Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

IT, please let us know when we are live.

We are live.

Thank you. Chair, you may proceed.

Vice, oh, I'm very loud. Vice Chair, if you could speak into the mic, please.

Turn it on. So Chair Clough is on the audio, so she is with us, and Sesha will be here at some point soon. Could we hear a calling of the roll?

Chair Clough? Present. Chair Clough?

Present by Zoom.

Thank you. Vice Chair Smith? Here. Commissioner Miranda? Commissioner. Commissioner. Commissioner. Commissioner. Commissioner. Commissioner. And Commissioner. And Commissioner. And Commissioner. And Commissioner.

And Commissioner.

Thank you. And could I hear from the members present, one of you, a motion to approve the agenda?

Any changes from staff on the agenda?

Vice Chair, members of the commission, no, there isn't.

I support a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Second.

Any conversation? And please call the roll.

Vice Chair Smith?

Yes. Sorry.

I apologize. Chair does not vote. Commissioner McGee? I'm going to have to mark people that I expect. Commissioner Capon?

Yes.

Commissioner Barber? Yes. Commissioner Raymond?

Yes.

The agenda chair, vice chair, the agenda is approved.

Thank you. And then we'll move on to, can I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Move to approve consent agenda as posted.

Second.

Just to be clear, my background in rules is that if you make a motion, you can then move to amend the motion or amend the agenda afterwards. So you can, I take there's no. Okay, please call the roll.

Commissioner Capon?

Yes.

Commissioner Raven? Yes. Commissioner Barb? Yes. Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Sorry.

Thank you. And you're forgetting to ask me to vote and I vote yes.

And you also forgot to ask me.

Chair Clow, I apologize.

Yes.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

I don't vote because I'm here.

Okay. I wanted to say we need to make that clear for the record. You are the acting chair for this meeting, Commissioner Smith, Vice Chair Smith.

Right.

And Chair Clow is then a voting member.

I know that, but thank you for- Okay.

I just want to make sure it's clear on the record.

No, okay. Thank you very much. Good.

For the record, Commissioner Morando and Commissioner McGee just joined us.

Amazing. Can I hear a motion? We're moving on to approval of minutes. We had postponed the minutes of April 16th, 2026 from the meeting in early May. They are now on the agenda for approval. Can I hear a motion to approve them?

Move to approve the minutes April 16, 2026, which were postponed from May 7, 2026.

Second. Second. Please call the roll.

Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Commissioner Morando? Yes. Commissioner Raymond? Yes. Commissioner Capon?

Yes.

And Commissioner Barber? Yes. And Chair Clout?

Yes.

Chair Smith, the motion has passed.

Thank you. And may I hear a motion to approve the minutes? And May 7th has submitted.

Explains how the project is organized across Site 1 and Site 2. That image is an excerpt taken from the development plan site layout minimums. And no variances are requested. Staff finds the development plan criteria are met, subject to Attachment A. I will announce uses. That reduction alone also contributes to the...

