Planning Commission Meeting Thu, Oct 2, 2025 · Planning Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/630 == Executive Summary == The Planning Commission meeting covered a range of topics, including the introduction of a new commissioner, Matt Embry, and the approval of the meeting agenda. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the ongoing Land Development Code update (Chapter 14), with staff outlining the process for public hearings and the disposition report. Due to the Yom Kippur holiday, several cases were postponed, leading to discussions about future meeting schedules and ensuring commissioner availability to maintain a quorum. The commission also delved into the concept of "missing middle" housing and the city's Enhanced Affordability Incentive Program, which aims to increase density for affordable housing. Drawing parallels with Hartford, CT's successful planning initiatives, commissioners explored ideas like eliminating public hearings for multi-family housing, robust urban agriculture programs, and removing parking mandates. Concerns were raised about the continuity of the code rewrite project, especially with upcoming mayoral elections, and commissioners were encouraged to advocate for its continuation. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda for the October 2nd, 2025 meeting. - Approved the findings of facts and conclusions of law for Case 2025-10781, 195 Bronnell Holland Road variance request. - Approved the findings of facts and conclusions of law for Case 2024-8195, 1625 Palta Albert in Development Plan. - Moved cases 2025-1164, 1372 Boiling Lane, 2024-9461, 1372 Boiling Lane, and 2024-9320, 7205 Central Development Plan to the October 16th agenda. - Moved cases 25-10685, 688, 690 Content Preliminary Subdivision, and 2025-1106 Del 3 to the November 6th agenda. == Motions & Votes == - Approved the agenda for the October 2nd, 2025 meeting — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to move cases 2025-1164, 1372 Boiling Lane, 2024-9461, 1372 Boiling Lane, and 2024-9320, 7205 Central Development Plan to the October 16th agenda — Passed. - Motion to move cases 25-10685, 688, 690 Content Preliminary Subdivision, and 2025-1106 Del 3 to the November 6th agenda — Passed. - Approved Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Case 2025-10781, 195 Bronnell Holland Road variance request — Approved (with two abstentions). - Approved Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Case 2024-8195, 1625 Palta Albert in Development Plan — Approved (with three abstentions). == Public Comment == No public comment period was noted. However, during discussions, a commissioner highlighted the value of city and county collaboration, concerns were raised about the "atrocious" outcomes of poorly implemented form-based codes, and the current Euclidean-based zoning system was deemed "not working." A commissioner also stressed the importance of having a clear vision before making incremental changes. Sarah, the former Hartford Planning Commission chair, observed Santa Fe's lack of sidewalks and low visibility for runners, suggesting "plenty of work" for the commission, and highlighted Hartford's passion for preserving historic development while modernizing it. A commissioner with 12 years in Santa Fe expressed concern that new administrations might abandon the current code rewrite efforts, which he believes would be a "really bad idea." == Topics == - Land Development Code Rewrite - Meeting Postponements - Housing Affordability/Density - Parking Requirements - Study Sessions - New Commissioner Introduction - Political Impact on Planning - Regulatory System Efficiency == Full Transcript == Hey Michael, could you promote me to the host or co-host? Michael, are we ready to go? **Speaker:** We are live. **Speaker:** Okay, I will call the October 2nd, 2025 regular meeting of the Planning Commission into session. Commissioner here. **Speaker:** Yes. It's on. I'm just like, do I need to do it again? **Speaker:** No, just... **Speaker:** Okay. We'll go ahead and do the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Smith, can you lead us? Next is roll call. **Speaker:** Chair Cloud. **Speaker:** Present. **Speaker:** Vice Chair Smith. Secretary McGee. **Speaker:** Present. **Speaker:** Commissioner Mirando. **Speaker:** Present. **Speaker:** Commissioner Reeland. Here. **Speaker:** Commissioner Capen. Here. **Speaker:** Commissioner McReynolds. Here. **Speaker:** Commissioner Barber. Here. **Speaker:** And Commissioner Embry. Here. **Speaker:** You have a quorum, Madam Chair. **Speaker:** Thank you. Next is the approval of the agenda. Is there any... Well, before we go, let's approve the agenda. Before we go to the case postponement issue, I would like staff to introduce Matt Embry, our new commissioner, and also for Matt to tell us a little bit. So, let's go to the approval of the agenda. Any changes to the agenda from staff? There is. So, I guess we'll be dealing with that now. **Speaker:** Madam Chair, we do have a bunch of postponements for the agenda. First, I'd like to introduce Commissioner, our newest commissioner, Matt Embry. If you want to provide the commission a little brief introduction of yourself. **Speaker:** Sure. My name is Matt Embry. I currently work with the Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management doing disaster work. Previously, I was a federal employee, but changed over to the state side. I've also been on a board before at my kids' charter school, so I have some experience in this realm. Also done quite a bit of planning work on the recovery side. Glad to be here. **Speaker:** Well, welcome. This is the first time we've had everybody's positions filled, so no one can quit. Madam Chair, I guess what we could do is we can approve the agenda and then go to the postponements. I think that would just be the order of operations. **Speaker:** Okay, that sounds good. Any changes to the agenda, except the postponement issue, from staff or any commissioners? No questions from staff. **Speaker:** I'll entertain a motion. **Speaker:** So moved. **Speaker:** Second. **Speaker:** Commissioner Smith. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** Commissioner McGee. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** Commissioner Mirando. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** Commissioner Wheeland. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** Commissioner Capen. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** Commissioner McReynolds. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** Commissioner Barber. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** Commissioner Embry. **Speaker:** Yes. Madam Chair, the agenda has been approved. **Speaker:** Thank you. Okay. Next, we'll go to the issue of postponement. **Speaker:** So, Madam Chair, today is a holiday, a Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur, and the applicants have postponed their cases. You have options between September 18th and June 6th. It's up to the commission to decide. Oh, November 6th. I'm sorry. November. We're October. So, we got October 18th. **Speaker:** October. **Speaker:** November 6th. **Speaker:** November 6th. In talking with staff and in talking to Vice Chair Smith, it seems to make sense to perhaps hear the first two cases on the agenda, which is the Bolan Lane case and the 7205 Plaza Central Development Plan case on the 16th, October 16th, and then postpone K, A, B, and C to this October 16th, and then postpone all the other ones to November 6th. I understand all the cases have a lot of substance to them and a lot of possible public comment. So they're going to take time. I believe there's another case that's going to be at least one other case that's going to be added on November 6th. Yes. So, if you postpone those cases for the October... **Speaker:** 16th. **Speaker:** 16th hearing, I believe our Assistant City Attorney is going to give an education for the commission. Is that true? **Speaker:** That's tonight. **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** So the plan was for tonight. We don't have the presentation finalized yet. So yes, I'm sorry. But yes, it will be ready by the 18th. **Speaker:** Okay, that's... **Speaker:** Yeah, or 16th, I'm sorry. 