Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Feb 25, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/579 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board addressed several key issues, including concerns about the completeness of meeting minutes and the interpretation of voting procedures. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the Executive Office Building project, with public commenters expressing confusion and frustration over its restart and the need for a clear legal process. The Board also discussed the Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards and updates on various grants. Two specific cases were reviewed: 512 Acequia Street, concerning window replacements in a significant historic building, which was approved unanimously after clarification on materials and the 30% replacement threshold; and 1010 Camino Santa Casio, involving a remodel and addition to a contributing property. The latter case was postponed for redesign due to board concerns about the massing and potential for creating a "false sense of development." Finally, the Board denied an application for unauthorized alterations at 216 Old Santa Fe Trail, citing non-compliance with design standards and the negative impact on the historic district, and appointed a new Vice Chair and Review Committee. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda with amendments (case number correction and meeting date change). - Approved the January 14th, 2025 and February 11th, 2025 minutes. - Approved three sets of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (September 10th, October 8th, November 26th, 2024). - Approved the application for window replacement at 512 Acequia Street (Case 2025-9784 HDRB). - Postponed the remodel and addition project at 1010 Camino Santa Casio (Case 2025-9916) for redesign to March 25th. - Denied the application for unauthorized alterations at 216 Old Santa Fe Trail (Case 2024-8628 HDRB). - Appointed John Benvenu as the new Vice Chair. - Appointed Chair Rios, Vice Chair Anon, Member Digman, and Member B to the Review Committee. == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Agenda — Passed (4-0) - Approval of January 14th, 2025 Minutes — Passed (4-0) - Approval of February 11th, 2025 Minutes (with amendment) — Passed (4-0) - Approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (September 10th, October 8th, November 26th, 2024) — Passed (4-0) - Motion to approve the application for window replacement at 512 Acequia Street (Case 2025-9784 HDRB) — Passed unanimously (4-0) - Motion to postpone the project for 1010 Camino Santa Casio (Case 2025-9916) for a redesign to March 25th — Passed unanimously (4-0) - Motion to deny the application for 216 Old Santa Fe Trail (Case 2024-8628 HDRB), adopting staff's findings and requesting staff to pursue enforcement to return the property to the 2016 approved condition — Passed unanimously (4-0) - Motion to adjourn — Passed unanimously (4-0) == Public Comment == Public commenters raised concerns about the completeness of meeting minutes, the interpretation of "majority vote" for board decisions, and the lack of clarity regarding the restart of the Executive Office Building project. Specific concerns were voiced about the legality of 2-1 votes and the need for a clear, written explanation of the legal process for the Executive Office Building project. For the 512 Acequia Street case, a commenter supported allowing storm and screen windows. For 216 Old Santa Fe Trail, a commenter advocated for adhering to the previously approved 2016 design, emphasizing divided lights and opposing the black awning. == Topics == - Meeting Minutes Accuracy - Voting Majority Interpretation - Unauthorized Construction Penalties - Historic District Violations - Appeals Process - Conditional Project Approval - Staffing and Resources - Board Leadership Appointments - Agenda Amendments == Full Transcript == IT: Can you please let us know when we're streaming on the YouTube channel? Thank you. We are live. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. Today is February 25th, 2025. May we have a roll call, please? Chair: Madam Chair Rios. Rios: Here. Chair: Member Aguilar Medrano. Medrano: Here. Chair: Member Benavidez. Benavidez: Here. Chair: Member Dagnan. Dagnan: Here. Chair: Member Beede. Beede: Here. Chair: You have a quorum, Chair. Rios: Thank you very much. Any changes to tonight's agenda? Staff: Yes, Madam Chair. We don't have any additional changes. I just wanted to highlight a few of the amendments that were made to the agenda. On item 9B, we did have to correct the case number, so that the current case number as it reads, 2025-12. We did change our next meeting from March 11th to March 25th. So I just want to highlight those changes for you and the public. Rios: Thank you very much. Next, we have minutes, two sets of minutes. We have January 14th, 2025. Before we go into the minutes, I have a statement to make. As I was reading them, I thought that we, this board, had decided that the minutes were going to include discussions, whatever members of this board said. So, in my opinion, these are not complete minutes. I would like to hear from other board members. We have, they're very black and white. Staff presented findings and recommendations. Board had a discussion. There was public comment. Staff: I'm sorry, I wanted to interrupt. I'm sorry to interrupt. I wanted two things. We didn't actually approve the agenda, so I want to make sure that we do make a motion and approve the agenda on item number three. And then I'm happy to address the minutes as well after discussion. Rios: Pardon me. I guess I had that on my mind, the thing about the minutes. So, is there a motion to approve the agenda? Member: Move. Member: And is there a second? Member: I'll make a second. Rios: Roll call, please. Staff: Roll call vote. Member Beede. Beede: Yes. Staff: Member Benavidez. Benavidez: Yes. Staff: Member Aguilar Medrano. Medrano: Yes. Staff: Member Dagnan. Dagnan: Yes. Staff: Motion has passed. Rios: Thank you very much. Maggie, did you have something in reference to the minutes? Staff: Yes, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to add, we can discuss a little bit more, but yes, the minutes for January 14th and February 11th are a little abridged. I'm not aware of the agreement that you had to make all the, you know, kind of more of a transcript type of minutes, but we did lose our stenographer several months ago. I don't know if you're aware, but Melissa Byers is no longer with us. And so that service has not been replaced. And the Land Use Department staff is now responsible for producing minutes within the 10-day deadline under the Open Meetings Act. And so, my direction is to produce minutes that are, I believe, in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, but are not transcripts of the meetings that took place. And so we focused on accounting for the motions that were produced, and I believe we accurately accounted for those, the votes, and those basic kind of functions of the board. And we will do our best to produce as kind of detailed an accounting of the meeting. We also do have the YouTube videos that are available, and folks, I think, can request transcripts of those if there's, if need be. So I don't know if you, I think, until we, until we can fully train staff, first of all, on these new requirements and that we're being responsible for, and find time within our staff schedules with other work that they have been, that they're responsible for, including IA, including casework, that we can meet the needs of the board and the public. This is kind of the minutes as they will be presented. Staff: If I may add, today we had the opportunity to meet with Nicole and our team to discuss minutes, and we're trying to come up with ways to help support each other in this endeavor. And we talked about the components of the minutes. So, in order to comply with Open Meetings Act, to get the minutes out, we are following the minimum requirements during this transition. So, we do have some ideas on how we can be timely, but also include the things that you would like. So, more to come as we proceed forward with this. Rios: Right. Thank you for that explanation. I'm also thinking about if a case is appealed to the City Council and then maybe even to the District Court, that they have to have a detailed transcript of what has gone on in a particular case. So, and I'm sure that that could be produced even if you're, this is non-detailed, correct? Staff: Madam Chair, that is correct. And we will continue to endeavor. The minutes, fortunately, in the past, we've been able to be more detailed. But the good thing we have now is the ability to pick up a transcript off of Zoom. And we're also looking at some AI options to transcribe minutes while we're meeting. That would require better sound systems and the like, but we're looking at several options. Rios: Thank you. Thank you, Maggie, and thank you. Anybody else needing or wanting to comment in reference to this? Member: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the explanations. I'm, you know, we've gone back and forth on this. We did at one point a couple years ago, I think, may have been as much as, we were getting minutes that started looking like this, and we had a lot of pushback from the board about that. And we've found some kind of a happy medium. I think I hope we can go back to that, but I completely understand the situation you're in right now. I do think these are compliant with the law, and you have to comply with deadlines. So, under the circumstances, I think that's fine. But I would like to see us go back, if at all possible, to, I wouldn't call them fully detailed minutes. I think there's a danger of going too extreme in that direction, because those start to look like they're verbatim, and they're not. Someone is still making judgment calls, so I think that's a dangerous path to go down as well. But some kind of summary that the board, excuse me, can review and then make changes if desired before approving them, just so that there's a full record. And I agree with Chair Rios that to me, the most important reason for that, well, two. One is for appeals, and the other is for the public and an applicant that wants to find out down the road why it was that a certain action was taken, so that they can try to understand what might be taken in their case. So, just my comments for those comments. Rios: Anyone else? And I definitely was not suggesting that they be verbatim. We have in the past had verbatim, and it's because someone needed to have those for an appeal. Anyway, okay, I think we've discussed that enough, and thanks, staff. So, we do have the minutes of January 14th, 2025. Changes to these minutes? Member: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll take the opportunity. I'll just have one, a couple changes in one sentence on the, oh, actually, are we only on January 14th, or are we on both? I miss, are we only on January 14th, or are we on both sets of minutes? Rios: No, we're on January. Member: Okay, sorry. No, nothing on January. Rios: Anyone? So, do I hear a motion to approve as submitted? Member: Second. Rios: Roll call, please. Staff: Roll call vote. Member Beede. Beede: Yes. Staff: Member Benavidez. Benavidez: Yes. Staff: Member Aguilar Medrano. Medrano: Yes. Staff: Member Dagnan. Dagnan: Yes. Staff: Motion has passed. Rios: Thank you. We have minutes of February 11th, 2025. Member Benavidez, you have changes? Benavidez: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So, on page five of seven, under, let's just see here, under F, the third full paragraph, the last sentence at the end reads, "appropriately set back the corners of the facade." That is, I would ask that be changed to "setback" being two words, "set back," add the word "from" before "the corners of the facade," and change the word "that" to "as." So, it reads, "appropriately set back from the corners of the facade as is required." That's all I have. Rios: Anyone else? Do I hear a motion to approve as just amended? Member: So moved. Member: Second. Rios: Roll call, please. Staff: Member Benavidez. Benavidez: Yes. Staff: Member Aguilar Medrano. Medrano: Yes. Staff: Member Dagnan. Dagnan: Yes. Staff: Member Beede. Beede: Yes. Staff: The motion has passed. Rios: Thank you very much. Under findings of fact and conclusions of law, we have three. And we have one from September 10th, 2024, one from October 8th, 2024, and one from November 26th, 2024. Changes to any of these? Anyone? It appears not. Do I hear a motion to approve? Member: Move to approve. Member: Dagnan seconds. Rios: Roll call vote, please. Staff: Member Dagnan. Dagnan: Yes. Staff: Member Aguilar Medrano. Medrano: Yes. Staff: Member Benavidez. Benavidez: Yes. Staff: Member Beede. Beede: Yes. Staff: The motion has passed. Rios: Thank you very much. Matters from the public. Anyone in this room wishing to come forward and state anything that's on your mind regarding, whatever might be on your mind regarding each board? Stephanie Benavidez: Stephanie Benavidez. I am really disturbed by this minute thing that you've just brought up, the minutes, because what you get is pretty useless. And you just approved minutes from a month ago, not 10 days ago. So I don't even know how that actually complies with the law. And it would seem to me that at least the Land Use Department could give a link or do a transcript actually from Zoom, because you can actually do an immediate transcript as the meeting's going, and they'd have the transcript, and they can just attach the transcript to the minutes. You're done. And you don't have to have somebody, a stenographer, going through it and doing that. And again, it's been months, and this whole thing of months and months is getting a little boring to hear about at every level of the city. The other thing I wanted to talk about again is Resolution 2009-20, which has to do with voting by majority. And recently, you had a case in which there was a guesthouse. The applicant came in to build, and they wanted it in basically mid-century modern. I can't remember exactly, I'm sorry, I don't remember the address, whether it was Lorenzo Road, Saguaro, or Alameda. But the argument made by Ms. Beede was that you approved the main house in mid-century modern, therefore there was precedent, and you basically had to approve the guesthouse. However, I bet if you went back and looked at that meeting for the original house, you would find it was a 2-1 vote. And that is an improper vote and should not have set precedent. Let me again read to you what the law actually says, not in putting words into the law, because you're not supposed to do that as a lawyer, and Mr. Benavidez should be able to confirm this. You don't add words to a law if they're not necessary. So what it says, "Manner of voting: A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum." So you have to have four people sitting here to constitute a quorum. "Each member, saluting the chair, shall have one vote." It explains when the chair can vote. "When a quorum is present at any meeting," which would mean at least four people, "the vote of the majority of a majority of members present shall decide any question." "Vote of a majority present." These are the important words. It's a vote, a singular vote, by the majority. Two is not a majority of four. You cannot ignore the fact that you need four people sitting in this room to actually take a vote. And a majority of four is three. I think we're all clear that two is half of four, but it's not a majority. And it doesn't say "the votes of the majority," "the votes of a majority of the voting members." It says, "a vote of the majority of members." That means everybody who's sitting here. For you, you have to have three. So if that was approved, or any other case was approved with a 2-1 vote, these are actually improper votes. And I think it's important because then you set precedent by two people, and you also make decisions that could be fairly controversial that also are only by two people out of a seven-person board. And this is something the City Council, as a home rule city, has decided that they want. It is a policy issue. You're not supposed to be deciding something with only two people. At a minimum, three people should be deciding, because generally, if you had the full board here, you would have four people at least deciding. I just bring this to your attention