The proposal also incorporates community office areas and a public dog park, providing an additional neighborhood amenity and creating a more active and community-oriented site design. The associated special use permit request is required for the indoor self-storage use within the C2 zoning. And the applicant is seeking approval to allow this use in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding commercial corridor and adjacent properties. Overall, the project represents a redevelopment opportunity which is intended to accomplish the following. Revitalize an underutilized commercial property through the redevelopment of approximately 2.72 acres into a productive mix of storage, workspace, and community serving amenities within the Cerrillos Road corridor. It is intended to provide modern climate-controlled storage that meets the growing demand for secure indoor storage while minimizing the outdoor visual impacts. It's only going to be two stories above ground with one level below. And it clearly fits within the height requirements by being significantly lower than what's allowed. It is intended to support small businesses and entrepreneurs through the creative office suites and flexible workspace options. It's intended to expand commercial and employment opportunities by introducing a mix of storage, office and business support uses within an existing commercial district. Adding community serving amenities through a community room, shared office space and a public dog park, creating benefits that extend well beyond the storage use itself. It's intended to create a more active and engaging site design by incorporating community-oriented features rather than a traditional storage-only facility. The proposed site design abuts the public sidewalk improvement over the existing building, whose long, flat facade directly abuts the public sidewalk and creates a visually imposing streetscape. The proposed redevelopment breaks up this massing and introduces design elements that provide greater visual interest, landscaping, and pedestrian-friendly elements that enhance and provide an investment in the overall character of the Cerrillos Road corridor. In closing, the intent is to return these properties to economically productive uses while generating minimal impacts as to traffic generation, noise, water, sewer, and solid waste generation compared to several other permitted uses within the C2 zone. So I thank you for the opportunity to present these points. And with that, I'd like to introduce and turn the presentation over to Drew Dolan, who will walk us through the Empire Redevelopment Project. Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, limited hours. We do allow people to access their stuff after these hours, but really we're trying to keep the accessibility and a lot of the traffic down to these hours. Storage is really an incredible fit for a lot of energy usage. So we put solar on a lot of our facilities. We always do rainwater harvesting. EV chargers are very common for us. You know, we have about 1 20th of the traffic of an equivalent retail shops building that would fit on this size. So very little traffic impact. And obviously security is a huge concern for us because people are storing there because they want concern. I wanted to address a little bit of demand in Santa Fe, like why Santa Fe, why this location? So these are the two closest, what I call comparable facilities, both run by Extra Space on Pacheco and San Mateo. One is 99% occupied. The other is 96% occupied. It is a very – we offer a commodity here. If you don't need it, you're not gonna take it. It is very simple supply and demand and prices go up, occupancy goes up when demand goes up. And so to look at that a different way, I compared the rates. They're all month to month leases and rates do change frequently based on demand. So what I did is I took average units for those two properties and I compared them to two properties in Albuquerque They're two of the highest income, highest rate properties in Albuquerque, off Paseo in Wyoming and Ventura. And so for an example, five by 10 here in Santa Fe, if you can rent it, if it's available, on average, it was $131 a month. In Albuquerque, it was 91. So 44% higher in Santa Fe. Taking a standard 15 by 10 or a 10 by 15, Santa Fe was $440. Albuquerque was $210. It's $110, 110% higher. So if there's a statement, if there's a comment of, do we need self-storage? The reality is what it's going to do is lower prices because it's going to introduce competition. And it's going to introduce competition for climate-controlled storage. That is what we're building. There's obviously a demand for people that want climate and want Non-climate, we're building 100% climate. So just to go a little bit over the site plan in more detail, we talked about the lot coverage. Obviously, we're significantly below the allowable lot coverage. This is the Empire Builder footprint, about 58,400. And if you look at our footprint for just the storage, about 41,000. empire buildings 24 feet tall you know our proposed is 29 feet somebody that really needs that to put it in but we want the option to have it there because if we did it afterwards it would obviously be very expensive but obviously the roll-up door the heater electrical lighting you know it is walk-in ready for somebody that wants to bring woodworking tools that's the idea but it's also available for somebody that wants to create a podcast studio as well

Other questions?

So one question for you, Drew. You mentioned that facilities similar to the one that you're building usually see about 1 20th of the traffic. Is that generally for just self-storage, or is that also taking into account the dog park, the office spaces, et cetera?

Yeah, great question. What I was referring to is if you take That lot, that building, and if you did the equivalent of something retail, it's 120th. So thank you for the clarification. It does not include the dog park and community area. Which, again, and I just want to say, it's not meant to be retail. We don't want to run a retail shop there, so I'm hoping there's going to be more traffic. But in self-storage, 33% of the renters are businesses. So you'll have businesses that start in storage, Etsy resellers, Amazon resellers, and then as their business grows, they'll have an opportunity to go over there.

Thank you. Yeah.

The creative workspaces, is that site one or site two? Site two. Site two, okay. So those creative workspaces, that's a separate thing from the storage. So site one is storage and that's strictly storage. Am I right? Or is the site one also available if someone wants to make a storage unit into an office space for themselves, like that's available for them?

