Planning Commission Meeting Thu, Mar 5, 2026 · Planning Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1296 == Executive Summary == The City Planning Commission held a meeting where they approved several items, including the minutes from previous meetings and findings for a development plan on Surus Road. A significant portion of the meeting focused on a new subdivision request for 875 Camino Don Emilio, which involved splitting a 4.59-acre lot into three for family transfer. This subdivision was approved with conditions, including a financial contribution agreement for road maintenance and a plan to address potential flooding. The commission also approved a certificate of compliance for 315 Senna Street, addressing historical lot line adjustments. Looking ahead, the commission announced the formation of two new committees for the General Plan and Land Development Code Phase Two. They also discussed the timeline for the General Plan update, which is expected to be adopted in late spring/early summer, and the launch of the Land Development Code Phase Two in early April. Commissioners requested more regular briefings on city-wide issues and a legal briefing on their authority to deny projects that meet code but don't conform to surrounding areas. == Key Decisions == - Amended agenda accepted (7 Yes) - December 18th, 2025 minutes approved (6 Yes, 1 absent/not recorded) - February 5th, 2026 minutes approved (7 Yes) - Findings of facts and conclusions of law for Case 2025-11380, 101/1103 Surus Road Development Plan approved (7 Yes) - Case 2025-11270, 875 Camino Don Emilio Family Transfer Subdivision approved unanimously (7-0) subject to conditions and technical corrections - Case 2026-11784, 315 Senna Street Certificate of Compliance approved unanimously (7-0) == Motions & Votes == - Motion to accept the amended agenda — Passed (7 Yes) - Motion to approve December 18th, 2025 minutes — Passed (6 Yes, 1 absent/not recorded) - Motion to approve February 5th, 2026 minutes — Passed (7 Yes) - Motion to approve findings of facts and conclusions of law for Case 2025-11380 — Passed (7 Yes) - Motion to approve Case 2025-11270, 875 Camino Don Alio Family Transfer Subdivision subject to conditions of approval and technical corrections — Passed unanimously (7-0) - Motion to approve Case 2026-11784, 315 Senna Street Certificate of Compliance — Passed unanimously (7-0) == Public Comment == During the discussion of the 875 Camino Don Emilio subdivision, the applicant's representative, Toriia Dalton, confirmed that the applicant and her children agreed to contribute to the maintenance of the private road. No public comments were made for the 315 Senna Street Certificate of Compliance case. == Topics == - Family Transfer Subdivision - General Plan Update - Land Development Code Phase 2 - Committee Formation - Meeting Minutes Approval - Agenda Changes - Road Maintenance Contributions - Parks Department Overview - Planning Commission Authority - Water Briefing == Full Transcript == Test, test, testing. Best. Michael, shall we proceed? We should be good to go. Thank you. Hello. Okay, so we're in the middle of the roll call. Should we continue, please? Oh, we're in the agenda, right? I'm like, Oh, yeah. And you were, Dan, you had a change to the agenda. Madam Chair, members of the commission, we have a change to case 2026-111784, 315 Senna Street Certificate of Compliance. The property did sell, and that means that the owner listed on the agenda is different. So instead of Friedman, Wil Henry, and Winston LLC, no, I'm sorry. Instead of the Olsen Revocable Trust, it is now 315 Senna. That's the only change to the agenda. Okay. Thank you. We'll note that. [clears throat] Also, we will not be having a presentation from staff, from water. But we will, it's going to be postponed to a different date. Thank you. [clears throat] Any other changes to the agenda by commissioners? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion to accept the minutes as so amended. Sorry. Accept the agenda as so amended. Second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Smith, Yes. Commissioner McGee, Yes. Commissioner Morando, Yes. Commissioner Reland, Yes. Commissioner Capen, Yes. Commissioner McReynolds, Yes. Commissioner Barber, Yes. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. There's no consent agenda, so we'll move on to the approval of the minutes. The first minutes are the December 18th, 2025 minutes. We addressed those at the last meeting, but I had indicated I hadn't voted, but it turned out I did vote because I was homesick, so I didn't run the meeting. So, the minutes have now reflect that I did vote and that so the amendment's withdrawn. So, we need to vote on those. Any other changes to those minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Smith. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Morando, Yes. Commissioner Reeland, Yes. Commissioner Capen, Commissioner McReynolds, Yes. And Commissioner Barber, Yes. Madam Chair, the motion's passed. Thank you. And next, we'll address the February 5th, 2026 minutes. Are there any changes to those minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve February 5th, 2026 minutes. Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Smith, Yes. Commissioner McGee, Yes. Commissioner Morando, Yes. Commissioner Reeland, Yes. Commissioner Capen, Yes. Commissioner McReynolds, Yes. And Commissioner Barber. Yes, Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. [clears throat] And the minutes, case number 2025-11386, have been postponed to April 2nd. So we'll now address case number 2025-11380, which is 101, 1103 Surus Road Development Plan. Are there any changes to those findings of facts and conclusions of law? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Smith. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Morando. Yes. Commissioner Reeland. Yes. Commissioner, Commissioner Capen. Yes. Commissioner McReynolds. Yes. And Commissioner Barber. Yes. Madam Chair. The motion is passed. Thank you. [clears throat] There's no old business, so we'll move to new business. And the first matter is case number 2025, 11270, 875 Camino Don Emilio Family Transfer Subdivision. Hello. Okay, that was really stressful. Yay. Okay. Good evening, Chair Claw and Commissioners. Sorry about that delay. My name is Alexa Hemple, and I'm here to present staff's findings on case number 2025-11270, a family transfer subdivision at 875 Camino Don Emilio. The agent for this application is NM Land Solutions, and the applicant is Nancy Hoffman. The applicant is requesting approval of a family transfer subdivision to split an existing 4.59-acre lot into three lots, gifting the two new lots to her children. So, as I just mentioned, the subdivision will create two new lots, which requires the case to be heard by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 14-3.7F4 of the previous Land Development Code. This application applied under the previous code. It is of note, though, that the future residential development on the properties will need to be in conformance with the newly adopted code as amended. This property is zoned R1 and is located within Annexation Phase 3 of the city. The Annexation Phase 3 area has not been officially annexed yet, but is subject to the city land development jurisdictions due to the SPASO ordinance, which is included in Attachment D of your packet. So, for some regional context, here's the, the property is approximated with a red star. And the area shaded in purple that's also outlined in yellow is the Annexation Phase 3 area that the city has the land development jurisdiction over. You can also see in this image the property's proximity to Alamo, Siler, and other roads. So this property is zoned R1 and will remain R1 through this subdivision. The future land use designation for this property is one dwelling unit per acre as well. After the subdivision, the residential development on the new lots will be subject to the new zoning standards for height, lot coverage, setbacks, etc., described in the new version of Chapter 14. And this property is within the suburban archaeological review district, but no further review is required unless they have a utility plan that exceeds 550 linear feet. The property is currently served by well and septic and will remain on a shared well and individual septic system with the subdivision through the family transfer subdivision process. A lot served by well and septic may be a minimum of 1.25 acres. So, the subdivision therefore proposes to create an approximately two-acre lot for the current owner to retain, shown in red, and two 1.25-acre lots for her children, shown in green and blue. The property is currently on and will remain on the well and septic systems, and this is due to the public infrastructure for water and sewer being over 300 feet away. The nearest water distribution line is approximately 2,000 feet away, and the nearest wastewater collection pipe is approximately 1,700 feet away. The two new lots will be accessed via an extension of the existing driveway off the private Camino Don Emilio Road. No new driveways will be created on Camino Don Emilio. The proposed driveway extension will be a 20-foot-wide gravel drive with a hammerhead to facilitate emergency access and is shown in yellow. The existing driveway is shown in green. The subdivision plat will grant an easement for the two new lots to utilize the driveway as well. And the image on the slide there is the driveway as it exists today. So, moving on to Camino Don Emilio as a street itself. As built, it does not conform to the city street standards listed in Section 14-9.2. However, the current design was approved by the Extraterritorial Zoning Commission and the Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners as a cul-de-sac in 1999 and 2000 as part of the Echo Seco subdivision. This classification allowed the road to serve up to 30 dwelling units with the creation of two additional lots here to become dwelling units in the future. Camino Don Emilio will remain under the 30 dwelling units that were permitted. And this subdivision therefore does not increase the extent of the nonconformity on the street, requiring the city to recognize the county's approval under the SPASO ordinance Section 7D, which states that permits and approval granted by the Extraterritorial Zoning Authority and the Extraterritorial Zoning Commission prior to enactment of this ordinance for which rights have vested, whether or not the permit or approvals conformed to the city land development code, shall be recognized by the city and the county. Next, moving on to terrain management and landscaping. There are man-made and natural 30% or greater slopes that will be disturbed with the driveway extension. But those are in conformance