because again, I think that you've been improperly voting and you've been poorly advised. Thank you. Someone else is coming forward. Hello, Madam Chair, board members. My name is John Eddie. I appreciate the remarks of the previous speaker, and I think the voting thing actually seems pretty clear, and to kind of mess with that opens up the road to appeals, and we don't want to do that. Anyway, that's your deal. I wanted to speak a little bit about a presentation that was made at the last meeting for the Executive Office Building by Jenkins Gabin. I had a couple of questions about that, and maybe I should ask my questions first. Is there a plan to reconvene a collaborative committee as we did before, which was requested by the state? Yes, there is. Okay. All right. Now, we don't have a date yet, correct? Heather: We don't have a date for a meeting with the consultant. No, not as of yet. We just determined the committee members, and so I'm going to be communicating that to Jennifer, the applicant's representative. Okay, so the committee has been chosen. Yes, the Historic Districts Review Board, which is distinct from the one that is triggered by disagreement between the two entities, and that board last summer or something. So are you saying that the process going forward will only include the Historic Districts Review Board? It will not include interested parties such as the last did to investigate that. But at this point, this is prior to the decision. It's incumbent on the board members to have a collaborative relationship. I would encourage the applicant to have another community meeting, which happened last time. So the details haven't been worked on quite yet, but I will encourage the applicant to have substantial public outreach, and I think that is mentioned in the capital outlay project. That's my understanding. Excuse me, John, were you not a member of the public that was participating in that process? Yes. Don't know if who is the person that should appoint him. I think he's a valuable member of the public that should continue serving, and if it's me, I would like to indicate this evening that I would like John to continue serving as a member of the public on that review board. Do you accept that, John? And is that okay, Heather? That committee that was formed for the disagreement between the state and the city was done for a different process. Right now, we're in that beginning process where the H board is considering, is going to be considering the Executive Office Building. So he would serve as a member of the public if he were to represent the HDB's interests, which I'm not. I would have to do some more research to see who could be appointed. Well, I would think he would just be a member of the public. That's correct. I mean, he could attend, but he would be a recognized member of the public. I mean, when we started the process that never evolved, we had quite a number of members from the public that were there, that were at the meeting, that were going to speak, and I suppose if he doesn't become an official member, he can always be a member of the public that lets his voice know, just like any other member of the public at that meeting, I would think. I know there are a lot of members of the public interested in this process that I will be in touch with as we proceed what the steps are. Let's be in touch. I don't want to give you the impression I'm trying to put myself forward here because I'm not. I would be interested, but I'm a little confused at the process here because it seems to me that we had a process which was driven by some decisions made at the time when that collaborative group came together, and I thought the idea was that we were to go back to a drawing board and continue our discussions. To date, that has not happened, and I find that a little concerning. It seems like we're resetting the clock completely, and maybe that's, maybe legally that's what we're supposed to do, is just say, "Okay, that never was happening. We're starting from scratch here." That's the message I'm getting. Okay. The other message I've gotten from looking at the YouTube from the meeting was that the previous decisions that the board made to preserve the Casitas has been ignored again. So are they bringing the project from the beginning to the H board, and we're starting all over again, and the H board is going to have to rule on whether or not the Casitas are to be preserved? They're starting from scratch. So the demolition requests are gone away. Those cases are closed, and we're starting at the beginning. The site plan that was presented by Miss Jenkins last time was not recommended to be presented because of the concerns that already had been raised, and those concerns can help to inform this process, but we are in a new... No, clear as mud. So, question. So is the Review Committee going to go forward, or is the process of the H board addressing the Casitas going to go prior to the Review Committee? So, this is at this point addressing the entire project. So previously, they had pulled out the Casitas and only processed that they wanted us to see it in isolation for the demolition of the Casitas, and there were a lot of objections to that, and so they have started over, and the Casitas will be part of this entire discussion, including the construction, what's going to be constructed. So that is one big package now. But regarding the demolition or the possible, regarding the demolition of the Casitas, that has still got to come before this board. Yes, that will be part of the entire review. Casitas as well as... John, are you clear or not really clear as you are, Madam Chair? Yes, we're starting from scratch. Does that include the Kacha or Pino building since we're starting from scratch? I would think so. Correct. Everything. Everything. Okay. Okay, thank you. Anything else, Mr. Eddie? No, I wish I had something else, but I'll be around. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anyone else in this audience wishing to come forward this evening to tell us a joke or something pleasant? Okay. Yes, Mr. Benvenue. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple comments on comments from the public. I think it's essential at this stage that we have something laid out in writing as to exactly what process we're undertaking at this point. I think it's very difficult to say how what we're talking about doing fits into the procedure that's set forth in the statute and in the ordinance. I also find it hard to imagine how we can, I mean, we've already ruled on the demolition. I mean, that that's legally a done deal. So the idea that just because the state decided, excuse me, I've got something in my throat, the state decided they didn't want to go through with that previous process, I don't think that undoes anything that the board already did, unless they appealed it and stayed it somehow, which I was not aware of. Perhaps they did. So that strikes me that, you know, that I'm not saying the board couldn't revisit that, I guess, on a motion for reconsideration under that procedure, but it would have to be done that way. But more importantly, I just don't know where we're at in terms of the process that's laid out and that was painstakingly agreed to between the state and the city for how to deal with capital outlay projects. You know, it talks about before the design phase even commences, the board and the state are supposed to be talking about designs. How does that fit in where we're at? I mean, the design phase is already clearly advanced to a 99% completion point. So that's not clear to me. There's procedures in the ordinance for the public to be involved. That depends on what point in the process we're at. And it is a different, as Mr. Rios is pointing out, it's a different type of public participation what we were doing or what we were expecting to do when there was a committee formed under the ordinance and the statute that was aborted. So it just is, I think, for the public's sake, for the state's sake, and for the board's sake, we all need to know exactly what procedure we're following here. I still have a very difficult time understanding how we can even talk about design without knowing whether the buildings are going to be demolished. I mean, I've said that from day one. It's always been my position, and I continue to think that that, you know, that that's the, it has to be a two-step process, but apparently we've leaped over that first phase and we're talking about designing a building that presupposes the demolition of structures that the board has already ruled can't be demolished, which to me makes the whole process of design work not, it's difficult, but perhaps meaningless, unless there was some indication that the board wanted to, was certain to review and change their earlier decision or wanted to take that action first so that that was no longer in effect and it would be reviewed as you were saying from scratch. So I think we're in a very convoluted place right now that needs clarification. Mr. Rios, Mr. Benvenue, be happy to detail, provide a detailed explanation in a memo at the next board meeting so we have the steps, what needs to happen when. And you are correct with reference to the decisions you made regarding the Casitas. That has not gone away. You denied their request. Unfortunately, city code is such that there's no time limit with the exception for rezoning requests in which they can't reapply, you know, for a request. So that they can reapply if they want to. But yes, certainly your action as to denial is still in effect. Right. So anyway, I just think we need a clear legal understanding of where we're at because we have both a statute and an ordinance that set forth the procedure that we need to follow. We need to know that we're actually following the letter of that procedure, otherwise this whole thing is, I mean, we have a controversy no matter what. There are people that are not going to be happy no matter what comes out of this, and we better be clear that we're following the appropriate procedure. The city should be clear on that because someone's going to contest the procedure. It's guaranteed. Mr. Rubid and I will work together for you next. I can tell you, Madam Chair and Member Benvenue, the way I read the whole process is that there are certain timelines that followed that when the state is in a particular phase of the process, certain things have to follow within a specific time period after that. Well, once that time period is breached, it seems to me to be a disservice to the public to pick it up from a point that happened months ago or a year ago and say, "Oh, we're here now," because I believe that there's a specific reason why those things have to take place in a particular sequence and within a particular time. So what I've heard Miss Lamboy tell me when we've discussed this just in general terms is that the process needs to start over again, and my reading of that statute is that she is correct. The process needs to start over. Okay, of course, if we're already in a sense unable to start it over because the design phase is already virtually completed, and we're supposed to process before that even begins. So in essence, we can't really start over, at least the way that the state is presenting this to us. So I'm just pointing that out too, that that's a complicating factor in this. Now, Chair, Member Benvenue, the committee members can point that out that this does not, this design does not represent or will not represent what agreement that you come to because they're supposed to be starting as well with the design with a clean slate, and that you do not, you're not obligated to consider that well-laid-out design. You know, you're supposed to start from the beginning and what... are the different components of the site? How do you want to see the site developed? What are the, what's the program for the building and the square footages that are required? I asked Miss Jenkins to provide that so that there can be potentially design alternatives that are considered. Parking garage, you know, if there's, are planning underground parking, but is there another way that they can accommodate parking so that they could have less space taken up by all those things? All those things are at play in the opinion of staff. Okay, I think we're saying that we're at a point, maybe to come back to Mr. Eddie's questions, we're at a point in the process, it's as if nothing had happened yet, even though it has. And we're supposed to be doing this initial design consultation that's mandated as if they haven't already done design. And after that, and they're supposed to solicit public comment at this point in time. And after all of that, the board is supposed to have a meeting to solicit additional public. And then we proceed to potentially, I think that there's still needs, we, all of that needs to be done all over again, if I'm not mistaken. And with all that being said, the board's decision still stands, right? Right. Somehow that would have to be reversed unless, unless they come up with a plan that does not require Casitas. Just a question for staff. So the board's previous actions, which were to designate the buildings on the site and then to rule against the demolition of the Casitas, were those separate case numbers that you're saying are now closed? And this new process is under a new case number. Is this the technicality that kind of separates those actions? And which of them, I guess, will be asked to rule, supposedly rule again on the demolition when this new case comes to us formally and we could make a different decision then? Is that what I understand? Member B, the individual Casitas were ruled on individually and they each had their own case numbers. So if this were to come back to the board, no formal application has been made as of yet because we haven't had that collaboration yet. But once a formal application is made after the collaboration, after getting interaction or getting input from the public, then at that point we'll get a formal application and be able to assign case numbers. And in that scenario, once again, we would do individual case numbers for all the Casitas. A case number because demolition for the, since we're at the beginning again, demolition for the Con Pino building would have to be considered. And so that would be a separate case number. And then another case number for the new construction. Does there need to be a motion for reconsideration in order to undo those original decisions by the board? Here's member B. I think a motion for reconsideration is time-limited. So, but they can submit a new application. So you do not, you're not able to reconsider your decision at this point. And Madam Chair and member B, if they submitted a reapplication for demolition, I think we would have to then consider whether or not principles of res judicata, meaning that something's already been decided, we're not going to consider it again. And but I can also see if they redraw, and I'm thinking out loud here, if they, if they give us a different design to fulfill the element of the demolition criteria regarding whether the essential part of unique street section will be reestablished by a proposed structure, that may be a different question than what was decided before and res judicata wouldn't apply. So all these are things we probably have to research, but that's, that's the way I see it. Feasibly they could, but they can't just come back with the same thing they came, they presented previously and expect a different decision. They might be able to, if I'm just thinking out loud too, but I'm, I could imagine a scenario, and I think this is exactly the decision they're going to take, is that was just a set of drawings that we couldn't commit to because they were just conceptual. And now I think what they want to do is say, now we're going to come back to you with a firm set of full-blown drawings that we actually do want to build there exactly like this. And that, that would be the difference between the way they're presenting it the second time versus the first time. Because one of the demolition criteria is what is going to, what if anything is going to take the place of the demolished buildings? And the board had concerns, they didn't know. Now I think what they're saying is they're going to answer that question, defend it in the next go. Then, then, then we have to decide whether they're bound by the previous decision or they get another, another bite at the apple. Enough thoughts on that. I think we shall see. I think, member D. Yes, member D. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm confused, and I would like not to be that way. I'm familiar with this case, although I was not on the board at the time. Are we saying that their only avenue of appeal is to resubmit it to us? I really need to know that. Isn't there an avenue of appeal from us to say the council? Oh, Madam Chair and member Dagnon, they had an avenue of appeal to appeal the Historic District Review Board's decision to the governing body. And they did not pursue that. That was never pursued. They, pardon me, they, what? They did not pursue an appeal to the governing body because any decision the Historic District Review Board makes can be appealed and they can get a de novo or a brand new hearing. Well, thank you. But body, they all they have to do is come back to us and say, we didn't like what you did, so we want to do it again. Well, and that's, Madam Chair and member Degnan, if something called res judicata, meaning things already been decided once, we're not going to hear the thing all over again. You know, it's a thing decided as res judicata. And it's the same proposal as they presented previously. I believe res judicata would control and we could tell them, sorry, you don't, you don't just get a rehearing on, on the other hand, one of the demolition criteria, whether the structure for which demolition is requested is an essential part of a unique street section and whether that street section or block will be reestablished by a proposed structure. So feasibly, if they bring us a different structure than what they proposed previously, and then the board has to consider whether this will, this is something different than what was proposed previously and has to be considered again. I can also see where one of the, one of the criteria for demolition is the state of repair and structural stability of the structure under consideration. Somebody could come before the board with a structure that's not in a bad state of disrepair and then come back to the board a year later and say, look at all the deterioration that's happened. And the board would have to consider that again. So I guess just to put it all generally, they can't just get a hearing on the same facts, but if the facts are different, then feasibly they could, they could petition for, for another hearing. It'd be a new case. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Rub, very much. But I, I think I want to just ask, add one little piece to that then. So it's my understanding then that the way that case went down, they were granted some permissions and they were denied the demolition of the Casitas. And so do I hear you say that they could come back, even though that has been an outright denial of that application for demolition, that piece of the case, they could come back and say, well, we have another plan that involves those Casitas. Can they do that? We've already said you can't demolish the Casitas. If I'm sorry, if I'm belaboring this, I don't mean to, I'm just trying to understand. Well, yeah, and it's, I'm, and I don't want, Madam Chair and member Dagnan, I don't want to pin ourselves to a particular position because we don't know what's being represented. But what I'm saying is just generally, once a certain set of facts is pitched, depending on the tribunal, depending on the, if it's a court or a land use board or board or something like that, school board, you can't just go back with the same proposal and get a second hearing after it was decided the first time. If they come back with a new proposal, then we will have to decide at that time whether a new hearing is, it's required. So for example, if these, if they can demonstrate that they can fulfill these criteria for demolition that are found under Santa Fe City Code Section 14-3.14, if they come back with some new facts that justify a different decision from the board, feasibly they could. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Thank you. Member D, are you clear on that? Okay. Okay. Member B. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just the second point I wanted to address was the several comments from the public on the voting procedures. And I certainly do not want to enter the debate or take my, you know, set forth my own position on that. But I just want to be maybe clarified because this has come up so many times, as a dispute, that at least to explain what I understand the city attorney's position to be and why two-one votes are taken by this board. Whether you agree with that or not, it's the city attorney's position is the interpretation of the language in the procedures that require majority vote. The states, the vote of a majority of the members present shall decide any questions, is interpreted to mean not a majority of the voters decide it, but a majority of those present. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. I'm not even taking a position. I'm explaining so you can at least address the appropriate standard that's being adopted by the city. I'm sorry, I'll finish what I'm saying. And so it's, in the case where there are four members present, chair being a non-voting member, the city attorney's view is that a majority of four is three. So as long as three members vote, then that is, that complies with the procedures and a majority of those voting members decides the question. That's the city attorney's position. Doesn't matter whether you agree or not. You, you need to at least, I, I just want the, please, you are out of order, my dear. It, it's just important for the public to understand the city attorney's position so that they can address that with the city attorney if they so desire. And Madam Chair and member B, I, I appreciate the way you've articulated that, member B, because that is at least part of the basis of our conclusion. And I, and I know it seems counterintuitive if you have four people present and two people vote to approve, you can say, well, that's not a majority. But New Mexico law and Robert's Rules of Order and the specific language of that code read the way they read as member B recited that. But Robert's Rules, and I'm reading from Section 44, colon one, the basic requirement for approval of an action or choice by a deliberative assembly, except where a rule provides otherwise, is a majority vote. The word majority means more than half. And when the term majority vote is used without qualification, as in the case of the basic requirement, it means more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or extensions, at a regularly properly called meeting. And I'm reading that verbatim from Robert's Rules of Order 44, colon one. 44, colon nine reads, voting requirements based on the number of members present, a majority of those present, two-thirds of those present, et cetera, are generally undesirable since an extension in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote. Those bases deny members the right to maintain a neutral position by abstaining. So now I have to admit that Robert's Rules of Order are not law, except where a board resolution says we'll follow Robert's Rules of Order, which generally our resolutions do. But New Mexico law, which is what really controls, and I'm citing a case called McCormack versus Hobbs Municipal School Dis. district, and I can give Miss Benavidez the citation to that case if she wants to look it up. Similar situation by a local school board where there were six board members present, and the board voted three to two, with the chair being required to abstain, as with the Historic District Review Board here in the City of Santa Fe, not to review a teacher's contract. The board had not specifically adopted any rules of procedure, but the Supreme Court upheld the vote, citing Robert's Rules and parliamentary law encyclopedia from Corpus Juris Secundum, which is a legal encyclopedia, and writing, and I quote from that opinion, "Where a quorum is present, a proposition is carried by a majority of the votes cast, although some of the members present refused to vote." So in that case, the fact that there were six board members, the argument would be, if we follow Miss Benavidez's logic, that three would not pass that motion. But according to the New Mexico Supreme Court, you do not count an abstention as a member present, and three votes with a board of six members where the chair is not permitted to vote is a majority. So we have researched this over and over and over again. We've researched this many times, and I swear I've articulated these principles before this board many times, and I have seen nothing that would make us change our position at this time. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we have discussed two things that were of importance to this board, and I don't know how clear we are in reference to either one of them, but we are going to go forward with this meeting. Do we have anything under staff communications, Amanda? Amanda: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. I would like to advise everyone that 2025 Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards are going to be taking place on May 15th, Thursday, not now in 2025. I've put in your packets the application forms for any nominations. So we are asking for full board support as always. As many nominations as you can make, the better. Also, members of the public, we'd love to hear from you. Our parameters are 2022 to 2024 for completed construction, finalization of the project. So March 31st is the deadline for nomination, and we will present to the board for the choosing of the selections on April 8th. I stand for questions. Thank you, Amanda. I don't know if they have questions, but any questions, board members? No questions. Thank you, Amanda. Thank you. And there's two other things, and who will be addressing those? That will be Nicole Ramirez Thomas. Nicole: Madam Chair and board members, so hello. I have happy things to tell you about, so hopefully you'll enjoy the next 15, 20 minutes. I wanted to give an update on the grants that HPD has been, has taken and is striving for. So the first one is, we had a 2023-24 CLG Grant that closed in the fall, and that was for Historic Santa Fe Foundation to do an app, a walking tour based on Santa Fe. And so that isn't complete, but I'm going to, can you help us make sure that Nicole's presentation is shared on the screen? Just a video showing. And so for the sake of time, wait, it comes out, and if not, we'll just email you the link. The current grant is the 2024-2025 DLG Grant, and that was for Historic Santa Fe Foundation as well, for the Endangered Properties Program. And I believe that Melanie McWhorter presented last year and kind of informed. No, okay, let me show you this really quick, and then I'll tell you more about it. And there's no sound on this, it's just a walkthrough. So it's in English and Spanish, and this is the primary menu. These are the app, you can toggle between two screens with that. And then languages as well. There will be information about the City of Santa Fe and supporting this. This is what the map will look like, and what they've done is kind of grouped properties that are in the neighborhood with each other so that it's easy for somebody to, you know, Can you speak right into that mic? I think that many people in this audience aren't able to hear you. Nicole: Oh, sure. Yeah. So it's grouped so that people can do like a walking tour of a certain part of like the Canyon Road and Camino del Monte Sol. And it lists all the properties within that area, and it's color-coded so people can choose all of it. So that's the status of that project. And when it's complete, we'll present that to you. The Endangered Properties Program was a collaboration primarily between the Historic Santa Fe Foundation and Habitat for Humanity, but it's run into several roadblocks, including the fact that the valuation of the property after the work is done needs to be under $300,000, which is virtually impossible in downtown because the properties in downtown are worth that with a very dilapidated house on them already. So that's one of the roadblocks. The other thing is finding trust between the people that are being engaged and the Historic Santa Fe Foundation. People don't want to give their financial information. They don't want to participate in the preservation process and those types of things. So right now, the grant will be closed out at the end of May, and we're working on seeing if there's any remedy. But overall, it's interesting. There's a lot of interesting information in the final report. It should be interesting. But I'm not sure that it'll work as a program unless it has like pretty significant retooling, which would require HUD requirements to be different and then New Mexico Finance Authority to adjust their timeline and things like that. So that's the status of that project. Last week, we put in a new CLG Grant application for what we're calling the Santa Fe Acequias project. And specifically, the grant is to do oral histories for people associated with the acequias. And so then we'll do another grant application that's due March 18th for the Cultural Properties Grant Fund, and that will be to also support the acequias project with a bigger amount of money and more broadly than just the oral histories. I think this microphone's going in and out. Okay, so tell me again if you can't hear something. So that is where we're at with the grants. And then the next presentation is on, you all quite some time ago, almost three years ago now, approved the design for the rehab of the bus hub that's right here on Sheridan Avenue. That project, the funding lapsed in July, and so it's on hold indefinitely. And it may be that the city just ends up paying for the project rather than taking federal funds for it. And so we'll see how that goes forward. Right now, it's shut down because of the O'Keeffe work, and I'm not sure how long the street's anticipated to be shut down. But in going through the Section 106 process, New Mexico, the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division requested that a streetscape study be done for Sheridan Avenue. So the purpose of the study was because there's planned improvements to the transit hub, and it's changing the existing design. That bus stop was established in 1995, and it hasn't changed since, as people knew before. Now it's, now it's been removed. And there wasn't any, there wasn't any federal funds tied to that when it was done, so it didn't go through this same process that it was going through last year. So Section 106 review was required because there was a grant from the Federal Highways Administration that was administered through the Federal Transit Administration. And then and HPD, because Sheridan Avenue is located in the Santa Fe Historic District National Register and State Registered District, they considered Sheridan Avenue to be a contributing structure, and so they wanted to evaluate it to see if there's visual or architectural impacts to the street itself that are adverse, and if there was any adverse effect to adjacent properties that are contributing to the district. So ultimately, what was conducted was an evaluation of the integrity, and the integrity of a property is evaluated by how it's able to convey its significance. So if you think about, for a very lofty example, the Palace of the Governors, that's able to convey its significance, you know, over time in Santa Fe, and has an important location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, a feeling, and an association. So we looked at that for Sheridan Avenue. This is the criteria that we're kind of evaluating. This is in case anybody doesn't know where Sheridan Avenue is, this is the project location. And it was Mid Street, Palace Avenue, West Palace Avenue to Mid Street, West Marcy Street all the way down Sheridan. And then when you're doing a Section 106 review, you have to establish an area of potential effect. And so this is the APE, and it was determined that it was Grant Avenue, Marcy Street, and then because of the visual, potential visual impacts, that first row of buildings along West Avenue on the south side and Lincoln Avenue. And the questions that we were working to address is, what is the historic integrity of Sheridan Avenue? What does Sheridan Avenue, or how does Sheridan Avenue