Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Easton?

Commissioner Haffin? Here.

Commissioner Green?

Here.

Commissioner Brown? Commissioner Brewerl?

Here. Is there something off with the Zoom?

Could you be more specific, visual, or

It's showing the speaker. It's just showing, like, a single view. Oh, now it is.

Thank you.

Commissioner Grimm? Here. Commissioner Nelson?

Here.

Commissioner White? We have a quorum.

Thank you. At this time, I will open it up to public comment. If there's anyone here who would like to come forward, this public comment is just general, not specific to anything on the agenda tonight. Is there anyone online? Seeing none, I will move to the approval of the agenda. Everyone has had a time to review the agenda. I'm looking for a motion to approve.

I move that we approve the agenda.

Second. Thank you. Now we'll move on to the Planning and Zoning Commission business, starting with the approval of the minutes that were in the packet. Has everyone had time to review the minutes? I'm looking for a motion to approve those minutes.

I move to approve.

Second.

Thank you. Now we're moving on to item 21436Dash26, an extension request, SITDash2023Dash0063. Greg Gonzalez, doing business as Columbus Capital applicant, is requesting site plan approval at 535 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, New Mexico, for a 104,671 square foot mixed use development that proposes three twenty two residential units and 22,000 square feet of commercial space. The property MMV001 is within the Downtown Los Alamos DTLA Zone District. Included in this is an extension request letter and an approval letter in the attachments.

I will now go through the judicial process. The Commission decision on this extension request must be based on the criteria contained in Chapter 16 of the County Code, known as the Development Code. As a quasi judicial public hearing, it will be conducted in a manner to protect the due process rights of parties and affected parties as required by New Mexico law. All parties have a right to be represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings. The party who files the application has the burden to show that the request meets the criteria of this code.

The Commission shall act as an impartial decision making fact finding body and shall approve or deny the application in accordance with the evidence presented which is competent and relevant. Testimony or evidence that does not meet these criteria shall be disregarded. A party to the hearing shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument and to question witnesses on all relevant issues, but the chair may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and on the nature and length of their testimony and questioning. Testimony at the hearing shall be under oath or affirmation, and cross examination of any persons presenting information at the public hearing will be permitted by applicant, any affected party, and county staff as directed by the chair. Commissioners may ask questions of the owner, applicant, staff, any party, or of any witness.

The issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve with conditions or deny the request for an extension, SIT 20230063. Gray Gonzalez, DVA. Columbus Capital applicant requesting site plan approval 535 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 104,671 square foot mixed use development that proposes a three twenty two residential unit and 22,000 square feet of commercial space. The property located MMB001 is within the Downtown Los Alamos zone district, and the Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with making this determination based solely upon the review criteria adopted by the county councils set out in the development code. Specific to this one, it's sixteen-72J, extensions of period of validity.

The Commission will accept the following documents as exhibits as received and provided to the Commission and incorporate them into part of the record in this case unless a valid objection is raised by a party. Parties have had the opportunity to have these exhibits in advance and they are able to use them during their presentation as desired. As noted, attachment A to the agenda is an extension request letter dated 02/19/2026, and attachment B to the agenda is an approval letter dated 03/31/2026, and should have been noted as a draft. Those materialsother materials may be introduced without objection or determination by commission. Additional exhibits may be proposed for entry into the hearing record by any party as part of their presentation.

The chair will either admit or exclude those items as they are presented. If an exhibit is excluded, the Commission will still maintain a copy of the excluded exhibit to keep as part of the record. The hearing tonight will be conducted under procedures developed from the New Mexico case law. The procedures are intended to protect the due process rights of all parties, and the procedures include parties and witnesses will be identified for the record. All persons who expect to offer testimony will be sworn in will provide testimony under oath.

All persons offering testimony will be subject to cross examination by other parties. And please remember the purpose of cross examination is to ask questions and solicit relevant facts from witnesses. It is not to be argumentative or is at the time to state your own position. The Commission intends to limit testimony to information relevant to the applicant's requested action, and the chairperson may limit redundant or repetitive testimony. The applicant in this case is the Los Alamos County Capital Improvements and Facilities Division on behalf of Los Alamos County property owner.

The Community Development Department staff will assist the Commission in fully developing the record. Other parties are persons in addition to the applicant, including the property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration, and those who have a legally recognized interest in this case and may also be recognized as a party. A party may call witnesses and enter evidence to present facts in support of the party's position on the application. If you wish to present evidence or testimony in this hearing and believe you have a direct interest in this case and want to be recognized as a party, please come forward to the microphone and provide your name and address for the record. We'll start with those people here.

Danielle Valdes, the planning manager for community development department.

I think she may be the only one in the room. Could you swear her in, and then we'll go to the virtual? That's quite all right. Those who wish to give testimony at this hearing, please raise your right hand. Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Is there anyone online? Doesn't appear so. All right.

So 16.72J, Extensions of Period of Validity. The chair will now poll the commission as to potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communication, and ex parte communication is a commissioner's discussion on specific facts or issues with the applicant or other party regarding the matter now before the commission, outside of this public hearing. So I am at this time going to acknowledge that all of the commissioners received an email from a community member, and it included the Attachment B, the approval letter dated 03/31/2026. So with that being said, if you read that email and read that letter, my first question to you all is, did it influence you prior to hearing this evening's conditions? Anyone online?

