►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting -- 6/2/22
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Smith
and
vice
chair
clau,
commissioner
cetania
and
member
commissioner
toyah,
are
excused
mr.
A
D
So,
as
far
as
the
findings,
the
facts
and
conclusions
of
law
approvals
go,
we've
decided
that
it
makes
more
sense
for
us
to
to
ask
the
language
department
to
do
them
at
the
next
meeting
to
have
them
approved,
instead
of
having
them
already
ready
at
this,
when
the
case
is
heard,
because
you
know
a
variety
of
reasons,
including
we
don't
know
how
the
commission
is
going
to
vote
and
we
end
up
usually
doing
a
fair
amount
of
revisions,
including
conditions,
different
outcomes
and
such
and
also
just
to
sort
of
help
staff
with
time
and
not
have
to
do
revisions
just
do
them
once
and
have
them
approved
as
they
actually
happen.
E
Thank
you
gutierrez
it's
nice
to
meet
you
in
person.
We've
I've
had
the
chance
to
speak
with
you.
You
know
a
little
bit
over
the
last
month
since
starting
my
position
as
the
new
planning
manager
and
current
planning.
E
E
A
Thank
you.
Welcome
we're
happy
to
have
you
and
it's
nice
to
put
a
face
to
a
voice.
Moving
on
to
the
approval
of
the
agenda,
any
changes
from
staff.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
We
do
have
a
few
changes,
so,
as
mr
golly
mentioned,
we
won't
be
considering
finding
the
fact
and
conclusions
of
the
law
for
the
cases
tonight
and
then
case.
2022
47,
56,
27,
50,
boiling
circle.
Development
plan
will
be
postponed
to
june
16th
2022
and
then
both
cases
for
2022
old
pecos
trail
rezoning,
2022,
5063
and
5064
preliminary
excuse
me
rezoning
and
preliminary
plat
will
be
postponed
to
july
7th
2022..
A
B
H
A
B
A
Thank
you.
No
findings,
no,
no
business,
so
we're
moving
on
to
new
business
and
the
first
is
consideration
of
bill.
2022
dash
car
ordinance
before
we
get
started.
I
want
to
disclose
to
the
commission
that
I
am
a
licensed
dismantler
in
the
state
of
new
mexico,
which
means
means
I
do
deal
directly
with
junk
cars.
A
D
There
we
go,
I
do.
C
B
D
Is
a
ordinance
to
change
two
sections
in
the
code,
10-5
and
10-14?
D
A
short
title
of
the
bill
is
vehicle
blight
in
neighborhoods.
It
is
changing
essentially
what
is
considered
a
junk
car
under
the
nuisance
ordinances.
So
you
have
the
the
language
in
front
of
you,
but
basically
10-10-5.3.
D
Change
14-6.3
to
add
a
couple
more
places:
the
vehicles
cannot
be
parked
within
three
feet
from
the
front
property
line
or
blocking
any
sidewalk
or
public
street.
They
would
just
explicitly
say
that
clearly
you're
not
supposed
to
block
sidewalks
or
public
streets
already,
but
it
would
be
in
this
section
of
code
and
then
add
that
any
vehicle
parked
in
a
residential
side,
yard
or
backyard
would
need
to
be
screened
from
view
from
the
public
right-of-way
and
has
a
bit
more
specifics
on
how
to
do
that.
So
it's
a
very
you
know
short
ordinance.
I
You,
mr
chair,
mr
golly,
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
set
back
part
of
the
change,
so
it
is
three
feet
from
the
front
property
line.
So
if
there
is
a
sidewalk
that
is
set
back,
it
is
very
possible
that
a
car
could
be
parked
right
along
the
sidewalk.
As
long
as
it
was
more
than
three
feet
from
the
street,
am
I
understanding
that
correctly.
D
That
is
my
understanding.
Yes,
but
if
the
sidewalk
is
more
than
three
feet,
it
can
also
not
block
the
sidewalk.
I
J
My
question,
mr
spegali
regards
how
this.
J
Dovetails
with
vehicles
that
are
actually
parked
in
the
city
right
of
way,
and
certainly
in
my
neighborhood
and
others
in
santa
fe,
maybe
not
in
wilderness
gate,
but
certainly
in
my
neighborhood
there's
a
lot
of
examples
of
people
using
cars
as
as,
basically
like
storage
units
and
they're
in
the
public
right
away,
and
I
see
them
cited,
but
they're
never
moved.
And
the
second
piece
of
the
question
would
be
as
regards
what
we
call
recreational
vehicles
and
or
trailers,
and
are
there
other
parts
of
the
of
the
city
code
that
addressed
that
sufficiently.
D
I
believe
that
recreational
vehicles
are
addressed
and
there
are
some
other
parts
of
the
code
that
say
how
long
vehicles
can
be
parked
on
city
streets
without
being
moved.
This
is
mostly
in
response
to
vehicles
that
are
inoperable.
C
D
A
The
only
thing
I
would
want
to
add
to
this
is
keep
in
mind
if
it's
a
true
collector
or
somebody
that
does
their
own
work,
they're,
probably
going
to
have
two
of
the
same
to
make
one
antique
vehicle
go.
So
with
that
in
mind,
as
as
this
goes
forward,
just
if
you're
going
to
get
down
to
specifics
that
they
are
two
of
the
same,
it
can
be
there.
I
Mr
chair
I'll
make
a
motion
to
recommend
that
the
governing
body
approve
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
ordinance
within
the
junk
vehicle
ordinance.
A
C
A
A
F
K
All
right
good
evening,
so
this
is
the
case:
2022
50,
65,
101
victoria
street
certificate
of
compliance.
The
applicants
are
james,
w
subradian
associates
for
bill
gentry,
the
owner,
who
are
requesting
a
certificate
of
compliance
for
a
lot
that
is
non-compliant
with
city
subdivision
and
zoning
requirements
for
101
victoria
street.
The
property
is
zone
r5,
which
is
five
residential
units
per
acre
and
consists
of
1.258
acre
lot
with
one
dwelling
unit.
K
K
I
can
I'm
going
to
go
into
a
little
more
detail
about
why
that
is
so
because
of
that
we
have
to
recommend
denial
due
to
the
letter
of
the
law.
However,
I
think
there
might
be
a
path
should
you
choose
to
follow
it?
Two
granted
under
perhaps
the
family
transfer
provision,
which
is
a
lot
split
provision
which
allows
a
lot
to
have
a
higher
density
than
it
normally
would
under
our
typical
zoning
standards.
K
The
zoning
ordinance,
of
course
went
into
effect
in
1962,
and
the
original
law
split
was
not
was
approved
or
was
granted
or
created
in
1964,
without
city
approvals
were
operating
under
the
assumption
that
the
family
did
not
know
that
they
had
to
get
city
approvals
at
that
time,
as
was
common
in
the
period
then
fast
forward
to
2022,
the
current
owner
can't
do
anything
with
the
property
without
a
legal
lot
of
record,
so
they
need
a
certificate
of
compliance.
K
However,
as
I've
noted
at
that
time,
the
zoning
which
was
r5
well
I'll,
go
back
at
this
time.
The
zoning
is
r5
which
would
allow
for
1.8
units
per
acre
under
under
our
zoning
law.
We.
K
So
they
could
only
have
one
unit
per
acre,
so
that
law
split
would
have
been
denied
under
the
zoning
in
1962.
That
excuse
me
from
1964
and
1962.
K
It
was
zoned
r5,
but
at
that
time
we
found
that
the
zoning
was
based
on
lot's
size,
so
an
r5
required
50
foot
wide
and
60
or
6
000
square
foot
area
of
a
lot
size.
The
lot
that
was
created
103
victoria,
is
not
that
size.
Therefore,
it
wouldn't
have
met
that
r5
zoning
criteria,
so
under
those
two
levels
of
regulation
that
law
split
would
have
not
been
approved.
K
However,
we
did
find
that
if
the
zoning,
if
the
application
had
come
in
today,
where
the
family,
the
father
of
the
original
owner,
split
the
lot
for
her
son,
then
we
would
have
granted
that
lost
split,
because
the
density
would
have
been
rounded
up
rather
than
down,
so
that
there
is.
That
argument
and
I
believe,
that's
the
argument
that
the
applicant
is
going
to
make.
But,
as
I
said,
we
have
to
recommend
denial
based
on
our
understanding
of
the
zoning
law.
B
L
Can
you
hear
me?
Okay,
okay,
thank
you
staff
for
your
presentation.
It
was
really
accurate
in
the
statements
and
just
to
add
to
staff's
presentation.
The
intent
of
the
1964
d
transfer
was
to
pass
the
subject
property
onto
family
at
the
time
of
their
death.
As
far
back
as
santa
fe
goes,
it's
always
been
a
tradition
to
purchase
enough
land
in
order
to
pass
down
to
their
children,
sisters,
brothers,
uncles,
the
subject:
property
remained
in
the
family
until
the
passing
of
the
recipient
of
the
property
in
1989..
L
L
As
stock
mentioned,
the
property
has
been
sold
several
times,
and
it
was
just
recently
discovered
by
our
client
that
the
he
doesn't
have
a
legal
out
of
record.
So
he's
been
going
through
a
lot
of
heartache
for
the
past
year
and
a
half
trying
to
determine
what
to
do
with
the
lot
he
has
purchased
and
he
really
would
like
to
remodel
both
of
the
subject
tracks
that
staff
spoke
about.
They
both
currently
have
dwelling
units
on
them
and
that's.
C
C
A
K
Thank
you,
chair
digitas
and
commissioner
smith
to
answer
your
question.
Your
first
question.
First
effectively
we're
legalizing
the
slots
so,
according
to
the
outcome
they
would
like
to
do
remodel
and
in
the
future
the
law
could
be
sold
as
it
currently
is,
but
obviously
you
couldn't
have
another
unit
on
there
or
anything
like
that.
We're
not
raising
the
zoning
or
anything
of
that
nature.
It's
just
trying
to
allow
the
current
owner
to
have
a
legal
lot.
You
know.
K
He
can't
really
do
anything
with
his
property
and
it's
already
good
financing,
et
cetera.
As
far
as
the
family
transfer
ordinance.
This
is
a
special
provision
we
have
for
subdivisions
to
make
accommodations
for
families
such
as
the
ones
victoria
mentioned,
where
they
want
to
have
a
traditional
split
of
their
family
lot
to
a
child
or
grandchild.
K
Therefore,
the
city
allows
for
certain
exceptions,
including
deferment
of
infrastructure,
improvements
and,
in
this
case,
also
an
increase
in
density,
so
typically
our
zoning
density
rounds
down.
So
whatever
your
acreage
times,
the
zoning
density
equals
1.8,
but
you
run
down
to
one
unit.
However,
under
family
transfer,
it's
rounded
up,
so
you
have
two
units,
so
that's
how
they
could
use
this
as
a
legal
reason
to
allow
for
two
units
to
come
out
of
that.
Last
split.
L
The
applicant
went
into
he
purchased
this
property
a
couple
years
ago.
He
went
into
the
city
building
permits
and
tried
to
obtain
a
permit,
but
without
a
permit,
so
he
does
want
to
remodel,
but
he's
stuck
in
a
situation
where
he
can't
do
anything,
and
he
can't
sell
this
to
someone
else
because
he's
just
passing
the
problem
problem
along.
So
he
does
want
to
remodel.
