Planning Commission Meeting
Thu, May 7, 2026 · Planning Commission
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1298

== Executive Summary ==
The Planning Commission meeting covered significant topics including wildfire risk mitigation in Santa Fe and the approval of a new affordable housing development. A presentation highlighted Santa Fe's high wildfire risk, the devastating impacts of fires, and the importance of wildfire-resistant construction and community-wide mitigation efforts. Commissioners discussed integrating these considerations into future land development codes and suggested a follow-up study session.

The Commission also recommended approval for a General Plan Amendment and rezoning for 2780 South Meadows Road, which will allow for increased housing density. A major focus was the Nenoa Apartments Development Plan, a 100% affordable, multi-generational housing project with a future daycare. After extensive discussion on infrastructure requirements, particularly for Camino de Jacobo, and addressing financial guarantee concerns, the Commission unanimously approved the development plan. The meeting concluded with a discussion on alternative construction financing and the introduction of new planning staff.

== Key Decisions ==
- Approved the agenda by a 7-0 roll call vote.
- Recommended Governing Body approval for a General Plan Amendment for 2780 South Meadows Road, changing the future land use designation from 'very low density' to 'low density' (Passed 7-0).
- Recommended Governing Body approval for rezoning 2780 South Meadows Road from R3 to R6, increasing maximum density from 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre (Passed 7-0).
- Approved the Development Plan for Case 2025-11625 (Nenoa Apartments/Camino de Jacobo), a 100% affordable housing project, with modified conditions regarding infrastructure and financial guarantees (Passed 7-0).

== Motions & Votes ==
- Approval of Agenda — Passed 7-0
- Motion to recommend Governing Body approval for General Plan Amendment for 2780 South Meadows (Case 2025-10766) — Passed 7-0
- Motion to recommend Governing Body approval for Rezoning for 2780 South Meadows (Case 2025-10767) — Passed 7-0
- Motion to approve the Development Plan for Case 2025-11625 (Nenoa Apartments/Camino de Jacobo) with agreed-upon conditions — Passed 7-0

== Public Comment ==
Public comments highlighted the financial burden placed on non-profit affordable housing projects when required to fund public infrastructure, with one commenter arguing that affordable housing should not be treated as a "cash cow" for infrastructure that should be funded by other sources. There were no public comments for the 2780 South Meadows project.

== Topics ==
- Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)
- Affordable Housing Development
- Wildfire Impacts & Costs
- Land Use & Planning
- Infrastructure Funding
- Water Management
- New Staff Introductions
- Meeting Logistics

== Full Transcript ==
Please let us know when we are streaming.

**Speaker:** We are live.

**Speaker:** Okay, we'll go ahead and call the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of May 7th, 2026 into session. Commissioner McReynolds, can you lead the Pledge of Allegiance?

**Speaker:** To the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation...

**Speaker:** Roll call, please.

**Speaker:** Madam Chair, Clout.

**Speaker:** Present.

**Speaker:** Chair Capen.

**Speaker:** Here.

**Speaker:** Chair Barber.

**Speaker:** You mean Commissioner? There's only one chair.

**Speaker:** Sorry. Commissioner.

**Speaker:** Commissioner Smith.

**Speaker:** Here.

**Speaker:** Commissioner Glet.

**Speaker:** Here.

**Speaker:** Commissioner McReynolds.

**Speaker:** Here.

**Speaker:** Commissioner McGee.

**Speaker:** Here.

**Speaker:** Commissioner Miranda.

**Speaker:** Here.

**Speaker:** Madam Chair, you have a quorum.

**Speaker:** Thank you. Next is the approval of the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda from any commissioners or staff? I'd like to entertain a motion.

**Speaker:** Motion to approve the agenda.

**Speaker:** Roll call, please.

**Speaker:** Commissioner Barber.

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Commissioner Rland.

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Commissioner Cait.

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Commissioner Miranda.

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Commissioner Smith.

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Commissioner McReynolds.

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Commissioner McGee.

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Thank you. So, there's no consent agenda, there's no minutes, there's no findings, facts, and conclusions. So, we'll move to the first new business, and that is case number 2025-10766, 2780 South Meadows Road General Plan, and case number 202510767.

**Speaker:** Madam Chair, I think we have a presentation for urban interface from Madison staff. It didn't get on the agenda, but they're waiting online and we'd like to push that forward. So, if we can amend the agenda to move matters from staff before new business, that would work.

**Speaker:** Okay, that's fine.

**Speaker:** And they will, they're on Zoom.

**Speaker:** Okay. And we won't call case number, the two case numbers that I just said. So, we'll wait. Sorry. You can sit down and enjoy the presentation. My apologies, Chair Clow, that that wasn't on the agenda. But I would like to introduce you to the Wildland Urban Interface. That's one of the first things that we're going to be dealing with the land development code update. It's sort of on a separate track in a partnership with our fire department. Online is Geronom Grigo as well as Ryan Handy. Ryan is with Headwaters Economics, but a native of Santa Fe, but is in Bozeman right now. She's an urban planner whose work has included development permitting, workshop facilitation, and running technical assistance programs to help communities plan for the effect of changing climate. Her expertise supports Headwaters Economics community planning assistance. And so we have a memorandum of understanding with Headwaters. They're a nonprofit that help communities across the country in developing Wildland Urban Interface standards, and they've helped more than 80 communities. I will go ahead and turn it over to Ryan. If you can please allow, I'm sorry, Ryan Handy, to share screen.

**Speaker:** Hello everyone. Hopefully you can hear me okay.

**Speaker:** Ryan, we can barely hear you.

**Speaker:** Really? Is this any better?

**Speaker:** Only slightly.

**Speaker:** What about this? Is that any better? Can you hear me better?

**Speaker:** There you are.

**Speaker:** There. Okay, thank you. Great. All right. Hello everyone. Again, see if I can show my face here. My name is Ryan Handy, and as Heather said, I work for Headwaters Economics. I'm going to dive right into the presentation that I have for you all tonight. So bear with me while I get it launched. Okay. All right. So, hopefully you all can see that and still hear me just fine. So again, I'm Ryan Handy. I'm a planner. I specialize in land use, specifically around wildfire issues. And I'm here tonight to talk to you generally about how we live with wildfire in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and what we can do to be more resilient in face of that. And as Heather said, I currently live in Montana, but I was born and raised in Santa Fe, New Mexico, as were my parents. So I'm really honored to be speaking with you all tonight.

Headwaters Economics is a nonpartisan nonprofit based in Montana, although we work around the country. We are a group of geographers, economists, planners, statisticians, and we focus on ways to reduce flood wildfire risk as well as exploring how our economies are impacted by different types of disasters. And as part of this work with Headwaters, I am the program manager for the Community Plan Assistance for Wildfire program, of which New Mexico is a part. This is a 10-year-old program. We have worked all over the country, including in Hawaii. Now, we are funded by the Forest Service, so we are free to communities. And what we primarily do is work on reducing wildfire risk through addressing land use ordinances and different development codes.

So, I'm going to talk about a few ways that we can reduce fire risk tonight. I like showing this slide because it shows that wildfire reduction is really part of a broader system. And there are only some pieces here that I'm going to talk about that I particularly want to mention to you all. You all are very well aware of the response and suppression side of wildfires, also probably with the vegetation management pieces where we do fuel mitigation to cut down on burnable fuel. But tonight, what I really want to focus on is what you as public policy developers and as a planning commission can do to reduce wildfire risk to Santa Fe's homes and buildings.

So, tonight we're going to cover a few things pretty quickly here. So, we're going to start with an overview of the wildfire risk in New Mexico. Then we're going to talk through how basically what this wildfire risk means for your homes and how your homes are vulnerable to wildfires. Then I'm going to touch on some strategies for Santa Fe and a high-level conversation about the Wildland Urban Interface codes that we're exploring with Heather and her staff. And then I'm not sure if we'll have time for questions, but I'm hoping to wrap up and if you all are able to ask me some questions, hopefully we can get to that.

So let's start with what your wildfire risk looks like. I know you all are pretty intimately familiar with this, but just to put it at a national level, New Mexico is sort of at the forefront of worsening wildfire trends in the United States. We are seeing hotter, drier days. More fires are burning in greater severity with greater frequency, and more so than ever before, we are living in wildland prone, wildfire prone landscapes. As we say, we're living in harm's way. Our growth is expanding into these dangerous wildfire landscapes like it has never done before. So, Santa Fe has a higher wildfire risk than most places in the United States, roughly, you know, 90%. And this wildfire risk is driven by two things. One, direct exposure to fire, you know, homes that are in dense forests and areas that can catch homes on fire, and then what we call indirect exposure to fire, which essentially means any homes, buildings that were within a couple miles of the direct exposure area. So all told, about half of the city of Santa Fe is within reach of very high fire danger.

So broadly in New Mexico, while there have not been as many structures lost in New Mexico as we've seen in places like California and Colorado, the impact in New Mexico has still been really devastating. There have been about 4,000 homes destroyed in New Mexico since 2000. Part of what we do at Headwaters is we track the structures around the country destroyed by wildfire. This image on your right is taken from one of those reports. The report itself actually only goes back to 2006. So, I just added in the homes lost in the Cerro Grande fire, which predates our data. But as you can see, as you all know, New Mexico's two most devastating wildfires in history, South Fork and Hermits Peak Calf Canyon, happened in the past four years, and they account for a majority of the home loss. So Santa Fe and New Mexico really has seen an exponential uptick in the impacts of wildfire in recent years.

What's more, Santa Fe's wildfire risk mirrors what we call an urban conflagration risk that we've seen around the country. In the wake of the LA fires in 2025, we decided to study what other communities were at risk of an urban conflagration like we've seen in LA. And we looked at some different parameters around climate, wildfire risk, and density of structures, and identified a thousand communities across the country with a similar profile. New Mexico has a handful of these communities, and Santa Fe is one of them.

So, of course, there are many impacts to wildfires that go beyond just home loss. Wildfires have tremendous impacts on local economies. They have disproportionate impacts on different types of people, the elderly, lower income people. They have a horrible effect on health that sometimes is not well understood. And so part of what I want to talk about is the broad implications of a wildfire to Santa Fe's general economy and community. Our research has shown that most of the burden of recovering from a wildfire and cleaning up from one actually falls on a local government and the state government. More than 60% of total wildfire costs end up being borne by local governments like yourself. This is usually a surprising statistic because we of course have federal government help and federal government aid, but the impacts of wildfires are so far-reaching that often the cost to local governments is really underestimated.

Another really powerful statistic that we track is what happens to your local businesses after a wildfire. So again, we're thinking beyond just home loss here. 40% of businesses that close because of a wildfire disaster never reopen again. And of those that do manage to reopen with time, a quarter of them close within a year. So this is kind of an irreversible impact to your economy if you have a wildfire.