No, I mean, we're going to run it as storage where, you know, And people do work there every day. I mean, we have medical reps that come in every day, twice a day. But the idea of somebody being there all the time is that's what Across the Street's for.

Other questions?

Thank you for the great presentation. With the dog park, is that going to be on the responsibility of your tenants, or is that going to be in-house?

We have the maintenance budget built in.

And the operation hours for the units that you're going to be renting out for potential workspaces, are those going to have the same operating hours?

No, I mean, people are going to have their own access card. They're going to get full access. So we're going to know who they are. We're going to know what they're doing. But they're going to be able to come just like it was their office building.

Please raise your right hand. Speak your name and address into the record.

Sorry.

Santa Fe Self Storage through my family. We have also very, very deep ties in the neighborhood. My grandfather was active.

I think the building's attractive. as a building, it feels extremely out of character for that neighborhood for me. And I understand it's allowed. But I guess I just wanted to, it feels a little more like our rail yard district than our Cerritos Road and the Triangle District. And I guess I wanted to ask you the process around that and why you came up with that and if you had any other ideas around it.

Yeah, thank you. I mean, it's a great question. I think one of the benefits of self-storage is it can look like anything. Like, it just doesn't have to. They don't all look the same. We did make a couple changes after a handful of our neighborhood meetings. We made color changes. We made a couple materials changes. And look... I don't mind changing the look of it at all. Like if somebody would say, hey, have you thought about this? I mean, we've been working with local architects and local planners. And so like we're, we want it to fit in. We want it to look nice. And we, you know, we had enough neighborhood meetings. We went to every neighbor around us And we did hear the same things of what's the value for the community. And that's where the dog park and the community room and the mural came into place. And another thing I didn't mention, you know, that multifamily project was four stories. So there was a lot of concern about height and traffic and density. And we're going one story underground and two above. That is more expensive for us. Our preference would be to go three above without question. And so to make it fit better, to have a lower profile, to make it seem like it's part of the neighborhood, we went one story underground and we're happy to do it. And that was the feedback we got from the neighbors. And so I just will end by saying we've spent a lot of time with the neighbors, with the community, and who knows what the next use is going to be, but will it have a dog park? Will it have a community room? Are they going to keep the mural? Because something else could happen tomorrow and go straight to permit. Are they going to have the things we're offering? And that's a coin flip. I'll just end by saying that it is... For me, it's really hard to hear when it's pretty evident it's a decision, it's a question, or the opposition is, is it going to impact my business versus is it a benefit for the community? It's pretty clear to me that on the opposition, it's more about business than the community, and that just doesn't seem right.

Just a follow-up question. When you did meet with the neighborhood, were your renderings there of the way it ended up looking like?

Yeah, we had, I mean, there was versions and versions. But yeah, we had renderings the whole time.

These current ones?

Absolutely.

Okay. And look, if you guys... is crowded. There's a lot of housing, a lot of small businesses. And, you know, I think, in my opinion, that this is probably a good use of that property, because it's low key. It's set back, it's attractive. There won't be a lot of people having Another business or an apartment or a hotel there would be probably somewhat problematic in terms of the neighbors. I mean, clearly. There's no neighbors appearing tonight in opposition to this, which to me means that they're somewhat happy about this and probably glad that there is not going to be a continuation of a lumber business or cement business there or a hotel there. or a four-story apartment complex. I don't see it as being problematic. In fact, I see it as being a good use of a rehab to this property that's been... I wanted to...

I have a question about the dog park, but I also wanted to go back on... And I guess that's a question to staff.

Thank you, Chair Klaus. Staff understands. Just to add to the conversation a bit, a reminder of what approval tonight would not do, and that's issue any building permits, authorize any construction, waive any utility, drainage, signage, lighting, fire code, DOT, or public work requirements, or remove any of those later stage conditions or technical controls that are included there in Attachment A. So I'm grateful for... the robust concern, the full spectrum of concerns, but I do feel staff has captured all of those in attachment A.

