Planning Commission Meeting Thu, Apr 17, 2025 · Planning Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/637 == Executive Summary == The Planning Commission introduced a new commissioner, Kelly McReynolds, and then focused on two main topics: a development plan for the Education Retirement Board (ERB) building at 5211 Los Solaris Drive, and an update on Phase One of the Land Development Code (LDC) revision. The ERB development plan, which was already under construction, faced several compliance issues, including sidewalks, landscaping, drainage, and exterior lighting. After discussion, the Commission unanimously approved the ERB development plan, subject to all staff-recommended conditions and technical corrections. The LDC update aims to streamline the code, consolidate zoning districts, and enhance affordability incentives. Key changes include increased parking flexibility, updated bicycle parking standards, and revisions to sign regulations. The Commission also discussed the lengthy process for adopting the new code and the upcoming departure of staff member Daniel Alberto, who presented the LDC update. The meeting concluded with a brief discussion on how short-term rental regulations might be addressed in future code revisions. == Key Decisions == - Approved the development plan for the Education Retirement Board (ERB) building at 5211 Los Solaris Drive, including all staff's technical corrections and conditions of approval. - Deferred approval of the April 3rd, 2025 meeting minutes due to a lack of quorum. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda — Passed. - Motion to approve case 2025-010094 PLBD for 5211 Los Solaris Drive, including all staff's technical corrections and conditions of approval — Passed unanimously (Member McReynolds: Yes, Secretary Mirando: Yes, Vice Chair Smith: Yes). == Public Comment == No public comment period was held. Commissioner Wheeland questioned why the city was reviewing a project already approved by the state. Commissioner Morando raised concerns about the outdoor lighting. David Archuleta, Executive Director of ERB, acknowledged responsibility for not seeking appropriate city approvals before construction and requested assistance from the Commission for utility access. Commissioner Smith inquired about the process for addressing short-term rentals and thanked Daniel for his service. == Topics == - Code Modernization Project - Archaeological Review Changes - 5211 Los Salanos Drive Development - Historic District Regulations - Telecommunications Facilities - Short-Term Rental Policy - Affordable Housing Incentives - New Commissioner Introduction - Water Management - Outdoor Lighting Standards == Full Transcript == Please let us know when we're streaming. We are live. Good evening. We'll call the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of April 17, 2025 into session. Commissioner Wan, can you do the Pledge of Allegiance? Roll call. Secretary Miranda: Member Smith to be on Zoom. Here. Member McKeus. Member McReynolds. I think that's and two other members are excused. I'm sorry, one other hyper-caping member. Yeah, she's my... Hey, we're ready to proceed. I didn't say I was present. Commissioner Laauo is present. Madame Chair, present. Okay. Next, we're going to move to the approval of the agenda. Is there any addendum to the agenda from staff? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve the agenda as submitted. Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Guzman Mirando. Oh, Secretary. Secretary. We haven't got a vice chair yet. I pulled up the wrong doc. It's Peter Peter Smith. Oh, I'm reading a document. So, I pulled up the wrong document. That's why I'm having problems. I'm so sorry. Let's get some name plaques. Member McReynolds. Yes. Member Rilland. Yes. Vice Chair Smith. Yes. Secretary Mirando. Yes. Thank you. Okay. There's no approval of a consent agenda. Next, before we go to the approval of the minutes, I would like Heather to introduce Kelly McReynolds, and then Kelly, Commissioner McReynolds, if you could give us a little background. Yes, thank you, Chair Clow. So, we are very fortunate to have Kelly McReynolds join us. Her nomination was approved by the governing body at this last meeting, and Kelly's background is in real estate, and I'll let her go into more detail about it. The nice thing is is that her parents live across the street from me, so I get to see her on the street every once in a while. But we're very fortunate to have her on the Planning Commission, and I'm sure that she'd be happy to have a mentor occasionally as well. We have a great Planning Commission to do that. So, let us know a little bit about yourself. Thank you so much. My name is Kelly McReynolds. I am a native of Santa Fe, born and raised. I have been in the mortgage industry since 2015 and originating loans since 2018 for First National 1870. I am passionate about housing in Santa Fe and opportunities for housing and the development that is necessary to support housing on all levels. You bring more people into a city, you need to have ways to support them, not just through housing, but also through infrastructure and development. So, I'm excited to serve on the commission and help Santa Fe in its next chapter. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll move to the approval of the minutes. Let's see, from the last meeting, which was April 3rd, 2025. Any changes to those minutes? Yes, Chair Cloud. No, there's no changes. Okay. If there's no changes from the commission, I'll entertain a motion. Chair Clow, I'd make a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Is there a second? Second. Roll call. Okay. Member McReynolds, I was not present for the last meeting, but I approve the minute. Member Reeland, I'll recuse myself as I was not present as well. Member, I mean, Vice Chair Smith. Yes. Secretary Mirando. Yes. At this point, take a revote at the next meeting as we don't have a quorum that can vote in this particular case. So, Chair Clow, if it pleases the commission, we'll bring those minutes back for a full vote at the next meeting because we would need four people, right? That's correct. That's fine. We'll bring them back at the for the next, the first meeting in May. Okay. There's no findings to approve, and we'd have the same problem even if there were. There's no consent agenda. So, we'll... Is there any old business? I don't think so. We'll