Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Easton? Here. Commissioner Hampton?

Here.

Commissioner Best? Here. Commissioner Brown? Commissioner Bruhl?

Here.

Commissioner Cream?

Here.

Commissioner Grimm? Here. Commissioner Nelson? Commissioner White? We have a quorum. Thank you.

At this time, I will invite any of the public online or in chambers to come forward. This is open to public comment for anything not on the agenda this evening. Is there anyone online?

Okay.

I'm presenting the agenda for approval by the commission Has everyone had a chance to look at the agenda? And I'm looking for a motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Crean. A second? I second.

Thank you. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Thank you. Moving on to approval of the minutes from May 13th, 2026. A draft of the minutes is in the packet. Have you all had a chance to review it? Are there any changes that you saw? If not, I'm looking for a motion to approve.

I moved to approve the minutes.

And I second. Can we go ahead and have a roll call vote on that?

Commissioner Easton? Yes. Commissioner Hampton?

Yes.

Commissioner Best? Yes. Commissioner Brown? Commissioner Bruhl? Yes. Commissioner Crean?

Yes.

Commissioner Grimm? Yes. Commissioner Nelson? Commissioner White? And passed.

Thank you. We will now move on to the public hearing portion of our meeting this evening. We are going to be discussing case number ZCA-2026-0019, The Los Alamos County Community Development Department requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to County Council to adopt the Incorporated County of Los Alamos Code Ordinance number 02-371, amending Chapter 16 Development Code, Article 5, Administration and Enforcement, including updates to Sections 16-68 through 16-75. including 16-79, 16-81, 16-83, 16-84, 16-91 through 16-93, and 16-98 to update neighborhood meetings and public notice procedures, clarify review and decision-making authority to make technical corrections to improve clarity, consistency, and compliance within the development code. The applicant is Elias Isaacson of the Community Development Director on behalf of Los Alamos County, and the case manager is Danielle Valdez. the planning manager. The summary of it is case numbers ZCA-2026-0019 is a text amendment Application for consideration to change portions of the Los Alamos County Development Code through Ordinance Number 02-371. The proposals are part of an ongoing cleanup process intended to address technical errors, omissions, and inconsistencies identified since Development Code was repealed and replaced in January of 2023. The intent of the proposed changes is to improve clarity, consistency by correcting issues in the procedures, cross-references, and terminology to make the code more effective for staff, applicants, and the public. In addition, the changes enhance transparency and due process by clarifying processes and notification requirements. Lastly, the amendments streamline procedures by simplifying the implementation of the code by removing redundant and confusing language and supporting sufficient administration of application procedures. Do I need to swear you in? Yeah. I believe I do.

This is legislative, so there's no swearing in. There's no swearing in.

Okay, great. Perfect. Thank you, Ms. Valdez.

If you'd like to make a presentation of the application. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Chair. Good evening, Commission. My name is Danielle Valdez. I am the Planning Manager for Community Development Department. And tonight we'll be discussing another amendment to our code. And this is case ZCA-2026-0019. And we are asking the Commission tonight to make a recommendation for our amendment to Council. So tonight's presentation is focused on Article 5. As an introduction, Chapter 16 of the Los Alamos Development Code, the Los Alamos County Code, the Development Code is Los Alamos County's primary tool for implementing the Comprehensive Plan and regulating land use and development. This specific code was adopted in January 2023. Chapter 16 modernized zoning regulations and procedures to guide growth and redevelopment. Since adoption in 2023, staff have identified technical errors, omissions and inconsistencies within the code's administrative procedures, as well as cross references and terminology. Ordinance 02-371 focuses on Article 5, administration and enforcement. So the ordinance corrects issues to improve clarity, consistency, effectiveness for staff, applicants and the public. This is just background of where we were, where we started and where we are now. So January 2023 was when the initial Chapter 16 was adopted. When it was repealed and replaced in 2024, staff initiated the development code cleanup. In November 2024, Ordinance 02-362 amended Chapter 16, Article 5. It clarified approval authority for minor zone map amendments, and P&Z Commission unanimously recommended approval on September 25th, 2024. November 19th, Phase 1 cleanup began. Articles 1 and 5, typographical errors and non-substantive omissions, and then P&Z unanimously recommended approval on October 9th. on september 10th 2025 ordinance number zero two three seven zero zca twenty twenty five zero zero one eight was our phase two cleanup uh article three use regulations and article six definitions a little bit of chapter 16 explained for everyone um we know our commission is familiar with chapter 16 But we are, this is a request to council and we want to ensure that everyone understands what these chapters are. So Article 1 is the governing provisions, and this is what allows the county, it explains the purpose, it allows authority, its applicability, interpretation, relation to other laws, severability, and vested rights for Los Alamos County. Article 2 is zone districts, defines zone districts intent, permitted conditional uses, zoning maps, and boundaries. Article 3 is use regulations. It regulates land use, including the use table, accessory and temporary uses, standards for specific uses. Article 4 is our development standards. These are lot and building standards, parking standards, landscape signage, lighting, screening, open space, infrastructure, ADUs and parking. Article five is administration and enforcement roles and authority application procedures review process hearings variances appeals and enforcement. And then article six is definitions so tonight we're focused on article five and that's highlighted in red. An explanation of the format of the ordinance that you've received in your agenda packet. Code ordinance 023371 is a markup of the existing development code and staff's recommended changes. The strikethrough represents deletions of what is currently in the code and what we're taking out. These are items that will be removed through this amendment. And then the underlined text represents additions. These are new provisions that do not currently exist and are being added to the code through this amendment. Here is our Chapter 16 amendments timeline. In fall 2025, our goal was to complete Article 3 and Article 6. We completed that in December 2025, and that went into effect in January 2026. Articles 1 and 5, this is what is currently in progress and what is being presented tonight. Our goal is to have this done and adopted by July 2026. We are currently on track. And then Article 2 and Article 4, oh, I guess I should mention, we didn't have any changes in Article 1. It did not need to be changed. Article 2 and Article 4 are our bigger substantive changes, and those will be going through after we adopt the comprehensive plan, because the comprehensive plan will guide those changes for zoning, for ADUs, for parking, for all of our development standards. So I won't go through these individually because there were a lot of changes. If there was something that stood out to you in the ordinance or something you have a question on, please let me know. But the following tables and slides will summarize everything we've done. So for our table 49 in the procedure summary table, We removed sketch plat and included that into the process for subdivision preliminary plat. So now we don't have to come to you all twice, once for sketch and once for preliminary and then again, or three times and then again for final. So now we've included the sketch process through an administrative process, which is a lot more efficient and cost effective for the county as well as the applicant. We've changed to neighborhood meetings. The applicant is now responsible for noticing, conducting, and documenting the pre-application E&N meetings, so like their early neighborhood meeting that they're having. This was an elected meeting before if the neighbor's They would get noticed previously. They would decide on whether or not they wanted to have the meeting. They would respond back. It was a very complicated process. Now we're requiring the meeting, and the applicant is responsible for having that meeting. Public notice, our notice period extended from 14 days to 15 days for published, posted, and mailed notices. The applicant must post the sign on their property, submit a signed affidavit and a photo, and then a failure to meet deadlines will postpone the hearing. But we changed this from staff's responsibility to go on site and post a notice sign on private property. It created a little bit of, it created liability for staff to go onto private property. So in order to take that out, we gave this to the applicant. We will be providing the signs. We will be providing all of the information on the signs. They'll just be responsible for posting it and sending us a confirmation it was posted.

