Historic Districts Review Board and Archaeological Review Committee Joint Meeting Tue, Oct 14, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/573 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board (HDRB) and Archaeological Review Committee (ARC) held a joint meeting primarily to discuss proposed updates to the Land Development Code (LDC), specifically Phase One, which aims to clarify and reorganize the existing code. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to public comments and board discussions regarding the balance between historic preservation and the urgent need for affordable housing in Santa Fe. The ARC voted to recommend the proposed Phase One changes to the governing body, with some discussion around the practical implications of archaeological review triggers. The HDRB, however, expressed strong concerns that the "Phase One" changes, presented as mere cleanup, contained substantive revisions that could negatively impact historic districts, particularly the Downtown East Side. After extensive debate and public comment, the HDRB ultimately voted 4-3 to recommend to the governing body that specific proposed changes deemed "injurious to the districts" not be accepted, and that the existing language for those provisions be retained. They also requested an alternative draft reflecting their desired language be presented to the governing body. == Key Decisions == - The Archaeological Review Committee (ARC) voted to recommend the proposed Phase One changes to the governing body. - The Historic Districts Review Board (HDRB) voted 4-3 to recommend to the governing body that specific proposed changes to the historic preservation ordinance (as identified in a memorandum) not be accepted, and that the existing language for those provisions be retained. The HDRB also stated that the code update is otherwise acceptable with respect to historic preservation provisions within the board's purview and requested an alternative draft reflecting these alterations be presented to the governing body. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to recommend the proposed changes (Phase One) to the governing body (Archaeological Review Committee) — Passed (Member Beal: Yes, Chair EC: Yes, Member Trice: Yes) - Motion that the HDRB declares its opposition to specific substantive revisions in the current draft of Phase One that were expected to be analyzed in Phase Two and were deemed inappropriate by the board in May; supports other revisions to Chapter 14 concerning the Historic Preservation Ordinance in the current draft; expresses no opinion on the rest of the code outside its purview; and believes the draft could be revised and still meet the governing body's schedule — Passed 4-3 (Yes: Maggala Madrono, Member Terry, Member Ben, Chair Rios; No: Denman, Neither, Member Bside) == Public Comment == Public comments covered a wide range of topics. Several architects and residents, including Gayla Beal, Richard Martinez, and Stephanie Benonato, raised concerns about the absence of an architect on the Historic Districts Review Board, the legality of decisions made without one, and significant delays and inefficiencies in the application process. They suggested solutions like increasing board size or creating district-specific boards. Concerns were also voiced about the lack of transparency regarding substantive changes in the Land Development Code and the status of the Supreme Court bridge project. During discussions on the LDC update, there was a clear divide. Many speakers, including members of the Community Advisory Working Group and representatives from healthcare and community development, emphasized the severe affordable housing crisis and urged the board to support the proposed affordable housing incentives within the code changes. They argued these incentives are crucial and could lead to more traditional historic development patterns. Conversely, other speakers, including a retired lawyer and members of the Old Santa Fe Association, strongly objected to the rushed process, the volume and lack of annotation in the 700-page document, and the perceived lack of substantive input from subcommittees. They expressed concerns about the disappearance of specific standards for judging applications, the lack of definitions for architectural styles, and the potential for the code changes to dilute Santa Fe's unique historic character. Stephanie Benonato, a long-time resident, specifically criticized the lack of genuine community participation and the potential for density bonuses to primarily benefit market-rate housing. John Eddie advocated for separating historic district provisions from the rest of the LDC update, warning that adopting the document as a whole would make the HDRB's job a "nightmare." == Topics == - Land Development Code Update - Board Composition Requirements - Application Process Delays - Historic Preservation Ordinance - Staffing and Resources - General Plan Changes - Board Meeting Frequency - Supreme Court Bridge Project - Staff File Management - Board Member Absences == Full Transcript == It. Please let us know when we are live. **Speaker:** We are live. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. Today we are October the 14th, 2025, and may we have a roll call, please? **Speaker:** Thank you, Madam Chair. As we are awaiting one member from the Archaeological Review Board, I'm just going to take the roll call for the Historic District Review Board at this time. Madam Chair Rios. **Speaker:** Here. **Speaker:** Member Agalamadano. **Speaker:** Here. **Speaker:** Member Degen. **Speaker:** Here. **Speaker:** Vice Chair Benu. **Speaker:** Here. **Speaker:** Member Cherry. **Speaker:** Here. **Speaker:** Member Bishide. **Speaker:** Here. **Speaker:** Member Matherther. **Speaker:** Here. **Speaker:** Thank you, Madam Chair. You have a quorum. **Speaker:** Thank you very much. Gary or Heather, are there changes to the agenda? **Speaker:** Yes, Chair Rios. Item eight, staff communications of 15 Camino has been postponed to October 28th. Also, item nine, old business, will be postponed to October 28th. And new business item 10 under A through J has been postponed, the majority of them, to October 28th. **Speaker:** Thank you. So, in other words, we are not hearing any cases this evening. With that being said, is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? **Speaker:** So moved. **Speaker:** May there be a second? All those in favor say "aye." **Speaker:** Aye. **Speaker:** Opposed say "no." Thank you very much. We don't have any minutes, and we do have a number of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Are there any changes to any of these? We have one from February the 25th, 2025, two from March 25th, 2025, three from April the 8th, 2025, and four from May 13, 2025. Changes? Anyone, either staff or board members? It appears not. Is there a motion to approve these? **Speaker:** Motion to approve. **Speaker:** Second. **Speaker:** Second. **Speaker:** All those in favor say "aye." **Speaker:** Aye. **Speaker:** Opposed say "no." Thank you. Matters from the public. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak about something related to H Board matters, but that we will not be discussing this evening? Please come forward. **Gayla Beal:** I'm Gayla Beal. I'm an architect in Santa Fe. I also serve on the Archaeology Review Committee. But I want to, I was reading the code again today, and I came across the composition of this board should be: one member shall be an architect, one member shall be a historian, one member shall represent some aspect of the construction industry, one member shall have a business in one of the historic districts, and one member shall be a member of the Old Santa Fe Association. Two members shall be members at large. We've gone months without an architect on this board, and it says that it's in your ordinance, it's in the code. Do we vacate all of the decisions that you've made over the last six months since you haven't had an architect on this board until you get a board or until you get an architect on this board? I just feel like there has to be some result from all the times we've talked about this. I don't see any movement at all. I know that there's one architect that's applied to be on the board. I don't know what's happened to that application. So I would appreciate maybe that you do stop meeting until you have the composition that's actually laid out in Chapter 14. Thank you. **Speaker:** Thank you, Gayla. **Richard Martinez:** Hi, I'm Richard Martinez, an architect as well. Yeah, I just, I want to reiterate what Gayla just said. We need an architect on the board. Two people have actually been nominated for this board, and no action on either of them. I have something else I want to talk about. I want to talk about the submittals that are required for these meetings, the submittals that we are required to present. It used to be that I would tell clients that it would be one month that I would have to prepare that submittal. So I would have to do the drawings, get, meet with them again, maybe change the drawings, refine them, and then prepare the rest of the submittal. Now the drawings need to be done in time for the PZR review, the preliminary zoning review. A signed PZR must be with the submittal. So, not only is that process to have begun, but it has to be finished, and we have to submit that signed PZR with our submittal. The submittals used to be twice a month. Now they're only just once a month. So, if you miss that submittal date, you have to wait another month to submit. So that means this, the PZR sometimes takes one or two weeks for the city to actually be satisfied that lots of, lot, the lot of record has been established in this, in this case. And then after they have been satisfied, after you've, you've done it in, in the affirmative, then they say they have 15 working days to respond. That's three weeks. So that means that we have to have the drawings ready, finished one month, or five weeks before the submittal. We have to have those drawings done in time for the PZR, and we have to have the PZR signed for the submittal. And the, and the submittals only happen once a month, and you can see how that has delayed projects substantially. The drawings have to be finalized a month or more for the submittal to this board. Since the submittal is now once a month, not twice a month, that it's for meetings that are not just a month later, but could be six weeks later. So, we're submitting plans for a meeting that would be six weeks after or more after the submittal, because that's what the codes, that's what is written in the schedule. And we're hearing now that some of my projects will not be able to come to this board on the schedule that was given because of those, the load that you all have and the limits that you placed on the, on the amount of cases that could come before this board at that time. And so it might be more than a month and a half. It might be two months before, after we have submitted, but before our case is heard. I cannot move forward under those, under those conditions where I'm, where my work is really being done three and a half months before I come before this board. I cannot work on the project, advance the project, bill the clients, their construction is delayed, all that sort of stuff. We have talked about the, the how we can remedy the situation. The staff is overworked, that's for sure. We need more staff. I've also, I've also mentioned, I think it was a couple Februaries ago, we had a meeting about the schedule, and I suggested that perhaps this board is twice as big as it is now, that we have meetings every week, that the board members are required to be at two meetings a month, not four meetings a month. So that's the, the, the reason for twice as many members of the board. Or that we have boards for different districts in the historic area. So I, I mean, there's a lot of solutions, but it requires some really some thinking and making sure, because I know you're volunteering, so it's very difficult for you. Thank you. **Speaker:** Thank you very much, Richard. I appreciate your comments as well as Gayla's. Anyone else in this room wishing to make a comment in reference to matters that refer to the H Board? Is there anyone online? **Speaker:** Yes, Madam Chair. Stephanie Benonato. **Speaker:** Stephanie, I hope you can hear us. You are... **Stephanie Benonato:** I hope you can hear me. **Speaker:** Okay, great. **Stephanie Benonato:** I would agree with Gayla and Richard about needing an architect on the board. I know there's a landscape architect on the board, but I'm not thinking that's quite what the, the requirements call for. It would be nice if each board member actually identified what slot they filled, even now. And I'm wondering also about the bridge by the Supreme Court building, because they were in such a hurry. They had to hurry, hurry, hurry, their deadline. They were going to miss the funding. It's now the middle of October. Miss Rios and Mr. Cherry were the subcommittee that was going to be apprised of what that project looked like, since there was supposed to be an exact replica of the stones on that bridge. And I am wondering where that is, where that is at, what the status of that is. And if you haven't heard, then I would ask that you ask your staff where it is, because again, this was to, had to be done, couldn't come back to the board, et cetera, et cetera. Then the other thing, in terms of timing and long, the length of time for applications, I had a case about the picket, I mean, the coyote fencing, and it was very difficult, even though we had deeds that showed that it was split in half between two brothers in the 1930s, there was no plat county records. And I had to come down to staff and talk to them for some time. And then, guess what? They already had that information in their files. So, it would seem to me that staff should be checking their files first to see if they actually have the information, because a lot of times they do their subdivisions, they know what's going on. And it does take a long time. And there's also was a lack of planners. It took over six months to get a planner assigned to that case. I'm not sure that I agree with Mr. Martinez's suggestions of doubling the size of the board, because you'd still have a quorum. You know, a quorum has to be there. And I don't, I think it would be very subjective and open to a lot of controversy if you had boards that met for one district as opposed to another district. But I do agree that there needs to be ways to facilitate the process so that people can go forward in a timely way. Oh, and one more thing. I know you're going to talk about the general plan, but my understanding is that there are 40 substantive changes in the general plan suggestions. I believe that's what you're talking about tonight, if I'm mistaken about that. But even if you're just talking about code rewrite, I would ask that the substantive changes be clearly pointed out and, you know, described, not just, "Oh yeah, there's some substantive changes, but don't worry." And I found that distressing at the council level where that was, they were not described. And I think that's a real disservice, since these were only supposed to be cleanup and not substantive changes. Thank you. **Speaker:** Thank you very much, Stephanie. Anyone else online? **Speaker:** There is not, Madam Chair. **Speaker:** Thank you very much. So this evening, we will be discussing the Land Development Code that the city has been working on for quite a long while. And if I'm not mistaken, we are going to be focusing on Phase One. Phase One is the part of the code that is supposed to make the code clearer, a cleaner version, easier for the public and the board to work with. And I will turn the meeting over to Heather, because this evening is not only going to be the H Board, but also the Archaeological Board. And David, the chair of the board, of the Archaeological Board, is on his way to this meeting. And so I'm going to turn it over to Heather. And board members, you will be making a recommendation, and within our discussion, and we, I will ask for public comment, and we will do it in the form of a motion at the end of the meeting. Heather. **Heather:** Thank you, Chair Rios. What happened at council is what is going to have to happen with the introduction of this ordinance, and that is reading the entire caption. So I will be reading for a moment. But one of the things I would like to point out is that the Archaeological Review Committee and the Historic Districts Review Board, there is a code provision in Section 14-2.7 that if there is a case that both committees are, and are being, are being considered, then both can meet at the same time. And so that's why you have this format, is that is, is allowed per code. And the subject case is the update to the Land Development. So for the caption, consideration of Bill Number 2024-17, adoption of the Ordinance Number 2025, yet to be determined, which is sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber and Councilor Jamie Cassid. A bill repealing and replacing Santa Fe City Code 1987, Chapter 14, which is also known as a Land Development Code, clarifying and consolidating various references to code violations into one violation section. Specifying that the applicant or property owner have the burden of proof for establishing legal non-conformities, reducing the early neighborhood notification requirement for city capital improvement projects to those exceeding $250,000. Renaming Special Use Permit to Conditional Use Permit. Removing the Historic District's Review Board's authority to recommend personal property acquisitions. Requiring archaeologists to hold a New Mexico State burial excavation permit for certain work. Removing waivers of qualifications for archaeologists by the Archaeological Review Committee. Increasing permitted building heights for residential districts and non-residential development. Establishing densities and height by right for certain residential zones exceeding 10 units per acre. Creating a Parks and Open Space Zoning District. Permitting additional flexibility for certain structures and situations regarding setbacks. Eliminating residential suite hotel, motel, and ecological resource protection overlay zoning districts. Reducing the length at which an archaeological clearance permit is required for sewer and utility main construction. Removing alcohol sale regulations in the Airport Road Overlay. Identifying a strategy to review and approve land use cases not specifically listed in the summary table of allowed uses. Clarifying that duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and residential complexes are permitted uses. Creating use categories and subcategories and reorganizing some of the existing uses into new categories within the table of allowed uses. Requiring trees to be integrated into stormwater infrastructure in the Airport Road Overlay District. Removing certain prohibitions for vehicle parking at residences. Allowing accessory dwelling units to be the maximum allowable height for the zoning district. Establishing design and dimensional standards for residential compound development. Regulating in-ground and above-ground pools. Regulating agricultural home occupations. Reassigning the use laboratory research or testing from industrial to commercial. Regulating outdoor dining. Updating telecommunication facilities code to be consistent with federal standards. Establishing new subdistrict regulations in the historic district overlays. Specifying primary facades for significant structures and the strategy for identifying primary facades on contributing structures. Updating definitions for facade and elevation. Prohibiting enclosure of existing porches and portals on primary facades of contributing structures. Requiring window depth and other characteristics of windows and doors to be preserved in historic districts. Increasing affordability incentives including the administrative review and density bonuses. Specifying that open space requirements in the C2 district are per dwelling unit. Expanding options to reduce on-site parking and exempting the Business Capital District from parking requirements in Table 7-4. Reducing required off-street parking spaces. Requiring electric vehicle charging stations for all new developments. Distinguishing parking regulations applicable to bicycles from those applicable to vehicles. Requiring long-term bicycle storage and parking. Eliminating content-based sign regulations. Imposing a variety of new regulations protecting the city's terrain and stormwater management. Imposing new landscape standards for plants and trees, eliminating allowance for high and low-pressure sodium lamps and mercury vapor, adding LED as a permitted lamp type, and decreasing the permitted incandescent watts from 160 to 150. Sunsetting the Business Capital District Design Review Committee and Long-Range Planning Subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Defining numerous terms, embedding graphical depictions and processes of processes, and making non-substantive chapter organizational changes. That is the caption, and those are all the substantive changes. So I think my presentation is done. Just kidding. So the substantive changes that are related to the code update really do relate to things that really needed to be fixed. So I'm going to ask, can you please put my presentation up on the screen? Thank you. So the Land Development Code, when it was originally envisioned, was to break it into a three-phase project. The first phase being the cleanup of the code. The last time the code was adopted was in, in comprehensively, like what we're doing tonight and during this process, was in 1987. So over the years, over the past almost 40 years, there have been a lot of amendments that have been made to the code. And no matter how hard staff tries, it's difficult to capture everything. And so therefore, in our current code, we have a lot of conflicts that need to just be addressed that are not consistent with each other and has problems when it comes to case review and boards and commissions actually judging those cases for conformance with the code. The second phase is where is the meat and the potatoes of the code update, and that is where we're going to be dealing with the key issues that were identified with Phase 1. We did a lot of outreach in the beginning and have an assessment report of those items that the community felt were critical to be updated, and I will provide that to you. It's not in this