move to new business and we'll call case number 2025-01094, 5211 Los Salanos Drive Development Plan. Good evening. Good evening, Claire Chow. Good evening, Commissioners. I would like to present case number 2025-0100094, 5211 Los Solaris Drive, the Education Retirement Board Development Plan. The agent is David Archeletta. The applicant is the Education Retirement Board, and the case planner is Claudia Calf. In recapping the case caption, 5211 Los Solaris Drive Development Plan. David Archeletta, agent for the Education Retirement Board. Applicant, requests development plan approval of a one-story office building approximately 20,000 square feet on 2.99 acres of land for office use. The property is zoned C2 General Commercial and is located at 5211 Mosilleris Drive. This is a location and vicinity map. Just getting a... Here's our pointer here. This is the site. Here's Serios Road. So, it's southeast of Serios. This is Los Solaris Drive. Governor Miles Road, Beckner Road, RailRunner. This is the large Walmart. There's a gas station on the corner. Serio Moseris, a Dollar Tree next to that, Kidney Care Center next to that. The State Employees Credit Union is also on the other corner and apartments here. There's the Arroyo de los Chisos that runs through here. This is the rest of the Loseros Master Plan. This property is vacant, and eventually Los Solaris will connect through here. So, in looking at zoning, the... just walking through, here's the site. To the north is an auto dealership. To the south are the apartments. To the east is vacant land. And to the west is the Kidney Care Center. The property is located adjacent to the Arroyo de los Chimisos and, um, sorry, the property is state-owned. It's approximately 2.99 acres and identified on the city's official zoning map as C2. As stated previously, the applicant requests approval of a development plan for the single-story office building with associated parking, which you see here in the gray. Landscaping, an outdoor break area, which is here, and drainage ponds, which is here. The development currently has one access point, which it shares with the Kidney Care Facility and is right here. You enter the property right there. Prior to their application to the city for a development plan, the applicant received a building permit from the New Mexico State Construction Industries CID, and the building is currently under construction. So, going through the DRT items, traffic. The applicant provided an initial traffic assessment, ITA, and in that assessment, it was indicated that currently further traffic impact analysis is not required at this time. However, in the future, when the Loseris Road is built, which is, you can see here, the applicant will need to construct a secondary entry into their property and most likely at that time, have an official traffic impact analysis and construct the curbs and sidewalk for terrain management. There's currently no comments from the city engineer. The... these are the drainage ponds when they were under construction this month. There will need... the ponds will most likely be approximately 3 feet deep, and so they will need a fence around them with a gate for access. The sidewalk currently as built is this brighter yellow. We had worked with the applicant to provide this part that's in orange. We would, um, we would like to ask the applicant to construct the remainder of the sidewalk, which will be part of the future road, either to be constructed at this time or give a financial guarantee. And this is the photo where the fence is approximately where the sidewalk would go. And this is, um, from just to remind from the chapter 149.2E4, sidewalk shall be located in a city right-of-way. If adequate right-of-way is not available, sidewalk shall be located in a public access easement dedicated to the city on appropriate plat. The sidewalk shall be consistent with street standards and located along each street frontage immediately adjacent to the development. So, for off-street parking, for the size of the building and the use, 39 spaces were required, and 92 are provided. So, there's ample parking. There's four ADA and three ADA van spaces, two EV spaces. And regarding bicycle, this is where the bicycle parking is located and within 50 feet of the front entrance to the building. Six spaces, bicycle spaces are required, 10 are provided. While the commission may be used to seeing the typical inverted U or ribbon rack, these bike racks are installed. They accommodate two bikes for each one, and it was, um, the land use director felt that this is an acceptable alternative and means of compliance for bicycle parking. Just a few further site details. These are the rot iron fences that are installed on the site, and most likely the fence around the drainage ponds will be somewhat similar to this. This is a monument sign already installed on site. It's has less, it's 36 face feet of signage, which is actually in compliance with our city code for landscape. There are three tree species that are at issue. The first is the Betula or birch. Those are primarily around the drainage pond areas, and the Betula is not on the city approved plant list. It also just does not really do well in Santa Fe. It wants to be in more of a moist weather environment. So, we respectfully ask the applicant to switch to a different tree that's on our city approved plant list. The pinion pine, which is essentially on this side and in the back, here and there. It's susceptible to the bark, black bark, and, um, sorry, the black scale and bark beetle infestations. So, we respectfully ask the applicant, pick a different pine. And lastly, the grand cottonwood are these large green circles. So, they need to be placed 30 feet from a parking space or sidewalk. So, we ask the applicant to either switch them out to a different species or move them 30 feet away from parking or pedestrian walkways, and that is due to the sudden branch drop on those trees. Also with the landscape, we are asking the applicant to install trees and shrubs on separate zones and to keep the drought tolerant and very low water use trees and shrubs on separate zones so that as the project matures and the very low water use plants can eventually be turned off of the area, irrigation. So, I'd like to have them in separate zones. And lastly, you can see the this orange line here. That would essentially be the location of the fence