Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Dec 9, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/575 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board addressed a range of applications, including several postponements and a significant discussion on the proposed State Executive Office Building. Key concerns raised by the public and board members included the board's compliance with architect requirements, voting procedures, and the scale and historical impact of the new state building. The board approved several minor applications, including a solar panel installation and a detached garage, but denied the replacement of historic windows at 433 Camino Manzano. A major decision involved the State Executive Office Building project, where the board voted 3-2 to revisit and subsequently approve the demolition of four casitas on Don Gaspar Avenue, contingent on the final approval of the new state building design. This decision was met with considerable public opposition regarding the loss of historic structures and the scale of the proposed new building. The board also established a subcommittee to draft recommendations for the state regarding the new building's design within a 60-day review period. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda as amended. - Approved minutes of September 23rd, 2025, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for July 22nd, 2025. - Approved the application for 121 East Santa Fe Avenue for various repairs and replacements, with a friendly amendment requiring the fence in front of the pergola to be painted white. - Approved the application for 439 Camino de Monte Sol for a detached garage addition. - Approved the application for 219 and 219A Washington Avenue for additions and new construction, with the condition that all exceptional criteria have been met. - Approved the application for 401 East Palace Avenue for re-stucco and other elements, with conditions: denied replacement of doors on primary facades, approved brick coping replacement, and approved re-stucco with the condition that the current color is matched exactly. - Approved the application for 912 Don Gaspar Avenue for solar panel installation. - Approved most aspects of the application for 433 Camino Manzano, but denied the replacement of historic windows J and H. - Approved the application for 433 Hay as submitted. - Approved the application for 119 Camino Santiago for a courtyard wall and storage addition. - Voted 3-2 to revisit the previous decision to deny the demolition of four casitas at 402, 406, 410, and 414 Don Gaspar Avenue. - Approved the demolition of 402, 406, 410, and 414 Don Gaspar Avenue (casitas) by a 3-2 vote for each, subject to final review and approval of the new state building design. - Referred the preparation of draft written recommendations for the State Executive Office Building to the existing subcommittee for presentation at the January 13th meeting. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve agenda as amended — Passed. - Motion to approve minutes of September 23rd, 2025 — Passed. - Motion to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for July 22nd, 2025 — Passed. - Motion to approve calendars — Passed (Unanimous 'aye'). - Motion to approve application for 121 East Santa Fe Avenue as submitted, with friendly amendment to paint fence white — Passed. - Motion to approve application for 439 Camino de Monte Sol as submitted — Passed (5 Yes, 0 No). - Motion to approve application for 219 and 219A Washington Avenue as submitted, with friendly amendment that 'all exceptional criteria have been met' — Approved (4 Yes, 1 No). - Motion for Case 2025-011353 HDRB (401 East Palace Avenue) to deny door replacement, approve brick coping, approve re-stucco with exact color match, and approve other elements — Passed (5-0). - Motion to approve application for 912 Don Gaspar Avenue (solar panels) as submitted, noting exception criteria met and solar use encouraged — Passed (Unanimous). - Motion to approve all aspects of the application for 433 Camino Manzano *except* the replacement of historic windows J and H — Passed. - Motion to approve application for 433 Hay as submitted, noting exception requests met — Passed (3 Yes, 1 No). - Motion to approve application for 119 Camino Santiago (courtyard wall and storage addition) — Passed (Vote count unclear, but 'The motion has passed.'). - Motion to revisit the previous decision to deny the demolition of the casitas at 402, 406, 410, 414 Don Gaspar Avenue — Passed (3-2). - Motion to approve demolition of 402 Don Gaspar Avenue (Case 2025011587 HDRBF) — Passed (3-2). - Motion to approve demolition of 406 Don Gaspar Avenue (Case 2025011588 HDRB) — Passed (3-2). - Motion to approve demolition of 410 Don Gaspar Avenue (Case 2025011589 HDR) — Passed (3-2). - Motion to approve demolition of 414 Don Gaspar Avenue (Case 2025011590 HDRB) — Passed (3-2). - Motion to refer the preparation of draft written recommendations for the State Executive Office Building to the existing subcommittee — Passed (Unanimously approved). == Public Comment == Public comments covered a wide range of topics. Concerns were raised about the board's voting procedures and compliance with the requirement for an architect member. For the State Executive Office Building, there was significant opposition to the demolition of four historic 'casitas,' with many speakers advocating for their preservation, adaptive reuse, or integration into the new design. Concerns were also voiced about the proposed building's scale, height, and potential impact on traffic, parking, and the historic character of the neighborhood. Some commenters criticized the cost of the project and the perceived lack of collaborative discussion between the city and state. Conversely, some supported the new building, citing the critical need for modern state facilities and the economic benefits. There was also discussion about the burden of the historic review process on homeowners and businesses, and the role of organizations like the Old Santa Fe Association in development decisions. == Topics == - Board Composition/Architect Seat - 924 Canyon Road Vote Legality - 119 Camino Santiago Wall - 527 Agua Fria Street Status Review - Executive Office Building - Bridge Near Supreme Court - Public Comment Rules - Board Consistency/Arbitrariness - Historic District Calendars == Full Transcript == We are now live on YouTube. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. Today is December 9th, 2025. Amanda, may we have a roll call, please? Sure. Madame Chair Rios? Here. Member Adela Madano? Here. Member DGEN? Here. Member Benu? Here. Member Matherther? Excused. Member Bishide? Here. Member Cherry? Here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Yes, Chair Rios. Under new business, item G, 2025-011418 HDRB 320 Pel de Peralta has been postponed, and item L, 2025-011550 HDRB 539 Garcia has been postponed. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as just amended? I, Madrono, move to approve. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose, say no. We have minutes of September 23rd, 2025. Changes to these minutes? Anybody? It appears there are no changes. A motion to approve, please. Moved. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And oppose, say no. Thank you. We have one findings of fact and conclusions of law, and that is for July 22nd, 2025. Changes to? No, or yes? No. A motion to approve. Move to approve. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And oppose, say no. Matters from the public. Anyone in this room wishes to comment on something board-related? Stephanie Benonato, you can hear me, right? I have two things. One is about the bridge near the Supreme Court building. I think you should all know that they came to the City Council and asked for a rather large sum of money, saying that they had initial approval from the board. My understanding from that conversation they had with the board was that they had a rush to get this done, get it approved, so that they wouldn't lose state money. And you all formed a subcommittee that is Mr. Arian, Miss Rios, and again, I'm asking what you know about this project. Have you actually reviewed it? Why it's taking them so long? Because they said they had to be absolutely done by the end of December, and they haven't even started. So, that's one thing. Then the other thing that I'm going to bring up again is your vote, I believe it was at the end of October, on 924 Canyon Road was absolutely improper, illegal, and you had extremely bad advice once again from Frank Kubali. So on that vote, you had five people sitting here at quorum. Mr. Cherry abstained, and it was a 2-1 vote. That is not a majority. Even if you don't want to count Mr. Cherry being there, it's not a majority of the members present. That would be three. And Mr. Rubil said that the chair abstains, but again, I want to read you what it says. Voting shall be conducted in the following manner: A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum. Each member, excluding the chair, shall have one vote. The chair may only vote in the case of a tie or when his or her vote will provide the necessary number of votes required by law for taking an action on an issue. When a quorum is present at any meeting, the vote of a majority of members present shall decide any question. First of all, abstaining is a personal decision. There's no word "abstain" in that resolution. So, Mr. Rubile's characterization of the chair abstaining is totally incorrect. The chair is prevented by the rules to vote except in very limited conditions. So, that's not abstaining. I also would point out that Mr. Cherry did not give a reason for abstaining, which would have been helpful because had he had a conflict of interest, he probably should have recused himself. And if he found that there wasn't enough information, which are the two major reasons for abstaining, then perhaps he should have asked for more information, which this board does on a regular basis, so that there was consistency in your process. And I point this out to you because there's so many criticisms of the board for being arbitrary, capricious, etc., etc. And again, I'm just trying to urge you to be consistent at least in your procedure. I looked up Robert's Rules of Order, frequently asked questions. The phrase, it says, "Do abstention votes count?" The phrase "abstention vote" is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an abstention vote. In the usual situation where the rules require either a majority vote or two-thirds vote, abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is a majority of the two-thirds of the votes cast. On the other hand, if the rules explicitly require a majority of two-thirds of the members present, which is what your rules do, or a majority of two-thirds of the entire membership, for example, an abstention will have the same effect as a no vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote and is not counted as a vote. So, in other words, you needed three people to vote on 924 Canyon Road. And I looked that up and nobody even asked the realtor who was crying about how they couldn't sell it. They were trying to sell that for over a million dollars, and then they dropped it to $999,000. A house that hadn't been improved for a very long time and needed work. So maybe that was the problem and not selling it. Not that, oh my gosh, it might be contributing. And again, I'm really tired of Mr. Rubil not actually following these rules. Members present means that everybody in the quorum counts, and Madam Chair, point of order, three people, three people at least. Point of order, Madam Chair. It's entirely inappropriate to engage in personal attacks on anyone in this forum, and I would object to that. Thank you for your comments, and Stephanie, thank you for your comments as well. Anyone else in this audience wishing to speak? No one. Anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios. Anthony Guida, you may unmute. Hi there. It's Anthony Guida. Can you all hear me? Okay. Yes. Thank you. Good evening, board. Just a question. This board has been a full seven-member board since March or April of this year. Chapter 14, including the new version of Chapter 14, requires that an architect be one of the dedicated seats of the seven on the board. I know the question's been asked before, but I'm curious to know which of the members of the current board is in the architect seat. I don't think there's a licensed architect on the board. I'm not an attorney. I certainly wouldn't impersonate one. But I know we like to talk about the law in this body. In my view, the board is not operating in compliance with Chapter 14. Are the decisions that it's made since it has had seated a seven-member board without an architect in any way valid? When does the board expect to be in compliance with Chapter 14? To my knowledge, this issue has been raised with the mayor, with the land use director, and in front of this body on multiple occasions. Why is an architect not being seated? My organization, Friends of Architecture, and the AIA have proposed multiple candidates to the mayor. Why is an architect not being represented on this board when they are the majority of the applicants? Why are there five dues-paying members of the Old Santa Fe Association on this board but not a single architect? That's my question tonight. Thank you, Mr. Guida. And I think Heather is anxious to respond. Yes. Thank you, Chair Rios. I'd like to point everybody to section 14-72.6 regarding the Historic Districts Review Board. The composition states, "The HDB consists of seven members who have demonstrated interest and knowledge in the historic character of the city. One member shall be an architect. It doesn't say what type of architect. One member shall be a historian. One member shall represent some aspect of the construction industry. One member shall have a business in the historic district. One member shall be a member of the Old Santa Fe Association. And two members shall be members at large. Members of the governing body also may serve as members at large." So, and with reference to the recommendations, item three, "The following organizations are encouraged to recommend to the mayor up to three persons each for the appropriate position as designated in this section: A, the Santa Fe chapter of the American Institute of Architects, which we've seen received recommendations and forwarded to the mayor. B, Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce and Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. C, Museum of New Mexico, and D, Building Contractors Association and Associated General Contractors of America Building Branch." For which we received a recommendation from Member Cherry. So, at this point, we have been in a waiting game. Member Beachside graciously stated that she would step down once another board member is appointed. So, it's not that we are blatantly ignoring the ordinance. First of all, we are compliant with the ordinance. And then second, we are just waiting to get a response from the mayor. I also met with Mayor-Elect Garcia, and this is one thing I've identified as a need regarding the composition of our boards and commissions. Thank you very much for your explanation, and I appreciate that. Am I still on? You are. Heather, just a point of clarification. There is no "types of architects" there. You are either an architect or not. So, my question still stands: Who is in the architect seat right now with a seven-person board? Miss Guida, that would be Maline Aguilar Madron. Okay. Not who is a landscape architect, not an architect. A landscape architect is not a type of architect. According to the definitions, yes, it is. I strongly disagree. To speak will be State Auditor Joseph Mastas. I don't know if Auditor Mastas, if you're planning on speaking regarding the case for the state office building or you have some other comments to make. No. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you for this brief opportunity to address you regarding the agenda items associated with the development of a new executive office building. I'm calling in to let you know that my agency is one of several that are proposed to be included in this new executive office building. Now, my current building is leased. Excuse me, Mr. Mastas. Yes. We have not come to that case yet. Can you please indicate your comments or make your comments during the time that we are addressing that case? Well, I wasn't sure. It would be much more appropriate. I wasn't sure if I'd have the opportunity to do that later on. Oh, yes, you will. We entertain public comment all the time. And yes, you will. You will have time. Okay. If that's the pleasure of the board, then that's what I'll do. Thank you very much. Heather, is there anyone else online that wishes to speak regarding public comment? Thank you, Chair. No one else. And we go to staff communications. Yes, Chair Rios. We have item A and item B, 2026 Historic Board Review Board hearing calendar. One is for the internal and one is for the external, and we need a vote on that. The board. Thank you. Anything else? No, not at this time. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, this evening we have a lot of cases. So, I'm going to ask for your cooperation, and we, the board, will give our cooperation. I am going to limit public comment to two minutes. Not if you're involved directly in a case, but if you are a person from the public commenting on a case, that will be two minutes. As a matter of fact, if you can do it in less than two minutes, it would be appreciated. So, two minutes is a lot of time, and I would appreciate that. Also, if you disagree with the decision that this board renders this evening, you do have the option to appeal to the City Council. You do have time constraints, so I would suggest that you get together with city staff and they will guide you through the process. With that being said, we will go to the first case this evening. Yes, Amanda. Amanda: Madam Chair, pardon the interruption. I will need a vote for the calendars. Chair: Oh, okay. Amanda: To approve for the adoption of the calendars. Board Member: Move to approve. Chair: And do I hear a second? Board Member: I'd second. Chair: All those in favor say aye. Board Members: Aye. Chair: Opposed say no. Thank you very much. Thanks, Amanda. And Amanda, can you help me with the two minutes as well? Amanda: Yes, Madam Chair. Chair: Thank you very much. So, the first case this evening is located at 121 East Santa Fe Avenue. Is that applicant here? Applicant: Yes, the applicant is here. May we hear from staff, please? Staff: Thank you, Chair Rios. The subject property is located in the Don Gaspar Area Historic District and is listed as significant to that district. This photograph illustrates the structure before it was purchased by the current property owners. You'll note that there was once a picket fence that ran around the front of the structure, and that will be replaced in kind to be consistent with what was there historically. The subject property is listed as significant, and you can see here, I'm just going to go through several pictures of what it was before. And Amanda is handing out an elevation for you so you can see the detail. The Don Gaspar Area Historic District was developed in more of an American urban form. As you can see, this is part of the Salmon Edition, which is one of the earliest subdivisions that were done in Santa Fe that diverged from the development pattern of family compounds and informal compounds throughout the Downtown Eastside Historic District. In 1912, the subject property was illustrated on the King's map. I'd like to point to you the aerial of the property. Currently, there is an air conditioner on one of the windows. These replacements that were made after the construction of the home, but before the actual purchase of the home by the current owner. Administratively approved was a re-roof of the structure. The roof was failing. The addition that is to the rear, the larger addition, was done in the 1970s. Also, historically, there is a historic garage, single bay, what would have been a single bay garage structure on the western portion of the site. This is the subject structure is also illustrated, the 1948 Sanborn. You can see there's an arrow there, and it illustrates that there once was a porch on the back prior to the addition of a tiny little mudroom, for lack of a better term, that is on the north elevation. This is the subject property once again prior to the sale of the property. You can see off to the left there was once a driveway gate. It's difficult to see in this photograph, but there was a pergola as well. And then this is an illustration or a photograph of what the addition looked like prior to the replacement of that particular, or prior to the addition on that side. So, this is the historic addition that was done where the green door is. This addition right here that's to the left is probably from the 1970s when that other addition, the larger addition, was added to the rear of the property. The applicant has provided information. So, what happened was there was administrative approval for repair of the roof. There were significant issues that the applicant communicated to staff at that time with the rotting of the roof of that small addition that was added after 1948. And so, you can see that there is a large eave that projects over the line of the roof. So, the addition previously was tucked in, and what was done was the roof was removed, and once again, this new addition has been tucked in under the eave of the roof. And you can see here on a house that is of the exact same design on Marcy Street, the connection was made. This was made a little bit differently, but you can see the connection there at the end of the house and here at the end of the house where the addition started. The applicant is also requesting to replace the front porch boards and install a railing on the front porch. The railing being that there is currently a fall threat on a lot of these old bungalows. There either the elevation is taller or closer to the ground, but on this particular bungalow, it is high enough that the applicant has concerns with falls. Furthermore, the concrete steps that have a brick topper that access the property, the applicant would like to replace those as well to make them more stable. As you can see, the concrete has degraded as well as the bricks are falling apart. The applicant provided, in response to the presentation last time, the applicant provided a more detailed West Elevation drawing, a copy of which is on your desk. I'm sorry, our scanner was broken last week, and I couldn't get it into the packet. So, we were finally able to scan it today after the repairman came. And so, as you can see, there is more dimensions. There is a pedestrian entrance on that west elevation on the historic portion of the building that accesses directly once this was split up into two different apartments. And so, that accesses the apartment, what was once an apartment upstairs. It's all one single-family residence now. As you can see here also is the projection of the historic eave of the house and the illustration where the addition was added to the rear. As the applicant stated previously in the presentation last time, the overall square footage, the additional square footage of this area is approximately 26 square feet. And I will have Mr. Trusco, the applicant and owner, confirm that when he comes up to the podium. This is an illustration of that east elevation. And you can see the historic house and then the addition that was done in the 1970s, the front elevation. And all of these drawings are to scale. They are to scale. And the applicant has also vetted this with our building permit division to make sure that these drawings would be acceptable for a permit, and they are. We received confirmation. And then illustration of the north elevation. And the applicant also provided detailed illustrations of where the windows are. There were four windows that were replaced. The shakes were added to the west elevation as partially distinguishes what is old from what is new. And you can see where that roofline tucks up under the historic eave as well. And once again, here's another view of where the roofline is tucked under that historic eave. And then on the west elevation, the front, this is an illustration of the gate as it was replaced and the as well as the pergola that was built in kind. Another photograph of the west elevation and then details of the steps that were being proposed with railings at the front elevation. That would be the south elevation. The door that you saw on site today is a temporary door. The applicant is having the historic front door with the round window repaired and had to be removed from the site in order to do the repair. This is an illustration of the railing that the applicant is proposing for that front porch. And actually, at a site visit, we looked under the front of the existing front porch, and there are holes in the brick and the baseboards showing that there was once, the current wood was just placed on top of what was there previously. And you can see where a railing may have been connected to the structure. And this is also, these are also additional photographs of the stairs. The stairs are the rise over the run. While the rise is fairly low, the run is also fairly short. So, it makes it difficult to traverse the stairs. And then an illustration of the front porch and the construction and how it was just added on top of the historic porch. And just some additional photographs. The applicant is proposing to add some lamps on the underside of the front porch for additional lighting. And once again, just highlighting that there's a request for a mini split in the window on the west elevation that currently has a larger air conditioning unit. And then the pedestrian, I'm sorry, vehicular gate and pergola that is to the west of the building. An illustration or close-in view of the air conditioner. An additional view. And once again, coming back around, this is the fence that was there previously, and they wanted to replace it in like kind. It was falling apart, so it was removed recently. And that concludes the staff presentation. Staff recommends approval for the proposed projects. Chair: Thank you very much, Heather. Question, Heather, does the pergola comply with the required requirements as built? Staff: Chair Rios, it does. It does. It was part of an administrative approval, and there are certain building criteria, not necessarily historic, but building criteria that were met. Chair: In reference to the lot line. That's, it's in compliance with that. It goes all the way to the fence or to what you're referencing as setback. Staff: Yeah, it's touching, the pergola is, I believe, touching the fence. Is that, is that in compliance? Chair: As an open-air structure that's not occupied, it can go up to the lot line. Any other questions, board members, at this time? Member Bianu. Member Bianu: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question on the mini split. Is there an exception request for that? Staff: Chair Rios, Member Bianu, because there is an existing air conditioner in that window, it would actually be taking the property, the window back to more of the historic character of what it was once. And so, no exception was required. Member Bianu: I'm not sure I follow. So, just walk me through that again. What's the sequence of events there with the mini split? Staff: Chair Rios, Member Bianu, because the existing air conditioning unit is much larger, as illustrated in these photographs, what the applicant will be doing is removing that and adding a mini split, which has much less effect on the historic status of. Member Bianu: Oh, I see. So, they're not asking for retroactive approval for the existing, and they're asking to replace that with a new device. Staff: Yes. Member Bianu: And the one that's there right now, when was it installed? Do you know? Staff: I do not know. Member Bianu: Okay. Staff: Probably prior to this owner's occupancy. It's a pretty old unit. Member Bianu: Right. But it would still be in violation, wouldn't it? Staff: Chair Rios, Member Bianu, that is correct, but it's being removed and. Member Bianu: Right, but then it's being replaced with something that would also be in violation of our ordinance. Staff: The mini split is not going to be in the window. I'll defer to Mr. Tresco to get into the details. Member Bianu: Okay. I thought a mini split couldn't be publicly visible. Staff: I'll defer to Mr. Tresco, and we can certainly talk about it more. Member Bianu: Great. Thanks. Chair: Any other questions for Heather at this time? If there's not, applicant or applicants, please come forward. You need to get sworn in. Applicant: Hi. Chair: Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Applicant: Right. Trust, 21 East Santa Fe Avenue. Chair: Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference in this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? Applicant: Yes. Chair: Thank you, Madam Chair. He has been sworn. Good evening. And please tell us what you know about this project. Applicant: First off, I want to, the mini, that is not an air conditioner. That is a mini-split that was there when we purchased the house, so it would not be removed. It's already a mini-split. It was there when we purchased the house. **Speaker:** That's going to remain, is that what you're indicating? The upstairs has no heating or cooling if it doesn't remain there. And we purchased the house and it was already there. So I'm not sure, are we supposed to go backwards and remove heating and air conditioning, which would make the upstairs unlivable? **Speaker:** We are saying you are simply asking the question. Well, I'm clarifying. **Speaker:** About, in other words, you are leaving the mini-split there, is that correct? Yes, it's not, from what I heard from member Benvu, it's not an air conditioning unit, it's a mini-split that was already there when we purchased the house. **Speaker:** Well, as we heard Heather, it appeared that there was an air conditioning unit and then someone, and she indicated prior to your occupying the house, prior to your buying the house, that a mini-split was put and you are indicating that you're going to leave it. Yeah, with all due respect, I don't know that there was ever an air conditioner there. I think it was always a mini-split. **Speaker:** I'm sorry, I must have been in error. I picked this up from another staff member. Okay. **Speaker:** And what else do you have to tell us? I think I'm here for questions. I have prepared a presentation if you need it. But... **Speaker:** If Heather told us everything that you agree with, it's not necessary unless you'd like to. Yeah, no, I don't think, I think everything she said was accurate. The only thing I would like to add is those back four walls. When we did the roof, we were, they basically said they won't replace the roof unless we fix that roof line because it was at a 20-degree angle and I think 22 degrees is a minimum for a roof, a pitched roof like that. We had rodents in there. We had whatever rodents collect. The walls, you could push on them. So under whichever clause it is, I could look it up, I've got it in my book, we were required for safety and health reasons to fix those walls. And I would also like to point out that those windows we added on the side, they are the same proportion as the original windows. So the original windows are 3x6. We put in 2x4 specifically to make sure that it stayed. And the house next door is all shingles. We felt like that side of that house could be consistent with Craftsman and that's why the shingles went in there. But they were verbally approved also. **Speaker:** Are you planning to paint the fence in front of the pergola? It's been stained and there's some debate. Will you stain it a red? I can stain it a darker red, but you know, if you paint that wood, then it retains moisture. So, I prefer to, if you need a darker stain, but if you look at the original pictures, the gate is now, the larger fence is now the same color as the gate was before. And the gate before was a different color than the fence. So, we had red and we had a light red stain. Now, it's all a light red stain. So, the question of what color was it before, I guess that's up to you. Was it a dark red or was it a light stain? Because it was both at the time. Now it's all a light stain. **Speaker:** Let me see if other board members have questions for you. Board members, do you have any questions for the applicant? No questions. Anyone from the public in this room wishing to comment, come forward. And you do need to get sworn in. Are you an applicant as well? No, I'm the immediate neighbor to... **Speaker:** Oh, okay. West. **Speaker:** Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. My name is Ann Pier, 111 East Santa Fe Avenue, Unit 8. **Speaker:** And do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth? You'll hold truth and do this under the penalty of perjury. Thank you, madam. I'm just here as a neighbor whose property overlooks everything that's happened in the back of the house. And from my perspective, from my second-floor balcony, there hasn't been a substantial change other than a lot of things that were in very bad repair are now in very good repair. And as a neighbor, I do appreciate that. And that was really all that I had to say. Just that I failed for your comments conscientiously keeping his house up. **Speaker:** Thank you. Thank you. **Speaker:** Stephanie Benonato. **Speaker:** Address, please. Stephanie. PO Box 1601, Santa Fe. **Speaker:** Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth and do this under the penalty of perjury? Thank you, ma'am. This application or this presentation doesn't seem very different than the time before they came. And it's still, there are windows that have been replaced that are not of the same size. It is vague as to what the railing material will be, even though now there's supposedly proof that there was a railing, but is it going to be in conformity with the picket fence? Or do they want wrought iron, which I don't really think is appropriate for that building. Perhaps some brick, you know, type of a porch railing could be okay, in terms of on the porch itself is what I'm talking about. I also wonder why they, you know, the shingles to me is not compatible with the building. Doesn't really matter that it matches the neighbor's building. This is a significant structure and it should look, it should be in harmony with that structure but different enough that, you know, it's new. And I see this again, this whole process as being a problem with administrative approvals because all of this was administratively approved and there seems to be a lot of mistakes or bad judgment made on the part of staff. And then the other thing with the mini-split, I'm wondering if it could be put someplace like on the north side and just run a pipe into the window or run it from the north side. And I really don't know how something could have been an apartment if it didn't have heating and cooling to begin with. And again, I remind you this is a significant structure. We don't have a lot of significant structures. And I think it's important to really think about it. And then the last thing I want to say is that in terms of the additions in the 1970s, we're not really clear when in the 1970s because we're almost at 2026, which means that anything that was added basically in 1976 is now considered historic. Thank you. **Speaker:** Thank you. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment? No one else. Is there anyone online that wishes to comment on this? **Speaker:** Yes, Chair Rios. Jordan Young, you may unmute. Please state your name and address for the record and be sworn. Hi, Jordan Young. I live at 652 Galasto Street and I know that I'm under oath. **Speaker:** Jordan, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. **Speaker:** Thank you. I'm going to try to stick to the two minutes. I am a neighbor. I live just around the corner on Galiso Street. I love Santa Fe Avenue. It's so charming. I commend Brett Tresco for his very tasteful ideas and renovating and restoring a property that obviously needs some love. As someone that lives in South Capitol, I am in favor of administrative approvals for repairs such as the one being proposed rather than continuing to scrutinize it. As a homeowner, these delays become expensive and this person is obviously making efforts to restore a significant home in a lovely neighborhood. I also observe all kinds of fences in South Capitol. I take pictures of them every day. All different variations, some charming, some really in desperate need of repair. So again, I'm in favor of administrative approvals, and I'm in favor of Mr. Tresco being able to do these repairs and improvements to the safety and quality of his home very quickly. It feels like this process and these processes are onerous for homeowners and in order to keep our historic districts looking beautiful, people need to be able to do these repairs and maintenance items easily. Thank you. **Speaker:** Thank you. Anyone else? Heather online? No. Board members, do you have anything further to, or any other questions or you didn't have questions? If I could just address one comment on those cedar shakes, the dormers, the original house would not have had stucco in the back. It would have been brick and in fact when we've done the work, we found the brick wall from the original house. The dormers are cedar shakes, which means there never would have been stucco on that house in the first place. If you want to take it back to 1904, cedar shakes would have been the more appropriate siding than the stucco. Thank you for your comments. And board members, you have nothing further to add or ask? If not, I will entertain a motion, please. Someone, member Benu. **Speaker:** Thank you, Madam Chair. In case 2025s are 11122 HDRB at 121 East San Fe Avenue. Given the somewhat unique circumstances of this case where there was quite a bit of confusion about what was and wasn't allowed in some of these changes and a series of administrative approvals to most of what's already taken place. I'm going to move to approve the application even though I think that many of these changes would not have been approved if they had come to the board originally. But again, under these circumstances, I would move that the application be approved and findings be entered that the exceptions criteria have been met for the reasons given by staff in the staff report. And I'd also just clarify, maybe I can ask the applicant. I understand that the railings are going to be made out of wood. Is that correct, probably painted white? That's correct. And I submitted the style. It's a consistent Craftsman style. So, it would be 41 inches, I believe, with a top railing and then every other railing would be kind of a... **Speaker:** Good pillar for style. That's what I couldn't find in the packet, but that if that's in the packet, that sounds fine. And... What is the color you're proposing? **Speaker:** White. Yeah, same as that. So, and with that then that's, that would be the motion. **Speaker:** Do I hear a second? **Speaker:** And then second. **Speaker:** And is there anything further to add? **Speaker:** I would add a friendly amendment. **Speaker:** Sure. That the fence in front of the pergola painted white. Actually, I believe that the white would be more in keeping with the architectural style of the house. **Speaker:** I can accept that as friendly. **Speaker:** It's a point of discussion. I'm sorry if I missed it, but is the picket fence proposed to be stained, not painted white or it is painted white? The original was white. We did not remove it. It was never there. **Speaker:** But the old photographs show it was there. **Speaker:** And the picket fence that you're repairing is white. Oh, we're not, there's nothing there at... **Speaker:** No, no, you're not proposing a... Yeah, we had proposed putting the picket fence back. **Speaker:** Yeah. We may wait on that a little bit. **Speaker:** Got it. But... **Speaker:** So that is not part of this application. It was in the original application, but I don't know that we'll do it right away. I understand we have three years to, okay, to, to... **Speaker:** If we could just clarify for the motion if it includes the picket fence that it also be painted white. That's the original seller. That would be the plan. **Speaker:** That's my understanding. There's not anything further to add. May we have a roll call vote? **Speaker:** May I clarify? So you're proposing that the fence, the gate at the end of the driveway that we paint that white. Part of the approval that we would need to paint that white as well as the pergola because it's all a natural stained cedar right now. I don't know how old— I didn't say anything about the pergola. Okay. We have a roll call vote, please. Member Cherry? No. Member Bishide? Yes. Member DGEN? Yes. Member Aglamano? No. Member Benu? Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has been approved. Thank you very much. Thank you, applicant. Thank you. Next case is located at 439 Camino de Monte Sol. And I see that the applicant is here. And Paul, that's your case. May we hear from you? Are we having technical difficulties? Please change the screen back to the podium. Thank you. The podium computer. I apologize, Chair Rios. It'll be just a few more minutes. Okay, Paul, are we a go? Good evening, Madam Chair. Yes, ma'am. Should we wait for Member Bish? We'll give her a minute. Paul, if you're going to give the history of the house, Member Bishide is familiar with that history because she's been here in the past and we've— Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, members of the public, thank you for being here this evening. In case number 2025-010495 HDRB, the single-family residence at 439 Camino de Monte Sol, lot 1A, is listed as significant to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The main residential structure was built in 1925 on a 0.3-acre parcel and comprises 5,894 square feet of roofed area. The 1991 New Mexico Historic Building Inventory (HBI) survey form records the architectural design style as Spanish Pueblo Revival, as seen by the adobe block and wooden vigas construction material, recessed doors and windows, and flat roof with rounded parapets. The structure has undergone several alterations and additions in the 1990s as noted. However, the core structure maintains the original conception of design and character of the streetscape and district in which it resides. The proposed detached garage addition will not impact the current status and integrity of the structure. The proposed detached garage will be finished with adobe brown stucco to match the existing house and have wooden garage doors. The structure will be set back to the east by 10 feet from the existing east elevation. The proposed garage structure will be comparable and compatible to the existing architectural style of the structure and of the compound itself. So on this property here, we have the entire structure is significant. So all facades are primary. This is the western facade as you view it from Camino de Monte Sol. And that northwestern facing facade. Here we have the entrance into the structure. And then here is the location of where that new detached garage will be constructed off of that east elevation, set back 10 feet to the east. Here is the proposed site plan showing the detached garage addition. And here as it looks, on the north facade is going to be where the garage entrance door is located and where the car will enter. Here we have on that proposed north elevation showing 10 feet set back from the primary facade, the garage door, which accentuates the other garages in the compound. The garage has proposed two windows facing on the east elevation. And here we have the exterior finishes of the garage via wooden clad garage door, wooden lintel above it, and the proposed colors for the stucco, the garage, and the windows. With that being said, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E, Downtown and East Side design standards. Thank you, Chair. Any questions for Paul? No questions at this time. Mr. Hoops, will you come forward, please? Hi. Please speak into the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Greg Hoops, 333 Montezuma. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in regards to this item is the truth, nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? Thank you, Madam Chair. He has been sworn. Good evening, Mr. Hoops. What do you have to tell us? I agree with staff recommendation. Okay. And what is the interior ceiling height of the garage? The interior ceiling height. The exterior is 14 feet. And what is the interior? Exterior is 10 foot three. Oh, it's 10 foot three. I thought on the filters today— Allows for 14 feet. The— Okay, it's—all righty. Clarification. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Hoops? No questions. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this project? No one. Anyone online? No, Chair. Motion, please. Board members. I'll make a motion. Yes, Mr. Cherry, in case 20, in case 2510495 HDRB, 439 Camino de Monte Sol, I would move to approve the application as submitted. Do I have a second? Anything further to add? Nothing further. Roll call vote, please. Member DGEN? Yes. Member Agalamadrono? Yes. Member Benu? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Bishide? Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. That was painless, right? Thank you very much. Next case is located on Washington at 219 and 219A Washington Avenue. Oh, that's also your case. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, members of the board, members of the public, in case number 2025-010873 HDRB at 219 and 219A Washington Avenue, the professional office buildings at 219 Washington Avenue is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District with the west street-facing facade designated as primary. The following summary of the property was previously described by Mr. Ramon Sarasone, former planner with Historic Preservation Division, in a recent case on the subject property to the Historic Districts Review Board in 2024. The commercial building at 219 Washington Avenue occupies the northwest corner of the former Levi A. Hughes estate and is characterized as a low, flat-roof building that initially served as a garage. The nondescript structure faces Washington Avenue and sits directly adjacent to a wide sidewalk made of glazed clay blocks. To the north is a concrete walkway leading to the former McKe office building. To the south is the lawn of the one-time Levi A. and Christine L. Hughes residence, constructed between 1930 and 1942. The garage is made of structural clay pin tiles and finished with stucco and painted in a buckskin color. The previous garage faces the street, which has been altered with the infill of a door and windows. These include two sets of large multi-light wood windows that sit on low bulkheads faced with stretcher row brick. Public access to the building is through a 3/4-inch glass door to the northwest corner. The structure currently utilizes for commercial business purposes. Now, there's been several cases on this property and a great summation by my colleague, Mr. Sasom. The current applicant's request on this property here is the given site plan is at 219 Washington Avenue. A contributing structure with that west facade designated as primary is to construct a 640-square-foot two-story rear addition to the east of the structure. So where that dogleg butts out is where that addition will take place. The addition includes 123 square feet of a bathroom per unit 4 and construct 94 feet of a portal addition on the south facade. Construct 89 square feet exterior stairway on the east facade and construct 54 square feet of roof deck on the second floor of the north facade. So I'll extend and here is the location, and I'm sure everybody's seen this property as you walk downtown or drive by. So on this proposed site plan for 219A is a new construction of a new building directly to the east of 219 Washington Avenue. And the proposed work consists of a new two-story structure with 624 feet of ground floor and 718 feet on the second floor. The style will match the existing 215 Washington Avenue building style of a hip roof, stucco type, and color, including foundation stone, stone sills, and wood posts where necessary. Construct a 40-foot portal on the west elevation, a 105-foot portal on the south elevation, and a 93-foot exterior stairway on the east elevation. So this site plan kind of encapsulates the proposed work of the additions. So here we have the proposed first floor plan at 219 and 219A Washington Avenue. Here we have the proposed second floor plan for the new construction at 219 Washington Avenue and 219A Washington. Here we have the proposed roof plan. The proposed roof plan for the 219 Washington Avenue will be a parapet roof plan, and the roof plan for 219A will be a hip roof, similar to that at 215 Washington. So at 219 Washington Avenue, the existing and proposed north elevation is as follows. Here we have the existing and proposed east elevation. Here we have the proposed, the existing and proposed south elevation showing the existing, the proposed two-story addition, and the 219 Washington Avenue existing and proposed west elevation, their primary facade. Here we have for the new construction, the proposed north elevation at 219A Washington. 219A Washington proposed east elevation with the stairwell divider light windows and window sills and hip roof. Here we have the proposed south elevation and the 219A Washington Avenue proposed west elevation. With that being said, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that all the exception criteria have been met and that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E, Downtown and East Side design standards. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Paul. Would you talk to us about public visibility of this project? Madam Chair, members of the board, members of the public, yes. The north and partial western facades of this new construction are visible from Washington Avenue on the streetscape. I would say the northern would be the most visible, but it would be minimal at most. And you would see the parapet roof at best. You're going to be able to see this from Santa Fe. Madam Chair, that is correct. Correct. But it's to the rear of the property. Yes, ma'am. Any other questions for Paul? Hear none. Applicant or applicants, please come forward. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record. Robert Evans, 21 Road 172. Thank you. Robert, will you go ahead and pull that microphone up a little toward your mouth? 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? Yeah. Thank you, sir. Good evening, Mr. Evans. What more do you have to add to what Paul just told us? Well, I think this is the fourth time. And speak right into that mic. All of us can hear you. Yeah, I think our original hearing in August, I just wanted to say that I did hear you on that hearing about the mass of things, and it was, I reduced that the 219A, the big building, from 296 by 31 to 25 by 25. So that's a significant reduction. And the, but I am requesting a two-foot exception, two-foot-one exception on the height in order to get that ceiling height. But the 219 addition was the height was 246 in August, and now it's, I got it under 20, 198. And the addition, we need, I needed an exception, we need an exception for 50%. That exception would be, well, in August it was 189, and we're down to 141. I have reduced the square footage and the height the first hearing. I also originally, trying, you know, because we had the hip roof on the 215 building and the SE building office building has the brick opening. So, originally, I thought, "Well, let's put brick coping on the garage," but garages did not have coping, so I took that off. I did put coping, territorial coping, on the addition, but it is too. I think that's it. Other questions? Board members, questions for Mr. Evans? No questions. Anyone in this audience want to comment on this case? Come forward. Stephanie Benonato: I appreciate that the architect has tried to make a lot of changes to conform to what he thinks that you want. And I like the design of the back unit a lot better than it had been with the hip roof. I think it really actually fits in better. I think to say that you are not going to see the second story on the one that's closest to Washington is just not true. It's going to stick up and it's going to be very visible because that building is extremely small. And I understand it's commercial property and you want to use it to the max, but is that hardship? And so what's the justification for 140% addition when you're supposed to be limited to 50%? That's three times as much. In terms of the height, I'm not sure what the height is for the front building. It is under 20 feet at this point. But I'm again wondering why it is, if they need that height for the second floor, why they can't step down the first floor a couple of feet into the ground and keep it at the height without having to have an exception. Thank you. Oh, one more thing. To have two different styles on one building, I'm not sure that that's really consistent, although I appreciate that perhaps just visually you want to make it look somewhat different. The territorial style is not the Spanish colonial or what you call Santa Fe style, whatever you want to call it. It's a different style. So, I would ask the board to also think about that. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in this building wishing to comment on this case? No one. Anyone online? There's no one online. I will entertain a motion. Board members. Anyone? Member Cherry: I make a motion. In case 2025-0873 HDRB 219 and 219A Washington Avenue, I would move to approve as submitted. Is there a second? I second. Anything further? Amendment. Yes, Member Ben. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a friendly amendment that findings be entered that all exceptional criteria have been met. Accepted. Thank you for addressing that. And may we have a roll call vote, please? Amanda. Member Agalamano: Yes. Member Benu: Yes. Member Bishide: No. Member Cherry: Yes. Member Denon: Yes. Madam Chair, it has been approved. Thank you very much and thank you, sir, for making those changes. Next case is located at 41 East Palace Avenue. Is that applicant here? The applicant is here. Amanda, that is your case. Yes, Madam Chair, the applicant is here. All the computers are a bit slow tonight. Bear with me if you would. This application is coming back before you. It came before you, I believe, in October, and we requested for them to come back after working with staff for a few of the changes. This is at 2025-011353 for 401 East Palace Avenue, and this is in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. They have the main residence and also a garage and a wall that they were interested in upgrading. They have since decided to take out the yard wall from the application. And so now we are talking about the garage and the main residence. We are looking at the brick coping, the change of the brick coping to be a red in color. Previously, they were requesting to have this gray color. Now they're requesting to go back to the red to be in kind of the style that is of the existing. They're also asking for an exception to criteria for the stucco color, which we show was white. After further review of the site, staff determined that oatmeal, the oatmeal color, was acceptable. It's much better than the cream that they had initially were requesting. And finally, the final exception is for the door on the south facade. And staff is recommending denial of that exception as it does not meet 14-5.2D5 to D5 M5A, and that is they were not able to provide adequate information that this door was existing previously. The door that is there currently has been there since the 1960s, so it is historic in its own right. They are requesting to go with this glass-topped door, which would provide false history. I stand for questions. Thank you. In terms of the contributing status, in determining the contributing status, it was established that the white color had been there for quite a long time, probably more than 50 years. Is that correct or not? That is correct, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any other questions? Member Gilard. Madam Chair, I know you said the wall has been taken out of the application. Does that mean, I remember there was a metal gate before, a pedestrian gate. Does that mean that's also been taken out for now? Thank you. Member Agamadano, members of the board, yes, the gate was the entrance for the wall to the courtyard. So that no longer is part of the application. Perfect. And do you, was there anything else? I remember I listed a couple of things in the motion for the last case, asking them to reconsider. Was there anything that wasn't reconsidered that you haven't already gone through? The only other things that I did not go through was the windows. And those are to be replaced in kind. The only window that was concerning was a window on the primary facade needed repair, but all the rest of them could be requested. Okay. Thank you. In reference to the brick coping, is the applicant wanting to replace all the brick or those brick that are needed to be replaced? The applicant is requesting, Madam Chair, members of the board, to replace all the brick. All the brick and obviously in the same pattern that is existing. Yes, the same pattern is existing in kind. Thank you. Member Beach. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be clear, the only exception that's being requested that is not proposed to be replaced in kind is the color of the house, the stucco, the white stucco. Is that correct? Everything else is in kind. Exactly. No. Madam Bishide, that is the door. The door is not in kind, right? And you've recommended denial of that door. Yes. Does that, I believe a matching door was proposed on the garage? Yes. And yes, they no longer are requesting to do the pedestrian door, and they are requesting to paint the existing garage door white. Okay. And you're okay with that? Yes, members. Okay. Thank you. And to clarify on the stucco color, so the board has requested that they do white. Staff on an inspection determined that the oatmeal color was a sufficient past color. And members of the board also thought maybe that was just a dirty white. So again, that's for the board to decide. Thank you. Any other questions? Other questions? Will the applicant please come forward? Name and address for the record. PO Box 8858. Declare and affirm that testimony have reference shall be the truth. Nothing but. Good evening, Mr. Lions. I do have a couple of clarifications. Yes, we are still proposing to replace the pedestrian door on the garage similar to the front door to the house. We are not proposing to replace... Can you speak right into that mic? Okay. We are not proposing to replace any of the windows. We are proposing to remove two windows on the north side of the house. We are proposing to remove the existing storm aluminum storm sashes from the windows and restoring the windows to operational status. We are proposing to remove a bit of rotten crown trim on window. It's D. I saw it on the west side. There's a piece of duct tape masquerading as building. We're proposing to repolish that. Pardon me, sir. Do you mind? Could you speak a little bit closer? I'm having trouble hearing you. Sure. Thank you. There's a window on the west side. I believe it's window D. There's currently a piece of duct tape that's painted green that we're proposing to remove and replace, and that requires an exception. Hopefully you don't mind. If it's historic, it's okay. Yeah. Okay. So we are proposing the two doors, one on the garage, one on the front of the house, the pedestrian doors. And we currently the stucco, the color we're proposing is La Habra Oatmeal, which appears to be the color closest match to the color that's under the white paint everybody has seen for decades. Thank you. And what is the door in the front of the house? What does your proposal look like? Amanda had that up on the screen. Maybe it's something that came from that the owners found in the book on meme facing southwest. Seems to be a kind of a classic territorial design. Please show the podium computer. Yeah, that's what we're proposing as a replacement for the front door to the house here on the south facade that actually faces west and also as the pedestrian door on the garage on the south facade. These are, and the two doors that we're proposing to replace in each of those two locations were installed by the owner in approximately the 1970s at some point. Any questions for Mr. Lions? Yes, member. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could you just speak to us about the color choice for the house? And we heard a lot of testimony the last, at the last hearing, about how much the white color identifies this house as sort of a, you know, a hallmark of the neighborhood, and a lot of people will remember it being white for many, many years. And if you're, I think your clients are proposing to replace in kind most of the other elements. I think a lot of this house is in the details. Why, why deviate from the white? La Habra doesn't make an exact match. Is basically what it comes down to. That's a pretty unique color, and we would, so we've literally dug deeper, and so now the proposal is the base color below it, the original stucco. We assume there, I suppose, paint or stow, which aren't allowed, would probably allow closer matches with the existing. Right. And I'm sorry if I remember incorrectly. I think we talked about using paint or stow on this house in order to get the white. Is, did I remember that incorrectly? Like we would, we would be allowed to approve a painted or synthetic stucco in order to keep the white color on this house as opposed to cementitious areas. Member Bishide: Certainly to retain the overall character, the board may consider that. However, it is recommended that the stow, since it's a plastic-like material, doesn't allow the building to breathe. And since it's designated as contributing, we do want to make sure that the building stays structurally sound. And do we think it's painted now? Right. Right. Okay. Yeah. Is there an option to use a cementitious, or is there, is there an option that works in order to keep the white and also protect the building, like a cementitious ducker that's painted? Does that have the same effect as a stove there? This is the oatmeal. This is the, this is the cementitious oatmeal that we believe most closely matches what's underneath the paint. When we were here six weeks or so ago, I believe that there's, was a, was a brighter white. I think it's called crystal. Colonial white. Colonial white. So, yeah, that, I mean, that's a possibility. Maybe that's something that we could work out with staff if you, you all are willing to, you know, move on through all the other items too and some kind of a motion. But this is currently what we're talking about. We think that this, again, we think this is what matches closely under the paint. And Board Member Cherry, you noted that in the last meeting that there was something underneath. Yeah, it looks like some kind of probably high lime content cementitious plaster, white Portland plaster. But I just, can I make a couple of comments? Yes, absolutely. Keying into what Director Lamboy was saying and Member Beachside, I also kind of have a question because in the proposal, the exception request for the stucco is removal of historic material. So, based on that, am I making a, if I were to make an assumption, can you tell me if it was correct that you're removing the paint coat? Is that part of this process or what part of, because there's several ways that you can, this product that you're proposing is a cementitious stucco. However, it's probably not going to stick that well to the paint. So there are a variety of ways to apply it to a painted surface. One way is to apply a glue that the manufacturer makes or a base coat that has an elastic copolymer in it, which is cementitious at base, but it's also not as breathable as a traditional stucco. So my curiosity is in the process and if the paint would be removed and then either whatever, if it's oatmeal or colonial white, is approved, you know, both of those. So that's one question. And a point of clarification would be, which would make it more breathable. A point of clarification is both of the products that are being, the La Habra color products, are cementitious as opposed to the last American. So that would be one way. Removing the paint, was it sandblasted off, scraped off, a combination of different methods, or stucco netting could just be applied over the whole thing and just cover that. That would introduce some difficulty dealing with the trim. And the brick coping too. Brick coping. However, the brick coping we're proposing would be new, so it could be slightly offset. Yeah. And I guess I was curious, and maybe it's a question for staff, of why there would be an exception request to remove historic material to add stucco. Yes. Yeah, that would be a question for staff. Member Cherry, that may have been left over. Certainly, some of the paint is probably historic, but in this particular case, it's possible that an exception is not required. Okay. If they keep a cementitious type of product. Gotcha. Yeah, because it would seem to me that if you just, there's already paint on the structure, you're not going to make it more breathable by adding cementitious stucco over the top of paint. So, just adding the La Habra glue and then this color coat would be probably the appropriate to keep the thickness or stripping the paint and then adding. I'll add two things to that. The house is pentile, not adobe. And also, the paint, the owners, since they purchased it in, I believe it was 1967 or '68, it has always been paint. It was painted before they bought it. It has always been paint since. Yeah, I think there would be a greater character change in adding scratch brown than modifying the color to an off-white. That's just my opinion. Well, Member Cherry, clarification. What is your suggestion to keep it as close to what it is right now? Either scrape the paint off and just add the color coat or add the glue and add the color coat. Okay. Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Lyons? The applicant, the owner of the home, wishes to speak on behalf of his project. If you could be sworn in, Chair. Okay. Please state your name and address for the record. Tom Abrams, 216 Washington Avenue. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be? Yes, I do. I think the points were a hit. But to clarify, Scott, we do have to remove the paint in order to get a good bond. And we have to be careful though, because we can't nail into the pentile, put in a new coat of stucco. So, we can't put a, we have to glue a mesh after we remove the paint. Then we can do a brown coat and then we propose to do a cementitious color coat. We want to do a white that's approved by the board. We want to keep the building white. So, it's the proposal is unlike kind. We just want the paint to go away and we want to have stucco on that building. Yeah. So, my understanding of that, which I agree with, is you're proposing to, and a lot of this is dictated by your stucco contractor because you got to do stuff people are going to warranty or it'll fall right off. But you're going to scrape the paint and then you're going to probably put a wall base coat on there with an embedded fiber mesh and then which has an adhesive in it and then put the color coat. And I would agree with that system. Any other questions or comments for members? Not any. Anyone on this, in the public, wishing to come forward and comment, please come now. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. My name is John Eddie. My address is 14. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do so under the penalties of perjury? Yes, Madam Chair, the speaker's been sworn. Yes. Ready. Thank you, Madam Chair, board members. I spoke on this proposal last time I was here and I'm here to basically. Even though we can barely hear you. Oh, really? Is this better? I spoke at the last time we were here on this project and my conclusions are the same. And I wanted to reiterate that the color of that building has been white as long as I can remember. And I was born and raised in Santa Fe. So, I really appreciate Board Member Cherry's suggestion and how to deal with this technically. And I think that probably sandblasting this paint off and then reapplying glue, etcetera, and a color coat which is off-white or colonial white is the way to go. So, having said that, the doors, I have a problem with. I believe that the doors have been there since the '70s. It's my understanding. When I've glanced at that building and have not inspected the doors closely or anything, I see no distressing on the front door at all. Nor do I see extreme distressing on the rear door. So, I would disagree that those doors might be changed. I would not want those doors to be changed. They have been a part of that streetscape since the '70s. They are also, they are also doors of a manufacturer which was ubiquitous or vernacular in Santa Fe in those years of a frame and panel alternating design which was done in those years by people like Voger de Laarp, Southwest Spanish Craftsman. I'm not saying that they did those doors, but this was the kind of approach that was used in the '70s. And those doors are very integral to the streetscape as I have always known it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Stephanie Venonato. I appreciate that the owners now are going to replace the brick in kind, that they've gotten rid of the wall and the gate. I am concerned about these sashes and because the staff wasn't really clear about that change and they are needing them. So, like a little more discussion on that or presentation on that. And also the doors. I would ask the board not to give the exception but require that the doors be kept or if really in bad condition, replaced in kind. I had an osteopath who, I don't know if he owned the building or rented the building, but I went there for at least two years and I never saw those doors in distress. The front door that is. I didn't pay too, I came in the back, but I didn't really pay too much attention to the garage at that time. And in terms of the stucco and the color, again, I think that that's been a white building forever and if there is a way to keep it white, that's what I think should happen. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment on this project? No. A question for the applicant. You're going to keep the green that is there as the pedimented color. And I also want to say that being a member of this community for life, that prior to the hospital being built on the south side, there were doctor's offices on this side of town and what is the Jury Hotel now was the hospital. And so, we frequented the downtown area a lot and that building I clearly remember as being white forever. Or I'm not a young person and I remember that being white. Dad was my orthodontist and it was white when I went there when I was seven. We do have somebody on Zoom that would like to speak. Okay. Is the name. Please state your name and address for the record and be sworn. Hi, my name is Christa Rumalter. I am Tom Abram's sister and a party to this project and I just wanted to add a little bit more information. Please raise your right hand and be sworn before you start speaking. Sure. Sure. Sorry. State your name and address for the record. Christa Ramalter, 106 Placita Helone, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Please proceed. I just wanted to chat a little bit about the doors. I wanted to point out that the proposed doors have square glass panes and I'm not sure that that's clear in the pictures that you guys got. And also that the panel selection being horizontal matches the other doors that are original to the property and will be kept. There's the side door on the west side and the side door on the east side that have those horizontal panels. So, also I, as the board requested, I did my homework. I got a book on John Gamim with territorial revival and I gave pictures of that to Amanda, which apparently she did not include in the packet that you received. So, I just wanted to let you know that I think these doors, we don't know what was originally there, but that these doors do match to the style of the building in its original form. Thank you for your comments. I guess the only other thing that I have to say is that we are doing our best to match the what we believe the original stucco was. And I don't know if my brother Tom brought the actual samples that we had brought to the meeting with Gary and Amanda, but those samples very clearly show that the paint is a very different color than the original stucco. Yes, you did. Anything further? That's all. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else online? Board members, if you don't have anything further to add or to question, I will entertain a motion, please. Looks like they're contemplating. Madam Chair, while they're contemplating, I would like to add that information was in the packet material of the what she found on John Gamim. And there was also notarized letters in your packet material from her mother stating that they replaced those doors in 19, in the 1960s when they bought the house. And that is the, the doors are considered historic on their own. They're not original to the house, but they are considered historic on their own due to their date and they are in good condition. Thank you. Motion, please. I wonder, could we see the stucco sample up close? Is that possible? Thank you. The chip from the house. So this is the outermost color that shows right now or this is. That is the inner. The inner. So what they, what the believes is the original. Under a slab of paint. Okay, thank you. Is this what you're calling oatmeal? That is a sample of oatmeal. Okay. So, it's actually, I don't know, maybe it's my eyes. I'm seeing a lot of gray in here. So, I will tell you, when I looked at it in natural light today, and this is stucco and this is paint and everything else, and you put fluorescent light on something, it looks totally different than it does in natural light. But I want to just say our intent is to match that sample that you have of what's on the outer building as close as we can. We tried the oatmeal. We actually lessened the color a little bit because the first color we have right here, and it was too beigy. This is oatmeal with all the color. So, there's not really a color that matches perfectly. And as you know, if you talk to any stucco contractor, it's very difficult to match a color with the color choices that they have. But our intent is to match that color that you see, that sample, which is kind of an off-white. We thought the oatmeal was going to be the closest. And when you see it in the natural light, it actually does match pretty closely. I agree with you. When you look at it in this light, it looks kind of gray and maybe even green. But, so, you know, I mean, essentially, here's what I'm going to say. We want to replace the color in kind. We will do our best. Thank you. So, am I understanding correctly that the applicant is agreeable to painting the house to make it white so that it is replaced in kind, or are you set on matching this underlayer oatmeal? Our proposal is to stucco the building with cementitious La Habra color, and yeah, I mean, it's in kind white. White to match the color of the existing building. The color beneath the paint. I guess I'm just... The original color, not the paint color. Okay, I'm not going to make a motion to approve that color. I'm wondering if you're agreeable to painting it white so that it stays the color that it is today. We decided we didn't want to paint it, though. Are you saying that we should paint the building? That's my opinion. I think that we should, in order, if that's the way to get the match for the color that it is today, and that has been for many years, I think that I would move to paint the house. Can I comment? For sure. Yeah, thank you. My guess would be, did you guys look at a colonial white sample next to the white paint? We did, and it's not it. Is it whiter than the building, or is it? No, it's less white. It looks like off-white compared to the building. Yeah, because there's like a hundred shades of white, right? So, but they all look like white, and they're not next to each other. They all look like totally different colors when they're next to each other. So, I think, I mean, the building's a pretty bright white. I wouldn't recommend painting it. I think having a, using a cementitious stucco product is the best option. However, I mean, yeah, again, these are, there's, so I'm not clear which one of these is like, is one a reduced percentage of color, and if so, what's it mixed with? Is it like mixed with colonial, or is it like, if one's full oatmeal and one's like half oatmeal? Is it half oatmeal and half colonial, or half? Well, then what's in the other half? There's got to be something else in the other half because... What do you mean? It comes premixed with the color. Yeah, the La Habra stuff comes pre-color, premixed. So, you're using what you're talking about is not some, okay, from La Habra, and you're mixing it with what La Habra product? Okay, so you're just, okay, so, yeah, I mean, it again, it's a, it's a little, it's, it's going to be so hard to, it's so subjective that white, like what white color it's, it's going to come out with. I mean, I would think if you wanted it, unless you, unless your intent is to like keep it looking painted as opposed to stucco, but like, certainly you could do whiter than this with stucco. Be sure to make a move. I'll make a motion. Thank you. In case number 2025-011353 HDRB at 401 East Palace Avenue, I move to deny the application with respect to replacement of the doors on the primary facades of the main house and the primary facade of the garage, consistent with staff's assessment that the exception criteria have not been met. I move to approve the exception criteria for the replacement of the brick coping, understanding that that will be replaced in kind with respect to color, design, and material. And I move to approve the restucco of the building, noting that the exception criteria can only be met by replacement in kind with respect to color. And I will leave it to the staff to work with the applicant to determine how best that can be done so that the current color is matched exactly, whether that be stucco, cementitious, or paint. And I approve, I move to approve all other application elements that do not require an exception. Is there a second to this motion? Member Chair. Oh, I'd make a friendly amendment, but... Well, we need a second first. First, yeah. Is there a second, please? Member DMA. Okay, Dean second. And Member Cherry. My friendly amendment would be to exclude stucco from that amendment. I just think characteristically that would be a bad option. I'll accept that as friendly then. Thank you for your opinion. And maker of the motion, would you repeat in reference to the doors what it... I denied that element of the application. The doors should remain as is. And the proposed replacement is not acceptable. And so, can I... Anything else? Member Cherry. Point of clarification. So, all these other bullet-listed items regarding removing the chimney structure, filling in the windows, re-roofing is all being approved. Okay. Anything further to add, board members? Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess, consistent with my earlier theme, I just a friendly amendment that the findings be entered that the exception criteria are not found to be met for the doors and the proposed restucco, but they are found to be met for the coping with the conditions. Thank you. Yeah, I was just, I was trying to ensure that, yeah, that the exception criteria cannot be met with the proposed stucco, but could be met with a white color in kind. Is that consistent? Okay, thank you. I think the motion is to, hopefully, to board members because you're going to be voting on it. Anything further? Nothing further. Roll call vote, please. Member Cherry. Yes. Member. Yes. Member Ben Venique. Yes. Member Aguilar Madano. Yes. Member Dignite. Yes. Madam Chair. Thank you very much, and thank you, applicants, and good luck with your project. And we move on to new business. And the new business involves a state project which will be presented this evening, and it also involves the four casitas that are presently on the premises. So, what will happen this evening is Amanda will combine what the state will be presenting to us, plus we'll also be combining what we need to hear in reference to the four casitas. And then the state will give their presentation, and then the board will make a motion first in reference to demo of the casitas, and then in reference to the project itself. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. If you could just give me one moment while the system loads. So, this, as Madam Chair stated before, we have the State Executive Office Building that has came before you quite a few times for demolition status of the existing. And now we have a general of what will be in its place there for streetscape purposes. Okay. So, this is State of New Mexico's General Services Division request a construction of 1,600, 63,230 square foot office building to the maximum height of 78 feet and 7 and 3/4 inches at the tower, and 50 feet 8 inches at the parapet. The maximum allowable height is 57.6. I want to note that, I believe it was in the early 2000s, a height survey was done and was approved at that time, and that is the height requirement that the city is honoring. So, the existing building at 130 South Capitol represents the evolution of the state government campus between 1895 and 1900. The original capital building, now the Paton Building, for the Paton Memorial Building, was designed, E.S. Jensen is remodeled in 1903 by Isaac Rapp of Rapp and Rapp, a neo in the neoclassical style that is intent in parts to the building today. The Concho Ortiz Yupino Building represents the next phase of the Capitol campus evolution, where architect Willard C. Krueger filtered traditional New Mexico architecture through a modest lens. In 1957, the City of Santa Fe adopted the Historic Styles Ordinance, which called for the buildings to be built in old or recent Santa Fe style. Because the building was associated with the State of New Mexico government campus, it was determined that the buildings would be exempt from the ordinance. In 2009, the state and the city convened to develop Section 14-5.2M, 2M State Capital Outlet Projects, in order to provide a clear path for design of the state buildings and ensure compatibility and architectural harmony with the unique character of Santa Fe's historic districts. The Concho Ortiz Yupino Building replaced approximately a block of traditional bungalows, which are characteristic of the Don Gaspar Historic District. While this project is seated in the Downtown and East Side Historic District, the historic development plan pattern for this portion of tower better aligns with the Don Gaspar Historic District, whose northmost boundary is across Paseo de Peralta to the south. Initial design consultation meeting with HGB was held on February 11, 2025. At that meeting, the HTGRB provided feedback and appointed a subcommittee to work with the state design team. Meetings with the subcommittees were held on March 17th and October 6, 2025. After the initial subcommittee meeting on March 17th, the City of Santa Fe staff collaborated with the City Public Works Department to determine whether South Capitol Street could be vacated to provide more room for the building and preserving the existing casitas avenue. Having received approval from the Public Works to offer the vacation of South Capitol Street, Historic Preservation staff offered to initiate a process to vacate the street. The state's design team chose not to entertain the street vacation and made a few changes to the design presented to the HDRB subcommittee on March 17, 2025 and December 1st, 2025. The city, I'm excuse me, the applicant held a community meeting to discuss the proposed demolition of the Contra Ortiz Up Building and the construction of the State Executive Office Building. Many of those who commented expressed concern for the loss of historic buildings and the impact on the Don Gaspar streetscape. It should be noted that the community meeting focused on the new building and very little was discussed as how the streetscape would be reestablished with the proposed new construction. If the demolition of the bungalows along Don Gaspar were approved, the design subcommittee requested a proposed design that preserves, excuse me, the design subcommittee requested a proposed design that preserves the casitas. No design that preserved the casitas was submitted. On May 9th, 2023, the HDRB designed the historic status of all buildings for demolition. An error was made in the table below provided by the applicant. The HDRB designated all the garages on Don Gaspar as non-contributing. In March 2, March 26, 2024, the HB acted on the following demolition request. as follows. So, we're going to go 128 South Capitol, which includes the motor pool building, and the demolition was approved for that along with its garage and the yard wall. All those demolitions were approved by this board. 130 South Capitol Street, the Concha Ortiz y Pino building, was a conditional HDRB approving of the final executive office building design. And for 402 Don Gaspar, 406 Don Gaspar, 410 Don Gaspar, and 414 Don Gaspar, all casitas, the demolition was not approved by this board. The HDRB must review the proposed executive office building for compliance and design standards set forth in 14-5.2M. Generally speaking, the proposed design must be harmonious with the character of the downtown and East Side District. When the HDRB acted on the demolition request of the Concha building, the HDRB issued a conditional approval for demolition, provided that consensus was reached for the design of the new executive office building. Demolition criteria state the character of the street section of block front be reestablished with new construction. And I just will go, if you guys are welcome to bring out your model if you'd like, so they can kind of, I don't know if you're able to see it from there. And I will, while you're doing that, I will kind of go over our slide presentation. So here is a roof bird's eye view of what is going to be proposed for that whole block. This is a 1958 aerial. This is the 1930 Sanborn map which shows all this whole district area with the bungalows on all sides. Here's the existing map of the Capitol campus as it stands today. And on your screen here are renderings. So this is the east rendering now. So this is the side where the casitas are currently located. This is as it exists today with the parking garages, open parking, and the four bungalows with garages. Here is a north facade, the east facade, the front entry. And they have courtyards throughout which to make it public friendly. Here is a depiction of the elevations and the stucco colors, and it also is going to be having brick coping. Here is the design of the building as it stands against the existing state building that exists today. So this is a rendering of the two buildings side by side so you can see what they could look like. I stand for questions. Board members, do you have any questions at this point? I think we should take a few minutes to go look at the model that we have before us, and the audience can come forward as well. Board members, if you'd like to do that. Thank you, Madam Chair. We ask you please do not touch the model. Okay. Look, no touching. Thank you. Okay, we're back in session and I'm sorry, Barry. Member Rios, members of the board, we're still waiting on attorney Rubley. Okay. If we can just give him a few more moments. Okay, sure. Thank you. Thank you for preparing the model, by the way. Rios, we'll go ahead and let the state start their presentation and Mr. Rubley can join us. Apologize, Madam Chair. It is fixing some issues for us. Patience. Your patience. We're almost there. The applicant is going to zoom in for their presentation because this computer does not mesh well with our words. Promotes. Please all of you raise your right hand and each one speak your name into the mic and your address, and then we'll go into the start. Jenkins, 130 Grant Avenue. Antonio V. Hill, 2144 Utah, Albuquerque. Art Tatum, 13131 Sunrise Trail Place, Albuquerque. Ed Grumblat, 7908 Sartin Way, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm? Sarasone, 2942 Cayas. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury? Madam Chair, the speakers have been sworn. One quick question. Is it FBT Architects? Is that the profile name? Okay. Please promote FBT Architects so they can share their screen. He's been promoted. Thank you. Hey, thank you for your patience. Good evening, Madame Chair, board members. I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin, here this evening on behalf of the state of New Mexico. We are excited to present to you the final proposed design for the proposed state executive office building. Can all of you in the back hear her? Yes or no? Okay, I will get a little closer to the mic. Yeah. Really, people, you know what I really have to emphasize? Get close to that mic. Don't be afraid of it. We will. Okay. Is that a little better? Great. A lot better. Thank you very much. So, I'm going to briefly make a few introductions. I am joined by Anna Silva, acting cabinet secretary of the General Services Department, also with Raone Sarasone, who is the state architect. And I've already introduced myself, and I am joined by our architecture team, FBT Architects, Art Tatum, Ted Grumblat, and Antonio V. Hill. So, as a state capital outlay project, we are subject to a different set of provisions in the city code and the Historic Districts Review Ordinance, and that is 14-5.2M. You're going to hear us probably refer to that a lot this evening. And so, the particular element of those provisions that we are here, that is governing our procedures this evening, is what I have quoted here that's on the screen. After the design phase, which we have just completed, and before soliciting a bid or proposal for design, build, or lease purchase for a capital outlay project, the state shall submit the plans to the Historic Districts Review Board for review and comment. The Historic Districts Review Board, in conjunction with the state, shall conduct a public meeting to receive public input on the design. So that is why we are here this evening. So, just a little bit of background, and Amanda did provide some of this information in her report as well. But I'm just going to touch on a few things. So, back in May of 2023, we, based on requests from staff, we were asked to present a status review applications for the existing structures on the subject property. And so, the, we did a status review, and the results of that are listed here. And so the, there's a yard wall and a garage and a little motor pool building that were designated non-contributing. The Concha Ortiz y Pino building was designated contributing, as well as the structures on Don Gaspar were also designated as contributing. So then subsequently, in October of '23, applications were submitted to the city requesting demolition of all of the structures located on the site. The decision of the board at that time was to approve demolition of the small little outbuilding and the yard wall structures. Demolition of Concha building was approved conditional upon reaching consensus about the design of the new building, and the board denied the demolition request for the structures on Don Gaspar. And so, following that decision, in accordance with 14-5.2M and the accompanying state statute, a state local government review board was established to resolve the unresolved issue of the demolition. And just to back up a little bit, throughout this process, we had received feedback from staff, from some community members, as well as from this board, that there was a stated preference for really considering demolition in the context of a final design. When we originally submitted the demolition applications, we had a design concept because we needed to address the provisions in the code that speak to the reestablishment of streetscape. So we couldn't do that unless we had at least a conceptual design for the board's consideration. But we, like I said, we heard repeatedly that there was a stated preference for considering demolition in the context of a final design. So that, the state local government review board was convened, but those proceedings were suspended at the request of the state, and the state at that time made a decision to literally hit the pause button and pivot into the design phase of the project, which entailed significant programming effort on the part of our architecture team, meeting with all of the state agencies who were slated to occupy the building, understanding what the space needs and requirements were for the structure. So, a very robust programming effort that then began to inform the design that we are going to present to you this evening. So, everything that you read in 14-5.2M and the accompanying state statute speaks to collaboration between the state, the city, and interested community members and the historic preservation community. So, what I've listed here is just a list of all of the interactions that we've had, starting back in May of 2023. So, it's been two and a half years that we have been engaged in this process. We started off with the status review. Subsequently, we had a community meeting that addressed the demolition requests and that concept design. We had the HDRB hearing in March. Then, once we decided to pivot into the design phase, the city ordinance and accompanying state statute require an initial consultation with this body. So we could talk about the context for the building, what are the site constraints, what are the design standards that are applicable to the project. So we came before you and we had that dialogue back in February of this year, and then subsequently, also at that meeting, a subcommittee was established to work directly with the state throughout the design process. And so the first subcommittee meeting was held last March. And then, also in, as we commenced the design phase, we had another meeting with the community to kind of share those same ideas about what are the site constraints, what are the state's needs for the facility, and so we did that back in April. And during all this time, like I said, we have, we have kicked off all of the programming effort. And then we had a follow-up subcommittee meeting in October, and we had a follow-up community meeting to present the design, actually last week. And now we are before you this evening for your review and comment on the design. And so, and it states here, like I said, this idea of collaboration shows up a lot in these governing statutes. NMSA 3226D states the state agency shall work collaboratively with the municipality or county or its review agency, which would be the Historic Districts Review Board, to arrive at compatibility with the design standards. And it is important to recognize there's a unique set of design standards that have been established for state capital outlay projects. And so it is, they're embedded in 14-5.2M. So, even though the project, for example, is in the downtown and East Side Historic District, there is, like I said, a unique set of design standards established for capital outlay. And it states here that, you know, she'll arrive at compatibility with the design standards, considering reasonable costs and preserving essential functionality. So back in 2021, the state embarked on a facilities master plan effort, and to really serve as a roadmap for how do we utilize existing buildings? How do we increase efficiencies? How do we bring agencies together that need to be together? And so the objectives of this was to increase capacity of selected buildings, consolidate agencies to improve efficiencies, construct new facilities, and move state agencies out of leased space, and to decommission selected buildings. So some of the goals here were to alleviate overcrowding at the Bataan building, North Capitol, as well as the Capitol itself. Relocate elected officials from leased space to the main Capitol campus, and also that the main Capitol campus should house constitutionally created or statutorily attached agencies. elected officials and agencies with a high degree of legal and financial responsibilities. So, that master plan, like I said, served as a roadmap, and then that started to inform the programming effort. And where we arrived as we completed the programming for the building was around 531 occupants of the building. And that would, in order to accommodate the various agencies and the occupant load, looking at a building of around 163,000 square feet and then a subterranean parking garage to accommodate 545 cars. So we're accommodating not only staff but also visitors as well. So these are the following agencies that are currently slated to occupy the building: DFA, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Auditor, and the Higher Education Department. So with that, Madam Chair, if you could potentially indulge me. State Auditor Joseph Mestas, who came on during the comments from the floor, he misunderstood a bit of the timing, and he is, I believe he is still online, and could we possibly, he has another meeting that he is supposed to be in. Could we possibly indulge him and allow him to speak briefly so he could leave? Okay, that would be great. Thank you so much. Mr. Mestas, you still may unmute. Please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. Okay. Joseph Mestas, 111 West Lupita Road in Santa Fe. You solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do so under the penalties of perjury. I do. Chair, the speaker has been sworn. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to briefly address you and the members of the board. My agency is one of the agencies that's slated to occupy this building. And I want to tell you that my building location is a leased building. It's on the south side of Santa Fe, near Kohl's. And so it's too far from the Capitol. Some of the problems that we experience is during the legislative session, we have no working space in the Capitol to work. We're borrowing and stealing, so to speak, during the sessions. We're obviously very isolated from the rest of government. And so location is an issue. The current building is inadequate. We work with confidential information as we audit every single public entity across the state. We also handle the intake of anonymous and confidential fraud, waste, and abuse complaints. So security and confidentiality is critical, and right now in the office building that we do occupy, that is not the case. And so it's ultimately so important for my agency to have an adequately sized building that's in close proximity to the State Capitol. In fact, we're so overcrowded, the healthcare authority just moved into the lower floor of our building, and there is absolutely no parking left in the secure part of the parking in that leased building. And so, look, you all know I served on the City Council for District 2. I understand the need to balance historic preservation with development. But I truly believe in this case that this proposed building would be an asset to the community and quite frankly a benefit not only to the city but to the county as well. And I'm speaking as a former mayor that this kind of positive development can only help the local economy. And I was very attentive in looking at the proposed design, and it's very apparent to me that it aligns very well with not just the historic character of the South Capitol neighborhood but the surrounding structures. So, in closing, Madam Chair, members of the board, I speak in favor of this proposed building and the consequential impacts to the casitas. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you very much, Mr. Mestas. We appreciate your comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate your indulgence. Okay. And so with that, I'm going to turn it over to my architecture team, and we're going to walk you through the design. Thank you so much. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm going to talk about the drivers of our design that we came up with today. But before we talk about the design, I just want to give some context to the overall project. The location, basically this project is located, what you see on the screen is the historic district map. The project's located within the downtown east side district of the historic map and also just north of the Don Gaspar historic district. This is just zooming in on the site that shows a little bit of the context and again showing the districts, the adjacent districts with Don Gaspar in the transitional district, but again this is the downtown east side district. This just shows the context from a higher elevation showing what the location is again next to the Capitol building, zoomed in Capitol building to the east, and what the site and its adjacent neighboring building of Baton building parking structure and the Viagra to the northeast. The site here is just south of the South Capitol Place, bound by Galisteo and Don Gaspar. The site's approximately 2.49 acres. On this site here, zoomed in again, is the Concha Ortiz y Pino building, the motorpool building, the yard wall, and the garage that's been approved for demolition with some conditions and the casitas to the east closer to the Roundhouse. For context, these are the existing or photos of the existing building, the Concha Ortiz y Pino and the casitas to the east as it currently stands. Now, as far as drivers to our design, we basically followed the zoning requirements, Chapter 14-7.4, under the business capital district. So three things on this table that guide our design and restrictions are the height limits, the maximum lot coverage area, and the setback. Height limit being 48 feet, lot coverage 50% of the site, and as far as the setback, the minimum setback from the street being equal to the building height. Again, these are the drivers for us in coming up with the design that you will see momentarily. So we did look at a situation with the casitas. We understand the importance of the casitas to the community. We did consider that and look at this and studied what our buildable area is with the casitas in place and the limits that we have for the zoning code. Here you see the height, kind of a ghosted box, if you will, that shows our limits of building envelope, including the setbacks with a 45-degree alignment or plane coming from the property line on, in this case, the north and the west side yard. In this case, adjacent to the casitas is a five-foot setback. This shows the maximum building lot coverage of 50%. Again, keeping the casitas in place, we studied massing and looking at office standards of today and what that might look like within the context of the limits that we have to deal with, and the depth of the building is important to us to bring natural light in. So the mass starts to evolve as we look at the restrictions we have and aligning it with today's standards for office building design. So with that, you can see here the total, we have a total of buildable area of about 128,000 square feet. Jennifer mentioned earlier the total program area is closer to 163,000 square feet. So we have some challenges here. We can't get quite all the program area that we need if the casitas were to remain. So we looked at the entire site without the casitas. In this case, again, showing the limits of what we can build within the constraints of the zoning code and the design criteria with the height setback and the buildable area. This gives us our maximum buildable area, 50% again, or lot coverage. I'm sorry, I should clarify that the lot coverage we're allowed is 50% of the overall site or the zoning code. And again, this is the setback requirements, which is 45 degrees from the property line is what determines our setback. Again, study of the massing and what that might look like for us. And as the shape evolves while maintaining current standards of design for office buildings, we can achieve 165,000 square feet based on the use of the entire site without the casitas, which would meet the state's program needs. As for design standards, again, we followed the section in the zoning code that pretty much prescribes what we need to have for the types of roofs, walls, and windows. In this case, the roofs are very clear, flat, and we do meet that criteria. There's also a criteria and design guideline for the types of walls and windows with specificity on the ratio of windows to wall, which is 40% windows you can have in the as a total area of the facade, and we do meet that criteria. We do meet the window recesses. For example, what we want, we're trying to emulate is the depth of the walls, the thickness of the walls by having deep windows, deep set windows. And we will show that, show you that here momentarily. Finishes. We are looking at an adobe effect. Again, we're just going off of the prescribed zoning requirements as far as finishes. Adobe effect, color of the stucco. We have chosen two colors for the stucco, of course, it's light and a darker tone of the earth tones. As far as portals, we do have that as a means of creating circulation on the site. So we do have some of those features as well, and we do meet the minimum or the maximum height requirement. Again, for site context, we're up against the Capitol State Capitol building, the Baton building, and on here it says the design standard shall follow the City of Santa Fe's code of ordinance and the character of adjacent Capitol buildings, which is a territorial revival style. As for massing, we shaped the building to reduce the scale by stepping the parapets, the massing of the building, manipulated colors and proportions and details. As for materiality, we looked at the exterior and contemplated to be plaster, again following the zoning code there. Windows, the patterns are punched with deep setback to help with shading. And again, I talked about the portals earlier. This is an overview of what the new design looks like in the context of the State Capitol building and the adjacent administrative building. All right. And I'm going to have Antonio and Art talk about the design. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you. I'm going to quickly go over the site plan and some floor plans to kind of get you acquainted to how we place the building on the site in order to really achieve a campus feel. So looking at the site plan, this is obviously looking north with the Capitol to the east, which would be right. The goal was really to step back the building. As you can see, the floor plate does not occupy, you know, occupies less than 50% of the site. And really the goal was to create a lot of public spaces. As you can see, there is a large north plaza with the main focal entry and then a plaza on the east side really to kind of capture the Capitol and Baton building in order to create, you know, a pedestrian-friendly campus. Couple other things to note on the site is a southwest entry for vehicle access to the underground parking and a private south courtyard for building tenants as well. We've also paid close attention to streetscape, giving street trees and, you know, a 10-foot sidewalk all around the site for pedestrian access. So, quickly going over the floor plans. There are six overall levels. The three on the left are the underground parking structure levels, and then three floor plans of occupied space above that. I'll just quickly run through these. These are pretty self-explanatory underground parking. And there is a little portion of occupied space on the northwest corner because of the slope of the site. So, we were able to capture a little square footage there. The colors here indicate the different tenant spaces. We aren't showing exactly office layout and corridors at this point, but it gives you an idea of the tenant spaces and how the building's organized in order to gain natural light and respond to the adjacent context. Sorry about that, backwards here. Get back to where I was at. Okay. And now we can start to look at the exterior of the building. Chair, board members, thank you for allowing us to present this evening. I want to add a couple of things to what Antonio and Ted mentioned on the design. When we started this project, we were up around, I believe, 195,000 square feet and 750 plus parking spaces. So, working with the state, we tried to whittle away as much as possible to make the building smaller to fit better on the site and also by reducing the number of spaces underground. You can imagine how much a parking space underground costs. So, we were able to minimize the number of levels from four to three, which saves the state 10 plus million dollars in cost. So, I just wanted to point that out. Amanda went through the elevations earlier, so I'm not going to beat that to death. These are the elevations of the building, but you never really see a project that way. So, I'll jump right into the renderings. Again, this is the site to the west of the roundhouse. We wanted to show this rendered site plan again to show you, it was very important for us to create pedestrian connection to all the streets surrounding it. So, by having portals around the building itself, it minimized the impact on the street of a three-story building that was very important to us. So, as Amanda initially showed you, this is from the southeast portion of the building on Don Gaspar. One of our driving criteria here was to again minimize the massing of the building. We have a portal that brings it down to pedestrian scale on the street, steps back to a two-story building, and then up to a three-story building with a balcony surrounding again from the northeast corner of the street. Just another view of how we did that. Anytime you want to jump in and ask a question, feel free. Again, from the northeast, showing the north side of the building. Again, a variety of fenestration or window sizes to complement the surrounding buildings. The main entry portal is raised to emulate that on the state capital building. Here's another close-up view of that. Again, the finished floor of the building is at this point about, I believe, seven or eight feet above the sidewalk. So, we were able to create a variety of plazas there that addresses the sidewalk and the pedestrian. Then the tower, of course, houses the elevator. So, it's actually a usable tower and then responds to the character of the pond building, not exactly, but responds to that the portico on top again from the northwest. I think Antonio mentioned the slope of the site from the east to the west, it slopes 11 feet down. So, we tuck the building into the site again to minimize the impact of the massing. This is the pedestrian way between the existing parking structure and the new building. This is looking east toward the capital. Trying to make it as friendly as possible. This is the courtyard on the second floor of our building. So, this is where tenants would congregate and enjoy outdoor space. And then this is again Don Gaspar and how the building steps with the portal leading to the pedestrian and then stepping back the buildings. This is a view. I think we are 15 feet below the building. So, this just shows the relationship of the new building with the capital. We're about 20, 18 feet below the then comparing it to the Baton building. We're really relating, showing you the height of this tower versus the. And then a view looking east, how it creates, very important to create a complex of buildings for the state. That's really hard to do with the massing and the placement of windows. And one last. So, Madame Chair, board members, we've been having a lot of internal discussions and we've also had discussions with you as well as with members of the community about a concept of how do we memorialize the evolution of the South Capitol. That memorialization is about the casitas and kind of the historical residential pattern that existed in the South Capitol campus. And but it's bigger than that. And we think the history of this place and this area of Santa Fe is important and we think it's worthy of being memorialized in a meaningful way. So, I'm going to have Ramon come up and share some of our initial thoughts about how we could achieve that. Let's hope this computer works a little easier. I hadn't read into the record the case numbers for the casitas. We said we were going to do them all as a group. Would it be okay with the board, Madame Chair, if I could read those case numbers for the casitas on the record? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, for 2025 011587 for 402 Don Gaspar, staff sticks with its recommendation for not recommended for approval of the contributing building and garage as the criteria has not been met. The same thing for 2025 011588 HDRB at 406 Don Gaspar Avenue as for 2025 011589 HDRB or 410 Don Gaspar Avenue. The staff also does not recommend approval for the demolition and 2025 111590 HDRB for 414 Don Gaspar Avenue, the same, the staff does not recommend approval. Thank you and I'll go ahead and turn it back over to Ramon. >> Thank you, Amanda. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the board. Merry Christmas. I'm humbled and honored to be here to represent the state on how we plan to memorialize the history of the site. What is this going to be like? Actually, I don't know. I don't know how this is going to be. I don't know. But I have faith. I have faith and I have love. And nobody loves Santa Fe more than a Santa Fean, Ramon Cherios. Let's go. How a historic remembrance exhibit of the Capitol Area Complex in the Don Gaspar Historic District could be designed into the main lobby of the new executive office building. The exhibit could be a permanent and living installation under the auspices of the New Mexico State Archive. How would we go about it? Step one, the exhibit design committee would be formed. Members would include local, city, and state government officials, historians, and subject matter experts, cultural or heritage organizations, member representatives of architects and planners, and representatives of the neighborhood community, curators, artists, and visionaries. The duties of the exhibit committee would start with the development of a working title, which is, for example, this would be a working example would be historic remembrance of the Capitol Complex area and the Don Gaspar neighborhood. The committee would decide on the exhibit's purpose. The exhibit committee would decide on the exhibit's focus. As was mentioned, the idea was to kind of expand the focus and the timeline from not just the casitas and the Concha Ortiz building, but the development of the built environment of the Santa Fe Capitol Complex area over a period of time. The exhibit committee would develop community input mechanisms. It would review and select from the design proposals fulfilling the exhibit's purpose and focus. And it would determine the exhibit schedule and milestones. And ideally, this would occur concurrently with the EOB's design schedule and be ready for visitors at the EOB's grand opening. What the exhibit could tell is the tale of the area. And I've just picked out a couple stories that I thought that would be interesting that I'm sure you're aware of, but maybe the general public is not. This is the original governor's mansion that was occupied, that occupied a portion of the site, actually a little bit north of the roundhouse. Here it is done up in Christmas attire and its ultimate demise in the 50s. The first territorial capital building. This wedding cake was built in 1886 to, it probably convinced the nation that New Mexico was sophisticated enough to become a state and it was burned down six years later, maybe by parties that would prefer the state capital in some other municipality. I don't know that. The history of the roundhouse design is interesting. I particularly find the John Conron and Architect's Associate master plan intriguing with their mesa walls and kind of compound W.C. Krueger's original design that caused such an uproar when it hit the pages of the New Mexican that it had to be revised and territorialized by John Gaw Meem. And then there's the Apodaca building scandal with the graduate art student, nude misfertility, and the First Amendment. Oh, I can't show you guys those pictures. You can probably find them online. Google it. So, the history exhibit would contribute, would create a pertinent reminder of the history of the area and the past streetscape. The exhibit could help tell the story of how the state buildings transformed the urban pattern of the area and how the construction of the Paseo de Peralta severed the connection of the Capitol Complex and the Don Gaspar neighborhood and permanently orphaned the casitas. Along with telling the story, the exhibit could incorporate the latest technology and interactive design to engage and inform the visitors. In this image, we're looking at the bugs that were mentioned earlier that are along South Capitol Drive or Travis Road at the time. And the casitas are in the kind of upper right-hand corner and their contribution to the streetscape is not as dramatic as I feel as the bungalows. There's actually, I've seen this, I've seen this era from different views and there's, I believe, two bungalows that are farthest to the west and then there's like a two-story neoclassical residential house and then it's not very clear from here, but there's a picturesque two-story building complete with like the turret and a little cupola. And when I look at these in my mind's eye, I would like to walk down that street, right, in 1940 and see what it was. Okay. So, with the tools that we have today, virtual reality and AI and the computer-aided stuff, it's possible to recreate areas like this. This is kind of, I put this together in not a very long time. So, you have to pardon how clumsy it is. It's got the Capitol building on the wrong at the end of the street instead of to the left-hand side and, you know, the houses are not quite right and this traffic's going the wrong way and it looks like there was a pedestrian running down the middle of the road. But it shows you the power of this kind of imagery, right? Really, it really does bring it to life. And there's, I'm, there are all types of contemporary museum exhibits that are using this technology and the exhibit design committee would be able to explore those and find what was most appropriate for for this for our for our project. So, going back to where I started, I don't know what the exhibit will be, but I do have faith. I do have faith. This is a city of faith after all. And here in Santa Fe, actually in this room, actually, we have some of the, we have some of the most knowledgeable local historians, talented artists, and gifted storytellers in the world. I believe together we can remember and honor our past in a profound manner that will make the city different and our great state proud. So, thank you. Thank you. So, thank you, Madam Chair, board members for your attention and your patience. That concludes our presentation. On behalf of the State of New Mexico, we respectfully request your support of this incredibly important project, important not only to the state, but incredibly important to our community. So with that, we'd be happy to stand for any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'd like to thank each one of you for your very, very thorough presentation for the model. I know you put in a lot of work towards this project. I want to see if board members at this time have any questions for you or comments. Board members, I will entertain questions and comments. Member Dena. Thank you, Madam Chair. If someone could step to the podium or maybe Amanda could answer on your behalf, whatever. I'm kind of encouraged that recidivism is interesting, isn't it? Here, you keep coming back. God bless. And you're working hard, and we are too. We're trying to all make it work. So I appreciate the effort to work with us and address our concerns and also those of the state. I have a question. When we were out there today on the field trip, one of the, I prefer to call them homes because that's really what they are. They have been homes. They weren't casitas 100 years ago or 50 years ago, and they weren't bungalows either. Bungalows are homes. Some of us will discuss whether that's true or not, but that's a name given to a type of home. And so I think for that reason alone, they are so important to our history. I am hopeful we can work something out. My question specifically right now is I noticed there was a nonprofit. I'm sorry, I didn't write it down. We had 15 cases today. And in one of the structures, maybe it's an old name on the outside or something. Maybe there's, are they empty? Number one. Number two, could they not be used for social services and different nonprofit efforts like that and still be considered part of the state's gift to New Mexico? Thank you, Madam Chair, board members, and board member Degen. So the homes on Don Gaspar are not occupied. So there's probably just some old, okay. From a previous, thank you. Tenant. Thank you. And addressing your second comment, the state has looked at this incredibly carefully. Both the City of Santa Fe building official and the building official from the State of New Mexico Construction Industries Division inspected these buildings and determined that it would be incredibly difficult, incredibly expensive to bring them up to current codes relative to energy efficiency, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, all the things. And they recommended demolition. So with respect to the provisions of the city code and the state statute that we are operating under tonight, it says that it is about the state preserving essential functionality for the proposed building. We cannot establish essential functionality and retain those structures at the same time. We have reduced the size of this building by over 30,000 square feet. We can't reduce it anymore and have it serve its intended purpose. It does not feel fiscally responsible to continue to pour your money, my money, into those. What does feel fiscally responsible is to create more efficiency in state government, move out of leased space, and have the state construct a modern building that it needs to provide the services it is charged providing to its constituents. Thank you for that. Thank you. Other board members have comments at this time. Member Beach. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question for the team. With respect to the last couple of years, my vote as part of this board to deny the demolition in October 2023 was in response primarily to what I heard from members of the public and stakeholders about a lack of opportunity to provide input to the process. And my vote was to support the opportunity for that. I wonder if you could summarize what has happened over the last couple years with respect to outreach and inclusion of these groups in the design process or other considerations. Madam Chair, can I be heard on an issue here? These casitas have been before the Historic District Review Board, first on a status review, which was in 2023, then on a hearing regarding their demolition. The status review, according to my database, took place in May 2023. The demolition hearings took place March 26, 2024. They had a 2023 case number, but they were not heard and decided on until, Oh, sorry. Sorry if I got the date wrong. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I'm asking about the time period after this board's last denial of the demolition. Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair, board members, board member Beachside. So, in my presentation, I had kind of listed out the community engagement. So we did have a community meeting. So who was at the community meeting? So we invited, as required, all kind of recognized historic preservation groups and those involved in historic preservation, everything from Old Santa Fe Association, Historic Santa Fe Foundation, the AIA, Friends of Architecture Santa Fe, as well as neighborhood associations in the surrounding area. So, you know, our neighbors as well as those preservation groups. So we met with them at the time we were preparing our demolition requests, and we had a robust discussion. We met with the community again prior to commencing the design phase, and we talked about, and that was actually a really good meeting. We touched on kind of what we touched on here this evening. What are the constraints? What's our available envelope based upon the business capital district zoning that we are governed by? And so really understanding the constraints of the site, understanding the state's needs, we talked a lot about the 2021 master plan. So that was really the context of that discussion is getting input from the community as we embarked on the design phase. And around that same time, we came before this body. And then we met with the community again last week to unveil the design. And we again, we had some really good questions. We had a robust dialogue. I can say that the meeting last week wasn't a lot of discussion about demolition at that meeting. But we did have a lot of discussion and answer a lot of questions about the design and the design intent. Any other comments, questions? Member Aguila. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a clarification. So you said you'd met with the community prior to design commencing, but and then again last week. Correct. But when we saw it in March of 2024, the design was already fairly far along. So am I understanding correctly that since that meeting in March of 2024, the only time you've met with the public since then was last week when you were unveiling essentially what we're seeing tonight? No, actually, let me clarify. So when we were embarking on the demolition with the demolition original demolition applications, we had a concept design strictly of the exterior of the building. We didn't have floor plans. We just, we did that because we were charged with doing that to accompany our demolition effort. So that was the design concept that we presented to the community as well as to this body as part of that demolition request. And then when we decided to embark on the design phase last spring, last late winter, spring, we met with the community again. We didn't even talk about that. That was it scrapped. It had served its purpose, but we were now, we're saying we're really moving into programming and design at this point. This is not just about the skin of the building. This is about a functional building, the floor plans, engaging with the agencies who need to occupy the building. So we, so this year alone, we've met with the community twice in addition to this board and two meetings with this HDRB subcommittee as well. Okay. So the meeting last week was one of those two times. Exactly. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify, so what is called for in section M that we keep referring to is that after this meeting, we receive your comments, input on the design. It kicks off a 60-day review period during which we can receive more feedback from this body as well as from members of the community. So we, and so we, we met with the community, but we're not, we don't see that as, we're not necessarily done. Because like I said, this is really in a way kind of the beginning of the review process, not the end of the review because this is the initial unveiling of the proposed design and then like I said, it triggers a 60-day review. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Heather. Hey, Chair Rios. With reference to the processes that surround this, since Ms. Jenkins is discussing zoning and that limiting the area of the site, we must keep in mind that a development plan would also be required for this because the building will be served by city water. The development plan does not, it's a simplified development plan that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission just to assure mitigation of off-site impacts like drainage and other aspects of development like traffic as well. So that would be a separate engagement process. But when the applicant is talking about the constraints on the site, the Planning Commission has the authority to vary those standards. So keep that in mind as the dialogue goes forward that, you know, the 50% of the site, it may not be an accurate number or what can occur potentially. Thank you for those comments. Anybody else on the board want to comment or ask a question? I'm very, I want to comment, but I'd like to wait until after public comment. I'm very anxious actually to hear the public. So if you are here to comment on this case, please line up and you can be sworn in mass and then when you speak, you can state your name and your address. Madam Chair, members of the board, before we start public comment, I want to let you know that we did receive a written public comment that I put on your desk from the Secretary of State, Lindsay Bachmann, and I am going to enter it into the record. So you have, And that was in favor of the project, correct? Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. This is it. Well, if you swear all of them in at the same time, you can all raise your hand. That's acceptable. Correct. And also just please give your name and address at the record before you speak. So, 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Please proceed. Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Sharon Pino, and I reside at 2955 Bardinelli. I'm the Deputy Secretary of State. I know you have before you our written comments that we submitted, but I came tonight to add just a little bit to that. So, again, as relayed in our comments, we are out of space. We reside in the North Capitol building, and I walk around and we have maximized every ounce of space that we have. We have created all cubicles that we possibly can. We have our IT division across the street at the Baton building. There is absolutely no other space downtown that will accommodate our office at this time, and the legislature wants us out. In fact, they added $100,000 to our budget this past fiscal year to move when we have no place to move. So we are in a very desperate situation for space. We absolutely have to be located near the Capitol because of our constitutional and statutory obligations. On a daily basis, we file executive orders, proclamations, warrants from other states. We chapter all the bills that are passed by the legislature, accept all messages to the Senate and to the House of Representatives. So we can't be located anywhere else in Santa Fe. We talk about a state capital; it is the seat of government, and we need to be able to conduct government business. And I just again, I know you have our comments before you, but I wanted to add also, as someone born and raised in Santa Fe, I saw the renderings of the building and it fits very well downtown. I was extremely impressed. Thank you. And excuse me, where are you located presently? We are in the North Capitol building on the third floor. So again, in that space, You're in the Roundhouse. Yes. Okay. Well, the building that's connected by the long hallway. Oh, okay. Thank you. Hello. My name is Tanya Trujillo. My home address is 1598 Sraordo. My work address is in the KO Ortiz Pino building. I am the Deputy State Engineer and have an office in the KO Ortiz Pino building. My agency is housed there in that building and across the street at the Bataan building and various offices at the Bataan building. Personally, I've worked in the agency off and on since 1993 and have gone back and forth between Bataan and the Ortiz building as part of my work history. And then on a personal note, my father worked most of his career in the Education Department, which is just north of the Bataan building. And so as a child, I grew up in the area and ran around in the grass area and the streets around the Capitol area. Our agency very much supports the demolition of our current building and of the casitas in order to construct a new modern and functional state office building. It will be a very desirable place to work. It will attract state workers and folks who want to be here in Santa Fe. It'll be a great asset to the city of Santa Fe. I want to thank you for your service to the city and keeping our city beautiful. I very much appreciate the opportunity to provide comments in support of the demolition work and of the new construction of this building. Thank you. And thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and board members. My name is Peter Bington. I reside at 6932 Angela Drive in Rio Rancho, and I am the Deputy Director of the Facility Management Division of the New Mexico General Services Department, currently serving as the Director Designate. I'd like to speak on behalf of the state agencies that our division represents in the facility management aspect of their respective missions. You have heard from our consultants regarding the needs and responsibilities of the division, of our division, to answer the needs of our client agencies. And I want to also echo the sentiments of our agency heads that you have heard directly from tonight that are in real need of space to conduct their public services and the people's business. The Executive Office Building speaks directly to this need that the executive state agencies are adversely affected by their current overcrowding and limits of their space. I would also like to inform the board that the Executive Office Building represents a significant economic impact to the city of Santa Fe, roughly 4.5% in gross receipts tax, or approximately 8 to 10 million dollars in tax revenues, and approximately 200 million in positive economic impacts to the city. To this end, I respectfully request your approval of our application before you tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Members, Chair, we're Rick Martinez, 725 Mia Road. We're here to speak for people who don't have a voice in this thing. Those are the people that are buried along that property. The parking lot is a burial ground where years ago that was a church. I can't remember the name. I think it was a Presbyterian church. There are people buried inside that whole area where the buildings are going to go. So I don't know how they're going to handle that. They did it at the Bataan building. You know, there's a big burial there, and when I was a kid, up on Cover, they just covered it up with the parking lot. So the parking lot there is now still another burial ground too. I'm just kind of wondering how they're going to handle that, handle flies, and where are they going to put them? I don't know if you guys had an archaeological report on that, but there is a burial ground in there. So I want to make sure that that is paid attention to. So it's part of, there were our citizens of Santa Fe at one point too. So we need to take care of them too and make sure that they are there or how they're represented. Also, the other fact too is I want Ortiz building. I also want to know how that name is going to be handled because it's just going to disappear as we call another someone else's name. Ortiz was a very important person to the state at that time. So I'd like to make sure all that is done. But like I say, the burial grounds that are there should be asked, and the concern should be what is going to happen to them because right now it's like the buildings, they can all just go away and be placed somewhere else. So that's my thinking. Thank you, Richard. I'm Fletcher Katherine. I live at 1062 Encantado Drive. I too have been here all my life. It seems to me that what I see here is something like the destruction of the East Wing of the Capitol building in order to build a ballroom. I think that we should retain the four small houses. I don't think there's anything that can be done to memorialize them that will work. As I listened to the presentation, I was reminded of the building that some of you may remember that was on the corner of Paseo de Peralta, then Castillo Street, and the, I'm sorry, Hillside Street and Washington Avenue, that we were told we would retain because we were taking the whole building up and putting it someplace else. It's done. Who remembers that? What history is there? The history is gone. Once those, once those four houses are gone, they're gone. You can't put them back. No memorial will work. And it represents a period of Santa Fe history that is simply not going to be there ever again. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ker. Good evening. I'm John Penn Lafarge. I live at 647 Old Santa Fe Trail, just up the street from the Capitol. It's all very nice to be promised that this area is going to be memorialized. I want to give you a bit of history of this area so that you will know what is going to be memorialized. This area was the Barrio Analco and the area to its south. This area was the old Santa Fe. And much of it was torn down in the 1950s to create what is today the Roundhouse. Its pertinent buildings and the parking areas. That was all stores, shops, and houses. The area was filled with them. And as Mr. Martinez said, a church, all of that, or almost all of it was torn down in the 1950s in order to build the Capitol. My father, the old Santa Fe, Oliver Lafarge, the Old Santa Fe Association in the neighborhood of Devargas Street fought against what happened to that area. The Manderfield house was torn down. It was an important house in order to put up the Supreme Court building. They rather managed to preserve some part of West Devargas Street. Gregorio Christine house, the Rocketes house, and a few other buildings were managed. They did manage to rescue those and a few of the houses, buildings along what is today Old Santa Fe Trail, was then College Street, but the rest of it was torn down, including Elarana Nalco, a native market that was an outspring of the Spanish Colonial Art Society's market, which was founded originally by Mary Austin, Frank Applegate. So this is an area that is indeed quite historic, and I think that this large building, which has been likened to the new ballroom of the president, can be shrunk successfully to accommodate what little is left of the original neighborhood on Don Gaspar. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. Hello, my name is Elizabeth West, and I live at 318 Senna Street. And so I'm in the neighborhood south of where this project, the proposed project is. I love the idea that this team of people, and I'm not being sarcastic at all, by the way. I don't want that to sound that way. I like that they are interested in the history, and I don't really want to make fun of that. I think that's a great move. I'm a little curious about the level of security and the contradiction that I'm hearing about how walkable around everything it is that's good for the public, and yet it's very hard to get into the building. Will it be easy to get in there and see the history? I like that idea. However, I was very intrigued, not however, and I was very intrigued to hear, I think it was Miss Jenkins, was talking about the earlier history of how things were presented to the public. And I tried to go to all of the meetings, and it felt good to be able to have conversation. I thought the original drawings were pretty atrocious. This is a vast improvement, I will say that. But I was intrigued that there was a very brief, and maybe it was you, sir, I cannot remember, I'm sorry, who presented the image that showed a brief moment of consideration of what to do, keeping what's been called the casitas, the bungalows, the homes, the houses. Those small structures where people lived and did their stuff are kind of a personal thing. And I didn't grow up here, so I like it anyway, even though I didn't grow up here. Oh, darn it. So I want to say I missed those in the earlier discussion, those images and any attempt that may have been made by this very good team of people to incorporate at least part of the buildings or include them somehow. I mean, I've got some ideas I can share over coffee. I think that I would like to align myself with what I hear that the staff is saying, and I hope you will consider saying no to the demolition, and I would love to see, as painful as it might be for these people to hear me say this, I would love to see another approach to including these small buildings. I also, PS, I don't blame anybody for wanting to move to some new offices near the Roundhouse. That makes sense to me. I'm not opposed to the whole idea. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. So, good evening, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Beverly Spears. I live at 1897 KJO Drive, Santa Fe. So I was at the meeting Monday night when this was presented, and it was mentioned that the maximum allowable height for the site was 57.6 feet. And I was curious about that. I think I understand that this building is seriously needed, the EOB. But I feel like it is way out of scale with downtown Santa Fe and with its immediate surroundings. So I started looking into this maximum allowable height and looking closely at Chapter 14, and what I found is that Chapter 14, Section 14.5.2, is very clear about how allowable heights are to be measured, and there is an official map with building heights on it, and the code is very clear that those heights are to be used to calculate the allowable height, and it's very clear about streetscape. So, in the material that I've given you, I followed city code, looked at the applicable streetscapes, looked at the heights that are on the official map that I show you here, and done the calculations to average the institutional buildings in accordance with the code. And using these figures, the Roundhouse is listed as over 45 feet. I think it's about 50 feet. So, using that, I come up with an allowable maximum height of 35 and a half feet. Very different from the 50-some feet that is being dealt with. And to me, this is a very critical piece of information. I think the height and the massing, the size of this building, is much more critical than lot coverage, and it's just way too big a building for this site. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Beverly. Members of the board, my name is Frank Katz. I live at 1300 Canyon Road. I'm very disappointed that we are not following the procedure that got established with the building of the very beautiful parking garage that will be right next to this building. It's not very beautiful, but boy, is it better than the original plan. And I was city attorney at the time, and I said, "We have a say in this." The city had never taken a position on a state building, like, "Oh, that's a state building." That was not right. That's not what the law said. And so we worked with the General Services Department and all the folks from the capital and worked on the design. There were a whole bunch of meetings. The architects were there. They dropped it one story and made it look a little bit more like it fit into the capital era. And what I am so sad about is that we never had those meetings when, I guess it was the beginning of this year, when Leader Worth suggested that we go back, because he was involved back then in that parking garage, that we go back and have this discussion between the city and the state and the interested parties. That never happened. And although Jennifer is good about listing, "There was this meeting and this meeting," but what good does it have meetings when there's no communication? It's real clear that this building is too big for that space. It is too high. It does not meet code because of the height. The windows are not the right size. They're much too big. They are not under a portal. Those are not portals. They're trellises or something. So the standards are not met. And the other thing, there is an easy solution. Use the area where the capital roads are. Lower, chop off the third floor. Put it in that area. It could be another one. It could be another where the front area of the building is now. There'd be plenty of area there to have more open space. This whole area should be pedestrian. I don't know. There's no need for that road. The state has affirmed that it can be decommissioned or whatever it is. And all we got is, "No, we're not going to do that." That is not an acceptable answer. And I beg of you to push the state to say, "Why not? Let's talk about this. Let's talk about a way of doing this when it's not so big and not so dominant." Thank you very much. Frank, I have a question for you. So, are you in favor of demolition of the casitas or not? You didn't include that in your comments. I think that this board has made very clear, I think three or four times, that it believes they are contributing. By not having the other building so big, I think those casitas can be kept, or they could be incorporated as entrances to a little bit more human-scale building. And the other thing that just drives me crazy is something that you stand on the front of the capital looking west, you see the mountains, you see the horizon, you see the future. And with it going up, you'll see nothing. Thank you. Hello. My name is Barbara Fix. I live at 610 Alicia here in Santa Fe. It could be incorporated with the general idea of that area being walkable. You know, there's a bench on the other side on Don Gaspar. That's a place around those buildings where people could stop and rest. And it could be done in a way, if you look at the roundness of the Roundhouse, there could sort of be a rounded opening. Look at the landscaping that Clay Buchanan did for the Roundhouse. I mean, he did it all himself. It didn't cost the state hardly anything. People contributed trees and stuff. Have a, instead of having a plotting monoculture of street trees, have a place where people can actually stop and enjoy it. And so by keeping the casitas and making that a pleasant place where staff and everybody else could enjoy it outdoors, and they could also, you know, they could be used for any number of historical uses. I don't understand, and I agree with Frank, why was the idea of expanding Capital Place, the parking area, if that were, you know, if the building went beyond there, beyond the contract building, well then there'd be no need for that upper floor. And I would just like to see it somehow relate to the Roundhouse. Right now, it's just a big thing. And I hope and believe that you'll do your best, and I hope you'll preserve. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Tom Spray. I office at 444 Galisteo Street, which is right across the street from all this. I first spoke to the board about this issue in 2012 when the state first proposed an executive office building. At that time, I was the president of the Old Santa Fe Association. And in that meeting, I said to the board, "The Old Santa Fe Association is not opposed to the creation of a state office building on that site. But there is another way to approach this other than what was currently proposed." So, in order to show this, we also commissioned a massing study for a 60,000 square foot three-story office building. The footprint of that building fits comfortably on the site as it is right now without the need to demolish any existing structures, any of them. I shared this study with the board at that time just to show that a fine building of appropriate scale can be built on that site. At that time, the state abandoned the field, and there was no other action for many years. But now the state is back, and they say their program has changed from 2012. "We need more room." So the city offers to close Capitol Street, but that offer is rejected. It was easier to destroy than to preserve. I am sure that this is what the New York City folks felt when they destroyed Penn Station many years ago. If you do not agree to demolition, then this project reverts once again to the joint state historic board, which has already been assembled. I believe that this would be an appropriate outcome for this session. Thank you for all your work. Good evening. My name is Valerie Brooker, and I live at 1616 Young Street. I've lived in Santa Fe over 50 years and have worked both at the public library and within the Capitol building. I have just a couple of comments. I agree with the comments reducing the mass of this building. I feel it would destroy the feel of an already losing historic neighborhood. I also worry about the impact of 500-plus cars streaming into the capital on top of the cars that are already there with this additional parking facility. And in my time at the Capitol, I'm observing more electronic communication. And I'm wondering, not to question the state's needs, whether all of this site needs to be utilized or whether more electronic communication could be used for the site. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Board members, thank you very much. We have a document here from the Old Santa Fe Association. I pulled the short straw, and I would like to be indulged in the reading of this document for you. And the first thing I want to say personally is that it really feels like deja vu all over again that we're here. And I'll try to leave the rest of my personal comments out of it. The Old Santa Fe Association, OFA, supports the recommendation for denial by the city's Historic Districts Review Board of the state's request for the demolition of the four historic homes. By virtue of this denial, the state and its design team will be required by the statute to remand the project's design development to the joint city-state stakeholder committee for continued modification of the design to better address the following concerns: that the building's proposed heated area of 165,000 square feet gives rise to an excessively large physical mass that is out of scale with the other nearby structures, such as the adjacent parking structure built earlier by the state with successful and constructive design input in collaboration with OSO; leaves no space for preservation and adaptive reuse of any parts of the four historic homes, which have repeatedly and consistently been protected by this board from demolition requests; results in a large third story that obstructs views of the west mountains from the elevated pedestrian terrace of the State Capitol. Additionally, OSA supports the preservation of the four historic homes either in their entirety or in part as can be successfully integrated into the design and functional programming. OSA supports the HDRB undertaking its own independent maximum height analysis for the site and to determine whether an additional exception should be voted on by the HDRB. And close to finishing, OSA also supports the HDRB's efforts to preserve the city's pedestrian-friendly and harmonious streetscapes, proportionate building scales, and the use of appropriate materials and design details. OSA supports the city-state statutes at NSA 3226 14226 describing public outlay projects within the state historic districts of Santa Fe and remain steadfast in adhering to and honoring public process and transparency as prescribed therein. OSA desires for the state to achieve its functional goals of consolidating disparate uses into a more functional interconnected campus and pledges its support in that effort through a thoughtful process and harmonious design as prescribed by both state and city statutes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, all of you who spoke this evening. Your comments are appreciated. Board members, I would like to hear anybody else, your comments. But first, we'll hear from Heather. Yes, thank you. We have some folks on Zoom that would like to speak as well. Oh, okay. And make sure we're keeping track of the notary who determines, you know, who we have to keep track of who's been sworn, who's not. So he'll swear each of them in one time. I am going to elevate Mark Bertram. You may unmute. Please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. My name is Mark Bertram. I reside at 906 Trail Cross Court in Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under penalties of perjury? Yes. Please proceed. All right. As some or many of you may know, I am an experienced developer in the Santa Fe and Albuquerque markets, and I've been involved in the real estate development business for over 45 years, and I'm generally pro-development. However, this proposed building project is so egregious that I feel a need to share my thoughts. This project has been on the drawing boards for a number of years. In previous iterations, the state had proposed a much more modest 56,000-foot office building on the vacant parcels it owns and was working around the historic buildings that now exist, but now they would like to demolish them. I think that is outrageous because I have been involved in several projects that have to be reviewed by this board. Every single case, we have willingly followed the rules set in place for redevelopment downtown. The development of those properties would have been much easier, faster, and more profitable if we could have simply ignored the historic district's regulation and just torn down the buildings to make for a more developable site. That's exactly what the state is trying to do. We would have never thought of proposing such a deviation from the intent of the historic district because we would be laughed out of the meeting. The state legislature also agrees that the state of New Mexico needs to generally abide by the local jurisdiction's rules and regulations as provided by Senate Bill 219. I'm also outraged as a taxpayer at the cost of this building. It has a price tag of over $1,000 per square foot. As an owner of hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, I can assure you that I would sell the state any building I own for half that cost. It is simply a poor use of taxpayer dollars and will have a significant impact on the neighborhood. The state themselves commissioned a study several years ago that stated that at that time they had over $250 million in deferred maintenance across the buildings that they already own. Why would taxpayers want to give them a brand new office building that they will also not take care of or maintain? I believe that the size of this project is completely out of scale with the existing streetscape and surrounding neighborhoods, not to mention the traffic impact that will add over 700 vehicle trips per day. It also will have an impact on the general office market in Santa Fe. The last time there was a large building such as this is when the Thornburg campus was built. I remember firsthand, they were major tenants in two of my buildings, and when they moved out of downtown, they vacated thousands of square feet, and it has taken nearly 15 years for that to fully recover. I am completely opposed to the demolition of the four casitas and completely opposed to the scale of this building. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. The next person to speak is Jordan Young. Miss Young, please state your name and address for the record and then be prepared to be sworn. Jordan Young. I live at 652 Galisteo Street, just around the corner. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Please proceed. I am 37 years old, and I live and work in the South Capitol neighborhood. I'm definitely one of the youngest people to comment here, and it has been a marathon waiting through this meeting. I am also not retired. The State Executive Office Building will bring more people who live and work here to downtown, which is a great thing. Is the city allowing historic preservation to flex its power over the state here and blocking its ability to do reasonable development close to the proximity of their work? I find this incredibly embarrassing to live in a city that continually blocks daily business from being conducted due to its snobbish valuing of status quo over actual people that can benefit from development. I'm shocked at the members of the public who all seem to have ignored Ms. Jenkins' important comment that those casitas cannot be restored. If you look at the beautiful landscape photo of the rendering, the building definitely looks like it belongs. It belongs much more than the small-scale casitas because of the surrounding government buildings. Congratulations to the architects and designers who I am certain worked very hard to make a functional building that fits all of the constraints within this district. As someone who lives in South Capitol and walks this neighborhood every day, I would like to see the land use update and the existing historic design review board encourage, incentivize, and actually celebrate new and innovative design that challenges and stretches our vernacular instead of scrutinizing every project like a set of vultures around a fresh carcass. There seems to never be consideration for the time and cost of going on a land use journey with the city of Santa Fe, let alone getting involved with the Historic Design Review Board. Has anyone ever studied the added cost and burdens to homeowners, businesses, and government of working through the historic design review processes, let alone all of the professionals required at the city and as volunteers to work through this process? I am surprised that the state was required to spend on full design fees, committees, subcommittees, and other processes before getting approval for the demolition. This feels extremely cost-burdensome. I attended the meeting last week discussing the design of this building and was dismayed to see the contractor propose some way to memorialize these casitas. Must we memorialize all old, ugly, unremarkable buildings in order to make something new? What kind of precedent does this set for future development in the South Capitol District? What does memorializing unremarkable buildings mean for actual memorials like the Bataan Memorial, honoring real people who did real things? We certainly don't need any more museums or exhibits. How much longer will people have to pander to the Old Santa Fe Association with their projects like this memorial? How much longer will the Old Santa Fe Association dictate how we as a city interpret historic preservation, land use, and planning? Of course. Thank you for your comments. Of course, many members of the Old Santa Fe. Ma'am, you let everybody else exceed their timing. Let me finish. I have one more. You have already exceeded your time. Please have your comments come to an end. I do appreciate your comments. Thank you. Many members of the Old Santa Fe Association attended the meeting tonight to defend this casita, these group of casitas, which again are ugly, crumbling, and out of scale with the large government buildings surrounding it. Obviously, I am in support of this project. Protecting these buildings is an obvious grab to block progress and development. Like many efforts dressed in the guise of historic preservation or genuine concern for our community, concerns like this cannot continue to be allowed to block our community from necessary improvements and progress. I feel very confused as someone who is not versed in the code why the Concha Ortiz y Pino building can be demolished but not the casitas. Is this even consistent? We should welcome development as beautiful and harmonious as this design as it adds to the neighborhood's usefulness and brings workers to an area near transit and amenities. A vibrant downtown with a mix of buildings and uses is important for our city. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, the next speaker is Stephanie Beninato. Stephanie, state your name and address for the record. I can't remember if you were previously sworn. Oh, she was previously sworn. I've been previously sworn, and I actually live in South Capitol and have for many, many years. I have a lot to say about this, but I will say that having a museum that remembers what was there is not at all the same as preserving what is there. I want to point out that the state has engaged in demolition by neglect. So this whole thing about how much it would cost to bring these buildings, the homes, up to code, to me, is just an excuse because they haven't been maintaining them for at least 10 years, if not longer. No drawing actually showed any attempt to integrate these homes into the proposed building. They had a distance between the buildings and the new structure. They could be incorporated, as somebody suggested, for certain programmatic use or entryways. I do believe the scale is totally off, and although it might look nice as a building someplace else, it'll just overwhelm the Capitol area. It says that there's going to be 531 occupants and 546 parking spaces. So where are all the people who have to come to these offices to get services? Where are they going to park? Because the other parking structure is filled almost all the time. You could have a few spaces, and those are used by state workers who work in the Capitol. The other thing is, I know the Office of State Engineer needs a building there. They're working, they were working in the Concha Ortiz building and the Bataan building. I didn't see them listed as being needed in this building. I am sure, because I've been at the State Auditor's building out on the south side of town, that it is highly secure. So that whole thing about they need more security doesn't make any sense to me. I think also that I agree with the comments made, particularly by Frank Katz and Beverly Spears, about the massing and the lack of compliance, and also Mr. Bertram. I really appreciated him speaking out as a developer and what this really will affect. And to say that somehow people are, you know, young people or people who are working are going to be living in South Capitol and coming down and being able to work there, that is so not true. What used to be a working-class, middle-class neighborhood now has generic buildings. I'm not saying they're horrible, but they're not outstanding for $800,000. The Office of State Engineer, many of their employees commute, and they actually would like an office in Albuquerque because of the commute time. So I would ask, and then one other thing, you've already said that you've denied demolition of these buildings. I've heard over and over again that you don't reconsider your decisions. So you've already denied that. The question is, does this plan allow these buildings to remain? What have they done to incorporate them? They've done nothing. Each time they come back in, they've done nothing to incorporate these buildings. And I would suggest the process that's been set up that was put on hold, where there is a group that meets and tries to work something out, that it's time for that to happen and not for these developers or these consultants, architects from Albuquerque, to come in and just keep trying to shove it down our throats. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Stephanie. Anybody else online? Yes, Chair. Anthony Guida, please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. Anthony Guida, 1711 Second Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Please proceed. Thank you, board. President, I'm Anthony, president of Friends of Architecture Santa Fe, former member of this board, an architect. There is only one kind, and I work in historic preservation. I'm speaking in support of the demolition of the casitas and approval of the State Executive Office Building proposal. I want to talk on two main points: one, the new building and the style, and then second, the preservation and demolition request. The building proposal responds to the street and the pedestrian environment. It's deferential to its context in scale and appearance. This is not surprising, given that the same residential height requirements and lot coverage restrictions govern this site, which is an urban site, as it would a house in a neighborhood. This is responsible urban infill that will bring 500-plus people to the downtown where there is already infrastructure, transit, walkability, shops, and restaurants. It would allow citizens ready access to their elected officials and government agencies. This is a city, after all, which is something that was even understood in 1912 when the Santa Fe style experiment started. I attended the meeting last Monday. State architects presented their entirely compliant building. They showed the two dozen or so prescriptive rules and how they conformed, as well as how they conformed with the height restrictions. Then, as tonight, members of the Old Santa Fe Association questioned the height calculation, the percent of window-to-wall ratio, the definition of what might actually constitute a facade. When that ran dry, we moved on to tropes of traffic, parking, and not being able to see the mountains. At one point, the intention of the code was mentioned. It seems to me that the intention of the code in Santa Fe, as it is today, is not to produce good design, positive urban outcomes, but to provide certain members of our community nitpicky rules with which to oppose any and all development. On the preservation front, there's really no reason to deny the demolition request. This board has already rightly approved demolition of the contributing Kona Ortiz building, same status, which has actual architectural merit and arguably does contribute to the district. Those status, these casitas, do not contribute to the Downtown Eastside Historic District. They have little integrity or character-defining features that would support the district. They're not part of the Barrio Donnelley. They are not part of the regional revival architecture that makes up the downtown. They do not establish a streetscape. At best, they are orphaned from the Don Gaspar district as a consequence of the widening of the Paseo de Peralta in the 60s. I similarly see a weaponization of preservation rules to present development in the consideration or in the resistance to demolishing these casitas. They are not important on both fronts. The city is being obstructionist. This is not the first time. In the 1960s, the state proposed a comprehensive 30-year plan for the capital that would have connected it to the river, to the downtown, or hidden cars, and so on. That plan was killed by the Old Santa Fe Association and by John Gome himself, who was on the Capital Planning Commission. Sixty years on, we have acres of parking, isolated object-like buildings, and continued fussing over every stylistic detail. Can we not please get a better capital? This is the time to do something right, to fix it a little bit. Please approve this project. Please approve the demolition of the casitas. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Anthony. Chair: Anybody else? Yes. Sher Rios, there is one more, but I just want to point out to anybody else who might be online, if you raise your hand, that will let me know if you would like to speak. Patty, you have just been unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. If you're speaking, you're not unmuted. Please unmute. She just dropped off. There are no other hands raised. Chair Rios, that was it. Chair Rios: Okay. Well, thank you all for all your comments. Board members, I will entertain comments or questions from you. Member: Member Benu. Member Benu: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yes, I do have a few comments. A difficult case was before and it still is. And very much appreciative of all the people that came out to speak, that spoke on Zoom. It's incredibly important that people care so much in this community about our historic preservation ordinance, our historic districts, as well as the needs of the city and the state to be able to continue to function effectively in a city that's still alive. And because I have so much respect for many of the people that spoke tonight and I completely understand many of their concerns, I just want to take a few minutes to say why I reach a different conclusion than some of them have. And I start with really the fact that this process that we have here, we've talked a little bit about the rather convoluted process that takes place that's unique to state capital outlay projects, but we also have really a different set of standards that applies to this project. And I think that's important to keep in mind. We all remember, I'm sure, that there was a time when the state took the position that they were not subject to the historic ordinance and that the city had no business telling them what to do with their property. That's how we got the infamous pump jack on Old Santa Fe Trail, and the state was, through that agency, extremely recalcitrant about removing it. It turned out to be a court case. I think that the state's position was never legally adequate, but nonetheless, the only way to really resolve that impasse was the city and the state did agree to a set of procedures. The state was giving up something that they felt that they had that was extremely valuable, which was the right to do whatever they wanted, and the city gave up a little bit as well to bring the state into the fold. And so we really had two things that happened at that time. The state passed a statute and the city passed a revised ordinance. And what's different about the way that process works, the standards are very similar but slightly different than they would be as applied to any other individual or entity. The state statute provides that it agrees, the state agrees that it will always proceed in a manner that is, quote, harmonious and generally compatible with the city ordinances, and that's something that was a huge concession on their part, of course, but they added in some language that I think we really have to keep in mind here, and that is that the city, in working with the state on a project, had to keep in mind how those design standards would impact costs and the operation or manner in which the capital outlay project will ultimately be expected to function. And, you know, that's not language that exists otherwise. That's language that's unique to the state, and then it was probably incorporated to the county and the public schools as well when that comparable revision was made to the ordinance. But that really means that we have to, that they are entitled to have, in addition to the design standards per se considered, they are also entitled to have consideration for the reasonable costs and essential functionality of their project, not only considered but be an element of the good faith process that the city has agreed to undertake. And the city then completely accepted that. And so their ordinance that they passed in response to that stated that the city and state will collaborate in good faith and work jointly to protect and preserve the historic districts, but that the Historic Districts Review Board shall consider reasonable costs and the preservation of essential functionality in that process. That's something that we've been talking about tonight a lot, along with a lot of other aspects of this project that actually is relevant to our decision. Whereas a lot of other aspects, such as the need for the, not the need, but the impact on traffic, the impact on bringing people into the downtown, those are all, in my mind, very, very important policy considerations, but they're not for this board to be considering and they're not within our purview. However, the reasonable costs and the essential functionality of the project is, so that's one unique feature. The other one that I think is important is that under design standards, the city in its own ordinance states that the project shall be designed to be appropriate to the seat of government, not only in harmony with the, well, in addition to being in harmony with the design standards. That to me really is the crux of the issue here. We really are not talking about an isolated building. We're talking about a building on the state capital complex, which really is the seat of the state government, and that needs to be borne in mind, I think, in reviewing these plans. The relationship between the city and the state government is extremely important in Santa Fe's history. As we all know, Santa Fe was the capital for 400 years under Spain, Mexico, the territorial government, and now the state. And in the late 19th century, as we also know, the city fought very, very hard to retain its position as the state capital when it looked to everybody that that was going to pass to Albuquerque. Santa Fe was a very small town at that time, in the 1880s and 1890s, when that battle was waged, and Santa Fe fought hard for that and succeeded. And so when the state, when the territory became a state in 1912, Santa Fe fortunately retained its position as the state capital. And that's, that's just been, I think everyone would agree, one of the things that's defined this city's identity and prevented it from becoming nothing more than a residential city for retirees and other people that really had no economic base to work from. The state government has really provided the economic base for having an actual workforce in this city and prevented it from becoming what some people, I think erroneously, call, which is a tourist town. So given that, those two aspects, the way I look at this is that we need to really pay close attention to the context where these buildings are, and a seat of government, by definition, in my mind, is a, is not just, is, in fact, it's not a residential neighborhood any longer. It is a campus or a complex where we really want to display the dignity and majesty, if you will, of what's a sovereign state, the state of New Mexico. And that's very difficult to do without having buildings that convey that sense of dignity. And I think the state's been very successful in doing so with the very large buildings that are sprinkled up throughout the complex. And that did require demolition of existing buildings. But that's a decision that was made by people other than us. And we're very, very far down the process now. And what we've been left with is a very, very small remnant that's been cut off from the rest of the residential neighborhoods that remains of that much older patterning of the built environment, which are the four casitas or bungalows or residences, whatever we want to call them. So to me, it really is clear that those casitas no longer are really speaking to a history or a context that still continues to surround them. If they were in another location across Paseo, they still would, but at this point, they've been essentially isolated from that. And I think not only do they not speak to that, they actually are out of place at this point. And I think that, you know, most people that walk the street would immediately feel that those buildings are out of place. Which brings me then to the thing we're supposed to be deciding tonight, which I think is the first issue of demolition. So we have three criteria, basically, for demolition. The first one is whether the structure, in this case, each individual casita, is of historical importance. They're, they have been designated contributing. That's not significant. In fact, they were downgraded from being significant, which was their earlier designation. And if I'm not mistaken, the garages are non-contributing. So I, I would not go so far as to say the structures are of no historical importance because they do have some interest as being typical of a very, very rather short and specific time period when that subdivision where they're located was built. And, but I would say that that historical importance is quite, quite limited. And I think the recognition of them being downgraded from significant to contributing and the garages being downgraded to non-contributing does recognize that. The second factor is whether the structure is an essential part of a street section. In my mind, that's again context. That element of what we are charged with applying here is really about the context in which these buildings find themselves. Not only in my mind do they not, are they not essential to the really rather unattractive streetscape that they're located in right now, they would be absolutely out of context with a new building that was being built in the parking lot next to them. This is where I really think we need to talk about the scale. Normally, when we talk about scale, we worry about something being out of scale by being too large. In this particular case, the problem is really the opposite. We have four buildings. They're out of scale because they're much, much, much too small for where they're located. They're being surrounded, they're already surrounded by imposing buildings up and down the very important artery of Don Gaspar on the campus. They're going to be, even if in an ideal scenario, this building was built with the casitas in front of them, they'd be overwhelmed by this much more massive and extensive building immediately adjacent to them. So, in my mind, there's just no question that they would be utterly out of scale and in fact, somewhat ridiculous looking if that building were to be built with the casitas still in the streetscape. Then as far as whether the streetscape will be reestablished by the proposed structure, really, if you walk that area, I think it's really not particularly walkable as it exists right now. The sidewalk is narrow and uninviting. It doesn't really go anywhere and there's really almost no reason to be on it. You're walking in a tiny little remnant of a residential sidewalk and front yards, and then you hit a curb and a cross street. But with this new design, I think that area would be really incorporated into a much more inviting, pedestrian-friendly streetscape because instead of being pushed against the sidewalk, now the pedestrian would have the ability to open up into the front of the facade of the building. In addition, of course, the new buildings would be much more, the new building as proposed would be much more harmonious with the existing territorial styling of what is predominant in the complex. Finally, the state of repair and structural stability is the third factor. That seems to me very, very significant in this case. All the engineers that have evaluated it, that have given opinions, have all said they should be demolished, that they are not in good repair. I think we saw, I think the state told us that their consultant gave them a price of $2,655,000 to bring the four casitas into compliance and make them usable. That just strikes me as absurd to imagine that that would be a reasonable use of money to renovate those four casitas. So I think, and just taking what we're actually charged with doing, which is applying the ordinance as far as design standards, applying the ordinance as far as state capital outlay projects, and applying the demolition standards, it seems to me that in this particular case, as much as we'd like to preserve older buildings, it's time for these to go and really establish something that I think would be very beneficial to both the city and the state and the general public with the new building. I will say though, that's just a general comment. I would make a motion to approve the demolition, but I'm not going to right now because I want to defer to the fact that the board's already ruled on this, and I think it's appropriate for anyone who wants to renew that motion to deny demolition to have that first opportunity. Chair: I would like to hear from other board members before we go into the motion. Any other board members have comments? Member Dena, do you have a question about? Member Dena: Pardon me? Thank you, Chair Rios. Excuse me. My question is about the prior denial, the series of historic denials. If I may alight there for a second, there's nothing light about it. I'm sure everyone here is anxious for us to move on. I am curious about the original denial. Are we repeating our denial? Are we in a place where we have to even deny again or approve it? Didn't we already deny it? I think that's the question that legal needs to answer or Heather. Thank you. Chair: Thank you, Chair Rios, member. I'll let Frank go. Frank: Thank you very much for that question, Chair Rios and Member Dena. This is an, I anticipated this issue coming up. There is something in law called res judicata, meaning that once a dispute, a legal dispute is settled, it can't be revisited. But whether or not res judicata applies, I know it applies in the courts, but does it apply before land use boards is a question that I looked into and I can tell you, not only is there no clear New Mexico law on this issue, there's not even any ambiguous New Mexico law on this issue, right? So what we do if we can't find statutes or case law at our forum state, we look at case law from other states to see how res judicata applies in a land use setting. And I was able to find, and sometimes you look at articles in publications like American Law Reports or something called Corpus Juris Secundum, and it doesn't come up often in land use and zoning cases, but I've managed to find an article in Florida Law Review that consolidated a bunch of cases from all over the United States. So, I looked in there to see, is there any New Mexico law in this? And I looked and there was, there was a case called Albuquerque Commons. If you practice land use law for one day in New Mexico, you read that, right? It's a pivotal case, but it doesn't have anything to do with res judicata. So, I'm not quite sure what that holds is that land use cases are quasi-judicial cases, not legislative cases. And the legal distinction in there is, you know, beyond the scope of this question. But this law review article talks about other issues like claim preclusion, issue preclusion, res judicata, and it would seem like hair splitting to discuss the difference between those, but claim preclusion is something that does seem to have been applied to land use cases in the context of zoning. And please remember that the historic district enforcement code and ordinance code enforcement is a function of zoning because the state of New Mexico has given the city the opportunity to enforce zoning, and historic district is one of those zoning type interests. So the question is asked, suppose the landowner, having been previously denied a use variance, reapplies for an identical variance arguing that he or she has gathered additional evidence to support her claim of unique hardship to her parcel of land. A court likely would permit a zoning board to consider the landowner's repeated application characterizing the new evidence as a material change in circumstance. However, would a court also uphold a zoning board's decision to summarily refuse to hear the new evidence? And what this holds is the answer is yes. When a zoning board declines to hear new evidence, courts invariably defer to the board's determination, provided, of course, that the board abided by proper procedures. This is consistent with ordinary issue preclusion principles which bar an unsuccessful litigant from making a duplicative request or relief to the extent the issue has been fully and necessarily determined on the sole basis of additional evidence. Right? I'm not going to read anymore. I'm going to kind of give you a synopsis of where this goes. It is the board's determination. It is up to you to decide whether there is new evidence that for whatever legitimate reason wasn't presented before, or whether there is a change in circumstances that justifies revisiting the previous decision. And the conclusion I drew, and I draw from the various cases that are cited in this law review article, is if you decided there's no new evidence, or if you decided the conditions are the same as they were when they were presented previously, and you decided you did not want to revisit the demolition request and leave standing the decisions you made in March 2024, you would have the discretion to do that. There's nothing that says you have to do that. But if you decided there's new evidence or there is a change of circumstances that would justify taking it up again, you could do that as well. But I would ask you to make a record that whether there is some change in circumstances or there is some new evidence that justifies revisiting that decision. There's an interesting line here. One more line I want to read from this law review article. A New York appellate court upheld the zoning board's rejection of a second application, asserting that only the quality of the proof and not the facts themselves had changed. So you have to, are there any new facts or is there just a different quality of proof that's being presented? So that's a non-answer. But the only answer I can give you is that you need to decide whether there is some reason you should revisit the decision you made in 2024, and I just ask you to exercise your sound discretion in doing that. Chair: Thank you very much, Frank. Well, this is becoming very complicated, I think. All of that is resting on our shoulders whether res judicata exists. A decision was made by this board to not demolish those four casitas. And now what I'm hearing from the city attorney is, is there new evidence that has been presented to us? Do we revisit this issue of jurisdiction of demolition? And I kind of want to hear from board members to see what they have to say. Member Cherry. Member Cherry: Yeah, I'll go. I guess I feel like I've heard a smattering of information, and a lot of it is extreme, and a lot of it conflicts, and a lot of it I agree with. A lot of the conflicting information I agree with, which makes it really difficult to make decisions because I agree with the preservation of historic buildings, but I also agree with the sophistication of our state government facilities, if that's a word. So there's a lot of different stuff here. I guess one thing I was doing while I was listening was looking at some the map of this area, and I was just curious. The site size to me looks to be about three acres. Is that more or less correct? Including the casitas. Okay, I was guessing. So the, and there's probably 0.4 acres taken up by the casitas. So each one's about 0.1 acres, and there's four of them. So that's, you know, leaves you two acres of buildable space. And then I notice to the east of Capitol, there's 12 acres of mostly parking lot, which is quite a bit more space than this sort of seemingly now tiny lot compared to the amount of space that's over there that's mostly taken up by parking. And it seems like the current way to do parking in these kinds of structures is underground. So that would be a really a lot of kind of available space to build something without affecting other structures. And not that I have an answer there, but I'm just curious what the sort of master plan is regarding this whole area because it seems like government will continue to evolve and we'll continue to want to use more space and build more buildings and make communities more walkable and the train's right down Garfield Street and this whole idea of kind of making more walking parks and consuming some of that avenue that's to the north of the property that we're discussing. It's just, I'm trying to blow it up like this and kind of look at it more contextually. How do we work on making this decision with some knowledge about what might be in store for the future as far as a master plan of all of that area? Madam Chair, board members, Board Member Cherry, when throughout the planning phase for the executive office building, the PAR property was under consideration originally. So it was analyzed and assessed. There are significant burials under that parking lot. So it is, it is not, it would not make sense to touch that area, especially with any kind of ground disturbance. It would not be appropriate for that space because I agree with you, it seems so logical, right? There was archaeological assessment done of the site, as well as when the parking garage was constructed. There was no evidence of any burial activity on the subject property, but there definitely are burials on the PAR. Okay, thanks. Do you know where or how much of it, or is it extensive? It's my understanding, but I don't know the exact, I don't have that. Okay, thanks. Thank you. I didn't, again, like I said in my preface, there's kind of a smattering of ideas, a smattering of information that we've got tonight. So I don't have any conclusive thoughts there, just some. You better put on your thinking cap because we're going to have to make a decision pretty soon. Member Dignan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just quickly, I would like to just point out, I lived across the street for several years from the new convention center, and the city of Santa Fe took five years because of all the burial activity and what they found. And so I would love the idea if you tried to pursue the PAR building parking lot. Member Beachley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we do need to revisit our previous denial of these casitas, the demolition of these casitas, just based on the fact that we have a final design now and we have the benefit of additional community discussion. I'd like to thank everyone who spoke tonight for taking this opportunity and the other opportunities provided by the state's team to contribute to the discussion. I appreciate that this board's previous actions, which included my part in denying the demolition of the casitas, because I think that that supported the chances for the public to participate more fully in the design process and in the state's deliberations. And so, in consideration of all that I've heard, I have the following thoughts. I think, as John stated, the subject area is functionally the capital district. It currently supports state functions. The casitas themselves have not been homes for many years. They've most recently housed businesses and organizations, state support functions. As sweet as the area, the former neighborhood may have been, the casitas are just remnants of a neighborhood that no longer exists. That happened many, many years ago, and the state capital complex has replaced what could have been preserved. While Santa Fe is known for its historic identity, it also identifies as the state capital. State government exists here. It's already here. We can't contradict that fact, and its ability to function needs to be a serious concern. There's no possibility that this executive office building will overwhelm the site. In fact, I think it does just the opposite. It completes a space in a way that's really cohesive to the state capital complex. It reestablishes the office space that's going to be lost by the Concha Ortiz Pino building and expands that. I think it's really smart development, and I support it. Thank you for your comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to see the last decision upheld. I didn't hear tonight any new evidence or change of circumstance that would make me think this board should reconsider the motion that was previously approved. Part of that was to allow for greater public participation, but the design we're seeing tonight is essentially, as far as I can tell, the same design we saw last time. And if that public participation was anything, the makeup of it was anything like we saw tonight, it was very divided. At least I would say 50% didn't approve the design as it was. And so if that, if there was a genuine public process, I would expect to see something different tonight than what we saw last time, not just a checkbox in the process. But because the design is essentially the same, I understand that additional details have been ironed out, programming, the interior floor plans, but when we're looking at the facade, I can't tell a difference from what we've seen. So, I'm in favor of upholding the decision that was already made. I think that's all I'm going to say for tonight. This board has already spent a lot of time on this case, and I think a decision was already made, and I don't see a reason to change that this evening. Thank you very much. For me, this process has been very curious, I guess I should say, because number one, the board did make a decision not to demolish those four casitas. And the state never honored that process. They just never did. And I am part of the committee. John Bianu and I are part of the committee. And every time we have a meeting, I bring that up, and I am given an explanation, which I am not necessarily satisfied with, but I am given an explanation that they want to go forward with this process, and they are trying to be as genuine as possible in terms of presenting this project to us. And I am really happy that we had the model made because in the meetings that we've had, I believe that these architects have really worked hard in trying to present a good project. And my comments have been, please do not look to the Paul Bicki building, look more to the Viagra building, something that is not huge in scale, but it appears that they want to put, I don't know, about eight agencies, is that correct? About eight agencies into this building. So when you look at it, to me the easy solution is to demolish the casitas. Let's go with this big building because that's the easy way. The more difficult way is, and the more challenging way, which I have suggested to these prominent architects, is that it would be challenging to incorporate those four casitas. And I think a lot of people, even in this community, don't totally understand historic preservation. I really don't think that a lot of people might say, "Oh, yes, I'm very conscious of this community being a historic community, and yes, I respect that on the one hand, but on the other hand, let's go for the demolition of these casitas and let's not take that challenge." You know, when you visit places that are of real interest, including Santa Fe, in the world, and you are seeing historic buildings that have been preserved, and they may be historic buildings that are preserved among large buildings, you appreciate that. So why, what is the reason that we preserve buildings? Why are you preserving the buildings? Because these buildings tell a story. All our old buildings tell us something about what was there in the past. And you want to continue, in my estimation, you want to continue preserving that. For me, it is, I understand the state, and I've been working with this group of what they want to do. I totally understand what Member Cherry said, you know. Yeah, it's important that this area, which is really a government area, continue in that vein. But you know, you have these four casitas, and I have seen in my tenure on this board, buildings, casitas, or houses that have been in much worse condition than these and have been refurbished to a very beautiful state. So I think it's possible, I know it's possible to restore these casitas and incorporate them in a way that would benefit this community in preserving them and still meet your needs as a government agency that could expand on a building. I don't think that the two are so far from one another that you couldn't incorporate both of them. And that's my feeling. And I think I'm going to first need to poll the board to see if we're going to revisit the demolition project, if we're going to reconsider the demolition or keep the decision that the board already made. So I will start at this end. Member Dignan. Madam Chair, it's my thinking I will be voting to maintain the decision we already made to deny. To be clear. Thank you. I would maintain the decision that was already made. Member Bianu. For all the reasons stated, I would revisit that issue with the new information provided and move for demolition approval. Member Beachley. I would be in favor of revisiting in light of the final design and discussion tonight. And Member Cherry. I'd revisit it. Okay. So, it's three opposed to two. So, I will entertain a motion in reference to the demolition of these four casitas. It will be required dealing with each of the addresses. You want me to make, you want us to make each a separate motion for each casita? Yes, because they're separate cases. Someone ready? We can't combine them into one motion. I'll go. Frank, you agree with Heather? I agree. You need four separate motions. Four separate motions. I'll take a stab at it. Member. Okay. So, case 2025011586 HDRB at 130 South Capitol Street. I would move that findings be entered that circumstances have changed since the initial denial for the demolition. Oh, actually, no. A is for new construction. So, I'm going to skip that. We're going to swing back to that. So, I'm going to start with 2025011587 HDRBF. Let's see here. Yeah, got it. 402 Don Gaspar Avenue. I move that findings be entered that circumstances have changed since the demolition request was last considered and denied. Specifically, that a new and more extensive design has been presented to the board for them to be able to determine whether the streetscape would or would not be adequately reinstated, and that further public comment and discussion with affected community groups and members has taken place, and would further move that findings be entered that the exception criteria for demolition have been met for the reasons as stated on the record, and that the demolition accordingly be approved subject to final review and approval of the final design in case 2025011586 HDRB. Second. There is a second. Is there anything further to add? No. Roll call vote, please. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Beachley. Yes. Member Bianu. Yes. Member Aguilar Madrono. No. Member Dignan. No. Motion carries. Thank you. Case 2025011588 HDRB 406 Don Gaspar Avenue. I move that the analogous findings be entered regarding the change in circumstances and the existence of the exception criteria being found to have been met, and that the demolition request therefore be approved again subject to final approval of the design in case 2025011586 HDRB. Second. Roll call vote, please. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Beachley. Yes. Member Bianu. Yes. Member Aguilar Madrono. No. Member Dignan. No. Motion carries. Case 2025011589 HDR 410 Don Gaspar Avenue. Move that analogous findings be entered regarding changed circumstances and the exception criteria having been met, and that the demolition be approved subject to approval of the final design in case 011586. Second. Roll call vote, please. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Beachley. Yes. Member Benu: Yes. Member Aguilar Madrono: No. Member Dnon: No. Motion carries. Case 20250, or rather 11590 HDRB 414 Don Gaspar Avenue. Move that analogous findings be entered regarding exception criteria and change circumstances, and that demolition be therefore approved subject to approval of the final design in the first case. Second roll call vote. Member Cherry: Yes. Member Beach: Yes. Member Benu: Yes. Member Aguila Mrono: No. Member Dnum: No. Motion carries. Thank you. We need a motion. Yes. Madam Chair, if this is an appropriate time, I wanted to move an amendment to the agenda prior to hearing the next case. Given that we're approaching 10:30, I would like to move to postpone the remainder of the cases F through K to the next hearing. Is there a second to this motion? Megan, call vote. Could we have discussion? Yeah. I mean, I'd love the idea, don't get me wrong, but I'd like to hear from staff as to what ramifications that might have on the board and the applicants. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the board, our next meeting will be January 13th of 2026, and we do have applicants for that meeting already. So, whatever the pleasure of the board is, we could do a few more cases if possible. But this is our only meeting in December because of the holiday. I don't know. I feel, well, let me see. Let's go. What do you all think? I say let's keep going. I feel like we have to, with just respect for the applicants who have already been burdened with a postponement and a very lengthy period of time before we can meet again. So, reluctantly, I would say we... That's my feeling. I think that the applicants have been waiting here. We have five more cases, and we need to give each case its due process, but I think that we should move forward. There is a motion and a second, so I think we need to vote. I could amend my motion. I think I'm going to have to excuse myself after the next motion, but could I move to move the matters from the board to item, I guess that would be E, because there is something that I would like to state on the record. Okay. Is you're moving that? Is there a second to that? A second. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose say no. Okay. Point of clarification, Madam Chair, do we still have case number 202501158, the 130 South Capital, to discuss? We do. But Heather, yes. Thank you, Chair Rios. With reference to a second meeting in December, there still may be the opportunity to schedule something in December if we get her back, if things are going very late. So, there might be an opportunity to soften the blow a little bit if things go too long. Okay. Thank you. I bet all the applicants here want us to hear their cases, correct? I mean, what's another two hours? We've already been here for a while. Anyway, okay. I will entertain a motion for case 130 South Capital at this point. I think, well, I'll go ahead and try. So, 2025011586 HDR Bay 130 South Capitol Street. So, we're, and it's not 100% clear to me exactly what we're approving at this point because there's still opportunity for further design work. Correct. What? No, I think it's good. I think it's fine to get the clock running on further design work. I would say I would approve, and my motion would be to approve in principle the proposed design as presented on the understanding that there will be additional discussions with affected community members and others regarding the final design, which will come back for final approval. And I would particularly ask that there be, that the issue of the allowable height be further addressed by staff in conjunction with the applicant so that we know whether or not it's within the applicable height that's allowed on the streetscape or whether an exception is... Madam Chair and Member Bianu, since this is a state capital outlay project that's controlled by subsection M of 14-5.2, the board doesn't have the final say on the design. 14-5.2M cross-references to a state statute NMSA3-22-6, and reading these in conjunction, what the board needs to do is the board, if this is the trigger of the 60-day period, as I understood Miss Jenkins to agree, and that is what Heather and I have discussed, you make recommendations, and the recommendations have to be in writing, and they go to the state within the 60-day period. And then if the state can't reconcile its design with the recommendations of the board, then we have to set up a joint state and local review committee. So, the next question I have then is, do you want to make the recommendations on the record today, or do you want to refer them to the subcommittee, and then the subcommittee can formulate the written recommendations, and they can then come back? As more time, or what? It would buy you more time, but the important thing that in my mind is that those recommendations need to be specific and they need to be in writing, and to articulate them tonight, especially at this late hour, may not have the specificity that we're looking for that we need. Personally, I would not want to make any formal recommendations at this time. Now that I'm rereading them, you're right. We don't really actually approve anything at this time. All we do is we just heard it, and now that the hearing of it is what triggers the 60-day period. So, I don't think we have anything to do other than that we have the right to make written recommendations during that 60-day period. And I would just propose that maybe the committee subcommittee be tasked with making those written recommendations, and we could come back to the board for final approval. Right. But it starts today. Yeah. But I would, that's the way I would propose we do it, that we would be tasked with the written recommendations to the state. And your motion, please. It's not really a motion now because I think that I'm just making basically an understanding as to what our procedure is going to be because we now have the right to make written recommendations to the state within this 60-day period. So, my view is that we should, that the subcommittee should be tasked with that. But do we make a job? We have to make a motion. Do we do it in the form of a motion? It would probably just make for a proper record to move to refer this to a subcommittee so that recommendations be placed in writing. And of course, given the 60-day timeline, if you would make those recommendations before the next meeting in January, then the board can vote on the recommendations, you know, so that everybody's, we have an official vote of the board to make those recommendations. Those recommendations be... Yeah. Now that, I mean, now that we're really fleshing this out, it seems to me that we would need to flesh this out a little more at a subsequent hearing, either a special meeting or the next scheduled hearing, so that the board is approving the final form of the recommendations, and just so long as that takes place within 60 days. Exactly. So, that would have to be either at the January 13th meeting, which would be within 60 days. That's what I would propose because we're already in the holidays. I think that would be consistent with what's required by the code and by the statute. That would be my proposal. Okay. So, we're, we're, I don't think there's a motion needed for this. There is no motion. But I think just to clarify on the record, what I think we've established is that what happened tonight is triggering the 60-day period for the board to make written recommendations on the design. And I'm proposing that those written recommendations come out of the meeting of the board that takes, be an agenda item on the January 13th board meeting. So, Madam Chair and Member Benvven, you may want to move to refer this to a committee in accordance with, prepare an initial draft. Sure. Sure. Okay. So, that's, do you want me to make that motion? I move that the written recommendations be referred to the subcommittee that already exists for the state executive office building to prepare draft recommendations to the state that will be presented for final approval by the board at the January 13th meeting. Second roll call vote, please. Yes. Member Beachite: Yes. Member Egar Madrono: Yes. Member: Yes. Yes. Member: Thank you, Madam Chair. May I ask a question about that committee? Is someone from the HDRB on that committee? We are. Okay. Thank you. That I would solicit any recommendations that any board members want to propose. I'd like to join the committee. So, thank you. We will move on to matters. Thank you all. You're welcome to stay to the end of the meeting or matters from, matters from the board. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to my fellow board members for letting me move this up. As I'm going to have to excuse myself afterwards. But just wanted to touch on something that was talked about earlier this evening. So, earlier in the meeting, it was stated that I'd been moved to represent the architect position. And I just want to be clear that I am not an architect and I've never represented myself as one. I am a landscape architect, and I was originally appointed to fill the construction industry seat based on my experience in that field. And I would just say it is up to the city how they interpret the requirements for the board composition, but I just wanted to state for the record that I had no role in my seat being reassigned, that I've never said that I was an architect. Thank you for your comments. And since we're on matters from the board, does anybody else have anything further to say in reference to matters from the board? Ben, thank you, Madam Chair. Just on that topic, this comes up repeatedly in front of the board, and I just want to clarify for the public. The board members have no say so in who the board members are other than submitting an application, and it's 100% a decision of the mayor making a recommendation to the governing body. And otherwise, we really have nothing to say about it. So, to the extent that's a concern for anyone, what the makeup of the board is, that really should be addressed to the mayor and the governing body. Okay. Anything else? Okay. We're going to move on to the next case, and I think Member Madonna is excusing herself. The next case is located at 912 Don Gaspar Avenue. Is that applicant here? The applicant is here. Lanny, you have the floor. Oh, hello. Microphone wasn't on. We can't hear you. Sorry. Okay, the microphone was okay. In the interest of time, I'm going to kind of skip reading my entire staff report for you guys. So, can we have the podium on the screen? Thank you. So, our next project is, it is case 202511459 HDRB for 912 Don Gaspar Avenue. This is a significant building in the Don Gaspar area historic district. Skip some of this for you. The, okay. So, what they're planning to do is put in some solar panels on this pitched roof. They will be flat and flush with the roof, but this, because it's a significant building and it is going to be publicly visible, they have requested exceptions. The exceptions are for section 14-5.2D3B, 2D3B for publicly visible rooftop appurtenances, and 14-5.2D5B for placing new features on a primary facade. This is the view of the back of the house from West Houghton Street. So, the panels, even the ones on the back of the house, are going to be publicly visible. You can see here they've got nine panels on the back, nine panels on the side. They have placed them as far back as they possibly can to still get the use of the panels, but they will still be publicly visible. This is the panel. It's a very simple panel. So staff found that the exception criteria to Section 14-5.2D3B have not been met and is recommending denial for publicly visible rooftop appurtenances. The exception criteria to Section 14-5.2D5B have not been met and recommends denial for placing features on the primary facade. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the entire application as it does not comply with Section 14-5.2D, general design standards, and 14-5.2H, non-Aspen historic district design standards. Any questions? Thank you. So they are proposing 18 panels, nine on each elevation, on each rooftop, the two different rooftops. There's actually 19 panels. I think there's nine on the south and 10 on the... Yeah, sorry. Any other questions for Lanny? No. Applicant or applicants, would you come forward and get one in? Please speak to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Elizabeth West, 1235 Siler Road. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. My name is... Talk into that mic, please. Representing Positive Energy Solar today on behalf of our client, Moses Zamora. I just wanted to mention that we have looked at multiple design alternatives, such as a ground-mounted array and then reducing the number of modules and also installing on another roof plane. But this design that we have here is the most suitable and most... it meets all the historic district's characteristics and maintains the integrity of the home and surrounding district while remaining unobtrusive to the community. We looked at installing on other roof planes, and it would be more visible to the oncoming traffic as well as pedestrians. We also looked at a ground-mounted system, and there is no room in the back of the house, so that wouldn't be possible. The option to reduce the module number was also explored, but because the proposed layout utilizes the least physical roof surface but also having less optimal sun orientation, reducing the system size would prevent the array from meeting the guaranteed energy production required to serve the homeowner's electric needs. I just wanted to point out as well that the south-facing array will visually blend with the existing dark gray roofing material and minimize any visual contrast. Additionally, the south roof plane faces away from the one-way street, so cars would not see the array right away when they're passing by. It would be mostly seen by pedestrians walking. The neighbors to the left of the house have loose spruce trees that are going to be maturing, and they'll eventually be 40 to 60 feet, hopefully covering the solar array. Any questions? Thank you. Questions for the... Yes. Member Cherry. So, how high off the roof are the tops of the panels going to be? They're going to be pretty much flushly mounted. It's about one inch between the roof and the actual panel. And then how thick's the panel? Panel. So, they'll be three inches off of the roof in total. Okay. And the conduit and those sorts of things, are you guys proposing to paint those in the color of the roof structure? Those in the color of the stucco structure, or this is a brick house, so we would paint them to match the house shape. So, would you paint them that same wall color on the roof, or would you paint them the shingle color on the roof and the wall color on the wall? We would do probably the shingle color on the roof and then the wall color on the... Okay. And then the conduit goes down the... is not publicly visible. That's going down the wall, is that correct? Because it's on the west side of the building. It's going to be at the back of the house. The conduit would be running to... it'd be running from the main meter service panel, which is at the back, all the way up to that flat part and then to the back roof array along the seal, I guess, the edge corner of the roof to the next array, which is the south array. Yeah, thanks. Any other questions? I have one, Madam Chair. Don, excuse me. I'm so sorry. Doesn't sound very... Excuse me. How... you indicated the panels are two inches thick. There are 19 of them. There's actually 18. I counted 18. Okay, there are 18. How large are they? What is the square footage of the panel? Wow. Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this project, please come forward. You've already been... My name is Elizabeth West. I've already appeared here. I'm looking at this image. Let's see. First, my bias. My bias is definitely in favor of something that's not in the code yet, and that is dealing with solar panels. I live in a neighborhood near some good friends of mine who had a real tussle. They finally figured out a way how to hide them, and they're totally happy with it now. And I said, "Well, do you want to write a book about your... I mean, write a little essay about how successful it was, this wonderful procedure?" And but they're very good friends. And they're saying, you know, you're right. Everything is working just fine. We were able to hide it. Now, this is a different situation. And from the image that I'm looking at, it looks very distinctively different. And Board Member Cherry asked a question that I was wondering about: what is the color of these? Because in order to... it seems to me if I were in your boots, I'd have to figure out a way to make an exception for something that I think is a good idea. But it is definitely going to be showing on this rather important and marvelous building. So, is there the technology for putting something on a roof that will match the roof and still absorb the sun? I don't know. Board Member Cherry, you might have some experience with that. I think that would help me. I think it would help you all also if you're debating about an exception. But it looks very dramatic to me. So that's a tussle. I'd love to hear a response about that at some point. Anyway, Nice try. Okay, there's no one else. Is there anyone on Zoom? Hope they're all in bed. Board members, if you have no further questions or comments, you do have a question. Member Ba. I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. In case number 202511459 HDRB at 912 Don Gaspar Avenue, I move to approve the application as submitted, noting that the exception criteria are met, that the use of solar is encouraged in this district. In the case of pitched wood roofs, the requirement is to integrate the collector into the pitch. We have approved solar collectors on pitched roofs in this district before, I think on the same street. So I move to approve. Is there a second? I'll second and just make the comment that I do think I appreciate staff's concerns very much because I do think this is a problem that needs to be constantly thought about. But in this particular case, the fact that the solar collectors are not on the front facade of the roof is extremely important to me because I think that the placement of them will minimize their public visibility as much as could be hoped for in this particular case. So for that reason, I'm in favor. Member DNA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to say that I think we're all very sympathetic to the issue at hand, and most of us probably appreciate the idea that solar power can help us get through life. I think there's an awful lot of them, and they're large, and they're not particularly attractive. But we do not have a clear policy, I believe, about solar panels in the district. Do we have a set policy that says they can or they cannot be visible or... Member DNET, I'm sorry that this happened. It was not the recommendation of the legislator, this application. The applicant has taken every step to really feel those solar panels, including stepping them back from the street. So, we do have code criteria relating to solar panels. I'd have to double-check on Gaspar. Sometimes it's very specifically brought out in the code addressing solar, but generally, as long as the status of the building is maintained and also incorporate solar panels at this... Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So, Member B, you made the motion, and Member Bean, if there's no further discussion, roll call, please. Member Denon. Yes. Member Benu. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Bishide. Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. Next case is at 320 P de Pal. Oh no, that's postponed. Apologies. It's 433 C la. That's your case. Waiting for the president. Okay. So, this is case 2025 111328 HDRB for 433 KY. They came before the board several months ago. And we statused the buildings and determined primary facades. This is the main residence. This is the primary facade, excluding the portal and the small single light window to the right of the door. And then the setback addition that's there is also excluded from this facade. The casita is non-contributing due to date and age. And then the garage is contributing with this as the primary facade at the front. Our little facade diagram there for you. The applicant is now doing their remodel. They're requesting to replace windows and doors. They have asked for the exception to Section 14-5.2D5A1 to replace them on a primary facade. Sorry. Window assessment is provided there, too. Sorry, I'm getting a little tired. The window assessment states that windows B, H, and J are historic. However, there are signs of water penetration underneath the seals of the windows, causing structural integrity damage to the adobe. The windows would need to be removed to properly flash the openings to stop the water penetration. The window jams are the buck in the openings. Removal of the window would destroy the jam and cause the historic window to be non-reusable and non-restorable. So, that's H and J that are on the front, on that primary facade. Additional work on the primary, on the residence, is going to include replacing viga and beams on the north portal with identical viga and beams, installing wood railings to span the side of the existing portal, and install exterior stairs with iron handrails on the north of that portal. And then construct a 210-foot portal to a height of 10 feet 6 inches on the east of the main residence. The portal will have a stucco and wood slat cover. See it here. So you can see that off on the right, on the lower right-hand corner there. These are the elevations. You'll see that on the north facade, this non-primary window has been changed in size, but the other windows are identical to the existing. The existing and proposed east elevation show the north portal, the new portal, and the stairs on the north elevation. The south will appear the same except for the visibility of the new portal on the east elevation. And then the west elevation is the same except for the changes on the north portal. On the casita, the plan is to construct a 148-square-foot portal to a height of 11 feet 7 inches on the west elevation. It'll be a Spanish Pueblo in style with stucco, parapet, square columns, and double or bubbles. They want to replace the windows and doors, all of which are non-historic from 1987 to 2015, and install an overhang on the south elevation. You can see the overhang on the lower portion of the right-hand photo there. These are the elevations. The west side of the casita shows the difference in the size and style of windows and the portal and the overhang on the south elevation. The south elevation will show the western portal and the overhang, but otherwise will appear unchanged. The casita's east elevation will have divided lights rather than single light windows. This elevation is publicly visible on Camino Monzano, and the casita's north elevation will not be altered, though the portal on the west elevation will be visible. For the garage, the work is just going to consist of refinishing the garage vehicle and pedestrian doors. There's no change to the building itself. For exterior alterations on the property, they're going to construct a 5-foot coyote fence on the Monzano side of the casita and a 5-foot high coyote fence on the north property line with a pedestrian gate on the east. Then, they will remove the interior courtyard walkways and install a water fountain. Staff found that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the exception to section 14-5.2D5A1 to replace historic windows on a primary facade. Staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they also comply with sections 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E for downtown and east side historic district design standards. Thank you, Lenny. Any questions for Lenny? No questions. Applicants, come forward. Yes, please state your name and address for the record. Richard Martinez, PO Box 925, Santa Fe. Thank you, Richard. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in regards to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. He has been sworn, Madam. Mr. Martinez, what do you have to tell us at this late hour? Well, I have to tell you that the neighbors that were coming in support of our project could not stay until this time, so they left. But we have the support of the neighbors. I want to just say that before I forget. When you went into this, behind the wall of this house, I'm sure it felt very special because it is like the traditional layouts, houses where the buildings hug the property lines and the garden, the open space sits in the middle. And we're trying to really highlight that area in the middle right now. It just consists of little pathways and mulch and things like that. One of the things that we're doing is we're building a portal on the guesthouse, the casita, that faces into this courtyard. We're redoing the portal that is the main building on the main house that defines the entrance of the house. We're making stairways off of that portal into the garden, into this courtyard area, which it doesn't have right now. And I think that it's going to make this courtyard much, much more special in this house. We are replacing some of the windows, and two of those windows happen to be on the primary facade of the main house. If Lanni had just read a little bit more, the report says if the windows and doors are replaced, they must be matched to the historic requirements and like and kind to the existing openings. We're doing exactly that. We're actually going to put wood windows that are painted in those openings with the exact layouts of light patterns on those windows. I'm sorry, not doors, because we're not replacing the front door. We're keeping the front door. We're going to refinish it. On the main facade, we're actually making the one non-historic window, sort of out of place. We're going to make it like the other historic window so that it feels more in place in the house. And the portal off of the kitchen on the main house is intended to provide some outdoor space that would be for outdoor dining or for barbecuing, things like that, and enjoying the backyard. We are also putting a fence, a coyote fence, on the Monzano side of the house, where the casita is, to... there's a little wire fence sort of in the weeds right now. And then we're on the side of the house, on the far side of the garage, we're also putting a coyote fence along the top. That's at five feet. I'm sorry. Is that at five feet? Five feet. Yes. Any other questions for Richard? No questions. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this project? I'm here. I'm going to stay to the very end. So, I'd like to make a comment. I love what they're doing here, and I'm not sure that everything is followed to the exact dot that is supposed to be perfect. I honestly haven't really followed it closely. And I'm not a neighbor, but I am a neighbor in a way because I live in Santa Fe. I love what they're doing. So, that's, I'm very positive about it. Thank you. Anybody else? Nobody else. I'm going to take it. No one on the line. Yes. I will entertain a motion. Board members, pop up to the... I'll make a motion. Chair. Yeah. So, in case 2025011328 HDRB 433, I would make a motion to approve everything with the exception of the replacement of Windows J and H. And I make that based on the criteria that I'm hearing regarding the reason for replacement. I think I just don't agree with, and I know a window assessor assessed this and has a different opinion than I do. However, I just, I just see the criteria of the window not being flashed, creating a degradation problem as, well, two things. I see that as, I believe that's inaccurate because with that logic, then the window would have been leaking since the beginning because there's never been any flashing there since the beginning and wouldn't have worked since the beginning, which clearly isn't true because the building's been standing there for a long period of time. So, I just, I guess I have a, the other thing, looking at those windows to me, looking at the photos of those windows from the interior and looking at them today from the exterior, they look very repairable to me. So, that would be my motion. And you're not talking, you're not including the fixed glass window? No, that's... Okay. Just including, yeah, the two, correct, the two double hungs. Okay. Is there a second to Member Cherry's motion? I'll second the motion. Did you second it? And no further comments. Roll call vote, please. Member Benil. I will make a comment. I'm going to vote no, even though I very much appreciate Member Cherry's rationale, and I think there's a lot to be said for it, but we only have this one report from Ray Patterson that we're sort of stuck with, which puts me in a bind in my own mind. So, that's all I'll say right now, but I'd like to follow up on that after this case is heard. Member Bishade. No. Member Cherry. Yes. Member DGEN. Yes. There is a tie, Madam Chair. Okay, that means that I have to break the tie. Oh, this is my favorite time. This is a difficult one because I do appreciate Member Cherry's assessment. He's been around for a long time, and I think he's probably right. And on the other hand, we have another person that made an assessment that's saying we want to replace these windows in kind. And I don't know. I think that the board needs to have something in place that is consistent for all applicants when they come forward, that they know what they are dealing with. And I think that I have a feeling that's what member wants to move on. So, I'm going to move with the with the yes people. The motion has passed. In other words, yes, I'm moving to replace the windows in kind. So, that would be a no. Actually, the way the motion was phrased. Okay. Oh, you were yeses and these were no. Sorry. I vote in... it's late, people. I vote with no, but to replace the windows in kind. Yeah. Well, as I understand it, we have no motion. If the motion... I don't know it. There's a motion on motion. Because the motion failed, we'll need another motion. Postpone or motion. In case number 2025011328 HDRB at 433 Hay Pause, I move to approve the application as submitted, noting the exception request have been met. Second with the same comment of concern that I'll address. Roll call vote. Member DGEN. Yes. Member Benu. Yes. Member Bishide. Yes. Member Cherry. No. The motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. So, if I could, if I may. Can you do it on matters from the... Sure. Absolutely. Do another matters from the board, I think. No, we already finished that. So, but we'll do it later. We got to move on to the next case, which is at 1020 Camino Sanakasio. Madam Chair, members of the board, members of the public, thank you for being here. In case number, these the PowerPoints coming up, case number 2025011419 HDRB for 120 Camino Sanakasio. Camino Sanakasio is a single-family residence located. It is designated as non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district and designated as non-contributing. The Santa Fe County tax parcel map records the property as being built on a 0.14 acre lot in 1992 and comprised of 1,75 square feet of roofed area. The property was constructed in the Spanish Pueblo Revival design style as seen by the flat roof, rounded parapets, and divided light windows. The applicant is proposing new construction of a 740-foot detached garage to a height of 14 feet 6 inches, where the maximum allowable is 15 feet 10 inches, in the Spanish Pueblo Revival architectural design style. Here, where you see the brown van and the box truck, is the location of the proposed detached garage. Here's a tax parcel map. Here's the development of the area in time from 1966. Mr. Murphy provided a detailed historic assessment of the property. Here we have the 1973 aerial photograph of Camino Sanakasio and the subject property. Here we have the lot 2A where the 1020 Camino Sanakasio is now located. And here is the buildout from 2001. Here is the current location of the residence and the location of the detached garage along Camino Sanakasio on the northern end. Here we have where that car is located, the proposed detached garage footprint, and then here we have the proposed site plan. Here on the site plan on the northern side of the property facing Camino Sanakasio, here we have the floor plan. The proposed floor plan showing the buildout of the detached garage. Here we have the north and east elevations showing three windows along Camino Sanakasio and carriage doors on the east elevation and the west elevation showing the detached from 1020, the main residence. Here are the stucco colors, already cementitious ceramic beige, and the paint color of the trim will be Sherwin Williams white for the windows. With that being said, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E, downtown and east side design standard. Thank you. Paul. Questions for Paul. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul, are the dimensions of the garage typical? It seems quite tall and long. The maximum allowable is 15 feet 10 inches. The proposed is 14 feet 6 inches. It is linear and long, and how they were able to design it on that streetscape is abnormal, but I don't know. I mean, it meets the code. Is the floor plan entirely a garage, or is there something in the back? I believe there might be a workshop back there as well because there's a door that allows you access to the back. Thank you. Do you know the interior ceiling height? Madam Chair, I do not. Okay, I'll ask the applicant. Applicant, please come forward. Hello, sir, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Henry Aila, County Road 109, House number eight. Mr. Aila, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? Thank you, sir. Good evening. What do you have to add to what was just said? There's not too much more to add. It's a simple garage. The ceiling height, there are two heights. One of them, as you can see, about halfway, there's a little jog, and that ceiling height is 8 feet. The higher ceiling height is 12 feet. The reason that we made it so high is because the owner is putting in a car lift in there because he wants a car lift. Oh, okay. Where you drive in, lift the car, and then somebody can park underneath because they want to be able to put two cars in there because, as you know, on that street, there's not much parking anywhere. Oh, interesting. He's got a small Triumph that he's going to be using the car lift to lift up, and he has an SUV that will park under it. Any other questions for the applicant? Nope. Anyone here wanting to talk about this? Nope. Everybody's asleep on Zoom, I take it. No answers. Right. A motion, please. I'll make a motion. Mr. Cherry, please pass. So, in case 2025011419 HDRB 1020 Camino Santa Casio, I would move to approve as submitted. Do we hear a second? I will second that. I'll vote. Please. Can we have some discussion? Sorry. I just need to say, I think this is right along Santa Cassia, which is a dirt road with very small, for the most part, houses with no garages. I think it's very unusual to have a garage paralleling the street, especially one of this height and long dimension. I think we need to think carefully about that. I don't know if there's another place on the property that a garage could be put. I'm guessing no, that's why it's sort of squeezed in in front of the house. But this is very atypical for this streetscape, and I do not think it fits at all. I think in regard to discussing that, being at the site today, having the garage door not face the street, I think helps mitigate what you're bringing up. That helps, but I mean, the problem is the garage itself. It's not something that we see on that streetscape in general. It was definitely not part of the original neighborhood. Yeah, I think the house was built in the 90s, so it certainly wasn't part of the original neighborhood either. Yeah. Any other comments? I have the same comment. I'm concerned about, yeah, the height is what really bothers me. It was an interesting explanation, not one I would have guessed. But I do think we have authority over proportion. And, you know, even if something's within what's the allowable height, that's not always the only question because I think we also address proper proportionality. And, you know, every once in a while, we get these super high, small buildings that are clearly not proportioned according to anything that you would see anywhere else in the streetscape of these older neighborhoods. I'm thinking of one on Surorder Road, and I know we there are a few others scattered around. And I don't know typically why people need such high garages, but that's, I guess I do know in this particular case. But, you know, seeing the story poles there today did strike me that on this extremely rural country road that is San Aio, it will dominate that section of the streetscape. So, I'd also have concerns. Yes. Can I add some to that because I'm looking at the... Sorry, that's all right. I was going to ask the applicant, have you entertained, or has the owner entertained, an idea of putting it elsewhere? There's no more, there's no place on the lot. There's a house that goes to the back, and there's the driveway that takes them to the back, and there's just no other place to put a garage. That's the only place they could put one. And part of the reason that it looks so high is because it sits up off the road. I mean, even from the road, the finished floor level of the garage is still going to be pretty high. It just gives it a visually higher, especially when you see the story posts. I mean, they look like they're way up there, but you're also down on the street, which is a lot lower. Could it be lowered to the street height? I doubt it because then that's going to start, we're going to be getting down so low, and it's so close to the house that it's going to start interrupting the foundation of the house. It could compromise it. What member Cherry is professing, can you elaborate on what you both are talking about? Well, I understand the concept, but why can't that work? Well, it would depend on, you'd have to do some discovery work and figure out what the foundation was like at the location where they want to build that. So, I think that's undeterminable right now unless they dug down, but or they knew, but it sounds like they don't know exactly what the foundation condition is there. So, that's what I interpret. We did do some investigation on the house foundation, and it's only like 24 inches lower, and it's not really a traditional foundation type. It's one of those just rocks and put the concrete in there. You flattened it out, and that's just the old style rock style foundation. Isn't the house built in the 90s? I believe so. So that wouldn't be typical of like a rubble trench foundation era. So, I don't know. Bottom line is, yeah, you could probably do it. I think there'd be an increased expense in like retaining the wall that is, you know, you're going to reduce the height of the soil adjacent to the house, and so then you'd have to, you'd have to address that with retaining. Would you want to rethink your motion, or do you want to go forward with it? No, I'd go forward with it. I mean, what I was about to say to member Benvvenu is, you know, I agree with the scale of the building. It's not proportionally perfect. However, up against this already existing pretty tall building, like if you look at the north elevation, you know, it steps down quite a bit from the building that's there. So there is a sense of stepping up to the existing structure that is occurring in what's being proposed. Well, I would add to that just to observe that... Roll call vote, please. Member Bishide. No. Member Benu. No. Member DGEN. Yes. Member Terry. Yes. There is a tie, Madam Chair. They love me. In this instance, I'm going to vote yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you. Next case is on Camino Santiago, and I see the applicant is here, kind of sleepy but still here. Lanny or somebody. No. Okay. So, this is case 2025 111325 HDRB for 119 Camino Santiago for remodel. Camino Santiago is in the Plaza del Monte compound. I'm going to kind of skip some of this. Sorry. So, this particular house is actually located between the Arroyo de las Mascaras, that one at the rear of it, and then the street itself. So, their backyard wall, back behind their backyard wall, is actually a walking path for the Arroyo. So, they have public visibility on both sides is the point of that. The house is listed as contributing with this east elevation as the primary facade because of the way the facades were designated back in 2019. Staff has interpreted this east facade as including everything, the portal, everything along the wall, and the interior of the carport as part of that primary facade along with the south elevation. So, this is the house here. They're looking at doing a pretty major remodel, including the replacement of windows and doors. The, there's a kitchen door underneath this elevation of the carport. They want to enclose that. And at the back of the carport, they're going to put in a small addition for storage. It's on the wrong page. And that enclosure is, I didn't put the square footage. Sorry. Thank you. 64. I knew it was small. They did request an exception to section 14-5.2D2D for enclosure underneath the portal. So, it's like an addition. They're going to construct a freestanding Latia post fence with pedestrian gate underneath the portal, and they've requested an exception to section 14-5.2D5B for installing a fencing gate on the primary facade. In the rear of the building, which shows down here on the right, is that, or tall cover for a lack of better terminology. They would like to remove that and construct in its place an actual portal. The portal would include vigas, beams, and corbels and will be constructed to a height of 9 feet 8 inches. Let's see. I'm going to do this easy way. I'm not sure I am. The demolition, they would like to demolish this low yard wall out in the front of the house and replace it with a 4 foot 6 yard wall that comes further down into the yard, so they have a larger yard area. And construct a rear and side 6 foot high coyote fence with pedestrian gate. Re-roof the residence in TPO tan and stucco and cementitious buckskin with white under the portal. They will be retaining the texture of that stucco. See if I can show the rest of these photos for you. This is our facade diagram. One and four happen to be the primary facades here. And then this is their window schedule. So, per the window assessment, windows A, B, C, E, and F are all historic. The units are from Anderson from 1964. He states that the tracks and special locks are no longer manufactured. The units would need to be replaced to function. Trying to show you the pictures. So, staff finds that the exception criteria to section 14-5.2D581 have been met and recommends approval of the exception for replacing the historic windows and doors. Staff finds that the exception criteria to section 14-5.2D5B have not been met and recommends denial of the exception for altering the portal of a primary facade. And then staff finds the exception to section 14-5.2D2D have been met and recommends approval of the exception for the enclosure under the carport, and otherwise staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application that do not require exceptions as they comply with sections 14-5.2D to the general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E downtown and east side historic district design standards. Thank you, Lenny. Could you repeat, sorry, what you are indicating that you are not agreeing with, and was it one thing that you are not agreeing with or more than one? That was the denial of the Henson gate on the primary facade. And that's it. That was it. Yes. And how tall is that gate? 3 feet 6 inches. You're denying a 3 foot 6 inch gate and a fence. It's a fence and gate combination in order to close off the carport from the main portion of the portal. Okay, thank you. Any other questions, member? All right, thank you. Is that connected to the yard wall fence, or is that a... No, it would be inside the portal. Inside the... The yard wall will come around and terminate before the actual portal. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Lonnie. Mr. Padilla. Do you solemnly declare and affirm? Oh, I'm sorry. Please state your name and address for the record. John Padilla, PO Box 22986, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Mr. Padilla, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. He has been sworn. Good very late evening to everyone, Madam Chair, members of the board. Would you like... Okay. So, there's a couple of things that I'd like to do is just make very clear that 119 Camino Santiago in the development, as the others, were single-family units purchased by my owner for their residence. My owner is tending to live in this residence, to utilize this residence for his growing family. One of the reasons why we are adding the items that we are proposing was to allow him to continue to reside in the historic district, specifically at 119 Camino Santiago. One of the things that I'd like to point out is in the diagram that you have before you on the screen, when this was designated in 2019, case 2019, the facade, primary facade, is identified as number one. Very specific tick marks on number one on the north end and the south end. And then number four is a primary facade, also solid wall, no fenestrations in it at all, and it is again on that tick mark that goes from the east to the west. So the comment of the primary facade that was made, that it actually bends where the primary facade goes around the portile into the carport and then back to the south wall, I think that's highly unusual because typically when the primary facades are designated, it's specific numbers. This wasn't designed that way. So what are designated that way? So we are taking exception to the fact that the wall does turn, the primary facade does turn. What we would like to do also is take exception to the denial that has been put before you this evening for a fence that, let me see if I can get to it. So, the carport is on the left. There's a double column that exists on the leading edge of the portal where it carries the beam spanning across the carport there. We're not building out or enclosing the carport. The carport will remain the area, easier to see there. So if you can, the elevation on the right is our proposed plan. Oh, I got the cursor. Yeah. So the gate that we're proposing is right there. The yard wall that we're proposing out here is for my owner to be able to utilize that courtyard with his family and the children and the two small dogs that they have. The wall is proposed with the gate underneath the portal where the cursor is showing right there. It's a small three... The depth of the portal is approximately five feet. What we would do is create a fence with a gate that is four feet so that you have six inches off of the primary facade, six inches off the historic VGA column that's there. So, it would not engage any of the elements of the primary facade. It would stand free and it's utilized to be able to prevent either the dogs or the children to be able to go in and exit through the carport out onto the driveway and then into the street. So, we take an exception to that. The other items that we are proposing, the additional storage units or storage closets under the carport, are there because, as we've stated in previous cases, in this development built in the 60s, very minimal storage area allowed in each or provided for in each one of these. So for my client to be able to utilize this residence for his growing family, we need additional storage area to be able to convert some of the interior spaces into live habitable area, rather than closets and so forth. We want to move them to the outside to be able to give us some secure storage area. So the carport, it's at the very back of the carport. So, as you're standing on the street, on the sidewalk in front of my client's residence, you will still read the depth of the carport, you will actually see cars parked in there. So, we're not changing, effectively changing the appearance of the carport. We're foreshortening it by about five feet. So, that storage area is something that's desperately needed in this residence. So what we are taking exception on or with is the fact of the denial for this small pedestrian gate that is a metal gate with latas that would be the exterior facade of the gate. So we'd ask for you to consider that, allow my client to actually be able to utilize the house with peace of mind and so forth when the dogs and the kids are out in front, to be able to allow them to utilize that area. The rest of the improvements are pretty simple. The old lean-to covering that created a portal in the back is being removed. We're actually creating a more Santa Fe style, a more Pueblo style back portal so that they actually have a true covered area so that they can utilize that backyard. So with that, Madam Chair, members of the board, I'll stand for questions. Thank you, John. Any questions for Mr. Padilla? Yes, member DNA. Pardon me. Mine would be more for Ms. Lully. Lonnie, you indicated that staff was in support of this application with the exception of the gate and the fence. Can you tell me why that is? Was it the materials, or what is it the style? What is it height? I mean, what was it? It had more to do with how the exception criteria were approached. Okay. I just have a quick comment in reference to this compound. I think there's a lot of kind of funky houses there, some that are not very attractive. And now driving through that compound today, we're noticing that people are buying those buildings and doing the best that they can to make them attractive. And I think that's what's happening in this particular case. And I personally, he's in reference to that little gate and the fence, he's not proposing to attach it to the house or on either side. I personally, and it's really what height did you say? Three foot. Six. Thirty-six. Thirty-two inches. Wow. Really low. I personally don't see a problem with that. But... I don't vote unless you guys make me. Madam Chair, Madeline would have made you. Any other comments or member? So is the small gate that we're discussing on the portal attached to, or not attached, but is it in line with the yard wall, or what is it just freestanding on the portal and there's you could go around it? No, no, the yard wall, it's up there. Well, the yard wall comes around and it stops short of the VGA column so that we will trim the landscape back. That yard wall will... I see. Yeah. Short of the landscape EGA column. It'll be the new fence will be short of the inside underneath the portal to the wall. It'll stand free. It won't engage either primary facade or column. Yeah, I appreciate that detail. However, with this compound, I think it was clearly designed as a communal space. The outdoor areas were shared. None of the houses have walls, and I think we've talked about this before with other projects you've had in this in the same area. Enclosing the front yard really changes the nature of the compound, which is a has beautiful landscaping. And so I'm, I would not, I'm not in favor of fencing off the front yard, even though I understand the reasons and those are very valid. It just doesn't fit the streetscape in this case. Well, Madame Chair, member Beachside, the development of the property, I'll share with you the developers, what they go back to and look at as we look at improving it and improving the properties that they continue to own at this time. They look at Plaza Chamisal as a benchmark, understanding that that is a true designated compound, and there's things that are in Plaza Chamisal that we cannot do. These are individual lots, as you mentioned, member Beachside. It was a community that was of the Presbyterian Church where retirees were living and so forth. These are now individual lots where people are taking ownership of them. And as you saw going through today, it's matured, it's developed, and it'll continue to develop because that is the intent of the developer as they go in there, knowing that when people buy it, they'll want to personalize it for their own use. As I said, this is my client's residence. They will live there and they will utilize it for their family. So, one of the things that we have that we have to do is to make sure we secure that front yard for the children to play in. He does have small children, so we want to make sure and secure that area so they just don't wander off. So, understanding the idea of a compound, it's not designated as a compound, but it's the idea that they're using to maintain. And we're very, they're being very restrictive with their own development guidelines within the within the development to assure that it doesn't just happen willy-nilly, that it's actually done to keep a theme, a rhythm, a design element all the way through every renovation that comes before the association because it's an association that controls that area. They're very restrictive on what they allow to happen. Thank you. Member Cherry. Yeah, I guess the first thing I'd like to say is I appreciate what you're saying, Rember Beach, because what I would observe happening in situations like this is like what I would call like the fencification of a community like this where one house at a time just gets fenced in and kind of walled in, and then it's so, so I totally appreciate what you're bringing up. Another thing I'm curious, is there a site proposed in an existing site plan? Because my understanding from what we were told today is this front yard wall doesn't run all the way to the street, that there's an easement there for sewer or drainage or something. And so that plan you had up, maybe a little misleading from a site standpoint, just to give you a scale of like how far out that wall comes comparative to the street, I think would be relevant. So the street in the plan there. The street is at this point here. And now the street, as you see, has been improved with sidewalks, roll-up curbs and so forth to each one of the properties. This is a sewer easement that was developed because the developers actually redid all the wastewater lines and created new, our neighbor to the north is 117. We had to get that sewer line out to the new connection. So there is an easement that comes right across the property, member Cherry, right here, and it goes to the street and connects here. So we cannot go beyond that point right there. So we are, we are not close to the close to the street because we are, we are held back by the location of the easement, sanitary sewer. Well, there's still a good breadth of wall of space, the yard between, excuse me, between a yard between the wall and our curb. Thanks, John. What's the height of the proposed wall? Six where we're at with the yard wall. Now, I will say it bumps up in this elevation at the gate. It bumps up 6 inches to 5 feet to be able to give us a designation of the gate with a pilaster on the side, understanding that they did not want to close off, even though the elevation makes it look that way. But it's only 4'6" tall, allowing the street view to be able to see in and still see the primary facade. Any other questions or comments? If not, oh, did anyone make a motion? Not yet. Do I hear about Shimley or? Oh, I think I didn't even ask for public comment. Public comment. **Speaker:** There's a public person there. **Speaker:** Oh, yes. We do have one member of the public on Zoom, Dominic Cerna. **Speaker:** Okay. **Speaker:** Please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. **Dominic Cerna:** Hi, Dominic Cerna, 119 Camino Santiago. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? **Speaker:** I do. **Speaker:** Thank you. **Dominic Cerna:** I, thank you so much for staying so late. We really appreciate you hearing our case. It's been pushed back twice. I'm the owner of 119 Camino Santiago, and my wife and I would be there tonight if it wasn't so late. Thank you for hearing us. Just a mention on this courtyard wall. We are trying to just create a nice courtyard entrance, not necessarily wall off the entire property at the perimeter. And it's a pretty, you know, pretty set back pretty far from the streetscape. Additionally, the little gate that we're talking about that would not touch the primary facade or the post is just to keep in our two dogs and children. And we just are trying to make this house livable with a little bit of storage. If you guys have driven through the Plaza Delition, you've seen that most of those houses in there have carports, and underneath the carports have some kind of little storage room. And that's where we kind of got the idea to add a little bit of storage on the interior of that carport so that the house could become functional for us and for our family. **Speaker:** Thank you very much for your comments. Anybody else? **Speaker:** Okay. Board members, I will entertain a motion. There's four of you. **Speaker:** I'll make a motion. I actually appreciate very much the comments that were made about the yard wall. But I actually don't have a problem with it. I think that it makes these little houses much more livable. And we are in a different era than when these were built for a certain clientele that I just don't think it's as workable for a young family. I know when I had young kids, I needed fencing around the yard when it was out on the street so that they, you know, had some protection against that. And this wall is low, and I think it almost actually makes the building more attractive because it's not a particularly attractive building to begin with. So, you know, I'm in favor of, I guess this is somewhat setting a precedent that all of these unwalled, if we passed it, it would set a precedent that all of these unwalled little houses would start to have little walls around them. But I think compared to what we typically worry about with walls when they're very tall and right up against the street so that it blocks off everything from a pedestrian's point of view is not the case here because it's set back and because it's low. So with that, I would move in case number 2025011325 HDRB119 Camino Santiago to find that the exception criteria have been met and approve the application. **Speaker:** I hear a second. **Speaker:** Second. The motion is that the exception criteria have been met and that the application be approved as submitted. **Speaker:** All right. Do we need to state for the record why the exception criteria have been met since staff recommended? **Speaker:** For the reasons set forth by the applicant. **Speaker:** Is anyone seconding to this motion? **Speaker:** We did. **Speaker:** I did. Chair, member Shar. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** Okay. Roll call vote, please. **Speaker:** No. Member Bish. **Speaker:** No. Member Benu. Member Degen. **Speaker:** Yes. Member Cherry. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** The motion has passed. **Speaker:** Thank you, Mr. Padilla. **Speaker:** Thank you so much. Good night. **Speaker:** Good night. And last case this evening. Is there a motion to postpone this last case? Just kidding, folks. It's located at, there's always time for humor. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** This is located at 527. Okay. So, this is case 2025 011549 HDRB for 527 Agua Fria Street, units 1, 2, and 3 for a status review. So, this is located over by De Vargas Street. So, this is a 30,000 square foot multi-family residence on a 0.418 acre lot. It was constructed between 1908 and 1912. While the GIS map shows the residence as significant to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District, the HCPI from 1997 states that the HickP was not adopted and there's no case for status on the property since then. If the property was not reviewed for status in 1997 or since, the property would be listed as contributing as it was before 1997. Therefore, the residence is coming forward for clarification of status. Now, according to the 1989-97 HCPI, the residence has been listed on the National Register since 1997 and as a contributing resource to the Guadalupe neighborhood in the National Register of Historic Places nomination of the district in 1999. The accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the lot is listed as non-contributing, but is not subject to this case. According to the 2025 HCPI, the structure is located on a 1908 Sanborn fire insurance map and is not listed on the state register or the National Register. Per the 1997 HCPI, the residence is constructed in a Mediterranean style architecture with thick stucco plastered walls, red tiled roofs, and ornate archways with large symmetrical facades designed for warmth and indoor-outdoor living. The 2025 HCPI calls this a New Mexico vernacular style. Otherwise, the descriptions of the existing residents are the same. However, there are differences in the history of the structures construction. The roof is a red metal tile roof with gables of various heights, gable horns, and exposed rafters. The roof heights vary with the lowest at 7 feet 10 inches and the highest at just under 20 feet. According to the 1997 Hickpi, the roof was changed to the existing tile roof in 1920 to 1925. Now, according to the 2025 HCPI, I quote, "The original roof was a flat roof with drainage to the north. At some point, a gabled roof was added, raising the elevations of the residence. It is not evident if this was a clay tile roof, but it now has a metal roof, simulating a tile roof. The cross gable roof is offset. The lower metal roofs covering the front porches and side and back editions have a combination of metal tile and standing seam. The roof over the garage and connector is a low slope standing seam metal roof." End quote. The walls are concrete and stucco in light tan. Most windows are eight-light window casements in pairs and trios and a few picture windows. The doors are wood with the front south door being curved to match the curve in the portal. The south portal has a gable roof with a round arched opening. The southeast corner portal has a shed roof and stucco piers. The yard wall along the street is low stucco with a wood pedestrian gate and the rear fencing is a 6-foot high plank wood fence. According to the 1997 HCPI, the structure has had few alterations since its construction in 1912. The roof was changed in 1920 to 1925. The diamond vents had glass installed behind them at an unknown time. The previous garage was connected to the main structure with an addition which is understood to be the 1984 northeast edition under case H84343. Though the file is no longer available for verification. However, it does show in the 1998 Sanborn map provided in the 2025 HCPI. The roof was approved to be replaced in 2024. According to the 2025 HCPI, I quote, "The original house was built sometime before 1908. An addition was constructed at the rear of the house, northeast side, sometime after 1908 and before 1913. A much larger addition was constructed on the west side of the house sometime after 1913 and before 1921. The new southwest corner of the house is constructed of adobe. A covered front porch was added at the southeast corner of the house. Another large addition was added to the back of the house, possibly an enclosed back porch with a lower roof. A separate garage was added to the west and access to a cellar on the east side of the house sometime after 1921, but before 1930. It is estimated that the double gable roof was added after 1930 and a small restroom addition was added at the top of the cellar stair on the northeast corner of the house." End quote. While the HCPIs do not match, they do both conclude that the residence is listed in the Santa Fe Historic District State Register from September 29th of 1972, state register number 260, and to the National Register from July 23rd, 1973, National Register number 730001150, and is a contributing structure to the Westside Guadalupe Historic Listing and the additions to the structure are all historic, save the connection between the garage and residence. The maps do not provide proof of a flat or pitched roof, but if the roof began as a flat roof, it was historically altered to a pitched roof. Mrs. CW Dudro is listed as the owner of the property on the 1912 Kings Mount. The 1985 HCPI shows the residence was purchased by AC Cook in 1912 from the Dudro estate. AC Cook or a Cook family member is listed as the owner of the property from 1928 through 1964. Mrs. Dora Dunakin, a nurse, was associated with the property from 1944 through 1951. No further information on these residents is provided in the HCPIs. Staff researched both CW Dudro and AC Cook to determine their contributions to the city of Santa Fe. Charles W. Dudro came to Santa Fe between 1869 and 1872 and was involved in the lumber, coal, and transfer business in Santa Fe. He was part owner with his wife's father of the Dudro and Bare Ice Transfer and Livery in 1881. The business was located near the train depot and Our Lady of Guadalupe Church and was part of the beginning of the development of the area. The Dudro Warehouse became the Santa Fe Builder Supply Company, also known as the San Bus in 1916 and is now the New Mexico School for the Arts and Sciences. Dudro is buried in the Fairview Cemetery. Found that Adolf Christian Cook who died in 1939 resided in Santa Fe with his wife Alice Broch Cook who died in 1982 at the age of 106 and their son Ferdinand Adolf Cook. Both are buried in Fairview Cemetery. Ferdinand Cook was a prominent figure in Santa Fe's history, active in the dry cleaning business, land sales, including the Santa Fe Ski Basin and various civic associations.