packet today, but I will provide that to you as we launch into Phase 2. And then Phase 3 is making sure that the code is consistent with the General Plan. As you know, we're updating the General Plan at this time. In the packet, there is a disposition report, and as part of that packet, what we did was we tried to endeavor to highlight every large change and also to highlight the other organizational changes as well. So it has a crosswalk from existing code to proposed code, and the reason why, and you can see, you know, the different highlights that are highlighted in yellow, those are the substantive changes in the packet. Also, if you can take a look at the, or with reference to the zoning districts, we have reorganized things. So everything is just in one place. And while this doesn't directly relate to the Historic Districts Review Board or the Archaeological Review Committee, it is intended to be a wholesale improvement to the document and putting things where they're logically placed in when it comes to setbacks, height, other types of references. So we also have included graphics as well to help members of the public understand how the code is implemented. In all of our zoning districts, we have consolidated the purpose statements and dimensional standards. Right now, they're two separate chapters. There are those new illustrations I referred to, and there's a simplification of the standards and reduction in the number of table notes because that would always catch everybody, like, "Oh, you would have to follow this, this path that was not exactly always straight," as many architects will tell you. And then the permitted height was outside of the historic districts. The permitted height was increased by two feet to allow for green building code methods. As you know, there's a lot of change in the way we construct things, and that includes solar as well. And so the increase of two feet in height will allow for placement of rooftop solar as well as extra, you know, extra insulation and also with reference to wildfire urban interface standards, which are going to be seeing in Phase 2, for extra buffering and hardening of the roof and structure. There's additional space that's required for that as well. Chair: I would like to, Madam Chair, if I can interrupt just for a moment. Chair EC with the Archaeological Review Committee has arrived, and I would like to do a roll call for the Archaeological Review Committee. Go right ahead. Thank you. Chair E. Member Beal. Member Trice. Chair EC. You have a quorum. Thank you. Appreciate that. So getting back to the district-specific changes, when we reviewed the project for the Habitat for Humanity on Alto Street, we had a review at the Historic Districts Review Board for architecture and all compliance to all standards therein, as well as with the Archaeological Review Committee for conformance with the required reconnaissance reporting and archaeological testing. But one of the things that wasn't caught was the fact that this is in a high-density zoning district, and for five dwelling units, a development plan would be required. What we have done is to remove that requirement for a development plan for development in high-density zone districts, which many of them are in the historic districts. And so that, while that is a current planning function, it is something that really provides an opportunity for infill development. We have also added a Parks and Open Space zoning category. We haven't done anything with it. It's reserved right now, but the intent is to provide some intentional standards as to how our parks and open space can be developed and limit the permitted uses as well. That has been a concern that's been raised in our community as of recent with certain cases. For the overlay zoning districts, we've added basic maps with location and boundaries of those overlay districts into the code to make it more of a quick reference. And we did not carry forward the residential suite, hotel, motel, and the ecological resource overlay because they never actually were implemented. And there's been other ways we've been able to address those types of overlays in the code. We have reorganized and edited to simplify the language in the Escarpment Overlay. The Airport Road Overlay, while it was well-intentioned, there was a restriction on sale of alcoholic beverages along the corridor, and that really precludes many things like grocery stores and restaurants and other service types of facilities. And so that really has not promoted good development and redevelopment to allow for walkability and sense of place for Airport Road. So the proposal is to eliminate those restrictions in the historic district overlay, which is reflecting the working group's review, clarifications, addition of descriptions for architectural character, removing public view limitation on the application standards are some of the larger issues that are being addressed, and I'll go into that in further detail in a little bit. We've renamed the Special Use Permit as a Conditional Use. It's important to clarify that a permitted use is approved or can be approved subject to certain conditions. Sometimes that requires review by the Board of Adjustment or the Planning Commission. Sometimes it does not, but it is a clarification and terminology that will make it consistent with expectations set forth in the zoning code. Some new uses have been added. Doggy daycare was not a thing back in 1987. So we've added specific uses like that, as well as urban farms and other uses with new use-specific standards. Accessory and temporary uses were also added to the table for quick reference. And you can see how the table is organized here, where there is the use, and you can see A for accessory, C for conditional, or P for permitted based on the zone district. And then there's a hotlink to the notes that, or to the supplemental standards that apply to that particular use. And the biggest emphasis in this Phase 1, which we received direction from the citizens working group as well as the technical working group, that we need to really forward affordable housing, and we need to do it quickly. And so there is a report in your packet about the enhanced affordability incentives and what the city is trying to do to promote affordable housing development through incentives and voluntary incentives. There's easier navigation to those specific standards. As I stated previously, all sections were reorganized to use simpler language. Landscaping has updates to perimeter parking lot standards as well as a lower threshold for applicability. Walls and fences: there's new information on permitted fence materials and a prohibition on barbed wire. You would be surprised the number of times we've asked and we've had applicants for barbed wire. So, we don't want that in the city. Relative to parking, it's important that we provide EV parking for all new development. It's something that is part of our everyday life. We have also made some adjustments to on-street and off-street parking to allow for guest parking and sometimes parking for dwelling units to be on the street. We have also provided for reductions in parking based on proximity to transit and trails, to structured parking, incentives for affordable housing and senior housing parking reductions, and removing the parking requirements altogether in the Business Capital District, our downtown. That is an issue for outdoor dining. For example, we had a situation where, for those extra tables that go outside, we need to provide additional parking spaces, and that's not something that we want to have to do in the downtown. And then, of course, we have some updates to the Americans with Disabilities Act standards. There are updates to required bicycle parking. It's been sort of divorced from the number of parking spaces that are required for a project, but actually provides additional bicycle parking opportunities, really in a way to promote multimodal transportation options. And this was based on the guidelines of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. The Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee of the council was very active in this, as well as the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Signs: I mentioned previously that content-based regulation has been removed. That is because of the fact that there was a court case that regulated, that caused this regulation where it imposes restrictions against free speech. And so we can't go sideways of Amendment Number One, free speech regulation. So, impact fees had a structural reorganization. Street design standards are, there is a separate concurrent effort to update those street design standards. How that applies to the historic districts is that there are very unique streets in historic districts, including dirt roads. And so you will be seeing that coming as part of Phase Two. There are no changes in the Phase One draft. And then architectural design review, including design review for the city as a whole, not just in the historic districts. There is no substantive change in Phase One, but we will be dealing with that as part of Phase Two. Administration and procedures have been more clearly outlined. So, there's a table identifying what the action is and what the process is going to be, whether it goes to the Historic District's Review Board, if it's appealed, where does it go? It goes to the governing body, and then if that's appealed, does it go to District Court? We also have flowcharts that illustrate for each action that the city takes and the different boards and commissions to make it clear to people the steps that need to be accomplished over time in order to get to an approval. Another substantive change is, once again, that name to conditional use. Sorry, I'm repeating myself, but this is a slide that describes it a little more in detail and is more specific. And with reference to other substantive changes, that permitted height was increased by two feet. In residential districts, non-residential districts, permitted height was increased as well from 35 to 36 feet and from 36 feet to 38 feet to accommodate those green building practices. I mentioned residential previously, non-residential as well received a bit of a bump. And then I referenced the Alto Street case with reference to the update for not requiring a development plan for infill development. So, the missing middle housing types. What is missing middle housing? Well, it refers to something that is non-affordable housing, something that is not non-affordable housing, but in that in-between. City employees, for instance, don't make huge salaries, and they really need to be able to find a place to live in Santa Fe. So, the intent of the affordable housing program is also to provide context for allowing the development of missing middle, and I'll get into that in just a minute. And I've reviewed off-street parking, and the Santa Fe Homes Program has been, those changes have been substantial in the new affordability incentives. Updates have been incorporated to allow that higher level of density even in those infill, small infill sites, and other incentives as well to get more affordable housing, but also more market-rate housing. The question would be, why do you want to provide market-rate housing? Well, when there's not enough housing overall, then those people who can pay market-rate prices compete for more affordable units. So, the intent here is really to provide a context in which housing, the entire housing market, can grow in a healthy manner and retain what we call naturally occurring affordable housing as affordable instead of having that competition from market-rate buyers. We've also updated telecommunication facility requirements to be consistent with federal law. We've also created a new section codifying the current practice regarding code violations and our code enforcement team. Subdivision regulations have been amended, which I will go into in just a minute, and utility mains, their requirement for an archaeological study for the linear number of feet has been reduced, which I will go into in a minute. So, our reality check regarding housing: 67% of our housing in Santa Fe is single-family units. 49% of that are renters, 39% are homeowners, and the average rent increased 74% since 2016. So, that is setting the stage as to why we really need to do this. The median house price is $572,000. The current regulations are difficult to navigate. We're not keeping up with the need. We need more than 3,000 units to actually provide for our population. But that does not count those people who have to travel outside of Santa Fe that work in Santa Fe. 40% of our workforce actually lives outside of Santa Fe because they cannot afford a home here. The living wage is still not high enough to accommodate or provide opportunity for housing. So, the current Santa Fe Homes Program has a requirement of 20% of dwelling units for sale to be affordable and 15% of dwelling units for sale to be affordable of rental projects to be affordable. The density bonus right now is 15% for multifamily as well as single-family rental projects are eligible to pay fee-in-lieu, which we have had some in the recent history, and that's the reason for the uptick in the number of apartments that are being built in the city. I'm sure you've seen that. It's because they can pay that fee, which goes to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which allows for the city to partner with nonprofit and other non-governmental organizations to build affordable housing. Additional affordable units do not change the density bonus, and no incentives to build additional affordable units. There are none beyond the minimum requirements. So here you would have 16 market-priced homes, four affordable-priced homes, and then three density bonus homes. So when it comes to making it work from a performance standpoint, when a developer has to develop affordable housing, typically it's being sold at under the cost of what it costs to build, in most scenarios, not all. And so the three density bonus units really don't make up for that cost that the developer is taking on. So we have proposed a percentage-based scale. So a 30 to 39% means you get 1.5 dwelling units per affordable unit. 40 to 49% is 1.75 per affordable unit, and 50% and up to dwelling units per affordable unit. So the affordability scenario would be then you have 14 market-priced homes and then six affordable homes that would be required in this one and a half percent calculation or one and a half calculation per dwelling unit 30%, and the market-rate bonus homes would then therefore be nine dwelling units. So there would be a number, it would be additional density, but the trade-off is that we would have more affordable units as well as more units overall to provide for the community where we currently have a deficit of units. We also do provide for that on smaller sites. So this is a one-acre site. One affordable unit means that there's a density bonus of three units. So, and remember that in Santa Fe, we do allow accessory dwelling units on every property, on every residential property. So, technically it is possible for up to eight families to be able to have a home, whereas it was one with an accessory dwelling unit before. Other incentives include an administrative review, which is a precedent that was set in Midtown and with our Link Corridor District, that was the St. Michael's Corridor, to allow for more administrative review to increase the review timeline, or not increase, decrease the review timelines and provide flexibility with parking requirements and dimensional standards. Okay, I'm going to pause there because that is the big picture of the code. The next item is the Archaeological Review Committee's purview, and the intent here is to, if it pleases the chair, to proceed with the presentation on the archaeological districts, then have the opportunity for questions from any of you all, and then proceed after that, after the questions, then have the public be able to provide comment, and then the Archaeological Review Committee will act on the case to make a recommendation or not to make a recommendation with conditions of sorts. And then after that, we will take up the historic districts' changes to the code, and I will make a presentation at that time. There will be opportunity for questions by the board and then public comment, and then it'll go back to the board. Chair, is that the process that you feel is appropriate? Mayor: I do, and I do have a question at this point. So, presentations regarding the code have been made to the governing body twice, which are recent, October the 8th, I believe, and October the 9th. Can you let us know what transpired at those presentations? Certainly. Thank you, Chair Rios, for the question with reference to the governing body process. So the first step is the introduction, and the introduction of the case really just puts it on the agenda to let people know where to look and what to start looking at for proposed code changes. So following the introduction is the public comment period with the governing body, which we had one. Governing body rules require that there is only a five-minute presentation at the public comment hearing. The intent of that is we really want to hear from the community. And so we had approximately an hour and 15 minutes of public testimony on October 9th at that October 9th hearing. A lot of it did center around affordable housing. There was an expression of the need to make the code update. Now it's overdue, and there are a lot of things that can happen as a result of the code update that would not be able to happen previously, specifically with affordable housing. But there's a lot of other clarifications and things that are part of the code update that will help navigate future projects and provide guidance for future projects. Thank you, Heather. I know this has been an involved process. As we know, people in this room and boards that have been involved in this, this has been going, this has been talked about actually for quite a number of years. And finally, things started happening, and they hired a group, I believe from Colorado, if I'm not mistaken, and they are the ones that have the brains to put things together. But also, there was a lot of public input. Different committees interacted with them and gave their input at the time. So, it's important, and I'm glad to see at least a number of people here that are going from the community that will be speaking this evening. I always feel that it's of utmost importance for the community to give their input. After all, we are, you are our fellow citizens. We are the ones that live right here, and most important to hear from you. We are, of course, this evening going to focus on the archaeological aspect of this ordinance and us on the Historic Districts Review Board, phase one. So, I will turn it back over to you and to the chair of the archaeological board. And David, it's nice to see you, even though you kind of forgot that you had a meeting. Yes, David, you did not forget. Okay. Oh, okay. Okay. And I will tell everybody this evening, including board members, when you speak, really use that mic because people from the public, people in this room, really want to hear you, and so anybody that's online, we really want to hear you. So, Heather, another question in reference to what's happening here this evening. So, the recommendations that are going to be made this evening, they are obviously going to be looked at closely, but that isn't the end all of it. Correct? Yes, Chair Rios, that is correct. So, beyond this commission, and to be fair, typically archaeological review committee meetings are on Thursdays. So, I think maybe that's a hard, it's hard to remember everything. So, subsequent to these hearings with archaeological and historic, we will be having a Planning Commission hearing on Thursday night that starts at 6:00 p.m. And then we will be proceeding to different council subcommittees, and that would be Finance, Public Works, and Quality of Life. And those are going to be happening the week of October 20th and the beginning of November. And then everything will come back and be packaged up to the governing body as to the recommendations from the boards and commissions back to the governing body for a final hearing at which the governing body will have the opportunity to act on the case. Okay. But as far as we are concerned, these two bodies this evening, those are the recommendations that are going to be set in concrete. Is that correct? Yes, it is set in concrete with reference to your recommendations. But it's determined by the governing body as to the final actions. So, in the case of an appeal, for instance, it doesn't happen too often, but it happens where the Historic Districts Review Board will act on a case, it gets appealed to the governing body, and they overturn the case of, you know, the decision of the board. So, that is a possibility. And this is a very large document, and so it could be, I'll just be honest with you, it could be anything that may change or may not change. Thank you, Heather. So, we'll turn it over to the archaeological board. Thank you, Chair Rios. Chair, members of the committee. So, to review what's going on with the archaeological, archaeological districts ordinance, the ordinance shall make recommendations on the following sections: Section 14-2.7 from the Archaeological Review Committee, which includes the creation as well as the different obligations and the composition and so on. The process for archaeological clearance permits in Section 14-3.13, and then the overall archaeological review district standards in 14-5.3. So, the crosswalk is as I've listed on the slide, and that's Section 14-2.7, which is now 2.7, becomes 2.2.2G, and 3.13 becomes 2.1G1 for the clearance permit, and 14-4.2D for the requirement of the archaeological clearance permit, and then 5.3 is going to become 4.2. All right. So, the archaeological districts ordinance was established in 1987 and was one of the first in the country to be established, and it really has helped, helps the community to understand the archaeological record and the different layers of culture that we have. So, it is really important when it comes to honoring cultures that came before us as well. First peoples such as Tesuque Pueblo have had the opportunity to have, you know, participate in an archaeological analysis and be able to be careful when it comes to disposition of those cultural assets. So, the proposed changes is to relocate the text for ease of use. That relocation of text, it goes into three different subsections. And so, there is going to be a permit required when there's a ground disturbance within 25 feet of a known site. And so, as it's illustrated on NRIS and the state database, that if there's a development that's being proposed within 25 feet, there will be an archaeological clearance permit that will be required. Utility main length disturbance has been reduced, and it varies by district based on the downtown historic archaeological district. The utility length that requires, that triggers an archaeological analysis and reconnaissance report is from 60 feet to 50 feet. Rivers and trails, which is highlighted in the blue on that graphic, is from 550 feet to 100 feet, and then 550 feet to 200 feet in the suburban district, which is in that orange area. The downtown is at the center, and that it's not easy to tell, but it's yellow. So, in addition, the other proposed changes is the addition of a requirement for a New Mexico State burial excavation permit, and waiver of qualifications in certain circumstances has been removed. It was determined by the committee and other stakeholders that were engaged as part of this review process that only archaeologists who are qualified can do the work. Procedures were clearly spelled out in this flowchart, like I mentioned earlier, with reference to the entire, the code as a whole, and each archaeological district and development in the area of the Santa Fe Trail. Those procedures have been spelled out more clearly so that archaeologists, the community at large, and the committee can really follow that as a roadmap. Other provisions, including ownership of artifacts, the process for unexpected discovery of human remains and/or unplatted cemeteries, and emergency actions. Those, those, there have been clarifications in those sections as well. And that concludes the archaeological district's crosswalk. Thank you, Heather. David, how do I, I can turn it over to you, or if you want me to continue, I'll be happy to. But since you're the chair of your board, Thanks. I assume that you continue because you are far more able to speak clearly than I. Does the Archaeological Review Committee have any questions prior to public speaking? The Archaeological Review Board has no questions. Do you have any comments in reference to the specifics of the ordinance? Not one of you does. Is there anyone in this room that would like to comment in reference to anything that has been stated here regarding the archaeological review process in reference to phase one? If you do, please come forward. Yes, you'll be stating your name and your address, and Amanda will swear you in and really bring that mic right up to your mouth. My name is Steven Post. I live at 3924 Old Santa Fe Trail. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I actually had a little bit of a misread, maybe some similar to David's. I thought we were talking about substantive issues tonight, but I see that some of the changes in wording in the archaeological ordinance are actually fairly substantive, such as the shortening of the length of utility lines within the different districts and the potential burden that that puts on landowners or utility companies in terms of their schedules and costs, et cetera. So, one of my questions would be, how did you arrive at that, and what is the reasoning for shortening those lengths within the district because that is a substantive change rather than just wording? So, I guess one of the questions is, how is that going to be administered? Another question I had, which is, I don't, don't get me wrong, I love the idea that archaeological studies will be required for projects that disturb ground within some buffer of an archaeological site in the different districts. But as Heather referenced the Nimris map for the archaeological review of these buffers, if you've ever looked at that map, and you probably can't because you don't, you're not permitted archaeologists, so you don't have access to that necessarily, but many of them are just circles that the site limits are buffered circles that might be 300 feet in radius, they might be 100 feet in radius. And so, I'm wondering if the actual mechanics behind determining what a site limit is within the different districts has been taken under consideration at the time that that change in language was undertaken. I have a number of other questions, but I think those two are the two main ones that you were brought up today as changes in language that I think have substantive implications. Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments, and you might want to just stay at the podium. David, you or one of the other members, would you like to address those two questions? I'll let the others go first if they wish, and then I will chime in. I would just like to comment that the changes that we came up with in our committee meetings were really based on the kinds of projects and the kinds of things we started to see in the archaeology review meetings where people were not taking into account how close they were to sites themselves. And also, the more utilities that are happening with the fiber optics and things like that, there is a greater danger, it seems, of the sites, and that the companies could chop their projects down into size so that they wouldn't have to come in front of archaeology, and therefore we would lose whatever patrimony we might find in the streets. Did that answer your question? I think that's a great explanation for the downtown historic district, especially where the site density is very high and the deposits are fairly mixed. And I think perhaps with some refinement and the river and trails and suburban districts, it may work as well. But again, as, and I understand this is based on your experience, so I'm not questioning that. And certainly the types of projects and the scale of the projects and the kind of the gerrymandering of process that might be going on to avoid unnecessary delays and costs that archaeological studies can bring to a project, have changed since I was on the Archaeological Review Board in between 2000 and 2006. And, but I still, I guess, I guess I hope we take care, and I know you will, to work on trying to better define what the site boundaries actually are that this new language will bring into enforcement. As I say, if you look at the Barrio de Analco district, for instance, for archaeological sites, the site boundaries, they overlap four, five, six times over for some of the sites, which can make it really difficult. However, what that does signal is that it's a potential high-risk, high-concentration archaeological area. So, I guess I'll be curious to see how that plays out in the future as the future archaeological review committees and city staff are tasked with making those decisions and implementations. Thank you, Mr. Post, for your comments. Archaeological Review Board, do you have anything further to say? As a contractor on the Archaeological Review Committee, we discussed the suburban and the rivers and trails lengths so that it wouldn't—we wanted to reduce those, as Gayla said, with regard to some of the utility trenching that was going to be coming up. But also, we didn't want to make it a specific burden on homeowners in certain developments. For instance, if they had a waterline or a sewer line that needed to be replaced, we wanted to adjust that so that those homeowners wouldn't necessarily have to have an archaeological review just to replace a waterline or something. Because some of those developments in those districts are, from my experience, they're starting to get really old, and some of those lines are starting to deteriorate significantly. So, we didn't want to really put an archaeological burden on homeowners at that point. We were more concerned about major utilities going in and making sure that they would be subject to archaeological review. I would just add that this is going to put an increased burden on staff because when the limits that have been proposed would be encountered by an applicant, staff is supposed to identify whether or not there is a genuine concern. So, your reference to those large ovals or circles would pass through a filter of city staff who would evaluate what the property actually is, not its depiction on the map. And if they learned as a result of that research that it was literally 150 feet away, the requirement would have been met. They don't need to do anything. The map, which everyone refers to as NIMRS, New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System, is really just an early warning, and the distance is a prompt for staff review and advisory. It's not going to be a hard and fast, "Yeah, you're within this giant circle for the Barrio de Analco." It isn't just a cut and dried situation. Thank you, Chairman EC and Mr. Trice. I appreciate your explanations regarding the thought processes that guided your decisions in terms of developing the language that we see in the draft currently. I mean, I will reiterate, the filter is going to be difficult, and I agree with David, the filter for some of these buffers will be difficult for the staff to interpret. For instance, some of these buffers are in the downtown district, especially, are created because there is a continuous artifact scatter across certain parts of downtown. And the buffers are in recognition of that, but there is no empirical evidence used to create—I mean, there is little empirical evidence that's been used to create those buffers. So, you're walking a fine line if you disregard buffers or you shrink them too much in certain areas because the information that they were based on was inductively, or I should say deductively, created rather than inductively through an agglomerated or a cumulative process of investigation. Am I kind of summarizing that from a management perspective? You summarized it very well. It is going to be a conundrum for staff to navigate the details. Yeah. And so if there's a hearing about substance that is yet to come, is that true? That is true. Then I won't say anymore except that I will have more comments probably about the language changes that have been made, and then I also will have comments about some of the changes to the Archaeological Review District's ordinance that haven't been made that should be made in the future. Keep yourself informed in terms of the meeting dates. I'm sure those will be advertised, and so keep yourself informed, everybody, in reference to the Archaeological Board and in reference to ours, the Historic Board. Thank you. Promise this evening. And if you do, do you have anything further? I just wanted to thank staff for sending me an email that informed me that this meeting was taking place, and I look forward to receiving similar emails in the future. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Is there anyone else in this room that wishes to come forward in reference to commenting on Phase One regarding the Archaeological Review Committee recommendations that have been made? There appears to not be anyone else in this room. Is there anyone online? Madame Chair, one moment, please. Yes, Stephanie Benonato, you may unmute. And we've been advised by the City Attorney, we do not need to swear in. Oh, you do not have to swear in anyone that's speaking here this evening. Correct. And Stephanie, go ahead and speak. Thank you very much. I am concerned about some of these changes, and more so after the last speaker brought up the issues that he brought up. I have worked with archaeologists on these Chris, what we call Chris reports, and they are privileged to people who have a legitimate concern to see them, although you reference in these reports, there are these sites close by, et cetera. So, I don't know how staff would be able to reference them since what they're doing, I think, is public documents. And I'm also concerned that there are substantive changes that are being made in this part of the proposed ordinance or plan change. And I don't know when there really is going to be an opportunity to say, "Here's really what I think you should do here," or, "Here's my specific objections," because these are going to different city committees. I guess you could show up at whatever committee you could show up at, but I mean, is the Archaeological Review Board actually going to have another meeting in which they're going to solicit public comment that is for the substance of this that will actually be sent to the governing body? Because my concern overall is that you're doing a lot of public participation, but it's not really going to make a whole lot of difference in the end. It seems like this is a very detailed document, and that the council's probably just going to approve it unless there's some outcry. And I know from just watching briefly some of the hearing on October 9th that most of the participants there were had a vested interest, for example, in having more housing. They were all builders, et cetera. And so there wasn't much outcry from the public, and with a 600-page document, it's very difficult for most people to wade through that. The other thing that I'm concerned about is this speaker before me brought out that it's making it more difficult, more complex for staff. And I thought the whole point of this was to make it simpler and simpler for people to actually be able to understand and follow. And that doesn't seem what is happening in this part of the changes, the proposed changes. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Is there anyone else online? Madame Chair, there is not. So, Archaeological Review Board, I think it is appropriate at this time for you to make a motion in reference to Phase One portion of the code that is before you and that has been commented on. We can barely hear you. Do we—sorry, you're right. Do we recommend—we make a recommendation to the governing body that we approve this as the Archaeology Review Committee? Chair Member Beexel, the recommendation will be from the Archaeological Review Committee to the governing body. And so this will be your recommendation, and the governing body will consider that as part of the decision. Okay. So I move that we recommend these changes to the governing body. And is there a second to this motion? I second. Would a roll call vote or will a voice vote suffice? Roll call vote, please. Amanda. Member Beal. Yes. Chair EC. Yes. Member Trice. Yes. Thank you. The motion has passed. Okay. Thank you, board members. And I will turn it over to the Historic Districts Review Board and Heather. Thank you, Chair Rios. Thank you to the Archaeological Review Committee. You're welcome to hang around, but you're not obliged. Just wanted to say that. So, with reference to the historic districts, there's been comments I've been hearing about, "Well, there shouldn't have been any substantive changes during this time." It was determined by input from the technical working groups that we really should consider some improvements that would make a difference in the fair application of the code, but also move the needle on affordable housing and provide for more clear understanding of the development code as a tool for helping people get through the process of proposing a development plan, a subdivision plan, or what have you, as well as proposing a project before the Historic District's Review Board. So, to start with the crosswalk, and I'm sorry, I have been remiss, but Matt Goel, who is with Clarion Associates, is actually online, and he is available for questions as well by the board with reference to the board cases and the questions regarding the ordinance. It was really super helpful to have the Archaeological Review Committee answer some of those questions because they're not my area of expertise, but I, as staff, can be a resource for this particular case, unless the board chooses to answer questions. So, the crosswalk is such that you will be making recommendations to the governing body on Section 14-2.6, the Historic Districts Review Board, as well as 5.2 to Historic Districts. The crosswalk being 2.6 of the HDRB is now 2.2F. That's the composition of the board and the roles and number of times you're meeting and all that sort of stuff that's related to your function as a board. And then Section 14-5.2 is currently—is going to be Section 14-4.6. I remember back in the 1990s it was Section 14-7.0, and I had all those things memorized back then, but I don't know. So, and then Section 14-5.2J, the creation of historic districts, is now 14-2.1G2. And it is more clearly spelled out as to the creation of the new historic overlay district. So, I'm going to go back in time a little bit and provide some context as to where we have been and where we are now. So, in 1912, it was determined by many of the initial, well, many of the prominent community members, that something needed to be done with the railroad arriving in Santa Fe. New materials were being brought. Things that could not be brought over the old Santa Fe Trail very well. That's why you have a requirement in the Downtown Eastside Historic District for panes of glass not exceeding a certain size because that's what could be brought over and that's what was expected or part of the character of the historic district. But all of a sudden, we were—we were seeing development, or that they were seeing a development back in the early 1900s, of Italianate buildings on the Plaza. Seeing development of different historic styles in the residential areas, and just think of Grant Street over here with the more Anglo-American styles of architecture. And there was a reaction by Edgar Lee Hewitt, who was with the Museum of New Mexico at that time. And in 1910, he forwarded a vision that Santa Fe should remain unique, should remain different. Sylvanus Griswold Morley, who I first got to know when I was studying the Maya in Central America. He was an archaeologist associated with the Maya and did a lot of work in Mesoamerica. He also had a house here in Ojo Caliente and he provided that persuasion that we really need to be something different. We really need to hold on to our identity, and so he was the one that provided the persuasion that implemented that vision. Oliver LaFarge picked that up, and he also really got involved in the development of the ordinance, the initial ordinance in 1957, as well as Irene von Horvath, who enacted the ordinance and made improvements over time as well. So that is the frame in which everything is set. There was also a plan that was developed in 1912 for the city of Santa Fe that talked about roadways, parks, open spaces, all of the different things that those folks at that time wanted to see happen in their community. And so that plan functioned very much like the general plan that we have today. And that ordinance, it functioned very much in a similar role that what we have today. So in 1957, when the Historic Styles Ordinance, that's what it was referred to at that time, was adopted, the general standards were that new construction was to harmonize with historic styles, and that being defined as Pueblo Revival or Territorial Revival. And the Downtown East Side Historic District was established at that time, back in 1957. There were struggles, though, the city, and it was the Planning Commission at that time that was doing a lot of that work. The Historic Districts Review Board came along a little bit later that has the expertise that you all do with reference to the historian, the landscape architect, the person who has a business in a historic district, and so on. So in 1982, there was the creation of an amendment that really reacted to the First Interstate Plaza building where the bullring is. That was a very controversial building that was allowed to be built, and at that time, it was determined by Ms. Von Horvath and others that something needed to be done to be more clear about what those standards are. So, Resolution 88 was created back in 1982 to provide guidelines to the Historic Styles Committee. And so the harmony with adjacent buildings was further fleshed out as to what harmony meant, as well as John Gaw Meem had a role in this, and it informed, I'm sorry, his work helped to inform this 1982 evolution. And you can see that it's probably one of the country's first form-based zoning codes because really a lot of the ordinance itself was based on building form for walls, landscape, the setbacks, and the like, not necessarily really drilling down to very specific standards like we have today. In the 1980s, from '83 to '87, there were the different historic districts that we know and have today were established: the Don Gaspar Historic District, the Westside Guadalupe Historic District, the Transition District, and the Historic Review District. So during the 1980s, and you see a lot of surveys at that time as well in your packets there, there was an attempt to really document the historic districts and the different styles. And as part of that, that part of that survey that was done in the 1980s helped to inform and define what those design guidelines were going to be and standards. So in 1997, a height amendment was added to the Historic District's Ordinance regulating height. And at that time, in our very rudimentary way, I created these GIS maps to help sell the ordinance and say, "Yes, we can pull this data from the map and we can give you a streetscape average." And that's what sold the City Council at that time, as we've talked about complexity of staff processes and the like. So it was not only a response to a need in the community to make sure our streetscapes were consistent, and this had been a theme that had pervaded since the 1980s. The Eldorado Hotel was replaced by Big Jo Lumber, and there was a lot of concern about its height and its bulk and its mass. And so there were attempts previously at defining what streetscapes would be, but the 1997 ordinance really sort of put a pin in it and described permitted heights based on streetscape analysis that staff would do. In 2003, the Historic Compound Section was added to the Historic Districts Ordinance, and it recognized and designated compounds, something like Plaza Chamisal, where there were more than a few buildings but all centered around the same group of people and really functioned as one. So those compounds really tried to also help to recognize that traditional zoning standards don't apply in the historic districts. It's really hard in some cases to have a five-foot setback or a front, what's the street, and all of that. So that was intended to really help to eliminate, even though those zoning standards apply, they do help to eliminate the sort of uniqueness of the historic districts. In 2004, there was an update regarding significant and contributing structures to clearly create criteria for preservation and designation of the structures. They were designated previous to that, but it actually helped to provide additional direction. In 2009, the State Capital Outlay Projects section was added with the help of Mr. Katz, who was City Attorney at that time. It helped to define a clear process for the review of state capital outlay projects, including museums as well as buildings associated with the legislature and all other state facilities. And it provided for more community engagement regarding those proposed projects. 