So another really important thing to think about, of course, is what this all means for your insurance. I know this is top of mind for everyone in New Mexico right now. The average homeowner premium increase in New Mexico has gone up 19% between like the last year that the last period that was studied, you know, between 2021 and 2024. Looking nationally at this year, 2026, New Mexico is expected to have the third highest premium hike in the country after Nebraska and California. And also in general, New Mexico has the second highest number of uninsured homes in the United States, only second to West Virginia. So you have a lot of people who don't even have homeowners insurance, and your insurance rates for those who do have it are spiking faster pretty much than anywhere else in the United States.

The other thing about New Mexico that I really want to highlight is beyond your communities and your buildings and your economy. New Mexico is a really rich recreation dependent place. There's a lot of beautiful things in New Mexico to do that are very much at high fire risk. This includes skiing, mountain biking, hiking, all sorts of outdoor activities. And generally speaking, communities that are recreation dependent are twice as likely to have high wildfire risk.

So, now that I've covered really quickly, I know the kind of wildfire risk facing Santa Fe, I want to talk about what this means for your buildings, for your homes, in the community itself. So, we're going to talk about how homes burn down. Homes really burn down in three different ways. The one that we all tend to think of is direct flame. You know, you live in the woods, a tree catches fire from a wildfire, and it burns your house down.

Another very common way wildfires destroy homes is through radiant heat. This is what we saw in LA last year. A home is completely engulfed by flame, and it burns so hot that the radiant heat causes the home next to it to combust. The final way that homes burn down is through what we call embers. Wildfires, just like a campfire in your backyard or when you go camping, spit out sparks, little burning pieces of ash that can fly in front of the direct flames and land on your roof or a deck or on a tree in your yard and ignite a home that way.

The thing about embers that is pretty scary is that they can travel for many, many miles in front of an actual flame front. So, you don't have to be living in what most people would think of as the wildland urban interface to be exposed to high wildfire risk. This is why embers account for 90% of the home loss in a wildfire. This is also why we increasingly see examples of neighborhoods around the country with green living vegetation that survives a wildfire, but with homes destroyed within it. What we are increasingly beginning to understand is that the homes we build and the way we build them, these homes are fuel themselves, and often they're at much greater risk of burning down than the trees surrounding it. An ember can land on a roof and ignite it much quicker than it can these trees. Again, this is the urban conflagration landscape we've become familiar with. A fire will blow through, and homes effectively are like dominoes. They burn each other down. They light each other on fire, then they combust due to radiant heat. The plants and trees surrounding them are fine. It's the homes themselves that are the source of the wildfire spread.

I just want to illustrate for you what I mean by you don't have to live in the wildland urban interface, where the wildland interacts with homes, in order to face wildfire risk. This is a really powerful photo from the Sleepy Hollow Fire in Wenatchee, Washington, in 2015. Homes on the edge of town, near a forest, classic wildland urban interface, caught on fire through direct flame contact, but then they spread embers 2 miles further towards the center of town. That giant smoke plume you see there is the town's commercial and industrial district. The embers landed on apple packing crates outside of a fruit packing plant and burned down several buildings in the center of town. This really illustrates that anything within 2 to 4 miles of a wildland urban interface is considered to have high wildfire risk.

I want to show you what this looks like up close and personal. Fortunately, we have the ability to study how homes withstand embers, what embers do to homes. The Insurance Institute for Home and Business Safety has a massive facility in North Carolina where they build structures and they douse them in ember storms to see what happens. So, we are going to watch really quickly what this looks like. In this super quick video, you're looking at two homes. They are attached. The home on the left is built from what we call traditional materials. It has cedar shake shingles on the side, a wooden door, single pane non-tempered glass, a wooden deck, and bark mulch. It is being rained on by thousands of embers, and it ignites extremely quickly. You can see the plants in the front have already ignited. The embers have begun to go under the deck, and before long, will start burning under the door. They're going to climb up the wall and get into the attic. Also, don't forget to look at the home on our right. It has also been doused with thousands of embers. It has fire-resistant siding, fiber cement siding, a Class A roof, rock mulch, tempered windows and glass. It is yet to ignite. This simulation has been repeated multiple times in the course of this research, and the home on the right has never caught on fire.

So, what does this mean? What do we know about how to protect our homes, and how do we translate it into some actual measures on the ground that communities like yours can adopt to protect homes from burning down? Again, I'm going to revisit where we began this presentation. Some of the most effective ways to reduce the spread of wildfire in your community is to look at policies for new construction, to think about how you build homes, what materials they use, how you invest in those homes, how your infrastructure is protected. The bulk of what I do and what I'm doing with Heather and her staff is looking at how building codes and land use codes can help us craft homes that are more resilient in the face of wildfire.

This is what we call wildfire-resistant construction. It's construction materials that have been tested both in the real world and in the scientific world to withstand wildfires. We're talking hurricane-like wildfires. They have gale-force winds. They're spinning thousands of embers. They are true urban conflagrations. Time and again, these construction methods have withstood and have been able to survive. There are two ways to approach doing this in a municipal context. One is looking at new construction and the materials used in new construction. The other way of looking at this is through what we call retrofitting, which is just what it sounds like: changing an existing structure, changing the materials, doing a new roof or a new deck so that it also can benefit from wildfire-resistant materials.

So, what are the key elements of building a wildfire-resilient home or building? There are a few pieces here. Each plays a really crucial role in preventing embers from burning your home down. These include exterior walls that are non-combustible or resistant to ignition, gutters that are also ignition resistant, metal gutters, eaves that prevent embers from entering the house, typically a Class A roof, decks that are not made of combustible material or of material that has been treated so it's slow to combust, and then landscaping very thoughtfully so that your home is not adjacent to a bunch of plants that will catch it on fire, just like we saw in that video a minute ago.

One of the questions I get the most is, "Okay, this construction helps, but how much is it going to cost us, and what is the impact to our residents and our developers to build these kinds of buildings?" So, I'm just going to roughly break these into less expensive and more expensive items and also talk about how well those items protect you from different elements of a wildfire. First, we have measures that I would consider on the more affordable side. They're what I call good or better wildfire-resistant measures. They will protect you from embers. They include making sure your roof alleys and gutters are clean, installing metal flashing at key points to prevent embers from entering the home, clearing away brush from your deck and your under-deck area, having, if you can, a non-combustible fence, removing wood mulch from around your home. A lot of these are great retrofit projects, things you can do to change your existing home on a weekend by going to Home Depot and getting some materials. The price reflects that. You can see the rough range that we have for this type of work for a 2,000-square-foot home up there on the screen.

There are what we call better wildfire-resistant measures and best wildfire-resistant measures. The best wildfire-resistant measures are the ones that are more likely to protect your home from various wildfire threats: embers, direct flame contact, and radiant heat. They are the bigger ticket items. They are also the ones that are more easily regulated in building codes, and they include Class A roofs, non-combustible decks, non-combustible gutters, metal gutters and downspouts, dual-paned or tempered glass windows and doors, and then enclosed eaves that prevent embers from getting in. Of course, the cost of these different elements can vary from community to community. So, there's a range of what they can add to new construction. But again, if we're looking at all these different levels, good, better, best, from cheapest to priciest, you can see that the best alternatives protect you from many different types of wildfire threats and are more effective overall.

The thing I know I just gave you some specific numbers about how much these can add to overall construction. It's important to compare wildfire-resistant construction, this home we saw on the right here, to what we call traditional construction in terms of cost. So, if both these homes are going to be built today from scratch, new construction, how would their costs compare? Typically, our research has found that the cost of building what we call a vulnerable home is roughly equal to the cost of building a wildfire-resistant home. We have been studying the cost of wildfire-resistant construction for more than a decade. We renew our research every year basically to make sure it's fresh. We just released our latest study in December. New construction on average, we have found using national data sets that look at the cost of materials around the country, can add between 2 to 3% to building costs. Retrofitting is much more expensive. It can add up to 10% to a cost for an item.

I think another takeaway here is that in addition to investing in our homes to ensure that they can survive a wildfire, investing in wildfire-resistant neighborhoods and communities is also a way of protecting your budgets, your local economy, and your taxpayers from the broad impacts that can come from wildfires. Generally speaking, research shows that $1 invested in wildfire-resistant neighborhoods can save up to $4 in avoided disaster costs shouldered by the taxpayer. These types of building materials and construction and land use codes have broader impacts and benefits for communities like Santa Fe. They ensure that housing remains durable, affordable, and sustainable over time. Sorry, there's a Montana reference in there, but it applies to New Mexicans as well. Really importantly though, these types of building codes are what insurance companies are looking for when they ask communities to reduce their wildfire risk. There is some evidence to suggest that building smartly can reduce your premiums. It's pretty widely accepted that they can mean insurance retainment, so you're getting fewer non-renewals. Then, of course, the final piece of this is the more you can decrease home loss during a wildfire, the more you will preserve your local economy and protect it from the broad impacts of a natural disaster.

When I think of a community like Santa Fe, there are so many things that are so valuable here that can be really dramatically impacted by a wildfire. Santa Fe has a beautiful setting in the foothills and the mountains with many historic buildings that are irreplaceable. It also has extreme fire risk. There is much to lose and much to preserve. It also really benefits from a wonderful outdoor recreation economy, which again is also really vulnerable to wildfire. While land managers, federal land managers, firefighters are working in the foothills, the decisions that communities make are up to you. Recognizing that you also face risk is really the point of my talk tonight. So that's it for me. This is my email.

Feel free to email me any questions anytime about anything. This is a QR code that gets you to our newsletter. We just sent out a newsletter yesterday. We have a lot of great research, not just about wildfire, but outdoor recreation economies, flooding, if you're interested in it, and a ton of wildfire stuff. So with that, I think I can wrap up. And I'm not sure, Heather, if we have time or the ability to have questions, but I am here for whatever you need.

Heather: Yes, thank you, Ms. Handy. I really appreciate that. We also have Fire Marshall Toronto McGrego online as well if you have questions for him. We can also do a follow-up study session with the subcommittees if you're interested in doing that. Sorry for the last-minute change on the agenda. I communicate well.

Commissioner: That's no, no problem. You know, I'd be curious if cities are requiring neighborhoods or individual owners of houses to clean up their areas because I know some neighborhoods are doing it and others are not.

Chair Clow: Yes. There we do have inspectors that go out and site properties for weeds and trash, but just due to staffing levels, it tends to be more reactive than progressive, although we're getting more staff. But it is a really critical point to make in that we really need to make sure the community at large understands the risks and how that causes.

Commissioner Smith: To put it mildly, Santa Fe has a historic construction style. None of the options that she showed us mirrored it in any regard. Is there an inherent advantage to our historic construction style or not? And how do we adapt?

