Planning Commission Meeting
Thu, Aug 6, 2026 · Planning Commission
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1301-planning-commission-aug-6-2026

== Executive Summary ==
The Planning Commission held a meeting on August 6, 2026, addressing several key development and policy matters. A significant portion of the meeting involved a detailed review and approval of a development plan for an 80-bed skilled nursing facility on Galisteo Road, despite considerable public and commission concern over the road's severely degraded condition and lack of pedestrian infrastructure. The commission approved the plan but added a condition to inform the governing body about the existing infrastructure issues.

Another major discussion centered on the proposed redevelopment of the Old Feed Bin Property at 1202 West Alameda Street. The commission recommended approval of both the rezoning and the final development plan to the governing body, with a crucial amendment limiting the building height to two stories, addressing strong neighborhood concerns about potential 45-foot structures. The commission also postponed a decision on artist residency requirements for mural projects to a future meeting, following legal advice that strict local residency rules might be unenforceable.

== Key Decisions ==
- Approved the agenda and minutes from June 4 (with amendment) and June 18 (Chair Clow abstaining).
- Postponed discussion and decision on artist residency requirements for mural projects (Cases 2025-11753 and 2025-11756) to the August 20, 2026, meeting.
- Approved the development plan for an 80-bed skilled nursing facility at 2981 Galisteo Road (Case 2024-7999), subject to conditions and technical corrections, and an amendment to inform the governing body about the poor condition of Galisteo Road.
- Approved the findings and conclusions for a Certificate of Compliance (Case 202511265996 Martinez Lane).
- Recommended approval of the rezoning for 1202 West Alameda Street (Case 202612047) to the governing body, with a condition limiting development to two stories.
- Recommended approval of the development plan for 1202 West Alameda Street (Case 202612048) to the governing body, with a condition limiting development to two stories.

== Motions & Votes ==
- Motion to approve the agenda — Passed unanimously.
- Motion to approve the June 4 minutes with an amendment — Passed.
- Motion to approve the June 18 minutes — Passed (Chair Clow abstained).
- Motion to approve the development plan for 2981 Galisteo Road (Case 2024-7999) with conditions and an amendment to inform the governing body about the roadway condition — Passed 6-0.
- Motion to approve the findings and conclusions for Certificate of Compliance (Case 202511265996 Martinez Lane) — Passed 5-0.
- Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning for 1202 West Alameda Street (Case 202612047) to the governing body, subject to technical corrections and an additional condition limiting development to two stories — Passed 6 Yes.
- Motion to recommend approval of the development plan for 1202 West Alameda Street (Case 202612048) to the governing body, subject to conditions of approval, technical corrections, and an additional condition limiting development to two stories — Passed (roll call initiated and passed).
- A second, unspecified motion related to the 1202 West Alameda Street project — Passed 6 Yes.

== Public Comment ==
Public comments largely focused on two main areas: the poor condition of Galisteo Road and the proposed development at 1202 West Alameda Street. Residents expressed significant concerns about the lack of safe pedestrian and multimodal access on Galisteo Road, highlighting the absence of sidewalks, bike lanes, and ADA-compliant facilities, and the potential for increased traffic from the new skilled nursing facility. For the West Alameda project, there was strong neighborhood support for the revitalization but considerable concern about the potential for a 45-foot building height, with residents preferring the proposed 30 feet 3 inches. Concerns were also raised about increased traffic, and potential 'fugitive lighting' and illuminated signage, though appreciation was expressed for the removal of a drive-through option.

== Topics ==
- Artist Residency Requirement
- Development Plan Height Restrictions
- Infill Development
- Rezoning Process Amendments
- Minutes Approval
- Code Update Phase Two
- Staff Communications

== Full Transcript ==
Can we call a meeting to order? Madam, can we call a meeting to order, please? Heather, can we call the meeting to order, please? The clocks here are slow. They're three to five minutes slow.

Oh, IT, please let us know when we are streaming. And we have Chair Clow and, I believe, Member Capen Ness. There she is. Both are joining us virtually. We are live. Thank you.

Okay. Call the meeting to order, and I have a Pledge of Allegiance. Miss McGee, will you please?

Now I hear a motion to approve the agenda. We don't need a motion to write a statement. Roll call. Oh, to approve the agenda. Okay, sorry.

Chair Clow? Yes.
Chair Smith? Yes.
Commissioner McGee? Yes.
Commissioner Miranda? Yes.
Commissioner Rayland? And tentatively, the other commissioners? Capen, you said. Yes. Oh, sorry. Chair Commissioner Capen? Yes.

Okay. Chair Smith, you have a quorum. Quorum agenda is approved. Could we now have a local vote from? Yes. I believe that was just, you know, with the, nothing's been up through the agenda yet. Yep. You approved the chair, Chair, you approved the agenda prior to taking roll. Okay. Roll of the consent agenda. Follow up, please.

Commissioner Miranda? Yes.
Commissioner Capen? Yes.
Commissioner Rayland? Yes.
Chair Clow? I don't see anything on the consent agenda. We don't have anything on the consent agenda. Should I continue your roll call? Motion's approved.

Now we need to approve the minutes of the June 4 meeting and the June 18 meeting. I need a motion for this. I have some changes. Commissioner Clow, I have some changes on the June 4 minutes. There's an error in that there were two votes taken on the approval of the agenda, and the first vote only had three commissioners voting. And then there was a second vote, and everyone voted. So I think they need to be amended to take off the first vote.

I would second. Does that need a second? No, I think that's it. Yeah, I would move the approval of the minutes with the correction that I just spoke of. Can I second? I'll second. Seconded by Miranda. Are there any questions? Roll call opens.

Commissioner McGee? Yes.
Chair Clow? Yes.
Chair Smith? Yes.
Commissioner Barber? Alright.
Commissioner Rand? Yes.
Commissioner Capen? Yes.
And Commissioner Miranda? Yes.

The motion is approved. I hear a motion on the June 18 minutes. Motion to approve the June 18 minutes as presented. Second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner McGee? Yes.
Commissioner Miranda? Sorry. Yes.
Commissioner Raymond? Yes.
Commissioner Capen? Yes.
Chair Clow? I abstained. I wasn't present. And I'm forgetting somebody. I apologize.
Chair Smith? Yes.

Motion is approved. Maybe then move to old business and where do the staff? Mr. Chair? Can we move matters from staff above old business so that we can, right after, right after the old business so that we can hear a presentation from our Economic Development Director? Hearing no objection, we will move number 10 on the agenda, staff communications, to what would be a new number eight before the findings and conclusions. Is that what you're asking? Yes. If there are no questions, we will do that. Thank you.

Okay. Now we are old business case 2025-11753, regarding hiring an artist from Santa Fe. And then both A and B refer to the same thing. Could have a, it's pretty self-evident, but I think we ought to have a short presentation.

Thank you, Chair Smith. I also wanted to introduce myself for Chair Clow and Commissioner Capen online. I don't think we've had the opportunity to meet, but my name is Natalie Cawley. I'm the newest Assistant City Attorney, and I'll be taking over working with the Planning Commission from Frank. So I'll be working with you all going forward, and I look forward to it.

Yes. As I detailed for the commission in my memorandum, in reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law for these two cases, cases number 2025-11753 and 2025-11756, the City Attorney's office determines that the condition that an applicant hire an artist specifically from Santa Fe for the murals is likely not legally enforceable. As I clarified with one of the commissioners previously, this is just about the residency of the artist. The condition requiring the murals to be created still stands. We do not have any legal counsel with regards to those conditions.

Quickly, I'll just frame this as I did in my memorandum. The reason that it's likely not legally enforceable is because the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Federal Constitution places limitations on when states and municipalities can preference local residents at the expense of non-residents. They're certainly able to do so in some circumstances, but that does require the municipality to create a record as to why this preference is necessary and specifically what is the evil that is being targeted by the preference. In reviewing the minutes from the June 18, pardon me, June 4 hearing where these cases were approved, I did not see that sort of discussion on the record. And so without that discussion, I would advise, our office would advise that the commission make a motion to amend both of those cases and remove the residency artist requirement.

Thank you. And my question is, can we have one motion that references both cases, or do we need two motions? I believe that would be sufficient to have one motion for both cases. Okay. Okay. Is there, are there any comments about this? Or may I hear, if not, may I hear a motion? Sure. Sure. I'm sorry. Yes. Hi. I'm not sure the best way to interrupt like this, so I apologize. But I had written something down that I was hoping to read with a proposed motion for this to change the language and wondered if I could read it aloud? Sure.

Alright. I wanted to say thank you, and I apologize, I'm reading this. I'm split on my computer between the screen and some things, so bear with me here. I appreciate the City Attorney's analysis and understand the constitutional concern. I don't think anyone on the commission wants to retain a condition that may not be legally enforceable. But at the same time, I don't want to lose the intention that motivated the condition in the first place, not just about having murals, but about the tie to the local culture. We intentionally, I think, sought to create an opportunity for Santa Fe artists to contribute to this as a permanent public-facing element of the project. And during the hearing, we asked the applicant whether they would be willing to make that commitment, and they voluntarily agreed. The applicant was actually the one that was offering to keep the, sorry, keep the existing Empire Builder mural and have it recommissioned. So we were kind of working off that.

And I think there are two priorities that are really relevant here. You know, the city, and I know you're not shutting the whole thing down, but I think just, I'm wondering if there's some language where we could not lose the intention, but also not obviously be unconstitutional. I wrote down here the city's public art policies recognize the role of public art, and it can play, that it can play in reflecting Santa Fe's cultural heritage, engaging the community, and contributing to our vibrant neighborhoods. And we are, as a city, are working to create opportunities for Santa Fe artists and creative workers through the Arts and Cultures Department Art Force initiative, and that's building a resource to identify Santa Fe artists and connect them with the work. I think these things come together in this project, with this permanent public art being tied to this. So I guess, I'm wondering if we can include an opportunity to meaningfully engage the local artist community without limiting it to a residential thing?

So I guess the motion that I wanted to propose sounds something like this, and I would ask for some help from legal counsel, and I'm definitely open to discussion with the other commissioners. But I move to amend the previously adopted conditions of approval for case number 2025-11753 and case number 2025-11756 by replacing the requirement that the applicant hire artists from Santa Fe with the following: The applicant shall make good faith effort to solicit proposals from Santa Fe artists for the two required murals, including direct outreach to Santa Fe artists or Santa Fe arts organizations. The applicant shall provide documentation of those outreach efforts to the city prior to selecting the artists or artists. And I wondered from the City Attorney if that would be acceptable language that would get us out of the constitutional issue.

Yes, Commissioner, thank you. Commissioner Capen, through the Chair, I believe that would be acceptable language. Also, your prior statements about the need for this sort of preference for artists, I believe, would also support even the original language and provide the necessary record to show that there is a substantial relationship between this condition and the needs of the municipality and the needs of the residents. I will just say the other consideration here is that because of my advice regarding this condition, the prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law that are before the commission today and one of the subsequent agenda items do not include anything with regards to the residency requirement. Obviously, it would not include the new motion that you just proposed. And so that is the other consideration is that if you'd like to do that sort of motion, that certainly seems permissible and would get around the legal issue, but it would defer the approval of the findings of fact and conclusions of law until a future meeting of the commission.

Okay. Understood. Thank you. Do any of the other commissioners have any comments on that? Any thoughts, comments? Yes, Commissioner McGee. I would just say that I fully support the language that you created, Piper. I think that when we initially proposed that, it was to ensure that there was some community element involved in this project. And I agree that we definitely don't want to break any laws by doing so.

Yes. Yes. I'm sorry, Chair Smith. Another thought just came to mind that, unfortunately, because this motion was not on the agenda, the applicant has not had an opportunity. I assume he's not here and has not had an opportunity to respond to this motion. So that is another legal issue that we'd be running into here. So I would actually propose that if the commission would like to keep the motion, your the artist residency requirement, then instead, you just stick with what you have. As I mentioned previously, Commissioner Capen's statements about the need for residency requirement as supporting the arts community in Santa Fe would be the sufficient record that we need. But without the applicant being on notice of this new condition, then the new condition would not be permitted. So in order to avoid that new legal issue, I would suggest that we put a, that we recognize that the Commissioner Capen's statements were sufficient to develop the record. And then in the next meeting, we can come back and approve, or you all can come back and approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the artist residency requirement that existed previously.

Is that okay? So we will, do we need a motion to table it, or are we? Your motion to table item, I haven't got the number here, but it's 2025-11753, Chair. 56. Can we consider the second meeting in August as a, are you going to be here? You mind? Yep.

We consider that the second meeting in August for that particular one, that we don't have to wait another month for those findings. If you can postpone to a date certain, that'll give us enough time to inform the applicant. They can be here and attend for this meeting. It's the 20th. So the date of that meeting is August 20.

Chair Smith, I would make a motion to table both items seven, old business A and B, to the August 20 meeting.

