Planning Commission Meeting Thu, May 21, 2026 · Planning Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1405 == Executive Summary == The Planning Commission held a study session and subsequent discussions primarily focused on the Land Development Code (LDC) Update - Phase 2 and the ongoing General Plan Update. The LDC update aims to modernize the code, streamline procedures, and align with the new General Plan, with a proposed three-part drafting strategy to manage complexity and facilitate public engagement. Key areas of focus for the LDC update include housing and affordability (especially 'missing middle housing' and short-term rentals), process modernization, historic preservation and design, and sustainability. The Commission discussed various aspects of these updates, including the need for clearer architectural standards, water conservation measures, and improved city-county coordination. They emphasized the importance of community buy-in for development, balancing historic preservation with housing goals and wildfire mitigation, and streamlining administrative processes. While no formal decisions were made on the LDC content, the Commission approved the study session agenda and provided extensive feedback to staff on priorities and policy direction for the upcoming phases of work. An appeal regarding the Marriott Hotel Development Plan was also noted, with its hearing rescheduled. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda for the study session. == Motions & Votes == - Approval of the agenda for the study session — Passed (Vice Chair Smith, Commissioner Reeland, Commissioner McReynolds, Commissioner Capen voted yes) == Public Comment == Public comments included a YouTube viewer reporting difficulty hearing a speaker, a commissioner asking for a definition of 'missing middle housing,' and a commissioner raising the issue of short-term rentals and its impact on affordability. Commissioners also inquired about where mixed-use zoning and density rule changes would fit into the Phase Two discussions. Later, a commissioner noted that communities are increasingly hesitant to change their neighborhood character, and another highlighted the need to understand why commercial components in some new mixed-use developments are not working. Commissioner Smith suggested incorporating water conservation requirements for exterior landscaping in new developments, and a commissioner pointed out the need for e-bike charging and storage infrastructure in new housing developments. == Topics == - Land Development Code Update - General Plan Integration - Public Engagement & Outreach - LDC Update Installments - Housing and Neighborhoods - Marriott Hotel Appeal - Process and Administration - Preservation and Design - Infrastructure and Sustainability - Old Santa Fe Trail Project == Full Transcript == Okay, we'll call the study session of the Planning Commission of May 21, 2026 into session. Commissioner Reeland, can you say the Pledge of Allegiance? We have roll call, please. Commissioner Chair Cloud: Present. Vice Chair Smith: Here. Commissioner Morando: Absent. Commissioner McGee: Absent. Commissioner Capen: Here. Commissioner Reeland: Here. Commissioner McReynolds: Here. The rest are absent. Madam Chair, we have a quorum. Thank you. Do we have any amendments to the agenda from staff or other commissioners? If not, we have a motion to approve. Motion to approve agenda. Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Smith: Yes. Commissioner Reeland: Yes. Commissioner McReynolds: Yes. Commissioner Capen: Yes. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. And now we'll move on to the study session presentation. Thank you, Chair Cloud. Mic situated here. I just want to first of all introduce Matt Goal, which some of you know from phase one of the code update. Oh, there we go. Sorry, I went off. Matt came down to meet with us tonight. And we're meeting with the Historic Districts Review Board tomorrow as well. And we are just really excited to be at the point to restart this really important Phase 2 of the LDC update after a pretty considerable pause in our relationship with Global Partners and with our engagement with the Planning Commission and with the public in general on these really important topics. As some of you know, tonight we are going to kind of go over the overall scope of the LDC update. We do have new commissioners. And we just want to kind of remind ourselves what we were doing here, why we're updating the Land Development Code, and what we said we were going to do. We are also working on the General Plan, and the vision from the very beginning was that these two projects were going to kind of happen simultaneously, kind of in parallel processes that would intersect as we came to implementation of these two projects. And so we want to highlight that work and what our timelines and what our implementation strategies look like with the General Plan. Tonight, we also don't want to get too much in the weeds. We want this to be a high-level visioning, touching base on what we said we were going to do and getting your feedback on, is that still the priority? Is that still what we need to do? And so I think we need your help and your feedback identifying those priorities and the policy direction. We're also going to go over some of the new policy direction that we've heard from the governing body and the priorities there from the city at large and just align with that vision. And we want to also establish some feedback on our vision for how we're going to be implementing Phase 2 and what priorities are going to come first and why those might come first, and what are going to come second and why those might come second. And a lot of it has to do with that integration with the General Plan. So with that, I think we can get started, and Matt has a presentation. I also printed out copies so you guys can kind of follow along as we're going. And really just want to have a dialogue with you all tonight. I know we're kind of in this formal setting, but I hope we can have that feedback from you all. Thank you. I can't hear him. And the mic is on. Commissioner Smith, can you hear me? Now I can. There we go. My mic was off. That'll do it. That'll do it. Good to see you all again. Thanks for your time tonight. We're excited to move forward on Phase 2. It's been a minute since I've been here. And this is an opportunity to do a little bit of a just a refresh on what's been done so far and how we're going to move forward. Phase 2 is, we have some options as to how we structure it. I think we learned some lessons in Phase 1 that we can apply, and that is how we move forward. And so tonight's presentation is really, like Maggie said, it's the high level. We don't want to get too much in the weeds on specific topics. It's more about structuring the work plan for Phase 2. That's where we're going to go with this presentation. Just a little bit of purpose restated here. The purpose of the overall LDC update for Santa Fe was always to modernize the code, to introduce best practices, to get rid of a lot of redundancy, to eliminate for more streamlined procedures where possible. A lot of different purposes have been articulated over time, but it's important to just remind you that that's why we're here. The overall code has a lot of opportunities for refresh to implement the new plan that's being put together. That's a big part of why we're here as well. The Phase 1 work set the stage for integrating LDC with the General Plan. That's a big part of tonight is how can we marry the feedback that we've heard in the General Plan themes that have emerged in the General Plan with how we draft. So, what we're looking for from you all tonight is some priority setting and some policy direction on how we move forward, helping us think through what really needs to be tackled first. What are the most immediate community concerns for looking for organization of future drafting? We have a proposal for you that we'll get into at the end of the meeting as to how we think the drafting should go, but we're going to set the stage first by laying out some, this is how this is going to go. I'm going to do that stage setting first. What was completed in Phase 1, mind you of that. Janice is going to give you an update on the General Plan process. It's timely to hear about that process stands. It's very relevant. Going to do a very quick recap of the governing body priorities that were set this year. That's important policy context. Then we want to spend the bulk of this meeting at the next chunk of the agenda. What should Phase 2 focus on? For organizational purposes, we have divided that conversation into four topics you see there on the slide: Housing and Neighborhood, Process and Administration, Preservation and Design, and Infrastructure and Sustainability. That's just a loose framework to help organize our thoughts. We think that'll be the bulk of the meeting. And then we've got a new drafting strategy that I mentioned to propose at the end of you. Is there a way to make your presentation part of this size of the screen? That's a good. Yeah. Michael, can you put, yeah, just take. Yeah. Can you take Peter off? There we go. Okay, great. Bye, Peter. That's the agenda slide. Saw that there. Good suggestion. So let's get some of the background stuff done first. You all have spent a lot of time looking at Phase 1, talking about it. A very quick recap. A lot of stuff was done there. A lot of substantive stuff was done. We did a substantial reorganization. We got rid of a lot of stuff that was redundant. There is a lot to talk about with the Phase 2 structure. The bottom line is on the right-hand side there. It created the framework and the organizational structure for future policies. We hopefully have gotten rid of a lot of the low-hanging fruit in terms of document organization and management. Now it's a matter of surgically going in, targeting specifics. And we actually had a conversation with the law department CEO about mechanically what that's going to look like. A lot of times these might just be surgical amendments, talking about surgical edits, going in and doing a red line and specific words here and there. In other places, it might be a wholesale replacement of targeted sections, but it's not going to be a complete restructuring of higher chapters. Everything that we talk about will build on the format, the organization. There's also important work that's been being done with the General Plan. Thank you, Matt. I can't hear you. I can't hear you. Can you hear now? Yeah. Great. Commissioner Smith, just pipe up whenever you're having difficulty hearing us, and we will adjust. Trust me, I am. Excellent. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. I just wanted to give a brief update on the General Plan update before we dive into the LDC update fully in this process. On this slide, you'll see two sections. The first is a timeline summary of high points. The other is a more detailed description of the steps through which we're going to accomplish our General Plan update. I'll start with the descriptions actually. So we have five main steps through which this plan update will take place. The first is mobilization and understanding. This is where we gathered the information for the assessment report and launched the digital, or sorry, launched the digital user platform and also began gathering public input. That has been accomplished. Steps two and three are nearly accomplished. They are, step two is basically at the finish line. That's where we continued public involvement, gathering input from many different sources. And we developed the vision and goals based on that input that we received from the public and from different committees and our community partners, technical working group, etc. Step three is, as I said, it's very well along its way. In that, you have seen some presentations on the scenario planning frameworks, but they have not yet gone out to the public. I'll describe that more in my next slide. But the scenario plans are where we take it out to the community, these potential three futures for Santa Fe that are also again based on the public input that was received in steps one and two. And then ultimately, as we head into step four, that will be, that will lead to the final plan, which we'll write the plan based on. So shifting over to that timeline summary, we kicked off the project in September of 2024. In January of 2025 was when we began public engagement, which will continue through the entirety of the project. So it's not like there's a window that will close. In October 2025, the final assessment report was adopted. And as you may remember, that's a very large document giving a snapshot in time of the city pertaining to each of the sections of the General Plan. And then in early fall of 2026, we anticipate General Plan adoption. You may remember the last time I spoke to this body, we had said summer, but our delay has been protracted. So, we're pushing that out to early fall for General Plan adoption. And then the implementation plan, which is in shorthand an instructional manual for how to implement the General Plan, that we anticipate in late fall of 2026. So, as I was mentioning about the steps and the progress through each of the steps that we have worked through so far, you can see that step one has gone through all of its hoops. It's been completely closed as a stage gate. Step two has gone to Planning Commission and the technical working group. This is the mission, vision, and goals, but it still needs to go out to our community partners, general public, and governing body. Step three is our scenario frameworks, which I was just talking about, the different lenses for potential futures for the city. That has only gone to Planning Commission and technical working group. As we finalize those draft scenarios, they will then be going out to the broader world to community partners, general public, and governing body. And then step four has not been commenced yet, so it has not received any of its checkmarks. As Mr. Goel was mentioning before, the general plan informs the LDC update, and it does affect some of the timing with which we can tackle some of our priorities for the LDC update. So Mr. Goel will explain specifically areas that are affected the most in the LDC update by the general plan and then go into more about the sequencing on that. Thank you. Mr. Goel. Thanks, Jess. Yeah, we don't have a picture of the general plan or... Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Goel, but I have contact with somebody who's watching on YouTube, and she says she can't hear you very well. She said she could hear Janice very well. Okay. You would speak right into that microphone. That sounds good. All right. Thank you. How's that? It's my wife. Okay. So, she watches. Okay. Thank you very much. Just to wrap up the discussion about the general plan, it's very relevant to the code. The general plan is going to rethink, potentially, the future land use map for Santa Fe, and that might involve different land use classifications, maybe thinking more about mixed-use, for example. We talked back in phase one about the need for perhaps new zoning districts for mixed-use, maybe a suite of zoning districts that were encouraging and incentivizing mixed-use at different scales: neighborhood scale, regional scale, etc. That's really important input that we will get from the general plan that then can inform later parts of the drafting of the code. That's a really good example of why we think this is relevant, why we had slides on the general plan, and why when we get into the drafting sequencing that we're proposing later on, we've got some of the general plan implementation work at the end because that process needs to have time to finish to really fully bake those ideas so that then we can come back and make sure that we're designing a system that's fully consistent between the general plan and the LDC, which is why the city embarked on these two projects concurrently in motion. So, I just wanted to emphasize the importance of that general plan. I was going back to that. I went back to that just for something about the general plan. But now I'll move forward. So that is one input. We had the phase one, that was phase one document. That was a big set of inputs for phase two. The general plan is a big set of inputs for phase two. Now we have the governing body strategic goals that were adopted this year with new administration. We've got a summary of those here. It's not exhaustive, but these are some of the main topics that were identified by the governing body as priorities for the next four years. They are important thematic elements that I think provide some good structure for us as we think about how to go about the code amendments. Housing and affordability, that came up a lot during our phase one discussions. It's being re-emphasized in both the general plan conversations and now in the governing body goals. That's an important thematic bucket for us. You can see some of those important elements: missing middle housing, adaptive reuse, etc. Process modernization is another important bucket. Governmental efficiency, I think, is the term that's also used there. And that's another area of code amendments that we can tackle as part of phase two. So again, we're starting to think about ways to organize all this work. Infrastructure and public safety, you know, how do we think about pedestrian and bicycle improvements and ensuring that more multimodal development is the goal in future Santa Fe development? And then sustainability and resilience, you know, thinking about environmental sustainability, thinking about water conservation, low-impact plants, we talked about that with landscape. Thinking about sustainability from a broader perspective, not just environmental, but also economic, local economic resilience, those types of issues. So all those were articulated by the governing body this year as part of their goals. They overlap with a lot of themes that you're seeing as part of the general plan. And so they provide us with a lot of structure, helpful structure as we move forward. The phase two set of updates is going to include a lot of proposed edits to the code. First of all, if you remember, towards the end of the phase one process, there was a document that had a lot of footnotes, and we had identified a lot of phase two, phase three issues. Some of those things, they just required more public input. They weren't below the threshold that we thought was appropriate for a phase one housekeeping. So, all that stuff's getting carried forward. We're going to prepare an assessment report that carries all that stuff forward, but we can augment that list. We could add new things to that list now based on the new thinking that the city has done, based on the new strategic goals that I just had listed, based on all the general plan work that's being done, based on your current priorities and thinking about your thoughts on the direction of Santa Fe. That's why we're here tonight. Phase two will start off with a new assessment report, a brief document that's going to pull all this stuff together and basically just give us a roadmap for phase two and organize it. We wanted to give you all a chance tonight to weigh in on topics that you might have additional feedback on for us and to organize the discussion. We've got four topics here, and they parallel the categories from the governing body goals: housing and neighborhood compatibility, process administration, preservation and design, sustainability structure. So that's the bulk of this meeting, really. And we would like this next segment of the meeting to be informal and to have a discussion back and forth about what you all would like to see. For each of the four topics, I've got two slides. The first one is just sample questions. These are things that are just intended to get you thinking about, maybe you just got your own priorities in terms of housing and neighborhood availability. Where should additional housing flexibility go? Maybe different types of missing middle housing, maybe more multifamily housing in more districts across the city. How should neighborhood compatibility be addressed? What are the biggest barriers to housing diversity in Santa Fe? What code changes could better support housing diversity? Now, real quick, I'm just going to jump ahead to my next slide to show you how this is structured. Then, we're going to come back and we're going to show you topics that we've identified that we think probably are going to land in this category. But before I get there, I just wanted to give you all a chance to, for each of these four topics, we just wanted to hear what's top of mind for you in terms of your priorities that you'd like to see in phase two. Might just want to let us keep going. Chair, yes. I have a question. Can you define what middle housing is? Middle housing is, they call it missing middle housing. And the idea was that there's a spectrum of housing types from a single-family detached house all the way up to an apartment building. And a lot of times the zoning code just kind of recognized those two ends of the housing spectrum. The missing middle idea was that communities need to go back and allow all the points on the middle in that continuum. So a duplex or a triplex or maybe a four or six-unit apartment building, not a four or eight-story apartment building, but something much smaller. If you look in the historic compounds in Santa Fe, a lot of those are kind of examples of organic missing middle housing that have developed here. I live in Capitol Hill in Denver, and we have a lot of, you know, 1920s, 1930s development where the streets have a duplex here and a single family here and a four-unit here. They're all just right next to each other. That missing middle is an idea that planners have, over the past decade or so, have started to try to recapture that idea and say zoning codes should encourage that for housing options, not prohibit. I had a question. Thank you. And, oh, oh, yeah, go ahead. Oh, okay. Where is there any place in this or other parts of the section? I have two questions. Where trying to really put a very strong handle on short-term rentals would be covered? And I understand that's something that the governing body would have to do on its own with or without a referendum. But is there something in this section we could do to suggest that we want to have houses and apartments and condos in which people live who pay taxes in New Mexico, which means they live here more than six months? They have to be here at least six months and one day. Mr. It's very relevant to this topic. I mean, we're talking about the housing stock in Santa Fe, how that's used. However, so it definitely has a place in this conversation. I think the question for us as a drafting team with you all is when do we address that as part of phase two? And that's a good example, just thinking ahead, of a topic that it might be appropriate for not the first installment, but the second, to give it more time to have public input. You've already embarked on this topic. There's already a lot of discussions going on. It may be ready for prime time in installment one, but that's something we'd like to hear from you all about. My thinking from the conversations I've heard is that it probably needs to wait a little bit until that installment two. The restrictions that are placed on the housing stock to restrict or encourage short-term rentals is definitely in part a Chapter 14 issue that we can look at as part of the update of the use table. We look at it as part of the update of the zoning districts. It could affect a number of parts of the code. I think our question is going to be, when do we tackle it? Okay. Well, as long as we know at some point, or in my case, I know when you're going to tackle it, that's because that's something I think has a lot to do with accessibility and affordability and, frankly, a sense of local agency that is being taken away. My other, my other question is the whole mixed-use zoning. Where does mixed-use zoning fall in these four? I think it's going to overlap quite a few of them. I mean, one of the ideas for mixed-use zoning is that people don't have to drive everywhere for their daily needs. Maybe they can live next to where they work. Maybe they can walk to their corner store. So, from that perspective, that's less vehicle miles traveled. That's going to hit an important air pollution goal for the city, which is sustainability. It's also going to hit this housing issue. You're going to have more housing options in different districts. So I think that it's a cross-cutting issue. I think mixed-use districts will be an implementation tool that can help accomplish a lot of different policy. So it'll be in the imple, you think it'll be in the implementation doc, but it will be there someplace. I, yes, it definitely will be there. Here's how I think this might play out. I'm hoping that the general plan process will start to articulate more the different flavors of mixed-use that could be appropriate in different areas, and then that can lay the groundwork in that implementation handbook that Janice talked about for us drafting new mixed-use zone districts. I would love to see that general plan document lay that foundation. That's a really good example of where I think that sequencing could be helpful. **Commissioner:** Great. And I have a question, and that is, in terms of mixed-use, are we thinking about it in relationship to new development, or are you looking at it in relationship to existing development? It could be both, Commissioner. It's easy to think about a new subdivision and saying that they might have a mix of housing types, but you also, in a lot of places around the country, are seeing communities retrofit existing neighborhoods by allowing accessory dwelling units or by allowing maybe a large old mansion to be converted into three units, something like that. And so, that mixed-use concept applies both to new and old. And I think that's something we'd like to get feedback on. **Commissioner:** And does, I'm sorry, one more. Where does density, changing the density rules, fit in? I know you were, I think you were saying it's in the third, in the livability section. Yes, we, one of the things that was talked about in phase one and elsewhere is maybe changing the way that you think about density in Santa Fe and how that metric is used to control new development. I would put that as well in the category of a later drafting piece because I think the general plan should inform that. I think the general plan hopefully should start to color