around the drainage ponds. For the perimeter slopes, we would like to ask the applicant to stabilize these slopes either through hydroseed, you know, vegetation staking of vegetation or rocks that would adequately hold back the slope. Next, this is the exterior lighting, outdoor lighting. From reviewing the plans, the applicant has four lights. They're these are all installed. There's the pole light. And these colors are just diagrammatic. They're not the actual colors that the lights will give out there. It's just to tell the difference between the lights. So, the yellow are the pole lights. The bards are the magenta, which is mostly here at the entry and along the front of the building. The wall pack or downlights are on the building all the way around, and the downlight is under the carports. So, the applicant provided a photometric analysis. We'd like to ask the applicant to revise this analysis because some of the numbers coming out of the analysis are well above the city requirement. So, this chart from the city code lists that, you know, what the different requirements are. So, some of these, it, uh, you cannot have over 1.5 foot candles, and some of these numbers are as high as nine. So, I'd like to see that it be revised and make sure that the actual, the final finished product complies. And moving on to water, the applicant has an approved water budget from February 2025. The applicant has paid the water offset fees. The applicant has an approved and signed water plan from 2023, so another plan is not required. The applicant has submitted an application for the agreement to construct and dedicate an ACD. The approved water plan shows the applicant will install an irrigation meter and approved backflow prevention device. Also, going back, this is the existing waterline in Los Solaris. So this line is the 6-inch fire waterline. Then there's a 2-inch domestic water service and a PVC pipe from the private fire hydrant to the building. There's a domestic water meter and an irrigation water meter, and that's these two items here. Here's the fire hydrant that's there. Moving on to sewer, there are no comments from the wastewater division. This is the existing sewer line running here, and the applicant would connect to that with a 4-inch sanitary sewer line. And this is the manhole that's up here right before the traffic circle where that connection would happen. Moving on to fire staff, the fire marshal visited the site on March 13th and April 1st. The fire truck was brought to the site on March 13th, and we found that the carport structures were in conflict with the fire apparatus. As a condition of approval, fire is requesting the carport structures be moved out of the fire lane before the building is occupied. And I understand from the fire marshal, those are already being moved. Yes, and then archaeology. Per the Lone Mountain 2006 archaeological survey, the site has been cleared for development. And regarding environmental services, there are no comments. The dumpster enclosure satisfies environmental services. These are the carports I was just mentioning. There are three of them on site, and this is a diagram of what they would look like, what they do look like. And these are elevations of the building. This is the front of the building. The entrance is here. This is the back of the building. This is the side you would see when you first enter. This is the other side facing the Los Dustos. And then these two sections are cut through this entryway that show the door and the trellis. The applicant attended a pre-application meeting on July 25th, 2024. The applicant properly noticed for the early neighborhood notification meeting in accordance with Chapter 143.1H. An EN meeting was held on March 3rd, 2025. No community members attended. In terms of conditions and completeness, we feel the applicant has essentially completed these items: traffic, train management, water budget, water plan, wastewater. And the items still to be completed would be the sidewalk ADA connection, switching out three trees, rezoning the irrigation as described in the DRT comments, adding the fence and gates around the ponds, stabilizing the perimeter slopes, revising the outdoor lighting photometric plan, and pulling the carports back out of the fire lane. And just a recap of the conditions of approval as we discussed with the city attorney. The staff's analysis concludes that this application only complies with Chapter 14 if all conditions of approval in attachments A and B of the staff report are met. Chapter 14 applies to state agencies only as a matter of contract when agencies are seeking to use municipal water. City Code Section 2513B provides that all applicants to city water service requiring a water service agreement or written contract as set forth elsewhere in this chapter shall agree as a matter of contract that future development of the property shall require compliance with all provisions of Chapter 14 SFCC 1987. This provision shall apply to all agreements or contracts entered into after December 21st, 2009. Pursuant to Section 1431, general provisions, applications may be approved with conditions of approval to ensure compliance with the purpose and intent of Chapter 14 or any section of this chapter and any applicable city land use policy. The Planning and Land Use Department recommends development plan approval of case 2025-01-00094, 5211 Los Solaris Drive Education Retirement Board, subject to conditions of approval and technical corrections listed in attachments A and B of the staff report. One motion will be required in this case: approve or deny the development plan as 2025-01-0094 subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections recommended by staff. Thank you. I stand for corrections. Any questions? Questions. Oh, yes, Heather. And just one housekeeping issue, Chair Cloud, thank you and members of the commission. We have present Geronimo Mirabal, our fire marshal, for any questions you may have, as well as Leroy Pacheco. Online is Dane Gestner, our civil engineer. And we also have Taylor Jurgens, who is with the Public Utilities Department. Any clarifying questions from the commission? Commissioner Wheeland: Thank you. What percentage of completion are they at right based upon their construction already being approved by the city? I would defer that question to the applicants. Yes. My main thing being is, are we having