Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members, we are having some issues with our YouTube feed, but we are on Teams and I am recording and transcribing. And so you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much. So I'd like to call the August 20th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Fe County Planning Commission to order. It's 410.

May I get a roll call, please?

Dan Pava. John Noonan-Bell. Present. Steve Brugger. Present. Jose La Cruz Crawford.

Present.

Erica Bo.

Present.

Jessica Griffin.

Present.

Carl Trujillo. Chair, we have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Please all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

The next item is approval of the agenda. Staff, have there been any changes to the agenda that has been published and posted?

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members, yes, there are a few changes. Under number three, miscellaneous action items, agenda item number, or agenda item letter A will not be presented. We have not finalized that final order. And Agenda item C under miscellaneous Daniel Weed variants. We're having some technical difficulties on that, but we're working on that. So we may present that at the end of the meeting for signature for approval.

So it's agenda item 2A and 3C? No, 3A and 3C. 3A and 3C, okay. May I get a motion to approve the agenda with those deletions? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner. May I get a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor of approving the agenda with the deletions, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Next item on the agenda is the consent items. May I get a motion to approve the items on the consent agenda? Moved. Thank you, Commissioner Nunebel. May I get a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Brugger. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Next is the remaining miscellaneous action item, which is 3B case number 26-5060 final order for the Carlos Portillo and Marcos Portillo variance request. May I get a Motion to approve that final order. So moved. Thank you, Commissioner. May I get a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Next is action items, new business, case number 26-5150, Cohiba Club, LLC. It's a zoning map amendment. Who's gonna be presenting from staff? And because we're relying on technology to record things, please, you and anyone else who chooses to speak, please get the mic close to your mouth. Thank you very much. Please proceed.

All right, good afternoon, Chair Boyan and Commissioners. I have a letter of opposition submitted by a community member. Would I be able to submit this into the record?

Yes, do we have copies for each of us? Yes, I do. Okay, great. If you can give that to staff, then they'll get it to us. Thank you, Nate.

Please proceed, thank you.

All right, so before you today is case 26-5150, Cohiba Cub LLC zoning map amendment. Through its agent, Alonzo Gallegos, request a zoning map amendment for two parcels of approximately 297 acres, commonly known as Trace Rios Ranch, and you can see this in the vicinity map in Exhibit B. The property is located in 124 and 126, Camino Copia Vieja. in Commission District 2 in the community of La Cienega. And it is currently zoned traditional community, rural fringe, and rural residential in the La Cienega and La Cieneguilla community district overlay. The proposed zoning district for the entire property is traditional community. The applicant has authorized Alonzo Yai to represent the applicant in this process. And the properties, the application was submitted in accordance with SLDC section 1.15, which is exhibit D in the record. The noticing requirements were met per SLDC section 4.6.4 specific notice of zoning rezoning amendment and repeal. And the first hearing of this application was on July 9th before the hearing officer. And you can see his recommendation exhibits FNG. The applicant statement is on exhibit A and I'll go into the staff response and just a summary of it. So section 1.15 has different criteria for a zoning map amendment. First things first, an SLDC map amendment has to be consistent with SGMP and area district community plan, the official map and the CIP. as well as the first criteria is it has to be in the interest of public policy. So the zoning map amendment is consistent with the La Cienega community plan that was adopted by resolution 2026-045 earlier this year. And in the community plan, the feature land use and zoning map that see page two of exhibit B, has the Trace Rios Ranch as traditional community zoning district. Furthermore, on page 45 of the community plan, the planning committee requests to rezone portions of the property known as Trace Rios Ranch so that both parcels are fully classified as the traditional community zoning district. This amendment better matches the property's status as a historic ranch with traditionally irrigated agricultural lands. Furthermore, it's also consistent with two goals of the plan. First, protecting the planning area's rural character and natural and historic resources while ensuring land use regulations are not burdensome for residents. And it also supports goal three of the community plan, support, maintain, and expand agriculture in the planning area. For criteria two, adverse impacts on neighboring lands, staff does not foresee any adverse impacts on neighboring lands. The proposed zoning traditional community is already the current zoning of a large portion of the property as well as it is consistent with some adjacent properties to the east. And then the final and third criteria, suitability is presently zoned. We concur with the applicant that traditional community zoning district for the entire property is merited as mentioned earlier based on public policy as well as currently unsuitability is presently zoned. As outlined in the memo, the traditional community zoning district as defined in the La Cienega-La Cieneguilla community district overlay, which is included in Exhibit D as well, that the traditional community zoning district in the community district overlay, the purpose of that district is to designate areas suitable for residential, small-scale, commercial, and agriculture uses consistent with the existing development patterns of traditional communities. The district accommodates traditional community patterns, preserves historic and cultural landscapes, and protects agricultural uses, including agriculture-funded traditional communities with acequia systems. As a historic ranch with agricultural lands irrigated by acequias, the staff opinion is that the property thoroughly fulfills the purpose of the La Cienega, La Cienega Community District, traditional community zoning district. Moving on to recommendations. So as mentioned earlier, the hearing officer written order is Exhibit F, as well as the unverified transcript is Exhibit G. The hearing officer, based on the evidence presented, recommended approval of the applicant's request. And then staff, WE'VE DETERMINED FOR THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT THAT IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SLDC AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. THE SUPPORT AND EXHIBITS ARE SUPPORT HEREBY SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE HEARING RECORD. AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. CRAIL. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

COMMISSIONER BRUEGER.

THANK YOU CHAIR. So how many of the 297 acres is zoned traditional community versus rural fringe versus rural residential? And the reason for the question would be how many additional units, what more development would be proved with this zoning map amendment?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Commissioner. I'm Herbert Foster, Planning Team Leader. Right now, there are about 166 development rights associated with the property as it's zoned now. Those rights are allocated across the different lots and based on zoning. If the entire property, all 400 acres would be zoned traditional community, that would jump to approximately 400. Okay, thank you.

Is, so commercial development is allowed in a traditional community district, but is it allowed in a rural fringe or rural residential?

Chair Aboy, Commissioner Brugger, it depends on the type of commercial development. I don't have the use table of the La Seneguilla, La Seneguilla community district overlay, but generally traditional community is more permissive than those other two community districts. But that goes without saying, for a lot of the purpose of the property or the use of the property, it's largely agricultural, things like that, and that's permitted by right regardless of the zoning district.

Thank you. So usually when we get cases, there are many conditions of approval. But in this case, they're plus I missed it, there are no conditions of approval, including any condition that the applicant complete the TDR process to preserve the property. Why wasn't, for the folks who fear that if the TDR process does not go through that, more development would be enabled allowed could happen. Why wouldn't you have a condition saying if the TDR process is not completed that this, any approval would be subject to TDR approval? I don't know if you can do that, but it would have made it simpler at least for me to consider this. Otherwise, we must consider the zoning map amendment on its own merits without any regard for the TDR and that method of preserving the property.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And Mr. Commissioner, I had to consult with the attorney about the transfer development rights program is entirely voluntarily. So whether or not the commission could condition it on a program that's voluntary, I'm not certain or not.

I'll ask the attorney to give a legal perspective on that.

All right.

I'll, I mean.

So wait, I wonder if we can dig into that. Um, so while the transfer of development rights program is voluntary, that's a significant part of this application because the applicant has in some way certified that they are going through this process. And their intention is once the zoning is approved to transfer the value of the additional improvements that can be made elsewhere in the community. And so it is, if there is no verification that that is done, even though TDR process is voluntary, the zoning map, I would imagine we could add a condition that says if the transfer of development rights process fails, then the zoning reverts. And And maybe I'm taking liberties, but I wonder if either staff or attorney could.

