2026-10-13 - Historic Districts Review Board

00:00All right.

00:23>> [laughter]

00:30>> Well, you can start

00:40I've been

01:14Master

01:33Yep.

01:42>> 911.

02:07Chair Rios, we're ready to begin when

02:09you're ready.

02:12Good evening everyone and welcome to

02:14this meeting of the historic districts

02:16review board. Today we are October 13,

02:202026. May we have a roll call, please?

02:25Member Cherry

02:27[snorts]

02:27>> here.

02:28>> Member Simmons

02:29>> here.

02:30>> Vice Chair Benvanu

02:32>> here.

02:33>> Chair Rios

02:34>> here.

02:35>> Member Bishide here.

02:39and member DGEN.

02:42>> She's here. Thank you, Madam Chair. You

02:45have a quorum.

02:46>> Thank you very much. Are there any

02:48changes to the agenda, either staff or

02:50board members?

02:53>> Just a few changes of postponed items.

02:56Madame Chair, we are um all three items

03:00in old business. 2026-012491

03:06HDRB for 5 P 511 PL del Peralta item

03:12[clears throat] B 2026 012490

03:17HDRB 50 07 PL del Peralta and C

03:212026192691

03:25HDRB

03:27uh 216 Maynard are all postponed. Also

03:31new business item D 2026 013107

03:37HDRB for 817 Visto Cathedral

03:42>> [snorts]

03:42>> uh is postponed and item A 2026 013245

03:48HDRB for 713 Dunlap will be presented by

03:53Lanni McCaulay.

03:55>> Okay, those are the only changes.

03:56>> Thank you very much. Uh all those in

03:59favor of uh these changes say I

04:03>> I

04:04>> and oppose say no.

04:07>> Thank you very much. Um we have two sets

04:11of minutes. They are dated October the

04:1425th 26 and September the 22nd 26.

04:20Any uh corrections to an either one of

04:23these? Any changes board members or

04:26staff?

04:29Nope.

04:30>> If there are no changes, um all those in

04:33favor uh of these two minutes as

04:38presented to us in the agenda say I.

04:41>> I.

04:41>> I.

04:42>> Oppose say no.

04:45Thank you very much. And we have um six

04:50findings of fact and conclusions of law.

04:54We have one

04:56uh from January the 13th, 2026 and we

05:00have five from January the 27th, 2026.

05:05Any changes to any of these?

05:08Anyone?

05:10>> No.

05:11>> All those in favor uh to adopt these say

05:13I.

05:14>> I.

05:15>> Opposed say no. Thank you very much.

05:20uh matters from the public. Anyone in

05:23this room wishing to come forward to

05:25this mic and speak on anything that is

05:28on your mind board related

05:32not having to do with your case?

05:35Um

05:37is there anyone on Zoom?

05:40>> No hands raised, Madam Chair.

05:42>> Thank you very much. Uh, staff

05:45communications,

05:46Heather or Amanda,

05:49do we have anything?

05:51>> Thank you, Chair Rios. Whoops, my voice

05:53is loud. Um, I would like to introduce

05:56formerly Jonathan Melon. He is our new

05:59historic preservation manager, and we

06:01are thrilled to have him here with us.

06:02He has a great diversity of background

06:06working in Savannah, Georgia, Washington

06:08DC, Monler, New Jersey, and um,

06:12>> New York. [laughter]

06:13New York City. So, um, he has a lot of

06:16technical background and expertise which

06:18will be of great help to us as we

06:20proceed forward. And I'm just like to

06:23give him a warm welcome.

06:26>> Thank you, Heather.

06:28And

06:30welcome, welcome, Jonathan. And do you

06:32have anything to say to us?

06:36Uh just it's a pleasure to be here um in

06:39your beautiful city and I'm very excited

06:41to work with you all to help preserve

06:43the historic character um as it

06:45continues to grow. So thank you.

06:48>> Well, thank you very much. Uh so as

06:51Amanda stated, there's nothing under old

06:54business. Those three cases are

06:55postponed and so we move on to new

06:58business.

07:00>> Madame Chair, I do have one more item

07:02under staff communications. Uh we have

07:05the 2027

07:08uh calendar for HDRB. Yes.

07:11>> And

07:12>> please tell us about it.

07:13>> So um those are ready to uh if you could

07:18uh take a vote on it um so that way we

07:21can uh get it up to the clerk's office.

07:25So um

07:28>> move approval of a staff calendar for

07:31HDRB for the calendar year

07:34>> fiscal is the calendar year of 2027.

07:38>> Second

07:39>> and [clears throat] uh all those in

07:40favor say I.

07:42>> I say no.

07:44>> Thank you. Now we will move on to new

07:46business. Um, and I do have to tell you,

07:51you probably all know this, but I'll

07:53tell you again. Um, appeals. If you are

07:57dissatisfied with the decision that this

07:59board renders this evening, you do have

08:01the option to appeal. You would be

08:03appealing to the city council and you

08:06have time constraints. So, I would

08:08suggest that you get together with staff

08:11and they can guide you through the

08:13process. Okay? And also, if you are a

08:16person that is going that is part of the

08:18public that is going to be speaking on a

08:20case, I will limit you to two minutes

08:23and Amanda will help you with that.

08:25She'll just raise her finger or we can

08:28see it on the screen.

08:30>> All righty.

08:32We already

08:35>> um

08:36so the first case this evening is

08:38located at 713 Dunlap and Lanny, where

08:43is Lanny?

08:45Lanny will be presenting. Oh, Lanny, you

08:49went way over there. Okay,

08:51[clears throat]

08:52please tell us about this case.

09:01Excuse me. Is that mic on? We

09:38center stage. Thank you.

09:43>> Can you hear me now?

09:44>> Yes.

09:45>> All right.

09:46Okay. So this is uh case 2026 01 3245

09:52HDRB for 713 Dunlap Street for a status

09:55confirmation and primary facade

09:57designation.

09:59Uh 713 Dunlap Street is located to the

10:02rear of the property on the north side

10:04of Dunlap just to the west of the corner

10:06of uh Aua Fria Street.

10:10The residence is documented in the 1928

10:13city directory and has been used for

10:15rental and storage for most of its

10:17existence. It is constructed in a

10:20Spanish PBLO revival style and is

10:22currently listed on the GIS map as a

10:24contributing structure. [snorts]

10:27The adobe structure retains its original

10:29footprint. It houses inset windows and

10:32doors with all facads having three over

10:34one windows except for the north

10:36elevation that houses two over one

10:39windows.

10:39>> [snorts]

10:41>> The front of the structure holds an

10:43arched portal that exemplifies the

10:45westside Guadalupe tradition of unique

10:47hand huneed designs. The portal has a

10:50shed roof, arched headers, wood columns,

10:52and exposed square VGA ends.

10:57Both the 1985 and 1998 HCPI forms

11:02recommend the structure as contributing,

11:04but neither has been adopted by the

11:05board. The applicant is requesting

11:08confirmation of the contributing status

11:10and primary facade designation. I'm

11:12going to note that the staff reports

11:13that the HCPI was 1996, but it is

11:16actually 1998.

11:20And while staff acknowledges that the

11:22structure is in serious is seriously

11:25deteriorated at this time with all of

11:27the windows bordered from the interior,

11:29cracked plaster, decaying windows, and

11:31the rotting and sagging porch supports.

11:34staff requests the adoption of the 1984

11:37and 1998 HCPIs and recommends that the

11:40status be retained as contributing and

11:42then recommends that the south elevation

11:45or elevation two of the diagram

11:47including the portal be designated as

11:49the primary facade for section 14-4.6 C

11:54designation of significant and

11:55contributing and non-contributing status

11:57within the historic districts.

12:00>> Thank you Lanni very much. Would you

12:02repeat the age of this building?

12:05>> It was originally in the 19

12:09Sorry,

12:10>> not my case. I have to go back a minute.

