►
From YouTube: H-Board Hearing 1/24/23
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
A
C
Cherios
item
number
one
under
old
business
item:
G
220,
Rodriguez
Street
will
be
postponed
until
the
next.
A
Any
other
changes
there
are
no
other
changes.
Thank
you.
Is
there
a
motion
to
adopt
the
agendas?
It's
just
changed.
Guida.
B
Okay,
remember
Berkeley
member
Beachside,
yes,
member
bienvenue,
yes,
member
Guida,.
E
A
The
motion
has
been
approved.
Thank
you.
We
have
minutes
of
January
the
10th
2023..
Are
there
any
changes
to
these
minutes?
Melissa
I
have
two
of
them
that
are
quick.
They
are
the
first
one
is
on
page
11.
Paragraph
three
should
read
as
follows:
chair
Rios
asked
half
the
difference
and
then
take
it
to
where
it
says
accept
under
Portales.
You
should
add
the
words
under
Portales,
okay
and
then
on
page
28.
A
Fifth,
paragraph
down
should
read
chario's
ass
Mr
Martinez
to
confirm
that
what
was
being
proposed
is
okay,
that
what
was
being
proposed
and
then
the
rest
of
the
sentence
is
okay.
Any
other
changes.
C
Cheerios,
yes,
remember:
Aguilar
Medrano
has
her
hand
up,
oh
feel,
free
to.
F
Speak.
Thank
you
madam
chair.
Sorry.
I
just
was
able
to
join
as
a
panelist.
I'm.
Sorry
guys
couldn't
hear
me
for
roll
call,
but
two
quick
changes
on
page
11,
paragraph
11.
If
you
can
change
the
third
sentence
to
read,
while
it
is
on
the
new
edition,
it
doesn't
complement
the
style
of
the
existing
house,
which
is
Spanish
Pueblo
Revival,
and
the
second
change
is
in
that
same
paragraph
continued
on
page
12.
F
If
you
can
change
the
second
to
last
sentence
to
read,
she
noticed
the
existing
Windows
only
have
mountains
on
the
interior.
The
packet
states
that
all
new
windows
will
have
mountains
on
the
exterior
and
interior
and
asked
if
the
existing
windows
will
be
retrofitted
to
have
mountains
on
the
exterior
as
well,
and
that's
all
thank.
B
F
B
D
A
H
I
just
wanted
to
let
the
board
know
that
to
pass
along.
My
apologies
that
we
don't
have
edited
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
from
the
age
board
meeting
that
we
had
on
January
10th
on
a
somewhat
of
an
emergency
basis.
H
I
have
been
called
in
to
cover
for
the
municipal
prosecutor,
Kyle
hibner,
so
I
have
been
spending
most
of
the
week
and
most
of
the
past
three
weeks
covering
for
the
municipal
prosecutor
and
Municipal
Court
Mr
hibner
is
taking
FMLA
Lee
because
he
is
the
proud
father
of
a
new
baby
girl
and
I'm
happy
to
help
out
there.
But
nonetheless
it
does
time
consuming
and
I
haven't
been
able
to
address
the
findings
of
conclusions
of
law.
I
hope
to
have
all
those
done
by
the
time
we
meet
on
February
14th.
H
A
You
attorney
Jubilee
for
letting
us
know
that
you're
welcome
and
good
luck
on
the
other,
slides
that
you're
representing
okay.
A
Any
Matters
from
the
public
anyone
wishing
to
speak
at
this
point,
anyone
on
Zoom
there
is
no
one
so
we'll
move
on
to
staff
Communications.
C
Cheerios
just
to
bring
to
your
attention
at
the
end
of
the
agenda,
we're
going
to
be
having
a
staff
discussion
I
wanted
to
let
the
public
know
that
we're
bringing
forth
some
proposed
language.
That's
in
the
staff
report
packet.
If
you
look
at
it
online
and
it's
relating
to
the
authority
of
this
board
to
Grant
exceptions
and
with
reference
to
that
matter.
C
The
exceptions
that
were
recommended
for
approval
by
this
board
to
the
governing
body
for
St
John's
College,
would
be
heard
on
February
22nd,
and
we
are
also
trying
to
schedule
that
same
date
for
462
Arroyo
tenorio.
That
also
had
an
exception.
That
needs
to
be
reviewed
by
the
governing
body.
The
city
council.
Thank
you
and.
E
A
You
we
will
move
on
to
Old
business.
We
have
one
case
under
all
business
and
that's
located
at
805
upper
Rocky,
Hill
and
I
see
that
the
applicant
is
here
and
he's
coming
forward,
and
we
hear
that
case.
Angela.
J
J
For
those
of
you
who
weren't
here
I'll
just
do
a
quick
summary
of
the
historic
background
and
also
the
recap,
the
original
Proposal,
with
the
highlights
of
what's
changed
so
805
abadaka
Hill
is
a
it's
a
1300
square
foot,
it's
not
two-story.
It
actually
is
a
loft.
J
J
She
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
please
that
are
that
shows
it
has
many
faces
and
that's
the
house
and
most
of
its
sides.
As
you
can
see,
it's
it's
mini
masses
with
flat
roofs
and
parapets
in
2015,
the
board
approved
some
changes
to
the
windows
and
distance
to
the
corners
to
come
into
compliance
with
the
downtown
and
the
East
Side
historic
district
standards.
J
So
we'll
look
at
this
first,
this
is
approaching
the
house
from
Apodaca
Hill
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
three
editions
as
you
look
at
this
from
the
this
is
the
west
side
and
it's
the
front
as
that.
The
lower
Arrow
points
to
the
the
larger
Edition
guest
house,
that's
being
attached
to
that
South
elevation
and
the
arrow
at
the
top
left
is
pointing
to
where
the
rear
portal
is
being
added
in
the
back.
To
give
you
perspective
next
slide,
please
so
I
put
these
up
first.
J
These
are
the
story
polls
for
the
for
at
the
for
the
the
guest
house
Edition
that
attaches
there,
it's
multi,
it's
it's
a
few
masses
that
are
step
that
are
stepped
up,
and
some
of
you
saw
that
on
at
the
field
trip
today
next
slide,
please.
J
These
are
story
polls
for
the
other
two
editions,
the
the
one
on
the
left
is
the
front
entry.
There
is
going
to
be
a
new
part
Hall,
and
the
story
polls
show
the
height
of
that.
It's
a
shed
roof
with
a
stone,
not
Stone,
stucco
column
and
then
on
the
rear.
It
is
a
simplified
or
tall.
Extending
from
that
that
lower
Mass
and
the
story
poles
show
its
height
at
the
end,
next
slide,
please.
J
So
these
are
the
elevations
for
the
West
for
the
West,
which
is
the
front
approach
and
I
the
first.
The
top
is
the
existing,
and
the
second
is
what
was
previously
proposed,
and
the
blue
dotted
Circle
shows
that
that
that
wall
that
has
been
altered,
based
on
the
board's
previous
review
and
so
the
bottom
elevation
along
with
those
two
renderings,
are
the
current
proposal
for
that
wall.
J
The
applicant
has,
instead
of
it
being
eight
feet
across,
it
is,
has
stepped
it
down
and
that
it
it's
at
eight
feet
at
where
it
connects
to
the
house,
and
it
is
six
feet
or
four
feet
where
it
steps
down.
So
that's
that's.
So
that
was
the
one
change
from
the
original
proposal
next
slide.
J
Please-
and
this
is
probably
the
best
way
to
look
at
this
house-
this
nice
aerial
that
the
architect
has
provided
the
you
can
see
the
house
from
above
and
the
previously
proposed
Edition
has
an
arrow
to
it
on
the
left,
rendering
see
that
wall
and
then
on
the
the
revision.
You
can
see
that
the
wall
has
been
stepped
down
and
that's
the
that's
a
good
way
to
look
at
this
house
since
it's
complicated
next
slide.
Please
and
there
are
no
changes
to
well.
I'm.
J
Sorry,
of
course,
that's
where
the
addition
is
proposed,
so
the
existing's
on
top
and
then
the
current
proposal
is
for
the
Edition
right
there.
It's
it's
slopes
up
next
slide.
Please
and
the
east
east
elevation
is
the
rear
of
the
house.
You
can
see
the
back
of
the
proposed
Edition
on
the
left
side
and
the
new
proposed
portal
there
and
profile
next
slide.
J
Please,
and
this
shows
that
North
elevation
from
the
north
that
shows
the
rear
portal
there
and
the
applicant
has
revised
the
applic
the
application
to
use
wood
posts
instead
of
the
steel
posts,
as
proposed
before
that's
based
on
board
input.
J
Next
slide.
Please-
and
these
are
the
finishes-
the
applicant
is
proposing
one
single
stucco
color
and
that
is
to
match
the
existing
house,
which
is
Desert
Rose
and
the
addition
okay
next
slide.
Please-
and
these
are
renderings
of
of
it.
I
wanted
to
put
these
in.
For
obvious
reasons,
it's
helps.
You
picture
how
it
might
look
again.
The
original
proposal
and
current
proposal
is
to
there's
three
additions
and
replacing
windows
on
the
ground
floor
and
actually
yeah
to
be
divided
light,
or
is
it
the
second
floor?
I
guess
we
can
just
confirm.
F
J
J
A
Thank
you,
Angela
board
members.
Are
there
any
questions,
clarification
or
any
other
type
for
Angela
at
this
time?
A
J
If
I
may
provide
yes,
my
recommendation,
pardon
me,
oh
absolutely,
that
that
I
found
it
complies
with
the
the
general
design
standards
for
all
H
districts,
as
well
as
the
downtown
and
East
Side
design
standards,
and
one
condition
is
that
and
I
didn't
cover.
J
This
in
the
proposal
is
that
there's
an
existing
roof
mounted
HVAC
little
mini
splits
that
that
the
the
at
the
applicant
make
sure
that
the
line
sets
from
the
top
of
it
are
painted
to
match
the
stucco
and
that's
what
we
do
require
so
other
than
that
staff
recommends
approval,
Set
publicly
visible
the
Mini
Splits.
A
B
K
K
E
A
D
E
K
Thank
you,
members
of
the
board,
when
I
was
here
last
time
presenting
the
project.
There
was
a
motion
Put
on
We,
three
two
condition
and
one
I
love
like
an
asking.
The
motion
asked
us
to
have
the
boat
houses
at
the
same
color
stucco,
which
our
revision
shows
that
that
has
the
same
color
stucco,
the
other
was
the.
K
K
I.
Think
some
of
the
perspective
would
be
easier
to
look
at
so
yeah.
You
see
on
the
top
left
corner,
I'll,
be
showing
the
portal
with
the
wood
column
and
all
wood
members
and
the
rear
portal,
which
is
not
publicly
visible
at
any
point,
and
one
of
the
pictures
that
Angela
showed
earlier,
we
took
from
Apodaca
street,
but
we
still
changed
the
post
on
that.
One
was
still.
K
We
changed
it
to
the
wood,
the
horizontal
members
on
that
one
still
steal,
but
the
appearance,
the
wood
we
changed,
the
wood
column
and
all
the
front
portals
are
also
changed
to
the
wood
column.
K
The
other
request
of
the
motion
was
to
work
with
staff
had
some
problem
with
the
front
wall
that
we
we
worked
it
out.
So
on
this,
on
the
right
hand,
side,
as
you
see,
we
cut
the
height
of
the
almost
one
third
of
it
and
make
it
lower
the
rest
of
the
that
wall
still
supports
the
the
portal
Beyond
it
and
also
provide
a
little
bit
of
a
shelter
for
that
bench.
That's
coming
in
there,
which
is
the
entry
bench.
K
A
Thank
you,
I
have
a
question
in
reference
to
the
windows.
The
buttons
yes
will,
the
muttons
on
the
outside?
Will
they
have
muttons
on
the
outside
I
believe
that
member
Aguilar
Medrano
sure.
A
K
K
That
has
the
button
only
on
the
inside,
but
all
the
ones
that
we
are
replacing
and
all
the
new
edition
windows
will
have
much
than
the
inside
and
the
outside
and
another
revision
that
it
just
came
to
my
mind
as
Angela
was
presenting
last
time.
The
export
request
for
the
sucker
color
to
be
uniform
I
think
it
makes
sense
for
the
windows
to
be
uniform
as
well.
So
we
are
proposing
the
all
the
window
to
be
flagstone
to
match
the
existing
house
windows.
A
G
You,
madam
chairs,
so
I'm
coming
late
to
this
party
since
I
was
not
at
the
last
meeting,
but
I
did
watch
the
video
of
the
discussion,
so
I
think
I'm
up
to
speed
and
read
the
minutes,
and
it's
true
that
one
of
my
concerns
with
the
revised
packet
was.
It
was
a
vast
Improvement
and
you
addressed
most
of
the
issues,
but
it
still
had
a
lot
of
metal
materials
in
the
portals,
but
it
seems
like
you've
changed
it
since
the
packet.
Is
that
correct,
especially
the
one?
G
That's
the
entry
portal,
that's
visible
from
the
road,
so
it
no
longer
has
the
steel
I-beam
correct
and
no
longer
has
the
metal
Raptors
correct,
but
it
does
have
a
corrugated
metal,
roof.
Correct,
okay,
well,
I!
Think
that's
a
huge
Improvement
that
would
have
been
my
primary
concern
are.
Do
you
still?
Are
you
still
planning
to
use
black
for
the
windows
on
the
Edition?
No.
K
K
G
K
And
I
on
the
last
page
of
this
presentation,
I
I
included
a
couple
photos
of
the
current
project
that
has
been
approved
to
the
H
board
and
and
been
passed
that
has
still
members
on
it,
and
these
are
on
the
same.
H
board
restrict
what
you
call
the
district
they're,
also
very,
very
visible.
One
is
right
on
Gonzalez
Road
one
right
on
the
Alameda.
Our
project
is
at
the
end
of
the
cul-de-sac,
and
the
back
portal
is
really
not
publicly
visible,
but
we
we
listened
to
the
age
program.
We
made
the
changes
well.
G
I
appreciate
that
and
it's
true
that
a
few
of
these
steel
elements
have
infiltrated
the
East
Side
even
invisible
locations,
but
the
problem
is
that
every
time
that
happens
again,
it
creates
further
precedence,
so
I
I
can
I'm
sure
you
can
see
why
there'd
be
a
concern
on
at
least
some
of
the
members
of
the
board
on
their
part
to
avoid
that
outcome,
but
at
any
rate,
you've
addressed
it
and
it
seems,
like
you've,
also
addressed
the
other
concern
I
had
about
the
entry
portal
was
the
stuccoed
column
which
seemed
out
of
place,
and
now
that's
a
wooden
column.
G
That's
correct,
okay,
so
the
only
remaining
concern
I
have.
Is
this
Archway
entryway
that
you've
modified
it's
it's
sculptural,
it's
not
unattractive,
but
it
does
strike
me
that
it
it
looks
out
of
place
in
that
particular
neighborhood
and
District.
G
As
you
know,
the
standard
for
this
district
is
that
buildings
appear
either
be
made
of
adobe
or
appear
to
be
made
of
adobe
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
that
particular
kind
of
sculptural
wall
that
actually
is
also
being
used
as
a
support
could
be
made
out
of
adobe.
Do
you
think
it
could
be
absolutely.
K
Okay,
I
think
Adobe
has
various
sculptural.
Definitely.
G
K
G
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
First
to
the
applicant
I,
do
see
that
you
Incorporated
many
of
our
comments
from
the
last
hearing,
so
I
appreciate
your
compromise
on
those
items.
My
one
outstanding
construct
concern
still
pertains
to
the
portals,
in
particular
the
one
at
the
front
entrance
that
memorabian
venue
was
also
speaking
to
I,
believe
my
original
motion,
you
know,
wanted
to
re-look
at
the
entirety
of
the
materials
changing
them
from
steel
to
Wood.
F
So
my
concern
is
still
the
corrugated
roof
that
is
on
that
portal
and
that
one
in
particular
stands
out
to
me
both
because,
if
I
recall
correctly
from
our
first
site
visit
that
one
is
visible
from
the
streets
and
then
also
because
it
is
getting
attached
to
the
original
part
of
the
house
which
I'll
you
know,
although
it's
not
contributing
it
is
from
this
I
believe
1960s,
so
we're
just
over
60
years
old.
So
it
seems
like
that.
F
We're
tall
in
particular
could
use
a
more
sensitive
approach,
perhaps
than
the
rest
I'm
not
as
concerned
as
the
one
that
has
the
Latias
in
the
back,
but
ideally
I,
think
I
would
still
like
to
see
the
corrugated
roof
removed
from
the
entrance
or
tall
and
from
the
entrance
on
the
addition
per
tall
and
then
perhaps
keeping
the
one
as
is
in
the
back
and
then,
as
you
know,
I
was
on
the
fence
about
the
windows
last
time,
so
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
those
are
gonna
going
to
be
consistent,
color
of
Flagstone.
F
So
thank
you
for
that
compromise
as
well,
and
then
I
I
think
I
still
shared
member
bandvin
news
concerns
as
with
staff
about
that
new
yard.
Well,
it's
not
a
yard
wall,
but
that
new
sculptural
wall,
as
we've
been
referring
to
it
tonight
on
the
new
edition
I
think
I,
don't
know
that
lowering
the
outside
portion
of
it
helped
from
what
we
saw
last
time,
but
I
think
if
you're
confident
that
that
could
be
constructive
of
adobe
that
that's
something
that
I
could
see
letting
go
through.
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
Member
Guida.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
this
applicant
and
their
client
have
now
come
back
to
the
board
a
second
time
with
a
revised
design
and
in
response
to
the
sports,
Direction
I.
Think
I
was
clear
last
time
that
I
was
a
fan
of
this
project
as
designed,
I,
don't
agree
with
other
members
of
the
board
that
you
know
there's
a
creeping
in
of
metal
or
materials
that
shouldn't
be
in
the
district.
D
These
are
allowed
materials
in
The.
District
staff
has.
D
There
was
some
discussion
last
time
and
in
recent
days
about
about
cases
that
have
been
brought
before
this
board
that
have
challenged
some
of
the
rules,
or
at
least
not
pursued
a
design
methodology
that
was
strictly
about
compliance
or
being
by
the
book.
This
was
one
of
those
projects,
I
feel
like
between
the
last
hearing
and
and
tonight
where
the
applicant
has
addressed
the
board's
comments.
I
think
this
has
been
done.
Skillfully
I
see
a
project.
D
A
I
Some
comments,
I
agree
with
member
Guido
with
respect
to
the
use
of
metal
in
projects.