to approve this at a city level, whereas the state has already approved this? And I guess I'll wait to hear from the applicant on that. I'm just wondering why we're having to recreate this at this level. Madam Chair, so again, in order to obtain water, they have to go through the city's process. The applicant chose to continue the construction process after the pre-application conference. They could have gone through the process early enough that any changes would not have been as painful as they could be now if those conditions of approval impact them in a different way. But our role here is to just review it as a basic development plan as if they haven't started and take a look at the issues relevant before you and make a decision. Thank you, Chair. Also, with reference to the review that the city conducted, certainly the state permits its own buildings. So the review for the construction of the building was done by the Construction Industries Division. Our review really has mostly had to do with the interface with the public realm, the city's streets, sidewalks, and the like. And then also for other infrastructure reasons as well and compliance with health and safety standards, Chair. Yes, Commissioner Morando. I just had a question regarding the photometrics. So I get that that's a condition of approval. They're pretty far off. So has there been communication of that being doable? So when you say communication with the applicant, it seems like, I mean, all the lights are in, and usually lights are, you know, they can be adjusted or the bulbs can be adjusted, and we just like to make sure that what's actually out there matches. So, so there isn't as much plans to make the photometrics match Santa Fe capital what would normally be approved. Madam Chair, so the conditions of approval basically outline that the applicant will have to follow city standards for our outdoor lighting requirements. These are definitely going to have to be part of the approval as we move forward. Any conditions of approval will have to be dealt with by the state relative to their requirements that you've adopted. We certainly want to work with them with what they've provided. What they've provided are basically the construction drawings that were given to the state. That is not going to match Chapter 14 in many respects. And these conditions force the compliance into our requirements so that they meet that health, safety, and welfare requirement and integrate with the city's platforms that we have out. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from Mr. Archuleta. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is David Archuleta. Mr. Archuleta, can you please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record? My name is David Archuleta. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do so under the penalties of perjury? The applicant is sworn. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. As mentioned, my name is David Archuleta, and I serve as the Executive Director for the Education Retirement Board. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Education Retirement Board to request your approval for our site development plans and provide ERB with access to city utilities. The Education Retirement Board is responsible for administering pension benefits for educators and education employees across the state, including all school districts, charter schools, public universities, and certain state agencies, collectively representing 220 institutions and more than 172,000 active and retired members and beneficiaries. Last year, ERB paid more than $1.1 billion in pension benefits to more than 55,000 retirees and eligible beneficiaries here in New Mexico. ERB currently operates from three office locations: one owned and leased office space here in Santa Fe and one office space in Albuquerque. ERB's main office is currently located at 701 Camino de Marquez. ERB outgrew this office space more than a decade, and efforts to secure funding for either the renovation or construction of a new facility have been requested from the legislature for more than a decade. Following the conclusion of the Great Recession in 2009, there were significant concerns regarding the ongoing viability of the program that we administer and its ability to meet future financial obligations. At that time, pension programs across the nation were undergoing a series of reforms. There were reforms, meaning a reduction in the value of the benefits current and future retirees could expect to receive. ERB's members were not immune to these reforms, and all participants were required to contribute to the improved financial position we find ourselves in today. Basically, the gauge we use to measure the financial condition of the program is how much money we have in the fund versus how much we owe over the course of the next 30 years. Right now, we have about 65 cents for every dollar that we owe, whereas our goal is to have dollar for dollar. And as of this last year, ERB was able to report they were on target to meet this goal in the next 22 years. Given these improvements, the legislature and the governor felt more comfortable authorizing the use of the trust fund for the design and construction of a new facility in 2019. However, as we all know, the world transformed in March of 2020, and the need for office space nearly evaporated for a short period of time. At the same time, construction costs grew exponentially, delaying our ability to initiate the project given how often the legislature meets and being subject to their appropriation. Finally, in 2023, sufficient budget authority was granted to the organization, and we began to move forward with the project in the fall of 2023 and broke ground on the new building in January of 2024. At that time, I was under the impression that we were following the appropriate courses of action related to the design, development, and construction of this facility. Based on the existing ordinance, the City of Santa Fe disagreed, and ultimately our nearly complete facility does not have access to city utilities. Obviously, this presents a number of challenges for the organization and its employees, the members we serve, and the State of New Mexico as a whole. I mentioned the State of New Mexico because the General Services Department secured funding that expires in June to purchase our current office location for the use by