Chair Clow: Commissioner Smith, I'll defer to Ms. Handy to respond to that, but we do have an advantage.

Ms. Handy: Yeah, I absolutely agree with Heather. I know that none of the architecture I showed you looks like Santa Fe. Santa Fe does have an advantage because you tend to favor stucco or adobe construction, which is considered non-combustible, particularly concrete-based stucco. Santa Fe also doesn't tend to have wooden siding or wooden roofs. Although Class A roofs are not universal, they tend to be more common. I know that parts of traditional architecture there include wooden beams and vigas, but these really large pieces of wood, heavy timber, are actually considered safer. They take a much longer time to ignite, and most wildland and urban interface codes allow them to be used anyway.

There are some vulnerabilities that are unique to Santa Fe. Things like coyote fences are very common. They're a good part of the aesthetic. They're made of some of the driest, most fire-prone wood there is out there. But there are ways that you can build these fences to ensure that the panel that touches the building itself could be made of something non-combustible, and then the rest of the fence can be that. The other vulnerability I think Santa Fe has is the vegetation and the landscaping. The beautiful piñon juniper trees that we all love are extremely flammable, and people tend to like them right next to their home. And I mean, like there are foundation plantings. They're up against the building. So that is also a tremendous vulnerability but one that is pretty easily rectified. So in terms of the architecture of Santa Fe, it's really compatible and in many ways ahead of a lot of communities you see in the west when it comes to being wildfire resistant.

Commissioner Capen: I had a question for staff, but I just want to say a lot of, I think a lot of people are seeing the need to clean up because their insurance premiums are going up, and the way that they're getting ranked for risk has seemingly randomly changed. Some of it because of the fires that we had here, but I think constituent-wise, that's probably where they're seeing some of that directly right now. My question was, are we looking at any requirements or incentives or anything for new development or retrofitting in this current code update?

Chair Clow: Commissioner Capen, yes, absolutely. We have been working with the fire department. We've also in our kickoff meeting had representatives from the insurance industry as well because it is a huge problem. A lot of people are losing their insurance, and so right now we're trying to assist the best we can, but we do need that code framework. And, you know, we also have already identified areas of more vulnerability and less vulnerability, but for the intent of, or the purposes of the code, all of the city of Santa Fe is somewhat vulnerable. So we are definitely in need to update our code, which hopefully can allow people to have more access to insurance and remodels. Where we would implement this is either through construction permits for remodeling in with existing housing or with new construction.

Also, I remember a case that we did recently, which was a variance on a hilltop, and the issue wasn't before us, but it was one of the facts of the case where there were piñon trees in front of the house that their insurance company requested they take down, and the city would not let them take them down. So, I found that interesting. So perhaps, I know, you can't cut trees down, especially piñons, if there are certain sizes. So I think that that might be something we'd want to look at, too, in relationship to the new, the new code because it's pretty rigid right now.

Heather: Yeah, the landscape standards, there is a lot of conflict. You bring up a good point, Chair Clow, and we actually have been working also with the fire department on fire breaks. We did a walk over at Monte Serino to have a what is called a natural fire break where it sort of curves, the separation curves, and it really helps to maintain the character of the ridgetop but also allows for that extra level of protection. So we'll be working with our landscape and terrain management team as we proceed through the code update.

Commissioner Rick Reynolds: Yes, Commissioner Rick Reynolds, for the presentation. Ryan, in your research, are you all also looking at, so, I do real estate, or I work in the real estate industry, and I was speaking with an insurance agent here in town, and he was mentioning that a lot of people think about just areas close to forested areas, like homes up near the forest. But he was also saying that we are running into in Santa Fe and surrounding communities insurance issues with properties that are along the arroyo or near like sort of just brush, not necessarily what you would necessarily consider when thinking about wildfire, not just forested areas. But are you seeing that? Is that part of your methodology or research as well at those areas?

Ms. Handy: Yeah, absolutely. And I think you may all be familiar with the Marshall fire in Colorado in 2019. It burned in a super urban area that was not near a wildfire landscape. It was near kind of an open space with just grass, and it burned thousands of homes down in a matter of hours. And insurance companies have been watching this, and they're well aware now that all it takes is a shrub or a dead tree next to a home with a really old dry wooden fence, and things can get going really quickly. So I think unfortunately, wildfires like that have changed the conversation about what is an at-risk landscape. So, most of what I do actually looks at how to reduce wildfires in these really urban contexts. And again, it's, you know, we spent all this time thinking about wildfire risk is for people who live in the foothills and the mountains, and unfortunately, that is no longer true. And insurance companies absolutely know that.

Commissioner Wheeland: Thank you, Chair. The other thing that I think our community, there's a company, Southwest Fire Defense. They'll actually go out and assess a property and then also assess an entire community and give a neighborhood an idea. So, they've been very helpful for a lot of our clients in gaining insurance once they get their property into compliance.

Heather: You guys can speak a little closer to the mic because we actually do need to capture you on the video.

Commissioner: Maybe we're done. Thank you very much. It was really helpful and scary.

Ms. Handy: Well, hopefully, you're not too scared. Thank you so much for having me here. It was great to speak with you, and we've really enjoyed working with Heather and her staff thus far. So, hopefully, you'll be hearing from me again. Thank you.

Heather: Thank you.

Commissioner: Yes. I'd just like to add that I do think having Headwaters Economics involved with subcommittees would make a lot of sense, just talking through incentives that could happen through the rewrite. Yeah. Thanks.

Chair Clow: Okay. Now we'll move to case number 2025-10-0766, 2780 South Meadows Road General Plan, and case number 2025-10767, 2780 South Meadows Road rezoning. Go ahead. Are you ready? Check. There we are.

George Terry: Good evening, Chair Clow, distinguished members of the Planning Commission. My name is George Terry, and I'm a senior planner with our Land Use Department. Pleasure to be with you tonight. I'll thank you in advance for your patience, and I'll get started if it pleases the Chair.

Chair Clow: Yes, please do.

George Terry: Tonight's item includes two related cases for 2780 South Meadows Road. The first case is 2025-10766. That's our general plan amendment. The second case is 2025-10767. That'll be our rezoning. The applicant, Montoya E. Garcia LLC, represented by SR Carns and Associates, requests to amend the general plan future land use map for approximately 0.70 acres, 7/10 of an acre precisely, from very low density to low density. The applicant also requests to rezone three contiguous parcels totaling approximately 0.7 acres from R3 to R6. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the governing body on both requests.

I'll begin with the location and existing context. The property is located southwest of New Mexico State Highway 599, also known as Veterans Memorial Highway, of course, and South Meadows Road. The site is near the South Meadows interchange and is in an area with nearby multi-family residential development, including Madero Apartments and South Meadows Apartments. Now, the property is also within the Southwest Santa Fe Community Area Master Plan, or the Southwest CAMP as I'm calling it, and specifically the River Corridor Plan area. Staff's analysis considers that planning context, including the residential development pattern in this area and the relationship to the Santa Fe River corridor. Importantly, the request maintains the residential land use character of the property, and the open space designation near the Santa Fe River is not proposed to change.

Now, this next slide gives the annexation and zoning background. The property was annexed into the city as part of Area 2 Phase 2 in 2013. It is currently zoned R3. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to R6. Now, here's an attempt at the existing site conditions. Forgive me if you can't read that. I've attempted to number those photos and then give you sort of a positioning on the site of where each of those photos were taken. Number one in the upper left there, that's facing the future Alamo frontage road from South Meadows, from that 599 interchange. Then we've got a view facing the southern portion of the parcel from South Meadows Road towards Santa Fe River. Then we're number three there. We're facing the entrance from South Meadows in the 599 interchange, that frontage road, what the future frontage road entrance. And then lastly, number four, there we're facing the northern portion of the parcels across South Meadows Road towards 599.

I hope that orients you somewhat to the site. Now, I'll talk about the zoning request. The property is currently zoned R3, which allows three dwelling units per acre. Again, the applicant has requested R6 zoning, which will allow six dwelling units per acre. The rezoning applies to the approximately 0.7-acre property. Nearby zoning includes R1, R3, R21, and C2. Staff finds that the requested R6 zoning is compatible with the requested low-density future land use designation, which allows a range of 3 to 7 dwelling units per acre.

Now, the general plan amendment is even narrower than the rezoning. This slide shows the future land use map. The general plan amendment applies only to approximately 0.70, or 7/10 of an acre. That area is currently designated very low density, which allows one to three dwelling units per acre. You can see it there in the red box at the bottom. The applicant requests to change that area to low density, which allows 3 to 7 dwelling units per acre. The other future land use designations shown on the property are not proposed to change, including the open space designation near the Santa Fe River.

Now, before moving into agency review, I do want to emphasize the scope of tonight's action. This is an important scope point. No development plan, subdivision plan, site plan, or building layout is being approved tonight. The Planning Commission is making recommendations on the general plan amendment and rezoning only. Future development would require applicable review under the code in effect at that time. That future review may include traffic, water and wastewater, terrain and drainage, archaeology, and development plan or subdivision review.

Now, with that scope in mind, staff also reviewed future utility and agency considerations. Water and sewer services are located within approximately 200 feet of the site. Future development will require utility connection review, a water plan, a water budget, and a wastewater plan. Traffic analysis will also be required when development is proposed because no traffic-generating development plan is being reviewed tonight.

Now, the site was also reviewed for terrain, drainage, and flood plain context. This property does have an approximate 30-foot elevation change from north to south. Staff's analysis identifies an overall slope of approximately 2%. The property is not located within the FEMA 100-year flood plain. Terrain grading and drainage review would occur during future development review.

Now, this next slide summarizes density and dimensional standards. I lost my note, but I got them back. The dimensional standards remain the same under R3 and R6. The front, side, and rear setbacks do not change, and the height limits remain 24 feet for residential and 35 feet for non-residential. The main change here is density. Of course, the maximum density increases from three dwelling units per acre under R3 to six dwelling units per acre under R6.

Staff also reviewed the request for consistency with the 1999 General Plan. Staff finds that the request supports General Plan goals for infill development and housing. The main policy themes are infill housing, compact development, and residential density near existing and planned infrastructure. Policy 3G3 supports infill development at densities that support affordable housing and balanced residential growth. Policy 41G2 supports concentrating population at greater densities in developing areas to encourage pedestrian-scale development, reduce auto dependence, and support central transit nodes. Chapter 4 infill density policies also support a minimum gross density of at least three dwelling units per acre with higher target densities for appropriate infill sites. Staff finds that the GPA and the rezoning improve consistency between the future land use map and our zoning map.