No. Thank you. And if it didn't influence you, then it's not going to make you change your decision. So I think that's already been met. All right. So I'm still going to go through, because it is part of this judicial hearing, to discuss the ex parte and make sure that there is any outside, that everybody affirms that they have not had any of these issues. So does any commissioner have potential conflict of interest in this case? If so, please disclose Any conflict must recuse themselves from the hearing. Deliberation vote. Has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of this issue?

If so, please disclose. Has any commissioner reached a decision on the merits of this request through ex parte communications? Has any commissioner used or relied upon any communication reports or other materials prepared in connection with a particular case other than those made part of the record? Has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or their representative? Has any commissioner received any ex parte communication regarding this case?

And so for Commissioner Grimm, because those are a lot of questions that are somewhat redundant, I askI just review all of them. If any of those apply to you, then you would simply self disclose which one applies and whether that impacts your ability to make a decision.

None of them apply to my knowledge.

Thank you. Commissioner Hampton? Mr. Shneur?

None of them apply.

Thank you. Commissioners online? Nelson Imbrel?

Nope. No conflict. Thank you.

No conflict.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Now we are going to move to the Commission shall receive testimony including expert and lay witnesses and relevant documentary evidence for or against the request from the applicant, public governmental entities or entities or interested parties withstanding subject to cross examination and reasonable time limits. At this time, I'm going to ask CDD staff to make their presentation.

Good evening, Commission. Thank you, Chair. So for case number give me one moment. This is for an extension for case number SIT20230063 for Greg Gonzalez in Columbus Capital. This is for the Merrimack site development plan that was approved in 2023.

So per county code, they have to meet certain criteria, which is submit a letter to the community development director before the expiration period. Ensure that no changes are being made to the previously approved site development plan. And there is one more. And that it comes back to the deciding board for that approval. We can affirm that all three criteria have been met.

And with that I can stand for questions. Oh, I would like to add one thing. The letter that is included in the packet is a example of what will be sent out with the final orders.

Do the commissioners have any questions? Okay. My question is, you're putting something before us to approve. Can you put that in a language like, all the criteria has been met?

All the criteria has

been met.

We can confirm all we can affirm that there are no changes, that they've submitted the letter in a timely manner, and that we have reviewed for and submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval.

And your recommendation is

Our recommendation is approval.

Thank

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And then everything you've said is, to the best of your knowledge, accurate?

Yes. I can confirm that, for the record, that it is to the best of my knowledge, and it's true.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

At this time, if the applicant who is here this evening would like to make any comments, are open to. Okay, thank you. And then this is also the time that we open it for other parties and witnesses. These would be affected parties that would have standing. Anyone online? Okay. All right. Any commissioners, questions, cross examination? If not, I'm going to move to close the public hearing of evidence and ask the commission to review and discuss the applicable criteria. Following the discussion of this criteria, I will ask the commission to make a discussion motion in this case.

I have a question. This is Ron.

Yes. Commissioner Nelson.

I see in the, Los Alamos reporter that this property has been reported on, and apparently, there's been some notion of evolving the plan. But the plan that we're talking about is the same identical plan that was presented back in 2023. Is that correct?

That is correct, commissioner.

Thank you.

Should I review the criteria once more? No. So we've had evidence that of related sixteen-72J Extensions of Period of Validity, that we've had evidence that the conditions have been met by the applicant, and staff is requesting this body to vote to approve. So I am looking for a commissioner to so move.

I move that we approve the extension request. Second.

Can you do a roll call vote, please, on this?

Commissioner Easton? Yes. Commissioner Hampton? Yes. Commissioner Crane?

Yes.

Commissioner Brule?

Yes.

Commissioner Grimm?

Yes.

Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Passes. Thank you.

Any action by the Planning and Zoning Commission in granting approval, conditional disapproval of an application may be appealed by the owner of the property listed in the applications persons that are required to be mailed notice for the application giving rise to the final action being appealed any county official acting in their official capacity whose services, properties, facilities, interests, or operations may be adversely affected by the application, or any person who has a recognized legal interest under New Mexico law within fifteen calendar days, including weekend days and excluding county recognized holidays, after the date of the final written decision pursuant to section 16.72.5A of the development code. And with that, we will move on in the agenda to discussion items. So the first item is the Los Alamos County Development Code Chapter 16, Article IV, Division VIII signage.

Hello, and good evening, chair Easton, councilor Cole, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Eli Isaacson. I'm the community development director for Los Alamos County. And I'll be presenting a slide deck introducing some of the existing challenges with our temporary sign code, especially as it pertains to public rights of way here in the county, some reasons why our previous code language that was working pretty effectively is no longer effective and why and some options for how we might approach temporary signs in the public right of way moving forward. Tonight is a there's no action this evening.

Simply a discussion item. There'll be some questions at the end of the presentation to guide some feedback and input for members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And that input will then be sort of incorporated into a presentation to the county council at an upcoming work session for some direction from those folks. And then that will lead to staff and our attorneys drafting some language for a new ordinance regulating temporary signs and the right of way. So if we could please jump in, advance to the next slide.