the Public Regulation Commission. Prior to moving into this facility, the Public Regulation Commission is going to have to invest in the facility to accommodate their business needs. I realize that nothing I've mentioned up until this point is the city's problem, and I alone am responsible for not having sought and received the appropriate approvals before coming before you today. However, I would respectfully request your assistance in developing a solution that would allow ERB to access city utilities. ERB has already agreed and is committed to implementing all of the requested modifications and changes to the site development plan, including the installation of the fencing around the retention ponds, the installation of the walkways for public access to the property, the additional landscaping requirements, as well as the lighting requirements that were brought up as part of the discussion. We've already begun the process of moving back the carports for the solar panels. That process is underway and should be completed within the next two weeks. Obviously, the last thing we want to have happen is for the new building to go vacant, even for a short period of time, given concerns regarding theft and other things at that place, or vandalism in particular. And again, given our commitment to meet the city's requirements, I humbly implore you to approve our site development plans and provide ERB access to utilities. With that, Madam Chair, members of... **Commissioner:** I have questions. Any questions? **Commissioner:** No questions. **Commissioner:** Okay. At this time, we'll open the matter up for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward and make a public comment? Is there anyone on Zoom? **Commissioner:** I see no hands raised. Okay. Then given the fact that there is no one present that wants to make public comment and no one on Zoom, we'll go ahead and close the public comment portion and move the matter back to the commission for any comments or questions. If not, I'll entertain a motion. **Commissioner:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to make a motion in case 2025-010094 PLBD in 5211 Los Solaris Drive Development Plan. I'd like to make a motion for approval to include all of staff's technical corrections and conditions of approval. **Commissioner:** Second. **Commissioner:** Roll call, please. Member McReynolds. **Commissioner:** Yes. **Commissioner:** Secretary Mirando. **Commissioner:** Yes. **Commissioner:** Vice Chair Smith. **Commissioner:** Yes. **Commissioner:** Madam Chair, the motion is passed. **Commissioner:** Thank you. Thank you. We'll move on now to staff communications. **Commissioner:** Madam Chair, yes. Could I just make a brief statement regarding the last case? **Commissioner:** Sure. **Commissioner:** Just to the applicant regarding the case that was just approved. I'm going to speak for staff and just state that as an applicant myself, I'll tell you that they definitely made accommodations to get you in here because normally you wouldn't be seen with what we submitted. So I just want to make sure you do understand that accommodations were made to get you here this quickly. And... Okay. Now we'll move to staff communications. **Commissioner:** Madam Chair, I believe we have a presentation for you on Chapter 14, which will be presented by Daniel Alberto. He's joining us virtually, and I imagine he's pulling up his presentation. That would be one moment. **Daniel Alberto:** Yeah. Can you guys hear me? I need to be promoted so I can share my screen. Oh, did you receive the message? Yes. Hey, can you guys hear me now? I was just promoted. **Commissioner:** Yes, we can hear you. **Daniel Alberto:** Yes. Okay, great. I'm going to share my screen. Okay. Can everybody see that? Well, sorry. Can somebody speak into the mic? I can't hear. **Commissioner:** Yes, we can see it. **Daniel Alberto:** Awesome. Thank you. Okay. Great to see everybody. I'm sorry I wasn't able to join in person. I'm in Texas for my grandma's 90th birthday. But I know that you all want to hear what's going on with the LDC update. It's been a minute. Last time we talked to you was in October, believe it or not. And while we had hoped to have this adopted sooner in the year, progress is being made and our internal review has continued. And I'm going to talk to you today about what that process has looked like, what changes have been made, and where we're going. So, just quickly, I'm going to go over what's happening in phase one. I know you've all seen this presentation several times, but we have some new members as well as it's been several months. So, I just want to get a very quick refresher on those top-line changes. And then also talking about what's going to happen in phases two and three. Then I'll focus in a little bit more on the substantial changes that are in the drafts, specifically, especially those that have been made since our last meeting on October 16th, and then we'll talk about next steps for adoption and questions. All right. So, like I said, I'm just going to go very briefly through these slides. I'm not going to read out everything, but just to remind everybody what's in phase one. We are... our biggest goal for phase one was just cleaning up the code, making it a lot more user-friendly, taking it from the wall of text on the left and turning it into the nice usable document on the right. So that includes consolidations of things like zoning districts and tables and diagrams like we see here. It also meant things like getting rid of arbitrary regulations that only applied to certain districts that we felt didn't need to be carried forward. So all of those kind of cleanup things have been made. Additionally, we took a hard look at some of the overlay districts that weren't being used and are proposing to eliminate those. We've added some new use regulations that aren't in the existing table, but we haven't messed with the permitted uses for existing uses. So that's something that will still come forward. We've done some tweaking with the development and design standards, namely with the parking. You'll recall that we have added some significant changes to flexibility around parking, but we have not reduced parking requirements per se. We've just added more flexibility to those requirements based on the context. Additionally, we've significantly updated bicycle parking to be tied to national