I
think
the
two
that
are
presented
in
your
pocket
are
two
that
this
board
approved
and
they're
both
on
new
construction
non-contributing
buildings,
which
is
this
is
one
of
those,
so
I
think
that
that
I
would
not
have
objected
to
the
use
of
metal
as
proposed
in
the
original
design.
I
But
I
appreciate
you
taking
other
members
comments
into
consideration
and
with
respect
to
the
the
gate,
the
main
entrance
or
I
guess
you
might
even
consider
that
as
the
Guan
we've
we've
approved,
others
like
that
as
well
on
new
construction,
very
thick
entrances
that
perform
sort
of
a
room
on
the
inside
and
I
I
like
that
element,
I
think
that's
that's
really
nicely
done
in
either
iteration
I
had
one
question
about
the
the
window:
color
is
that
does
that
apply
to
the
doors
as
well
with
the
glazing?
Yes,
okay,.
A
Any
other
comments:
it
appears
that
I
do
want
to
thank
you
for
listening
to
the
board
and
applying
what
the
board
said
to
the
project.
I
like
this
project
and
one
of
the
things
that
calls
my
attention
to
these
to
the
roof
line.
Is
that
there's
a
variety
of
of
step,
backs
and
different
steps
to
the
roofline
and
I
personally,
like
the
thickness
of
that
wall,
I
think
it
adds
to
the
project
and
as
far
as
the
corrugated
metal
roof,
those
are
common
in
Northern,
New
Mexico.
A
They
have
been
used
for
for
a
long
time
in
Northern,
New,
Mexico
I
think
the
project
has
evolved
into
a
very
nice
project
and
I.
Thank
you
for
that,
sir,
and
let's
see
it
appears,
I'll
ask
for
public
comment
and
then
let's
see
what
the
board's
going
to
do.
Anyone
from
the
public
wishing
to
comment
on
this
particular
project
come
forward.
D
Sure
I'll
make
a
motion.
Please
case:
2022-006-106
hdrb,
805,
Apodaca,
Hill
I,
moved
to
the
board,
approved
the
project
as
submitted
tonight,
noting
that
the
applicant
has
agreed
to
change
the
window
color
on
the
Edition
from
black
to
the
color
that
matches
the
existing
windows.
E
I
Was
second
with
a
friendly
Amendment,
because
I
think
the
front
portal
design
is
different
in
the
pocket
than
presented
tonight.
I'll
request
that
the
applicant
submit
revised
drawings
to
stop
for
approval
before
seeking
the
permit.
G
G
I,
don't
personally
think
that
the
corrugated
metal
is
out
of
place
on
this
particular
building,
and
it
is
a
traditional
build
material
in
this
District.
So
when
I
was
speaking
of
metal,
I
was
referring
to
the
steel.
G
I-Beam
is
going
to
support
that
corrugated
metal
roof,
which
is
not
traditional
for
that
area
and
I
think
it
for
good
reason
historically,
but
also
I
think
that
in
especially
in
the
original
configuration
when
it
was
rested
on
a
stuccoed
support
which
again
coming
back
to
Adobe
being
the
material
that's
supposed
to
be
under
that
stucco
under
our
ordinance,
it
creates
a
disconnect
when
there's
a
heavy
steel,
I-beam
being
supported
by
an
adobe
column
and
that's
the
kind
of
subtle
but
I
think
extremely
important
design
element
that
creates
the
character
of
our
district
and
particularly
a
district
like
the
Apodaca
DACA
Hill
neighborhood.
G
A
G
In
agreement
that
I
think
this
is
a
very
I
really
appreciate
the
applicants
addressing
all
the
issues
that
were
raised.
I
Just
to
continue
that,
just
that
doesn't
point
I
agree
with
you
and
I
have
a
similar
feeling
about
the
wood
post,
supporting
a
metal
Rafters
that
that
also
seems
like
a
little
bit
dishonest,
as
other
members
have
put
it
I'm.
D
Better
here,
if
I
may
I,
think
probably
there's
a
larger
discussion
about
dishonesty
and
Santa
Fe
style
to
be
had
I'm
I'm
happy
that
my
fellow
board
members
are
engaged
in
that
discussion
and
I
hope
continue.
It
yeah.
D
F
K
Madam
chair
a
member
of
the
board,
all
the
front
portals
have
been
changed
to
the
Wood
host,
a
good
member,
the
rear
portal,
which
is
not
publicly
visible
this
this
one.
It's
not
publicly
visible.
We
still
change
the
prayer
request,
change
the
post
to
the
wood,
but
the
horizontal
members
are
are
steel
tubes.
E
B
A
Yes,
yes,
emotion
has
been
approved,
thank
you
and
thank
you,
sir.
We
will
move
on
to
new
business
and
we
have
four
cases
under
new
business
which
are
at
the
same
address
and
that
is
50
Mount
Carmel
Road.
F
A
Oh
okay,
let
the
record
show
that
remember:
Aguilar
Medrano
is
will
not
be
participating
in
the
Mount
Carmel
cases
she
has
recused
herself.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
good
evening
to
you.
Oh
well,
you'll
probably
come
back
for
the
discussion
items.
H
Areas
yeah
I
I,
know,
member
Aguilar
Medrano
has
left
the
room
at
times
when
she's
disqualified
herself
from
hearing
anything
that
has
to
do
with
the
50
Mount
Carmel,
but
honestly,
remember
Aguilar,
Medrano,
I
I,
don't
see
any
reason
you
can't
listen
to
the
discussion.
Maybe
you
don't
want
to
participate
and
I
understand
that,
but
since
this
is
appearing
on
YouTube
and
it's
open
to
the
public,
there's
nothing
that
says
that
you
can't
listen.
H
A
C
Yes,
thank
you
sorry,
I'm
going
to
be
presenting
from
the
yes,
my
computer's
here
we
can
hear
you
okay,
so
this
is
the
last
step
in
a
series
of
steps
that
we've
had
with
reference
to
the
Mount
Carmel
campus.
We
recall
last
July
we
had
a
hearing
that
where
we
designated
buildings
and
then
we
have
also
been
considering
the
individual
buildings
as
well
December,
we
considered
Santa
Nueva,
and
now
these
are
the
remodels
remodeling
of
the
existing
buildings.
The
first
one
we'll
start
with
is
with
Santa
Maria.
C
E
C
All
right,
so
the
Santa
Maria
building
is
located
on
the
southern
portion
of
the
campus.
You
can
see
it
noted
with
the
arrow
on
the
South
Side
there
and
it's
adjacent
to
the
carport,
which
was
previously
approved
in
December
for
demolition.
C
The
reason
being
is
providing
accessibility
and
fire
access
that
was
considered
a
non-contributing
building.
In
addition,
tonight
we'll
be
considering
San
Miguel
and
San
Juan,
as
well
as
a
yard
wall,
so
the
Santa
Maria
building
has
sort
of
a
long
history
at
first
it
was
part
of
the
Sun
Mountain
sanatorium,
his
administration,
building
the
ansem
rooms,
and
then
it
was
proposed
to
be
the
Santa
Fe
Inn
John
gome
was
a
major
force
behind
that
and
it
was
not
successful
and
I'm.
C
Sorry
for
the
misspelling
of
the
Bruins
Army
hospital,
but
Bruins
Army
hospital
used
that
as
a
an
auxiliary
due
to
the
large
demand
or
need
for
housing
soldiers
so
there
for
a
while.
There
was
an
auxiliary
Bruins
facility
here
after
that
Archdiocese
of
the
Immaculate
Heart
of
Mary
Seminary
will
occupied
the
campus
and
then
finally,
the
order
of
the
Carmelite
Sisters,
and
so
this
is
yet
one
of
many
Evolutions,
including
the
building
which
has
many
Evolutions
I've
provided
to
you,
which
is
sort
of
difficult
to
see.
C
I'm
sorry,
the
original
drawing
that
of
the
Santa
Maria
building,
and
it
shows
you
the
divided
light
windows
and
the
overall
theme,
as
well
as
the
picture.
The
overall
theme
Here
is
that
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
restoration
work
in
addition
to
some
minor
changes
as
well.
If
you
recall
this
that
this
building
was
designated
as
significant,
so
all
facades
are
considered
primary.
The
applicant
was
kind
enough
to
provide
some
details
on
primary
facades
and
and
all
of
that
for
all
of
the
buildings.
C
But
if
you'll
note
here
on
the
drawing
on
the
right,
there's
the
yellow
area,
that
is
a
non-historic
Edition
and
then,
if
you
also
notice,
there's
a
label,
it
says
non-historic
enclosure,
sure
that's
the
portal
that
is
going
to
be
reintroduced
as
as
part
of
this
proposal
and
on
the
left
hand
side.
You
can
see
the
portal
itself
in
that,
drawing
that's
being
reintroduced
with
a
series
of
French
doors
and
side
lights,
Beyond
as
well.
C
The
existing
windows
on
the
entire
building
are
not
historic,
so
the
scope
of
work
and
I'm
going
to
let
the
applicant
sort
of
go
into
more
detail.
I,
don't
want
to.
You
know,
talk
too
much
when
they
have
a
lot
to
to
to
present,
but
the
non-historic
windows
are
going
to
be
replaced.
The
there
will
be
an
ADA
platform
to
provide
accessibility,
the
non-historic
storm
door
on
the
North
elevation.
So
you
can
see
the
north
elevation
the
right
photo
here.
This
is
part
of
the
window
assessment
that
was
provided.
C
C
That
is
the
reason
is
that
they're
behind
I
don't
know.
If
you
can
see
my
yeah,
you
can
see
this
is
there
behind
the
stairwell,
and
there
are
two
non-historic
windows
here
and
they're
going
to
be
enlarged
on
this
elevation.
There's
been
quite
a
bit
of
change,
that's
happened
over
there
and
then
the
sort
of
non-historic
or
tall
type
of
feature
is
going
to
be
removed
and
replaced
in
staff's
opinion.
That
change
will
not
impact
the
primary
nature
of
that
facade
and
then
the
second
story
railing
will
have
to
be
in
compliance.
C
Also,
other
railings
will
have
to
be
in
compliance
with
Ada
and
IBC
standards
and
that
42
inch
height
and
the
restoration
of
the
iron
railings,
also
on
the
interior,
Courtyard
is
being
proposed.
So
staff
recommends
approval.
It
complies
with
the
general
design
standards,
as
well
as
the
design
standards
for
the
reintroduction
of
of
historic
features
and
I
just
wanted
to
show
to
you
sort
of
the
living
room
area.
There's
a
couple
of
interior
photos.
C
This
was
included
on
the
hippie,
and
so
this
is
the
building
on
the
lower
right
is
the
photo
from
today,
and
you
can
see
where
that
portal
was
enclosed
and
the
walls
were
sort
of
punched
through,
and
so
they
will
be
adding
those
French
doors
in
that
location
and
then
removing
that
enclosed
room
where
the
checkered
floor
is
next
includes
a
staff
presentation.
Thank.
B
E
L
So
good
evening,
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
my
name
is
Lisa
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
modern
Elder.
Academy
really
excited
to
be
here
with
you
this
evening
to
present
the
renovation
scopes
of
work
for
three
of
the
existing
buildings
on
the
campus
at
50
Mount
Carmel.
L
Just
a
little
reminder
just
wanted
to
introduce
this
fabulous
team.
We've
been
we've
had
the
privilege
of
working
on
we've
been
working
primarily
with
Skylar
skikos
with
modern
Elder
Academy,
but
also
with
chip
Connolly
Jenkins
Gavin
is
the
owner's
representative
for
the
entitlements
architecture
by
architectural
Alliance,
Eric,
Enfield
and
Hunter
Redman
are
joining
us
this
evening.
Landscape
architecture
by
surrounding
studio
and
I
believe
Kenneth
Francis
is
on
is
online.
L
L
L
L
And
so
this
is
our
proposed
site
plan
and
you
will
see
the
Santa
Nueva
building
that
would
that
you
approved
back
in
December
and
the
other.
The
other
primary
changes
to
the
site
include
walkways
a
service
drive
along
the
east
side
and
wrapping
around
the
south
side
of
the
buildings
and
and
just
a
couple
of
yard
wall
changes
which
we'll
discuss
as
we
go
through
the
different
buildings
tonight.
L
This
is
a
rendering
sort
of
a
bird's
eye
view.
Looking
East
you'll
see
the
Santa
Nueva
building
here
filling
in
this
space.
This
is
the
the
entry
wall
and
gate
which
we'll
be
talking
about
in
a
later
case
and
the
nice
view
to
the
chapel
there
with
the
mountains
Beyond.
L
So
the
Santa
Maria,
building
and
I
won't
go
through
the
history,
because
Heather
did
a
beautiful
job
with
that.
So
we'll
just
really
focus
on
the
scope
of
work
for
the
renovations
for
this
building
and
as
I
as
I
begin.
I
really
want
to
just
remind
the
board
that
this
is
very
much
a
preservation,
focused
effort
and
where
changes
are
proposed,
that
the
primary
goal
has
been
increasing
functionality,
providing
adequate
egress.
L
Improving
accessibility
to
spaces
and
things
of
that
nature,
and,
as
Eric
mentioned
to
me
earlier
this
evening,
really
the
program
and
and
the
program
and
the
preservation
effort
have
really
been
in
conversation
with
one
another
such
that
preservation
is,
is
at
the
Forefront
of
all
of
our
conversations
for
the
last
year.
However
long
we've
been
at
it
now,
let's
get
through
that,
so
going
over
the
renovation,
scope
and
I
won't
go.
L
Heather
mentioned
two
windows
on
the
west
elevation,
for
which
the
sill
height
has
proposed
to
be
altered
to
match
one
of
the
historic
conditions
that
those
windows
have
have
changed
multiple
times
over
the
years,
but
we
do
have
a
photo
in
which
the
sill
height,
that's
being
proposed,
is
being
replicated
and
then
retaining
and
refurbishing
a
couple
of
non-historic
Windows
on
the
the
East
Elevation
one
on
the
west
and
three
on
the
south
for
doors.
I.
L
Think
Heather
really
gave
a
nice
synopsis
of
the
door
changes
that
we're
proposing
here
again
removing
the
non-historic
structure
over
the
stairwell
at
the
West
facade,
replacing
it
with
a
flat
roof
structure
to
match
the
existing
overhangs,
restoring
most
of
the
exterior
doors,
removing
the
non-historic
storm
doors
from
the
main
entry
on
the
North
side
and
relocating
the
historic
doors
forward
to
the
facade
and
then
removing
a
non-historic
security
door
from
the
East
Elevation
as
well.
L
The
South
portal
we'll
touch
on
a
little
bit
later,
but
really
the
this.
This
restoration
effort,
I
think,
is
going
to
be
really
a
beautiful
restoration
for
this
building,
bringing
back
to
life
this.
This
very
prominent
feature
on
the
south
facade,
which
was
designed
by
John
gamim
in
38
as
an
addition
to
the
building
and
reconstructing
the
exterior
stairs
that
lead
up
to
that
South
portal,
which
basically
the
stairs
come
from
the
west
elevation
and
then
adding
a
new
handrail
to
match
the
handrail.
L
At
the
portal
restoration
again,
Heather
mentioned
the
ADA
Compliant
platform,
lift
which
will
happen
at
the
bottom
of
the
stairs
on
the
on
the
west
for
tall
and
then
raising
a
portion
of
the
portal
floor
to
be
level
with
the
entry
so
that
we
can
have
an
accessible
entryway
into
the
main
lobby.
L
And
then
a
final
element
is
the
is
a
yard
wall
that
connects
between
there's
a
there's,
a
courtyard
that's
being
created
at
the
I'm
gonna
Orient
myself,
Southeast
corner
of
the
building
and
connecting
over
to
the
San
Miguel
building
and
there
have
been
there's
been
a
slight
change
in
the
orientation
of
that
wall.
Just
such
that
it's
a
little
more
squared
off
to
and
creates
a
little
more
space
for
that
service
service
drive,
as
as
we
proceeded
through
design
that
that
was
shifted,
just
slightly,
which
you'll
see
in
the
plan.
L
L
These
are
through
each
level.
This
is
the
ground,
the
existing
ground
level.
This
is
the
proposed
ground
level
plan,
and
this
is
the
wall
that
I
was
just
mentioning.
This
is
the
the
stucco
yard
wall
and
it's
connecting
to
a
Mason
to
a
stone
masonry
wall
here,
which
is
the
existing
stone
wall,
and
this
is
the
wrought
iron
fencing
that
was
mentioned.
L
So
this
will
connect
over
and
I
just
want
to
also
mention
that
that
where
this
wall
appears
to
be
touching,
some
Miguel,
it
actually
will
be
offset
just
a
few
inches
from
something
else
that
won't
actually
be
attaching
to
the
facade
of
that
building
and
and
I
believe.
The
same
goes
on
the
other
end,
so
that
the
wall
will
essentially
be
freestanding.
L
L
Primarily
I
wanted
to
point
out
the
the
still
Heights
that
are
changing
on
either
side
of
the
fireplace
this
is
the
fireplace
in
the
main
Sun
Mountain
room,
the
sort
of
famous
iconic
room
in
this
building,
and
there
we
do
have
a
historic
photo
that
I'll
show
towards
the
end.
So
those
are
these
are
the
windows
as
they
exist
now
and
then
just
lowering
the
sill
height.
With
with
this,
the
approximately
the
same
width.
L
L
And
then
this
South
elevation,
where
the
the
portal
restoration
is
proposed,
this
being
the
proposed
portal
and
the
entry
stairs
that
I
mentioned
coming
up
from
the
West
to
connect
over
to
the
portal,
and
you
can
see
a
few
of
the
the
little
Windows
primarily
at
the
basement
level,
I
believe
which
are
which
we're
proposing
to
refurbish
and
retain
where
possible,
and
so
this
this
window
on
the
top
left
or
this
window.
This
photo
on
the
top
left
is
depicts
the
window.
Light
pattern
that
that
the
proposed
light
pattern
is
is
inspired
by
this.
L
This
photo
is
from
the
1960s
and
I
apologize
for
the
glare
on
these
photos.
There's
photos
of
photos
in
frames,
so
it
was
a
little
challenging.
This
photo
from
the
Sun
Mount
room
in
the
1940s.
Approximately
shows
the
sill
height
that
we
are
hoping
to
achieve
in
that
location
to
replicate
that
condition,
and
these
are
the
1920
drawings
that
we
used
as
inspiration.
I,
say
we
I'm
really
talking
about
these.
These
fabulous
people
over
here
I
can't
take
any
credit
for
that.