contribute to the Santa Fe Historic District, and is it a significant structure? And what are the direct and indirect effects of the project on this potentially significant structure in the historic district? And this was the existing conditions until August or September of Sheridan Avenue. This map shows the boundaries of the Santa Fe Historic District. It's quite a large district, and it has a number of neighborhoods associated with it. There was a 1990s update that hasn't been adopted, but it does have description of the neighborhoods, and the state does lean on it to kind of perform these types of evaluations of what's going on. And so what they asked us to do was to look at the US Territorial period, starting in 1846 to 1973 for the period of significance. And in order to kind of create some foundation for kind of for how to look at this, the neighborhood was defined. So this is the Fort Marcy neighborhood for the unadopted 1992 update to the 1972 National Register form. And so this is the defined neighborhood, and its period of significance is really greater than what the state was asking for because it was the seat of the Spanish government, this block, and where we think the Presidio was, and it was the seat of the Mexican government, and then the US Territorial government, and then part of the United States. So it's a pretty, we're in that block right now, and it's pretty interesting. And then the city in the 1970s, in preparing for the ordinance in part, performed its own studies. And so in 1996, there was a Marcy Street Townscape in the Santa Fe Historic Structures and Townscape Study that kind of took away the triangle and defined this Marcy Townscape as this area. And one of the things that came out of looking at some of the old documents was that there's a block form. There's tall buildings, but they're human scale, tree-lined, small front yards, minimal side yards between buildings and things like that. And then this is a photo from the Territorial period. This is from 1892, around that time, and it's a parade coming down Lincoln Avenue. You can see the plaza there on the right side. And part of this was historic map research. And the way that we tried to design this was as something that could become kind of a story map. So it tells the story through all the historic maps. And Carly Picarello, you'll remember her, she is a landscape architect, and so she helped with some of these images. This image shows the dotted line is where our APE is, so that's like the project area is, and our area where we're concerned that there's potential impact. And then the highlight red area is vaguely the out. the original Plaza, which was set based on the *Reales Ordenanzas*. I could never say it properly, but it was the royal rule for how Spanish towns were set up. And so Santa Fe follows a lot of that form from the very beginning, as far as we know. There's nothing, there's no documentation pre-Pueblo Revolt. So this is the first map that we have after the Pueblo Revolt showing what Santa Fe looked like. In addition to the Plaza being one and a half times the length of the width, there were to be eight roads: one from each corner, one on each side. You don't quite see that in this map. You do see merchants, like you can see there's some clustering of, there's like a corral there and some merchants. And then you have government buildings, and then you have the church at the far end of the Plaza on a higher plane, like a built-up kind of spot. So Santa Fe does have that, even though our Plaza is reduced now. For a long time, the next map that we have here is the first map of Santa Fe and its environs. It was done immediately as soon as the U.S. Territorial Army arrived in Santa Fe. The day that they arrived, they drew this map. And so you can see that the Plaza was already kind of shrunken in its form. Around the cornfields are barracks, Mexican barracks. And when the U.S. Territorial Army came in, they just took those barracks over and they just occupied that space that was already existing. And you can see where Grant and Catherine kind of split. And again, the dotted line is our AP. And what we're looking for is, when did Sheridan Avenue emerge? When does it become a street? And how did it develop? This is our next map, which was created shortly after the arrival, within a year. And you can see again where the AP is. That stronger line at the bottom of the AP is where Palace Avenue is. And so you start seeing the emergence already of that line. And then you have the Plaza. Then you have the plat of the City of Santa Fe Grant from 1877. And some of the landmarks are again, the Plaza, the Presbyterian Church, and then you have the start of the establishment of what would be the Territorial Government seat, which is now our federal courthouse, because they decided to move things across where the Bataan Building is now. And you have the Gainer map, and you start seeing Marcy Street on one side. Palace Avenue has a pretty strong definition. Grant and they have their names now too. So I'll show you where this is. So this is the bakery, and this is the barracks, old army barracks. And then you have the Stoner map here where you begin to see the, so you have the officer houses here. So this is where the O'Keefe House is located. And this is this thin red line is where Sheridan Avenue would be, but right now it's just kind of the back of a lot. And then around this time, you have another map here, the Hartman map, that kind of shows that there was this path, like a footpath, that went between the officer's quarters, but it didn't quite go through down to Palace Avenue. It stopped at this building, which was the bakery at one time. At this point, it's a steam laundry. And then this is what the Manitou Gallery is now. It was the New Mexican building, but in this map, it's a roller skating rink. And then here's another photo just to show you a perspective. This is the Kit Carson Monument here at the federal. And so we can continue to go, and we see, after the territorial government was dismantled, you still have the remnants of this neoclassical style that they brought. They have the federal oval at the top. You have a large government building. You have a promenade, a tree-lined promenade, that's pretty wide. It's like one of the widest streets in downtown. And we start seeing Sheridan Avenue becoming a road here by 1908. And you still have the officers' quarters established, and you have the barracks building. So we know by 1908 that Sheridan Avenue existed. And this map came out a little funky for some reason. But we see here, 1912, things start to change just a little bit. Sheridan Avenue is wider. It's probably about the width that it is now. Oh my goodness, these got funky. Sorry that these didn't quite work out. So we had these Sanborn Maps, 1921, 1930. You can clearly see Sheridan is here. But one of the things that we wanted to make a point about was that it was always the back of property. It was never the frontage. It was never the front yard of anybody's property. It was always kind of an alley, like we were talking about a little bit earlier. And we have aerial photos kind of showing and demonstrating that even at the point when you have like the Safeway come in and some other items that you, some other buildings, the Sears building, it's still always the back of a building. It's always the back driveway. It's the front. So it doesn't have the same significance as things on Grant Avenue, Palace Avenue, or Lincoln Avenue. And then we also did, Harley did these great little street profiles to kind of show the difference between Sheridan Avenue and the streets in the area that we're comparing it to, which are Lincoln Avenue and Grant Avenue primarily. And so these show, and I know that they're very small, but they show that pretty much every street surrounding is tree-lined and is a little bit broader than what Sheridan Avenue is. So we were able to show with the maps, the historic maps, and the aerial photos, that it started out as a little footpath behind houses, and then it expanded and became a road, and then it was two-way until 1995 when they put in the bus stop. So in terms of evaluating the integrity, we found that with the location, it's in a historic area, but it has a weaker identity than other streets in relation to other, the surrounding streets. In terms of its setting, it was a footpath and then it became a road. The design, it doesn't really have any particular design. Like you wouldn't get onto Sheridan Avenue and say, "Oh, this is territorial." It's very, it's been just updated over time as needed. It's very utilitarian and retains zero historic materials. It doesn't demonstrate any workmanship, and it doesn't give you that feeling of being in a particularly historic place unto itself. And it doesn't have any physical features that would associate it with the historic events that occurred. So the conclusion was that Sheridan Avenue was determined not to retain any integrity as it pertains to the National Register District in the neighborhood. It does not contribute to the Santa Fe Historic District as a significant structure. And there were no direct or indirect effects to the actual road itself that would be compromising or to any of the buildings adjacent to it. And so that was what we presented to CHIPPO, and they concurred. And that's the streetscape study if you ever wanted to know more about Sheridan Avenue. Nicole: Thank you very much for both presentations, for the update on the grants and then this on the Sheridan Avenue, and giving us all the history on the maps and the historical history of this surrounding area. It's, I always find it very fascinating. Yeah, and I hope, I'm sure the people on this board appreciate the presentation. I'm sure the audience does too. Great. And any questions or comments, members? All right. Thank you for your time. Yeah, good to see you all. Take care. And we'll probably see you again in the future, young lady. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move on. We have nothing under old business. And everybody was thinking that this evening was going to be a very short meeting because we only have three cases under new business. And the first case is located at 512 Acequia Street. This is Lanny Case. And Lanny, may we hear from you please? [Opening] Sorry about the delay. So this is Case 2025-9784 HDRB for 512 Acequia Street. 512 Acequia Street is located on the west side of the street, north of El Caminito. The residential building at 512 Acequia Street is an adobe 1,225 square foot single-family residence that was constructed before 1912 in a vernacular style. The building is listed as significant to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The significant status was assigned in 1992 during the early updates to the status map. A 1,490 square foot residential structure approved under Case H06-067 was constructed in 2006-2008 at the rear of the property. This structure is designated as, sorry, is designed in the Spanish Pueblo Revival style. It is considered non-contributing due to age. A stucco 6-foot yard wall was constructed on the north side of the existing building with stained wooden pedestrian gates as part of that 2006-2007 construction. Under Case 2020-2251 HDRB, the homeowner replaced the non-historic doors on the south elevation and the courtyard east elevation, noted as D1 and D3 on the current case, as well as constructed fencing, installed gates, and other minor remodel items, as well as some remodeling on the non-historic structure. The non-contributing rear structure is not a part of this application today. On the site plan, the structure is the right-hand building that is the significant structure and is the subject of this request. See that, or should I move? Okay, sorry. The applicant is proposing the following exterior alterations: to replace windows 2 and 5 on the south elevation, window 6 on the west elevation, and window 7 on the north elevation. They will all be replaced with aluminum clad windows with simulated divided lights in white. An exception is requested to 14-5.2 D 5B to replace historic windows. They will restore windows 1 and 8 on the north elevation, window 3 on the south elevation, and window 4 on the west elevation, and repaint them in white. They will add storm and screen sashes to windows 1, 3, 4, and 8, and stucco again in cementitious buckskin to match the existing color. The window assessment recommends restoring windows 1, 2, 3, and 8 to include repairing the wood, adding balances, and weather stripping. The applicant is requesting the replacement of window 2, which is contrary to the assessment recommendation. The assessment also recommends replacing windows 4, 5, 6, and 7, while restoring door 2 and weatherizing. The applicant is requesting repair of window 4, which is contrary to the assessment recommendation, while replacing 5, 6, and 7 in alignment with the window assessment. Staff finds that the exception criteria have been met. Moreover, staff recommends following the recommendations of the window assessment to replace unit window 4 and repair unit 2. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the application as it complies with 14-5.2D General Design Standards and -5.2E for Downtown and Eastside Design Standards. I provided each of you with a paper copy of this, but this slide is a visual means to show the work requested on each opening with the window assessment recommendation. The yellow are the windows the applicant is requesting to be replaced. The blue, they would like to restore. And the green, they will be adding storm and screen sashes. At the field trip today, we had a question regarding the awnings over the doors. I will point out that these were present in 2007 on the Google Maps and in the 1991 and 1983 HCPI. Staff did not find a case for the approval of the awnings. And the 2020 case did approve some maintenance and painting of the awnings. So that answers what I know for your awnings. I stand for questions. Thank you for your presentation, Lanny. So this is a significant house. That means that all elevations are primary, and that means, does this include all the windows are historic on those primary elevations? Yes. And is the applicant, the windows that are being replaced, is the applicant wanting to replace those in kind? They're going to be wood clad to match the current existing windows? Yes. So any window that is wood is going to remain. any wood, any window that we saw. Some of them are still casements, but they're all going to be wood-clad windows. So there's windows that are still casements, right? Those will be wood, and they're wanting to change the makeup of the wood of what is existing and make those wood. Correct. Correct. Any other questions? Member Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up on that, does that meet the city code for significant buildings to restore or repair windows when possible, and if they have to be replaced, to be replaced in material, size, and style? Yeah, we can, I can pull the section of the code up, but I believe that that's why they had to ask for the exception is because they're not replacing them. Sorry. Yeah, no, that's okay. My understanding is that, just how you read it, that historic windows must be repaired and restored first, and then if that is determined that it can't be, they should be replaced in kind. And so if they're not, if they're, if they can't do those things and they want to replace an aluminum window with a wood window, then we would bring an exception forward to you. Thank you for that. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm hoping to hear from my fellow board members because it's kind of rare that we see significant buildings. I haven't seen that many myself. So I was wondering along the same line of questions, if replacing in kind, I know Lanny mentioned that these would be simulated divided lights. If it's more common for us on a significant structure to ask for true divided lights. And if we aren't going to, Lanny, I'm just curious, have you spoken with the applicant if simulated divided lights are okay pending the board's decisions tonight? Have you talked to them about the muntins being on either side of the glass? Discuss that. Okay, thank you. Questions, Member B. Member B: Thank you, Madam Chair. So yeah, just to follow up, I do think that it's possible that the applicant addressed the exception criteria for not replacing in kind, but I don't think staff did. I think staff's response was only with respect to whether or not they were non-repairable and therefore could be replaced. But I didn't see anything addressing whether it was appropriate from staff's perspective to replace them not in kind, which would also require an exception. So I'd be curious to know what staff's view is on that. I don't think staff realized that they were not replacing in kind. They're all steel windows, I believe, that are being, well, one of them, I think, is, well, I don't know. It's confusing what's being replaced now because it's changed. Reasons we can discuss too, but at least two of them are still, maybe three. Are there four altogether now being requested to be replaced? One of them might be an aluminum slider. Yeah, there are three that are not being requested to be replaced. Anyway, that's an open question to me that we don't have a staff recommendation, I don't believe, as to not replacing. When I did the assessment, I was looking at whether or not they could replace the windows, not whether or not they were in kind. Okay, on my part. And then I guess I am just confused about which exact windows now are being requested to be repaired and which are being requested for replaced. And maybe this could also be clarified with the applicant, but your, the staff report seemed to disagree with the application as being inconsistent with the window assessment in two respects. One was one window, it's been requested to be repaired that you said the window assessment said should be replaced. And then another window was asking to be prepared or rather replaced that used that the window assessment said was. So you address that. Yeah, that's windows two and four. So two, they're looking at replacing even though the recommendation of the assessment was to be repaired. And window four, they were looking at repairing, even though the window assessment stated it should be replaced. So when I'm looking at the window assessment for window two, it has overall condition of poor, which I thought was the definition of replace under his system. Why is that inconsistent with, when you read the summary at the end of the assessment, it says window two should be repaired, not replaced. Says not storm sash, no sash present, recommend replacement. Right, but at the, in their proposal, they're, they're looking at those backwards. I might have them backwards. So window four, they're looking at repairing, but it said to replace it. And then window two, window four actually says overall condition fair. So that should be, I don't see any inconsistency, I guess, as saying with the original proposal and, okay, well, as long as they're going by the assessment, that's what staff is recommending. Okay, I'm just trying to get clear what's actually being requested on what staff section. So maybe we can get some more clarification. That's all I have. Thanks. Any other questions for staff, board members, for Lanny, not at this time. May we hear from the applicants? And Scott, you know the routine, you need to get sworn in, please. Can you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? My name is Scott Cherry. My address is 2351 Fox Road, Suite 800, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in. Evening, Scott. Evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. I think I can clear up the misunderstanding. It was, so I, I can just walk through it real quick, if that's the easiest way to do it. The, and Scott, if I can interrupt, are we talking about a total of eight windows? Yeah, there's a total of eight windows in the structure. Okay. Four windows are being requested to be replaced. So, and four windows are repaired. That's the request. Yes. So, I, I, I think you're correct, Member B. Vu, that that number, window number two, is assessed as poor. So that's really a storm sash that's been stuccoed in place. I don't even know, I would, and I guess you could call it a window, but it's more of a window part that's just stuccoed into the wall at this point. So it's, it's an aluminum storm sash that's stuccoed into the wall. It's, it is operable. It slides halfway, but it's like what you would see on a screen door turned sideways and then stuccoed into the opening. And then if you carry around the building, the color coding is correct for repair and replacement. So, the, the blue windows are the wood windows that are being requested to be repaired. And the yellow windows are window two is that aluminum storm sash. And then the other three windows in the back, I believe it's five, six, and seven, are steel windows that are being requested to be replaced. And they're inoperable. And I believe the condition of those is also poor. So the color coding on window two is correct, but the word store is wrong. Your chart. That's not my chart. Oh, okay. Yeah, so it was handed out. That was, that, that must have been done by staff. I didn't do that. Yeah, that wasn't something that I, that I included in my package. Okay. Yeah, I didn't, I wasn't being aitor. I just get straight what I'm, what is accurate and what is in. Yeah, I'm just trying to get it, it clearly represented. So the windows, so window one, window three, window four, and window eight are all wood, wood windows that are single hung wood windows. And those, those were proposing to restore and add storm sashes and, and screen sashes to the exterior as per what we normally do with those types of windows when we restore them. One, one other thing I, I think I would bring up in regard to the simulated divided light. There was a comment regarding the simulated divided light. And a simulated divided light window does have muntin bars on the interior and the exterior. The difference between the simulated divided light, the true divided light, is there's no grill between, there's no what they call spacer bar between the glass in between them. And simulated divided light is what we've in the past been allowed to use as replacements for these types of steel windows. So they're not, that, that's to be different, differentiated with a window that would have like a grill that's applied, a single sheet of, of glass with a grill that's applied. That's not what's being recommended with simulated divided light. So just to clarify that as well. So the windows that are not wood windows that you want them to become wood windows, those will, are you inventing a pattern for them or are they going to follow the pattern that was of the steel? No, I didn't propose to replace those. Well, they're, they're being proposed to be replaced with aluminum clad wood windows. So that was, that was another thing that was misstated in that original presentation. They're not being proposed to be replaced. The steel windows are not being proposed to be replaced with wood windows. Steel windows are being proposed to be replaced in, in kind in design. So they're going to be the same number of lights in them and the lights are going to be the same exact size. And they're going to be, they're going to have a putty profile on the outside, which is that, that pointed profile of the, of the molding on the outside, which actually mimics the steel window with the puttied in glazing. So they'll look very, very similar, if not identical in, in, in kind in look, but they are a aluminum clad wood window. Other questions, board members? There's not. I will ask, correct. I will ask for public comment. Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this particular project, come forward. Stephanie, you do need to get sworn in. Please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record. Stephanie Benato, P.O. Box 1601, 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 this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. She's been sworn in. Thank you. Thank you. I just ask you to be cautious because it is a significant building and you have allowed changes to significant buildings, including removal of historic materials totally. I understand that that's not the proposal here, but you are somehow equating aluminum clad over wood with steel and that's not really replacement in kind, although the lights and the, you know, it'll look the same. I don't know if that affects the actual contributing status because again, it is that the facades are virtually unchanged. And I don't know if you're removing and replacing windows in this way that that really satisfies that. And I understand the simulated divided light, but I have actually seen in historic zones, and I'm, I'm sure that if Mr. Cherry's doing it that he, what he says will happen, that I have, I've seen recently where the divided light is, you know, you just can pull it away and, and I have saw one that fell off and the owner put it back in a way that you could tell that it wasn't really supposed to be there. I also think that given that they're keeping the historic windows that I assume are single pane for the most part, that I think it's appropriate to allow storm and screens. People do use screens now. When I first came to Santa Fe, there were many homes that never had screens and it's really a problem, especially in September when we have lots of flies. It's nice to be able to open your windows without having to worry about, for example, insects coming into your house in large numbers. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment on this particular project? No one. Anybody on Zoom? Anyone on Zoom? Chair Rios, I do not see any hands raised on the Zoom for public comment. Thank you, Miss Mo. Board members, if you are ready to make a motion, I will entertain that at this time, or if you wish to make some comments or ask questions, this is your time. To do that. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll go ahead and make a motion. Let's see, in case 2025-9784 HDRB at 512 A Street, I move that the application be approved and that windows marked as 2, 5, 6, and 7—and correct me if I'm wrong about this, somebody—that are being requested to be replaced and have been indicated by the window assessment as satisfying the 30% threshold justifying replacement, has been satisfied in this case. And further, that not replacing them in kind, but replacing them as set forth by the applicant, also the exception criteria also met for that for the reasons that one of them is merely a storm sash and could not be replaced in kind. The others are steel windows that are indicated to not necessarily be—well, are not original to the house and are not necessarily consistent with the other wooden windows on this structure and would be difficult to replace in kind. And the substitute that is being proposed would be the nearest and best alternative. Do I hear a second? I second. May we have a roll call vote, please? Member B? Yes. Member Ban Vu? Yes. Member Aguilar Madrono? Yes. Member Dagon? Yes. The motion has been passed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the board. Our next case is located at 1010 Camino Santa Casio, and that is Paul's case. Madam Chair, would you wish for me to wait for Member Bide? Would you wish for me to wait for Madame Bide? Oh, yes, please. Paul, you have the floor now. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you for being here this evening. In case number 2025-9916, 1010 Camino Santa Casio is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District, with the north and west elevations designated as primary. The 2,874 square foot main residential structure was built on a 0.27-acre lot in the early 1960s. The main structure was built in the Spanish Pueblo Revival architectural style, as seen by the adobe and rock foundation construction material, recessed door and windows, and wooden corbel elements. The structure was built by Mr. Louie Ewing, a well-known artist who lived and worked in Santa Fe from 1935 to 1983. Mr. Ewing was most well-known for his photographic work for the Laboratory of Anthropology in 1939. This case came before the board on January 14th, 2025, for a status review. Now, the applicant is proposing their remodel. So here we have the north and west primary facades of the structure. We have the carport, which is a low-hanging roof with a small addition to the rear and the contributing rock wall. Here we have the north and west elevations where we can see the rock wall foundations, the corbel elements, and divided light windows. Here on the eastern elevation, we see the corbel elements in which the board recommended preservation, made a motion for preservation for a stucco CMU wall with divided lights. Here, the south elevation where there currently is a portal and small additions to the rear. Here's the 1984 Historic Building Inventory Form photograph of the structure's north and west facades. Here's the primary facade diagram showing the contributing status in the primary facades and contributing rock structure, rock wall structure. Here we have the existing site plan showing the footprint of the structure, the current footprint of the structure. And here we have the proposed site plan with the remodel of the carport to the west elevation. And on the east elevation, we have the addition of a closet, as well as the dry-stacked rock wall for the driveway, and then the roofed portal on the south elevation. Here we have the existing floor plan. It's a generally modest floor plan: two bedrooms, two bath, living room, kitchenette with the casita and low-hanging roof driveway with the south portal. Here we have the proposed floor plan with the remodel of the carport and small addition, making it into a small casita. We have on the east elevation the addition with the closet, and then the proposed closed portal addition. Here we have the existing and proposed north facade. Here on this north facade, you can really see the extent of the work taking place. We'll start from the east to the west with the addition of the closet. Staff is recommending that that addition, with that closet addition, the skylight be not publicly visible. With that low-hanging rock wall in front, it is not attached to the primary facade, so not needing an exception. As we move to the west facade, the addition of the portal, the windows meet the standards of 3-inch corner rule, 3-foot corner rule, and they're excavating 8 feet to the roof to the ceiling height for the driveway. And you can see the remodel of the closing on that where the western facade kind of extends. You can see where they're looking at enclosing that space in which the existing east facade, existing and proposed east facade, we have that addition in which staff is recommending that that skylight be non-publicly visible. Here we have the existing and proposed south facade. And in this south facade, they're looking at closing, framing around that current portal and enclosing it, in which staff recommended an exception to 14-5.2 D4: existing portals and porches shall not be enclosed. Here we have the existing and proposed west facade. Here is where we see that general remodel, that existing addition into a larger casita with an overhanging porch. That western facade, when you can't see too much of it, it encloses. And so staff recommended an exception to 14-5.2 D2C: additions are—an exception is required for additions on a primary facade. Staff did make a recommendation that any of the windows meet—all the windows will meet the 30-inch rule on this remodel. Here, the proposed colors are a Diamond Semi Parson Gray for the aluminum clad windows, an L-Gray Ash for the stucco, and TPO1 for the roof. Staff recommends conditional approval of the proposed project, requesting the skylight on the east facade be non-publicly visible and that all windows meet the 30-inch rule, except those under porches or portals, and finds that the exception criterion has been met and complies with Section 14-5.2 D, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2 E, Downtown and East Side Historic District Design Standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you. Paul, this house has very distinctive features in that it has lots—I've never seen this ever—lots of corbels. And I—that is a very distinctive feature. Is this feature—are they—is the applicant wanting to repeat this feature anywhere in the new part? Madam Chair, members of the board, yes, ma'am. He's looking at ex-situating that, as we can see in the design set he has presented here. We can see on this—not on the east closet addition, but on this casita addition on that western facade above the carport, just on this portion. Yes, ma'am. Okay, because I'm going to say that when you have such a distinctive feature that is attributed to a certain time period, when you add something, you want to make a distinction between the old and the new. In my evaluation of this project, I would think that, yes, you can add corbels, but don't add them in the same manner as the old part or the existing home. We'll have to hear what other board members think about this, but there have been times when we do—I do feel that there has to be a harmony, but a distinct—but a distinction between the old and the new. Madam Chair, thank you for sharing that, and thank you for sharing that at the site visit. I think that's really good for staff to hear that and understand that and the reasons for that. I know the applicant is proposing to change the elevation and slightly raise it higher than the original roofline, giving it some depth. And staff will take that into consideration when we review projects in the future. Let's see. Board members, do you have any questions for staff? Yes, Member Bach. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul, could you just clarify for us, the primary facades are the north and the west. And the north is remaining unchanged by the proposal, but the west—does the facade designation run from corner to corner or to the corner to the interior corner, or is it sort of a part of that facade? Madam Chair, Member Bide, great question. It goes—the board made a motion for the entire elevation for the north elevation and the west elevation. So the entire west. And you've requested an exception for an addition to the west. I'm curious about the removal of the door. It's—I think the addition is because they're adding a wall with a new front door perpendicular to the west facade. Is there a removal—removal of historic material also a concern or rolled into that exception? Madam Chair, Member Bide, that's a really good question. So as we look here, let's look at the site plan here. So the remove—the proposed site plan on this western elevation, and I'm sure the applicant can share more, they're not removing any material. They're just framing and roofing over that western facade, which now we have to recommend an exception because now they're creating additional—an addition. However, they're not, from my understanding, they're not removing any historic material from this facade. Oh, okay. And what is your opinion about the addition that's not touching the west facade, but when viewed from the—from the west, hides most of the original west facade, or at least half of it? Madam Chair, Member Bide, again, that's a—that's a great question. I believe staff has, after reviewing this—this addition, the—pardon me, this addition, this casita addition, it does—it does detract from that western facade and half of that western facade, but not so much that it engulfs the entire western facade or the entire structure. If anything, it accentuates it. It can complement it in some ways with the corbels and the divided light windows. And they're maintaining that rock wall foundation, same stucco color. So it's just accentuating from what's already there. And just one last question about the colors. Are—are the proposed colors to match existing colors of windows and stucco? Madam Chair, Member Bide, that's correct. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Member Not at this. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your explanation. So I would first of all echo some of the comments that have been made. And as Chair Rios pointed out, we do try to differentiate the new from the old. And code doesn't quite speak in the same language as some of the preservation standards that are found in the arc service, for example. But I think the spirit is the same, that we're trying to avoid creating a false sense of history. And I do think that as much as I sort of applaud the applicant and staff, too, for thinking it was a nice idea to utilize all these fantastic elements from the original building, I do think that there's a danger there of creating a false sense of development. Because I think if once that's done, because those corbels are so extraordinarily distinctive, it will look for all intents and purposes that this is the building as it always existed. I don't think anyone would look at that and think, "Oh, that's a new part of the building," even though we're—the new part of the building is—and now I'm talking about the second floor over the garage, or the carport, even though thankfully it is separated from the main structure and it's also not a primary facade. I do think that the end result of this proposal would be to make it all look like one unified building that was designed to look that way when it was first built. And I think that would be a dangerous aspect of the proposal because it's a very unique design. And the design as originally built included that carport with those corbels, but not the second floor addition, which is going to rather dramatically change the pro— presentation on the street, so I'm concerned about that. I mean, there's nothing frankly very attractive about the carport, so I'm not really so desirous of trying to hang on to that at all costs. But I think we have to be careful about how whatever is done there, how it interacts with the main building and the features of the carport, such as the corbels that were original. And in that same regard, I guess I'm a little concerned about, it's hard for me looking at the elevation drawings to really get a strong sense of exactly what the end kind of aesthetic perception this ensemble is going to be. We're looking at it sort of head-on, of course, as elevation drawings do. Without a 3D rendering, it's somewhat difficult to see how it's going to interact. Those are very large, prominent, I guess, French doors, probably under the portal on the second floor. It's now a very large element of the wooden garage door where it's currently just an open space for a carport. There's, I think, a pitched roof on top of this, which I don't think is allowed, so I think an exception might be necessary to that, even though I know it mimics what's on the main structure. And the height, the way it's now all being pulled together into one unified mass, does give me some concern about differentiation and how those elements that I just pointed out play. And I'm not also too sure about exactly what that railing is going to look like. It's just a little too sketched in for me on the drawing. So those are my concerns. I'm generally okay with the idea of adding something there and also the exception for that walkway that's necessary. But I'm a little reluctant to proceed with information that we have right now without getting a better sense of how the roofline is going to actually end up, what the railing is, what the wooden door is going to look like, what the corbel features will be. I just don't want this to overwhelm the main structure. It won't overwhelm it, but I just don't want it to just meld into it, I guess, is a better way of looking at it. For your comments, anyone else? Let's hear from the... Raise your right hand, please. State your name and address for the record. Water to Kam Peno, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501. 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 you assent to the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in. Good evening. So you've heard the board's concerns, and you have the floor now. Madam Chair, members of the board, I wanted to address a number of your comments. The first comment that I wanted to address was the concern about the West facade hiding the contributing or the significant facade of the house. These drawings are slightly deceptive in what is visible from the streetscape. It actually presents, if I'm going to run way back in this slide here, this is more of the view that you get of the house. So, construction over the carport, after looking at many, many... I'm not seeing anything. I'm so sorry. Can I... I don't know how I... Can you put up the PowerPoint, please? Thank you, Mike. Sorry about that. Thank you. It's the West, the contributing West facade is actually quite visible from the street, regardless of the carport and the area that we're proposing construction on. We did look at many other ways to construct this amount of square footage on site and felt that this was one of the most respectful ways of the site and the existing building. We set back the construction of the casita to give a better view of that facade through the relatively visually transparent at portal area. And so really, we don't believe that it will be obscuring that facade much more than it currently is. We also sought to retain the expression of the original carport by setting that portal along the front edge of the carport, so the corbels that are visible on the carport that are existing will remain. We are very amenable to not carrying those corbels through to the portal above. I think that is a very reasonable and something that we would welcome as a means of making sure that it aesthetically is differentiated from the rest of the house. What else can I tell you here? You are wondering about the visual expression of all of these wooden elements. The carport as it exists right now is not very functional. It's not even quite standing height. In going through the rest of the home, it really did feel as though the carport and the storage above it were really not given the same level of forethought and attention to detail as the rest of the home. We would like to bring the carport into a much more functional state and think we're doing that in a relatively respectful way, as much as we think we can, by excavating down. It is a strong desire of the clients to have an enclosed area, and so we had selected what we found to be a respectful treatment of that garage door with vertical plank wood or simulated wood finish on that front surface. In terms of the woodwork on the portal and the railing, it would be very, very minimal and simple. It will appear different from the rest of the house as there is no other expressed millwork in that style. And so it will appear of a different era and not of an identical style because there's no style to reference on the house. We would be open to feedback if you are feeling that there is a desire for more detail there or something in that capacity. Beyond that, I think one of the other components that was brought in staff's report was a desire for the skylight to be non-publicly visible. What we've drawn there is actually a low-profile skylight. Skylights are notoriously difficult to waterproof and would be done in the most low-profile means possible on the roof. Not sure what with a flat roof in that capacity, I'm not sure exactly what intervention would be required to make it non-publicly visible, other than the construction of a parapet or other sort of obscuring, sort of a wall type of feature to obscure it. We were under some constraints here to retain the corbels on the East elevation that were deemed a contributing significant element of the house, and so we are proposing this addition on that East facade to meet the existing facade beneath the level of those corbels to attempt to retain those in the best means possible. I think beyond that, I stand for questions and hope I can clarify any other questions you may have. Questions, board members? Member: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for all that explanation, as well as all of the dimensions you provided on your elevations. They're always helpful. I do agree with Member B. M. Venue. I'm looking at the proposed, the North elevation, and I think one of the things that stands out to me, like he mentioned, for me, it's more so the ratio of stucco to other elements. I think while that whole facade, I'm sure, is within that ratio guidelines, if we just look at that new portion, I would love to see a bit more stucco there. I think between the, looks like two sets of French doors and then with the garage door, we're getting a lot of other visual interest other than stucco. Do you think your clients would be open to changing those to perhaps like two single doors rather than French doors? I definitely think we could explore some alternatives. The rationale for those doors was the existing set of doors that are underneath the portal in the South facade. I'm not sure if there's a good photo in this deck. Let me pull up my deck. Here. There's existing French doors here in the South facade, and so those new... I appreciate that this is a non-publicly visible South facade. However, it does, it is beneath a portal, set back in a similar capacity to that what we're proposing on the front. And so we had taken a lot of hints from this in proposing what we did on the front. And so that is how we had arrived at what we've proposed. I appreciate the feedback that it is not of a similar ratio as the significant facades of the house and is different in kind to the existing wall there. And I believe we would be amenable to a change there as, if you gave guidance to staff, is a reduction in glazing and addition in stucco percentage on that. Thank you. For me, personally, I'm not having an issue with the addition, the location of it itself. I think you and your clients seem very willing to work on certain design elements, like removing the new corbels to help distinguish it. And I think maybe with other, you know, small adjustments, like maybe reducing those doors, might help. But other than that, I don't have any major issues with the application. I think it will, it's probably more so going to be, does the board want to see it back versus staff approval, is my guess. But thank you. Any other questions or comments, board members? Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, Madam Chair. Just maybe a quick question for Paul. Isn't, don't we need to address the pitched roof? Madam Chair, Member B. M. Venue, from what's currently established on this structure in the proposed roof, see on this West facade, it appears to be in kind to what's already been established on this main, on this contributing structure. I mean, it's not, it's, if he was proposing steel corrugated roof, that would be one thing, but I don't think he's, he's mimicking what's already established on the main structure and on that shed roof addition and on the carport. So it doesn't look like he would need an exception on a, on the roof. I don't, that's staff's take for it, for that roof. I always understood it to be, I mean, main structure is non-conforming, and we've allowed it, but I don't know that we have the authority to continue to just add more non-conforming features to a house without an exception. And this, that non-conforming, as far as I know, down standards. Member B. M. Venue, this roof appears to be a vernacular style roof in the way that Lou Ewing constructed it. I know that the HCPI form said it was built in the Spanish Pueblo Revival, and I think we all consider that a stretch. But with the roofline that's already established, they're not going outside of that. They're looking at just adding on to that, right? No, I understand. I understand what you're saying. I agree with it. It's just that I still think that the way our ordinance reads that even if it is consistent with what's already there, what's there is non-conforming. And so I still think that to add to a non-conforming structure, we have to make specific findings as to why we're committing further non-conforming features to be built. With Miss Sizer. Madam Chair, Member B. M. Venue, staff would need to do a little more research on that and get back to you. Really, that pitch is very, it's very small, correct? Yes, ma'am. He's mimicking what's already there, but I understand what Member B. M. Venue is saying. That's correct. Yes, ma'am. So, yes. Esther: Thank you, Madam Chair. With reference to the pitch and the overall sort of massing of both the addition to for the mechanical room, as well as to the carport garage area, one of the things to note that the materials will be different, so there will be able to, you will be able to see a distinction, like we did at on Canyon Road with the additions to the Georgia O'Keeffe's Juan Hamilton house, that the addition was very distinct and that the material was different. So, I can defer to the applicant to determine maybe how to express that. Furthermore, with reference to the stucco, it can be a slightly different hue or color. So there are techniques, and given