16th. It will be ready by the 16th. So the agenda will be a presentation, training, and then the possibility exists that we may have Chapter 14 that you will be making a recommendation on, and then from there we will move on to the postponed cases. **Speaker:** That would be the first rewrite of the code. **Speaker:** Well, we'll see. I guess we can try it, and if it gets to be too late, we can... I mean, that's a lot. **Speaker:** The end of the year is always massive, and the problem is because of the holidays, sometimes it's hard to get a quorum. So, it's going to be up to the commission to decide whether they're going to trudge through all the cases to get them done, or continue to break them up until we've got them all. **Speaker:** I think it makes sense for us to, and Commissioner Smith recommended this, that we sort of poll and see who's available. I'm available between now and the end of the year, all the meetings, except I'll be an hour late for the one on October 16th because I have to attend another event that I've been planning for a year, but I can leave that early. Commissioner Morando will chair it until I arrive. **Speaker:** Because I'll be in the East. So, I'll be coming, but I don't think I can check in until 7:00. So, Chb will make it, and then I'll take it if I need to. But if members, seriously, we haven't ever done this before, but if you can look at first and third Wednesdays, Thursdays of every month in November and December. So, look at those four dates. Write down the dates you will not be available either in person or on Zoom. **Speaker:** No, it's late. **Speaker:** So, Commissioner McGee, thanks. Chair Clow, Director Lamboy mentioned via email a while back that she was planning to try to have study sessions before each Planning Commission meeting. Do you know if we're still planning to have study sessions? **Speaker:** Well, we have one tonight with a presentation. **Speaker:** So, the hour prior. **Speaker:** Right. Oh, the hour prior. I don't know. Well, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner McGee, as far as I am told, that is going to be... I was told that was going to be a standard. So, I don't know what will be on the agenda for the study session, but that is going to be a standard. So, I'm going to assume that on that day we will have something before that. Was it just one, the first, the first... **Speaker:** I believe it was the first month. The first... **Speaker:** First Thursday of the month. **Speaker:** Yes. So, only one, the first Thursday of the month at five. Do you know if those are... I assume we follow the same standards that we do for these. So, I'm just wondering if there's nothing on the agenda, if there's an opportunity to push some of the non-case activity to that study session. **Speaker:** Madam Chair, the hard part with the study session is we have to be cognizant of the Open Meetings Act, taking the minutes and... **Speaker:** Gotcha. Okay. I thought that you... I thought that that was part of it. I didn't... I didn't realize. **Speaker:** I do take minutes, but they're very light. They meet just the bare minimum. So, if we have too much load on that and we don't have enough room because we're subject to the land use conference room and people want to attend, it could become somewhat complicated. We can always do some presentation too. Like tonight, we had two planned. On the 16th, one is being postponed to then. So, we'll always... there's room to add a little presentation. So, what does it look like? Everyone's pretty much available for the... Well, why don't we first talk about October 16th? Who's available? So, everyone but Commissioner McGee. **Speaker:** We will have a quorum for October 16th. Okay. So that means that that's good for October. What about November? **Speaker:** Keep calling. **Speaker:** November 6th. Is everybody going to be here for November 6th? **Speaker:** Let's check. **Speaker:** Yeah. Commissioner Piper, you're not... Okay. So, we're good. We have a quorum. **Speaker:** Okay. If we can't get through all the cases for that November 6th and we're in the wee hours of the morning, what would be that? **Speaker:** 20th? Well, let's... **Speaker:** What about the 20th of November? So that's going to give some options to remove some of those cases, leaving December kind of light. So that would work. **Speaker:** Unless new cases come up. I don't want to... I'm not trying to quarrel with you on this, but we're here to get some work done, and when we lose a month, people lose money. **Speaker:** I get it. I think we'd be able to weed out all of the cases if we have to have another meeting in November or a second meeting in November. I think we would be able to get rid of them. And then I think staff needing... **Speaker:** So, I think that would work in terms of we for the quorums. Now we can, if we can get to probably to the postponements that work. **Speaker:** So, does someone want to make a motion on the postponement? **Speaker:** We need one. **Speaker:** I think one motion would do it on all the different bases. Well, are you... is the commission going to move? You'll need two motions, right? One for November and one for October 16th. **Speaker:** Yeah, we could do it as one or we could do it as two. It doesn't matter. **Speaker:** Okay. **Speaker:** Commissioner P, we expect when you say we're going to see Chapter 14, just thinking about the cases that we're bringing on to that, do we want to break it into two, two, and two? What can we expect the Chapter 14 present? What are we doing with it and how much time should we expect to...? **Speaker:** Yeah. Chair Clow, Commissioner Haben, we are updating the land development code. So we have to introduce it to the governing body initially. Then we have to have a public comment from the governing body, and we have to take it to the Planning Commission, the Historic Districts Review Board for recommendation. So that's what you will be getting a presentation on the legislation, and then voting for a recommendation. Yeah, we... yeah, we have... it'll be a... it's a public hearing. Yeah. All of them are public. The introduction of the bill at governing body does not have public comment. It's just an introduction, and then all the subsequent hearings are public hearings. We did address it last year, and we almost were voting on it last year, and it was a cra... So those of us that were here sort of knew it. There's like a cheat sheet that goes through and talks about mainly about the substantive changes because there's a lot of formatting changes and rearranging, and then there's a few substantive changes, and I think those are the ones that we're focused on. **Speaker:** Yeah. Thank you, Chair Claus. So what will accompany the legislation or the bill will be the disposition report, which is what you're... which is kind of a crosswalk between the existing code, what we've changed, and where it now lives. So that's a helpful document. And then you'll have a memo similar to your memo that describes the process and the changes and summarizes things. So, and then you'll have the legislation. **Speaker:** And hopefully you, if in fact this is coming up this month, perhaps you said maybe... **Speaker:** I can't say. **Speaker:** Okay. I wouldn't count on it happening then. But if it does, hopefully you'll have the materials in time to be able to take a look at it. It's not that over... It seems overwhelming, but it wasn't that overwhelming. **Speaker:** Yeah. And there wasn't a lot of public comment at that time. **Speaker:** What we need to review will just be part of the regular agenda that comes out the Friday before. **Speaker:** And that time. **Speaker:** And we just make a recommendation on it. Okay. Yes, Commissioner Smith. So, one, this is the formal approval or not of phase one. This— Yeah, Clout. Commissioner Smith, that's correct. That's what we're talking about. It's an up or down vote. We don't get to pick it apart and say yes on 1B, no on 2C. No, I believe you can make your recommendation, right? They make suggestions or edits. Yeah. Amendments. Yeah. I think if you were like, I want this to be four feet, you could make an amendment. Yeah. Your pro was an amendment or how? Yeah. So, yeah. I don't have any agenda here. I know the latitude, yeah, of our responsibility. Okay. And so I do just want to clarify too, it won't be posted, you know, it will be posted to your agenda, but the introduction to the governing body is the first thing that's going to take place, and that's going to set all of this in motion. And so that will be when it's available to the public and you. Okay. And if so, rather than waiting for it to be