Second.

Please call the roll.

Chair Clough?

Yes.

Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Commissioner Barber?

Yes.

Commissioner Rayland?

Yes.

Commissioner Miranda?

Yes.

Chair Smith, the motion is approved.

No, the chair does not vote on that. That's right.

Mr. Cherry, I just want to clarify. You did mean postpone versus table, right? Because table puts it to the end of the agenda as opposed to postpone to a date certain. And we consider that a friendly amendment. I just wanted to make sure that was the understanding you had in mind so that we can move forward.

Oh, okay. Get my agenda back up here. That's what we then integrate, we changed the agenda to have staff communications at this point. Yes.

Chair Smith, members of the commission, I'd like to introduce Johanna Nelson, who is our Economic Development Director and a person who does a million things at once.

Mr. Chair, I just need one more clarification on the motion. I just want to make sure that we are motioning on the 20th, the new condition as presented by Commissioner Capen versus keeping the old condition previously approved. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead. Thank you.

Wait, excuse me? Chair Smith? Yeah. Am I misunderstanding what our city attorney was saying about keeping it the way it is, but that we now have on the record the reason to have it the way it is? So we're not actually changing it.

Oh, I had the same question. Where I thought the conversation ended, we were not going to change the language. We were going to include Commissioner Capen's comments, which would sufficiently illustrate the intention of the motion that was originally passed. We were not going to have a different motion, but simply include the accompanying language.

That was Chair Smith, that was my recommendation. I do believe people, different commissioners may have been voting with different understandings. It seems that some commissioners were voting with the understanding that you had, that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were just being deferred until August 20 with the original condition, and other commissioners may have been voting based on the idea that on August 20, the applicant would be here and would be able to respond to the new condition that Commissioner Capen proposed, that you would then vote on that new condition. And then the findings of fact and conclusions of law would have to be prepared and approved at a later date. Please, commissioners, correct me if that's wrong.

Mr. Smith? Yes. I'd like to clarify the intent of my own motion, I guess. What I understood was that we were postponing to revise the finding of fact and inclusion of law to reflect the original motion. And because we'd established through Commissioner Capen on the record the need, that that now was allowable.

That is correct. Thank you, Commissioner. I think staff made a statement about the applicant being there and being able to respond to the condition, so that may have led to the confusion. But it sounds like all of the commissioners understood what was being voted on. Thank you.

Mr. Capen, is that a, you got it? You good with that?

Yep. That sounds right. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Now we will proceed with the staff report.

Thank you, Chair Smith. I would like to say once again, our Economic Development Director is full of energy, and I see her at all sorts of community events. We have the fortune of working with our Economic Development Division on many different projects, and one of them is the General Plan update. We've been engaging with them as we go along through the process to get their comments and their review. And at one of these meetings, Ms. Nelson suggested maybe that we develop an economic development strategy. So it is a companion project to the General Plan project to really flesh out more what our strategy is for economic development. We have a lot of great programs like Go Local programs as well as others. And so Ms. Nelson is going to present to you what we've discovered so far and the progress of the economic development strategy.

Thank you, Chairs. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, Director Lamboy. I am really excited to be here tonight. This is my first Planning Commission meeting, and it's great to meet all of you. Would love to continue the conversation post-meeting as well. But thank you to Director Lamboy for giving the opportunity for me to share an update on this exciting initiative that you have for you. So as mentioned, I'm the Director for the Economic Development Division in a newly formed department called the Economic Development and Creative Industries Department. And we are a close cousin and highly relevant to the work that you do. Our work is really focused on making sure that our economy is thriving, we're diversified, we're strong, and we have equitable opportunities for our residents.

So as Director Lamboy mentioned, we are involved in a lot of different initiatives and different approaches. Currently, our office has two governing ordinances that are due to be updated. One of those is called the Economic Development Fund Ordinance that looks at how we are administering and investing funding that is generated by land and lease sales that goes into the Economic Development Fund. And the other one is the Economic Development Plan. Our plan on record was last amended in 2008 of a 2004 plan. It's called the Angelou Plan. It's a fine plan. Maybe some of you participated in that original effort. There were about a thousand folks in the community that were involved with that. Although it's a fine plan, we're due to update it and help inform our current initiatives, investments, and strategies.

So Director Lamboy mentioned that in conjunction with the fantastic work going on with Santa Fe Forward, we wanted to leverage that work that is being conducted and try to find some efficiencies. So we reached out to WSP, the main contractor for that effort, and we're able to subcontract to an organization called Leland Consulting to help us with the effort to develop a new five-year economic development comprehensive strategic plan, which we're thrilled about. And tonight, I'll give you an update on where we are at. On the screen, you can see the Leland Consulting Group is led by Ted Camp and Andrew Oliver, and we are in close communication with their team. We meet once a week, and they, on the back end, are often in communication with WSP and the leaders of that initiative. For the City of Santa Fe in our office, this initiative is led by myself along with members from our staff and our Economic Development Advisory Committee. So we have a sub-working group within EDAC that is very involved with the strategic planning. Then you have Nick Fazio and Stephanie Wong representing WSP. And as mentioned, our intention, not only for our own purposes to have an updated plan with updated data, information, but it's also to really leverage this initiative being led by the land use team. We want to reduce different efforts and really work together. And again, thanks to Director Lamboy and her team for allowing us to partner and have this cross-division and cross-department effort.

The work to date is reflected in this slide in front of you, and I think we've got a total of roughly nine tasks. We started this work in February. Here we are in August and hoping, oh, sure. Is it possible to pin the main presentation? Okay. Thank you. Great question. You guys can't see that. I'm seeing that I can't still hear. I was assuming that somehow you had a different view. We can see the commissioners there, but great call. I'll just pause for a second. Thank you. Unshare it? Oh, like unplug? Let's see. Yeah. Maybe it's just, maybe that. Okay. Great. How's that for everyone? Wonderful.

So going back to a status update of where we are at in this process, there's a number of seven tasks. It's blinking in and out. Sure. Okay. Alright. Thank you for your patience. So again, repeating, we've got about seven different tasks projecting a finalization and adoption, hoping for September. So that gives you an understanding of where we're at in the project. We started in February. I think the interesting point to make here is that in addition to coordinating with our community partners to gather feedback, there's a significant amount of plans already in existence that focus on economic development. That includes the county, our regional partners, the state economic development plan, state workforce plan. There was an analysis of at least 10 different planning initiatives that involve economic development. And I'm really excited to call that information along with the primary information that we gathered from our partners to get to where we're at.

So first off, we did reach out to our economic development organizations, over 65 different, let's say, 65 different partners. We also, in the spring, did a community survey. This was interesting where if you think about our audiences, we have our business service providers, what we call community partners, that provide business services. They're engaged in some type of support for our business community. And then we also surveyed our residents. We, in total, received about a thousand responses, which is on par for the feedback that was received in 2004. And moving on to the next task, we did early on engage Ernst and Young to do an updated economic data dive. So our current consultants were able to use that effort and leverage it and incorporate that into their planning. And we are currently in task four slash five, which are in-depth interviews with industry, targeted industries, business leaders, and significant organizations or thought partners that have been identified in the previous survey work.

I will note that we, I do think it's significant to mention that we look at our targeted industries that have been identified through the state plan efforts, through the Angelou Plan, and our other partners to understand, have a pretty good understanding of our targeted industries. So we want to make sure to capture the feedback from some of those high employers or high-grossing revenue partners within those industries to understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities. And that is, as I mentioned, ongoing, about to wrap up. And then, task six, I hope that you find this of interest. Because of the leveraging and the partnership with the Santa Fe Forward team, we're really excited to work with Leland to look at what they are terming opportunity areas, looking at the development, areas that are poised to support some of these initiatives, whether for growth or to supporting commercial activity or industry, et cetera, to prepare an assessment of where opportunity is for development, whether that be on the public side or the private side. And seven is further analyzing that information, providing the strategic framework that we will then share with our leaders, our Economic Development Advisory Council, our counselors, the Mayor's Office, our partners to begin that iterative process of getting a plan that we are all happy with, that we can then codify and update the economic development plan for the next five years. I get really excited about this slide, but I mentioned the analysis that's been put into play to look at all of the existing plans throughout the state, local all the way up to state.

And what you see are trends, especially regarding what our targeted industries to focus on supporting and growing, depending on a number of factors. So what we have worked with the consultants is to look at one of the things to point out is, for example, arts, design, and media can be called different things in different plans, whether that's arts and culture, creative industries, etcetera. So it's exciting, again, to have this updated information and develop some shared vocabulary between not only our team and our city team, but our local and regional partners.

And you can see here some of the trends that are currently emerging. There's still a strong push for supporting what I would call the creative industries. We also have tourism, recreation, specialty consumer goods, which fall in the retail industry. We've also got technology development, which many times is called science, technology, and innovation. And then professional services, which we know, being the capital, we have a lot of government and administrative management activity. So not a lot of deviation, but there is deviation in titling and how these industries are referred to.

The upcoming task to mention are drafting those goals, the strategy, the action plan. I will note for you all, especially as our community, there will be ample opportunity for feedback. And it would be great to provide that for you guys to get your thoughts, especially on those opportunity areas in these areas that directly go back to our work in partnership with the land use team. And then, again, our final task, do you present this to the governing body and actually get codified, and it becomes our governing plan for the next five years. And it's projecting to have that happen in September. Is it ambitious? Is it optimistic? I think so, but I think we can do it.

And with that, that concludes a really quick flash on where we're at with the plan. And, again, I want to thank Director Lamboy and the Land Use team. We're thrilled to have this opportunity to have this relationship working with a really great partner on the City team in this effort, and we'll take any questions. Thank you.

Are there questions, members of the commission? I have two. One, would it be possible for you to share that deck with us so we could give it to Heather and she could have it and or live with it a little bit more and analyze it?

Chair, Commissioners, would be happy to. I can send that right after I get done.

And the second is, and I don't want to be misunderstood here. Looking briefly at this and then listening to your presentation, it strikes me that there is a dominant orientation towards smaller business and local business, things that will, as I understand where the general plan is going, really reinforce if we do it right, neighborhoods, localism, and community, community integrity. And I just think about going into my own background on this, I think it's perfect if I'm understanding it correctly. Sure. We need a 2,000 employee business inside of town. Yes. Am I correct that it seems to be a real focus, small business in those five, four or five areas?

Chair, Commissioners, Director Lamboy, you're right on the money. I'm glad that you can reference that from our end of year report that summarizes where a lot of our energy and effort has gone in the past year. Our office hasn't had an organized what's called business retention expansion initiative, and so we've worked really diligently for the past two years to develop a BR and E program that when you get into it can be quite complicated. But at the surface level, just means that we have been really focused on making sure that we are assisting our local businesses first and foremost, that they have the tools and resources to grow and expand. And I say complicated simply because it requires us to understand our many different partners in the ecosystem and make sure communication flow is happening that relate back to resource awareness, etcetera. Director Lamboy mentioned our Go Local, Go Different program, which has really taken off and not only gives our local businesses the supports to grow and expand, but also provides that opportunity for promotion and getting the message out to our residents of why it's important to support local, etcetera.

Sure. Rondo. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I guess I had a question. You brought up identifying nodes. So it seemed like the time frame of when that would happen would be soon enough that that could be given over to staff here to be a part of the code rewrite, you know, because that when you look at the Santa Fe Forward map, that node placing information might be very relevant. I don't know how specific it gets. But, yeah, is that something that's going to be able to happen?

Chair, Commissioners, Director Lamboy, that's a fantastic question, and I would wholeheartedly welcome that opportunity once we see a draft from the consultants to engage not only the land use team but the commissioners. We would welcome the feedback, yearly. And I will note this is, in particular, where the consultants are really working closely with the team at WSP and the land use team.

Apart from the interviews, how do they go about identifying the nodes? Maybe that gets into the weeds fairly quickly.

Chair, Commissioners, Director Lamboy, from my understanding currently, and I'm making an assumption because we haven't seen a draft. Previous conversations have really pointed to the work that is being led at the general plan with the general plan and looking at the land use code, etcetera, to look at what codes are in support of where they see trends and where we identify gaps and opportunities for commercial investment. So it's a mix, and I'm happy to when we get the draft to really get into some of the reasoning because I think that would be highly relevant for you guys as well as us too.

Have they brought up the use of software like Google Streetlight, for instance? Software that tracks movement, essentially.

Chair, Commissioners, Director Lamboy, I haven't heard the use of Google applications, but they are utilizing Placer and other tools that track commuter activity, workforce activity, which is really fascinating. So much, I'm assuming, like our planning team utilizes too.