L
He
cannot
obtain
a
permit
without
a
legal
lot
of
record
or
a
letter
of
compliance,
so
he's
just
kind
of
stuck
there,
so
he
can't
make
any
kind
of
exterior
or
interior
additions
remodels
unless
he
has
a
legal
lot
of
records.
So
the
property
is
developed,
he's
not
going
to
develop
it
anymore,
but
he
would
like
to
remodel
the
existing
residence.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
my
impression,
looking
at
the
aerials
and
in
the
photographs
and
looking
at
the
context
is,
what's
changed.
What
will
change
this
is
for
kind
of
a
rhetorical
question,
but
I
I
will
ask
it
to
you
directly
and
frankly
to
staff
the
facts
on
the
ground
are:
there's
a
house
there
now
there's
going
to
be
a
house
there.
Afterwards,
it
has.
J
L
K
Commissioner,
I'm
commissioner
power
sheriff
dt.
Excuse
me
any
sort
of
future
accessory
drawing
in
it
would
have
to
meet
all
zoning
regulations,
so
setbacks
parking
etc.
So,
on
such
a
small
plot,
it
may
or
may
not
be
possible,
but
you're
right.
It
is
a
rhetorical
question.
Nothing's
changing
at
this
point
at
this
time
and
I
think
staff
agrees
that
it
is
kind
of
a
silly
conundrum
to
be
denying
somebody
a
thanks
and
having
a
property
owner
stuck
in
a
situation.
That's
not
feasible,
but
under
our
under
our
code.
C
K
Recommend
this
case,
thank
you.
J
Is
is
deriving.
J
From
I'm
ready
to
make
a
motion.
I
Thank
you.
I
believe
that
my
question
or
questions
are
for
staff.
I
am
looking
at
the
criteria
here
that
are
in
our
staff
report
and
I
believe
that
one
of
the
most
relevant
aspects
is
that
a
lot
would
otherwise
comply
with
all
other
applicable
standards
of
chapter
14..
I
My
I
would
assume
that
if
we
interpret
the
family
transfer
ordinance
in
such
a
way
that
it
would
then
we
would
then
it
would
then
meet
that
criteria.
Is
that
correct.
K
Yes,
cherry
gutierrez
and
commissioner,
that
is
correct,
they
would
meet
other
criteria,
such
as
setbacks
and
lot
coverage
that
those
are
met.
M
C
M
This
is
kaha
del
oro,
it's
case:
2021
4379
taja,
the
oral
subdivision,
preliminary
development
plan,
james
sieber,
in
an
associate's
agent
for
pulte
group
of
new
mexico.
A
M
Request:
approval
of
a
development
plan
for
an
80
single-family
home
development
plan.
The
property
is
approximately
16.21
acres
of
land
on
eight
individual
lots
and
these
are
to
be
consolidated.
The
property
is
located.
C
M
M
The
second
case
is
20
21,
43,
81,
caja
del
oro,
subdivision
preliminary
subdivision
platinum,
james
siebert
and
an
associate's
inc
agent
for
pulte
group
of
new
mexico
applicant.
They
request
approval
preliminary
subdivision
for
80
single-family
lots
in
property
description
on
february
17
2022,
the
commission
postponed
case
2021
4379
and
2021
4381,
the
caja
del
development
plan,
preliminary
plat
with
the
direction
to
the
applicant
to
redesign
the
project.
C
M
C
M
Redesign
there
is
no
change
to
the
infrastructure
design
of
the
subdivision.
There
are
only
design
changes
to
how
the
lots
are
being
developed
and
the
number
of
locks
within
the
subdivision.
The
internal
circulation,
both
wet
and
dry
utilities
are
all
the
same
they're
coming
in
through
caja
del
oro
road
into
both
halves
of
the
subdivision.
B
B
N
Ethan
is
setting
up
here.
Let
me
do
two
things.
One
thing
I
want
to
acknowledge
alex
for
helping
us
out
on
audio
visual
today
we
wouldn't
be
here
today
without
the
you
always
expect,
expect
glitches
and
sure
enough.
We
are
sure
of
them
today.
The
other
thing
is
to
provide
a
little
history.
To
this.
N
I
know
there's
two
two
new
members
on
the
commission
and
and
where
the
project
stands
today,
the
previously
at
a
previous
planning
commission
meeting,
the
planning
commission
actually
felt
the
density
was
appropriate
for
the
area
and
they
recommended
you
all
recommended
that
it
proceed
to
the
city
council,
with
a
favorable
recommendation
for
a
general
plan
amendment
and
a
rezoning,
the
so
what's
in
front
of
you
tonight
is
just
simply
two
issues:
it's
the
preliminary
development
plan
and
the
preliminary
plat
so
out
of.
F
N
F
N
N
C
C
N
As
background
information
importance
here,
the
south
lot,
which
is
20.52
acres,
there's
been
discussion
about.
F
G
N
There's
a
lot
of
residential
development
in
the
area.
There's
the
you
know,
recent
apartment
project
has
been
been
approved,
that's
very
nearby
and
that
there's
no
kind
of
commercial
activities
to
help
the
neighbors
out
and
in
discussions
with
the
representative
for
the
owner
of
the
lot
to
the
south
that
that
lot
will
be
reserved
for
kind
of
neighborhood
commercial
uses.
C
N
C
N
Hopefully
this
will
there
we
go
so
this
is
the
plan
as
we're
representing
today,
with
certain
changes
to
the
to
the
plan,
as
there
was
recommendations
provided
by
the
planning
commission.
That
will
talk
about
what
those
recommendations
are,
but
to
just
clarify
a
few
things.
The
the
roads
in
gray
are
public
roadways.
F
A
N
Also
in
gray,
and
then
one
at
the
very
south
end
noted
as
emergency
access.
All
the
all
the
roads
inside
the
the
project
are
public
roadways
that
will
be
just
built
as
public
roadways.
With
a
curb
gutter,
sidewalk
planting
strips
the
in
cattle
delaurel,
the
same
thing
will
happen
with
the
cathode
of
the
world.
It
will
be
improved
as
presently
it's
it's
a
approximately
22
foot
wide
asphalt
road,
no
curbing
gunner,
no
sidewalk.
N
C
N
For
planting
and
a
5
foot
section
for
the
trail
itself
on,
on
the
left
hand,
side
adjacent
to
alameda
is
an
eight-foot
trail.
We've
had
discussions
with
the
metropolitan
planning
organization
on
this
to
work
with
them.
They
actually
requested
that
it
become
a
public
trail
and
were
in
agreement
with
that.
N
N
H
N
The
the
issue
that
came
up
was
they
felt
the
buildings
were
too
close.
Together.
You
know
each
of
these
buildings
is
an
equivalent
of
an
attached
duplex
with
a
common
wall,
but
on
the
side
on
the
previous
plan
it
was
a
5
foot
side
urn.
So
what
happens?
Is
you
have
a
10
foot
separation
of
house
to
house?
N
The
the
other
issue
was
pedestrian
access
before
the
access
took
place
between
at
various
locations
between
the
units
and
you
had
to
walk
through
this
path
and
then
make
a
turn
on
on
the
perimeter
path
and
walk.
Perhaps
walk
several
lots
down
before
you
get
to
whatever
house
you
wanted
to
go
to
as
as
a
guest
and
the
commission
just
didn't
like
that
arrangement.
N
N
K
J
N
Well,
excuse
me,
the
next
one
up.
The
second
one
up
would
be
an
eight
foot.
Trail
we'd
have
to
acquire
three
feet
of
additional
land
from
the
highway
department
and
make
it
happen,
but
we
would
also
retain
a
five,
a
five
foot,
plantar
area
and
I'll
show
you,
the
landscape
plan,
it's
important
that
we
retain
this
because
it
provides
in
this
case
it
provides
shade
for
people
on
the
trail.
Also
it
begins
to
kind
of
soften
the
exterior
of
the
development
itself.
N
C
C
N
Five-Foot
planter
strip
and
the
five-foot
trail
there
and
they
pretty
much
circumvent
the
entire
entire
project,
the
the
next
going
to
the
very
top.
What
what
takes
place
is.
We
have
two
options
and
we
were
a
bit
a
bit
of
a
dilemma
or
which
might
be
the
best
one
and
thought
we'd
just
present,
both
to
you
and
see
if
you
all
had
a
preference,
but
it
can
be
what
they
call
a
double
wall
system
where
you
would
both
parties
would
enter
into
this
walkway
and
then
they
would
split
off
to
their
individual
houses.
N
The
the
advantage
of
this
one
is
that
it's
more
of
a
direct
access
to
the
trail
system
and
and
that's
disadvantage,
is
that
you
do
lose
side
yard
space,
and
in
this
case
you
end
up
with
approximately
six
and
a
half
feet
of
side
yard.
N
N
N
N
Issue
is
consideration
of
alleys,
and
the
discussion
was
why
don't
you
put
alleys
along
the
back
of
the
units
or
along
the
perimeter
of
the
units,
and
then
the
garages
would
face
that
alley.
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Backup
space,
what
happens
is
the
lot
then
gets
longer,
and
what
the
result
of
all
this
is
that,
instead
of
losing
eight
watts
like
because
of
the
side
yards
you're,
looking
at
it
losing
significantly
more,
we
didn't.
We
didn't
try
to
do
a
run
on
it,
but
I'll
make
you
bet,
you'd
be
losing
20
20
30
units
more.
F
E
N
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
I
wanted
to
clarify
a
couple
of
things
and
I
think
the
the
one
concern
that
I
had
had
last
time
was
really
about
the
pedestrian
access
the
pedestrian
circulation.
You
touched
on
that
a
little
bit.
First,
I
did
want
to
ask
one
specific
question.
You
were
talking
about
the
trail
layout
along
alameda.
I
N
The
I
had.
I
Okay
and
maybe
while
you're
looking
that
up,
I
can
ask
another
question
or
if
you
want
to
look
that
up
first,
you
can.
N
Yeah,
let's
see
if
we
can
find
that
okay
here
we
go
yeah
full
screen,
so.
N
A
Stevert,
excuse
me
for
one
second,
mr
esquivel
or
somebody
can
we
move
this,
so
commissioner
faulkner
has
a
better
view.
N
So
the
trees
and
there's
a
variety
of
types
and
that's
actually
a
requirement
of
the
city.
They
don't
want
a
consistent.
You
know
the
same
genus
and
species
for
every
tree
out
there.
If
something
happens
to
them,
then
they
all
die.
N
N
N
I
I
And
then
the
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
ask
about
the
the
last
time
we
saw
this
project.
I
F
N
I
Okay,
so
so
the
idea,
more
than
anything,
is
that
what
would
be
facing
del
oro?
What
would
be
facing
alameda?
Those
would
appear
to
be
the
the
fronts
of
homes
and
then
from
your
interior
streets.
You
would
have
garage
access,
and
would
you
have
a
door
access
on
that
side
too?
Or
is
it
just.
I
N
I
Oh,
I
see
so
people
would
park
in
a
parking
space
if
they
were
coming
to
visit.
Someone
ring
bring
their
person
they're
visiting
and
walk
all
the
way
through
and
around
when
they're,
let
in
through
the
gate.
Okay,
thank
you
and
otherwise
what
you
have
marked
as
trail,
except
for
what
is
already
running
along
the
street,
that
is
not
accessible
by
the
public
in
any
way.