Commissioner Gabriel. Do you have another question or comment?

I wanted to see how the rest of the commission feels about what I asked about the mural and if we want to come up with a condition on that to include in this and then move along to a vote.

You're talking about the existing mural, the replicating that, or are you talking about the new project that you raised?

I am referring, I think a little bit of both, just a confirmation on, which I think is in there on the existing one, but the applicant agreed about the kind of earmarking a spot for a new public mural by a local artist and wanted to put that in to this.

And maybe this site plan helps a little bit, but this is the location. That's where we have the largest wall space uninterrupted. This is the location of the recreation of the existing mural over here, because the space was just larger. That existing mural is huge.

You know, I'm not comfortable requiring them to do anything more than replicating the existing mural. I mean, I think that's over and above sort of what would be required.

I've agreed to it. So yeah, I'm fine with included.

I'm fine with that. I'm just talking about requiring anything else in addition, um, you know, because it, it seems replicating the existing is probably sufficient.

Commissioner Aranda.

Uh, I, I hear, uh, I think this commissioner's perspective there is because it's a special use request and there is question of how that special use integrates into the existing fabric. I do think an additional mural would help that. Um, so, um, this commissioner at least sees that inclusion as valid. Um, does a staff would staff see any issue with it as a condition of approval?

Thank you, commissioner Miranda. This staff member wouldn't have a problem with that condition. I do not think I'm authorized to make that kind of determination.

Mr. Chair, uh, members of the commission, if the applicant is amenable to a second mural, um, and the commissioners would like to make that an additional condition as, as a requirement of the special use condition, I don't see a problem with it. Everybody's in agreement.

But Dan, are you saying that the applicant would need to be in agreement for the commission to make it a condition?

Well, I am supportive of a second mural on the building. Yeah, absolutely.

So could I hear a motion to approve The first motion has proposed here an amendment to it to include the inclusion of a second mural.

I don't believe we had. Was one? Was a motion proposed?

Yes. Yeah.

No. No, but yeah, yeah, yeah. So Commissioner Smith, in case 2025-11-75-6, a special use permit, I'd like to make a motion for approval subject to staff's conditions of approval and technical corrections. Additionally, providing that the existing mural be reproduced on the exterior visible to the public and that a second mural be put on the exterior in whatever location is able to be worked out between the applicant and staff. Attachment, yes. The conditions of approval and technical corrections wouldn't encompass attachment A as well.

That's what I thought I was suggesting. Anyway, is there a second? You're seconding it. We need a second in order to discuss it.

Second.

No.

Um, commissioner. Yes. I would like to add a friendly amendment just that the, um, artist is a local artist, um, from Santa Fe and, and particularly from the triangle district. Um, and that, that is something, you know, as part of this, you accept the friendly amendment.

Certainly do. Thank you.

He smiled, let him show the record as he said that. Are there other questions?

Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify. You're referring to the Triangle District as Hopewell Man?

In my understanding, the Triangle District is St. Francis to St. Michael's Drive, that triangle. I don't know if that's a formal district, or is that just what we call ourselves? That's what I've always heard of it as. So I guess is the Hopewell man, what are the boundaries of Hopewell man? Well, I know, I mean.

Can I wait? Yep. No problem. What we're doing is boxing this thing in so tight now that we want it to be beautiful. Santa Fe is no problem. There's a lot of artists in Santa Fe, but isolating it could be a problem. Okay. Okay.

I'm comfortable with Santa Fe. Thank you.

Are there other questions or comments?

We'll just make the correction clear then. The friendly amendment would be Santa Fe, not, yeah. Thank you.

Please call the roll.

Testing. Fair. Thank you. Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Commissioner Morando? Yes. Commissioner Barber? Yes. Chair Clow?

Yes.

Commissioner Capon?

Yes.

Commissioner Rayland? Yes. Chair Smith? Yeah, Chair Smith, the motion is passed.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. I know. Just thanking people for what was an extended debate and discussion. Now, the second motion, please.

