And your heart
will fly.
You're live.
All right. Good evening.
Today's November 18th, 2025,
6 o'clock. My name is Kent Thirstston.
I'm the chair of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Um,
we're going to call the meeting to
order. And going on to uh does anybody
have any conflict of interest for
tonight?
Seeing none, uh we're going to go on to
the next one. Uh public participation.
Is there anybody here that
um would like to say anything on behalf
of that? Well, two things. If anything's
on a consent agenda, now is your time
for public participation. Um, or if you
just have anything else that you would
like to uh announce. Those of you who
have something, go ahead and come on up
to the mic and I will swear you. Do I
have to swear them in right here? I
think I do, right?
Just public participation.
Yeah.
So, go ahead and I'm going to give you
uh I'll give you three minutes.
Thank you.
Um, thank you. Planning and zoning. Uh,
I'd like to give accolades to where they
belong, and I've asked for these two
city zoning signs to be put up. This one
is the most the one from last year,
2024. And if you notice that there's a
font problem between case
and where it says the number and the
actual black lettering, which talks
about the city. Um,
we talked about this the last time I had
asked the TAC people to please put it in
the administrative group that a QR code
should be attached to that as well. Um,
can I go to the next one?
Thank you. This one is from 2025
and it is one of the most recent ones
you have put out as a zoning thing. The
QR code is there. People are using it.
However, we still have a font problem.
The distance before magnification for
was from the sidewalk or from the street
curb edge. It's not readable and
therefore you're not communicating
people exactly what is on there. Also, I
had asked the TAC to put into the
administrative group that 500 feet in
diameter was not a reasonable amount to
contact people. Some of the people here
this evening didn't receive letters for
another case that is on the agenda. Uh
that's why 500 ft is not enough. I'm
asking that that be put onto the
administrative changes and amendment to
realize Los Cusus. 500 ft should be
increased to 800 ft. Uh in terms of the
diameter between the zoning object and
residential housing, Young Park is a
main example where where is 500 ft?
Which corner do you measure that
distance from? Those cases will be
coming to you fairly soon. So, I want to
thank you for the changes that you made,
but they're not enough to progress to a
positive communication between the
residents and the city and to know what
the city is doing on a particular piece
of property, especially since realize
now is almost administrative. So, again,
I thank you for the progress. I believe
there's more to be made and since the
city has already been asked to change
the maps for realized Los Cruus in terms
of a resolution amendment, I'm asking
that the administrative distance and the
font size be increased also. Thank you
very much.
Thank you.
Is there anybody else?
Go ahead. Come on up.
Good evening. My name is Bob Shrun. Uh I
live at 945 Delta Drive, which is one
house away from the 1701 Nevada
uh request for a subdivision there. On
the sign, it says they want to put on uh
or put in six town homes. Uh, and I feel
that if if you have six, you're going to
have a minimum of two cars per town
home. That's going to put 12
uh coming out of that small lot. That
according to the paper here is uh 3/4 of
an acre. Uh the street we have is
already very busy. Um before you guys
were probably on any board here, they
redone our street and they put in those
side barriers which are supposed to slow
people down and they don't. Uh Nevada is
a little race street because it's a long
street with no stop signs. Uh those
little garden planters on the side,
people drive in and out of them
sometimes and you can hear it and you
can see the oil all over the place
sometimes. So that hasn't slowed down
traffic at all. So if we add a minimum
of 12 cars coming in out of that lot, um
I think that's going to make it a very
dangerous uh intersection there where
Delta comes into Nevada.
And uh most likely those town homes will
be for rent and not owned by the people
living there. Uh so I'm assuming college
students and we've had that problem in
the past with some of the houses being
rented to college students. And um our
residential neighborhood is bad enough
as it is right now, but if you add uh 12
more residents, 12 more cars, or
possibly 20 if you put three per unit,
um I think that's too much for our
neighborhood. And the neighbors that I
spoke to, um there's a lot of older
people in my on my actual street and
some handicapped people. uh they all
feel that uh
six is too many. We understand that
developing it is one thing, but but six
town homes is just too much for that
small intersection. Um I see there's a
few people here that are my neighbors. I
really don't know them by name, but I'm
sure they're going to agree with me. Um
and that's about all I got to say. Thank
you very much.
Thanks for your comments. Anybody else?
Let's go on the left side.
You Yep. coming up.
Go ahead and come on up.
My name is Frank Durant. I live at 980
Maple, uh, right across from this
proposal. Now, like my neighbor here
just said, our neighborhood has already
plagued with the speech stard
neighborhood in Nevada. I was a
participant in the Nevada neighborhood
project that pro that property was
purchased to beautify and to uh bring
about uh beautifification to our our
neighborhood uh projects for our
children. uh just like the new
developments that you have out in uh the
East Mass, water parks, uh stuff like
that. It was supposed to uh uh give us a
place to go and enjoy our neighborhood.
Uh these bumpouts not a very big
success. our request for speed bumps and
uh uh speed uh traffic uh uh uh signs
like they have on uh Idaho were denied.
Um
there are a lot of things going on that
uh may not be uh on the agenda such as
uh our uh my neighbor just mentioned a
lot of our uh neighbors are on a fixed
income. what is the economic impact on
our neighborhood when you bring these uh
uh properties up to development? Um
I just didn't write these things down. I
apologize, but u I have a lot more
questions and uh I think we need to
discuss this thoroughly. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. to explain a
little bit about how the how the agenda
works is if everything that is on
consent basically after we do an
acceptance of the agenda all the consent
ID uh con anything that's under the
consent agenda will be automatically
passed and so in order to bring one of
those off you would have to have a
council member um council member
basically pull it off the agenda. So,
just to let you guys know on how that
works. Uh, is there any is there anybody
else on the right side that would like
to or on the left side? I guess let's
keep going down the row on the left.