with what is allowed in the code. There's also a dry arroyo that will be routed into a culvert under the driveway. The driveway will be supported via retaining walls and cut and fill slopes, and the applicant will provide landscaping and irrigation plans at the time of building permits. Next, here are some photos of the property just to get acquainted. The photo on the left was standing on the western side of the property, south of the existing home. This is facing east along the corridor where the driveway is proposed. The middle image is facing the proposed Lot 3, and the right image is facing the proposed Lot 2. The applicant has satisfied the requirements for a pre-application meeting, early neighborhood notification meeting, and notice for public hearing. Approximately six members of the public attended their ENN, highlighting the following key points: They had concern over contributions to the maintenance of the private road and concern over potential future flooding if the arroyos on the property become disturbed. Staff found that the applicant had satisfied the subdivision approval criteria while also recognizing the additional requirement for family transfers that do not allow for the sale or lease of the land for three years after the date the transfer is legally made. So with that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve case number 2025-11270, 875 Camino Don Emilio Family Transfer Subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections outlined in Attachment A of staff's report, and one motion will be required either to approve or deny. Thank you. Any questions from commissioners before we move to the applicant? Okay, we'll go ahead and move to the applicant. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Toriia Dalton. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do so under the penalties of perjury? Please proceed. Thank you and good evening, Madam Chair and members of the commission. I do have some photos, but [laughter] I don't want to disturb or disrupt what we have going. So let me just, if you have questions, then maybe we can scroll through them. So anyways, I'm here from NM Land Solutions on behalf of Nancy Hoffman. And Ms. Hoffman has owned the property since 2019. She's at the point in her life where she's ready to have her children live next to her. And they're also eager to come back home and live next to their mom. The, I was going to say, so I lost track. Also, just to respond to the ENN meeting we had, the applicant is in agreement to contribute to maintenance of the road, and they do have, have exchanged contact information to continue on that, that journey through construction. Other than that, I have discussed the conditions of approval with my clients, and we're in agreement, and I stand for questions. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. [clears throat] Commissioner Wland. Hi. Thank you. One question I had is based upon the guidelines for the road system capping this at 30 potential dwellings. In separating the lots, is that going to inhibit any other future owners that already own land in the area from developing? Madam Chair, Commissioner Wland, I'm sorry. It should not. Staff did go out there and count the lots, and I'll verify that we wouldn't disrupt future building. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner, Sorry. [clears throat] I'm glad to hear that they are speaking amongst themselves. Was that agreement made by all three of the two daughters and the mother? Now, will they all three be contributing as property owners? Yes. So, Madam Planning Commissioner Capen, so how it is now is Jordan Hoffman, who is the son who's going to build the first home, he's going to do all the contributions. His mom's a little older, so he's willing to start making the payments that they've requested. And along when he starts construction of the road, he'll go ahead and make that big lump sum that they want. And then when we come in with the second home, they'll make that their payment and they'll continue to make yearly or, you know, however the board desires to contribute to those funds. When you say a lump sum, is that some agreement about the construction when they're doing that? And yes, they come up with that amount. I believe between correspondence between the two, between the kind of the HOA in a way, which we're not going to be part, which the owners are not going to be part of, but will contribute. So, kind of between correspondence between them. So what it seemed like the agreement was is that, I have it here, but that's an email, and I'm happy to share it and provide it to staff, but I'll go ahead and just read from Jordan. He says, "I'm happy to pay the first $1,000 contribution when construction begins." Understanding that the amount would apply to the first of the two houses to be built later, the second amount contribution is intended to come when the second home breaks ground and traffic increases. And then he also says, "I'm happy to start covering the fee for the contribution for my mother's property as soon as the lot split is completed." Thank you. Commissioner Barber: Thank you, Madam Chair. There were two items that were brought up. You've already addressed the first one. The second one was regarding the potential flooding if the arroyos are disrupted. Has that been addressed? Yes. Well, so the arroyos won't be disrupted. There