Thanks. Yeah. Are there other questions? Yes. Thank you, Terry Smith. I would just like to point out and thank you to Director Nelson for updating us. There are other things as well where this will be applied by the Planning Commission. Mr. Esquivel reminded me as we look at general plan amendments, we also some of the criteria address economic development goals. So this plan will help to refine that as we make decisions, as staff as well as the Planning Commission and recommendations to the governing body. The, so that is the land development code role will have a very real impact, but also, we will have a map series associated with the future land use map. And we certainly would introduce nodes, the node concepts there as well so that we can prioritize and provide a policy framework for economic initiatives and priorities. So that would be very much part. And that's why this is such a great companion project because that will be very much part of the general plan, which helps the city, you know, provide direction to the city, as we really try to develop our workforce and develop small businesses as well as maybe not so small businesses. I would also like to point out that Director Nelson applied for a trade port grant. And so we've been coordinating with those on a lot of these types of grant projects and designation. And the trade port would be around the airport and would access more financial resources, business development as well if we were to get it. So she's very assertive in looking for these financial support opportunities as well as just working with the business community. Thank you.

Just one last point there, Commissioner Smith. Yeah. Thank you. I guess you did mention general plan. The general plan is part of the direction on this. Just because that is being rewritten, I hope there's, like, a fluid conversation back and forth on that.

Yeah. Chair, Commissioners, exactly the point and advantage of working together that I think we couldn't be more excited to have this fluidity and conversation to support that point. Thank you.

Other comments? Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll move to approval of findings and conclusions, and I'm going to make a short absence. I will turn the camera. Okay. So we will move on to approval of findings and conclusions. First, in case, yes. Commissioner, just so the commission is aware, the first two cases, 202511753 and 11756, I would recommend you postpone those given our earlier discussion. Yes. So, would we have, do we need a motion to postpone? Or Yes. I believe so. Can I hear a motion?

Given earlier conversation about postponing the conversation around the murals to August 20, I make a motion to postpone the approval of findings and conclusions for case number 202511753, 1802 and 1750 Sarias Road, 1360.25 Street, and 3 Road Berry Avenue development plan, as well as case number 202511756, 18021750 Sarias Road, 1360.25 Street, and 3rd Berry Avenue special use permit.

Give me a second. Second. Roll, please. Chair Clapp? Yes. Commissioner Capen? Yes. Chair Commissioner Barber? Yes. Commissioner Rayland? Yes. Commissioner McGee? Yes. Acting Chair? No. Does Miranda vote in this case? Does Miranda vote in this case? Vote Miranda. Chair Miranda, the motion is passed.

And in our remaining approval and findings conclusion. Do we have a motion?

Yes, Chair Miranda. For case 2025, 11265996 Martinez Lane certificate of compliance, and make a motion to approve the findings and conclusions.

Second. Roll, please. Commissioner McGee? Yes. Commissioner Ray Raitland? Yes. Commissioner Barber? Yes. Chair Clough? Yes. Commissioner Capen? Yes. Acting Chair Miranda, the motion is passed.

Okay. Moving on. We've, we do not have consent, so we're moving on to new business. And case 2024, 7999, the 2981 Galisteo Road Development Plan Staff. A tea, please. Large. Apologies for the delay, Planning Commissioners. I'll begin by introducing myself. Good evening. Acting Chair Smith, Chair Clough above me somewhere, and those commissioners joining us online. It's always a pleasure to be here. My name is George Terry, and I'm a senior planner with our Planning and Land Use Department. And it looks like we're up and running. If everybody feels good about their ability to see that, we'll begin.

This item is case 20247999, the 2981 Galisteo Road development plan, or the Anquorum Saint Vincent skilled nursing facility. Tonight, I'll start with the requested action, then I'll walk through the site context, project proposal, the public process, technical review, conditions, findings, and the recommended motion. The request before the Planning Commission is development plan approval. The proposal is a 65,937 square foot, 80 bed skilled nursing facility on approximately 6.325 acres at 2981 Galisteo Road. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions of approval and technical conditions in attachment A. Before getting into the site details, it is useful to clarify what tonight's approval would and would not do. Approval would approve the development plan, adopt the staff report findings, apply attachment A conditions, and allow the project to proceed to final plan, recordation, and later permitting stages if those conditions are met. Approval would not issue a building permit, authorize immediate construction, waive later technical requirements, or override applicable water, fire, terrain, wastewater, accessibility, archaeology, or permit stage review.

With that approval framework in mind, I will orient the commission to the property and the surrounding context. That is a bit difficult to see. I apologize. I can explain a bit as we move through it. The site again is located at 2981 Galisteo Road, generally south of Rodeo Road. If you can see my pointer, which you can't, but it is there to the north.

George, they won't be able to hear you on the Zoom, so you gotta Rodeo Road to the North. Galisteo Road borders the subject parcel immediately to the east. Rail Runner Corridor and that trail corridor is immediately to the west. Interstate 25 there is immediately to the South. Nearby institutional and commercial development and residential neighborhoods. Well, now I know. Thank you.

The next two slides will use the staff report photo record to show the existing site conditions from multiple viewpoints. And again, bear with me on the size. The inset maps are attempting to show you the perspective from which the photograph was taken just to orient you to what you're looking at, but I'll attempt that here now. These views again are from the attachment B, and they show the existing undeveloped site and the terrain near the southwest and south central portions of the property. These two photos do. Southwest, south central portions of the property. They also show the relationship between the site, Galisteo Road, the interstate corridor, and the surrounding open terrain.

Now these views show the Northwest and northern portions, including the adjacent institutional care context to the north. Staff's compatibility review considered the vacant site, nearby assisted living, institutional care facilities, medical and commercial uses, transportation corridors, and residential neighborhoods in the broader area. Before I proceed, I want to make sure with that location and regulatory context established, these next slides summarize the proposed zoning and review districts. The site is zoned Business Industrial Park. The project is also within the Suburban and River and Trails Archeological Review Districts. The staff report and attachment A require the applicant to satisfy applicable review district and archeological requirements at the appropriate later approval or permit stage. Please forgive the absence of a key there on the existing zoning map. That purple overlay is the existing Business Industrial Park zoning. The map on the right, the review district's map. The peach there, of course, is the Suburban Review District. The light blue is the River and Trails Archaeological Review District.

Now I'll summarize the proposed development plan. The project is a two-story skilled nursing facility with 80 beds and 80 proposed parking spaces. The plan includes access from Galisteo Road, internal circulation and parking, fire access, public water infrastructure, sanitary sewer service, stormwater facilities, landscaping, lighting, pedestrian and trail-related improvements, and related site improvements. The next slide shows how those elements are organized on the site plan. The current development plan places the building in the northern portion of the site with access from Galisteo Road and internal circulation serving parking, emergency access, utility infrastructure, drainage, landscaping, and open space areas. Final technical corrections and conditions are carried in Attachment A.

Public process and notice are also part of the record for tonight's decision. The required early neighborhood notification meeting was held on 02/27/2024. Questions at that meeting included traffic, Galisteo Road conditions, pedestrian safety, parking, lighting, loading, operations, landscaping, and trail connectivity. A courtesy follow-up meeting was held on 05/28/2026 with no public attendees and no comments at that meeting. The final notice and posting proof materials are included in attachment C2.

The project also underwent multidisciplinary technical review. The application was reviewed through the development review team process. Review disciplines included planning and land use, water division and water resources, wastewater, engineering and terrain, fire, traffic and complete streets, metropolitan planning organization and trails, parks, landscape and lighting, archaeology, and accessibility. The technical review record is reflected in the final attachments and in attachment A. Two of the most important technical readiness items are the water plan and the development water budget. The water plan has been signed and approved by the water division and the Santa Fe Fire Department. It addresses domestic service, irrigation service, fire service infrastructure, hydrants, backflow, utility crossings, and private hydrant maintenance. Water Resources has also approved the alternative final development water budget. The approved total water demand offset is 4.41 acre-feet per year with the development water budget materials included in attachment D.

The next technical area is traffic access and circulation. Access is from Galisteo Road aligned with the Avenida La Circa area. The traffic impact analysis reviewed the access location, driveway spacing, site distance, and surrounding intersections. The record identifies an existing Galisteo Rodeo condition but does not identify the project as creating or materially impacting that existing failing movement. Final access, crossing, striping, and public infrastructure details remain condition controlled.

Parking and accessibility have also been reviewed and conditioned. The development plan identifies 40 required parking spaces and 80 provided spaces. The applicant provided a parking justification based on the care facility operating program, staffing levels, visitor demand, shift overlap, service and vendor activity, and passenger and loading needs. Accessibility requirements, accessible routes, ADA parking, and related site accessibility improvements remain condition controlled through attachment A.

The remaining technical controls are grouped on this slide. The terrain management report supports the stormwater management approach, and drainage and maintenance remain conditioned. Fire access, fire hydrants, fire flow, and private hydrant maintenance are coordinated with the signed water plan. Wastewater, utility crossings, landscape, lighting, archaeology, review district, trail, and accessibility items are addressed through attachment A conditions and later technical review.

Now those requirements are organized into the formal conditions of approval. Attachment A is the enforceable conditions document. It addresses water plan and water budget compliance, fire access, and private hydrant obligations, terrain and drainage, wastewater, landscape and lighting, access and parking, ADA accessibility, archaeology and review districts, trail coordination, final plan corrections, and any and all ongoing compliance items.

Now based on the record and those conditions, staff supports the required findings. Staff finds that the development plan supports the public interest, is compatible and adaptable with the surrounding context, complies or can comply with Chapter 14 subject to conditions, has completed sufficient technical review, has documented public process and notice, and includes conditions that are necessary and appropriate to support approval.

Now that leads to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends approval of case 2024-7999, 2981 Galisteo Road development plan, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections included in attachment A based on the findings set forth in the staff report. The recommended motion is here on my final slide. The recommended motion, yep, that's it. And I will stand for questions. Thank you for your time. Members of the commission have questions. Thank you very much for a succinct and clear report. Our online people, any questions for Commissioner Capen or Commissioner Clow? And I think we're ready to move to the next presentation. There we go. Can I be elevated? I'll just share my presentation via the Zoom. Got it. Yeah, I'm in the Zoom meeting right now. IT, please allow Jennifer Jenkins to share her screen. Always find that to be a little more, I don't know, graceful.

State your name and address for the record? Jennifer Jenkins, 130 Grant Avenue. You shall only declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury. I do. Please proceed. Thank you.

Evening, commissioners. I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin. Really delighted actually to be here this evening on behalf of Ancorum Health Foundation for a really important project and for this community. So George provided a very thorough presentation. So I'm going to share my screen and all kinds of little puppet message. Alrighty. So I think that we are familiar with where the property is located. We are south of the intersection of Rodeo and Galisteo Road. What we see here just to the right, that is the Rodeo Business Park. And so we are separated from Rodeo Business Park by the railroad tracks and associated rail trail. And so we are located on the west side of the tracks just south of the Sierra Blanca senior living facility. And we are just east of the Las Estancias neighborhood located off of Galisteo Road.

One thing I will point out that's a little bit unusual, this is Galisteo Road here. You see these three tracks of land that basically separate us. We have a pretty significant setback from Galisteo Road. Those tracks of land are owned by the Department of Transportation. A long time ago, the railroad went through there. So there's an actually an old rail bed within those tracks. So we don't actually have direct frontage on Galisteo. We have this pretty generous, pretty generous setback. So this is the zoning map. As George mentioned, we are Zone Business Industrial Park or BIP, which is the zoning for the Rodeo Business Park that this project was sort of part of a long time ago, but, of course, we have a little bit of a geographic separation due to the railway.

So just zooming in on the property, you can see the contour lines here. It's very gently sloped, eminently developable, no significant terrain issues. This is an existing easement that gives us access out to Galisteo Road, across the Department of Transportation properties that basically separate us from Galisteo. And then you can see the railroad to our east. So this is our site plan. We are going to zoom in on this here momentarily, but I always think it's useful to be able to, you know, take a 30,000-foot view here and see how the proposed facility fits in with the surrounding, with the surrounding context. You can see our access drive, which is aligned with Avenida La Circa across the street. That is one of the access points in the Las Estancias. And then you can see Galisteo Road here, and you can actually see evidence of that old rail bed kind of running through, running through this road.

So zooming in on the site plan. So again, we have Galisteo Road here. We have our access drive. We have a two-story proposed skilled nursing facility. So for some of us who may not be familiar with this type of medical care, it's very, sometimes it's called a rehabilitation facility. So this is the type of medical, medical care where, let's say, you blew out your ACL on the ski slopes. You have surgery. You don't need to be in the hospital anymore, but you're really not well enough to go home. So you need rehabilitation. You need physical therapy. This would be where you would go. That would be that interim place. So you're not in the hospital, but you're here, but this is full nursing, rehabilitation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, all of those elements, of course, meals, you know, so kind of all the things you would expect in a hospital setting, but this is kind of that, the transition point between, you know, the hospital and being able to go home.