Anybody else?
I did.
Hello. Good evening. My name is Jesus
Fritz. Uh we live at uh 1715 Lester and
uh there are four vacant houses within a
block one block radius. One at uh 911
Rio Grand, the other one at 1700
Lester, the other one at 1740 Lester.
and uh across the street or next to our
house at 1705 Lester Avenue. So, we've
got four vacant homes there. Uh then
we're going to build or the proposal is
to build
uh six town houses to increase the
traffic and yet nothing is being really
done as far as looking at what's already
there. I mean, you know, you can
redevelop those homes. If somebody
doesn't want uh want a single family
home, they could redevelop those because
those homes for the most part are just
vacant and they're not being really used
other than one rental. One of them is a
rental and that rental is across the
street from us at 1700 Lester. So we
know that that we know the neighborhood
there and we know that people are just
have those houses vacant and uh that
issue is being being it's not being
addressed by the city by the economic
development council that uh Chris fire
favor whatever his name is uh I spoke to
him and uh in regards to the fact that
uh those homes are not only vacant but
there's there's nobody body as far as
codes
codes compliance in in relation to
maintaining the homes and yet those of
us that live there are expected to
maintain our homes. So what's going to
happen with those homes that uh the
proposed plan is to build homes uh on
Nevada. If you're not taking care of the
vacant homes around there, what's the
city going to do with those additional
homes that they're going to build off of
Nevada?
That's uh that's our objection. The
density in addition to the to the
hightra area that we already have there.
Thank you.
Anybody else on the left side? Go ahead
and come on down.
I'm Dr. Williams. I'm here with Joe and
Ralph regarding the property Antonio.
So um our church is right across from
the property. We've been
um following the property trying to find
out who owned it, is it available for
what seemed like years. We finally last
thing we And when we got through to city
hall was um they asked us to make an
offer.
Sorry. Sorry.
We made an offer.
I'm going to interrupt you just for one
sec. You're talking about on 7.1.
Um yeah, 7.1. Yes.
Okay. We're going to hear that one
tonight.
You are.
So we'll we'll come back to you when it
comes to when we get to that one.
All right. because in the public so this
will be the public participation
basically for like 6.1
if anyone has something 6.1 6.2 2 6.3 6
point or 7.1 we're going to hear
tonight. So you have your opportunity to
come back on that.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Hi, good evening. Um my concern for for
the development of uh the plot on Nevada
is that um
they will be twotory houses. I'm
assuming with a number of properties
there
and so that's a concern.
I'm I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt
you one more one time. I haven't been
asking people their name, so I'm going
to have to see if you can give us your
name for the record.
Oh, yes. [clears throat] Melissa
Tensley. I live on Mimme Discord.
Thank you.
And another concern that I have is that
um if it was to be for lowincome
low-income dwellings, I think the
the rate that they might go into
foreclosure or be vacated would be
somewhat higher than than normal. And
then there's the issue of squatters. So
that was a concern for me.
Um,
and I was unclear is is it six dwellings
or 12 dwellings?
Is there an answer? Can I get an answer
to that one?
During public participation, it's just
it's just public participation. Okay.
Um,
and
in years past, um, I understood it was
going to we were looking into building a
community garden there and having
walking trails, which I think would
benefit our community more so than
additional housing there. It it is a
very crowded area and very busy street
and um, no way to curb the traffic.
Uh,
thank you. Thank you.
[clears throat]
Anybody on the right? Go ahead.
And I just need you to state your name.
Case Sturman.
Thank you.
I received a letter, but many of my
neighbors did not. Um I feel like it's
evasive and not full disclosure. Like
who owns this property?
Once again, Nate is public
participation.
A survey was ordered. We have no
blueprint. Are these uh dwellings going
to be twostory, threestory
access in and out? We don't have that
information. And does that mean on my
lot I could build three dwellings and
sell them individually? Because usually
in a subdivision to sell a piece off,
you have to have it approved
uh by the subdivision, surveyed, all of
those kinds of things. So, what is that?
How is that going to impact others? I'm
on Member Court. I have a very large
lot, almost as large as this one.
So, what are you opening the door to?
And who does own this property?
I understood tonight. I'm not sure it's
accurate, but I understood tonight that
the city owns it. Really?
And if they own the property, is it for
free enterprise profit? What was the
purpose for the city owning this
property?
So, and also just the traffic being that
close to Young Park, we have a lot of um
I don't know the proper word to use and
be politically correct, but there's a
lot of stuff floating in our
neighborhood spreading out from the
incident at the park. It's not ve very
well supervised. And who will be in
charge of the maintenance of these town
houses? Is it going to be low income?
Will there be backgrounds checks or are
they going to be individually sold?
That's not clear. And I think that it
should be and I understood you to say
something. I don't know how to get this
off the agenda, but you said something
about getting it removed or if it's up
for vote or where that is and if we
could have some clarity on that.
Thank you and thank you for listening.
Thank you.
Good evening. Planning on zoning.
I need you to state your name. My name
is Gregory Sheranic and I would like to
give a historical background as to
this property
on on this one. How do I what what are
the rules on public participation for
Wait, wait, wait.
Can
Okay. So, I'm being told on the rules
that we're you get you get one shot at
on the uh public participation.
I'm not talking about public
participation. I am talking about the
item 62 which you have on the consent
agenda that you allowed other people to
speak about and it is fair that you
allow me to speak about it because your
body including Mr. favor and number of
people in your department received
emails from me.
Yeah, I'm going to keep talking. Now,
this property is city property and
you have only you already have we're
still in public participation.
Okay. Are you going to discuss 6.2?
We're in public participation. So, that
is up that is up to the to the council
to whether they're going to pull the
agenda or not. Yeah. That off the
agenda.
All right.
Off the consent. So that is it is up to
them.