So again, the purpose this is a work session. I'll be presenting some identified issues with our existing temporary sign regulations. And then again, be looking for some feedback at the end and some direction so that we can take that forward through the process. And again, no formal action is requested this evening. So the current temporary sign regulations, if you go into table 48 of chapter 16, establishes sign area allowances by zone district for temporary signs on private property.

This ranges from eight square feet in open space zones to 30 square feet per linear foot of building frontage and commercial and mix zones. If you go one more slide, please. Then there's some additional standards. So these are the standards that are for temporary signs in the right of way. And one of the recommendations we have on an upcoming slide will be to really restructure this section of the code to make a clear distinction between temporary signs on private property that might be associated with a business versus temporary signs in the public rights of way here in the county.

But here you see some of our existing additional standards. And right off the bat, they tend to get a little confusing where we have a maximum square footage of eight square feet and also a maximum height of eight feet. So that kind of an awkward side dimension there. So we're looking at cleaning things like that up. But then also addressing sort of the last bullet on this slide, which is our current temporary sign regulations reference an official zoning map related to temporary signage.

However, a map was created but was never adopted. So that's creating some enforcement challenges for our code compliance team. Next slide, please. So again, issues we're receiving. We don't really have an enforceable placement standard outside of those sort of the areas that present a safety challenge, you know, site triangles, things like that.

The duration is a challenge. Right now, it's a sixty day limit, but it's very difficult for us to know when that shot clock is starting as folks can just place these signs in the rights of way now without informing county staff. There's no date barking requirement, nothing like that. Ambiguous scope, again, that section of the code does not make a clear distinction between private property and rights of way. So we really want to make sure we separate those two and make a clear set of standards for each.

And then it's a little unclear the way the code is currently written is whether or not staff has the ability to remove signs that have been there for longer than sixty days. Next slide, please. So again, I mentioned this earlier. We had a pretty effective sign code. However, a Supreme Court case in 2015 changed the legal framework such that there's no real ability by the government to regulate contact of signage.

And so things like real estate signs, event signs, t ball signs, political signs, all of that needs to be treated in a content neutral manner. And our previous code really sort of made distinctions between the types of signs. We can't do that any longer. And so we're in need of some new language that regulates not on a content basis, but on other bases that allows us to address some of the challenges and issues related to temporary science here in the county. Next slide, please.

So some things where we want to make recommend you know, we're willing to make recommendations, things that we feel pretty firm on, things like restructuring section sixteen-65F to clearly distinguish between temporary signs, private property versus temporary signs in the rights of way. Next slide, please. Clarifying some of the dimensional standards. And so not changing the maximum allowable square footage, but creating some dimensional standards in terms of, you know, a maximum of 48 inches in any one dimension, a maximum 48 inches in height from finished grade. So that includes stakes and ground supports.

Again, around duration removal, sixty days is what we have now. But what we don't have are any requirements to remove within a certain time frame of the sixty day expiration, nor is it explicit that county has the ability to remove signs that are in violation of the code. So where we're looking for some feedback this evening, in addition to some of the other things I've mentioned, is we're looking for some guidance on where folks thinks these temporary signs should be allowed. So the obvious first option would be status quo. Let's just keep doing things the way we've been doing it.

As I mentioned, the current code doesn't give us a lot of enforcement tools. And so, obviously, we don't recommend going forward with what we're doing currently. Option two is what I'm calling the Santa Fe approach. The city of Santa Fe does not allow any temporary signage in its rights of way. Staff also doesn't recommend this approach.

We feel it's too much of a departure from how we do things in the county, how we've done them in the past. And so what we're really looking for is what is an option that sort of works with what we've done historically but gives us the tools we need to provide for some enforcement. So if we advance to the next slide. The third option is it just going ahead and adopting the designated temporary signage zones that were contemplated in the last code rewrite, but again, were never adopted. So this would identify specific locations.

You know, the map would be adopted. Signs placed outside these designated areas would be in violation and would be subject to removal. And then all the existing restrictions around things like no signs on utility poles, no signs blocking sidewalks or restricting ADA access, site triangle obstructions, things like that would maintain. Next slide. Oh.

Oh, sorry.

Absolutely.

Commissioner Brol, you have a question or comment?

I do. This is maybe too basic for your presentation, but could you define what you mean by right of way for us?

Oh, absolutely. So the county has quite a bit of right of way. That's the public property that includes streets and sidewalks that basically runs from property line across a roadway and sidewalk to the other side of the street to the next property line. So you can think of it as it's not quite a street because it also includes some of the pedestrian space on either side, the lands you know, landscape buffers, things like that. But it's publicly owned property here in the county.

Now we also have some rights of way, 5 zero 2 New Mexico 4 and others that are actually New Mexico Department of Transportation rights of way. And they have their own rules for dealing with signage in those areas. So this would be for county owned rights of way here in Los Alamos County. So it would be streets and sidewalks not owned by the state. Commissioner Brule, does that clear things up?

Could you give an example? Like, are you talking about where all the election signs get placed on Trinity? Or, like, what's an example of signs that we may have seen in a right of way?