Do you want to have dialogue or do you want to review everything?

It is up to you. So if you want to, I guess, ask questions. So yeah, I'm fine answering questions as we go.

I think we should ask questions. It should be more of a discussion.

Certainly.

So I have a question. What was behind, you said the liability, but I'm a little concerned about putting it on the applicant. Was there something else driving that? Yes. What about the notification mailing?

We were doing mailings. So we still do mailings. We still do mailings. We still do published in the local publication and we're still doing the signs. So, In other jurisdictions, Santa Fe specifically, there were property owners threatening staff from Santa Fe City when they were going on to property posting signs. So if an appeal was being completed for a property, the property owner was threatening staff not to enter the property. So In order to kind of alleviate that, before it happened, we made it the responsibility of the property owner to post their sign on their property. So we will, again, we will provide everything to them. It is just their responsibility to go onto their own property and post the sign.

But they're also responsible for hosting the meeting?

If the application requires a neighborhood meeting prior to the application, not a planning and zoning meeting, we are still responsible for that. If they're required to hold, and I believe it's only a rezoning, there might be specific ones. So there's only a few major ones that require neighborhood meetings. They are required to notice their own meeting.

Okay.

of course if they don't do it then that is the app they have to provide us with proof and that is included and so they have their um sign-in sheet uh summary of the meeting and any um comments or concerns from the public and then how they they are addressing those concerns okay all right so go ahead would staff then not be attending those meetings Currently, staff has never been required to attend the meeting. It has always been staff will notice, wait for a response from the surrounding vicinity, and then tell the applicant that they were responsible to have a meeting. So it was never a requirement for us to hold the meeting. It was very ambiguous in the code. So we just cleaned that up to make it where it was required for those applications that could or could not provide a meeting, we made them provide it. And now we'll confirm that all noticing requirements have been met, but we will not be the ones responsible for waiting for neighbors to respond back. We just took that out completely.

Any other questions on that topic?

Okay. Go ahead. I made my notes by page number, so I don't know if it's different from the sections that you've got here. Like I had a question on page 16, but I don't know if you've heard that or not yet.

I have the ordinance. What is your question?

Just that number two, could you explain, is that just a wording change or is a process being changed?

You're referring to public hearing requirements? Yes.

Just the number two on the top of page 16 in our packet anyway, which might be page three of attachment A. Yeah, so it's under section 1668.

That is the top topic, the community development department and community development director.

Oh, gotcha. Okay, so our pages are numbered differently. So it's which section?

That number two there where there's all the deletions and additions, I couldn't quite tell if that was just cleaning up language or if something substantive was actually being changed there.

We didn't change anything majorly. So we cleaned up the language so it was more clear. So previously it said in performing the duties and activities stated in this section, the community development director or designee may refer any determines that the application otherwise subject to administrative decision. So we changed it to take out the extra verbiage and to try to make it more clear. We didn't change it to add any other additional steps. So the community development director or designee may refer any application otherwise subject to administrative decision under this section to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So if it is... Within our purview, but we are unsure if we want to be the ones to make the decision, we want to bring it to you for a discretionary decision.

