Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, May 13, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/568 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board addressed a range of topics including agenda amendments, minutes review, and several property-specific cases. Key discussions involved the reinstallation of a camera on the Plaza gazebo without HDRB approval, concerns about the lengthy historic approval process, and the absence of an architect on the board. The board also reviewed and voted on the historic status and proposed alterations for several properties, including 815 Dunlap Street, 137 East Santa Fe Avenue, 629 Camino del Monte Sol, and 224 and 228 East Palace Avenue (Marian Hall and Drury Hotel). Significant decisions included upgrading the residential structure at 815 Dunlap Street to "contributing" status, designating the residence at 137 East Santa Fe Avenue as "significant" despite some alterations, and maintaining the "non-contributing" status for 629 Camino del Monte Sol while approving proposed alterations with specific window conditions. The board also approved the demolition of an accessory structure at 345 Garcia Street and a multi-phase development plan for Marian Hall and the Drury Hotel, including exceptions for window infill. Public comments highlighted issues like the impact of the monthly submittal schedule, the importance of HDRB authority, and the need for consistent enforcement of historic preservation guidelines. == Key Decisions == - Approved the amended agenda. - Approved the minutes from April 8, 2025, as amended. - Approved the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for December 10, 2024. - Upgraded the residential structure at 815 Dunlap Street to "contributing" status, with specific primary facade designations and exclusions for non-historic elements. - Designated the garage and storage structures at 815 Dunlap Street as "non-contributing." - Designated the residence at 137 East Santa Fe Avenue as "significant," with the mudroom addition recognized as separate but historic, and explicitly excluding vinyl siding, fascia, soffit, and mini-split lines from the significant designation. - Designated the garage at 137 East Santa Fe Avenue as "contributing" with the south facade as primary (excluding garage doors). - Designated the east yard wall at 137 East Santa Fe Avenue as "contributing" (contingent on property ownership and board authority). - Maintained the "non-contributing" status for the property at 629 Camino del Monte Sol. - Approved proposed alterations for 629 Camino del Monte Sol, with the condition that windows be consistent in a square or vertical pattern and allowing simulated divided lights. - Approved the demolition of the non-contributing accessory structure at 345 Garcia Street. - Approved the application for Case 20250349 HDRB at 821 Acequia Madre as submitted. - Approved the multi-phase development plan for 224 and 228 East Palace Avenue (Marian Hall and Drury Hotel), including the exception for infilling two windows on the eastern elevation. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the amended agenda — Passed unanimously (Aye). - Motion to approve the minutes from April 8, 2025, as amended — Passed unanimously (Aye). - Motion to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for December 10, 2024 — Passed unanimously (Aye). - Motion to adopt staff recommendations for 815 Dunlap Street (upgrading residential structure to 'contributing,' designating garage and storage as 'non-contributing') — Passed unanimously (5-0). - Motion to designate the residence at 137 East Santa Fe Avenue as 'significant' (with mudroom as separate but historic, excluding vinyl siding, fascia, soffit, and mini-split lines), the garage as 'contributing' (south facade primary excluding garage doors), and the east yard wall as 'contributing' (contingent on ownership/authority) — Passed 4 Yes, 1 No. - Motion to maintain the non-contributing status for the property at 629 Camino del Monte Sol — Passed. - Motion to approve the windows as submitted for 629 Camino del Monte Sol, allowing either horizontal or vertical simulated divided lights — Failed (2 Yes, 3 No). - Motion to adopt staff's recommendations for 629 Camino del Monte Sol, approving the application with the condition that windows be consistent in a square or vertical pattern and allowing simulated divided lights — Passed (5 Yes, 0 No). - Motion to approve staff's recommendation to demolish the non-contributing accessory structure at 345 Garcia Street — Passed (5 Yes, 0 No). - Motion to approve the application for Case 20250349 HDRB at 821 Acequia Madre as submitted — Passed unanimously (4 Yes). - Motion to approve the application for 224 and 228 East Palace Avenue (Marian Hall and Drury Hotel), including the exception for infilling two windows on the eastern elevation — Passed unanimously (5-0). - Motion to adjourn — Made and seconded. == Public Comment == Public comments covered a range of concerns, including the reinstallation of a camera on the Plaza gazebo without HDRB approval, the destruction of acequias, and the HDRB's delegated authority. Specific criticisms were raised about a previously approved "portal" with a plastic roof and visible HVAC units at a hotel. Richard Martinez criticized the board's return to a once-per-month submittal schedule, citing difficulties for citizens and project delays. Other commenters highlighted the lengthy approval process for historic projects, the absence of an architect on the board, and the importance of preserving historic properties and their associated features. Concerns were also raised about the visibility of public notices for projects. == Topics == - Public Meeting Notices - Historic Preservation Awards - Application Process Delays - Plaza Camera Installation - Acequia Preservation - Historic Status Review Process - Chapter 14 Delegation - Unscreened HVAC Units - Historic District Map Update - St. Catherine's Indian School - Portal Definition == Full Transcript == Chair, we are working on some technology things. We'll let you know when we're ready. Please let us know when we are live. Madam Chair, we are live. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. Today is May 13, 2025. This meeting is now called to order. Roll call, please. Madam Chair Rios, here. Vice Chair Benu, here. Member Aguilera Madrono, here. Member Dagnen, here. Member Mather. Thank you. Member Cherry, here. Member Beich, here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much, Miranda. Are there any changes to this evening's agenda? Chair Rios and honorable members, yes. Item 12, the next meeting will be held at the Convention Center, May 27th, in Ballroom B, 201 Marcy Street. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as just amended? So moved. Second. All those in favor of this motion say aye. Aye. Say no. Motion is adopted. We have minutes of April 8th, 2025. Changes to the statement. Member Benu. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. This was April 8th, correct? Yes. On page 15, one-third of the way down, the paragraph that begins "Acting Chair Benu," the second sentence states, "Even if property is not publicly visible, it is still considered part of the streetscape." Add the words "district and" before the word "streetscape." The next sentence says, "The status does not determine what can or cannot be done." Add the word "conclusively" between "not" and "determine" so that it reads, "The status does not conclusively determine what can or cannot be done." That's all I have. Thank you. Any other members have changes or anyone on staff? If not, do I hear a motion to approve? I move to approve the minutes as amended. Second. All those in favor of this motion say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. We have one finding of fact and conclusions. Findings of fact and conclusions of law. That's December 10th, 2024. Changes to this at 710 Canyon Road. Any changes? It appears there are no changes. Is there a motion to approve? I move to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for case 2024009479 HDRB. Second. All those in favor of this motion say aye. Aye. Those say no. Thank you. Matters from the public. Is there anyone in this audience that wishes to come forward to the podium and speak on anything related to historic preservation? You may come up right now. Stephanie Benato, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes, now we can. I was still wondering about when you're going to have any kind of report on St. Catherine's Indian School. I understand that there's going to be a rezoning, or there's thought about rezoning it. Also, I think in that case on Acequia Madre, I think it was 925, with that so-called portal that you approved with the really substandard plastic roof, that you really set a bad precedent. And it was particularly disappointing that you didn't even discuss whether it was a portal or not. And again, I think that sets a very bad precedent because my understanding is that portals are actually attached to a building and not just freestanding. And the other thing I want to bring to your attention is that, although at another property on Upper Canyon, I believe it was, you talked about not being able to see a skylight, but over a year ago, I brought to your attention that 300 Galisteo Street, the hotel that I think it's called El Sendero, I might not have that name right, but it's right across from the State Land Office and the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum, at a minimum, all have HVACs, huge HVACs that are totally visible from the street. And so far, nothing has happened about that. So, I kind of wonder when there'll be some enforcement of the idea that they're supposed to be screened. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Benato. Next. Members of the board, Chair, my name is Rick Martinez. I'm here tonight because I stood here last year at almost the same time to talk about a camera that was installed over the gazebo or the bandstand. I like to call it the bandstand. And it was up. We, the public, raised a hue and cry, and they took it down right away before, I guess, anybody could see it. Now it's back up. And they do this without any public review, without any word from you guys, without you guys, whether it's good. It's a permanent fixture on the Plaza, on the gazebo. To me, I think that that is not the right thing to do. You should have public review. You guys should even be able to sign off on this. And why you're not able to sign off on it, and why a special department in the city gets to avoid talking to the board about this. You guys check, approve everything that goes on in the Plaza. I think, is that true? I don't know if that's true, but I hope it's true because it's really important. I've been volunteering for many years on the Plaza. Actually, last night, I finished restaining the floor in the bandstand, making it really good. You know, I hope we'd like to have the bandstand looking good for the summer shows that we have, but when you have a camera sitting up there, musicians don't want to see that camera up there. People in the audience that are attending these concerts don't want to see a camera staring down right at them, especially if it's right dead center in the middle of the gazebo or the bandstand, like I call it again. But who do I go to to ask how do we take this down? You know, we've checked with the House, but no one else doesn't want to do nothing. You know, it's just really a shame that these departments get to go do whatever they want on the Plaza, and then when the public has to do changes for anything or wants to do something in the public place, they have to come to you to get it done if it's in the historic district. So once again, you guys are being ignored, and I can't figure out how that happens, why it happens, or unless you guys approved it and didn't tell us. So that's just my thoughts here too. And one more thing, I wish you guys could have a better preview on the acequias that are around town, especially west of St. Francis Drive. They're being destroyed, and no one's looking at those. I know you guys don't have nothing to do with the acequias, but you know, they're historic as they were part of the archaeological review when the developer came in and destroyed it. But there's nothing that has happened. There's no penalty. I've seen developers who are doing this stuff. I think our city is going in the wrong direction for preservation, and we need more people to stand up to help do that. So I thank you. Thank you, Rick. And Heather. Thank you, Chair Rios. Well, thank you, Rick, for letting us know about that. I will reach out to the Parks Department as well as others to find out what happened there, and hopefully, like last year, it'll get removed. Because that's something we would object to. And then with reference to acequias, we applied for a grant for an update to David Snow's 1989 acequia study, and with the aim of preserving them. And we will have that, and the Archaeological Review Committee has dedicated some funding to it as well out of their discretionary fund. So, it's probably not moving as fast as we would want it to, but it is on a work plan. Letting developers get away with it for now until we show the developers they can't be doing this, then I promise they'll stop doing it. Now, they're just, once again, east, west, west of St. Right. Well, hello. My name is Elizabeth West, and I, you know, this just reminds me again how lucky we are to be in a country where we still can speak up, and I really appreciate being able to do this with you all. I kind of agree with Mr. Martinez, and but it sounds like he's doing the right thing mentioning it, and I don't think it's an excuse, but it's an explanation that you can't be everywhere. Are you hearing me? I'm sort of not hearing myself, but maybe that's refreshing. I am here because of a funny reason. I'm a retired librarian, so you'd think I'd have something better to do than to study Chapter 14. But that's what keeps me up at night occasionally. That's not the only thing. I'm just going to read you one part of it that I'm have been learning about. And then I have a handout if it's okay of things that I think are interesting about Chapter 14. And this will just show that I'm preparing for, I don't know, a quiz sometime. Article 2.6b 6B is kind of a fun one. So, I'm just going to read it to you. It's a delegation having to do with what is delegated to you guys, to the Historic Districts Review Board. By the way, I heard somebody calling them "design," and that shows they're part of history, right? Anyway, this part says, "The governing body and the Planning Commission, those two entities, hereby delegate their authority as set forth generally in Chapter 3, Articles 19 through 21 in the New Mexico Statutes Annotated from 1978." I gather it's been updated as of 2024, but anyway, it's the part I'm reading refers to 1978. "They delegate to the HDRB, the Historic Districts Review Board, as described in this section, except those powers retained by the governing body and the Planning Commission in the Santa Fe City Code. The HDRB shall carry out the city's powers and duties pursuant to Chapter 3, Article 22, NMSA 1978." I think that's kind of fun because you are given, and this doesn't happen in a lot of historic places around our country. The, I don't know exactly why they did it, but my fantasy is that the governing body back then and the Planning Commission, since they were given the authority to do this if they wanted to, decided, "Yeah, these guys should be the people doing it." And I remember about a year and a half ago or two years ago, the mayor even said one time when something came, an appeal to the city, said, "You know what? I don't think they had a long discussion. I don't think we really know what we're talking about here. I believe we should send it back to the H board." And I made a mental note. I made a mental note to make sure and tell the mayor I appreciated his wisdom at that moment. And so I would like to hand these out if that's okay. And I made enough copies for everybody in this part of the room to have it. And I'm sorry it's such a weird thingy here. So thank you. I put my name and my email there, and I think one of those might have a coffee stain on it, but if you got that one, that's, we'll forgive you, Elizabeth. Okay. Thank you very much. So, Stephanie, Rick, and Elizabeth, Elizabeth, thank