I would say like up around North Mesa, the roundabout there. We've seen a proliferation of signage there. That's a really good example of what we're talking about. You know, a lot of the election signage is placed on Trinity, I actually believe that is on private property, and that's why that's allowed to be placed there. Trinity is another one of these New Mexico DOT rights of way.

And so in sort of the public property along Trinity Avenue, signage is not allowed. But those are examples. So I think that sort of that North Mesa example by the golf course is probably the best and currently where we're getting the most questions, concerns from constituents about the proliferation of temporary signs there. And I think another reason why we're sort of interested in this issue is, as you've seen on some of our more recent windy days, a lot of these signs are sort of neglected. Folks put them out, but maybe don't really keep an eye on them.

And a number of them end up in the canyons, which is not something we'd like to see. So this is sort of requires a little bit more stewardship of the signage that folks place.

Commissioner? Thank you very much.

Can you give some examples of county land which is not a right of way?

Sure. A park, this property, open spaces, any of the other county facilities. So the county owns quite a bit of land. Some of it is outside of rights of way, and and then much of it is is within the county rights of way.

So do all county rights of way have a road in them?

That's a good question. I don't wanna say all because there's probably an instance or two where there's maybe a right of way where we don't have a formalized county road, but I would say the the vast, vast majority of of county rights of way have roadways in them as well.

Is there an official map that shows the county rights of way?

I believe so. I believe our GIS mapping identifies county owned rights of way versus DOT and others. The way it's mapped, it may be showing center lines rather than sort of parcels for that land. But I think that's something we could produce.

I have a question. Absolutely. Actually, first a quick comment. I think on option two there's a typo. Sure. It says that the staff does recommend that option. If we're distributing the slides for public review, that might be confusing. Thank you. And then it's obviously problematic if we have an unenforceable regulation, but could you help us understand some of the specific issues that are stemming from a lack of enforcement and how those are impacting the community?

Yes. So one of the main issues is when we do receive complaints and right now, due to some staffing challenges in the department, we are operating on a complaint basis. We have a difficult time determining whether or not those signs are you know, how long they've been there. And we can make some assumptions based off the condition that they're in, but we can't be sure that a sign has been there more than sixty days. There's no requirement right now that dates be placed on those, like when they're placed, or that, you know, any sort of permits required of the county.

And so it's very difficult for us to track the temporary signs. So I think in terms of the impact, I think there's sort of a visual impact on the county. I think folks the folks that I'm talking to feel that, you know, at these locations where there's a proliferation of signs, it's not super attractive. And then, you know, and then also, as I mentioned earlier, you know, when these signs aren't maintained or taken care of, they oftentimes become dislodged from the ground, blow around, and end up in various sort of open spaces in natural settings. And so we'd like to see that cease to the greatest extent possible.

And so we're looking for ways to be able to better enforce and put more responsibility on the owners of the signs to maintain them here in the community.

Cool. Follow-up question about enforcement. So you mentioned that we don't currently have the resources to implement enforcement even if we could per the code, and we're operating more on a complaint basis. So how would adoption of this recommendation change the resources available for enforcement aside from just complaint based enforcement?

So that's a great question. We actually have brought on staff. So the staffing challenge was caused by both of our existing co compliance officers retired late last year, right around the end of the year. One sort of more towards early December and then one at the end of the year. And so we have recently hired another code enforcement or code compliance officer.

But we're still in sort of the training and onboarding phase. We had some additional staff that have other roles within the department but have experience either here or elsewhere in code enforcement. And so they've been helping us backfill those vacancies. But because they have additional duties, we have pulled back and have done less proactive enforcement and have really been responding to complaints. This so this isn't so much a issue of bandwidth.

It's not so much that because we're only operating on a complaint basis, we can't enforce issues with temporary signs. This is more of an issue of even if we had with the bandwidth that we have now, we could be more proactive about the signage. But even then, we don't have really good enforcement mechanisms. So this is less about resources and more about good enforceable code language. And so that's the motivation for reviewing and revising the temporary sign code when it comes to the rights of way. So it's less about resources and more about not being given good regulations to enforce. Awesome. Thank you.

So how do you propose to the county should know when a sign was placed? Do you put the burden on the person placing the sign to notify the county? Or do you have some other plan?

Yes. Commissioner Creen, if you don't mind, if we could maybe put that one in the parking lot for just a second, we'll have some time to discuss it at the end of the presentation. That's one of the discussion questions I'm sort of posing to you if you have any suggestions. We have some suggestions internally. The purpose of this evening's presentation is more to present the issue, the challenges we're currently having, and some ideas we have for options on how we might sort of enforce, or maybe not enforce, but provide locations where signage is allowed.

I think once we have a pretty good feel for that framework, I think in terms of the administration of this program, I think there's just staff. I think we have some good ideas of how we might approach it. So we can certainly talk about that at the end of tonight's presentation. But that is something that we'll specifically be looking for some feedback from you all for.

Yeah. So the place for political signs on Trinity, up until recently when we were placing political signs, we had to get a permit, and we were given a map. And that location was one of the areas that was permitted. So was that a situation where the county discussed with the owner?

I I don't have all the information on that, commissioner Hampton. I can certainly look into that, and I'm sure it's something we'll want to clarify before discussing this with council here in in the coming weeks or months.