Then chairman I would like you to ask
the council to pull 6.2.
We will do. Thanks.
Is there anybody else on public
participation?
Okay. Before we make a motion to accept
the agenda, I'd like to pull item 6.2.
um hoping staff can give a presentation
and um address some of the concerns that
have been raised tonight.
Can I get a second?
Second.
This is on the motion to remove item 6.2
from the agenda. Councelor Costa or
Commissioner Costa.
Yes.
Uh Commissioner McCasslin,
yes. Commissioner A Costa,
yes.
Uh, Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
And chair,
no.
Thank you.
Okay. So, now we will go to the
acceptance of the agenda. Is that
correct or is there Yeah, because
acceptance of the
That is the acceptance of Okay.
Okay. So now we need to have a
motion to hear 6.2.
Make a motion to hear 6.2.
I'll second that, Mr. Chair.
Good evening. Sarah Gonzalez with
Community Development. Before you is the
proposed subdivision for alleys at
Nevada.
Property is located at 1701 Nevada
Avenue. It is approximately 752 acres in
size. It is currently zoned R1A which is
single family medium density. It is
located within our infill boundary or
urban core. It is a vacant undeveloped
parcel and it is owned by the city of
Los Cruus.
Here is a zoning map of the subject
property. Right here you can see where
the parcel is located. You would have um
Lynn Middle School over here. You have
Young Park. You do have Walnut. And then
you have Lman across to the north side.
As you can see, the area is zoned R1A,
which is our single family zone under
the 2001 zoning code. We do have multif
family that's on the other side of
Walnut Avenue.
Here's an aerial map of the subject
property. As you can see, this parcel is
vacant. There are still a few other
parcels that are vacant located within
the area. Here is the school as well as
Young Park. So you can see that this is
primarily single family. There are
different lot sizes and variations.
Tonight the applicant is proposing to
subdivide the one lot into six townhouse
lots which would include essentially six
new dwelling units which are considered
town houses. The lots do range from.125
to.126 acres in size and they are
accessed from Nevada Avenue. These
townhouse developments are basically
permitted by right through our zoning
code as they have met the minimum
requirements. When you're developing a
townhouse lot, you are able to use the
exemption which is 38-62 from our zoning
code which allows you to provide a lot
frontage of 24 ft in width and you're
allowed to have a square footage of
2880. And so in that standard when we
look into the plat each one of these
lots are 33 feet in width which has met
the minimum lot frontage of the 24
minimum standard and then they're 110
110 ft deep which is more than the
requirement of the 2880 square footage.
So you do have six lots when you're
looking at town houses in some form they
are attached to one another. You can
have different variations when you do
town houses. That means you can have two
attached to each other three or you can
have all six. It just depends on how the
design is done or how the development
comes in.
Here is one of the renderings that they
were looking at from the city of Los
Cusus. As you can see here, this is
where the property line would run. You'd
have one dwelling unit on this side and
one dwelling unit on the other side.
Then you would have this courtyard area.
You'd have the same moving along. So in
this case, if this scenario were to be
developed or built out, you would have
essentially two units being connected
throughout. So you'd have two, two, and
two based on the six units.
This does go through our development
review committee. Being that all the
infrastructure is already in place, that
means utilities, rightway, all of that
is already installed. There were no
concerns from the DRC as they have met
the 2001 zoning code based on the
allegation or the allowance from 38-62.
There is going to be a condition though
if they were not approved tonight. This
would be allowed and realized by right.
So moving forward, the subdivision would
not have to come to the planning and
zoning commission meeting. However,
there is a condition that if they are
not approved, they would be required to
pay the 18,592
for the parkland dedication and fees,
which is primary reason of which we are
here this evening.
So, with that, staff's recommendation is
approval. It does comply with the city
standards. It does comply with the city
of Lasus' zoning code and the
subdivision code. It does comply with
section 38-62 of the exceptions provided
to develop townhouse development. and it
does promote essentially an alternative
style of living or housing option which
is promoted through elevate loss as our
comprehensive plan.
The notice was sent out to the 500 ft
within the boundary. Um we did receive
no information. I did not receive any
emails or public comment provided prior
to this meeting.
With that, this is the commission's
options. I do stand for any questions.
We do have Natalie with neighborhood
services to represent and answer any
questions on the behalf of the city of
Lush Cruises as they are part of the
development process. And then we do have
Katherine Harrison Rogers here from
parks and wreck.
Does anybody have any on not anybody do
you have any further um things you want
to add onto this presentation?
Good afternoon uh Mr. Chair Natalie
Green for the record. The only thing
I'll add is uh this piece we are looking
to take into our affordable housing land
bank. So um while there are renderings,
we don't have an official development
plan yet. It is intended to be for home
ownership. So it will be for home uh it
will not be rentals, it'll be home
ownership. Um typically we work with
delt to to do that program, but we're
not necessarily tied to them. um because
it does not have any federal funds, it
is uh allowed to go up to 120% of area
median income. So for a family of four,
that's a family making less than
$85,000.
Um but again, depending on the funding
sources that are allocated to the
project, uh will help dictate some of
those income levels and design uh
requirements.
And uh just as a matter of practice, we
typically don't do two stories um for
our programs. So I I don't anticipate
that they would be two stories. They
would be uh single story. Um typically
we build between 1100 ft² and 1500 ft².
So it's small starter home entry level
housing.
Thank you. All right. Before we go to
public participation, just to give a
little clarification on this, what we're
going to do is we're going to open it
back up for those who have comments. Um,
we're going to give you we'll give you
two minutes. What we're going to do is
you ask the questions and then we will
we as commissioners don't always have
the have the answer because we're not
really the applicant. We are just an
approving board. And so what we will do
is we'll take your questions and then
we'll have those written down and then
we'll ask back the applicant if they
have any other uh if they can answer
some of those questions. So, if you'll
come up and go ahead and we're going to
start here on the left hand side and
then I need to swear you in and then
we'll go ahead and and you just give us
give us the questions that you have or
the testimony that you want to give as
well.
