Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Aug 26, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/585 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board held a meeting where they approved the agenda with amendments and the minutes from July 22nd, 2025. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to Case 2025-010871 HDRB concerning 439 Camino del Monte Sol, a property with historical ties to John Gaw Meem and Mary Austin. After extensive debate regarding the property's historic integrity and the definition of 'significant' status versus 'contributing' status, the Board voted 4-3 to upgrade the property's historic status to 'significant'. Another key discussion involved Case 2025-010948 for 800 Gildersleeve Street, where unauthorized removal of historic windows led to a stop-work order. The Board approved the replacement of these windows with specific conditions to ensure they match the original materials and style. The Board also approved modifications for 913.5 Second Street and 913.5 Acequia Madre. Towards the end of the meeting, there was a discussion about the Board's jurisdiction over the Soldiers Monument and concerns about the enforcement of historic preservation codes, leading to a request for a City Attorney opinion on the monument's status. == Key Decisions == - Upgraded the historic status of 439 Camino del Monte Sol to 'significant' (Case 2025-010871 HDRB) with a 4-3 vote. - Approved the application for 800 Gildersleeve Street (Case 2025-010948) to replace four removed windows with specific conditions (wood, true divided light, not clad, color matching existing, original opening size) and approved other proposed alterations (5-1 vote). - Approved the application for 913.5 Acequia Madre (Case 2025-010948) as submitted (6-0 vote). == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda as amended — Passed. - Motion to approve the minutes of July 22nd, 2025 — Passed. - Motion to adopt staff's recommendation to upgrade the historic status of 439 Camino del Sol to 'significant' — Passed 4-3. - Motion to approve the application for 800 Gildersleeve Street to replace four windows on the south facade with specific conditions (wood, true divided light, not clad, color confirmed by staff, original opening size) and approve items two through six of the application as submitted — Passed 5-1. - Motion to approve the application for 913.5 Acequia Madre as submitted — Passed 6-0. - Motion to adjourn the meeting — Passed unanimously. == Public Comment == Stephanie Benonato inquired about a progress report from a subcommittee regarding a bridge project near the State Supreme Court. During the discussion for 439 Camino del Monte Sol, Elizabeth West argued for honoring Mary Austin's legacy and the building's evolution, while Stephanie Beninato advocated for 'significant' status due to Austin's historical importance. John Murphy argued against 'significant' status, citing extensive alterations that diminish the building's integrity. Francesca Boni commented on the 'cloudy' nature of historic status classifications. For 913.5 Acequia Madre, Richard Andrew (homeowner) expressed his excitement about making the property a 'contributing' part of the historic fabric, and Stephanie Bernat suggested adding windows to the south facade and questioned the red metal roof color. == Topics == - Historic Status Upgrades - Unauthorized Work & Enforcement - City Attorney Opinion Request - Bridge Project Update - Banner Design Changes - Minimum Maintenance Standards == Full Transcript == It let us know when we go live. We are live. We're live. Good evening, everyone. This meeting is now called to order. We are the Historic Districts Review Board, and today is Tuesday, August 26, 2025. Roll call, please. Madame Chair Rios, here. Vice Chair Bianu, here. Member Aguilera Madano, here. Member Matherther, here. Member Cherry, here. Member Bich, here. Member Dagnet, here. Madam Chair, you have a full quorum. Thank you very much. Do we have any changes to the agenda? Yes, we do. Under new business, item B, 2025-010945 HB 549, a half-pound, as well as item C, 2025-10946 HDRB 643 Garcia Street, has been postponed. Is that it, Gary? And that's it. Yes. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as just amended? Each side so moves. Madrona seconds. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose say no. The agenda is approved as amended. We have minutes of July 22nd, 2025. Any changes? Anyone? Second. Second. No changes. Yes, motion please. So move approval. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose say no. Thank you. We have no findings and conclusions. Matters from the public. Anyone in this room wishing to come forward and tell us something interesting having to do with Hport? Good. Anyone on Zoom? Anyone online? Yes. And can you call in that person, please? Court Stephanie. Okay, I'm sorry, I just got unmuted. Stephanie Benonato, I was hoping since it's been at least a month since the proponents for the bridge near the State Supreme Court came in and told us that they would have to have a plan done in the next three weeks to a month, that the subcommittee that Miss Rios suggested and had appointed would be able to give us a progress report. That is, give the whole board a progress report as well as the public. It would seem, given their supposed timeline, that it's coming down to the wire to when they would need to have finalized this plan. Thank you. Thank you. I have not been notified in reference to that particular project. Anything under staff communications? Yes, Chair Rios. Staff communications. Heather Lambo would like to give an update for the banner update that was brought to you before. We talked about the design was wanted to be changed, but since it's a state initiative project, the design cannot be changed. The only thing that will be changed is the number of signs that would be posted, and that'll be half of what was requested before. Anything else? No, Chair Rios. We have nothing under old business, and we do have three cases under new business. And the first case is located at 439 Camino de Montesoul, and this is Paul's case. Paul. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Thank you for being here tonight. Thank you, members of the public, for being here. Thank you very much. Thank you. It is case number 2025-010871 HDRB, the single-family residence at 439 Camino del Monte. Designated as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The main residential structure was built in 1925 on a 0.73-acre parcel and comprises 5,894 square feet of roofed area. The 1991 New Mexico Historic Building Inventory, you know, you left your clamp here. Should I leave it on the front porch on that little bunko? Okay. Stephanie, you're... Can you... Can you mute? Yeah. Can you hear me? Hello, Glenn. I don't think we're getting a good connection. I'll try again. What? I said you left your clamp here. Hey, Stephanie. Can you hear us? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm thinking you... Pardon me, board. My apologies. The 1991 New Mexico Historic Building Inventory HBI survey form records the architectural design style as Spanish Pueblo Revival, as seen by the adobe block and wooden viga construction material, recessed doors and windows, and flat roof with rounded parapets. The structure has undergone several alterations and additions in the 1990s, as noted below. However, the core structure maintains the original inception of design and character to the streetscape and district in which it resides. The recommended upgrade of historic status to significant will ensure the preservation and integrity of the structure for future generations. It is important to note that while there were many additions over time, most are historic. Those additions represent the evolution over time from art salon to apartments and now as a single-family residence. The additions of a bathroom and bedroom in 1958 and the courtyard wall in 1997 do not detract from the significant status of the main structure, which holds its original form from conception. Members of the board, we're going to walk through 439 Camino del Monte Sol. Here we have that west-facing facade on Camino del Monte Sol. It's kind of right on the roadway, and then you can see the public visibility on that north facade. We have the entrance way on the north facade. Here we have the east facade, and as it extends out into the courtyard, and the south facade and the courtyard on that south-facing facade. Now, Mr. Hoops has provided really detailed elevations showing the existing north elevation, the existing east elevation, existing south elevation, and the existing west elevation on Camino de Montis. And I have to commend Mr. Murphy on his reporting on this property. He did a really good job in gathering information and researching many different areas to gather good information about this property. And in the report, he provided some development of this structure in the 1920s. And it's fascinating to see that the adobe brick, the viga, and the construction material, as we saw today in the site visit, are still prevalent today. Here's a view on that north facade face, on the north elevation facing north, and as we can see west of the city of Santa Fe. And here we have a picture of Mary Austin standing at the entrance on the west elevation, on that western facade along Camino de Monte Sol. And here she is on the again at the west facade. And here is in the courtyard where several other addition rooms were. Here's a 1940 ink drawing of this structure and a photograph from the New Mexico Art School showing the structure. And as we can see still today, it's very prevalent that same, those facades are still very prominent. And here we see the 1958 aerial photograph, all courtesy of Mr. Murphy's report, showing the footprint of the current structure. So with that, staff recommends the historic status of the structure be upgraded to significant for 14-5.2c 2C designation of significant contributing and non-contributing status within historic districts. Thank you, board. Staff stands for questions. Thank you for your report, Paul. Can you indicate to us again the age of the house? Thank you, Chair Rios. Yes, ma'am. The age of the house is 100 years old. Say again. It's 100 years old. Thank you. And also, can you talk to us about the prominent residents that have resided there? Yes, ma'am. So, this property shares quite a range of historic integrity, whether it be from John Gamim designing this structure, probably in the early 1920s, and the construction of it in the mid-1920s. Mary Austin, who lived in the property, and then throughout the lifespan of this property, it served many different, served the city in many different aspects, whether an art gallery, a home, apartment complexes. So many people came and gone. Many artists have lived here and moved out, and now it's now being renovated for a single-family residence. But the footprint of the property has remained, and also the openings. Yes, ma'am. That is correct, Chair. And can you also tell us the changes that were made in 1997? Yes, ma'am. So, the general changes that we see in this 1950 aerial, there's a courtyard now prevalent on this eastern facade that is now there. There's also some coyote fencing along the southern facade on the back, and just window and door changes. They did get approved for a garage addition, but it was never constructed. So, the main integrity of the footprint of this structure has retained. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Chair. Board members, any other questions at this time? Yeah. Member Cherry. Paul, is staff's recommendation to have it be significant with no exceptions to that? Because in the past, I've seen structures that are significant but have facades excluded because they've been added. Chair Rios, Member Cherry, great question. We would exclude any additions that were in the 1997, such as that yard wall. But everything else, we would recommend significant status. Excluding windows, we... Well, that's a great question. I believe when we recommend significant status, all the facades are primary. However, there have been windows and doors changes in 1997 and with that yard wall. However, the original structure itself, we would recommend as significant, excluding that yard wall, if that makes sense. Well, it does, but I could interpret that in several different ways. The original structure being just the original portion of the building as the original structure, or the entire existing structure, because I'm certainly aware of significant buildings that have specific facades excluded. So there's, I mean, I, the one I know most is the BJO Nordfeld house on Camino de las Animas has modern additions. It's significant, but there are facades that are excluded. Chair Rios, Member Cherry, great point. With this structure, all the additions are historic in nature, whether they were from 1958, in the 1930s and 1920s. So all the additions and the current, the current structure as it resides today is, the footprint is historic. So, we're recommending all the facades of the current structure to be designated as primary, as significant. Now, with the yard wall, excluding the yard wall, given that it's, it was a 1997 addition of construction, but staff would recommend the entire structure and it, as significant. Okay. Because my understanding is the, what's currently the east facade is a '90s addition. There's no, I don't have a name for that room on the floor plan that I'm looking at, but maybe it's in here. So, I'm looking at the figure 4 proposed facade diagram for the contributing status on the draft staff report. Can you tell me the page it's on in the packet? It would be page five. So, it would be in the