Thank you.

So going back to the presentation, again, if you don't mind going back a slide just to sort of refresh us on where we are. So this is really the option three is we're presenting is really just moving forward with adopting the locations that were contemplated previously but never mapped and adopted. And so jumping ahead, thinking about how this works. So during elections, all temporary signs, including campaign signs, election signs, would be treated the same. So we'd have the designated zones, the sixty day duration, and that applies to everything.

So again, whether it's an election sign, a t ball sign, an open house sign, that's how it would be dealt with. Local businesses, community events, youth sports, treat it the same. And this is probably the most simple way to approach this. The rules are very straightforward. And again, it's all content neutral. If you advance the slide, please. We can think about a fourth option. Oh, excuse me. So this is if you don't mind moving to the map. Thank you.

So this is the map that was created but never adopted. I believe along the bottom, that second box, Commissioner Hampton, I think that's the area you were just referring to along Trinity. Then we had San Ildefonso Road as one of them. And then the last two locations in the bottom right of the screen are actually in White Rock One along I believe it's Sherwood and Longview, sort of near that intersection. And then the other is a long rover.

And I think that's a place where science has been put for a very long time. So jumping ahead, this would be option four. And there are more options. And if folks have other ideas, we can certainly talk about them at the end of the presentation. But sort of the fourth option as we see it is adopting a set of temporary signage zones for year round use and then layering on top of that a set of additional areas to be used around local elections.

So again, we'd be identifying locations within county rights of way where temporary signs are permitted all year long. Then we'd have an additional set of locations to be allowed around the elections. And this would be sixty days before the election to be removed within a couple days after. And these areas would be the areas we think that have traditionally been used for political signage. Obviously, we are open to any feedback and ideas of where additional sign zones would be appropriate.

And then again, signs placed outside the designated zones would be subject for removal. And then, you know, we'd be still having to adhere to all the existing rights of way restrictions, like not being able to be added to utility poles, being in side triangles, etcetera, etcetera. So, again, in practice, during periods around county elections, the areas traditionally used for election signs can be used for temporary signage. And then the areas for year round use are also active. So, you know, again, theoretically, if a local business or a community organization wanted to place one of their signs in the election sign zones, they certainly could.

There's nothing we can do to prevent them. But we're thinking by providing areas where sort of non election signage can go and then areas where sort of are only available during election times that there would be some adherence to using those zones for their intended purpose. Obviously, here the rules are slightly less simple. However, we feel like they're still pretty enforceable. Again, they don't depend on any content or reading of the sign.

And then we are well aware of when any local elections are taking place. And so staff can sort of gear up for those times and sort of know how to enforce in those periods. So as I mentioned earlier, next steps, we will take the input and feedback we get tonight and take that to county council during a work session, sharing your thoughts with them. Again, looking for direction from counsel on how to proceed. Once we have that direction, CDD staff, along with the county attorney's office, will work on drafting some code language.

And then that language will come back to this body for formal review and recommendation to county counsel for ultimate adoption. We'd really like to get this done this fall ahead of the general, if possible. But we, you know, understand that this is an issue that may require multiple iterations or multiple conversations with both PNC and the council. And so if that process pushes us out beyond the fall, I think it's worth it that we get this right rather than rush it to try to get it done in time for the election. So we'd hope to get it done by fall.

That would give us the thirty days required to get the ordinance into effect prior to, I believe, I think voting starts, I think, in early October. So we'd like to have this, you know, done by sometime in August, if possible. But we'll see how this process plays out working with both you and our county council. Next slide, please. So Commissioner Creen, you can see here the last bullet sort of touches on your question of what would be the mechanism to provide us with the information we need to do some of the enforcement.

But some of the earlier questions, really looking for some feedback from you all as to the options that we presented, where where your preferences are, what you think maybe some of the strengths and weaknesses of those might be. Looking at that map that we presented earlier, taking a look at those locations, letting us know if you think those are the appropriate locations, if we need additional locations. Any feedback on size and height standards, that is pretty standard. But if you have some thoughts on that, I'd be happy to discuss them. And then again, what is the enforcement mechanism, date marking, registrations?

We would like to get to a place where this is not really complaint based, but really more about putting some of the onus back on the owners of the signs to sort of self regulate the signage in the rights of way. We'd like to be in a place where folks are taking this know what the sixty day limits are, are removing their signs on their own. And we're not in a position where we're having to remove signs all over the county. So anyways, that is the presentation. And Chair Issa, don't know if you want to how you want to handle these questions, if you'd prefer to go sort of open it up or go commissioner, commissioner. But whatever your preference is, we we are happy to oblige.

I think we're a pretty civil group, so I'm gonna open it up. And I'm gonna ask the first question because I'm chair. And I know that commissioner Rowland Hampton are ready to go. I just want to clarify, when we talk about temporary signage, that we're not talking about the examples of the signage that they have over at Kroger, the temporary signs for the real estate. Do you know what I'm talking about? They have to make an application. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the soccer registration the political andokay. Thank you for that clarification. Let's go with Commissioner Brule online, and then we'll go with Commissioner Hampton. Thank

you. So I understand the Supreme Court said you could not regulate signs based on content, but can you regulate the signs based on the type of organization that is putting up the sign? For example, could you have different rules for nonprofits, commercial enterprises, political candidates?