All right. So, before you come up, I got
to say, oh, I got to have your name.
Frank Duran.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the
truth and nothing but the truth under
penalty of law?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
One of my questions is I was a member of
the neighborhood uh Nevada project was
to improve our neighborhoods uh
uh
driving uh issue or uh those bumpouts.
Uh this property was also uh uh
purchased under that uh program and I
would like to know
what changed
uh why was this property not uh uh
maintained for the purpose it was
purchased for and that's uh most
important. I do live right across the
street so I see this every day when I
walk outside my house. Um secondly, the
economic impact on our already um fixed
income residents in the area. What we're
going to do to protect them against our
already increased property taxes.
Uh furthermore, I you uh
that's what I Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. On the left, let's keep
going.
Can you please state your name?
Gregory Shiranic. S H E R V A N I C K.
Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the
truth and nothing but the truth under
penalty of law?
I do. Thank you.
And thank you, Fast Finger. You don't
want me to speak longer. This is a
travesty tonight. The information that
you were given in your packet is
misinformation.
This property was bought by the city of
Los Cusus who is the applicant here for
a park and it was bought with money from
Donniana Community United. This
gentleman just spoke about but he didn't
remember the name. and it was given to
the city through that program.
Councelor Vasquez pushed it really hard.
The mayor also commented on it. So,
please go back to the resolution of the
purchase of this property. This is not
just a zoning deal. This is park
property. It has been used in the
calculation of which you voted on for
impact fees.
How do you separate a plus or minus sign
from a multip
from mathematics and a solution? I only
have one question because we have the
experts from realize here
an appeal
on this subject is still under current
Los Cruus's L CMU
items or is it a realized Los Cruus
because the rush for this is amazing.
I got an email
on the 14th of November. Okay. By the
29th of November, DRC had already pushed
it through for a zoning project. Thank
you.
Thank you.
I would Yes. I would like you to answer
the question. If I appeal this as an
amicus,
is it under the current Los Cusus MU
municipal code or is it under realize?
Thank you.
I we will I I stated it earlier how we
will do this. We'll answer the questions
as they come afterwards. Thank you.
Anybody else on the left?
Okay, we will. No one left on the left.
Anybody on the right that would like to
come back up.
I'm not sure.
I need to have you state your name real
quick.
K. Sturman.
Uh, do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the
truth and nothing but the truth under
penalty of law?
I do.
Thank you.
There seems to be some legal things how
the city can purchase property for a
cause, not use it for the cause. Then
what is the city going to do with the
money that they make from the sale?
Then the other thing is on the appeal.
If this is passed, do we have to go to
the city council or where can we get
advice on that to follow this down the
road?
or am I asking the wrong group,
the wrong council? I mean,
we'll we'll get to that. You keep keep
asking your questions and we'll see if
we can get those.
Okay. Because of the impact it's going
to have on our neighborhood that what is
the city going to do to enhance our
area, which was the original intent for
them to have this property. Do you do
you see what I'm saying? And then here's
the police force. It's very hard to get
that area patrolled even after the
incidences at what used to be the old
Lynn school, what we have at Young Park,
and then the traffic and damage. It's
like a racing center through there. And
yes, there is a stop sign. As a matter
of fact, there's two. But very often
when you take that curve to go up to Le
Drive, those it's not enforced. They're
not stopping at the stop signs. And
that's a separate issue. But the issue
is the danger that this will bring to
the neighborhood.
Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else on the right?
Okay, we're going to close the public
participation and go to the counselors.
Does any of the counselors have any or
commissioners? Sorry, I shouldn't call
it counselors. Commissioners have any
questions?
Yeah, we should ask how council feels
about us taking their titles. Um, I've
got a few questions. Um, first of all,
thanks for staff for providing some
clarity. Um, I think this is a really,
uh, fantastic project on its face
though. Um, hearing some of the things
that were raised tonight, um, and then
again going back to the staff report,
um, it would seem that we didn't do
ourselves many favors here. I think
we're maybe um unintentionally
um stoking some vibes of secrecy or
conspiracy. So, I'm hoping that staff
can address some of the questions that
were both raised um by some of the
speakers this evening. Um starting with
the uh the fact that the city is not
listed as an applicant for this
application, which in fact I believe
they are. Um, and in fact, it wasn't
even mentioned at all that this was
city-owned property until you got into
the minutes from the DRC meeting as an
attachment. So, my first question is why
is the city not listed as the applicant?
Um, and why why not identify that in the
staff report at the outset?
Mr. chair and commission. Um, when you
look at any one of our PNZ packets, we
generally will say on there that it does
have the representative. It's the
applicant who has submitted the
subdivision application. So, in this
case, the applicant was Carter Serving,
who had submitted the application for
the subdivision as it is a subdivision
for the city, but the applicant
essentially is Carter Serving.
The property owners have not all been
listed on any of the packets that you
move forward with. You generally will
see Solder Miller. They are the
representative for Sierra Norte. You
will see the same information going on
to all of your packets.
But this applicant cannot file anything
without the city's consent. Correct,
Mr. Chair. That is correct. Yes. When
the plaque comes in, it is signed off by
the city of Los Cruus. Um, we do get the
mayor to sign off as they contest to the
property basically being subdivided.
That is correct. Um, but the applicant
who's submitting the application is not
the city. It is a subdivider that is
placing it basically onto the property.
So if we were to go through all of the
four cases we had this evening and you
look through all of your packets, our
packets stay consistent. We provide the
representative who has submitted those
applications.
I understand that. I guess the the
frustrating part is
a property owner has to consent. They're
on the application because I cannot come
before the city and submit a subdivision
application for property that I do not
own. Correct.