posted on the public site, once it's been introduced, can you send out that disposition report to all of the commissioners? Chair Clout: Yeah, once the disposition report is ready, we can, we'll definitely send it to y'all. It'll be, it'll be posted as part of the official legislative package. Commissioner McGee: The introduction to the governing body, has it already been scheduled? No, like it's not— It's not, it's not on an agenda yet. That's why I said don't. That's what you're asking. Yeah, it's not, I'm sorry. Yeah, Chair Clout and Commissioner McGee, it's not on an agenda yet. Good luck. It's, I mean, it's a big task. There's no doubt about that, especially rearranging everything because I think there's the real fear that something is going to be left out. Yes, Chair. That's why we're, it's taking so long to make sure. Somebody else want to make a motion or go ahead. But I'd like to move that case 2025-1164, 1372 Boiling Lane, and 2024-9461, 1372 Boiling Lane, be moved to our agenda on the 16th of October. And as well as case 2024-9320, 7205 Central Development Plan. Those three be moved to the 16th. And to the 6th of November, case 25-10685 and 688 and 690 Content Preliminary Subdivision, and case 2025-1106 Del 3, move to the agenda of November 6th. Second. November 7th. 6. I'm learning how to do it. You got to read. Okay. Commissioner Smith. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Mirando. Yes. Commissioner Wheeland. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Yes. Commissioner McReynolds. Yes. Commissioner Barber. Yes. And Commissioner Embry. Yes. Motion is passed. And now we'll move to staff communication. And— We, we need the minutes and the findings. You're right. Okay. We move to approval of findings of facts and conclusions of law. The first one is case number 2025-10781, 195 Bronnell Holland Road variance request. Any changes to those findings and conclusions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve the findings and conclusions for case 2025-10781, 195 Brown Howland Road variance request. Second. Commissioner Smith. Yes. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Mr. Mirando. Yes. Commissioner Reland. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Yes. Commissioner McReynolds. Stay. Commissioner Barber. Abstain. I wasn't present. And Commissioner Embry stayed as well. And just a question, there are no minutes for September 18th yet, correct? I believe there were, there should have been that listed. So we needed to— That was for the, with us, the visioning that everybody did. There wasn't anything posted. No, I guess not. We'll have to put those on the next one. Okay. Yeah, I didn't see any. Okay. Okay. Next one. We'll move to the findings and conclusions on case number 2024-8195, 1625 Palta Albert in Development Plan. Any changes to those findings? And if not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve the findings and conclusions for case 2024-8195 at 1625 Po de Peralta Albert N Development Plan. Commissioner Smith McGee. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Commissioner Reland. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Commissioner McReynolds. Abstain. I was not present. Commissioner Barber. Abstain. I wasn't present. And Commissioner Embry. Abstain, not present. Madam Chair, as a point of order, I did review it. Is it appropriate for me to— Chair can vote. So I, I think that he, he doesn't necessarily need to abstain if he reviewed the materials. It's not substantive, but if we have a full board, it's not needed to reach quorum. I think it's, it's fine if he abstains at this, at this point. Well, I can vote too. Okay, that's true. So I approve them. Motion passed. Okay, I believe that concludes our business for the agenda, and we just need a presentation. And I'm going to set up the computer and give me a few minutes. So, while Dan sets up the computer, we mentioned this in a previous Planning Commission meeting, but just want to reiterate that four of us, four of the Planning Commissioners, have over the last few months been participating in something that the City of Santa Fe calls the Livability Series. It is hosted by Homewise and occurs once a month. And during the Livability Series, we attend a, essentially a conversation or a meeting, a presentation from an individual that is generally brought in from somewhere else that is an expert on some aspect of smart city development. And then there will generally be a conversation after that. We have been, we are members of the Livability Series Officials Cohort, where a few Planning Commissioners from the city and from the county, and then a few City Councilors come together the following day to have conversation with the speaker about the content and how it applies here in the City of Santa Fe and the county. Now, because having more than four commissioners would mean a quorum, we have made the decision as the four of us to try to bring the content that we've learned in those, in those meetings back to the full commission so that we are all learning about these really progressive, smart ways to develop within a city. I'll also just, if you're part of the Livability Series, can you raise your hand so everyone knows? Awesome. So, we've actually attended three so far. This presentation was put together before the third one. So this presentation will walk us through the first two Livability speaker-like conversations, and then at a future date, we'll bring you the last two, or actually the last three, because there are five total. The last thing that I'll mention before we dive into the presentation is the Livability Speaker Series is something that you, that we can all attend as just residents of the city. It is fully free. I highly recommend we all attend. It's a great presentation, and then there's usually just food and conversation afterward. It's been held at Site Santa Fe the last few times. Definitely, it's, it's on Eventbrite, and I mean, if you've never been, I highly recommend attending and listening in on the conversation. I think that ultimately it will create more enriching conversations among the Planning Commission and also more thoughtful decisions as well. Am I correct? It's the fourth Tuesday of every month from 6:00 to 8:00. I believe you are correct. It's Site Santa Fe. It's in the Railyard, and it's completely free. Just, you just have to RSVP so that they know how many individuals to expect, and it generally sells out. I believe the fourth one should be posted at this point. Awesome. So the presentation was up there, but it's not anymore. Okay, there we go. I'm doing the first zoning part. Perfect. Absolutely. You guys want to go to the podium or something? We all like figure out that over, yeah, mess with the wire, this, this, the ghost wire over there. I just want to say I'm going to be part of this presentation too, but I just wanted to share how exciting and inspiring these talks have been. I'm kind of grateful I was invited to it and went to it, and each one of them feels extremely relevant right now to the work that we're about to do around the general plan update and the code update. And the folks that are getting brought in have very interesting expertise and perspective from places that are maybe a little ahead of us in their planning evolution and changes and stuff. And so, yeah, to echo what SA said, they're, they're really very interesting, and highly recommended. So, and I think between us, we have all the books from the authors. So, if anybody's interested in just perusing those without having to purchase some, I'd be happy to lend those out. Did everybody get one of these? I have two left. I know there were some people that didn't get it, right? Okay. And I guess Maggie said they're also online. I only have, we make more. Yeah, I will. Yeah, it, it is, it is available online. You don't want to, you can read sections or the whole thing cover to cover. Awesome. So, the first, the first installment of the Livability Speaker Series, Sarah Bronnan came to visit us, and her, the, her talk was called Unlocking the City: How Zoning Shapes Santa Fe's Future. Before we dive in, so I, I will just call out that we're not sharing a whole lot of content with you, with, with you. So you won't, you won't get the entire hour plus bit of information that she shared. But we did try to focus on the things that were really important for us to know here in Santa Fe. And I'll also just mention if there are questions