2010, same thing happened for the county, Santa Fe County, as well as the public schools. And then we updated the exception criteria in 2023. There have been very minor changes over time as well, but these are sort of the high points. And the reason we updated the exception criteria is really to separate height from the design standards in those code criteria. And that was really sort of a first step because strengthening the unique, heterogeneous character of the district as a whole is sort of a hard criterion to enforce. So that would be a Phase 2 improvement where we would make those exception criteria a bit more clear and easier to use for the board's review as well as the public. We had a Historic Districts Ordinance Subcommittee, and the names are listed here, but the background includes two Historic Districts Review Board members, one member who was at that point part of the Land Use Working Group but now is a board member as well. Scott Cherry, David Rash, was very interested in seeing how a former historic preservation manager, seeing how the ordinance changed and adapted with this code update. So he was part of that, as well as many others associated with the architecture community or the AIA and design community and Homewise and some interested citizens as well. Summary of changes, sorry this is taking so long, but it's a lot, I know. So there are procedures that include minor copy edits, including adding H-Board as an official short name for the board. You can see that same process diagram that has been incorporated into the Historic Districts Ordinance just to provide a clearer path for decision-making for the board as well as understanding the steps for the public applicants. As well, it removes personal property acquisition as being within the scope of recommendation of authority. So what reference to the board making a recommendation that the city pursue personal property acquisition. So, for instance, a building, say for instance, if the airport wasn't owned by the city, but the board would be interested in acquiring that property to designate it, that that would have been required to be, the board would have required the city to do that. That has never happened. And so, at this point, it just is not appropriate. That creates graphics and provides that process graphic for demolition as well as for case review, and a new section for demolition with a purpose, applicability, and post-decision information. So there are some copy edits and reorganization as well. The design guidelines have been reorganized to be more accessible and consistent with each other with the same headings and subheadings for each district. So the structure is there, and the districts are focused on defined qualities rather than subjective styles, which will help to capture the qualities of a place. You know, leveraging that place, the place we really want to see continue as something special, something unique, and forward the goals of historic preservation. And it's the sum whole rather than those individual parts. I know this is hard to read, I'm sorry. I couldn't think of a better way to do it, but I wanted to provide an example of the Downtown and East Side Historic District as you to review what the changes are so you can understand the context for those changes. So the description of the architectural character in 2025. So that description really is intended to provide a guide, and it is more general in nature but also acknowledges the diversity of types of architectural styles in the districts. So that is really to provide color to the decision-making process. It is not intended to regulate, it just provides an introduction. The exterior design elements and standards. New construction modifications or alterations to existing buildings generally shall be in the Pueblo Spanish Revival, Territorial Revival, or Northern New Mexico vernacular subtypes of the Santa Fe style. So right now, in the Downtown and East Side Historic District standards, we ran across this with Georgia O'Keeffe. We could not recommend approval for that project because it was not recent Santa Fe style or old Santa Fe style. And it put us from the code context into a strange spot. And what is important to acknowledge is that there are many Northern New Mexico vernacular style buildings in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. And it truly is intended to acknowledge and honor those styles that also exist. It's not just, and I think that's a transition from the Styles Committee to sort of acknowledging now that we're more than design guidelines. We're also preservation. And so we need to acknowledge those historic structures that maybe aren't exactly like what is forwarded by styles itself. And then another aspect or another portion of that includes exterior wall finish materials and roofs. And so the intent is really to be much more focused on materials and the design of the structure than being stuck in two styles or being limited in the way an appropriate style architectural example could occur. For instance, and I'm just providing you with some examples on the fly, but a lot of the projects off of Agua Fria Road that Trey Jordan designed, they do maintain that character of the historic district, even though they're much more modern in character than many of the historic structures that we find in the historic districts. One of the questions that was asked during the subcommittee process was, "Well, how can we communicate to the community? How can we tell what's historic and what's not?" The person who does not know the building construction techniques and the different things, and how can you tell that something, and obviously by default there are some changes that happen with different material. So, you know, a stick-built structure that's covered in stucco does look different from a mud structure. So, but the intent is really truly to acknowledge and honor the different styles in the Downtown and East Side, but also allow for some honesty with reference to what the options may be. I know that I reviewed all of this with the subcommittee, and then I sent this document to the subcommittee as well before this hearing. We all agreed this is not only a recommendation of staff, but we all agreed as a subcommittee that this would be a good approach to undertake. I also know that there's a concern, and Member Bienvenu has provided a letter for your all's review, and I imagine he'll be discussing it. But the Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 was intended as a guide. There were things that needed to be addressed, like affordable housing. This could be considered, is considered, a substantive change, but the overall aim and intent of this is really to make the ordinance work for everybody in a more meaningful way. Like I said at the beginning of my presentation, in 1987, this ordinance was drafted. We went through, as staff, the entire code. Actually, before I even came back to the city, once I'd been hired on or given an offer, I was starting to meet with the staff at that time to go over each code section and highlight what changes were needed of the entire code. There were so many of them. It's really beneficial to have an engagement process with a technical or citizens advisory group, a subcommittee of the historic districts, to make sure to get that feedback as we go along. We also had some open houses and other outreach as well. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Board Member: Thank you, Heather. Board members, do you have any questions for Heather at this point? Yes, Member Madano. Member Madano: Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I guess I just want to make sure I'm up to speed. So, I'm on one of the subcommittees, and I did receive what we're looking at tonight in an email earlier this week. But prior to that, the last meeting that I was aware of was in August of 2024. The version we looked at then was different from the one we have in front of us tonight. In that one, the design standards really hadn't been touched as much, and it was still old San style, recent Santa Fe style. So, I don't know that I'm comfortable having, you know, this memo has my name on the subcommittee, that we've signed off on it. But this week is really the first time I've had a chance to look at this. So, were there any other meetings, or was that the last time that the committee met? Heather: Member Aguilar Madron, I believe the last meeting we had, you weren't in attendance, and I was just trying to pull it up on my calendar. So, if that was me or not, but anyway, so there was one last meeting that was held. I'm sorry for the long delay. You've probably heard already that there was a substantive review process through the City Attorney's office of 700 pages. So, it has been a long delay from when we finished the work, the subcommittees, all of them finished the work, and the process we're undertaking right now. Member Madano: Okay. Thank you, Heather. Yeah, the one I have is from August 2024, and I had it on my personal calendar. So, I believe I was there. But at that point, the conversations I thought were still very early on in the process, and a lot of ideas were kind of thrown around, but most of which we had agreed to wait until Phase 2. So, I just wanted to make sure I was understanding the schedule of events leading up to tonight. Thank you. Board Member: Thank you, Madano. Any other board members have questions for Heather at this time? Member Cherry. Member Cherry: Hi, Heather, and thanks for all this work. It's a gigantic project. I guess I don't necessarily have a question, but I have some comments, if that's appropriate. Heather: That is appropriate. Member Cherry: I would second what Member Agar Madrono said as far as I don't feel as though in that subcommittee process that I necessarily agreed to anything as far as this is concerned. However, I guess my comments are really in regard to the just the process, and I think it's an extraordinarily complex process, and that I don't feel like in the subcommittee that the subcommittee was necessarily guiding the process. My interpretation of it was that the process was being really guided by the predetermined process, and that we were discussing hygiene. I know that in relation to your comments earlier about substantive change versus just hygiene, I know that discussion came up quite a bit in relation to I think it sometimes felt awkward to talk about hygiene for things that might get substantively changed, like why do we need to clean something up that might get completely eliminated? However, that being said, that process wasn't something that I had participated in creating the process. So, I think there was some faith in that there's this consulting group and that there's this process in place already. My understanding of that subcommittee was just to provide information that was based on being guided by the process that staff was guiding us on and that this consulting group. So, I would, I guess if I do have a question, it would be, and maybe it's for the representative of the consulting group that's here tonight, is because I've never participated in one of these processes before, but is this a typical process or methodology of doing hygiene first and then substantive change? The reason I'm bringing that up is that seems to be the point of most contention in this whole discussion of where are we in the process and just kind of wanting an understanding of that, because I do feel like there were great conversations in that subcommittee group, and there's great information, there's great sharing of minds, and there was a lot of resources, but how it applied to what changed and manifested the document that we have in front of us isn't 100% clear to me. Heather: Matt, would you like to provide an overview of the 2004 process and maybe respond? Matt: Sure. Yeah. Hello, board members. It's nice to be here virtually with you. Santa Fe went through a lot of iterations of the historic ordinance over the years, as Heather talked about. When I first started with Clarion, gosh, this was back in the early 2000s, we started working on a multi-year project with the Santa Fe code. Part of it was overall cleanup, part of it was an attempt to revise the historic district section to be more substantively responsive to what the stakeholders at the time thought were big concerns. They had a very extensive stakeholder process that involved city officials, that involved a lot of representatives from the different historic neighborhoods. They came up with a lot of draft language that did various things. They tried to provide better descriptions of the historic districts. They tried to be more precise in the standards by which applications in the historic districts were reviewed. They went through a very collaborative process to develop language that they thought everybody agreed on at the time and should be folded into the ordinance. Ultimately, it didn't pass. Ultimately, that process didn't result in changes. They felt like it was, I think, too much too soon, but more than that, it just got caught up in the political calendar, and they had some staff turnover at the planning department level. They had new counselors who had other priorities. And so I think a lot of that work just kind of got put on the shelf. There was a redraft of the ordinance that ultimately just didn't go forward. So, I think as part of this work now, I know Heather and her team have looked back to that work as a source of potential guidance for what's been carried forward now. Now, the other part of the question was, do other cities do this thing where they divide a code update into a housekeeping piece first and then to a substantive piece? And yeah, it's definitely not uncommon. Cities like Santa Fe, where it's hard to get the resources or the political will together to do big comprehensive updates, oftentimes try to start easier, with the more straightforward stuff, the more low-hanging fruit. Oftentimes that's like a reorganization, a reformat. I personally have worked on projects like that in places in Idaho, Boise, and Ketchum. I've done North Glenn in Colorado. That's just the ones I'm thinking of off the top of my head. We definitely have done it before. It is a way to establish goodwill. It's a way to establish momentum in a project that a lot of times can seem insurmountable. If you can go forward and try to get some of the easy stuff done first, then that builds a sense of teamwork that we can maybe tackle the hard stuff next. Now, in every one of those places, the line between substance and non-substantive change is a little bit different. And honestly, there's always tough pragmatic conversations about where that line should be. And sometimes communities really try to be conservative with that line. And sometimes they say, "Well, let's try to accomplish a little bit more. If we think everybody agrees with this change, even if it's substantive, let's go ahead and push it through while we've got this process in place." So, I can just say that communities are often kind of struggling with that line. It's not an uncommon problem. We've always tried to say, in the Santa Fe project, that there was a little bit of substance there, but it was stuff that was either an important community priority or was felt to be low-hanging fruit. So, that was our good faith attempt to try to bring things forward, knowing how hard it was to get stuff passed. But that's kind of what happened here. And I guess I could happy to answer more questions, but that was the general thrust of how this moved forward and where I think we stand in relation to other cities. Member Cherry: Yeah. Well, thanks for that explanation. Yeah, I mean, it seems like a complex, it is a complex process, and how do you not have overlap with those things, because you're having conversations about hygiene and you get into substance, and you're having conversations about substance and you get into hygiene. So, I can certainly understand how there's potential for crossover there. I guess one question I have relating to what you just said is where might we land tonight with regard to what's been changed? Is there, there still seems to be Phase 2? So, there's opportunities to kind of potentially pull back things that now are being reviewed and get seen as, "Oh wait, we didn't want to eliminate that, we just wanted to clean it up." So, how does that back and forth happen moving forward here to potentially retain some things that might have gotten removed in hygiene that seem like substantive removals? Heather: Member Cherry, the process is such that the board makes a recommendation, and if it's the pleasure of the board and you want to recommend that those changes not happen at this time, it certainly is within your prerogative just as part of your recommendation stating that you would like to retain the existing design standards for all four historic districts. Matt: And just to add to that, Heather, I mean, we are going, we are collecting all the unfinished items from this, from this Phase 1 effort. And one of the first things that will come out of Phase Two is a new assessment report that's going to basically be all the stuff that we still have to do that we had identified early on with early stakeholder interviews that we knew was substantive. It's also going to include things that have fallen by the wayside during the Phase One process because we realize they just didn't really qualify for this initial phase. So, it's not going to be lost. Everything that's been raised, there is a mechanism that's already been identified to document those, to organize those ideas, and to carry them forward into a new process. So, if something doesn't pass muster as part of the Phase One project now, we certainly don't intend to abandon it. It'll come back for discussion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Amberary, for those important comments and questions. Thank you. Clarified a lot of stuff for, I think, for the rest of us. Members, any other questions for Heather at this time? No. Heather, can we go forward with our comments? Yes, Member Benu. Well, I'm going to ask Heather. Yeah, I'm going to ask Heather. So, can we go forward at this point with our comments? Mr. Chair. Uh, Member Ben. Thank you, Director Lamboy, for the presentation, but more than that, really just undertaking this task. I mean, really, it's almost unimaginable what you had to do here, and I can't think of anyone better to take it on and lead it than you. So, congratulations. You did an amazing job, and it's a huge project, and I guess 90% of it I think is great. So, 10% I just think is completely unacceptable for reasons we've already talked about at length. But let's go into some of those. I guess hearing your comments tonight about the substantive changes just really makes this all seem even more dramatic than I thought it was. I actually thought coming in tonight that a lot of this was inadvertent, that these were drafting mistakes that had crept into this draft. But now I am now I'm hearing that you're actually proposing to completely upend our historic ordinance standards, and particularly in the Downtown East Side District, which I find almost shocking that we would be doing that so cavalierly at this stage in Phase One. Maybe that's what needs to happen. I think the governing body, as we've said many times in many hearings, they ultimately decide what rules they want in place, and we just follow them. But we've been following a set of rules, particularly for the core district, since 1957. And what I just heard you say is we're basically removing them so that we can bring in a lot more different types of buildings than we've ever allowed before. And I think that needs a lot more careful attention. And I think that that isn't that's not just a substantive change, that's an extreme substantive change, which I just I find disconcerting personally because when this whole process began, I said I didn't understand why we would be separating those two phases. To me, I didn't understand how you could do a hygienic cleanup without addressing substance. But the decision was made to do hygiene first. And all through that lengthy process, I asked numerous times, are we still just doing hygiene? And I was always assured yes, no substantive changes are being addressed. And it wasn't until May when we were at the board received that first draft that we learned that substantive changes were being proposed, and we reacted pretty strongly to that. Not only because they were substantive, contrary to what had been represented that this was going to be solely hygienic, but they were just unacceptable in many respects. And we talked at length about that, and never did I hear any response that no, these are already things that the a technical working group, whatever that might be and whoever it might consist of, had already decided that that's the way it was. I always understood since May that the board's consider the board's concerns had been taken into account, and we would be seeing a revised draft. So, when we just recently received this revised draft, really only a few minor changes were made, and otherwise it's the exact same thing we saw in May. Again, I assume that was because this process seems to have been accelerated in the last month. It seems like it bogged down for many, many, many months without anyone working on it other than the City Attorney's office. And I'm not pointing fingers or even criticizing anyone for that. I know what a huge undertaking this is. But it did seem like people were waiting for the process to pick up again where input would be given. And instead, it seems like now there's a huge effort to just get this thing done by November before there's a change in personnel on the governing body. And I think that is a huge disservice to the community with respect to the preservation standards