L
The
rap
rap
and
Hendrickson
drawings
from
1920
the
original
architectural
drawings
from
the
building,
so
these
were
really
the
inspiration
for
the
design
of
the
portal.
The
windows
and
doors
in
the
back
of
the
the
portal
space
are
are
are
different
than
how
it
originally
looked
just
for
I
I
believe
that
the
impetus
there
was
to
create
more
natural
light
in
the
space,
so
introducing
more
introducing
French
doors
with
side
lights
in
that
space,
and
with
that
I
will
stand
for
questions.
A
Thank
you
very
much
Lisa
for
that
presentation.
I
in
particular,
like
the
words
quote:
unquote,
preservation,
Focus
and
that
you
and
the
team
are
focusing
on
restoring
and
then
remodeling
the
the
things
that
need
to
be
remodeled
and
and
and
upping
upgrading
the
maintenance
of
the
building
and
so
you're
not
doing
huge
changes
that
you
are
doing
restoration,
lots
of
restoration
changes
which
I
appreciate
any
other
comments.
Member
Guida.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
Lisa
for
the
presentation
and
Heather.
Thank
you
for
the
introduction.
So
I
I
would
agree
that
you
know
this
is
it's
an
important
historic
preservation
project
in
Santa
Fe?
It
matters
a
lot
to
the
cultural
figures
that
are
associated
with
the
Arts
and
Santa
Fe
with
architecture
in
Santa
Fe
we
can
kind
of
Imagine.
This
is
the
as
the
place
where
some
of
Santa
Fe
style
was
was
born,
and
so
it
has
a
tremendous
significance.
D
I
know
that
this
board
status
this
building,
is
significant
and
does
the
building
have
any
other
status
either
on
National
register
or
state
Register.
L
Madam
chair
member
Guido,
we
are
in
the
process
of
applying
for
National
register
status.
We
have
gotten
the
the
first
part
of
that
application
has
been
approved
at
the
national
level
and
we're
beginning
our
historic
tax
credit
application
process
as
well,
and
in
the
midst
of
the
review
there
I
believe
the
the
next
stage
is
actually
finalizing
well
over
the
next
couple
of
years.
Moving
towards
finalizing
that
National
register
nomination
and
hopefully
designation.
D
It
got
it
and
you
know,
given
the
importance
of
the
site,
I
I
would
imagine
that
I
mean
I
am
and
I
would
imagine
that
many
on
the
board
would
be
in
favor
of
such
a
status
thing.
But
right
now,
there's
no
State
register
for
this
building
either
shippo
is
not
involved,
would
not
be
involved
with
a
review
of
the
project
as
it
is
currently
status.
L
Shippo
is
involved
in
the
review
and
anytime
we
apply
anytime.
One
applies
for
National
register
status
that
goes
through
the
state,
historic
preservation
office.
That
application
has
moved
from
the
state
to
the
National
level.
At
this
point,
at
some
point
it
will
move
back
and
I
believe
there
will
be
some
consideration
for
state
Register
status
if
we,
assuming
we
make
it
through
the
national
register,
the
the
rigor
of
that
process
and
and
getting
the
state
and
the
federal
level
to
agree
on
significance
and
and
all
of
those
things.
D
So
I
guess
where
my
question
is-
and
maybe
this
is
probably
more
specifically
for
Heather-
is
you
know
where
you
know
given
that
that
statusing
or
that
nomination
processes
in
the
works,
you
know
and
certainly
I
would
understand?
Shippo
has
a
role
to
play
in
that
and
obviously
Folks
at
the
national
level.
D
That's
just
the
status
of
the
existing
building
in
terms
of
review
of
design,
which
is
what
we're
looking
at
tonight.
The
proposed
Rehabilitation
of
the
facades
and
the
exterior
of
the
building
we're
the
only
body.
That's
looking
at
that.
L
Well,
yes,
and
no
Madam
chair
member
Guida
as
part
of
the
tax
credit
review
process,
the
the
the
shippo,
along
with
the
federal
taxpayer
and
interior
changes,
and
then
that
has
been
part
of
our
conversation
from
day
one
on
this
on
this
project,
so
we've
been
working
with
Post
Oak
preservation,
Solutions
out
of
Austin
there
are.
There
are
consultant
on
all
things:
National
register
and
and
historic
preservation,
tax
credits,
so
that
conversation
is
ongoing
and
and
that
review
is
underway
right
now
at
the
at
the
state
and
federal
level.
Okay,.
E
C
D
It
I
I
guess
my
my
concern
you
know
is
just
in.
Obviously
there
are
gaps
between
Secretary
of
interior
standards
and
what
we
require
and
I'm
wondering
if,
if
in
because
this
is
in
process,
if
there's
any
opportunity,
given
the
design
changes
that
are
being
proposed
or
hiccups
down
down
the
road
in
terms
of
process.
L
Madam
chair
member
Guida,
I
I
believe
that
I
mean
that's
a
good
question.
I
I
believe
if
there
was
an
incompatibility
with
what
we're
proposing
tonight
and
what
the
board
hopefully
approves
tonight
and
what
the
the
tax
credit
reviewers
at
the
state
and
National
levels
are
reviewing
their
opinions
about
that.
I
believe
that
that
could
be
resolved
through
administrative
amendments
potentially
or
maybe
we
would.
L
We
would
need
to
come
back
to
the
board
I
believe,
because
everything
that
we
have
been
discussing
and
that
that
Hunter
and
Eric
have
been
designing
has
really
been
very
thoughtfully
vetted
through
a
a
very
an
excellent
preservation,
consultant,
I
I
think
I
feel
like
we're
on
pretty
solid
ground
in
that
regard.
L
Post
Oak
has
extensive
experience
with
tax
credit
review
and
so
they've
really
been
advising.
Yes,
this
will
work.
No,
this
won't
work
and
we've
been.
You
know.
It's
been
that
conversation
for
for
again
for
almost
a
year
now
so
I
think
we're
in
pretty
solid
ground.
But
I
would
imagine
that
there's
a
path
forward.
If,
if
there
are
incompatibilities
that
arise.
D
I'm
glad
to
hear
that,
and
thank
you
for
that
explanation,
I
guess
the
reason
you
know
beyond
the
importance
of
the
building
and
Beyond
the
potential
for
this
to
be
a
national
registered
building.
I
guess
you
know
one
and
and
if
I
may
I'm
glad
to
see
this
particular
drawing
being
presented
tonight,
the
historic
photos,
the
existing
drawings
of
a
of
the
unfortunate
1980s
window
replacement
compared
with
what's
proposed
and
I
mean
overwhelmingly.
D
This
is
a
tremendously
positive
change
and,
if
you
know
from
from
the
standpoint
of
preservation,
I
see
some
differences
between
the
1920s
wrapping
wrap
drawings
and
the
windows
that
are
proposed,
particularly
and
what
were
maybe
sleeping,
porches
or
you
know,
and
the
style
of
those
windows
and
a
gap
to
the
to
the
1960s
and
and
different
windows
in
those
in
that
configuration
and
maybe
windows
that
are
being
proposed
in
those
look
to
go
back
in
those
locations
that
are
closer
to
the
1960s.
We
don't
have
a
national
register
nomination.
D
We
don't
do
a
period
of
significance
here,
I'm
wondering
how
you
and
the
preservation,
Specialists
and
design
team
have
all
have
identified,
which
period
to
go
back
to
with
these
window
decisions.
Thank.
L
You
very
that
question.
Remember
Guida.
The
the
period
of
significance
has
been
defined
by
the
the
evaluation
of
eligibility
in
part.
The
part
one
application
of
the
national
register
nomination
and
I
believe
that
period
of
significance
spans
pretty
much
the
entire
first
half
of
the
the
20th
century
up
to
the
1962
campus
expansion
with
the
Immaculate
Heart
of
Mary
Seminary.
So
it
does,
it
does
encompass
the
1960s,
the
latest
period
of
historic
windows
that
that
would
be
included
in
that
period
of
significance.
L
So
I,
you
know
it's
a
good
question
and
I
believe
it
probably
will
be
broached
at
the
tax
credit
review,
but
I
don't
know
Hunter
Eric.
Did
you
have
anything
that
you
wanted
to
say
about
how
that
window
light
pattern
was
selected.
B
D
M
So
when
we
discussed
the
period
of
significance,
one
of
the
initial
propositions
was
that
the
campus
as
a
whole
was
being
looked
at
as
historical
historic
tax
credits
and
the
master
plan
that
was
done
in
1962
was
sort
of
the
focus
of
that
campus-wide
tax
credit
approval.
So
we
looked
at
mainly
the
1960s
images
for
all
of
the
buildings,
San
Juan
San
Miguel.
They
were
built
in
the
1960s
in
the
Fatima
of
the
1950s.
D
E
M
There's
questions
about
all
of
it.
There's
questions,
for
example
the
the
portal
that
you
see
there
on
the
bottom.
We
don't
know
what
that
door
actually
looked
like
we're,
not
sure
that
window,
we
don't
have
any
images
from
that
period
of
time
only
from
the
40s
and
60s.
So
there
are
portions
of
the
building
that
we
are
certain.
M
We
either
remain
or
originally
looked
like
that,
and
there
are
other
portions
that
we're
not
sure
and
a
lot
of
times.
It
was
images
from
the
40s
and
the
60s
that
remain
the
earlier
images
are
really
scarce.
D
So
I
mean
you
know
absent
a
complete
set
of
photo
documentation.
You
know
a
lot
of
the
historic
materials
around
those
windows
were
destroyed,
probably
in
the
80s,
possibly
even
before
that
and
and
again
I
really
appreciate
you
and
the
team
kind
of
going
there
with
me
and
and
and
I
think
for
the
benefit
of
the
board
and
the
audience.
You
know
this
is
not
you
know
again.
D
We
don't
do
in
Santa
Fe
preservation
with
a
capital
P
the
way
that
we
do,
let's
say
in
the
Park
service
or
with
national
registered
buildings,
but
we
we're
at
a
point
where
there
is
now
a
significant
investment
in
this
building
and
the
other
buildings
on
the
campus
and
I
think
you
know
the
applicant
clearly
has
an
as
a
a
desire
to
make
to
do
right
by
this
project
by
this
building
by
the
history
and
I.
D
Think
we're
all
appreciative
of
that,
and
and
that's
where
these
these
questions
are
coming
from,
and
so
that's
the
context-
and
you
know
I
fully
understand
that
we
have
a
period
of
significance
that
we
could
choose
a
period
to
go
back
to.
I.
Also
understand
that
you
know
there
there
are
practicalities
of
the
way
the
building
exists
today
the
scope
of
work
that
we're
we're
choosing
to
pursue
in
the
project.
D
M
I
think
for
most
of
the
windows,
we
have
images
to
show
what
was
existing
at
one
period
in
time,
whether
it
was
the
1960s
or
previous
I
would
have
to
sit
down
and
go
through
every
single
window,
but
I
the
majority
of
them.
We
have
evidence
that
at
one
time
they
looked
similar
to
what
we're
proposing
okay
and.
M
Mostly
from
the
60s,
there
were
a
lot
of
Windows
that
didn't
change
from
the
20s
to
the
60s
right.
There
were
a
few
that
changed
into
the
60s
and
there
were
changed
in
mainly
in
divided
light
patterns,
not
so
much
in
size.
There's
also
some
that
we
think
were
when
they
were
when
it
was
originally
built.
It
was
built
differently
than
the
drawings
and
some
of
those
are
kind
of
those
long
bands.
M
It
is
the
and
it's
more
The
Divided
lights
that
are
slightly
different,
but
it
was
really
hard
to
tell
because
we
don't
have
this
original
images.
We
have
some
of
them,
but
you
can't
get
close
enough
to
see
and
we've
looked.
D
Good
good,
good
and
I
I
appreciate
that,
yes
and
I
mean
oh
I
mean
I,
guess
also
for
the
benefit
of
the
discussion.
You
know
this
is
typically
outside
of
Santa
Fe
process
in
negotiation
right,
not
a
not
so
much
a
strict
scientific
archeology
process,
but
through
a
kind
of
understanding
of
historic
material.
The
period
of
significance,
the
realities
of
of
the
proposed
renovation,
a
a
kind
of
clear
direction,
is
set
and
agreed
upon
and
I.
Guess
that's
what
I'm
looking
for
tonight.
So
thank
you.
Hunter
you're.
M
Welcome
and
just
to
let
you
know
that
we
as
a
team,
along
with
Post
Oak,
along
with
the
owners,
considered
each
change
of
window
in
each
style
and
the
period
of
significance
very
carefully
in.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
questions.
You
brought
up
some
subjects
that
I
don't
know
that
the
other
members
of
the
board
might
have
brought
up,
but
thank
you
for
bringing
those
up
both
in
reference
to
the
National
register
and
in
reference
to
what
period
they
were.
They
are
restoring.
Thank
you
for
that.
Any
other
questions
at
this
time.
A
J
B
O
Id
number
said
the
webinar
had
it
had
already
expired
or
had
closed,
whatever
the
exact
wording
was,
and
it
was
only
after
35
minutes
that
I
to
get
a
email
from
miss
lamboy,
giving
me
a
link
that
actually
worked
so
I
really
again.
Wonder
about
the
open
public
participation
and
I
just
would
like
to
have
a
minute
to
just
say
two
things.
O
One
I
think
it's
owned
by
Chabad,
but
the
it's
a
three-story
building
there
on
West
Manhattan
at
the
five-way
intersection
and
I
noticed
today
that
they
put
red
awnings
up
on
the
second
floor
facing
west
that
are
material.
A
O
A
O
Just
keep
up
with
that
one:
okay,
but
then
I
would
like
to
say
on
this
case.
I
thought
I
heard.
F
O
Guida
say
that
it
was
a
contributing
building
and
I'm
wondering
how
it
actually
could
be
contributing.
You
know
I
guess
from
the
60s.
O
It
is
considered
historic,
but
it
sounds
like
there's
been
a
lot
of
changes
and
so
I
wonder
if
the
board
would
ask
the
applicant
in
terms
of
what
they
do
know
how
many
of
the
window
openings
are
historic
and
and
again
I
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
the
the
so
much
use
of
French
doors
and
side
lights,
but
I
do
think
that
there
is
a
lot
of
effort
being
there
to
restore
this.
Oh
and
one
and
one
more
thing.
O
Instead
of
calling
the
other
building
sent
in
the
huevo,
which
I
find
really
sort
of
too
new,
Ag
and
kind
of
almost
offensive
to
you
know,
practicing
Catholics
that
perhaps
they
could
think
of
Santa
Catarina,
since
I
could
tell
you
about
three
Catherines
or
kateres.
That
would
be
you
know,
related
to
that
campus
or
to
this
town.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
Stephanie.
Anyone
else
wishing
to
comment
anyone
else
on
Zoom.
No
members
of
the
board.
Are
you
ready
to
make
a
motion?
I
will
entertain
a
motion.
Foreign.
D
E
M
M
O
N
E
M
M
E
M
I
M
All
of
them,
and
just
for
consistency's
sake,
they
are
all
casement
operationally
up
here
in
the
sleeping
porches.
We
don't
know
what
those
were
originally
and
operationally
putting
a
window
in
there.
It
makes
the
most
sense
for
it
to
be
a
casement
window.
E
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I'm
satisfied
that
the
state
of
the
record
does
support
the
the
window
treatment
and
the
other
proposed
restoration
of
the
structure.
So,
for
those
reasons
in
case
number,
2022-006110
hdrb
50,
Mount,
Carmel,
Road,
Santa,
Maria,
building
I
move
that
the
application
be
approved
as
submitted.
A
A
You
very
much
let's
go
to
the
next
case,
which
is
at
the
same
address
Heather.
C
All
right,
the
next
building
that
we
will
be
looking
at
Cheerios
and
members
of
the
board
is
the
San
Miguel.
Building
the
San
Miguel
building
is
located
just
to
the
east
of
the
Santa
Maria
building,
and
you
can
see
it's
attached
by
a
Breezeway
to
the
chapel,
which
is
at
the
center
of
the
the
campus.
C
My
goodness
I
did
not
save
okay
I'm.
Sorry,
the
San
Miguel
building
is
going
to
have
a
lot
of
renovation
treatments
that
are
with
reference
to
more
preservation
in
nature
than
in
nature
of
replacement,
or
anything
like
that.
There
are
a
couple
of
doors
that
are
going
to
be
replaced.
A
window
and
door
assessment
has
been
provided
to
you
and
one
of
the
doors
is
an
entry
to
the
sunroom
feature
on
the
San
Miguel
building,
which
is
on
the
north
side
of
the
west
elevation
and
then
there's
a
door.
C
You
can
see
the
SMG
d102
there
on
the
right
picture
and
that
design
will
be
in
kind,
but
the
the
door
is
in
poor
shape
and
you
get
some
deep
sea
detail
photos
in
that
packet
of
the
window
and
door
assessment
reports,
the
red
that
is
Illustrated
on
the
floor
plan
there.
It
shows
the
primary
facades
as
designated
by
this
board,
which
would
be
most
of
the
West's
elevation
as
well
as
the
South
elevation,
where
that
that
porch
is
is
located.
C
This
is
a
the
the
porch
that's
on
the
site
now,
which
will
be
retained
and
kind.
So
Steph
finds
that
the
this
project
complies
with
the
general
design
standards.
It
complies
with
standards
for
replacement
of
historic
material,
then
that
documentation
has
been
provided
and
staff
recommends
approval.
There
are
also
Associated
renovation
treatments,
just
like
with
the
Santa
Maria
building,
in
that
there
will
be
recycle
repainting
restoration
of
the
historic
windows
in
life.
That
concludes
my
presentation
board.
C
E
L
Two-Door
Replacements,
both
they
are
due
to
extensive
deterioration
and
they
will
be
replaced
in
kind
wood
for
wood.
The
design
will
be
slightly
different
on
one
of
the
doors,
but
it
will
be
matching
a
historic
door
on
another
elevation.
E
N
J
E
L
L
Magic,
thank
you
mystery.
It
man,
so
we're
presenting
now
the
renovation
scope
for
the
San
Miguel
building
the
San
Miguel
building
was
built
in
1962.
It
was
part
of
the
1961
master
plan
for
the
IHM
Seminary.
L
This
photo
is
sort
of
an
overview
of
the
West
elevation
and
again
the
the
west
and
south
elevations
were
designated
as
primary
by
this
board
in
July
and
just
to
to
re
resume
going
through
the
renovation
scope
again,
two
door
Replacements
one
on
the
North.
It's
the
north
elevation
of
the
I'm
going
to
point
to
it.
It's
it's
right
here.