And we're going to talk about it in a moment, but if anybody has ever had an experience or had the need of that kind of care, I think we all know that there is a dearth of great options in our community currently. So, just walking to the site plan, driving into the driveway, we have the front door on the west side here. So, we have this would be primarily visitor parking in this front parking area here. And then we have a row of parking, and then we have a driveway that wraps around the back. So, deliveries would occur. This is kind of the back-of-house area. And so we would have staff parking that would be towards the rear and, of course, along this driveway as well. And we have some outdoor spaces that are some outdoor seating areas. The patients who are going to be staying here aren't going to be spending a lot of time walking around outside. It's really not what they do, but there are some patients who, in a wheelchair, can go and enjoy being outside or visitors who want to enjoy. So, we're going to have some seating areas outside. And then at the rear, that's kind of the direction of the stormwater, so we have some drainage improvements at the rear of the site. And then what you see here in this little kind of backward L and this little backward L, those are emergency access drives. So, we have to be able to get a fire truck so they can service the rear side of this building. The building will have automatic fire suppression, but it's going to be really important. So, we didn't want to completely pave this area just because it's more pavement and more stormwater management. So, we're actually going to have a permeable type surface there. So, it will blend in a little more with the landscape, but it would still be a proper drivable surface to accommodate. And we worked very closely with the fire marshal's office to devise this emergency access plan.

So, these are the details of the project. And so we are compliant with all the relevant design standards in BIP, whether it be lot coverage, open space, height, and then as well as parking. So, we meet or exceed all of those standards. So, one of the things that we realized as we started looking at this site early on is that Galisteo Road, it's an older city road facility, and it did not, does not have any pedestrian amenities or bike lanes. And there is a bus stop up on Rodeo Road, and we would expect there could be visitors coming to this facility utilizing public transportation. There could also very likely be staff at the facility utilizing public transportation and also recognizing that the neighborhood also could benefit from a new amenity here. So, we are proposing to build a multimodal trail that would go from, oops, sorry, that would go from our site, and it would go actually through that Department of Transportation buffer zone that I mentioned, their property, and utilizing to the greatest extent possible that old rail bed because it's already disturbed, so we're not creating new disturbance. And it would connect to the rail trail up at the intersection. So, it works really beautifully. So, we've had discussions with the Department of Transportation. So, following this evening, if we are approved, then we will initiate the formal process. They were very supportive of the trail. We'll initiate the formal process to procure easement. We also worked very closely with the MPO and the Parks Department because the plan here is that we procure and we do all the work, but the easement actually gets granted to the city because it would become a city facility. It would become a city trail. So, we think this really supports our facility. It supports the neighboring senior living facility as well as the neighborhood just to improve the kind of the transportation network in the neighborhood.

So, we talked a little about need. So, for our community, or any community, frankly, there are standards that establish, so for Santa Fe County, how many skilled nursing beds do we really need to service this community? Best practices state that you should have one bed for every 30 residents over the age of 65. It's just kind of a metric that the industry can rely on. Currently, there are about 45,000 people in Santa Fe County over the age of 65, and we have 238 beds. So, we have one bed per 189 residents. It is a problem in this community. And we find a lot of people go to Albuquerque, and then their families have to drive to Albuquerque to visit them. They're away from their families and their support network. And so, we are very excited to bring this facility to Santa Fe.

And with that, I'm going to jump into traffic real quick. And so we obviously, we did a traffic study. So, we analyzed three intersections starting at the top, Rodeo and Galisteo. And then we analyzed the entrance. It used to be called Pacifica, now it's Sierra Blanca, to the facility to the north of us, and then our access point to Galisteo that aligns with Avenue to Lyssa. So, I think a lot of you have heard me do this spiel in the past, but traffic studies are based upon how intersections operate and what is their level of service. And it's based upon, it's analyzed based on what kind of delay is experienced at a particular intersection. So, if you have a level of service A, that means you have minimal delay, intersection functions really, really well, and then it goes down from there. And then you can get to a point where you have excessive delay, and that intersection actually fails and needs mitigation. And sometimes an overall intersection functions fine, but you can have one turning movement in the morning rush hour that fails, but everything else works fine. So, it can get very granular around specific turning movements. So, what we do is we count cars, the existing cars on the road. We count in the morning rush hour, in the late afternoon, early evening rush hour. And then we estimate, we take the estimate of how much traffic is going to be generated by this facility. We put that right on top, and we add a background growth rate. And so we are assuming, we're not assuming that the population remains static. We're assuming the population grows every year. So, by the time the facility is done, we have increased that background function.

So, what we see here is Rodeo and Galisteo. So, I've provided for you all of the turning movements. And so, like I said, it gets pretty granular. And as you can see, we have, we have a lot of A's, which is really great. The northbound, so if you're on Galisteo and you're heading towards Rodeo, we have acceptable levels of service, totally acceptable, but you have a little more delay when people are coming and going to work. And then as George mentioned, if you're on Galisteo heading south towards Rodeo, there is that southbound attempt to turn left and go east, and cross the bridge over Saint Francis right there. That movement does fail currently today. It fails under the existing condition, and it fails in the build condition. So, this project does not put any traffic at that turning movement. There's nobody going south on Galisteo and turning left on Rodeo that is coming to our facility. So, it is an existing situation, and we, there are a few different options the city could explore to mitigate that. It's something that the city is aware of. That's one of the benefits is these multiple traffic studies get generated. They become really important planning documents for the city so they can plan for the future and where do they need to allocate resources to potentially address any issues in the roadway network. And then as you can see, the two other intersections on Galisteo Road operate at level of service A.

So, we also did a safety analysis. So, we determined that through 2016 to 2021, there were 12 crashes at the Rodeo Galisteo intersection, which is, you look at that over a five-year period, that's a pretty low number. And then we also looked at what was called the DOT refers to a Segment 5 of Galisteo Road. So, our stretch of Galisteo south of Rodeo, and there was one crash in that same time period. So, we do have a recommendation, and I'm just going to go back to this drawing real quick. So, as you can see here, as you're heading south on Galisteo, there is a curve right here. And so the rest of it is very gentle, but this is a fairly significant curve. So, our traffic engineer is recommending that the speed be reduced at that curve to 20 miles per hour and that we actually have a warning sign, you know, curve ahead, just to enhance the safety of that. And we've been in discussions with Public Works, and I believe they are supportive of that. It's not our road, so we don't get to decide. So, they have to, but if they are, if they think that is a good improvement, then we will incorporate that in the plans and we will get that installed.

And so these are some images of the facility. So, this is as you were heading north on Galisteo, and then this is the driveway in the site. You can see the facility. And this is that, you know, that big buffer area of the property owned by the DOT, and that is where the trail would be coming through. And then just zooming in a little more, you can see the facility. This is the front entry here. We have a porte-cochère. We're dropping off patients and kind of the visitor parking. And then, of course, we have great pedestrian circulation through the site as well. So, that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to stand for any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the commission? Yes. Thank you, Chair Smith. Question about the traffic analysis. How do you calculate the future growth into your numbers, your rating there?

So, we are using currently, and I think all traffic engineers are using it, we're using a 1% growth rate. So, we count cars. And typically a project, when you project to the build year, it's, so you count cars in 2025 or, say right now it's 2026. Your project's not going to be done and be putting cars on the road, say, till 2028, right? And so we would, we basically, it's exponential. So, we take all the existing traffic. We add 1% to go from '26 to '27, and then we add another 1% to go from '27 to '28. And your calculations have taken? Incorporated that. Absolutely. Absolutely. Other questions? Chair Smith, I have a question when there's time. Go ahead. Is that for me? Go ahead. Okay. Sorry. I can't see. Could you speak a little bit, I was excited to see the trail that you guys are proposing. I think that's a great amenity to add to the neighborhood and provide for staffing. I couldn't quite tell where it connects on Rodeo Road, where the bus stop and connections are up there. Is there, like, safe connection between where that will pop out and where the bus stop actually is? Yes, that's actually a great question, Commissioners and Commissioner. I'm going to reshare, and I've got, so this is zooming in at the, this is the intersection of Rodeo and Galisteo. And you can see here's the rail trail over here, and it crosses the railroad tracks. And then the rail trail comes around, and then there is a crosswalk here that does have flashing beacons at the crosswalk to alert drivers of pedestrians crossing. And then our trail is just going to be coming right up through here, and we're going to connect probably just to the right of that tree. And we're going to connect right in here. So, this is all already improved. And so it's just, it's pretty seamless.

And we'll connect right here, and then we have our existing crosswalk here. That's great. And then you mentioned, is there an existing bus stop in that area? There is, and I think it's a little bit to the west. It's right there. Thank you, whoever said that. I appreciate that. Yes, it's about right there, right at the edge of the screen there. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, it seems like there might need to be some road striping on Galisteo Road there, something to connect where people cross right there, but I think it seems like a great connection. Thank you.

Commissioner, is that it? Yes, thank you. Are there other questions? Is it inappropriate to ask for a motion to approve public comment? Thank you. You got anybody online? Are there any members of the public here? Please come. There'll be no technical difficulties with me. As a matter of fact, when I saw that, ma'am, can you please state your name and address for the record? Raise your right hand.

My name is Lisa Key, and my address is 2913 Corte De Porto.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

Please proceed.

I saw that your packet was almost 1,400 pages. I thought maybe just a couple of photos would be enough for the comments. As I said, my name is Lisa Key. I live at 2913 Corte Del Potro. My fence is facing Galisteo, and this new Anquorum skilled nursing facility would be right across the street from where my house is. I have no concerns or issues about the actual building of the skilled nursing facility. I do have concerns about how this is being built and how it fits in with the community, the Las Estancias community. If we want healthy communities, we need to create them. They just don't happen. And we need to figure out ways that we can, perhaps, include exercise into the daily living in our neighborhoods, in our places of work, and also in our schools. So we have a great opportunity here with this skilled nursing facility to incorporate that. I know the CHRISTUS hospitals and the Ancoran Foundation have been very supportive of options of improving health in Northern New Mexico other than just medical facilities.

You have in your packet, in looking at this whole property, a comment that this area has no traffic or pedestrian, or has no vehicular or pedestrian traffic. I have a photo I'd like to show you. It actually comes from the proposal that was done two and a half years ago, but the footprint has basically not changed, and certainly the land has not changed. It's a satellite image. So, actually, I'm not sure you can actually see this. I've not been in this room before, but this is a photo or image that was used in the last proposal. And as you perhaps can see, or could be put in with a colored pencil, there's a whole network of trails on the half of the property that is not identified as being developed. Instead, what we have as far as green space goes is an area on the edge here with some seating, as has been described. Is that really the green space that we're talking about, or do we need areas in which people can actually move? They can walk around, whether it is the employees having a break from their work to walk around in a space, or this shows that the neighborhood has actually been using this as a space to walk, to run, to walk their dogs, etcetera. It seems to me that this does create a good opportunity to create a safe space for people not only at a place of business, but also the neighborhood to have a place of exercise, of being outdoors, a true green space.

Now, it isn't very large, admittedly. There's a strange network of trails within the area, but it is covered with juniper, chamisa, grasses, yucca, and the ever-lovely snakeweed, and all without irrigation. One doesn't need to dig up this whole area, plant trees, and then water them, and place big rocks on the strips to avoid anything else coming up. A safe place to walk in this neighborhood is important, and I'm glad to hear that the proposal about a trail, because all of the reports that you have gotten on what Galisteo Road looks like, this is what it looks like. A lovely neighborhood, really crappy road. And as you see, this road, and it's roughly a quarter mile, but there's been descriptions already of where this is and the context of the whole area. This is basically three-tenths of a mile, a little over a quarter of a mile, and it is very well-sited for a skilled nursing facility. It is very well-sited for public transportation, which should be a big boon to their workforce. Not only do you have the bus on Rodeo, but just down the block, you have the train station there too on Zia. Unfortunately, once they get to Rodeo and start walking down Galisteo, they face the same thing that the neighborhood faces right now. There's no place to walk. You've got to walk in the middle of the road. So the idea of a trail on the other side is a great idea because there is no place to walk. People walk in the road. Neighborhood people do walk on this road, but they have to walk in the middle of the road, basically, and hope that there is no traffic going both ways here.

As you can see, the road has, about every 10 feet, a crack that goes all the way across that's been filled or isn't, or it fills up with grass. The edges are all eroding, and we have these lovely weeds here that are actually Siberian elm trees that are growing on the shoulder there. So the idea of a trail only solves one of the problems. We still have the problem of the condition of the road itself. This is a major entrance into the Las Estancias neighborhood. It is also the route in which the city sends the garbage trucks. It is the route in which the road cleaning equipment goes on, etcetera. So this is a road with no base, is in bad condition to begin with, and then we talk about all of this construction work. And I know the comment was made that it's not going to be much of a big deal, but you see how much of a big deal it is. This road is cracking and crumbling all the time. It is not going to be the responsibility of the Anquorum. Then the question is, who is going to take the responsibility of improving this road with this increased business as well as the residential area? We have two things here. We have an opportunity to do something, I think, important for the health of New Mexicans, both in putting together, or not putting together, but in developing a skilled nursing facility, but also in creating a space for both the community and the business itself. But we also have responsibility here, and the question is, who is planning for that? Who is going to take responsibility for once all of these construction trucks go on this property, I mean, going on the road, and it gets, and it starts crumbling? Who is going to repair this, or better yet, create a new road that actually has a base to it? Thank you.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Salazar, 2912.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Yeah.