The applicant also completed the required neighborhood notification process. An early neighborhood notification meeting was held by Zoom on April 24th of 2025, and staff did attend that ENN meeting, and no members of the public attended. For the public hearing, signs were posted on the 22nd of April this year, and public hearing mailers were sent also on April 22nd of this year, including certified mail to properties within 100 feet.

Staff then reviewed the requests against the applicable approval criteria. Staff reviewed the General Plan Amendment under Santa Fe City Code Chapter 14-3.2E1 and Santa Fe City Code Chapter 14-3.2E2, and staff finds that the General Plan Amendment criteria are met. Staff also reviewed the rezoning under Santa Fe City Code Chapter 14-3.5C, and staff finds that the rezoning criteria are met. Future development remains subject to applicable Chapter 14 review requirements. Based on that analysis, staff recommends approval. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Governing Body approval of Case 2025-10766, that's the General Plan Amendment, and Case 2025-10767, that's our rezone. So, two motions are required. The first motion is for the General Plan Amendment 10766. The second motion is for the rezoning 10767. Now, staff does recommend considering the General Plan Amendment first, followed by the rezoning, because the rezoning relies on consistency with that future land use map. That does conclude staff's presentation. Thank you so much, and I'm available for questions.

Well, thank you for being very clear and very quick, and a really helpful, very organized presentation. Any questions before we move on to the applicant? Thank you very much. We'll move on to the applicant, Mr. Summers.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Carl Summer. My mailing address is Post Office Box 2476, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Please proceed.

Madam Chair, I'll be very brief. I'm here on behalf of Carlos Garcia, who many of you know, and Monica Montoya, who many of you know. She used to work here for years and years and years. She was a planner. They're partners in this deal. Their LLC is called Montoya E Garcia. They acquired these properties, and they both have a lot of experience in doing what's needed in this town, which is producing housing. Mr. Garcia pulled together where the Madera Apartments were, was fundamentally involved in getting that housing done to the north of that same property. Mr. Garcia pulled together, and PY is building two neighborhoods over there. He's got a lot of experience, and the idea with this property is to provide more housing in this community. I can't add anything to what Mr. Terry has added. I think it's all consistent with both the policy, the General Plan, and the rezoning requirements. I stand for any questions you might have, and I think that the project will enhance our housing stock and provide for a quality of life for its residents.

Thank you, Mr. Summers. Any questions? If not, we'll move to public comment. If there's anyone here in chambers that would like to come forward and make a comment on this project, please do. Is there anyone on Zoom?

I see no hands raised. If you're interested in commenting on this project, please raise your hand. No response. Okay. So, we'll close the public comment portion of this meeting and move on to any comments or questions by the Commission.

There are none. I'll entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I do have a question for staff.

Yes, go ahead. Regarding the applicant's response to criteria F, is it correct that essentially because this is simply a zoning change, that staff is unsure if that fits that criteria until there's actually a full presentation, or was there other reasons for there to be a partial feeling that that criteria was met?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner Mirando. And I believe I understand it. I believe the simplest answer is my fallback answer, which is that there is no development being proposed of any type. So that really limited the scope of our review at this stage. Does that answer your question adequately? It was really the only note I had reviewing it. I'll say in general, the staff responses are really good. They're extremely, they had a lot of context to them, and yeah, just going to say that in general, it stuck out. Staff appreciates that comment, and I would like to add that I have been working with my colleague, Cruz Hab Bear, on this case, and much of this good work you're enjoying tonight is the result of his excellent work. I do want to say that it's sad that he's not here to hear my compliment, but I'll share it with him. Commissioner Morando, I'm sure you, I'll have to let him know.

Madam Chair, if you will bring Mr. Terry up at the end of the meeting, since we've already done this communication of some staff, I'll introduce you to Superman properly.

That would be good. I was wondering who he was in that suit and tie. We're not used to that.

It's an honor to be before you, Chair Flow. Thank you.

Any other questions? If not, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion for approval in Case 2025-10766 for 2780 South Meadows zoning change. Motion to approve with staff's technical corrections and conditions of approval. Second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner McReynolds?

Yes.

Commissioner Barber?

Yes.

Commissioner Rayen?

Yes.

Commissioner Kaitton?

Yes.

Commissioner Miranda?

Yes.

Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes. Chair Cloud, the motion passed.

Thank you. Now we'll move to Case Number 2025-10767 rezoning. Chair Cloud, in the case of 2025-10767 rezoning, I recommend approval. Second.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Commissioner Miranda?

Yes.

Commissioner Rayan?

Yes.

Commissioner Cadith?

Commissioner McReynolds?

Yes.

Commissioner Barber?

Yes.

Chair Cloud, the motion passed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Now we'll move on to Case Number 2025-11625, which is 1335 Camino de Jacobo Development Land. I'm here to talk about 2025. The agent is Autoro. The agent is Autoroof. The applicant is the County of Santa Fe and TWWG Development, and I am case planner Claudia Cath. The applicant is requesting approval of a two-phased development plan to construct two 45-foot high, four-story buildings and one 28 1/2-foot high building, totaling 148,145 square feet of new construction. The uses include a 159-unit multifamily community with a daycare facility. The subject properties comprise 5.92 acres located within the suburban archaeological review district and are zoned C2 General Commercial. Before getting started, I would like to point out we have DRT members online, and we have Fabio Chavez here and Leroy Pacheco. So this is the location map, and you can see here's Serios, and here's Airport Road. This is the Santa Fe Mall. This is the Lowe's. This is Rufina. And here's the project. The site is, as I mentioned, is zoned C2. It's bordered by mixed-use R7 and R29. And for the future land use map, it's zoned transitional mixed-use, as are the apartments, multifamily apartments that are behind the Lowe's store. So as mentioned, this is the existing site. As you can see, it's vacant, and there's the self-storage just to the south is existing. And you can see we came in just on the existing site. The outline in red comprises 5.92 acres, and it's actually made up of two lots: Tract B1, and our primary site is here, and Lot 1, which runs up and down along to the east of the subject site.

The applicant is proposing, because this is a 100% affordable development plan, several lot line adjustments and a lot split. So the applicant wants to create a Tract B-1-A, which is where the development would occur. The lot portion of the lot that is to the north would be a lot consolidation, and that would become Lot 2A. The lot below the site would be Lot 1A. Then the roads of San Ignacio and Camino de Jacobo would become Tract B1B. I think I forgot to mention that this is county-owned land.

So these are a few photos from the site. Number one is looking north on Camino de Jacobo, and the site is over here to the right. The second one is looking south on Camino de Jacobo. Number three, this is looking at the future San Ignacio. You can see the waterline is under construction that's going in there. Four is the site. So I put together a future vicinity map where I plugged in not only the site we're talking about tonight, but essentially this superblock. So Staybridge Suites will be to the east, and the future San Ignacio apartments. We have not received an application from that applicant; they've just done an ENN so far, is to the southeast. This is a slight zoom and enlargement of that area. Then this is the site plan itself that we're talking about.

So this is Building One that is proposed, which is multifamily, and this is Building Two. That's Phase One. Then this is the daycare. That's Phase Two. So this plan is slightly rotated. So you'll have Camino Alberto to the top of the page, San Ignacio to the left, and Camino de Jacobo on the bottom. Then the self-storage would be on the right.

So going into the DRT comments, this bottom photo is on Camino de Jacobo looking towards the site. It's kind of close to Airport Road, and you can see the existing self-storage on the right. Then the top photo is going down the road a little bit, and our site, Nova Sea, would be over here. We wanted to point out in the code it says, "Local streets shall be constructed, extended, and widened in accordance with the general plan and to accommodate the orderly development of the types and intensities of development shown on the future land use map." So, we wanted to point out that the applicant's application did not include a design for Camino de Jacobo, and staff is recommending that the applicant develop Camino de Jacobo to city standards at the same time that the development occurs.

So moving on to traffic, I would like to invite our traffic engineer to talk about this part.

Good evening. I guess it should be stated at first that traffic discussions with the developer, his traffic engineer, Santa Fe Engineering, and the city's traffic engineering agent, Wilson and Company, began about a year ago. July 29th, 2025, was when we had our scoping meeting for traffic, and we, Public Works, have submitted a traffic comment memo to the DRT team in January of 2026. So what's in your packet is, I was a little surprised that this was on the agenda and so Monday. So, it's sort of an interim discussion of traffic issues that have now been resolved with a memo that was submitted today from Public Works to Land Use. So, Claudia has that memo, and I think it should be made part of the public record as this discussion continues.

Part of that memo is reflected in what's on the screen. The revised traffic impact analysis for Phase One of the Nenoa Apartments examined all key intersections and roadways in the study area for the 2028 implementation year and the 2038 horizon year, including cumulative traffic from the proposed adjacent Ulysses project and other known approved developments such as the Staybridge Inn and others. Findings: The project generates no new failing movements on the streets that were studied and requires no neighborhood mitigations or off-site improvements. It should be noted that Phase One frontage improvements along Camino de Jacobo are not currently reflected in the infrastructure plans to be fully built to acceptable city standards. Until those improvements are completed and accepted by the city, Camino de Jacobo remains Santa Fe County property and is not acceptable for city ownership nor maintenance. In addition, the Airport Road/Lopez Lane signal deficiency is documented in the analyses and in our responses for future city ICIP consideration. I'll let Claudia finish her presentation, and I'm sure there will be more questions.

So, moving on, the applicant has requested a reduction in parking through an administrative deviation, and as required in the code, the applicant prepared a parking demand study. So the property should provide 218 parking spaces, which is about one and a quarter, one and a half spaces per unit, depending, or two, depending on the unit. But the applicant can provide 165 spaces. One of the things I forgot to mention, this project was submitted last December. So they came in under the old code, and under the old code, they would need this parking deviation. But now we're in 2026, and if they had, per the new code, they comply. So that's in the works.

I just wanted to point out the utility plan. So this is Camino de Jacobo, and there's existing water and sewer under Camino de Jacobo. This is the Staybridge Suites site over here. They are building San Ignacio to this intersection. Then this applicant is building San Ignacio to Camino de Jacobo. So there will be water and sewer under that street, and then a waterline down Camino Alberto. They will tap into the Camino Alberto for their water and fire and into the sewer on Camino de Jacobo for their sewer. In the process, they're going to, they're required to upgrade a manhole to city standards. And they have an approved water plan, which you can see here by the signatures. There's an approved water budget. And they have a fire access plan.

Then this is the architecture. I just wanted to point out the different elevations, and the applicant will do a deeper dive into this, but I believe this is the, I can't quite read it, but the San Ignacio elevation. This is the elevation from the courtyard. And this is the elevation from Camino Alberto. And this is the elevation from Camino de Jacobo. And these are further elevations from inside the courtyard. Then these are the elevations of Building Two from, this is the courtyard side. This is the entry side on the south side of the building. And this is the opposite side. Then these are the ends that respectively face Camino Alberto and Camino de Jacobo. Then these are the elevations of the daycare, with the bottom elevation being the one that has the entrance and faces Camino Alberto.