E
L
North
elevation
of
the
West,
the
north
side
of
where
that
portal
wraps
around
that
that
glassed-in
porch
wraps
around
and
the
other
the
other
door
I
believe,
is
over
here
at
the
basement
level
right.
So
that's
not
going
to
show
up
there,
but
it's
at
the
basement
level
on
the
other
side
of
the
building.
It's
just
been
hammered
by
sun
over
the
years.
L
So
again,
we're
we'll
be
installing
ground
mounted,
screened
HVAC
and
the
the
balance
of
the
renovation
scope
is
maintenance
and
repair,
restoring
existing
Windows
per
the
window
assessment,
re-stuccoing,
repairing
Canales
and
missing
downspouts,
replacing,
would
trim
hand
railings,
repairing
those
and
repairing
the
stairs
between
San
Miguel
and
the
chapel
and
and
then
I'll
just
flip
through
the
the
plans.
And
maybe
there
will
be
an
opportunity
to
point
out
so
the.
E
L
E
L
Here's
the
here's,
the
other
door
replacement
it's
at
this,
this
sort
of
northeast
corner,
and
then
this
is
the
other
one
is
discussed.
L
And
the
elevations
these
these
windows
are
double
hung,
10
over
10,
I,
believe,
wood
windows
and
they'll
be
restored
and
repainted
White
and
there's
the
replacement.
This
shows
the
the
design
of
the
replacement
door
to
sort
of
match
other
doors
at
this
level,
the
door
that's
there
is
sort
of
on
unspectacular,
but
also
quite
damaged
and
warped
from
the
Sun.
L
A
B
A
Thank
you
and
Lisa
or
Heather.
P
C
All
right
with
reference
to
building
number
three
for
this
evening,
Cheerios
members
of
the
board-
this
is
the
San
Juan
building.
It
was
part
of
the
1962
campus
plan
and
the
and
it
was
constructed
in
the
1960s
as
well.
C
You
will
note
the
large
window
in
the
proposed
elevation
has
a
grill,
that's
being
reintroduced,
so
I'll
talk
about
that
in
just
one
moment
once
again
back
to
the
aerial
of
the
property,
so
San
Juan
will
be
located
next
to
the
Future
Santa
Nueva,
and
it's
on
the
for
this
East
portion
of
the
site
to
the
right
of
that
sort
of
roundabout
little
feature.
C
C
The
drawing
to
the
left
is
the
original
San
Juan
drawing,
and
you
can
see
the
grill
that
was
once
there
that
I
imagine
over
time
was
removed
due
to
you
know,
problems
with
maintaining
it,
so
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
replace
two
windows
with
doors
on
the
North
elevation,
which
is
not
a
primary
facade.
C
Once
again,
the
applicant's
been
kind
enough
to
provide
a
floor
plan
that
illustrates
the
the
primary
facades,
so
the
north
elevation
is
the
one
that
faces
Camino,
Cruz,
Blanca
and
also
they're,
replacing
that
window
Grille
as
well
as
Associated
renovation
treatments.
There
is
also
a
railing
that
is
on
the
south
elevation
located
sort
of
at
the
L,
not
the
South
elevation
that
is
designated
as
primary,
but
this
South
elevation
that
needs
to
be
raised
in
order
to
comply
with
IBC
standards,
building
code
standards
and
on
the
North
elevation.
C
You
can
see
the
the
what
was
once
a
window
has
become
a
door
here
and
as
well
as
here.
Those
are
the
two
those
two
are
on
Assad,
that's,
not
primary
and
staff
has
no
objection
to
the
those
openings
being
replaced.
Also
on
the
west
elevation.
There
is
a
door
that
there's
a
long
portal
here
on
the
west
elevation
and
there's
a
door
that
exits
from
here.
C
It's
my
understanding
that
the
public
will
not
be
accessing
that,
but
that
door
would
be
replaced
right
now,
I
believe
it's
just
a
metal
door,
and
so
the
rest
of
the
windows
will
be
restored
rather
than
replaced
with
the
exception
of
those
two
minor
features.
Additionally
the
applicant
proposed
a
six
foot
Courtyard
wall
that
would
be
facing
a
Camino
Cruz
Blanca.
That
would
be
to
the
north
of
where
those
where
that
door
is
going
to
be
created.
C
The
in
discussion
with
the
applicant,
what
was
originally
proposed
as
six
feet
has
been
since
agreed
to
being
reduced
to
four
feet:
seven
inches
to
be
consistent
with
the
streetscape
permitted
height
for
that
area
for
yard
walls,
and
here
are
some
photos
or
I'm,
sorry
drawings
as
well,
illustrating
both
the
North
elevations
as
well
as
the
East
Elevation.
That
I
was
discussing
a
moment
ago,
specifically
with
reference
to
the
railing,
and
then
you
can
see
a
detail
of
the
yard
wall
of
the
courtyard
wall
on
the
right.
C
Drawing
that's
sort
of
there's
going
to
be
a
pedestrian
gate,
concerted
as
well,
and
so
staff
recommendation
is
such
that,
with
reference
to
the
general
design
standards,
those
standards
are
being
met
by
this
proposed
project,
as
well
as
documentation
being
provided
to
comply
with
Design
Center
section.
14-5.2,
D5
and
staff
therefore
recommends
approval
of
the
proposed
San
Juan
renovation
treatments.
There
are
other
minor
maintenance
type
of
things
that
are
being
proposed
as
with
the
last
building,
and
that
concludes
a
staff
presentation.
Thank.
L
Thank
you,
heather
Madam,
chair
members
of
the
board,
discussing
now
the
renovation
scope
for
the
San
Juan
building.
The
image
here
is
of
the
West
facade
the
the
front.
The
front
elevation
of
this
building
and
again,
the
historic
status
is
contributing
with
with
the
a
portion
of
the
South
and
the
entire
west
elevation
as
primary
and
the
renovation
scope.
L
We
are
replacing
two
windows
with
doors
on
the
North
elevation.
As
Heather
mentioned,
the
the
the
height
and
width
of
those
openings
will
not
be
changing,
but
the
the
the
sill
will
be
dropping
to
the
floor
to
create
a
door
opening
then-
and
this
is
primarily
for
egress
purposes
and
functionality
of
those
spaces-
let's
see
and
then
the
not.
There
are
two
non-historic
exterior
doors.
L
On
the
second
floor,
that
Heather
also
mentioned
that
those
will
be
those
will
be
replaced
as
well
with
the
proposed
door
design
to
match
historic
doors,
Elsewhere
on
the
building
and
again
at
the
West
at
that
west
elevation,
replacing
that
the
big
Monumental
window
grill
that
is
no
longer
extant
at
the
building
and
matching
the
design
shown
in
the
original
1961
construction
drawings
and
also
at
the
South
elevation.
It's
actually
at
the
South
End
of
the
the
lower
floor
portal.
L
There's
a
window
there's
a
a
punched
window
opening
at
the
end
of
that
portal
that
there's
there's
some
wooden
spindles
missing
from
from
that
grill
that
we're
proposing
to
replace
in
kind
again,
H,
ground-mounted,
HVAC,
screened
and
the
courtyard
wall,
as
Heather
Heather
mentioned,
we're
reducing
that
height
to
four
feet,
seven
inches
that
will
be
stuccoed
to
match
the
rest
of
the
building
and
the
remainder
again
is
maintenance
and
repair
rest
Echo,
repairing
wood,
wood
elements
and
trim,
repairing
Canales
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
with
that,
I'll
stand
for
questions.
A
Any
questions
Heather
I
do
want
to
thank
you
for
recommending
that
that
wall
go
down
and
thank
the
applicants
for
agreeing
to
that.
I
think
that
was
a
good
recommendation.
L
A
If
I
think
we're
I'm
clear
on
it,
because
I
was
on
the
field
trip
today
and
I,
don't
know
if
any
other
board
members
need
to
look
at
that
I.
Don't
think
so.
E
O
O
The
entry
is
off
of
Monte
Saul
on
that
little
road
that,
like
won
block
road
that
goes
to
the
you
know
where
the
carmelites
are,
and
then
the
exit
is
actually
on
Cruz,
Blanca,
so
I
think
it's
really
important
that
it
doesn't
get
too
high
and
also,
of
course,
that
there
would
be
the
visual
setback
triangular
thing
that
so
people
can
really
be
seen
and
see
when
they
go
out
in
terms
of
the
windows
and
to
doors.
My
only
question
is
it
looks
I
I,
don't
have
the
drawings.
O
A
M
So
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
the
the
windows
that
are
being
converted
to
doorways
are
not
a
residential
egress
from
a
bedroom.
M
They're
they're,
actually
just
additional
egress
from
one,
is
from
a
hallway
and
one
is
from
what's
going
to
be
a
lounge
and
it's
actually
a
connection
to
the
new
Courtyard,
that's
being
proposed
on
the
north
side
of
the
building,
so
they're
not
required
egress,
but
they're.
They
are
additional
egress
and
they're,
also
connections
to
public
spaces.
M
So
that
does
mean
that
in
all
of
the
guest
rooms
they
meet,
egress
or
or
fire
escape
reasons.
So
we
don't
have
to
enlarge
any
of
the
windows
which
is
nice.
We
can
just
repair
them.
G
G
Case
number
202200611
hdrb,
the
San
Miguel
building
at
50
Mount
Carmel
move
let
oh
I'm
on
the
wrong
one.
G
G
Oh
where'd
I
do
San
Juan.
Let
me
see
your
sand
one
okay,
so
it's
actually
20
2006112
hdrb
San
Juan
building
at
50,
Mount
Carmel
Road
move
to
approve,
as
submitted
with
the
additional
condition
that
the
yard
will
be
lowered
to
I,
believe
it
was
four.
G
B
You
remember
Berkeley,
yes,
member
Beachside,
yes,
member
bienvenue,
remember
Guida.
Yes,
the
motion
has
been
approved.
C
Thank
you
chevrios
this.
The
purpose
for
the
masonry
wall
that
is
being
proposed
is
to
help
to
create
a
sense
of
place.
The
applicant
is
hoping
to
make
the
campus
really
a
pedestrian
campus,
like
you
would
find
at
a
university,
for
instance,
and
not
have
the
vehicle
sort
of
be
so
prominent
on
the
campus.
A
drive
will
be
created
for
fire
access
on
the
Far
Eastern
portion
here
along
Chris
Blanca
and
we'll
wrap
around
the
buildings.
C
So
there
will
be
no
real
reason,
except
for
emergencies
and
repair
to
utilities
that
are
located
under
the
road
here
that
anybody
would
have
to
actually
get
into
the
campus,
be
a
vehicle,
so
also
the
applicant
has
shared
with
me
that
ADA
access
will
be
provided
through
the
use
of
of
golf
carts
and
the
like.
If
that
is,
is
needed
as
well,
so
the
mainstreamable
location
is
between
the
Fatima
building
and
the
Carmelite
building
that
is
currently
there.
So
the
the
approximate
location
is
where
the
red
arrow
is
is
pointing.
C
So
the
request
is
for
a
masonry
wall
with
metal
entry
Gates,
the
height
of
the
wall
itself
will
be
five
feet
and
the
pilasters
themselves
will
be
approximately
six
and
seven
and
a
half
feet
that
will
be
adjacent
to
the
proposed
metal
gate.
A
pedestrian
gate
is
also
proposed
next
to
Fatima.
The
wall
does
not
touch
the
buildings.
C
It
just
goes
up
close
to
the
buildings,
so
the
staff
requested
of
the
applicants
that
additional
information
be
provided
regarding
the
material
and
the
color
for
the
gates,
and
the
applicant
is
prepared
to
speak
to
that
tonight.
These
photographs
illustrate
the
view
on
the
right
looking
out
towards
montessor
and
The
View
on
the
left.
Looking
toward
the
chapel
and
the
general
in
the
general
location
of
the
wall
is
where
the
photographers
or
where
I
was
standing,
so
the
gate
will
be
required
only
for
emergency
and
utility
access.
C
The
the
opening
will
be
only
required
I'm
I,
if
there's
other
deliveries
or
what.
What
have
you
that
may
be,
the
only
other
potential
use-
and
this
is
an
illustration
from
the
special
use
permit
that
was
reviewed
by
the
board
of
adjustment
and
shows
you
the
landscape
plan.
C
And
so
the
applicant
has
a
Innovative
storm
water
treatment
system,
with
a
series
of
what
is
being
referred
to
as
a
sakius
and
other
Landscaping
treatments,
and
the
the
primary
campus
will
be
a
pedestrian
oriented
with
with
individual
Courtyards
and
the
like
for
the
the
existing
buildings,
as
we
just
discussed
with
the
San
Juan
as
one
example,
and
since
the
elevation
of
the
gates
is
Illustrated
on
the
left
hand,
side
and
the
left
image,
and
you
can
see
the
pilasters
and
the
stepping
in
height
to
the
gate,
which
I
estimate
to
be
approximately
six
feet
high
and
as
the
operation
of
the
gate.
C
So
we
may
want
to
ask
the
board
may
want
to
ask
the
applicant
whether
that's
going
to
be
an
automatic
gauge
or
or
something
that's
manual,
and
the
overall
intent
of
the
design
was
to
not
block
the
view
of
the
chapel,
which
is
a
major
terminating
feature
of
the
campus
and
also
provided
here
is
a
detail
illustrating
the
Carmelite
building,
just
to
provide
a
little
point
of
reference
as
to
the
the
adjacent
building's
height,
as
well
as
on
the
right
hand,
side
would
be
the
Fatima
building,
so
this
would
be
looking
out
towards
Monte
Soul
this
graphic
here
and
so
therefore,
staff
finds
as
a
recommendation.
C
That's
the
general
design
standards
for
the
historic
review.
Historic
district
have
been
met
with
the
exception,
pending
additional
detail
on
the
metal,
the
proposed
metal
gates
for
The
Pedestrian,
as
well
as
the
vehicular
gate,
and
we
will
defer
to
the
hdrb
to
find
whether
that
is
suitable
for
the
historic
review
districts.
That
concludes
my
presentation.
Thank.
A
C
And
that
is
also
part
of
their
that
was
condition
of
the
national
register
review
of
the
project.
I'll.
Let
Lisa
go
into
more
detail,
but
that
was
a
condition
that
was
associated
with
that
application.
L
Thank
you,
Heather.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
so
final
item
to
discuss
the
entry,
Gates
and
yard
wall.
L
So
this
this
is
a
view
similar
to
what
Heather
presented,
although
maybe
a
little
earlier
in
the
year
of
the
The
View
Corridor
towards
towards
the
chapel,
and
although
there's
nothing
in
our
code,
that
regulates
view
sheds
and
view
corridors,
particularly
in
the
review
district
and
especially
with
this
being
a
private
drive.
It
is
important
to
both
the
the
applicant
and
to
the
tax
credit
review
process
that
the
view
of
the
chap
will
not
be
impeded
by
this
entry
element.
L
L
So
this
the
this
curvilinear
line
here
will
will
actually
be
the
new
curve
for
the
reconfigured
parking
area.
So
there
will
be
no
no
regular
vehicular
use
of
this
of
this
area.
It
is,
as
Heather
mentioned,
an
can
function
as
emergency
as
a
fire
lane,
basically
as
an
emergency
access
in
case
of
of
an
emergency,
but
will
primarily
not
be
used
for
vehicles.
L
The
The
Pedestrian
gate
is
sort
of
tucked
behind
the
two
pilasters
on
this
North
Side
and
again
the
walls
will
not
will
not
touch
the
buildings.
What
you
see
here
are
bike
racks.
L
And-
and
these
elevations
I
believe
are
really
illustrative
in
that
a
particularly
elevation
looking
to
the
east,
to
the
view
of
the
the
chapel,
there
is
a
bit
of
topography
such
that
the
chapel
sort
of
sits
higher
on
the
landscape
than
the
driveway
does,
and
so,
as
you're
looking
that
direction,
the
chapel
will
still
be
visible
over
this
entry.
Entry
element
just
a
little
note
about
the
the
design
of
the
entry
gate
here.
L
L
I've
got
that
photo
a
little
bit
later
on,
but
so
there
is
a
bit
of
design,
inspiration
very
thoughtfully,
introduced
here
and
then
The
Pedestrian
gate
replicating
that
same
that
same
pattern,
and
here
is
the
the
historic
photo
of
the
design,
inspiration
for
the
that
gate,
design
and
in
terms
of
materiality
it
hasn't
been
fully
determined
with
the
material
is
yet
and
I
can
let
Hunter
speak
to
this
in
more
detail,
but
my
understanding
to
this
point.
L
The
discussions
to
this
point
have
been
that
we
do
want
the
the
gate
to
be
metal
for
maintenance
purposes,
but
but
really
have
it
be
a
more
distressed
metal
and
perhaps
introducing
some
wood
elements
as
well,
but
really
look
looking
to
keep
it
in
a
sort
of
rustic
character
so
that
it's
not
going
to
be
a
very
contemporary
looking
metal
gate.
That's
really
the
the
primary
goal.
A
L
A
We're
on
this
metal
gate:
where
would
you
introduce
the
wood
elements?
That's.
L
A
that's
a
topic
of
discussion.
It's
it's
really
at
this
point.
We
are
sticking
with
our
story
that
it's
going
to
be
metal,
because
the
compatibility
of
of
wood
and
metal
and
the
sort
of
expansion
and
contraction
is
is
difficult
for
maintenance.
But
it's
it's
still
under
discussion.
So
at
this
time
we're
proposing
a
metal
gate
and
if
it's
determined
that
wood
should
be
introduced,
we
would
of
course
come
back
with
that
change.
L
G
Go
ahead.
Thank
you.
I
just
have
a
few
questions.
So,
if
I
understand
correctly
from
the
drawings
the
the
wall,
I
guess
what
the
gates
connected
to
is
going
to
be
seven
feet,
six
inches
high
is
that
right,
eyelasters.
G
L
The
rationale
is
to
block
headlights,
because
this
was
the
main
Drive
is
coming
down
this
Corridor,
so
it
is
to
block
headlights
from
shining
into
the
main
okay.
G
What
so
Heather,
what's
the
allowed
height
for
a
gate
and
a
wall
in
this
streetscape?
You
calculated
that.
C
Turbios,
a
member
with
reference
to
walls
that
are
not
located
on
a
public
Street,
there's
been
more
leeway,
that's
been
given
to
those
particular
walls,
so
we
had
discussed
Lisa
and
I
the
four
foot
seven
height,
but
then
we
talked
through
the
fact
that
this
isn't
a
public
road.