from the commission, I think that we can probably just have a conversation here since we don't have any spectators and, but I'm, I'm looking at staff to make sure that's correct. I don't know if we have anybody on Zoom. Looks like there are three people. Okay. Okay. In attendance. Then just let us know how we should, how we should proceed if we need to. Okay. So Sarah, oh, you actually want— Because— Oh, it's already set up. All you have to do is go up there. I'm using my— Yes. Just all you do. I've already got it set up for you. Please begin to mic. Can everyone hear me? Sure. So Sarah was a member of a Planning Commission, and she was also Chair of the Planning Commission in Hartford, Connecticut. A huge part of this, of the like really eye-opening part for us, and probably why we're starting to really think about how we, how we operate as a Planning Commission and the powers that we have, is because Sarah asked us what we do and, and, and really how we're enacting change here in Santa Fe. So, this one is probably no surprise to any of us. But she did a really good job of walking us through the impacts of zoning throughout a city. And I think that as we continuously receive requests for rezonings, or, or we're looking at zones that, that bump up against each other, we again, we, we as a Planning Commission already understand that zoning and how, how a city is zoned has major impacts on things like how much we drive, and the viability of transportation in particular areas, the affordability, availability, and density of, of housing and, and types of housing. How and whether we can respond to climate change, our ability to develop social bonds. So how close housing is, how far apart housing is, whether there is commercial allowed. So is there a, like, can you build a coffee shop in an area, et cetera? So are we able to create bonds? Whether there are walls surrounding homes, economic growth and environment, and then the food supply. So, I mentioned early on that Sarah was a planning commissioner and the chair of the Planning Commission in Hartford, Connecticut. When she joined the commission and when she became chair, she really focused on again, making it a really active planning commission and also identifying opportunities to enact change within Hartford. One of the things that they did, I don't know when they did these through the time that she was there, but one of the things that they did was eliminated public hearings for multi-family housing. So the way they did that is they essentially created, I guess you would say, form-based code and built it into the code. So within particular areas, as long as the housing fit certain height and density requirements, it was as of right. Developers didn't have to come before the planning commission unless they were requesting a change to what was existing in the code. They also implemented a robust urban agriculture program. So they worked with commissions and departments throughout the city to work to legalize urban farms within the city with single-family owners, keeping of bees and hens, community gardens, and farmers markets. Really just prioritizing the growth of food in people's backyards. And then they were the first major city to eliminate parking mandates. I know we've been talking about that a lot here in Santa Fe, and we're talking about it with this new code rewrite. But she really focused on how Hartford had major parking lots that were very rarely occupied. So being able to eliminate those parking mandates allowed them to decrease the lack of shade because they could plant more trees in areas. They decreased the urban heat island effect, as well as the massive stormwater runoff that we oftentimes see in areas where there's just a lot of concrete. Any questions about any of that, or any additions from any of the other planning commissioners that were in attendance? My memory is that what they did in the parking elimination was they said they left it up to the developer to determine how much parking of which type they needed in order for their building to be successful. And that worked. In other words, the notion, they didn't have minimums and maximums. They just, their assumption was, which proved out to be positive, "I'm not going to authorize and build fewer parking places, whether it's a store or a mall or an apartment building. I'm not going to authorize fewer than I need in order to sell whatever time." So there was something in there. Am I remembering that? Absolutely. Thank you for that addition. You just reminded me of something else that we didn't include in the presentation during her talk, and actually maybe it was in the conversation afterward. Sarah mentioned that the planning commission, when they were planning to introduce a new piece of code or just make a change in code, one of the very first steps that they did was to go out into the community and to talk with the community about what the community wanted to see or expected to see in certain areas of the city. And when she said that, I feel like we all kind of looked at each other because we as a planning commission, I don't even think I knew that we could talk to the community as a commission. And so that was really eye-opening, and it also brought about a lot of additional conversation about again, what we can and can't do as a commission and why we started looking up the ordinance that created the planning commission, and also why we want to try to bring a lot of the information that we learned back here to see what can apply in Santa Fe and how we can be more effective. I have a question. Did she talk about how they interact with the, I don't know if they have the city council, what their official body was, how their interaction... She didn't really speak to that too much. And I didn't, I am only about a quarter of the way through her book, so I don't know if I catch that. Okay. If that's mentioned, I'll definitely let you know. She didn't speak too much about it. I mean, she really, I think, is a far outreacher in what she said. She wanted to do things, and so she kind of worked with their legal department and figured out ways to go out and do this community work. I don't, but I don't think she spoke at all about the work with the council other than working towards and within like redoing the code and general plan. The thing I was going to say about, just to echo what Sarah said about the removal of public hearing, is that it wasn't totally removed. It was just changed in the process. So by being a commission that went out into the community and did this work and developed these zoning areas and the form-based things that could go into that, these neighborhoods actually got their public hearing while the code was being developed instead of in front of each developer. Is that like, and I thought that was really cool and approach to this so that they know that if something does start going up, they know they can expect what, and it kind of parlays into the next part of the presentation with visuals and stuff like that. But it's just a role that planning commissions can play if we decide to, and I think there's a lot of questions of how we do it right, all of that. But that, I think, floored both of us. "Wait, what? You did what? Oh." One other thing I forgot to mention is, and Piper, you just reminded me of it. She talked a lot about how when they had a question as a planning commission whether they could do something, they worked alongside their city attorney to gain guidance. And the city attorney really acted as a, "You can potentially do this in this way, but here are the things that you should look out for." Yeah, here are your bumpers. And I think that was, I think in the conversation it seemed like we were, and we were really nervous about forums and open meetings act and just a lot of things, quasi-judicial status. And she really encouraged us to lean on our city, not to stare at you, Rebecca. But she really encouraged us to lean on our legal counsel and work together so that we could be impactful, but in a way that wouldn't bring about legal concerns. Yeah. And then is this part of, Sarah is a runner, like an avid runner, and she, you want to? So when we had lunch with her the next day, she was like, "I ran through your town today." Wow. "It is extremely dangerous and beautiful as a runner. Lack of sidewalks, low visibility, feels like a decades or century-old problem that feels very dangerous." And so it was, you know, she was like, "There's