and provide some color to those conversations. We can start to float those ideas early with the code update, but I think the dimensional standards for the zone districts is where that piece lives in the code, and I think that's part of that piece of the drafting puzzle that comes after the general plan. **Commissioner:** Thank you. Okay, cool. So, just reading your prompting questions, then looking at the other topics, I think it'll be really interesting. As somebody that's lived here a very long time, I know we have the historic district, and obviously everybody's very familiar with historic and South Capitol, but I've noticed over time, in my 38 years living here, is that we are starting to see more and more communities within Santa Fe get really hesitant to change the character of their own neighborhoods. And they feel like, you know, you hear a lot like that development is on one portion of the city, or, and I could see that just answering some of these questions, that could be some barriers to housing diversity is getting buy-in from communities who feel that, you know, we've been the ones that are experiencing the brunt of development or new development, or we haven't had enough development. So I think really that'll be something that we will want to focus on in community engagement is kind of explaining that, you know, as a city, if we're going to keep grow, like we're going to grow one way or the other. So if we can work to make that a process where we're all, not everybody might be super happy all the time, but that it's moving towards an ultimate goal. And I think it'll be interesting to see how housing and neighborhood compatibility intersects with like the historic preservation as well. Yeah, great comments. Anything else on this slide? **Mr. Chair Clow:** I just wanted to kind of circle back to your thought on missing middle housing and bring it back to one of the things we did in phase one, which was add duplex, triplex, you know, add these types of housing options to our permitted use table. And so that kind of lays the groundwork to further look at, okay, we've added them, but now, you know, what other levers can we pull, whether it's in review and approval of those or some other incentives for affordable housing that we can implement to kind of further spur those types of housing options, and whether it's through infill development or, you know, through ultimately maybe through some rezoning at the end of this. But, you know, that was one kind of step we took initially to just bring that kind of out of the shadows and put it up and say, no, these are permitted, these are desirable types of housing because, as Matt said, what we have seen and what we have in Santa Fe is, we know through the general plan assessment report, is that we have maybe 70% of our housing stock is single-family detached, and then we're seeing more recently the apartments going up. And we know that there's a need for other and a desire from the community for other housing options. From the general plan, we know that our population is aging. We know that people are having, you know, family sizes are decreasing as well. So that lends itself to other housing options to meet the community's needs. **Commissioner:** So while we did that, it's still controlled by zoning, current zoning, that those housing types. We allowed them in certain districts. **Commissioner:** Right, but it still has to be controlled by zoning, right, those housing types? Yes. **Commissioner:** Yeah. So we're talking maybe in this phase, redoing some zoning to encourage it even more. Okay, to your point, Maggie, I guess I have a couple questions, but two things that pop in my head of what you're saying is one, making sure that like we understand why those things, I mean, have those things not happened, these missing middle, these duplexes, triplexes, which we do actually have quite a lot of historically. Are they financially viable for developers and small developers to bring in and do infill with? And are we making sure that we're looking at that equation as we're looking at this code stuff, goal of the, you know, connected to the general plan, but it's like, can they do it with the costs that we have now? What's going on? That's one thought. The other thought is something that came up was around like the form-based stuff, that part of the way to make it more affordable potentially is to do some kind of form-based code with things and do a little bit more administrative permitting so that it makes it easier for smaller developers and then get the community buy-in or process in front of the work of that. So it's like if they're going to do, you know, this form that has been approved, as long as they're not asking for some wild variance that's going to, you know, be a much more streamlined process. So, I don't know how it fits exactly in here, but it seems like part of this. Well, I think like what you're talking on in California was recently passed that as long as it falls under, I think it was 10 or 12 units, it was just administrative approval. And then to kind of touch on that, I mean, for myself personally, everybody needs a place to live, and I get that, but we're not building wealth by putting them in apartments. You know, townhomes, things of that nature kind of can work as that first step up. And I think of what Chapman did in 1973 of Park Plazas. That's a mixture of townhomes, single-family detached, and all within of what I want to say 60 acres off of Rodeo Road there. So just kind of keeping that in mind that it has been done in the past. It's been very effective, and those are, depending upon what you deem affordable, are still relatively priced. But to the effect of full affordability, Rob Gibbs just was getting started on a Royal Estate 2, and that's 100% affordable, but that was only obtained by state funding. And that's the biggest factor is that those infrastructure costs, I mean, a small developer can eat those and then also sell them at. Well, too, also allows for like folks that are in more affordable units when they're ready to move into a more expensive. And not, excuse me, not occupy some of the more affordable. Like there, it's all kind of part of it. It's giving them options that are attainable for them to move up and out of that when they're ready and open up some of the more affordable things so that, because I think we have a lot of, not a lot, but we have more of that that probably could be available if there was a lot of focus on this missing middle housing and the infill part of it of where we can, people want to, you know, a lot of people want to live closer to town. Like where can we put two, three, four units all over the place and increase that? And on the flip side of that, moving up within an area is the moving down. Yeah. Yeah, with the aging population. My mom would love something like that, a smaller space with less upkeep. Exactly. We're also, we're kind of mixing the two concepts, missing middle and mixed-use. But just to clarify, I mean, and they're both important, they're both goals. The missing middle is primarily residential, and the mixed-use that we're talking about also is introducing a commercial component, you know, next to that missing middle. And so, I'm trying to remember the name of the neighborhood down by the South Library. It's a great neighborhood, but one of the things we talked about is they would really benefit from like some corner stores because a lot of folks there that live there, so they would love to walk to a small shop. Are you mean live-work units as mixed-use? It could be live-work. It could be a small, you know, 5,000 square foot or less, you know, retail store, something like that. So, live-work is another great example of where you're combining the residential and the non-residential. Y'all have some great examples of live-work already. Yeah. We were just talking about that down by the coffee shop in. Yeah, like the L Estate Street Lofts and, you know, over by the Baca Railyard, you know, and then Homewise. Yeah, Homewise off. Yeah. So. There's good models of all this stuff in Santa Fe that we can learn from and try to replicate. I think there's also several instances though, like Ranch of Viejo, like, what's right off of 599 here, and some of the developments we've been seeing recently where there's like a little commercial stuck in as a requirement or whatever. They're trying to do that, and it's not working. Yeah. You know, it's a branch of VJO commercial area. It's like, in theory, on paper, it should work, and it's not. And I guess looking, digging into why that's not working for small businesses to survive there is would be a really important piece of this. What is the development right here, 599? Ala. Ala. Yeah, and there's another one, and it's like their commercial is just like, it's empty. And so I'd be curious why that hasn't worked when something like, yeah, Lena, Lower Baca, like Second Street Studios, all those, what are the pieces that make that, you know, you need to have a density of commercial for it to work. So how do you retrofit that into areas that already exist? And you need to have the density of residential, you know. Both, yeah, that's right. Of the feet, the foot traffic. You know, it's interesting because El Dorado, which is out in the county, it took them forever to have sort of a viable, I mean, we're talking 30, 40 years, yeah, to have a viable commercial area, and it just, it seems recently it's much more viable. So it comes and goes, but I think people are used to going to Walmart and stuff is prioritizing. I have another question. Do you have any information that you look at at the expense of building? And there's the permitting process, there's the expense of the materials, there's the time. And there's people raising money to help people build affordable houses. But I've heard reference, not with us, but elsewhere, but I don't have a specific example to cities and states introducing tax incentives around the down payment of a house based on income. Have you heard, do you have any information on something like that? Not off the top of my head, Commissioner, but there's a lot of creative local programs around the country that communities have developed to incentivize homeownership, first-time homeownership, things like that. I suspect you have some in New Mexico. That's a good thing to research. We have a large or a good variety of local organizations that are doing that. Yeah. Yeah, they could always get more money though. But there are people looking into tax incentives to give a complete rebate on a down payment if you make less than X as a family of four. Okay. That's a good time to advertise our community working group that we're going to carry forward as part of this process. Homewise was really helpful as part of phase one. We're hoping that they'll continue in a strong advisory role. We are going to be shopping all this around with stakeholders, with a community working group like we did in the first round. However, we had two different groups, I can't remember the exact names, but we're going to combine those into one. Yeah, we're going to combine those into one group for moving forward. But also importantly, we're going to have an interdepartmental working group that we're proposing that will have City Attorney's Office folks from Water, folks from Parks, folks from Engineering, so we can regularly vet some of these ideas that have cross-cutting implications across different programs so that they're not forced to come up to speed late. Great. This is more for staff. Are we seeing that we're correlating with the county? Because when the long-range planner was here for the county, he was talking because we asked him specifically, "Where does the county see their biggest growth coming?" which he expressed was going to be off of Richards Avenue. So, are we kind of correlating that with what the city is seeing in expansion as well? Yes, we will be coordinating with them about those specific nodes of development, areas where they're concentrating the expansion of infrastructure and density. They're also, as you may recall, working on their TDR program, transferable development rights, and looking at sending areas where they can concentrate development to preserve their rural landscape. So we'll definitely want to partner with them, especially regarding infrastructure. Yeah, Commissioner Rean, you may be aware too, I believe that there is a movement to kind of reestablish regular joint meetings between the city and the county at a high policy level. So I believe that effort is ongoing as well. I'm going to move to my next slide and just keep us on track. But this was our first cut before we had this conversation about potential drafting topics in this part of the code for this conversation. ADUs, we've talked with the staff about needing to clarify some of the standards about where those are allowed and what the standards are that they're subject to. Maybe needing to refine some of the missing middle housing types that were introduced in phase one. Maybe rethinking and broadening where those could be allowed or encouraged. Parking reform is part of this issue. How much parking is required, especially for residential? The affordable housing incentives, we got into that in phase one a little bit, and I'm sure there's going to be a lot more conversations