The applicant is proposing signage, which will be reviewed and approved prior to permit. But basically, there are three wall signs. Then I just wanted to mention that the Santa Fe Homes agreement has been approved, and the applicant is wanting to gain approval of permits by August 31st in order to receive their funding. This was also mentioned in the staff report. And staff would like to add a condition that the final approval of the development plan will occur at the time of recordation of the development plan at the County Clerk's office with signatures of the Planning Commissioner, City Engineer, City Manager, Water Division, and Affordable Housing. The applicant held an early neighborhood notification in October 2026. There were approximately three members of the community in attendance, and discussion centered around road construction, traffic flow, parking, sustainable design, design features, building aesthetics, and design considerations. The Land Use Department recommends approval of Case 202511625 subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections. One motion is required in this case to approve or deny 202511625 subject to conditions of approval and technical corrections.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I'd like to edit that condition just a little bit. The City Manager does not need to sign on that. We can substitute the Land Use Director in place of the City Manager. That would be a more appropriate signature on this development plan.

That makes sense. I have a couple questions. So, I got the impression from reading this report that there's a time constraint here. I know that we dealt with that on the apartments on Siler Road. Getting public money, there's a lot of hurdles, and then when you finally get down to it, there's that time limit. So, all permitting needs to be done by August 31st. Is that correct?

That is correct, Madam Chair. There are some caveats here in that this is county property, which means that the vertical construction will go directly to Construction Industries along with those Certificate of Compliance or the CFOs. So we have dual inspections that have to occur. The exterior portion and all the improvements that are required by the development plan that must be part of the construction phase, but we will have no control over the vertical construction of the buildings since that will be, that will be sent to the state. So these are the nuances that we have to deal with and that are part of the difficulty reviewing and approving this development plan.

I know that DRT had some concerns, and I think what, had a number of concerns about the road, but I'm assuming from what Leroy Pacheco stated that those are pretty much worked out, that we're okay with those.

Madam Chair, member of the commission, there are two elements to development standards. So when you look at the DRT and you look at the Land Use Department, we're just part of a large body of people that review an application, and everybody reviews for their components. Traffic and Public Works, they have their elements that they have to review for, which deals mainly with maintenance. But the Land Use Department has to deal with the actual construction and design of a project, and those are our mandates provided to us by ordinance. So we have to look at the road width, road design, drainage. All of those elements are put on the Land Use Department in our different divisions. So we have the Zoning Department, which is the current planning. You have the Technical Review Division. You have within there, you have landscaping, accessibility, and terrain management. And all of us work together to ensure that when this is designed from subsurface to surface construction, everything falls into place. And that means that we have not aligned ourselves with that portion because we have conditions in place that require specific design elements for Jacobo Road that must be put in place at the same time the construction is going with the building, because otherwise you have a structure and rental of that structure that will happen with sub-infrastructure. So until we can work those elements out, and that's why we've structured those conditions so that the Land Use Director and the county can work something out that is acceptable to meet those demands. We have to continue to negotiate those elements because we still have to follow our own ordinances.

But I guess my point is there's a lot of conditions, but if you're comfortable working with those conditions so that the project moves forward, I guess then I'm comfortable too, if staff is comfortable.

Thank you, Chair Clow. Yes, we are comfortable. It has come to the finish line, but we've worked together with our traffic engineering team and our civil engineering team, and I think we can find the path forward so they can have access to the funds.

And on the parking issue, it says that a parking deviation was sent to the Land Use Director. So, you're the one that controls that.

Yes, Chlow. The unique circumstance here is that the applicant submitted the application before the adoption of the code. The parking deviation is required under the old code, but not with the code that is current now. But because we're judging it with Chapter 14 prior to January 1st, 2026, we had to have them submit that parking deviation.

And then I guess you sign off on that.

Yes, that is correct.

Okay. And then my other question is, from the drawings, there looks like there's some balconies. I know the new code requires 200 square feet of balcony in all new apartments, which I guess doesn't apply to this one. But do each apartment in this construction have balconies?

I might want to defer to the applicant to explain that, but yeah, there's a difference between the old and the new code. And in the old code, there was no requirement for each unit to have that private open space. Yeah, I know, but we sort of encouraged that to happen and it pretty much did happen. So we'll wait to hear from the applicant on the balcony issue. Are there any other clarifying questions from any other commissioners before we hear from the applicant? If not, we'll hear from the applicant.

Oh, Commissioner Smith. This is maybe a dumb question, but in the material that we saw and then again today, there are different colors in the building and they are being used to describe different aspects or to illustrate. Are the buildings actually going to be? So the applicant has informed me they have developed the architecture and enhanced it since we received these drawings. So I think it might be best if the applicant answers that.

Any other questions?

Madam Chair?

Yes.

I might add that Claudia did inform me that they did meet the open space requirements. So, the open space is not an issue with our review.

I'm just curious in terms of balconies, seeing as I get claustrophobic thinking about being in a space without outdoor space. Anyway, so I guess we can move on. We may have a few members online that we should promote to presenter mode in the event there's questions or commentary from them.

I have their names.

Megan Adams would be one. Mike Gomez would be another, and possibly Christina Olivant as well.

I will go ahead and elevate them so they can speak. They'll just have to unmute and if they choose to speak, state their name and address for the record to be sworn.

Understood.

Shall I be sworn in?

For those that are here that are going to talk, if everybody wants to stand up, give their name, come to the mic, and swear in, we can do that. And then we can probably hit the ones on the Zoom individually. So that'll take care of that. That'll be easiest. Great. Andy, please raise your right hand. Each one of you will need to state your name and address for the record.

Alexander Durk, 222 East Marcy Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501.

Jen Lopez, 224 Hermosa Circle, Durango, Colorado 81301.

Greg Schaefer, Santa Fe County Manager, 102 Grant Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

You raise your right hand. 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 under the penalties of perjury? Please proceed.

Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak about this exciting project tonight. I'm Alexander Durk with Autoroof Design. We're the applicant agent in this project. We're a local architecture and planning firm, the architect on the project. We've assembled a really exciting project team for this endeavor. Santa Fe County and TWWG Development are co-partners, co-developers on this project. We have Megan Adams from TWWG Development online. We have Mr. Schaefer from Santa Fe County here in person to answer any questions and make them up. Again, I'm Alexander Durk with Autoroof Design. We also have Jen Lopez with Project Moxy, who's a consultant that's been working with both the county and TDMG and us to really work through all these issues. We're working with James Corporation, which is an Albuquerque-based general contractor, very experienced in multifamily affordable housing construction. We also have preliminary discussions with the Boys and Girls Club to provide the services for the daycare that we're proposing in this project, as well as multiple other service agencies will be involved in the course of the implementation of the project and service of the project.

I know Claudia did a great job of really setting up the project and what the issues are there, so I won't belabor this too much. But I thought she actually did a great illustration here, and I borrowed that, Claudia. I didn't tell you that, but it really shows why this project is important. It gives us the opportunity to provide affordable housing to the people of Santa Fe at 100% affordable unit, but also with the infrastructure improvements, the roadways that we've already started discussing. This is going to really start to knit together this quickly growing part of Santa Fe. This is more coherent and promotes connectivity for residents and neighbors alike. It is 100% affordable. We're providing 53 senior units, 106 family units, and a Phase 2 for a future daycare. And it's an exciting project to have a collaboration with Santa Fe County and a developer and to work closely with the city to implement these infrastructure improvements. With this, I'm going to turn it over to Jen to talk a little bit about some of the project information and why we think it's so important.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Again, I'm Jen Lopez. I run a consulting firm called Project Moxy. I have been doing affordable housing work for 26 years, and I haven't been in this room for 25 years. So I started my career at the City of Santa Fe. So it's nice to be back with you all. So excited about this project. I've been honored to work with Santa Fe County since 2023. The role that our team plays is we really help with project management, financial consulting, packaging, all of those things. And so I was asked to come tonight to be available to answer questions about the financing and the timing of the financing. So, thank you for having me. I talk fast, but mostly it's because I want to take questions. So, I apologize, but let me know if I'm talking too fast.

Again, this is an intergenerational community, right? A best practice nationally. We're so excited to bring it to Santa Fe. We have seniors, we have families, right? We create this beautiful space together. We start to solve issues of isolation. We're excited about that. Again, we know that you need about 5,000 affordable rental units in Santa Fe. So, we're happy to be part of the solution with you. Again, this is permanent affordability. These units will be affordable for decades. And again, it's a mix of studios, one, two, threes, and four. So, it's a really nice mix. It's going to meet a lot of different needs in the community when we start. And again, we're grateful for Santa Fe County to have the wherewithal, really, and the mission and the vision to keep going. They bought the land in 2019, or 2020. So, they've been at this for quite some time. As you all know, it takes a while to build these projects. And again, it's really got access to a lot of amenities. And for this reason, it's scored as one of the top applications in 2025 for tax credits from the state.

I kind of talked already about who it's going to serve. And I want to say this for the record, it's going to serve households earning between 30 and 80% of area median income. And for folks that don't know what that area median income means, it's a HUD standard at the county level. They look at wages every year and they say these are the folks that need some kind of housing assistance. So it's just a matrix that we use in our industry, but what that means is it'll serve folks making between 20 and probably 70,000 a year. So you're going to have folks that are on fixed incomes and folks that are working in families. So again, a large swath of need. And again, we're using two different tax credits. I can answer high-level questions about tax credits, but I don't want to go there unless you want me to. But I do want to acknowledge that this is the first combined tax credit in the state of New Mexico, which is super cool. And that came about because the county recognized they want to bring in an experienced developer. They ran an RFP and found TWWG. Megan Adams is on with us today. And in the response, TWWG said, you know, you're trying to do a lot here. We'd like to show you a new way to do it. So we're very excited about this model as well.

Again, you know, we're leveraging public land, creating this affordable housing. This is Santa Fe County's first public-private partnership. We sure hope they do more of these projects, right? Because we need all of us doing this work. I think Alexi already spoke to the connectivity that will happen in this part of town. And then Santa Fe County Housing Authority provided vouchers, which is a really important resource to make this a viable project long-term and to really serve the lowest income residents in this community. Here's the best part. We're really there. We need development plan approval and we will close in August. And this has been a two-and-a-half-year grueling process for the team, but we have 50 million committed. So, we're pretty excited. This last slide really gives you the history, right? So, the major milestones 2024, selecting the developer, we started applying for funds right when they were selected. I think there's nine sources on the right side of this, but again, you know, we've got the selection of the developer. We applied for significant funding. You'll see the very top line there, that equity line, that's half the funds for the project. That was a very competitive process in 2025, and again, the first ever award of those two credits combined. So nine sources, complex. What we're trying to solve for is the Federal Home Loan Bank, that 3,855,000 that was awarded almost two years ago, and that has a deadline. And so if we don't close in August, we lose that. And once you lose one source, it just sort of unravels. So again, we're so grateful for your help in getting to the finish line today. You'll also see at the bottom our path forward. We close in August. Groundbreaking, construction, complete construction in 2028, lease up September 2028, end of the year, kind of wrapping up the financials. So very exciting timeline. And I'm here to answer any additional questions. I'm going to hand it back to Lexi.