standards rather than our parking or automobile parking requirements. We've removed some content-based regulations in the sign code, but that remains to be a subject for phases two and three for further address, to further address. We have not addressed or changed the street design standards. As you will recall, that's a separate project that's being managed by the Public Works Department in concurrence with this project. Additionally, we have not addressed or changed any of the architectural design standards, which is also a phase two and three project. Administrative reviews, we have not changed significantly any of the administrative administration procedures, except for a few tweaks around the edges and cleanup of the document itself. And then of course, we have our Santa Fe Homes Program enhanced affordability incentives. I'm not going to go through these details unless you'd like me to do a refresher, but as you will recall, we are not touching the current Santa Fe Homes Program requirements. Those remain the same. However, we are proposing to add what we're calling enhanced affordability incentives that scale depending on the amount of affordable housing a developer would provide above and beyond the base requirements. So this is an opt-in incentives program meant to kind of pilot some policy ideas that will hopefully incentivize additional housing production. So I think that was probably the fastest I've ever gone through that section. So feel free to ask me to go back and remind you about some of the details at the end of my presentation. Moving forward into phases two and three, which is something we hope to do quite soon. We will be going back and looking at those zoning districts again and trying to see if we can consolidate, eliminate, add new ones, improve the mixed-use district, maybe add some form-based districts. But a lot of that is going to be based off of feedback that we get from the general plan engagement process, which is why it's been held up until phases two and three. That's what I just said. Similarly, we're going to also take a re-look at the overlay districts, seeing which ones can be updated, revised, removed perhaps, and replaced with more effective base zoning districts, as well as looking at our historic and archaeological districts that are obviously an important subject in its own right. Some other things that we'll be looking at are changes to the use table, actually looking at where those uses are applied and maybe changing those, which we haven't done in phase one. One thing I do want to call out here is staff has determined not to move forward with a definition for transitional micro-communities, which you may know has been a topic of discussion in the city around what the city is installing, they're called pallet shelters. So Land Use and City Attorney's Office have come to agreement that we can, the city can move forward with what is called a policy interpretation, which allows the Land Use Director Heather to basically apply existing standards to a use that doesn't exist in our code, in this case the transitional micro-communities, so that those projects can go ahead and move forward without needing a code amendment. But we definitely want to come back around in phases two and three to address that use with a more substantial look at it, particularly around things like use-specific standards and zoning districts where it's appropriate. So that's something that we see as an ongoing issue in phases two and three. I've already mentioned this, but we're going to come back around to things like architectural design, landscaping, parking, of course, other kind of maybe outmoded zoning requirements. Administrative review or administration and review and procedures will also be something that's on the table in phases two and three. Things like the ENN process, potentially adding administrative approvals to certain processes, that sort of thing. Okay. So, I breezed through that because I want to get to the meat of what we are going to talk about tonight, which is where we are with the draft and the disposition report in particular. So, as you will recall, we, the way we've kind of organized the changes that have been made to the code are obviously they're in the draft code itself, which is a nice big five, six hundred page document. But rather than having you leaf through that entire document, we've also compiled what we call the disposition report, which lists out all of the changes, both non-substantive and substantive. So that means changes including just moving things from one section to the other, as well as changes that are more substantive in nature that you know we've talked about at previous meetings. So that, those substantive changes are highlighted in yellow in the disposition report. And we'll, we'll all have a further explanation of the reasoning behind those changes in the memo that will accompany the eventual bill for introduction that will lead to the adoption. So things like, if you recall, we are proposing to add just two feet of height across the board in residential districts to accommodate some modern building practices and those sorts of things. So those are considered substantive changes, and therefore we've highlighted them in yellow. Now I'm just going to go quickly through those substantive changes again as a refresher to remind you what you'll be eventually recommending to the governing body. This first one is just we're changing the name from "special uses" to "conditional use." That's really a semantic thing, but it is considered substantive because it's a kind of a procedure in its own right. Zoning districts: We've added, as I mentioned, two feet of height to all the zoning districts, as well as some of the non-residential districts, to accommodate modern building practices. That's things like green roofs or solar roofs, additional insulation, that sort of thing. Additionally, we've removed the requirement for higher-density zones to seek an additional approval in the form of usually a development plan to achieve their higher densities. As you will recall, say you're in an R21 district, you currently have to get a development plan to have 21 units per acre, even if otherwise you would be a by-right development. That's something that we found was an arbitrary rule that didn't really merit additional review. Of course, the existing development plan requirements for larger developments