Chair Smith, in case 1175.3, the development plan with the associated special use permit, I'd like to make a motion to approve subject to conditions approval and technical corrections contained in packet A.

They're second. Second. Are there questions or comments on the part of the commission? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Morando? Yes. Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Commissioner Raylund? Yes. Chair Clout?

Yes.

Commissioner Barber? Yes. And Commissioner Capon?

Yes.

Chair Smith, the motion is passed.

Thank you. Before we proceed to case 2025-11-265, I've had a concern raised that we forward what are listed on the agenda as D and E, 1372 Boylan Lane, to the second meeting here in June, on June 18. as opposed to the first meeting in July on July 2, which I was wondering whether some people would consider that to be problematic since it's two days before a holiday weekend. Whatever the reasoning, the request has been made that we sign those two items to the agenda on June 18. Have I got it right? OK, yes.

Yes, chef.

What else is on that agenda?

That would be it. That would be the only thing on the agenda.

So sort of reporting out subcommittee work.

You would be actually amending the agenda and then voting for those two cases to be postponed to a date certain, which would be June 18.

So moved. Will somebody do that?

I put a motion together for case 2025 dash 1164 1372 Boylan lane in case 2024 dash 9461 1372 Boylan lane rezoning to be switched to the June 18 hearing for both cases.

Second, second is the language sufficiently appropriate? The staff? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Capon?

Yes.

Chair Clout?

Yes.

Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Commissioner Miranda? Yes. Commissioner Barber? Yes. Commissioner Rayland? Yes. Chair Smith, the motion is passed.

Thank you, sir. And moving on, the next case we will hear is case 2025-11-265-98. 96 Martinez Lane, a certificate of compliance. Staff will present.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Check, Vice Chair Smith. Maybe I'm having some technical. Ah, there we go. Now we're up and running. Again, distinguished members of the Planning Commission, Privileged to be before you this evening. Again, my name is George Terry, senior planner with the Land Use Department. The item next here. is case 2020-5-11265, the 996 Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance. The request is for Planning Commission review and action on a certificate of compliance to recognize the property as a legal out-of-record for city land use purposes, subject to conditions, of course, and staff recommends approval with conditions. I will begin with the request and the specific action before the commission. The requested action... is approval of a certificate of compliance for 996 Martinez Lane. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether the record supports recognition of the property as a legal lot of record for city land use purposes. If approved, the certificate of compliance would be recorded after the applicable conditions are satisfied.

The next slide here shows the location and current parcel context.

The property is located again at 996 Martinez Lane. It is approximately 0.317 acres, zoned R5 residential, and located within the historic downtown archaeological review district. This slide shows the current GIS and aerial context for the subject parcel and surrounding area. Just to get us oriented a bit. Before getting into the evidence, I want to frame the type of case here before the Planning Commission. This is a certificate of compliance and legal lot recognition case. The issue is before the Planning Commission because the record concerns a lot created in violation of the procedural requirements of section 14-3.7, subdivision of land. The question is whether the current record is sufficient for approval of a certificate of compliance subject to conditions. That frame is important because it defines the scope of tonight's action. Approval would recognize the property as a legal out of record for city land use purposes and allow recordation of a certificate of compliance after the conditions are satisfied. Approval would not issue a title opinion, adjudicate any boundaries, resolve private ownership disputes, or approve any future development. It also would not approve existing structures or work that may require separate review. With that scope in mind, I will summarize here why the case came forward. This case began as an administrative legal lot of record or certificate of compliance request. Initial staff review determined that the original record did not explain the division of land that created the lot known as 996 Martinez Lane. Additional evidence was required to understand the historic parcel context, the current configuration, and the record basis for the requested certificate of compliance. The applicant then supplemented the record. The applicant provided additional deed, survey, title, surrounding property, and zoning compliance materials. The record includes older deed materials used as ownership control context, the 1957 Scanlon materials, the 1966 survey and plat, the 1966 and 1967 deed, modern chain of title materials, and the Dalton zoning compliance letter. Staff reviewed those materials together rather than any single document in isolation. The next slide shows the historic mapping context together with the current parcel orientation. I'll take a pause and ask for a little forgiveness. This is just an attempt that I have made to produce an exhibit that has the Scanlon map in the dark lines, current parcel boundaries overlaid in the yellow, current 996 Martinez configuration outlined in red. This is... only meant to give us a little bit of orientation. It is not a meaningful exhibit. It shows the present-day subject parcel outlined in red over the 57 Scanlon mapping context. It is used to orient the commission and to explain why staff needed supplemental deed, survey, and chain of title evidence. The Scanlon map is context only. It is not deed or survey evidence, and it is not the sole basis for the recommendation. This simple image is only intended to help show why staff was unable to make the original determination.