staff, the staff report, page five. Yeah, that page five I have is page 27 of the complete packet, but it's page five of this case is all text. Okay. Can you pull up the staff report and go to the fourth page on the or fifth page on the staff report? See if, let me see if I can pull up the staff right here at that illustration. I don't see a facade. Okay. Okay. Well, so here's the staff report, and so what you're sharing, Member Cherry, is here on this proposed facade diagram where you're talking about the addition on that east facade, facade number two. You're saying that facade there is an addition that has occurred on this structure that is, it doesn't hold the original or historic, it's not a historic addition. This is something pre-1997 that, that would not, how would you say, something that could be designated as significant. Is that correct, sir? Well, if it's not that it's pre-1997, that it's, that it's post-1975. So, in other words, what I just heard in your presentation was that all of the additions are historic, which means that they would all be in excess of 50 years. But my understanding is that that addition with the bay windows on the east facade is, was done sometime in the '90s, sometime in the '90s, which would make it non-historic. So, 1997. Yeah. So, in other words, the way I've seen, and I'm not making a case for or against significant here, I'm just trying to get information. But I'm just trying to get the level playing field of, I have seen structures with this level of integrity, I would say, that are significant and then have facades excluded that are non-historic. So that the structure, my understanding is the structure can be significant in the status of the entire structure. It's not part of the structure significant, but the entire structure could be designated significant with facades excluded because they're non-historic or for whatever reason the board decides. **Member Cherry:** That is correct. You're correct about that. So, this facade two, I guess that's the other thing I would just, facade two in this diagram is represented a little bit inconsistently. And I've seen other facade diagrams where the facade diagram will actually follow the profile of the entire structure. So, each time there's a corner, an inside or an outside corner, that facade will change, which helps designate precisely the area that we're discussing. So, for instance, that west facade, in this facade diagram, it's just a little hard for me to see the complete detail of the shape of that building. So, when we're talking about facade two there, my understanding is we're talking about some historic addition areas and some non-historic addition areas. And when we're talking about facade five, for instance, or I'm sorry, not five, one, for instance, we're talking about some original portions of the structure and some non-original portions of the structure. But all of that is additions that were done pre-1975, which would make them historic, yet not original. **Chair Rios:** Member Cherry, that is correct. **Member Cherry:** Okay, I don't have any other questions at this time. **Chair Rios:** Attorney Rubal, would you kindly read the definition of significant? **Attorney Rubal:** Thank you, Chair. Board members, the definitions, which are found at 14-12.1, one of a definition of significant structure, which reads as follows: A structure located in a historic district that is approximately 50 years old or older and that embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. For a structure to be designated as significant, it must retain a high level of historic integrity. A structure may be designated as significant for its association with events or persons that are important on a local, regional, national, or global level, or B, if it is listed on or is eligible to be listed on the State Register of Cultural Properties or the National Register of Historic Places. **Chair Rios:** Thank you. Nowhere did I hear that within the definition of significant that there would be non-historic portions of a building that could be left out of a significant building. Is that correct? It does not. So, as I read it, it could be, it must have a high level of historic integrity. But I do not believe historic integrity is defined. So that is... **Attorney Rubal:** High level of historic integrity. **Chair Rios:** Yes. And could it be that if something is, in this case, built in 1997, that that could be removed? It could still be significant but could be taken out of the status of significant. **Attorney Rubal:** I, presumably, the H-board would not have approved an addition to a structure that would jeopardize its protected status. So, if it was designated contributing at that time, the H-board presumably would not have approved an addition that compromised that status. **Chair Rios:** Okay. But this particular building was, is contributing. So, changes could be made. So, I, and now we are perhaps facing giving it a significant status. **Attorney Rubal:** Chair Rios, that is at the board's discretion if the board... **Chair Rios:** I'm just going in my mind about the portions that are non-historic. Does anybody else want to offer some comments? **Member Cherry:** Yeah. Yeah. My understanding to Rios, that definition, I know it doesn't say that portions of a significant structure can be designated, can be excluded or non-excluded. However, I'm confident that there are buildings that are contributing and significant that have excluded portions. For instance, it's pretty common in my experience to have contributing buildings with excluded portions. And... **Member Cherry:** Yeah, and there are definitely significant buildings with excluded facades as well. Yes. Like the 460 Camino Las Norfeld home is, it has, it has, would now be historic additions that when it's a significant structure with non, with excluded facades from that because they're not, because they were not historic. So, that's my understanding is that there are buildings that with the definition that Mr. Rubal read, that that has happened in the past, that there have been buildings that have been given a significant designation but had facades excluded. The building is still significant, but there are facades that are excluded. **Attorney Rubal:** Now, Chair Rios and Member Cherry, the code has restrictions on alterations to primary facades. And the section of the code that restricts alterations to primary facades reads that the restrictions apply to primary facades on contributing buildings, but to all facades on significant buildings. So, it just seems that it runs counter to the code, although it's not prohibited, to say, here's a significant building, but some of the facades are excluded from the significant status. Because generally, as we have encapsulated that code section, all facades of a significant structure are treated as primary facades. So, I would discourage that. It's not my decision, but I do think that consistently with, I believe it's subsection D5B, or it's D5 and there are a couple of subsections there under 14-5.2, it would run counter to the designation of a significant building to say there are some facades of the significant building are excluded from the significant status. **Member Cherry:** Yeah. And I'm not trying to say it's right or wrong. I'm just noting that I have experience with buildings that are significant that have facades that are excluded. **Attorney Rubal:** Yeah. And Chair Rios and Member Cherry, I'm not disputing that there probably has happened, but it just seems to be inconsistent with... **Member Cherry:** So, can I ask another question then? For those types of buildings, potentially a more appropriate designation is contributing with more primary facades, potentially, like more, more defined. For instance, we're looking at this facade map just as an example, which shows seven facades. But comparatively to other facade maps that I've seen, which generally show facade change at each corner, which would give more definition to defining which facades were primary. It could be, it could be more detailed in that sense to say you could designate a building as contributing and then only exclude those very specific facades that are non-historic, which, for instance, in this case, this has additions that are historic and additions that are non-historic. **Attorney Rubal:** Chair Rios and Member Cherry, the code does not express a restriction on how many primary facades a contributing structure can have. So, yes, that the code allows for that. **Member Cherry:** Is there anything in the code that, that, like, for instance, there's some inconsistency here that I'm noticing with the, like I was saying, the facade change at every corner versus this one not having facade change at every corner. Is there any, any staff guidelines that say where the facades should be designated or any code guidelines that say where the facade should be or should be not, like the definition of what, what, what is a facade? Is it a whole side of a building or is it at every corner? **Attorney Rubal:** I believe there is a definition of facade. Chair Rios and Member Cherry, the definition of facade is one whole exterior face or elevation of a structure from grade up to and including the top of the parapet. An individual facade is defined as including at least an 8-foot width that is offset from an adjacent plane by at least four feet. So, consistently with the code, a facade is an 8-foot section. But I am fairly certain I've seen some facades that don't, that are designated as facades or primary facades that do not, you know, are not 8 feet. **Member Cherry:** Yeah, I think I've seen both. I think I've seen ones that are smaller than eight feet and ones that are larger that may have should have gone the other direction. **Member Cherry:** Okay. Thanks. **Attorney Rubal:** And, well, and Chair Rios and Member Cherry, the definition of primary facade is one or more principal faces or elevations of a building with features that define the character of the building's architecture. **Board Member:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I was on the board when the Nordfeld House was designated as significant, and I remember in that case it being a bit unusual because we typically do not exclude facades on significant buildings. But in that case, every other facade was original to the house. And there was just a small portion of one facade in the back that was a laundry room addition, and where, you know, just not even half of that facade. So, I think in that case we felt it was possible to preserve most of the structure as significant, and we excluded that small piece. So, I agree it was, I think in that case it was appropriate because the rest of it was completely stunning and had the original detailing and characteristics, which is very different from this house, which is, you know, the original structure is enveloped by additions except for the facade number one, and a portion of that facade is original. So, this house is already contributing with one and eight designated as primary, which I think is the correct status. I think we asked the applicant to further investigate the associations, particularly with people of significance in Santa Fe's history. There seems to be some question about its association with John Gaw Meem, according to the report from John Murphy. I don't see anything here that really changes or elevates this status to significant that we, you know, appreciate the additional research. It does sort of confirm that we had the right status in my mind to begin with. Those are two very large facades. You know, 50% of the building is designated as primary and protected. So, I think, yeah, I think in this case we've had other cases where that original core has been built around, and that's exactly what's happened here. It's not, it's not the original house from 1925. It's a, you know, although some of these are historic, which fit into the contributing status designation, they're not all original, which is what I would associate with a high level of historic integrity, that it's remained the same throughout history. So, this one has not. So, that's, that's my perspective. **Member Cherry:** Can I make a comment? Yeah. I would just respectfully disagree about the Nordfeld House because I built the laundry room addition, and it was already designated as significant before I got the permit to build the laundry room addition. And there are multiple facades that, that predated me, the status designation. My, so there are multiple facades on that building. I actually think it's really similar to this building, and in, in, in quite a few ways. And anyway, that's, that's my comment on that. **Chair Rios:** Any other questions or comments? **Board Member:** Thank you, Madam Chair. So, just jumping into this discussion, yeah, I think that, you know, the historic review of the property really focused on John Gaw Meem for some reason. I don't think that was the board's concern. It certainly wasn't my issue about whether this was a significant building or not. That was just one of a number of concerns. The fact that it was a John Gaw Meem design had some importance, but I think of primary importance was really the era that this was built and who it was built for. That was Mary Austin in 1925, when the development of Santa Fe style was really just in that decade getting underway. This was, I think, only the fourth design John Gaw Meem ever made for a house. He wasn't even an architect yet; he was a designer. It's the first one of his, I believe, that actually was in a Spanish Pueblo Revival type style. So I think it's important for that reason alone. The drawings themselves, we don't know, according to the historic report, the extent to