Please proceed.

Thank you. Hello, Chair and Commission. I am a neighbor of this project, and I support this project. I think this is a beautiful use of the land. It fits well with the neighborhood. It's a nice scale. I think it's nicely planned for the site and context. I echo my neighbor Lisa's concerns, however, with the traffic and the complete lack of safe multimodal access right now. That is not Anquorum's fault. However, the project, I believe, will amplify the effects of it. Since we have lived in our home at this location very near Galisteo for the last seven years, our kiddo has learned to ride a bike. We love the Rail Trail. We cannot safely get there without going all the way around through the neighborhood or across the site and across the road track. I love the idea of a trail. I really hope that comes to fruition. I echo again my neighbor's concerns and detail about the condition of the road. It is completely degraded, highly trafficked, and will be even more so. I want to point out that in the city's own Complete Streets website, example four indicates exactly this area of town as having outgrown, quote, basic public facilities, including sidewalks, bike lanes, and ADA compliant facilities. That is an example from Rodeo Park area, but I think is even more exaggerated here in Galisteo. So I really implore the city to pay attention to our area because I have been submitting constituent services, concerns, and complaints about this for seven years. I really want the trail to happen.

I want to point out a couple of details on the traffic impact analysis for this project that perhaps I misunderstood, but I wanted to highlight them for the mission. The MPO crash data is, the basis is used through 2021. However, I believe there's more current data to 2024, which would more accurately capture the development and completion of Olympus Rodeo Apartments just east along Rodeo, especially after the pandemic effects. There actually are in UNM's Pedacyclist dashboard and pedestrian dashboard 2019 to 2023, some vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle crashes, including one indicated at the Rodeo Galisteo Rail Trail crossing area. And the reliance on the Zia project analysis and projections, there is a lot more traffic at Rodeo and Galisteo, and perhaps that analysis anticipated actually happening because of how the lanes were constructed to access Zia from Galisteo. A lot of traffic, including the transportation company and their commercial vehicles, are choosing to access off of Galisteo in that segment four section at Rodeo rather than Zia, even though none of that construction in that Zia apartment complex land has actually happened because of the way that those lanes were extremely narrowly curbed. So that's pushing a lot of traffic, actually, to the center. So, primarily, my concern as a neighbor is safe multimodal access, including accessible safe routes and serviceable road surface maintenance with added road traffic. Thank you very much.

Ido Spinelli, 2946.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Please proceed.

Again, I, maybe a speaker, I'm totally in agreement with this proposal. But where I live on La Sierra Dorada is a direct access from also from the western part of Las Estancias. My major fear here is that with the huge development that's going on around Hector Road, all the new homes that are built there, the traffic's going to come right past my house. Anybody who has to work at this new facility. And it's already impacted our street, of course, the mission of the streets in Las Estancias. And I just want the city to understand that this development is going to increase traffic in Las Estancias neighborhood, specifically across the front of my house. And I'm already seeing it. I've lived in this house for 36 years. Watched the development around the neighborhood. Nothing's been done ever since the county turned over Galisteo Road Street to the city. And I've mentioned this to previous District 2 city councilors. Nothing's ever been done. And I think the city really needs to sit and take a look at this road and also, and how the conditions have changed over the years. Nothing's been done to the streets.

Greatest fear, like previous speakers have spoken about, construction vehicles on Galisteo Road is going to tear up that road. I just want the city to understand that increased traffic from employees of this facility are going to impact the neighborhood. Providing sidewalks on Galisteo is huge, and the trail that they're proposing is a great piece to this puzzle. But, as stated before, people walk on Galisteo all the time. Traffic's going to increase, and somebody's going to get hurt. So, the city needs to understand we need to look at this whole concept, not just this one small space we developed. Thank you.

Is there additional public comment? Is there anyone online?

Mr. Chair, I don't see anybody with their hands raised. Oh, one just raised their hand. Myra, please raise your hand and state your name and address for the record to be sworn in.

Hello there. My name is Miriam Cornelie, officially. Thank you. And I live at 2639 Via Veranda, which is just around the corner from La Cerca. And I'm pleased to see the plans.

Miriam, I need to, sorry. Are you in? Sorry. Oh, yes, you're right. Please raise your 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 this under the penalties of perjury?

Yes, I swear.

Please proceed.

Okay. As I was saying, I live at 2639 Via Veranda, and that is around the corner from La Cerca. And I totally agree with the problem with Galisteo Road in its current condition. I'm also concerned, I'm very delighted to hear about the trail, and that will be a wonderful addition. But I really appreciate Lisa Key's suggestion about keeping part of the existing open space available for local walkers and also the residents or temporary people in the facility or workers there. Because that property, I have lived here or across the street of Yucca for about 25 years, and I really love the view from that place. Now, I know that a view is not really an important feature in the development of real estate, but that area has a great deal of significance for being able to see the entire Sangre de Cristos all the way, all over the Jemez. And not only will the residents of the skilled nursing facility benefit from that, but we as neighbors and people who like to walk our dogs or take a hike in the evening and enjoy the beauty of this beautiful town of Santa Fe, which is getting a lot of new developments in it, not all of which are aesthetically pleasing. I would really like to pitch for a plan to develop that open space at the end as a public resource.

And in terms of our neighborhood safety, I also agree with the previous speaker because we already have cars speeding along here through the cutoff from Sierra Dorada around Via Veranda and Via Venato, which make kind of a loop. And sometimes they just go way over the speed limit, and we have little kids riding bicycles, and we have kids on their roller skates and moms with their perambulators. So I don't know if the city would consider putting in some speed bumps or talking to neighbors to see what safety concerns they have, but I do think all of those considerations do need to be taken into account. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If there are any more speakers, please raise your hand, and I can call on you.

Mr. Chair, I do not see any hands raised.

Okay. Are there any questions from members of the commission or any of the, yes, Mr. McGee? I think I see our engineer in the back. I'd love our traffic engineer. I'd love to ask a question.

Mr. Chair, did you close the public hearing portion of the meeting?

Do I just declare it closed? Yes, I declare it closed. No, no, no, no hammer yet. So I know that the traffic impact analysis has indicated that this project won't necessarily have an adverse impact on the area, the surrounding area. But given that that area does have an F today and will have an F in the future, I'm curious if you all have assessed the area and if there are any future plans that you can speak to that may improve that score.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner, Vicky, am I being heard? I think as I'm listening to the neighborhood, I'd like to make them aware maybe of how processes for improvements happen in public works. Developers pay impact fees, and those go into a fund that if they're on an impact fee capital improvement project list, they're eligible to be used for design, planning, construction, et cetera. So there's that element that addresses the impact fee growth, paying for growth. The city public works itself has a broader infrastructure capital improvement plan that is done every year. I think the new one just got approved a few city council meetings ago. And so you would, there's a political process because of the competition for limited funds and resources and needs citywide. And so I stress that's a political process of neighborhoods working through their counselors to make sure these types of concerns get funneled into a plan. I don't know what if these streets are or are not. So there's the infrastructure capital improvements plan, which is a broad, I think its list is broader than what's funded, and then that gets prioritized. Let's say the top three to five projects every year go to the legislature, and some state funds come through that. But every kind of project that the city's working on is on that ICIP list, which gets updated and rotated and looked at annually through a political budgeting and funding process.

Similarly, every seven years by state law, the city's required to have an IFCIP plan, and projects are listed in that plan. They can be amended as time goes by, they're not locked in every 77 years. But that is how the impact fees get appropriated, whether it's design, planning, or construction through that process, and they're kind of linked and kind of connected. Let me try to think. Someone mentioned traffic calming. The city doesn't proactively go out and look for streets to traffic calm. The city has a policy and a program where neighborhoods come to the city, and there's a process that everybody's subject to, and it's a proactive neighborhood-driven process for them to come to the city and meet certain criteria or whatever traffic calming implements tools may be used. And so if you see streets that have speed humps or other bulb-outs, et cetera, that neighborhood's worked very hard to get through the humps to get that done. The city hasn't gone out and looked for streets to do traffic calming on. Neighborhoods come to the city and go through a process to make sure that they're meeting that criteria. And if that's ongoing and active, there's probably three or four neighborhoods that are currently in that particular loop. So I don't know if neighborhoods understand that process and what that's about, but that's just how it works. Does that help?

So I think what I hear you saying is that currently, there has not been an assessment or there are no current plans for improvements at that intersect or that area that gets an F, and you are recommending that the neighbors contact their city councilors to try to get on a list to assess improvements?

Okay. Let me go back to your first question, which had to do with the failing southbound left turn from Galisteo that was measured at that time of the traffic impact analysis study. As Ms. Jenkins pointed out, this particular development does not contribute or add to that. That's an existing peak hour failing movement. It's a peak hour failing movement that's brought to the attention of the city. I think she also mentioned as we're getting more sophisticated in doing these TIA analyses that we're asking, this may be this particular one may have preceded the new protocol, but we are asking that these type of findings become fed into the city traffic public works planning processes. So they get on, we get identified for possible inclusion on future ICIP lists, et cetera. So I think with this discussion, I can look into that and make sure that it's tracked, that this failing intersection, and I should say peak hour southbound left turn. I don't want to, the intersection itself isn't a failing intersection, a failing movement at the intersection. Similarly, there is an ongoing process for improving and mitigating multimodal situations at all intersections in the city. And if you look at the history of, particularly this intersection, you can begin to see an evolution over the last decade of improvements that have been made. Again, it's competition for resources, and this is going on all over the city, but this is an intersection that I think somebody pointed out, the broader databases of crashes, et cetera, that happened. Those do continue to inform the public works process, just limits of time and money, but there is awareness and goodwill towards continual improvement. And so these kinds of feedback loops with the public are extremely helpful.

Mayor Miranda?

Thank you, Chair Smith. Yeah, I guess there was a question from one of the public comments on if the crash incidents were using the most up-to-date information. I think the date was mentioned 2021. I actually didn't notice one way or the other in the traffic study, but can you speak to that?

Yes, Chair, Nishnu, Miranda. What I will say is the crash analysis, it was done for the TIA that was done by, I guess it was, was it Carl? Oh, it's Mike Gomez, who's now deceased. He had certain protocols for looking at traffic in the last year or so. We, we being the traffic review team, Wilson and I have a broad, we've been given access to the MPO's crash dashboard. I think that's the reference that the speaker spoke to. And so we will be making those more broadly available to our graphic engineering group that brings these forward. This is, this study, there, I think this delayed for a bit. I think, I kind of almost forgot about this, but it's, there was some delay that brought us to this point. And nothing in his analysis, it all is correct. And, yeah, I don't know to what year he went. There may have not been crashes beyond '21 for a broader window that he looked at. But there's this consistent, how would I put it? Let me, let me see because I actually took notes about crashes. Yes, at the bottom line, my comment would be that, to make sure I'm looking at the right one. I guess the crash analysis does not change the existing deficiency conclusion that came out in his TIA. In other words, his TIA, I think he at one point, he even mentioned potential, kind of almost like the neighbors did about a hawk signal, if I'm not mistaken. And so there is an identification of continued activity for multimodal improvement at the intersection, especially now that we're bringing a trail from the neighborhood to the rail trail intersection. Again, that would fall into ICIP, IFCIP, impact fee, and city addressing that in a continual improvement process that has to be going on continuously.

I hear what you're saying. I guess you might just then look at the most recent numbers that we have access to when you're doing your review.

We will be, we will be doing that. We have been doing that actually since we became, we ourselves became, we gained access to the NPO's crash safety dashboard. I don't think the developers do because we were told not to share that at the time by the NPO. I don't know why, but we haven't. That doesn't seem great, does it? But it's a comment, and maybe, maybe it was new. Maybe it was just, it was being backed or whatnot.

So I'll check back with the MPO and see if we can, if they, I mean, we certainly now do share the data with the graphic engineers. We just don't give them the password. I see. Well, I appreciate it. I guess the only thing I was going to ask before about the impact fees and how those kind of get lined up. I hear you in terms of they're supposed to be now more tracking in terms of uploading these studies and some amount of tracking of where we have failures.

It seems like what I'm also interested in, because when we say, "Well, there's impact fees," I mean, that's for the neighbors, that's about as much of a black box as anything. Money goes into it. Who knows how it comes out? Right? It's a process that that department has control over, and then it goes to the city council, and they really have control over it. So I guess what I was curious about was it seems like this development is stretching the end of a current section of a disruption. And because of that, I get that it's not within our purview necessarily. But is there some way to relay that if this is approved, we've approved something that is going to further stretch something that was stretched?