It's
just
really
sort
of
a
driveway
functioning
as
a
driveway
for
the
Carmelite.
C
So
it's
treated
more
like
an
interior
interior
wall
that
is
not
affecting
a
streetscape,
so
the
applicant's
proposal
is
five
feet
and,
of
course,
with
the
stepping
and
those
are
decorative
features
and
the
gates
really
is
up
to
this
board
and
whether
it's
found
is
suitable
being
seven
feet
high.
But
it's
my
understanding,
those
lights
and
especially
when
you're
thinking
about
lights.
C
G
Okay,
but
then
our
fence
and
wall
guidelines
also
have
a
not
a
requirement
so
much
as
a
suggestion
that
anything
over
four
feet
high
needs
special
approval
by
the
board
right,
travius.
C
E
O
L
Well,
this
gate
is
approximately
500
feet
back
from
any
kind
of
public
right-of-way.
So
it's
you
know,
although
it
is
going
to
be,
it
will
be
visible
as
you
enter.
The
campus
enter
the
private
property
from
the
the
public
right-of-way
on
Mount
Carmel
Road
it.
It
is
ways
back
from
any
kind
of
notion
of
a
streetscape.
It's
not
really
I
would
I
would
not
consider
it
to
be
a
component
of
a
streetscape
okay,
which
is
really
with
the
wall
and
fence
guidelines
are
speaking
to
that's.
G
F
E
G
F
G
In
the
original
master
plan,
so
it
does
seem
concerning
to
me
as
an
something
that
I
think
is
detrimental
to
to
The
View
and
the
feel
of
the
campus
I
guess
one
question
I
would
have.
If
you
want
the
Privacy
is,
is
there
I,
don't
know
where
your
property
boundaries
are?
Is
this
on
the
property
boundary?
No.
L
L
E
G
L
This
is
all
a
private
drive
and
private
parking
lot.
So
the
entry
to
the
campus
by
Vehicles
then
that
I,
don't
imagine
there
will
be
much
pedestrian
traffic
here,
but
my
vehicles
will
take
this
route
and
go
into
the
parking
lot.
Guests
will
be
dropped
off
in
this
area
and
primarily
enter
probably
Through
The
Pedestrian
gate
and
enter
into
a
pedestrian,
Zone
and
I
I.
L
Would
you
know
just
to
respond
to
the
notion
that
this
gate
and
wall
bisect,
the
campus
I
I,
believe
that
it
is
an
appropriate
enclosure
of
The
Pedestrian
zone
of
this
campus
and
separation
of
the
vehicular
Zone
from
The
Pedestrian
Zone,
and
really
creates
a
more
intimate
space,
which
is
how
this
campus
will
be
used
right.
G
L
Don't
have
the
landscape
plan
with
me
at
this
time,
but
what
you
do
see
are
are
pavers
that
honor,
the
original
curb
or
the
the
existing
curb
the
historic
vehicular
pathway-
and
this
has
all
been
designed
in
in
conversation
with
the
the
National
Park
Service
tax
credit
reviewers
to
honor
the
the
at
least
the
appearance
of
where
the
previous
pavement
was.
L
Although
it's
not
historic
pavement
and
we
don't
really
know
where
the
original
curb
was,
and
then
you
know
retaining
this
circular
element
in
front
of
the
the
chapel
retaining
this
circular
element
in
front
of
the
San
Juan
building
and
then
the
the
circulation
pattern
becomes
a
pedestrian
circulation
pattern
rather
than
a
vehicular
one.
G
Is
there
any
possibility
of
giving
thought
to
the
idea
of
being
able
to
create
that
pedestrian
Zone
and
prevent
traffic
with
something
other
than
a
wall
and
gate
so
Ballers
or
sorry,
bollards
or
Planters,
or
some
kind
of
obstruction?
That
allows
the
still
to
feel
like
an
open
Corridor?
But
but
we
would
protect
the
Zone
from
influx
of
vehicles.
L
Madam
chair,
remember,
Bienvenu,
I,
I,
believe
that
is
highly
not
desirable,
because
there,
this
really
is
meant
to
be
a
closed
campus.
It's
meant
for
for
retreat,
guests
and
sabbatical
guests
to
be
able
to
to
come
and
stay
and
Retreat
from
the
world
study
and
and
participate
in
in
modern
Elders
programs,
which
are
very
much
private,
very
much
introspective.
L
Well,
there
is
some
interaction
with
the
community,
but
in
terms
of
the
program
and
how
how
this
this
campus
will
be
used
and
as
an
as
an
Adaptive
reuse
of
a
historic
campus,
we
feel
that
it's
appropriate
to
introduce
more
privacy
into
the
space.
Could.
L
A
I
Yeah
I,
my
comments
were
similar
with
respect
to
the
high
to
the
gate.
I
just
find
that
difficult
to
reconcile
with
the
statements
about
preserving
the
view
of
the
chapel
I
know:
that's
not
exactly
our
in
our
purview,
but
if
it,
if
it
is
important
for
the
National
Registry
I'd,
be
interested
to
know
what
their,
what
those
conversations
have
been
about,
the
height
of
that
gate
and
I
notice,
the
pedestrian
gates
are
also
quite
tall
five
feet:
six
inches.
I
L
Conversations
are
really
just
beginning:
I
have
not
been
been
part
of
the
conversations
with
the
national
register
or
the
national
tax
credit
reviewers
I,
don't
believe
this
element
has
been
discussed
in
great
detail.
Yet,
although.
M
M
I
do
want
to
note
that
one
of
the
requirements
of
this
gate
is
that
it
be
20
feet
wide
for
fire
access
and
for
utility
access
and
proportionally
a
gate
that
that
is
that
wide
if
it
were
five
feet
or
four
feet
tall
and
it's
that
wide
first
of
all,
structurally
that's
awkward,
because
it's
10
feet
long
and
then,
secondly,
proportionally
that's
awkward.
So
having
sort
of
the
ideal
proportions
of
a
gate.
If
something
is
20
feet
wide,
you
don't
want
it
to
be
too
short.
M
It
won't
be
elegant,
it'll,
look
awkward,
it'll,
it'll,
look
out
of
proportion.
The
finished
floor
of
the
chapel
is
15
feet
above
the
level
of
the
bottom
of
the
gate.
So
of
course,
I'm
short
I
like
walk
right
up
to
the
gate.
I
won't
be
able
to
see
the
chapel
if
I'm
back
a
few
feet
perspective
wise
you're,
going
to
see
the
door
of
the
chapel
and
the
chapel,
and
we've
looked
at
this
in
three
dimensions.
M
I
Yeah,
thank
you.
That's
that's
helpful
information.
I
had
one
question
about
another
gate
that
I
think
is
in
the
parking
lot.
It's
item
six
on
the
I
think
it
was
the
site
over
overview.
It's
it
looks
like
it's
marked
with
an
emergency
sign
and
I.
Just
wondered
what
that's
connected
to.
Is
there
a
new
wall
being
built
in
the
parking
lot.
I
L
Right
right,
so
there
is
a
new
there.
There
will
be
a
new
gate,
there's
a
slight
redesign
happening
in
the
parking
lot
to
keep
the
Santa
Fe
Prep
parking
area,
distinct
from
the
modern
Elder
parking
area,
and
that
that
area
is
that
those
two
spaces
are
already
gated
off
we're
just
moving
that
gate
to
a
different
location,
but
it's
not
a
gate
so
per
se.
Okay,
it's
more
of
a
chain!
Oh.
A
D
You,
madam
chair,
first,
a
question
for
Heather,
just
as
a
practical
matter
without
I
understand
this
is
in
the
transition
District
without
a
material
sample
for
the
gate,
without
a
stucco
sample
for
the
walls
in
the
out
in
the
in
the
packet
of.
Are
we
able
to
approve
this.
C
Chair
Rios,
remember
Guida,
the
wall
is
approvable
because
it
is
well
dominated.
It
meets
all
those
criteria
and
historic
review
District.
The
reason
I
requested
the
applicant
provide
information
at
the
the
hearing
for
for
the
gate,
was
to
be
able
to
let
the
board
determine
whether
that
was
appropriate
or
not.
At
this
point,
we
don't
have
clear
Direction
that,
in
my
opinion,.
D
Thank
you.
So
it's
a
question
mark
okay,.
L
Madame
chair,
if
I
may,
I
I,
just
you
know,
I
I
I
know
that
this
this
case
is
is
before
the
board.
This
is
not
a
case
if
this
were
on
a
different
property.
This
is
not
a
case
that
would
go
to
the
board.
It
would
be
reviewed
and
handled
administratively
by
staff.
C
L
Yes,
my
point
is,
and
I
don't
mean
to
contradict
you
in
the
slightest
Heather.
My
point
is
that
a
suggestion
would
be
that
if
the
board
wants
to
approve
it
with
whatever
modifications
they
feel
is
appropriate
and
and
and
with
a
condition
that
that
more
more
information
be
brought
to
staff
for
material,
that
could
that
could
happen
is
a
perfectly
allowable
thing
to
do.
D
No
thank
you
both
for
for
that
explanation.
I
think.
I,
think
that
is
my
only
concern
is
the
completeness
of
the
application.
D
As
far
as
the
the
height
of
the
wall
and
the
design,
discussion
and
I
was
happy
to
hear
Hunter's
comments
about
at
least
the
proportion
of
the
the
gate
and
and
the
understanding
of
this
in
the
landscape.
But
you
know
the
board.
Members
have
made
good
points
about.
You
know
the
elevation
not
being
a
true
View
and
it's
kind
of
abstract
and
and
but
you.
D
Very
well
take
the
point
that
you
know
standing
further
back
from
the
wall
of
the
chapel
will
be
fully
visible
because
it
is
on
a
hill
and,
and
there
is
a
significant
rise
in
the
property.
D
The
reason
why
I
kind
of
raised
the
the
issue
of
of
design
is
that
we
often
on
this
board
get
kind
of
caught
up
in
letter
of
the
law,
and
you
know
the
the
exact
height
limits
of
the
and
you
know,
while
those
are
you
know,
strict
limits
or
in
the
case
of
fences,
design,
guidelines
I
think
that
the
other
considerations
of
design,
not
only
at
the
scale
of
the
gate
and
the
proportions
of
the
gate
itself,
but
also
at
the
scale
of
the
campus,
must
be
addressed
and
I
kind
of
hammer.
D
E
D
Considered
together
height
and
width
in
terms
of
proportion,
but
also
scale
and
mass
and
and
the
overall
scale
of
the
campus
I
you
know
in
in
that
context,
this
gate
and
this
entry
wall
make
a
tremendous
amount
of
sense.
For
me,
I
think
that
what
we're
looking
at
in
the
application
is
the
lowest
that
this
wall
could
be
and
still
makes
sense
with
the
scale
of
the
buildings
and
the
scale
of
the
campus
I.
D
Think
that
I
am
you
know,
I
know
this
property
fairly
well,
I'm,
not
particularly
convinced
that
the
automotive
Centric
campus
planning
that
occurred
over
time
is
necessarily
something
that's
that's
hugely
important
to
the
status
of
this
place
as
a
campus,
it's
probably
more
to
do
with
the
relationship
between
the
buildings
I,
really
like
the
abbreviation
of
that
overly
long
driveway.
That
was
there
just
for
fire
and
for
the
cheapest
way
to
make
all
that
happen.
D
I
appreciate
that
the
applicant
is
has
taken
other
measures
to
address
emergency
access
and
tuck
it
away
to
allow
you
know
how
and
improve
how
this
place
functioned
as
a
campus
as
a
pedestrian
campus.
It
was
always
problematic
that
you
know
that
it
was
that
it
was
asphalt
and
not
something
more
pedestrian,
friendly
and
I.
Think
that's
what
the
proposal
does.
It
brings
that
space
into
a
kind
of
a
scale
with
the
buildings
it.
It
returns,
those
surfaces
to
pedestrian
friendly
surfaces
and
from
what
I
can
tell
from
this,
albeit
abstract,
site
plan.
D
That's
more
of
a
kind
of
civil
engineering
side
plan
than
a
design
and
Landscape
plan.
We're
going
to
see
more
of
that
in
the
final
design.
So
I'm
happy
with
that
bottom
line
is
I.
Think
that
this
this
gay
proposal
and
this
wall
proposal
are
totally
in
scale
with
the
campus
and
in
line
with
the
intention
of
of
of
what's
significant
about
this
place
as
a
as
a
grouping
of
buildings
and
so
I'm
supportive
of
that
I.
D
Just
don't
know
that
without
a
material,
how
to
make
a
motion
that
adequately
addresses
that
concurrence
with
the
design.
A
Thank
you,
member
Guido
Lisa.
Can
you
tell
us
how
the
gate
will
operate
and
again
tell
us
when
it's
going
to
be
open
when
it's
going
to
be
closed.
L
Sure
Madam
chair,
I
I,
will
mostly
defer
to
Hunter
on
this,
but
I
believe
the
gate
is
intended
to
mostly
be
closed
and
I,
don't
believe.
Operability
has
been
has
been
discussed
as
yet.
M
Madam
chair
that
the
gate
is
not
going
to
be
automatic,
however,
that
might
change.
It
would
be
only
operable
when
there,
in
case
of
fire
or
for
maintenance
reasons,
so
it'll
be
closed.
The
majority
of
the
time,
which
is
why
we
have
the
larger
pedestrian
gate
to
the
side,
because
that
will
be
the
egress
gate
that
will
be
used
most
of
the
time
so.
E
M
A
A
And
that's
the
same
width
as
the
next
lower
pilasters,
which
are
probably
at
six
feet
correct.
Well,
my
feelings
are
that
the
I
feel
that
this
gate
is
just
a
bit
too
high.
I
I,
don't
know
that
campus
has
or
that
area
has
been
open
for
such
a
long
time
and
I
understand
that
you
want
to
have
I.
Couldn't
understand
that
you
want
to
have
something
that
is
an
entrance
to
a
to
a
school
that
and
that
you
want
it
closed,
but
I
would
really
want.
A
M
Well,
I
I
think
that
is
significant
canvas
and
the
scale
of
the
campus
deserves
to
have
a
statement
to
it
and,
as
I
said,
we
are
required
to
have
the
20-foot
opening
I
think
at
one
point,
I
did
draw
it
as
five
feet
tall
and
proportionally
with
a
20-foot
opening
the
gate
looked
a
little
too
long
and
and
thin
design
wise.
It
looked
awkward
because
it
was
so
long
and
thin,
especially
a
heavy
gate.
A
M
And
so
the
choice
to
raise
it
a
little
bit
really
helped
in
terms
of
the
feeling
of
the
design
of
the
gate.
Yes,
it
makes
it
feel
a
little
bit
heavier
but
proportionally
and
design
wise.
It
really
works
better
at
these
proportions.
Could
it
be
made
shorter?
It
could
but
I
think
the
feeling
of
the
long,
linear,
rectangle
doesn't
feel
historic.
It
feels
awkward,
it's
not
the
historic
proportions
that
we
see
in
gates
and
doors
that
were
designed
by
name,
which
was
this
was
inspired
by
so
I.
H
Well,
I'm
I'm
a
bit
concerned
here
as
the
assistant
City
attorney
for
the
City
of
Santa
Fe
that
we're
not
discussing
exceptions
to
a
height
restriction.
Now,
I'm,
not
saying
this
gate
can't
be
built
and
I'm,
not
saying
that
the
applicants
haven't
made
some
good
arguments
that
might
fit
into
exception
criteria,
but
I
I'm
wondering
it
seems
to
me.
H
The
discussion
is
that
there
are
no
height
restrictions
in
the
code
which
I
don't
necessarily
agree
with
and
I'm
looking
in
the
code
and
I
can
give
you
a
specific
citation,
14-5.2,
subsection
d,
nine
and
it's
buried
in
some
subsections.
In
here
there
are
height
restrictions
when
a
proposed
building
yard
wall
or
fence
is
located
on
a
lot
with
no
Frontage
on
a
right-of-way.
H
We
need
to
decide
if
that
applies
or
whether
or
not.
This
is
a
proposed
building,
yard
wall
or
Fence
located
on
the
streetscape.
That
includes
no
buildings,
yard
walls
or
fences,
and
how
do
we
Define?
The
streetscape
is
an
issue.
What
I
heard
is
that,
because
this
has
no
Frontage
on
a
right
away,
there's
no
restriction.
It's
not
exactly
how
I
heard
it,
but
it's
not.
H
There
is
well,
and
so
maybe
we
need
to
hear
that
more
definitely,
but
there
are
restrictions
on
yard
walls
on
for
a
building
or
a
yard
wall
on
a
street
with
no
Frontage
on
it
right.
E
H
H
The
authority
of
the
age
board
applies
in
a
historic
review
District
because
there
is
a
section
that
sort
of
limits:
the
H
board's
Authority
in
the
historic
review,
District
to
properties
accessed
from
Canyon,
Road,
Camino,
military
Apodaca,
Hill,
Camino,
Rivera,
Camino,
Cabra
Caminos
and
their
Amino
santacasio
Camino,
Del,
Monte,
Sol,
Camino,
Rancheros,
Camino,
ranchitos
and
other
streets,
and,
as
I
understand,
this
property
is
accessible
from
Camino,
De,
montesol,
so
I
think
the
age
board
does
have
authority
if,
in
fact,
it
is
accessible
from
Camino,
De,
Monte,
Seoul
and
I
believe
we
do
need
to
calculate
a
yard
Wall
height.
H
If
this
is
located
on
a
lot
with
no
Frontage
on
a
right-of-way,
in
which
case
as
I
said
that
doesn't
mean
they
can't
build
the
wall.
It
just
means
that
the
board
has
to
consider
exception
criteria
the
more
it
may
be
delighted
to
hear
that
this
is
part
of
the
exception
criteria
that
the
H
board
does
have
final
approval,
because
it
is
a
D9
exception,
as
opposed
to
D1.
L
E
L
H
I
can
I
can
show
you
what
I'm
referring
to
and
Ms
gavioli.
H
Okay,
the
subsection
a
little
Roman
numeral,
two
subsection
capital,
D
and
I'm
reading
from
the
code
when
the
proposed
building
yard
wall
or
fence
is
located
on
a
lot
with
no
Frontage
on
rights
of
way.
The
streetscape
is
defined
by
measuring
a
distance
of
300
feet
in
all
directions
from
the
midpoint
of
the
facade,
which
contains
a
principal
entrance
of
the
building.
I
would
assume,
in
this
case
here
yard,
wall
or
fence.
H
H
Of
three
feet
from
all
directions
so
and
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
if
that's
actually
been
calculated,
but
I
would.