OK. And that's how it was before?

Correct. It was just worded a little bit more confusing.

Great. Thank you. Thank you.

So I'm going to move on to the next slide. Public hearing procedures, we just discussed that. Appeals. We cleaned this up, 15 calendar days from the final written decision, administrative and quasi-judicial, record and briefing schedule updated. We have a briefing of 14 days now, and then our permit expirations and extensions, we ran into a little bit of an issue with understanding some of the language previously in what the way that it read for whose authority it was under for an extension. So we cleaned that up as well. Division three, administrative decisions, permit procedures, applicant descriptions are clarified, redundant language has been removed, quasi-judicial decisions, conditional use permit criteria has been cleaned up, our site plan application threshold and exception categories have been updated, and our subdivision sketch plot has been removed. And then with legislative decisions, text amendment decision criteria retained policy decisions and replaced it with legislative decisions. And that was for consistency. It states legislative throughout the code. We changed it to just be consistent with the rest of the code. Zone map amendment and historic district procedures. There's some cross references and applicant descriptions corrected. We do refer to zoning maps that we never adopted with the historic district historic district overlay so we didn't remove those in this because eventually we may adopt them but if we don't we'll change that when we decide make that decision later with article two and article four so we didn't want to change something here to have to come back and change it again

I had a couple other questions, but I don't know, again, if we've passed those sections or not. What page is it? Page 33 in our packet, which is page 20 of Attachment A. It was just where the written recommendation explaining the decision within 10 days of the conclusion of the hearing was crossed out. Like in a couple places, there was a deadline that was removed, but then it was It says pursuant to 16-72. So is there a time limit in there or no?

We try to get them done as quickly as possible. But these are the findings, the final orders that are issued from legal for the case to the chair to sign and sign off on. 10 days wasn't a reasonable amount of time given a lot of workload. So we didn't want the code holding us to a 10-day deadline. specification. If we can't always meet those 10 days, we typically do. But in some cases, we don't. So we didn't want that to be codified where it's holding us to 10 days.

But now it could be like three years until you write, there's nothing to our legal team would never let us. But legally, it could be because there's no deadline anymore.

Technically, there's not a deadline that we have established within replacing the 10 days. So technically, I don't know if we could legally. I'm sure there's a state statute somewhere that would bind us to getting them completed in a timely manner. But I'll let Katie's raising her hand.

Yeah. Chair, Commissioner, yeah, there is no statutory requirement just like in district court or a court of appeals or the Supreme Court, but it is part of due process that you have to have a decision. So there... Like, like Danielle said, we try to do it as soon as possible. Sometimes there's errors or delays with the technology. So we can't do, we have to wait for the video to be put up so we can do minute and minute and hour stamps to be able to, to cite. Um, some things are just totally outside of our control and the 10 days just is impossible actually. Um, so, um, we, we would be in legal peril if we didn't issue a decision. the applicant or the interested parties have a right to a decision. And if we didn't issue one, the county would be liable for that.

But someone might have to sue. I mean, I guess I feel like there's a perception that the county lacks transparency. I don't agree that that's true. But something like this, where you take out a deadline for the county to provide an explanation and just say, there's no more deadline, I think feeds into that.

I understand that. But also referring to the courts where there is no deadline. I mean, it's as soon as the judge or the court can get a decision and that's how we operate.

Sorry, I'm pondering that. I see where she's coming from. But I would also say we had it as 10 days. How many times do we blow through the 10 days and nobody said anything and there are no consequences for it?

Or we could put in, say, six months or something, you know, I mean.

Something so that at least you have.

We can we can definitely put in, I would say, a 60 day is reasonable. So other jurisdictions around northern New Mexico, it's when their legal department gets it onto the council agenda. typically it's one to two months later. So you will have your hearing and then they will get their findings of fact and conclusions of law onto the agenda to be voted on in the next council meeting that it can make. It is within reasonable accommodation within their codes. So it's 60 days would be adequate for us to, again, you know, we get it done pretty quickly most of the time. However, there are those times where it can go three, four weeks. So, um, it's in my experience here, it's not gone longer than four weeks, but we can, you know, we can add a 60 day, um, limit in there.

Commissioner Rule, would you like to make a modification to this recommendation of 60 days?

There were spots too. Page 38 is the other one I have written down.

So tell me which reference, are you doing the upper right?

I'm just doing like an Adobe Acrobat. Up here? No.

Or down here?

That page down there is on page 20. Okay.

Let me catch up. I want to make sure I'm taking these notes because I have to Review and approve. So page 20 would be looks like that. Yeah. Okay. And then you saw which section was it that it's number 10. So we're going to propose is modify it for 60 days rather than strike the within 10 days of the conclusion of the hearing.

So we won't strike the 10 days. We'll replace 10 with 60.

Are there any other commissioners that want to have a weigh in on this or have an opinion about this? They don't know. Okay. Okay.

All right. And then there's another one on page 25 of that same page number. And those were the only two places where I saw

That's 14 days public hearing section five.

Yeah.

Okay. So that'd be in 60 days still seems reasonable for that as well. That would be page upper right would be 38. Above the attachment would be 25 as a reference. Let me see if I can find a section. It's under what's the section for this to go back away sometimes it's The appeal procedure five, record and briefing, application withdrawals, hearing procedures, final decisions. It would be under the final decisions. Is that helpful or not?