U, Mr. Commissioner, I just want to add
that as a matter of practice, our team
hires professional surveyors and they do
um the subdivisions on our behalf. And
so, yes, the city did have to go through
a signoff process, an affidavit that we
are the legal owner. Um, as the housing
and neighborhood services administrator,
I'm the uh design for our affordable
housing land bank and trust fund. So, I
do sign um some of those affidavit.
Yeah, I I appreciate that and I I
understand what you're saying. I guess
what I'm what's confusing to me is this
is a city project, city- owned property,
and yet we don't mention any of that
anywhere in the staff report. It's not
until the DRC, if you read the minutes,
where that became apparent. Um, and I
guess I I just don't why why are we why
are we not being forthcoming there? I
mean, obviously a private developer,
private property owner, um, you know, if
they're not obligated to disclose that
they're the owner in this forum, that
it's just the person's main applicant.
It is what it is. Those are the rules.
But we're the city. I mean, we should
hold ourselves to a little bit more
transparency here.
Mr. Chair and Commission, we do have our
standard practices in which we do relay.
The information has not come up. This is
one of the first city projects that have
been moved forward. When you look at our
packets, they're pretty standardized as
to who is represented on those
applications. When we do go to DRC and
it is presented, we may see the owner be
present or you still see representatives
and that's where it is coming out. I
don't think the standard necessarily is
different as we do have to hire out as
well to do our cases and our packets.
They are the representatives that are
providing the information and coming to
the public hearing to meet those
standards.
Thank you for that. Um, my next question
is, uh, and you answered it in your
presentation, but I guess could you
expand a little bit on the reason why
the city chose to go with the old code
and not the current code.
Mr. Chair and Commission, when you're
looking at real life Los Cruuses, there
is the parkland dedication that is now
required or payment in lie. When you're
looking at development of the six
parcels that would be on the property,
they were required to essentially pay
the $18,000 that would have been payment
in lie of that gets added on to
essentially that development for those
affordable housing cost. If they went
through the 2001 zoning code, they did
not have those those fees associated
with them. So that was the primary goal
was to not essentially pay those because
they will still pay impact fees on the
development when it comes in, but not
the parkland dedication.
But what does that say when the city is
trying to take advantage of a small
loophole to get out of paying an impact
fee?
What does that say about our impact fee?
Uh Mr. Commissioner, what the city's
intent this is a pass through subsidy to
the home buyer. So we're trying to
reduce the cost for the end user. Um so
reducing the fees inherently reduces the
cost of the homes and makes them more
affordable for the homeowners.
So, we're we're basically stating in
this forum right now the impact fees and
increase costs for homeowners, even
though I I believe we've presented
evidence in other forums that that's not
necessarily the case. So,
yeah. Um, affordable housing is not
treated any differently than regular
market rate housing. So, we pay impact
fees, although we do have a waiver
process on occasion that we utilize. Um
but again, we're obligated to pay permit
fees, the park and loo fees if this
carries on to the next um phase. We'll
pay public safety and park impact fees
as well. So um and all of that becomes a
pass through to the end user. So um the
homeowners would have to absorb that
cost. So again, going under the 2021
code will reduce the the per lot cost
for the homeowners.
All right. Um, I don't think that's a
very good look, but we'll leave it at
that. Um, my next question,
um,
is, uh, about how the city
came to own this parcel. Um, there were
a couple references from speakers this
evening about maybe it was purchased as
part of another, um, separate park
program. just if you can address that
head on, I think that would be helpful
to understand um and maybe clarify what
what actually transpired.
Uh Mr. Commissioner, so I had to pull up
the resolution myself. Uh it was
purchased sometime in 2019. It was part
of the Nevada cool corridor. It does
talk about that um there was an
intention
to where did it say to facilitate
planning services and engage residents
in a smallcale projects to create
temporary community spaces and allow
residents ideas for various uses and
refineses plans. Um it's been vacant
since then. Uh the staff that was
involved in the original purchase is no
longer with the city. Um, parks has also
since adopted a parks master plan which
changes some of the their requirements.
Um, and so it was sitting vacant. Uh, we
were approached by Rem Elli, which is,
uh, who we named this subdivision after.
For those who don't know, he's a
92-year-old architect who provided the
conceptuals. And so, um, he wanted to
work on some sort of development plan or
alternative housing types that's, um,
outside of our usual scope. For those
who know some of the work we do, we
primarily work, uh, multif family,
low-income housing tax credits. And so,
we've been asked to explore, um, smaller
starter home scale um, type housing. So,
this this seemed like a good
opportunity. We did reach out to the
various departments to see if they had a
use for this parcel. um they responded
that they didn't um it was no longer in
alignment with parks uh or any community
facility building. So um the best best
use was additional housing for our
housing stock.
I I got a question for you on the park
side. Um, if it's not aligned with the
way that parks are currently, but it was
for purchase
whenever it was purchased to be some
type of an intent. Should we not uphold
the original intent of the purchase?
[applause]
Uh, Chair Thirstston, members of the
commission, was that a a comment or a
question? I guess my my question is with
this parcel, what would you design as a
park?
Um, so I want to [clears throat] be I
want to be clear that I actually have no
documentation in any of my files that
actually outline that this was
specifically
I messed up. That's okay.
I need to have you say your state your
name.
Sure. Absolutely. Katherine Harrison
Rogers, parks and wreck. For the record,
uh, do you swear or do I have to No,
just I just have to have your name.
Sorry, screwing up again.