H
You
can't
get
approval
for
this
I'm,
just
saying
that
the
exception
criteria
May
apply,
and
you
may
have
to
make
an
argument
that
you
that
circumstances
that
you
describe
meet
the
exception
criteria.
Thank.
L
You
for
that
explanation,
I
I,
believe
that
this
is
a
really
unfair
way
to
hold
a
public
hearing
on
a
case
that
has
that
was
submitted
months
ago.
If
there
were
concerns
about
the
legality
of
our
application
to
to
bring
them
up
at
the
public
hearing
is
not
the
right
place
or
time,
and
therefore
I
would
like
additional
time
to
speak
with
you
about
your
concerns.
A
That
attorney
bubali
brought
this
up
is
because
of
the
discussion
that
has
taken
place
this
evening,
and
that
is
his
interpretation
of
the
law
as
he
sees
it
is.
C
Cheerios,
with
reference
to
the
interpretation
that
was
made
by
staff
is
true.
There
is
no
streetscape
Lisa
and
I
had
a
long
conversation
about
that,
and
so,
if
you
were
to
use
the
Circle,
as
you
would
see
in
the
code
with
300
feet
around
the
particular
site,
the
only
two
looking
at
the
aerial
and,
of
course,
the
calculation
that
we
did
for
the
San
Juan
building,
which
faced
month
Cruz
Blanca,
then
that
calculation
is
taking
a
consideration,
Santa,
Fe,
Prep
and
other
buildings
in
that
particular
streetscape
in
both
directions
and
yard
walls.
C
And
so,
but
here
there's
a
six
foot
yard
wall,
that's
around
the
Carmelite
Seminary
at
the
rear.
That
would
be
within
the
300
feet.
There
are
properties
that
abuts
this
property
on
the
west
side
that
are
residences
that
face
Camino
Monte
solo.
Those
are
six
feet,
if
not
higher
I.
Don't
quote
me
on
the
specific
numbers
but
I'm
doing
approximate
and
the
only
other
wall.
That's
actually
on
site
is
the
Santa
Maria,
and
that
is
approximately
six
feet
as
well.
C
So
the
overall
height
which
I
could
confirm
would
be
six
feet
and
would
not
require
an
exception.
In
this
particular
case,
also,
if
this
were
to
be
considered
an
exception-
and
we
would
have
to
hear
this
again
because
an
advertisement
would
have
to
be
made
as
an
exception,
but
if
staff's
opinion
that
that
would
be
not
be
required.
C
J
A
For
those
comments,
member
Berkeley.
N
Madam,
chair
I
just
had
a
question,
given
all
the
comments
that
were
made
tonight
and
remember
Guida's
question
in
particular
concerns
about
Haydn
and
I.
Just
wondered
out
of
respect
for
the
applicant
who
had
to
wait
already
several
weeks
because
we
couldn't,
even
because
of
Quorum
issues.
We
couldn't
even
hear
your
case
two
weeks
ago.
I
just
wondered
in
terms
of
timing.
N
If
this
one
k
this
one
part
this
one
wall
and
gate
were
to
be
postponed,
does
that
really
hold
your
project
up
tremendously
I
mean
everything
else
has
been
I.
Think
passed
it's
just
such
a
beautiful
job.
You're
doing
and
everyone
really
respects
it.
A
lot
I
think
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
this
were
to
be
one
discussion
were
to
be
put
off
for
another
few
weeks.
Would
that
hold
up?
Would
that
be
too
big
of.
L
A
Madam
chair
member
Berkeley
I,
don't
believe
it
would
cause
a
significant
delay
in
the
project
it
just.
It
just
feels
very
much
not
ideal
to
this
process
that
we've
been
in
discussion
with
staff
for
weeks
and
and
and
we
had
a
very
specific
conversation
and
thank
you
heather
for
for
summarizing
that
it
just
it
in
terms
of
of
public
process
and
fairness
of
process.
This.
It
feels
a
little
bit
like
a
gotcha
moment
from
the
from
the
city
attorney.
A
Well,
I
think
that
what
it
boils
down
to
is
that
the
board
evaluates
the
project
in
this
case
gate
and
wall
pilasters,
and
then
the
board
is
going
to
make
a
decision
in
reference
to
this.
So
that's
what
it
boils
down
to
and
I'm
I'm
hearing
different
comments
in
reference
to
this,
but
we'll
see
where
this
takes
us
remember.
Guida
and.
D
D
I
agree
with
the
applicant
that
this
is
a
a
changing
or
removing
the
goal
posts
on
a
case
that
has
already
been
vetted
by
staff
and
has
received
staff
recommendations
and
has
come
to
this
board
in
front
of
the
public.
We've
spent
a
considerable
amount
of
time
on
this
case
already
tonight,
the
city
attorney's
office.
D
Their
role
is
not
to
obstruct
these
cases
when
they
come
before
the
board,
in
a
public
hearing
they're
to
support
staff
and
and
this
board
in
the
in
the
interpretation
of
code,
so
I
would
agree
wholeheartedly
with
the
applicant
that
this
is,
you
know
out
of
process
and
not
the
right
way
to
go
about
this
case
to
to
move
the
goal.
Posts
Midway
through
I
still
have
questions
about
whether
we
can
approve
this
and
under
what
conditions
we
can
approve
this
based
on
the
materials.
D
But
to
me,
those
that
is
the
only
issue.
It's
clear
to
me
that
this
does
not
satisfy
the
conditions
of
a
streetscape
wall
or
yard
wall.
This
is
internal
to
the
property
and
and
just
going
through
those
rules.
It
seems,
like
staff,
has
already
reviewed
that
and
reviewed
that
with
the
applicant
and
I.
Don't
think
that
should
be
called
into
question
at
this
point.
E
H
Us
if
I
may
I
I,
you
know
I'm
so
I'm.
Sorry
about
that.
You
know
that
this
wasn't
part
of
the
discussion
before
this
was
brought
to
the
board
and
I
apologize.
You
know,
I
have
no
problem
whatsoever
with
the
the
presentations
we
get
from
his
gavioli
and
the
staff
there
at
Jenkins
Gavin,
but
I
I
just
can't
allow
the
board
to
proceed
in
disregard,
but
for
the
code
you
know
if
you
find
some
reason
why
you
think
we
should
proceed
I.
You
know.
H
I
would
like
to
the
board
to
make
a
record
of
that,
but
I'm
just
saying
that
I
think
that
there
needs
to
be
a
discussion
about
the
exception.
Criterion
and
I'm,
not
saying
the
applicants
can't
fulfill
all
that
exception
criteria
and
it
probably
does
need
to
be
advertised
and
I
apologize
for
the
delay.
But
again
I
can't
read
the
code
and
see
that
we're
proceeding
in
disregard
for
the
code
and
sit
here
and
say
nothing
about
it.
A
H
Right,
correct,
Heather
is
not
an
attorney.
You
know,
I'm
the
City
attorney
I'm
here
to
tell
you
and
you
need
to
proceed
in
accordance
with
the
code,
and
we
need
to
make
a
record
as
to
why,
if
we're
disregarding
the
code
or
if
the
code
doesn't
apply,
you
know
we
need
to
make
a
record
of
that.
I
would
like
to
I
would
like
to
know
what
that
is,
and.
A
I
respect
your
opinion
and
we'll
see
where
this
takes
us
I
am
going
to
ask
for
public
comment.
Anyone
wishing
to
pardon-
oh
yes,
remember,
Beachside,.
I
So
I
think
I
think
the
code
pretty
clearly
says
that
the
determination
of
whether
or
not
not
an
exception
is
required
is
determined
by
the
staff,
and
then
it
comes
to
us
I
think
section
9
that
Frank
is
referencing
pretty
clearly
says
the
height
limitations
of
any
structure
are
defined
in
this
section,
and
that
includes
all
of
the
comments
you
were
making
about
the
yard
wall.
Heights
they're
used
to
determine
a
height
limitation
on
a
structure
in
the
streetscape,
so
I
disagree
with
with
that.
I
I
also
disagree
with
the
fact
that
that
we're
in
this
position-
this
has
happened
more
than
one
time.
We
didn't
have
a
question
about
how
to
proceed.
We
we
didn't
ask
for
clarification.
I
think
we
were
all
pretty
comfortable
with
the
height
being
allowed
in
this
private
Drive
I.
Think
the
question.
From
my
my
perspective.
The
height
was
only
raised
as
a
a
way
to
understand
the
the
view
of
the
chapel
and
the
relation
to
the
campus
and
I
appreciate
the
applicant's
explanation
of
that.
I
The
perspective
is
difficult
for
me
to
to
to
determine
on
the
on
the
plan.
So
it's
helpful
to
understand.
Like
yeah,
that's
on
a
hill,
so
I
think
I'm
in
agreement
with
member
Guida
that
the
materials
I
would
like
to
know
more
about
that.
I
would
like
to
know
if,
if
the
design
is
in
plain
or
if
it
has
sort
of
raised
elements
like
the
doors
at
lafondo,
that
were
the
inspiration,
those
details
would
be
helpful
and
I.
I
Think
if
you
could
give
us
some
sort
of
parameters,
we
I'm
comfortable
with
staff
approving
those
kind
of
design
details,
but
as
far
as
an
exception
being
required.
I
really
strongly
disagree
with
with
that.
I
We
have
not
advertised
that
we
have
not
put
walls
internal
to
a
property
in
that
category
before
and
we
have
Wall
guidelines
because
the
code
is
not
sufficiently
addressing
those,
so
even
bringing
an
exception
criteria
for
wall
height
in
any
capacity
is
a
really
shaky
ground.
With
the
code
we
have
that's.
O
G
You
know
I
I,
don't
really
see
this
as
just
a
disagreement
among
staff.
I
mean
my
view
is
that
when
the
city
attorney
advises
the
board,
we
have
an
obligation
to
abide
by
the
city.
Attorney's
advice,
I
mean
the
City
attorney
is
literally
here
to
advise
the
board
they're,
not
just
Mr
Buble,
isn't
just
getting
his
own
personal
opinion
and
I.
G
Don't
believe
we
have
the
authority
to
disregard
the
city,
attorney's
advice
now,
I,
don't
know
what
that
advice
is
just
yet,
but
if,
if
the
City
attorney
is
advising
us
that
we
have
no
legal
authority
to
prove
this
application,
as
it
has
been
submitted
to
us
I,
just
don't
think
we
vote
on
whether
or
not
we
agree
to
abide
by
that
or
not,
and
it
doesn't
matter
even
if
there's
a
disagreement
with
the
land
use
staff
and
it
doesn't
even
matter
whether
it's
right
or
wrong,
we
don't
have
the
no
one's
delegated
us
the
authority
to
disregard
that
advice.
G
So,
in
my
view,
if
that's
Mr
Ruby
leads
opinion
that
he
is
providing
to
us
as
the
designated
representative
of
the
city
attorney's
office,
then
that's
what
we
need
to
do,
but
I
would
defer
to
him
as
to
whether
or
not
that's
actually
that
that
black
and
white
of
a
position
that
he's
taking.
H
Well,
member
again,
you
have
just
my
suggestion.
Is
that
this
this
specific
proposal,
not
the
others
which
have
been
approved
by
the
board
and
I,
didn't
see
any
problem
with
any
of
those
is.
H
That
the
board
consider
exception
criteria,
that's
found
in
subsection,
C5
c5c
regarding
high
pitch
scale,
mask
and
floor
step
backs
again.
I
think
that
a
lot
of
the
same
reasons
that
the
applicants
have
presented
to
the
board
may
fit
into
this
exception
criteria,
but
I
think
that
that
exception
criteria
needs
to
be
set
forth
on
the
record
and
again
I'm
I'm,
sorry
for
any
delay,
but
I,
certainly
if
it
appears
that
the
board
is
proceeding
without
Authority
I
have
to
bring
it
to
the
board's
attention.
I
can't
just
sit.
H
C
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
Rios,
with
reference
to
simply
stating
it
there's
no
streetscape,
the
consideration
is
the
300
foot
diameter.
It
has
called
out
in
the
code.
There
are
six
foot
and
higher
walls
in
that
in
that
diameter,
and
so
the
average
height
and
I
can
confirm
this
with
a
with
a
field
visit
and
Gary.
Mokino
can
help
with
me
with
this,
the
historic
districts
inspector
of
that
the
allowable
height
would
be
six
feet
and
what
is
being
proposed
is
five
feet.
H
H
The
tallest
yard
Waller
fence
within
the
streetscape,
is
somewhere
in
the
vicinity
of
what
the
applicants
are
proposing,
in
which
case
then
you
wouldn't
need
exceptions,
because
then
it
meets
the
code,
but
it
is
common
for
Mr
Makino
to
go
out
and
measure
the
yard
walls
on
streetscapes
and
put
and
make
a
finding
to
the
HP
division
director
that
that's
the
average
yard
Waller
that's
the
high
to
the
highest
yard
wall.
G
Madam
chair,
thank
you.
Yes,
I,
don't
know
if
I
still
have
the
floor
or
not,
but
I
appreciate
all
of
that.
But
so
it
seems
to
me
that
perhaps
the
way
that
we
solve
this,
because
maybe
we
were
were
already
trending
towards
a
postponement
for
further
information
on
the
materials
anyway,
that
we
can
defer
it
postpone
it
for
that
and
also
a
determination
of
the
streetscape,
which
may
mean
that
it
could
be
reheard
depending
on
that
determination
at
the
next
meeting.
G
At
the
same
time
as
the
materials,
it
would
only
be
if
the
street
Escape
determination,
different
from
what
Mr
lamboy
was
suggesting,
which
seems
unlikely
that
there
would
need
to
be
an
exception
or
a
re-noticing
of
this
process.
So
it
seems
to
me
there
is
a
fairly
simple
solution
that
would
satisfy
all
those
concerns.
As
long
as
we
don't
get
involved
in
a
an
exception
debacle,
does
that
make
sense?
Is.
A
You
say
no,
but
I
that
makes
sense
to
me
that
that
seems
to
rectify.
That
seems
to
be
going
in
the
right
direction
to
rectify.
What
we
have
to
do
is
to
evaluate
this
case
and
come
to
a
conclusion
and
I
do
feel
by
the
comments
that
were
made
earlier,
that
we
were
moving
towards
a
postponement.
Whether
members
of
this
board
agreed
with
the
gate
or
not
that's
what
it
seemed
like
they
were
moving
towards.
C
I,
remember,
being
the
new
and
there's
architectural,
Gates
and
and
Architectural
features
around
gate
are
not
considered
as
part
of
the
overall
height
it's.
The
wall
itself
is
considered
part
of
the
overall
height.
A
A
Yes,
but
I
have
to
ask
for
a
public
comment.
Anyone
in
the
public
wishing
to
speak
on
this
project,
whether
it's
on
Zoom
or
here
in
this
room.
C
I'm
serum
chair
Rios,
there
is
the
first
person
who
will
be
able
to
speak,
is
Adam
Johnson,
Adam,
youman
mute,
simply
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
director.
B
Q
So
very
interesting
discussion,
Madam
chair
members
of
the
board,
I
I,
first
want
to
start
by
saying
that
I
really
appreciate
the
work
of
the
applicant,
the
agent,
the
architect,
the
landscapers,
the
art
landscape,
Architecture,
Firm,
the
engineering
firm
for
sense
to
propose
restoration
and
for
some
handsome
additions
to
the
campus
and
the
feeling
that
it
will
bring
this
campus
into
fruition.
I
do
feel
like
the
it's
a
shame
that
the
the
gate,
which
is
quite
handsome
otherwise
is,
is
so
high.
Q
It
seems
like
it
would
block
some
of
the
feeling
of
of
sort
of
entering
the
campus
and
I'm
entering
it,
and
so
you
know
I.
It's
regrettable
that
it's.
The
last
thing
on
the
DACA
today,
I
just
felt
like
I,
should
make
that
comment,
but
I
I
do
want
to
commend
the
applicant
for
really
a
sensitive
job
on
on
the
buildings
on
the
campus.
So
thank
you.
O
O
O
There
is
very
just
not
really
in
keeping
with
I,
don't
know
with
the
need
for
some
kind
of
openness
there
and
I
really
think
a
six
foot
high
gate
would
be
sufficient
and
it
would
be
in
keeping
with
the
other,
but
at
least
Miss
lamboy
was
talking
about
as
far
as
I
can
understand
that
there
were
six
foot
high
walls
in
other
sections
of
the
property
and
probably
at
least
some
along
that
streetscape.
F
O
Going
and
mites
usually
are
at
night,
so
how
many
people
are
really
going
to
be
coming
and
going
at
night
that
you'll
actually
need
a
solid
gate
there
and
the
other
thing
is
and
and
counselor
Renee
Via
Real
brought
this
up
in
another
context,
I
believe,
but
it's
really
culturally
insensitive
to
call
whatever
drainage,
water
drainage
systems
that
are
going
to
be
on
this
property
asekias.
They
are
not
a
sake.
Yes,
a
sake
is,
are
very
specific
legal
term
and
really
I.
Don't
think
it
shows
cultural
sensitivity
at
all.
E
E
O
C
Yes,
Cheerios,
there's
one
more
that
can
speak
John
Eddie,
you
may
unmute,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
E
B
P
B
P
Thank
you,
madam
chair
board,
members
I
feel
that
the
height
of
this
gate
is
is
inappropriate
and
it
basically
presents
a
very
inhospitable
face
to
this
approach
to
the
property.
I
do
appreciate
the
applicant's
need
for
privacy
there,
but
I
think
that
the
height
of
the
gate,
as
is
proposed,
is
very
imposing
it's
imposing
to
a
pedestrian
and
as
such,
is
not
in
fitting
with
a
human
scale
as
I
see
it.
Those
are
my
feelings.
P
A
A
D
2022-006113
hdrb
50,
Mount,
Carmel
yard
wall
and
injury
gate
I,
move
that
the
board
postpone
review
of
this
case
in
line
with
the
applicant's
preference
and
for
the
applicant
to
return
with
a
complete
design
package
that
includes
material
recommendations
for
this.
If
there
is
to
be
further
discussion
with
planning
staff
that
could
happen
during
the
postponement
period.
G
B
Member
Berkeley,
yes,
member
Beachside,
Excuse
me,
yes,
okay,
member
bienvenue,
no
remember
Guida,.
D
A
Been
approved,
thank
you.
Do
we
have
to
postpone
this
to
a
date
certain,
or
will
you
work
with
the
applicant.
C
So
I
work
with
the
applicants.
If
the
applicant
has
an
idea
as
to
what
particular
dates
the
applicant
would
like
to
come
back,
we
can
say
it
now
or
you
prefer
to
wait.
