Santa Fe ' The city's Archaeological Review Committee on Oct. 14 voted to recommend the Phase 1 Land Development Code update to the governing body, while the Historic Districts Review Board (HDRB) approved a separate recommendation that would retain the current historic-style provisions in Chapter 14 and defer substantive style changes to Phase 2.

The joint meeting, held in hybrid format, focused on a sweeping draft ordinance (bill 2024-17 / ordinance 2025, adoption TBD) that would repeal and replace Santa Fe City Code Chapter 14 (the Land Development Code). Staff described Phase 1 as a cleanup and reorganization that also includes several substantive items, including new affordability incentives, adjustments to permitted building heights, reorganized use tables, updated parking and electric vehicle requirements, and revisions to archaeological clearance triggers.

Heather Lamboy, the city planning director leading the update, told the boards the project was introduced to the governing body in early October and that "we had approximately an hour and 15 minutes of public testimony on October 9." Lamboy said Phase 1 lays foundation work and that unresolved or larger policy items would be addressed in subsequent phases.

Why it matters: The update is intended to simplify and modernize a structure last comprehensively revised in 1987 and to add incentives aimed at encouraging affordable and "missing middle" housing. At the same time, members of the public and several HDRB members warned that some of the draft language substantially changes historic-district design guidance and could affect the character long associated with Santa Fe.

What the committees did

- Archaeological Review Committee: Member Gayla Bechtel moved that the committee "recommend these changes to the governing body." The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (Bechtel: yes; Chair Eck: yes; Member Therese: yes). The committee endorsed reorganized archaeological district rules, lowered linear thresholds for when utility-main work triggers archaeological review in certain districts, and a new requirement that archaeologists hold a New Mexico State burial excavation permit when human remains are encountered or excavation is required.

- Historic Districts Review Board: After extended public comment and internal debate, board member John Bienvenu moved that HDRB recommend that the governing body retain the existing historic-style preservation language in Chapter 14 for the four historic districts and defer substantive style and design changes to Phase 2. Member Aguilar Medrano seconded. After a roll-call vote that was briefly tied and broken by Chair Carlin Rios, the motion passed. The board signaled support for other organizational and procedural edits but opposed the draft's substantive changes to the district style definitions as presented to the board that night.

Key provisions and points of contention

Affordable housing incentives: The draft includes incentive mechanisms frequently cited in the meeting packet and by staff as central to the update'a density-bonus scale tied to the share of required affordable units, expanded administrative review paths to speed approvals for certain projects, parking reductions tied to transit proximity, and fee-in-lieu options that fund the Affordable Housing Trust. Staff said the changes are intended to encourage more rental and for-sale affordable units.

Historic standards: HDRB members and several public speakers objected that the draft removes or alters long-standing language requiring new buildings in the Downtown/Eastside and other historic districts to "achieve harmony" with historic buildings and to respect the "dominating effect" of adobe construction. Board member Bienvenu called the proposed removal of those provisions "an extreme substantive change." Public commenters including Frank Katz and John Eddy urged the board to protect the existing stylistic standards.

Archaeology and utility thresholds: Archaeology staff and committee members explained changes to the linear thresholds that trigger archaeological clearance permits for utility-main construction. The draft lowers the downtown trigger from 60 feet to 50 feet and reduces the linear threshold in parts of the rivers-and-trails and suburban districts (transcript discussion referenced reductions from 550 feet to 100 feet and to 200 feet depending on district). Committee members said the changes respond to denser site records downtown and to tendencies by some contractors to subdivide projects to avoid review; public commenters asked for clarity on how staff will interpret large, overlapping state-record map buffers.

Process and timing: Multiple HDRB members and several public speakers said the 600'plus page draft and the expedited public schedule left insufficient time to vet substantive changes, especially those affecting the core Downtown/Eastside historic district. Member Bienvenu and other board members said they had believed Phase 1 would be largely organizational and that substantive stylistic changes should be subject to separate, robust public review in Phase 2. Staff said that the governing body introduction and public comment period are underway and that the package still must proceed to the Planning Commission (Oct. 16) and several council subcommittees before the governing body hears the case on Nov. 19.

Voices from the meeting

- "We've gone months without an architect on this board," Gayla Bechtel, architect and committee member, said during public comment when urging attention to board composition and the code's procedural impacts.

- "I cannot move forward under those conditions," architect Richard Martinez said, describing delays he said applicants face because pre-application and preliminary zoning review requirements are now being enforced earlier in the submittal timeline.

- "There was approximately an hour and 15 minutes of public testimony on October 9," Heather Lamboy said, describing the governing-body introduction and outreach to date.

- "I urge the historic and archaeological committees to recommend immediate adoption of the Phase 1 draft," architect Anthony Guida said during public comment; Guida urged action to move housing incentives forward while continuing later refinement.

What happens next

Staff said they will include the HDRB'recommended alternative language in materials that go to the Planning Commission and to council committees so the governing body will have both the draft presented Oct. 14 and the board's alternative language for consideration. The Planning Commission was scheduled to consider the full draft Oct. 16; finance, public works, and quality-of-life subcommittees are scheduled in late October; the governing body has a special hearing on Nov. 19 at which it could take final action or continue consideration.

The two board-level actions taken Oct. 14 will be part of the public record presented to the governing body.

Ending

The Phase 1 package combines organizational cleanup with policy changes the city says are needed now, particularly to incentivize more housing. The consultative process will continue: staff and consultants said unresolved or more complex stylistic items will be brought back for Phase 2 with additional outreach, while the governing body will decide which version of the ordinance to adopt.