will be culverts placed in any dry arroyos. So, you know, we do have an approved, kind of a preliminary approved grading and drainage plan that's been reviewed by the city engineer to ensure that the proposed construction thus far meets and complies with the code and supports, you know, the supports the proper the design of installing retaining walls to to, sorry about that, to prohibit, you know, additional drainage from flowing or flooding. And as the condition, there is a condition that does say that additional retention ponds may be required during construction. So if indeed, you know, it does turn out that there's some kind of flooding, we will have to come back in, you know, amend plans and construct some retention ponds. Any other questions, Chair? Yes, Commissioner Morando. Just one for the applicant. So my understanding would be the retaining walls and the culvert are shown to be needed for this, but essentially they're going to be submitting engineered drawings for the permit and that, and sorry, that would confirm essentially what you're talking about. It's not as if you're going to build it and find out what happens. I'm just kind of correcting it because it was starting to us down that way. Madam Chair, members of the commission, you're absolutely correct. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Wait a second. Wait. Public comment. Thank you. I always leave that out. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to comment on this application? If so, please come forward. Is there anyone on Zoom that wants to comment on this? Madam Chair, the Zoom room is empty. Okay. So, we'll close the public comment portion of this case and then we'll move towards a motion. Madam Chair, I'll move to approve case 2025-11270875 Camino Don Alio family transfer subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections outlined in attachment A of staff's report. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Smith, Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Morando. Yes. Commissioner Reland. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Yes. Commissioner McReynolds. Yes. And Commissioner Barber. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Okay. Now, we'll move to case number 2026-11784. 1350 Senna Street, Certificate of Compliance. Good evening again. Should I proceed with Vice Chair Smith stepping out or? Yeah, you can go ahead. Okay. I'm here again tonight to present staff's findings on case number 2026-11784, a certificate of compliance at 315 Senna Street. Again, my name is Alexa Hemple. I'm a senior planner for the land use department and the case planner for this project. The agent is Charlie Henry and the applicant was the Christopher Alden Olsen Revocable Trust. However, the ownership has recently changed to 315 Senna Street LLC and the new owners have requested to maintain this application. Documentation of the ownership change and an amended certificate of compliance letter can be found in the newly added attachment D to the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of a certificate of compliance per SFCC 14-2.1E 6 B. Sorry, it was Roman numerals of the new code for a lot that is non-compliant with the city subdivision review requirements. So, first as a quick overview, this lot was created in 1929. In 1981 and in 1983, while under common ownership, the lot lines between 315 Senna Street and 727 Gomez Road were adjusted without city approvals. The current owner now wishes to correct that by seeking a certificate of compliance to certify the lot as adjusted as a legal lot of record. The image on the right approximates the lot as adjusted. The property has one home and one accessory dwelling unit. Here's a zoomed out image of where the property is for reference. It is within the Don Gaspar area historic district just outside of downtown. So with that quick overview, I'll now run through more of a history of the property and explain why a certificate of compliance is needed. So to begin, the lot was created in 1929 as lot 5 on the Frank Andrews subdivision. The subdivision was established prior to the adoption of the city code and it was recorded with the Santa Fe County Clerk, therefore establishing all lots depicted as legal lots of record. The lot was bought and sold as depicted until 1957 when the Beard family purchased lots four, five, and 10 of the subdivision. There's four with the blue star, five with the other blue star, and 10 with the third blue star. So, while under common ownership, the Beards altered the lot lines between lots five and 10 in 1981 and in 1983. These dates are after the adoption of the land development code, so city approval should have been sought. Since they did not get city approval on the plots, both lots five and 10 are no longer considered legal lots of record. The image on the left shows the lot line adjustment done in 1981, which essentially cuts a square out of the northeast corner of lot 5 and gives it to lot 10. Then in 1983, they added back an approximately 5 by 20 foot area to lot 5 adjacent to the garage, which is now ADU, and leased it to lot 10. The lease was created to last 99 years with the option to renew. So to help visually understand this, here's some animations again. So there's the green line on the left image shows the original lot line. Then in 1981 they did this. And then in 1983, you can see the on the right now we're