that are being proposed because I don't think that they're being given adequate consideration for how extreme some of these changes really will be for our city. So with that, I just want to go through a few of the things that I think are of major concern that I just think cannot be accepted at this stage. And I hope that there's still an opportunity for the governing body to make some final revisions along the lines that I would like to suggest. And I should also add that other than the things I'm talking about here, I at least, and I imagine probably the board as well, based on the comments of the last hearing we had in May, I don't think have any major objections. I think the hygienic cleanup and the reorganization is all very well done. So, the things that I do think are extremely important though to not approve in this current draft are the ones that I laid out in the October 14, 2025 memorandum, which you have a copy of, and the board members have a copy of it, haven't made part of the record. And they're really the same concerns that were expressed in May. So, and but in a subsequent memorandum at that time. So, let me just go through those as quickly as I can. The first one is a high-level concern, but it's I think it's important, and that is that the current ordinance in 145.2 to J3F, so way back beyond what we normally look at because it was part of the original 1957 ordinance, sets the standard for what the board is supposed to do when it's reviewing an application. And it says that we are to judge any proposed alteration or new structure for harmony with adjacent buildings, preservation of historical and characteristic qualities, and conformity to the standards for architectural style. For reasons I don't understand, that no longer appears in the code. I've referred to that on numerous occasions when we've been addressing applications as if the standards were to follow. I think it's essential. It's been there since 1957. If there was some justification for removing that, I don't know what it would be, and I would ask that that be reinstated. Then to just take the some of these are repetitious because I'm just going to go through the various districts and what what I think are the primary problems with the new draft, and they do relate mainly to every district with one exception. So, let me just start with Downtown and East Side because that is the core historic district, although it's now I think you've rearranged things alphabetically, so it no longer appears first under the districts, but we start with the description of district character. I don't I think you're saying that that came from some 2004 report. I don't find it helpful at all as a board member. It would not it would not provide me with any guidance whatsoever as to how to decide whether or not something is characteristic for a district or whether it harms the district, all things that we are asked to do. I think in fact it confuses things. I think that it is useful to think about having a description of district character, but I think that needs to be done very, very carefully, not haphazardly as this one is done. I think it's confusing because it it references a lot of other styles that aren't even allowed in this district any longer, but were allowed prior to the regulations in 1957. I think that confuses the issue because at least since 1957, none of those are permitted. So, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to to identify all of identify all of the identify all of those and then say however none of those are allowed. Much more important than that though, and I do think we could just what I would suggest there is that we just keep that section but just delete all of the language, just say reserved in parentheses, and in Phase Two work very diligently on on very appropriate language for that district and all the other ones. Much more important though is since 1957 we've had two styles that are permitted in this district, and that is Old Santa Fe Style and Recent Santa Fe Style. Those are confusing. I do think in Phase Two we need to address those styles, especially Recent Santa Fe Style, because the name of that, if nothing else, does cause confusion in the public. But inexplicably, all of that language is dropped out of the new draft, and instead we talk about three styles: Pueblo Spanish Revival, Territorial Revival, and Northern New Mexico Vernacular, which are described as subtypes of yet another style, Santa Fe Style. None of these are defined anywhere. So, you know, without definition, first of all, I I'm not sure that it makes sense to expand the permitted styles to that grouping and then not have any reference to true Santa Fe Style, but only revival styles and something that's now called vernacular. So, I'm not sure we why we would be expanding the styles in the first place, but much more important is the fact that they're not defined. So, it just creates ambiguity and uncertainty as to what is and isn't permitted that will be a never-ending source of consternation for us on this board and for the applicants. So, I again, I think that in Phase Two I could imagine, and in fact I would encourage that we address Old Santa Fe Style and Recent Santa Fe Style definitions and possibly modify those, but I think that is of the utmost important. I mean, after all, this district, this is where I'm really concerned about the presentation because I understand you to be saying now the whole point is to evolve the styles into something contemporary, and that's maybe the governing body wants to do that, maybe the community wants to do that, but that is an extremely significant change to the core historic district if that's what we do, and I think that needs extremely careful consideration that I find hard to imagine took place in this technical working group. And even if it did, I'm not sure what authority that that group had to be making a decision of that magnitude. And I would just also point out that, you know, this the styles that are in the 1957 ordinance for that district have been in have governed that district since 1957. That makes that district itself historically significant. It it's it's not an ever-evolving group of style standards. You know, this isn't lost components where every few years you can add in a new style because that's what the marketplace is demanding. Those styles that are in place have actually created history in itself. Even if, you know, the I mean, I don't agree that they were ever artificial, but even if they were, you now have a defined district defined by that style, those two styles that have historical significance in and of itself. So again, to I think that would be doing a major damage to a very important nationally, if not internationally important, historic district, and I'm really specifically referring to the Core East Side District. Again, this applies to all of the district standards, but I can't count the number of times I and other members of this board have referred back to the very specific language in current E for downtown and East Side design standards that says that even in recent, well, that old Santa Fe style ought to be true Adobe buildings, but the recent Santa Fe style are also mandated to achieve harmony. This is a quote, "achieve harmony with historic buildings by retention of a similarity of materials, color, proportion, and general detail. The dominating effect is to be that of Adobe construction." That is exactly what our standards are today. And I understood you to just say we're getting rid of that under this new draft. We're not. I thought that when you referred to the Sarraordo buildings, I understood that to mean they no longer need to look like Adobe construction because those certainly don't. **Jerry:** Member Bianu, the thing that's not changing is that the Historic Districts Review Board will have authority to review all of these buildings. The thing that also is under consideration is those materials that really need to provide fit within the context and the streetscape, as well as offer this template, as it were, for the different types of materials that are acceptable. So, but I hear you. I hear your concerns, and so certainly if it's the pleasure of the board to delay this conversation until phase two, staff would support that. Okay. Yeah, I mean, again, I do think that there is a segment of the community which would really like to say we want to do much more contemporary buildings in downtown East Side District. They are more than entitled to make that argument to the governing body, and the governing body is completely entitled to agree to that if that's their pleasure. I mean, I think again, they'd be making a huge mistake to do so for reasons that I'd be happy to articulate to the governing body, but they certainly have that right. I mean, this is an ordinance subject to change. And so again, my issue is not so much that I think it would be wrong, although I am saying that now, it would be wrong, especially in the core district, to open it up to non-Adobe-like construction since that has been required since 1957. But my point is much more that that's a conversation that really needs to be fleshed out in a true public process in phase two, which I always expected it would be. Now, the only language about Adobe style construction applies to Pueblo Spanish Revival style buildings, again, undefined, and then only to the extent publicly visible. Again, that would just be an enormous change. So I do believe that all of the original language should be retained until phase two when these issues can be fully fleshed out. The same applies in this district, now allowing pitched roofs for something called Northern New Mexico vernacular buildings, again, not defined. I don't know why we would be changing that right now. I do think there's an argument to be made for pitched roofs for what I wouldn't call Northern New Mexico vernacular. Maybe I would call it, well, actually, I would, that that's a perfectly fine description for it. But again, I think that's a phase two issue. All of the detailing around heights of doors, windows, finishes, colors, roofs, that's laid out in detail in the current code, has all been omitted in the current draft, except for, you know, all the ones that apply to Old Santa Fe style, and only the ones that apply to recent Santa Fe style in our current draft are retained. I think that's a big mistake because we need to still not only permit but encourage true Old Santa Fe style Adobe buildings to be continued to be built. Strangely enough, moving on, the Historic Review District, which is next in our current code, under the new draft, doesn't include a description of district character. So that's an anomaly to me, but that's what I think we should do for all the districts here. Also, strangely enough, the Historic Review District provisions, which now under our current code have the same language as the East Side standards, that even in that district, quote, "in order to emulate traditional Santa Fe architecture and construction traditions, it is intended that structures be designed to appear essentially as structures with massive walls," which are defined as being built or appearing to be built of Adobe construction. So even in the Review District, our loosest district in some ways, we don't even usually ever see buildings there, and they get administrative approval. Even there, currently, we require an appearance of Adobe construction. Strangely, that's retained in the new draft for reasons I don't understand since it's dropped out of every other district. But I do think that's exactly the right approach. We should retain that language in all of the districts subject to further discussion in phase two. Let's see, the Historic Transition District. Now, we don't have style-specific styles listed in our current code, but under the new code, there's a proposal for four styles. Now, again, none of which are defined. We have not only the Pueblo Spanish Revival, Territorial Revival, and Northern New Mexico vernacular, which are all described as subtypes of Santa Fe style, again, not defined, but we also include a bungalow style. I don't know why again we would be having new regulations that require us to decide in an application whether a proposed building is a bungalow style, for example, which would be allowed, or some other style which would not. So I would again say that that's very confusing. It would be difficult for us to apply even if it were to be added. We would need strict definitions for us to be able to make sense of it as board members. So I would retain again the current standards. Again, the Historic Transition District requires the Adobe construction appearing to be made of Adobe. That's been omitted. That should be returned. Going on to the Don Gaspar Historic District. Same issue with the district description. I do not find it in any way helpful or even accurate. And I think that should be deferred for phase two. We again have all of these new styles that are permitted, including a bungalow style and the others, all undefined. I think those should wait to phase two. For some reason, we've deleted slump block as an acceptable building material. We very rarely, if ever, see slump block, but it would be nice to see it more frequently because this is actually concrete block designed to look like Adobe. So I don't know why we would want to remove that as a permitted material. We have regulations on roof shapes, colors, and finishes that have been dropped out and revised. I think we should retain all of those pending phase two. The Don Gaspar District specifically prohibits painting buildings, quote, "with a color that causes arresting or spectacular effects or with bold repetitive patterns." That has been dropped out. I'm not sure why we would want to permit such colors. So I would again, I'm not saying that maybe there's not an argument to be made. I think that's a phase two issue. And finally, Westside Guadalupe has the same problems with a very inadequate description of district character, proposing new styles that are mandated that aren't defined. And I think it's important that we just maintain what we have right now and give all of that very careful consideration in phase two. So, you know, just to summarize, I've tried to, I think it's very difficult in such a lengthy document that covers so many extremely important aspects of land use in Santa Fe, to, or it's hard for things like this not to just slip in inadvertently. And I feel like even though tonight I have some concerns that some of it was deliberate, I think most of it's inadvertent. And I'm hopeful that we have a process where we can get back to the original language in those areas that I've pointed out and avoid what I think is a very real potential problem we could be facing, which is we've been regulating building, especially in the downtown side district, for almost 60 years now under a very, you know, one set of standards. Now we're going to have for a year or two a second set of different standards, and then potentially two years from now, a third set of standards after phase two is completed. I think that is a very problematic trajectory that city would be put on that could be avoided by just keeping existing standards in place. I think by and large, they should be kept in place in phase three, phase two as well. But at least if we're going to modify those, let's do it once and for all that will last for another 50 or 60 years and not have an interim period with these incomplete and inadequate standards. Thank you. Thank you very much for the thoroughness of your comments and for the breakdown that you did here and really, really thinking about what the 1957 ordinance stood for and has stood for for all these years and what is being proposed to change in our city of Santa Fe, which I agree with many, many of the comments that you've made. And I don't know why all of a sudden we have to rush through this. I think that we have, okay, they had a committee. The committee was meeting here and there now and then, and then all of a sudden we are given this information and that this board, that board, whatever, that we have to come up with something like immediately. And I really, really am curious to hear the rest of the comments of this board and also you, the public, because we've had this ordinance in place and certainly we have been, I have heard comments as long as I've been on the board, "Oh God, we have to rewrite that ordinance, you know, write the whole land use code." But we on this board are, our particular interest is in the historic, historic districts. And so for us to be flimsy about this process is not, I can already tell by the comments that three board members have made, is not going to, is not going to work. So, I'm really curious to hear the rest of the comments of board members and also, I'm going to be embracing the comments of the public. We here in Santa Fe that appreciate, appreciate this architecture. I know I've always, when I read on the ordinance, when I read the ordinance and it uses the word "modern," I always, for me personally, I cringe, even though I know that it's indicating just to use the materials that are at hand for us that are, it doesn't mean contemporary, but it means the materials that are on hand for us at this, quote, "modern time," right? But, I agree with me that introducing a bunch of different architectural styles is going to make this, the ordinance, more complicated. It really, really is. I know that there are many members of our community, including many architects, that want to move to the more modernistic or contemporary styles. And I personally am not one of those. I'm a person that was born here, raised here. I'm really rooted in this community. And I like and I appreciate what we have in this community that has made Santa Fe special. It really is a city different. And if you travel the world and you come to Santa Fe and you look at Santa Fe in relation to other places in the world, I'm going to tell you, we have a very important and special place here. And I think that we need to fight to keep it. And I do appreciate people, and I have heard people that I personally thought that would be more into the traditional lane of architecture that are really thinking, "Gee, you know what?" I just heard at our last board meeting, as a matter of fact, I heard a person, a builder here in Santa Fe, indicate that he's kind of leaning towards being more open-minded about more contemporary type styles. That is what I gathered from the comments that he made. And I just cringe when I hear those kind of words. I really do think that it's important for us to keep what is working for us. And yes, this ordinance needs some clarification, but for us to take a big leap into wanting to change this in the direction that it shouldn't be, in other words, introducing certain building styles and making it a bit more complicated, I would say for me that doesn't work. But let's hear from other board members, and I'm anxious, and I'm sure everybody is anxious to hear from you, the public. Other board members, Member Beach. Member Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was a member of the Technical Advisory Working Group, and I just would like to correct for the record, in the 10825 memo from Maggie Moore, my name is listed with the clarification that I'm an architect, which I am not. I just want to make sure, and in light of the concerns that have persisted about the lack of an architect on the board, I just want to make clear that that is not me. I do agree with those comments, by the way. As part of the Technical Advisory Working Group, we were not involved in the changes proposed to this section of the code. That was specifically excluded in favor of turning that over to the other committee. So we did not, we usually skipped over anything to do with this section of the code in those discussions. And what was discussed more was what was important to the community members, such as affordable housing initiative, which I think is a really valuable addition that should be accelerated by the Phase One process. The other things that were considered substantive in those discussions were things that would assist the professionals that are using the code and the applicants to make things sort of to facilitate proposals being made. And the other group that was important to those discussions was the staff. Substantive changes were deemed necessary if staff were having trouble implementing the code. And so I thought that those sorts of categories of changes seem very reasonable and necessary to solve some of the more immediate problems we have with access to the code and having our projects heard in a timely manner and avoiding some of the back and forth that happens sometimes with the board and applicants about deciding what the code actually means. I see great value in all of those kind of changes, and I do agree with Member Bian Venu and some of the things he's raising about trying to define the qualitative criteria at this stage. I agree wholeheartedly that it needs to change. We've had a lot of difficulty defining what often is intangible and trying to put some quantitative limits around more qualitative characteristics would be very helpful to all of us in trying to implement and maintain the sort of feeling of Santa Fe style that we're after. But there is some trouble, there's some, I have some difficulty with some of the definitions and understanding how those are going to be helpful to the process. We've talked many times on this board about with reference to federal standards for defining what requires preservation and what should be considered the most significant of characteristics that are part of, like for example, a given neighborhood or a particular structure. Those are often referred to as like a period of significance, and I think defining a period of significance for a district or another way of categorizing that would be more helpful than having references to yet other undefined styles like bungalow and Northern New Mexico vernacular. And let's see, we've had, we've had sort of related to that, that's sort of focusing on the implementation and what this is going to buy us for implementing the code. And I think the board is just one of those users of the codes, right? There's like a lot of other users that are not volunteers that actually have a financial stake in this, or have a job that demands their professionalism and expertise to be used correctly. So I think, as a volunteer, I'm happy to implement the code, but I don't think that I have the role of dictating what I think is best