BY LWV OBSERVER CORPS
Editor’s note: Members of the League of Woman Voters of Los Alamos Observer Corps have been providing LWV members with reports on certain meetings in the County for many years. These reports have been included in the LWV’s monthly newsletter and now, at the invitation of the Los Alamos Reporter, will also be submitted to the Reporter for publication. The video of the full meeting may be seen at https://losalamos.granicus.com/player/clip/4921?view_id=2&redirect=true
LWVLA Observer Corps Report – Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – Sept/ 23, 2026
The session was attended by Commissioners Karen Easton (Chair), Marlon Brown, Katherine Bruell, Robert Chrien, Rebecca Grimm, David Hampton, Ronald Nelson, and Rebecca White.
Draft Los Alamos County Comprehensive Plan Update
Peter Lombardi of CZB LLC provided a quick overview of the planning process and a preliminary summary of the comments received to date. The plan includes trends and conditions, planning guidance, and an implementation framework.
Lombardi said that the yearlong timeline for the plan update targets its adoption by the end of 2026. The draft was released August 19 after community surveys, workshops, focus groups, and steering committee participation. Comments were accepted through September 18, with 121 individuals submitting feedback.
Proposed “Conservation Residential” Land-Use Designation
Public comments about the draft plan received on the website focused heavily on concerns about the proposed “conservation residential” land-use designation, which would permit clustered housing on specific parcels of County open space. During the meeting, members of the public argued that putting housing on open land conflicts with the concept of conservation and that the term “conservation residential” sounds like an oxymoron.
Several people pointed out the absence of community consensus for developing these areas and urged the County to remove the designation from the plan. The areas around the golf course/Walnut Canyon were repeatedly mentioned as particularly important to protect.
It was suggested that the focus of development should be on infill and the renovation of deteriorating and vacant homes.
Outdated Supporting Data
Multiple public speakers stressed that the plan needs more current data before assuming substantial additional housing is required.
The point was made that the plan contains many assertions without adequate supporting numbers. The speakers requested current figures on housing vacancy rates, building permits, undeveloped parcels and their zoning, and credible population estimates. Noting that some recently built apartments appeared to have vacancies, speakers suggested waiting to see how existing and currently planned housing is absorbed.
Several speakers questioned whether future LANL employment growth can be reliably predicted, particularly given possible changes in technology and the laboratory’s mission. Historical LANL projections did not always match subsequent development; they urged the county to scrutinize assumptions about future laboratory growth.
One speaker felt that LANL should take greater responsibility for housing workers, potentially through dormitories and other facilities near the laboratory.
Specific Land-Use and Zoning Concerns
Concerns were also raised that promised corrections had not occurred about long-requested rezoning of open-space areas such as Piñon Park in White Rock and along the eastern edge of the golf course overlooking Walnut Canyon.
An objection was made that the future land-use map designated the parcel south of NM502, across from the airport, as Mixed Use when it is currently zoned Industrial. They felt that rezoning of this parcel should be addressed through a public process, rather by fiat.
Infrastructure and Capital Improvements
A speaker suggested that addressing housing needs should acknowledge the key role of neighborhood renovation and infrastructure improvements. They argued that capital-improvement spending should prioritize maintaining existing infrastructure—such as sewer lines, utility lines, and older neighborhoods—rather than expanding the range of projects.
Scope of the Draft Comprehensive Plan
The complaint was made that the plan seemed overly focused on economic development and housing, and that it failed to address transportation and social services, among other community needs.
Feedback from Commissioners
The commissioners generally supported finding ways to accommodate more housing, but the discussion favored infill and redevelopment over opening up existing natural areas, while calling for a more specific, data-driven, and adaptable Comprehensive Plan.
● Open space: There was substantial concern about converting open space to residential use. Commissioners generally supported protecting existing open space and questioned the proposed “conservation residential” designation.
● Housing: Commissioners generally agreed that Los Alamos has a significant housing need, particularly because many people who work locally commute from elsewhere.
● Development regulations: Several commissioners wanted the plan to contain more specific policies that can actually be incorporated into the County’s Development Code, including reduced parking requirements, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), by-right development, and increased density.
● LANL: Commissioners disagreed somewhat about how much future LANL growth should drive County planning. Some emphasized the current housing and commuting problem, while others stressed uncertainty about future federal funding, LANL employment, artificial intelligence (AI), and changes in the laboratory’s mission.
● Data: There was strong criticism of outdated or insufficiently documented population and housing data. Chair Easton said the plan needs current, accurate, independently verifiable numbers.
● Transportation: The discussion highlighted the effects of commuting on roads and safety and supported walking, biking, public transit, and connected trails.
● Existing zoning/open-space errors: County Manager Anne Laurent explained that some previously disputed parcels could potentially be corrected through lot splits and subsequent rezoning, and consultants said they were incorporating the discussion into revisions.
● Broader planning: Commissioner Grimm argued that residential areas, commercial centers, transportation, recreation, and open space need to be treated as an interconnected system, rather than as separate land-use categories.
Next StepsThe next plan review is scheduled for the commission’s meeting on October 7 at the White Rock Fire Station. The consultant is charged with revising the draft plan to incorporate the comments from the commission and the public as well as open-space designation corrections and the requested regulatory specificity. The P&Z Commission is scheduled to make its recommendation about plan adoption at its meeting on November 18.