Chair and commissioners, thank you for this discussion. On the question of conditions, our code certainly allows the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to condition their approvals. You could potentially condition any approval to a maximum number of dwelling units that could ultimately be built on the property to mitigate the impact of the change. Conditioning it on an action of you shall do TDRs may run into illegal contract zoning. So we needed to distinguish between a condition on an approval versus a contractual zoning issue, which is not allowed under court precedent and the like. I'd probably defer to legal on the question about can you put in a reversionary clause.

Got it. And so I appreciate that. And if, for example, we were to apply a condition that would allow for the zoning change and at the same time restrict the actual development of these two parcels, that would result in the same thing, right? That would be a legal mechanism to ensure that that a significant development could not happen on this parcel if that fell through. Is that legally okay?

I think that that approach would pass muster, Mr. Chair. I think the distinction Mr. Voss is raising, which is significant, is that rather than insisting on and through the TDR process, the condition would simply be that if the PDR process isn't followed through to its ultimate conclusion, there would still be a cap in proposed number of dwelling units.

And just because I'm not as versed as Commissioner Brugger, how many dwelling units in the existing condition of these two parcels are allowed without any rezoning?

Okay, thank you very much.

Go ahead. Sorry, just kind of follow up on that because I wanted to make sure I understood. So obviously what we're saying here is that legally speaking, we can't necessarily put a provision requiring them to go through the TDR process, but we can put in a condition that says you will only be allowed to develop X amount number of units regardless of the planning zone change, right? So similar to where we can provide a variance that allows a higher density to a property, right? We can actually provide a lower density to a property as well. Is that essentially correct?

Chair and Commissioner, that's correct. You're allowed to, the conditions are to mitigate expected impacts.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brugger, did you have additional questions?

Thank you, Chair. Sure do.

You do?

Okay. Please proceed. There was an applicant statement, a statement attributed to the applicant in the staff report that stated that the zoning change is not for future development purposes, but for the severance of development rights. So my question is, from the county perspective, do you need, as the county, a zoning map amendment to initiate the TDR process and preserve the property.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and I'll just stay here, but thanks, Nate.

No, the TDR program would still be available to the property owner as it is zoned right now, just for fewer development rights that could be severed and transferred.

Thank you.

Okay.

That's all the questions I have for right now.

Any other commissioners have questions of staff? Commissioner LaCruz Crawford and then John. Go ahead.

Yeah, I'd like to circle back to this question of a potential provision or what not or condition on there and stuff because I think what was discussed a little bit was the potential put in condition that if they do not receive TDRs, right, then they would be limited to this development of 166 units.

I don't think that's what we said. If I could, I believe, irrespective of whether or not the TDR process is successful, we could theoretically apply a condition to this rezoning that would limit the number of units to 166. So whether or not, you know, if TDR... works or doesn't work. So it's outside of that.

Okay. So then my question is with respect to the 166 units, how does that, how's the TDR process look at that, right? Because the TDR is a density scenario. So we're talking about three quarter acres that could be, I guess, transferred, right, or sold. But if you're limiting it to a certain amount of units, does that also limit the amount of TDRs that are being sold by that? So that is my question is that, is it a density We're talking about three-quarter acre density that they can still, you know, go through the TDR process and technically sell the 400 and some density units, right, per se, versus are they going to be limited to just the 166 if we put this provision in?

Looking to Roger on this. Michael might be able to help answer this question. Turn it over to him.

I think, Chair and Commissioner, I think as an answer to your question, it probably depends on how you word that condition. And if you maybe say very clearly that this is approved, the density is what it is, but you can only build that many dwelling units, instead of talking about the density of 166, and that you can only construct a maximum of 166, might find a potential there where you aren't limiting the TDRs, but you are limiting the actual construction of housing units.

I think that's an important point to make because reading through this application, it seems that the TDR, the reason for this request is so that they can use the TDR process to make this work.

That's kind of what I'm reading. If I may, it wouldn't make any sense to give them a right only to take it away.

Yeah, so I just want to make sure that if if this is something that the board is considering or we're talking it through right now that we do. Write it in a correct way, right? And legally that it's actually works out that we can actually do it as such. Because certainly my my gut, my thinking of this is is is the concern is obviously development, right? The concern of this is development even and is correct is seems. seems proper, right, to actually conserve this piece of property, you know, as an agricultural ranch and a piece of history, et cetera. You know, we do this. If the board approves something like this, needless to say, somebody else can obviously take this and take advantage of it to make sure that we we limit that in any way possible.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Nunebel.

Yes, just to follow up on Commissioner Brugger's question to clarify, the existing zoning does provide for the property owner to proceed with an application for development transfer. I'm sorry, transfer development rights. Is that the case?

That's correct, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Any other questions of staff?

Yes.

Commissioner LaCruz Crawford.

So again, If you could explain to me in this probably question for you here is more so as far as the TDR process and just like how. Because this is a new a new program right that hasn't really been around for too long and I'm just wondering how how many TDR's are are being used. You know how many transfers are happening. I also saw in some of the language here that mentioned something about TDR banking and I that's the first time I heard of that. So is that an actual? an actual thing that's available to the public? Like you can sell it and bank it to the county, or do you have to have an individual that can immediately purchase those TDRs? I hope you kind of see where I'm going here, because I'm just wondering how feasible is this for the agent to do something like this, since that's what they're relying on, right, is to potentially sell 400 and some TDRs. And another substantive question that I just read here in this opposing letter is, does it affect, I guess, other TDRs in the area? Like if other members or other property owners in La Cienega, all of a sudden if one entity is selling 400 and some TDRs, how does it affect other people that are trying to do the same?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioner. I'll answer that last part of the question. First is that the TDR program is market-based. Whatever the owners do with these certificates is completely up to them. I say they can put them under their pillow. They can give them as Christmas gifts. They can sell them. That's the intent. I'm being facetious, but they get the idea. It's really a private market system, and they can buy and sell for whatever price they can acquire. Casting doubt on the feasibility of selling these is, frankly, outside of the realm of the SLDC. It being a voluntary market-based program. But back up, the TDR program has been on the books since 2001. But following the SGMP revisions in 2015 and the SLDC, there were subsequent revisions to the TDR ordinance to increase the ratio and create what's called the bank. the TDR bank is where the county sells its TDR certificates the county now owns 43 to partially answer your other question there are 342 TDR certificates for sale right now from the website in addition to the 43 that the county owns so yes the comment is correct the TDR market is is high in supply and low in demand. But I wanna emphasize it's a voluntary market based program. And so to think that's outside of the realm of SLDC and the decision here, it's it being a market program and voluntary for the owners choose to do to it. The bank is really there for to buy and sell account for the county certificates.

So help me understand this real quick. This is what I'm curious about is that if the agent or anybody, I guess, for that purpose does a TDR transfer, right, they go to the county, they say, hey, I have this TDR, three-acre piece of land or whatever it is, right? At that point in time, essentially, that piece of land that they've turned into a TDR cannot be developed anymore, right? And then they have this now TDR. Voucher or whatever, right? You know that you say like they could stick it on the pillow. They could try to sell it or whatever, but once that's a voucher. That no law that piece of land can no longer developed. Is that correct? You can't like go back and.

That is yes, that is correct. Mr. Chair and Commissioner. The agreement that the owner would sign with the county can never be rescinded. It is a permanent agreement. Gotcha, so so in that sense then,

if the agent moves ahead and tries what their intent is to go ahead and take, you know, get 400 and some TDRs or whatever it is, right? Whether they, at that point, whether they sell it or not, it doesn't matter, I guess. Essentially, that piece of land can no longer be developed.