L
A
Thank
you
all
and
the
first
three
cases
went
pretty
smoothly,
but
I
think
that
all
of
you
know,
including
Lisa,
that
sometimes
things
happen
and
cases
don't
go
as
smoothly
as
you
planned
and
as
has
been
shown
in
the
past.
Sometimes
when
cases
are
postponed,
you
have
a
chance
to
look
at
things
a
little
bit
more
closely
and
maybe
come
up
with
something
that
is
more
acceptable
to
you
and
more
acceptable
to
the
board.
Absolutely.
A
Thank
you,
everybody
and
I
feel
like
I,
do
have
to
say
something
in
reference
to
our
City
attorney,
whether
you
agree
or
disagree
with
him.
I
think
that
Mr
Ruble,
as
the
assistant
City
attorney,
deserves
the
respect
of
the
public
and
this
board,
and
he
is
here
to
do
a
particular
job
for
the
city
and
I.
Think
that
that,
in
the
very
least
he
deserves
our
respect
and
we
need
to
listen
to
him.
L
C
C
As
to
history
of
this
I've
looked
back
at
the
original
ordinance
since
the
original
ordinance
that
was
adopted
in
1957,
and
there
was
no
provision
with
that
ordinance
as
well.
I
think
may
have
been
intentional
in
that
we
want
to
encourage
applicants
to
think
creatively
and
not
have
to
ask
for
exceptions,
and
so
that
you
know,
is
the
the
reason
that
was
put
in
place
in
that
manner.
Having
said
that,
though,
I
think
it's
important
to
acknowledge
that
there
are
lots
of
unique
circumstances
in
historic
districts,
and
those
unique
circumstances
deserve
consideration.
C
It
is
the
opinion
of
staff
that
maybe
the
best
approach
would
be
to
have
the
hdrb,
be
the
authority
through
a
text
Amendment,
but
also
beef
up
the
standards
just
a
little
bit
to
provide,
for
you
know,
making
sure
that
that
the
exception
is
warranted
with
the
the
criteria.
So
I
am
going
to
share
my
screen
right,
make
sure
I
have
the
right
thing
here.
N
C
There
it's
correct
now:
I
am
going
to
increase
the
size
of
this,
so
you
don't
I
I
intentionally
left
the
comments
from
staff
in
the
the
the
packet
just
so
that
you
can
see
what
our
thinking
was.
C
We
would
like
to
get
your
perspective
on
this
and,
if
not
tonight,
I
mean
this
is
intended
to
be
more
of
a
study
session
type
of
opportunity
than
a
formal
review
at
this
point,
because
I
know
that
you
need
to
sit
with
it
and
think
about
it
as
to
process
of
eventually
the
board
will
make
a
recommendation
for
this
text
Amendment
to
the
governing
body
we'll
have
to
go
to.
Since
it's
a
change
to
chapter
14..
C
N
C
Choose
to
do
so
so
I
don't
know
if
you
want
me
to
go
over
the
specific
changes
Point
by
point
or
whether
you
would
just
like
to
make
comments,
just
sort
of
referring
to
the
the
extra
sort
of
criteria
for
an
exception.
You
can
see
item
number
three.
C
The
the
language
that
I
put
in
was
conclusively
demonstrates
that
all
design
options
have
been
considered,
including
providing
the
following
technical
reports
and
that
for
any
sample
the
window
assessment
that
Ray
regularly
provides
a
report
on
the
I
have
to
move
things
around
a
report
on
the
design
process
and
programs
to
illustrate
why
other
options
were
not
explored
and,
if
needed,
an
updated
historic
cultural
properties
inventory
form
at
the
applicant's
expense.
A
Oh
Heather,
the
changes
that
are
being
proposed
are
those
that
we
are
reviewing.
Are
those
simply
language
changes,
as
opposed
to
Authority
changes
of
the
H
board.
C
So
our
Cheerios,
it
is
the
opinion
that
the
H
board
has
Authority,
but
not
in
a
particular
case
of
granting
exceptions.
A
But
this
is
just
in
reference
to
design
design
and
historic
preservation.
A
C
Hide
right,
height
is
currently
does
provide
authority
to
the
hdrb
and.
D
So
Heather
just
a
few
questions
about
this
and
and
and
I
thank
you
for
sharing
the
edit
with
us
and
word,
and
it's
good
to
see
some
of
the
thought
process
behind
this
and
the
questions
back
and
forth.
So
we're
going
from
three
exception:
Crites,
to
satisfying
three
exception
criteria.
To
five
is
that
that
the
current
proposal.
D
C
Cherubios
member
Guida,
the
the
reason
being
that
the
overall
intent
of
the
ordinance
was
not
to
make
exceptions
an
easy
thing
to
get
and
just
like
a
variance.
There
are
specific
criteria
that
need
to
be
addressed
and
so
as
to
ensure
that
the
there
was
not
another
option.
That
is
the
rationale
for
including
that
language.
C
Chariots
member
Guida,
there
are
five
criteria
for,
for
instance,
criteria
for
General
plan
Amendment
or
for
rezoning.
There's
there's
at
least
five
criteria
and
I
would
have
to
look
at
the
code
to
understand
specifically
what
the
numbers
are.
But
there
are
more
than
the
three
I.
D
D
D
Of
of
many
things
and
in
in
my
view,
you
know
we
do
have
a
code
that
is
very
prescriptive
and
does
provide
a
great
deal
of
guidance
on
formal
outcomes
within
the
historic
districts
and
is
very
specific
to
those
districts
I
a
challenge,
the
thinking
that
requires
applicants
to
do
much
more
and
potentially
opens
up
with
two
additional
exception
criteria
that
same
difficulty
and
gray
area.
That's
kind
of
multiplying
the
difficulty
of
of
this
task
to
to
get
an
exception.
D
D
I,
don't
know
that
I
I
agree
that
you
know
that
we
have
to
make
exceptions
hard
to
get
I
think
if
we
continue
to
appoint
sensible
people
to
this
board,
and
we
continue
to
elevate
public
discussion
as
we
are
doing
you
know,
locking
it
down
with
legalese
is,
is
challenging
to
me
on
on
that
point.
I
feel
rather
strongly,
obviously,
about
about
that.
D
My
second
question
is
to
do
with
the
the
difference
between
areas
where
the
board
is
to
approve,
or
has
the
authority
to
approve
certain
features
and
where
this
new
language
says
may
recommend
exceptions
for
design
standards
and
signage
to
governing
body.
What
what's
the
intent
there
are?
We
are
we
saying
that
in
this
text,
Amendment
the
board
has
authority
to
rule
on
signage
and
on
on
exceptions
to
design
standards,
and
but
if
they
decide
to
abdicate
to
to
the
governing
body,
we
may
do.
That.
Is
that
the
intent
here.
C
Terrorists,
remember
Guida,
it's!
The
intent
is
to
give
the
authority
to
the
board
formally
for
signage
and
determining
instead
of
having
to
go
to
the
board
of
adjustments,
the
having
the
board
determine
Heights
and
and
as
an
overlay
District,
the
historic
District's
organizes
an
overlay.
It
can
have
that
type
of
authority
as
well,
and
there
are
specific
criteria
in
the
sign
code
that
deal
with
historic
districts.
So
it's
appropriate
that
the
H
board
manage
all
of
those
items
instead
of
having
an
additional
trip.
The
board
of
adjustment.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Just
on
that
last
point.
There
are
six
exceptions
in
the
very
next
provision:
subsection
C
for
height,
pitch
scale,
massing
and
floor
setbacks,
but
I
don't
I
am
in
general
agreement.
Nonetheless,
with
the
idea
that
I'm
very
reluctant
to
get
involved
in
tinkering
with
these
exceptions,
right
here
and
now
to
me,
there's
so
many
things
about
this
ordinance
that
once
we
start
playing
with
it
we're
gonna.
There
are
a
lot
of
things
we
would
like
to
change
and
to
change
it.
G
Piecemeal
I
think
would
be
a
huge
mistake
and
especially
since
I
understand
that
we
have
a
consultant
right
now,
that's
looking
at
revising
all
of
chapter
14..
So
to
me
this
is
just
a
little
piece
of
a
much
bigger
project
and
I
I
just
see
it
in
such
a
more
simple
fashion.
To
me,
this
entire
dispute
comes
down
to
the
fact
that
there's
language
in
subsection
B
that
says
the
board
May
recommend
exceptions.
F
A
G
That
and
that
I
know,
is
your
intent.
That's
the
whole
reason
why
you're
revising
this
is
to
because
we
all
thought
we
had
that
Authority,
you
reviewed
the
code
and
realized
we
don't
you're
just
trying
to
correct
that
discrepancy
is
what
I
understand
the
situation
we're
in
to
be
so
I,
don't
think
anyone's
in
there's
no
dispute
at
all
about
whether
we're
the
right
people
to
be
doing
that.
G
It's
just
correcting
an
oddity
in
the
language
of
the
ordinance
that
no
one
apparently
ever
noticed
before
so
I
would
just
like
to
see
that
corrected
in
the
simplest
and
way
with
the
fewest
possible
words,
because
I
really
feel
like
we're
opening
a
can
of
worms
once
we
start
adding
on
new
exception
criteria
at
this
point,
I'm,
not
necessarily
not
in
favor
of
the
ones
you've
proposed.
I
just
would
like
to
discuss
that
in
the
context
of
a
whole
review
of
the
ordinance.
G
So
and
I
think
that
that's
all
that
needs
to
be
done
is
to
import
the
language,
that
is
the
exact
language
under
subsection
C.
The
first
sentence
and
just
put
that
into
subsection
B
and
replace
it,
and
then
we're
done
I
mean,
of
course
you
can
review
and
make
sure
that's
true,
but
that's
my
just
a
review
of
this
indicates
that
I
think
that's
the
solution
and.
H
And
yes,
I
I
agree
with
members,
bienvenue,
Guida
and
chair
Rios
that
my
understanding
is
all
we
are
trying
to
solve.
Is
the
issue
of
the
hdrb
not
having
the
final
say
on
exceptions
under
subsection
B
and
that
doesn't
seem
to
mean,
doesn't
seem
to
mean
that
we
should
be
adding
additional
exception
criteria
or
making
the
exceptions
harder?
That's
not
the
fix,
we're
looking
for.
G
C
Is
just
a
discussion
because
I
wanted
to
get
your
impression,
you
know
I,
guess
the
overall
intent
of
sort
of
beefing
that
up
is
to
be
consistent
with
you
know
the
original
intent,
but
their
points
are
well
taken
in
terms
of
the
hardship
and
all
the
existing
criteria
really
do
address
that
and
I.
Also,
like
your
idea,
remember
bin
Banu
that
we
actually
sort
of
get
more
into
these
conversations
with
the
code
update
rather
than
in
this
particular
case.
E
C
Of
language
and
to
decide,
if
you
want
to
make
a
recommendation
on
that
normally
remember
just.
I
A
question
about
that
process,
so
I
mean
this
issue
was
raised
by
the
legal
staff.
Are
you?
Are
they
not
able
to
directly
ask
the
city
governing
body
to
make
this
change
to
the
code
like?
Why
do
we
have
to
make
a
recommendation?
I
C
Just
for
a
text
Amendment
generally
there's
a
specific
code
or
a
process,
that's
outlined
in
code
regarding
text,
amendments,
chapter
14,
so
taking
it
up
to
that
higher
level.
That
applies
to
everything
in
chapter
14.,
then
that
actually
has
to
go
through
the.
In
this
particular
case,
the
H
board,
the
Planning
Commission
and
then
the
governing
body.
It's
spelled
out
in
the
code,
okay,.
H
H
It
indicates
that
the
chair,
May,
determine
and
she'll
have
the
review
and
decision
making
responsibilities
set
forth
in
a
particular
table,
which
is
another
section.
But
there
are
several
places
where
the
hdrb
makes
recommendations
to
the
governing
body
on
policy
and
procedure,
and
it's
not
real
specific
about
changes
to
the
code.
But
it
does
indicate
make
recommendations
to
the
governing
body
relating
to
the
erection
of
appropriate
plaques
and
markers
recommendations
to
the
governing
body
relating
to
the
purchaser
acquisition
of
real
or
personal
property
of
historic
background.
Make
recommendations
to
the.
H
Body
as
to
the
exercise
of
the
governing
body's
power
that
amendment
domain,
so
in
various
Provisions,
the
age
board
recommends
policy
and
procedure
to
the
governing
body.
As
I
read
this
it's
so
your
recommendation,
but
I
think
your
recommendation
is
important
to
regarding
body
I.
Think
the
governing
body
wants.
E
I
My
point
is
that
it's
not
really
our
recommendation
but
I
understand
that
that's
the
way
to
get
to
what
we
need.
That's
I'm,
fine
with
that
I
just
would
I,
have
a
real
issue
with
is
the
way
we're
implementing
this
ahead
of
the
code
adjustment
counter
to
precedent,
I
I
I,
don't
understand
the
timeline
for
this
I've
never
seen
the
code
changed
on
my
time
on
the
board.
I
H
I
think
a
member
B
China
Madam
chair
is
that
we
don't
know
how
long
it's
going
to
take
to
completely
revise
the
code,
because
there
are
a
number
of
revisions
that
that
I
would
recommend
to
other
parts
of
the
code.
That
would
be
part
of
this
broad
code.
H
Q
E
H
I
Yeah
I
understand
that
we've
we've
been
operating
by
approving
exceptions
just
across
the
board,
and
until
this
a
code
interpretation
was
was
formalized
with
the
appeal
that
happened
so
I
just
don't
know
why
we're
we're
not
just
operating
on
that
same
precedent
until
the
code
changes
instead
of
it
seems
like
we're
going
out
of
order.
In
my
view,
like
we're
we're
we've
arbitrarily,
we
don't
know
the
governing
body
will
approve
this.
We've
just
decided
we're
not
going
to
issue
exception
approvals
anymore
and
we're
going
to
postpone
everything.
I
It
just
seems
that
I
just
don't
understand
that
perhaps
sure
I
mean
like
I
it.
It
makes
perfect
sense
that
the
interpretation
has
changed,
that
it's
instigated
the
research
based
on
the
appeal
that
that
all
makes
sense
and
I
think
it's
good
to
review
the
code
and
to
have
a
a
suggestion
for
improvement,
but
to
implement
something
before
it's
actually
a
rule.
I
I
mean
I
know.
Your
interpretation
is
different,
but
we've
been
operating
under
the
same
code
with
in
a
different
way
for
a
very,
very
long
time,
and
the
expectation
has
been
that
the
applicants
will
get
an
approval.
Now.
They're
I
mean
I,
don't
know
how
long
it's
already
been
going
on
for
several
months.
H
Since
November
yeah
we-
but
this
was
something
that
we
discussed
extensively
myself
and
City
attorney
Aaron
mcsherry,
and
we
ask
how
did
this
get
started,
that
the
H
board
had
the
final
say
on
these
exceptions,
when
not
our
interpretation?
This
is
what
the
code
reads:
I'm,
looking
at
14-5.2,
subsection,
b5b.
H
H
What
the
code
reads
I
think,
so
we
wondered:
how
did
it
get
started
that
we
strayed
from
this?
Was
there
something
like
a
code
interpretation
which
the
land
use
director
can
do
under
another
section
of
the
code
we
don't
have
to
find,
but
the
land
use
director
can
adopt
an
interpretation
of
the
code
for
some
ambiguity
and
at
one
point
back
in
2019
there
was
actually
a
subcommittee
of
the
board
which
met
with
assistant,
City
attorney,
Sally
pies
and
at
the
time
the
land
use
director
was
a
gentleman
named
Arie
Isaacson.
There.
H
Eli
Isaacson,
and
there
was
apparently
a
draft
proposal
under
the
authority
of
the
land
use
director
to
adopt
an
interpretation
that
read
that
the
board
makes
a
vote
on
the
final
exception
and
not
that
it
goes
to
the
governing
body,
but
that
that
is
decided
by
the
hdrb.
H
H
We
can't
find
any
indication
that
it
ever
appeared
on
the
city's
website,
so
it
just
never
went
into
effect
and
in
discussing
that
with
a
City
attorney,
MS
mcsherry,
she
said
she
doesn't
think
that
the
land
use
director
can
adopt
an
interpretation
of
the
code
under
the
provision
which,
if
you
want
to
know
what
it
is,
I
can
find
it
for
you.
H
That
changes
something
that's
clear
in
the
code.
So
apparently,
since
2019
I
believe
the
H
board
was
under
the
impression
that
that
would
be
published
that
would
be
signed
by
the
land
use
director
and
it
would
go
into
effect
subsequent
Mr
Isaacson
left
that
office
and
for
whatever
reason
it
was
never
published.
So
we
didn't
follow
the
procedure,
and
my
opinion,
as
well
is
Ms
venturi's
is
that
you
can't
change
a
code
provision
like
this
with
an
interpretation
by
the
land
use
director.
H
It
has
to
be
a
change
in
the
code
adopted
by
the
governing
body,
but
you
know
that
we
I
I
know
it
was
a
big
question
and
we
spent
a
lot
of
time.
Reviewing
you
know
was
this
actually
ever
adopted
by
the
governing
body?
Was
it
ever
published
and
we
couldn't
find
in
fact,
I
even
asked
I
think
Carly
when
I
was
having
this
discussion
with
Carly
picarello,
who
was
also
of
the
opinion
that
the
H
board
should
have
the
final
opinion
to
have
the
final
say
on
these.
H
She
said
she
thought
it
was
published.
Someplace
and
I
said
we
need
to
see
a
print
from
the
the
website
or
something
that
shows
that
this
was
ever
published
and
she
couldn't
find
it.
So
all
I
can
tell
you
is
that
interpretation
apparently
never
went
into
effect,
but
we
don't
think
that
that
would
be
sufficient
to
change
this
revision
to
the
code,
which
clearly
specifies
that
the
recommendation
has
to
go
to
the
governing
body
and.
C
It
is
very
likely
that
the
governing
body
will
agree
with
the
H
board.
The
issue
is
that
we're
trying
to
cure
something
sooner
rather
than
later,
because
in
the
interim
you
know,
for
instance,
St
John's
College
is
going
to
be
going
February
22nd
Aurora
scenario
is
going
to
so
staff
will
try
to
get
it
on
to
a
governing
body
agenda
as
soon
as
possible.
We've
had
a
a
slew
of
other
cases,
a
governing
body
recently
that
that's
how
it
fell
as
to
when
they
could
be
accommodating
I
mean
that's.