you for taking time from your busy schedules to come and make your concerns known. I think that's very important in a community, even though we're not a huge community, but we are an involved community, and I think it's important that citizens from the community come and make their concerns known. So, thank you. And I'm going to guess there's no one else in this audience that wishes to speak at this time, but maybe staff has something for us. Anything under staff communications, Gary? We have one on Zoom. There was someone on Zoom under matters from the public. Okay, we'll recognize that person or persons. The person who would like to speak is Richard Martinez. Richard, you may unmute and speak. Can you hear me? I unmuted. I can. Oh, thank you. Two matters that I want to discuss. One is that this board has gone back to a schedule of submittals only accepted once per month. That is difficult for many of the citizens of this community because it means that if one submittal is missed, we have to wait a whole month for the next submittal to be made. I have a project right now in which we submitted for the April submittal, but we didn't get the PZR signed in time, and so they put us off until the May submittal, and we haven't heard on that yet. I actually had started this process with the city in February. So you can imagine if it takes months for us to get before this board. I just today I heard of a project from somebody else, this is back in 2020, in which going through the historic board and getting their approvals took them 14 months. They said that was $28,000 in mortgage payments on this house that was unlivable and couldn't start construction. So, I would like if we could look into, I know that the staff is overworked, but it would be nice if we could go back and we could re-look at the schedule for submittals because it used to be that we could do it every two months. This committee put it to one month per submittal every month, and that was rescinded because it was so difficult for the public. Then also I want to say that this board is supposed to have an architect as part of the board, as part of the makeup of the board, and there is no architect right now on this board. So I want to urge this board to talk to the mayor because he is responsible for this, and we need an architect on this board because architects often times understand the submittals and ask questions that are more succinct and to the point so that they can speak with the applicant. So that's all. Thank you. Chair: Thank you, Richard. Is anyone else on Zoom? No one else. Attorney Rubelli, did you want to comment on something? Are we on staff communications? Okay. I wanted to bring to the board, apprise you with the status of a case that this board considered back in 2021. This was an application by Gravity Pad to build a 65-foot cell tower on the campus at St. John's College. There was a hearing that took place over two nights, July 13th, 2021, August 10th, 2021. That case was 2021-3844-HDRB. As you know, this case has a long history. The H board approved it back in 2021. The neighborhood, the Upper Camino de Cruz Blanca neighborhood, filed an appeal which the governing body refused to hear because the appeal was filed beyond the appellate deadline for land use appeals. The neighborhood appealed it to the District Court. The District Court ruled in favor of the neighborhood. The City Attorney's office tried to appeal that to the Court of Appeals, but the Court of Appeals declared our petition to be a non-conforming petition for certiorari. And there are some very technical differences between a petition for certiorari and a notice of appeal. We appealed the dismissal to the New Mexico Supreme Court. The New Mexico Supreme Court denied hearing that matter. So, it had to go back to the governing body for there to be an appeal hearing on it. But in the meantime, in my communications with the president at St. John's College, Mr. Sterling, and his administrative staff, they have indicated they no longer wish to pursue the construction of the cell tower as it was designed by Gravity Pad, and they also have indicated they no longer have a contract with Gravity Pad Partners LLC. So therefore, they would not be proceeding, there was no need to proceed with the appeal to the governing body. I indicated to them that if they have, because they're unwilling to proceed with the appeal, if they want to build another cell tower, they'll have to come up with another design. Or if they want to proceed with the same design, they'll have to go back to the HDRB for another hearing. So, it appears at this time that that cell tower will not be built as it was planned and approved by this board back in 2021. They indicated that they may work on a redesign after they complete a capital campaign that they indicated will take them through the end of this year or later on this year. Chair: Thank you, Frank. Anyone else on staff wishing to inform us on anything? Gary? Gary: Yes. Chair Rios and members of the board, just wanted to remind you that the 2025 sign up, the Historic Preservation Awards, will be this Thursday at 5:30 at San Miguel Chapel. Chair: Okay. And the public is invited to those too. Anything else? Yes, Heather. Heather: Thank you, Chair Rios. Just as a point of information for 614 Paseo de Peralta, it was scheduled last month, May 30th, I believe, City Council, I'm sorry, April 30th, City Council meeting, and it was late in the night and the applicant decided to postpone that. So it was postponed to June 11th, and in consultation with City Attorney and the applicant, due to conflicts, it will be heard at the June 25th, 2025 hearing regarding 614 Peralta, the decision to deny by the H board the proposed approximately 6-foot fence, coyote fence, at the front of the property. Then the next thing is a preview of things to come. The green building code is going through the process for adoption for an update. This is relative to the building code more than it is to our code. But as we hear proposals and the like, I thought it would be good for this board to know about the components of the green building code and what may or may not impact historic buildings. So, there will be an educational session on that next time. Also coming your way is a copy of the disposition report and the code update for the land development code. We will be providing an educational session and discussion session next time on May 27th to review the changes and to discuss any potential concerns. That's not the ultimate date where the HDRB has to make a recommendation. That is the date where we're introducing it to. Although you'll have a copy in advance, I'm sending it to you tonight. I just got the disposition final disposition report. So what the disposition report does is it outlines what changes have been made and it's a matrix. So it makes it a little simpler instead of going through every word, but you're of course welcome to go through every word if you want to. I think member BM, just kidding. So anyway, we're looking forward to your comments and input on that. It will be introduced at the City Council on May 28th, and then on June 10th, when it will come to this board for review and comment and a recommendation. The hearing will not occur in the final hearing because we have to go through boards and commissions and committees like the Planning Commission and the different subcommittees of the council. So the anticipated adoption date would be July 30th. So, it's really important to provide this board plenty of time to conduct their review. I think we've come up with some good solutions, and if at any time you have a question, please feel free to reach out to me or Maggie Moore. Daniel Alvarado, who was managing that project, left to another position in Mountain Village, Colorado. So, we are the two of us managing that project for now to get it through that phase one. And the anticipated start date of phase two will be concurrent with the update of the Santa Fe Forward General Plan. And the first open house for the Santa Fe Forward General Plan is scheduled from 10 to 2 on June 14th, 2025, at the Midtown Higher Education Center. So, additionally, we'll be working with the Technical Advisory Committee, and we are making some final decisions on community partners so that these organizations can also do some outreach as partners for the Santa Fe Forward Plan. And that concludes. Chair: During this time, will we be able to hear from the public or is it just H board input? Heather: So, the next meeting where we're going to present in a study session format, certainly it's the pleasure of the board to allow for public comment. It's at the end of the agenda because it's going to be sort of a, I imagine, lengthy discussion. I don't want to let applicants get their cases heard before we do that. So, it's up to the pleasure of the chair and the board as to whether you want to allow public comment at that point or whether you want to wait for the formal hearing. Chair: Thank you. Anything else? Heather: That's it. Chair: Okay. We have nothing under old business and we have seven cases under new business. The first case is located at 815 Dunlap, and I'm going to guess that the applicant is here. Chris is here, and that is Lanny's case. Lanny, you have the floor. Please let us know about this case. Oh, I do have to tell you a couple of things. If you're going to, if you're a member of the public that is wanting to comment on particular cases, not if you're the applicant or the owner of the property, but if you're a member of the public that is just wanting to comment on any case, you are welcome to do so, but I'm going to limit you to two minutes. And if Miranda can help me on that, that would be great. Also, if anyone here disagrees with the decision that this board renders this evening, you do have the option to appeal to the City Council. And as was mentioned earlier, you do have time constraints, so make sure you follow those and staff can guide you through that process. Thank you. Lanny, you have the floor. Lanny: Good evening. This is case 202410291 HDRB for 8415 Dunlap Street for a status review. 815 Dunlap is on the north side of the road between South St. Francis Drive and Ambrosio Street. The 1,360-square-foot single-family residence is listed as non-contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. The two accessory structures in the rear of the lot have not been assigned a historic status. The single-story main residence was constructed of adobe in the 1930s with a 1940s addition on the north elevation. The 1940s addition appears to have been constructed to have interior access to the basement. A solar greenhouse was constructed sometime in the 1970s, 1980s. We haven't pinpointed the date on the south elevation. This greenhouse addition created a door where there was once a window. The residence is designed in a flat parapet with deep undulating points that conceal a low gabled roof. It originally had vigas which protruded on the west elevation which were removed after 1985. There also is evidence of the bathroom window on the west elevation being altered and the infill of a northeastern window after 1985. The windows all have concrete lug sills. For the most part, the windows are wood windows with one vinyl window centered in the west elevation and one steel casement window on the north elevation. The 1940s addition does not maintain the deep undulated points or the canales. It also has never had protruding vigas. The windows are higher on the structure than those in the 1930s construction. On the north elevation of the addition, there appears to have been an overhang or cover of some sort attached above the door, which has since been removed. The 1940s addition does have the concrete lug window sills except for the window on the northeast corner next to the door. This window is not inset and appears to be a newer installation than the other windows. In the northwest corner of the property sits a 600-square-foot wood-frame garage structure with board walls, a pitched corrugated metal roof, a roll-up metal vehicle door, and a pedestrian door. According to the 2025 HCPI, this structure may have started as a gabled roof building shown in the 1950s aerial. The structure now extends the length of the rear lot and connects to the other outbuilding. In the northeast corner of the property sits a 400-square-foot adobe flat roof accessory structure. The building has gray coat stucco with a single light window and a plywood door. The building was constructed in the 1950s as indicated in the 1925 HCPI aerials and retains its original footprint. though the garage storage structure connects to its western side. There are no case files in the Historic Preservation Division for this property, except for the single 2016 administrative approval, which approved the 48-inch high coyote fence with pilasters that encloses the southeast portion of the lot in front of the residence. The applicant is requesting a status review with primary facade designation, if applicable, for the residential structure, the garage accessory structure, and the storage accessory structure. The residence retains its original footprint, except for the non-contributing addition on the north elevation, and it holds some unique features, namely the distinctive undulating parapets characteristic of the housing in the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. Deep inset canal and most of the historic windows are still present. Sophia O. Sanchez subdivided the property in 1933, officially creating the Sanchez Subdivision. This is the first known Santa Fe subdivision created by a woman. This lot was subdivided off from the original lot and was deeded by Sophia Sanchez to her oldest son, Jose Jr., who built this residence. Therefore, staff recommends upgrading the structure to contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. It is not clear if the garage structure is the same structure as in the 1950s aerial, but it has changed extensively over the years and has more than doubled its size and is not constructed in a manner that would contribute to the overall neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends a non-contributing status for the garage. The storage unit is constructed of adobe and is in the original footprint of the structure. However, it does not hold any contributing features. Therefore, staff recommends a non-contributing status for the storage structure. In summary, staff recommends the historic status of the residential structure be upgraded to contributing, with the southwest and east facades of the original residence as primary, excluding the non-historic materials and excluding the greenhouse. The garage structure be designated as non-contributing, and the storage structure be designated as non-contributing for Section 14-5.2C2, designation of significant contributing and non-contributing status within historic districts. There's a facade map. Thank you, Lanny, for your report. You indicated the primary facades are the—you're recommending the south and the east, southeast, and west. Oh, and also west. Okay. Thank you. Board members, do any of you have questions for Lanny at this time? There's not. Applicants or applicant, please come forward. Chris, you'll need to get sworn in. Hello. Please state your name and address for the record. Christopher Pervis, 518 Old Santa Fe Trail. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in. Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a very complete report. You agree with that? And you agree with the recommendation? And you have nothing more to add. Okay. Let's see. Board members have questions for you. Anyone from the public wishing to comment in reference to this particular case? If so, come forward and you will need to get sworn in. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Stephanie Beninato, P.O. Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. You solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury. Yes. Thank you. I just want to say I agree with this staff report and I think it would be a good decision to preserve this building. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? No one else. I will entertain a motion, please. Vice Chair Benavidez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the presentation, and thank you, applicant, for your willingness to agree with the recommendation, which I also agree with. I thought it was quite straightforward and well-presented and well-rounded. So I would move that in case 2024010291 HDRB at 815 Dunlap Street, that the recommendations of staff be adopted as findings: that the residential structure be upgraded to contributing, with the southwest and east facades, which are designated as facades 4, 5, and 6 of the residence, as primary, excluding the non-historic materials and excluding the greenhouse. I would also add excluding the door opening, which appears to be non-historic, and in an ideal world, if the greenhouse were to be removed, would be returned to a window to reestablish the original symmetry of the street-facing facade. The garage structure be designated as non-contributing, and the storage structure also be designated as non-contributing. Do I hear a second? Don second. Do we have a roll call vote, please? Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Stan. Yes. Member Aguilera Madano. Yes. Vice Chair Benavidez. Yes. The motion has passed. Madam Chair, thank you, Chris, and thank you, Lanny. The next case is located at 137 East Santa Fe Avenue. This is Amanda's case. And is the applicant here? Yes, the applicant is here for this case and the next number of cases, Amanda. Thank you, Madam Chair. There we go. So, this case is 2025010331 HDRB, located at 137 East Santa Fe Avenue in the Don Gaspar Area Historic District. This case we're going to break down into three different sections. So, first we have the primary residence, which is contributing status. The next, a garage, which is also designated currently as contributing, and an east yard wall that does not have a designation at this time. The residence was built pre-1920 in a total of 2,142 square feet in a Craftsman architectural design style with flat port with a solid brick balustrade topped with cement coping. The window under the portal was changed out approximately in the 1950s. This facade that aligns the streetscape has pigeonhole brick features. The east elevation highlights cross and gable dormers. The original structure was red brick and was painted gray-green in the 1950s. We were only able to verify that with a verbal account. The chimney was created in a unique brick pattern as well. The west elevation has 10 over 1 and 8 over 1 windows and continues the pigeonhole brick design features. The mudroom addition is 108 square feet and it's located on the north facade with the with a basement entry, which is the smaller door on the bottom. And it has the basement goes under the mudroom and throughout the house. So our second structure is the garage, and that was built approximately in the late 1940s, early 50s, in a Pueblo Revival design style. Staff is recommending keeping this contributing status with the south as primary, excluding the garage doors. And the east side rubble stone yard wall was built prior to the 1950s, and it's approximately, excuse me, the 1950s, and it and approximately is 60 feet in length and ranges from 3 to 4 feet in height, and the wall is currently not statused, and staff is recommending contributing status of the wall. I stand for questions. Did you give us the recommendation for the house? The house is recommended significant with with the mudroom being accepted for that. Board members, do you have questions at this time or comments? Vice Chair Benavidez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just more of a comment. I think, I mean, one of the things that sort of stands out in looking at this property on site is its significance, and I'm not referring so much to the technical definition in our code, but just it's a significant building. It's very clearly, it has incredible historic integrity. The question sort of becomes, you know, you want to preserve it, you want to protect it. Is it a significant building with some exclusions, which is somewhat unusual? In fact, I don't think I've ever seen that in the time I've been on the board, but I don't know why that would be prohibited. Or alternatively, does it, is it a contributing building with all of the facades designated as primary, with the exception of the that back addition that you've excluded from the significant status recommendation? I think either way would be fine and accomplish the purposes. But in looking back again at the HICPI, I think it's more appropriate to do what you are recommending, which is the significant status, because I think it's significant not only for its presence as an extremely well-preserved building from that era, but also is has significance with its associations with the people that lived in it, particularly Cleofas, who was an important figure in New Mexico history and built the house, or at least his son built that. Daughter, maybe one of the children built the house. Then there was the Shia family that owned it, with jewelry stores in town that are also part of the business history of Santa Fe. So I would be inclined to accept the recommendation of significance for that additional reason because of its associations. In addition to the fact that it could just be a contributing building with lots of elevations preserved. I guess the other, the, I think the color is also important to protect. It's not the original color, but you just said that you have oral evidence that it is from the 50s, which would mean that it's it's been present for 75 years potentially. With that very distinctive color, I think that's important. Our code recognizes that changes to a historic property that have become historic in their own right should also be protected. So I would, if if we do follow those recommendations, which I agree with, I would just hope that the board also calls out in particular the the color, as well as the asphalt roof, which I think is important as well, especially considering that we've seen some of these roofs in this area being replaced with highly reflective and in my mind not harmonious roofs. So I would like to see the asphalt roofing protected as well. The only other thing I was going to mention is that I also think there's some importance to this building in the way it interacts with the building directly to the east, which appears to be constructed probably at the same time by the same builder, has very, very similar details, and is also has incredible historic integrity and is extremely well-preserved. So I think the two of them have a synergy between them that's very important to protect as well. Those are my only comments for now. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Benavidez. This is a wonderful example of a bungalow Craftsman style building. It really is. And as we that live here in Santa Fe know that in this neighborhood there are many of those style buildings. You know, this is very different than the Pueblo Revival buildings. You have different style buildings that have that denote a certain period in time and that are pitched roof, and this is a very good example, and I agree with Vice Chair Benavidez's comments. Other members of this board have comment at this time. Member BJ. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just, I have the same initial reaction as Member Benavidez about the exclusion on a significant designated building. I think there are other very similar bungalow style buildings with mudrooms on the back, maybe even on the same street, and I just curious if staff has researched the status of those. I don't recall, I don't think that those were also significant because I remember approving some changes to the to the backs of those houses in some cases. I just want to make sure that we're being consistent in our application of a significant status. I agree it's a wonderful example that is deserving of preservation. I just want to make sure we're not overstepping and designating one very similar house as significant, whereas another as contributing. Thank you. I wanted, we do not have, or I do not have information about other structures in the neighborhood, but I can tell you this mudroom was built probably approximately late 40s, early 50s. So it is still historic and has historic significance. And I believe taking it from contributing to significant status was also based on the people who live there, the people who built it. All of that was taken into consideration, not just the mudroom. So I don't know if there was a way to status that differently. But just to be clear, in your recommendation, you're suggesting that we exclude the mudroom from the significant status. So if you wanted to still make it as a primary, excluding and making it historic, I don't know how the board wanted to reference that. Yeah, and similar to Member Vivien, I don't remember ever excluding elements on a significant designation. Thank you for the explanation. Age-wise, it can also be included. It meets the timeline in reference to age, so it can be included. I don't know. I've never heard of a case where you have something that is significant and then you have a portion that might be contributing. Heather: Yes, Heather. Thank you, Chair Rios. So with reference to the mudroom, there are a couple of things at play. So the mudroom itself does not relate to the architecture, exemplify the architecture of the bungalow style. It was something that was purely utilitarian. And so therefore it was not seen as, although it is historic, it is not a defining characteristic of the house and really doesn't relate architecturally to the house at all. There are other cases on Santa Fe Avenue and other bungalow cases where those have been removed and approved by the H board, especially along Don Gaspar, the twin houses there. There was a situation where a mudroom was allowed to be changed and all of that. As well as, I believe there may have been another one that's further down Don Gaspar. The other thing, and relative to significant status, the street itself is primarily contributing. This map hasn't been completely updated. We're working on that project. So there's a lot of buildings in the Don Gaspar Historic District that are bungalow style that are significant, and there are two on this street, excluding our recommendation. So there's already two bungalows on the street that are designated as significant. Thank you for those comments. Anything else, board members? If not, oh yes, I would just speak my experience having worked on significant homes that have exclusion or excluded portions, portions, facades. Yeah. So I know that it does exist. I know that it's atypical. My, I've been reading these contributing of significant definitions. My understanding of, not verbatim of them, but the main difference of a significant to contributing structure is that the significant structure has been unmodified. So, although it doesn't say that in there, it's been, that's been enforced, I guess I would say, in the past in my experience, that's a reason for something to be significant is that it hasn't been modified. However, this, the mudroom is kind of unique because it's, it's basically an addition. My assumption is the brick wall behind it is the significant, potentially significant portion of the structure still exists there. I guess my other comment would be, my opinion is this building is really important and worthy of preservation. It's also the space around it is really important as well. You know, if you were to add on to the back, I guess my, my, it would, it would in my mind, it would sort of remove some of the integrity of the historic nature of the building, the space around it. I also think the wall is very important. It's very unique and very authentic and well preserved. And I think that I'd be curious to know if, if, if it was designated as staff recommends, would that contributing designation to the rear portion of the structure protect it less by protecting the structure the same amount? So in other words, if that was contributing instead of significant, would it be removed more easily? But then would it open up the back to some kind of an addition because that facade would then not be primary? Thank you for your comments, Member Cherry, and anyone else? Kayla. Kayla: Yes. Chair Rios, thank you. I appreciate your comments, Member Cherry. If it were contributing and not all facades were designated as primary, then of course it would open it up. But keep in mind that there are exceptions to the code as well. So the applicant could request an exception for any primary facade to do an addition. Of course, it's up to this board as to whether to determine that's consistent with keeping the character of the building and the intent of the ordinance or not. So any addition could happen on all facades provided they meet zoning standards. So, like you were talking about the space around the house on the front elevation, you know, the setback is such that they probably wouldn't be able to do much along the driveway. They wouldn't be able to do much because they still have to park, find or provide parking for per zoning standards. And so, you know, there's limited opportunity for those requests to be made in reality. Can I ask one more question, point of information regarding that? I've also worked on homes that have been had one designation and had other components and non-contributing. So I'm referring to more of the materials. For instance, this, this building has a vinyl siding on the addition. It also has vinyl soffits and vinyl coverings over the fascia material. It also has many split lines that are exposed to the exterior. So is it possible to give it a designation, exclude those elements of materials? Chair Rios: Member Cherry, yes. So I, I think the intent, overall intent is a significant building. Given that all four facades are considered primary and it's sort of similar in the vein of, you know, a primary facade, given that this north facade is going to be primary, if this is designated significant, then just like we did in the case on Dunlap, we excluded the greenhouse. This would be a similar situation and you're right, the materials and the changes on that, I mean, are not speaking to the overall history of the house and characters. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? None. Now we can hear from Gayla. Can you please raise your right hand? Will you state your name and address for the record? Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you very much, Madam Chair. She's been sworn in. Gayla, if you'll speak right into that mic so we can all hear you. Thank you. It's off. Oh, yeah. All right, I'll try it again. Gayla: For a structure to be designated as significant, it must retain a high level of historic integrity. When I saw the designation that was recommended by staff, the, the architect in me was like, well, wait a minute. The eaves are vinyl. And I'd like to point out in this photograph, the, the property next door, which I think is very similar architecture. You can see the exposed rafters on the eve. And so I think the eaves were actually quite important to the architecture, the original architecture of this, this, this structure. In addition to the, the vinyl siding and the, the changed window on the, uh, the porch, you can see in the front porch the beadboard that was part of the original eve. And so I can imagine how glorious this house would have been with the eve and the beadboard decking that you would see much like you probably see next door. So that caused me to read the definition of contributing and a structure located in a historic district approximately 50 years old or older that helps to establish and maintain the character of that historic district. Although a contributing structure is unique, is not unique in itself, you can see the neighbor or in other parts of the neighborhood. It adds to the historic associations or historical architectural design qualities. So the contributing structure may have had minor alterations, but its integrity, integrity remains. And so I would argue based on the definitions in the code that this house is absolutely contributing, but it is not a significant structure because the eve is altered greatly based on its character. You cannot see the rafters. The, it's vinyl siding and the window, the front window and the door facing the porch is, which is a very important part of this structure, is also, has also been altered. So I, that's what I, I mean, otherwise I agree with the wall. I agree with the garage. It's an absolutely wonderful structure, but it's, it's not in my mind significant. Thank you, Gayla. Board members, do you have questions or do you have further comments in reference to what Gayla just finished telling us? They're thinking about it. And while they're thinking about it, I'll ask for public comment. Please come forward. And you need to get sworn in. Hi. Can you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Daniel Pino: Daniel Pino, 141 East Santa Fe Avenue. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you, Madam Chair. He's sworn in. Good evening. You have the floor. Daniel Pino: I'm very happy to be here and talk about both of these properties on fourth generation. I'd had more prepared, but I know I have two minutes, so I'm going to rush through this and if you have questions, you can ask. I have some answers to some of the questions that have been raised so far. As I said, my name is Daniel Pino and I'm here this evening to offer brief comments regarding the historical context of the 137 East Santa Fe Avenue building and equally important, its sister companion property at 141 East Santa Fe Avenue that contains a historic divider stone wall and the eastern wall of the garage. I'm speaking not only for myself, but also on behalf of my family, including my parents who are in their 80s, my sister and others who are attending virtually today. I am fourth generation fam, a fourth generation family member living at 141 East Santa Fe Avenue. This corner residence along with 137 are historically known as R, as the Romero townhome residences. Both residences were constructed by the Romero family of Las Vegas, New Mexico in the early 1900s within what was then known as the Solomon Division. We are part of the living of their living descendants. And growing up at 141 East Santa Fe Avenue, that led me to study art and art and architectural history in France at Oberlin College and also at the University of Texas at Austin, where I focused on the Beaux-Arts from the, the École des Beaux-Arts movement, also arts and crafts movements within the United States and the UK and also the American Craftsman bungalow styles, which both of these homes are incredibly, that was the style that they chose at the time. So, our family has been part of the Santa Fe of Santa Fe Avenue from its earliest days and we intend to continue as stewards of this legacy for generations to come. We agree that the divider stone wall is historic and that the eastern garage wall located also on our 141 property lot should be considered as contributing to Santa Fe's history and we will preserve and maintain it as we always have. Answers to some of your questions as well. I'll see if they have any questions, but I'd like to just thank you for coming forward. I always love a long, me being a longtime Santa Fean, born and raised here. On my mother's side, we go back way back, and so I'm very interested in hearing from multigenerational people that have lived here in their family homes for a long time. So, I appreciate very much your comments. Do you live in the brick, the one that was shown in the picture? I'm the fourth generation. When I grew up, the house was the Sha home, and I knew them very well. In fact, they tried to force us, or not force us, but convince us over and over again, very persistently, to paint our house green, the same color that they did, and we resisted. So, on our property, we have resisted everything. That wall, we also have kept it in the exact same condition. We've maintained it. We have no plans to change it. In the 50s, and I submitted some pictures of my father standing by the garage, that wall went all the way back to the rear of both properties where the Pino Arroyo, named after our family, along with the Pino Road across from us on Weber Street, flows and still flows behind both of the properties. The rock wall went back to the Arroyo, to the end of the Solomon plat property line. In the early 50s, the garage already existed, but Mr. Sheab wanted a Cadillac, so he decided to knock down the wall when my grandmother was away running her businesses. He knocked down the wall to extend his garage. She was a widow, so she did not fight it at the time. Since that time, we have maintained that eastern wall of that garage, including two years ago when it needed to be restuccoed. We paid to have that eastern wall restuccoed. It's that important to us. It's a Pueblo Revival style. I've dedicated a lot of my life to studying architecture, and so it has not just personal meaning to me, but it's also part of our national heritage as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Stephanie, if we have any questions, Mr. Pino, just stand by. We'll ask you. Stephanie Benonato: I agree with staff's recommendations of significant for the main structure and contributing on the wall and the garage, even though the garage doors should definitely be excluded. The mudroom was added on and is historic, and the ordinance does say that you're allowed to change so that you can continue to live there, and that seems to be something they found necessary at the time. So, I'm not really sure that you should exclude it from that significant facade. I also do remind you, and it's a case that I'm really surprised that especially you, Member Benu, and Member Rios, do not remember, but across the street there, on Santa Fe Avenue, there's a house there that was owned by an oil and gas company for a while. It's still designated as significant, even though oil and gas added on an addition that covered about 10 feet of the back facade, which was primary, of course, and it was white-sided. Then you allowed the couple who bought it, who came from Louisiana, to add on a bathroom on the possibility that they might need a disability accessible bathroom. That too is white-sided. It is more conforming to the addition of the oil and gas addition as opposed to being harmonious with the original significant house. And I have requested that you look at the status of that building to downgrade it to contributing because that back facade is totally changed. Here you have a very small mudroom that is historic and that was utilitarian as described, and I don't really see any reason why that should detract from labeling the whole building significant. I understand that the eaves may have been changed with some material, but again, when did that happen? And is this something that was needed because maybe the eaves were deteriorating? We don't know. Maybe your staff member knows that, but I'm not sure that that would make it not contributing as opposed to significant. So, I hope you do preserve the main house as significant, not only because of its integrity, but also because of its history. Thank you. And I appreciate the Pinos' presence in the neighborhood and their deep caring for these structures. Thank you. Anyone else in this room wishing to speak on this project? I don't see any hands. Anyone on Zoom? No chairs. Members of the board, do you have any further questions, comments? If not, I am ready. I do. I have. Who owns the wall? Go ahead and come to the mic. That wall, going back to the 1915, 1910 Solomon plat, has always been part of 141 East Santa Fe Avenue. Both homes were built by the Romero family as townhomes. They lived in, they were ranchers and business and worked as merchants as well. And these two homes were their residences when they needed to come into town and work with the government. And it also led to family members becoming part of local government as well. That wall extended all the way to the Pino Arroyo, which still exists. It was called the Acequia de los Pinos. Pino Road runs along that Acequia. That wall ran all the way back. So, we've always maintained that wall, and we even maintain the eastern garage wall because it's still on our property. Thank you. So, was the answer 141 instead of 137? The answer is 141 instead of 137. Are we looking at the wall this evening, Heather? Yes, the wall is, staff is recommending contributing for the wall. Now, as far as ownership, that's a civil matter. I'm not sure who owns that wall, but I believe that wall is contributing to the neighborhood no matter who owns it. Heather: Yes, Chair Rios, I'm looking at the lot of record for this particular tract, and the rock wall seems to straddle a property line, and a portion of it does go into 137 East Santa Fe Avenue. Maybe we can postpone consideration of that element. Make sure that there's an agreement with the adjacent property owner for these folks to act on their behalf for the designation of the rock wall since there is a portion that does go onto the adjacent property. Board members, it looks like we are ready for a motion. Let me hear from someone. There's many of you here. Make a motion if no one else wants to. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I'm just based on the discussion we've been having and going back and forth amongst the board about this issue, about how to handle the mudroom. I'm inclined to think, I'm just not that comfortable with the concept of a structure that's significant and contributing at the same time. I think just logically, a significant structure is not just an extra special contributing structure. It's significant as an entirety. And in this case, I think that is true, even though we're recognizing that there are some accretive changes that have been made, some of which are perhaps less important. But I don't think that makes them contributing versus significant, particularly as I said before, because of this residence having larger significance, its association with the people that built it and lived in it, and its association on the streetscape, the entire subdivision, and the house directly adjacent to it, the Acequia that runs behind it, generally speaking, the entire district that it's located in, and particularly that section of that district. So, the motion I will make is that in 2025010331 HDRB 137 East Santa Fe Avenue, that findings be entered that this property, the residence, satisfies the definition of a significant structure under the ordinance for the reasons stated, while recognizing for future purposes that the mudroom addition in the back was a separate addition at a later time, though still historic, and that that factor may be taken into account in any request for exceptions that may come before the board in the future. Secondarily, that the garage maintain its contributing status with the south facade designated as primary, excluding the garage doors, and that the east yard wall be designated as contributing if in fact it's on this property, and if in fact we have the authority to make that designation here. It just strikes me that if it's not on this property, the notice procedure may not have been adequate for a designation of that wall. But if it is, then I would designate that as contributing as well. Do I hear a second? A Dagnen second. As long as I don't have to repeat that motion. You do not. Thank you. Does anyone need to add anything else? Yeah, I'd like to make a friendly amendment. Yes, ma'am. Excluding the vinyl siding, fascia, soffit, and the mini-split lines. Yeah, thank you for that. I meant to exclude those. And also recognizing that I believe one of the windows on the street facade is non-historic perhaps? Let me ask staff on that. Are they all historic or is one non-historic? The window that's under the portale seemed to be changed out in the 1950s. So, it is still historic. It's still historic. Okay. Well, so that would remain part of the designation, but with an understanding that that is not original to the house, but it is still historic. And so, and that amendment is accepted as friendly. Morning. I think there's a member. Thank you. Just a point of discussion. I just think that the nature of this conversation, where we have so many questions about what was original and what wasn't, and what should be included or excluded, just indicates that maybe this does not rise to the level of historic integrity that we normally associate with a significant structure. I think the, especially the argument about the eaves, is particularly compelling in my mind, but I would be more in favor of designating this as contributing with like three facades designated as primary. There's changes to three of the four facades, and one of the changes obscures one of the facades in a way that I don't think is of the highest level of integrity. Just some comments before we vote. Okay. Member Vite, any other comments in reference to the discussion that is taking place? So, we have a motion on the floor and a second. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes, ma'am. Member Beach. No. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Aguilera Madano. Yes. Vice Chair Benu. Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you. Building is significant. Thank you. Next case is located at 629 Mont. This is Paul's case. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board, the audience. Thank you for all of you for being here. In case number 2025010339 HDRB, the single-family residence at 629 Camino del Monte Sol is listed as non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The structure is part of a residential compound identified as 623 through 629 Camino del Monte Sol. And in Mr. John Murphy's 2025 Historical Historic Cultural Property Inventory, HCPI, survey report identifies the structure as being built pre-1958. Identification is through his aerial photographs. While the exact construction date is indeterminate, the 2,379 square foot structure was built in the Spanish Pueblo Revival architectural design style from adobe block and wooden viga construction materials, a flat roof with rounded parapets, and recessed doors and windows. Several additions and alterations were made to the structure in the early 2000s. All doors and windows on the structure are not historic, having been replaced in previous renovations. The original structure has been enveloped by these renovations and no longer holds the integrity of its original inception. The 2025 HCPI form identifies that 623 through 629 Camino del Monte Sol residential compound was established in 1988 per the plat map. Currently, all the structures in the compound are designated as non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. In the 1983 New Mexico Historic Building Inventory Form (HBI), 625 Camino de Monte Sol is identified as a triplex, possibly 625 through 629 Camino de Monte Sol. The structures are noted as being built post-World War II and in the Pueblo Revival design style. The 1992 HBI form records the date of construction from 1947 to 1992, built in the Spanish Pueblo Revival design style and being associated as condominiums. The 2025 HCPI form identifies that 623 through 629 Camino de Monte Sol residential compound was established in 1988 per the condominium plat. The compound comprises four separate properties currently present today, identified as 623, 625, 627, and 629 Camino del Monte Sol. Currently, all of the structures are designated as non-contributing. So, here we will review the facades on this structure. We only have three facades to look at: the south, east, and north. What we're reviewing here, as you drive into the complex, this road is uniquely situated as it skirts off the Camino del Monte Sol and heads east towards the mountains. 