That is correct. Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Chair. I wasn't going to ask any questions about TDR, but Commissioner Cruz-Coffer did, so thank you. So do you think it's a good public policy to support upzoning a property to increase the amount of transfer development rights for an applicant? Because I think you mentioned if, I'm in the neighborhood or anywhere and I'm looking at this case and I see a precedent, my property might be hard to develop and I'd like to preserve it. So I'm going to request a rezoning to increase the development intensity and then I'll sell the development rights or intend to sell the development rights that I get. and the county supporting, you're supporting this. Is this good policy?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. As staff, I don't set policy. I can refer to the commissioners that has created the policy through the TDR program to separate, is it good policy to increase for the purposes of TDR? can't answer that and I'm not a policy maker. However, I can say that on the merits of this application, the TDR of course is very germane. From there, as Nate has and we have done a look at what is the evaluation criteria under the code, it meets the criteria for consistency with the plan and the overlay zone. So we have to look at it at that time, but it's very clear that the intent is to increase the development rights in order to preserve the property as Ironic as that sounds, but to say it's a good policy, I can't speak for policy, but there are provisions in place through this process and the code to make sure that the application, the zone is, regardless of the intent, is consistent with community plan and the SLDC. It's a way not to answer the question completely.

Somewhat unanswerable question. So the last question for now. So there's no, There's no agreement in place, is there, for TDRs at this point? Or no draft, nothing, no draft written agreement?

Mr. Chair, Commissioners, we have an application, but no written agreement like a contract or approved severance of rights. We're in the process of applying where we would go to the Board and ask for their approval of the written agreement.

Okay, thank you. Thanks, and one more TDR question, of course. So there are, if I remember correctly from your previous presentations, there are designated sending areas and designated receiving areas for transfer of development rights. Is that an accurate statement? And this could be a designated sending area or am I mistaken?

You are. Precisely correct. The TVO program has sending and receiving areas. The sending areas are qualified based on the characteristics of the property itself, not necessarily the zoning district. Does it have riparian? Does it have sensitive habitat? Does it have archaeological resources?

Does it have irrigated agriculture?

The receiving zones are only particular and mixed use and so forth.

But yes, you are correct. So there are attributes of the qualified sending areas that it is of value to preserve these areas, to reduce the development possibility on these areas. And so that's why they are designated as sending. Is that correct?

I would say the Trace Rios, if I may, hits all those criteria. It is high valuable conservation property.

Great. Thanks. Any other questions of staff?

I do.

Come on.

Yes.

Because the applicant has not yet presented their case. But any other questions of staff?

I do, yeah. Just kind of curious and stuff. Or, well, first, appreciate your word of upzoning. But I think it's good. But a comment to Mr. Brugger's comment, I think, and what you mentioned as well, which I think is key whenever something like this comes up, yes, it might not necessarily could potentially set a precedent, et cetera, right? And that could be a concern. But I think it goes back to intent. Right? So I believe that it seems like the applicant has a good intent with respect to preservation, right? So the idea of zoning for preservation is, you know. But the other question I have for the staff real quick, I guess, and I don't know whether this is staff and it's also maybe a question for the applicant when they come up, but is we're going through, they're coming to us obviously for the zoning change, but I know the La Cienega master planning, HAPPENED JUST VERY RECENTLY, RIGHT? CORRECT. SO I'M CURIOUS AS TO HOW MUCH WAS THIS BROUGHT UP DURING THIS PROCESS? WHY WASN'T IT PART OF THE COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN SCENARIO AND WHY IS IT BEING BROUGHT UP AS A SINGLE ZONING PLAN CHANGE? BECAUSE A COUPLE THINGS THAT I SEE TOO IS JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, THE There was just very minimal notice to the neighborhood, which I found it interesting that the letter mentioned as much when I had already looked at this and was like, wow, why did only like 15 letters get sent out when this is pretty? Oh sorry, yeah, there was very minimal letters that were sent out and minimal notice that was provided. I mean, obviously there was the bare minimum that would be required by planning and zoning regs, but. you would think that this would be more of a larger community involvement involved. But going back, I guess my question is, was this addressed at all during the master planning process?

Yeah, chair and commissioners. Yes, it was brought up multiple times during the community planning process in 2024 and 2025. You know, it came up towards the beginning as well as the end. throughout that whole process. And, you know, that was widely noticed throughout the whole community. Yeah. And, you know, the, you know, code requirements in terms of noticing the neighbors didn't have like had a relatively small list as you described. But just to reiterate the community planning process, the, and I think I couldn't quite hear you earlier, but I think the, no worries, but I think I would describe it a little bit in the staff memo, but one of the reasons why this is as a standalone application versus part of the community district overlay amendment process or part of the community plan, the main reason is because it is a sole property owner and this rezoning is for one property. And we had some discussions among staff, if staff brought it forward, would it be considered anti-donation? like under that clause of, you know, we're bringing forward to the benefit of the applicant versus if the applicant came, it'd be on kind of their own volition. I mean, one of the things, you know, for a community district overlay amendment process that, you know, encompasses the entire community, you know, large, you know, neighborhoods, things like that. But this is really just focused on one property, one property owner. So that's why it's as a solo application.

Makes sense. Thank you. That's all for me. Any other questions for staff from any of the Commissioners? Thanks very much, gentlemen. Really appreciate.

I'm so sure about planning Commission members may ask staff to come back up and just state their names and their address for the record and confirm that they understand that they were under oath.

But thank you, I yeah.

Alright, my name is Nate Crail, senior community planner. My address is 240 Grant Ave, Santa Fe.

And I'm Herbert Foster, planning team leader, office at 240 Grant.

And you confirm that you are speaking the truth. You spoke the truth. Thank you. I do. And Michael?

I'm Michael Voss, land use administrator, same address, 240 Grant. And what I said, I swore under penalty of perjury and told the truth.

Thank you very much. And I apologize. We will be asking each of the presenters. Is the applicant here or the applicant's agent? So please move the mic so you can speak into the mic, state your name and address and swear or affirm that you will tell the truth.

My name's Alonso Gallegos. I'm here to represent the owner of Tres Rios, which is Cohiba Club LLC. I live in La Bajada Village. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth under oath. Thank you, sir. Please proceed. First off, I have three letters of support. They're not in triplicate forms. Can I present them to the chairman?

Let's give them to staff, please.

Please proceed, he will make copies for each of us, thank you.