N
The
well
the
what
you
have
is
you
have
a
sidewalk
adjacent
to.
I
mean
part
of
the
public
street.
All
that's
public.
N
I
B
Q
Thank
you.
So
we
provided
two
options
this.
This
is
the
sidewalk
that
surrounds
the
roadway,
the
vehicular
roadway.
Here
we
provide
two
options
where
we
have,
and
this
could
be
a
public
easement
for
for
anyone
in
the
public
to
use
that
goes
from
the
public
street
from
the
public
sidewalk
through
the
units
all
the
way
to
the
public
trail.
Here
we
had
suggested
maybe
a
gate,
even
if
this
was
a
so
it
doesn't
necessarily.
We
can
exclude
the
gate
we
thought
about.
Q
This
is
an
option
having
a
gate
here,
but
there
could
be
that
the
residents
could
put
a
gate
here.
So
if
you're,
if
you're
here
and
you're
you're
parked
in
whether
you're
a
guest
or
whether
you're
just
the
public
and
walking
through
here,
you
could
walk
along
the
sidewalk
walk
out
here
and
go
here,
and
that
would
be.
This
would
be,
let's
say,
option
a,
and
this
would
be
between
every
unit.
This
was
option
b,
but
but
we
would
have
this
between
every
every
unit.
So
excuse
me
that
option
would
be
available
for
anyone.
I
What
I'm
referring
to,
though,
is
really
what
is
along
the
the
upper
upper
left
hand
corner
that
part
of
the
trail
and
how
how
that
access
works
right.
Q
So
again,
if
we
didn't
have
this
gate,
this
is
optional.
If
you,
if
you're
the
public
you're
walking
here-
and
you
want
to
go
into
the
internal-
you
just
turn
and
walk
through
there,
there's
nothing
that
would
prevent
you
we
do
have.
So
this
is
the
front
door,
but
this
is
a
sliding
door
here
in
their
patio.
That's
just
open
to
this
landscaped
area.
So
so
they
could.
You
have
two
options.
I
And
say
one
of
those
residents
or
a
neighbor
wants
to
cut
cut
the
corner
of
alameda
and
caja
del
rio
and
walk
along
the
edge
of
this
neighborhood.
If
they
did
so,
they
could
do
so
and
they
would
look
at
what
is
essentially
the
fronts
of
these
homes.
That's
correct!
That's
the
right
understanding
that.
Q
Is
correct,
and
so
we,
the
other
option,
is
if
we
didn't
have
the
walls
between
here
with
this
public,
this
one
doesn't
have
as
much
public
access.
That's
why
we
wanted
to
propose
this
that
anybody
could
go
through
here.
The
other
option
was
you
put
a
single
wall
on
the
property
line,
and
then
you
would
have
a
gate.
This
actually
is
on
their
their
their
property
in
their
in
their
courtyard,
which
would
take.
Q
You
would
come
off
the
sidewalk
up
the
driveway
through
here
all
the
way
up
here,
and
then
they
have
an
opening
that
doesn't
show
the
opening
here
where
they
would
have
this
this
on
on
both
this
one
shows
this
where
you
come
off
of
here
in
here
here,
and
this
actually
then
acts
as
the
front-
that's
not
necessarily
pedestrian
friendly
for
all
the
public.
That's
why
we
want
to
give
you
guys
that
option
on
which
one
you
felt
was
better.
I
Thank
you
that
that
helps
and-
and
I
think
my
concern
really
last
time
was
for
the
people
who
live
here.
Currently
it
doesn't
have
great
connectivity
to
other
areas
of
the
community.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
was
circulation
throughout
you.
Have
the
small
park
there
as
well
want
to
make
sure
that
people
can
access
that
too,
and
so
I
think
your
your
answers
help
me.
I
have
nothing
else
at
this
time.
Mr
chair,
thank.
Q
A
Mr
patton,
since
you're
up
there
with
the
microphone,
I
have
a
quick
question
for
you,
mr
chairman.
Well
as
we're
looking
at
this
section,
a
and
section
b
b
is
the
two
choices
that
you're
showing
us
on
this
drawing
as
a
and
right
here
and
the
one
without
gates,
and
that
provides
connectivity
is
going
to
come
with
a
five
foot.
Sidewalk,
that's
correct!
Yes,
sir,
and
the
other
one
would
just
be
a
four
foot
sidewalk
and
in
their
courtyard
correct.
Q
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
My
question
still
on
this,
this
topic
of
the
of
the
passageway
alternatives.
The
walkways,
although
they're
in
in
we'll
call
it
option
a
which
is
the
lower
one.
Yes,
one
you're
pointing
to
in
that
case
there
are
no
access
gates
and
public
people
who
live
in
the
subdivision,
as
well
as
members
of
the
public,
can
walk
directly
through
correct
yes,
and
then
thank
you
and
then
the
walkway
is
split.
The
walkway
is
actually
private
property.
Isn't
it
that.
Q
Is
correct
so
this
would
have
to
be
a
public
easement
which
we've
done
on
hoa
property.
But
yes,
sir
yeah
and.
J
Q
Sir,
in
fact,
that
would
be
on
the
final
plaque
that
would
come
before
this.
This
board
at
a
later
date,
you'd
see
that
public
access
and.
J
I
do
recall
the
voluminous
covenants
proposed
for
this,
and-
and
I
imagine.
C
Q
Commissioner,
that
is
true
and
we'd
have
an
hoa
a
property
manager
that
would
help
enforce
that,
and
so
it
wouldn't
be
just
necessarily
that
the
city
would
have
to
come
out.
If
the
city
saw
something
they
could
reach
out
to
the
hoa
property
manager
and
say
hey,
you
know
this
would
be
enforced.
So
you'd
have
somebody
out
here
all
the
time.
Looking
at
that,
as
well
as
weeds
and
other
things.
J
A
Okay,
so
just
my
two
cents
on
the
and
same
as
commissioner
palmer,
I
think
I
don't
know
if
it's
something
that
we
need
to
condition.
Mr
patton,
you
seem
happy
to
to
make
sure
that
it's
it's
noted
that
there's
not
going
to
be
any
restrictions
and
no
gates
put
up
by
polti
or
homeowners
for
that.
So
with
that.
R
J
Motion
I'll
have
to
look
at
the
case
one
moment
on
the
agenda.
Thank
you.
I
would
motion
for
approval
of
case
2021,
4379
subdivision
preliminary.
A
A
Do
me
a
favor
go
to
the
microphone,
be
sworn
in,
get
your
point
of
order
over
to
miss
magaly
and
we'll
have
her
advise
us.
Thank
you.
B
O
Address
for
the
record,
my
name
is
stephen
harper
f-a-r-b-e-r.
I
am
a
lawyer
in
the
licensed
practice,
alum
state
of
new
mexico.
I
live
at
2351,
botoff
road.
I
make
the
point
of
order
that
the
opponents
to
this
particular
rezoning
have
not
been
given
proper
due
process
of
law
prior
to
this
moment
and
that
the
public
comment
a
bubble
was
closed
on
monday
and
people
were
not
able
to
make
public
comments.
The
city
code
particularly
states
that
when.
O
That
you
have
until
the
next
day
in
order
to
be
able
to
do
whatever
you
need
to
do.
That's
been
my
experience
practicing
law
for
more
than
four
decades.
It's
the
city
of
code,
it's
the
city
law,
so
people,
including
me,
have
not
been
able
to
provide
information.
One
of
the
things
we
wanted
to
provide
councillor.
A
Okay,
mr
kelly,
if
you
do
you
have
a
section
of
the
code?
You're
referencing,
yes,.
O
I
sent
an
email
message
which
I
have
made
I
printed
out.
I
didn't
bring
you
up
with
me.
I
sent
it
to,
I
believe
the
city
attorney
the
city
manager,
mr
esquibel,
should
have
it
and
others
as
well.
So
we've
been
precluded
from
being
able
to
provide
information.
I
wanted
to
be
able
to
share
with
the
planning
commission
that
there's
exhibit
a
which
is
item
number
two.
There.
A
F
D
Mr
chair,
the
the
section
that
sheldon
is
referring
to
is
14-1.9
d
computation
of
time,
which
is
for
general
rules
of
construction.
We
did
look
at
that.
It
does
say
that
there
is
the
time
required
is
if
the
deadline
or
required
date
of
action
falls
on
a
saturday,
sunday
or
holiday,
observed
by
the
city
deadline
of
required
data
action
is
the
next
day.
That
is
not
one
of
those
days,
references
to
days
or
calendar
days.
D
Unless
otherwise
stated,
this
section
is
referring
to
the
the
chapter
14
as
a
whole,
which
is
mostly
in
reference
to
dates
for
appeals,
filings,
enn
notices,
those
those
sorts
of
dates,
but
the
date
for
comments
on
prime
gov
is
stated
specifically
in
the
agenda,
which
was
monday
at
five.
D
It
was
our
interpretation
city
attorney's
office
that
this
particular
section
ordinance
in
the
code
is
not
applicable
to
prime
gov
comments
because
they
have
a
specific
date
which
was
not
affected
by
the
holiday.
There
was
nothing
that
needed
to
come
in
in
person.
A
A
O
N
O
A
Let
me
let
me
just
stop
you
with
the
advice
of
the
city
attorney's
office,
I'm
going
to
pull
the
commission.
I
I
feel
confident
that
we
can
go
forward
with
this
case,
but
I'm
going
to
pull
the
commission
and
see
how
they
feel
about
it
and
we
will
go
from
there.
Commissioners.
Does
anybody
object
for
commissioner,
okay,
commissioner
faulconer,
please.
G
E
D
A
O
A
It
will
it
help
you
decipher.
O
O
To
upload
anything,
and
so
I'm
stymied,
because
it's
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding,
I
can't
communicate
with
you
and
so
we're
stuck
plus.
I
was
never
advised
by
the
land
use
commission
as
the
technicians.
In
the
back
told
me,
I
should
have
been
that
I
needed
an
hdi
cable
and
an
hdi
port
to
be
able
to
show
you
things
on
the
screen.
O
O
A
We
we
will
proceed.
Mr
farber,
there
will
be
avenues
if
you
don't
like.
What's
happened
here
tonight,
for
you
to
take
and
I'm
sure
you're
well
aware
of
all
of
them,
so
with
all
due
respect,
if
you'll
have
a
seat
in
liaison
tiny,
have
a
seat,
everybody
that
mr
esquivel
get
to
his
portion
and
we'll
call
up
the
planner
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
pub
to
carry
another
portion.
Thank
you.
Let's.
A
M
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
this
is
case
number
22,
49,
42,
23,
39,
volt
off
road,
rezoning
liaison
planning
service
inc
agent
for
shelley
espinosa
owner,
requested
rezoning
for
chapter
14,
sfcc
1987,
1435
rezonings
from
r1
residential
one
dollar
unit
per
acre
to
r2
two
dollar
units
per
acre
on
1.41
acre
lot.
The
property
is
located
within
the
suburban
archaeological
review.
District
planning
commission
should
recommend
the
governing
body
approved
case
22
4942.
M
M
M
The
circle
is
the
area
the
blow-up
is
is
what
we're
looking
at
and
the
blue
is
the
approximate
site
location.
There
was
an
error
that
I
found
in
the
previous
zoning
map
the
circle
on
the
zoning
map.