plenty of work for you all to do here." I will also say, if this is interesting to any folks, she is like a total nerdo, self-identified nerdo on historic stuff, which felt very relatable to Santa Fe. Hartford has a huge amount of historic development there, really beautiful big old houses and areas. And she was very, very passionate about both preserving it, but also being able to modernize it and help it like move a city forward. Well, that it doesn't just have to stay put where it was, like can only replace that light with this. So I also thought if anybody's a historical, it's really... One other question, you may be going to bring this up in the next part of the presentation. There was a part, I thought it was in this session, where they showed that rather than talking about density in terms of architectural form and numbers, show a picture. Yeah. That's coming up. Yeah, but I think she, yeah, I think that's part of Daniel's work. But... Much more compelling. Yeah, you're right. Any questions? Can you go back and go over that last bullet? Oh yeah. So while we were sitting at breakfast or lunch, and all of us were chitchatting, she was sitting there on her phone, had pulled up our code and essentially read, I mean, she does this for a living. She also, oh, we should talk about that. Zoning out before we, she was like, "So you guys, like your planning commission can rewrite parts of the code, not in the huge process, or you can put forth ideas, you can put forth recommendations to council. I encourage you to look into that as well." So that was, I mean, it's like it's all here in writing, but you're how you do it, but it's there. So you have some opportunities. She did not, I think our table was talking so much that she couldn't really get away. But and then the one last part about what she, the atlas that... So actually, I believe they're still included in the appendix, but the second part of her talk, so the first part was as a planning commissioner in the city of Hartford. The second part of her talk was around zoningatlas.org, which is a website that her company put together to identify zones within areas all over the country. And so she, the second part of the talk, she actually zoomed into Santa Fe to talk about things like where does the code allow by-right housing? Like so you can see here is there are areas where one family allowed by-right or four plus family allowed by-right. Just really just, and I can send this out afterward as well, or actually it might be included in the appendix or the agenda already. But just if you want to geek out, go to zoningatlas.org because she did really dive into Santa Fe, the city of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, New Mexico, and then how we compare to places all over the country from a zoning perspective. Yeah, if we amend the code, it applies to everyone. It doesn't apply to a specific case. We have to be consistent in our approach given the current regulation so that we don't become arbitrary and capricious. Well, and I think more what they're probably referring to is that technically we could propose a change to the code that would then essentially be a recommendation to the city council. That's correct. I don't think it's like an idea that we would be like changing it case to case or anything. So for instance, if we over time see a request for a variance and it is the same variance over and over again for similar types of property, we as a planning commission know that something about the code needs should probably change. And so we can work with staff to assess whether we should make a recommendation to change that part of the code. Yeah, that was a point that I was going to make. We were involved in rewriting the code for the marijuana legislation. It was, so we did it by special committee, and there was a time limit that it had to be done, and it was really an unpleasant task to be involved in because there was a time crunch. We had very little staff help because they were overwhelmed with other stuff, and very little legal help. So I mean, I'm surprised it's sort of okay that code because it was a nightmare. I mean, basically there was four of us working on something that none of us knew anything about. So clearly when we're doing this or if we see there's an issue, we've got to get staff involved in the process because staff wasn't involved in the process. So, you know, you're doing your own research. And then legal was just not involved in the process either because it was a time crunch and everyone was too busy. So it's, I mean, it's good to do it, but really need resources to help working on things like that, not under the time crunch. I can imagine that was like kind of a waking nightmare because if we get ahead of things, it's also a way to kind of keep the code living as we, so we don't end up with these big 20-year spots without updates on them. It's like Sisha said, if we start to see recurring things, we can talk as a commission about doing a small group. So, yeah, I think I agree. Sounds and also I think, and I'd like to hear from staff on this, I think another problem in terms of Santa Fe being somewhat archaic is lots of Santa Fe is zoned R1. So that form, the form format, probably wouldn't work because there would have to be a rezoning first. Well, maybe not. No, it really just depends what form you're talking about when you say form-based. Form-based is no issue with R1 implicitly because it could just mean just building standards. Exactly. Historic is our historic district is a form-based code, right? It just, it doesn't look like one because it's all text. But I think you're right. A lot of the advantages that people normally see from a form-based code are kind of nerfed from R1. I think it's why what I mean what you're going to talk about and Mr. I can never say his last name. Yeah. Perilich, thank you. With the missing middle, but also Sarah Brohawn's stuff. This is really like phase two of the code stuff. I mean, more than something, I mean, it is something that we could propose to the council, but it's also something, you know, all of these things are definitely, you know, they would be the meat, the substance of phase two. Yeah. I think that's why it felt like really cool timing that we got these presentations right before. Maggie: Well, I don't want to spoil the excitement, but, you know, as part of phase one, we are introducing an enhanced affordability incentive program within the current Santa Fe Homes program section of the code. And, you know, it is essentially kind of a missing middle housing incentive program because it would allow a one-acre lot to have four units on it as long as one of those units is affordable. So, you know, that's something that is coming forward with, with. Even be on the east side, right? We don't, we don't distinguish which side of town. Yeah. If it meets the criteria of the code, then, you know, they could move forward. There's a, you know, open space, there's a lot of other requirements, but it is, you know, that component is coming forward. Has there been a lot of objection to that at all or comments? I know it was, it was coming before us when we looked at, at that time and we thought. I mean, we haven't had any, you know, public hearings on it other, so, but I haven't any objections. Yeah. Yeah. And that was, yeah, Chair Cloud, that, I mean, that came directly out of, so this was before your time, but when we were drafting the code, we had our technical working group, which was Commissioner Miranda was on as well as, who was it, who else was on it? There we had two. Two commissioners that helped us out. Thank you. Yes. So we had two commissioners help us with the code, this current phase one drafting process. So counselors as well as, you know, technical experts from the community and members of the broader community who really, you know, said, hey, we need to do something about affordable housing. We know this is a substantive issue, but we want to do something. And what we kind of agreed upon was it's an incentive. You know, if you want to opt into it, you can. It's not a new requirement, you know, for anyone who doesn't want to. So, I think it's an interesting little discrete set of incentives. So. Right. Yeah. So we have right now the current, the current incentive is a 15% density bonus and so we're just proportionally scaling that for the amount of affordability that you provide. Yeah. I mean, just in terms of that being missing middle, I