Almost a way of lagging it beyond just that F grade, because honestly, the F grade, a failing intersection, is a big—I'm saying it to you, you know this—but a failing intersection is a big deal. A failing movement isn't necessarily a big deal. That movement in particular, probably, the way I read it, has nothing to do with this. It isn't something that, but what I do see is that we have, we're at the edge of infrastructure that has outgrown the area, potentially approving something that would make it worse. So is there some mechanism, if that does happen, if this does get approved, of kind of hoarding without a flag to the department saying, "Look, we recognize this isn't our responsibility, but we've done this, and you should really look into it."

Mister Chair, Commissioner Merando, I think that I would frame it very differently because every development that comes to the city would be in the same, I mean, every, and its responsibility is growth pays for growth, and growth pays for its impacts, and it mitigates its specific impacts. So this is where we are developing the process of bringing these types of findings into the feedback loop for the ICIP and/or IFCIP. And so I don't think in a motion pulling a particular development into this sort of, I mean, we're doing it as staff-to-staff information because, and then with respect to the movements, just so for the public record, in the TIAB, southbound Galisteo AM peak volume is, I believe, eight. Turning right, 23. Peak hour turning volumes, 2023 counts. And then the PM, left is 15, through is 32, and I'm sorry, through is two, and right is 32. It kind of gives you a sense of, yeah, that movement's F, but they're very low volumes, and none of that's coming to this particular development. So I think we need to put that in perspective.

Intersection is not failing. It didn't need any warrants for a signal in existing, build, or future. So at that time, we looked at this. This isn't a signalized intersection rising or coming forth. And the left turn movement southbound out of Galisteo to Rodeo is what was highlighted as left. So I mean, I think we're kind of perhaps going to a way of making it seem more related to this development than it might be. And, hope I answered anybody's questions. Thank you.

I guess I would ask staff the question of, is there a mechanism if this did get approved to relay to the department that it would be more relative, or related to that? Look, development has been approved that's going to tax this area, and I'm just currently, it just doesn't seem like there's a direct way to tie it.

No, Mister Chair, Secretary Miranda, you know, the governing body has already established that list, and the way the impact fees are assessed and where the money goes, the city is actually just one area, so they can place that money anywhere within the city of Santa Fe. And since they've already established that approval at, I want to say, maybe three governing bodies ago, it would have to go back from the planning, from the Public Works Department to try and amend that list. I'm not quite sure what that process would be.

Let me, I'm listening to this. I think he's asking a very simple question. Can you simply tell them that this development is going to increase traffic on a bad road that doesn't have sidewalks? And would they be willing to just share that with them in an informal way, staff-to-staff?

I can send them an email. That's about the quickest I can do because we don't have any control over that process. It's not a matter, it's not a matter of control. We're not asking you to advocate for something, but to share the information that we've been given tonight for them to understand it.

Mister Chair, we are working through this TIA process to develop a protocol for informing ICIPs, and the ICIP is an annual process. It probably can be amended, but there's also a political process that comes from the neighborhood to their counselors in terms of, you know, raising the priority of something because a city, you know, with a lot of demands all over, has competing interests. So we have, it's the ICIP list is very big. I would say there's 100 projects listed on it. Some have funding, some are unfunded estimates of what that may be. And so those are moving around. It's a, so that process, we don't control. That goes, you know, but we can, yeah. No, I understand that. But we are, we are informing from our TIA process. We are developing a protocol for getting findings like this to staff to inform the ICIP. That's, that's a work in progress.

That's great. And in the meantime, can we just send them an email? Yes. Because I'm curious, will this, will this finding be included in that list of, of things that you've discovered, or will this one fall through the cracks?

I think I, I mean, I would be comfortable if that were put in your motion because we are now putting that in our TIAs. We're actually asking developer, but this TIA was done prior to the protocol, so I'm happy to have that added so that, I mean, if that's okay with you, we will just amend the TIA to follow the new protocol to highlight these. I heard roadway condition on Galisteo. I heard, you know, let me just say yes because I think that's probably just to close the loop on this. So if there is additional information that we can do an addendum or a letter or something around our traffic study that would support the city's efforts to move resources towards improvements that would be necessary for Galisteo Road, and we would be happy. Is that, is that good? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Are there other questions or comments? Did we then have, we have a recommended motion for 2024-7999. Do we need to amend it somewhat, or we're going to allow this conversation to stand on its own? Right. We all, it's just that we also understand that right now there is not a group to highlight. So, sorry.

Okay. I would, I'd like to make a motion in case 20, sorry, 202479. Here it is. Yeah. 20247999, 2981 Galvestata Road development plan. I'd like to make a motion for approval subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections contained in the packet. I'd like to add in my motion that, and that it be highlighted to the governing body that this approval would further tax a roadway in Galisteo that has already outlived its useful life.

I second. And I'm sure the language can be made appropriate. I trust Jennifer. Okay. Are we, may you please call the roll? Commissioner Barber? Yes. Commissioner Capen? Yes. Commissioner Rayland? Yes. Commissioner Miranda? Yes. Commissioner McGee? Yes. Chair Clapp? Yes. Chair Smith, the motion is passed.

Okay. Moving right along. We're going to move to 202612047 and 48. Yeah. And it's on 1202 West Alameda Street. Yes. Are you ready? This is, this is 202612047 and 202612048 at 1202 West Alameda, Maidus Alameda Street. So the applicant is asking Planning Commission to recommend the governing body approve a rezoning and a final development plan of the approximate 1.69 acre lot at 1202 West Alameda to establish a new PUD overlay expanding the allowed uses to the existing PUD overlay. The property is zoned C2 PUD and is in the Rivers and Trails Archaeological Review District. The agent is Jacobs Gavin, and the applicant is Boyd and Alastair.

So just giving a little context, here is the site in red, the Santa Fe River, Alameda, Saint Francis, Alto Street, the Alto River Park, and Solana residential area, the shopping center. So this is, zooming in a little bit on the neighborhood map just showing the same, the neighborhood, the park, the river trail, shopping centers, school, and the school over here. So this is, you can see it's a mixed use and of civic, residential, commercial. And as I go into the report, you'll see that staff finds the proposed use is compatible with this neighborhood.

So this is the site zooming in further. This is the existing feed bin structure, and this is the hay barn structure. And the river is back here, and this is the park, Alto Park. So these are existing photos. This is the feed bin with the covered portal, and this is the hay barn, and both from Alameda. And then just giving a little context. So the Feed Barn Building was, from what we can tell by looking at the assessor's website, it was constructed in approximately 1958, and it was called Dooley Feed. And then at some point, ownership changed. And in 1999, the city council approved a rezone to rezone the property from R10 to C2 PUD. But, and then shortly after that, in 2001, the Planning Commission approved a development plan for the site. At that time, rezonings had a time limit. And so the development plan never got recorded. It expired. And then in 2006, this came up before the city council a second time, and it was approved, and as was the development plan. And after that, there were no time extensions on the rezoning, and so it has stayed a C2 PUD. And then in 2023, the feed bin store closed.

So this is the legal lot showing the feed bin here. And also this legal lot show is before the hay barn was constructed. So just also backing up a little bit, in 2006, the owners of the feed barn found they needed a way to sell hay and for vehicles to enter to pick up the hay. So with the hay barn, vehicles could pull in one way. It could be loaded up with hay and then pull out the other way. So the peaked roof came from that use, that needed use.

So moving on, the applicant would like to do a lot split to put the feed barn on its own lot and put the hay barn on its own lot. So that is being, that does not need Planning Commission approval, but it's being processed simultaneously. So this is the zoning, and the brown is R12, the yellow is R5, and the red is C2 PUD. So this may is like spot zoning, but the motive behind the zoning was that in working with the neighborhood, there was no desire to have intense commercial development there, like a gas station, a convenience store, fast food restaurant. It, the development should just be very low-key and low-impact. So it was zoned C2, but that's why the PUD was put on it. It was to keep it very low-key. And then the future land use map shows the blue is institutional, and that includes not only the feed bin hay barn site, but also the fire station, which is right here, and the church over here. So it seems like the proposed uses, low-key, would fit into the future land use map.

And then moving on to traffic. There are three entrances/exits into the site right now. Drive A, you can only enter in, turn right in, or turn right out because there's a median in the road. Drive B, you can do anything: left in, left out, right in, right out. And Drive C is similar. So the traffic impact analysis indicates that this future development will remain low impact, and there are no major things regarding traffic.

And in parking, there's more parking than is required for the C2. And in working with the applicant, we're asking the applicant to provide four EV-capable spaces, one EV ADA van space, and then the required ADA spaces. They're also requiring eight bike spaces and eight e-bike spaces.

Utility plan: right now, there's water and sewer that goes to the feed bin. There's an existing 15-inch sewer line in Alameda, and the applicant is proposing to connect to the feed bin sewer line for sewer for the hay barn.

Drainage management: there's going to be a pond here, adjacent to the fire station. There's an existing pond here by the hay barn. This is the river setback, and this dumpster is going to be reconstructed to meet current code. And there was a variance originally because this area was constructed '25, encroached 25 feet into the river and trails, but a variance does not expire. So staff is not requesting any change there.

On the landscape plan, there's existing landscape, and the current owner has turned on the irrigation. Things are kind of coming back. The applicant is proposing some trees here at this pond and a tree here and a tree here, but they're going to try to use what's out there. And so, the applicant will be working with staff to further develop the landscape plan.

There's existing lighting. This went through extensive review in 2006, and the applicant is just proposing keeping more of the same. But the applicant will need to submit a photometric plan for approval prior to recording.

The floor plan: this is the ground floor. This is the second floor. So as part of phase two, the applicant is looking to add three apartments here, more towards the back of the building, towards the river. And if you can see, this is the front of the feed bin. Here's a photo of the front. This is, and you can see in the back here, the proposed residences. This is the backside, the back of the residences, and here's the back of the feed bin. And this is the east side, and you can see the residences would be more towards the back here. And the west side, again, see here the three doors near the three doors. So the residences would be back here.

And this is the hay barn floor plan. Basically, the applicant is looking to maintain the buildings as much as, pretty much as they are now in terms of color, the roof. But in the hay barn, the entrance to the restaurant would probably be midway in the building on the west side. And the kitchen would be in the front of the building towards Alameda, and then the restaurant would be in the back, and then a patio would be added. So when you look at this, this is the front from Alameda. Probably the store would be taken out, and the will speak to that. The entrance would be here midway, and then the patio would be back here.

And they have an approved water plan. They have an approved water budget, and the applicant will submit, this is the existing signage that's on the building, but the applicant will be submitting a signage plan package prior to building permit. So the applicant had held an early neighborhood notification, and there were six members of the community in attendance.

There's a recommendation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the governing body approve the following: So for case 2026, 12047, the rezoning of 1202 West Alameda, it will still be C2, but we're just expanding the uses. And just to note, the proposed uses would include residential, retail, food and beverage, office, wood shop, storage, arts and crafts. And the second would be case 2026, 12048, 1202 West Alameda development plan. Again, subject to conditions of approval and technical corrections. Two motions will be required. One, to recommend the governing body approve or deny ACE, 2026, 12047, the rezone, and case 2026, 12048, the development plan. I covered everything. So, thank you.

I just have one question. It says that the E&N notes are in Attachment D2, but I don't see a D2. Am I missing it, or have they just not been uploaded?

It could be that I did do them. They were submitted. But sometimes we've had this issue with large files. Some of the information is always at the end, and it doesn't sometimes it didn't doesn't make it. That happened last time too.

Chair Smith, I had a quick question. Mr. Capen, is that you asking to ask a question?

Yeah. Can you hear me?

No, I can't.

Okay. Sorry about that. Just didn't want to bring them back up for this small of a question, but you pointed out with the bicycle parking that there were eight bike spots and eight EV bike spots. What is the difference? Do the EV spots have charging ports?

I would like that to answer that. Sounds good.

Oh, okay. My understanding is that the EV spots would have charging ports. Thank you.

And they're, Mr. Miranda, I think they're just roughed in. I think, right? They, it's just the, it's the infrastructure for them, not necessarily the charger itself. That's how I read it, at least when I reviewed the packet. Is that right? The next presentation, we'll learn a little more.

Yes.

Okay. Jennifer, I'd like to remind you, you're still under oath.

Yes, I confirm that I am sworn. Hello again, commissioners. I am Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin, here this evening on behalf of Boyd and Alister in request for a new PUD for the old feed bin property. Claudia was very thorough, so I will be brief, but there are just a few things that I wanted to join.