your feedback to the applicant, it may be that the applicant... and would want to study it further and bring it back to this board with some proposed revisions. That appears to be the path that we're moving in. There's too many things that are questionable. And in reference to the different colors, does not the ordinance state that they should be all of one color? Chair Rios, member, I'm sorry, Chair Rios, it should be all of one color, but sometimes when there are additions over time, it's important to distinguish them. And historically, in family compounds and the like, it was very clear there was an expression that it was an addition. So if that expression is a concern of this board, I was offering that as an option to help delineate the differences, but that is an option. Thank you. I for one am opposed to having that type of a distinction in color. I think it should remain all in the same color, and there are other ways to distinguish. I mean, when I look at this, it is already different than the main house. So anyway, let me ask for public comment. Stephanie Benan, can you hear me? Yes. And I would just ask member Benan that you actually speak into the mic. I've had a lot of trouble hearing you on Zoom. Your voice does not get to the mic, and even here, although we can hear you in this room, you're not actually speaking into the mic, and it's really a disservice to the public. When I was thinking about this, I thought the enclosed portal was on the south side, on the non-visible side. Is that right or not right? I think the enclosed portal is actually on the addition, the second story addition, which is totally visible from the street. It is. And although your staff is talking about how the elements play together and they complement each other, I don't think that's really the criterion that you're supposed to be looking at. So I would ask you to look at the criterion. I also see that there, it looks like there's a walkway between the garage, the carport, and the house. Do you already have a separation? Is that correct? It seems like there is one. Is that going to be enclosed? Because it looks like there's a change from like a square to a rectangle between the, there's going to be a little bit of an enclosure when you go up the stairs. So I think that's not a good idea. I think having the open space and the distinction between the two buildings would help with some of the problems of it looking like one building. And I don't know, it's a very small addition, but I'm wondering if on that side where the walk is, if they could set back a couple of feet even more so that they are really truly separate from that primary facade. I think that could also be helpful. And the double French doors, I think are really pretty overwhelming for this design, and I think should change. And with the garage door, I understand wanting it enclosed, but it really, really changes the way it presents on the street. And with the skylight, I think that's a closet or utility room, I'm not sure, but why can't you put a window on the non, you know, either all the way to the all the way to the east or on the south side to get light in there as opposed to a skylight that could be visible unless they want to actually put a parapet, but then again, you have the idea of the corales and interference. So I appreciate that the board is probably going to ask for this design to come back, and I think there's many ways that could, there are many alternative designs that could help distinguish this building or this addition from the primary facade. Thank you. Anyone else in this building wanting to speak on this project? No one. Anyone on Zoom? Chair Rios, I do not see any hands raised for public comment on this case at this time. Yes, sir. I just wanted to clarify one other point to member Benan about the questions around the historic material, the facade that west facade continues into a yard wall, which, as you can see here, the contribution, my understanding was that it ended at the roofline corner. That's the corner of the building. If you look at the floor plan here, you can see that this is the corner of the building, which is where we had intended to connect. This becomes a yard wall at this point, which would be behind the connection that we're proposing. We were asked to make the exception to meet the contributing facade at that. We also further don't believe that that door is a historic material for what it's worth. It appears to have been replaced maybe many. Also, will there be any changes to the land itself? Are you doing any landscaping? Are you putting any parking? Oh, yes, that was something that was mentioned by Paul in the staff report. And was discussed at the previous status meeting. There is a, one of these photos shows it, there's a new parking space that is proposed to be lined with a dry stack stone wall here. The parking space currently exists. The owners did not were not aware of the requirements to install that parking space previously. And so part of this proposal is to have that be approved and go through the proper process with streets as well to create that parking. Thank you. Board members, if you have nothing further to add, a motion is in order. Some courageous person, please make a motion. Oh, those two are fighting to make a motion. Also, I do know it sounds as though it's trending toward coming back to another meeting if at all possible to give us a set of guidelines to meet with a revision with staff. We'd much prefer that based on all the feedback that I've heard so far. None of it seems to be changing the design in means that is beyond what is typically addressed with the administrative staff report. I believe we've presented largely the, we presented the massing, the location of windows and doors, the stucco and colorings that we would like to pursue and have experienced long delays in other ways on projects like this in the past in those ways. So if at all possible, as a friendly request to the board, to make a motion that would allow us to move forward without having to back to the board, it would be great. They can include in that motion dates certain when you can come back. Yes, Paul. Madam Chair, members of the board, staff does not recommend that. We would recommend that the applicant come back to you with a redesign to show you and staff what they're moving forward with. Piecemealing it, conditional, it muddies everything. Oh, he was indicating he would wanted conditional approval or what? Oh, yes, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. We'll see what the board says. Okay. And I know that sometimes things are delayed and apologies for that, but that's the way sometimes things happen to go. Yes, Heather. Just to let the board know, if you're going to continue to a date certain, it would have to be the second meeting in March because the first meeting in March, so is that date certain would be, I'll double check, March 25th. March 25th, that's correct. Okay, somebody make a motion, please. Member Benan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And maybe I'll just make a couple of comments before making a motion. I do, my comments closely align with member Benan. I do think that the addition on the west changes the presentation of the house to the street. I think it is too much in that, too much massing on that end. I think the addition on the on the east is much more preferable. It's smaller, it's shorter than the current roofline. Aside from the skylight, it's a nice addition that doesn't detract from the long line of the house that is currently there as opposed to the west side, which is taller and larger. I do think that the enclosure of the garage adds to that, and it's almost like that if the garage were there without the second story addition, that that would that would kind of work in my opinion. I'm not saying that there's not a way around it. I think there's some options with color under a portal. You can use the white color that might minimize that the look of that. The suggestions about the windows and the railings are also good, but in my mind, it's just a little bit too much there on the corner. So I hope you've received enough input from the board's comments to kind of come back with a redesign because that's what I'm proposing to to make a motion for. I question what violation of the code we've brought forth that is not approvable by the board as opposed to an aesthetic determination, which I don't understand to be within the purview of the board, despite I do respect all of your opinions. And we wish to comply to the extent possible, but I question what we've brought forward that is not in line with the letter of the code. And so I wonder what we could redesign many times into the future. And I believe that this is the location and the heights that work on site without breaking ground on new construction in a new part of that site that would require new utilities and significant other work. And so after having gone through an exploration of that, we arrived at this being the location that minimizes impact on the site, minimizes impact on the existing historic home. And so I, I guess I just would like to clarify that a little bit as to where we've gone awry in that in that way. You stated it yourself, the impact that this, the new portion makes on the historic home is within the purview of the board. They are trying to get you to have compatible harmony with the existing historic house, and the comments that have been made by the board are all within the ordinance of having harmony, and that word is very important within the ordinance. And I think that it was interesting because the members that commented this evening, they had similar comments. So I think it would be wise to listen to those comments, and we'll hear what the motion how the motion is expressed this evening. Thank you, Madam Chair. So in case 2025-00996 HDRB at 1010 Camino San Acacio, I move to postpone the project for a redesign to a date certain of 3/25, if that's agreeable to the applicant, to consider some of the design suggestions that the board has made to minimize the impact to the two facades that have been designated as primary, the north facade and the west facade. The addition should attempt to be secondary to those facades in massing and style, as well as differentiated from those facades in terms of the newer addition compared to the to the original house. Second. And is there anything further to add, other board members, any further clarification? No. Roll call vote, please. Member Aguilar-Madano? Yes. Member Benan? Yes. Member Dignan? Yes. Member B? Yes. The motion has passed. We'll see you again. Madam Chair, I know we've just voted, but as member B correctly pointed out, this motion has to be made with the approval of the applicant. And I believe member B specifically stated with the approval of the applicant. The applicant is entitled to a decision. If the board votes against the design, the applicant has the right to appeal. If, of course, if the board votes in favor of the design, he has no reason to appeal. That's what he's seeking. But if the board postpones, he not only does not have the right to appeal because it is not a final action, and it postpones his, now that was not a denial, correct? Right. So we don't have a final action, so he can't appeal this, and it postpones his progress. So I think it is necessary for the applicant to state on the record, is this acceptable, a postponement? Yes, thank you. Thank you. Okay, last case this evening. Lanning, this is case 2024-8628 HDRB for 216 Old Santa Fe Trail. 216 Old Santa Fe Trail is on the west side of the road between East Water Street and East Alameda Street and across the road. The Laro Hotel commercial structure, located at 216 Old Santa Fe Trail, is a non-contributing structure located in the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. The board designated the structure as non-contributing in June of 2024. The structure was constructed in a vernacular manner between 1956 and 1958, and an addition was constructed on the East Street-facing elevation in 2016. As a condition of the approval from the 2016 case, the applicant was required to keep massing below the windows, have a single header that topped the windows and doors, and have six-light windows in keeping with the district. The East Elevation was altered without approval in 2023, creating a glass front. While the single header from the 2016 conversion is still present, an awning has been installed above the header but below the parapet height. The applicant received a stop work order or red tag in February of 2024 for creating the glass front, installing the awning, and replacing signs without a permit. The applicant requests approval for the work done without approval or permits. That is, to remove the previously existing wood-frame French door and two wood-framed windows, replace the windows and doors with a single fenestra with a glass door and side lights. The windows and door are single panes in dark bronze aluminum frames. An exception is requested to Section 14-5.2 E1C for installing window panes larger than 30 inches. The stucco of the East Elevation is to match the remaining portion of the structure in fictitious Desert Rose, and install a single-slope canvas awning in black, mounted above the existing header beam and below the existing parapet line. These elevations of the East Elevation show the approved 2016 elevation. I will point out that they put in divided light windows and doors, that the elevation shows single-pane windows and doors. The windows and doors were inset several inches into the structure, and there is mass blocking under each window and between the windows and the door. The most recent elevation, as built in 2023, has eliminated the massing and provides a single opening for both the windows and doors. The windows and doors are flush with the exterior of the building, as demonstrated here. The window glazing is at the maximum allowed 40%, and the windows are at greater than 3 feet from each corner. This elevation has the awning removed only so that the massing can be compared to the glazing. The streetscape for 216 Old Santa Fe Trail consists of the properties located south of Water Street up to East Alameda Street. Staff notes that the neighboring lot at 214 Old Santa Fe Trail has an entry and windows matching the request of this subject property. They were installed without permission and are the subject of a stop work order. Therefore, they are not considered a part of this streetscape in this discussion. The properties to the north of the subject property consist of divided light windows, including the windows of the two-story building behind the neighboring lot. At the end of the street is La Fonda, which very clearly has divided light windows on all five rows of windows. Across the way is the Open Air Market, the Laro Chapel, and Laredo Inn. The structures on this western side of the road all have divided light windows, including under the portales. Wrapping around and going from the north along the eastern side of the road, the corner property has divided lights. The building located at 228 Old Santa Fe Trail has divided light doors with two single-light windows. 228 and 218 Old Santa Fe Trail each have single-light display windows as well. So there are three businesses total on the street frontage with single-pane display windows. None of these display windows are connected to the door as a single fenestra. They are all smaller windows centered into a mass-dominated facade. There are no cases on file in the Historic Preservation Division that show if the three buildings had approval to change to non-conforming single-light windows. Staff finds that the exception criteria of Section 14-5.2 E1C have not been met and recommends denial of the application as it does not comply with Section 14-5.2D, General Design Standards, or 14-5.2E, Downtown and Eastside Design Standards. Staff is available for questions. Thank you. **Lanny:** Any questions for Lanny, board members? **Chair:** None at this time. So, Mr. Pia, will you get sworn in, please? Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. **Mr. Pia:** John Pia, 22986. **Chair:** Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? **Mr. Pia:** I do. **Chair:** Thank you very much. Madam Chair, he's been sworn in. **Mr. Pia:** Good evening. We're before you again in reference to this case, and I just want to make sure that Madam Chair and members of the board, you understand that I'm here representing the owner and the tenant for work that was done prior to my involvement. My involvement happened after the stop work order was issued, or the actual notice of violation was issued. That's when I was engaged by the owner and the tenant to represent them before the H. The first order of business we did was to identify the status for the project, which we did about a year ago. We did it in June. We started the work on the project then to get it identified as non-contributing. That was done. Lanny did a good job in describing what exists around the property. There are other properties that have larger windows without divided lights around the property, more so on the west side of Old Santa Fe Trail between Alameda and Water Street. So there are properties that exist there, and they are not divided lights. My client, prior to changing the elevation as it exists today, the elevation that's before you now, the original elevation also had very large window openings as window openings and door glazing that were undivided. A notice of violation has never been issued with any of those properties. So that's just wanted to clear that up and make that point. My client went through and made the change at 216, thinking that there was not a need for a building permit, that that change could just happen and it not be a problem, as long as they maintained the renovation within the existing overall opening, window to window, sill to head height below the beam. So that change was made, and that's one of the reasons why I'm in this position before you this evening, asking for approval, knowing that it's an exception. Staff does not approve the exception, and I know it's before the board to consider this evening to either approve it or deny it. So with that, I stand for questions, and we'll be very open and frank with you as I respond to your questions this evening. Thank you. **Chair:** John, board members, do you have questions or comments at this time for the applicant? You have no questions or comments. Anyone from the audience wishing to comment? **Audience Member:** I know how Mr. Pia feels because I too represented somebody who came in thinking they didn't need a permit, actually was told by a contractor they didn't need a permit, but they did. And the other buildings or the other storefronts are now red-tagged as well, so I think that makes a huge difference. It's not like this particular building is being picked on. And I remind the board that there was a building on Old Santa Fe Trail across from La Fonda, between West San Francisco and Water Street, and you approved having total glass down to the ground because the reason was they needed it for display. If you go by that building now, you will see that that bottom glass, there's no display going on there. There is no reason to have it go all the way to the ground. I think the design from 2016 is totally appropriate for the streetscape and for commercial space. I can't really see why you can't have divided lights in those windows, especially when they're smaller and you have massing below them. And I definitely think these windows need to be separated from the door, and there needs to be mass below them. I also would strongly oppose a black awning in this area. Thank you. **Chair:** Is there no one else that's going to speak in reference to this project? And I'm sure there's no one on Zoom, but we'll check and make sure. **Maggie:** Yes, Madam Chair, I do not see any hands raised to provide public comment on this case. **Chair:** Thank you, Maggie. Board members, didn't seem to have any questions or comments, but maybe you're ready to make a motion. **Board Member:** Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I am going to move to adopt staff's findings and deny the application as the exception criteria have not been met. But I also would like to know what authority do we have to ensure that this doesn't keep going on in the status that it's in, and that it's returned to the condition that it was in before the unauthorized renovations were made? I brought this up actually when we did a status review almost, I guess, coming up on a year pretty soon, saying that I expected the city to take action to return this to its prior status. And instead, we're, it's coming before us for a request for an exception, and I could imagine that this process could go on forever with new requests. And so, how do we get this returned to its original status? And then if the applicant wants to ask for a modification, they can do so. And by original status, I mean what was approved by the board in 2016, and that was partially abided by at one time by the applicant without the divided glass. **Chair:** Member Ben Venue, since some work has been done based on that 2016 approval, then the approval would not be considered as expired. So that would be the first test. Is, would that approval be expired? And so that's passed. So, because this was denied by the board, then the applicant either has the option to comply with what has already been approved, or the city can take this to District Court, proceed with a hearing. We've already issued a red tag, and at this point, if nothing is done proactively, then we will issue a citation to courts. **Board Member:** Excuse me, Madam Chair, Member Ben Venue and Miss Lambo, do you mean Municipal Court or District? **Chair:** Okay. **Frank:** Did you have something, Frank? Well, if there's a notice of violation that's been filed in Municipal Court, then, and the Municipal Court finds a violation, Municipal Court can impose fines and require the applicant to comply with the Municipal Court's order and fine, and ultimately place a lien on the property and force the sale of the property to collect the liens. **Board Member:** Okay, point of clarification. So if this, Madam Chair, Member Ben Venue, I feel your motion is leaning towards a denial. So with the denial, is the client, I mean, is the owner not allowed an appeal of that request? It doesn't automatically go to Municipal Court and then to litigation for fines, et cetera. Just point of clarification. **Chair:** It can go to, the way I understand it is that the applicant can appeal to the City Council. Correct, Chair Rios? That is correct. The, it can be appealed to the City Council, but in the interim, we will issue a citation just to get that process going and be underway. The City Council, just to be frank, has been very consistent in upholding the Historic District's Review Board's decisions. **Board Member:** Thank you. I mean, it seems, and I, maybe you can answer this, it seems to me those are two separate tracks that this, it should be proceeding on because the stop work and notice of violation are independent of the request that's before us today and have its own timeline, I would assume, because it's related to work that's already been done without authorization. This is a separate request for approval of something that's already been done, which could be appealed, but I don't think that would have any impact on the court case that's proceeding. **Chair:** That is correct. You can ask for further clarification with the City Attorney for sure. So there, there is a question. On, if I might, I don't think, I think you're in the process of making a motion, but there is the opportunity to modify this front elevation to create a separation between the glazing with the door and actually create divided lights in that, in that glazing. I don't even know if that's an option that you would consider or would we need to bring that back as a separate presentation? Well, if you're asking me, go ahead. I think, I think that we're acting upon the, what's before us, but you, the applicant, I would think, has the option. This will be, if it's looking like a denial, you have the option to appeal or you have, I believe he has, he would have the option to come back, correct, before the board. And, sounds like he wants to take it back to what was approved in 2016. Chair Rios: Yes, that if that's the pleasure of the board, the applicant can request a postponement. Once again, it would go to March 25th, in order to address the HDB's concerns. I don't know if Mr. Pria is proposing something that's identical to 2016 or something that is an alternative to that, yet still applies with the Historic District's ordinance. But certainly, I would encourage him to come back. Now you have something else to think about, board members, in reference to, I'm not, I mean, that, that proposal was a little bit what I'm trying to avoid because I feel like that could go on for the next 10 years. You could keep coming back with a new proposal and just leave it the way it is, which is what's happened over the last year. I mean, it would have been nice if you'd come with a proposal like that today, and because we were clearly not happy with what had already happened when we talked the last time. So I'm, I'm trying to avoid this, just a game where this goes on forever with this never being altered. But I am wondering if there's a possibility of a conditional approval. Is, and tell me, Heather and City Attorney, if, if this is an acceptable motion, that the project is approved on condition that it be modified to be consistent with the 2016. Madam Chair and Member B, at least with respect to Robert's Rules of Order, there's a motion on the floor now. No, there isn't. Yeah, I haven't, I understand this is all discussion. Oh, okay. I thought, I thought I indicated where I was going, but I haven't made a motion. I thought you moved to adopt staff's findings. No, I said I was, that was where I was going. Sounded like that's where he was going, but hasn't made a motion and nobody has seconded anything. Okay, all right. You could approve it conditionally and make the conditions. I guess I'm just trying to think of why you would do that. If, if there was an approval of a project according to a design that was submitted in 2016, that still stands. If he went and redid this according to what was approved in 2016, I think he could go to municipal court and say, I complied, and that would moot the violation. Yeah, it, but I think it's a, I think the applicant should know that we would be, that's an acceptable alternative at this point in time, is to return it to the state that was approved by the board in 2016. I guess I'm just trying to decide why do we need a vote to approve what's already been approved or to require what's already been approved? It seems to me to be redundant, legally unnecessary. Well, it's an approval instead of a denial. It's a conditional approval. So, John, you are willing to take, you and your client are willing to take this back to the 2016 approval? No, no. Madam Chair, Member Benvenu, in conversations with the owner, with the tenant, they are not wanting to go back to the 2016 approval. It would be a version of the 2016 approval, still having the windows in there, creating, creating divided lights for consideration by the board. Or if it's a denial, then it'll, they'll take the required action that they need to, as the City Attorney has mentioned, the fact that it could go through Municipal Court. It's, it's a, I'm in an awkward position as well as you as board members this evening. So, what I'd like to do is to be able to have a decision made so that my client will know which way he, they need to proceed from this date on. Okay, they want it resolved. Got it. Given that, that the client's not interested in returning it to what was previously approved and wants to stay with this unauthorized work that was done on the project, I move to deny the application as submitted and to adopt all of staff's findings, in particular that the exception criteria would damage, do not meet the threshold of not damaging the character of the district, and in fact, affirmative, it should be entered that it would damage the character of the district for the reasons stated in staff's report. That the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the unauthorized changes are required to prevent a hardship to the applicant or an injury to the public welfare, again, for the reasons set forth in the staff report. And that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the unauthorized changes would strengthen the unique, heterogeneous character of the city by providing a full range of design options to ensure the residents can continue to reside within the historic districts. And it's all ahead. Thank you. And I would also ask that the staff proceed with its efforts to have this return to its original condition. Discussion. Madam Chair, wait, is there a second? Did you second? I second. Member B, I'm wondering if it would be helpful for record purposes, I'm assuming this is going to go to City Council, if we note that there are multiple code violations that have happened, that I can see the divided light windows, the awning, and the ratio of stucco to glazing. Sure, so noted. To the extent, I mean, I hope that that was all incorporated, that that's all set forth, I believe, in the staff report and should be incorporated into the findings before they're approved. But I appreciate that calling that out. Hope so too, just in case City Council doesn't read the full report, which I hope they, it should be definitely incorporated into the findings. Anything further to add? Just like to say thank you. Is that very convoluted and complex? Sorry, I'm sorry everyone in the audience, I should be speaking in the microphone. I would just like to say, or ask, what would the process be then to try to bring this property into compliance? That is another issue, I realize, separate from this motion, but it's a violation that's continuing to display itself on very significant piece of Old Santa Fe Trail. Are we going to do anything about that or do they, are we just waiting till they try to make another application? Pardon me for saying they, I mean, your client, applicant. Madam Chair and Member, the Municipal Court proceeding will proceed and perhaps, you know, this isn't, I'm not advising the app, this is what he needs to do. He may ask the Municipal Court proceeding to be stayed pending the outcome of the governing body appeal, and that would be up to the municipal judge. Thank you. Right. Okay, board members, we have a motion and we have a second. We have an amendment to the motion. Roll call vote please. Member B: Yes. Member Dagnan: Yes. Member Benvenu: Yes. Member Agul M: Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you, Mar. Thank you, John. Thank you so much. Good luck on that project. Okay, any further discussion items? Staff: Chair Rios, since Member Gua has, has left the board, have you appointed or do you, will you appoint a new Vice Chair? Sure, I would like to appoint Mr. John Benvenu as the Vice Chair. He will accept. Looks like he's contemplating that. Do we need to do that on an annual basis first? I haven't even been accepted as a board member. She's illegal. Oh, I'm very illegal. Chair Rios: Member of B Buu, an election is typically held, but Chair Rios, I, I double have to double check the council agendas, but I know that is going to be happening soon for official reappointment. So, so I would suggest that this board typically do it at the beginning of the year. And so I was just thinking with the mind that, wow, sorry, with the, the mind that, you know, needs to be done and we can do an election if you would like to delay that, but in the interim, it's best for the, the chair to make an appointment. Gotcha. I will, I accept if your, your preference. I can't call you member, I call you Vice Chair. Okay, so any other matters from the board? Now, I was going to say that in reference to, to the Review Committee, that I was an old member. I was originally asked to serve as a member. So in thinking about it, I'm going to continue serving. And Vice Chair Anon, you is, will also serve. But I would like to have alternatives, alternates, excuse me, not alternatives, but alternates. And that would be, uh, Member Digman, you'll accept. And also, uh, Member B, if for some reason you, I can't make the meeting or meetings. Okay. And anything further, board members? I think our next meeting is March 25th and I'll, I'm listening for an adjournment. So moves. Seconds. Roll call vote please. Member Aguilar Madana: Yes. Member Bianvenu: Yes. Member Dagan: Yes. Member B: Yes. Motion has passed. Madam Chair, thank you very much and thank you everyone so much for a short meeting for.