[clears throat]
That's fine. I I do want to clarify that
I actually have no documentation in my
records that it was specifically
targeted for a park. It was never on a
on a a capital improvement plan related
to to parks. But um that being said, if
um if it were to be designed as a park,
it in terms of the distancing from the
neighborhood, it doesn't necessarily add
um a lot of value. We already have a a
community park in the area that that
serves a basically a half mile um buffer
walkshed. Um as well as the general
community at hand. Um the smaller park
uh those are really challenging. I'm not
really quite sure what we would do to
design that. We would of course if it
were in our hands and we were directed
to do something with that, we would
certainly work with the neighborhood to
come up with a plan. but its proximity
to Young Park um and the way our current
master plan outlines um park facility
types and park needs and park gaps um it
it doesn't necessarily add to our stock
in terms of filling those park gaps
because those park gaps at least in this
area are filled.
Can I just have the resolution the
purpose read back?
Sure. And it doesn't specifically state
parks. I think community space is how it
reads. Um, so I can read most of it
again. Natalie Green for the record. So
it says, "Whereas the city desires to
purchase 87 acres of land located at
1700 East Nevada from the Straoud
Revocable Living Trust where it was
appraised by a local appraiser
October 31st, 2018." And then it keeps
going. So I'll just kind of expedite.
Whereas the sustainability office
created the Nevada street neighborhood
initiatives which envisions the creation
of several projects along the street and
within the neighborhood including a cool
corridor, various energy efficiency
projects and building social
connectedness projects, all intended to
serve as a demonstration of resiliency
strategy.
And whereas part of the district 3
neighborhood meeting, residents
approached councelor Vasquez about the
possible purchase. Residents expressed
their desire to create a community
space. And once purchase, staff will
develop a one-year contract for
facilitated planning services that
engage residents in a series of
smallcale projects to create temporary
community spaces and allow resident
ideas for various uses and refined
plans. And whereas the asking price for
the vacant parcel was 69,000. However,
I lost it somewhere.
That That's fine. I think you answered
my what I was looking for. Um,
did any of that occur? Did the city hire
somebody to facilitate community meeting
to explore ideas? Uh I honestly I
couldn't tell you because it was the
sustainability office and again those
staff persons are no longer here.
Okay. Um
so it it seems very clear to me that
it's intended for community spaces. Um
you know what exactly that is uh was
you know supposed to be solicited by the
community. Um, it would be frustrating
if that never happened. Uh, I think an
argument could be made that that a low
um moderate income housing like this
project, which I think is fantastic,
could be defined as a community amenity.
I think there's an argument to be made
there, but the fact that doesn't appear
that there was any additional work to um
follow through from the city side is
concerning. I mean, deeply concerning.
And I can understand the resident's
frustration. And I I would like to think
all of us can understand that the city
says we're gonna do something that they
should at least follow through. Um, and
at the end of the day, you know, if this
was the best use and the best idea that
came forward, fantastic. But it would
appear to me that there's a lot going on
here that um is
that residents have a legitimate
complaint to be made.
Yeah, we we did reach out to the other
departments. again, it's not in their
development plans and nor do they have a
use for it. So, um, housing decided to
put it to use and so this was our
intended outcome.
Any other commissioners have Yeah,
commissioners, I'm finally getting it
right. Have any input or any questions?
So now we're at the point where we
either need a a motion to approve, deny,
amend, or table. Right.
I just need a vote.
Okay. We just need a vote. This is on uh
the vote on 6.2. Councelor Wina Costa.
If we deny, do we have to say the reason
for the record? I'll vote to deny.
Commissioner Ricassen,
deny.
Commissioner Janet Costa,
approve.
Commissioner Kaiser.
Before I I give my vote, I just want to
say that I'm not opposed to this project
in concept. I think initially coming in
tonight, this was a fantastic project. I
had no issues. Um but then hearing from
the residents and then re-examining the
staff report, um I I'm very concerned
that um the city is not
um following their own rules. um they're
finding their own loopholes and I don't
think residents um have been adequate
adequately
um involved in this process. So I'm
going to vote no
and chair no motion fails. Thank you.
Okay. We will now go on to
uh new business 7.1.
Oh, I need a
I make a I make a motion to uh hear item
7.1
second.
Okay. Once again, Sarah Gonzalez with
Community Development. This is for the
North Tornado Housing Tracks.
This is a property located at 1240 North
Tornado Street. It is approximately.339
acres in size. It is owned R2
multi-dwelling low density. It is
located within our infill boundary in
urban core. It is also another property
that is vacant and undeveloped and owned
by the city of Los Cruus's.
Here's a zoning map before you. As you
can see, this area was located with um
within the North Mosquite district. A
lot of it is multifamily R2, R4s, and
then you do have the commercial nodes
that are located around them, which is
your North Mosquet and your Solano
Avenue.
Here's an aerial map of the subject
property is located um adjacent to
Booker T. Washington School. We do have
single family residences and as you can
tell there are a lot of multiple sizes
and differences just because as part of
the original town site a lot of
properties had different shapes and they
were over top of property boundaries
when they were built. So a lot of
modifications have taken place through
the subdivision process.
The applicant is requesting an infield
development proposal with this
subdivision as it does follow the 2001
zoning code. In the 2001 zoning code um
you can subdivide a property. So it's
being subdivided from one into three new
lots for single family residential
homes. The lots will range from.11
to.113 acres in size. It is accessed
from North Tornneo Street. Um the reason
it is an infield development proposal or
subdivision is because there is a
requested deviation to the minimum lot
size requirements which in an R2 zoning
designation it does require the lot size
to be at 5,000 square ft. These lots are
at 4922 and 4835. just under the minimum
standard. Being it's in an infill, they
can request deviations to that zoning
code. Here is the lot layout from the
subdivision plat provided by the
surveyor, which is lot 1es, 2, and
three. So, as you can see, they are
single family residential homes that
meet the minimum lot width. They just do
not meet the minimum lot size as far as
square footage.