So, of course, we know where we are on West Alameda, across from the Casa Solana neighborhood, adjacent to the Santa Fe River. And we already went through the history a little bit of the feed bin. And what is, the reason we're here is so I think we're all familiar with a Planned Unit Development or a PUD. So you have your zoning. So you have C2 zoning, but a PUD creates, you can have kind of unique design standards associated with a PUD, but you also can restrict use. So it's something that runs with the land and can restrict how a property is, can be utilized. So this is the most unique PUD I've ever seen because it allows one thing and one thing only. It allows a feed store. So that is crazy restrictive.

So, my client is pursuing this property. He is not in the feed business. So we are looking at an, this is a really cool opportunity to redevelop this property, which is sitting vacant and fallow right now, and to bring some vibrancy to the property and to bring some services to the neighborhood. And this is the type of infill redevelopment that is so great because we're not stretching at our edges in our community. We are developing existing facilities and repurposing them.

So, this is the property. I think we've all driven by it many, many times. We have the feed bin, and then there's the hay barn. And so the plan is that the ground floor of the feed bin will be primarily a wood shop, like a woodworking enterprise, making furniture primarily. And it's really great because there's a little loading dock. So bringing materials in and out or furniture moving out of the buildings. There's a lot of existing improvements here that support this type of endeavor. And, you know, obviously, there'll be some storage space. So as you complete the furniture and you store the furniture over here, and then they come and get the furniture, you know, that type of thing. And then, you know, small office space and those kind of ancillary uses.

And then, as a second phase, on top of the feed bin, we're proposing three dwelling units up there. And so they have these amazing, you know, right on the river and cool outdoor space. And so we really love the idea of kind of creating that mixed-use component. And it really could serve as employee, that was really what motivated my client is, I would love to have, you know, places where for my employees to live. And so, so that's that's going to be a second phase.

And then the hay barn is going to be converted into a sit-down restaurant, neighborhood restaurant, or, so that's kind of a cool, and it's such a cool space on the inside with kind of that vaulted kind of barn feel. So I think it's going to, it's going to turn out really cool. So here's the site plan. And they did, these would be permissible uses that we touched on. And I think it's important to recognize, like I said, we're proposing a sit-down restaurant. We're not proposing a drive-through. And although a drive-through is permissible in the C2 zoning district, it does require a conditional use permit. So if 20 years from now somebody wanted to, there was a different restaurant there and they wanted to incorporate a drive-through into their business model, they would have to go through a public process, early neighborhood notification, public hearing before the Board of Adjustment in order, and traffic studies and all the all the stuff you got to do. And that would have to be a conditional use permit would have to be approved if that was desired by someone in the future.

So we are compliant with all of the relevant design standards, whether it be open space, lot coverage, parking. And so we are good on all fronts. And then these are just the photos of the, you know, the existing structures. And then, you know, and Claudia showed this, you can see the dwelling units on top. So we're really trying to architecturally stay consistent with how that existing feed bin has that sort of that territorial sort of vernacular and continuing that with the upper floor. We top out here at just a little over 30 feet or that second story. So the maximum permissible height in C2 is 45 feet. We're not anywhere close to that. So it's really just accommodating that that second story.

And of course, we did a traffic study, and we studied quite a few intersections along the West Alameda Corridor. So starting at the west, we did the intersection at Alameda and Camino Alire. And then we did several of the neighborhood streets accessing Casa Solana, Sicomoro, Cedar, Pine, and Spruce, and Solana Drive. And then of course, we analyzed our proposed access, the three access drives serving, serving the problem. So we have fantastic levels of service all across the board, A's, B's, and C's across the board. It all works, works very, very well. And I can come back to any of these slides if you guys have, you know, particular questions.

So something in recent weeks has come up. And so I'm just going to throw it out there and happy to discuss further. So the, the, the Hay Barn Building is about 3,000 square feet. It's kind of a big restaurant. And so my client has been toying with, you know, how big the restaurant does he really want it to be and da da da, and some of these different things. And so, and maybe there's some other uses that a portion of the space could be dedicated to. So in the interest of creating vibrancy and a little bit of flexibility, because the thing about a PUD, you're going to be a recommending body because that's essentially, we're not changing the underlying C2 zoning, but the establishment of that new PUD overlay is treated as if it was a rezone.

So we have to go to the governing body. So in the future, any little tweak or any little change, we're back before the governing body. So it can be somewhat burdensome over time as properties evolve and ownership changes and different things. So, what we would like to request your consideration of is just adding one more use to our permissible use list, and that would be service establishments. These are kind of general, these types of just personal services. And because that could give us a little flexibility in how the design for the restaurant really shakes out. It may be a little bit smaller, a little more intimate, and, again, giving us an opportunity to repurpose for some, maybe some other uses. So if the commission's comfortable with that, we could maybe that could be added to a motion, and then we would take that to the governing body for their consideration. So with that, I would be happy to stand for any questions.

I have a question, Commissioner Smith. Is that your cloud? Yes, thank you. I have a question for staff in legal. Can we add a new condition when it's not part of this case? Hasn't been noticed?

Thank you, Chair Clow. This is Assistant City Attorney Collie. Thank you for saying that. I was just about to speak up and say this issue was flagged for me before the hearing, and no, the city attorney's advice is that a new use cannot be added at this time. As the existing PUD is such a restricted use, the applicant is properly before you today to add uses. Those new uses needed to go through the notice and staff assessment process in chapter 14. At this late stage, it is not possible. Our advice is that it is not possible to add an additional use.

Thank you. That's what I thought. Are there other questions? Yes. This question is for the applicant. Thank you, Eric Smith. On what day was your traffic study actually conducted?

My traffic engineer is online, so I would ask if Carl Vermillion could be elevated to speak. I could look it up, but he probably has it at his fingertips. So, thank you. Yeah, sure. Carl Vermillion. Here he is.

Carl Vermillion, can you all hear me?

Yeah. Please state your name and address for the record so I can swear you in.

Yeah. My name is Carl Vermillion. My address is 10554 Coyote Canyon Place Northwest in Albuquerque, New Mexico 87114.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury?

Yes.

Please proceed. Carl, the question was, what day was the traffic study actually conducted for this project?

Yeah. So the existing traffic counts that were collected along Alameda were done in January 2025. So we just wrapped up the final study just in April of this year.

Okay. And to your assessment as a traffic engineer, do you feel like that's an accurate representation of Alameda in the month of January?

Yeah. So that was one of the things we looked at, thinking about what month we collected those dates. There was an assessment on kind of the peak time of Santa Fe, if you would. So we actually took some adjustments to those counts to kind of aggregate it more towards the busier season. Not necessarily the busiest season because we don't want to be analyzing the worst case, but right there in the middle between the two.

So you feel that January is an accurate representation of the traffic on Alameda? I would debate that with you very... I mean, if you want to go for the most busiest time, I would say you're going to do it in the second week of August, which would be Indian Market, which would be the opposite representation of what you're doing in January. I don't believe, you know...

If I may, Commissioner. Yes, my apologies. So, if I heard Mr. Vermillion correctly, we don't always get to decide and wait eight months to do a traffic study, right? So when we're in a situation, we're moving forward. We have our scoping meeting with the city to determine the scope of the study. So he made adjustments to take the counts that we had and ramp them up to more accurately reflect a median traffic. So am I explaining that correctly, Carl?

Yes, absolutely. So it's not necessarily that we took the January counts, but it was an average between... you're saying August timeframe is the worst case, and I'm saying January was probably less than adequate. So we kind of took the average between the two based on public data that we have for August's timeframe.

Thank you. Commissioner Rillen, I mean, I thought of that as well. I mean, is it... but one thing that kind of came up in the last case too, we talk about these studies. Sometimes the way it's presented, it almost sounds like, like with the multiplier, it's not as if they're just making it up. The manual does dictate a process. So it's not as if there isn't a guide. Yeah, I only know because a couple of times I've had to muddle through it myself. Yeah, I have a question. Any other questions? Commissioner Capen?

Yes, hi. Ms. Jenkins, the part where this is such a restrictive permit and there's a church right next to where they're putting in the restaurant, has the applicant explored whether or not they'll be allowed to have a liquor license for this restaurant?

Not as of yet, Commissioner Capen and Commissioners. So we have to... we have a fairly, yeah, robust process we're in the midst of right now. But that, you know, once we have secured approval, then that process, we would explore.

I gotcha. It seems like a pretty big risk to take with how restrictive this is. And I understand you were asking for that to be expanded, but to think about, you know, making that into a restaurant without knowing whether or not, or I'm assuming the restaurant would want to have a liquor license, that that would be allowed and then what the backup plan would be, is just was on my radar.

Yes. I am not aware of a backup plan, but again, we have a collection of uses that, like I said, that go from the food and beverage space into the residential and the office and, you know, arts and crafts type of uses. So we try to be not overly broad, but work with a set of uses that align with the owner's intent.

Understood. Thank you. This question is for staff. Looking at the history of this PUD, when back in 2007 when this was first established, was there a height limit put on that PUD at that time?

Sorry. Sorry, Chair Smith, thank you. Commissioner, it has always been the 45 feet.

So the PUD doesn't mess with the C2 as far as the height restriction?

Correct.

And now would this fall into the Rivers and Trails height restriction overlay?

No, I don't believe it does. Give me a moment to check the overlay, and I'll tell you.

Thank you very much. A question that may be connected to this. The developer said earlier that with the other issue about the drive-through, that there was a condition that would have to come back and be reapplied. Would that be the same for a third floor if it were, if it is 45 feet? And if in five years somebody wanted to add a third floor, would they have to come back for a rehearing and change the new proposal?

According to the development plan or the PUD, the height is regulated by the C2 Zoning District. So the maximum height would be 45 feet. And if you could accommodate a third floor in that height, then they would be allowed to add.

Without an additional hearing?

That is correct. And we don't have any say over the instruction of the PUD. Certainly, if it is the pleasure of the commission, there can be a height limit imposed. Are there members of the public that have a comment? Hello? Please raise your right hand. Speak your name and address for the record.

My name is Cecilia Keough. I live at 120 Sorrento Drive, Santa Fe 87501.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Yes, I do.

Please proceed now.

I live in Solana, right across the street from the Cleveland. And I've been there all along in these decades when it was the feed bin. And these are beautiful buildings. Probably, well, driven by them. The neighborhood, my neighbors have... I'm on the board. I've been on the board forever. Neighbors are ecstatic. They love the idea. The only issue is the height and what was just said, that it really could go to 45 feet. That would be a real eyesore, you know? So putting the second story on with the residential units and having it 30 feet, three inches seems just fine. Going to 45, there's nothing around there that's at all. So if there is any way that, I mean, planning commission could see their way to limiting it to what this Boyd Allis, if you're over to 30 feet to three inches, they would be delighted. That, I think the neighbor would be delighted. That would be my only issue. And the other thing that my neighbors have brought up is not have a drive-through. We've had drive-through licks. So, you know, we've had neighborhood 70 years old. Well, those two items are the only thing I'd like to bring to your attention and go under them. If there's any way to limit that to what's currently being closed for that East Building, and then the actual building. So that could be under the request that. Thank you.

Eric? Yes, sir. Just so that everybody knows, this is not within the...

Good evening. My name is Patricia Cruz.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

Patricia Cruz. I live at 110 Pine Street, right across from the property we're talking about.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Please proceed.

Thank you. Good evening. Like I said, I'm Patricia Cruz. I live at 110 Pine Street, and actually, it was my parents who bought that house in 1953. And unfortunately, they both passed, but I purchased the home from my brothers and my sister. Now I live there, and it's a wonderful, wonderful home. And my main concern, I love the idea. I totally support that we're going to do something with that property because we've seen it for how many years that nothing's being done. So that's not the issue. But talking about the traffic, I'm concerned, and I hope there would never be a traffic light in that area because my street is right across from it. And so, you know, if it's a really good restaurant, we are definitely going to get more traffic there. And at some point, if they put in a traffic light, that would just, it would take away from everything in our neighborhood. So I hate to see that happen. The other thing is I have talked to several neighbors, and I'll just tell you they are very much in favor of seeing a restaurant go in there. We don't want to dictate what kind, but we hope it's a nice friendly restaurant that we can walk to right across the street. So everything else sounds very good. I agree about the height because we can see the river. And I walk there all the time, so I hate to see something so tall. So that would be my other concern, but definitely no traffic light. That would be my main concern. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Michael Gold. I live at 217, pardon me, 217 Vuelta Roble, which is sort of a continuation of Pine Street.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Please proceed. Thank you. I've been a resident of the area, actually, on Pine Street, for a number of years, probably about 40 altogether where I am. My daughter still lives on Pine Street, and they were good neighbors. I'm sorry to have them gone. But, generally, I'm in favor of this project with a few caveats, which have already been raised. So I would just say I also had a big concern about a drive-in window. So that, I think, has been adequately addressed. Also, the height, which is a big problem or could be. But one additional factor I would like to talk about is the lighting. The current proposal says they intend to change out the fixtures, but it doesn't indicate how they will change them out. And we've had problems with other buildings in the area where this fugitive lighting, I think, is the term. I would like to see any lighting that changes not blare into the neighborhood, not become a nuisance, not have fugitive lighting, and perhaps that could be addressed.