Okay, to start, I'm kind of surprised that the questions being asked, no pun intended on you guys, but your lack of knowledge on the TDR program, the La Sena community plan, and et cetera, in this application. I see what was presented as evidence to you guys here. I'm not gonna try to redo it, but starting with the application, This started in 2024. And if you were to review the findings of the hearing officer in July 9th, I failed in his opinion to address errors and omissions. And I'm bringing that up just to clarify for you all, if you do read that finding submitted by him, he claimed I didn't, prove errors and omissions. But what I should have done, and I'm not an attorney, and maybe perhaps I should have an attorney here to represent me, but with that being said, just to brief that, after going, like staff identified, we went through the process a 10 year revisit of the plan. The last one was done in 2015, and this one was 2025, which was passed by the county commissioners in March of 2026. It was thoroughly identified to the community what our intent for that property was. It's the wishes of the community back since 2010. when the sustainable management plan was adopted, that the community was identifying properties like this one, that Cohiba Club LLC that I represent, was wanting to be preserved by the community to keep agricultural, historical, et cetera, et cetera, in place because of the deterioration of all the farmland in the community since. And my point on errors and omissions was not necessarily to the county staff, but the community itself in the plan. They identified portions of it. And then when, and this is where I bring up why you guys, the questions you asked, you're not very informed with the TDR program. The TDR program started back in 201, but then it was, Norton's amendment was in 2017. And by the way, I'm real well versed in this. I've been trying to, to do this TDR program since before COVID when Robert Grego was head of the planning staff, et cetera. So it's been frustrating, but it was an out and I might back up a little, I don't want to confuse you all, but my family and myself, we own that property. We sold it to Huquiba Club in 2005. Previous to that, we were trying to sell it to BLM for preservation purposes. So we ended up selling it to Cohiba Club and their intent was to develop it. So you could fail for us, we didn't want that. But due to circumstances, after Cohiba Club purchased it, the crisis of 2008, 2009, there was a liquidity call by the bank that financed the purchase of this property. And out of four owners in that LLC, one was strong enough to buy the others out and pay up the liquidity. And this, just by chance, the one that landed up with him, his name is Robert Cochran. He was an investor, a silent investor. He's not a developer. So he lands up with a property that he had no idea what to do with. I've been employed by him since 2005. I came with the property, so to speak, when they purchased it. It's passionate to me. I grew up there. I'm a farmer by trade, rancher. So just to speed up that scenario, he gets sick before COVID. He gets COVID. He puts the place for sale and he doesn't get no bites. So he asked me about 2020. 20 around there. What should I do? I told him, you know, you had me working on this, what he called value added to property. That was my job other than managing the ranch. So I was on the board for this La Cine Community Valley Association to visit the plans. I was involved in the... What we're going through right now, it's the overlay. After the plan passes the community, then the overlay for the zoning purposes, the overlay comes about, right? So we increased the value of the property. This was asked by yourself, sir. What's the intent of the increased density? But it's an incentive, if you study the ordinance of the TDR, it's an incentive for the property owner to not develop, sever the proper development rights, and they go outside of the community, they go to the rest of the community, right? And Herb Foster there didn't touch too much on the incentive. Yes, there's more TDRs wanting to come available versus the purchase of them. But I throw that back on your guys' laps, the guys that approve these developments and allow variances, because in the ordinance it specifically says that developers should come, seek TDRs, and if there aren't any in lieu of, you guys charge a fee. So, like I say, I've been involved in this in quite some 8, 10 years already, and I have failed to see what that in lieu of that you guys put on development ordinances to developers. But the incentive for the developer right now is, and 2017 amendment to it, is for one TDR out of La Senegal, they get to build five units elsewhere or 10 affordable housing units. So this program only works if you guys, the county puts the requirements on the developments when they seek variances or increased density. And because the intent of the TDR program is exactly what I'm doing today for this property is to preserve it from development. And if you go back to this vision statement of the SDLC, the Sustainable Management Plan, its intent is for sustainability of historical agricultural uses of properties. So I kind of lost my track where I'm going with this, but I think I'm making myself clear the intent. And Herb Foster said the Tris Rios property, Coiba Coiba LLC, there's 298 acres. Okay. It has a density of three zonings right now. And I think you guys came out with 140 some lots today. that's a substantial amount for that property in my opinion if we're to develop it already been done and that's a devastation to the community after working all these years to get it into uh status preservation so our intent is not to develop the intent is to increase the density for tdr severance of the property and that gives the incentive to the property owner to recoup his investment. By the way, he still holds a substantial amount of mortgage on that property. And he's agreed with me, with myself, because I created this scenario for him that he, by severing the development rights, we're gonna sell him and I'm gonna pay him his mortgage off and him, and I keep the property for continued farming and ranching forever and ever. That's the intent. And we've already started the process. Of course, we stalled it on our own because 140-some TDRs at 20... He didn't mention that... I think the base price for a county TDR is $22,000. That's not enough to satisfy the current mortgage and the asking price of the owner. But... If we get the increase, I'm willing to work with someone, and the county, I'm gonna level with you, if you see what was passed by the county commissioners in March of 2026, the community did a matrix requested by the county commissioners to come out with five priority things that the community would like to happen in the community, and one is that the TDRs may possibly be purchased by the county of Santa Fe. So I'm not going to get into that very much. But after this hearing, if approved, this body before is I'm going to proceed with a letter to the county offering these TDRs at a discount. I say you guys, meaning the county, has them at $22,000 apiece. I'm willing to give a very substantial discount to the county, purchase them all, so I can satisfy my dollar needs to purchase this property and preserve it. So with that being said, let's open up to any questions you have.

Thank you, sir. So thanks for the history lesson. And we, sitting here, we're not the policy makers that you've been railing against. And so just, you know, when you say the county, that's a big thing with multiple players. So I think the concern is because this is a multi-step process, the first thing is to increase the value of your property by changing the zoning. The second step is to go through the transfer of development rights property. development rights programs. So you can see where folks are concerned that what if you do step one and you don't do step two. So I just want to point that out that I think everybody understands the end goal you're trying to reach, but it's a multi-step process and folks are concerned about what if things fall apart in the middle. So are there any questions of the applicant from any of the commissioners?

Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Mr. Garagos. So I've got a few questions. I think some of it, thank you for the presentation. I think some of that you answered, but I'll ask you anyway. So it's clear in the material, everything that was presented to us, and in the plan, that the goal is to preserve the property. No doubt here. So did you consider, for that goal, did you consider a conservation easement?

Well, the plan is going to be layered conservation easements on the property. I've gotten the process, after the development rights are severed, It's going to be platted. So you can't develop. They're going to be issued certificates. And like Mr. Foster said, it's market driven. You can do whatever the heck you want with them. But my way of thinking, because I've got to pay for this property, whatever deficit I have between the sale of TDRs and the time it takes to sell these TDRs. So I'm starting a foundation. It's going to be a foundation of ownership with a vision statement that this thing's gonna continue in perpetuity. It's gonna continue farming, it's gonna be preservation of all archeological sites. There's 75 acres of riparian areas. There's 26 acres of irrigated land that's used for vegetable production. There's a 600, 200 acre BLM renewable lease. It's a water-based permit for 100 head of cattle or sheep. We're gonna continue that. We want an educational component to it. It's a preservation of endangered species, a leopard frog out there. There's a willow flycatcher. There's another on the scope of listing for future protection. So I'm gonna use those conservation, that's why I call it a layered set of conservation easements. I'm gonna have a non-profit run the foundation. So it's going to be grant and donation driven. There's going to be an endowment set up for this. So it's very well thought out. The layers of support are people I've been working with for two years. There's Carl Dickens in the audience. He's with me on this. He's going to be part of the non-for-profit. So the community is behind this. It's not me myself. What's driving me is my passion of querencia. Querencia means I was born there. I sold it not willingly because there was 18 heirs at the time and none of us could afford to buy each other out. But the intent has always been by a word of mouth over 100 plus years ago on my father's mother's side that that property was given as a gift when she got married and it was supposed to be for future generations to sustain themselves.

Thank you for that. So you heard some of the discussion as far as I think most folks would, at least I would, support transfer development rights. But at the same time, I'd be reluctant to support change and the zoning map amendment, unless there's protection in the case that it doesn't work out. You're not able to execute an agreement for transfer development rights. And as long as you've been working on this and you know more about this than I do, but that's a possibility that until something's done, not done till you have a TDR agreement. You don't. So would you support the limitation that what we talked about a condition limiting the not the TDR rights, but actual development on the property in case your best efforts don't work out? Is the county doesn't want to buy? That's a possibility.

Well, there is a plan B in this, and that's the financing. That's the whole reason to do the foundation and the layered conservation easements and the nonprofit running and the endowment set is we're prepared. If the TDR program, it's going to happen. We're going to sever them. And there's a consequence for that because we won't be able to develop anymore. We're going to reserve some TDRs for different uses we're going to have out there that are ag related, that adhere to TC zoning and preservation. They're basically ag related uses. So we will be preserving a few, a handful of TDRs. There's already some being exercised out there that are going to get credit for. There's a dwelling, two or three. Those TDRs aren't transferable. They're already being used up, right? So, but the assurance on if the TDR program don't go through, et cetera, et cetera, we didn't hit base on the topography out there. There's 298 acres, 75 acres are riparian. There's cliffs of 30% slopes or greater. The amount of houses that can be out there to tell you the truth in a comfortable setting might be 50. So we're not interested and you shouldn't be in the hearing the opposition that we had some neighbors and the gripe was how come I wasn't notified. I went to the minimum standards and notification by the standards of the county, anyone within 100 feet. is who I mailed out to. And the ones that showed up, if you see that packet I put out there, the TDR ordinance, et cetera, et cetera, and the plans of the future plans, there's conceptuals and then the zoning map. I can't guarantee anything just like we can't guarantee it's gonna rain tomorrow. And that's why I look at this. If it was gonna be developed, it would already been developed.