Here is the subject property. As you can
see, it is vacant. And then Booker T
Washington School is directly on the
east side of the property. Here are the
renderings for the three homes that are
proposed on the sites. Um, if they were
to be developed, they are three
bedrooms. Um, so that it will provide
single family homes that are essentially
in character in nature with the current
and existing homes in the neighborhood.
This would be going on lot one. This
would be for lot number two. And then
you' be looking at this image for lot
number three.
All of them are singlestory homes as
they would match that characteristic.
Once again, this did go through the
development review committee on October
15th. Because the infrastructure is in
place, there's no concerns when the
subdivision does come in. So, at that
point, we're looking to ensure that it
meets the subdivision code or the intent
of basically your infill area. There is
still the condition that remains onto
the property that it would require the
parkland dedication because it is
increasing by two lots. The fee would
then be 74 7,400 37 and 12.
With this, staff is recommending
approval. It does meet the intent for
the infill development plan. It does
also follow elevate loss cruises as we
are continuing to find different areas
that are vacant in our properties and
developing developing in them with
housing opportunities. Um there is also
it does meet the intent for the
community and the proposed variance is
compatible with the existing lots that
are there. As you drive around anywhere
within North Mosquet area, you can see
that there are deviations to a lot of
the lots that are there.
We did receive one call for an inquiry
essentially for the development and then
support of the housing development. This
is directly located to the south of the
subject property and so seeing housing
come in was not a big concern for the
actual um property owner. So with that I
leave you with your coun or commission
options stand for any questions and once
again Natalie is here from our housing
development group.
Thank you. Uh Natalie do you have
anything else you want to add to that
presentation?
Okay, we'll open it up to public
participation. Anybody on the left, if
you have any participation, go ahead and
comment up.
I guess my left, your right.
And if you'll if you'll state your name,
you can give them three minutes.
Good evening. My name is Jose Tapia and
I live almost ker to this division that
you're trying to develop. They're all
popular. And
I got to swear you in real quick. I got
to swear you in.
So, do you do you swear or affirm Do you
swear or affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth and
nothing but the truth under penalty of
law?
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Go ahead.
Okay. My name's Jose Tapia and I live
Korner on on that that land. And what
I'm here for because we try to purchase
this land for the church that is on the
corner of Tornne and Popular, the 7th
Day Adventist to make a community
service hall for our seniors and for our
children to have something to do in the
summer all year round. We have a food
bank there and I came and talked to I
tried to talk to uh our counselor um
Mccclure. I did paperwork. I did
investigation who owned that property
and who sold it and they um the city
knocked down the house that was there
and they um
they put a lin on that property. So now
it belongs to the city. Now they're
trying to make these three apartments, I
mean these three little houses here. We
don't need houses. What we need is to
keep our kids away from the street. And
that's why we are are we're working on
that application and we never got an
answer. How come they didn't want us to
sell us that property? and we wanted to
make a little um community center there
to keep our kids safe and I hope that
you can overturn this. Thank you very
much.
Thank you.
Can we add to
Yeah.
Yeah. You get your you get your own time
as well.
So go ahead and state your name.
Lwellen Williams. [clears throat]
Lwellen Williams. Uh, do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under penalty of law?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Go ahead.
So, um,
as Joe said, we've been looking at this
property for the past 10 years at least.
Um, we were there when the city knocked
down the existing building and we
couldn't find out who owned it. It was a
mystery. Um finally Joe and others went
around to the city hall on motel and
finally we've tracked down who who it
was. Um once we were able to reach them
which was extremely difficult um we were
told to make an offer. So, we made an
offer and um about a couple of weeks
after making the offer um they claimed
it was denied because the city is going
to build something there. Um we have a
lot of activities on that corner for our
church and for the kids. Um, we do a lot
of things with the kids from the Booker
T Washington and we just kind of felt
like every attempt we made to try to do
something regarding this activity
center, we got squashed and we were most
surprised that some of that injury was
being inflicted by the city. And so I'm
hoping that this can be tabled and we
can be given an opportunity to to make a
reasonable offer and to see if we can
procure this for the community.
Thank you.
Anybody else on the left? We'll go on to
the right. And when you get up there,
will you please state your name and I'll
swear you in.
Yes. My name is Ralph Gomez.
Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the
truth or the truth and nothing but the
truth under penalty of law?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Go ahead.
As Dr. Williams has stated and and Jose
um I'm also uh representing the church
and um we had seen the property
dilapidated for years going on 30 years
it's been the same and once the doctor
and other congregants there we said
let's try and purchase the land to try
to further the community and bring what
it we even came as far as to bring the
same drawings of what we were proposing
make we we hired an architect and he
brought up a proposal that was perfect
for the for the neighborhood, perfect
for the kids at Booker T. It was
somewhere where they could go and have
after school activities, not even to
include the the the weekend. The
weekends would have been special. It
would have been a place where they could
have gone and we would have had
supervision. They would have been under
our supervision and they would have had
recreation. We we were even going to put
in a a eating area for whatever laws or
whatever would be we were going to
follow and we were ready to we had the
drawings and we made a proposal and we
had a few meetings here with people from
the city. Then like Dr. William stated
all of a sudden a sign goes up years
[clears throat]
a sign goes up almost it's like if
somebody had not thought of the property
until we brought it up and we did or we
tried to do our due diligence to try to
procure this this um this property
because we feel that
more than more housing because there's
even more de dilapidated housing there
ready. The neighborhood is in dire need
of of of some place where these these
kids can go and and grow and nurture,
you know, and the parents can be
involved. We feel we got short changed
on this because we didn't have the
opportunity to go through the steps that
these these people have had. And we
tried to we were we were ready to buy
it. We made an uh as Dr. state, we made
a pretty good proposal and they said
we'll take in consideration and my
feeling is personally, this is my
personal opinion, is that someone said,
"Hey, who knew about this property on
this corner?" And I'm sure there was
people looking around saying, "We don't
know." Well, you know what? They said
this property won't make us any money
with church and kids. Who cares about
that? Let's try and make some money. How
can we do this to make money? All of a
sudden, this this property is is a
foregone conclusion. As far as I see
here, our recourse would be if you could
take this under consideration and at
least at the very least table it and
let's find out what actually went on and
how the property was at like the
gentleman that the 62 we are under. Oh,
I'm sorry.