The next slide is the recorded survey evidence.

The 1966 survey and plat is core geometry evidence. It was recorded January 4th, 1966 in plat book 13, page 64, document number 289154. It identifies the track geometry associated with the subject property and is one of the key documents that supports certificate of compliance review.

The next slide shows the related deed evidence.

Deed evidence includes a warranty deed from Juan B. Martinez to Patricio Luis Martinez and Isabel Martinez. The deed is dated November 21, 1966, and was recorded January 6, 1967. Staff treats this as key conveyance evidence associated with the subject tract, read together with the 1966 survey and the rest of the record. Now, this next slide summarizes record continuity. The record continuity sequence is important. The older deed materials provide ownership control context in the area. The 1957 Scanlon mapping explains why supplemental evidence was needed. The 1966 survey provides recorded tract geometry. The 1966 and 1967 deed provides conveyance evidence associated with the subject tract. Modern chain of title materials connect the record to the current owners. Staff is not treating any single document as independently dispositive. The record is read as a whole for certificate of compliance purposes. Now, this next slide summarizes that staff analysis approach. Staff's analysis treats this as an integrated land use record. The historic materials explain the issue. The survey and deed materials address geometry and conveyance. The modern title materials connect the record to the current request, and the conditions limit the scope of approval. This is the basis for staff's approval with conditions recommendation. The next slide here addresses Chapter 14 compliance. The applicant's materials identify the property as R5 residential, approximately 0.317 acres, with lot coverage identified at 27%, where the maximum is identified as 40%. Existing access and parking are addressed in the applicant materials. Issues such as the guest house or casita, sheds, or tile work, utilities, access, permits, and any future development remain subject to applicable city review and are not approved by the certificate of compliance action. The conditions of approval are the main risk control tool. The conditions require recordation of the certificate of compliance, final legal description and instrument review, and recognition that approval is a limited land use determination only. The conditions preserve future chapter 14 and historic district compliance, state that existing or future improvements are not approved by this action, and address portal or exterior work and shed resolution through required city review or code compliant action. Those conditions support staff's recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve case 2025-11265996 Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. The action is limited to legal lot recognition for city land use purposes. This final slide provides the recommended motion. For Planning Commission consideration, staff recommends approval of case 2025-11265996 Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance based on the findings of the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. That does conclude my presentation once again, and I am available for questions. Thank you, Planning Commission.

Thank you, sir. In this case, is there another presentation from an applicant or

Hello. Well, I'm not sworn in yet. I don't have a visual presentation. I have a brief presentation. I don't have to go through it. I think if you get the picture of what's happened, we're, let's swear it.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Victoria Dalton, 915 Mercer Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

You solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury. Please proceed.

Okay, so if you would like me to go through my quick presentation, it's just text. I can do that. If you'd like to hear.

Whatever you like.