would still apply. So those bigger developments would still have to come into Planning Commission for review, but it doesn't have this additional layer of red tape. We've added a parks and open space district, but it's not been applied to the map yet. It's just been created as a placeholder for future discussion. We've recommended to remove the residential suite overlay and the ecological resource protection district overlay. Those are both overlay districts that have not been applied to the map, and we expect that the purpose of those districts will be better met with improving our underlying districts. We have recommended to remove any alcohol regulations in the Airport Road overlay district. This is in response to community feedback that it was preventing the ability for certain establishments that the neighborhood wanted, like grocery stores and restaurants, from moving into the area. Again, we found it to be somewhat arbitrary to only restrict alcohol in this one corridor. Then, use regulations: We've made explicit that missing middle housing typologies are allowed. They were implicitly allowed before; however, now they are explicitly in the use table just to make that extra clear that we want and encourage those types of housing uses. There have been additional changes to landscaping. I've already mentioned the off-street parking flexibility. That's something that's pretty significant, as well as removing content-based regulations in signs, which, as you know, are prohibited by the First Amendment. So that brings us into greater compliance with federal law. I've already gone over the Santa Fe Homes program's enhanced affordability incentives. So that's another substantive change that is highlighted in the disposition report and the memo. So that's what the substantive changes were as of the last time I presented to you. Now I'm going to go into a few more additional substantive changes that we've added in the months since then. A large portion of our attention has been on telecoms, which the City Attorney's office has flagged as a serious issue for the city because we are currently under litigation for telecom-related policy or code. So, in order to avoid that in the future, we took the time to go ahead and bring into Phase One some changes to the telecom facility requirements, mostly in response to federal law around what's called the shot clock. I won't get into detail, also because I don't know the details, because it's a very technical section. That's Dan Esel's realm. But basically, there are federal requirements that you have to address telecommunication facilities applications within a certain amount of time. So that's what we've addressed, and that's taken a significant amount of time to make sure that we're in compliance. Additionally, we've added a new section that just codifies current practices around violations. So that's just sort of aggregating current practices, but that took additional amendments. Another thing that took a significant amount of time is there were several changes to the historic district section that were being reviewed and drafted on somewhat of a separate track than our main draft. Those changes came in a little later, and it took a little longer to bring that into the draft. Those changes have mostly focused on the sub-district regulations within the historic overlay that are focused on quality, such as materials, massing, and architecture, rather than arbitrary styles, which are more subject to interpretation. So that's been a good improvement, but again, it's taken longer than ideal. Finally, we've added some, or we've changed some of the proximity triggering, or how should I say this? We've changed the distance from utility mains that triggers an archaeological review. That's dependent on the different archaeological districts, but that's another thing that's needed to be vetted by our city attorneys. So that's really it. I know it seems like maybe not that much, but the City Attorney's office has also done a very detailed review of the entire document, which we are very grateful for. But it has meant that as we've responded to their revisions, mostly kind of just technical in nature, not substantive, there have been several back-and-forth drafts that have taken a lot more time than we anticipated, frankly. That's something that we are learning from for Phases Two and Three about how to best manage the review and make sure that the City Attorney's office is in the loop from the beginning so that we can make sure that there is a timely review of the next draft. Speaking of which, we do hope to have that draft ready in the coming weeks. I know I've said that before, but we're down to the very last bit of revisions that the Attorney's office has requested. So when we have that packet finished, it'll have several items. It'll have the draft, of course, which will be in bill format, ready to be voted on. It'll also have attachments, including the memo, which explains a lot of the changes made, especially in the substantive areas. It'll have the disposition report as kind of a reference document to help people navigate the changes, and several other accompanying pieces. All of that needs to be introduced to the governing body before anything can get started. That's just a kind of an oral introduction; there's no public comment. Then it has to go back to the governing body for a public comment. This is all based off of, by the way, the governing body's own procedures that they've imposed on themselves. This is not code-based but is an official city procedure, which has been another thing that we've had to navigate as we move forward with this very lengthy adoption. So, as I was mentioning, first it's the introduction, then it comes to public comment, where the public and anybody who wants to can speak about the proposed changes. We'll obviously have staff, and Claren will have a presence at that meeting to give a presentation about those changes. After that, then it goes to the advisory boards, that's you guys, including you guys, for an official recommendation. I know you all gave a kind of unofficial recommendation back in October, and that is appreciated, but to officially go into this process, you have to do it after the governing body hearings. So we'll come to you, historic boards and archaeological, the three boards that are affected by the code changes, for official recommendations. After