C
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
well,
I
think
we
should
speed
up
the
process
to
the
extent
we
can
so
I
will
make
a
motion
that
the
board
make
a
recommendation
to
the
governing
body
to
be
put
on
the
earliest
possible
agenda.
G
We
that
the
language
of
the
ordinance
be
revised,
such
that
14-5.2
c,
five
b,
the
first
five
sentences
of
that
sentence
of
that
sub
paragraph
be
replaced
with
the
first
four
sentences
found
in
subsection
C
and
if
you
need
to
you
know,
if
there's
a
few
words
that
need
to
be
changed
to
make
that
work,
then
I
would
defer
to
staff
to
be
able
to
make
the
language
work.
But
that's
the
intent.
C
C
If
I
might
just
read
those
sentences,
just
to
be
sure
that
I
understand
so
this,
this
is
the
language.
The
board
is
the
city
administrative
board
reviewing
and
granting
or
denying
requests
for
exceptions
from
regulations
set
forth
in
section
14-5.2,
when
requesting
exceptions,
the
applicant
will
change
that
did.
G
E
C
Such
cases
the
act
and
we
might
have
to
address
signage
there,
but
we
could
even
just
parse
that
out
separately,
because
that's
so
rare
that
we
can
maybe
just
not
consider
that
right
now,
if
that's
the
pleasure
of
the
board-
and
let
me
see
here
in
such
case,
the
applicant
for
age
ordinance-
exception
shall
not
be
required
to
publish
legal
ad
in
the
local
newspaper.
So
we'll
strike
that
sentence
and
exceptions
are
Project
Specific
and
do
not
apply
to
the
subject,
property
and
perpetuity
right,
which.
B
B
Member
aguilad
Medrano,
yes,
member
Berkeley,
yes,
member
Beachside,
yes,
member
bienvenue,
yes,
remember,
Guida,
yes,
emotion
has
been
approved.
Thank.
C
This
was
not
a
public
hearing,
it
was
more
set
in
a
study
session
point
of
view,
but
there
is
a
request
to
speak
from
a
member
of
the
public
even.
O
May
unmute
thank
you.
I
I
really
appreciate
being
able
to
say
something
since
you
made
a
motion
on
the
discussion
item
and
I,
think
that
exceptions
were
supposed
to
be
rare
and
they've
become
all
too
commonplace
and
I.
Think
that's
really
my
concern
and
I
think
that's
why
there
was
a
recommendation
that
the
board
made
recommendations
to
council
I
talked
to
somebody.
O
I
mentioned
this
to
somebody
who
grew
up
here
has
property
in
the
historic
Zone,
and
she
told
me
that
it
was
David
Koss
who
decided
that
the
board
should
make
the
decision,
because
it
was
too
much
trouble
to
take
it
to
a
council
I.
However,.
F
O
On
that
203
East,
Santa
Fe
Avenue
case,
where
I
pointed
out
to
the
city
attorney
and
the
city
land
use
director
and
this
board
that
again,
that
was
the
wording.
F
O
You
only
could
make
recommendations
and
therefore,
your
decision
to
allow
something
was
invalid.
Of
course,
just
being
me,
I
don't
have
any
money
behind.
E
O
So
nobody
actually
paid
much
attention
I'm
happy
to
see
that
Mr
Isaacson
was
actually
doing
something
about
it.
Wasn't
I,
don't
think
a
very
public
way
of
making
that
change.
Thank
you
so
much
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
Okay.
A
Thank
you,
Stephanie,
okay,
any
Matters
from
the
board.
D
Chair
if
I
just
may
say
one
last
thing
on
on
the
last
case
and
and
well,
this
discussion
in
the
last
case
tonight
to
your
point,
Madam,
chair,
Frank
I,
have
a
tremendous
amount
of
respect
for
your
work,
and
it's
very
and
your
expertise
and
I
I
genuinely
believe
that
you
care
a
lot
about
the
work
that
you
do
and
that
shows
I
I
want
to
I
want
to
kind
of
expand
upon
a
point
that
member
Beach
had
made
earlier
and
I.
D
Think
I
was
trying
to
make
in
light
of
the
discussion
on
the
last
case,
and-
and
that
is
that
you
know
we
have
a
process
here.
That
is
predominantly
a
public
process
where
the,
where
they're
coming
to
the
city
and
they're,
they
are
engaging
preservation
and
planning
professionals
in
interpretation
of
the
code
and
understanding
their
cases
and
reviewing
their
cases
and
then
coming
to
the
board
here
for
public
discussion.
D
D
D
D
Don't
know
that
the
time
and
place
for
it
for
for
raising
those
issues
and
creating
delays
is
in
this
room
and
during
these
hearings
and
I,
think
that,
with
regard
to
the
last
case
tonight
that
that
discussion
should
happen
outside
of
this
room
either
before
the
the
the
the
the
public
or
the
the
applicant
is
allowed
to
proceed
down
a
certain
path.
If
that's
possible
and
if
it's
not,
then
it
happens
afterwards
and
and
it
and
it
gets
saved
to
the
next
case.
D
Likewise
to
remember,
beachside's
point
this
issue
of
the
board
not
having
the
authority
to
rule
on
exceptions
as
true
as
it
may
be,
as
true
as
it
may
have
been
raised
three
years
ago
as
true
as
it
may
be,
that
Eli
had
not
signed
that.
That
issue
remember
beachside's
point
that
this
caused
significant
distress
to
the
public
to
the
amount
of
time
we
spend
in
this
room
to
this
board
and
the
actions
that
we
get
taken
is
is
undeniable
and
I.
D
You
know,
I
would
think
that
in
that
case,
if
the
board
had
been
operating
under
precedent
for
so
long,
this
issue
could
have
continued
that
way
as
it
was
done
in
2019,
when
this
was
first
noted
and
behind
the
scenes
this
issue
be
developed,
and
so
it
to
me
it's
a
question
not
of
expertise.
It's
not
a
question
of
what's
absolutely
right
or
wrong.
D
It's
a
question
of
posture
relative
to
the
work
at
hand
of
this
board
and
of
this
division
and
and
a
question
of
fairness
to
the
public,
how
these
issues
are
raised
and
how
they're,
how
they're
put
out
there.
G
Might
as
well
respond.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
member,
wait.
I
appreciate
that,
but
I
I
guess
I
just
have
such
a
fundamental
disagreement
with
that
point
of
view
that
I
don't
even
really
know
where
to
begin
I
mean
this
is
literally
a
bot.
We
are
volunteers,
Bound
by
an
ordinance
and
by
the
law
of
the
state
of
New
Mexico,
and
you
said
this
should
be
precedent.
Well,
that
is
a
legal
issue,
whether
it's
president,
what
the
City
attorney
is
saying-
and
this
is
undoubtedly
true-
that
is
not
precedent
that
is
not
binding
precedent.
G
We
would
be
literally
acting
Ultra
virus
if
the
city
attorney's
interpretation
of
the
code
is
correct,
which
it
pretty
obviously
is
correct.
So
the
fact
that
it
puts
people
out
the
fact
that
people
are
inconvenienced
Etc
is
really
irrelevant.
We
have
to
abide
by
the
law.
We
have
no
choice
in
that
matter,
and
the
only
way
that
would
not
be
true
is
if
you
were
correct
in
saying
that.
Well,
we've
done
it
that
way.
So
that
should
be
enough,
but
it
isn't
enough.
G
I
mean
it
honestly
is
not
something
that
would
survive
a
court
of
law,
so
that
would
mean
that
every
single
time
we
did
that
we
wouldn't
be
making
a
decision
that
could
not
be
upheld
and-
and
that's
just
an
impossible
I
mean
the
City
attorney-
would
be.
That
would
be
a
fireable
offense
not
to
prevent
a
City
Board
from
doing
something.
That's
unlawful,
so
I
just
don't
see
any
room
for
grayness
in
this
issue.
We
have
no
Authority
to
Grant
these
exceptions.
We
never
did.
G
Those
are
all
appealable
now,
which
is
a
huge
mess
and
I.
Just
don't
see
any
really
anything
further
to
discuss
about
that.
We
have
to
correct
it.
The
City
attorney
is
given
the
correct
advice
that
we
have
to
do
that
and
here's
how
we
go
about
it
and
here's
what
we
need
to
do
in
the
meantime.
So
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
this
case
closed
and
I
and
I
just
come
back
to
the
fact
and
and
I
think
this
might
be
worth.
G
You
know,
having
these
City
attorney
come
talk
to
the
board
about
not
only
this
issue,
but
can
the
board
disregard
your
advice?
I'd
like
to
have
her
advise
the
board
on
that
issue,
because
I
I
hear
that
we
can
that
all
that
you're
just
giving
one
opinion
and
if
we
don't
like
it,
we
can
disregard
it
and
and
I
think
the
Board
needs
to
be
advised
on
that
issue,
because
that's
true
I'm
mistaken.
But
if
it's
not
true,
the
board
really
needs
to
know
that
so
I
would
request
that
from
the
city
attorney's
office.
A
Member
new,
thank
you
for
those
comments.
I
tend
to
agree
with.
You
I
think
that
we
have
to
be
clear
on.
We
have
to
listen
to
the
City
attorney.
I
mean
that
is
his
job,
and
it
is
our
job
to
uphold
the
ordinance
and
naturally
we're
human
beings.
We're
going
to
interpret
that
or
ordinance,
sometimes
in
our
own
specific
way.
A
But
we
do
have
to
listen
and
we
do
have
to
make
decisions
and
I
can
I
can
understand
what
you
two
are
saying
that
you
don't
want
to
hold
up
the
public,
our
fellow
citizens,
we
all
know
I
know
that
I
have
been
in
those
shoes
and
it's
a
big
drag
when
you
are
postponed
more
than
once,
but
sometimes
like
I
said
this
evening.
Sometimes
some
projects
call
for
that.
A
I've
been
on
this
board
a
pretty
long
time
and
when
a
project
is
postponed,
they
do
have
the
opportunity
the
as
much
as
you
may
not
want
to
make
the
applicant
go
through
this
Rhythm
row
and
the
postponement,
but
they
do
have
the
opportunity
to
make
that
project
better
and
it's
actually
better
for
them
once
they
start
exploring
the
possibilities
that
this
board
recommends,
then
they
make.
They
really
do
make
a
better
project
that
the
majority
of
this
board
recommends.
I
G
My
view
would
be
that
anyone
that's
been
denied
an
exception
by
us,
should
go
right
to
district
court
and
say
that
that
was
completely
invalid
and
vice
versa,
exceptions
that
have
been
granted.
Well,
then,
the
Oscar
or
whoever
can
appeal
that
on
basis
that
it
was
Ultra
virus,
it's
completely
ineffective.
H
G
H
I
can
tell
you
that
if
you
disregarded
my
advice,
you
would
not
be
the
first
clients
that
have
proceeded
that
I've
ever
had
that
proceeded
in
disregard
for
my
advice.
Okay,
I
mean
attorneys
experience
that
all
the
time
and
you
you
advise
your
clients.
Sometimes
they
do
what
you
tell
them.
Sometimes
they
don't.
The
only
thing
I
can
tell
you
is
that
I
am
trying
to
avoid
problems
in
the
future.
You
make
a
bad
decision
now.
It
ends
up
on
appeal.
It
ends
up
in
District
Court.
It
ends
up.
H
There's
an
old
saying,
bad
facts
make
bad
law.
So
if
it
goes
up
to
the
court
of
appeals
and
ultimately
to
the
state
supreme
court
or
higher,
you
know
if
somebody
makes
a
federal
case
out
of
it,
and
you
proceeded
in
disregard
for
the
code.
It
just
becomes
a
big
mess
later.
That's
all
I
can
tell
you,
I
mean
I'm
not
going
to
go
home
and
and-
and
you
know,
curse
any
of
you
or
anything
like
that.
I
I
give
you
my
advice.
H
D
Well,
we're
in
the
same
boat,
because
as
an
architect,
people
disregard
my
professional
advice,
all
the
time
too
so
I'm,
okay,
so
I'm
happy
I'm,
happy
to
hear
it's
a
it's,
a
common
experience,
Frank,
I,
agree
and
and
I
think
I
I
think
you
know
I'm,
not
an
attorney,
you
know
and
they're.
You
know
these
are
you
know
you're
both
right
in
in
acknowledging
that
these
are?
Are
you
know
when
it
comes
down
to
the
to
the
code
that
you
know
there's
a
level
of
black
and
white
right
and
wrong?
D
You
know
it
either
says
it
or
it
doesn't
to
these
things,
but
we
know
that
there
are
a
million
opportunities
in
the
code
to
pick
this
thing
apart
right
and
we
could
do
it.
We
could
come
in
here
every
week
or
every
two
weeks
and
pick
apart
a
different
part
of
the
code
and
all
I'm.
All
I'm
asking
for
is
is
a
is
a
mindfulness
about
supporting
public
process
rather
than
I
agree
with
the
point
about
not
making
problems
down
the
road.
Let's
not
make
problems
in
the
moment
either.
E
G
Just
one
last
thought:
I'm
going
to
agree
and
disagree
with
now
with
Mr
reblade
I
mean
I
do
agree
that
there's
very
little
likelihood
that
decisions
that
have
been
made
up
to
date,
perhaps
with
the
exception
of
the
one
that
brought
us
to
this
situation,
are
going
to
be
appealed
on
this
basis,
but
to
go
forward
after
this
has
been
publicly
discussed
as
being
something
that
we're
not
permitted
to
do
would
clearly
put
the
city
at
Jeopardy
from
multiple
parties
for
having
these
decisions.
G
Both
litigated,
which
is
expensive
and
overturned
and
potentially
damages
being
awarded
so
I,
do
think,
there's
a
huge
risk,
but
where
I
disagree
on
going
forward,
not
so
much
going
back,
but
where
I
disagree
is
the
idea
that
we're
just
clients
of
yours
and
we
can
disregard
your
advice,
we're
not
just
clients.
First,
we
didn't
hire
you,
you
are
active.
G
G
I
interpret
the
ordinance
and
and
again
I
would
like
to
know
if
you're,
if
your
boss
would
agree
with
that
position,
because
I
think
that's
extremely
important
for
any
board,
not
just
our
board
to
understand
when
we're
when
legal
advice
has
been
given,
I,
don't
even
see
the
governing
body,
disregarding
the
city,
attorney's
advice.
Well,.
H
H
You
know
if
you
disregard
my
advice,
you're,
not
the
first
clients
that
will
have
disregarded
my
advice.
I'm
just
saying
you
know
please
I'm
just
trying
to
avoid
a
big
mess
in
the
future,
which
is
what
happens
if
we
don't
do
what
the
law
requires.
A
Anybody
else
I
do
appreciate
your
all
your
comments
board
members,
because
you
are
a
thinking
group.
You
don't
just
come
over
here
and
rubber
stamp
things.
We
have
differing
points
of
view
and
I
think
that's
important
on
a
board,
but
anyway
thank
you
and
our
next
meeting
is
going
to
be
on
Valentine's
Day
February,
the
14th
2023.,
yes,
Heather.
C
And
just
one
last
thing
from
Staff.
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
say
thank
you,
because
you
all
are
very
thoughtful
and
intentional
and
everything
that
you
do
so
like,
like
you
say,
I
I
would
like
to
thank
the
board
as
well
for
for
being
so
conscientious
about
the
code
and
about
listening
thinking,
members
it'll.
A
C
Sit
there,
so
the
the
other
thing
that
I
would
just
like
to
bring
to
the
attention
of
the
board
is
the
consultant
team
will
be
coming
for
the
zoning
code
updates
into
town,
February,
14th
and
15th
they'll,
be
here
and
they're
going
to
be
doing
some
interviews
we'll
be
reaching
out
to
set
up
interviews.
If
you
can't
do
it
during
that
time
frame.
C
You
know
you
was
the
board
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
represent,
have
some
Representatives
or
we
can
do
a
meeting
with
those
people
who
can
come
and
meet
with
a
consultant,
or
we
can
even
do
one-off
Zoom
meeting
if,
if
you
prefer,
but
they
will
be
in
town,
the
14th
and
the
15th
and
there'll
be
more
to
come
on.
A
Quickly,
what
is
the
preference
of
the
board
in
reference
to
those
meetings
with
the
Consultants?
You
want
to
do
like
a
zoom
meeting
or
wait
if
it's
going
to
be
14,
15.
yeah
it'd
be
an
obviously
not.
C
C
And
we
can
work
out
the
details
later
I
we
can
reach
out
and
let
you
all
know,
but
I'm
just
saying
that
also
the
the
consultant
has
offered.
If
that
doesn't
work,
he's
also
willing
to
do.
Matt.
Goble
is
also
willing
to
do
just
a
one-off
zoom
meeting
for
for
the
entire
board,
or
what
have
you
so.
C
The
agenda
is
just
to
understand,
you
know,
sort
of
the
overall
changes
that
you
would
like
to
see
to
the
section
of
a
code
that
you
are
associated
with,
or
even
any
other
comments,
but
it's
pretty
open-ended.
There's
also
scheduled
on
February
15th,
an
open
house
just
to
introduce
to
the
public.
You
know
that
we're
doing
this
process
we've
had
articles
in
the
paper
and
the
you
know:
City
Publications
as
well,
but
it's
just
an
open
house
to
sort
of
open
kick
off
the
project
so.
G
C
So
this
with
a
consultant
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
over
even
before
I
started.
We
had
I
was
attending
meetings
with
current
planning
staff
to
go
over
all
the
code
as
it
is
and
just
identify
the
problems
because
we
use
it
every
day.
You
know,
and
Angela
was
part
of
that.
Carly
was
part
of
that
as
well
when
it
comes
to
the
historic
district
portion
itself.
So
we've
given
those
recommendations
to
the
to
the
consultant
but
sort
of
like
those
big
issues
that
you
were
saying.
C
C
Just
just
some
of
the
big
key
issues
at
this
point
high
level,
you
know,
because
there's
only
so
much
as
you
can
do
in
a
45-minute
session,
Matt
gobble
also
said
that
he
was
going
to
have
sort
of
an
agenda
in
advance
or
sort
of
a
typical
questions
which
I
can
share
with
the
board
as
well.
Daniel
Alvarado
is
the
one.
That's
that's
the
project
coordinator
on
this
and
so
I'm,
just
sort
of
repeating
an
email
that
he
sent
to
us,
and
you
know
just
making
aware
of
what's
coming.
A
B
Member
Aguilar
Medrano,
yes,
member
Berkeley,
yes,
member
Beachside,
yes,
member
bienvenue,
yes,
member
Guida,
yes,
the
motion
has
been
approved.