12:121928

12:151928.

12:18>> Thank you.

12:19>> So, it's confirmed in 1928.

12:21>> Thank you. And on the south facade, are

12:23you also including the windows?

12:25>> Yes.

12:26>> Okay. Thank you very much. Um,

12:30it is a building that looks like it

12:32needs a lot of TLC, but just looking at

12:36it like that, I really like the

12:38building. Um, any other questions for

12:40Lanning?

12:42No other questions for you. And will the

12:45applicant please come forward?

12:48And that is Mr. Pervvis.

12:51>> Here forward or there?

12:52>> That forward. Sorry.

12:54>> So that we can hear you.

13:03Good evening.

13:04>> Good evening. Can you please raise your

13:05right hand and state your name and

13:06address for the record?

13:08>> Christopher Pervvis, [clears throat] 518

13:10Old Santa Fe Trail.

13:11>> Thank you, Mr. Pervvis. Do you solemnly

13:13declare and affirm the testimony you

13:15have in reference to this item? Is the

13:17truth the whole truth and do this under

13:19the penalties of perjury?

13:21>> Yes.

13:21>> Thank you, sir.

13:25>> Hi, Chris. Do you agree with staff's

13:27recommendation or what do you want to

13:29tell us about this building?

13:31>> Um, I would Yes, I agree with staff's

13:33recommendation. I really like that

13:35elevation. We're going to keep that

13:36elevation [laughter]

13:38except it needs a lot of work.

13:40>> Okay. And do you have anything further

13:42to tell us?

13:43>> No, I agree with you. It's a nice little

13:45building. We're going to fix it up, add

13:47a little in the back, and we'll be done.

13:50>> Thank you, Chris. Any questions from Mr.

13:52Purpose?

13:54No questions for you. Anyone in this

13:56audience wishing to comment on this

13:58particular case?

14:00No one. Anyone online?

14:03>> No hands raised. Madam Chair,

14:05>> I will entertain a motion.

14:09>> Yes. Uh, Madam Chair,

14:13>> um, I would, uh, in case 2026 013245

14:19HDRB for 713 Dunlap Street, uh, I would,

14:25um, I would move that we um,

14:30uh, along with staff's recommendation

14:35recognize the building as contributing

14:37with The

14:40um

14:42south facade

14:44is that facade number four.

14:47No

14:49>> two with facade number two as the

14:51primary facade.

14:56Beach. I second with the uh friendly

14:58amendment that we exclude any

15:00non-historic materials on this facade in

15:03the designation

15:06such as the metal metal door, etc.

15:10>> Okay. Uh

15:13yeah, I wasn't aware that there was any

15:14non-historic material on the front of

15:16this one, but um uh I would accept that.

15:21Um, did you have something further from

15:24the Ben?

15:27>> No.

15:28>> Uh, I have a question for the applicant

15:31before we go forward. Is that door um

15:36newer than the rest of the building?

15:38Would you agree?

15:40>> Madam Chair, yes, that door is newer and

15:42there's actually an old a new old door

15:45behind it. Piece of junk door. So I'm

15:48really glad that

15:50beach had excluded it.

15:53>> Okay.

15:53>> So there there's two doors at that

15:55opening. One of them is rotting wood and

15:58the other one is the metal was added as

16:00a security measure.

16:02>> Thank you. Um roll call vote please.

16:05>> I will make yes

16:07>> I will make a comment. Thank you madam

16:09chair. Um, I just wanted to say that I

16:12agree with the motion and but I wanted

16:14to [clears throat] emphasize that this

16:16is a case I think that illustrates

16:18something that is sometimes confused

16:20which is the word integrity in um in our

16:23code um means in my opinion historic

16:26integrity not physical integrity. So

16:29when we talk about the integrity of a

16:31structure for contributing status which

16:33it is required to maintain um it could

16:36be in very deteriorated det uh condition

16:39as this is and still be recognized as

16:42contributing to the to the district and

16:45this is a good illustration of that.

16:48>> Thank you for those comments and I will

16:50take a roll call vote please.

16:53>> Member Denon.

16:54>> Yes.

16:55>> Member Cherry.

16:56>> Yes.

16:57>> Member Simmons.

16:58>> Yes. Member Bishai.

16:59>> Yes.

17:00>> Vice Chair Ben. Madam Chair, the motion

17:02has passed.

17:03>> Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Pervis.

17:05>> Thank you.

17:08>> Next case is located at 1545 Canyon

17:11Road. Is that applicant here? The

17:15applicant is here. And uh Lauren will

17:18present.

17:23[snorts]

17:24Here you go.

17:39[cough]

17:40Okay. Um, this is case 2026-

17:45012883-HDRB,

17:471545 Canyon Road for status review.

17:52uh currently designated as

17:54non-contributing in the downtown and

17:55east side historic district. 1545 Canyon

17:58Road is located northwest of the of

18:00Canyon Road bound by East Almeida

18:02Street, Camino Cobra intersection

18:04approximately one mile to the west,

18:06Sarra Gordo Road to the east, and the

18:09Santa Fe River to the north. Surrounding

18:12properties consist of singlestory

18:13vernacular buildings primarily in the

18:15territorial and pblo pueblo revival

18:17styles. The buildings are clad in stucco

18:20largely fenestrated with wooden doors

18:21and divided light windows with flat roof

18:23line and sparing squat chimneys.

18:25Buildings either line the street or are

18:27set back beyond gravel or stone paved

18:29drives separated from canyon road by a

18:31mix of stucco and stone masonry yard and

18:33retaining walls, coyote fencing and

18:35chainlike fencing. The property um is

18:39set back from the road separated by an

18:41older coyote fence and iron gate keeping

18:44harmony with the surrounding

18:45streetscape.

18:47[sighs and gasps]

18:47Early 20th century hydraological survey

18:50maps show the Santa Fe River Valley east

18:52of the city developed as an agricultural

18:54landscape with grain crops including

18:55corn, wheat, oats, and alalfa along the

18:57valley floor near the Santa Fe River.

19:00Surrounding the fields um were terrace

19:02landscapes cultivated by orchards and

19:04smaller fields with associated farm

19:06buildings nearby. Historically 1545

19:09Canyon Road was part of a larger

19:10agricultural landscape belonging to the

19:13uh Haniho Martinez or sorry two Hiho

19:16Haniho Martinez with alalfa as its

19:18primary crop. This lot passed through

19:21members of the Trujillo Luhan family

19:23separated into smaller parcels by Joseé

19:25Luhan in 1928. These parcels were

19:28distributed by Jose's younger brothers

19:30who established res residences at 1523

19:32and 1525 Canyon Road. By 1945, residents

19:36Tobiius and Huminda Luhan at 1525 Canyon

19:40Road developed an adobe rental property

19:42at the neighboring 1545 Canyon Road lot.

19:45Um, completed by 1946.

19:49This lot passed through or I'm sorry,

19:51the property served as a rental property

19:53until the late 1950s, followed by the

19:56May 1961 Parcell survey and land

19:59purchased by John and Francis Lynch,

20:00then conveyed to their son and

20:02daughter-in-law, William and Angie

20:03Lynch. Following the acquisition, the

20:05Williams added an L-shaped addition to

20:08the North Elevation um circa 1963. By

20:111967,

20:13William J. Lynch established the Lynch

20:15Lynch Fence Company, initially storing

20:18and working out of a secondary

20:19structure. It appears that this building

20:21is the workshop area of the Extant

20:23Office Workshop with the addition of a

20:25carport and shed to the west elevation

20:27between 1978 and 1981 and an addition

20:30made to the east elevation by 1987.