I do not believe so. I think that drifts into this sort of notion of content and the regulation of speech, which is really what the Supreme Court was saying in their ruling in Reed versus Gilbert. So, no. We we can't really say we have one set of rules for nonprofits. We have one set of rules for, you know, sports organizations and another set of rules for for local businesses.

So, we're trying to come up with a framework that addresses, you know, all of these groups and how they're putting signs. With that being said, we we are discussing some things internally. So one of the things that is sort of, you know, how do we deal with things like the farmer's market signs or open house signs? Right? Our goal is not to, you know, make it difficult for those organizations or activities to provide the signage they need to do their business.

And so one of the ideas that we're considering is sort of creating an exemption for signs that are, say, out for less than twenty four hours. Right? And so if you're a sign that's out so duration is one of the things, commissioner Brule, that we can enforce and regulate. And so if you're in, you know, the farmer's market, for instance, they put their signs out early in the morning on Thursday, and they pick them up by, you know, the afternoon. Open houses, realtors are putting those signs out in the morning and picking them up in the afternoon.

Even if it's a two day open house, they're still putting that out on a daily basis. So we think that creating a sort of a duration exemption would allow certain signage activities that we wanna promote in the community while not sort of limiting sort of our broader ambitions of reducing the amount of signage that's proliferating in various rights of way around the county.

Could I just follow-up?

Sure.

Sorry. I mean, the federal government has different rules for nonprofits, right, in terms of taxation and other things. Guess I would be interested to hear, like, a real legal opinion on whether or not that Supreme Court decision would allow for any differentiation based on even, say, the tax status of the organization who wanted to put the signs up.

Madam chair, if I may, commissioners and commissioner rule, that's correct. The Supreme Court case essentially says that if you have to read it to regulate it, then it's unconstitutional. So if you have to read it to determine who the speaker is or what the speaker is saying, then it's unconstitutional. We have to we can regulate time, place, and manner. So that's size, the time, the duration, and where it's located. But if we look to the speaker or the content or we have to read it to regulate it, then it is deemed unconstitutional. And this this case does only apply to municipalities and local governments. So the federal government is is is totally different. This is specifically to local governments.

Okay. Thank you.

I'd like to start off with a follow on to Commissioner Brule's comments. So I think I think that's a great idea to have a time limit where they'd be exempt. Right? And one of the things I'm thinking about is arts and crafts fairs or Kai Fest or something like that. And I don't I'm concerned that twenty four hours wouldn't be enough.

Some of those are two day events. And sometimes it's hard to get everything put while the organization is doing stuff in the morning to get all those things up. I know Farmers Market's finely tuned, And I I don't know how much problem we get in if we made it forty eight hours instead of twenty four, but something to think about. So on to I I prefer option four. I think it's a great option.

But the proposed proposed zone locations, the The ones in White Rock are fine. Trinity is fine if it's in fact a county right of way or if there's an exemption that the private property owner gives us. But the one on North Mesa has always been horrible. It excludes Bronco Mesa. It excludes substantial portions of North Mesa.

So I'm I'm currently putting one my signs at the top of Bronco Mesa, which is what I think is a county right of way, but I don't know. And then not at the traffic circle because I agree with everybody else, it looks trashy. But going up San Ildefonso right below the cliff, there's a gap between the sidewalk and the road where it's possible to place them. But I don't once again, don't know if that's a county right away. So I think the size and height is fine, and I think sixty days is fine.

As a matter of fact, with political candidates, what they used to just tell us is that you can't put them out until sixty days before the election, and they have to come down within two days. So it it seemed like it kinda enforced itself.

Thank you.

Following my question regarding the law of time, manner, and place, is that just for temporary signs or is that for any sign?

I believe that's for all signage.

That's what I figured. Thank you.

But, you know, Jerryson, you know, business signage is not the same. You know, we we are we feel like we have a pretty good handle on the business signage. We sort of have objective standards for where those where how they're placed, where they're placed on private property. It's really this question of temporary signs in the right of way that's sort of giving us some fits.

Thank you. I just wanna ask a clarifying question about the twenty four or forty eight hour exception. Is the idea there that you wouldn't need a permit because it's kind of a recurring thing and it comes down pretty quickly? And the hypothetical permitting would only apply to something that's intended to stay up for longer than a short duration time?

That's correct. And I think that the duration is is actually achieves a couple of things. It allows these temporary signs to be placed outside of these approved zones. So, you know, you're a realtor hosting an open house. You don't wanna put your sign down in White Rock when your open house is on Rim Road. You wanna put it on the corner of, you know, the biggest intersection to get people to move there. And so it would it would relieve folks from the permitting requirement, but it would also allow them to place these signs in locations other than the approved locations. So it sort of accomplishes two things.

So we talked about mechanism. So the Lemon Lot has a process of you go to the county, you get a permit. Could we do something like that with these signs where there may be a sticker on them that shows the expiration so you can go around quickly and identify those?

Yes. So one of the ideas that we're working through internally is an idea of creating a online form that you would go in and fill out the sign, kind of give a brief description of the sign, where you intend to place it, the date you intend to place it. You'd hit submit. That would generate a number, a permit number, let's say. And then the requirement would be that that permit number is written on the back of the sign in permanent ink.