The
red
circle
identifies
where
that
error
is,
and
that
is
the
r1
for
the
annexation
that
I
identified
for
2009
here.
M
M
M
The
review
area
identified
after
calculating
using
our
gm
arcgis,
a
density
of
approximately
2.4
acres
for
that
area
that
takes
into
account
all
the
subdivisions
that
I
found
and
the
apartment
complexes
along
saint
francis
drive,
and
I
guess
that
would
be
where
the
st
michael's
area
is
so
2.4
was
the
density
calculations
that
I
found
as
the
average.
J
F
M
M
M
C
M
M
M
F
M
M
C
M
For
r1,
everything
would
be
calculated
at
0.4.
This
property
will
be
accessing
city
services
for
water
and
sewer,
so
that
would
not
apply
if
they
only
had
one
service
available,
then
this
would
give
them
a
density
where
we
would
calculate
for
one
dwelling
unit
per
acre.
So
this
would
work
for
an
r1
district,
but
it
wouldn't
do
anything
for
an
r2
district
and
there's
also
an
area
requirement
if
they
have.
M
This
property
does
not
have
a
channel,
and
that's
that
would
give
us
the
first
value
if.
M
In
well,
then,
we
would
multiply
that
balance
by
the
density
factor.
So
in
this
case,
if
they
have
1.4
acres,
we
would
multiply
this
times
one
they're
going
to
get
a
density
of
1.41.
That
gives
them
a
value
that
we
would
use
where
you
would
drop.
If
and
then
from
there.
We
would
calculate
the
mountainous
difficult
terrain
if
they're
not.
O
C
M
The
density
is
one
there's,
no
mountainous
and
difficult
terrain,
so
the
density
is
1.4
and
for
the-
and
this
would
give
them
that
one
dwelling
unit
for
the
proposed
request,
their
request-
is
going
from
an
r1
to
an
r2.
If
successful
by
this
committee
and
the
governing
body,
this
acreage
stays
the
same
1.41.
M
C
M
M
M
M
We
found
that
the
applicant
did
meet
all
of
the
requirements
for
rezoning
a
general
plan.
Amendment
is
not
a
requirement
when
you're
expanding
an
existing
zone
district
to
incorporate
your
particular
property.
Normally,
there
is
a
requirement
if
you're
doing
a
rezoning,
and
you
have
less
than
two
acres.
You
don't
qualify,
however,
that
does
not
work
and
it
is
allowed
if
you're
expanding
an
adjacent
zone
district
to
incorporate
into
yours,
and
because
this
falls.
C
M
The
future
land
use
map
between
one
and
three
dwellings
an
acre.
It
is
an
allowable
change
for
zoning,
so
they
have
to
meet
only
the
zoning
criteria,
and
our
belief
is
that
they've
met
all
of
the
zoning
criteria
in
order
to
move
forward
with
a
positive
response
from
staff.
M
Now
this
application
has
been
tabled
or
postponed
a
few
times.
That's
because
the
applicant
has
made
changes
to
their
application
in
order
to
to
achieve
this
state.
That
is
before
the
planning
commission
today.
So,
as
mr
farber
indicated,
he
has
been
sending
a
lot
of
requests
in
for
a
lot
of
documentation.
M
C
M
Do
meet
the
criteria
tonight
and,
depending
on
the
outcome
of
the
the
planning
commission,
will
determine
what
the
findings
will
will
be
at
the
future
meeting
with
that,
I
can
stand
for
any
questions.
M
Otherwise
I'll
turn
it
over
to
the
applicant.
S
Good
evening,
mr
esquivel,
would
you
address
the
arguments
filed
by
mr
farber
that
some
of
the
information
that
he
wants
to
be
bringing
before
the
commission
in
fact
has
not
been
provided
to
us?
Is
that
correct
or
not.
M
C
M
I
did
receive
somebody
a
letter
from
tiano's,
mr
tianos,
that
many
people
requested
to
get
in
the
packet.
However,
that
packet
was
already
developed
and
packaged
and
processed,
so
it
did
not
get
in
the
packet.
I
responded
to
the
applicant
those
that
requested
that
they
have
two
more
options.
They
can
include
those
comments
into
our
prime
gov
as
comments
or
they
can
present
their
comments
individually
at
the
planning
commission.
M
F
M
S
F
F
S
A
B
T
Good
evening
my
name
is
dolores
vigil,
I'm
with
liaison
planning
services,
po
box,
1835,
santa
fe,
new
mexico,
87504,
I'd
like
to
start
by
handing
out
some
letters
of
support
to
all
the
commissioners
and
to
the
attorneys
for.
T
D
They
should
have
been
provided
ahead
of
time
if
they
were
going
to
be
provided
in
in
writing
here.
Well,.
D
They
would
there's,
there's
clearly
not
time
to
review
it
at
this
point.
How
how
much
information
is.
T
This
is
one
of
them.
There's
like
three
three
and
eight.
A
U
T
T
T
Glasses,
but
I
can,
I
have
to
use
him
to
see
who
came
here.
I
do
the
opposite
here
anyway,
good
evening,
good
to
see
everybody.
You
know
it's
been
a
long
haul
with
this
pandemic
and
it's
nice
to
see
everyone
in
person
and
and
alive
and
well.
As
you
know,
my
name
is
dolores
v
vigil,
I'm
with
liaison
planning
services.
I
represent
the
applicant
shelly
espinosa.
T
She
is
here
in
the
audience
and
she
would
like
to
have.
She
has
a
statement
that
she'd
like
to
read
in
after
I
do
my
presentation.
Actually
she
wants
to
read
it
into
the
record
after
everyone
else
presents.
If
that's
okay
with
you,
mr
chair,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
dan
esquivel
for
an
excellent
job.
In
reviewing
this
case.
T
We
did
have
an
enn
meeting
june
january
5th
2022
and
where
we
discuss
the
application,
discuss
the
application
with
with
the
neighbors.
There
was-
maybe
I
don't
know,
seven
to
ten
neighbors.
We
did
a
zoom
application,
we
we
were
working
at
that
time.
We
were
working
with
a
different
staff,
member
donna
weinert.
She
was
at
that
meeting.
T
T
We've
also
provided
all
the
information
that's
required
for
this.
I
understand
that
a
site
plan
is
not
part
of
this
application,
but
I
have
one
for
your
review
if
you
need
to,
and
if
you
want
to
discuss
it
in
detail,
it's
it's
available.
I
don't
know
it's
up
to
you,
mr
chair
or
any
of
the
commissioners.
If
they
want
to
look
at
it,
that's
really
all
I
have
right
now.
T
I
think
it's
time
to
just
get
into
it
and
if
you
would
allow
the
applicant
to
be
the
last
speaker
and
thank
you
for
your
time
for
questions.
Mr.
A
B
V
Alrighty,
as
I
just
said
good
evening,
mr
chair
and
commissioners
and
fellow
santa
fe
neighbors,
my
name
is
shelly
espinoza
and
I'd
like
to
begin
by
telling
a
little
bit
about
myself
and
my
family.
V
I
was
born.
I
was
born
to
a
large
family
with
roots
here
in
new
mexico
dating
back
to
the
1600s.
My
mother's
family
arrived
in
santa
fe
in
the
late
1700s,
my
mother,
loved
santa
fe
and
loved
our
family,
our
family's
generational
legacy,
that
is
part
of
santa
fe's
history.
Today
it
was
important
to
her
and
it
was
important
to
her
to
instill
that
love
and
respect
in
her
children.
V
V
V
Additionally,
my
hope
was
to
share
this
property
with
my
family
one
day,
especially
as
I
grow
older
and
leave
a
legacy
for
them.
That's
our
tradition.
Currently,
none
of
my
children
live
in
santa
fe.
My
eldest
son
holds
about
a
master's
degree
and
works
for
the
state
government
here
in
santa
fe,
yet
he
has
to
commute
daily
from
albuquerque
as
housing
in
santa
fe
is
too
expensive
for
he
and
his
family.
V
My
daughter
is
working
on
her
degree
at
unm
and
I
would
love
for
her
and
her
family
to
live
closer
to
me
and
be
able
to
work
and
live
in
santa
fe.
My
youngest
son
attended
highlands.
He
currently
shares
the
house
with
roommates
again.
Santa
fe
is
too
expensive
for
him
and
eventually
splitting
the
slot
would
allow
me
to
help
at
least
one
of
my
children
to
live
and
work
in
santa
fe.
V
V
V
V
This
began
during
the
enn
process.
I
understand
the
need
for
this
process.
However,
I
never
imagined
that
this
process
sets
up
a
situation
where
a
few
people
feel
that
they
can
hand
pick
and
choose
who
can
and
can't
live
in
their
neighborhood
or
who
can
and
can't
prosper
or
benefit
from
developing
their
property.
V
V
V
Additionally,
I'm
confused
as
to
why
the
nobles
are
objecting
to
this
rezoning,
because
they
own
numerous
high
density
properties
in
this
neighborhood.
Some
only
700
feet
from
my
property,
including
a
six
unit
apartment
compound,
along
with
two
more
two,
more
very
small
lots
reserved
for
development,
which
allows
for
primary
dwellings
and
accessory
drillings.
V
V
There's
been
some
question
about
me:
allowing
people
to
walk
through
my
property
and
giving
access
an
easement
for
the
general
public
to
walk
through
my
property
when
I
purchased
this
property,
my
neighbors
ruben
science
and
tiana's,
and
I
agree
contractually
to
prohibit
people
from
going
through
our
properties.
V
Mr
tiano
told
me
he
had
people
camping
on
his
property
and
relieving
themselves
on
this
property
as
well
as
as
well.
Mrs
rubinstein
told
me
that
she
had
people
roaming
around
her
house,
trying
to
open
her
doors
and
getting
into
her
shed.
As
for
my
property
weekly,
I
pick
up
empty
alcohol
containers
and
trash.
O
O
B
B
O
Mr
chairman,
if
I
stephen
farber
again,
if
I
may
raise
some
legal
objections
first
and
then
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
have
an
idea
how
much
time
you're
going
to
allocate
so
I
know
what
I
can
say
what
I
can't
say
what
I
can
refer
to.
O
There
are
other
people
who
want
to
speak
and
let
me
just
say
no
one.
No
one
has
any
objection
to
miss
espinosa
or
to
her
living
on
that
property
period.
I
was
a
city
councilor
from
1992
to
1996.,
and
anyone
can
look
at
the
records
in
the
minutes.
I
was
a
civic
activist
arguing
on
behalf
of
the
local
residents
of
people
who
are
here
for
neighborhood
preservation.
O
I
cared
about
the
south
side,
I
cared
about
the
east
side,
I
cared
about
the
west
side
and
I
cared
about
the
north
side.
So
there
is
absolutely
no
credence,
none
whatsoever
that
I
personally
would
ever
oppose
someone
living
on
a
piece
of
property.
There
is
a
much
bigger
issue,
that's
involved
that
has
gotten
distorted
and
I'd
like
to
go
back
to
that
now
we
were
told
we
were
not
told
number
one
that
there
had
been
an
amendment
to
the
zoning
application.
A
Counselor,
so
I'm
not
going
to
give
you
a
time
limit,
I'm
going
to
ask
that
you
don't
be
redundant.