on the right image. They moved that lot line over and created that fuzzy area in the middle which is the lease area. So, a certificate of compliance for this case must be approved by the planning commission per SFCC section 14-2.1 EI6B, which states that the planning commission may approve a certificate of compliance for a lot or contiguous lots that have been created in violation of the procedural requirements of this section if it determines that the lots comply with all other applicable standards of chapter 14 or it imposes conditions of approval necessary to ensure such compliance. Upon meeting any conditions of approval and recordation of the certificate of compliance, the lots shall be legal lots of record. Since this clause invokes compliance with chapter 14, I'll now dive into the zoning criteria for this lot. So, the property is zoned R21, which means residential 21 dwelling units per acre. In R21 districts, the minimum lot size is 3,000 square feet and this lot exceeds that at just over 4,000 square feet. The maximum height allowed is 26 feet and this home currently is roughly 13 feet. The lot coverage can go up to 55% when private open space is provided, which this lot meets. And finally, the street setback of 7 feet has been met, as well as some of the rear and side setbacks. There are however three instances in which the minimum setbacks have not been met. However, the structures that encroach into the setbacks were constructed in 1947 which is prior to the establishment of setback regulations. So they are therefore considered legal non-conforming. A legal non-conforming structure is a structure that was lawfully constructed but fails to conform to the standards of chapter 14 for structures such as restrictions on required yards, as a consequence of adoption of or amendments to chapter 14. Structures that fall into this category may be maintained but shall not be enlarged or altered in a way that increase the degree or extent of its nonconformity. In this case, some of the setbacks shown in red in the image on the slide are legal non-conforming and will not be altered by this certificate of compliance. The lot lines that are being adjusted are shown as green solid lines in the image and will maintain the required 15-foot rear setback. The 5-foot side setback from the current ADU will be maintained through the lease area that is owned by lot 5, 315 Senna Street. As previously mentioned, I'd also like to note that the lease area has a binding agreement with provisions that restrict development by either property unless in conformance with chapter 14 standards as amended. This agreement can be found in attachment B of the staff report. The applicant was not required to host an early neighborhood notification meeting and there are no approval criteria for certificates of compliance. So with that, staff recommends that the planning commission approve case number 2026-11784, 315 Senna Street to create a legal lot of record. One motion will be required either to approve or deny case number 2026-11784, 315 Senna Street certificate of compliance. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions before we move to the applicant? Okay, now we'll move to the applicant. Please state your name and address for the record. Henry, 15 Washington Avenue, Suite Santa Fe, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth and do so in the penalties of perjury? Please proceed. Commissioners, staff did a great presentation. If there's any questions, happy to answer those on your phone. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, then if not, do we have a motion? Motion to approve case number 2026-11784, 315 Senna Street Certificate of Compliance. Second. All right. Vice Chair Smith. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Morando. Yes. Commissioner Reeland. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Yes. Commissioner McReynolds. Yes. And Commissioner Barber. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion's passed. Q. Okay, next we'll move to staff communications. Are there any communications from staff? We just have one, and I do have a plat, or actually it's probably a plat and a development plan for signature for you and the secretary. And you said you had one thing. That was it. That was it. Oh, okay. Any matters from the commission? Yes, we can announce the committees. So, we are forming two committees: one to address the general plan and the other to address the land development code. I have talked with each of the commissioners and asked them what they would like to be on. So, on the long-range planning, or the general plan, it will consist of Commissioner McGee, Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Capen, and Commissioner Barber. And then the land development code phase two will consist of myself, Janet Clow, Commissioner Morando, Commissioner Wheeland, and Commissioner McReynolds. [clears throat] And I think everyone's received a memo that sort of outlines what we talked about at our meeting and sort of the schedule for the events. Yes, Heather, thank you to everybody for volunteering for this. It's really important work. I'd just like to clarify, in the general plan update, we are looking in the springtime, well, probably late spring, early summer, at an adoption of the general plan document itself. And then, just to understand the time commitment, we are also going to be creating an implementation plan. And that's where the rubber hits the road. That's where we're going to decide where the city should be making investments and what are the things that we need to do. For instance, update the parks plan or update other plans or priorities associated with capital improvements, what have you. So, I just wanted to let you know that it will not just be the general plan, but also the implementation plan, and we'll be doing that through the fall. And the general plan is being written now. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Sure. Commissioner McGee: When should we find out about the meetings that we should be attending? Are there any occurring right now that should be on our calendars? Chair Plow, Member McGee, or Commissioner McGee, sorry, board. So, right now we are meeting with the different departments and talking about, we talked about at the technical working group, the draft scenarios, and we're getting feedback. So, we've learned quite a few things, and we're also working with county staff to get their feedback. So, these have been very valuable meetings. So, that would help to inform what we will bring back to the technical working group and eventually the public as well. We'll have some public engagement in the summer regarding the scenario frameworks and the priorities. And then, in the fall, everything's moving a little bit just because of the change administration, the contract, everything. So, but we will definitely be giving a timeline soon, but we are currently engaging with departments. We'll also be making the presentation that we made to the technical working group, sort of a bit of an updated presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, and we're working with the county on that to get their feedback as well because the general plan isn't just about an artificial boundary that's a city boundary, but also considering long-term how we're going to collaborate. Commissioner Smith: I need to just be clarified on a couple of points. The long-range planning committee, or whatever we're calling it, we will be involved in consultation before decisions are made. We'll be part of the deliberative process. Yes, that is correct. And so, knowing when there's going to be a meeting, or if it's going to be every two weeks and then it can be canceled, I think would be enormously helpful. Yes, we're still trying to figure out the schedule, you know, refine it. And so, there was a proposal for sort of alternating weeks depending upon the committee. We will definitely be getting back to you on that so that we can figure out how we're going to staff it and then also the timing of the projects. We should be launching on phase two of the land development code here the beginning of April, and we'll be starting with an assessment report that the consultant will be preparing. And then this commission will need to identify what are our first priorities. We do have some burning type of things that we need to do. For instance, correct scrivener's errors, as well as there's a couple of high-priority issues like massage parlor legislation that we need to also discuss. So, that has just sort of come up as we're proceeding along, and the street design guide and manual that's being proposed by public works, which is intended to, and the metropolitan planning organization, which is intended to provide some additional flexibility in street design. And because in Santa Fe, we have a very unique street network, and we need to acknowledge that when it comes to our design standards, it does not always need to be an arterial material going through a neighborhood, which, you know, that's what we're trying to accomplish with that. Also accounting for initiatives like adding bike lanes and multi-use paths and sidewalks and the like. Yes, Commissioner McGee. All right. I just wanted to go back to the general plan and the reach-outs that you all are conducting coming up. As you engage other stakeholders, are those meetings that the Planning Commission Committee facilitating, like the general plan updates, will be invited to or be able to attend, or would you prefer that we stay within a structured, I don't know, Planning Commission approval? Do you know what I'm saying? Like, are we allowed to attend those? Yes, absolutely. As a community member, you're more than welcome to attend. If there's more than three of you, though, I just sort of, or four, I'm not talked to each other. That's it. So, but as a member of the community, you're welcome to come to any city public meeting. It's just being careful about, you know, there potentially being a quorum and a discussion. Doesn't make a... Yeah, I'm thinking the four that are part of the committee. I think Heather's just saying if other people wanted to attend, we are community members, and so we could do so. We just couldn't say, "I came." I would just not talk to any... Right, I understand that. Correct. Say, "How's your day going?" But discuss the pertinent cases. Correct. The quorum is five, is it not? Yeah, but just to, I think to keep it so that it's not complicated, it's we don't always have to chat with each other. It just keeps it clean. Just to follow up on that, as the Planning Commission subcommittee, can we be a part of those meetings, not just as members of the public? I think the question was, is that the committee wants to get oriented and understand