Thank you. I believe I'll have other questions, but I'll stand by.

Any other questions from commissioners?

Comment more than a questions, you know, so I think Mr. Alonso, please speak in the mic. Thanks. Yes, I guess I'm not getting that close. Thank you, Alonso, for your presentation. I think you hit a good point. I mean, that's something that I was thinking when I was reading through this. Obviously, the main concern here is Potential future development with higher density reality on this piece of property is that it would be really super hard to do something like this, you know? Not only financially speaking to actually develop this property, you know, get roads in there and infrastructure, et cetera, but also there would be a ton of opposition by our community because that's just the reality of it, you know? Um, and, uh, and yeah, my comment more so is that I just want to thank you Alonso for, for coming through with this and stuff. And, uh, I, and this is where I want to make it clear on my end is that I do realize the intent. I think you've been working on this for a while. It does certainly seems like that in your heart's in the right place. The idea is to preserve this piece of property. Uh, I think the concern is all is always like what happens if you're not the owner, right? Or if the property gets sold in the future, or if know these tdrs you know there's all these what ifs like we're just talking about right so really that's that's the main thing that when i'm looking at this as as a commissioner and also as a community member of la cienega i want to make sure that it is being preserved you know and i totally see that that's what you guys are trying to do and i see that this is the venue to do it by being able to increase the density and and be able to you know use the tdr process right and so when i was questioning some of these things earlier, not necessarily because of not being knowledgeable of some of these things, but more so just to put it on record for everybody in the public of like, this is what the TDR does, et cetera, and this is what the intent is, and so on and so forth, right? And so I think I would just end my commentary here that I do see the intent, and I am in approval of the intent of preserving this property, and I see what the purpose know the venue that you're trying to do right the up zoning as mr brewer mentioned to be for the for the benefit of the community is is there but we want to make sure that it does not create any potential future problems or uh you know so that somebody can take advantage of in the future right so i i go back now with my final comment is just ensuring that if the board does does choose to approve this that we make sure we add that condition that we spoke to in the beginning that allows the full TDR transfer of rights, but limits the building of homes in this property to what currently exists.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions for the applicant of commissioners? Thank you, sir. Really appreciate it. Thank you all, and I hope and pray you make the decision in this favor. Thank you. Thank you. So now if anyone in the audience is interested, so is YouTube up again? Not yet?

Chair, no, YouTube is still down.

Okay, so is anyone in this room interested in speaking for or against this? Please raise your hands. One, two, three, four, five. Great, so please just come up, give your name and address for the record, and swear that you will tell the truth and only the truth. And please speak in the microphone so everyone can hear. Thank you, sir.

Okay, Julian Gonzalez, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

And your address, sir, for the record?

27 Coronado de Vacas, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87501, Upper La Cienega. I wear a few hats, I'm just gonna say, I'm not gonna take much of your time, but I did write 75% of federal protection, the Caja del Rio Protection Act that was introduced to the 119th Congress by Senator Martin Heinrich Bill 4458, if I'm not mistaken, that was the number. And its ranch will parallel protections That everybody is looking forward to when it comes to the agricultural portion of the Caja del Rio, which is the 107,000 acres. And I don't know if you're familiar with that stuff. So I did put that. I've been working very hard with Ledger Fernandez's team, Senator Heinrich, Ben Ray Lujan, and that Federal Protection Act was introduced. I'm pretty psyched about that. This ranch and its protections will parallel that. Along with, I also, like I said, I wear a few hats, New Mexico Wildlife Federation. I'm also board of directors on that. And I brought in the national team that did wildlife corridors. And the wildlife corridor that exists on the Cajal del Rio is a super unique fingerprint. And that ranch does have a significant play by play when it comes to our wildlife that Surround Santa Fe and the protection that they need and that's in the area. So when it comes to the conservation portion, Wildlife Protection Act, agricultural and ranching, I also run cattle on the Caja del Rio. And this is parallel a lot of the stuff that Santa Fe has lost. Our community is still in touch with the ag and ranching portion. and sustainability. So that's, I'm just saying that's one thing that was coming from the LCBA, La Cienega Valley Association. I'm also the president of that. And I've been with subcommittees that have been chaired by a few of our residents. I've also been engaged in those. And since 2024, I've been to a lot of these meetings and I'm telling you, it has been brought up, it has been discussed and people that have been in opposition, I'm surprised because I've been engaged in all these meetings. I only hear of this here recently within the last hearing and of today. So they all had the opportunity to come to the table and address these issues. Where are they today? Thank you. Chair.

Thank you, sir. Next, please. Whoever else is interested in speaking, please come up, state your name and address for the record, and swear that you are under oath to speak the truth.

Carl Dickens, 27347 West Frontage Road.

Please get it a little closer to you. Thank you.

Okay. So Carl Dickens, 27347 West Frontage Road, La Cienega. And I do swear to tell the truth and hold truth. This is pretty amazing. So I've been involved in this for the last couple of years and I've learned a lot. Now, as my history goes back, I grew up in North Valley of Albuquerque and I watched at the age I was, we had property on the, basically on the river, three acres of alfalfa that I used to water. And when they started to subdivide the alfalfa field across the road, I would go out at night and steal the real estate signs. Didn't do much good, but it was something I felt good about. I watched as the Sims property, Los Poblanos, got subdivided and felt terrible about that. Then it was the Deets Farms, which is just north of Los Poblanos, who got subdivided. Beautiful ranch. And so I take this pretty seriously in terms of proposed development on this ranch. It isn't going to happen. I can tell you from history, I was a president of the Las Cienega Valley Association when the proposal for the Santa Fe Canyon Ranch, if you remember that, was 625 homes on 1,300 acres just south of our village. And what happened? We stood up and we fought and we responded. And eventually the county, for whatever reason, decided to buy the property, saving the Borrego brothers and the investors in the property. It was 1,300 acres, sold 900 to Frank Mancuso. There's still 400 acres that the county has that they haven't been able to figure out what to do with. The Tracy of France connects to that. We want to join with them to do something really special in that area. This isn't about trying to make development happen. We're dead set on the preservation and protection of this area. I mean, we don't have many places like this left anymore. I think it's so important that people take this seriously because this history is something that's very, very special. We have archaeological sites that go back thousands of years. That area that is being farmed now has been farmed for close to 1,800 years. That's where the Pueblo Indians first started farming. So we have archaeological features that we want people to understand and appreciate. We have environmental features. We have wetlands, things that people need to see and understand and appreciate. We're not going to develop this ever. I mean, it's just not going to happen. And we want to be able to share this history with people. New Mexico has lost a lot of things over the years. This is an area we cannot afford to lose. And I want to make sure I get everything in here. Now, you have to understand this property. The house was damaged. The original farmhouse was damaged during the public revolt in 1680. There was the first church in the area. was Capilla Vieja is on that property, the remnants of it, because it was burned during the Pueblo Revolt. And Alonzo wants to restore that. Those are the kinds of things we want to do. We want to make this a place where people can come and understand and appreciate this history that is so special. I mean, I've been in La Cienega for 40 years now. And I've watched things. We actually watched the Las Lagunitas development, which used to be the Sims Ranch when I was a kid, that Ken Newton tried to turn into a golf course. We fought that, responded to that, and now it's a subdivision. Not the ideal situation for a ranch, but it was a hell of a lot better than what Ken Newton was proposing to do. I just want to go, in closing, One of the things I want to tell you too is I believe that TDRs can be bought and retired for tax purposes. And we have been working with the Santa Fe Community Foundation, Diane Hanamoto, and I think we're at the point now where we can start to reach out. Once Lonzo has the TDRs, we can start reaching out to people in the community of Santa Fe and asking them if they would be willing to buy these TDRs to retire them so we can preserve this property. And that's going to be a crusade that I would be happily lead. And I'm going to be a part of the nonprofit Friends of Trace Rios. But I want to close with something that Alonzo said to me one time when we were waiting for a meeting. We've been a partner in other adventures. But it was a meeting and he told me about his grandfather and a promise he made to his grandfather. He looked at me and he says, you know, my grandfather told me that I was responsible for feeding my community. And to this day, it's something that Alonzo thinks about every day. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dickens. JJ.