Thanks for your time. that.
Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
Is there anybody else on the on the
right that would like to get up and and
speak?
Seeing none, we will go to um the
commissioners.
Mr. Chair.
Yes. Go ahead.
Um I have a question for staff, please.
Staff, can you clarify who owns this
property? Is it uh Tiierra del Soul
Housing or is it the city of Los Cruus?
Uh so the city of Los Cusus owns this
but it was deposited into the affordable
housing land bank. So it's disposition
and restrictions are based on chapter 13
of the Los Cusus municipal code. So its
intended purpose is for affordable
housing development. Um while the city
can sell the property, we still have a
fidiciary duty to the affordable housing
trust fund and land bank to recoup
costs. So, the offer that we received
was well below the costs that the city
um invested into the property. So, I got
an offer for $5,000. I can't give away
land under state law um because of
anti-donation. The only exception is
affordable housing. And again, the city
will be giving the lots to Tiara del
Soul. So, we are not making money off of
this. It's all for the benefit of um the
future homeowners.
So, I guess why don't we write this in
our staff reports? Why isn't this part
of our presentation? I mean, this to me
is critical information. I don't
understand why we continue to
not disclose information about projects.
It's not just the two tonight. I feel
like it's almost all of our projects
that come forward. We learn things
from comments that are being made that
oh suddenly, you know, there we've got
20 more questions lined up that um staff
decided that they didn't feel was
important context for a project. Um but
especially for projects like this, I
don't understand why we can't just be
forthcoming about what it is we want to
do and provide information to the
public. We owe it to the public. we work
for them.
So, that's not a question, that's a
frustration, it's a statement. Um,
I also just want to clarify for folks in
the room, this body does not litigate
what may or may not have happened
between a property owner and a potential
seller. That's private business. We
don't get involved in that. So, I
certainly can understand the frustration
that you weren't successful in your
endeavors to acquire the property, but
that's not something that we have any
authority or insight or visibility into.
Um, that's all I have.
Anyone else?
Mr. Chair, I have one more additional
comment or a question for the city for
staff, please.
Yes, go ahead. staff.
I understand we have a methodology here
that we use to always list our cases,
but right off of what commissioner here,
my fellow commissioner has stated, um,
and I don't know what regulations are as
far as being more transparent, saying
the city owns this property, which that
is our taxpayer monies that own it,
right? So we can we be more transparent
or what do we need to do to hit that
mark when we are more transparent with
our public?
Mr. Chair and commission I think moving
forward yes because this has been the
first time in which those questions had
come up from moving forward staff can
modify essentially our staff reports
where we just include them for all
cases. And so I think it's important
just to go back to in all cases
providing any of the property owners as
well as private owners and developers
and applicants who are placing them
forward. I think every time we come to
the commission meetings, we all learn
that there's new pieces or new steps
that we all can grow from. And that's
where we continue to improve based on
comments, based on public input, based
on that's why we have these meetings on,
you know, live TV so that people can
watch them through YouTube, get the
information out there in different
forms, and different formats. That's why
we've started putting all the case
packets available for the public to
view. We've increased, we've improved,
we continue to do those moving forward.
Thank you.
I have a question for staff. Um, was a I
I'm not aware of the process. So, if
somebody does make an offer on a piece
of land that the city owns, is this a
negotiation process or is it an offer
and a denial?
Um, it depends. Again, because this is
within uh and again, Natalie Green, for
the record, because this is held within
the affordable housing land bank, it has
a separate disposition process. Um, so
typically we would need to get a couple
appraisals first under state law to
determine the value of the lot. Um, we
would have to go uh to the affordable
housing uh land bank committee um to ask
what they thought of that offer or if
they wanted to dispose of that. Um, and
then it would require council approval
to sell the land and then all the
proceeds would go back into the trust
fund. But again, because the offer was
well below um what the city had invested
in the property, it was just we told
them no.
Thank you. And
and again, these lots in particular, the
we acquired five through the
neighborhood action. They were nuisance
abatements, right? Dilapitated pro
properties that were then demolished and
acquired for the land bank. Um and that
mostly occurred in 2020. um council
already gave approval to acquire those
specifically for the purpose of
affordable housing. So that's what we're
moving forward with.
So to to clarify one thing, the original
intent of purchasing these were always
for affordable housing on this piece of
land.
Correct. The the five we call them the
NAP properties or nuisance abatement uh
properties and this was one of those.
Thank you. Um, some were acquired
through foreclosure, but this one in
particular was uh purchased directly
from the homeowner using affordable
housing funds from the trust fund. So,
again, that restricts the the use to um
uses under the affordable housing
general oversight ordinance.
Thank you. Any other questions?
Okay,
this is on the vote for item 7.1.
Commissioner A. Costa.
Yes. Commissioner McCasslin,
yes.
Commissioner Janet A Costa,
yes.
Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
And chair,
yes. Thank you.
All right. There is Well, I don't see
any items on discussion for number
eight. So, does anybody have any on
that? We'll then go to staff
announcements.
Mr. chair and commission. Um the only
staff announcement would be that next
month once again our meetings are moved
out for one additional week. So we will
be meeting on December 16th. As of right
now we do currently have two cases
moving forward. So we do have a proposed
zone change and an additional
subdivision and master plan at this
point.
Thank you.
All right. I make a motion to adjurnn.
Second.
All in favor?
I I