Okay,
I'm
going
to
ask
that
you
stick
to
points
of
the
case
that
involve
the
commission
and
don't
get
off
into
the
weeds
into
legal
aspects
that
do
not
involve
this
commission
if
there's
something
that
that
you
know
is
happening
somewhere
else
and
if
you
would
just
be
precise,
as
there
is
other
people
that
want
to
speak
after
you,
so
we
can
listen
to
everybody.
Thank
you.
O
And
thank
you
chair.
I
just
some
of
those
comments,
though
took
it.
I
did
take
personally.
We
have
nothing
against
miss
espinosa,
she's,
perfectly
free
to
build
a
house
and
a
guest
house
on
that
lot
of
land,
which
is
zoned
r1.
The
issue
is
that
she's
seeking
to
extend
the
density
to
an
r2
based
upon
an
adjustment
of
land
that
was
made
in
2002
20
years
ago.
There's
been
no
change
in
this
particular
area,
and
mr
esquibel's
review
going
all
the
way
to
st
michael's.
O
The
santa
fe
home
rule
charter
is
our
governing
document.
The
santa
fe
home
rule
charter,
which
I
included
the
portion
of
section
2.04
in
the
submission
that
I
made,
which
is
a
part
of
your
exhibit
number
eight
f.
Eight,
I
believe,
is
what
it
is
with
the
letters
not
saying
that
these
are
the
letters
in
opposition
says
that
a
crucial
component
of
the
governance
of
the
city
of
santa
fe,
which
transcends
all
the
city
code,
is
cultural
and
neighborhood
preservation.
O
We
added
the
word
neighborhood.
I
was
on
the
charter
review
commission
eric
buted,
as
you
were
on
it
as
well.
We
added
the
word
neighborhood
four
times
into
section
2.04,
so
that
is
where
everything
starts.
The
analogy
very
quickly
is
the
constitution
of
the
united
states.
Is
the
supreme
law
of
the
land,
everything
flows
from
that
for
santa
fe
as
a
home
rule
charter
city,
the
home
rule
charter?
Is
our
constitution
and
everything
flows
from
the
home
rule
charter?
That's
why
we
have
a
full-time
mayor
now.
O
Well
the
neighborhood
preservation
paragraph,
which
everybody
omits
from
the
city
standpoint
in
the
land
use
department,
talks
about
the
need
to
preserve
cultural
integrity
and
neighborhood
preservation.
This
property
is
adjacent
and
nearby
to
the
silly
lomas
and
arroyo
to
miso
neighborhoods.
That's
why
it's
so
important.
This
is
one
of
the
few
semi-rural
areas
that
exists
within
the
city
of
santa
fe
and
for
people
to
disregard
the
home.
Rule
charter
is
beyond
me
to
be
quite
candid,
because
that
is
our
governing
document
and
in
the
materials
under
f,
which
was
nowhere
noted.
O
I
submitted
a
50-page
document
of
a
review.
I
don't
know
if
you've
had
the
opportunity
to
review
my
entire
compilation,
but
I
thought
it
was.
It
is
accurate.
It
sets
forth
the
history,
it
sets
forth
the
guiding
principles
and
it
sets
forth
the
issues
and
why
people
are
concerned
to
be
here
today
and
particularly
I'd
like
to.
I
don't
know
if
someone
who
hands
this
out
and
exhibit
which
was
exhibit
number
two-
and
this
is
what
I
was
talking
about
for
the
bubble
comment.
I
could
say
findings
of
fact.
O
I
thought
it
was
going
to
be
a
recitation
of
the
findings
of
the
fact
from
the
planning
commission
final
report.
But
when
I
looked
at
it,
I
saw
that
it
was
the
exact
opposite.
One
month
ago,
the
city
land
use
department
apparently
prepared
a
report
recommending
that
this
planning
commission
oppose
the
rezoning.
O
So
since
that
time
and
based
on
what
I'm
hearing
today,
there's
been
communications
between
the
applicant,
the
applicant's
planner
or
applicant
and
or
the
applicant's
planner
and
the
land
use
department
that
amendment
or
modification
to
the
zoning
application
was
never
shared
with
anybody
who
opposes
this
project,
I
didn't
get
it,
they
knew.
I
was
concerned
about
it
and
I'm
not
here
as
a
lawyer,
I'm
here
as
a
concerned
santa
fan
now
I
have
not
been
here
for
ten
generations.
O
O
And
it
has
been
denied
to
us,
because
if,
in
fact,
the
application
for
rezoning
got
amended
sometime
between
may
5th
and
now
or
maybe
the
end
of
april
and
may
and
now
it
should
as
a
matter
of
law
and
of
course
been
provided
to
the
people
who
at
least
attended
the
enn,
or
certainly
the
people
who
made
their
concerns
about.
This
proposed
rezoning
made
known
to
the
land
use
department.
And
that
was
not
done
so.
O
Is
I
highlighted
certain
parts
where
it
shows
that
it's
a
direct
flip-flop
from
what
is
being
said
today
versus
what
the
land
use
department
was
proposing
for?
May
the
fifth
and
I've
had
requests
in
requests
under
the
inspection
of
public
records
act
for
reports
for
drafts
for
plans,
all
of
which
have
have
been
delayed
until
mid-june,
even
though
they're
available
and
should
have
been
given
to
me,
it
caused
me
to
have
to
file
a
lawsuit
against
the
city
of
santa
fe,
and
I
filed
the
amended
complaint
on
may
the
26th
the
city
was
served.
O
O
So
it
seems
to
me
that
the
reading
exhibit
a
and
the
highlighted
portions
you'll
see
that
the
as
of
last
month,
the
planning
department
was
wrecking
them
recommending
against
approval
of
this
rezoning
because
it
did
not
meet
any
of
the
criteria
of
section
14..
I
don't
have
the
exact
code
reference,
but
I
can
get
it
for
you
that
they
are
now
saying
it
does
under
section
14-3.5
c.
It
says.
None
none
have
been
met.
J
Mr
farber,
you
can
assume
at
least
on
my
account
and
my
fellow
commissioners.
I
believe
we've
read
the
packet
upside
down
and
sideways
as
we
always
do.
I
noticed
the
same
discrepancy,
but
I
think
there
are
probably
other
interpretations
as
to
what's
going
on
there
with
regard
to
one
example
of
a
prototype
of
what
we
could
in
fact
cite
if
we
were
to
deny
the
case,
whereas
the
staff
report
recommends
approval,
it
could
simply
be
a
bureaucratic
inconsistency.
There
may
not
be
something
insidious
and
nefarious
about
this
at
all.
O
J
O
Will
but
it
becomes
important
because
I
personally
would
have
submitted
a
rebuttal
to
the
information
that
we
first
saw
when
this
was
posted
online
last
week,
so
we
have
been
prejudiced
for
practically
a
month
by
not
being
told
number
one
that
the
applicant
came
in
and
changed
things.
Perhaps
the
land
use
department
told
them.
Oh,
you
should
change
this
and
try
and
make
this
seem
as
if
it's
a
part
of
the
natural
evolution.
I
just
happen
to
think
of
it.
I
thing
it's
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding.
O
I
do
reserve
the
right
to
cross-examine
anybody
who
testifies-
and
I
understand
that
I
can
be
cross-examined,
but
that's
an
essential
component
of
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
and
another
essential
component
of
the
quasi-judicial
proceeding.
Is
that
we'd
be
given
proper
notice
so
that
we
can
adequately
respond?
And
I
submit
to
you-
and
I
think
it's
it's
hard
for
the
commissioners
to
get
the
packet
of
information
right
before
the
weekend.
O
Read
it
carefully
and
thank
you
for
telling
me,
mr
powell,
that
everybody
reads
it
because
my
thing
was
50
pages,
but
you
wouldn't
know
from
looking
at
the
zoning
application
that
was
in
opposition
to
the
zoning,
because
there's
nothing
that
says
that
in
the
in
the
zoning
application
that
has
been
presented
to
you
or
in
any
of
the
outlines,
and
the
same
with
mr
and
mrs
noble,
who
are
fine,
upstanding,
non-discriminatory
residents.
What.
O
Was
asked
of
miss
espinosa
was:
are
you
willing
to
have
a
covenant
on
this
property
that
you
will
not
split
it?
That
was
it.
If
it
were
to
be
an
r2,
would
you
be
willing
to
have
it
always
just
be
two
lots
and
she
said
no,
and
she
said
to
me-
and
I
don't
know
if
miss
v
hill
recorded
it
because
it
was
on
zoom,
would
you
be
willing
to
do
that
to
your
property?
And
I
said
yes,
I
would
so
it's
not
trying
to
be
exclusive.
It's
not
trying
to
be
discriminatory.
O
It's
not
trying
to
say.
Oh
someone
can't
live
in
the
area.
It's
saying
the
zoning
rules
need
to
be
followed
and
it's
inappropriate
to
use
a
boundary
adjustment,
because
this
property
is
under
two
acres
that
was
made
20
years
ago,
because
the
woman
was
living
on
the
property
came
to
the
city
council
asked
that
they
expand
her
r1
to
r2
so
that
she
could
sell
a
piece.
So
she
could
live
on
the
property.
O
She
ended
up
moving
selling
the
property
and
it's
been
there
and
there
since
then,
so
things
have
been
stable
in
that
area
and
that's
why
this
becomes
a
very
important
issue
from
a
land
development
standpoint
and
not
from
a
personal
standpoint,
because
once
you
approve,
if
you
recommend
approval
of
moving
this
from
our
one
land
and
it's
surrounded
by
r1
land,
I
see
david
shoots
here,
or
he
was
david
once
saw.
O
His
property
was
in
the
county
when
he
has,
I
think,
five
or
six
houses
in
1998
there's
a
letter
about
the
sewer
when
it
got
and
then
came
into
this
it's
across
the
street.
It's
on
this.
The
north
side
of
the
arroyo
did
los
jamisos.
It's
not
a
part
of
the
solilomas
orreo
chimiso
area.
That
is
recognized
in
the
general
plan,
and
it
becomes
very
important
to
recognize
that
the
general
plan
is
just
an
advisory
document.
It
was
approved
by
a
resolution.
A
resolution
is
just
an
expression
of
the
will
of
the
council.
O
Yes,
it's
for
guidance,
it
can
be
referred
to
for
sure
and
I'm
referring
to
it,
but
it's
only
advisory
because
the
land
use
department
says,
oh
because
it's
general
use
one
to
three.
Therefore,
it's
okay,
but
that's
not
the
way
it
works.
The
way
it
works
is
zoning.
There's
an
r1,
the
property
is
surrounded
to
the
north,
is
r1
property
to
the
east.
O
Mrs
rubinstein
opposes
the
rezoning,
that's
r1
property
to
the
direct
south,
mr
tiano,
that
is
our
one
property
and
his
letter
was
rejected
and
I
copied
and
pasted
it
and
put
it
in
the
public
comments
and
we'd
like
to
be
able
to
read
that
to
you.
I
don't
live
next
to
this
property,
but
I
am
concerned
about
the
area
and
I
am
concerned
about
the
principle
and
the
principle
is
neighborhood
preservation.
If.
O
Thank
you.
I
this,
mr
pavel,
has
told
me
that
you've
read
this
and
if
you've
read
my
submission,
you
will
see
the
maps
that
focus
in
on
the
area,
which
is
really
should
be
the
review
area,
not
all
the
way
down
to
st
michael's
drive.