20:33According [snorts]

20:34to the August 7th um 2026 historic

20:37cultural properties inventory, a second

20:40addition was added to the southeast

20:41elevation of the main residence to

20:43include a carport and dates between 1970

20:45and 1971. By the 1980s, the secondary

20:48office workshop building replaced the

20:50shed, likely expanding with the addition

20:51of a carport and shed to the west and

20:54addition to the east. Historic aerials

20:56show the final addition closing the

20:58northeast corner of the main residence

20:59building between 20 or 2002 and 2004.

21:05In 2022, the Lynch Fence Company closed

21:08and the property was put on market, but

21:10ultimately fell into new ownership under

21:12the trust to Cindy Lynch, daughter of

21:13William and Angie Lynch. Currently, the

21:151.351

21:17acre lot consists of a single family

21:19residential dwelling situated on a

21:21northwest to southeast axis, a secondary

21:24workshop building to the north running

21:26parallel to the canyon road with a

21:27carport and shed connecting to the west

21:29elevation and a freestanding carport on

21:32the east side of the lot along the

21:33property line.

21:36The primary building and main residence

21:38has a rectangular footprint footprint

21:40situated on a northwest to southeast

21:42axis um set back approximately 70 ft

21:44from the road. This singlestory Pueblo

21:47revival style building is three bays

21:49wide by two bays deep clad in

21:50cementitious stucco with a tan and white

21:52do pattern under the portal and carport.

21:56The central bay dates to the original

21:58building circa 1945 with an elevated

22:00entrance door to the left above a

22:02three-step staircase and semic-ircular

22:04platform clad in flagstone pavers. To

22:07the right is the original portal

22:09elevated on a cement platform clad in

22:11flagstone pavers which is partially

22:13enclosed on the south side following the

22:14carport addition in the early 1970s. The

22:17portal is supported by three wooden

22:19columns and vas with a central canal. Uh

22:23to the right of the portal is an

22:25entrance fenistrated with a metal

22:26security gate and a double pane casement

22:28window to the left constructed of wood

22:30or metal, although it is uncertain

22:32whether or not it is historic. To the

22:34left of the portal is a small fixed four

22:35light historic window.

22:39The right bay contains a carport paved

22:40in se uh cement constructed of a wood

22:43frame partially enclosed by a wood fence

22:45and lattice to the south. The west

22:47facing elevation has an entrance

22:49fenistrated by an obscured non-historic

22:51inner door, a metal security door, outer

22:53door with a shallow cement platform. To

22:56the right are two vinyl siding windows.

22:58The south facing elevation has two

23:00window openings, each fenistrated with

23:02two vinyl siding windows. The left bay

23:04has a single central opening with two

23:06vinyl siding windows and a squat chimney

23:08at the northwest corner.

23:12The south elevation includes a wooden

23:14fence and lattice partially enclosed the

23:17enclosing the carport at the southwest

23:18corner and a centrally located opening

23:20on the right bay with a sliding glass

23:22vinyl window.

23:25Um

23:27the left bay the east elevation has a

23:29wide eve overhang clouded in a metal

23:30fascia covering wood wooden veas with a

23:33small protruding fireplace massing near

23:34the southeast corner. A small or a small

23:37split in the roof line between the left

23:39and central bays expo exposes the former

23:41parapet of the original surrogate 1945

23:43building. The central bay has two

23:45central windows opening openings

23:47fenestrated with sliding vinyl window on

23:50the left and wooden casement windows on

23:52the right and a squat horizontal massing

23:54along the foundation. The central

23:55[clears throat] and right bay are

23:56separated by alternating roof lines with

23:58the additions slightly higher than the

24:01original roof height. The right bay is

24:03fenistrated by two vinyl sliding glass

24:05windows with the left in comparable size

24:07and placement to the central bay windows

24:09while the north window is in a smaller

24:11size. [snorts]

24:14Um the north elevation has a central

24:16entrance with a concrete platform and

24:18stairs. A wooden frame overhangs

24:21overhang covers the entryway with a

24:23corrugated metal roof. A modern door is

24:25obscured by a metal security door and

24:27sidelight surround. Flanking the

24:28entrance is a larger a larger sliding

24:31vinyl window to the right and smaller

24:33sliding vinyl to window to the left. The

24:35roof line has a slight overhang with a

24:37metal clad fascia and the parapit from

24:39the circa 1963 edition is partially

24:42visible right of the doorway.

24:45[sighs and gasps] the north elevation or

24:47I'm sorry while the street facing

24:50um while the street facing west

24:53elevation has uh been altered from its

24:56original historic appearance with

24:57additions to the north and south

24:59elevations taking place between 1963 and

25:011971 respectively. The south and west

25:04elevations retain their historic form

25:06and feeling. Additionally, the building

25:07retains its physical and cultural

25:09association to the adjacent contributing

25:11properties at 1523 and 1525 Canyon Road

25:15and meets the 50-year requirement for

25:17historic eligibility. Therefore, staff

25:19recommends the main residence at 1545

25:21Canyon Road be upgraded to a

25:22contributing status with the primary

25:24facades designated as the south and west

25:26elevations excluding on historic

25:28materials.

25:32[sighs] Located at the center of the

25:33north property line, the singlestory

25:35office workshop has a rectangular plan

25:37with a flat roof line clad in se

25:40cementitious stucco. The street facing

25:42south elevation has two large uh garage

25:45doors garage door openings with wooden

25:47lintils and slope cement curb entrances

25:50at the left and center base. The

25:52southeast corner has a woodframe portal

25:54covered by a metal roof and a cement

25:56cement slab floor. Under the portal is

25:59the main entrance with a setback wooden

26:01door and lentil to the left and modern 6

26:03over6 double hung setback window to the

26:05right.

26:07The east elevation is fenistrated with

26:09three modern recessed 6 over6 double

26:12hung windows topped by Humewood lintils

26:14and slightly recessed parapet roof line.

26:16The north elevation has a wide wooden

26:18eve overhang with exposed brackets and a

26:21central door rate recessed on an

26:23elevated curb with a wooden panel door

26:25frame and lentil. Flanking the entrance

26:27are two recessed window openings to um

26:30to the left is a modern 6 over6 double

26:32hung window and to the right is a

26:34historic metal frame threelight casement

26:36window with a double light transom.

26:39The west elevation has a central door

26:41opening with a wooden door and a

26:43historic metal frame three light

26:45casement window with a double light

26:46transom similar to the northwest window

26:49on the north elevation in a recessed

26:51opening. Covering the adjacent cement

26:54slab is metal framed carport with a

26:56corrugated metal roof. Attached to the

26:58west and partly covered by the carport

27:00is a singlestory shed clad in corrugated

27:02metal with a hipped roof and hinged

27:04double doors on the south elevation. The

27:08[snorts] west elevation of the shed has

27:10a woodframed portal and corrugated metal

27:12roof. While part of the office workshop

27:14building may date to the late 1960s, the

27:16removal of historic materials,

27:18non-historic additions, and fenr

27:20fenestrations have altered the structure

27:22significantly, diminishing the overall

27:24historic integrity. Therefore, staff

27:26recommends the building retains its

27:28non-contributing status.

27:32Uh at the center of the eastern property

27:34line is a detached carport. The

27:36structure is constructed of steel post

27:38and beams and corrugated panel roofing.

27:40According to historic aerials, the

27:42structure was erected between 1996 and

27:442002, and the structure does not meet

27:47the 50-year requirement. Um, therefore,

27:49staff recommends the structure be

27:50designated as non-contributing.

27:54Um, and overall staff recommends the

27:57historic status of the main residence be

27:58upgraded to contributing with the south

28:00and west elevations designated as

28:02primary facads R1, R2, R3, and R4 with

28:06the exclusion of non-historic materials

28:08per 14-4.6c

28:10designation of significant contributing

28:13or non-contributing status within

28:14historic districts. Staff also

28:17recommends the status of the secondary

28:19building retain its non-contributing

28:20status as it does not retain enough

28:23historic integrity with the majority of

28:24the building additions and fenistrations

28:26falling outside the 50-year period of

28:28significance per 14-4.6c 6C designation

28:32of significant contributing or

28:35non-contributing status within historic

28:37districts and staff recommends the

28:39status of the freestanding carport be

28:41designate designated as non-contributing

28:43as a structure does not fall within the

28:4550-year period of significance per

28:4714-4.6

28:49C designation of significant

28:51contributing and non-contributing status

28:53within historic districts

28:56and I'm open to questions. Thank you for

28:59that long report. Um, in terms [snorts]

29:02of the uh building with a corrugated

29:05roof, that's also you were indicating

29:08that for non-contributing status.