like Commissioner Smith introduced about how can the code play a role in incentivizing affordable housing. A lot of those tools might be outside the code. Some of them could be in the code. The transition issues are important. People are scared of change. This came up in some of y'all's comments and the edge issues, between a new mixed-use district and an existing residential neighborhood, those get a lot of attention in a code update and especially a map update. And what are the issues that people might be concerned about? Is it hours of operation for that store that goes in? Is it extra traffic? What are those issues? And how can we kind of think carefully about those transition issues? That's one of the topics. And then short-term rentals like Commissioner Smith said. So, yeah, these are all definitely parts of this puzzle. So we'll come back at the end and talk about when those get addressed because again, that's kind of the important part of this strategy conversation with you all. I would just add too to that last slide, that should be on there is like neighborhood connectivity, right? So making sure that as we're talking about compatibility and transitions between uses, that we're also talking about how people can move between the neighborhoods and if we're wanting people to be more pedestrian and less car. Yeah. That we're really prioritizing safe, connected pathways and stopping sort of the sidewalks to nowhere of the way we've developed. Good comment. Yeah. Anything else to add to this slide? Process administration, governmental efficiency. Remember that was one of the governing body goals. Got some prompt questions up here. Which parts of the process are too difficult or unpredictable? How's the appeals process working? Why processes should become administrative? We've already talked a lot about these questions back in phase one. We know some of these answers. We've heard from, but this is just to get you thinking. We flagged a lot of these things in that phase one draft. More things should be administrative. Again, we just didn't think we had the buy-in to move those ideas forward at that time. Now we can, now we can put those things forward. The EN process, a lot of people have said it's time to restate the priorities of that and figure out, are we really getting what we want out of that process? So that's on the table here. But I've got some graphics there just of the flowcharts in the code. And I think we did a lot from a just a document formatting point of view for clarity. But now is the time to think about the policy and to think about, you know, are there really some bigger ticket items that we can tackle in the process area? What are your thoughts? Well, since I can't see anybody, I'll go. To me, the thing that is implicit in some of these, but has been stopped at the city level, whether it's bureaucratic or financial, is computerizing the whole application process. I mean, the paper that gets used, not just the expense, but the time that goes into this. I just think we have to create an appropriate for the functions of the people who are collecting information and either approving or disproving a permit given whatever the new code is. We have to have a system that is computerized, except that's the wrong term these days. But I think that that's a great comment, Commissioner, and I think the city is doing a lot in that regard to roll out its kind of e-review processes. And I'll toss to Maggie. Thank you, Commissioner Smith, for that. And yes, we have been working on that for some months now with the transition to OpenGov. And I believe we are on target for like this fall to roll that out to the public. So we are very excited. We see many solutions within this transition to an e-review, both from the just from all aspects of our work, from business licensing to inspections to construction permitting and through our development review processes right now, which are somewhat electronic, but not really. And we're working with our development review team members and of course, all the different divisions within the Land Use Department to implement this. It has been quite a lift, but we are really excited and I think we will be able to, I mean, we've reclassified, I think, three positions already because we anticipate that their role has essentially been moving paper around. And so we're reclassifying those positions to have those people do more plan review type work and getting them trained up in those new roles. So that's an immediate efficiency there. I think as we roll it out, we will just continue to see faster review times because we're taking a linear process where paper plans are moved around to different reviewers to a simultaneous process where they can all be reviewed and viewed online. So, I could go on. It's very exciting and we think it will solve a lot of our problems, but not all of them. And so that's why we want to talk about, you know, what other processes are pain points, appeals, what can we do more administratively? We talked a little bit about missing middle. Right now, if you have three or more units, it's a development plan. It can be administrative. You go up 10 or more, that comes to the Planning Commission. Do we want to reconsider that? Do we want to make some more, you know, allow those smaller projects to be reviewed administratively and really only bring you guys the big projects, assuming they're code compliant, right? No variances, they meet the standards. Let's approve them faster. We've also talked about kind of changing the requirements of that. Right now, we require like a full civil set of drawings for a development plan. Do we, a lot of communities have a lower lift to get that approval and then when you want to get your building permit, you invest in all the civil drawings. So those are some things that are on the table that we need to consider and discuss. But you know, that can streamline our processes and really alleviate some of the pressure that's on our staff, which, you know, I mean, we just, we, we, there's always going to be limited staff hours. So how do we do things more efficiently? And e-review is going to be one of them, but we have to look at our review and approval processes as well. You know, I think another issue too is rezoning. I mean, we're doing so many rezone cases because you sort of have the general plan and the map and it's showing, okay, you know, like Old POS Trail, this can, you know, is zoned for three to seven units per acre, yet it came into the city as the fallback at one. And then some people in the neighborhood think that that's sacrosanct and that there's no way to change. And that goes on for years. And I firmly believe in that development that no developer will touch that area because of the history of those areas and that we could have really had a much nicer development on those nine acres if there, if a developer would feel like this would be developed fairly easily. You know, right now what it's at is one house per, you know, our, it's individual lots, so it's not going to be the greatest looking neighborhood. And it would have been, I think, much better as a PUB or something like that. But so it seems to me that there needs to be some, I mean, I don't know why if we have a general plan that says this is the preferred number of residents per acre in this development, why, why do people have to go in to rezone? I mean, is it possible to rezone with the general plan? So exactly as Chair Cloud, not possible to rezone with the general plan, but with the code update, that's where we do it. So, we take the information from the general plan and that's why we have the new zoning districts kind of in our third bucket and our third implementation because we want to have that information from the general plan and Then we can apply it to the map and actually do the rezonings. And hopefully, not, I think the age of the general plan is leading to a lot of the rezonings, and that hasn't been looked at. And so, our vision is that we truly turn that spigot off, and we don't see rezonings coming in in the manner that they've become accustomed to. It is quite unusual and not good practice. Yeah, and that's where the neighborhood fights occur, mainly on the rezonings. Not always, but a good part of them is rezonings. That's also tied to where the ENN process is in the process right now, is like when the neighborhoods get to get involved with that really far down the road for the developers, and that's a problem too, where it's like that needs to, in my opinion, that stuff needs to happen. I like what you were saying, Maggie, about lower lift for approvals. I think it's a huge thing and something we've heard from developers and the community, of just kind of like they're putting a whole lot of money in before they even know if they're, and that's a huge barrier to some of these smaller developments happening, what those requirements are. And to the, I wrote down on here, to the number one there, what parts of the process are too difficult or unpredictable? I think making sure we create a... Oh, I got... Oh, what do we do when it becomes unpredictable? What is a mechanism that we can put in place almost as like a customer service point of this whole process for developers, for homeowners, for anyone who wants to do this, so that if it becomes unpredictable for whatever reason, there is, I don't know, we've talked a little like an ombudsman or a, what was it, hearing officer? Like there's different models in cities that I think would be really important to help and make sure we get something like that in there to deal with the unpredictability if it happens. But I want to definitely vote for the lower lift for approvals thing and earmark that, make more administrative. And I think if the public hearings, it's like where are the public hearings most important? How should neighborhood engagement function ahead of all these things so that they can be pointed at like you were a part of this, this was the plan, here you can go look at it. And it's important, but it's like let's do it upfront. So, for those lower lift issues, you have to kind of consider why we had a development plan in the first place. In the past, there have been many building permits that were issued without development plans. The problem that that had in the past was that you had to go through every department every single time, and they were siloed. It took forever to get those building permits out there. They aggregated all that in order to make it easier so that you had a one-time shot to look to create a lower threshold for that. You have to make sure that all of the safeguards that the city's obligated to look at, which are those health, safety, welfare requirements, are built into that lower level. So, you're not really lowering the bar. You're just shifting it down the road and into a different process. And if we don't look at how that different process works when you're dealing with other departments you have no control over, you could make it pretty much the same way it was before if you don't put those safeguards in. So, changing is good, but you have to make sure it's not going to break the system and go back to the way it was that forced everybody to come back for that lower threshold. So, those are things to consider when you make those changes. I think there needs to be a third, not what we were doing before and not what we're doing now, but a third new, learn from all that and then make it a little more efficient. For sure. Clout's zoning aspect. The other thing with the zoning is, you know, I look at like St. Francis Drive, we have a mixture of residential, commercial, many overlays and so forth. And I know we're working on a lot of those things, but would it make more sense to, if we have a property that's zoned a specific way and the owner wants to change it, does it really need to come before us if every other property around it is already zoned that way? I mean, do they need to go through that whole process just, I mean, the precedent's been set, I guess, is what I would say. It ultimately is a rezoning that's got to comply with state law for rezonings and city law zonings. But you could have a tailored set of criteria for those circumstances that might provide some streamlining those circumstances. So if there is a house that has proposed something that would trigger environmental regulation requirements, if it's flanked on all sides by other houses or other developments that have already completed the environmental review and have relatively fresh documents from those assessments, they're exempted. And so that's exactly what Matt was talking about saying, you know, it would be a rezoning still, but you could set certain criteria where it's common sense pass, like if it's completely surrounded, if it meets a certain size threshold, if it's developed to a certain degree of infrastructure, if all signs are pointing to, you know, it should be that, then perhaps, you know, we can look into that as an expedited thing. But what I also wanted to mention about rezonings, going back to Chair Clout's comment, was that the general plan future land use map informs the LDC update. So, the rezoning that we'll be taking on in the third installment of this process will be following what's been contemplated in the refresh of the 1999 future land use map, which will