That's
after
that,
roundabout
at
miguel
chavez
that
digiani
zoning
thing
that
was
right
across
the
street
from
whedon
mcgregor's,
relatively
dense
development.
O
That's
not
just
the
what
exists
at
zia
and
bolton
and
further
the
letter
from
the
girls
school
which
miss
lewin
is
here,
was
never
even
included
in
your
packet
of
information.
So
the
early
neighborhood
notification,
it
was
not
mailed
to
the
neighborhood.
The
affidavit
shows
it
wasn't
mailed,
as
the
law
requires
this.
I
asked
the
city
for
copies
of
the
receipts,
showing
that
it
was
received
by
the
neighborhood
association.
That's
never
been
provided
to
me
the
requests
I
even
requested
drafts
of
the
prior
reports.
O
Important
job
and
it's
so
important-
nobody
can
vote
against
you.
No
one
can
remove
you
except
the
mayor,
but
so
we
rely
on
your
judgment.
We
rely
on
your
good
faith.
We
rely
on
your
understanding,
the
legalities
and
the
technicalities,
and
also
the
guiding
principle
of
the
whole
world
charter.
Thank.
O
I'm
open
to
questions.
I
hope
that
I've
covered
some
of
the
areas
and
if
you
have
any
other
questions
for
me
about
anything
that
I've
said
about.
A
C
A
S
S
S
M
Mr
chair
members
of
the
council,
commissioner,
henderson's
fault,
there
is
nothing
in
chapter
14
that
requires
me
to
provide
any
kind
of
application
to
the
balance
of
the
city
of
santa
fe.
We
do
our
best
to
provide
the
application
to
those
that
are
interested
in
the
application
that
those
are
interested
in
the
process.
We
do
our
best
to
provide
them
the
application
that
application
is
open
to
the
public
if
they
don't
request
it,
and
they
don't
request
it
in
time
for
the
review,
and
we
don't
get
it
to
them.
M
That
isn't
something
that
we
have
some
particular
file.
That
says
this
applicant
is
interested
in
this
application.
We
have
to
send
him
a
copy
of
the
application.
We
don't
do
that.
That
would
involve
way
too
much
resources
for
the
city
of
santa
fe
to
to
endure.
We
just
can't
do
that.
We
do
our
best
to
give
everybody
a
copy
of
the
application
upon
request
in
terms
of
the
application
process
itself
that
was
talked
about
by
mr
farber.
There
is
nothing
that,
let
me
back
up
the
city.
M
The
staff
is
going
to
work
with
the
applicant,
not
the
not
in
this
case,
mr
farber
is
not
the
applicant.
If
the
applicant
wants
to
amend
their
application,
we
will
accept
that
amendment
as
long
as
it's
within
a
time
frame
that
allows
the
staff
to
review
and
incorporate
that
review
into
the
planning
commission's.
J
M
So
if
an
application
comes
in
staff
will
work
with
the
applicant
to
achieve
the
goal
necessary
to
meet
chapter
14.,
chapter
14,
being
a
product
of
the
code
which
is
a
product
of
the
charter.
We
follow
the
ordinances
that
are
adopted
and
we
will
review
in
accordance
to
those
ordinances.
I
will
make
a
judgment
call
as
to
what
I
will
review
for
the
application
so
that
I
can
provide
all
the
necessary
information.
I
can
possibly
give
this
body
to
make
an
informed
and
comfortable
decision.
Mr
farber's
comment
that
I
should
have
narrowed
it
down.
M
M
F
S
M
A
P
Mr
chairman,
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
tom
noble.
I
live
at
2255
old,
arroyo,
chamisa
road.
Unfortunately,
I
think
you
have
heard
my
name
several
times
here
tonight
and
I
must
say
I
deeply
deeply
resent
the
implications
of
what
miss
espinosa
is
intimating
about
us.
We
never
said
that
we
had
any
problem
with
her
family
or
with
her
ability
to
use
the
land.
P
P
Also,
as
mr
farber
said,
we
never
asked
her
who
was
going
to
occupy
the
property.
That's
just
nonsense
and
I
would
like
to
have
that
made
part
of
the
record
as
well.
That
was
never
part
of
it.
Now.
Let
me
go
on
a
little
bit
here
when
miss
espinoza
bought
the
property
for
155
dollars.
For
mr
tiano,
she
kept
it
for
a
while,
and
then
I
don't
know
where
this
family
idea
happened,
but
it
was
put
on
the
market
and
we
have
the
listing.
P
P
And
she
has
no
there's
nothing
wrong
with
her
using
the
property
for
her
children.
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
that.
She
can
keep
it
as
an
r1
lot
and
build
a
whole
family
compound
if
she
wants
there's
nothing
that
prevents
her
from
doing
that.
So
this
idea
that
she
has
to
split
it
to
provide
for
her
children
is
a
fiction,
and
I
want
that
made
clear
tonight.
P
Mr
farber
said
something
right
at
the
end.
That's
important
here,
mr
esquibel
did
not
actually
answer
your
question.
There
can
be
four
residences,
a
house,
an
adu
or
a
guest
house,
on
each
of
the
two
lots
if
this
is
approved.
So
let's
be
clear,
we're
really
talking
about
four
structures
here
on
an
r2
lot
and
that's
going
to
be
with
any
situation.
You
come
up
against.
P
That's
going
to
be
the
situation,
that's
the
case
now
as
to
this
exhibit
here,
which
I
listen
very
carefully
to
mr
esquivel's
comments,
and
he
never
said
that
something
had
changed.
I
don't
understand
why
this
exhibit
a
the
original,
exhibit
a
that
should
be
in
your
packet.
P
P
Suddenly
one
of
at
least
one
out
of
the
three
structural
issues
that
she
had
to
meet,
she
suddenly
met,
and
I
think
we
ought
to
talk
more
about
that.
I
think
what
was
in
this
original
document
is
absolutely
accurate
and
I
don't
understand
why
this
was
suddenly
changed
and
we
didn't
get
any
notice
about
it,
but
that's
a
separate
issue.
P
Know
that
let
me
just
quote
this
very
first
line
in
the
real
estate
listing
okay.
This
is
a
rare
lot
with
a
country
feeling,
and
that
goes
right
to
the
heart
of
the
matter.
I've
lived
in
my
house
for
44
years
and
I
cherish
and
treasure
the
semi-rural
character,
and
this
is
exactly
what
we're
talking
about
here
tonight.
P
I
hope
I'm
not
straying
in
any
way
shape
or
form
it's
unfortunate
that
there
was
a
lot
split
north
of
the
arroyo
we
can
get
into
that,
but
I'm
not
going
to
because
this
proposed
r2
touches
that
lock
split.
That's
one
of
the
criteria
she's
hanging
her
hat
on
that
was
a
mistake.
It
should
not
have
happened
so
we
are
proposing
tonight
that
heroic
I'm
going
to
use
the
metaphor.
We
want
a
line
in
the
sand
and,
let's
make
that
line
in
the
sand,
arroyo
chamiso
and
protect
everything
south
of
there.
P
P
My
last
point:
we
live
in
an
old
neighborhood
that
has
been
developed
slowly
over
many
many
years.
If
you
go
look
at
solely
lomas,
which
I
also
join
on
the
east
side
of
my
property,
that
was
first
annexed,
I
think
in
1972,
and
yet
they
are
totally
protected
from
any
lock
splits
by
the
nature
of
the
master
plan,
whereas
we
independent
lot
owners
in
these
older
neighborhoods
have
no
such
protection
and
we're
asking
you
to
recognize
that
and
give
us
the
line
in
the
sand
and
make
it
a
royal
chamisa.
Thank
you.
A
W
My
name
is
elise
noble
and
I
live
at
2255
old,
arroyo,
chamisa,
road,
a
road
which
I
actually
came
before
the
county
commission
to
ask
him
to
name
many
years
ago
about
40
plus
years
ago,
because
we
didn't
have
a
name.
Then
my
husband
and
I
moved
to
the
arroyo
chinese
neighborhood
in
1969,
and
we
moved
to
our
current
home
in
1978
with
our
two
children
who
grew
up
there
and
who
still
come
back
there.
W
I'd
also
like
to
mention,
because
miss
espinosa
mentioned
that
she
what
she
called
six
apartments
were
there.
There
is
on
about
more
than
two
acres.
There
were
five
little
houses
and
one
big
old
house.
That
is
the
one
that
dates
back
to
1867
and
they
were
not
developed
and
they
were,
if
anything
since
we
purchased
them
rescued
from
falling
apart.
W
W
Ironically,
our
older
neighborhood
is
now
vulnerable
to
losing
its
cherished
semi-rural
nature
because
of
the
requested
r2
zoning
for
the
lot
on
batoff
r2.
Zoning
of
the
property
across
the
arroyo
to
the
north
of
2339
batalf,
which
is
the
piece
that
the
applicant
is
saying
in
a
sense,
justifies
another
r2
because
of
its
proximity.
W
I
Thank
you.
While
chair
gutierrez
has
stepped
out,
he
asked
me
to
invite
the
next
person
to
come
and
speak.
X
I've
been
a
resident,
or
you
know,
homeowner
in
soliloma
since
1984,
and
I'm
one
or
whatever
this
has
been
a
little
disturbed
or
upset,
because
the
bike
path
that
we've
used
for
all
these
years
and
and
walking
path
has
been
closed
in
the
last
two
years
or
so,
and
so
the
concern
that
I
have
is
that
this
path
is
one
of
our
shortcuts.
X
Like
we
all.
I
don't
know
if
you,
you
know,
if
you've
lived
in
neighbor
neighborhoods
as
a
kid
or
whatever
you
had
your
shortcut,
but
it's
through
you
to
kind
of
a
utility
area
with
some
there's,
some,
let's
say
light
poles
and
anyway,
and
it's
a
way
to
get
to
the
you
know:
albertsons,
you
know
walgreens
ups
now
you
know
we
have
some
in
that
in
our
little
shopping
center.
Now
we
also
have
some.
You
know.
X
Excuse
me
the
dragon.
You
know
whatever
some
some
restaurants,
let's
put
it
that
away
so
anyway.
So
it's
been
a
very
useful
area.
I
know
when
my
kids
went
to
capshaw.
I
you
know
that
was
the
way
all
the
kids
got
back
and
forth
as
well
to
get
to
the
area.
There
are
three
schools
over
there,
so
anyway
santa
fe.
I
know
we
want
to
be
a
you
know,
walkable
and
biking
area.
You
know
in
even
in
all
the
neighborhoods,
and
I
just
want
to
say
you
know.
X
I
would
like
to
see
that
if
this
is
approved,
that
there
would
be
a
condition
that
would
maybe
require
that
this
pathway
for
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
could
be
reopened,
so
we
could
use
our
neighborhood
more
conveniently.
That's
all.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
T
This
I'm
representing
the
school,
which
is
310
west
seattle.
Thank
you
at
the
corner
of
zia
and
botol
directly
across
the
street
from
the
property
in
question.
I
had
sent
a
letter
to
mr
esquivel
on
march
22nd
regarding
the
school's
concerns.
I
didn't
see
it
in
the
records,
so
I
ask
your
permission
to
read
it.
It
is
not
long
and
I'd
like
to
read
it
into
the
record
and
make
sure
you
guys
have
copies
of
it.
We.
T
This
tract
of
land
is
located
at
the
northeast
portion
of
otolfensia.