29:10>> Mhm. [clears throat]

29:11>> Okay.

29:12>> Are there any other questions? Board

29:14members. Uh,

29:16>> member Simmons. Um, Lauren, could you uh

29:19explain the logic of uh the upgrade uh

29:24this the staff's logic of upgrading this

29:26from non-contributing to contributing

29:29beyond the 50-year threshold being met?

29:33>> Um yes. So, uh I'll go back here. Um so

29:39um as you can see with the aerial here

29:41the um the south and the um west

29:44elevations

29:45um and then you see in the corner in the

29:48uh northeast is where the circa 2004

29:51edition was made. Um

29:55being that it's only on that corner in

29:58the back there. Um, I think this shows a

30:00progression of

30:02uh, I guess historic um, the history of

30:06the building itself

30:09over time.

30:13>> Thank you.

30:14>> Any other questions board members?

30:16Member Beach.

30:20>> Um, thank you Lauren. Um, so just

30:23staying with this. Um, so you're

30:25including the addition circa 1963

30:28because it meets the 50-y year threshold

30:30even though it's not part of the

30:31original structure, but um, R I guess

30:34it's R2 and

30:37R2 includes the enclosed portal, right?

30:41So that there was a wraparound portal

30:43originally. Mhm.

30:45>> And um

30:47can you I guess can you just talk to

30:49that to to what you know how we can

30:52justify the altering of an enclosed

30:55portal which is prohibited by code now

30:58um in this designation of primary facade

31:01and also the R4 designation which is

31:04>> um I think a 1971

31:06edition right?

31:07>> Yeah. Yeah. Um I think uh I guess with

31:10those with those four R1 through R4 um

31:14those fall within the 50-year period um

31:16of significance. So that is why I

31:19included it.

31:22>> And the enclosed portal we're not um you

31:25know considering that to be a

31:26significant alteration of the character

31:28of the original. I think the the

31:30wraparound portal is kind of a unique

31:32feature that I would I would say should

31:35have been preserved, but it's now

31:37altered. So, I don't know how the R2

31:40especially um fits within what we would

31:44consider characteristic about the

31:45building with that alteration. I don't

31:48know if you have anything more to say

31:49about that.

31:51>> Um no, I don't have anything more. Yeah.

31:55>> Anything further, board members?

31:59Nothing present. Uh will the applicant

32:02uh please come forward speak?

32:23>> Hello.

32:24>> Hi, Courtney. Can you please state your

32:25name and address for the record? Uh,

32:27Courtney Mate, 574

32:30West San Francisco Street, Santa Fe

32:3287501.

32:34>> Do you solemnly declare and affirm that

32:36the testimony you have in reference to

32:38this item is the truth, the whole truth,

32:40and do this under the penalties of

32:41burgjgery?

32:42>> Uh, yes, I do.

32:44>> Thank you, Madam Chair. He has been

32:45sworn.

32:49>> Yes, sir.

32:52>> Um, hello.

32:55thanks for uh giving us your time

32:56tonight.

32:58Uh

33:01yeah, overall we feel like there's been

33:03a lot of changes to this building over

33:05the course of time and

33:09you know the the area that is most

33:12original is a portion of R1,

33:16but um

33:18can I go over here and point at this for

33:20a second?

33:24this port that's still exposed to wrap

33:27all the way around. So,

33:30>> uh I'm going to interrupt you for a

33:32little second uh so that they can get

33:34the mic over there.

33:42>> All right.

33:46So the original portal up here was this

33:50part and it went over to here. It was

33:52L-shaped. So when this got added in 71,

33:57this wall here was added, the original

34:01wall was back here. So this has all been

34:04enclosed now with a, you know, a main

34:06entry here and then there's another door

34:08over here, etc. But um yes, we feel like

34:13this area right here, all of this really

34:16obscured a lot of the original building.

34:19We totally agree that the original

34:22building has a lot of character to it.

34:25Uh we would maintain that character. We

34:28haven't really discussed I know we're

34:30not talking about any design at this

34:33point but we would would want to

34:36maintain the uh the integrity and the

34:38character that's presented on R1 but we

34:42by the same token [gasps]

34:44given the number of changes that have

34:46happened over time and the fact that all

34:49this stuff on the south is obscuring a

34:51lot of what used to be the original

34:53structure and the original portal was in

34:56enclosed

34:58we don't find that our you know any of

35:01those uh should be considered

35:04contributing and um

35:09you know the uh our historic consultant

35:12was John Murphy and John wanted to point

35:15out that the secretary of the interior

35:18standards recognize that changes to a

35:21property over time may acquire historic

35:24significance but age alone

35:27does not establish that. So, um

35:33you know, we feel like all the stuff

35:34that was added in the 70s, there's

35:37really nothing special about it. It's

35:39got vinyl windows that uh

35:41[clears throat] panes are too big, uh

35:44it's it's nothing unique to, uh the

35:48significance of the of this uh structure

35:51at all. So um we feel like none of the

35:57proposed contributing standards should

35:59apply to this structure.

36:04That's my main comment. I'd be glad to

36:08take any questions.

36:09>> Thank you. So the portion of for of R1

36:13uh you are not indicating any portion of

36:16that as in your view as contributing

36:23If yes, uh can you um go and show us

36:27which portion you would consider

36:35the

36:37you know the view of this side of the

36:40house has changed really from here on

36:43over.

36:45uh the green line, you know, all of this

36:48this was changed from here on over when

36:52this got enclosed and this whole area

36:54became enclosed.

36:56So potentially anything from here up,

37:00but um

37:03certainly nothing from here down, we

37:05don't feel like any of that is uh

37:08contributing at all.

37:10>> Thank you. Uh any other questions, board

37:14members?

37:17Uh yes, member DMA.

37:21>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um sir, I'm

37:24going to address you directly if I may.

37:26>> Yes.

37:28>> Do I understand or am I sensing that you

37:31are not agreeing that this is should be

37:35designated as contributing historic

37:37structure?

37:38>> Oh, no. I'm I'm saying we don't find any

37:40of it to be contributing is is our

37:44opinion. Yes.

37:45>> Well, that's the question I'm asking.

37:46>> Okay. We don't

37:47>> So, you don't agree that it is a

37:50contributing structure and therefore

37:52should not have the designation that

37:54we're considering tonight?

37:56>> Yes.

37:57>> Okay. Thank you.

38:00>> Thank you. Uh if there are no questions

38:03from board members, I will ask if

38:04[clears throat] anyone in this audience

38:06wishes to comment on this particular

38:08case. If so, come forward.

38:11It appears not. Anyone online?

38:14>> No, Madam Chair.

38:16>> Uh, board members, I will entertain a

38:18motion, please.

38:22>> Member Beachite.

38:24>> Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number

38:272026 012883

38:30HDRB at 1545 Canyon Road, I move to

38:35designate the

38:38um residents as non-contributing noting

38:42that due to the additions and the

38:44enclosure of the wraparound portal and

38:47addition of the carport in particular uh

38:50that the facades no longer maintain um

38:53or convey the characteristics that uh

38:56would have been um worthy of

38:59preservation.

39:00And I move to adopt staff's

39:03recommendations for the office car

39:06freestanding carport and the fence gate

39:09as non-contributing.

39:11>> And do I hear a second?

39:12>> Second.