for a professional in the field, or just a simple community member who's interested. But we have over time developed a couple of guidance documents that have tried to clarify some of these areas. Like the ones that come to mind are the color guidance and the windows guidance documents. And I just wonder if there's any option or if there was any thought to including this in the code right now. Are we looking to collect information for how these things go over as we implement them? Are they useful or could they be refined in Phase Two? And so I sort of was thinking, if we included some of these definitions in a guidance document, we tried to implement them, we collected some information about how we're understanding them or how they're being understood, could those contribute to a stronger Phase Two refinement, or if this language is delayed, to clarify that in Phase Two in a stronger way that's been more vetted, for lack of a better word. I think that's what I have for now. Thanks. Chair: Thank you. Other members of the board, this board, wish to comment at this time? Member: Not at this time. I will open it to public comment. Pardon? Oh yes, Member Cherry. Member Cherry: I have a question for Heather. Yeah, please. Can you just clarify my understanding anyway, if these Phase One changes are adopted, is then that what we're seeing now become the code until Phase Two is adopted? Heather: Chair Rios, Member Cherry, that is correct. But I would like to point out that we have learned a lot from Phase One, and we have learned throwing 700 pages at the public as well as staff is a lot. And so when we deal with an issue, for instance, if we postpone the consideration of new historic districts to a Phase Two, we work on that and deal with that right away. Then the adoption will be within a couple of months. So we're going to be doing lots of mini adoptions as part of Phase Two because now we've laid the foundation, and that would be Phase One, and then addressing those different components in Phase Two, which includes street design guidelines, includes the wildland urban interface standards. And then if there's something that we finish, then we're going to proceed towards adoption right away. We're not going to wait. Member Cherry: Okay. So there will be an interim period where the building community, architects, builders, the public will be sort of working within a moving target of code, is what that sounds like to me. Like if Phase One is adopted and then changes are happening sort of online, so to speak, not figuratively, not literally, but as the code is progressing towards Phase Two. It just, I don't know, it strikes me as it could cause a lot of challenges to have this sort of moving target of code. That's just one comment, I guess. And as I was listening to other, if I might make a couple more comments, just gathering my thoughts and feeling inclined somewhat to express what my understanding of sort of the intent at the subcommittee group was, is just in general to preserve the integrity of historic structures, preserve the integrity of the historic districts. And within that, I think there were lots of and will be forever lots of conversations about how do you preserve these historic structures? How do you preserve the integrity of the districts? And do you do that by mimicking historic structures with new historic structures or by allowing a materials-more materials-based, which is my interpretation of it, code that allows for some new, more, say, modernization of the buildings to differentiate them from historic buildings. So I think that's obviously deep and ongoing conversation. However, I do feel like the intent of that group and of all of this, in my opinion, is just to add clarity, make it easier to interpret the code and easier to adhere to the code and less ambiguous. And where there are less suggestions of things and more, here's what you can do, here's what you can't do, and here's what the definitions are. So I think that'd be another comment that I kept, that I see as a sticking point in this right now, is just a lack of definitions. And I know in that subcommittee we talked a lot about adding definitions, and I don't know when that comes. That's a Phase Two thing. But I certainly think not having them makes things more unclear. That's all I have to say at this time. Chair: Thank you for your comments. I have a question for you. I'm beginning to feel that tonight we're going to make, supposedly make a motion, a recommendation in the form of a motion to the governing body. And it seems like the people that stuck with it, that were in that committee, that I feel that you feel that there's a lot of work that still needs to be done. That's the message I'm getting. Member Cherry: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, my interpretation, understanding of it, which potentially could have been a misunderstanding of it, was that this is Phase One. We're going to clean up the existing code, and which in my mind would be make it better, right? Like it's, of course there are going to be differing opinions, but I think the goal would be that anybody who looks at it goes, "Okay, well, it's better. It's more clear where there was this sticking point of ambiguity, it's not there anymore." And of course there's a lot of ways to make it better, and a lot of what I would consider Phase Two items are necessary to make it better. But it does seem like being able to have as clear a code as possible, and if we're going to have a process where it's going to change now in Phase One and then it's going to change in Phase Two, and whether or not there will be changes, in-line changes in between, just one, having it continue to get better throughout those changes, and two, having it continue to get clearer throughout those changes, is something that hopefully is well within our capacity as a group of humans that are thinking about this thoughtfully, which I think we are. But yeah, I don't know where I'm going with that, but... Chair: I mean, I personally am feeling uncomfortable, but let's see where we go. Member Dick: Yes, Member Dick, Madam Chair, do I understand that there's an opportunity, of course there must be, but I'm saying for us to speak after others have spoken? So I'll wait then. Chair: Absolutely. Yeah. So members of the public, thank you for being here this evening, and you've waited patiently. Please come forward and say your piece. Frank Katz: Good evening, Chair Rios, members of the board. My name is Frank Katz. I live at 1300 Canyon Road. I've been involved in this stuff for quite a while, as you probably all know. And the whole idea of a historic district based on the style of all of the buildings in the district is pretty unusual. And certainly it was a long struggle, starting in 1912 when they really wanted to have our ordinance, and it took until '57 to have it. It's been a real struggle, and there are, in my experience, in my time, there have been the folks who were advocates of following the code and kind of maintaining this style, even when they call it fake Adobe style or modern. And there are folks who wanted to have more modern versions. Trey Jordan is my favorite. I mean, he's wonderful. His houses are beautiful. But that's not really what Santa Fe style is. I am on the board of the Old Santa Fe Association. I think the board is also concerned about the whole of Santa Fe, not just the district. And the way that Trey has done those buildings would fit wonderfully all over the city. I think that John Bienu is right that it's certainly up to the governing board whether they want to allow more modern stuff or not, but I am disturbed by the whole process here. And I appreciate member Agel Madano's comment about, "Well, gee, the historic subcommittee that was doing this, they met last August, and then nothing." The technical advisory committee, as described, "Oh, we're not going to talk about that historic stuff." It kind of never got discussed, and I had this very sinking feeling that they were kind of, they sort of had a thing that they were planning. They want to be more modernist. And if I were an architect, I mean, Anthony Grea does beautiful modern architecture, and I can understand how frustrating it might be to have to do fake Adobes, make it look like an old Adobe. But that is what the code has been, and I think that there is very good reason that we have such a unique place here that we should keep to that. But that's not up to us. I mean, that's up to the governing body. But what is up to us is to not let things get snuck in. Just what I feel about with the changes that member Bendu has talked about. So I would hope that this board would be very clear and not change that. And there's good reason why make soups should be discussed. But that's what should be discussed in the historic styles committee or whatever that group was called. And it should have been discussed much more, and I solicit your voting not to have that part, the substantive changes in this larger code at this point. Thanks. Thank you, Frank. Madame Chair and members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to address you. My name is Jerry Richardson. I live in the Guadalupe Historic District. I very much supported that becoming a historic district way back in the '90s, and I was for at least 20 years president of the Historic Neighborhood Association. I'm still on that board, and historic preservation has been, I guess, in my blood for many, many years. And I'm here to strongly object to any action by this board to approve the changes tonight. The city's really rushing this through so that they can get it done under this administration. This is one week after the City Council considered this, and then we're handed an almost 700-page document to try to read and digest. And the document doesn't have any annotations to it to explain what was changed, what wasn't, and how we're supposed to figure that out. And frankly, I'm a retired lawyer, but I didn't have the time to go through it with any kind of careful review. I mean, I really appreciate the comments of member Ben Bonu because he did take that time, and the things he's expressed concern about are of great concern to me. And the other thing that's apparent to me from the discussion here is even though we had these subcommittees that kicked around a lot of stuff and brought up things, they never made specific recommendations, and the city attorney has taken it upon herself to put all this stuff into words. But I don't think the subcommittees necessarily approved all these changes. And then, I have a problem with the notice in the agenda in this meeting. It said that none of these changes were substantive. And then we have Miss Lamboy up here saying, "Oh, yeah. Well, some of them are." Well, a lot of them are, from what I've heard. Let me collect myself and look at my notes here. One of the things that most concerned me is when hearing member Ben Bin Vinu talk about how all the standards that are set out, that were set out in 14-5.2J3F, about how this board is supposed to judge applications before them, it's just disappeared. I mean, how are you supposed to do your job without standards given to you? And it sounds like there's an awful lot of definitions that simply got, an awful lot of things that are simply not even defined. These styles are not defined, or this, and this thing needs a hell of a lot more work, in my opinion. And in my opinion, the process is really a travesty. This is completely inadequate notice to members of the public to digest a 700-page document and come here and make meaningful comments. And that's why I urge you to simply say, "No, we're not approving these changes. This needs much more work and much more time and much more discussion." This is all being moved forward. The City Council has had four years to deal with the obelisk, and that's being pushed forward to the next administration, and frankly, I think this needs to be as well. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Good evening, board. My name is Daniel Warwa. I'm here tonight as a member of the Community Advisory Working Group that provided input into the draft of the larger land use code. I don't personally have a lot of input specifically on the historic aspects of this, but I did want to share some background about really the affordable housing incentives that are part of the larger proposal, and those are something that really did come out of the Community Advisory Working Group. The context for that, and I know this probably feels like one of the more in this first phase, but we really advocated for those changes for a couple. One, the current 1987 code, while not historic vintage code, isn't really working for affordable housing, right? We're seeing a lot of higher-end housing development and a really hard process of getting it through. But it really goes back to 2019 when the city updated the HOMES program, their inclusionary saving. When that was done, there were public commitments made to come with incentives to actually help incentivize particularly rental housing developers in the blue to actually build. So at that time, we talked about building incentives or advance, and that's what we really felt was important to do. It's something that meanwhile, we're just accelerating. I actually think it has really good potential impacts for the historic districts. It doesn't change any of the, but if you imagine a one-acre lot in a historic district, right now the incentive is for the biggest, most expensive. That is the greed motivation. The other side of this is if you allow for more units instead of providing actual income-restricted, the incentive then becomes how many units can I fit onto this? We get more traditional historic development patterns like homes and other things that currently are really hard to replicate. You guys probably do, there's a lot of stuff on the east side that we couldn't rebuild under current code if it weren't found. A lot of those small multi-units, those style unit stuff. It's really gorgeous. Hopefully, we can actually through this have locals living in the historic district. That to me is one of the important things that we've lost in a historic district is that in working so hard to preserve aesthetics that people are the bearers of culture if we don't create housing that workers afford, the aesthetics start to become esoteric. I would just encourage you, I hope that changes like this mean that worked in nonprofit affordable housing for a couple decades. I would be in front of you. I've never spoken to them or hundreds. Good evening, Madame Chair, Chairwoman, and members of the board. I'm Johanna Gilligan. I'm a local Santa Fean and also work in affordable housing, and I was also a member of the Citizens Advisory Working Group and played a role in helping to design the affordable housing incentives. And I think Daniel just spoke very eloquently to what the incentives can achieve. I think what I want to say is that I know that people may feel that this process has been rushed. We are three years into the process at this point. We're a year beyond the timeline, the original timeline for adoption of phase one. I think it is very important that we recognize there has been significant community input and that in the last three years while we've been working on this, we've also lost a lot of residents who are moving to other places, most commonly Rio Rancho, because they can't afford housing in Santa Fe. So, I'm really here to say that I also don't have much to say or comment on regarding the historic elements of the code, but what I would really urge the committee to consider in your decision tonight is how to ensure that your decisions do not delay the important work of creating affordability now incentives and other parts of the code update, and that we do move this along because those in our community who are most vulnerable are not benefited by delays. So, I really appreciate your work on this matter and appreciate your support of our work. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening, Chairwoman and board. My name is Jenny Parks, and I live at 141 Sereno Drive. I'm here as a Santa Fe citizen and also in my role as the Senior Vice President at Anorm Health Foundation, where we focus on healthcare access as well as the social determinants of health, and housing is one of the biggest determinants of someone's health. At Anorm, we have been traveling around Northern New Mexico and hearing from communities about some of their problems and their needs. Almost all of the communities, even small rural communities, cite affordable and workforce housing as a major issue. Even a town as small as Clayton, New Mexico, with a population of 2,680 people. So Santa Fe is not alone in this regard, but it is suffering from a lack of affordable and middle housing. So many of our people who are working here do not live here any longer and have to go down the road to other communities. I am currently a fellow with the Home Wise Livability Speaker Series, and through their talks and also our own experts, we have learned how crucial zoning and land use regulations are when it comes to building housing for all of our citizens. A very experienced group of people have been working on these basic code amendments for three years, as Joanna said, and it is important to get this passed. We have talked to many affordable housing developers who are hesitant to come to Santa Fe because of the long processes in our community. Therefore, the four components of the incentives, the density bonuses, dimensional flexibility, fee waivers, and administrative review, they are complementary and designed to work in tandem, and they should be implemented as a package. And so I urge you tonight to please go forward with those aspects of the code and not delay them due to the historic, the concerns around the historic preservation. This would be a great step in starting to solve our housing crisis in our wonderful city. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Robin Gavin, and I've lived in Santa Fe for 50 years. I guess I just want to say that I think everybody who's had to deal with Chapter 14 or has come to these meetings knows that there are problems with the language in it, and it needs to be changed. I also want to say that I don't think that affordable housing and historic styles have to be at odds. I think there is a way that they can work together. But I am alarmed by the process that I've heard tonight, or the lack of inclusion of the subcommittee that seems to have some very knowledgeable members, as well as the lack of inclusion of this board that probably knows Chapter 14 backwards and forwards better than anybody else in the city. So, it seems like this was a big gap in the process, at least from what I've heard tonight, that this board was not included more in the process. I think then that these two bodies that don't have to be diverse, of affordable housing and historic styles, could really work together and come to some happy conclusions. I really think that the items that member Pian Venu presented are important to consider. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Excuse me, members of the board. My name is Anne Watkins. I live at 2138 Candalto in Santa Fe. I have for 10 years lived at other locations in Santa Fe and elsewhere for 50 years. I'm a member of Santa Fe's Community Development Commission, where we spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to use inadequate funding to create more housing in the city. One of the major obstacles at this point, creating new innovative forms of housing that we could actually get built, is the code. So I encourage you, I'm not going to repeat what everybody else has said about affordable housing. I think you've heard them. You don't need to hear it from me. I just encourage you to do your due diligence on this as quickly as possible so that we can move this forward, so that we can actually deal with the housing issues in Santa Fe. Thank you. Thank you. Hello there. My name is Dante Gonzalez, and I'm here as a board member of Generation Elevate New Mexico. We are a coalition of young professionals and leaders in New Mexico advocating for sustainable growth and opportunity across our state. I want to note that you've heard it here today: Santa Fe is in a serious, serious housing crisis, with median home prices being over $600,000. The rising costs, like you've heard today, are forcing residents out of the city, and many are having to commute from Albuquerque to come and move here. I am one of those young professionals that has to commute from Albuquerque to work in and around the Santa Fe area, or has to stay in short-term housing because I cannot afford to rent or buy in this city. I cannot afford a $600,000 home. I would wager the majority of young professionals in this state also cannot afford the outrageous home and rent prices here. A part of Phase 1's initiative is the CAN initiative that Homewise helped develop. I want to urge you to help push Phase 1 through and the CAN initiative through because the incentives, which would help develop affordable housing and help development in general within this city, are so invaluable to ensuring the growth of your city. I'm looking around this room right now. I'm probably the youngest person here, which is unfortunate. A lot of young professionals in Albuquerque will go and speak at City Council because they can afford to live there. I think it would be really nice to have a lot of young professionals contributing to the economic productivity of this city. I know that pushing through and supporting for approval Phase 1 of the Land Development Code update would help do just that. Again, I urge you to support this update. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Good evening, board members. Nice to see you after a long while. My name is Anthony Guida. I'm an architect. I'm president of Friends of Architecture Santa Fe. I was a member of the Citizens Advisory Working Group for the LDC update. I'm also a former member of the HDRB. I am here tonight to urge the Historic and Archaeological Committees to recommend immediate adoption of the Phase 1 draft as developed through nearly three years of staff, community, and consultant time. I suppose I'm disappointed but not surprised by the pearl-clutching and fear-mongering that we've heard tonight, or the red herring that this is somehow about contemporary design creeping into the historic districts. I personally find it hard to defend this kind of mongrel of an ordinance that was started, a style modified time and time again over the course of three decades, and only included preservation protection in the mid-90s when any further changes to that ordinance were stopped. Is the draft that you're reviewing tonight cleaned up, more logical, more user-friendly, more able to be accessed on the web by applicants and understood easily? Yes. In regards to the historic portion of it, I was happy to see the inclusion of statements that better define, not perfectly define, the character and significance of the districts, where there was none before. These are National Register Historic Districts. There is a need for this kind of definition to be in our code. Is the draft perfect? Far from it. The changes, particularly to the historic section, don't do much to reverse the exclusionary policies or processes that over the last 40 years have reduced the amount of housing units in the historic districts by over 25%, displaced 60% of its Hispanic residents, and dramatically reduced the demographic and economic diversity of the districts, contrary to trends that we've witnessed throughout the rest of the city. All of this material is captured in the city's pre-planning report on preservation that was written in 2021, the Continuity and Connection report. There is hope tonight, though, with the imperfect Phase 1 rewrite. The shining light of the rewrite is the substantive affordable housing incentives, which seek to make the development process far less onerous, significantly more inclusionary, and much better aligned with our community needs and values in that one crucial area. Imperfect as it is, and after a year of delay caused by the City Attorney's office, I strongly encourage adoption of the Phase 1 draft as is and the housing incentives as is, so we can at last move on to the next phases of this iterative process. We have the opportunity to use the affordable housing incentives as a model of inclusionary zoning in the future phases of the rewrite. In the 20th century, the Santa Fe style and our pioneering approach to preservation was successfully used to solve the dire concerns of the city's economic development and drastic population loss. I firmly believe that beyond prescriptive surface-level appearances, our regional style, notably our historic urban patterns, our building traditions, our preservation practices, can be a central part of the solution to the current crisis of housing, economic inequality, and climate degradation. Style and preservation have always been about managing change, not preventing it from happening. I urge the board to act tonight to pursue Phase 2 and 3, to adopt the Phase 1 draft, and to pursue Phase 2 and 3 with substance and an open mind. Please recommend approval tonight. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Anthony. Evening, members of the committee. My name is Miles Conway. I reside at 495 New Mexico 592, 87506. It's in the county. I was a young person once, like the gentleman that spoke before me, and I went to look for a fixer-upper in Santa Fe and found it to be far beyond my means. So I moved to the county. I want to applaud everybody's work on this committee. These are hard nights. These are hard topics, and you do an invaluable service to our city, both the Historic Review and our Archaeological Review Board. There's a member of your committee that once said to me, and I've embraced this to my core as a Santa Fe housing advocate, that when you own a property or a home in the historic district, it's like owning a piece of art in a museum. And that curator of that piece of that museum is the Historic Review Board. So what I'd like to speak briefly about tonight is that I think we can have our cake and eat it too here. Some of the elements of this Phase 1 update are literally striving to legalize a traditional and historic Santa Fe style of building in terms of density, height, shared walls, the character of our neighborhoods that has gotten away from us quite a bit, not necessarily in the historic district, but in other parts of our city. I'm going to talk a little bit about housing affordability, and thank you because I know you've heard a lot about that tonight. When you next walk into these chambers, right past the door, and you look on your left, there's a piece of artwork there. The gentleman that created that piece of artwork was a famous and fabulous printmaker in Santa Fe, New Mexico. In fact, I think he probably assisted many of the artists, the creators of these other pieces of artwork on the wall, because he was a fabulous printmaker and he assisted other artists. Not long before he passed away, he was living on a couch in Santa Fe. He could not find housing in our city. I think that what we're trying to do here, what the substantive part of this non-substantive update is, is really tackling some housing affordability issues. So my recommendation to this body, my enthusiastic recommendation, would be to put back the code language that you feel are absolutely going to be deleteriously disruptive to the work of this committee, but find a way to support the affordable housing updates that are contained within the update. So when this process began, many of the substantive updates contained in this update were not widely embraced. But since then, and again, we're talking about three years have passed, these concepts are widely embraced across the nation and the best practices across the nation for communities who are struggling to address housing challenges, and arguably we're all struggling across the nation. So, beyond the fact that this LDC Phase 1 update abides with four of the 10 key strategies that the National Association of Homebuilders has identified to for taming shelter inflation, for easing the housing affordability challenges in our nation, Santa Fe, beyond that and with the exception of some of these eliminated stylistic standards that are causing consternation to this body, the density bonuses create more opportunities for Santa Fe's built environment to evolve in ways that these two bodies here tonight exist to protect, which is kind of a historic Santa Fe neighborhood style and evolution. So, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Main Street America, and countless preservationists nationwide advocate strongly for the creation and retention of housing affordability through the use of historic preservation tools and incentives. I think we'll find more of those tools, incentives available to us on the other side of adoption of the key pieces of this Phase 1 update. In one of many examples, the goals of historic rehabilitation, sustainability, and affordable housing came together in a rehabilitation project, converting an abandoned historic high school in East Haven, Connecticut, into senior mixed-income housing. So, historic preservation is sometimes seen as a barrier to new housing, but many studies show it can work well with creating more housing. It is compatible with greater density, keeping communities intact, and supporting fairness. So, like yourselves, historic review committees balance preservation and affordability goals by prioritizing adaptive reuse, employing incentive tools, participating in collaborative policy development, and streamlining regulatory barriers to maintain open communication among the stakeholders. A lot of things are contained within this Phase One update. So, in a nutshell, I'm the executive officer for the National Homebuilders Association, the executive officer for the State Homebuilders Association. We believe this Phase One update points the compass in the right direction in many ways. We're essentially going to legalize and encourage a traditional Santa Fe design style, neighborhood building style, walkable, livable communities in many ways, and made it more feasible by taking this next step. So, I certainly recommend the retention of the standards that are struck, if you need to strike, struck from the code to cause this body to be supportive of the update. But encourage this body to send a message to the next committee, which meets Thursday, and the governing body that even this Historic Review Board embraces these concepts of affordability that are made possible through the core elements of this Phase One update. Thanks for sharing so much of your time with me. **Mr. Conway:** Thank you, Mr. Conway. **John Eddie:** Madame Chair, board members, my name is John Eddie. Madame Chair, would it be okay? As a representative of the Old Santa Fe Association, we drafted a very quick document. Would we allow that into our record today? **John Eddie:** Thank you. Edward is going to pass it out while I speak. I want to say I have such respect for this board, and I always get verklempt. I'm not Jewish, but I do get verklempt when I have to speak in front of you because my respect is immense, and it's due to the fact that there is such expertise and wonderful articulation expressed by the members of this board. I don't feel personally, and I really, my heart's desire is that historic preservation not be at odds with affordable housing in Santa Fe. I think we can achieve a synthesis of these two things by respecting each other's disciplines. I really do, and I look forward to that day. Santa Fe is a big place. It's a much bigger place than it was when I was born here. I happen to have been born in the historic district, so I have a very strong attachment to that credential. But let's move forward. I think that the things that have been identified by this board today make it very clear to Land Use what needs to be dealt with in terms of this code upgrade. And I think that a separation can be made from the items that impact Chapter 14 in the historic districts from the rest of this code, which is heartily encouraging affordable housing in Santa Fe, which I do encourage myself. So, let's separate those two things, but let's protect our preservation code by holding off on sending this to the governing body as one complete adopted document. I think it would make a grave mistake for us in historic preservation, and it would make your jobs extremely difficult. Your jobs are already difficult. The changes that are proposed, which are substantive, which we have been through, that word keeps going through everybody's head, would make your job a nightmare. The other thing that I heard tonight, which was very interesting, was one of the planners used the term, what did he say, "political," "we've reached the political calendar," and that's why things stopped. Let's not make this a political wall because I think that's what we're up against if we don't carefully walk through these changes that we need to make. In the document that we've sent to you, I have made the suggestion that the things that need to be addressed in Chapter 14, I think can be addressed very expediently. That will keep this motion forward that we need to have for the greater code possible. But we can't allow the code to move forward en masse without addressing these concerns. Thank you very much. **Chair:** Thank you, John. Is there anyone else in this room that wants to come forward now to speak in reference to what we have been addressing this evening? It appears not, but is there anyone online? **Staff:** Yes, Madame Chair. I do have a few members of the public online. I'm going to start with Carlos Gamora. Carlos, go ahead and speak. **Carlos Gamora:** Hi, everybody. Can you hear me? **Staff:** Yes, we can. **Carlos Gamora:** Great. Thank you very much. Good evening, Chair Rios and board members. My name is Carlos Gamora. I've worked on housing reform across the state. I was a member of the Technical Advisory Working Group. I also helped draft the affordable housing incentives that are being proposed in Phase One. Originally, I just wanted to provide some context regarding those affordable housing incentives because there's been a lot of comments on that. I'll try to summarize some of that stuff and kind of highlight some of the stuff that John Eddie was also talking about. Just for some quick context, we started drafting some of these in 2019 and 2020. I remember working out with, actually, John Eddie at OSA, HDRB members, some really great compromises thinking about affordable housing incentives, and some of those amendments, like so many efforts, that effort was put on pause around COVID 2019, 2020. And I think that, you know, it's a struggle to see that now, only five years later, are we starting to address some of those limited affordability fixes. I do want to just provide some context as far as the historic district overlay changes. I've worked with a lot of communities on code rewrites. Santa Fe has typically gotten bogged down in debilitating studies, extended debate, a lot of deferrals of action that have felt kind of like quicksand. In Santa Fe, there's a lot of this quicksand that makes it really hard to move forward. Hearing some of the board members' concerns around some of the HDRB stuff, it is concerning. You know, it does sound like some of those seem staggering. But I do want to encourage HDRB to move forward in an efficient and expedient manner and to move forward with whatever is possible and whatever that may be. There is significant need for massive types of changes that should be brought up in Phase Two. It will be an extremely difficult debate, and so as much as possible, I just again want to encourage the historic overlay changes, whatever historic overlay changes can be passed tonight, to try to pass those and then preserve capacity for some of the difficult community conversations that have to move forward in Phase Two. So, I'll just keep it at that. Thank you very much. **Staff:** Thank you, Carlos. Next, I have Stephanie Benonato. **Stephanie Benonato:** Thank you very much. Can you hear me? **Staff:** Yes, we can. **Stephanie Benonato:** Okay, great. I just want to say that I have lived here since 1975, that I have lived on the East Side and in South Capitol and in the historic West Side. And that as a member of the Planning Department, Linda Tigges and I did the first architectural survey on the West Side to have it designated as a historic zone. I'm also a member of the Old Santa Fe Association, as well as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and I am a research historian and have worked in preservation for over 45 years. So, that's my background. I have looked or have been listening to some of the recommendations, just the general recommendations. I'll address those first. When you say there's been community participation, we're talking about these advisory groups that were not open to the public, not even to come and listen. And so they were handpicked, and they were many of the people who had a specific interest in development and not too many people in terms of preservation. I support having more affordable housing, but I am concerned about some of these density bonuses that are being given. First of all, because affordable housing, I understand there's formulas for that, but there are no formulas for marketplace housing. So, the bonuses are not for more affordable housing. I heard tonight they are for marketplace housing. And I can tell you that in terms of rentals that have been called marketplace, that they are not affordable to many, many people who live here. The idea that on an R1 that you're going to have four units, that's great, but many R1 subdivisions have covenants, and those take precedence over zoning. So again, one developer can't come in and buy two R1s and decide to do more density there. That would probably get him into court. And the idea that the nation is taking on these, you know, sort of changes is nice, but we are the City Different, as has been noted. And I can tell you as a historian tour guide that people come here because of the historic preservation, the history they see in the architecture. And that if we began looking like anywhere else, we had lots of bungalow houses, we had very sharp modern-looking houses, they can go to other towns to see that. They will not be drawn here. So, we are sort of killing the golden goose if we allow that to happen in the existing historic zones. There are plenty of other places where people can buy property or go to renovate property and be able to do those kinds of buildings, and that does not prevent them from being creative, innovative, etc. And again, you know, it's nice to talk about a school being changed into senior living, but we just had a school that's been converted into a hotel, and it was supposed to be a live-work for artists, and that the developer who wanted that went away. And this one developer who has really massively changed downtown into short-term rentals and hotels has acquired the property. It seems to me the city should be minimizing but restricting the number of these types of short-term rentals in the downtown like they do in the residential zones where they can't be so many next to each other. I've also tried to suggest that maybe you could change some housing into condos. I myself wanted to try to change my house and guest unit into a condo so that I could sell the smaller unit at a very reasonable price because it's small enough. It's 800 square feet. I could have been very reasonable in the price. Somebody could actually own that property at a price that they could probably afford. And to say that somehow, you know, this is going to help people buy or rent here, I don't think that's true because even people at median income here cannot afford to buy a house at the prices they're at now. I'm also concerned about, so again, affordability, yes, but I'm not sure that the density proposals are really going to get us there. And then the parking issue to me is also very problematic because BPAC, Pedestrian Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, has said in order to really reduce the parking as suggested, that you have to have 30% of people commuting by bike. We have 2%. And that's their statistic, not mine. So, I don't even see how that will really help. And in terms of style, I just want to point out, I'm sorry I forgot to do this, 433 Camino Del Monte Sol. I don't know who approved this, but it's a very large residential structure that is building a fairly severe dormer-styled roof on it, and the framing is up and has some permit about changes, but not really defined. I could hardly believe that this historic board actually approved a dormer-style roof on Camino Damonte Soul when maybe there's one that has a very small pitch to it in the surrounding streetscape. Maybe somebody in your staff could look into that. I think historic preservation is not the same as historic changing, and we are, as I've said, it's important that we preserve what we have here. It is what attracts people to come here. It is what makes Santa Fe authentic in terms of our history. It captures the culture in a very real, physical way. I can only say that I totally agree with Member Benvvenu's comments. I think that the descriptions in these areas or districts are vague, inconclusive, or too inclusive on some level, but also not defined. I think really for the board or for the ordinance, it's a lack of definition that's the problem, not needing to try to make new styles go into what is a historic zone. Let me see if I have anything else I want to say. So yes, I think again, I would ask the board to really, and I do think that this whole thing is being rushed through. 