629 is situated at the back of this private driveway. You come across this coyote fence gate, and you have that southern facade associated with 625. Here we have that eastern facade or elevation. Here you have the opening doors and the windows and the robust massing. Another view of the east facade along the driveway that drives you into the structure. Here, in this bottom right corner photograph, you have that southern facade. Here is the 2003 garage addition constructed in a Pueblo Revival design style and that opened portal. In John Murphy's 2025 HCPI form, he identifies that the initial construction of this property was pre-1958, as identified in this aerial map. In 1966, it's established that we have that southern boundary wall established here. In 2005, Mr. Murphy provides a good map identifying the alterations and additions that have occurred on the property and by dates of their construction. Here we have the facade diagram, the proposed facade diagram, showing that we, as staff, after reviewing the HBI forms and HCPI forms and the history of the development of the structure and the renovations and alterations throughout time, staff finds that due to the substantive changes to the structure over time, the criteria for a contributing or significant status are not met and therefore recommends that the existing non-contributing status be retained. Staff stands for questions. Thank you. **Chair:** Any questions for Paul, board members? Appears not. **Chair:** Look, it's Gayla. You're popular this evening. **Gayla:** It's not my fault. **Chair:** It is your fault. No, it was the staff. This project was first submitted on February 9th to the H board, and today is May the something. At any rate, you're popular. Gayla, you can tell us anything you want if you agree or disagree. **Gayla:** I do agree with staff. **Chair:** Okay. **Gayla:** I do have something to say in reference to the signs that we put up. I think this was the when we went on the property, that we have to, everybody, applicants, you really have to pay close attention to where you put the sign because your project can be postponed if that sign is not seen by the public and it's not in the proper place. So, staff guides you very intricately, I think, on where you, how to follow everything, not only the sign but everything else. **Chair:** So it was not on the fence when you were there? **Gayla:** It was, you know what, they finally, it was finally indicated that they could see it, but it was a bit away from the front of the road. So anyway, anyone from the public wanting to comment on this? **Stephanie Benedetto:** Stephanie Benedetto. I find the history of this building, or buildings, to be a little bit confusing. I understand it became condos in 1988, but then there was something about 1992, but then additions in the 21st century. And I just wonder if the owners actually came in and got permits for those additions or changes because I really didn't hear that discussed. And again, it's just unfortunate that perhaps we lose buildings because things do get changed without permit, and then too much time goes by without them being noticed. I think it's a beautiful building the way it exists. I mean, that's the look of it. I just think it's unfortunate that there's ambiguity about the building's additions and construction and whether permits were actually applied for and approved. Thank you. **Chair:** Anyone else in this room wanting to speak on this project? No one. Oh, yeah. Come forward, please. Can you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. **Styiver:** Styiver, 623 Monte Sol. **Chair:** Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? **Styiver:** I do. **Chair:** Perfect. Thank you, Madam Chair. She's been sworn in. **Styiver:** I live in this compound. **Chair:** You do have to speak right into that mic because it's difficult to hear. **Styiver:** I live in this compound for 33 years, and I have seen the carport being built, the additions, and everybody did get permits and came before the historical board. So, I just wanted to confirm that. Yeah. Thank you. So, the 629 is the carport. There was a bedroom added, can't remember the date, but then in 2014, I think 2015, 625, and before this board, I was here in regards to windows and exterior elements. So, I just wanted to confirm that for everybody. Thank you, ma'am. **Chair:** Anyone else? No one in this room. Anyone on Zoom? **Chair Rios:** No one has their hand raised. **Chair:** Okay. If there's nothing further to discuss, I will entertain a motion. Board members. Yes. Member. **Member:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I did have a question for the applicant before we go to motions. If we could pull up the elevations, one thing, the only thing that... Oh, no. We're not on that case. Oh, he's getting ahead of himself. Okay. **Member:** Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2025-0339 HDRB at 629 Camino del Monte Sol, I move to maintain the status as non-contributing. **Chair:** Again, roll call vote, please. Member Aguilera Madrono, yes. Member Dagnet, yes. Member Cherry, yes. Member BJ, yes. Vice Chair Benu, yes. The motion is passed. Thank you. And Paul, address. So, will you tell us about this case? **Paul:** Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2025-010339 HDRB, the single-family residence at 629 Camino del Monte Sol is listed as non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The structure is part of the residential compound built in 1988. In this case, the applicant proposes to construct a new 60-square-foot mechanical room addition on the north elevation to a height of 8 feet 9 inches in the Spanish Pueblo Revival design style. They also intend to replace all the doors and windows with true divided light doors and windows colored turquoise blue. They also may raise the parapet on the kitchen's north elevation to 18 inches if necessary, and the main structure 12 inches depending on the condition of the roof. So, as we reviewed the exterior elevations and the historic maps and the site diagram, we will go here to where the applicant's proposed 60-square-foot mechanical room addition will be established. Here on the bottom is the proposed site plan and the location of that mechanical. Here is the existing and proposed north elevation. On this elevation, it's showing the design style of that mechanical room with an entry and exit door and a window. Here we have the existing and proposed east elevation showing where the window replacements will be taking place in true divided light windows colored turquoise blue. Here we have the existing and proposed south elevation showing the changes in the sizes, yet true divided light windows throughout this entire structure. And the existing and proposed courtyard east elevation showing the changes in size, elongations of the windows here on the existing and proposed courtyard south elevation, showing those divided light windows and the possible raising of the parapet where the kitchen resides. Here we have the existing proposed courtyard west elevation showing the addition of a new window and lengthening the current window. In this, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2E, Downtown East Side Design Standards. Staff stands for questions. Thank you. **Chair:** Thank you, Paul, for your report. I noticed that, okay, keep it up on this. I noticed, oops, on that one. I noticed that some of the true divided light window pattern is east to west instead of north to south, which is really, in the past, it has not been something that is given the stamp of approval very easily. And I noticed that also in reference to the window pattern that you have horizontal and then you also have vertical. Is that correct? Is this the only place? Let's see. One, two, three windows that are wanting that pattern, Chair Rios, on this northern facade, I believe. So where the, where you're looking at the horizontal deviation in the window, whereas throughout the rest of the structure, they're all going to be divided light, true divided light. I think with this style of home, it's more common to have it north to south. But I think if Heather wants to comment or if other board members wish to comment either. When you say north to south, do you mean vertical as opposed to horizontal? Okay, gotcha. Yes, member reading a comment. Sorry, that was the only point of member chair. Okay, I was asking. **Member:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, that was what I was trying to get out earlier. I just wanted to see if I understood correctly the elevation drawings. Maybe the applicant can address it, but I agree entirely with Chair Rios that I don't think horizontal orientations for divided light windows are appropriate in this district. And nor the kind of variation of different styles of divided lights and horizontal and vertical orientations that are shown on the plan. So, I would, my own view would be that they should be made consistent and that the, or that the divided lights, and it's great that they're actual divided lights. Appreciate that. Thank you for that. But that they be either square, each individual panel, or oriented vertically rather than horizontally. But I'd be curious if the applicant has any, any reason for, if that would be acceptable or if there's a strong desire to have the design as indicated on the elevation drawings. **Chair:** Any other board members have an opinion? I was asked that. Is it okay if they address that or should? Yes, sure. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Can you speak in the microphone, please? **David:** David. **Chair:** Address. Your address. **David:** 629. **Chair:** Okay. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? **David:** Yes. **Chair:** Thank you, sir. **David:** I would just like to add, we changed from horizontal, and I think that might have gotten missed on that facade, but also that facade, I mean, it's so invisible. It's almost like a, it's like a secondary space in the whole unit. It's facing the wall next door to the property next door. And that's why we put the room there. We considered the main facade. The primary facade we were leaving alone. One of the problems is the size of the windows varies, and we ran into problems with code for egress. So the size varies, and that's why they look. We went back and forth about which ones needed an extra vertical and which ones didn't. But we're happy to follow whatever the committee recommends. I would like to add one thing. Although we've priced and planned for true divided, I have to say with the tariffs the way they are, I would like the option to be able to do simulated if necessary. Would you repeat that? I'd like to be able to use simulated rather than divided if it's necessary, based on tariffs. I don't know how much things are going to. Divided light windows are not inexpensive, and there are quite a few here. We're up close to $100,000. And should tariffs raise this 30 or 40%, I would like to ask that we be allowed to put in simulating the same thing. And are the windows that you are asking for simulated divided light, are they publicly visible? No, they are not. None of this building is publicly visible. None of it. It's all behind the gate, and it's all facing away from the street. So none of it is visible. And many of the other units do not have divided lines. This will be the first consistent unit in the form. Questions for the owner? They have no questions for you. So they're sifting through this. Any other comments, board members? Yeah, I would make a comment about the simulated divided light. I think it's totally acceptable with the status of the structure, and nothing's visible. We're not trying to do something in kind with a true divided light that's already there. We're replacing something with no division with the simulated divided light. It gives it. There's also true divided light and there's simulated divided light. Correct. Yeah, that's what I believe he's asking for. The true divided light. You almost really don't see those because they really don't. I don't know that they make windows like that. What do you think, Amber Cherry? Yeah, because the simulated, it's like a true divided light. It's, yeah, it has a spacer bar. Yeah, but and it looks, it's not the kind that is like pasted, those really thin ones. Correct. A simulated vitonite would not have like an applied lattice on front of it. It would have mutton bars interior and exterior, and then a spacer bar in between those mutton bars. But it would just be one continuous sheet of glass within all of that. So, but yeah, very hard to distinguish between true divided light and simulated at more than 10 feet away. So, anyone from the public wanting to comment on this case? I appreciate the members' comments about the horizontal divided lights. I think they should be consistent within the building, and in this zone, they are definitely horizontal and not, no, excuse me, it's definitely vertical, not horizontal. So I think that one facade, I hope the board requires that they match the other divided lights being proposed. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Hi, my name's Elizabeth. Should I be sworn in or? No, I'm just making a comment. Okay. Were you sworn before? I don't think she needs to be sworn. See, I was right. You were very right. State your David address for the record, please. Elizabeth West, 318 Senna Street, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth? And do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. She's sworn in. I kind of live in this, not in this neighborhood, but in the way of considering this business of divided lights. And I really like the distinction that Mr. Cherry made, and that it's important so that we clarify it for people listening and to help me. Thank you. Because there is a real difference between the simulated version that is really well done and the simulated version that one time I heard some people came in front of you all several years ago said, "Well, we've already ordered all the windows, and I, we can't afford the ones you want us to put in." So they've made two mistakes there. Ordering ahead of time and then not clarifying that they needed to do the right thing. I think given the status that you've agreed upon, and also the location and where the windows are, it seems to me, I, it's okay with what the design has been done. I kind of understand what you're talking about, but in this case, I disagree because I think better light will come in. It will work okay, and it looks all right to me. That's really very weak, but I'm in support of the exception that this is going to undergo because you've designated non-contributing. So it's kind of a rock and a hard spot, but thank you very much. Thank you, Elizabeth. Okay. Anyone else? No one else, but anyone else on Zoom? Chair R. No hands are raised. Motion, please. Board members, make a motion. Yes, Mr. Chair, member. Case 2025 010351-HDRB 629 Commamino Delonte Soul. I would make a motion that we approve as submitted, allowing either the submittal of the horizontal mutton bars or an alternate vertical mutton bar. Do I hear a second? I will second with a friendly amendment to allow for simulated divided light windows rather than true divided light. Approved. Accepted. Thank you. Anything else? Roll call vote, please. Vice Chair Penu. No. And it just explained that it's only because I think that it's setting a bad precedent in this district to allow for the horizontal divided lights. I thought so, but that's not the way the motion. Member Aguilera Madron. No. Member Dagnan. No. Member Chur. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. The motion did not pass. Thank you. I will entertain a new motion, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Case 2025 010339 HDRB 629 Commamino Don Soul. I'd move to adopt staff's recommendations. Approve the application as, oh, I've got the wrong number, don't I? I did. I read the wrong case. It is 010351 HDRB. Adopt the findings as recommended by staff, approve with the condition that the windows be made consistent in their divided light patterns with either a square or vertical pattern as agreed to by the applicant tonight, and that they also be allowed to be simulated divided lights in the applicant's discretion. I hear a second. Anything further to add? Roll call vote. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Vice Chair Benu. Yes. The motion has passed. Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Gert. Next case is located at 345 Garcia Street. This is Lanny's case. Lanny. This is case 202510292 at 345 Garcia Street for demolition of an accessory structure. The single family residence at 345 Garcia Street is listed as contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The accessory structure is listed as non-contributing, and the front yard wall is designated contributing. On November 26th of 2024, and under case 2024 9369, the HDRB retained the contributing status of the residence, designating the west elevation, northwest corner, and the area around the chimney as the primary facades. They downgraded the status of the accessory dwelling unit and associated carport to non-contributing, and designated the street frontage yard wall as contributing. Likely constructed in the early 1930s, this PBLO revival style main residence is 2,637 square feet and evolved over time as it is constructed of adobe concrete block and wood frame. According to the 2024 HCPI, there were significant changes to the structure circa 1987. This main residential structure and yard wall are not under consideration in this case. The accessory structure in the southeast corner of the property currently serves as a guest house and is the subject of this request. The front portion of this detached building appears to have started out as a shed as it is a mixture of board siding styles. According to the 2024 HCPI, the remaining portion appears to be an enclosed carport with a wood structure that attaches to the west side to create a partial carport. As noted on the drawings, a portion of this structure encroaches into the adjacent property. The accessory structure was erected after 1958 and does not match the style of the home. Staff did notice when visiting the site that the rear or eastern wall was partially built of particle board. This accessory structure is not mentioned in the 1985 HCPI. The city inspector evaluated the accessory structure in March of 2025 and found that the structure does not meet fire rating requirements. There are concerns with the electrical and mechanical codes, and that the overall condition of the structure is poor. The applicant is proposing the demolition of this accessory structure and its attached carport. Staff finds that the demolition criteria are met and recommends approval of the proposed demolition, finding that the application complies with Section 14-3.14, Demolition of Historic or Landmark Structures, and Section 145.2D, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts. Stands for questions. Thank you, Lenny. Board members, questions for Lenny? No questions for you, Gayla. I'm going to guess that you agree with the evaluation with her recommendation. I do. I could give you more detail about the structure if you'd like. Just the lack of insulation. What you see on the outside is actually what's also on the inside. So there's, it's like literally the 3/4 inch of board is what this building is made of. So I'm, I agree with Lanny. Any questions for Gayla and anyone from the public wishing to comment or no one? Anyone on Zoom? Board members, I will entertain a motion, please. I'll make a motion. You're dying to make. Go for it. Member Chair, right? It's 2025-0292 HDRB, 345 Garcia Street. I would make a motion that we approve staff recommendation as a non-contributing devolution. Yeah, sorry. That we approve staff's recommendation to demolish the building. Madrona second. Roll vote, please. Yes. Friendly amendment. Just to indicate that the motion also includes that all applicable demolition criteria have been met for the reasons set forth in staff report. Yeah. Okay. Can member cherry, yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Aguilera Madano. Vice Chair Benvanu. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you very much. The next case is located at 82 Asec Mother, and this is Paul's case, and I will, I am going to recuse myself from this case. I will stay in the room. I'll just silence the mic, and I will turn it over to Vice Chair Benu. And because these are family friends. Okay. Then Paul, do you want to go ahead and give your staff report? I think that I wasn't clear if you announced it, but I'll just announce again. We're at case 2025 010349 HDRB at 821 AI Madre. Vice Chair BM Venu. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The single family residence at 821 Aekia Madre is listed as contributing, and the garage and yard wall as non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The main residential structure was built in the late 1940s on a 0.19 acre lot and comprises approximately 1,400 square feet of roofed area. The main structure was built in the Spanish PBLO revival architectural design style as seen by the Adobe block construction material, flat roof with rounded parapets, and recessed doors and windows. The subject for tonight, the garage, was built in the 1960s and constructed out of masonry, cinder block, and stucco. A yard wall encapsulates an open area between the main house and the garage and is approximately 4 feet high and constructed out of masonry cinder block. The main structure has had an addition added to the north elevation within a portal on the east elevation in November of 2024. The proposed remodel of the garage into livable space and the construction of a new garage and portal will provide the owners with the space needed to live while preserving the contributing status and the primary facade of the main structure. Here we have that northwestern edge of the property. This is the entry gate, and that massing of the wall is that north elevation. So they're maintaining the gates and that northwestern entry side as you drive in, and they'll remodel this northern side with a portal, and that will be their new entry into this new addition, new structure. Now here we have that eastern facade with the aluminum clad garage door. On this side is where the new addition of the garage will be as it extends to the east. Here is the current portal and entryway into the garage, and this will be renovated as well. This will also provide access, and a door will be provided for access as well into the structure. Here we have the current barn-style doors and entryway. Those will remain, but this low parapet, overhung roof, and so forth will all be remodeled. So here we have the current existing site plan. Now we have the Casita garage addition. This addition encapsulates that northern side of the property and provides a good design for this location. We have here at that existing and proposed north elevation, this entryway with the open divided light doors, the portal addition. Then as the garage extends to the east here with the two windows, you will see on that east elevation, the existing and proposed elevation, a doorway with two divided light doors, windows. Now, on that south elevation, you can see the extension of the garage door and a doorway into the new livable space of where the garage is at. That extension of that new remodel and with four windows, divided light windows, and the proposed west elevation. This is where that gate and the current garage, where it's kind of on that zero lot line, will still maintain that window with a new window, and the entry doors will still be maintained the same. The finishes, the color of stucco and wood trim. The stucco will be buckskin, and the trim will be colored white and turquoise paint. The new windows are all wood, true divided light, and the light fixtures will be shielded rod iron, similar to the existing on the main structure. They're going to color the concrete brown and gravel at the work site. Staff recommends approval of the proposed design and finds that the current design accentuates the current streetscape while meeting the standards of the Downtown and East Side Historic District 14-5.2E. The applicant's proposed design for the alterations and addition at the subject property are harmonious with what has been previously approved by the board without the need or the request of any exceptions. The application complies with Section 14-5.2D, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2E, Downtown and East Side Design Standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you, Senior Planner Duran. Any board members have questions? Seeing none, may we have the applicant and/or the applicant's agent come to the podium. And if the applicant desires to speak, may she be sworn in? Can you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. My name is Mary Allered Enright. My address is 1206 Stafford Drive, Cupertino, California 95014. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you very much, Chair. She's been sworn in. Thank you very much. Is there anything that you would like to bring to the board's attention or to add to the staff's report? If you don't mind, I'd like to go first because there are a few corrections or clarifications, I should say. The west wall, let's see, Paul, let's, I can, this wall. Indeed, actually, we are holding back the addition from the existing wall so that you will be able to read the original west wall, and we are repairing this window. We're not replacing that window. So that these doors were previously on their grandparents' house across the driveway, and so when that house was redone, these doors were moved over here. So they're historic doors from their grandparents' house across the driveway. And so this is kind of a homage to their grandparents and that driveway. But this driveway is only for service, and it's not an active driveway, and it's not an active entry. So, I'd like to go back to the floor plan. The active entry for this house is connected to the main house, and it's in the little place. There's a portal between the garage door and the other doors. And so you can see there's a step up. So we're stepping up the house, this new house, as the old house is also. So there will add not only accessibility to plumbing, but we'll also have a full basement underneath the house. So that's the two corrections. And then the, and I'm sorry it was not clear to you, Paul, the portal on the north is the rear portal and is for public or for private open space. I think those are the things I needed to clarify. Just in terms of those clarifications, the portal on the east side was not built in 1994. It was built way before that, probably in the late 1960s, when the owner and we were children in the home. So just to clarify that. So thank you. Thank you, Vice Chairman John Benu and board members. Thank you for the opportunity to share our Casita project at 821 Acequia Madre. Elaine Allered, who's present tonight, and I are co-owners of this property, and we would like to share the purpose of the remodel and our long-term objectives for this property with you. Acequia Madre in this area is a heritage neighborhood for the Allered family. Starting at 710 Canyon Road, which was recently an item on your agenda, was the home of our great-grandfather, Ceferino Allered and Pavina Allered. They raised their family there, and in addition, our father was brought up in that home when he was younger. So the property at 710 is adjacent to 777 Acequia Madre, which is directly behind it, and it is the neighbor to 821 Acequia Madre. And at 777, that is where our grandparents built their home with additions and has since been remodeled and sold twice since they were the original owners. That property was owned by Ben Allered and Josefa Allered, who are grandparents, and they raised their seven children there, and we had many, many family activities in that home with our many cousins, and so it's an important part of our property. Our parents purchased the property adjacent at 821 Acequia Madre on the east side, and as we've mentioned before, when we were considering the status of the property, it was really a community project to build the home. The adobes for the home were built by the excavated material from the underlayment of the home, and it was really a community project to do the finished carpentry. My dad, his father, and even the great-grandfather were involved in laying the joists, laying the floor, and putting the house together. Now, in that neighborhood, most of the homes have been sold, but we want to just bring to your attention kind of the nature of the entire neighborhood and its impact on the Allered family. So, as I mentioned, 710 Canyon Road was sold to the Seth Gallery when we were quite young. And as a result, our great-grandmother, who we called Abuela, moved next door to 777, and her sister, our Tia Luz, moved next door. So, when we were growing up, we had our great-grandmother, her sister, our grandparents, and our family all in the neighborhood. Adjacent to our property on the east side is another set of Allered family who is in a different lineage, but they were just like aunts, uncles, and cousins. We went to school together, we rode our bikes together, it was a place to play, and they were just like family. As I mentioned, many people have sold their property in the area. But Elaine and I want to keep this property for our family. It is the only parcel left that's contributing to our Allered family heritage. We feel it is our family's legacy. We want our family, who are our children and their grandchildren and our grandchildren, to continue with the family traditions that we love so much in the area, such as watering our yard in the summer from the madre on Monday mornings, putting up the farolitos and lighting in the entire neighborhood, enjoying our walks to town and to church, and enjoying the beauty of Santa Fe in all the seasons. So Elaine and I currently live outside of Santa Fe, but we visit often, and we plan to return to Santa Fe. We do not intend to sell this property. As we approach retirement, we're spending more and more time in the house. However, to make this property meet our needs and essentially having two families and our children, we need the extra space of the casita. We also need safe storage for our car, which we could keep there, and other household items. And this remodel really provides these amenities. Today, as you visited our home, we hope you saw that gate on the northwest corner. And thank you for bringing that to the attention from Mr. Duran in the proposal. As we mentioned, these garage doors were built by our grandfather and probably with his father as part of a small building that was in the corner, as they called it, the cuartito. So, cuartito for storage of things. So we ask the board to consider the importance of the historic families in the neighborhood and allow us to expand the house in a respectful way and to maintain the history and personal value of our neighborhood. We thank you for your consideration, and we would hope to address any questions or concerns that you have. Thank you. Thank you very much. I remember when you first came before us, it must have been a status review. It was a while back, and you gave the history of the property at that time and how important it was to maintain it in the family. And I think I was, you know, it affected all the board members. I'm sure I know it did myself. And you know, this property and what you've described to me, it really highlights that we're not just here to protect structures, we're here to protect legacies and heritage, and that is often embodied in the structure, but it's greater than the structure. And without the people living in them, that lived through those, and carry lived through those experiences and carry them on from their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents that lived through them in the same location. Once that's gone, the structures lose so much of their significance. So, I very much appreciate what you're doing to keep this in your family. I'm sure that the board shares that. And you know, you don't really have to throw yourself on the mercy of the board with this application because it meets all the criteria. In my view, as the staff recommended that we have in our ordinance, you're not seeking any exceptions. It's completely within our design standards. That doesn't mean that board members might not quibble with some things, but I doubt they will in this particular case. I think it's really commendable that you took the board's concerns about the height of the structure into account and came back with a completely revised design that hopefully still meets all of your needs and can accomplish the purposes that you have in mind without the obtrusiveness of the structure, which was completely understandable why you were requesting that at the time. Hopefully, we've reached a place where you're still able to do what you need to do with the property and not push that envelope that was concerning to the board as far as the height and the density go. So, thank you for all those aspects of your application. Board members, do you have any questions or comments for the applicant? Thanks for sharing your stories. Okay. Is there anything else from the applicant at this time? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the room that wishes to comment on this application? Elizabeth West: Here again. I don't know why after hearing this, thank you so much. Everybody, why doesn't everybody just set aside these occasional Tuesday nights and come here? This is what you're doing here. And the accommodation by the family and by the architect to meet requirements is so friendly and so hardworking and so considerate. This is why I live in Santa Fe. Thank you very much. I think this is excellent. Stephanie Benonato: I think it's always heartening to hear that at least a segment of a property or properties that were owned by a family for a long period of time are still in the family and hopefully their children will actually continue that heritage. I have just some questions, which is how many square feet is the lot? How many square feet is this addition compared to what I would assume was the main house? I don't think they can both be main houses because it's one lot. So, this is just a question. And then I also wanted clarity about whether those gates, the ones that look like they're made out of barnwood, whether those are being maintained. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the room? Is there anyone online that wishes to comment? Venu now. Thank you. All right, back to the board. Any questions or comments or motions to be proposed, member? Member: Thank you. In case number 20250349 HDRB at 821, a secre, I move to approve the application as submitted and to congratulate the applicants on a successful project for your families. Is there a second? Adila Madrono: Seconds. Thank you. A roll call vote, please. Member Aguilera Madano: Yes. Member Dagnet: Yes. Member Cherry: Yes. Member B: Yes. Chair: The motion has passed. Thank you very much. I will cede the chair back to Chair Rios. The last case this evening is located at 224 and 228 East Palace Avenue. I'm going to get that the gentleman that is coming forward is the applicant. And this is Lanny's case. Lenny, I'm waiting for it to open. Okay, I'm just so you guys know, I'm going to actually summarize the staff report as best I can. It made for a very long presentation. So this is case 20251093 for 224 and 228 East Palace Avenue. 224 East Palace Avenue is better known as Marian Hall and 228 East Palace is better known as the Drury Hotel. The 4.9 acre property located on the southwest corner of Palace Avenue and Po de Peralta currently houses the Drury Hotel, which was previously the Saint Vincent Hospital. The previous sanatorium known as Marian Hall, the Boiler Building, which currently houses conference rooms, and the 2008 approved parking garage and retail and restaurant spaces. The property holds outside courtyards, seating areas, concrete and red brick pathways, an open air hotel parking area, and open access to Cathedral Park to the west. The property is subject to a 2004 phase development plan. This application focuses on Marian Hall and the Drury Hotel structures only and is considered phase three of the development plan. The original Saint Vincent Sanitarium was constructed in 1882 and was destroyed by a fire in 1896. In 1907, Santa Fe began a capital campaign for a new hospital complex. The sanitarium was reconstructed at this time in a craftsman style by Isaac Hamilton Rap for the Sisters of Charity. The rebuilt Saint Vincent Sanitarium, now known as Marian Hall, reopened in 1910. In 1954, the sanitarium building was remodeled for use as a convent and was then named Marian Hall in honor of the Marian year proclaimed by Pope Pius XII in devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The alterations to Marian Hall at this time included the removal of the original sleeping porches on the second and third floors. In 1954, just a few years after the St. Vincent's Hospital, now the Drury Hotel, was built, two corridor walkways were constructed to connect the new building to Marian Hall. These corridors were designed by John Gamim and were constructed with the same materials and style as the hospital. The design included large undivided window panes, which would not have met the current standards of the historic districts overlay, but were emblematic of the mid-century modern style Neme was known for. The corridors obscured the important east elevation of Marion Hall, which was established as significant in 2008. In 1984, when the state of New Mexico took over the property, they moved the offices into Maran Hall, removed all of the historic windows, and installed replicated windows. In 2008, under case H0895, the historic districts review board designated Marian Hall significant to the downtown and east side historic district with all elevations considered as primary. Because the building retains most of its original integrity, there was a large remodel approved with conditions at this time. None of the approved 2008 work on Marian Hall has been completed except for the 2011 demolition of the hallways that connected the hospital to Marian Hall, the overhang on the east door, and the inind re-roof. Since its inception, Maran Hall has served the community as a sanitarium, convent, provisions distribution station for the needy, an overflow hotel, dormitory, assisted living facility, seminary, outpatient treatment center, and government office building. The Dury Hotel bought the property in 2001 and included it in their development plan that was approved in 2011 as the final phase of development. The development plan shared with the board under case H0482 comprised three phases of development. The first phase was to remodel the existing hospital and boiler buildings and to construct a retail building and garage building. The second phase was the construction of new hotel suite buildings, and the third phase was the renovation of Maran Hall. The development plan was approved through the planning commission and signed and filed in 2011. Phase one has been completed and phase two has not. In 2008, the hospital building was established as a contributing structure with seven of its 12 facades listed as primary, including the west facade, which will be affected by this case. The 2008 remodel approval included the demolition of the connecting hallways between the hospital building and Marian Hall, mechanical gangway between the hospital building and the boiler room and the maintenance buildings, and the construction of the parking garage and retail and restaurant buildings in addition to extensive remodeling of the hospital or hotel building. This work has all been completed. The applicant is now coming forward to request improvements to Marian Hall as phase three of their approved development plan to adaptively reuse the building as an extension of the Drury Hotel. They are proposing to reconstruct a 275 ft portion of the walkway that was demolished in 2011, which connected the east elevation of Marion Hall, the west facade of the Drury Hotel building. The walkway will be constructed of brick with brick coping with concrete cap, exposed concrete header above the windows, painted steel casement windows, painted concrete columns, and concrete seals. The window will consist of larger panes in the same layout as the original walkway. Per section 14-5.2D5B, replacement or duplication of missing features shall be substantiated by documentation, physical or pictorial evidence. This walkway connection is found in photos and previous drawings of the property. They will also construct a 92 ft addition on the second and third floors of the east elevation to create a stairwell for egress. An exception is requested to 14-5.2D2C for constructing an addition on a primary facade. They're requesting to infill two windows on the east elevation of Marion Hall, and an exception is requested to section 14-5.2D5A3 for removal of openings on a primary facade. They will replace a window with a door on this east elevation of Marion Hall. An exception is requested to 14-5.2D5A1 to alter the dimensions of a window to create a door on a primary facade. They will also be replacing a window with a door on the west elevation of Marian Hall. Again, per section 14-5.2D5B, replacement or duplication of missing features shall be substantiated by documentation, physical or pictorial evidence. This opening shows as a door in previous photos. As a result of the walkway, they will be removing the second floor balcony on the west primary facade of the Drury Hotel. The second floor balcony is not historic as it was added in 2011 when the original walkway was removed. We will also be replacing some non-historic windows and doors, repairing joints in the brick, repairing and replacing wood elements in kind, replacing exterior concrete stairs, installing exterior lighting, removing some metal hand guard rail at the exterior stairs to the basement, removing conduits, flood lights, rooftop equipment, none of which are intended to be reestablished. Painting brick, wood, concrete and metal trim, wood window frames. Colors of choice are tower tan and do white for the building and stucco will match the existing stucco finish. The basement of Marian Hall will still serve as the mechanical and laundry room for the building. The ground floor will hold the lobby area and hotel rooms. The reestablished connection to the Drury Hotel will be on the eastern elevation as shown on the right in yellow. The second floor will continue use of the chapel with the various hotel rooms. The new addition on the east elevation shows again on the right in yellow. And the third floor will consist of hotel rooms only. And again, that addition is highlighted in yellow on the right. The connecting corridor will mimic the John Gambian connection that was removed in 2011, noting that only the more southern connection is the one that's being reestablished. At the April 8th, 2025 hearing, the applicant presented their plan for this remodel as an informational presentation. The board's main concerns were about the design of the connecting hallway, and the overall request was to reestablish the hall to mimic Neme's original connections. Also, there were concerns about the removal of the balcony on the second floor of the Drury Hotel. Public comment at that hearing was supportive of the remodel. The applicant has complied with the request at the April hearing and has designed the connecting halls to mimic Neme's original design. And while the second floor balcony will be removed in order to reestablish the connection, it has been confirmed that the balcony was constructed only after the original walkway had been removed in 2011. The colors for the repairs are intended to match those of the existing building. Staff's analysis of the proposed project identified three exceptions to the design standards. One, to section 14-5.2 D2C, additions are not permitted to primary facades. This is for the proposed 92-foot second and third-floor addition to the existing stairwell on Marian Hall's east elevation. Staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of this exception. To section 14-5.2D5A1, for all facades of significant structures, no opening shall be widened or narrowed for the proposed change of a window to a door on the east elevation of Marian Hall. Staff finds that the criteria have been met and recommends approval of this exception. For section 14-5.2D5A3, no existing openings shall be closed for the proposed closing of two windows on Marian Hall's east elevation. Staff finds that the criteria have not been met and recommends denial of this exception. Staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application that do not require exceptions as they comply with 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2e downtown and east side design standards. I stand for questions. Thank you, Lanny, for that long report. Lanny, the color of the brick, I know, is going to be replaced in kind. Do we have a name for the color? Sure, I can ask the applicant. It's the Tower Tan. Say again. Oh, man. It's Tower Tan, is what it's called. Okay. And also, I'm noticing, am I understanding this correctly, that windows are going to be replaced in kind? Replace all windows in kind with new insulated windows. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And in kind, they're going to do it with the exact same material that is there. Is that the proposal? It's the proposal for me with TA. Sorry. That's my understanding as well. Yes. So, I'm going to guess yes, a window assessment was made. It was not necessary. All the windows were replaced in 1984. So the windows currently in the building are non-historic. Is that again, the windows in the building are non-historic? Correct. They were replaced in 1984. Really? Yes. Oh, interesting. Okay. Any other questions or comments? None. Thank you. So these windows, I think the applicant said that they're not original. The windows in the, or the exception three that staff is recommending not be approved to be filled in. Are they historic or are they non-historic? Are they original or are they not original? The window openings themselves are historic. That small addition was not original to the building, but it is a historic addition. From what time period? It's the 1940s. Okay. Additions. Okay. And the color that is being proposed, it's indicated that's changing the color. How does that compare to the color that's on the building now? It should match the color that's there. It's similar. I just noticed that the application said it's a different color. So, I was just curious what sense it's different. It looks similar to me, too, from the, yeah, go ahead. Thanks. Hi. Can you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Taho Deitrov. Address is 227 East Palace Avenue, Suite C. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. He has been sworn in. The question in reference to the paint color? Yes, the question. So, the Tower Tan that is being proposed, it is very similar to what's there today, just a slight variation. What we're trying to do is have it be similar to the hotel building that's existing but not matching. And I'll just add that we're open to comments. It's not a set-in-stone color. I don't have any objection to the color. I was just wondering how it differed from the existing color because you kind of called out that it was a different color than existing. And I do agree it's sort of, it's nice to harmonize with the hotel, which is also a tan color, without it being a perfect match. So that's your intent. That seems perfectly appropriate to me. Thank you. Yes, that's exactly the intent. And it has that on Palace, it has that odd stucco-ing around the parts of the building that protrude. Is that stucco going to be maintained as stucco? That will be maintained as stucco. It is a significant primary facade and we're not proposing to change it. As of now, our thinking is to keep that color existing. However, again, it's not set in stone. So if there are any objections to the existing color, we're open to, to, uh, Is it, would you consider that, I mean, it's a contrasting color right now, isn't it? At least in its darkness. Yeah. It's a very contrasting, but it's another brown color, basically. It is not, it is, it is more orange-like than, oh, is it brown? Huh? And do we know when that, more red? Do we know when that color stucco dates from? I don't have a record. I'm sorry. The historic photos do show stucco in that area, but they were black and white, so we don't know. Okay. And the oldest color photos you've seen show the color that exists today. All right, that's all I have for now. Thank you. Chair, do you intend to keep that same stucco texture on those areas? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. My only, we've seen this before in your presentation. And so my only additional comment, I personally wouldn't have a problem with approving the exception of enclosing the two windows on the eastern elevation. It is stated that those weren't original to the building. And if you look at the two bays of windows above that, these kind of break that pattern. And so by infilling them, I think you're making that side of the building more symmetrical. And those three openings as they are also don't really match the rhythm of the windows on the very right side of that building. So I wouldn't have a problem with approving that exception as well. Any other comments or questions, board members? No. And public comment, come forward please. Stephanie Benonato. I'm happy that the applicant has gone with the John Gla meme design for the walkway. I think as with member Aguilar Madrano, I'm not sure that I would oppose having those two windows filled in even though they are from 1954. I just want to add a little story about Marian Hall. So, at one point, Tony Anaya was a governor, elected governor, and he was going to change public building names to honor his donors. And the state historian at the time, Stan Hortis, Tony had one of his cronies call up the state historian to go through the list of names that they were considering changing. And at one point the crony said to Stan Hortis, "Well, who is this Marian anyway?" And Stan, who is Jewish, said to him, "I think you would call her the mother of God." And then there was a long pause and the man said, "I guess we'll keep that one." Thank you. We're very grateful to him, Stephanie. Any stories in the city? And did I see your hand? Gentlemen, did you raise your hand? No. Okay. Anybody else wishing to comment on this? Okay. Anyone online? Yeah, Chair. Yes. Nobody. Anything further to discuss? Board members, I just have to say I am so glad that this building is getting remodeled. I worked in that building for a long time. And the inside is just as interesting, too. And except it has this little musty smell that we smell every solitary day. Perhaps mold. I don't know. We hope to fix that. Okay. Yeah. I'll be, I'm very excited to see the end product and do you have a timeline on this? Keeping your looking to jury's representative, but I think pending approval from you and then just we plan to move forward with the getting, you know, work, getting permit applications soon after. When the jury came before the board and I was sitting on that board, I remember, and we worked, we really did work hard with you all and I think it turned out great. Some people still wanted the pink color on the, I heard comments after the light brown color was put on, but I think the project came out very well. We really scrutinized and worked closely with you all, including with that and the garage, the parking garage. Yeah, it was a very big process because it was, it was so much involved. So anyway, it'll be exciting, I think, for Santa Fe to see this, this building also has history. We heard, just wanted to thank you for letting us do the present the informational hearing last month and I'm sorry you weren't here to actually, I was here. I have a question virtually for the first part or maybe I heard it virtually, I heard it online that I think that I've talked myself into thinking I was here anyway. Member Cherry. Yeah. The stuccoed box that's underneath the portal. Is that what is that and what's what's happening to that? That's a very good question. We're not sure when that was added. And I think it conceals some mechanical plumbing work. We're not proposing to remove it. We're just going to keep it as is. Refresh the stucco as needed. Okay. Thanks, Vice Chair Beny. Thank you, Madam Chair. So again, thanks for the process that you undertook here. I think it was really beneficial to the project. It was great for the board, the public. Thank you, staff, I'm sure, was involved in recommending that you do it in two steps, presenting your ideas to us so that we could give you feedback before you came before us with the final proposal. I'm really glad that you took into account our preference for restoring the meme walkway. I just think that's going to be a tremendous improvement to what exists right now and it's going to be really nice to see that restored. I'm looking forward to that. And you looks like you pretty much attempted to duplicate it, not just mimic it from the plants that I'm looking at. So that's, that's just all good. Thank you for that. I think it's a good project. I agree with member Aguilar Madano that even though I completely understand staff's perspective on the windows, just looking at the elevation drawings and the fact that they were not the original building, even though they are historic, those openings. I think there's something to be said for perhaps even an aesthetic improvement of infilling those windows in this particular case. And I don't really see it as being detrimental in any event to the character of that primary facade. So for all those reasons, I will make a motion in 2025 0100093 HDRB 224 and 228 East Palace Avenue that findings be entered that the all exception criteria for the three requested exceptions have been established by the applicant in the application, as well as in testimony tonight. For all the reasons set forth in staff's report, with the additional reasoning that the exception criteria have been established with respect to the infill of the two windows because on the basis that those windows were not original to the building as originally constructed and will not adversely affect the aesthetic characteristics of that facade and may even potentially improve the character of that facade. And for based on those findings and the fact that the application in all other respects meets the criteria established in our ordinance that the application be approved as submitted. Thank you for the motion. Is there seconds? And is there anything further to add? Nothing further to add. Roll call vote please. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Denon. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Vice Chair Benvvenu. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you very much, and thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, members of the board, and thank you, staff. That concludes the cases for this evening. Anything under discussion items? Staff? Madam Chair, I will be out on the meeting for May 27th, and I'll be on leave. Covering for me will be Assistant City Attorney Kevin Nalt. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? No. Okay. Matters from the board. Yes. Sorry to talk so much tonight. You're limited. Two minutes. Thank you. Oh, it's 10 seconds. Just two quick things. One is the notices. I just really do not think that notice on Camino Deman Soul was acceptable. I know it may have been, and by that I mean it may have been, and I completely defer to staff from a legal perspective whether it met the code, our ordinance. So I'm not quibbling with that. And in this case, I don't think it really matters that much. But its placement made it virtually impossible for any member of the public to know that there was a case coming before us. It was set so far back from the road on a private driveway, at least 40 feet back from the road. You'd have to really be, you'd have to stop right at the driveway, stare straight down it to see at the very in the distance a couple of yellow signs. And, you know, the point of these notices is to give neighbors and members of the public the opportunity to find out what's being proposed and come in with their comments. And I think the comments from the public and the neighbors are extremely important to hear. And I think we're deprived of that when notices are so hidden. And I do think that our ordinance requires not just that they be visible, but they be prominent. And this, I think, is questionable as to whether it was prominent. Anyway, I'm bringing it up because again, we're coming to a code update, and if we, this is something that I would request that potentially be addressed, the language of that section, to make it clear that prominently placed signs mean signs that are prominent to the public and not just partially visible if one is going out of their way to look up someone's driveway. So that's my comment on that. The other thing is we heard tonight, I think it was, was it the same case? Yes. Where we heard both the request for demolition, and was that, I think it was either a status review and a demolition or an addition, the status review and the addition of the mechanical room. Yes, it was the status review and then the addition. And in the past, we've always separated those kinds of requests so that we don't take it into account in our review of status, knowledge about what's being proposed that might influence that decision inappropriately, or as Attorney Rubbley brought up at an earlier meeting not very long ago, so that we don't waste time on a case that may never come before us again because sometimes people request things that then they never actually, that never materialize. So, I'm just bringing that up again. I think maybe it's a discussion item for right now, or maybe it's just something staff can give us an opinion on as to whether it's appropriate to hear those cases consecutively like that because it's impossible to keep them, the one out of your mind, because to review these cases ahead of time means we've had to look at that application quite intensively, even if we haven't heard it yet at the hearing. Thank you, Chair Rios. So, with reference to that one particular item, you're right, typically we do the status review and then at a subsequent meeting do the, you know, the scope of work and structure and review. And so in this particular case, you know, the recommendation had been that it would be non-contributing. Staff, you know, agreed with the recommendation, which means no change in status. So there was a discussion, and because there was no change in status, it could have been done administratively, but to enter into the record the HICB, it was important that it came to the board. And so in this particular case, it was an anomaly, and it's not something that's going to happen in the future. And, you know, staff's analysis revealed there had been a substantial number of changes and so on. So, we, that a question, agreed with the analysis, but in order for this form to be part of the record for all of our historic building inventory forms, this board had to act on it. Well, that completely satisfies my concern that this was just anomalous and wouldn't be the procedure moving forward on all cases. So, that's great. And I had no problem with it in that particular instance. So, just for the reason you just said. So, thank you for that. Thank you. And just so you know, it's important that we keep them separate because of the influence that one plays over the other. And then, yes, and that's the normal process that we've endeavored to follow. So, and this was a unique situation. And by the way, we have concluded our updates to the historic district status map. So, the last time the map had been updated was by me in 1997. And so I was shocked when I first arrived here that it was still like that. So, we need to have the right data on our GIS layers. And so, Amanda and Nicole Ramirez Thomas have been doing great work on that. And so, this will be coming before the board soon. The update to the status map has to be approved by the Historic Districts Review Board, probably in July, just knowing all of our hearing schedules. And it will memorialize all the actions that this board has done since 1997 in terms of historic stats. Anything else? Well, does that mean that it's not, it won't be updated as we make new designations until this all is done in a completely new process down the road? Member Bianu, so this should have been updated annually. And it's just to reflect the changes to the map. So there's, you know, the individual building, but the Historic Districts Review Board has purview over the map that's produced. And so, you know, when a status changes, the color of the building changes, for lack of a better term, on our map, right? So, I was just wondering if that would happen after every meeting or if that happens annually or every five years, but you're saying annually is the idea, is what it should be. Yes, Member Bianu, but one of the things that I might suggest is that in the new code update, and we didn't touch this for this time, is that the board, you know, every hearing, the Historic District's map will be updated as well. We just don't have that framework in the existing. Yeah, I have a suggestion for board members and even staff. As we are hearing cases and we think that a particular case is worthy of getting an award, I think that at that moment that we should submit it to staff. You know, you all should have a list maybe, or somebody keep a list, and we could submit those cases that we feel that are worthy of preservation because we hear so many cases, and then at the end of the year when we're wanting to present awards, some of us are at a loss to give specific addresses to you all, and sometimes you all have to do that work, and we could also be contributing. I think that's a good idea. I'm sorry. We can maintain a spreadsheet of those suggestions. So when the time comes for the following year, one of the things we do have to do is check that and make sure that the project is complete. So it might, there might be a delay of another year, but certainly you can even start that or do something. Yes, Madam Chair, if you and members of the board can email that to the HPD submitten.gov. So that way it goes to the group and not an individual person. So that way it doesn't matter who's changing of the award, the email will go to the same place and we'll know where to look and direct it to the correct spreadsheet. Anything else? Yes, just since we're talking. We heard from a couple applicants tonight that there's been a delay in getting to the hearing, and I just was notable that so many people mentioned it. I know that you guys are really busy, but we have had to cancel a couple of hearings because there weren't agenda items ready for that hearing. I'm just interested to know if it's a temporary problem or there's something we can be doing to facilitate that for the applicants that come before us. Yeah, we've been delaying some of them because of the applicants have not been completed or there's additional information. So that's the reason why some of these, these applicants have to wait for another hearing. So, and also a common issue, and we're trying to communicate with our applicants, is the preliminary zoning review form is required. In the past, there's been issues with the applicants getting those in, and then there's an issue that has come up subsequent to this hearing related to the zoning. And so what we're really doing is holding to the fact that that preliminary zoning review needs to happen before they can submit an application because otherwise your work will be wasted for your time. Is there currently a deadline every month or every two weeks or twice a month? The deadline is every month, and then we have to balance the cases across the agendas, right? So complicated. It just depends. But, but yeah, that was done the year before last with Carly Picarilla when she was director, and it, or division manager, and it seemed to work better in terms of processing the cases. I have it monthly. The submittal deadline monthly, the hearings twice a month, right? And is there the balanced way that you're talking about seems to work better where you're, you're submitting once, once a month, but then you're balancing, you're, you guys are allocating the, yeah. And then is there still a grace period for some of the information? Yes, Chair Rios, Member Cherry, the, there is a time period where we ask for additional information. Procedurally, we've been working on getting that research done upfront before a case planner goes on a site visit. So, once we've received the application, hopefully all of those issues will have been addressed. But yes, there's like a three or four day grace period. Three, three-day grace period where they can get additional information. Gotcha. Thanks. Another little thing on the website. Do you all keep, or whoever's supposed to be in charge of keeping the HBoard members, the present HBoard members, as we get Mr. Cherry Eggman, newer board members, do you update that? Is that updated immediately? I am not certain, but the City Clerk is in charge of that page. We can communicate to them. I mean, theoretically, once it's, they are the ones that process the appointments. So theoretically, that page would be updated by them immediately, but I can consult and get back with you, Member Rios. Members of the board, that is updated. Anything else? Okay, just waiting for my plaque. Oh, we'll check on the order. They used to have like, it's coming. [Laughter] So, our next meeting is May the 27th. And also, everybody, you're invited to the, what? Sorry, Member Rios, our next meeting has been moved from the chambers to the convention center. Okay. And that will be in Ballroom B. Okay. At the same time, remind us again. I will, I put a notice on both doors. We will, we will notice the doors, and we will put it in the packet email as well. Probably because they're using the space. I already met double booking, and everybody, you're all invited to on Thursday. I know some of you aren't going to be there, but for the awards banquet, and that's going to be at the San Miguel Mission, and then they have a huge party afterwards with all kinds of stuff. Three course of dinner. You didn't know about that, Mr. Terry. No, it's all nice, and I think many of you in this room have gone. So, Mr. Pino, you're invited to go to that. I make a motion to adjourn. Madonna seconds. I, I.