Thank you so much. I'll get a little bit more into the design and try and address some of the questions that we heard prior to me coming on. So as Claudia mentioned in her presentation, I've rotated these plans 90 degrees just so they fit better on our screen. So north is now to the left here. As a way of orienting us, this is the intersection of Cerrillos and Airport. This is the San Isidro Shopping Center where the Southside Plaza is. San Ignacio Road goes behind Lowe's, and there's a bunch of other affordable and market rate apartments projects along San Isidro Road.

Our site is located in this gap tooth between the existing self-storage units, the Extra Space Self-Storage units to the south, the Jacob D. Martinez housing project that is administered by Santa Fe County to the north. And then the Staybridge Inn & Suites is currently under construction. As was mentioned earlier, part of this development plan and construction project is to extend San Ignacio Drive right to the corner of our site here and then construct a portion rather of Camino San Alberto. Both of these roads will be dedicated to the city. Both of these roads are designed to city standards.

What we're proposing to do on our project is, in addition to building the apartments that I'll get into in a minute, we're also proposing to extend San Ignacio Road to connect over to Camino de Jacobo and extend a portion of Camino San Alberto that's in an access easement on this property so that we've got good connectivity and circulation around our property there. So we're doing a lot more than a standard affordable housing project in that we're also building some infrastructure and roadways to go along with it.

Why is that important? Connectivity is important. Right now, if you're a resident that lives in the Jacob D. Martinez site here and you want to go to have dinner at the Southside Plaza, or you need to go to Lowe's for some material, or you need to go over to the urgent care center that's just over here on Zafrano, you need to go through a windy road, which is the kind of extension of Jacobo up to Rufina Street, go all the way around to Zafrano, come back down, and then turn into the center. That ends up putting about a mile. It's about a mile drive when it's only a little bit over a quarter mile just to get over to the center if you're able to walk or drive right there. So, by the construction of this road by the adjacent developer and then the connections that we're providing to it, we're providing easy access for vehicles to get over to Zafrano to drive into the street network. That's more appropriate than what Camino de Jacobo has to offer right now. And we're also offering pedestrian and bicycle connections directly over there. So I encourage people to get out of their cars and walk a little bit more.

In addition to that, the MPO has identified in their long-range bicycle plan and trail network plan a bicycle path that goes from the intersection of Cerrillos Road all the way up to Rufina Street here. We are going to be constructing a portion of that, kind of a middle portion of that path, as part of our project. It's a combined 10-foot wide pedestrian and bicycle path that's going to be fronting Camino San Alberto, which could then hook up to the connections and fully realize that path in the future. In addition to that, we are providing an accessible route and good pedestrian access to a transit stop on Airport Road. So, we're really trying to knit together multimodal transit with what is ostensibly an affordable housing project, but taking a look at the bigger picture and trying to think about not only our residents but also our neighbors here too.

As was also mentioned, we have some complex property boundaries. It's a very weirdly shaped site. Claudia mentioned this. This is the one narrow, I think it's called Lot 1, that is one of the three parcels that is owned by the county. There's another parcel that I think it's called Lot 2 that goes up to almost Rufina Street that's not part of our project boundary per se, but it is a county-owned parcel. And then the main property is this kind of dog-leg shaped site that includes Camino de Jacobo. So right now, Camino de Jacobo functions as a city street, but it is on county property with an easement that is along that boundary. So that's kind of a very interesting situation here that it's county-owned land within the city maintained by the county. Not ideal from a public interest standpoint. So on a concurrent application, we've got a lot split and consolidation application that will simplify all this stuff.

Number one, as required by our funders, we do need to have a dedicated lot that is just for the buildings and the apartments. The taxpayer investors don't want to own roadways. They don't want to be involved with bicycle paths and things like that. They want to have just this dedicated lot right here. So, we're proposing a dedicated lot for our project. These then smaller lots are separated out for potential future dedication for that bike path. We then have an L-shaped lot that will become a dedicated right-of-way, which includes the extension of San Ignacio and the existing Camino all the way down to Airport Road. And then we're doing some improvements in an access easement that is on that adjacent property to have good connectivity on our site.

Zooming into our specific site here now. Again, north is up. You're kind of familiar with the context around there. We've got a U-shaped parking lot that wraps around the project. One of the things we wanted to do with this parking lot was realizing that these are fairly tall buildings. We want to create a buffer between our project and some of the lower-scale construction in the adjacent neighborhoods and push it closer to where there's some higher-scale construction in terms of Staybridge Inn & Suites and the existing big boxes and apartments that are over at San Ignacio and San Isidro. We have three access points: one off of San Ignacio Road, one off of Camino de Jacobo, and then a third one off of Camino San Alberto. We've got good circulation for residents. We've got good circulation for fire. And we've got adequate access for solid waste, too.

As you see, the project is designed kind of with a Santa Fe motif in terms of organized around a courtyard. So, we've got stepped building massing that steps up around a common courtyard. In that courtyard are a series of amenities for various ages. We've got activity zones and amenities from tots all the way to seniors sharing this courtyard space. So, we have a 106-unit family building that kind of forms the U of that courtyard. We've got a 53-unit senior building that forms the southern edge of that courtyard. And then we've allocated an end of that U-shaped building for that future daycare facility that's going in there.

As was discussed earlier, we have 165 spaces on site. It did not meet the previous code. It actually does meet the current code because there's a 25% reduction allowed for affordable housing and senior housing projects. As our parking demand study actually played out, that was exactly the 25% reduction from code that we were requesting. It just kind of worked out that way. So I think a good benefit of this is that the parking demand study helps to validate some of the things that have been put into the new code. However, that being said, we are concerned about overflow parking. What if there's a resident that's got two cars and you have a few of those? So, we're also proposing some street parking to be built along Camino San Alberto and along Camino de Jacobo to be able to provide for those overflow needs.

Now, I do want to talk about it in a little bit more detail in a bit, but there are, I know, questions about Camino de Jacobo, brought up the city standards and all those things. When we first submitted the development plan, we had only proposed some street frontage improvements along Camino for that parallel parking and for street trees and things like that. However, in conversations with county staff, with city staff, we've realized that Camino is a public road. It should really be improved to public standards. That's something that our team is committed to doing. And we'll talk a little bit further in the presentation about how we'll be able to get that done for you. Not much to show here other than the line drawing that's already in your document. But if there are any specific questions, we can come back to this slide.

And now I'll just show you some images of what the project will look like. As discussed earlier, we have a courtyard-shaped scheme here, but understanding that four-story buildings are considered high in Santa Fe. While we are within the height limit here, we're trying to step down the massing wherever we can. So, corners of the U's, corners, ends of the buildings, stepping them down. Take a unit off here to have a little bit lower mass there and set that down. And then we also developed a, we'll actually talk about that on a future slide, but this is a view that's hovering above Camino looking back towards the Sandy Cedra Center. This is the Southside Plaza. That's Lowe's there. These are some of the other apartment buildings. And this is the future or under construction Staybridge Inn & Suites. So, it gives you an idea of the context that it's going to be adjacent to our site.

Here are some views just kind of rotating around the building. This is the senior building in Phase 1. Yes, it does have some balconies in it. I will discuss that. I guess I'll take this opportunity right now to discuss that. As Jen mentioned, these projects are very tight on their funding, right? So, we initially had balconies on all the units on both buildings, to be honest and to be fair. However, as we got into detailed cost estimates and we got into our tax credit applications, we were able to afford to include the balconies in the senior project in Building 2. Building 1, despite our best efforts, that just added several million to the project and we just could not absorb it within this project. All of that being said, the fact that we have common open space in this shared courtyard is something that we're really all very excited about because it provides that amenity to seniors and families alike, including playgrounds and amenities in that courtyard.

This is the view from San Alberto with Camino in the distance. Again, that's the senior and the family housing project with the future childcare in the center there. Here are some eye-level views of the building. So there was a question about colors on the building. One of the things that we're very cognizant of is that these are large buildings, right? We don't want them to be monolithic. We don't want them to feel very large and very monolithic in their character. So we've taken great pains to not only step down the massing but also differentiate the colors in them to really help to break them up. So we've got painted Hardie panel siding on some of these corners. So that's a kind of a brown color. These are the actual colors we're proposing. We've got a base color on the main buildings of a tan, kind of a neutral tan, and then a lighter tan on these stepped elements here. We really worked hard to develop some architectural detailing to differentiate and break up the massing of these larger four-story blocks here. So, we've created the stepping pattern, which has a little bit of pushing and pulling, a little bit of in and out there to provide some texture to the building. Yes, it's a different color to help break up the mass of that four-story building. And the stepping pattern is really meant to evoke the kind of Pueblo form or maybe an abstraction of the mountains and the landscape here in Santa Fe.

Something that, yes, it's a contemporary building, but to tie it back into some of those traditional and historical patterns in our town. This is the view of the senior housing from the front door, and then some of the views of the courtyard, which we're very, very excited about. We have pops of color in there, a lighter stucco inside there, very lushly vegetated. We have again, playgrounds, facilities, picnic facilities, other areas for both the seniors and families alike.

The name really came about from this really innovative water catchment feature that we proposed in the project, which is taking our roof water off of these buildings. Finally, through subsurface Aia features, they're gravel trenches with perforated pipes, will allow that water to come and percolate to water the actual landscape in the courtyard and elsewhere on site. And then the overflow does go to a subterranean storage facility that's on the southern property boundary of our site. Another view of that courtyard. Actually, we have a little grass area there. There's a senior building in the distance with a big porch that faces that courtyard. Some views along Camino San Alberto of the senior building in the foreground, the daycare in the center, and the family building in the distance. The street view from Camino de Hakobo. So we have street trees, we got the parking lot buffer, and then the buildings beyond. Again, see and note the difference in scale and stepping on the building elements. Then the view from Camino San Alberto looking at the project with the family facility on the right, the daycare in the center, and the senior housing on the left.