Also, on a similar note, any illuminated signage, which from what I heard earlier, would have to come back for a separate hearing of some sort. I don't know whether it's for this committee or mission or not. But I would not like to see a big illuminated sign on the side of the restaurant that, again, causes a nuisance either for traffic or into the neighborhood. My window faces right down Pine Street, looks directly at the barn, and a big sign on there would definitely not be appreciated by me or any of the other neighbors. Other than that, I like the concept of the proposal and would be glad to see that vacant property is once again occupied, and hope they would be good neighbors. Thank you very much.

Are there questions from members of the commission? Yes. Mr. Chair, we have only one person in the Zoom room, Eric Cornelius. If you wish to speak, you can raise your hand. No raise of hands, Jared. The Zoom room is done. Okay. So did you want to close the public hearing? I would like to close the public hearing. You use the ballot. Are there questions of either the developer or the staff? Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair Smith. I have questions for the applicant. Two questions were brought up: the lighting and also the traffic signal there. I saw you nodding your head during these comments. Can you speak to those two things?

Sure. I'd be happy to, Commissioner Barber and commissioners. So, traffic signal. There is a, so traffic signals, you have to meet certain warrants. You guys have probably heard that terminology before. So not only the traffic on Alameda has to be at a volume, but, say, if it was at Pine Street, for example, and our access drive, one of our access drives, the side street traffic also has to be at such a volume that would warrant the signal. There is no version of this story in any of our lifetimes that that's going to happen. So it's not our choice, but, you know, this development and what we're proposing here, we already have a traffic study that says there's no level of service issues that would trigger a signal. And so, I think it's the most unlikely, very unlikely scenario.

And then with respect to lighting, so the city has very restrictive lighting ordinance, and it requires that all fixtures, so if this is a fixture, the actual source of the light, say, the bulb, cannot extend beyond the bottom of the fixture. So that means it's full cutoff. The source of light is completely within the fixture, which really prevents that concept of fugitive lighting. And all lighting has to be fully shielded, so you can't have a light that does this. Right? Everything has to be very focused. So primarily with this project, what we're looking at is lighting at entrances. And because that's, that is a code requirement, building code. You have to light all of your entrances. So we're just looking at very simple building-mounted lighting at entrances. So, and, again, the city's own lighting ordinance says you cannot, you cannot send your light beyond your property line. And so we, with our building permit, we'd be doing a photometric analysis that would demonstrate compliance with the city's ordinance. And so I wouldn't expect there to be a significant change in the level of lighting than what people have experienced historically there. Thank you.

I got one more question. Sure. On the conditions of approval, number 10 says, "Ponds drain parking lot runoff directly to river without pretreatment." So what's the plan if the existing pond can't handle the pretreatment? So, so what we have done, so we, and I think I have my civil engineer. Is Pearl Brazil on the line? She can be elevated to speak to this. What's her, is that Sterling? Pearl Brazil or Amanda Atencio? They are not online. They are not online. So what I can share with you is that all of the comments that we received from city staff that are on that list have already been addressed. We were required to address them before coming before you. So it's somewhat unfortunate that it doesn't always read that way in the staff report that we see all these, you know, comments. But we absolutely did address the water quality. We, for example, in our dumpster area, we have a separate drain. So just, so that water just, you know, any, as it rains, any debris or anything doesn't, you know, sheet flow potentially and impact the river. And so we do have water quality mechanisms and filtering in our ponds themselves in order to protect the river. And all those plans were submitted to staff already. Thank you.

Daniel, you're, I just wanted to make a note on the lighting. We are pretty stickler to lighting, and Jennifer has accommodated us on lighting. We had a good example, was the hospital where it looked like the Starship Enterprise. And when I brought that to her attention, she immediately got on it and took care of it. Thank you for that. Are there other questions? For, this is for staff. So, based upon your comment earlier, we can request a height restriction to be placed on this development plan. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Rieland, you are right. You have the ability to condition the height. I would turn to our architect on it. And I have a question for the applicant. So we didn't present anything about a third floor, but is there anything in the owner's, a twinkle in the owner's mind? Or not today. You know? But, again, you know, we, nobody can completely predict the future. And, and even the second floor currently is, you know, it's a, it's a second phase. The goal is to get everything operational in the existing, in the existing structures. And, do you want, and would there be, I guess, for the staff, would there, if, if this panel approved a limitation of the second floor, that would not stop, am I correct in assuming that would not stop a future owner from coming back and asking for a variance on that?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that, since it's built into a PUD ordinance, it would require an ordinance change. And understand that your conditions here are only recommendations to the governing body because they will be approving the preliminary or development plan at that hearing. So you would recommend that any conditions, and then they would either adopt them or modify them. Thank you. Smith. Yes. I do think, I mean, it's interesting because I think staff had said this in the presentation. It is a postage stamp zoning. Right? It's kind of hanging out there. Right? And it is, both structures are kind of contained, so their massing, their massing at three stories could be a little goofy. We're not seeing anything about it. So I guess I would be interested. Could we propose a condition that essentially says, a third floor needs to come back to us? Again, this is part of an ordinance because the, the development plan is, is going to be nested under that ordinance. You can ask that it come back to you, but then that would have to go back to the governing body. So if the actual original approval did not have a limit to height, you could limit that height to a second floor not to exceed a specific height in order to address the needs of the second floor. That would be a recommendation that would be built into the ordinance if adopted.

Chair Smith? Yes? Hi. I agree. I guess I just want to put this forward to the commission for discussion. I agree. It, it is going to seem a little goofy because it's a postage stamp, but I also want to point out that it's, like, a really killer location for infill, and that is a huge need and priority in areas that are, you know, closer to town, downtown, in a beautiful location, and it would provide housing in a, in a really, you know, kind of cool way. So I'm not, I'm not set in my decision, but I just want to add that in, that, you know, we need to be exploring infill and how infill in these small little stamp parcels that are, we get access to and closer to town, can, can help participate in our housing crisis. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Capen. Yes. I've just, illustrate to staff that, or at least this commissioner, I'm having a hard time, probably in part because the current code doesn't really have any form-based standards as regards to the, an illustration how form-based, overall form-based standards would assist like this. I'm talking about stepping back and certain ideas of that. That being said, I guess, even if we did make no changes at third floors, assumingly, what they'd be dealing with is the point system or whatever replaces it. Sure. Mr. Miranda, that is correct. Right now would be the point system. But as you know, we're updating our code, so it may be something different in the future in phase two. Are there other more questions? Yeah. Commissioner Rieland. I, I, I'm not opposed to the apartments. I want to make that clear. But with your height that you're going for now, the 30 feet, would that include masking any components that you'd be placing on the roof or anything like that?

Oh, thank you, Commissioner Rieland. That's actually a really good question, and I'm, I'm glad you brought that up because we have, we have a concept for that second floor. I do not have a full set of construction plans that go into the mechanical and all those elements. So, you know, we're showing 30 feet, three inches to, to the parapet, you know, right now. And so we would, if it is the pleasure of the commission to potentially, I mean, this property is restricted enough, so we're not interested in layering on more restrictions. We're really interested in creating something that can evolve over time without constantly, you know, going back through, through this very significant process. But we would look for a little bit of flexibility just because we haven't, you know, I have a floor plan and I have elevations, but I don't have a full set of construction documents on this. Mr. Chair? Yes. You could just make it simple and just say that residential uses on top of the building are limited to a regular residential two-story. We do measure to the, to the roof deck, so that would allow a four-foot parapet to cover any anomalies or, or any rooftop amenities. Sure. If, if I might add, this is a unique circumstance because it's in addition to the a taller one-story structure. And so that's why, you know, I anticipate the reason for the over 30 height in this particular case. So, you may want to say be limited to two stories, and that should cover it. Your emotions. Chair. Go on. Sir, in the case of 202612047, December rezoning, I would like to recommend to the governing body that they approve this case, subject to the technical corrections outlined in Attachment A of the staff's report, as well as an additional condition that the applicant is limited to two stories.

Second. And there will be a second motion as well. There will be. Please call the roll. Commissioner McGee? Yes. Chair Clapp? Yes. Commissioner Miranda? Yes. Commissioner Barber? Yes. Commissioner Capen? Yes. Commissioner Raylan? Yes. Chair Smith, the motion has passed.

Thank you. Your second motion. And in the case of 2026, 12048 at 1202 West Alameda, I recommend to the governing body to approve the development plan subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections outlined in Attachment A of SAS report. Oh, thank you. Additionally, an additional condition of limiting the development to only two stories. Second. Second. Please call the roll. Chair Clapp? Yes.

I'd like to propose a friendly amendment, if you would hear it. But I'd like to review it with staff first. The applicant asked for an additional use, and we had the advisement from staff that that doesn't work because it was not an E&M. Is that correct? I can only say that my own reading of the code, I can't find why that would be. Could we not propose in a recommendation that it be considered by the governing body?

Commissioner Miranda, through the chair, because this use is not substantially similar to one of the proposed uses, the City Attorney's Office's advice would be that it's not an appropriate amendment because the public was not put on notice that this would be considered as opposed to typical amendments that are very similar to what the commission is already proposing. The public knows the general subject matter that will be considered. Because this is a different area of use that covers many different types of use within that personal services area, it is substantially different, and I would recommend that it not be added at this time as it could jeopardize the entire rezoning process.

If I may, thank you, Commissioner Miranda, because I've been kind of ruminating on this question, and I appreciate staff's position. One thought occurred to me is, since the Planning Commission is a recommending body in this instance, we could absolutely—it's going to take us at least, what, three months to get on a City Council agenda. I mean, I wish it could happen faster, but it's probably not going to happen any faster than that. So we have plenty of opportunity to have a follow-up early neighborhood notification meeting, full disclosure with our neighbors that we would like to expand our permissible uses in this way. And then the applicant—so if the Planning Commission can say, subject to a new E&N meeting, we would be comfortable with this modification, and then we could take that information to the governing body. It's just a thought.

Commissioner Clow would like to talk. I totally disagree. It isn't just the E&N process. It's the whole public notice. So we would be approving something that the public had no notice of, had no opportunity to come forward and be present at this meeting and object to or comment on. I think I agree with the City Attorney that this would taint this whole recommendation.

Chair Clow, wouldn't there be an opportunity for the public comment at the governing body? You know, I think there's still an argument that this process is tainted and that, I mean, I'd be arguing it's tainted if I was opposing this and say it has to go back and start over.

Yeah. I guess I would just end my portion of this debate just by saying that I feel the way I do because I've seen proposed uses be stricken or added during meetings, during this meeting in the past. So that's why I feel.

Mr. Chair, I think when we're dealing with those types of uses, they're not put on such a restrictive platform as a PUD that actually restricts the uses for the property. It actually changes that dynamic in favor of its new matrix. And because it is listed within that restrictive platform, it's not like the rest that you can add and delete and add and delete at a public hearing because you didn't have to deal with that restriction in the first place. It's just all the uses in the C2 that come to the table that you can discuss. Here, they're coming to the table with one particular use for a C2 district, and they're expanding it to three. And at the podium, they're asking for one more, but they didn't notice for it. So it's different.

This is Commissioner Clow again. I suggest that we follow our attorney's advice. Thank you. And I just ask a clarifying question. If we accept the and vote or the commission votes or the motions as recommended, is there at any time in the next five years an opportunity for them to change it if they want to go through the whole process? That would be a yes if they want to go through the process, whatever that process is under the new code. Right. Right. So I was—well, I didn't actually make any friendly amendment, but I will not. And can we continue as the motion stands? Motions were made and seconded. And this is the second motion been made and seconded. Please call the roll. Chair Clapp? Yes. Commissioner McGee? Yes. Commissioner Miranda? Yes. Commissioner Raylan? Yes. Commissioner Capen? Yes. Commissioner Barber? Yes. Chair Smith, the motion is passed.

Thank you very much. We will then move on to matters of the commission. Are there any matters to come before the commission? Wait, wait, wait. This is Commissioner Clow. I have a question of Heather. Do we have a meeting tomorrow? It's on my calendar for Phase Two of the code. I haven't received anything, any agenda or anything, but it was, I think, one of the meetings that got set early on.

Sure, Chair Clow, I don't see anything on my calendar, and I don't remember Howell Cruz Haber mentioning anything about it. So, let me confirm with Mr. Cruz Haber in the morning, but I don't believe that there's a meeting tomorrow. Okay. Thank you. Yep. The only thing I got from him was a proposal of August 14th from 12:30 to 2:30. It came in today at 4:35 PM. Oh, okay. Does that work for you, Commissioner Clow? I think so. Okay. Good. And hearing no other business to come before commission, I will turn your name. My favorite one.