My name is JJ Gonzalez, 54 Entrada La Cienega, and I am willing to be under oath. Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. You know, I really support what Alonso is trying to do with this property. If increasing TDRs makes it possible for him to acquire this property, I support that, and I support the preservation of the property.

There's a lot of archeological

and historical agricultural features on that property. So this is very important to preserve that for the community and for everybody. The other thing is that, you know, we talked about some development. You know, if you increase the TDRs, that's a possibility they could build 400 homes. Well, that's not feasible on that property. The thing is, there's no real driveway through there. It's a restricted road. The fire department cannot get a fire truck through there. The driveway to the property from where the county maintenance ends is probably about half a mile. So it's a long, narrow, unimproved driveway. There isn't a secondary exit for that property. I mean, it would not meet anything. And to make a subdivision, you have to go through the whole development And, you know, there's very poor quality water there. There's surface water. They have water rights on the property. But right now, there's no wells for agriculture. They get their water from the Santa Fe River for their agricultural purposes. And as you know, the water in the Santa Fe River has been off and on contaminated with PFAS and whatever other contaminants there is. the sewage treatment plant, the wastewater treatment plant puts down the river. So it's not feasible to do a development. There's no infrastructure there. It's not feasible to do a liquid waste disposal plant for more than a few septic tanks, and that's about all. So it's not feasible for any development. So as far as anybody wanted to do a development there, it's probably impossible. You know, the thing is that You know, you need a lot of infrastructure there. They only got electricity there maybe, I don't know, about 20 years ago. That property never had electricity for a long, long time. And I think when the new owner bought it, bought the property, they ran electricity down there for a couple of the cousins that lived nearby. But I support Alonzo's, you know, proposal to see what he can do. And if he can do the TDRs and find a receiving area for TDRs and preserve that property, I really support that. And, you know, I think that's about all I have to say about this matter. And I hope that this committee can approve this application for the rezoning. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else who is interested in speaking either in support of or opposition to this request? Please come forward, state your name and address for the record, and certify that you are under oath. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Lucia Blau. My address is 306 Palomino. I'm in the process of relocating to 25B La Bajada. And I would like to speak in behalf of Alonso Gallegos. He is my brother. And I would like to tell you all that I did grow up in La Cienega. And I learned so much as far as farming, ranching from my family. And as a matter of fact, in high school, I had friends who took horticulture classes and They asked me why I didn't want to take it as well. And I said, because I already know, I learned that I grew up that. And so they actually quizzed me and they said, well, wow, Lucia, you could actually teach the class. So I was here at the last meeting and somebody brought up the fact that, well, what if they lose their property again? And my response to that is, it's very rare. that anyone gets a second chance to obtain their property that they lost, you know, and beyond our circumstances. And so with that said, we will do everything. Alonso will do everything in his power to just keep that, to preserve it, and to have it for future generations. And so I ask that you approve this.

Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Is anyone else interested in speaking either in support of or opposition to this application? Hearing none.

Oh, wait, one more.

And please adjust the microphone. State your name and address for the record and certify that you are under oath. Thank you.

My name is Dolores Baca, Gallegos Baca. So Alonso's sister, his older sister. And I'm taking the oath also to speak the truth and nothing but the truth. So help me God. I also grew up in La Cienega. In fact, the summers, my parents, they take the little ones and we would spend our summers in La Cienega. And we helped my father and uncles farm the land. And there's a lot of history there to share with the community and Unfortunately, we had to sell property. And Alonso has been involved and the family to an extent with the new owners, which he never left, right? He's always managed it there. And we've been out there. We go out there periodically. So I totally support Alonso and his endeavor, his perseverance and his courage to go out there and look at means to keep this property within the family because he still has been out there. You know, he never left. He did talk to my father, aunts, uncles, and others where he has committed himself to bring this back into the family, but just not the family in our future generations, but to the community of Santa Fe. Farm to table, you know, spiritual stuff with The church being restored that, you know, years ago was destroyed. The ruins are still there. The petroglyphs are there. Every idea that he has is not just for the family, to keep it in the family, but for this beautiful community of Santa Fe, which we grew up in. So I appreciate... you're supporting this and passing this and Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you, Ms. Baca.

You're welcome.

Anyone else interested in speaking in support of or opposition to this request? Hearing none, seeing none, since we don't have a Zoom, the public hearing portion

Chair, we are on Teams and recording from Teams, but there's nobody online wishing or indicating that they wish to speak on this matter.

Okay, thanks very much. So the public hearing portion of this is over. Commissioners, what's your request? Do you have any questions?

Commissioner Brugger?

a question per se, but, uh, we can, uh, pick off a discussion that, uh, at least, uh, um, what I heard was that, uh, uh, the intent to preserve the property is clear, um, that the, uh, uh, that the zone, the reason for the zoning map amendment is primarily kind of an economic argument so that TDRs at a sufficient level can be created so as to make it possible to preserve the property. With that, and I also heard that there are great physical limitations with the entire property water sewer infrastructure that's not really feasible to develop at much of a scale. So I for one would support zoning map amendment provided that we do introduce a condition that would limit the actual physical development on the entire property for the current entitlement, nothing to do with transfer development rights, but just the actual physical development. So I actually wrote something down, but kick off the discussion that way. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Any other comments or discussion points from the commission? I also want to echo the project is a laudable one, process is not a great one. And I think that a condition that is kind of an insurance policy in case things go south, yes, there are limitations with the property itself, but a condition might alleviate the concerns of some of the folks who, um, rose in opposition to this in letters and in the hearing officer. So I don't think that would pose a burden to the project, um, uh, because of the, you know, the statements of the applicant that the parcel would not be able to support, um, even that number. Um, I also, um, I'm interested in, I think Mr. Dickens mentioned the possibility to have people buy development rights as a tax benefit is an interesting project. And I think that there may be support for that no matter what happens, whether these development rights go to an area that's better suited for development with existing infrastructure. So I think, It's been an educational presentation, and thanks very much. So if there are no other comment, oh, please, Commissioner.

So if there is a condition placed that restricts density. Sorry, okay. If there is a condition placed on this zone change, Does that go, if the property is sold, does that condition stay with the property?

I believe the condition would run with the property. Any final order imposing that condition would be recorded. Therefore, run with the property.

Thank you.

Any more comments or are we ready for a motion or?

Oh, Commissioner La Cruz Buck, it's just the echo again.

Everything that I think been said and then we can just take it. But I think that yes. I think you know whatever. Seems like whatever what we're proposing would not hinder the project, and that's really what I want to make sure is the case, right? Because it seems like this is a very good project. The intent is to preserve this this piece of land. So let's you know, certainly something that's worthy of doing. And I would just kind of add that adding this, I guess adding this provision or this condition really is more so there to alleviate any concerns that the community might have, right? Because by adding this condition, it really doesn't change how much somebody could have potentially developed this property to begin with, right? Right now it's already zoned to where they could build 166 homes if somebody could do it, even though they couldn't realistically, right? Because of the issues with the land, et cetera. So I think this is a really good condition to put into place that just alleviates any concern and still this project, so.

Thank you, Commissioner. Do we have a motion? Commissioner Brugger.

I move to approve case number 26-5150 with the following condition. Actual physical development on the entire 297-acre property is capped at the current entitlement prior to zoning map amendments.

Thank you.

Roger.