include consideration of those annexation areas, things that defaulted to R1 when they were brought in, and that's not appropriate. It's causing rezonings. Matt can speak to this specifically, but it is uncommon to have ad hoc rezonings constantly. The future land use map that informs a zoning code in a jurisdiction is supposed to be relatively permanent because it's gone through an expensive and extensive, well-vetted public process and been agreed on by all parties that, you know, this is how our city should grow. Here's where we direct this type of development, and then the zoning follows that roughly, not exactly, but he can speak to the commonality of ad hoc rezonings on a daily basis. Yeah, just a lot of rezonings means that the map is old and it's broken. It means that the code is old and it's broken. That's the same thing for a lot of PUDs. People were trying to step outside the box with a PUD, and that's why you often see those in communities with really old... Commissioner, you were trying to jump... I was just going to kind of go off of Chair Clout and Commissioner Capen and talk about, I actually, I would, so you were talking about having the neighborhood buy-in earlier. I think there are some drawbacks to that though from a development standpoint, because you might get immediately, "No, we don't want you anywhere near us." And that can be really, that can also hinder development in ways that are not conducive to the future of our, you know what I mean? I worry about that aspect of it. And then on the other side, you know, talking about the appeals process, I mean, this is before my time, old POS trail, but seeing how caught up the city was able to get into this endless battle that is just basically the ultimate goal is that no developer will go anywhere near those acres, and, you know, they're not going to want to touch it for a really long time. That seems to be some of the goal of some community members sometimes when they don't want something so much. And I don't, I don't know the answer to this, and I'm not, I'm not a lawyer, so I couldn't even speak to it, but I think how do we make that process more streamlined in a way that like, you know, I mean, again, not everybody's going to be happy, like you can't get everything all at once, you can't always have everything the same forever. So I don't know what that looks like, but... It's not necessarily a streamlined process, but maybe it's a clearer process. And more predictable. Yeah, maybe it's a very high set of standards, but it's clear what the standards are. Yeah, I think, I mean, I understand what you're saying, and I agree with... The way things are right now and how folks have been able to interact. I think in some ways, not in a harsh way, but it's like, "No" is not an option. Yeah. Or that's... You know, to move more towards like housing is a right here. This is a whole community. We are going to be figuring this out across all of our neighborhoods. Yes. And everyone has to participate in that. Yeah. And "no" isn't an answer anymore. Yeah. Because I, I, that's just what I would say. I mean, I'm not saying I think you're going to get hit exactly with what you're saying, and it's a good thing to call out, but it's, I think we need to change the dialogue around that a little bit. And sometimes it's been really successful when the neighborhood and the developer have gotten together and worked out a lot of stuff, and it's worked. It's, it, it's, I think it's more the somewhat the exception when it just becomes a total "no." This is a great conversation. I'm going to be a timekeeper and move us forward just to keep us going. Can I just, can I just one... Can I, yes, please. I think what I heard Piper saying was that if we did form-based housing in 10, 12 ways, and we redefine density, and we rethought rezoning, and we mixed use, they all feed into this, this common thing. The notion that the neighborhood would participate in this planning process, and then the plan and the code, the neighborhoods would be approved, then those decisions beyond, you know, lower level of numbers, et cetera, that fit those criteria and the specifics within them get, get approved without another ENN, because we've already had an ENN on the form or the density or the rezoning, and that's now part of the code or the plan. Okay, good comments. We will be looking at all the mechanics of the ENN, when it is, what it applies to, what stage of the process. You know, like Commissioner Smith says, is it when the density is initially set, you know, as part of the code process, or is it more in a site-specific application when an ENN is more appropriate? I think those are all good questions to look at. Generally speaking, I would say there's just a big theme here, too, of distinguishing the big stuff from the small stuff and figuring out what really requires the more community participation, more intensive scrutiny by elected officials and you all, and what is considered relatively small stuff that could go forward subject to standards with administrative approvals. That's a theme that's going to go throughout. This slide just shows some of the things that we had anticipated you would talk about, and you hit all the buttons. So, I think we're right on track with your thinking. I'm going to move forward. We have two more topics, and then we're going to get the drafting strategy out there. I'm going to make sure and get you out on time. Historic preservation and design. This is a big one for Santa Fe. You've already started to get at this with the prior two topics. How do you balance preservation and housing goals? You've already jumped into all these. What aspects of historic review work well? When can you tolerate more flexibility in a preservation and a preserved environment? What aspects of the current system are unclear, inconsistent, might need further clarification? And also start to think about some other policy goals for the city, like wildfire mitigation, and thinking about how do you balance the need for like structural mitigation for wildfire prevention with a community that's trying to really focus on aesthetics of buildings and protect old wooden windows. So, how do you think about the merging of those topics? What do you all think about these topics? What are your priorities for us? This has come up for me recently. It'll be a really interesting, I think it's going to become a much larger topic, but wildfire mitigation is quickly, like there are parts of, especially up East Alameda and farther beyond that, anywhere up a canyon, many of those homes will no longer be able to be insured unless they remove all landscaping within 5 feet of their structure, which means a lot of historic trees, a lot of historic, kind of what we think of as that flora and fauna of old Santa Fe. And I think that will be something that we definitely want to keep in mind because it's not going away. So, how do you balance that because that'll be a hot topic? And then I think about too, one of the recent developments that we approved, the hotel, it has a more unique design, or had a more unique design before they brought it back. And it sort of shoulders that area between the historic district and the more commercial districts of town. But is that, I don't know, is that a bad thing? I don't know, just personally. Which hotel is that? It's Marriott. It's on appeal to the City Council. Okay. Still impressed. But it was a Marriott. Oh, there's a certain name to it, and it's a Marriott style. It's modern, and so staff, I would assume because of all the flack that has come about in terms of things looking too modern or whatever, had them redesign it so it was more Santa Fe-like. So, the issue is, I think a lot of younger people probably like the more modern look when it's not in, if it's not in the historic district. Is there flexibility for that, or do we have to keep everything brown and adobe-looking? These conversations came up a lot in phase one, and what's the tolerance for modern design in Santa Fe? Well, that's, and that's, yeah. Well, I think as a city, we can't forget, I mean, our economics are drawn by tourism, and people come here because of our historic culture. And so we can't lose that aspect. But like you touched on something that I really, when I have a client that has a house on the historic East Side and they have windows from 1910, there's no reason why they should not be able to update their windows with a metal clad that's more fire protectant and also more efficient. But then also on another standpoint, based upon the presentation that was brought to us a couple weeks ago, I think definitely one of the things in the code, and I know that any new roof system has to be torn down to the decking. Now, maybe we make it a requirement that all new roof systems have to be a Class A system. And maybe that's something that needs to be written into the code because that's another fire protection, because in all of Santa Fe, my understanding is we are gauged at an 8 out of 10 fire hazard no matter where you are. Yeah. It could be a building code issue as well as a Chapter 14 issue. Do the first discussion question on here: preservation and housing goals be balanced? I guess what comes to mind for me is wondering if we're going to, what are we preserving? Is it the facade? Is it the, you know, the exterior? And then if that's the case, if that's what's most important to the tourism, what can we do on the inside to allow for things to really modernize or become more dense or a bunch of smaller units in there to help with our housing things? So, inside versus outside, or really clearly defining what we're trying to preserve, I think would be helpful. And then that additional flexibility is where would it be appropriate? Like anywhere it works where we can adapt things towards the goals that our community now has in a way that holds on to that preservation and the look for the tourism. But down, you know, we have a historic area. I don't know if every single house outside of that needs to also be brought, you know, they can come into the area that we define that way and then allow for other things to happen potentially out in the neighborhoods if people want it. You know, this is also something we've never addressed as a Planning Commission because it's been the Historic Review Board. So, I don't, I don't have a lot of familiarity with it, and I don't know how, you know, are we going to become more involved, less involved? Is the H Board going to exist? Those are all questions I read about in the paper. But so it's interesting in terms of how, because I know in approving phase one, we all looked at what was recommended in terms of the changes to the historic portions of the code, and we were fine with it, but it didn't get passed. So what's our role? What's their role? And yeah, and again, we're not getting down into the weeds in all these topics tonight, but we're kind of setting the stage for our drafting structure, but it's all on the table. And we put the photo of Target up there. You know, it's intended to focus on design issues outside of historic areas as well as historic preservation. Are there some thematic overlaps in how the community regulates design in both places, or do they deserve different approaches? They need different approaches. That's all on the table. Some of it's just mechanical. You know, you've got this architectural review point system right now outside the historic districts that is unwieldy, and we heard from a lot of people that that system needs refinement or maybe replacement. And so that's part of this conversation as well. We are, this is a good time to advertise. We are meeting with the H Board tomorrow from 3:30 to 5:30. So if you all are looking for a second meeting, it's going to follow a similar structure. We're going to introduce this drafting, these buckets to them, but the conversation is geared more towards these issues. Do we find that it's just like, no matter what, we're going to be butting heads with historic? I don't think so at all. No. No. Some, also, I'm sure you know this more than we would. I've just read a little bit about it and seen some presentations over the last year of areas that are modernizing their historic areas but not losing like the look or the, you know, they're really defining it. And they've done Hartford, Connecticut, St. Louis, some places in New Orleans. There's some places that are already doing a lot of this with the same situation where they're tourists or really strong feelings about their historic areas. And so I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel there. I think there's a lot that has been moved forward and a lot of cool new products that also would, I'm, I was really happy to see that the wildfire mitigation is coming up so regularly. I think it's extra important right now and figuring out how to fit that into historic, like that could be a change to the fixtures or the windows or whatever, that we... My understanding, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, is historic really cares about the exterior facade. Interior-wise, as long as they're following code and getting their permits and everything, an owner, whether it be commercial or residential, can do what they like on the inside to modernize that facility. Am I wrong on that assessment, or... Not at all. Actually, it's the local