39:14>> Uh anything further to add? Nothing

39:17further. A roll call vote, please.

39:20>> Member Cherry.

39:22>> No.

39:24Member DGEN,

39:25>> no.

39:26>> Member Bishide,

39:28>> yes.

39:29>> Member Benu,

39:30>> yes.

39:32>> Member Simmons,

39:33>> yes.

39:35>> Madame Chair, the motion has passed.

39:38>> Thank you. Thank you.

39:39>> Thank you all. We appreciate it.

39:42>> Thanks.

39:44>> Next case is located at 311 Old Santa Fe

39:49Trail.

39:51And Lauren,

39:53you will present

40:26Okay. This is uh case 20126-013211-

40:33HDRB 311 Santa Fe Trail for status

40:37review.

40:40Um, the subject building is currently

40:42non-status in the downtown and east side

40:44historic district. The building's

40:46located on the east side of old Santa Fe

40:47Trail near the southeast corner of the

40:50lot bound by East Almeida Street and the

40:52Santa Fe River or sorry and Santa Fe

40:55River to the north. Pose de Peralta to

40:57the east and East Devar Street to the

40:59south.

41:01A concrete paved alleyway uh flanked by

41:04stuck and stone wall separates the

41:05property line um from the neighboring

41:07building at 329 Old Santa Fe Trail. The

41:10streetscape is a mix of singlestory

41:12historic PBLO revival style buildings

41:14clad and stucco with flat roof lines

41:16with either street facing or adjacent

41:18portals uh single pitched roof building

41:21with a portal at the southeast end of

41:23the street. two and three-story

41:24buildings including the New Mexico State

41:26Land Office circa 1960 to the northwest

41:29and the territorial uh style Lammy

41:31building 1878 to the south, the Spanish

41:34colonial style San Miguel Chapel and two

41:37large parking lots. Uh the sidewalk is

41:40largely clad in red and brick masonry

41:42pavers which with occasional concrete

41:44slope curbs to accommodate driveways and

41:46ADA compliance on the west side of old

41:49Santa Fe Trail. Um, building facads

41:52begin at the sidewalk without walls or

41:53fencing. Apart from the state land use

41:55building, which sits back from the

41:57street behind a shallow iron fence, the

41:59east side of the street has a mix of

42:01shallow yard walls, coyote fencing, and

42:03stone retaining walls to the south.

42:07Established in 1923, 311 Old Santa Fe

42:10Trail was originally developed as an

42:11auto camp by John Katrone for travelers

42:14who could not afford the expensive

42:15hotels. This development followed a

42:18nationwide trend of municipalities and

42:20emerging entrepreneurs built on the

42:22expansion of automobile travelers and

42:25associated land development including

42:26filling stations, motorist camps,

42:29washous and so forth. By the early

42:311940s, Orchard Camp further developed,

42:34adding a swimming pool, additional

42:35cabins, restrooms, and rest stop, and

42:37officially the first downtown motor

42:38court in Santa Fe. In October 1957,

42:42Orchard Camp changed ownership by to

42:44Clyde and Goldie Tyler and the two-story

42:46desert and officially opened following

42:47demolition of the entire site while

42:49preserving a single residence at the

42:51southeast corner of the property. The

42:53new motel took the name of the infamous

42:55motel on the Las Vegas strip with design

42:58inspiration from the desert sands and

43:00desert and motel in Albuquerque. In the

43:02mid1 1970s, the motel changed hands

43:04again to the Garrett family and reopened

43:07as Garrett desert in with the current

43:09site maintaining much of its historic

43:10footprint.

43:12According to historic aerials placing

43:14the subject property bill date between

43:161990 and 1995, the building does not

43:19show to exist or associate within the

43:22historic context of the adjacent motel

43:24and its development.

43:26However, um both historic maps and

43:28aerial show the southwestern yard wall

43:30throughout the historic period of the of

43:31development.

43:33[sighs] The subject building at 311 Old

43:36Santa Fe Trail once addressed as 317 um

43:39is set back approximately 40 ft from the

43:41street behind a coyote fence flanked by

43:43yard walls clad in cementitious stucco

43:45in the downtown and east side historic

43:46district.

43:48The singlestory building has a

43:49rectangular footprint in a simplified

43:52playbo revival style clad and

43:54cementitious stucco and flat roof. The

43:56street facing west elevation is two bays

43:59wide each with two large three over 12

44:01vinyl sliding windows. The north half of

44:04half half of the elevation has a

44:06slightly higher roof line with a wooden

44:08frame portal above a cement slab and

44:10wooden entrance door to the far left.

44:13The north elevation is two bays wide,

44:15clad in stucco with no fenestration with

44:17a cement walkway separating the

44:19neighboring yard wall that connects uh

44:22to 315 old Santa Fe Trail. The east

44:25elevation has a single wood panel door

44:26entrance slightly raised above a cement

44:28slab on the right with a mass at the

44:30southeast corner connecting to a

44:32neighboring motel to the east and yard

44:34wall to the south.

44:37The south elevation

44:40um has no fenestration with the bottom

44:43half below grade connecting to the

44:45retaining wall to the west and

44:46connecting to the adjacent motel to the

44:49east. The south elevation connects at

44:51the southwest corner with a stucco

44:52retaining wall um that connects to a

44:54larger L-shaped yard wall bordering the

44:57southwestern corner of the lot. While

44:59the lot shows uh while the lot shows in

45:02historic aerials and maps, the entire

45:04west elevation was approved for

45:06demolition by the board in 2003.

45:09Unfortunately, no historic documentation

45:11for construction of the building exists

45:13prior to alteration permits between 2000

45:15and 2004 and has not been surveyed.

45:18However, aerials date the building

45:20between 1990 and 1995, which is outside

45:22the 50-year period of significance.

45:24Therefore, staff recommends the status

45:27of the building be designated as

45:28non-contributing. Um, additionally,

45:30while the yard wall does meet the

45:3150-year requirement, demolition to the

45:33west wall has significant significantly

45:35compromise the structure and does not

45:37retain enough historic integrity to meet

45:39the requirements as a notable or

45:41contributing structure.

45:43Open to questions.

45:45>> Thank you very much, Lauren. Let's see

45:48if the board has any questions for you.

45:51>> Any questions for Lauren?

45:54It appears they do not. Applicants or

45:57applicants, would you come forward?

46:11>> Good evening. How are you all

46:12[clears throat] tonight?

46:14>> We're good.

46:15>> Good. How are you?

46:16>> Good.

46:18>> Um, please state your name and address

46:19for the record. Daniel Luhan, 612 Old

46:23Santa Fe Trail.

46:24>> Daniel, do you solemnly declare and

46:26affirm that the testimony you have in

46:28reference to this item is the truth, the

46:30whole truth, and do this under the

46:32penalties of perjury?

46:33>> Yes.

46:34>> Thank you.

46:36>> Good evening, Mr. Sudhan. Do you agree

46:39with uh staff's recommendation that this

46:42should be any non-contributing building?

46:44>> Agree.

46:45>> And do you have anything further to add?

46:47>> I do not.

46:49>> Okay. Uh board members, do you have any

46:51questions for Mr. Luhan?

46:54No questions for Mr. Luhan. Anyone in

46:56this audience wishing to comment on this

46:58particular project? No one. And anyone

47:02online?

47:04>> No hands raised, Madam Chair.

47:06>> Thank you. I will entertain a motion.

47:13>> Yes, I understand. uh in

47:17case number 2026-

47:21uh 013211

47:24HDRB 311 Santa Fe Trail I move that we

47:28accept staff's recommendations

47:32>> second

47:34roll call vote please

47:37member cherry

47:38>> yes

47:39>> member Simmons

47:40>> yes

47:40>> vice chair Benvanu

47:42>> yes

47:42>> member

47:43>> yes member dn Yes,

47:45>> madam chair. The motion has passed.

47:46>> Thank you very much. And thank you, sir.