Yeah, I can make note of that.

Okay. Because what struck is within 14 days of the public hearing on item five would be modified to, instead of striking, modify it to 60 days. And you indicated...

There's only the one 10 days that struck out on attachment A, page 20 of the text. But maybe there are other limits that I didn't notice.

So I will take some time because I think I'm going to have to approve this. Am I correct? Yes.

Go straight. The recommendation? Yeah, you would need to approve the recommendation.

Okay, so I'm just going to take a note. Any place that I see a strikeout on days, I'm going to make sure that I'm going to modify it. I'm going to be looking for modification to 60. If we all agree that's reasonable for staff and Commissioner Brewer.

I'm happy with whatever. I just think there should be a deadline in there. Okay. No disagreement. I feel better about that.

Okay. Divisions 4, 5, and 6. Let me get to that.

I have another question on page 21 of Attachment A. Okay. Under Appeals. Okay.

Sorry, we're going back a little bit.

Yes.

Bear with us.

It's page 34 of our packet.

Yes.

The

section a appealable action was that was taken out i just didn't understand what that meant for that to be removed so for the engineer or the county utilities manager to require an impact report if we need an impact report it should not be an appealable action so if the county engineer determines that you need a soils report or a grading and drainage report um that should not be an appealable action. So if his decision is that based off of the safety and welfare of the county, why would we allow someone to appeal it that they didn't need it?

Okay, that makes sense. Why was it in there? Do you know?

We have a feeling that a lot of this was copied and pasted. So when we catch things like that, we want to make sure that does not apply here if the county engineer and dpu determine that you need something you need it we're not going to allow you to to appeal that decision could could that also refer to the opposite if the county engineer or county utilities manager determined that you don't need one that that could be appealed so they would need within the code there's a table on why and when they need it um so based off of The development itself, there's not, to answer your question, no. There's not a way to appeal for them to require something. However, that could also be at the discretion of the board. We could delay their hearing and say, like, we do not feel comfortable with your grading and drainage plan. You're draining into the canyon. And the engineer didn't catch that in their review. We don't feel comfortable. We would like a drainage report. That is a condition that you are allowed to place on that application.

Okay, cool. So deleting this particular bullet point does not remove that possibility?

Does not remove that authority that we have to require or not require a technical expert report.

Thank you. Thank you.

Let me catch up to where we are on divisions four, five, and six.

I think there's also a hand that's been raised online. Oh, I'll get there. Or you think it is page 60?

It's not time for public.

Thank you for your patience. I had notes in here as well. We'll catch it as we go by.

You indicated page 60.

Yeah, so before we go to 4, 5, and 6, there's a couple questions before we get there. I've got to find mine. So 60, the change on 60 is related to G variances, item 1, applicability. Okay. What was your question on that?

Are you referring to the page in your packet or the page in the ordinance?

This would be the number above the attachment. If I was looking at the package, it's page 73 in the upper right corner, if that's helpful.

And if you're looking at the ordinance, it's page 60?

No. Are you talking about my question?

No, your question.

My question is page 60 in the packet and page 47 in the attachment. Okay.

Okay, sorry. I'm on page 47 of the ordinance.

Yeah. So that's at the top where it says applicability. And then there's just a there was a big deletion and then addition there.

And I wasn't sure what it's section 1674. G, the variance applicability.

It says and summary plat.

Okay, so Katie, I see where you are. So it's page 47 of the ordinance.

Correct.

I don't know what page it is in the agenda packet. 60. 60 in the agenda packet. So on summary plat, the applicability. So summary plat applications requesting any associated variances shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Section 1674F. So we didn't change that requirement. We cleared it. We clarified what it meant. So no variances shall be granted through the summary plat administrative review. So that means me and Eli cannot... Correct. We cannot approve a variance to a summary plot. You would not see a summary plot otherwise unless it had a variance. So we just cleared up that information. Does that answer the question? Yes, thank you. Thank you. I'm ready when you guys are. Was there other questions?

Yeah, give me a minute. I'm playing. I wasn't sure.

We were thinking or waiting on you.

Have a drink. We'll get to it. I do have a question on the ordinance, page 64, upper right, 77. Exceptions of site plan shall not be required for the following developments. Construction of individual single dwelling, construction of individual single family, two family dwelling, um, existing interior of existing structure facade changes was struck and, um, quite a bit was added to construction of a shade or accessory structure under 120 square feet.

Um, can you give me some background on, on so language background was the, we realized that this language was ambiguous, um, And it wasn't clear on what needed and what didn't need a site plan. So we believed the rock needed a site plan with the change of use and the interior modifications as well as the site itself. We discussed this back and forth with the architect who referenced the code to state that he did not need that. But the code read too many different ways. So we needed to clear it up that Certain things do need it and certain things don't. These are the exceptions of what don't. So previously an accessory structure needed a minor site plan amendment or site plan amendment. We can, our building department requires a building permit at 120 square feet for commercial. We kept that number and we, we kept that number from the building requirements and added that into our code language as well. So that way it, if you were only doing this or something smaller, you didn't need to come into planning and zoning for your pergola. So that was kind of that that's where the background for this came from. We just wanted to make it easier and more clear.