which John Gaw Meem was actually involved in the construction of the house or to what extent it was altered from his original drawings. But what the report does show is that who was involved was Frank Applegate. So another, to me, extremely significant level of history is that this was Mary Austin and Frank Applegate working together on one of the very first houses in the Santa Fe style, on the very street in which most of the original artist design buildings, including by Frank Applegate, were all either under construction, just recently constructed, or to be constructed in that one decade. It served as Mary Austin's house for at least a decade, where, as the Higby reports, there were numerous gatherings of virtually every important cultural figure in Santa Fe. It seemed to be the center of that activity. The year it was completed, within months, was when that same community, led by Mary Austin, really started the preservation movement in Santa Fe through their opposition to the Chekawa and formed the Old Santa Fe Association a few months after this building was completed. So, to me, those are just undeniable, critically significant historical elements to this property that get continued when she dies and wills her property to an organization that doesn't exist any longer. I think it was called the Indian Arts Fund. They operated it for three or four years and then sold it to someone who started an arts academy there. So those first two decades seem to me really important in the history of Santa Fe. Then it got converted to apartment buildings, and we see some changes to the footprint. It's a little confusing to me in all of the various documents that we have in the packet exactly what changes to the footprint took place in the historical era and what ones came afterwards. I was under the impression from reading the original 1991 Hickpi and then the more recent one that was done that the footprint was essentially in place by the time of the 1958 aerial photograph. The new report does indicate that alterations continued in the mid-70s, but the only ones that are really specifically referenced are interior alterations, and then a reference to further additions on the east and west elevations. But it does, I don't see anything that actually calls out what those are so that we can compare to what was there previously and see to what extent it modified the structure. So I'm confused about that latter issue about how much of the east and west elevations, which I think were unequivocally changed from the time the building was built in 1925. But we don't, I'm not clear on which ones of those were in place by the '40s and what, if anything, might have been changed in the 1990s. So, just to continue with the history, then it became a series of galleries, important galleries actually. So it continued with the theme of the art community, a hub of the art community in Santa Fe. So for all those reasons, I think it's, to me, the significance is very clear of this building. I think that the appearance of the building on the front facade in particular, but generally speaking, most of the facades, it reads quite well of what was originally built by Mary Austin. I think that most, if not all, of the visual alterations to the exterior are historic and show the evolution of the property. And I think that it would, I guess my conclusion from all that is that there's easily enough historic integrity in my mind to this building to qualify it as significant given its relationship with these extremely important figures in Santa Fe's cultural history and preservation history. And it just sort of leaves open the question, what do we do about some of the non-historic elements that have been added? I would also be inclined, if it is designated significant, not to take out entire facades because I don't think that's actually directed at the definition of significance. But I do think it can be noted that some of these features are non-historic and therefore could be, that could be taken into consideration in the future with any potential future applications that come before us. I just lost power to my computer. Is that just my computer? Okay. Just because last night I had no power. So I was wondering if we were having a repeat. So, given all of that, I guess my last thought is, I think it's inconsistent to keep it as a contributing structure with the primary facade designations because one of those primary facade designations, I believe, is the west elevation, which I think people have indicated they think was modified. So it doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me to designate that as a primary facade and yet you still use alterations as a justification for denying significance. Those are my thoughts for now. Thank you. Members of the new clarification from you, so you are significant. I agree with staff. You are indicating significance, but in reference to the facades or anything that might be non-historic, you are also indicating that the facade should still remain primary, but note that there are non-historic changes, correct? Yeah, I mean, we don't even designate them as... True to the designate, excuse me for interrupting, no, that is more true to the definition of significance as opposed to, in my tenure on the board, if you were designating a building significant, all facades were primary. There was no, and I know that we have done this, member Cherry indicated that some portion or pointed out something that is non-historic to that building, but I had attorney Rubily read the definition because really to me it says significant is all facades are primary, contrary to contributing where there are portions of buildings that are, that have more changes and maybe they don't have an attachment to anybody that has played an important role in the community, for instance. Yeah, can I comment on that? Oh, see, but it's limited to 10 seconds. Just kidding. Go ahead. 10 seconds plus. It's very interesting. I think that the, I'm actually feeling more like this. I'd like to see a more well-defined facade map of this building that matches the definition of facade because from what I saw, you just had the courtyard up. We have right now a facade all the way across the south side where we have that very deep courtyard, which is clearly deeper than 8 feet. So, I'm seeing us not really having a facade map that we're able to make facade decisions on. It's been sort of blanketed over by just having seven facades. With all that being said, it has been quite interesting listening at the same time to the designation of contributing or the definition of contributing significant and the definition of facades because it strikes me that probably, or potentially, let me say that, that contributing is a really good status for this building and having then having the facades that are, that have historic integrity and that meet the protection standards, be designated as primary, but have more of them potentially than what we have now, which is pretty broad brushed and I think not in line with the definition in the code of what a facade is. So, I would like to see, and I don't know if, I don't know the procedure here at this point, if that means we go through the public comment and other things before and hearing from the applicant before making any kind of motion about wanting more information. But at this point, that would, that would be where I'm leaning is to get a facade diagram that's in line with how the code designates facades. And I totally respect your opinion and that is your view of this so far, and I've heard a little bit. I haven't heard anybody address the points that you have addressed, but I think it's proper to continue with the case and go forward. And at this point, if board members have nothing, no other questions or comments at this time, I will ask the applicant to come forward. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Oops. 333 Montezuma. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Hoops. And naturally, we want to hear from you and hear if you think this, if you agree with staff's recommendation, if you do not and why not, or if you do and why so. Thank you for having me here. I think the definition of significant is the key to this discussion today and whether or not this building has a high degree of historic integrity. And without, I think many parts of this home are well done and beautiful. I think there are parts that are not. And as such, to me, it is not, it does not have that integrity that a historic building should. I served for seven years on the Cultural Properties Review Committee for the state of New Mexico. We looked at buildings such as this, and we did not feel that this would be a building that could go on the historic register. And I think if it doesn't have the ability to go on the historic register, it cannot be listed as a significant building in Santa Fe. The integrity is not there. I think it is definitely a contributing building to the city and to the district. I think the portions of the facades, what is left of a John Gaw Meem facade is all that's left of John Gaw Meem. And indeed, Mary Austin would never recognize this building today if she were alive. So I find those things compelling in whether or not the building should be significant or not. So that's what I have to say. Thank you very much for your comments. I do have to say that the National Register of Historic Places and our ordinance, the standards for them are different. I understand. I understand. So that would be... Yes, I... So that, that's something different. And I thought it was interesting that the building that was shown here, the Adobe building, I think Mary Austin would recognize portions of it because I certainly could see, prior to it being plastered, that I could see that portions of it are very much what it is today. In 1925, I would agree she would, she would support that. But the building has changed significantly since then. And as we know, buildings do change here and there, but let's see if the board members have questions for you, Mr. Hoops. And did you have anything further? Any questions for the applicant, for Mr. Hoops, board members? It appears not. I will ask for public comment. Anyone in this room wishing to come forward and offer their comments, please get sworn in. Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? My name's Elizabeth West, at 318 Senna Street in Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. Well, I like the way you framed that, Chair Rios. You said that you thought if Mary Austin were here today, would she recognize it? And I was agreeing with you. And Mr. Hoops, when you translated what Chair Rios said, you said, "Well, she would if it were back then." But actually, I think there's a lot there. Plus, my respect for Mary Austin is that she's pretty intelligent. She could figure it out were she to do this amazing thing to come here at this point. I do think if I were living in that house all this time, I'd be forgotten by now, and I wouldn't be coming back, and it would be nothing. But to have had her and her friends and the comings and goings that were so peculiar and particular and interesting about our history happening, that is a pretty important part, I believe, of the legality of talking about significance. It seems that what Mr. Cherry was talking about is that same thing that we struggle with a lot about, "This is pretty good," or "It's not too good," or "It's something here." And I did hear in Mr. Hoops' response to this his own opinion of what he thought was interesting or attractive or worthwhile, and I would expect that, of course, of an architect who's going to be hired to do something. So I think it's a tricky thing you're facing, and if there were something that could answer Mr. Cherry's questions about what is significant and what is contributing, it's sort of contributing plus or significant minus. And so what I'm saying is not very helpful. I'm sympathetic with what you're doing. But I do think the people who came and went in this house are even more important than the fact that it was probably started to be designed by John Gaw Meem, as important as he is, of course. So my vote is for honoring Mary Austin. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Anyone else in this room wishing to come forward and comment? No one else. Anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios, we have three individuals. We'll start off with Stephanie Beninato. Please unmute and be ready to be sworn in. Thank you. Hi, Stephanie. Will you please state your name and address for the record? Stephanie Beninato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. So, I have a couple of things to say. First, I think that you can have a significant building. I agree with staff that this should actually be a significant building, and with member Benavidez's remarks, if it was a historic building from 1958. It doesn't have to be original to be significant. It has to be historic with historical integrity. And there is no proof really that there are 1997 additions. It's like vague and maybe. And you know, again, where's the actual case from 1997 showing what was or wasn't changed? Additionally, the second criteria for being significant is the historic persons associated, and I think Elizabeth West has gone into that, as well as member Benavidez. But I'd like to point out that Mary Austin not only was a hub of artistic endeavors, but she also was one of the first women trained in college. She was trained in natural science. She not only helped start the Poets Roundup and the Santa Fe Theater that is now the Santa Fe Playhouse, but she also represented the state of New Mexico in 1922 in discussions of the Colorado River Compact. And Willa Cather was there writing *Death Comes for the Archbishop*, which is again a sort of controversial but iconic work about history in the Southwest. And then the third one is maybe if it could be put on one of the registers, historic registers, but it's any one of those three really that could qualify it as significant. And I believe it meets two out of the three for sure. And Mary Austin, according to somebody who used to live in one of the guesthouses still there on the property, the woman who owned that property before she would rent out a guesthouse to anyone would wait overnight to see if there was a reaction by Mary. And if the garbage can flew over and blew around in the yard and there was no wind, she would know that Mary did not want that person to be a tenant on her property. So her spirit still lives on in that property. And again, I believe that anything that is historic, not necessarily original, that's preserved intact, should be recognized as significant. I don't think that you can exclude a part of a facade. Although, like I think two weeks ago, you excluded an addition to a significant building that was in pretty bad condition, was going to be knocked down anyway. And I guess you could say that if there were certain windows that had been replaced, but did the board allow it and did they again think that it detracted from its even contributing status? I think those are all important questions and issues, and I think some of those have been delved into in your discussion already, and maybe you want to do a little bit more with that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Stephanie, and other people. Yes, Chair Rios. Next will be Francesca Boni. Will you please unmute and be ready to be sworn in? Hello. Will you please state your name and address for the record? Ma'am, can you hear us? Because we cannot hear you. Francesca, can you hear us? Please unmute. Gary, is there another person? Perhaps we can come back to this person. Okay. Yes, sir. Next one is John Murphy. Please unmute and be ready to be sworn in. Hello. Hi, John. Will you please state your name and address for the record, please? Sure. John W. Murphy, 2833 Plaza Verde, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. Thank you. So, not to take up too much of your time, I do watch these Historic Board meetings and every once in a while feel like I need to interject, and I'm not representing Craig Hoops or the client. I'm not being paid for this. I do have a level of concern about some of the, I would hazard to say, the misinterpretation of significant status. Having worked for the city of Santa Fe and been around Santa Fe since 1992, I would have to say that significant status was only for the properties that had either historical association, which we have here, or had exquisite historical integrity across each major elevation. Significant status is aligned with an old term that was used in Santa Fe for the National Register. So if you look at the National Register for the Santa Fe Historic District, SRCP260, there are homes that are of significant status. And so that term that was used by the city and still used today was in alignment with the National Register of Historic Places at that time. So one, it had to be a home with historical association. Again, we have that. And two, that level of integrity had to be from that period. So just to translate this very simply, if we are talking about Mary Austin and she'd lived there for less than a decade, it is clear that building today would need in totality to communicate by its design and integrity her period. So I feel that this building does not do that, and it doesn't even do it for the Arsuna or apartment period. What we are seeing is an agglomeration of additions, and some are nicely designed, excuse me, like Craig Hoops mentioned, but as a totality, it is not a historic building. In regard to a question by John Benavidez about additional changes after 1958, I didn't find the paperwork for whatever was approved at the time, and nor is there really good aerial coverage, but if we were to turn to that photograph, the aerial photograph from 1958, and we would look at the east side of the building, that little indention has been totally filled in. And if we were to go to the west side, that indention has been filled in. We have things like bay projections, window walls that were all done during the Gerald Peters period. If you read Mary Austin's journals and her biographies, she was very keen about spaces and design. While you have no purview over the interior, I want to say that all of her intimate spaces, including her writing room and library, have been obliterated. I've heard the board say, "Well, this looks very much like her time." That is completely inaccurate. I would like you to look at, let's, I'm going through the document. Excuse me. Let's look at page 16. The picture of Mary standing next to a door on the west elevation that has been completely enclosed with an addition. She would not recognize that side of the building. Next photo on page 17, which is the reverse of that. Again, enclosed. Next photo on page 18. Again, not your purview, but obliterated. Next photo, page 19. This is the ramada connecting the house to the servants' quarter and the little pony wall completely obliterated. So I do find it a little troubling to want to make the association of significance with Mary Austin and let's say perhaps the Arsuna school and John Gaw Meem, but none of that building in terms of detail, in terms of facade fenestration beyond the front door and its adjacent windows and beyond the back door and their adjacent windows is intact. So we are looking at more of an apartment to Gerald Peters story in terms of massing increase, new windows, and architectural detailing. So I understand the, I mean, I love Mary Austin. I've read most of her books, and she had a great but short-lived impact on Santa Fe. But this house does not communicate her historical period nor her intentions over design because again, the intimate spaces and little details, including the exterior chimney, have been obliterated and/or enclosed with new massing that is beyond her time in Santa Fe. So thank you for your attention. Thank you, John. Gary, is the other person that wanted to comment available now? Francesca, can you hear us? I can hear you, but I might be mute. And we can hear you good. So, you're ready to be sworn in. Hi, Francesca. Will you go ahead, state your name and address for the record, please? Francesca Boni, 1030 West Housing Street. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. I just want to say the classifications of contributing versus significant versus non-contributing versus landmark are kind of cloudy and very broadly written in the code. And the generalities in which they're written, and of course they don't conform with the National Landmark Association's definitions. They are own definitions. These broad definitions give the Historic Board tremendous latitude and free will and power over status decisions, which sometimes, and possibly in this case, are a little bit on the aggressively zealous side. That's my only comment. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Hoops, would you, I'm going to guess, Gary, that there are no other people wanting to comment. Correct. Thank you. So, Mr. Hoops, as I understood John Murphy's comments, he indicated that only the, I guess that would be the north facade, is the only one that is intact from when the building was first built. Is that what you understood? Only part of the north facade? A part of the north facade. But let me ask you this, and I'll ask Paul the same question. But the other portions that have been added, they are within historical periods per the ordinance. Would you agree with that? I would, but I would add to that that just because something is done within the historic period doesn't make it significant. But do you agree that this would it be your, are you in agreement that this building is contributing? Yes, I would. Absolutely. And Paul, what are the primary facades as indicated now for contributing? Sure. The current primary facade is the north elevation. Only the north elevation? As of right now, currently. Yes, ma'am. And staff is recommending, if it is the pleasure of the board to designate the structure as contributing, staff is recommending the north and the west elevation. And the west. Thank you. Board members, do you have any further comments or questions or revelations? Madam Chair. Yes. Mr. Hoops, the west facade, are you behind that as per the staff recommendation, or do you disagree with that? Well, I would not agree with staff that the west elevation should be a primary one. On the other hand, it's right on the road, so not much can be changed about it. So, I would not have any problems if it were to be listed as a primary facade. And also, Mr. Hoops, do you agree with the 1997 changes? The windows. The 1997 changes with the bay window and the arched windows, I think, destroy the integrity of the building. And that's part of how I look at it. And that is what facade? That is the east facade. East. Okay. All right. Board members. Make a comment. Other comments? Yes, Madam Chair. Yeah, I just, it's been, it's been interesting to listen to all this and very educational. And I think, I think maybe to just as, because it's, I already brought it up as a reference point, the Nordfeldt House, being significant with as other structures we understand have significant status but exempted facades. Maybe that's a function of a flaw in the code. And if you read this significant definition, you know, it, and I'll just read this one part again. "A structure may be designated as significant for its association with events or persons that are important on a local, regional, national, or global level." Full stop. Right. So, if you read that in that way, then I could see an argument for this building being significant on that alone. However, it's, I think it's challenging to make the facade on the east side that was with those bay windows part of a significant structure. And it goes, in a way, to me, that goes against a lot of the reasoning for why John Murphy just brought up and other code references in this case for making this building a significant structure. So, I think it just, it just, I'm just noting that it, it, it creates kind of an ambiguous flaw in my mind of, and complicated, and potentially maybe that's why in other buildings, such as maybe the Nordfeldt House or other buildings, that's why that has been done as a result is because, okay, there's a really important person that lived here, that this is associated with. There are also really important parts of this building that are very predominant, visible. However, it does have some things that don't warrant that significant status. So, a hybrid as such status has been created for those, which Attorney Rubelade recommended against doing that, is what I heard, making something significant and then excluding portions of it. But it has been done, and I'm rambling on here, but I'm, I'm just, it's occurring to me that that, that's a potential reason for why it's been done of just a little ambiguity here in this. I think if you can say portions of it should be identified as non-historical, you've taken the significant status away from the building because every piece should be contributing to that historic integrity. Did you have something? Not yet. Did you finish? I think the only, well, no. The only other thing I'd say in regard to that is, is, I think the impetus here is to find the best solution for preservation for this building that exists now. And so I think this is a really interesting conversation to get there. Anybody else have any thoughts? Petrono? No, or you're still thinking about it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'm slightly torn on this one because on one hand, you know, what Member Cherry pointed out where it lists, you know, quote, "A structure may be designated as significant," and then it has A and B. Under that definition alone, I would agree that it was significant. But prior to that, in the definition, it does say that it has to embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction. So that's where I'm aligning more towards, of course, keeping it as contributing, but not significant. So I'm personally torn and continuing to listen to the conversation. Anybody else? Member Beachside? Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to point out one thing, in, at least according to the staff summary, one of the 1997 cases that looks like it probably wasn't completed, but the application was to remove the bay windows and French doors and create a portal that restored the historic profile of the east elevation. So just, just the fact that there's changes like that that would be restorative indicate that, you know, what's there is not, you know, what was originally there. So anyway, just thought that was interesting. Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. So yeah. So yeah, this is where we just, I think we're still a little bit stuck on some factual discrepancies to my mind because I'm looking at the 1991 Hickby, and they show, it shows the bay window on the east facade. So it was clearly in place as of 1991. So, not something later than that, although we don't know when, but it's called out as being one of the two alterations from the original footprint, just the bay window, and indicating that that entire facade was the original building profile. I'm not saying that's correct, but that's what was understood as of 1991. And that would make sense with what Member Beachey was just pointing out, that what was being proposed was to take that window back off and restore the original profile, which would be pretty much what's there today. So I, I guess I'm just, you know, to me, and I do appreciate the fact that this section of the code has always presented a bit of a road bump because it's not as clear as we would like it to be. It's not clear to what extent the subsections A and B modify the original part of the code and to what extent they are additional considerations for granting the status. But given all that, I still do believe that the way we've, this board, since I've been on it, has addressed these issues, and the way the preservation division and making the recommendation, which I consider to be not from the individual staff member but from the entire preservation division, is their interpretation of this section of the code that defines significance would apply in this particular instance because it retains, because it's associated with events and persons that are important on a local level, including actually regional, national, global as well, and it retains a sufficiently high level of historic integrity in that whatever alterations were made are predominantly in the historic time frame. So, that I understand to be the interpretation of the preservation division that would qualify this building as a significant structure. I agree with that for the reasons I said before. But I do recognize that there are certain aspects of this that may be non-historic. In other words, alterations that were made after 1975 at this point in time that could be brought forward in any future applications for consideration. So those are my thoughts. I'll go ahead and make a motion and see what everyone else thinks. That's okay with the. And you're ready to make the motion. Is that what? If you're ready. I'm ready. Thank you, board members. And I don't think anyone can accuse us of not being thorough. All right. Case 2025010871 HDRB 439 Camino del Sol. I would move to adopt staff's recommendation that the historic status of the structure be upgraded to significant for all the reasons set forth in the staff report and for some of the additional specific reasons that were fleshed out in the discussion tonight, including the fact that this was one of the very earliest, if not the earliest, design inspirations, at least of John Gaw Meem in 1925 for what was then being developed as the Spanish Pueblo Revival style, that Mary Austin herself seemed to have been involved in building this with the assistance of another very important figure, Frank Applegate, that if there are modifications that were made from the original Meem drawings, it's fair to assume that they were made by Mary Austin herself and Frank Applegate, that the house was the center of cultural activities in Santa Fe for nearly a decade at one of the most significant periods of Santa Fe history, including the origin of the Santa Fe preservation movement and the origin of the Old Santa Fe Association as founded by Mary Austin and others in that circle that revolved around this very house, that it was deeded by Mary Austin to be continued as a cultural property under the ownership of the Indian Arts Fund and was for several years, that it was then an art school of fine arts that included on the faculty very important Santa Fe artists, and that most of the modifications that have been made to the property since the time it was originally built were made in the historic era and are more than 50 years old and show the evolution and accretive style of Santa Fe architecture, and therefore find that it does retain a high level of historic integrity and is important for its associations, and also a finding that there is information in the record that some of the modifications to the exterior may be non-historic and that could be taken into consideration by the board in any future applications. Thank you. Is there a second to this motion? I will second in fear and trembling. It's the longest motion I've ever seconded, but thank you. Folks, please, Mariah, can we discuss it? Oh, well, I mean, you can, you want to add a friendly amendment motion? We were already finished with discussion. Oh, discuss the motion. Pardon? Discuss the motion. What did you have to say? Oh, I, I just, I, I, I have a hard time designating that pretty modern addition as as part of a significant structure. That, that would be my comment on the motion to designate as significant. Thank you. Anyone else add anything or make a comment to the motion? No. Roll call vote, please. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Beach. No. Member Cherry. No. Member Mather. No. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member Bichanu. Sorry. Yes. Yes. We're at a tie. And you know what happens when there's a tie? It all falls on little old me. This case, as many other cases, it comes, it's really very challenging, and I heard the different opinions of everyone, which I felt were actually very legitimate, and it's, this is a very difficult one for me, but I'm going to have to go with one or. the other, and I will go with significant with emotion, and I'll tell you why. The two things that come to mind, or even three things that come to mind, are the historic integrity of this building remains. When I see this building, it has integrity, and it has association to that building. Perhaps it has some aspects to this building that are non-historic to the building. And perhaps someone in the future would like to change it to its original, do some delving into the history a little deeper into the portion of the building that is in question. And perhaps, as in other cases, people have been very determined to take a building to its original building architecturally, and perhaps that'll be done here. And I think another thing is that we here in Santa Fe, I have seen that we are really losing a lot of our old buildings that have certain footprints. And these old buildings are being added to and added to and added to because that seems to be the trend these days to really make these buildings that were of, this building is of a good size. And perhaps, I don't know what the overview or the outlook of what people want to do with this building, but it seems like many buildings that come to us, people add to it. And in my humble opinion, they overbuild in many cases. And I am going with the significant status of this building. **Chair:** The motion has been approved, Madam Chair. **Chair:** Thank you. Thank you very much. **Chair:** The next case is located at 800 Gildersleeve. Is that applicant here? **Paul J. Rios:** Cherios. Yes, ma'am. **Chair:** Okay. Go ahead and give us the report. Paul. **Paul J. Rios:** J. Rios, would you bear with me? Board members, I have to log back into Rios. Members of the board, in case number 2025010948, HDRB, the single-family residence and detached garage at 800 Gildersleeve are listed as contributing to the Don Gaspar Area Historic District. The primary facades are designated on the main structure are the east and south facades and the garage east facade. The main structure and the garage were constructed sometime before 1928 in the Spanish Pueblo Revival design style, as seen by the battered walls, stepped parapets, recessed openings, projecting vega tails, historic wood windows, and sculpted chimney. The property was issued a stop work order or red tag due to non-permitted work on the property, which resulted in the removal of four historic wood windows on the south primary facade. Staff has been working with the property owners and applicant to rectify the situation, which has resulted in the request for two exceptions for the removal of historic material and the repairing and for repairing historic windows on the primary facades. Given the egregious act of removing historic material without a permit and not complying with what was previously approved by the Historic Districts Review Board, staff is requesting the historic windows that were removed be replaced in kind to what was previously preserved on the southern facade in the 2015 Historic Districts Review Board case. I'll walk through this project for you at 800 Gildersleeve. Here we see the east facade, which is one of the primary facades. Here we have the north facade, non-primary facade, and the south facade. So the north and the east facades here are the primary facades. Now, this photo was taken in October of 2024, and here you can see the four historic windows are currently there. Here we have the west facade in the back. You can see here the back of the garage. Now, Mr. Patterson did a window assessment on the property, window assessor, and he came to the conclusion that the openings show spray foam insulation around the windows that resulted in moisture damage, and the moisture damage is a contributing factor to the window deterioration. Due to the damage from moisture seeping into the interior, the interior plaster has been compromised. Water stains can now be seen on the stucco. At this point, with the four windows being removed and only a few pieces left, my suggestion is to replace the windows in like kind to the windows that have been previously replaced in the other areas to follow the historic requirements: clad wood, simulated divided light, color to match the replaced windows, sizes to match the windows that are removed. So here is the site plan and the four windows identified by the window assessor. So, here is that south primary facade and the four historic windows intact. Here is window one. Here is the current, the current status of the window on that south elevation and its current condition. Here's window two. That was the historic window. And here is the two's current condition. Here's window three and window three's current condition, and window four, two over one wood clad windows, and the wood, number four's current condition. So here we have, and here is the review of that south facade. Currently, this is the current condition. Currently, the window openings are now boarded up to preserve the structure. Here were the window sashes, and they are no longer on the property. They have now since been removed. And here's a window sashes and jambs that are no longer on the property. So given, given the current state of the structure, staff is recommending that the applicant or that the owners replace with wood clad windows in the locations that are now since gone with two over one windows that were previously there, which the board was recommended for preservation. And it would make sense that they would color them in kind to what is currently established on the property for congruency to harmonize with the current property, with the current condition of the property. So with that, staff recommends that the, staff finds that all the exception criteria have not been met, but the board may find that they have upon further testimony. Staff recommends the historic window openings be restored to their original conception as that would comply with 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2H Don Gaspar area design standards. Thank you, board. Staff stands for questions. **Chair:** Thank you, Paul. Any questions for Paul? Yes, member. **Member:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul, I think in, in response to some of the applicant's responses to the criteria, I believe in your responses indicated that you, that the, the applicant had agreed to replace the windows. Is that, can you clarify where we stand with respect to that agreement or not? **Paul J. Rios:** Jurio, member Bishide, great question. On the exception criteria, there are some exception criteria where the applicant was requesting Sierra Pacific windows, and when they requested that Sierra Pacific window, staff did not recommend that they met that exception criteria. I believe it's, I believe it is a number two where on the exception criteria where the applicant initially, they're saying we're going to replace them in kind, like material color, but then they change it to where, well, we're going to replace it into what is currently established on the property. Well, staff is recommending that they take it back to the wooden clad two over one windows in order to rectify what has been done on this structure and in consideration to what the board has made. So, in some of the exception criteria, the applicant has stated that they would, would like to make a different type of window system. So they do state that they would like to make the windows in like material kind, and then in some of the exception requests, it's they don't say that. So staff is just stating that we recommend that they replace them in kind. **Member:** So, are there sort of two things, like the window openings have been changed and the windows have been removed, or are these openings the original sizes? **Paul J. Rios:** Chair Rios, member Bside, most likely they've, they've changed a little bit. Most likely that they've changed. **Member:** Okay. **Paul J. Rios:** In some capacity. **Member:** And so your recommendation is that the openings, both the openings and the windows, be restored as close to and kind as they can at this point, knowing that the materials are no longer available? **Paul J. Rios:** Yes, ma'am. **Member:** Okay. And, and if, if the, if the applicant is willing to do that, which we don't know, would you, you would recommend approval? **Paul J. Rios:** Yes, ma'am. **Member:** Okay. Got it. Thank you. **Chair:** Thank you. That will be tight. Me. **Member:** Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Paul, it's been my experience that sometimes in situations like these, in the grander scale, if you move a building or try to relocate a historic structure, its history nature has been compromised. Just to say that, if we are requesting that the windows be replaced, I think the real question