The
santa
fe
girls
school
is
an
independent
nonprofit
middle
school
for
girls
in
grades,
6,
7
and
8..
The
school
is
in
its
22nd
year
of
operation
and
has
owned
its
current
location,
310
west
zia
at
the
intersection
of
wesley
and
botolf.
Since
2001.,
the
school
is
directly
across
the
street
from
the
2339
property
whose
owner
is
making
an
application
to
the
planning
commission
for
an
upzoning
from
r12r2.
T
Pushing
sewage
into
this
two
inch
line
further,
we
note
that
the
enn
form
submitted
by
the
owner
and
again
this
was
in
march
22nd
that
I
said
this.
In
addition
further,
we
note
that
the
enn
form
submitted
by
the
owners
stated
that
the
proposed
density
was
one
two
three
units
per
acre
and
we
are
concerned
that
the
proposed
development
might,
in
the
future,
be
even
more
dense
than
r2
at
the
enn.
The
owner
refused
to
be
bound
to
only
four
additional
dwelling
units.
T
T
And
to
the
city
as
well
for
currently,
I
must
be
missing
a
sentence
in
this:
okay,
I'll
just
go
to
the
page
too.
Oh,
got
it
and
to
the
city
as
well,
for
remediation
of
damage
caused
by
a
backup
on
a
city
sewer
line.
Was
that
all
pretty
clear?
Okay?
Currently,
there
is
no
r2
property
south
of
the
arroyo,
los
chomisos
other
than
a
small
unbuildable
sliver
that
crosses
the
arroyo
and
which
is
the
southern
edge
of
an
r2
property
that
lies
to
the
north
of
the
arroyo.
T
We
have
a
concern
that
the
proposed
upzoning
of
2339
botolf
2r2,
which
the
application
justifies
because
it
is
contiguous
with
the
r2
sliver,
will
result
in
a
cascade
of
new
applications
for
r2
for
properties
south
of
the
arroyo.
This
likely
future
scenario
would
further
compromise.
The
two
inch
botol
sewer
line
for
the
reasons
we
have
stated
the
proposed
upzoning,
would
seriously
endanger
the
school's
position
as
the
lowest
property
on
the
two-inch
line
and
possibly
create
unsanitary
conditions
for
our
students.
T
A
U
Address
is
my
physical
address
is
1735
espinoza
lane
in
santa
cruz,
santa
cruz,
new
mexico
87567.
U
Children,
we
are
seven
in
the
family,
I
am
the
oldest
and
she
is
the
baby
of
the
family.
I
have
six
sisters,
no
brothers
and.
U
U
U
C
U
Are
from
here
my
mother,
my
dad
is
from
the
beautiful
espanola
valley.
My
mom
was
raised
here
in
santa
fe
and
we
were
part
of
the
colonization
that
took
place
here
in
santa
fe
and
now
you're
telling
my
sister.
You
can't
be
part
of
santa
fe.
E
V
C
U
Will
be
done
with
a
lot
of
class
and
beauty
for
santa
fe.
She
believes
in
this
city.
She
loves
this
city
as
we
all
do.
It's
our
capital
city,
we're
proud
of
it.
It's
beautiful,
it's
the
city
different,
as
we
all
know-
and
it
is
a
beautiful
city
different
from
any
other
city
in
the
world,
and
we
love
it.
We
respect
it
for
what
it
is
and
we
respect
the
citizens
as
people,
and
we
want
to
be
his
respected,
as
I
will
say
it
as
hispanics.
C
U
That's
what
my
sister
is.
We
are
hispanic.
We
love
everybody.
We
are
not
prejudice.
It
is
very
obvious.
Look
at
the
city
of
san
jose,
I
believe.
That's
not
what
75
percent,
or
only
about
25
percent,
has
managed
to
live
within
the
city
limits
we
can't
afford
living
in
the
city
of
santa
fe
anymore,
expensive.
We
all
know
that
my
sister
can
she
can
afford
to
live
in
the
city
of
santa
fe
and
she
will
do
things
with
class
of
beauty
with
dignity
as
a
beautiful
person.
E
C
U
C
R
R
Mentioned
that
he
was
on
the
city
council
as
it
was
relevant
to
this
case,
and
if,
if
it
is
relevant,
then
I
must
tell
you
that
I
served
on
the
city
council
long
before
he
did
and
I
preserved
the
culture
and
the
preservation
of
the
city
of
santa
fe.
As
as
he
did.
R
R
R
The
bolt
road
community
enjoys
a
very
special
semi
rural
environment.
Half
acre
lots.
Third
acre
lots,
a
lot
of
open
space
access,
walking,
distance
to
albertsons
and
walgreens
and
ups,
and
it's
a
very
nice
area.
We
enjoy
a
very
nice,
as
mr
noble
said,
send
me
a
rural
environment
and
we
want
to
keep
it
that
way.
R
R
This
commission
and
the
council
have
approved
those
densities
over
and
over
and
over
again
over
the
last
two
decades,
and
so
I
I
guess
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is
that
that
this
is,
you
know
we
we
cannot
aspire
to
have
affordable
housing
or
more
affordable
housing
without
higher
densities.
R
R
R
So
I
tell
you
that
you
know
I'm
I'm
in
support
of
this
request.
It
doesn't
bother
me
at
all.
I
think
it's
total
keeping
with
the
the
rural
environment
that
we
enjoy
there
and
you
know
we.
We
we
welcome
her
to
the
neighborhood.
R
A
A
O
Respectfully,
mr
chairman-
and
I
hope
you
understand
that
I
do
respect
you,
having
worked
with
you
hard
in
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
based
upon
my
understanding,
people,
it's
not
just
a
one-sided
affair
where
the
applicant
comes
and
gets
the
opportunity
to
direct
the
course
of
the
procedure.
You
of
course,
have
direct,
of
course,
the
proceeding
you
make
the
decisions-
yes,
no,
but
as
a
part
of
the
public
record
with
regard
to
the
right
of
cross-examination,
the
various
people
who
have
participated
have
an
opportunity.
O
If
they've
asked
for
the
right
of
cross-examination,
which
I
did
to
attempt
to
clarify
a
couple
issues
to
be
able
to
exercise
that
basic
due
process
of
law
right,
the
city
of
santa
fe.
In
the
candlelight
case,
the
station
argued
that
one
of
the
reasons
they
were
provided
process
was
because
the
planning
commission
and
the
een
and
the
planning
commission
had
so
much
opportunity
for
give
and
take
well
that
hasn't
happened
and
I'm.
This
is
not
personal
to
any
of
the
planning.
Commissioners.
We're
talking
about
a
fundamental
issue
of
due
process
of
law.
O
To
for
me
to
be
able
to
clarify
a
couple
points
that
were
raised.
I'd
like
to
ask
questions
of
mr
shoots,
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
ask
questions
of
miss
vihil.
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
ask
questions
in
mr
esquivel
that
were
that
are
germane
to
the
testimony,
the
sworn
testimony
that
they
have
provided,
and
I
respectfully
submit
that
it's
not
one-sided
and
that
shutting
down
the
opportunity
of
opponents
to
be
able
to
ask
questions
on
cross-examination.
D
The
rate
of
cross-examination
in
these
cases
is
not
present,
and
in
case
mr
farber
is
not
a
party
to
this
case.
He
is
a
member
of
the
public.
So
in
this
case
mr
farber.
A
A
Thank
you
with
that
opinion,
we'll
move
forward,
mr
farber.
If
anybody
has
questions
of
you,
I
will
reopen
the
public
hearing.
If
any
commissioners
have
questions
of
you,
otherwise
we're
going
to
keep
the
public
portion
of
this
hearing
closed
and
we're
going
to
move
forward
with
commissioners.
Mr
escobar.
M
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
I'd
like
to
explain
the
findings
that
were
in
the
packet.
M
Typically,
when
the
staff
writes
the
findings,
we
write
the
findings
in
order
to
reflect
the
memo.
We
don't
know
what
direction
the
planning
commission
is
going
to
go.
The
only
the
only
facts
that
we
have
are
based
on
our
review
and
on
the
memo,
and
if
the
planning
commission
accepts
those
findings,
they're
accepting
our
review,
it
makes
things
a
nice
easy
packet.
However,
as
busy
as
I
am
I
have
to
take,
I
have
to
take
responsibility
for
the
fact
that
I
did
not
make
those
changes
in
time
and
parts
of
the
findings
were
errored.
M
C
M
At
a
later
date,
and
unfortunately,
we
did
not
pull
the
findings
before
they
went
out
in
the
packet
and
that's
why
you
found
errors
in
the
findings
that
the
neighborhood
has
identified
and
that's
how
that's
how
you
have
that
mismatch
of
information
between
what
was
stated
in
the
memo
and
what
was
placed
in
the
finding,
and
I
take
full
responsibility
for
that.
As
my
error.
A
G
D
What
he's
saying
that's
correct?
Thank
you.
A
G
So,
mr
escobar,
could
you
explain
why-
and
this
is
just
for
the
record-
why
you
denied
it
last
time
but
agrees
thought
it
was
that
it
was.
We
could
support
it.
This
time.
M
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commissioner,
commissioner
faulkner
the
staff
is
always
going
to
work
with
the
applicant.
They
paid
a
fee,
it's
their
application.
As
long
as
we're
able
to
address
those
concerns,
our
job
isn't
to
just
approve
or
deny
an
application
simply
because
they
either
meet
the
regulations
or
they
don't
meet.
The
regulations.
Chapter.
J
M
There's
no
difference
between
an
applicant
and
the
planners.
If
an
application
is
not
necessarily
going
on
the
right
path,
we
will
nudge
it
as
best
we
can.
There
is
a
difference
between
being
completely
off
and
just
barely
off
the
application.
Originally,
in
my
view,
was
off:
it's
not
my
job
to
rewrite
their
application
for
them.
It's
my
job
to
inform
them
that
hey,
look
you're
not
going
to
meet
the
rules,
you're
not
going
to
meet
the
criteria,
I'm
going
to
have
to
recommend
denial
at
that
point
in
time.
M
The
applicant
has
the
ability
to
withdraw
their
application
problem,
their
application
revise
their
application
in
order
to
meet
the
necessary
requirements
in
order
to
achieve
those
goals.
So
we
do
work
with
the
applicant
we'll
work
with
every
applicant
that
comes
in.
That
is
our.
That
is
our
job.
Our
job
is
to
get
an
application
to
meet
the
regulations,
not
to
be
a
judge
and
decide
whether
it's
up
or
down
simply
because
they
weren't
perfect
on
the
initial
submittal.
M
Yes,
and
no
originally,
the
applicant
submitted
an
application
that
identified
that
the
need
for
the
change
was
based
on
the
change
of
the
surrounding
area.
That's
what
prompted
me
to
investigate
the
surrounding
area,
to
iden,
to
see
whether
or
not
there
was
significant
change
to
justify
those
those.
F
M
M
They
targeted
the
third
one
which,
in
my
opinion,
was
good
enough
to
meet
that
standard,
but
they
would
not
have
met
double
I,
because
when
I
investigated
the
property
all
of
it,
I
found
that
over
the
40-year
lifetime
over
the
40-year
span,
they
did
not
need
it.
There
was.
There
was
no
significant
change
to
the
area
that
warranted
a
change
in
zoning
and
that's
when
they
made
a
different
submittal
or
amendment
that
addressed
item
three
as
opposed
to
item
two.