think you're right. It definitely is. I think what they're going to go through that's still really, because I, I, I wasn't able to go to Sarah Brohawn's the first one, but I did go to this. There, there is more scalable examples that we're going to get into that that that incentive doesn't necessarily cover, but that's more about how right now in the code we, we really stick to those bars, right? So yeah, for you folks that were there, a lot of information. We tried to really make this not like a whole reenactment of the presentation just to give you an introduction. So Daniel Perilich is very, does very, very interesting work around this. He has kind of coined this missing middle. He's an architect and it describes a type of housing. It's a little hard to see on here. He says that once filled our neighborhoods but have mostly disappeared after the 40s when zoning started to come into play. And so what is it missing middle? Oh yeah, it's on here. Good. See if I can see. I tried. Is a range of multi-unit homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, and courtyard apartments. They look like houses, but they're more than one household. And which is really neat for Santa Fe as a place that doesn't have a whole lot of vertical height and things like that. They fit into neighborhoods without feeling like large apartments going in. But they add a lot of spots. So why is it missing? These housing types were common before the 1940s, but after World War II, zoning laws shifted in favor of single-family only neighborhoods. Financing followed suit. Over time, the middle choices disappeared, leaving only big houses or big apartments. So it was like that map of like single-family homes or big apartments. It provides, and I loved this term because I think it's really appropriate for Santa Fe, gentle density. And it supports walkability, transit, and local businesses. So it really is one really cool approach to dealing with our housing crisis of, you know, this gentle density. Let's, you know, keep Santa Fe the way we love it. But a lot of these houses that are, they could be, you know, triplexes or fourplexes, but they would just look like, he actually was saying that he did a walking tour and a lot of, we already have it actually in a lot of neighborhoods here. A lot of the houses are sprawling. The ones that go way back are multi-family. Yeah. Oh, yes. Yeah. It's primarily in the historic district. Oh, well, I wouldn't, that, that's a little bit it, but I think it's more about like actually what Pueblo architecture is just in its exception, there's almost always a courtyard. And so, so often you have a built-in compound. In fact, I mean, historic compounds are reflected in the historic code for a reason, a lot of them. But there's a little bit like down a free a little bit that start to get into this. But it is funny that it's almost all. And interestingly enough, during last year's livability speaker series, there was a specific conversation on Santa Fe architecture and how the Pueblo revival thing came about and also how we went from creating that and then moving away from that. So if anyone's interested, I could reach out to Homewise and find that presentation. I thought it was extremely interesting and also just taught me a whole lot about the history of how Santa Fe became Santa Fe and then how we've kind of moved away from a lot of that. Because he pointed, it's just kind of like, look around, look down the little dirt driveways in your neighborhood. It is really packed in the historic district, but I spend a lot of time and work and live near Baca area and Second Street and kind of the triangle district, which is not historic mostly. And they're everywhere. You just walk by. I mean, one of his, I don't know if that put in here, but one of his awesome pictures was just like, you know, Santa Fe house, but then there were six mailboxes on the front of it. And he was like, those are the things I love to trip across because that's some dense. So these I think are, you know, obviously not Santa Fe style, but it was some visuals of the type. But the one on the left here is, you know, they, it looked like a house. It's a duplex. On the end there is a fourplex for individual units. Courtyard buildings where they're built around like, yeah. The design principles he talked around this are, are, you know, and I said this, they're house scale and they're designed for walkability. They encourage, include shared spaces that encourage community, porches, stoops, courtyards. They blend into neighborhoods instead of overwhelming them. And so, you know, we've seen a lot of big overwhelming and we've needed a lot of big overwhelming apartment buildings to come into Santa Fe, right? We need to really address this, but this is a way to spread this out through our city in a way that will be able to understand. So he really dove into some of the developments that he's been a part of and like supported the architecture of throughout multiple cities. And so one thing that he mentioned to us is it's really important to prioritize no more than 28 to 30 feet from curb to curb in order to create a walkable neighborhood feel. I, I don't know what our code says right now, but it's, it felt like it was probably a change from the norm. He also said that he's really pushed for and gotten city's buy-in on requiring no more than one off-street parking space for developments. And again, that goes back to why are we parking cars instead of like allowing people to have housing? So just continuation of the theme that we've heard throughout a lot of these. And then his sort of observations and advice for, you know, was to really embrace how, sorry, I can't see you all to read. I'm new to glasses if you can't tell. Is, you know, a way to approach this with the community. And I think we both felt like this sort of parlayed in with Sarah's presentation about going out to the community and really being able to like tell our story and have this work by of community engagement be visual. So he, you know, he showed us a lot of existing Santa Fe homes. Those are the kinds of homes that a lot of the people that come here to hearings, they still want those in their neighborhood. And they wouldn't even actually know that they're, you know, or family. And so he really encouraged us to do that. They fit well into the whole city, including historic areas. Keeping the scale to fit with existing neighborhoods and see, this is the storytelling part. So he was really a big proponent. I mean, there were lots of conversations about like form-based code versus are anything, you know, just like I think a lot of places are going to be moving away from these are whatever because those terms are really intimidating and hard to explain to people and feel bigger and weirder than they actually are. He told some great stories of walking with some neighbors that were really adverse to development in their neighborhood and and as, yeah. Asking them to show them what they would like in their neighborhood and, yeah. What did he pick out? It was like, he was like, oh, we, this would fit our, like that's our 40. It's our 40. Yeah. It was so cool. And they were all like, what, you know. So there's just some barriers I think to community involvement and things that are un-understandable to people that kind of put up a barrier. So just the importance of giving people a picture rather than numbers when trying to do this community work. Yep. Start using this missing middle language. Both, I think it's awesome what's coming forward with the affordable housing incentives and it is, it does parlay into this. But to continue that conversation of like what, what fits in Santa Fe, what is a good way to develop here? This felt very like it rang a couple bells for me personally about it. Be very specific about what types of housing can go where. This is a long-range planning project and land use, so neighborhoods know what to expect. He had one of his quotes here: "The worst thing in my mind is density without amenity," when discussing neighborhoods without walkability. I think, unfortunately, we've landed with a lot of that over the last five years. A lot of these big developments, a lot of the sprawl, they're really without amenity, and that sucks. It, you know, it, yeah, so much driving and parking and lack of community. So I hope that all this work that we're about to step into kind of keeps that in mind. Sweetheart, typology versus style. Yeah. And