is, the original windows cannot be replaced in the condition they are in. Is that so, or can they be salvaged? **Paul J. Rios:** Well, Madame Chair, member Degen, the, the windows are no longer on the property. They have now since been all removed. So that they are not going to be in any way, shape or form remotely historic. **Member:** Okay. Thank you. **Paul J. Rios:** That is correct. Yes, ma'am. **Chair:** Any other questions, members of the board, at this time? Member Cherry? **Member:** I didn't hear anything about the garage door. Is that part of this? **Paul J. Rios:** Oh, Cherios, member Cherry, that is correct. Staff recommends approval as well as for items number two through six for the applicant's request for some minor, some alterations on the property as well. And those, those being number two, the installation of a new mini-split HVAC system to improve energy efficiency, that that HVAC system be non-publicly visible. Install exterior lighting, which will consist of classic style open frame cylindrical fixtures housed within square diffusers. Restucco around the window frames to match the existing cementitious stucco color in adobe. And number five, request infilling the exterior door currently located on the west wall of the garage. This door is not located on the primary facade, and its removal would have no impact on the street-facing appearance of the structure. And number six, install a Martin Pinnacle garage door featuring eight vertical V-groove panels in a walnut wood grain finish. The staff would recommend approval of those as well. **Chair:** Thank you, Paul. Paul, can you further describe the lighting? What is the material? **Paul J. Rios:** From my understanding, thank you, Chair. From my understanding, the cylindrical, cylindrical exterior finishes are approximately seven inches in length and five inches in diameter. But I, I can defer to the applicant to share more information on the exterior finishes. **Member:** Thank you. Sorry, one more question. With respect to these four windows, was there ever a request to replace or repair the windows? **Paul J. Rios:** Chair Rios, member Bside. No, ma'am. Our historic inspector caught them working, and he talked with them. He found out that they did not have a construction permit or gone to the board for review. At that time, he gave them a site, a red tag violation, stop work order, and at that time, they started to work with staff in March of this year. **Member:** Thank you. **Chair:** Thank you. There are no further questions. I will ask the applicant to come forward and get one, please. **Chair:** Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. **Applicant:** Correct. 36 West San Francisco. **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? **Applicant:** Yeah. **Chair:** Thank you. **Applicant:** Yes. And good evening. And what do you have to tell us? And if you'll speak right into that mic. Just to clarify, the intention was to replace those windows in the same size that they were. We're not pushing size. I think there's some confusion about the construction of the proposed replacement windows because the word "clad" is being put in there. If they're in kind and type to what was there before, they are not clad. They're wood windows that are painted. I think part of the reason for that confusion is that the windows that were there before are brown stained, not hemlock green. The rest of the windows on the house are hemlock green. So the proposal was to replace them in kind and type, but in green. But we're happy to make them brown stain if that's the preference of the board. Hopefully, that'll help clarify that one. I don't think it was anybody's intention to break the law here. We had overexuberant workers who tore out these windows without realizing that their intention was to stay. I think if you look at the study that Ray Patterson did, those windows were rather rotten and really not in a shape to be repaired. Whether they were removed or not, they were not in good enough shape to stay. So maybe this is a blessing in disguise that we get windows that are sound and structurally adequate in the process. Questions for me? So you're agreeing with staff's recommendation? We are. Yes. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Not. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment? It appears not. Anyone online? Yes, we have Stephanie Benatu. Will you please unmute? Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you. I think that the loss of these windows, or just the tearing out of the windows, whether done by workers or done at the direction of a contractor who should have known better, or at the direction of the owners, is more than unfortunate. And I agree with staff's recommendation. I'd like to be clear, however, that they're not going to be aluminum clad windows. They are going to be rebuilt for the spaces in which they are, that are currently existing, and that they will look exactly like the windows that were there. I think that the owner could come in and request a different color that would be in keeping with the other windows on the property, but it would be something that was painted and not clad. I'm also, just as a point of reference, wondering why there is that appurtenance on the roof that is totally visible from the primary facade, and why that was never addressed in this report or seemingly when this project was approved, because I thought that the board wanted a rooftop of appurtenances screened, and that is big and visible. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else online? No. Cheerios. Thank you. Yes, Paul. Cher Rios, just in regards to Mrs. Benatu's question, that HVAC system is no longer on that roof. No, I did not see it there today. Thank you. Board members, if you have no further questions or comments, I will entertain a motion, please. Member Beach. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 202510948 HDRB at 800 Gildersleeve Street, I move to approve the application to replace the four windows on the... It's on the south, on the south facade. Thank you. In kind with respect to material and style, such that the windows are wood, true divided light, not clad, with the condition that the color be brought to staff for confirmation that it matches the existing color on the other windows of the structure. I think it was called hemlock green. And that the openings match as well, the size of the windows that were unfortunately removed. I'll second. Is there anything further to add? No. Did you indicate, I'm going to see, they're going to be wood, they would be painted, correct? Wood painted with a color that staff will approve. Okay. Thank you, Member Chair. Is there anything in that motion regarding the rest of the application? Oh, thank you. You're on top. Thank you. And consistent with staff's, I guess, sorry, I should say that consistent with staff's recommendation, approve items two through six as submitted. And then I just should clarify for the record that the exception criteria as acknowledged by staff are met with this proposal. Thank you. We have a roll call vote, please. Member Benatu. Yes. Member Aguilar Madrona. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Abstain. Member Beach. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you. And the last case on new business is at 913 and a half Second. Also your case. Pardon me, Chair. Thank you. Madame Chair, members of the board, in case number 2025010949 HDRB, single family residence at 913 and a half Second Street is designated as contributing with the north and northeastern facades as primary to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The structure was reviewed by the Historic Districts Review Board for status two times, and the structure was given a contributing historic status on November 28th and January of 2023, and January 9th, 2024. The structure was built in 1940 on a 0.10 acre lot which totaled 1,720 square feet. The primary architectural design style of the structure is a combination of Spanish Pueblo Revival elements, but is overall of a Santa Fe vernacular style. The adobe and concrete block make up the construction materials, and the building is characterized by its flat shed roof, wooden and aluminum single-hung 30 over one and one over one windows. The structure has had several changes and phases of construction and with additions throughout its lifetime. The original core of the structure can be seen at the north and northeastern facades, and these two facades demonstrate the integrity of the original structure and its ability to contribute to the Downtown Site Historic District. Elements of the humble home, such as the adobe wall construction and recessed 30 over one and wood-framed windows, convey historic meaning in the regard to the simple family homes constructed in the East Side. Now, on June 11th, 2024, the board approved the renovations of this property, and this property was brought before the board several times. Now, the current request is for a change on the south elevation from the garage to the kitchen, and the change in a previously approved portal on that western facade. So as we look here on the north is the primary facade, and the northeastern facade are the two designated primary facades, and the current state of the structure is as we see it in these photographs. Now here on the south and that western facade is where the proposed changes, where the applicant is requesting the proposed changes to the portal and a shift in the current floor plan. Here is where the portal is, the requested portal addition with a middle galvalume roof system is being proposed. Here's the current facade diagram. Now, I don't know, I'm going to see if you can see this closer. Here is the original existing footprint of the property. And here is the approved, approved in the 2024 case, approved plan. And then here we have, this makes sense, here is the approved plan from the 2024 approved plan here. And here is the proposed change in the floor plan. So now we have where the garage, where the kitchen would be, we have the garage, and where the garage would be, the kitchen is here, and where the portal wraps around, they're proposing the kitchen to be here, and then the portal here is where they're proposing. Now there is no other work that they're proposing on this project, only this change here on this southern and western facade. Here we can see a little clearer where the garage, the kitchen, and then the new portal with the sloped galvalume roof system. Here we can see here again, here is the approved floor plan, and here is the new, the new modified floor plan, the garage, the kitchen, and here the portal, the roof change from a parapet roof portal to a galvanized galvalume steel roof system. So here we have the approved north elevation and the proposed north elevation. No changes occur. Here we have the approved east elevation and the proposed east elevation. No changes occur. Here we have the approved south elevation and the proposed elevation. The approved elevation, the previously approved case, they were approved for French doors, windows, and a mechanical door. And what they're requesting is to make it, to change that to mass for the garage and the kitchen. And here we have the west elevation. This was the approved west elevation, a parapet portal. And here they're looking to change it to three windows here and the galvalume wood middle sloped roof system here with a kiva fireplace, maximizing as much roofed area as they can for that back porch. Here are the exterior finishes in which they're proposing and the type of roofing system which they're requesting. Given that, the staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that no exception request is necessary, and that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2E, Downtown and East Side Design Standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Paul, any questions? Board members for Paul Madano. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul, with the swapping of the kitchen and the new garage space, additional square footage is being added. Have, are we still okay on the percentage of new construction that's being added to the historic footprint? Was that checked again? That's a great question. Staff talked to the applicant and they are not proposing on changing any of the roofed square footage. And I've sat with the applicant and we've discussed it, and any additional square footage would have needed a PZR, and we requested that, and he shared that no changes in the square footage that was approved in the 2024 case. It's only now a modification of the change, or the floor plan. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for pointing. I do see now that it was a portal. So, yeah, I guess I would have assumed that a heated space is considered differently than a portal in terms of square footage, but I leave that up to you guys. I just wanted to double check. And my other question would be the south facade. Is there any public visibility of that where the new garage will be? Madame Chair, Member Aguilar Madano, on the south facade, can you stay, can... Is that publicly visible? I'm just wondering in terms of window, since that is just such a solid facade right now, if it's... Madame Chair, Member Aguilar Madano, it is partially publicly visible as you're driving north on that private easement, you can see that southern facade clearly. Okay, right. Thank you both. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any other questions, board members? Questions, Richard. Hello. Will you please state your name? Sorry, raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Richard Martinez, PO Box 925, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you very much. I, first of all, just in terms of your question, I wish that there was a distinction between heated and non-heated when you're figuring out an addition, but there is none. So roofed is roofed. In this case, as you recall, the original case took over eight months, over $6,000 to finalize, but we got approval for what we were doing. And that was on June 11th of 2024. Now, new owners have requested some changes to that approval. We are keeping exactly the same footprint of the house that was there before. No changes are proposed to the two primary facades of the house. The only changes that we're proposing are on the south side and the west side of the house, the back and one of the sides. The changes that we're proposing, it does look very blank from the outside, but it is blank right now. The side of the garage that exists right now will be the side of the garage in the future. So, it is a change because we were adding a door in that facade because we had a mechanical room out back there. But the changes that we're proposing eliminate that mechanical room and put it inside the house because we eliminated one of the powder rooms inside of the house so that we had the space to put the mechanical room inside the house. We have small changes throughout the house, the layouts of the bathrooms and such. And so it required in the back of the house that one of the doors, the sliding door, go from a 6-foot door to a 5-foot door because of the size of the bathroom and that one of the windows be eliminated. What we're proposing is to take the kitchen, which was going to occupy the old garage in the house, be moved over into the portal that I was proposing for the house. So the garage will stay the garage. I had a fake garage door on the street facade and that garage door will now be real, but it'll look exactly the same because before there was a kitchen behind it and now there's a garage behind it. And so the kitchen will occupy the portal, the major part of the portal in the back of the house. And because of that, that means that the portal in the back of the house gets smaller. And I made the change to have it not a parapeted portal, which it was before, but rather a metal-roofed, sloped portal. And when I hear "galvalume," it sounds terrible, but remember this is a corrugated metal, barn red roof. There's a photograph in the package that I sent you of the type of roof. The reason I'm changing the portal from a parapeted portal to a sloped roof portal is because a sloped roof portal has an overhang on it. And so it makes the portal just a couple of feet wider. And that is really important for our use because it allows a table and a sitting area to be out and not cramped. And because this lot is very small, you can imagine that that's the only outdoor space. It's private. Otherwise, oh, and one more change is that I have in the front of the house a small 3-foot high wall that just goes from one area of the driveway over to hide the existing electrical pedestal that's there in the front of the house. It shows on the site plan. But otherwise, there are no changes and I stand for questions. Mayor: Thank you, Richard. Richard, this elevation that is up, that is not publicly visible, correct? That west elevation. Richard: That's correct. That's the back of the house. Mayor: Okay. Any other questions, board members? Board Member: Yeah, I have a question. Madam Chair, I'm just curious about the fireplace. It's represented the same in the elevation. What's the chimney going to look like? Richard: The chimney, so the fireplace in the big room, in the living room, changed into a corner fireplace. And we put a fireplace outside back-to-back on the portal, which is also a corner fireplace. Those fireplaces will be like I illustrated in the elevation. They will be stuccoed and sticking up off the roof just like the other one was. Board Member: Okay. But they move. I mean, the... Richard: They did move, yes. Board Member: But in the proposed and approved, they're in the same location. Well, because in that facade that you're looking at, it moved. Board Member: Yeah, I'm looking at the north and south facades, not on the monitor. You're looking at... Richard: Oh, I see. You're talking about from the front. Board Member: No, from the north and south facade. From the sides of the house. So from the sides of the house, yes. Richard: Are not illustrated correctly on the sides of the house. Is that... Board Member: It's just, they're the same. The approved and the proposed are the same, but on the plan it looks like it moves. Richard: It may be. It may be. I thought I corrected all of those changes, but it changes in location just slightly. It's not, it's a matter of a few feet. Board Member: Okay. So, it does, it does move. It does move to the west like six or eight feet or something. Richard: Yes, that's right. Yeah. Okay. Board Member: All right. Thanks. Mayor: Any other questions, comments? Anything else? Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this particular case? Come forward, sir. Hello. Will you please state your name and address for the record? Richard Andrew: Richard Andrew, 59 Greythorn Drive. Mayor: 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? Richard Andrew: I do. Mayor: Thank you. Richard Andrew: First of all, thank you for actually hearing this. Thank you for presenting for us. I was told yesterday coming back home from vacation, I was up in Winter Park, that this was not going to happen and so I almost didn't come. But I told my wife, I really want to go. I want to see how this goes. I want to understand what's going on and anticipate maybe getting next month or in a couple months. I didn't know. First of all, this is amazing. I love this stuff. As Richard knows, this is kind of in my nature. I love this stuff about Santa Fe. I'm so excited about being considering moving into the city. We've had a property out in Los Canyons since 2008. My wife and I both fell in love with Santa Fe again in 1995 after having childhood experiences here. And we started telling our kids in 1995, and one of them was only three years old at the time, "We're going to end up in Santa Fe." So, we moved here full-time when two of our kids were still in college. We love this place and love the historic nature and I love this historic discussion that you're having about significance or contributing. I didn't even know this property was a contributing property until today. So that makes me very excited about having the opportunity to take this property that's been vacant for five years and make it into something contributing to the historic nature of this city and this culture. That's really powerful and important to me and it's a big part of why we're doing this. Another piece was we probably paid a little more than we should have for a couple reasons. It had an approved plan and it had a permit and so we thought we were pretty far down the path and earlier yesterday I thought maybe, well, maybe we're not far down that path anyway. But I'm excited that you're considering this proposal and I'm really excited that I decided to come and decided to stay to this point. So thank you for your time, especially your volunteers and staff and for getting us to this point. Thank you. Mayor: Mr. Andrew, thank you for your comments. I'm glad that you are in love with Santa Fe. And I always like to hear from the homeowner. I think it's important to hear from the homeowners and such as you sitting there patiently, but it seems like you were enjoying what was going on in this room. Anyway, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Did we have already hear from the public? No. Other somebody else? Yes, we have Stephanie Bernat. Stephanie, you may unmute. Stephanie, are you there? Board Member: Did she have her hand up? Mayor: She has her hands up. Yes or no? Yes. Stephanie: I was waiting for Gary to unmute me. I can't unmute myself really. Mayor: We can hear you. Stephanie: Okay, great. I appreciate that they're coming back in to make modifications and that this garage, the part that they're changing, is not, well, it's slightly publicly visible or somewhat publicly visible, but I find that the whole unrelieved mass of that side, the south side, to be kind of off-putting, especially when part of it is a kitchen. And I would wonder if the board could suggest putting in at least a couple of windows there to break that up. And then I understand about wanting to use a metal roof, but what is the trim on the house? Is it red? Because a red roof is really going to stick out both from the air and to any neighboring building. And I wonder if there's a color of that metal that might be more in keeping with making it part of the earth as opposed to really sticking out with a very bright red roof. And the other question too is it seems like there is an interior fireplace with a chimney and now we have a second fireplace and that they're in line with each other, or in other words, parallel to each other, but it's not really drawn as two chimneys. So, I'm really curious, is the interior chimney going away and the one for the portal is taking its place or are there actually two chimneys just in line with each other? So, if you're standing straight on from one facade, you can't tell that there are two chimneys there. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Richard, would you respond to the chimney situation? Richard: What she was asking. Yes, the chimneys are in line. So, Mayor: So there are two chimneys. Richard: So there are two chimneys. It shows on my site plan that there are two chimneys coming through the roof as opposed to one. Also, I just want to point out that the kitchen is only 5 feet away from the property line. The neighbor's garage is right there. It covers half the kitchen and the other half is their car. So, that's one of the reasons why we're not open to that side. We're open to the rear, which is the private open space. Mayor: Thank you. Board members, I will entertain a motion at this point. One, two, three, four. Yes. Board Member: Aguilar Montano. Board Member Aguilar Montano: Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2025-0949 HDRB at 913 and a half, Acequia Madre, I move to approve the application as submitted, which is consistent with staff's recommendation. Board Member: I'll second. Mayor: Anything further to add? Nothing further. Roll call vote, please. Board Member: Member Benu. Board Member Benu: Yes. Board Member: Member Aguilar Montano. Board Member Aguilar Montano: Yes. Board Member: Member Mather. Board Member Mather: Yes. Board Member: Member Cherry. Board Member Cherry: Yes. Board Member: Member Beach. Board Member Beach: Yes. Board Member: Member Dman. Board Member Dman: Yes. Mayor: The motion has passed. Thank you, Richard. Richard: Thank you. Mayor: Staff, do we have any discussion items? No. Mayor: Uh, matters from the board. Uh, yes. Oh, Attorney Rubel: Chair and members, the governing body will hear a land use and historic district review board appeal tomorrow on a project or on a status review in which the board approved the upgrade of a status of a residence and an accessory unit at 1030 and a half West Houghton Street. That hearing before the H board took place November 26th, 2024. It will finally, after some considerable delays, be heard by the governing body tomorrow night. Mayor: Thank you. Anything else? Nothing else. Any matters from the board? Board Member: Madam Chair? Mayor: Okay. Whoa, three hands are up. Okay, we'll start at the corner over there with Manda. Board Member: I just wanted to let everybody know I will be gone October 23rd through November 23rd. So, I just wanted to put that on the record and Gary, I'll email you and let you know, but I just wanted to put it out there for everybody. Mayor: Thank you very much. Member Cherry. Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment regarding the facade diagrams that we were discussing and just a request from staff to have, if we could have the facade diagrams be consistent in the way they're explained in the code, because I think that would just help make these decisions, take out the ambiguity of the subjectiveness of which facades are which. It would be helpful. Thank you for your comments. And Gary, you're looking at me like, what exactly does he mean, or what did you have a question? Ariel and member chair, we are currently working on how to illustrate the facade diagrams by color or numbers. So we will be doing that. That's great. Yeah, because I think if it came to us the same way every time, it'd be easier. It would just eliminate that question. Yes, thank you. Yes, member Dman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to request that this board consider in the near term, which would be 45 days as I understand the rules, to discuss the status of the Soldiers Monument in the Plaza. I don't know if everyone realizes this, but there is no individual designation for this monument. It's pretty significant. There's a lot of conversation about it, and perhaps discussions and ideas about it will be informed if we go ahead and discuss this in this body, which would be the body to decide its significance or its designation. I'm requesting that, Madam Chair. Yes, member Beno. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'll assume that's a motion for the governing or the H board to consider statusing the Soldiers Monument. It wasn't made in the form. That's why I'm asking, is it just a discussion item, or were you suggesting a motion to actually have the status addressed by the board? Well, I think we'd need to discuss it before we just discuss. Yes, so that's what I'm requesting. The first step in my mind would be that. Just a discussion. Yeah, okay. And then to move forward on it one way or another, depending on the outcome of the discussion. Okay. So my thought on that would be that I think that's a good idea, because this has been something that the public has thought the board should do for a number of years now. However, I would say that I would agree to that, but on condition that we get a formal opinion from the City Attorney prior to that discussion or during that discussion as to whether or not the board has any jurisdiction over the Soldiers Monument. And the reason I say that is because the City Attorney in the past has taken the position that we do not. And it's, you know, I was just rereading the resolution that was introduced by Councilor Romero Worth and Councilor Castro and Councilor Chavez, directing the City Manager to investigate relocating the Soldiers Monument. And in the whereas clauses, page five, whereas clause is that the city's historic district code does not apply to the Soldiers Monument and associated structures because they are quote unquote objects excluded from the code's requirements. Quote unquote objects includes quote sculpture, monuments, boundary markers, statuary, and fountains. And then the site is to section 14-12.1. So I assume that was written with the input of the City Attorney, and that the governing body has already more or less taken on discussion and action items relating to the Soldiers Monument, bypassing the H board on the understanding that we don't have jurisdiction over it. So I don't know whether that's correct or not, but if that's the City Attorney's position, I think the board needs to know that before we enter into any discussion. Well, I accept that. I guess that's a friendly amendment if this is a motion, but I don't have. It's not a motion. That's why I was asking if it's a motion. If it was, I was going to come with the amendment, but if it's actually just a proposal. So I would just say I agree with that, but I would ask that the City Attorney issue us an opinion before we have that discussion. Oh, I think that would be very important to do that. Okay. Chair Rios and member Beno, member Dnan, this matter has been requested by the City Attorney. This is not the first time that this, you know, that members of the public have made this request. It is something that I will have to discuss with my boss. With respect to the legislation pending in front of the governing body, I have nothing to do with that. I am not on the legislative half. Yeah, by City Attorney, I meant the City Attorney, not the Assistant City Attorney. But I also think it is a matter that if there is going to be a discussion about it, it needs to be on agenda, you know, because even if you're just making a recommendation, it is something that I think would obviously draw a lot of public input. Many members of the public want to be heard about this, and to have this discussion now without it being on agenda would run a foul with the Open Meetings Act. So it's something that should be addressed, I'm sure. I would just like to add that I think it's an important issue, and that if this board, which has vested power to designate or deny the same for historic designation, I just think that we should have a little bit of input in this. So if it is the City Attorney's official opinion that we have no authority in this issue, I'm kind of surprised. I don't know what it is we do then. So, frankly, I think you summed it up, Mr. Robin, and I'm asking if we can have that discussion at a meeting here and decide where to go from there. Should we do, Attorney Rublade, do we need to make a motion to put that discussion item on the agenda for time? No, I believe the board chair, the board chair requests the staff to place it on the agenda. I don't think you have to have a motion for it. I can check that to determine that, but I believe that is the, either the staff places it on the agenda or the board chair asks the staff to place it on the agenda. We do that. Can I just do that this evening, or do we do that in the form of motion? I think you just have to make a request. It doesn't have to be on the record. Okay. I think you just have to make a request to the staff. I would request that and also request to get an opinion from the City Attorney. We have purview. Yes, I think the best thing to do would be just to address an email to my supervisor, Aaron McSherry. Okay. All right. Done. Okay. Thank you. Anything else, board members? Yeah, I did have something regarding the Gildersleeve case that we heard. I mean, it confuses me a little, and I guess I'd like some guidance from either staff or senior board members, that it seems like a little bit of a possession is nine tenths of the law kind of a situation where this has come before us before, where, you know, the worker took the window out, and oh no, now I guess we need new windows. And we just, there's just, this doesn't seem like there's much that gets done or that we can do. And I'm really curious, like, what can be done regarding that, because just saying, okay, now you can go ahead and replace the windows, sort of rewards the, you know, that kind of a situation, which leads, one would imagine, to more of it. And so I'm just curious how that gets addressed. I second your motion, although it's not a motion. I know I agree with you with what I'm saying. I mean, actually, in this particular case, I don't feel that they got rewarded, because they did not want, they wanted to, they took those windows out. They did not want the windows. They wanted to, I'm sure, stucco that over. So, in my opinion, they did not get rewarded. They were made to replace those windows in kind. So, unfortunately, these things come up here and there. People do things without a permit, and coincidentally, they many times they get caught, and then they have to come back before the board, and we try to remedy the situation. Okay. I mean, I don't know, I don't know what else to say in that case. They lost. Yeah, I guess I didn't. They did away with the window frames. Yeah, I understand that. And the takeaway, I guess I maybe I just missed that they wanted to stucco over those openings. Well, I'm going to guess that that's what they, what the request was for. Or I think that they wanted to replace the windows identical to the other windows. Yeah, or that. I mean, what are you sure? But yeah, I think probably Paul knows. Chair Rios, members of the board, they wanted to, what it appeared to be like when our historic inspector went out and staff went out and we talked to the homeowners, they were going to replace everything in kind to what it is today. But to member Cher's concern, our historic inspector is pretty awesome. He's out there, and he's keeping everybody accountable. And I would say at 214 Old Santa Fe Trail, they did a lot of illegal work. And now because of the consistent citations, taking them to court, having them to applying the code, they're going to restore that structure back to its original conception, right? And so we do see some small victories in that way where we do save some of these historic structures on these prevalent streetscapes. And we get, we get to see that. But there is a lot of illegal work that does take place. And it is sad that some of these structures do get damaged. Yeah, and I'm not, I mean, the illegal work is going to happen. I guess I'm talking more about like when it comes here and it's that, oops, the windows went missing and now they're just off site, gone at the dump. Whoopsie. Yeah. We've seen a number of whoopsies here. Yeah, that, what's the, what's the repercussion other than just proving what they don't want? We don't have the ability to enforce any penalties. You know, the board just doesn't have jurisdiction to put them in jail or find them. So that would be completely up to the enforcement aspect of the City Attorney's office if they wanted to go to court and seek remedies. And while we're on this topic, Chair Rios and member Beno, member Cherry, correct me if I'm wrong, Gary, but the inspector that Paul was just describing, Mr. Anthony Mestus, recently issued a code citation for violation of minimum maintenance standards, 639 Old Santa Fe Trail. If you drive by that property or you just look at it on Google Maps, you'll see that the stucco has started to slop off the adobe, the adobe wall, and the adobe is eroding, and it's leaving a pile of adobe mud on the sidewalk. And there are other issues with that house as well that have, we've had complaints to the constituent services staff that the property owner burns coal in the backyard and is running some kind of iron smelter with unapproved, and it's been going on for some time. But as far as historic preservation goes, the fact that there's no maintenance going on there, and I believe that is a contributing building. So is that correct? I believe it's a contributing building. So hopefully that will be remedied sometime here in the near year. And what's the result of that? I mean, I know there's no result, like it hasn't, it's just been reported, but what's the, what then happened? Well, the standard procedure is to issue a notice of violation. You know, because there's, we kind of have to jump through some hoops to prove due process. So there's a notice of violation issued to him, and if they're, to the property owner and anybody who's in violation of the code, and if they don't comply within 30 days, then they're actually issued a summons into municipal court. Everything heard in municipal court is a petty misdemeanor, meaning I think the fines are up to $500 and there can be 90 days in jail. What I've commonly seen the municipal judge do is enter a probation order and enter a jail sentence suspended on compliance with the conditions of probation, which is to comply with the code, to bring the structure into compliance with the code. So, I guess that's curious to me then. Are we able to request that that happens in cases that come before us where historic material has been removed? Well, you can certainly bring it to the attention of the staff, and the staff, of course, will have to do its own investigation. And usually we have a staff meeting. I have a staff meeting with the historic preservation staff and I have a staff meeting with the nuisance properties committee. And what's the violation that you issue called again? That particular one at 639 Old Santa Fe Trail was for violation of minimum maintenance standards. Right. But what's the site? I'm sorry, I missed it. You just said it. The notice of violation. Notice of violation. Yeah. Yes. Well, I would assume that every time that a matter like this comes before us where there's been unauthorized work, that staff is reviewing it for consideration as to whether they should do exactly what you just said, regardless of whether we direct you to do that. I would hope that's the case, that you're independently deciding because even if it never came before us, you have actual knowledge of a code violation, and I would assume that you investigate those for potential criminal prosecution. It's a consideration every time. And also, in addition to Mr. Estus and historic preservation or land use staff, the building inspectors, Bobby Padilla and Kevin Smith, outside the historic districts, they find work going on without permits all the time. Right. And because I completely share Member Cherry's concerns, and I think everybody on this dais probably does, which is this is a big problem that people think they can get away with just doing what they want, and then if they get caught, coming in and getting after-the-fact approval for it, hopefully. So, Well, the only way, you know, we do need some code enforcement out there beyond just us. I'm curious though, Gary, is there, is that considered every time there's a red tag violation? Is there like a formal staff process where they make an actual decision? Should we issue a notice of violation or should we not? Because it seems to me that those cases just, and I don't want to be presumptuous here, but was that, is that what happened for say, Gildersleeve, or did it just, did they just get noticed? You have a red tag and then they come in and they get assigned a planner, and then the planner walks them through what they're going to need to do next, or do they actually, is there an actual protocol in the staff with the staff that they assess it for a notice of violation? So, Jerry Osen, Member Cherry, we do have a process of doing a red tag. If the construction is still in progress, it's a red tag. If it's already completed, it's a notice of violation. And the inspector will give two weeks, and if they don't respond, then it goes on to a citation after a notice of violation. But if it's a red tag, you get two weeks, they don't respond, you get a notice of violation. Then if they don't respond after that, then they get a citation. But in particular cases, I can recommend to the land use director to go ahead and push for a citation. We can recommend that as well. So that's how we got, I think, 2140 Old Santa Fe Trail with a citation into court. That's, but that's only for projects that are completed or in that case, it's a maintenance issue. It could be any project. We could issue a citation if we wanted to, but we have to clear it with the land use director. Okay. But there's no, there's no, it doesn't, it doesn't go through that process every time. Correct. It doesn't go through that process because the municipal court wants us to do due process of going through the violation notice first and then go to the citation. There's no response. So, So it's not, it's not considered every time. It's on a case-by-case basis. Correct. Thanks. Anything else? If not, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Say aye. Aye. Okay. And our next meeting is September the 9th.