the stakeholders and understand the issues and be a part of what's going on. So, is there a place for us to join those meetings with these stakeholders as you guys are collecting their feedback? Commissioner C, yes, absolutely. And you know that is not a forum in terms of the subcommittee. So, and what we can do is provide you with the schedule and let you know when we're going to be having community meetings or what have you so that you all can know and choose if you want to, and the other committee won't attend. So, [clears throat] one other point too, there was discussion about would there be a chair of each of these different committees, and I decided that I didn't think we needed one. I think it needs to really be directed by staff. So, staff will be leading because they have the expertise, the knowledge, they're working on this full-time. So, they will be leading the committees and providing the format and drafting the agendas. Once again, thank you for volunteering, and we'll be in touch soon about next steps. And anything else from the commission? Yes, Commissioner Smith. I wanted to check on [clears throat] noting that we're not getting a report on water tonight. Just how we make this a regular thing and get the information, or is that now going to be done by these committees? Or because I think there's a general consensus on the commission that we want to be briefed on a regular basis about things that are going on in the city that are not the code of the plan, and it hasn't been happening, and that's, I don't mean that as a critique. You guys are busier than hell. I know that. But I just would like to know what our expectations should be about getting those kinds of... Chair, Commissioner Smith, certainly the water briefing today was intended to be one of those discussions. Dan and I were just actually talking about other study session items that we need to do. And one of his suggestions was to talk about conditions and how conditions, what conditions are legal, or what conditions can be unclear to staff. Just giving you examples of if you're having to create conditions on the fly, then this is how you do it. So, but we still have to collaborate with the city attorney's office on that. But yes, and if there are topics that you want us to investigate or an expert you want us to bring to discuss different items, and you want us to schedule something, please, we can't think of everything. So, we certainly would be happy to get input. Should we, we should probably go through the chair when we're doing this so you don't have nine, eight, nine people yapping at you all the time. Is that okay with you? Just email me. Yeah, you can just email. It's fine. It's fine. Commissioner McGee: I just wanted to mention one that I think we've requested in the past, and that's just an overview from the Parks Department helping us to understand what is required, like what are things that we could be asking for as we're evaluating a development request. What are some things that are really difficult for the city that we might want to hesitate before asking for, et cetera? Like, even, I know we can probably all search this out, but I think it would be helpful to know as a committee, even like, what are we trying to build from a parks perspective in the city in general? So, I mean, if we could get a report from Melissa, I think that would be great. Yes. Chair, Commission. Yes, we definitely will do that. And it's interesting because we were having our general plan meeting, and one of the challenges is that we have more parks than the city of Albuquerque does, and it's really hard to maintain them. And so the general plan might offer an opportunity to rethink our parks as spaces that just not green. Can we repurpose something for affordable housing? Can we do something different that will help our parks teams with maintenance but also still provide a gathering space? More sub-teen centers is one of the comments we've received from the community. So, absolutely, and that brings to mind also transit, and that's a discussion that we've had as well. So, that we'll put on the palette. You know, another topic that I think could be very helpful, and it would probably be legal that would be presenting it, is if staff is making a recommendation on a project that it meets the criteria, but maybe the commission, or someone on the commission, feels that it doesn't comport with the surrounding neighborhood, or it, even though if it, you know, if it meets criteria, and then there's this sort of ability for the commission to say, "Well, it might conform with the code, but we believe that it is not in conformity with the surrounding area, or it's not helpful to, or health, safe..." ety issue, if we could have some information on that and maybe some case law in terms of at what level, what the commission can say, "No, we don't agree," and what would be the factual requirements that we would need to put in findings for that to occur. I think that would be helpful because I think there's confusion on that issue. Sort of those vague code statements that you read it and you go, "What does this mean?" And that speaks to how we probably need to improve that with face. Yes, absolutely. But in the meantime, in the meantime, We'll do something. We'll have a discussion on that. Okay, because that could be really helpful. Anything else? If not, we'll go ahead and adjourn. No.