That's very helpful. So we ended up that was driven by something that actually happened. Yes. So some things come from just administrative and some come from somebody tried it and it didn't work.

Okay.

Thank you for that. Are we ready to move on to divisions four, five and six, everyone? I'm so sorry.

I have a question from way at the beginning.

Okay, that's why we're here.

This is on page five of attachment A or page 18 of the agenda packet. Bullet D under number six has been struck out. Can you give me a bit more background on that?

So we did not want to be able to defer for more than 60 calendar days. We want to get applications to you all as quickly as possible. So if the applicant wants to defer, we don't need that in code. But we also don't want to be held to a code standard that we wouldn't hold ourselves to. We want to get them done as quickly as possible. We want to get them in front of Planning and Zoning Commission for our schedules. We do have an adopted schedule that we follow. you submit your application by a certain day, you come to planning and zoning by a certain day, the 60 days made it strange. So we also, if we come here and we need to delay, we have 21 days from the date of the hearing to postpone to a later hearing date. We feel like that is without noticing, re-noticing. Otherwise, we would re-notice for a different hearing date. So it was just language that was unnecessary.

Although it sounds like this is an action that would be taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission, not by county staff.

Yes and no. We both can delay and defer meetings to a later date. So it's If we're doing that, we can do that in the meeting. We don't need to do it for 60 days, 21 for no re-notice, or later if we need them to clarify and they need more time. Typically, we don't want to hold an applicant longer than what we need for the next meeting or the following meeting after that. We want to make sure that they can get their application complete and through.

Thank you. Any other questions? Phil Gursky has his hand raised.

We can wait till public comment until after the presentation. Thank you.

Mr. Gursky, we will have an opportunity for you to raise your questions. But at this time, it's the commission and staff.

Okay.

Um, all right. So we're moving on unless anyone else has any further questions prior to, okay. Um, sections divisions four or five and six nonconformities construction and enforcement.

So we have nonconformities here. Um, we changed this, uh, minor repair maintenance, uh, definition was refined. Um, Compliant alterations may modify the footprint. So this also came up from another case that we experienced. The county was improving a playground in open space they were maintenancing it and making sure that it was safe for people to play on. However, in the open space that it was built on 25, 30 years ago, it was no longer a allowed legal conforming use. So we could not allow the county to improve the playground we could only allow them to maintenance the playground. So that seemed very strange. So we did modify that. And it is within a certain percentage. It's not within, you know, you can't now build a 10-story playground in the same space that you had a merry-go-round and some monkey bars. But it is for... these types of reasons. You have a use that people still use, but because of the code adoption in 2023, it's now legal non-conforming. You should be able to, you know, improve and modify that use. Construction improvements, county acceptance, monuments, and general construction standards. We did a minor terminology cleanup. This section here is mainly our building department and our public works department. We don't have a lot of this authority within the planning division. We assist Public Works in their easement acceptance and in their monument acceptance and in their final requirements before we do a final sign off. But we just wanted to clean it up so that everything was a little bit more clear and transparent for whose duties were what and what we actually do there. And then violations, enforcement, and penalties. Violations and enforcement are a CDD authorized division. They're not planning or planning and zoning. Violations and enforcement go to code compliance. We cleaned this up. But then code compliance has their procedures that they go through.

So I do have some questions. Under general construction standards, you added a section, I, techniques to prevent the blowing of dust or sediment from a site such as watering down exposed areas are required for projects that disturb greater than 5,000 square feet and alternate forms shall be readily available and used if watering is not. What is an alternate form?

We don't know that was an engineering thing. So apparently there are other ways to control dust. I don't know, maybe tarps. I have no idea. I can find out and get clarification, but watering seems like the only way I've ever dealt with dust control or dust mitigation, mediation. So I'm not, I'm assuming tarps or some type of like SWPPP.

So that's language that came straight from the engineering department. So the 5,000 criteria was there.

This is language that we discussed.

Yes. Okay. I probably would suggest putting something a little more than alternative forms. You know, give a couple examples. I just think anybody reading this would be... Can you let me know the page? Yes. So it's ordinance page 80. And in the upper right, it's 93. Okay. So it's the second to last page of the ordinance. That just seems very strange from a language perspective, and the lay person wouldn't understand that. And I think if we're going to do code changes, the lay person should be able to interpret it.

Similarly, the language shall be readily available doesn't specify by whom.

Or by when. I see the issue with the sentence. And I recall that we added it in case there was a different way besides watering. So we couldn't, we didn't want to hold someone to just watering if there was an alternative being discussed otherwise. So I'll get clarification on that. I'll make note of it. Do you have a recommendation as far as change an amendment? Is there language that you can think of that I don't,

you could say something like alternate methods that would achieve the same end or something like that.

I feel like that's just changing the language, like the sentence around, it kind of leads us in the same position that leaves it open. Yeah. Leave like food determines what is acceptable. I guess at that point, would it be the count? I can, I can change it. Um, and I can add a note, um, Or I can take out the whole sentence.

You could just say techniques to prevent the blowing of dust or sediment are required. Or must be provided by the contractor or whoever we're saying has to do it. Contractor is responsible for...

Mitigating blowing dust.

Yeah, controlling blowing dust. We can pull from the language on the minutes. I won't write that down. So when we go through, I'll grab your language, Commissioner Brewer, and create something that's clearer than what we added.