600 pages were just issued recently, and then suddenly we're having public comment. I know that on October 9th, many of the people, or some of the people who showed up tonight in favor of it, are in the affordable housing sector, and yes, they're going to support this. But I don't think they understand, first of all, that the historic zone, especially the East Side and even South Cap, are already very dense. I think District 2, which includes some of those areas, is one of, if not the densest, the second densest area in town. So there are already houses behind houses and compounds and things like that. Maybe if the city loosened up a little bit on allowing more compounds or allowing condos where people could then really actually buy a house, because maybe there is somebody who's older who says, "I don't really want to keep up two structures. I'd be happy to have somebody else living in the smaller or larger structure." They could sell it. They could have something to live on, and somebody could buy something that is affordable. I definitely urge you, your recommendation is to not accept these changes that have been made. I thought, you know, okay, reorganizing the way the districts are, just the structure of the ordinance to make it more readable, that's what I thought was going to happen here. But what we see is staff really pushing this through and not giving people time. And again, even though it's going to take maybe a month to go through these committees, these committees meet at times where many public members cannot be there. We are not getting input from the whole community. Thank you very much. **Stephanie:** Thank you, Stephanie. Anybody else? **Speaker:** No, Madam Chair, there are no more raised hands. We got a letter, we just recently got a letter from the Old Santa Fe Association. I'm just going to read the very last paragraph, which says, "We strongly encourage the board to reject this version of the code as presented tonight based on concerns which can only be better articulated given ample time to do so. To dismiss these details as capricious would be a mistake, the effect of which will impact our city for generations to come." This is written by Edward Archletta, who is the co-executive director of the Old Santa Fe Association. There are a lot more paragraphs in this letter. If you want a copy, I'm sure we can provide one. Board members, do you have any additional comments to make at this point? Member Digman. **Member Digman:** Thank you, Cheriel. I would just like to say that I'm not going to repeat everything that everyone else has said, so I'm sure you're grateful for that. I've only been here about a year, and I haven't had the opportunity to participate in some of these conversations. But my background and my interest in preservation and in Santa Fe itself, and the reason, one of the reasons that I moved here 26 years ago, is because Santa Fe is unique, is special. I've been very involved in affordable housing in another big city, in another state. It's critical, it's important. I don't think we have to try to separate, or in this case tonight, kind of blend in these issues. They are something that should be considered carefully, separately, and with deliberation. I have not seen this. Is it six or 700 pages? However, it is going to take me a long time to get through it. I would be remiss as one of your citizen members if I didn't have that opportunity. I just want to kind of say out loud that some of us may not know that last week a major representative of the travel industry in the United States named us number one in the United States, knocking out Charleston after it having that position for 10 years. That's pretty significant. Charlotte's a lovely town, and sure they have similar problems as we do, but they managed to have a historic presence that is quite valuable. The other thing is a couple of years ago, National Geographic named us a sense of place. What kind of a sense of place have we? We don't even know about, we don't even read about these things, but those of us that live here understand why that is. So, I would just like to say, I for one, I don't know if this is appropriate or not, but I won't be able to vote for this this evening. I would love very much to be a part of something to study it more carefully and move it on as quickly as we can. That's all I want to say, and thank you. **Speaker:** Thank you very much. Anybody else? Final comments? Member B. **Member B:** Thank you again, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify with staff and for the board, just so we understand what we're doing tonight. We are proposing to make a recommendation or a resolution for the Phase One code changes in whole, not just the historic district review portion. Is that correct? No, that's not just 14, whatever, 145.2. **Chair Rios:** Member Beach, it really does relate specifically to your section, but is contained, what relates to your work is contained in many different subsections of the code. So it's sort of hard to divorce those two. **Member B:** Yeah. What I'm getting at is, many people spoke about the affordable housing initiatives that are not part of our section of the code. But I just want to make it clear that when we make a recommendation to what we consider our purview, it may have an effect that we may or may not intend. Is that correct? **Chair Rios:** Member Bishi, that is correct, and certainly is within the board's authority to provide direction to the governing body on their section as they are the experts. **Member B:** Correct, about what needs to happen, what is good at this point, what is not good at this point. Thank you. I just have a couple of comments, and I think because of what we hear most often at these meetings, is our focus that we lose sight sometimes of what may be more difficult to preserve, like the elements of the community that inhabit our, the districts that we review, the people who created and make them up now. The folks who spoke here tonight, and those who were represented by speakers who couldn't be here tonight, I think appearing before this board is, as an applicant, is in many ways a luxury. Only people who own a home and can afford to renovate it, or can afford to build a home, come to us. Even to speak as a member of the public is a luxury in this forum. Not everyone can, you know, have the capacity to pay attention to these issues, which are not essential to our survival, that they make our community nicer. I think we need to keep that in mind. I think the way I'm looking at this is, I do agree that the 145-2 requires some work, but I think it may be more important to keep in mind that this is Phase One. It is not final. It's my understanding that Phase Two provides an opportunity to correct some of the things we think are wrong with Phase One, to improve on what's been begun. But I do think it's very important for us to start the process, and that would, that would, that would happen only if we approve the Phase One. It's for the good of our community, but also so that we can get to a place where those changes can be made by this board, you know, the changes that we see as important. I think if we delay this now, it's going to be much longer until we get to that point. So I would, I would support adopting the Phase One changes with the condition that the H board, or, you know, recommend to the governing body that we form a committee with at least two members of this board to provide some refinement to those elements of the code section that we find unmanageable or less than complete. I think that's a way for us to compromise on this, to move things forward, to not stall the process. And, yep, that's all I have to say. **Speaker:** Thank you very much. Any other comments at this point? Member Beni. **Member Beni:** Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion, but just as a preamble to that, to respond to Member Beach's comments, I completely agree with not wanting to have our concerns disrupt the possibility of a code update being completed on a schedule, Phase One being completed on a schedule that the governing body is pretty well intent on now. I don't see any conflict with those, though, in my personal opinion. The specific items that we've identified tonight that have been discussed at some length are all very easy to remedy in the draft that's being circulated right now. I can't see any obstacle to having those revisions made and presented to even some of these subcommittees, possibly back to the board again, but even that might not be necessary, and then be presented to the governing body as, if not the amended resolution version, an alternative version. So that's what, that's the path I would like to see happen here, because not only do I think these revisions are in error and will severely harm the district for the reasons that we've talked about, I think that creating all of these changes, as I said before, in Phase One, if it were adopted as is, with the idea that we were then going to change them yet again in Phase Two, a year or two later, would really wreak havoc on us, the public, and the districts, because we would have this interim period where things were being built and approved that would only be applicable to that one specific narrow period of time. So I think that's, that would be a very bad interim solution to the problem where we could just resolve that by having the district standards maintained in Phase One and then revised if needed in Phase Two. So with that, I would, I'll make a motion if we're ready. Okay. So let's see. I guess my motion would be that, I think maybe it would appear in the form of a resolution. So that I would move that the adoption of a resolution, the following resolution, that whereas the draft that's been presented to the board tonight retains substantive revisions to the code that were expected to be analyzed and discussed in Phase Two. And whereas the board has already recommended in its hearing in May that those substantive revisions were inappropriate and should be deferred until Phase Two. And whereas these substantive revisions alter the currently existing style and preservation standards in ways that will negatively impact Santa Fe's historic districts, and therefore any substantive revision should be reserved for careful review at Phase Two. It is resolved that the Historic Districts Review Board declares that it is opposed to the specific substantive revisions set forth in the memorandum of today's date that has been made part of the record. But the board supports the other revisions to Chapter 14 with respect to the Historic Preservation Ordinance in the current draft and expresses no opinion on the rest of the code because it is not within its purview. The board believes that the draft could be revised and still presented for approval according to the governing body's current schedule. **Mayor:** Is there a second to this motion? **Chair:** Somebody seconding seconds. I have a question. Are we not supposed to not take comment? That's what Heather... **Chair:** Cherios, I'm sorry. Just one clarification. A resolution, and I appreciate what member Bianu is trying to accomplish in terms of communicating the desire of the board if it is voted on by the entire board. But a resolution is typically adopted for things like the general plan and other things that don't have force of law. This is an ordinance. So I just want to put on the record that maybe the motion isn't a resolution in and of itself, but it really is relating to the ordinance itself. **Member:** Yeah, I use the term resolution just because Robert's Rules of Order refers to anything that is a board decision, that's an action taken by the board, is typically called a resolution and has "whereas" clauses, which I think have some reason to be included here so that there's a reason, some reasons are given, and that an actual document that results. But if we want to call it a recommendation, that's perfect. **Member:** For interrupting, but can't that be indicated in just in the form of a regular motion? **Member:** Sure, that everything I said can just be made into a motion to issue the following recommendations to the governing. **Member:** Yeah. **Member:** Does he need to restate that or do we have it? **Member:** I don't believe he needs to restate it. Somebody on the board needs that, but staff does not. **Member:** That it's fine or restate or not restate. It's okay. **Chair:** Okay. So we have a motion on the floor and we have a second. Are there additional amendments to this motion? **Member:** No amendments, Madam Chair, but I would just like to clarify what the process is should the board adopt this recommendation. Would the, how do the changes get drafted and communicated back to the governing body? Does the amended resolution, the governing body's amended resolution, have to go back through all committees? How does this work? **Chair:** Cherios, member Beachside, this record will be incorporated into everything that goes forward. So for instance, the Planning Commission, that record will be reported. The staff report is already out for the Planning Commission, but we'll give a verbal overview of what happened here and what the recommendation was. Likewise, once we prepare the packet for the different, you know, for the governing body at the end, it will include the record here as well as the recommendation made by the board. So it will become part of the presentation as well when we present to the governing. **Member:** Member Chair, can you remind us of the timeline for Phase One moving forward from here? **Chair:** Yes. Thank you, Chair Rios. Member Cherry. So the process is that after these, this meeting regarding historic and archaeological concerns, we move to the Planning Commission on Thursday, the 16th of October. At that time, the Planning Commission is going to be considering it as a whole. So the Planning Commission will be in your similar, in your shoes, in that there are many sections of code that apply to them, including the historic districts work. So they may have some comments on that. I doubt it, but they may have some comments. And then it proceeds next week, October 20th, to the Finance Committee, October 22nd to Public Works, and Quality of Life next week. Oh, thank you. So, Planning Commission October 16th, Public Works and Utilities October 20th, Quality of Life is October 22nd, Finance Committee, I'm sorry, I had things moved around, October 27th, and then final governing body hearing, which is a special meeting only dealing with this topic, November 19th. **Member:** Okay. And then when's it voted on by the governing body? **Chair:** Chair, member Cherry, it could be potentially voted on by the governing body on November 19th. Certainly, I don't have an idea about what will happen, but it can be voted on, whatever that vote may be, or continued. **Member:** And if these changes in this current motion were to be enacted, it would have to be by the governing body. **Chair:** Chair, member Cherry, that is correct. **Member:** Thank you. Yes, member Predict, member Bianu had his hand up at the same time, but it is a question to you. John, I so much appreciate the in-depth work that you do. It's incredible. And congratulations to the staff for the task that they have. It's unbelievable what you're doing. For that reason, I would like, could you please say that eloquent, lengthy motion in clear language so that I can understand? That is why I didn't offer a second. We had a good offer, but I'm just saying, thank you. Can you do that? **Member:** I'm a little worried about restating the motion without it changing the motion. May I say something before? Okay, he can restate it. But I believe this is what he's saying. He's saying that we could, we should move forward and adopt not the exact language that was indicated to us this evening, but that we should, that this portion, our portion of the historic ordinance, Phase One, should move forward along with the rest of the ordinance, but changes need to occur to that as stated by John. Is that? **Member:** Yeah. I mean, yes. I mean, if we're just trying to explain the motion without restating it, it is, it is to recommend to the governing body that the Historic Districts Review Board is opposed to the specific changes that are itemized in the memorandum that was provided, but would otherwise, for the reasons stated, and wishes to have the, recommends that the existing language be retained in the Phase One update and takes no position on the other non-historic aspects of the proposed code update as it is outside its purview. **Member:** Well said. Thank you. But just to be clear, and that the other changes to the rearrangement, etc., of the even the historic preservation part of the code are acceptable. So only the, only the items that have been identified in the memorandum are opposed by the board as injurious to the districts. **Member:** Now I have a question though for Director Lamboy, if I could. So, I'm a little confused about the process because is there a possibility, I mean, is there an avenue for a revised version of the code update consistent with the motion that's been made? I don't know if it's going to pass, but consistent with that, is able, would be able to be presented at the meeting in November for the governing body's review? **Chair:** Chair Rios, member Ian Venu. Relative to the code that is being presented tonight, that is what is being presented to all the different boards and commissions that deal with that code. So, but in our memo, I might offer that we can provide an updated version of that section of code so that it reflects the existing design standards for the four districts under that one section and have that as a visual reference in our staff report for the governing body. So that they would be presented with an alternative version of the code that would be consistent with the motion for their consideration at that time. **Member:** So they would have a visual reference. **Chair:** Yes. **Member:** So it wouldn't be just sort of, oh, we'd have to go back and have this all redrafted again, but they would actually be able to consider it at that hearing. **Chair:** Yes, that's correct. And certainly going forward with the Planning Commission and the council committees, we will present that to them. And if it is the pleasure of the board and you want that to be presented as an ordinance, we can hustle and rearrange things for that portion of the code. **Member:** I mean, it would be ideal. But I know you've got a lot on your plate. **Member:** It's important. **Member:** Yeah. Well, thank you for the clarification that because if they didn't have that in front of them, then I'm, I'm afraid things could get confusing, right? You know, and they wouldn't know what exactly we're, I mean, I don't know if this motion is going to pass, but under the circumstances, if the motion passes, the, the governing body needs to be clear on what this board is presenting, is recommending. **Chair:** Because to the governing body, we're representing the Historic Districts Review Board as staff. So that is our obligation to make sure that the record is understandable. **Member:** Okay. Thank you. So, **Member:** So yes, for John, I guess I've heard to support the Phase One adoption and I've heard to not support the Phase One adoption in your motion and the explanation of your motion with that information that Director Lamboy just provided. Could you please restate your motion? **Member:** Okay. So, just to be, just to be clear, what I'm, what I'm trying to get to is that the governing body would be presented with an alternative version of the updated code that would incorporate all of the changes that we, that are set forth in the memorandum. Yep. So they would still have a code to approve. In all respects, the board would be in favor of it with the, with retention of the language that's set forth in the memorandum. That's the concept. Does that make sense? **Member:** Somewhat. Yeah. It would just be nice to hear it in a concise motion with, because what I'm, what I'm hearing is that, what I think I'm hearing, maybe I could say what I'm hearing and clarify that, that, that your motion is to approve the changes in Phase One with the exception of the items that you've identified in the memorandum and that they be presented as items that this board disagreed with to the governing body. Correct. **Member:** That's exactly right. **Member:** Thanks. **Member:** Okay. So, I think, I think for really clarifying, want to do. **Member:** Okay. **Member:** Everybody wants to do it today. **Member:** Yeah. **Member:** So, but we know what they're, the governing body is going to get just so that it'll be totally crystal clear. Thank you. **Member:** Okay. So, I move that the board recommend to the governing body that the proposed changes to the code under the current draft that are identified in the memorandum of today's date not be accepted and that the language of the current code with respect to those specific provisions be retained through Phase One and that the code update is otherwise acceptable with respect to the provisions pertaining to the Historic Preservation Ordinance over which the board has purview. And that a new, an alternative draft or a new draft be presented to the governing body showing those alterations. Is that clear? **Member:** It was lengthy, but it was clear. **Member:** Madron seconds. **Chair:** So, is everybody clear on that motion on the board? **Member:** Sorry, Chair. **Chair:** Yes. **Member:** I just have one more comment if you don't mind. Thank you. Well, I agree with the changes and think that this section of the code does require more work. I don't think it jeopardizes the ability of this board to continue the work of preservation. I think knowing that this is not a final product, we, we do have an opportunity in Phase Two to correct or refine these things. They're not, they're not hard and fast rules that we're looking at. We have this, we know that the staff supports the changes that have been proposed and apparently feels that they could work within these changes for the interim before Phase Two. And I know that we have staff, and the board has a great ability to interpret the rules as written. I'm not worried about us losing ground during Phase 1 and Phase 2, should we adopt Phase 1 as presented. I just think that in the interest of moving things along in a way that is not typical of Santa Fe as a city, it would be to our benefit to just kind of get things going on the road to having a final code that is of more benefit to all of us. I'd like to respond to that. Member Bside has indicated that this is not a final product, but I don't see it as such. What we are being presented with tonight, we're being asked, "Will you accept this as a final product and present it to the governing body, or will you not accept this as a final product and how would you amend it?" That's the way I'm looking at this. If we accepted what you presented to us this evening, that would be a final product to recommend to the governing body. Correct? If we recommended to the governing body that this board was accepting what you presented this evening, that would be a final product. Chair Rios, that is correct, but it is certainly within the board's purview to recommend changes to this product. So, yeah, I don't vote, but I would support John's motion because we on this board, we really need to clarify what we think is proper for the board. Though we are stating this overall, he's saying, "Yes, go forward with this," but in reference to the historic section, this is what the H-board is indicating. Anyway. Yes, Heather. Sorry, if I might add, one of the things I plan on doing, this has nothing to do with anything other than to say, based on Member Bside's motion, I will update the document and send it to blind copy each of you for you to look at and let me know if you have any concerns. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Heather. And Member Cherry, nobody has ever accused us of not being thorough. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, we get stuck in the mud here, but I'm still confused because I did hear you say your motion was for the code to not be accepted. It was verbatim, and my understanding was that it was to be accepted. That is the intent. If I said it was the way, then that was in... But with the recommendations that we are recommending, that the changes set forth in your memo, it is not to be accepted as written today, but with those changes, it is unopposed by the board, supported by the board. Okay. Now is everybody clear? That does. Yeah. You're clear, Member Cherry. Everybody. Yes. Okay. Roll call vote, unless you have something, Amanda. No, Madam Chair. So we have a motion and a second. Maggala Madrono. Yes. Denman. No. Neither. No. Member Bside. No. Member Terry. Yes. One moment. Did you mean to call me? We didn't take Member Vampenus. And Member Ben. Yes. So, it looks to be a tie if I've got that correct. And I vote yes to break the tie. The motion has passed. Okay. I want to thank everybody for all your comments, and I think we achieved what we wanted to, or the majority. And Heather, I do want to thank you and everybody that has been involved in this process. It's been a lengthy, and having this discussion, just because we disagree doesn't mean that we did not respect the process. So know that. Okay. And thank you all for coming this evening. I'm sure that, well, I'll ask any matters from the board. It's late spring meetings. Just to let you know, I won't be at the next board meeting scheduled, so I will be absent. And our next meeting is October the 28th, and we'll see you then. Motion to adjourn. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Did you say that? Yes. There will second. All those in favor say aye. I say no. Thank you. Well, well, well. Yeah. So we can on the other...