the official recommendations, then it goes to the standing committees, and the standing committees are governing body committees that also provide recommendations to the final action, and that includes the Public Works, Finance, and Quality of Life. Technically, I think we only have to go to two, or maybe even one, but we've elected to go to all three because it's such a big document and such an important piece of policy. Then finally, assuming we get at least one positive recommendation from a standing committee, we can go to final action with the governing body, and that will be adoption. So that's the process. Again, I had, let me go ahead and stop sharing here. As I had mentioned, I really do wish we could have done this in a more timely way, but we are learning from this process. Nobody in the city has done such a large-scale code adoption, at least since the last time we did code adoption, as far as I know. So this is a new process for everybody, and it's been a learning experience. I also just, I guess I have to mention, I will be leaving the City of Santa Fe effective May 2nd, and I'll be handing off this project to Heather and Maggie, who will be managing it in the interim. I assume that eventually there will be another senior planner taking over as project manager, but that'll be up to the director. So, I just want to say thank you so much for your support over the years, and I wish I could be there through this adoption process, but I will be moving on to a new position. So, thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Well, Daniel, we're going to miss you. I have a couple, two questions. The first one is, does the Planning Commission vote on the changes to the historic district? I thought, or is it just the Historic Commission, the Historic Review Board that does that, Heather? Heather: Yes. So the Planning Commission is technically over, for the purposes of the code, the Planning Commission cedes its authority to the Historic Districts Review Board on those matters that relate to historic districts. So the Historic Districts Review Board will review that portion of the code, make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and then the Planning Commission will consider those standards and that recommendation and then act accordingly. Okay. And then the next one, what is the rationale on the changing the distance on the utility mains, or shorter distance now, when you have to do an archaeological review? That's actually one of the things that we're still clearing up. Maybe Heather, you can speak to that. That came out of the Archaeological Subcommittee, and we are, we're kind of having to dig back through the records to find exactly what that recommendation came from. Heather, do you have any insight? Heather: Yes, Chlo. With reference to the distance, there's been a lot of cases that have come up recently to the Archaeological Review Committee, and where there has not been compliance, or it's been caught too late. And so the ARC really wants to also consider utility extensions, especially in downtown, because more often than not, unexpected discoveries happen when, like, human remains, when utilities are extended through our streets. So we really would like to make sure that's covered, and it was at the recommendation of the chair of the archaeological review. That's all I have. Does any other commissioner have questions? Commissioner Morando: Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I was just curious if there were any changes to the affordable housing incentive since last time we saw it. Commissioner Miranda: No, there have not been any changes to that section since the last time we spoke. So everything should be the same. And just to piggyback on Chair Claus's question about the distance, what was the change in distance of where it's triggering review in the downtown? I will have to double-check. I could read it off to you here if you'd like. Thank you. So it's dependent on the subdistrict for the archaeological overlay. So in the historic downtown, it's from 60 to 50. Rivers and trails is 550 to 100. Suburban is 550 to 200. And the reason the rivers and trails is we've encountered a lot more archaeological resources as the ordinance has been enacted. It was adopted in 1987, I believe. And so there's a lot of resources that have been discovered. If you think of the Camino Real and Agua Fria, which sort of parallels, which is considered one of the trails, and the Santa Fe River there, for instance, is known in the record that there were pueblos along that corridor, including Pindi Pueblo. So that is the rationale for reducing the length in that particular case, whereas suburban is outside of those expected areas for archaeological resources. It's a substantial change, but I can understand why. Thank you. Any other questions? Chair Cloud: Yes. Commissioner Smith. Just a general question for Daniel. Where in this process, if not in this process, if anywhere, are short-term rentals being addressed? You're on mute. Sorry about that. Commissioner Smith, thank you. So short-term rentals is considered a use-specific standard, but it is really kind of a standalone policy issue, as we all know. So we've thought about it in a few ways. I think there are some governing body members who have thought about doing short-term rental policy change kind of as a standalone code change. I don't know where that stands currently. But if that does not move forward, it would be part of phases two and three, probably in the latter, because it is such a hot-button issue, and it is kind of a standalone policy issue. I definitely wanted to wait for the later phases, but it may also end up being its own legislation depending on how urgently governing body members want to address it. Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you for your service to the City of Santa Fe. You've been terrific. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, oh, Madam Chair, I just want to apologize. I don't know why I was fumbling so badly today. I can only assume that I can take a phrase from Leonard McCoy, not that I'm a Vulcan or anything or any of that, but I definitely was not operating on all thrusters. Well, we all have our days. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you all. Okay, we'll move on to matters from the commission. Any matters from the commission at all? If not, then we'll adjourn. Thank you.