And then I have a section on the penalty for violation of code. Are we talking code 16?

We're talking code 16 and 18. 18. Does 18 is environmental? There's one where it's environmental and nuisances. So I'm pretty positive it's 18. But 16 and 18.

Have we ever implemented this? Have we ever applied this to anybody?

From my understanding, we have taken two since I've been here, to gone through the legal process with code violators. Both, I think, were the same person, actually. So it's happened... Yes, once since I have. We try to accommodate people who are trying to come into compliance with something that they've done against code or something that they're out of code with. But typically, we try not to go the legal route that isn't in the benefit of anyone.

Since this is something that the legal would use, I'm going to ask Ms. Thwaites, is this language tight enough for if the county does need to go after code violators?

Madam Chair, so I was not... With regard to this, I don't know the reasoning from removing Section 1-8 and just putting general provisions. It is the same thing. If you look at Section 1-8, it is entitled general provisions and 1-8 is the general penalty provision. From a clarity perspective, I think Section 1-8 of the code is clearer than adding the general provisions so long as we're intending it to be the same thing, which I believe we are.

This is your opportunity if we don't think this language is tight enough or if there's too many gray areas, it doesn't apply to fix it. So I guess what I'm really asking is, did we look at this from that perspective and do we think it's sufficient?

I would recommend that we keep sections 1-8 and then do comma general provisions of this code. That way we have the section quite clear. Okay. The general penalty provision actually would even be more clear. General penalty? Yes.

I'm making that recommendation that we make that change then. Any further discussion or questions? Commissioner Best? Okay. No. Thank you. Okay.

That and that can conclude my presentation. And then we can take questions from the public. I should I affirm after before I answer questions doesn't matter. Okay.

All right. At this time, we will open the conversation up to the public on this topic. And Mr. Gursky, can you identify yourself, where you live? And we don't need to swear them in, correct? This is legislative. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Gursky.

Yes, Bill Gursky, 2025 East Amos Road. I just had, as a developer, I just had a couple of comments on the removal of the timeframes or the appealability of the discussion about impact reports. We go through a lot of time, very shortened timeframe constraints to take applications, review them and get them to planning and zoning. It could be an extremely expensive proposition for a developer if it's then 60 days after the hearing that nothing can go forward when we were at 15 days before. I think that 60 days strikes me as an extremely long period in relation to everything else that the code has for notice and actions by the council. And I would say with respect to the impact reports Some of those impact reports could be $100,000 or more to cost. The inability to say they don't meet the standards that are in the tables for the impact reports and you can't proceed without putting these in without any say about that seems like it may be infrequent, but it could be very expensive. kind of proposition having no ability to come to planning and zoning uh and say you know what this is excessive cost or it's not consistent with your recommendations or your standards for applying them so these are these are just from my perspective are just a question of of the degree to which um we work very quickly and very hard in the county to get things heard and approved. We'd like to see that the process follows through in the same kind of speed time frame.

We have the actual fastest entitlement process in the state of New Mexico, including the fastest turnaround permit process. So turnaround time is not an issue with the county. I agree with Quickness as a former development consultant for a private developer. I agree with expediting as much as possible and that is what we do. However, I also need to protect the safety and welfare and disagreeing with a technical report because you disagree with it, it's expensive and takes a long time, does not benefit the welfare and the safety of the community.

Can I make just a comment on that?

Certainly.

I'm not suggesting that we disagree with cost. There are standards for when those are usable. And if it's imposed, we have absolutely no recourse for approval of the process. if the appealability of a decision to require those are there, they have no, you can't proceed with your process without what could be very expensive ones. And you may honestly disagree that the standards would either require them. So it's just a question of having no recourse on what might be a decision. I haven't really run into that one. It's just That's just a potential that we've never had to worry about it because it was always possible to say, hey, I disagree. Let's appeal or review that one if we need it.

Mr. Gursky, this is the chair. Can you go to where in the ordinance you're speaking to?

He's speaking about the ability to appeal the county engineer's decision or DPU's decision to require technical reports.

What page is that in the ordinance that we're talking about? What page?

I don't know what I don't have your ordinance one in front of you. It was one of you just you were just discussing when I raised my hand.

It's page 21.

First, the first available decision general determination of the county engineer or county utilities manager to require or not require any or all of the impact reports. All right. Your comment is noted and we appreciate your participation. Were there any other items in the ordinance that you wanted to discuss or comment on?

There was just one comment and I think it's probably just a clarity item. It may have been existing before. Unfortunately, I have it by the section number. It's in the quasi-judicial hearing provisions.

Bear with us while we get there, if you would. We just all want to be on the same page.

Right. It's listed as, Danielle may be able to cross-reference it, 1672 F5A8, which you're talking about five is procedures for quasi-judicial hearings. And this must be just the way it's drafted. In this, we may just say that it's not confusing.

Section 5, I have in the ordinance, page 18, upper right hand is 31. Which section are we talking that you're interested in?

It's subsection 8 on cross-examination.

Section 8, conduct of quasi-judicial hearings. Item 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Which of those?

So I moved off of that. Okay, proceedings, section eight.