47:48>> Thank you, board. Thanks, Lauren.

47:50>> Our last case this evening is located at

47:53330A East Buenovista Street.

47:58I'm going to take it that the applicant

48:00is here. And may we hear from Lauren

48:03again?

48:30Okay, this is uh case number

48:322026-013212-HDRB

48:37330A East Buenov Vista for a remodel and

48:39addition that includes um existing

48:42turning the existing 400 ft garage into

48:45living space, a new north facing garage

48:47and storage measuring 58 ft and 11 um ft

48:51in height with a maximum allowable

48:53height of 16.7 ft. Window replacement

48:56and fence installation

48:59status is not surveyed. 338 East Buista

49:03Street uh 1,645

49:06ft single family resident residential

49:08duplex is located in the Donaspar

49:11historic district on the north side of

49:12the street bound by Old Santa Fe Trail

49:14to the east, East Ber Street to the

49:16south, and Gildersleeve Street to the

49:18west. The duplex shares a common wall

49:19with 330B

49:21to the west and part of a forplex lot

49:23built in 2005.

49:27The residential street is lined

49:28primarily with singlestory flat roofed

49:30and stuckleclad buildings in the pueblo

49:32revival and territorial styles with

49:34occasional pitched roofs and

49:35contemporary and craftsman saw houses.

49:38The street cuts through a natural slope

49:39with the north side of the street

49:41overlooking the south including a

49:42belowgrade compound. Houses to the north

49:44are primarily set back from the street,

49:47centrally located within their lots and

49:49surrounded by large wooden landscapes.

49:51The southern houses are either situated

49:52up against the sidewalk or slightly set

49:54back. Coyote fences are dominant to the

49:56east with shallow stucco yard walls

49:58incorporating stone foundations to the

50:00west line nearly um the entire street

50:03with a mix of gravel and paved drives.

50:05At the southeast corner of the street is

50:06a tall curved stucco yard wall partially

50:08enclosing the parking lot for the end of

50:10the turquoise bear. At the center of the

50:13street where Weber Street begins, a

50:15large gravel parking lot opens to a

50:17basketball court and fields.

50:19338 East Wavista Street was part of a

50:22multi-duplex project first submitted to

50:24the historic district review board in

50:26October of 2003 and completed in 2005.

50:30Historically, the site belonged to a

50:31larger parcel associated with the Flora

50:33Conrad House designated as significant

50:35at 313 East Burger Street. 330A

50:40um East Buista Street,

50:42sorry, is the easternmost duplex of the

50:45quad set back behind a low coyote fence

50:48along the sidewalk with a wooden gate

50:49entrance. The singlestory residence is

50:51clad in cementitious stucco with a

50:53gravel drive extending the length of

50:54east elevation separated from the east

50:57lot by a coyote fence and um modern

51:00irrigation dish ditch and a cementitious

51:03stucco yard wall to the south. [snorts]

51:06The north elevation um is two bays wide

51:09with a slightly larger massing uh uh to

51:13the left with two two over two fixed

51:16wooden windows flanked by two canalis.

51:18The right bay has an al cove entrance

51:20with a single canal overhead, the

51:22opening bearing a wooden lintil. Inside

51:24the alco are two or three 20 over6

51:27casement windows of the on the street

51:29facing elevation and an obscured wooden

51:31entrance door on the left uh left of the

51:34partition wall. The east elevation is

51:37three bays wide with a horizontal 2

51:39over6 rectangular window flanked by two

51:41canals on the left, a single 2 over6

51:43window in the center bay with a single

51:45canal to the right and an eight panel

51:47wide wooden garage door with two over

51:49two fixed wooden openings above each

51:51panel.

51:54Uh the south elevation is um

51:58sorry this side the yeah the south

52:01elevation is three bays wide with a

52:03horizontal or with each bay declining in

52:07height from left to right. The left bay

52:08has three panel doorway each with two

52:10over six glazed panels and two over six

52:13casement windows to the right with a

52:15single canal centered above. The central

52:17bay has two centered large two over six

52:19casement windows while the right bay has

52:21two two over six casement windows offc

52:24center to the right.

52:27Proposed remodeling work includes the

52:29addition of a 58 ft uh 11 ft in height

52:33onecar garage and storage area on the

52:35east side of the existing property with

52:37the maximum allowable height of 16.7 ft.

52:40The east elevation of the proposed

52:42addition will have uh 9 ftx 7 ft 2 over

52:46six three panel wide sliding glass doors

52:50replacing the existing garage door

52:52enclosed behind a 4ft fence. The south

52:55elevation of the new addition will have

52:57a single 3ft x 6 ft entrance door

53:00installed to the left.

53:05Oops. On the north elevation, there is a

53:07proposed overhead woodclad garage door

53:09measuring 8 ft by 8 ft with four two

53:13over two glazed square windows above

53:16four wooden panels on the left and a 3ft

53:18x 5 ft divided light window to the right

53:20partially obscured by a 4ft fence with

53:22the maximum allowable height of 4'2 in.

53:27Remodel. Um, [sighs]

53:29additionally, um, the remodel of the

53:30existing 400 ft garage into a family

53:33room to the existing, uh, 1,645

53:37ft residence, woodclad window

53:40replacement on the east elevation,

53:42um, with two 3T x 4'2 over2 windows at

53:46the center of the south and central

53:47base. Um, and staff finds that the

53:50application complies with section

53:5214-4.6E, 6E general design standards for

53:55all historic districts and 14-4.6G1

53:59Dongaspar area historic district design

54:02standards and recommends approval um of

54:05the proposed project at 330A East Buista

54:08Street.

54:09>> Thank you very much, Lauren. Um board

54:12members, do you have questions for

54:13Lauren?

54:17>> They do not have qu any questions for

54:19you at this time. Uh will the applicant

54:21please come forward? Mr. Sears.

54:39>> Hi. [snorts] Please state your name and

54:40address for the record.

54:42>> Jeff Sears, 122 Lorenzo Road.

54:45Do you do you solemnly declare and

54:47affirm that this the testimony you have

54:49in reference to this item is the truth,

54:51the whole truth, and do this under the

54:53penalties of perjury?

54:55>> Yes.

54:55>> Thank you, sir.

54:56>> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of

54:58the board. Um,

55:01on Zoom this evening, uh, is the are the

55:05owners, uh, Patrick and Tracy Gallagher.

55:10And uh I would like to

55:13um thank Lauren for the uh preparation

55:18and presentation of a very comprehensive

55:21staff report that we agree with. So with

55:25that we stand for any questions.

55:28>> Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Sears

55:31at this time? No questions. Uh yeah.

55:35Member B.

55:37>> Sorry. Um thank you Madam Chair. Could

55:39you please clarify? Are there two colors

55:41of blue being proposed on the project or

55:43are they intended to match?

55:46>> Intended to match.

55:46>> Okay. Thank you.

55:49>> Any other questions?

55:51>> Uh, did your clients want to speak or

55:54No.

55:58>> Hi, Patrick and Tracy. Anything you want

56:00to say?

56:02>> They'll have to get sworn in if they do.

56:04Uh,

56:04>> the Gallaghers, please raise your hand

56:06if you wish to speak.

56:17They do not have their hands raised.

56:19>> Okay, it's all you, Jeff.

56:23Um,

56:25there appear to be no other questions.

56:28Anyone in this audience wishing to

56:30comment on this project?

56:32No. And anyone online?

56:36No, Madam Chair,

56:38>> members of the board, I will entertain a

56:39motion on this project.

56:44>> Member Simmons,

56:46>> uh, I move uh, in the case of 2026-012,

56:51I'm sorry, 013212

56:54HDRB 330A East Wav Vista Street. Uh,

56:59that we accept staff's recommendations.

57:04And do I hear a second?

57:06>> Denon second.

57:08>> Roll call vote.

57:10>> Member Cherry.