Now, when it comes to the road dedication, I will admit this kind of came through a little bit late in the game. Initially, we were thinking this would remain county ownership. And then again, as we discussed earlier, this really should be and needs to be a public road. So to that end, in January, the Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution 2026-11, which number one, authorizes that lot split that we had discussed earlier, but also authorizes the County Manager and staff to work closely with the city, with our team, to make sure that we could improve these roadways to city standards. And this is actually going to be a county-funded project to do this roadway construction.

So, all that being said, we've now gone through the conditions of approval. A majority of them are all acceptable. We do have a few, we're seeing proposed alternate language to them, a few concerns on them, and I'll go over those now. The one is the financial guarantee on the improvements for Camino de Hakobo. I'm not an expert in governmental finance, but as I understand it, the county, who is funding this project, is not able to post the financial guarantee. So in lieu of that, we've proposed alternate language that says Santa Fe County shall provide adequate assurances acceptable to the city. That adequate resources have been budgeted and are currently available to fund the cost estimate that's required by condition 17, which may be in the form of an intergovernmental agreement or any other agreement that is mutually acceptable between the two governments.

The next one we want to discuss is the requirement for a bike lane on Camino de Hakobo. I think we made it clear we're all committed to multimodal transit and connections in town, but because we have not done a detailed design yet for Camino de Hakobo, we want a little bit of flexibility in fleshing out that design. And I say this because I know we have some encroachments on our property from a few adjacent property owners. There's a wall that hangs over about a foot. There are some existing parking spaces further down that hang over a foot or two into Camino de Hakobo. And we're providing street parking, and there's also a stormwater detention swale along a portion of Camino de Hakobo. So, it's not that we don't want to provide a bike lane. We just want to be able to work through these kind of complicated issues with staff to find something that meets city standards, that meets the public good, but enables us to kind of work through that as we continue to develop that design.

So we propose some alternate language that says the applicant shall coordinate with city staff on the establishment of the design criteria for the improvement of Camino de Hakobo, allowing for flexibility in the design to accommodate existing conditions and available right-of-way. With the improvement of Camino de Hakobo in conjunction with the other elements of the development plan, shall safely meet the transportation needs of all users, including pedestrians of all ability levels, bicyclists, and motorists.

Lastly, I don't want to dwell on this too much, but as Leroy mentioned, there were a few things in the conditions of approval that were really more comments and review comments from staff. And they're not really things that are actionable on our side and/or are outside of the mitigation scope of the project. And we're requesting that items 21 to 23 and 25 and 26 are removed from that list of missions for approval. With that, I'll leave you with this image of our shared pedestrian and bicycle pathway on Camino San Alberto with that daycare shown in the center there. We're available to answer any questions that you may have.

Mayor: If I could, Chair and members of the Planning Commission, again, Greg Schaefer, Santa Fe County Manager. I just wanted to correct one statement made. It's not necessarily that the county couldn't legally provide a financial guarantee. It's simply that that's not typically how we do business. We're funding projects with other governmental entities. We just entered into an agreement relative to improvements to Henry Lynch where we provided a match with that. The fact that we had the budgeted monies available again were adequate there. I could go on with other examples. And any sort of true financial guarantee in the sense that you're used to seeing it, like a bond, what have you, it's just going to be more cost to the taxpayer. And we believe that we can work adequately with the city to make sure that they're comfortable that the funds are available, that the improvements are going to be made, and that we can work that out in ways that are more fitting with the fact that that would be a taxpayer government-funded project being collaborated on between two governmental entities. But I didn't want to leave you with the impression that we were suggesting that it couldn't be done. Again, we're just suggesting that it would be an unnecessary expense and an expense that would be out of step with our regular projects that we do in collaboration with the city where both governmental entities ultimately commit funds but don't provide each other with financial guarantees. Thank you.

Thank you. Can the city respond to the issue with the financial guarantee, the bike lane, and then the removal of 21 to 23 and 25 to 26?

Madam Chair, we have multiple ways for an applicant to accommodate infrastructure requirements. A financial guarantee allows developers, in the case of a subdivision or development, to actually start selling those items and collecting that information where construction of the infrastructure can occur without a financial guarantee. Unfortunately, we're kind of stuck with the ordinance that was adopted by the governing body, and no variances were requested as part of this application. And what we could do is amend the last condition, and I can work on it while additional information is being presented to the Planning Commission so that we can allow for the Land Use Director to accommodate more flexibility in achieving that final development plan approval and the recordation so that we can work with the county that is amenable to both organizations without violating the law.

Sounds good. And the bike lane, are we okay keeping that open until?

I think what we'd have to do is allow for the Land Use Director to meet with the county and identify how we can work those areas out without again having it come back to the Planning Commission for variance. And as long as you provide the approve that condition of approval with full authority with the Land Use Director so it doesn't have to come back, then she will have the authority to augment any of the issues needed in order to mitigate impacts.

And what about the removal of 21 and 23 and 25 and 26 as the county or the applicant states that it is just comments as opposed to conditions? Is that correct?

Commissioners, it is correct. And I think we should give you for the record and for the public record the new memo that we issued today from traffic because it eliminates those as conditions. Those are listed and what was shown on the screen during my presentation. We've spoken to the developer and, you know, I'll repeat them really quickly. It kind of doesn't even need to be stated. The county property remains until it's improved. Yeah. And then there was a request within our comments to include a table in the, basically the TIA is going to be need to be updated and revised for our technical corrections that that will be communicated.

So can we make that letter part of the record?

Madam Chair, yes. I need to inform you that the Traffic Division is working from a maintenance perspective and the Land Use Department is working from a design perspective. So, anything that affects the road design, we need to make sure that we don't disregard that because again, no variances were applied for, nor were they even on the agenda, nor were they advertised. So, we...

So, what are you proposing doing with 21 through 23 and 25 and 26?

If you'll give me 10 minutes while you hear the rest, I will try and work up a very unique condition that allows the Land Use Director to work with the county in order to meet whatever they need to do without compromising our regulation.

So, we're talking about the financial guarantee, the bike lane, and then conditions 21 and 23 and 25 and 26. Correct?

Madam Chair, yes.

Okay. Go ahead. So we can open this up for questions and then public comment while you quickly do that.

And Madam Chair, I'd like to state that would be in collaboration with the entire team of folks. So it wouldn't just be me. But I also would like to point out that our Affordable Housing Director, Fabiola Chavez, is here for any questions. We also have online with us D. Bangensner, our City Civil Engineer, as well as Clinton Peterson with Public Utilities and Alan Hook with Public Utilities. So, and Toronto McGregor, of course, our Fire Marshal, if you have any questions.

And I also noticed in on the slides, but also in the materials that we read that the City of Santa Fe City Housing Authority is putting up 1.5 million on this project, too. Is that correct?

Yes, I believe so. Yes, Commissioner Capen. I have a series of questions, but I think one of them might speak to the bike question that you just brought up. First of all, I just want to say congratulations. I think it's really exciting to see a multigenerational project, and it's affordable, and I really the architectural detail. I was like, what is a four-story unit? We just don't see it so much here. But the way that you designed it, I just want to commend you on that because I think it's a really great version of this.

The question I had about the bike lane and how it pertains to the road we're talking about doing in the future is, am I correct that on San Alberto and on San Ignacio, going out to Zafarano, both of those roads are currently going to be designed with pedestrian connectivity to Airport Road and then to Zafarano?

So, see if I understood that correctly. So on San Ignacio, this goes out to Zafarano Drive.

Correct.

So it goes northeast. I know. Again, got to rotate our perspective.

And that's got sidewalk.

Sidewalks and bicycle. And then is it San Alberto that runs on the...

San Alberto then turns, and I believe there's a bike lane on the northbound side, which is on the opposite side of our project, the opposite side of the roadway on the Sabridge and Suites. Again, we're providing a combined pedestrian and bicycle lane or walk, I should say, on our property.

And is that road going to go all the way, is that, will that pedestrian connectivity go all the way to Airport Road where I'm imagining there are bus stops and transportation?

It will not because right now there's, number one, a gas substation that's down here, and I'm not sure who owns this little parcel here, but there won't be a road that actually comes in to add a kind of a fifth road into this intersection. Can you pull that up and put it on?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking on my screen.

Yeah.

Do we know how we get this pulled back onto this?

Please share the screen on the podium.

It's not.

Oh, I see. It's a dotted. So that's going to be a bike path.

Okay, there we go.

Yep.

Yeah, I was also informed of my, although I was pointing all kinds of things during my presentation, of course, either I found the laser pointer tool on here. So, at any rate, all right, thank you. I apologize for that. So, again, just to reiterate, on San Ignacio Road, which is the extension that is being constructed as part of the Sabridge and Suites, there are bicycle lanes and sidewalks on either side of that road. There is a, I think it's a northbound bicycle lane on the opposite side of San Alberto that's being constructed as part of that project there. And then the solid yellow line is that combined pedestrian and bicycle walk or pathway that's going to be constructed on our side of San Alberto. I don't think that San Alberto itself will go all the way to this intersection here because of the, well, it's already a very busy and challenging intersection. Okay, that being said, there are future plans for a bike path that would be a pedestrian connection that would get you to the intersection of Serios and Airport Road.

What version of future plan? I mean, how far out, where are they at on the, I'm just, you know, just thinking about like this is such a great location and it's near a lot of transportation hubs and access to Zafarano is awesome.

Just in conversation about this other road that is, you guys are negotiating. I'm just wondering, you know, how are we going to get these folks to the, you know,

Do this intersection.

Safely move as pedestrians to Airport?

So, I will have to give the diplomatic answer, which is that pathway is not part of our project. It is identified on the NOS's trail master plan, and the city, or sorry, the county has the ability to dedicate those two additional lots to actually make those two additional lots to actually make that happen. That is all I can say on it because it's not been something we've been super involved with as designers of specific.

Any other questions? Commissioner McReynolds.

Thank you, Chair Plow. I just wanted to say, as somebody that does affordable, works with the Federal Home Loan Bank funding, on, I do mortgage residential mortgage lending. I know how hard you guys have worked to get this under the deadline, and so I really just want to put on the record, I hope that this gets approved with urgency because the worst thing, especially given current climates, that funding does may not come back. And so I think it's a really exciting project. I also, I love the multi-generational aspect, and I think it's going to be really great for that part of town. So I just wanted to say that for the record. Thank you. Commissioner McGee.

I'll echo other commissioners to say that this is a really amazing project on a side of town that really needs it. I think in the presentation you walked through the timeline for phase one, which is the housing, but it didn't, it seems like the childcare center is part of phase two, and I don't think I saw any indication of when you plan to do that. Are there any constraints outside of just the completion of phase one? Do you already have a thought on when that will occur?

I do not have any details on that schedule. I do know that we're trying to identify funds for that project that right now is out for budget. But we've allocated location for it, and we've had initial conversations with providers to be able to work there, but we're still chasing some funds.