Section 8, that's page upper right, page 32, page 19 of the ordinance, 18, or sorry, 8. So testimony at the hearing shall be under oath or affirmation. And then what was added is, as directed by the presiding official, the applicant, any affected party and any county staff may cross-examine. That's what was added. Any persons presenting information and what was struck was at the public hearing would be permitted by the applicant, any affected party, and county staff as directed by the presiding official. That looks like language cleanup.

You just changed the structure of the sentence.

So that's language cleanup.

I agree with that, but the point I'm making is not the language cleanup. To the extent that the question that the presiding official may direct or not direct cross-examination, if that's what that,

It's not. It's exactly what it said before. It's just the directed is now in a different section to make it more understandable.

I agree, but as you're cleaning this one up, the possibility that the presiding officer may direct or not direct cross-examination both contributes due process as well as the section.

But it's also as directed by the presiding official, the applicant, any affected party, and county staff. So it's all of the above have the...

opportunity to cross-examine as directed.

So when read together, it still says the same thing, and everyone still has that same opportunity.

If that is how it's read, because clearing it up before, as directed by the presiding officer referred to

But you're stopping at official instead of reading it with a comma. No, I understand. Comma, not a period.

I was looking if it's just intended to be a cleanup. I'm only I'm only concerned if the reading is that it's any one of them regarding that. And it's not the conduct of the hearing and the presiding officials direction with respect to.

I think we're good on that one. Any others that you'd like to have a discussion about?

No, no. Those were the only comments I had.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate you participating. Any other questions or comments? Do we put this to a vote then? Yes. I need a motion. It's in your packet. So the commission shall make a recommendation to the county council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. If the commission fails to convene a quorum or make a recommendation, the application shall move to the council without a recommendation unless the applicant waives this requirement and agrees in writing to any additional planning, zoning, commission meetings, development code section 16-72F. So I'm looking for a motion to approve, approve with conditions.

We need to approve.

Yes.

I don't think you need to add those as conditions. We can make those before.

I would note it in the minutes that we have made some suggested.

Kristen, can you note, I think there was three or four suggestions on the dates, everything we discussed to reflect for our legislative committee.

We're going to get a legal opinion here. Madam Chair, thank you. Right. So in your motion, if you're going to go with the recommended motion, I would advise that you recommend to approve blah, blah, blah with the additional amendments as discussed. What I have notes on are page 20 and 25 to change the dates of the decision from 10 to 14 to both 60 days. to have staff bring back a recommended language on page 80 regarding the alternate forms of dust control and that on page 81 to make the modification for section 1-8 the general penalty provision so to add that into your motion and I believe I caught everything but if not please add whatever else I missed

Okay. I will make the motion then because I have notes.

That's probably easier, the alternate motion. Okay. I hadn't scrolled down that far.

One. Okay. I'm going to make a motion. I move to recommend the county council approve case number ZCA20260019, a request by the Los Alamos County Community Development Department on behalf of the incorporated county of Los Alamos to amend the Los Alamos County Development Code Article 5 administration and enforcement, including updates to sections, 16-68 through 16-75, 16-79, 16-81, 16-83, 16-84, 16-91. through 16-93 and 16-98 to update neighborhood meeting and public notice procedures, clarify review and decision-making authority, and make technical corrections to improve clarity, consistency, and compliance within development code with the following changes to ordinance number 02-371. The additional amendments as discussed and directed, changes to page 14, 20, sorry, I'm going to say this is the ordinance page 20, 25 to change the stripe dates to modify them from 10 and 14 to 60 days. On page 80 to modify the added language regarding dust to clarify the And the last is to modify page 81 to modify the reference to section one dash eight. Is that enough? Okay. So I've made a motion. Thank you, Mr. Crane. Uh, if we could go to a roll call, please.

Commissioner Easton.

Yes.

Commissioner Hampton.

Yes.

Commissioner Best? Yes. Commissioner Bruhl? Yes. Commissioner Crean?

Yes.

Commissioner Grimm? Yes. Motion passed.

Thank you. We will now move on to the section of the meeting regarding commission and director communications. Is there a department report?

We've got nothing for you. Oh, sorry, before I survey for the comp plan, survey number two, this is the vision scenarios. Please log in to planlosalamos.org and take our second survey. It is open until July 11th. And then there will be a comprehensive plan update to council on the 14th.

I tried to follow the link that I don't know where it was, like in the LA Daily Post or on Facebook somewhere. And it did not work. It didn't send you to the right one at all. It didn't. It just sent me to the general page. And then when I got to the page, I had to scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll. And I saw like a little thing that said Take the survey, and when I clicked on that, it was like 404 not found. Is it the Los Alamos County page or the planlosalamos.org page? It was probably the Los Alamos County page, but I'm not sure.

Okay, I'll address that with our marketing CIO, but please go to planlosalamos.org. That is the comp plan update.

Do we know where this is being advertised? Because I'm assuming the survey is for the public.

It is being advertised social media, we are posting flyers with QR codes. It is being advertised in the LA Daily Post, we are going through the avenues that without with the exception of mailing out letters to individual to everyone in this almost county. We're trying to get as many participants as possible.

As commissioners, I would hope that as ambassadors for this that you're out talking to neighbors and friends as well. This is a great opportunity. So thank you for that.

Anything else? That's that is it.