That would then give us a record. We have a database of all the signs that are out in the county, and we know when they're expiring. And we can go out there and verify a certain sign by its sort of permit number and know whether or not it's still within the sixty day allowable period or if that period has expired. Ideas like that, we're working through the sort of nuts and bolts of that. But, you know, we're really first we're really trying to sort of tackle this larger framework. Because I think once we have that information, sort of designing a process and policies around the administration of that of those regulations, I think that's something well within our capacity.

Regarding the temporary, the exemption, I would recommend that it's more than forty eight hours. Just off the top of my head, I went through, we have a state sales, farmer's market, real estate signs, the posse shack pancake. And so those are just regular signs that come up and go down. I wouldn't say they're up longer than five days. Would you do not or not?

I think Posse Shack is like Farmer's Market. Think they just put them up in the morning, and they come down when they're done, so.

So, but sixty days is a really long time. So forty eight hours to sixty days is a really long duration. It feels like maybe that exemption could be, like, even seven days.

Sure. We are happy to explore sort of a time frame that captures as much of that sort of very short duration promotion

Mhmm.

With sort of balancing that with some of the larger ambitions. And so, you know, the twenty four hours came up in a conversation I was having with the county manager today just as, like, thinking specifically around things like the farmer's market, open houses, things like that. But, yes, I, you know, acknowledge that there's several other events and activities that require signage for a short duration that may wanna be placed more sort of, you know, at other locations beyond the ones that we're contemplating for for whatever reason. And so we're happy to explore a longer sort of exemption than that. You know, I think just off the top of you know, just sort of off the cuff, I think, like, the outer range of that sort of exemption would be in the sort of five to seven day range.

But, you know, that's something we're happy to explore and and get feedback both from you all, county council, as well as members of the public who might be using that type of signage and and have some ideas about what is a reasonable sort of duration for that exemption.

So making it too long opens it up to the possibility of abuse politically. I mean, you if you have seven days, like, any seven days, just put your signs up anywhere you want for seven days, take them down. I don't know. Put them up the next weekend or wait a few days. So, yeah, I'm not sure. I think longer than twenty four, but I'd I'd be hesitant to go longer than than forty eight.

The other thing as well and why forty eight might be an appropriate length of time, you know, we are unless there's something specifically going on in the community where we need our code compliance officers working outside our standard schedule, we aren't really doing much code con code compliance work on the weekends. And so, you know, allowing realtors or other folks to be able to put out their signs for the entire weekend with the idea that they're pulling them up by Sunday evening sort of aligns with our where we are resource wise in terms of enforcement. And so, you know, that might be you know the forty eight to seventy two hour window might be something that's sort of aligned with where we are in terms of our scheduling. But, again, that's something we're happy to continue to discuss and and figure out what the right what the right amount of time is for for that exemption.

Yeah. And just you're just thinking out loud. But even with the twenty four hour thing, I mean, hypothetically, they could put it up every morning and take it down every evening if they wanted to, which I don't think we see that kind of abuse or people wanting to put that much effort into it.

I I you bring up an excellent point, commissioner Hampton. And and even with any of the options we've presented this evening, if there are community members who want to sort of take advantage of some of the limitations of our sort of ability to regulate, they are gonna be able to you know, I think what we're trying to do is set up a clear set of parameters and regulations that are easily understood and that, you know, if we 95 of actors in Los Alamos County, if they're following the rules, I think we've done a really good job. There's always gonna be that sort of edge case that you may not be able to address or or folks who wanna sort of push the boundaries a little bit. And, you know, we'll deal with those instances as they arise. But I think, you know, with options three and four that we've presented this evening, I think that addresses the majority of folks that would be doing temporary signage in the county.

And and I think, you know, those that sort of are are, as I said, pushing the boundaries, we can try to devise a way to deal with that when it happens.

A potential option for avoiding that kind of abuse would be to regulate how many how much time within a larger duration of time you can have a sign posted for that temporary twenty four, forty eight hour time period. So, like, I don't know. You can't have a sign posted for more than seven days total in a month time frame or something like that. Just numbers off the top of my mind. But I think that you could figure out a way to kind of have a combined regulation that Right. Account for that type of edge case.

I will say, just in my experience sort of on the enforcement side of things, the more nuance you add, the more difficult it is to enforce. So it was the the idea you just presented, commissioner Grimm. You know, we we don't wanna be in a position where we're sort of cataloging the number of days in a period of time a sign has been out and things like that. So we do we wanna make sure that we are not creating rules that sort of are beyond our grasp to enforce. And so that's not to say there's not an ability to inject some of that some of that sort of, as I said, nuance into the regulations.

But at a certain point, it sort of becomes more complex than we're able to administer.

Commissioner Baroll, your hand is up.

Yeah. I was just wondering I I assume you're gonna do this, but if you are going to talk with people from those sports teams, that's the the, I don't know anything about them or, like, how onerous it would be for them to have to comply, you know, go through some process. Because we do hear a lot from the community about how the county has so many regulations and roadblocks and things like that. So putting up more roadblocks to those youth sports groups, I don't know if that would get some pushback, or I just feel like it might be worth talking to some representatives from those groups.