I'd simply like to clarify, Mr. Chair, that this matter will go to the Board of County Commissioners regardless. What this commission is doing is making recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. So the motion should be phrased more in that manner as a recommendation rather than as actual final approval.

Would you like to restate your motion Commissioner Brugger?

I'll give it a try. Move to approve, move to recommend approval case number 26-5150 with the recommended condition that actual physical development on the entire 297 acre property is capped at the current entitlement prior to this zoning map amendment.

Great. Thank you very much. Is there a second?

Just a quick question for legal on this because does that language at all limit the TDR scenario? I want to make sure that what's in the condition does not limit the TDR.

So you want to confirm that the motion does not limit the transfer of the existing entitlement?

Chair and commissioners, I think your intent has been very clear throughout this hearing, and you will see a recommended order that we will draft with that intent behind it at your next meeting. So you will confirm that the condition does what you believe it should say next month.

Thank you very much. May I get a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any in opposition? The motion passes and the case 265150 has been approved by the Planning Commission on its merry way to the BCC. Thank you all for your attendance. Folks, do we need to take a break before the next case? We will take a 10 minute break, come back at quarter till, actually eight minute break, come back till quarter till, and thank you all. Okay, let's come back in. The next item is case number 26-5110, Susan McCloskey, Conditional Use Permit. And please present the case. Thanks very much.

Chair, before we get started, Jerome, if you'll state your name and your address and confirm that you understand you're under oath.

Yeah, thank you. Chair Abou, Hunting Commission. My name is Jerome Roybal, Development Review Specialist. My address is 240 Grant Avenue. Susan McCloskey, applicant, Christopher Previs, the agent here with us today, request an approval of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit per section 9.5, subsection 9.5.5.1.1, an accessory dwelling unit and table 9.5.10, of the Sustainable Land Development Code. The 10.571 acre parcel is zoned rural residential in the Tesuque Community District overlay. The site is located at 21 Coway Ridge Road, Commissioner District 1, SDA 2, parcel number 970002416. The 10.571 acre parcel was created and approved, dated January 29, 1996. The property consists of a primary residence, approximately 32, 39 heated square footage or square feet, developed driveway, garage, and a pool. They have all been permitted. The applicant requests a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit that will be 1,400 gross square feet. The ADU will be used for immediate family members. The subject property is zoned rural residential within the Tezuka Community District Overlay, Chapter 9, Section 9.5, Subsection 9.5.5.1.1, Table 9-5-10. identifies as an accessory dwelling unit as a conditional use permit in the overlay. The applicant address and staff reviewed the following application design standards of chapter seven, sustainable land development code with the CUP. The access and easements, fire protection, landscaping, fences and walls, the lighting, signage, parking and loading, road design standards, utilities, water supply, wastewater, and water energy efficiency, open space protection of the historic and archaeological resources, terrain management, flood prevention and control, solid waste, air quality noise, the financial guarantee, infrastructure, and right-of-way dedication, The application was submitted on April 17th, 2016. The application was heard in front of the Sustainable Land Development Hearing Officer on July 9th of 2026. Building and Development Services staff has reviewed and requested for the conditional use permit to allow the accessory dwelling based on the materials and submitted it to the agency's review comments Staff finds that the accessory dwelling is consistent with the sustainable land development code. Staff further finds that the use is compatible with the existing development within the affected zone district and will not impact adjacent land uses. And it satisfies the applicable submittal requirements of the conditional use permit set forth in chapter four. Section 4.9.6.5 of the Sustainable Land Development Code of the Sustainable Growth Management Plan, sorry. On July 9th, the request was presented to the Sustainable Land Development Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer memorializes finding of facts and conclusion of law in the recommended order on this request that the hearing officer bases the evidence presented and recommended approval for this request to allow the accessory dwelling unit and request the conditions recommended by staff and the unverified unrecorded transcript and recommended order on July 9th that the hearing are Oh, the hearing and the attachments are attached on exhibit J and K. On July 9th, the hearing officer has no additional testify or opposition of this CUP. The review comments of the case went to the fire department. The accessory dwelling unit is in compliance with the Sustainable Land Development Code. We recommend approval of the conditional use permit at the 21 Kaya Ridge Road. Subject conditions are listed below. Staff request at the Planning Commission carefully consider the CUP request that the staff report in all written oral testimony and other evidence contained in the record. request agents each of the applicable CUP review criteria and discuss the finding and facts of conclusions and factual base support of discussion to approve with conditions or deny the CUP request.

Mr. Chair, may staff enter the conditions into the record?

Yes, please consider those conditions entered into the record. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jerome. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Roybal from the commissioners?

Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Greetings, Mr. Roybal. Thank you. So thanks for the presentation. Most of my questions have to do with just the section on accessory dwelling units, section 10.4. So it would have been nice to see pictures of the primary residence because one of the code provisions is that the architectural design exterior materials need to be consistent between the ADU and the primary residence. So I'll be a question I ask the applicant, but it'd be nice to see pictures in the future, something like this comes up.

Mr. Chair, uh, mission member of a bow. I mean, uh, Mr. Chair, Commission Member Brugger. I have been out to the site, reviewed the plan sets, and it is pretty consistent with the existing structure, but we will make sure that those are in the exhibits next time.

Thank you. Chair Bo, um, kind of Commission Brugger. Also, I just want to address that sometimes it's a little bit of a An applicant to provide drawings of existing. So typically these are verified and filled by staff and by inspection by the code enforcement officers as well. Usually it's a little bit uncertain to request for an applicant to provide a full set of existing drawings. Typically we want to see a floor plan so we can verify and confirm square footages. But for actual elevations, we usually do not request that.

and i just want to mention that on page eight sheet a3 of the exhibit c you get a pretty good sense of the exterior view of both the existing and the proposed structures thank you and thank you uh just wanted a photo that's all not doesn't have to be the full set of plans just a photo uh

Another question, more generic, I think, than anything else. But code section 10.424, when it talks about that utilities between the ADU and the primary residence should be shared, does that mean that there is no individual, that the ADU is not individually metered, that it's just that there is no individual meter. And that's the question.

Chair, Planning Commission, that is correct. All utilities and driveway have to share with the ADU. So there is not a separate meter.

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Brugger, for clarification, they can have their own meter, but they do have to share the utilities.

Thank you.

And that meter is only for the water. If it's an electrical connection, then it needs to be hooked up to one meter only.

Thank you. Only reason to bring it up if it's not applicable to this case, I don't believe. But if it were a short-term rental, then if you were the owner, you would want that unit to be individually metered so that you could take every kind of tax benefit that was possible from doing that.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Brugger.

Any other questions of staff from the commissioners? Commissioner LaCruz Crawford.

Just real quick, what is the square footage of the primary residence?

It is a 3239 heated square. So it'll be well below that.

Thanks. Okay, I think we're all set, Jerome. Thank you. And the applicant or their agent, if you want to come forward, state your name and address for the record and certify that you are speaking under oath.

My name is Christopher Purvis. I live at 818 Camino Adelaide, and I certify that everything I say here will be true.

Thank you, sir. Please proceed.

In addition to the things you've already identified, I thank you for making reference to sheet A3, which I tried to draw the ADU with the house so that you could see how it related. This is Sue McCluskey has four kids. They're all now married. They all have grandkids or she has grandkids. And so she needs more space and that's the reason for this ADU.

Great. Do, do any of the commissioners have questions of the applicant?

I think that over time, Ms. McCluskey will live in the ADU and the grant kids and grandkids will take over that big house, but it could be any, any questions of the commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Mr Purvis. So what's the height of the ADU building height 14 feet at the highest?

It's actually 12 feet, but it's the ground slopes or at the low end is 14 feet.

And your intent is this is for family purpose. This is not for short term rental. That's correct. And. Should have seen from the plans, How many additional parking spaces for the ADU and are they surface or enclosed?

There's a garage and that takes one car and then there's room for another car outside the garage.

Thank you. Thanks. Any other questions of the applicant?