G
Okay
and
then
I
have
a
question
for
the
attorney
the
city
attorney
in
any.
D
G
D
G
G
M
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
that's
going
to
go
into
private
easements
whether
a
judge
would
allow
it
or
not.
I
don't
really
think
I
can
give
that
kind
of
legal
advice.
I
think
that's
more
of
a
private
matter
between
the
neighbors
and
the
applicant
as
to
whether
or
not
a
judge
would
actually
rule
that.
There's
been
some
longevity
of
use
of
that
property
in
that,
but
we
would
not.
We
would
not
look
at
that
at
this
case.
M
That
was
not
reviewed
by
me.
We'd
have
to
defer
that
to
the
applicant.
G
T
There
is
a
revocation
that
was
signed
by
all
three
neighbors,
the
one
to
the
east,
the
one
to
the
south
and
miss
espinosa,
taking
that
easement
away,
and
so
they've
all
agreed
that
this
would
not
be
a
true
easement
to
any
of
their
properties,
and
that's
why
they
have
gone
so
far
as
putting
up
fences.
J
H
J
J
All
right,
let's
say
the
property
stays
r1
or
becomes
r2.
Is
there
anything
from
preventing
the
neighbors
to
negotiate
a
good
faith
and
have
a
contractual
agreement
whereby
there
is
an
easement
on
the
property?
J
J
Okay,
good,
let's
get
that
clear,
I
will
admit
for
the
record
that
when
I
lived
in
the
vargas
heights
I
trespassed
across
your
property
and
as
a
matter
of
fact,
wouldn't
it
be
nice
if
we
could
have
a
pathway
but,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
it's
private
property
and
you
have
to
have
compensation
when
you're
taking
private
property
for
a
public
purpose.
So
I
I
think
that
the
whole
issue
is
based
on
commissioner
faulkner's
questions
and
and
mine,
is
it's
a
it's
a
discussion
for
another
time
and
it's
not
contingent
on
the
resulting.
J
M
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
I
did
not
look
at
that,
although
I
know
that
it
was
a
public
access
easement.
I
would
have
to
pull
up
gpfr
gis
and
compare
it
if
you
want
to
give
me
a
few
minutes.
While
you
continue
to
deliberate
I'll
see
if
I
can
get
that
answer
for
you.
S
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
clarification
for
the
record
with
your
help.
Mr
esquivel,
it's
been
mentioned
by
mr
farver
that
somehow
you
changed
your
determination
on
whether
this
body,
the
commission,
should
approve
or
deny,
but
in
fact
all
you're
doing
is
making
a
recommendation
to
us.
You
don't
actually
have
the
authority
or
the
power
to
make
that
decision.
S
S
J
Preface
my
remarks
and
saying
that
I've
had
four
decades
of
planning
experience,
I've
sat
on
plan
commissions,
I've
been
staffed
to
plan
commissions.
I
know
how
this
process
works,
sometimes
how
it's
dysfunctional,
how
it
can
be
perceived
to
be
dysfunctional.
I'm
a
fellow
of
the
american
planning
association,
not
an
honor
lightly
bestowed.
J
I
have
to
say
that
a
simple
rezoning
like
this
or
what
appears
to
be
a
simple
rezoning,
sometimes
takes
on
more
time
and
effort
and
passion
than
say
a
text,
amendment
or
frankly,
amending
the
freaking
comprehensive
plan,
and
you
know
what
folks
that's
the
way
it
should
be
in
santa
fe,
because
we
are
special.
As
was
pointed
out
today,
we
are
so
unique.
That's
what
makes
a
case
like
this,
so
very,
very
difficult
where
you
could
say.
Oh
it's
clear.
I'm
going
to
vote
this
way
or
it's
clear
he's
made
it
a
decisive
case
yeah.
J
I
think
what
we
heard
tonight
was
that
there
are
issues
with
both
here
and
neighborhood
and
cultural
sometimes
are
the
same
in
santa
fe
and
sometimes
there's
different
nuances
to
it,
and
we
have
a
very
complicated
history
in
santa
fe
and
in
that
regard.
Frankly,
the
charter
is
about
as
clear
as
the
second
amendment,
or
at
least
the
way
people
interpret
it
all
right.
It's
a
little
bit
muddy.
J
I
think
you
can
interpret
it
different
ways
and
other
than
mr
farber
were
on
that
commission,
one
of
them
sitting
right
here
in
the
on
on
our
planning
commission
right
now.
I
think,
there's
ways
to
interpret
the
charter
and
the
charter.
P
J
I
mentioned
earlier
include
mention
of
the
general
plan
which
it
says,
should
the
plan
will
be
implemented
through
goals,
policies,
objectives
revised
so
on
and
so
forth
through
ordinances
and
resolutions.
Well,
that's
what
we're
looking
at
tonight
we're
making
a
recommendation
to
the
governing
body
to
the
council
on
a
rezoning.
That
is
an
ordinance,
so
you
know,
frankly,
to
sum
up.
J
I've
heard
some
excellent
quantitative
analysis
from
mr
esquibel
and
staff,
and
I've
also
heard
many
excellent
qualitative
arguments
of
merit,
as
well
as
the
procedural
issues
here,
the
due
process
and
the
substance.
A
Okay,
give
me
one
second
here:
okay,
let
me
go
to
a
motion,
mr
chair.
F
I
can
answer
commissioner
paul's
question.
Bolt-Off
is
a
minor
collector.
J
F
C
J
And
I
live
on
a
minor
collector
called
camino
o'leary,
and
you
know
it's
interesting.
I've
got
section
eight
on
one
side.
I
live
in
a
townhouse,
that's
ten
units,
the
acre.
There
are
mobile
homes,
there's
all
kinds
of
stuff:
it
is
viva,
santa
fe,
it's
it's.
What
santa
fe
is
about.
Okay,
so
blah
blah
minor
collectors,
not
just
a
residential
street
streets
like
this
serve
a
purpose
and
planning
and,
and
there
are
transitions
and
properties
along
those
may
have
transitional
natures.
So
this
whole.
This
is
all
very
interesting.
A
M
Mr,
what
I'll
be
doing
is
is
reading
it
from
my
memo,
since
I
have
copied
and
pasted
in
there
so
that
you
can
read
along
with
me,
that'll
work
perfect.
Thank
you.
This
is
going
to
be
located
in,
I
believe,
table
six
criteria,
one
fourteen
three
five
c,
a
there
are
three
criterias
that
the
applicant
has
a
choice
to
make
it's
one
or
it's
it's.
They
only
need
to
make.
O
M
They
can
meet
as
many,
but
they
only
need
one
one
or
more
of
the
following
conditions
exist.
There
was
a
mistake
in
the
original
zoning.
No,
there
has
been
a
change
in
the
surrounding
area,
altering
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
to
such
an
extent
as
to
justify
changing
the
zoning.
I
believe
that
my
exhibits
within
the
memo,
as
I
have
identified,
that
is
not
true
number
three.
M
A
different
use
category
is
more
advantageous
to
the
community,
as
articulated
in
the
general
plan
or
other
adopted
city
plans,
this
one's
a
little
bit
long-winded,
but
I
believe
that
they've
complied
with
this
criteria
in
that
community.
The
way
the
city
is
looking
at
it
is
the
community
of
the
city
of
santa
fe
community
is
not
an
enn
or
the
amount
of
people
that
are
joining
that
attend
in
en
community
is
not
necessarily
the
adjoining
neighbors
or
the
neighborhood
association.
When
we
write
ordinances,
we
write
ordinances
for
the
city
of
santa
fe,
so
community.
A
M
I
would
also
like
to
add
that
there
was
a
concern
with
sewer
as
brought
up
by
one
of
the
one
of
the
the
speakers
tonight.
We
did
send
the
letter
that
was
originally
provided
for
the
shoots
development.
The
neighborhood
did
provide
me
that,
and
I
did
relay
that
to
our
our
engineer
at
the
sewer
department
stan
holland.
He
has
provided
comments,
they
are
in
the
packet
and
he
did
recommend
that
it
was
okay
to
move
forward.
M
He
did
calculate
all
of
the
capacity
associated
with
that
area
and
decided
that
there
was
enough
capacity
that
would
allow
for
the
increase
in
density.
Should
the
planning
commission
governing
body.
F
A
You
must
have
read
my
mind
but
here's
my
question
from
mr
holland.
It
stated
march
2022,
but
there's
no
date
on
it,
and
the
letter
from
the
girls
school
was
sometime
in
march,
also
so
for
the
record
and
for
clarity.
These
did
not
cross.
Mr
holland
did
an
assessment
of
the
possibility
of
four
dwelling
units
being
placed
on
this
property
and
there's
not
going
to
be
issues
with
other
properties
surrounding
because
it's
a
two
inch
line.
M
A
M
The
the
neighbor
that
came
up
and
and
spoke
addressed
exactly
how
the
issues
were
it's
a
two
inch
line.
They
do
have
to
use
grinders
and
they
have
to
kind
of
take
turns
in
terms
of
the
flushing
capacity
and
eventually
that
line
is
going
to
have
to
be
serviced
and
there's
going
to
be
a
point
in
time
where
our
city
department
is
not
going
to
allow
any
more
taps
into
that
line.
L
B
A
C
O
Say,
commissioner,
you
know
so
far
if
you
thought
that
there
were
allegations
being
made,
I'm
sorry
about
that.
Some
things
came
as
a
huge
surprise
to
us
when
we
saw
this
new
information
and
we
try
and
act
professionally
and
that's
been
my
stance
throughout
my
entire
career.
As
the
chair,
I
think
we
serve
together
on
the
charter
review
commission.
O
He
knows
that
and
I'm
sorry
that
if
you
took
offense
to
some
of
our
strong
comments,
because
we
do
feel
strongly-
and
it
would
have
been
great
if
the
commission
could
have
gone
out
on
a
field
trip
and
seen
what
we
were
talking
about-
but
I'd
like
to
just
make
a
part
of
the
record
request:
number
22,
29,
83,
22,
29,
97
and
22
29
88,
I'm
sorry
that
wasn't
in
one
of
them
is
that
order
which
were
requested
information
to
the
city
for
prior
drafts
and
reports
and
information
which
would
have
provided
us
with
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
you
in
writing.
O
J
G
A
Thank
you
I'd
like
to
echo
that
she
must
have
read
my
mind
my
mind
earlier.
I
guess
it's
written
here
once
again,
maggie
welcome
commissioners
she's,
wonderful,
any
any
questions!
Anything
you
have
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
mr.
J
Chair
I'd
like
for
the
record
to
submit
these
cookies
to
staff
perfect
for
for
friday
morning,
because
you
know
I
know
how
it
is
the
night
after
planning
commission.
So
I'm
going
to
hand
these
to
mr
kluk
to
decide
to
distribute,
as
he
said,
perfect.
A
And-
and
you
know
thinking
back-
we
were
sitting
here
20
some
months
ago,
26
months
ago
and
commissioner
cetena
was
so
worried
about
contingency
plans.
You
guys,
what
are
we
doing?
What
are
we
doing?
I
thought.
Oh,
you
know
what
this
is
going
to
fly
by
pretty
quick
well
26
months
later,
we're
back
in
person,
it's
wonderful
to
be
here
and
it's
honor
to
swing
this.
So
if
there's
nothing
else,
we're
adjourned.