then Sasha included this whole appendix, which is all the research from Sarah and Daniel's stuff, just like if you want to dig into it more. Sarah's the atlas that's all. I just, could I add a point? Yeah. So, one of the interesting things that I think we talked about too at that lunch was looking at, he recommended taking a picture of Santa Fe and looking at where it's already walkable, neighborhoods that already have this sort of amenity feel, and expanding on that. Because he did talk about, you know, these sort of missing middle don't make sense everywhere in a city. There are neighborhoods or areas where it might not apply. And you, you know, I think one thing, like you don't necessarily want to build it and build like a commercial center that's empty for 10 years, and you have this walkable idea, but there's not the community to support it. You can like build it and they will come a bit. But I thought that was a really interesting thing, like to really think about the city as a whole and think about where these portion, like where these neighborhoods would make sense. And what was interesting at the lunch too is there were a couple city or county commissioners, and talking about maybe thinking about those areas where the city meets the county and how we might, we might think about that going forward, because that is where a lot of this development is happening. Yeah, and it was, it was an exciting presentation. He also had, I was just going to add to latch on to that point about city and county having conversation. I think that these lunches and the inclusion of both city and county commissioners have really sparked a lot of conversation about how we can be engaging, how we can be thinking thoughtfully about both city and county land, and how we can work together to enact change. So yeah, thank you, Kelly. I, I thought that was, I mean, it's just really been impactful. Yeah, also to echo what you said, Kelly, he, I think his company does this. I think there's other companies that do that. He's sort of, you know, expert in this area, but there are like formal mappings that can be done of a city. You talk about that where they come in and they'll do an assessment of, you know, your city or with county. This was, I think, the conversation that got with the county commissioners of, you know, getting a consultant in to look at Santa Fe and let us know through all the districts. So this gets spread out through the whole community. So they're like addressing our whole community housing crisis where these things could really fit well. And then we can sort of point the code and the development stuff towards, towards that. And there were, Oh, just on top of that, I have two. I don't know how many got theirs when they came. How many, how many still need one? Because I think we still have some more. So, we have, so we have three that are still needed. So, there's going to be some more. So don't worry, everybody will get one. And as Maggie said, they're online. And there is like a summary page at the beginning of each section. So instead of reading 100 pages, you can read two pages and then Peter's page. Yeah. Could I just, in closing, say that really thank you to Sasha and Sasha and Piper. I show up at these meetings. You do more work than I do, and we'll be, but I, I show up, but I don't end up doing anything. They do the work. And it was, Not true at all. Three of you are really great to work with. Peter, you've taught me more than I would have ever known in the last three months. But this is great. This was really great. And we'll do the last three at some point. Okay. So, thank you for the question. Yeah, Chair Clow and Commissioner Lynn. So, so the question, yeah, if you, if you have, right now ADUs are permitted and they don't, they're not subject to density. We've exempted them from that. So you don't, you know, if you have a one-acre lot and you want to put an ADU on, it's fine, right? It doesn't mean you, you're now an R2 or something. So in addition, with the affordable housing incentive program, on a lot of that size, you, if it's vacant, you could put four units as long as one is affordable. Okay? And if there's existing house, you could, you know, renovate that to be four distinct units. A lot of times we do have pretty large houses out there in Santa Fe on these large lots. So you can imagine a 6,000 square foot home being converted to two or to four 2,000 square foot units. Or if there's enough land, buildable land, they could develop additional structures on the property. Mhm. Yes. Yeah. And, and, and another incentive piece of this is that it's administratively approved. It won't be coming to the planning commission. Are each of those units separately deeded? That would be up to the owner. Yeah. So would, would the code then allow for like a legal lot split of record like that would be administrative or like would it all be, does that make sense? I was just to refer to the section. Yeah, that, sorry. Yeah, It's just, Specific. Got it. Okay, That's cool. Any other comments or questions? Just a general statement about it does make me want to get together a list of what missing middle currently isn't allowed by the code, because there is, there is a list. The most common are anything that really conflicts with general setbacks, and that, that can get complicated. But it, you know, I, I can't remember the term that, yeah, it, well, yeah, it's when you essentially have very small lots all together that look like single family, but they have almost no yard, but they're all on, yeah, they're all essentially zero lot line. And the only way you do it like practically in Santa Fe is if you essentially, it would, it, one way to do it is you have a layer within your code that is truly form-based where you say, well, there's this form that if you do this and it's exactly this, then you can take this amount of, this size of a lot that's R1 and you can make it, and it's all zero lot line. I mean, there's other ways to do it, but that would be one example of a middle, a missing middle that currently is not allowed. And the only way to allow it sometimes, but there's a lot of those. I'm not saying they're all necessarily, some are probably better for Santa Fe at one, pretty interesting. But what's hard about when you talk about form-based code is there's always this, the starting point is always an overlay zone that covers everywhere it's applied. And that's where it gets a little hard here. Like in Denver, they have a truly form-based, the way that's implemented, that means you have different buildings and footprints that are exactly what you can, different over different neighborhoods. They basically break the whole city into these density areas. I actually haven't seen anyone who has a clear path to how to do that here, because there is some complexity there. The, the, the fact that there's a lot of paper dissociation, a lot of specific interest in land use does make that first step like kind of radio. Like I, I've talked to people about this who have a really good idea of everywhere to do it, but they don't even want to touch that person because that's where you start interacting with neighborhood association, historic, all these voters. I mean, I think to that point, like both of these speakers, all three of them actually, well, no, both of these speakers, they started by reframing the conversation as housing as a right and going from there. And it's like, you know, people should have rights to build and we need a place for public comment and public input. But we need housing and people have property and the, you know, these things that are appropriate and fit in neighborhoods in, in an appropriate way, which they would be a part of the process of, it would get, you know, in something like these houses where a lot of these neighborhoods you've seen, they really want these single family homes. Well, these look like those, you know. So, it's like there's, there's ways to change the conversation, I think, there and then be able to hand it off for more things to be administratively done. So, it's like moving that public conversation. I understand. I mean, it's not going to be like, yeah, but I think it's, I think there's a different approach and a different language around it that will allow for the small, louder voices to be a part of the conversation. But every us advocating for the hope in an important, okay. So, so, So it is going to be a complicated issue. Form-based is a wonderful