Commissioner Brule, I think it's an excellent suggestion. I mean, I think we've just through tonight's conversation identified several groups or types of organizations in the community that this would impact, and I think it would be appropriate to try to reach out and talk to as many of those groups as we can. You know, I think ultimately what we're trying to do with our with these new regulations is is strike a balance. And so there may be a little give and take with sort of how things are currently happening worth versus how we would like them to function moving forward. But we're certainly considering and contemplating the needs of those groups as we're sort of devising some of the options we presented this evening.

Guess my other comment would be that the goalthank you, Commissioner Brule. I think my other comment and what we kind of need to present is that what we're trying to do is make our community beautiful, right? We want it to be visually attractive, not cluttered, not having the wind blow it into the canyon. And I think I would start with that, that we're looking to achieve that, and it's been identified as an issue, and this is how we're proposing to address it.

I would agree.

Any other comments, questions, concerns, feedback?

I have a comment to offer. I believe that there's a lot of information that is missing right now that I would like to see before making a recommendation. I'd like to know how many signs are put up in a year, How many of them are out of compliance with any set of recommended set of rules or current rules? How many complaints do you have? Until we have more information, I don't know whether there is a problem that needs to be solved. And maybe no action is the best action to take now. So that's my opinion.

Thank you, Commissioner Kreen. Some of the data that you mentioned, I don't know if we'd be able to produce. I think, just based off tonight's conversation, I think, moving this forward, it would be, helpful to identify what are the county rights of way versus what are not county rights of way. Just so when we're talking about potential locations, we know sort of the full complement of where we could consider creating these signage zones. Can certainly give you some information on complaints.

We received a complaint at a council meeting just the other week from one of our counselors about the proliferation of signage at the roundabout on North Mesa. And I've probably fielded five to 10 additional calls in the last few months just expressing similar concerns. I you know? And and I think folks, to their credit, have have, been empathetic to some of our challenges around both staffing and enforcement. But I think, you know, this is something that we're hearing from a number of folks in the community.

And as we're sort of embarking on doing an overall overhaul of our chapter 16, I think this is an appropriate time to sort of dive and really try to kind of put on signage here in the community. So that's, again, to commissioner Easton's point. We're really trying to sort of ensure the beauty of our community, protect our sort of natural environment, and while also balancing that with the needs of local organizations, local candidates, things like that that really wanna promote their activities here in the county. And so it's striking that right balance. I definitely think there's the potential to overreach.

However, I think some of the things we presented this evening really do sort of zero in on that sort of middle ground somewhat effectively.

Can you make this package a couple of minutes?

Absolutely. We will fix the typo referring to the Santa Fe approach and include this in the minutes for the next meeting.

Doctor. Thank you. I very much appreciate the presentation and what staff is challenged with. And it was a great discussion this evening. Yes. Commissioner Hampton. Oh, sorry.

Question regarding the high school. Contemporary signs who regulates them?

On team. Those, you know

Is there anything that we

Yes. So we have a permitting process for that. I think what we're trying to find is a permitting process for these temporary signs that is sort of better right sized to the nature of that signage. So the signs on the overpass are sort of a more regular, predictable type of signage, whereas the temporary signs are very much ad hoc. And from our own sort of staffing perspective, taking that approach for all temporary signage in the county there, in my opinion, would be overly burdensome for our internal staff.

So we're looking at alternative ways of monitoring and administering temporary signs on the rights of way that, again, find that balance between staff resourcing and our ability to sort of enforce their placement and duration in the community.

Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to the next. Communications. So a department report?

Nothing to report on, Chair.

Thank you. So I want to welcome Commissioner Grime. Thank you so much for coming this evening. We are excited to have you here. Don't read any questions. I don't think I had anything else. Counselor Hall, do you have any updates?

Yeah. Don't know what happened in news reports, but I'll just give you some highlights from the last two council meetings. Last night, we heard a petition on a to install a four way stop at Urban And North Road as as a result of a recent fatality there. That was forwarded to the county manager and probably the t board for recommendations back to council in ninety days. We heard a couple of presentations Mexico legislative session and one on the advocacy trip to Washington, DC.

We asked the Environmental Sustainability Board to propose a policy on single use plastic bags, preferably with no bag fee, and to bring something back to council in ninety days. We approved the award of a bid for fire fee expenses, but if you toured that station, you know it really is it. And we asked for a resolution, one county charter change to add an additional term for boards and commissions. That was at the request of four out of six boards and commissions that responded last December to one of the requests that I had made. And then we're gonna be looking at a couple of additional areas in the in the charter at chair Reidy's request.

We'll probably bring those back in May. In the March 31 meeting, we had a briefing on the Atomic City Transit Saturday pilot. Not sure if they're gonna resume that pilot this summer. Kinda depends on whether they have drivers available. Approved an ordinance for lease of the restaurant space at the golf course. Should see a new restaurant there lessons for Sala. Anything any questions?

No. Thank you for being Any

and planning and Answer that right now. That's Rural?

We were back on imprisonment. Any other commissioners? Yes.

Had it.

So Thank you.

But apparently there's a long standing concern about the speed of people