Okay, so of course, I'll go ahead. So good evening, and I know it's getting past some of our bedtimes, getting past mine, but So I would like to begin by introducing my clients. They're probably the last ones in the audience there. Joe and Elaine Foster. It doesn't look like Elaine's here. But I just want to acknowledge the extraordinary patience, grace, and resilience they have shown throughout this process. What should have been a straightforward administrative certificate of compliance review has taken more than two years. And the Fosters have navigated every step with kindness and professionalism, despite the stress and uncertainty involved that came with the property that they purchased. As the staff report explains, this case required an unusually deep investigation into historic property records. Much of the documentation relevant to this area dates back to the early 1900s, beginning around 1912. And many of those records are handwritten, difficult to read, or written in Spanish. Some are stored on microfiche, and others have been damaged or lost over time. Reconstructing the lot formation history required extensive research into deeds, surveys, surrounding property records, and chain of title materials. The applicant, along with their attorney, Joseph Carnes, and myself included, worked diligently to assemble the evidence needed to address staff's initial concern. that the original administrative record did not clearly show how the law at 996 Martinez Lane was created. As the staff report notes, the supplemental materials, including the 1996 recorded survey, the 1966-67 context now provides a complete and coherent current record for certificate of compliance purposes. It is also important to recognize that based on the age of the deeds and the historic mapping materials, it is very possible that the lot existed prior to the adoption of the Land Development Code in 1962. While the city cannot make the accurate title determination, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the lot has longstanding historic origins. We appreciate staff's thorough review and the recommendation of approval with conditions. The fosters fully support the recommended conditions and are committed to completing any required actions involving the existing sheds and existing casita. I would also like to know we would also like to move forward with the much needed repairs on the property as soon as possible. And I just want to thank you for your time and consideration. And I stand for questions.

Are there any questions on the part of the commission? Is there a motion? Oh, are there public, excuse me, are there anyone in the public on the Zoom?

There are nobody with their hands raised in the zoom room.

I can't see behind the screens.

Street Santa Fe, our property.

Let me swear you in. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalty of perjury? I do. Please proceed.

Our house sits just above this property, and we've been there about 15 years. And our understanding in the neighborhood, and from what we could observe, was that this property was method. And when I met him, we were really pleased to kind of pleasantly surprised that someone wanted to come in and deal with it and improve it. And it's been great to see it improve. And I don't know what's involved technically in approving this, but I hope that you do.

Thank you. Is that it? I didn't hear emotion. Yes, yes. Yes. Oh, there's the public. I close the public hearing.

Vice Chair Smith, are you Chair Smith tonight? Acting Chair Smith. Acting Chair Smith. I would move to approve case, excuse me, 2025-11265996 Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval.

Second. Other questions or comments on the part of the commission? Yes, Commissioner Marando. Oh, I just saw you turning your mic on. Okay, please call a roll. Or roll a call.

Rolling. Commissioner Barber? Yes. Commissioner Capon?

Yes.

Commissioner Rayland?

Yes.

Chair Clout?

Yes.

Commissioner Miranda? Yes. Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Chair Smith, the motion is passed.

Thank you, sir. Moving along, are there staff communications?

Acting Chair Smith, I wanted to bring to this commission's attention that the appeal of the Marriott Hotel, which was approved by the commission.

Excuse me?

I wanted to pass along to the commission that the appeal of the Marriott Hotel, which was approved by this commission on February 5th, 2026, is actually going to be heard by the governing body in a special meeting that is presently scheduled for June 25th. And unlike other governing body meetings that start at 5, this will start at 4 p.m., uh and uh that appeal was brought by the old santa fe association and uh also uh i wanted to uh Thank you for allowing me to serve this commission. If all goes as planned, which can be a big if, we may have another assistant city attorney starting with the city attorney's office next week. She seems well qualified. Her name is Natalie Colley. And she will, as I said, if all goes as planned, she will be taking over planning commission and board of adjustment duties next I have enjoyed serving you. I have enjoyed the very detailed and attentive discussions you have had. Thank you very much for that opportunity.

Thank you. Good luck. Other matters that come before the commission from the commissioners or other? Commissioner Caput.

wanted to say uh again i think we keep thanking you but uh your presentations are extremely thorough and very uh wonderful to hear from our side of things so i just wanted to acknowledge that and say thank you one of the nicest things anybody said to me in a long time i really appreciate that it's my pleasure tonight planning commission then i declare the meeting adjourned