ordinance only deals with exteriors. You can be listed at the state and federal level, and there would be some level of control over the interiors, but not at the local level. And just to sort of answer your question, the HDRB is actually a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. You wouldn't know that. You wouldn't know that. I know. I think where it could intersect, Commissioner Reland, is though, is if we were going to talk about trying to promote, you know, historical structures being used differently inside, you do run into things like exits, right? If we're going to increase density there, how are we going to have more doors? Yeah, or windows, or fire escape, or different roofing things that it will, like we need to make sure those line up so that if we do need to put a door on that building, it does, the whole thing doesn't get stopped because you can't put a door, you know, like... But I, I think there will be, like, I mean, it, like I said, with the fire, wildfire mitigation and just, you know, modernization in those ways, it's going to be if, if everything's going to the historic, you know, if you need an extra egress or if you need to update your windows, like these are things that are sometimes not, or they are time-sensitive, for instance, you know, removing landscaping, maybe updating a roof. You don't have weeks and months to go through a long process. So what can we do to maintain historic preservation but also expedite some of that so that people, their house survives for the next year while they're waiting for permitting? Well, it doesn't fall down. If I may, Frank, did you want to add? Madam Chair, yes. Thank you. And Commissioner McReynolds and Commissioner Cabin, it's not all historic windows and doors are protected. A lot depends on whether the house has what you call a contributing or significant status. Some houses in the historic district have what you call non-contributing status. So, if a house has a contributing status, there are certain facades or elevations that are designated as primary facades. And the code only protects a historic window on a primary facade that is capable of being renovated. If the window is deteriorated beyond repair, if the window is not historic, or if the window is not on a primary facade, it's not protected. Okay. So, I know, you know, sometimes people approach the Historic District Review Board, and I've been representing, I've been advising the Historic District Review Board for almost five years now, and some people think, "Oh, it prohibits me from doing anything with this house." There are really only certain things that are restricted, and even then, the applicant can apply for an exception, and they have to prove certain criteria. And for example, they can argue things like fire safety and ingress and egress and that sort of thing. Okay. You're welcome. Now, if a house is designated a significant house, all facades are deemed to be primary, but still, if the window isn't historic or the door isn't historic, it's not protected. Okay. Just, I just, this has been a very juicy conversation. I just want to add a little different perspective outside the historic. So probably the biggest problem, hurdle that we come into with architectural design is when commercial or non-MPA businesses like McDonald's, coffee shops come in and they're internationally known and they want to keep their brick-and-mortar design. And that's where we as staff really kind of, and then that's where the architectural style points comes in. And that's really what I think is in addition to historic, but that's difficult for these large-scale companies to come in and look at our architectural, architectural style points and meet the Santa Fe style. All they end up doing is just slapping Vegas on anything and call it a day. And you kind of see that with the U-Haul, you know, development. Yeah. Even, yeah, Target. So, and that's, I mean, it's great, right? If you're a tourist and you're driving through, you're like, "Oh, I've never seen that." But as you're a local, you're like, "That's not right. That's not right." So, and that's where we kind of, that's where, where the code kind of needs the most help and kind of where I think this, this conversation has been mostly historic, but that's where we run into issues. Something else that I'm surprised hasn't come up is manufactured homes and how those don't have—I mean, we don't really have much architectural style points for residential single-family homes, and those are the most affordable types of homes right now. Homes USA, that's what I kind of call them. And that is not Santa Fe. We are not Manufactured Home USA. But are we going to have people slap stucco on a manufactured home? Probably not. That's not a cost that anybody would want to incur. So, just kind of thinking about that, and maybe as Albuquerque has been doing this, where they have pre-designed building plans, where they have cases that meet the architectural design, and they have 30 different home designs that people can pick from. So, maybe we kind of start exploring that, but I just wanted to add that kind of lens to this discussion. ADUs. I'm currently working with the AIA on getting those design templates so that they can do several designs of ADUs. So, it's sort of an off-the-shelf type of thing, but it's going to have to consider different numbers of bedrooms and sort of putting puzzle pieces together. So, they're working on it. The manufacturer, like the vibe and what people imagine with the Homes USA thing, there's so much new modular and manufactured homes that there is to think about and allow, like you're saying. It's not just the old standard anymore. So, I think there's some opportunity there. I agree. To add to Hoell's commentary, the interesting part about the points analysis is that it was specifically designed to sort of mimic the spirit of the historic district. And as people come in, they want their own marketing, right? The advertising of their sign is now the building. And there's where the problem starts. The problem is when we start designing that point system and that architectural style, we have to kind of think about what we want for Santa Fe. Do you want to continue to call it Santa Fe, the City Different, or do you want to sort of mimic every other town USA and shy away from that? And those are hard choices, right? I hate brown. I can't tell you how much I come to everything is brown, brown, brown. When I go someplace else and I see different colors, I'm like, "This is so nice." But you also have to think of the economic viability of our town and what that economic engine is driven by. And that's because when they come to Santa Fe, it is the City Different. You have to kind of think of those elements when you start talking about the architectural style of Santa Fe and the fight that we have with many of those big organizations that don't care about our style. I mean, I've heard everything in the past from, "You can't do anything to that because that's my trademark." You know, we're sitting there, "Well, we're not trying to sell your trademark. This is our style." And it's just some people bend, some people call the land use director and they talk her ear off until her face turns purple. But we do need to do something in terms of style, like those apartments out on the highway that we just recently approved and met the style. Well, I know what you're talking about, and I think that that was probably... Everyone's complaining about those. Nobody—I don't think that that was looked at appropriately. I would consider that more of an error than I would the following of the style. I think it was just not looked at. And only because I was there when they were reviewed. So, I... Yeah, I was there too, and we were told that they met the style. Yeah. No. We were told by staff. That's the task ahead of us is to make sure there's not enough—I mean, you want a certain amount of flexibility, but from one line director to another, things change. And I think our task in this ordinance, as well as the general plan policy, is that we need to make it so that we don't make mistakes like that because they're tragic. They truly are. To touch on what Dan was saying, the one thing I will tell you is that when I get clients that are not from here and they're coming to Santa Fe, they do tell me, "I'm coming to Santa Fe for the Santa Fe style. I can get modern in Denver, Dallas, Houston. I can get modern anywhere else. I do want to see some Santa Fe style." So, I think it's just going to be kind of trying to find that balance. We shouldn't lose what we have, but we do need to kind of catch up with the times, not live in the past so much. There's like a lot of space in between Santa Fe style and modern. Yeah. Like there's all sorts of design in there that we could look at to offer that gets at, you know, sit in the vicinity but gives us whatever roof lines or something but isn't just like an uber... Our missing middle. Missing middle. It's going to play out throughout this entire... Could I throw something in? In terms of the apartment buildings down on 25 we were just talking about. What we really didn't know then as a planning commission, and this is important for us to take on board, is that even if the staff brings us something that they're recommending for approval, we have the responsibility and the latitude to use our discretion to vote no. Frankly... Peter, you got to watch out with that discretion because it has to be reasonable, and you have to follow the law. Otherwise, you're basically going to end up in a lawsuit. Well, you know what? So, that's why we need better standards in the code so that we're not like... I hadn't finished. So, we didn't—we thought we'd made a mistake, but we did it. Then they brought back three new apartment buildings. And when we questioned them, they said because they wanted to be consistent with the first two. And in my mind, at that point, they had a much stronger case than they did the first time. But that discretionary you're talking about, Chair Clow, absolutely. That's a risk we run every time we exercise our discretion. But I do think one of the things that the commission and any new commission members as they come in need to understand is what it means to be quasi-judicial when it's a permit versus policy and when it's exercising discretion versus something that you've got to do because that was never clear to us, to me anyway, until recently. Well, I think if one has to follow code, and if staff is saying, you know, this development follows code, it's very difficult to say, "Well, we don't like it, and we're not going to do it," because you're going to end up in a lawsuit. So, what we need to do is clean up the code and make it be something that we're all happy with. So then we don't have to worry about... Having to approve things that we don't necessarily like. Amen. And I think it's fair to say that in a lot of places now it's hard to determine if something lies with the code. So, I think that ambiguity is something we're going to zero in on. I'm going to move us forward, which I'll have on time, but you've hit a lot of the things that we thought would be covered here. Regulation of franchise design. I didn't think that was going to come up. That's interesting. There are a lot of models out there. We worked on the Sedona code, Sedona, Arizona. There are a lot of communities that do regulate franchise design. You have to decide if that's a fight you want to have. But there's certainly a lot of good models of, you know, if they want to be here, if they want to participate in this economy, they're certainly willing to do certain things. Yeah. And but you can also help that conversation by bringing to them examples of places where it's been done successfully, and they have done it. So, we can have those conversations. That'll be interesting. Our fourth topic, we'll get this out, and I think this will be a faster one, is sustainability and infrastructure. The ideas are broad sustainability. What does that mean? Every community that I've worked in has defined it differently. Sustainability might mean alternative energy generation, might be reducing vehicle miles traveled. It might be more demographic-based, making sure that all different ages are sustainable to live in Santa Fe. It might be economic resilience. So, all those things are on the table in this project. A lot of sustainability topics don't necessarily live in Chapter 14. They could be in building code. It could be elsewhere. But this is an opportunity for you all to just articulate anything you would like to see. Infrastructure we've put in this category as well, just as an organizing tool. Any thoughts? Can the code address lawns? Can you repeat the question? Can the plan address green space on lots? In other words, lawns. Yes. Yes, it can. As opposed to desertification, etc. Yes. The code can address the amount of pervious cover and impervious cover on a site. It can address the landscaping that is required or prohibited on a site. It can prohibit turf grass. It can require turf grass. It can set a particular type of plant species that you have to draw from or that are prohibited. We heard a lot in phase one that you need to modernize the landscaping standards in Santa Fe to be more native-focused and drought-tolerant. Okay. I assume that's still the