57:12>> Yes.

57:13>> Vice Chair Benvvenu.

57:14>> Yes.

57:15>> Member Bish.

57:16>> Yes.

57:17>> Member Tgman.

57:18>> Yes.

57:19>> Member Simmons.

57:20>> Yes.

57:20>> Madame Chair. The motion has passed.

57:22>> Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. And thank

57:24you, board members.

57:25>> Thank you.

57:26>> Um,

57:28[snorts] that's the end of this

57:30evening's cases.

57:32Uh staff, do we have anything under

57:35discussion items?

57:38>> No, chair. Yes, not at this time.

57:40>> Madam Chair, I do have uh

57:43>> Oh, yes.

57:44>> Uh I do have

57:45>> Attorney Vubalit. Uh I wanted to report

57:47to the board uh that in an appeal

57:50hearing we had regarding a project

57:53application

57:55uh that was heard by the board on May

57:5726th, 2026,

57:59this was a proposal to build a 3,400 ft

58:02addition to a height of 24 ft granting

58:05exceptions for the removal of historic

58:06material and to exceed 50% of the

58:08historic footprint of a significant

58:10structure at 515 Po de Peralta.

58:14um a neighboring property owner appealed

58:17that and that appeal was heard by the

58:19city of Santa Fe governing body on

58:20September 30th and it was the vote of

58:23the city of Santa Fe governing body to

58:26uphold the historic district review

58:29board's decision on that and uh approve

58:31the project

58:33and uh I think um it was um I think it

58:39was a good hearing in the sense that

58:40they ask a lot of detail about the

58:42board's decision- making process

58:44and I was able to show them sections of

58:46the packet that showed exactly what you

58:48were looking at when you made your

58:50decision on May 26th and uh how you

58:53formulated the criteria for the

58:56exceptions and the facts that you found

58:59and uh I I think it was a was a good

59:02hearing and it reflected well on the H

59:04board.

59:05>> Thank you, Frank. Uh any board members

59:08have any comments in regards to this

59:10appeal? What was the basis of the appeal

59:13from

59:18>> I'm sorry sir we can't uh we cannot pick

59:21you up without a mic. Can you please

59:22read? I

59:23>> I'm so sorry. Was the basis of the

59:25appeal from from an adjacent neighbor uh

59:28who had an issue with the height of the

59:31building and

59:33views or something like that?

59:34>> Uh presumably yes. Um, Madame Chair and

59:38member Simmons, uh, the appellant was an

59:41adjoining property owner that was higher

59:44on the elevation of that hill on the

59:47north side of Po de Peralta. And uh he

59:50did claim that uh the the 1 ft [snorts]

59:54discretionary allowance that the H board

59:57approved that addition for its situation

1:00:00on a sloping site uh would would

1:00:03obstruct his view and that uh the size

1:00:06of the addition was out of character for

1:00:09the neighborhood.

1:00:11Um the board may recall, madame chair

1:00:14and members that uh it exercised a

1:00:16discretionary allowance for um a height

1:00:20variation on a sloping site without

1:00:22considering exception criteria. Uh and

1:00:26that was one of the questions that the

1:00:28governing body had to consider was

1:00:29whether the age board should have

1:00:30considered should have required the

1:00:33project applicant to uh conclusively

1:00:35demonstrate the uh exception criteria

1:00:38for a height variance and uh the

1:00:40governing body found that the H board

1:00:43was within its authority to grant that

1:00:45discretionary allowance on a sloping

1:00:48site.

1:00:50>> Thank you very much. Are there any other

1:00:52pending appeals?

1:00:54Uh there are and in fact uh thank you uh

1:00:57madam chair and members uh thank you for

1:00:58asking that the um governing body has

1:01:03actually set a uh uh a special governing

1:01:07body hearing which will take place it's

1:01:10November 18th Wednesday November 18th um

1:01:14and uh I'm very thankful that that

1:01:16hearing will start at 100 p.m. because

1:01:19uh as as you know sometimes land use

1:01:22hearings which are all the way at the

1:01:23end of the governing body agenda are

1:01:25heard at 9 10 11:00 at night. Um but

1:01:29there will be a special governing body

1:01:32hearing to consider two historic

1:01:34district review board appeals and one

1:01:37planning commission appeal. Uh so they

1:01:39will all be heard at at one time with as

1:01:42I understand nothing else on the agenda

1:01:44but those appeals on November 18th. It's

1:01:46a Wednesday.

1:01:48Um,

1:01:50>> Wednesday the 18th. Can you repeat the

1:01:51time? I'm sorry.

1:01:52>> Uh, that is 100 pm. Um, and let me

1:01:58let me double check that date by looking

1:02:00at my uh Outlook calendar. Um, do you

1:02:04recall, Heather? Is that

1:02:08>> the date is Wednesday the 18th at 1

1:02:10p.m.? That's correct.

1:02:11>> 1 p.m.

1:02:13>> Okay. Do you know the cases that they're

1:02:15appealing that uh historic review cases?

1:02:19>> Yes, it's 1295 Sarraordo Road as well as

1:02:23that's for the addition that was greater

1:02:25than 50% of the footprint and removal of

1:02:29contributing walls um adjacent to Sarra

1:02:31Gordo Road as well as for the mural at I

1:02:35believe it's 320 Peralta

1:02:38of the fox um that sort of covers the

1:02:41entire building.

1:02:44Okay. Thank you. Uh any matters from the

1:02:49board? Member Benman.

1:02:51>> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, speaking of

1:02:53appeals to the governing body and the

1:02:55governing body, um

1:02:58we've had a few meetings that have been

1:03:00arranged and uh thank you director

1:03:02Lamboy for taking the initiative to set

1:03:05up some meetings between some of the

1:03:07members of the governing body and some

1:03:09of the members of the H board. Um, I

1:03:12think there have been three so far. I

1:03:13attended one, so I can't speak to the

1:03:15others, but um, I think these seem like

1:03:20a good idea, but um, I just like to make

1:03:24some suggestions because it's

1:03:26[clears throat] not clear to me exactly

1:03:27how these meetings are proceeding. It's

1:03:30not clear to me how the members from the

1:03:32board are being selected or the members

1:03:35of the governing body and whether

1:03:37there's continuity or discontinuity from

1:03:40meeting to meeting or exactly what um is

1:03:44it we're attempting to accomplish.

1:03:47So, [clears throat] it seems to me that

1:03:49maybe we could I'm just a suggestion to

1:03:53um the chair and the director that um

1:03:58potentially this could be formalized a

1:04:01bit so that there's actually designated

1:04:04if there's an intent to continue these

1:04:06discussions

1:04:08um as a working group of some sort that

1:04:10there be some designation of members

1:04:13from the board to participate in that.

1:04:16uh whether it's um one designation for

1:04:20all meetings or whether that changes

1:04:22that could it could go either way and

1:04:24that also the same be true on the

1:04:27governing body side and also that there

1:04:29be some kind of an agenda for these

1:04:31meetings. The meeting I've attended I

1:04:35thought was pretty um chaotic to be

1:04:38honest um because it tempers flared. Um

1:04:42passions were high. It was extreme uh

1:04:45there was a lot of anger um expressed in

1:04:47the room and I thought that the the

1:04:50discussion just went in multiple

1:04:52directions without any clear

1:04:54understanding of what the uh what

1:04:56exactly was on the table that we were

1:04:58trying to resolve.

1:05:00So, um, that would be my suggestion.

1:05:03There be someone that's chairing those

1:05:05meetings that it would be understood who

1:05:08the participants are and what is

1:05:10intended to be accomplished and that

1:05:12there be an agenda,

1:05:15but I'd be curious about other people's

1:05:17point of view that's attended and and

1:05:20also of course director Lamboy who's

1:05:22made the arrangements just sort of

1:05:24serving as a intermediary between the

1:05:27two entities.