So, at the moment, it is essentially 0% funded, and we're not sure when it's going to occur.

That is correct, but we want to make sure to include it in the development plan so that we can do it without having to come back and amend a development plan in a year or two.

Any other questions here?

Yes.

Yes, thank you. I have a question for the applicant. As you have Jane's Corp involved, do you have a proposed construction budget, building per square foot?

We do. Don't know if I know that number off the top of my head, to be honest with you. We've only been finalizing that in the last few weeks based upon our more updated construction drawings. So I don't think I could share that right now. Sorry.

Like plus or minus $50 a square foot. Could you?

Plus or minus $50 from, I think around $250 a square foot. That's somewhere in that range, plus or minus $50.

So that's very, that's not a lot of money to work with, and it's a really great looking project. Did a great job.

Any other questions?

No. We're going to open this up for public comment. I always forget about that. Okay. So, now we're moving to public comment. So, if there's anyone in the chambers that would like to come forward and make a comment on this project, please do so. And Heather, is there anyone on Zoom?

Oh, no. Hands are raised.

Okay. Seeing as there's a, a hand just went up. Oh,

It's Mr. Daniel Warwath. Mr. Warwath, if you can state your name and address for the record and be sworn.

You bet.

I am Daniel Warwath. I live at 1611 Camino Port Veneer, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Just speaking in favor of this project, I got to where...

Daniel, you need to be sworn in.

Need to be sworn in.

Sorry. Please raise your right hand. 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?

I do. Please proceed. Thanks. Yeah, I got to work on some very early stages of this project. I just want to commend the team. What an accomplishment it is. It's a big lift. Having developed on public land, I can tell you how challenging it is. I just really want to call out, we really look to these affordable housing projects to build out public infrastructure that is frankly untenable for the finances of affordable housing. And if you look at this, we're talking about having to improve this county-owned roadway, adding bike lanes where you'll probably have to buy adjacent property and make it work. We just need to change how we think about these affordable projects. If they're really priorities, they are not cash cows to pay for public infrastructure. That really needs to come from other places. You have city funds in there. A lot of those city trust funds are going to turn around and pay for city demanded infrastructure here. So, we have sort of this culture of expecting developers to pay for this. Affordable housing under the current terms can't do it. So, you really got to find some other ways to do this and stop demanding that we do so much with these. We're subsidizing, we're using our affordable housing funds to pay for public infrastructure that we're making these projects build. So, I just really want you to think about that as you look at the conditions on this project. Thanks.

Thank you. Their hands are raised.

Okay. So, we'll close the public comment portion of this meeting and move on to new language.

Yeah, give me one more minute here.

Sure. Commissioner McGee, as long as you don't confuse anything.

Okay, go ahead. You have a question?

Oh, you're kidding. Okay, we'll just, it's a good question that won't confuse anything.

No, go ahead.

I guess for the applicant, this is really just a space filler, but you mentioned amenities for seniors in the courtyard, which I haven't really seen before. What are amenities for seniors in a project like?

So, we're going to be providing space for things like cornhole and other activities like that in the space there. We have a porch that faces the courtyard. So, there's going to be outdoor covered outdoor area with picnic benches and areas for people to socialize and work out there. And then just other landscape amenities, benches and lawns and things like that are really to be shared by all of the residents here.

You love that.

Yes, Commissioner Barber.

Thank you, Chair. Question for the applicant. It was mentioned in the presentation that you would collect rainwater off the roof and then divert it into an area in the courthouse and that water would go into an underground reservoir. Can you say more about that? What happens to that? Does it just get recycled?

So, we are actually not going to be recycling it back for irrigation purposes, but we're going to detain it for 24 hours and then allow it to overflow and infiltrate from there. So, it will infiltrate into the site from this retention feature, but it will not be necessarily recycled back in for irrigation uses. That being said, we're trying to get a lot of passive irrigation in the way that that water routes from the roof all the way down to that storage tank. Okay, that is kind of long-winded and it's built on the fly, so please forgive me. To, we were going to modify that last condition that Claudia presented at the podium, and it'll read, I've got this covered so you don't have to worry about it. Final approval of the development plan will occur at the time of recordation of the development plan at the County Clerk's office with signatures of the Planning Commissioner, City Engineer, Planning Land Use Director, Planning Manager, Water Engineer, and Affordable Housing. A, the Planning and Land Use Director shall be allowed to continue working with the county to mitigate impacts and coordinate development review and approval, allowing for alternative means of compliance for the roadway, bike lane, and traffic impacts and the implementation modifications of conditions without returning to the Planning Commission for approval. And B, removal of conditions 17 and 18.

And what about also adding financial guarantee?

Those are condition 17 and 18.

Oh, okay. Is that acceptable to the applicant, Madam Chair?

Yes, it is.

Great. Okay, with that, do we have any other questions or do we have a motion?

Make a motion.

Okay, go ahead. Commissioner Capen.

Let me get it up here. Move to approve case 2025 11625 1335 Camino de Jacobo, sorry, development plan with conditions as written.

Read into the record.

Into the record and agreed upon by the applicant and staff and county.

Second.

Roll call, please. Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Commissioner Capen?

Yes.

Commissioner Barber?

Yes. Commissioner Rowland?

Yes.

Commissioner Miranda?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner, did I miss anybody? I'm sorry. Will McReynolds, I'm sorry.

Yes.

Thank you. The motion, Chair, the motion has passed.

Thank you. Good luck with permitting.

Thank you. We appreciate it.

Good project.

Thank you very much. We've all worked very hard on it. We appreciate your consideration tonight. That was a surprise. No one, I didn't know this was happening at all, this project.

Really good. It's nice to be able to do something worthwhile.

Yes. Comments.

As people are filing out, I think this isn't the first time that we've had this conversation about affordable housing, that what is put on them as far as infrastructure, and that it's really being treated as any kind of developer when it's a really different situation. I would just encourage us as we're looking at the code and the general plan to really try to help clarify that and figure out not to take away the infrastructure development, but when it is a fully affordable project like this, how they, we don't have to have that conversation with them as much.

Well, I know the county's paying for the road, but I guess the other infrastructure is the bike lane and stuff like that.

Yeah. And I think there was something about who was going to guarantee the money for this when the county was saying they weren't. Correct me if I'm wrong. And that was an issue of sometimes the developer has to put that up.

Is that right? And that's where they can't, like that's however much money out of their very budget that doesn't make.

Yeah. It's the purchasing of a bond, but it's sort of dangerous not to have that.

I get that. Yeah, I think it's creative.

It's definitely something to work on, and there are incentives in terms of the water budget.

Because I know their water budget is, they're only paying for the commercial part of the water.

Yeah.

So, but I think it's good. Yes, there's, we can look at, but the city has to be able to afford it, too.

Absolutely. I think these developers are just not-for-profit development that are, it is a delicate situation, but I just feel like we've heard this now several times, and it would be great for us to think about how we can support these kinds of 100% awesome designed things, and everyone's getting.

Maybe with the mansion tax.

Yes.

Can I, can I, could I say?

Yeah, go ahead, Peter. Is there any way that we could, when this is over, just get a list of the things, if it's give or take 50 bucks, it's $250 a square foot. That is a fraction of other square footage numbers I've been hearing. I would love to know the things they did to get to $300 or less a square. What are some of the ways they did that? The second thing is that.

One way, no balconies.

All right. Well, but wait, but quite, but that's something that we need to look at in relationship to affordable housing because he was saying that if they had to do balconies, it would cost a couple of million dollars more, and our code would require balconies in this project. The other thing in studying if credit unions and local banks were able to give supported loans instead of bonding, because when you bond, you bond for the end value, then you have to carry the bond throughout the construction project, incredibly expensive. What they're doing in North Dakota is low-interest loans all the way through, and then you bond at the end to buy out the loan, and they're saving hundreds of thousands of dollars. So there are some ways to do this if we had a public.

This is just a conversation, Madam Chair, since from matters from the commission to staff. If you want to bring up Superman, and then I do, if you want to ask me about the second meeting in May, I will definitely provide you some information.

Yeah, to give us some, it sounds like it's going to be a good meeting. Let's hear more about it.

Well, it's a presentation, and what I'd like to know is if we have a quorum for May 21st. Is that the date starting at 6:00? It is a, it is a study session. No, workshop. It's a workshop. I believe that's on the general plan. City code. Which one is it? City code. So, we'd like to know how many are going to be able to attend on that, on the 21st. Let's see if we get a quorum. Yeah, that works.

Yes, it will work.

So, that will, that means we do have a quorum. And if we want to bring up George, we can properly introduce.

Yes, let's meet George. And I'm really glad that you're raising the bar here in terms of dress. Yes, I'll introduce myself. George Terry. My full name is Adam George Terry, but my friends call me George. I've always gone by George, so please call me George going forward. I'm coming from the Pacific Northwest where I've been serving as a planner with a county jurisdiction out on Puget Sound, Jefferson County, Washington. The seat there is Port Townsend. Some of you might be familiar. Often I get that. And I'm delighted. Mom, the accent you hear is from Texas, though. And you knew that. You heard it.

I get that a lot.

It's so hidden.

And I'm fortunate. I've got both of my parents will turn 81 this year and both live in Texas. So this is a perfect opportunity for me to be in a place I love. I'm familiar with Santa Fe and New Mexico. I'm an avid skier and outdoor recreation enthusiast. So, this is a wonderful home for me, and it gets me within a day's drive of family. So, with that, I'll just say how delighted I am to be here and be part of such an important team. We've got fantastic leadership. My colleagues are dynamos. I'm really impressed. So, and thank you for having me tonight.

And it's an exciting time to be here, too, with all the code and general plan rewrites.

Well said, Chair. Thank you.

And I'm old enough to be your parent, it turns out.

Well.

Yeah. And me, too. So that's why we really like that senior housing.

I do too.

Hey, thanks for having me.

And sure, I'd like to introduce also Ben Feifer, who is a planner with this, with our planning division. He previously worked with the Parks and Recreation Department and actually goes as far back as having been a counselor to my children when they were Chavez. And we're very happy he's joined us and has already made a huge impression.

You've done a great job tonight, too.

Thank you. No, this was a really great introduction and great to talk about interesting projects. So, both, both of these two new employees have excelled in the office in terms of grasping what they need to do in order to achieve our goals and just jump right in. And just, I would say they're, I wouldn't say they're drinking from a fire hose because I think I gave them the sea to drink from, and they're work, and they're drinking from the ocean right now, but they're doing, they're, they're actually taking it, and they're coming along perfectly. I can't be more happier with what they're doing. They're absolutely fabulous employees.

Okay. Any matters from the commission? If not, we'll go ahead and adjourn. Thank you.