing casita to construct a single-family residence. Finally, we have 416 Acequia Madre. This is in the Downtown Historic District. It is a 1,573-square-foot addition, excuse me, a square-foot new residence to a height of 14 feet, and they did a really good job on this as well. So, we have some very nice buildings to look at for these preservation awards. Next, I want to talk about the Cultural Preservation Award. This is for outstanding examples of work toward the preservation and/or the understanding of Santa Fe's unique cultural heritage, which we are so very proud of. First, we have the Pueblo of Tesuque for the interest of preserving the ancestral land of O'gah P'ogeh with historic preservation and archaeological preservation. Next, we have Alas de Cultura and their dedication to preserving and promoting art, culture, and traditions of Northern New Mexico. So, these are our nominations. I gave you your nomination sheets. If you could fill them out before you leave for the evening or get them to me by Friday at 5:00 p.m., that would be greatly appreciated. Again, the award ceremony will be Thursday, May 21st, at 5:30 p.m. at San Miguel Chapel. I will be reaching out to board members to give out the awards. Thank you, Amanda. Any questions or comments? Yes, Member Simmons. Thank you, Madam Chair. Are we to vote for one in each category? Yes. Members of the board, if you could vote for one in each category. Any other questions? Thank you, Madam Chair. So, first of all, thank you for putting together a list of really, I think, well-deserving, all of them or most of them, well-deserving of these awards. I'm not really sure whether staff did some or all of these. I know some board members were also contributing. I just want to confess I did not because every year I have such a difficult time going back over and remembering what the cases were, and especially it's difficult because, as you can tell from our list, some of these cases were from several years prior, but they were just finally completed this year. So, it's just difficult to really have a mental checklist to go through. So, I always, when this comes around every year, ask for staff to, if they would be so kind as to make mental notes throughout the year, both when projects are being approved, but even more importantly, when they're being given final inspections so that we know that they're done, that you make a note because you're the true experts in the area for all of these so that you can help us with this process at the end. So, thank you for, I think that's been done this year, and I appreciate that. Just one question. So, just the Architectural Preservation Award, the 423 Camino Don Miguel is listed as being a non-contributing building, whereas the description of the award is an example of restoration of a designated historic property. That seems a little bit in conflict, but has staff determined that non-contributing can still be considered a historic property for purposes of these awards so that we can still consider that? Yes, thank you, Member Benavidez, and members of the board. So, I believe that there had been enough work done to change it to non-contributing status, but the original footprint is what they're returning to. So then it is restorative to its original footprint. So maybe in the future, it could be re-listed that it was brought back to the original. And the property is more than 50 years old, obviously, right? Yes. Okay, that's great. Thank you. I was going to say, you know, throughout the years, I've been wanting to make a mental note. Never do. Once the project is finished, I go, "Oh, that's great. That's great." And I drive by it. "Oh, what a wonderful project to nominate," not writing anything down. So, you know, we as well as staff can do that, right? And I thought some of these were very good nominations. I agree. In the past, I just wanted to put a little bug in your ear. In the past, if we thought that some were really excellent, we would have two in one category or whatever that's worth. Thank you, Chair Rios. Winners in one category. I, in particular, thought that the Architectural Preservation Award, I think they're all good. Today, when we were on the field trip, the picture did not, the photo did not do the Rodriguez project justice. That is a mud-plastered building. Who does that nowadays? Yeah, it was. Nobody. Anyway, any other comments? Well, hope to see you all hand in your nominations, and we'll definitely see you in May during the awards, and we'll move on to discussion items. Yes, Heather and Gary. Question regarding what your line of thought was. Did you want us to respond with the number one and number two? So, at the next meeting, you can as a body determine whether you want to have two awards or one award. I don't know. What do you all think? Or should we just state? I mean, that was just something that I threw out. What do you all think? All the votes together. You know, got the most votes, second. This is a personal opinion that you're asking. I just think I'm delighted there are many possibilities, but it does, in my mind, dilute the importance of the award. That's just my opinion. Not saying you shouldn't do it, but what do other board members think? I guess my comment would just be, I don't think it hurts if you want to give us the results in a form that's sort of like it was a, you know, one vote difference, but, you know, half the people wanted one, half the other, except for one. Plus, it might be worth knowing that, and then we could decide if there was a case we thought deserved that treatment. I don't think it really hurts to get the results back. I think when I first joined the board, people voted right here on the podium, which was awkward. So, yeah, I don't think there's anything secret about the votes per se, but so yeah, I think that could be shared. Certainly report back results. The votes. By blind copy. Yeah, via email, and then if there are any concerns that you may have, you can bring that up at the next. I think the other thing that came up on the field trip today was what if there's a tie? If there were only one, or is the, are the two awards for one category if there's a tie? But if there's a unanimous on the... Chair makes, breaks the tie. Just kidding. You do vote, don't you? You should be voting on this. Yeah, I think what I guess I would say is just give us the actual votes on every one of these, and then we can decide if there's anything that we need to take into consideration in making the final decision. We did discuss rank choice. Yeah. Gary, did you have something? Yes, Chair Rios, if you're done with that subject. Are we done with that? Yes. Just to notify the board that Matt Goble, the code consultant, will be here in town on May 21st and 22nd. On the 22nd, we're trying to see if the H-Board can meet with him in the afternoon. Who is that? Matt Goble is the code consultant. For Phase Two. Mr. Goble did the first phase of the land development code update previously, and he showed up to some of the subcommittee meetings. Based on our experience and hindsight, he's going to become more involved. We're still going to have a special Historic Preservation Committee to talk about the Historic Districts Ordinance update of the code. So, the intent for Mr. Goble is to really get an understanding of where this board wants the historic preservation ordinances to go for the next 50 years and really just sort of brainstorm what high-level changes that the board may or may not want to see. Remind us through an email. Yes, I will send an email. Thank you. Get some response. Anything else? No, Chair Rios. Matters from the board. Anybody have anything? Nobody. And our next meeting is going to be May the 12th. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. And is there a second? All those in favor say "aye." Aye. And oppose say "no." So, there are no opposition. Good evening, everyone. Thank you. And look at the time.