1:05:29Uh yes, thank you vice chair BNU. Um so

1:05:32the first meeting truly was to sort of

1:05:35get through

1:05:37what was being proposed and that wasn't

1:05:41it it was just a proposal and there was

1:05:44no agenda and my apologies for not doing

1:05:46that but on the second meeting that we

1:05:48had there was an agenda.

1:05:50>> There are some things and we're going

1:05:52through everything. The counselors that

1:05:54are involved are those who are

1:05:55sponsoring the bill. So that's the basis

1:05:58for the decision on who's involved from

1:06:00the council in these meetings. And um

1:06:04some of the amendments that are being

1:06:06proposed apply to all boards and

1:06:07commissions. So one would be the term

1:06:10limits that are being proposed. That

1:06:12would be for

1:06:14the arts commission, the planning

1:06:16commission, all of the different boards

1:06:17and commissions, not just the historic

1:06:19districts review board. And there are

1:06:22some other changes that are being

1:06:23proposed that aren't specific to the

1:06:25HDRB. And I think what we're trying to

1:06:28do right now is to have discussions on

1:06:32what is good and we've also had some

1:06:35discussions internally with um Matt

1:06:37Global of Global Partners to talk about

1:06:40really what is the best approach whether

1:06:43we

1:06:44add it to part of the phase two of the

1:06:47code update or whether we um have the

1:06:50counselors proceed. there are strong

1:06:52feelings on behalf of the council

1:06:55regarding the timing and what they want

1:06:58to to do. Now, uh at this point, um the

1:07:03counselors feel pretty strongly that

1:07:04there's not going to be another

1:07:07convening and that they're going to

1:07:08propose what they propose. And uh but

1:07:11there is a process for any code change

1:07:14that has to go through a public review

1:07:16process. and that would be the historic

1:07:19district's review board would review and

1:07:22make recommendation to the governing

1:07:23body. So, it's not like there isn't a

1:07:26public process, although staff has

1:07:28suggested to have more public input.

1:07:32>> Um, and no answer on that yet. Didn't

1:07:35mean to interrupt, but are you referring

1:07:37now to this bill that's separate from

1:07:40phase two that would also require

1:07:44>> um coming back before the board before

1:07:45it goes to a vote?

1:07:47>> Yes, that's correct.

1:07:48>> Okay. Any

1:07:51change, any text change to chapter 14

1:07:55needs to be reviewed by the appropriate

1:07:57body and planning commission actually

1:07:59might need to act on that as well as

1:08:02HDRB before it goes to governing body.

1:08:06>> Well, thank you for that. Is there a

1:08:07timeline that you're aware of where this

1:08:09is expected to take place?

1:08:11>> Not at this time. is still um there has

1:08:15been a legislative request that's been

1:08:16submitted to our legislative office.

1:08:20They have a very large backlog. So those

1:08:23priorities are determined by the city

1:08:25council uh or I'm sorry the city manager

1:08:28as to what comes through first. And so I

1:08:32would anticipate that it's going to be

1:08:34at least several months.

1:08:36>> Okay. Thank you for all that

1:08:39information. That's helpful. Thanks.

1:08:42>> So, Heather, uh, since the city

1:08:44councilors that were involved in this

1:08:46meetings indicated that they don't want

1:08:48to, they more than likely will not

1:08:51proceed with any more meetings for the

1:08:54meantime. Uh, would you be so kind as to

1:08:58send us all an email in reference to the

1:09:01proposals that uh will be presented to

1:09:04the governing body?

1:09:06>> Yes, Cher Rios, we we can do that for

1:09:09sure. Although it's not

1:09:12finally determined what is going to

1:09:14impact more than one board and

1:09:17commission and what's going to impact

1:09:18just the historic districts review

1:09:20board. So, but we will um make sure to

1:09:24parse that out and let you know what it

1:09:26is well in advance.

1:09:28>> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or

1:09:31comments in reference to this subject

1:09:33matter? Nothing. Um okay. Our next

1:09:36meeting is going to be on October the

1:09:3827th, 2026.

1:09:41Uh question, were we uh was were the

1:09:45city council chambers being occupied

1:09:48tonight?

1:09:48>> Yes, madame chair.

1:09:50>> So, we'll go back to the city council

1:09:52chambers. I didn't know if this is a new

1:09:54location.

1:09:55>> No, this is this will be temporary for

1:09:57this evening and also the first hearing

1:10:00in November will be here. Uh [snorts]

1:10:02but for the next hearing we'll be back

1:10:04in chambers and then we'll be back here

1:10:06no in November.

1:10:07>> Okay. Thank you.

1:10:08>> I had a thing for members from the

1:10:10board.

1:10:12>> Pardon?

1:10:13>> I you had asked if there was anything

1:10:15else on that matter from the board, but

1:10:17I have another matter from the board.

1:10:19>> Yes, Mr. Chair.

1:10:20>> Yeah. Well, I was just going to uh

1:10:22comment on this uh window

1:10:25um informational session that we did

1:10:28today and ask that other uh um

1:10:33uh u make uh uh inform the board when

1:10:40you post the or when you when you post

1:10:43the video so people have access to it

1:10:45because the feedback I got was that it

1:10:47was fairly helpful for people in

1:10:49understanding

1:10:51windows.

1:10:52>> Yes, absolutely. Member Cherry was super

1:10:54helpful and the video is going to be

1:10:56approximately 24 minutes. I sort of cut

1:10:58in between when we were moving from one

1:11:01room to another. So, I just need to put

1:11:04everything together and I might share it

1:11:07through a Dropbox link or because it's

1:11:11hard to transmit because of the size of

1:11:14the video. So we'll we'll have to figure

1:11:16something out, but we'll definitely

1:11:17share with the entire staff as well as

1:11:20the board and eventually maybe depending

1:11:22upon whether the board members might

1:11:25feel be help might feel that it may be

1:11:28helpful posted on to our website.

1:11:32>> Okay. And I'm I'm I'm available to do

1:11:34those again or again with with more of a

1:11:39curriculum so to speak if we want to

1:11:41incorporate it into how it relates to

1:11:43our code.

1:11:46>> Thank you.

1:11:46>> Question for member Cherry. Uh you did

1:11:49that uh today and you did it to what

1:11:53audience?

1:11:54>> Uh everyone

1:11:56>> the field trip audience.

1:11:57>> Oh okay.

1:11:58>> Yeah it was on the

1:12:00>> able to make the field trip. So that's

1:12:02[clears throat] That's wonderful.

1:12:03>> Yeah.

1:12:04>> So, we can do

1:12:06>> Yeah. So, we could do a similar thing or

1:12:07we could evolve it like we talked uh

1:12:10Heather and I talked about evolving it

1:12:12with like some kind of curriculum or um

1:12:16just you know it it was fairly free

1:12:19form. So,

1:12:21>> okay. Thank you member.

1:12:23>> Thank you madam chair. So, just coming

1:12:25back to the um issue of the city council

1:12:28the governing body. Is it poss I was

1:12:31going to ask you separately, but it

1:12:32seems to me in thinking about it that it

1:12:34would be useful for all the board to

1:12:35know since only a few members attended

1:12:37the meetings. Can we have a just a

1:12:39really brief summary of who attended and

1:12:43what the discussion was in the three

1:12:46meetings?

1:12:47>> Sure. Absolutely. Be happy to put that

1:12:49together.

1:12:50>> Okay. Thanks.

1:12:51>> Okay.

1:12:53Thank you. Anything else? Anybody?

1:12:57Nope. So um motion to adjurnn someone.

1:13:02>> So moved

1:13:03>> and is there a second? Second. All those

1:13:07in favor say I.

1:13:08>> I.

1:13:08>> I.

1:13:09>> And I'm not going to entertain any

1:13:11opposed.

1:13:14>> Okay. Good night everyone. This was a

1:13:16very short meeting.

1:13:23>> Okay.