direction you are going. Thanks. Good. When we had our major drought in 19—I think it started in 1998 and early 2000s—the city automatically implemented certain things. Were those just temporary? Are those things that can be reenacted? Watering on certain days, no new sod could be allowed, grass for residents, pools were put on a moratorium. Are those things that we can implement in code on an as-needed basis based upon what our climate conditions are, or is that being a little too wishy-washy? I don't know the status of the temporary regulations that were drafted or adopted. I do know that a lot of those are in the water code and not in Chapter 14. Gotcha. The water budget regulations. I do know there's some interest in doing a substantial update to the water chapter. I'm not sure the status of that right now. One of the topics that came up for me around sustainability priorities is as we look at street designs and development that way, and just making sure that we are doing as much as we can to do smart things like with the water conservation instead of having plants up on a mound down, like some of those practices. I know it's listed here as water conservation. What I guess what came up to me here is just making sure that the code is rewarding those who are prioritizing these things. I think they're pretty well defined. And there's a—maybe reward is not the right word, but there's—if people are wanting to do that, we're pushing them towards that. We're using it to be like, "This is a better option for you to build this way or do this way." And then making sure that we help current homeowners do retrofitting and things around sustainability in all these old, old, old homes and educate them and give them ways financially and resources to start thinking about doing that. So, it's not just new development. That's a great comment. I went ahead and jumped ahead to the next slide, which shows some of the topics that we had raised. Street design definitely. You mentioned connectivity earlier and thinking about what those sidewalks or trail connections look like or street connections. That's a big part of this conversation. Anything else we haven't raised? Again, we don't have to get into the topics. When I think about sustainability and infrastructure, I just think about infill and that we need to, where we have existing infrastructure and existing sidewalks and existing streets and existing utilities, how do we densify there? Maximize the existing infrastructure in already developed areas of town versus making it easier for developers to develop out on the edges where they're providing all this infrastructure, but then we have to maintain it as a city. And that's still a burden, a long-term burden, even though they're paying for it upfront, but we're maintaining it over the long term. And that goes for new parks, which I think we don't need any more of, and new roads and new trails and all that stuff. So where do we have infill potential to build and further invest in our infrastructure that we have already? Well, and Maggie, to your point, I mean, identifying, I live in the neighborhood, Franklin Miles Park is an enormous swath of land that could be well utilized for much other things. I played Little League baseball there. No more Little League baseball is played there. Let's call it what it is and repurpose that area. I know we're going to have Fourth of July there this year. That's great. I've seen the city staff out there working, the guys getting the grounds ready, which is great to see in the community, but beyond that, that park is underutilized and needs to be repurposed. Yeah. Something in all of this around what you're just talking about, around keeping current mapping of possible infill areas and infrastructure capacity that could be set as a regular goal. Does that make sense? Yes. Yeah. I'm curious about the general plan. That's often done as part of the general plan. I know we're, yeah. I don't know if they tie together though and then point the code towards the infill, getting streamlined approval. Like if you pick this area, being able to do some more of the administrative stuff or we already know a lot about the infrastructure that's there. Now maybe you don't have to do all of the X, Y, and Z, like the thing we were talking about if an area is flanked that they've already had a bunch of traffic studies, something like that. Just doing, yeah, kind of mapping that and then using the code to get people to build in there. Yeah, that'll be part of the general plan project. So, not only will we have the general plan setting the policy direction, but to really make it actionable, we'll be doing an implementation plan. And there's going to be a map series. And one of the maps that we're going to be collaborating with our public works and public utilities partners on is a map that illustrates projects underway that are planned in the three to five year time horizon, and then longer term priorities on, we know we need to do this. It also provides a lens for equity as well across the city because we hear complaints a lot about, "Oh, you're just paying attention to the east side, you're not making investments in the south side." So, it's our hope that the implementation plan will really help to flesh that out. And that how it ties to the code stuff here is like to make that, I don't know, just you were talking about tying those two things together. Yeah, I know that map's already kind of out there even, right? The, um... They have the capital improvements map, I believe. They're looking at like future projects or something. Is that, but it's not like... Not that behind. Yeah. Yeah. I think I look at, I know Santa Fe Public Schools owns it, but EJ Mart, obviously Santa Fe Public Schools has no interest in maintaining that property and or utilizing it. So, where can the city step in and say, "Okay, this is a very large swath of land that is infill like you're saying, Maggie, and give us an opportunity to actually put something there that the public utilize benefit." Yeah, Chaperel is another one that drives me nuts. I drive by often and it could be put to good use. I really, there is one application for some housing on next to Sweeney, I believe, that elementary, the south side. But the importance of having affordable housing opportunities is they should be across the entire city, not just... Right. There's also big coordinated efforts to look at underutilized schools and churches as potential housing sources. Commissioner Smith, two things. Could it be possible in the plan of the code to build under what you're calling a low impact development under the storm water management green infrastructure? When we are water short, the city tells us we can only use water to do certain things. Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, washing the car, doing this or that. Would there be some way, since things are not going to get better and since they do that already, could you build into the code that somehow that when you're building stuff, you need to build it so that the exterior, the yard, et cetera, does not require more than, you know, three days, six hours each day, whatever it is, of water or whatever the rules are that the city uses? Just strikes me. If it's good enough for a year when we don't have enough water, why is it good enough all the time? And why shouldn't we ask people to build or create their outside spaces so that they don't require more than that as a criterion? Certainly can do that. A lot of communities have done that. I think that's definitely some of the options that we'll put on the table for you all to consider going forward. Thank you. And just to wrap up the infill conversation, there's a lot of communities that have adopted infill maps in their code within which you might have incentives for developing certain missing middle housing or something or focusing more just on there's a relaxed set of standards that apply within the envelope to encourage those types. I'm going to move us forward just for time. Yes. One very small thing on the sustainability. This came up with a project we saw before, who came before us asking for a reduction of parking, which I'm all, you know, fine, all good. But did not, and they're like, "Well, e-bikes and duh, duh, duh, duh." But there was no system going to be in place for the people who are going to be living there to charge their e-bikes or have a place where they can do that because you can't haul an e-bike up to a second floor. This one was going to be multi-level, right? So thinking about that as a tie-in to this, like I just wanted to put that in the sustainability piece if we're looking for people to start doing that stuff for, you know, making sure that the development has the right infrastructure by code. To support that. Support it, yeah. It's a great comment. A lot of these things are cross-cutting. A lot of these topics that you all have raised back in housing, resurface and sustainability, et cetera. So, one of our challenges as thinking about how to move forward on this stuff is to think about those cross-cutting issues and how to design a drafting strategy that lets you avoid unintended ripple impacts, effects in other parts of the code. The last part of this presentation and our discussion is just to lay out our three-part drafting strategy that we think makes some sense. It's, we kind of designed it for the rule, the rationale that you see on the slide. We don't want to drop a big draft on you of a lot of stuff. We don't want to do the phase one approach that was, that was well intended, but it ultimately needed to be in more bite-sized chunks for the level of engagement that it got. We want more focused public engagement on different pieces. Not everybody wants to participate heavily in all parts of this stuff. We need to think about the general plan and we already, we've already talked about the importance of the timing of that. We need to prioritize the early implementation items. You've just got high priorities that you all want to address. Maybe it's, maybe it's the wildfire stuff, but it needs to happen sooner than maybe two years when some of this later stuff might happen. And we want to build momentum. We don't want to just have this whole project sitting and waiting for one adoption and lose the momentum that we're hoping to recapture right now. And also, you know, we, we technically have a scope that is phases two and three of a code update and we, we think that we can get it done faster than that. We want to maintain some momentum. So for all those reasons, we've come up with this proposed drafting strategy, which is the balance of this presentation. There's three installments. Each of these would be adopted individually and so you don't have to wait for installment three to be drafted and vetted before you get installment one adopted. The goal is that these would be adopted individually. The first bucket, and I'm going to go through each one of these in a little bit of detail, but it's, it's the high priority stuff that you've already identified. Maybe we called it out in phase one. But we thought it was just a little bit too much of a lift. Then, but it's also some of the process modernization stuff that's ready to go like to coordinate with e-re like Maggie was talking about. The second installment is going to be stuff that's going to take a little bit longer. We need to dig into it like preservation, like some of these design standards. It's going to take a little bit longer and more time with the public to get our ducks in a row and get something drafted in those areas. And then finally, the third installment that should say three, it says two, but that, that third box is three. And that's, that's the district structure stuff. That's the things that we talked about that are influenced by the plan. So, let me, let me go through these. And there's a lot of text on these slides, but I'm going to, I think it's pretty understand. Focus of these is, is what I just said. The high priority stuff with relatively clear policy direction, limited dependency on the plan update. We think that it's all this stuff that we put in this category is going to be generally aligned with those governing body goals that we identified that you've identified. Likely broad support for these, especially as we've been seeing through the general plan update at engagement. We think you can get some quick wins here in terms of customer experience in the, in the permit review office, which is important for the success of the overall project. Create momentum, a lower dependency on future land use decisions. So, what would, what are, what was our first cut at this stuff? And I know this is small text, but you'll get a copy of this and, and we'll have a chance to fine-tune it. This is just our first cut, but we think a lot of the administrative and process reforms could, could be in this bucket like the EN revisions that we've talked about. Maybe putting more, more procedures into the staff bucket. Maybe continuing to refine some of the other common procedures. Housing and affordability. We think there are some community consensus items there that could probably move forward as part of an installment one. Get you some quick wins. We already saw in phase one that you had some affordable housing incentives that needed to move forward. There's other stuff in