place to be. When it works, it works really well. When it fails, it is atrocious. So those are the things that you have to take into consideration when you're designing these, these elements within that form-based code. I don't know how we're going to get there, but we're going to do it one step at a time. And I think as we all work together, I think we'll finally get someplace that, that we need to be that helps with housing, helps with the regulatory system so that we can move these applications along easier instead of the oversight to public hearing requirements. It just takes, you know, communication, dedication, and one step at a time. Not right now, but like that would be important for us to hear the atrocious sides of something that we are seeing as a solution. It's really important because we want to think about that before we put anything forward of like, how could this go wrong? And you probably have seen that more than any of us. So, I've, I've seen some instances where you had intersections that were supposed to be designed in one way, and for whatever reason, it just didn't happen, and you had a mismatch of architecture that didn't go well with the streetscape. Needed. I mean, it was, it was just wrong. I, I, I do think that the Euclidean-based system that we have now is simply not working for the needs of the city and for the constituency, and form-based is definitely a way to go to help ease that pain. And I, I didn't want to say it in a discouraging way that that first step is, I, I think I'm really supportive of it. I just think it's most complicated. Yeah, it's great. You know, and one, I, I think we're getting ready to go home, but one of the things that strikes me about this whole thing, we talked a little bit about this at studies, the last whatever that thing was we did at the last meeting, whatever we called it. Um, thank you. Um, is that knowing where you want to get to before you start allows you as you take the first step or the second step, you have to make a compromise. You understand what you're losing and what you're gaining and by doing it as opposed to just going step by step and making deals. Then you end up someplace that you end up someplace that nobody ever anticipated and you don't know how you got there. There's a wick. As much as it may scare people with step one, knowing what the outcome, desirable outcome would be then informs all of those other steps. And I think, um, when we look around Santa Fe now in terms of all the big apartment complexes that we've all been involved in approving, you know, it's, it, it went, it, it, it, you know, it's problematic, but it built a need because there's nothing being built for so long. And then finally, the economy allowed building, and our code made it work by doing a P&L. But you drive around and it's just, oh my God, what did we do? There's housing, but it's not attractive. Well, and Chair, I just want to add a couple other things about the code update too, because technically, duplexes and triplexes are permitted, but we don't have good standards for them, or any standards really for them. And then, as Shub was alluding to, because of setbacks, they've kind of become not permitted in a lot of low to medium residential districts. But we are kind of explicitly adding them back into the code in phase one, and then working to in phase two really develop standards for those different types of development more fully. But it's an important step to acknowledge just the existence of those types of housing, and we're hoping that that will kind of elevate them and then continue to add standards. And I do just want to add another thing about parking, because what Peter was saying was kind of making me think about that. And it's, if we were to eliminate parking requirements, let's say, it doesn't mean we're eliminating parking. It means we're not regulating parking and letting Chick-fil-A decide how many spaces they want. A lot of communities are going to parking minimums or maximums rather. So instead of saying you must provide 40 spaces, you can only provide 30, would be the requirement. So those are the things that are happening out in other communities and jurisdictions. But it also points to the big complaint we get about how long all of this takes. And the more we regulate, the longer it takes, because we have to count those parking spaces, or maybe we have to look at a parking demand study, and somebody's got to produce that to kind of lower the parking. So all of these things add to the review times and the complexities for applicants, as well as cost. So it's just, those are kind of the big picture things that I think as well we want to think about, because it impacts not just the applicant, but how we process applications and the timeliness of that review. Anything else? I think the slideshow... Are they, is it on the agenda? Yeah. Is it linked? No, it wasn't linked actually. I mean, a lot of these are on YouTube. Yeah, I'll, and from 200... No, I mean the livability, because I was, I did the cohort in, when was that, 2023 or 2024? Whichever it was. Those I know are all on YouTube. So I'll find those and link them, because that was a whole year of speakers as well, and a lot of them were really... Yeah, it started three. This is the third year. Yeah, yeah, yeah, there, yeah. Yeah, you were the first, right? One thing I just want to say, my sort of finishing thought on this, just about the code rewrite. I've heard some interesting statements. We're in a little bit more politicized environment locally right now with mayoral candidates. I've heard a lot of generalized statements about land use from a lot of candidates. And one thing I just want to make all my fellow commissioners aware of, from my own perspective, I've been here for 12 years in Santa Fe, right? Santa Fe is a place where you meet somebody and they a lot of times they're going to tell you how long they've been here. So 12 years might not be the longest, but it's enough time that I've seen three or four different administrations in terms of managing plans. This is not an easy land use to manage. I can tell you that. And this is not the first time someone has tried to rewrite this code. In fact, I believe it's been attempted at least six times. It's in that neighborhood. And we're getting right to the finish line of the first step in it, which is good. There's a lot of stuff in this first step that is really important. But the second part is what's probably most important. And I got to tell you what I'm hearing from some of these candidates to me sounds like a process that might mean that whole rewrite goes by and all new people come in. And I would suggest you talk to them about, because that's a really bad idea. And for one thing, in that 12 years, they were good people before, but the people who are up at the top right now are smart and understand how to work in the environment they're in and actually have. So please use your voice and try to reach out to get that message to the folks that might be running the show. Thank you. Rather than leave. That's important as a recovering politician. I agree. I just wanted to, that notion of being here for 12 years. You know, the story in Vermont is the newcomer comes in and says to the old-timer, "Well, you know, I know I'm not a Vermonter, but we just had, we got a Vermonter because my wife just had a baby over in the hospital." And the old-timer says, "Nope." "What do you mean?" He says, "Just because a cat has kittens in the oven don't mean we call them muffins." I don't know what it exactly it means, but I think it's appropriate. Chef, to echo what you were saying, after, is that I have a little exit door right there behind you to like drop the mic and just like scoot out the door. After we had the study session, I think Heather mentioned what you just needed, which is that there is a chance that in a new administration that all this work could be tabled. I was going to one of the mayor forums the week after that, and they were requesting questions for candidates. And so I put that forward, like, "Will you agree up here right now to keep this work going?" And they all put up their little yes sign. So I think the more that, yeah, use, I echo what you're saying, use our voice, ask them the question, put it on the record, like hold them accountable. Most of them actually do be curious people. They, I think they understand desperate need of maybe not... Maybe not here and now. Okay, we're done.