Right. So for my report, first of all, I want to welcome Commissioner Best. We're very excited to have you. Sorry for sort of the short notice, but we're very glad you were able to show up this evening. And we look forward to you being in chambers the next time we have a meeting. We have a meeting. I heard the second week in July or the second Wednesday in July.

Second Wednesday in July, we'll have two cases for you. Des, let me confirm, but we don't have a first meeting in July. Is that correct? We have no cases.

We don't have any applications unless you would like to meet.

Unless you guys would like to meet. For no reason, we don't have anything for you.

That sounds like a lot of fun. Thank you. So hopefully we'll see you in mid-July. Also, I wanted to, because I don't think I brought this up the last time we met, I did present the Planning and Zoning Annual Report to Council on May 12th, and I pulled it up and I just, this meeting tonight was on our work plan. So I just want to commend staff for continuing as we work through that. There's a couple of things that I'll bring up maybe the next time we meet, just to make sure that by the end of the year, we have things accomplished. That's all I have for the chair's report at this time. Our counselor, Haveman, is here. I invite you if you'd like to make a report.

Thank you, Chair Easton. I'm Susie Haveman, County Councilor. County Council met last night for a work session in White Rock. It was another very long meeting. We started with a presentation from one of your counterparts, the Art and Public Places Board, highlighting all the new public art maintenance and placement. I hope you've all seen the new mosaic mural on the Justice Center building. It's beautiful on Trinity Drive. We also received an update regarding the engineering study and then the follow-up installation of a four-way stop sign at Urban Street and North Roads near Mountain School and Urban Park. It's been very well received so far. One of Council's top strategic priorities is to address housing affordability and supply especially for what we call the missing middle. So we received a very thorough and comprehensive and detailed presentation from our housing manager, Dan Osborne. In summary, the affordable housing plan approved a couple years ago said that we need about 2400 new housing units across Los Alamos County to achieve affordability and vitality goals that we have. So he reviewed about 10 active housing projects that are in process as we speak that offer an array of options in both housing type, price, location. They include a whole bunch of different projects that have probably mostly all crossed your guys' desks. So thank you for your part in that. I want to make sure, too, that you know that you can go to the county website, search word housing, and you can see an interactive map. of the different housing projects, where they are and what's going on with them. So that's kind of a new cool tool we have. Switching gears to another council goal for clean renewable energy. We heard an update about progress with Foxtail Flats, which is Northwest of Farmington. It's going to generate solar power with backup battery storage to Los Alamos, the lab, Sandia National Lab and Kirkland Air Force Base. It's gonna generate about 500,000 megawatt hours every year And just to give you context, the average house in New Mexico uses about 11 megawatt hours per year. So this is a pretty massive project. The groundbreaking was last month and completion will be in about a year. We voted to approve an amendment to our contract for the provider of the, well, not fireworks, drone show this year at Overlook Park on the 4th of July. So we will now have a really awesome 30-minute drone show. And then we received some kind of introductory presentations about two super exciting projects that I think have both already passed your desks as well. The revalidation and reuse of the CB Fox building and then the old time out pizza building in White Rock. The county's partnering with the private developers in each of these. through our LIDA and MRA programs, where we provide funding in the form of loans and grants in return for economic activity, tax receipts, job creation, and quality of life enhancements, and revitalization of vacant, unsightly properties. I'm just personally super excited about both of them. I think you know about them, though, all the aspects of the CB Fox project and the White Rock one. If you have any questions, let me know. And then finally, we voted to be an entry-level co-sponsor of the upcoming Los Alamos Nuclear Forum. This is nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons, to be held at Sala on August 25th with speakers and sessions about deploying the next generation of nuclear energy. That was last night's meeting in summary. You're so welcome.

Appreciate it. A couple things. Commissioner Brewer was asking about the CB Fox project. We haven't had it presented to us. It's been published in LA Daily Post, pictures of it.

July 22nd.

That's one of the ones that is going to come to us.

Yes, ma'am, July 22nd.

And the last meeting, wasn't it the last meeting we had? was the rock yeah yeah so we had three we had three cases yeah we haven't seen that one yet but it's been in the press and there's pictures what's that do you want more information it does it impact us it it potentially could okay we can't quasi-judicial so don't say anything you have to have it presented yes um but very exciting um all right um we have a guest in the room did you have any public did you want to make public i don't want you showed up so i don't want to miss out on if you had a question or a comment i always like it when the public comes um we're all used to being here but beautiful okay wonderful we're good Thank you for showing up. Okay. Any other commissioner's comments?

Just clarification. We don't plan a meeting on July 8th, correct? Thank you.

Yeah. July 22nd will be the next meeting. Oh, I thought you said there was a meeting on July 8th. Okay, great. Yeah, we have it on the calendar, but whether we have cases or not. So no July 8th meeting and the next meeting will be July 22nd where we'll get to see two potential new cases.

Any other questions? No, I was just going to say, Kristen is going to send out an official cancellation notice tomorrow or the end of this week for July 8th. And if you check your inboxes, commissioners, I did blind copy you to a link to the survey. So that way you don't have to scroll through everything.

Very nice. Thank you so much for that. It's much appreciated. And can we forward that? Is there any restriction from forwarding that?

No, you can go ahead and forward that. It's just a forward from our PIO.

Great. Thank you so much. All right. With that... Meeting's adjourned.