that category that we think we could put there and we're going to be counting on you all for some help identify what should be in that category. We think housing needs to be in this first bucket. It's everybody's priority. And then finally, just some enforcement and other code cleanup things that we think the city has already identified some stuff from Phase One they want to clean up. It doesn't rise to the level of really talk about it too much, but some of that cleanup can be done in Phase One. Installment One, that's our first cut. We can refine that. Installment Two is where we get a little bit more detailed, much more detailed. This is where we talk to the public more and we get more input and more refinement of harder issues. Stuff that you don't necessarily have good policy set yet, or you're not sure what the policy needs to be. It might be politically sensitive. There's big stuff here. More housing issues that require more public input. Where do you maybe allow more missing middle housing? Do you allow multi-family in all districts as some people have suggested? Design and site standards, all the parking requirements that need a complete rethink. Do you require minimum parking in Santa Fe? And what are the standards for landscaping? How do we implement all those new native plant requirements? And then all the preservation and design stuff that we've talked about. This is where I think this really should come to a head in terms of proposed new standards. Is that reforms to the process for HBO to provide more predictability in their appeals? Is it more changes to the standards to carry forward some of those things that we tried to get forward in Phase One, but give it more time, more thought, more time for everybody to chew on that? That's where this needs to come forward, we think, is in Installment Two. Installment Three is this is the district stuff. I've already described these. These depend on the plan. So, it could be new zoning districts. There's an opportunity for broader consolidation and simplification of your zone districts than we've talked about so far. And that needs to support, it needs policy support from the general plan process, but this is where it would come forward. And this would be the mapping. This is where we would do a new map that would help support and actually implement the mapping changes we've talked about. Maybe it's changing some of the overlay districts to base districts. We might be able to do some of that early, but maybe some of that's going to have to happen later on. But this is where you rationalize the future land use plan from that process and you put it in, you give the authority of zoning so you don't have all these spotty, spot-specific rezonings that you're having now. Maybe some larger structural reforms. I don't anticipate a lot of those. But maybe we've talked about the corridor districts. Maybe those could potentially play out in some new structure. That's an idea. We think it's a good idea. We think it balances a lot of things. We think it's pragmatic. It balances the political need to move forward and to show some progress and to get some wins to get the public on the side of this code update and to make sure that they're supportive of all this. But it also stretches things out in a realistic way to get input from this other process, which is going to really provide some strong policy grounding. It's certainly up to discussion and so I guess we'll throw it up to you guys. We can get detailed line about what goes in installments. What we're really looking for is just, I guess, support for the overall concept or pushback as to are we on the right track. I think it's great that you're dividing it up into segments so it's not overwhelming, and the segments sound good to me. Yeah. And make sense because the last one is really focused and combined with the general plan. And what I like is before there was going to be Phase Three of the code, which was going to be after the general plan was approved, but it sounds like you're doing both of them at the same time, which totally makes sense. Yep. Yeah, I agree. I agree with her. Good. We had a good conversation with the City Attorney's office today. They had a good suggestion. Maybe we need to just be especially cognizant of the current code structure as we're drafting these buckets so that we don't have, so that the work of the mechanical work of the edits is as clean and simple as possible. That's a great... This is a little bit... I'm sorry, go ahead. I say this is a little bit down in the weeds, but I think the idea of having mixed-use in all of the districts is a great idea because the natural defensive or mitigator of that is that no business, no developer is going to develop a mixed-use plan. And like I'm in District Two and that's up on the hill and it's beautiful, but it also goes all the way down to Yucca Street and all the way downtown. People aren't going to do something in a place where it won't work. So to me, it's that's really worth putting on the table because if we differentiate across the different districts in the city, people will immediately take offense. Some people will take offense. Just a thought. Oh, thank you. Okay, I'm not trying to rush us, but I do just want to respect your time. So, we did advertise this until 8 o'clock. Just to summarize next steps, the time flew fast. That was a great conversation. We are going to refine this slightly for a meeting tomorrow with HBO, and we're going to do a virtual meeting with ARC soon to get their feedback. That's not going to focus so much on what should the buckets be. We're going to, we're going to more just dig into their respective areas. We're going to get a detailed scope and timeline together for this. Now that we're going with Phase Two, we need to refine the current scope that we have to reflect this new reality. We're going to coordinate with the general plan schedule, which we're already doing. And we're going to do an assessment report, a brief document that pulls all this together and memorializes this installment structure to serve as our roadmap moving forward. And we're going to start drafting, but we're going to come back and present that report. That's probably where we're going to check in with the governing board body, just make sure that we're, they're all comfortable with our structure. But brains moving. We don't want to put specific dates on this yet. I don't want to put dates out there that we can't meet. We need to make sure we talk to all the stakeholders about what's reasonable, but we are, rest assured, going to try to move this as fast as we can. Final thoughts from anyone, staff or commission? I have a question. I just want to clarify for the group, the assessment report will be brought to governing body, but it will also be brought to Planning Commission first, right? That makes a lot of sense. We haven't actually had that conversation yet, but yeah. Okay. Just want to make sure they don't get skipped. Oh no, no, I, no, we intend to meet with you as much as you want to meet with us. So the goal is to, is to meet with you and I, I know you have a subcommittee process focused just on the land use, land development code, and so the goal is, I think they're going to take on the heavy lifting of getting in the weeds with us, but I think regular updates to the overall commission are on the agenda as well. Just have two comments. One is a question about the installments. If something in, say, in Installment One that you think is a low-hanging fruit or going to be really easy starts to get snagged, is there a mechanism for it to get moved to a different installment so that that part doesn't get held up or is it all going to be tied together once you, once this gets put in place? It's a great question. I, I will say that our hope is that we have a close working relationship with City Manager's office, City Attorney's office, governing body, you all, so that surprises and shifts are quickly identified and quickly dealt with so that they don't kind of become last-minute things. If something needs to move later because it needs more input, sure. Something might need to move forward because it takes on pressing urgency. So, it might move the other way. Or looks like it's not going to be, it doesn't need as much time as it needs. At some, at some point, it's got to be a baked document to move into the adopt. That's what I was wondering, is like if this is being proposed as the strategy, how locked into these meetings for deliverables are you making it? We will, each one of these installments in my mind is going to be accompanied by a mini, be preceded by a mini assessment report that identifies where we think the big policy shifts are going to be. We're going to get concurrence on that. Legal is going to have a chance to weigh in on that early. And then we're going to start drafting. At some point, you know, they're going to have a draft that is kind of relatively baked in for the adoption process. And hopefully it'll be a redline draft, right? Yes. But on that, you know, if it's surgical edits to a section, red lines, but sometimes it might be easier to do a wholesale replacement if we're just rewriting something. So, we talked with City Attorney's office about that. And, and one of the things that we're going to do is identify early which sections require that detailed red line versus a wholesale cut and replace. My other second comment was just, I know that this is going to start moving really quickly and that we've lost some time and there's implementation goals. But I just want to state that making sure that all the public input and process and various community organizations and how we're doing the outreach really has its airtime, which I don't, I didn't hear anything about that. I just wanted to say it out loud because I know things have sped up quite a bit, but... It's a, it's a big part of the project and we didn't focus on it much at all in this presentation, but we hear you. Yeah. And... Making sure the public is on board with all this is a big goal for us. Sure. Thank you. We were actually thinking about doing something similar to the general plan where we had a community partners program and organizations such as Chain Breakers, Indigenous Ways, all, there's a refugee organization and AARP did review some things and have discussions and provide feedback. So, we could leverage that again and I've got a budget proposal as part of our budget. We're talking about the code and that's a little different than the mini outreach stuff for the general plan, but yeah. But they can still provide... There, if you already have the connection to them, it'll bode well to get all the, all the pieces in there. And then I guess also just with the code part of it, making sure that we are touching all the different size developers from homeowners trying to do stuff all the way to the biggies and they're all getting there. I'm sure you're doing... One of our big goals though is that this is an implementation project. So it's the policy setting is coming with that. There'll definitely need to be some refinement and, and, you know, carrying forward a policy setting here, but a lot of the big lifting is going to be... Thank you to see you again. Yeah. See a lot of me over the next year. We're done. Chair, thank you, Commissioner Smith. Good night. Good night. Okay, we're adjourned. Anything else, Madam Chair? Yes. I wanted to bring to your attention that as you are aware, there has been an appeal filed for the decision the Planning Commission made February 5th, 2026, which was in case number 2025-11380, approving the development plan by Titan Development to build the Marriott Hotel. at 1101-1103 Sirius Road. Based on a conformity review, we have decided that the appeal needs to be heard. We had planned on placing it on the governing body agenda on June 10th. However, the attorney for the developer, Titan Development, is not available June 10th. So, we'll have to bump it back to June 24th. Under the code, it's supposed to go on the next available governing body meeting, but it can't. There's also a requirement that the appellants send out a 15-day notice, so it can't technically go on the next governing body meeting, but nonetheless, the parties have agreed to bump that hearing back to June 24th. Thank you for that update. I have another question. I know on the Old Santa Fe Trail there was discussion by the neighborhood that was objecting that they were looking at perhaps taking it to the US Supreme Court. Did that ever happen? It was in the newspaper. He just said he was thinking about appealing it to the United States Supreme Court. So, or is that I assume that that project is done? Well, it's been so long since I've practiced in any federal court that I'm sorry, I can't tell you what, and when I did, I represented the Department of Corrections in Colorado. But I can't think of how, probably a constitutional due process issue, but But it's been a long time since the Court of Appeals or the, I guess the New Mexico Supreme Court, denied certain And that's been a while. I would imagine there is some kind of statute of limitations or Right. Right. Or there's an, yeah. And so, and so I don't know, I haven't heard any more about it. I did, I did hear there was That was just for the newspaper. Okay, thank you. Actually going to bring the gavel down.