I have a question for legal or staff. Just want to verify the reason. So if this were not in the Tuskegee community plan area, then this would be a project that would be administratively approved because it meets all the conditions of the code. It's just that the Tuskegee community plan said any ADUs must go through this CUP process. Am I correct in assuming that?

Chair Bow, you are correct. This is one of the only two overlay districts that require 80. It used to be conditional use. The others Madrid.

OK, great, thank you very much.

Commissioner, I you can answer one of the questions I have, but then I guess with respect to that right since you do have a community overlay here as I didn't see and maybe I missed it. But is there any opposition whatsoever that that staff received concerning this? The overlay district right is to go through some sort of review process so somebody could actually say something about it. But obviously the plans and that was, I guess my other staff question and I would imagine since you gave approval for it that it's it's cross all its teas. It started all its eyes, right? It it's like it appears to be potentially on a ridge top scenario, but all the SLDC code requirements. I don't believe it, yeah, it's less than 7,400 square, less than 7,400 elevation. So it wouldn't mean any of that. Anyways, just want to make sure that I hear from staff that yes, everything is, you know.

Chair, yeah, Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members. Yeah, we have had no letters of opposition on this case. And yes, staff has reviewed all the applicable requirements and it does meet all these standards of an accessory dwelling unit per Chapter 10.4. Thank you.

And Chair Bowe. Member La Cruz Crawford, this is on a ridge top. It is the only buildable area on the site, and they do meet all ridge top requirements for setbacks. Thank you. Yeah, I did look at the buildable area and just figured I'd ask. So thank you.

Great. Thank you very much, sir. Is there anyone on teams or in the room who is interested in speaking in support or opposition? So please step forward, state your name, and verify that you will speak the truth.

Commissioners, I don't know how to address you politely, but I know I'm supposed to. My name is Celia Kimball. I live at 36 Media Luna in Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87501. I will always speak the truth. Yeah, just a cautionary tale. yeah our neighbors speaking though he's speaking to the microphone okay this is where Jerome's anyway our neighbor uh had has a shared well um uh so two neighbors share the water um something happened with one of the neighbors where they were gone there was a waterline break there was two inches water in the living room. The neighbors had to figure out how to pay for the water use and it was a mess. So had there been a separate meter, I think that would have been very useful. That's my only comment.

Thanks very much. Thank you.

Chair, Planning Commission. Normally with the shared well with Santa Fe County's Sustainable Land Development Code, all wells are metered with the meter.

With separate meters, it would have been metered.

Right, thank you. Thanks very much. Anybody else interested in speaking either in support of or opposition to this application? Okay, that closes the public hearing portion of this. What is the will of the commission?

Or are there any questions the commissioners have or discussion? Commissioner Brugger?

With staff recommended conditions? Okay, thank you. We have a motion to approve with the conditions provided by staff. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? There are no opposed. The motion passes and this conditional use permit is approved. Thank you very much. Okay, next item is matters of public concern. How about matters from the commission? Commissioners, is there anything you would like to bring forth? Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So from time to time, I was asked how the sustainable land development code updates are going. And my question or offer is, how can we as Planning Commission suggest to you some potential changes in the code. I mean, you're working on it yourselves, but we've seen, some of us have seen so much over the last few years that, and some of us would be bursting with ideas to suggest to you which is enabled the more formal betting by code, but how can we best support you and make some of our present some of our ideas to you?

Thanks, chair and commissioners, by way of an update, staff is actually going to be going over some possible amendments as an internal group tomorrow. And we are beginning to gather the names for stakeholder group input sessions to be held potentially in September. So that ball is starting to pick up some speed, we hope. But if you have specific comments, suggestions, please individually email them to me. I'm more than happy to take your suggestions under consideration. and see if they fit within the scope of what we're doing and then bring them forward as part of our package.

I may, is it, I'd be happy to do that. Is it, how do y'all feel about, just because I have an idea doesn't mean it's, y'all would think it's a good idea. It's my idea, but so is it something that, needs to be vetted by the group, or can we just?

So Chair and Commissioner Brugger, I recommend you individually sending them to me because if we bring a package forward, you're officially part of the recommending body. So not trying to prejudge anything. We as staff can filter them as to whether we think they're good ideas. And then if you notice something that comes forward as part of our package that you suggested is not in there, you can then bring it up and have that discussion within the open approval process.

Sounds good. Great. Thanks very much. Anything else from the commission? Yes, Commissioner.

Yes. I am interested very much in having a better understanding of what the county does as far as wildfire preparedness and protection and all that. And I see that there is a wildfire protection plan, the CWPP, that was supposed to be released for an update. And I've been unable to find that plan. And so I was just curious as to what's happening with that and what the efforts are around.

Chair and Commissioner Griffin, Our department is not, at least our division has not been closely involved in that process. We could certainly, our mapping team in GIS may have been involved, but we'd have to ask around and potentially see if emergency management or the fire department has that information. And we can certainly ask if they could give a presentation if you're interested in that.

I would be, thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Brugger. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When are we going to see minutes?

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members. So I submitted a IPR to our finance. We're just waiting for a purchase order. That way we can obtain the stenographer. We will not be seeing a stenographer in person anymore. They will be reviewing YouTube video and transcript from YouTube. and providing us a verbatim. I did include in the scope of work for them to review July's minutes for hearing officer and planning commission, as well as August. So by September planning commission, I'm hoping to bring forward those two months of minutes for your approval.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, and just to follow up on that, in reviewing the minutes, the unverified minutes from the hearing officer the La Cienega case, those are not as good as Karen's. And we take pride in making sure that it's an accurate reflection of what happens here. And I'm just wondering, is the intention to make sure that whoever you hire whips those into shape so that we don't have to do things, or are we gonna be getting unverified approximations?

chair bow planning commission members know um the stenographer that we're looking at and that we're working with that provided us with a quote they asked for a sample of what we had been dealt before and so i did provide them a sample of um karen's or words works uh transcripts and so i'm anticipating that we'll see something similar um maybe not better but similar to what we've received great yeah i i was kind of amused with the spellings of la cienega in the

The AI transcript we saw, it was pretty good, but thanks very much. I wanted to ask folks, what's on the future docket? What do you expect that we should be getting? Because it may be appropriate if there is an opportunity for discussion, well, an opportunity for discussion of the proposed amendments, if we don't have a super full schedule, depending on, because I, I learn a lot every time I hear Steve talk. Um, and so, um, and so I think it would be, it would be beneficial to do that unless it's going to mess things up. But the first part of the question is what's in the future docket.

So chair bow planning commission members last week at hearing officer, we had a, um, I believe it was a zoning map amendment or the Madrid overlay. Um, that was presented to the hearing officer as well as a variance request of density. Um, so those will be presented next month for planning commission. More TDR stuff. No.

And chairing commissioners, we can, um, at the appropriate time, consider we've, and I've, we've, I think this has even been mentioned about the full, the board of County commissioners doing this, but doing a, a study session for the, uh, SLDC amendments. That's not, that comes as far, uh, could be on your regular agenda. but is not an action item, but ahead of actual recommendation. Like a briefing, the kind of things that- That's correct. Great, thank you.

Any other issues from Roger, staff, commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Nunebel.

Yes, I know that in the past, staff has mentioned that you're continuing with the credentialing process and getting us all able to log in. And I would really hope that that is done and that we don't have to

bother you when we're logged and we time out or we log in and out it would really be helpful so thank you chair bow um commission member new and bell yes it you know it would be highly recommended for us as well if we can get those credentials um we'll be sure i know john has been in contact with it um i have in the past as well and we'll see if we can get something moving along with that thanks

Okay, nothing else. So may I get a motion to adjourn? Our next meeting is scheduled for September 17th. Motion to adjourn? So moved. Okay, and a second? All in favor?

Second? All in favor? I second, yes. Aye.

Aye.

Thanks very much.