[Music]
You're live.
Good evening and welcome to the planning
and zoning uh meeting today. Today is
Tuesday, May
27th. Um have a call to
order. Um I'm going to check first if we
have any conflicts of interest
tonight. None. Uh we will move on to
public participation. Do we have anyone
in the public that would like to speak
on anything that's on like this consent
agenda or
We have one.
Do I I don't do I got a swear I'm on the
Okay. Uh good evening. My name is George
Pearson. Uh before you approve the
minutes on your agenda, please check the
members list, the me list of members
present. I believe the list of members
present is correct, but Mr. Kaiser is
listed as the chair and the rest of the
minutes make it clear that Mr.
Thirstston was the chair at this
meeting. Uh now I'd like to talk about
the Mesa Grande Drive road extension
that has been proposed. Uh this may or
may not come before you, but it is
something that
uh is of interest and this is public
comment. Um there's something like $60
million that has been promised for this
roadway. The money's not here yet, but
once the money shows up, um it's pretty
sure that that roadway will be built. Um
it is on the future theory map and while
the need for this roadway is debatable
it does seem to be coming. Um my ask is
that we build this as a true 21st
century roadway. What I mean by this is
that safety be the main driving force in
creating this roadway. Safety for all
roadway users with special consideration
for the
vulnerable roadway users. It's well
documented that the percentage of
vulnerable user deaths is
disproportionate with what seems like
little concern. Ashtto has recently
updated and published their bikeway
design guide. This includes guidance for
protected bikeways and extra protection
for bicyclists and pedestrians at
intersections. While Realize does not
include this type of cross-section and
maybe it should be added when Realize is
updated, Realize does allow the director
to approve alternative designs. A design
blessed by Ashtto would certainly be
covered. So if we're going to build Mesa
Grande, let's build it as a 21st century
roadway that is safer as possible for
all roadway users. Thank
you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else
in public comment?
All right. Do we have anyone here that's
going to be speaking on the MRA from the
public? I'm just trying to get a an
Okay. Well, other than staff.
Okay.
It's the last thing. So, I think we're
okay then.
So, then everyone here is is basically
here for the new business on the U major
amendment. Is that correct? Okay. Thank
you. Um, all right. Then we'll move on
to the next. We have an acceptance of
the agenda with the I think we got to
have that alteration of the
No, the alteration of just on the notes.
Okay. So, you got those taken care of.
All right. New. So, I need a motion for
the acceptance of the agenda.
I'll make I'll make a motion the
acceptance of the agenda uh that would
reflect the changes on the um uh meeting
minutes from last month.
Okay. On the motion to accept the
agenda, Commissioner A. Costa. Yes. Yes.
Oh, go there. Commissioner A. Costa.
Commissioner Kaiser.
Yes. And chair. Yes. Thank
you. So the next one is just going on to
the the consent agenda is
passed. Okay. And then we needed the
acceptance of the agenda as presented.
Isn't that what we just did?
Okay. So, the first one really is then
going on to new
business. Um, and that one we are going
to give over to staff for a
presentation. Oh, sorry. First I need a
motion to for the hearing of it.
So just for a point of order. So the
motion is to hear the item and then we
will make a motion to
approve. But what happens if we wanted
to vote an option that was not to
approve? Like what if it was to table or
something like that? Do we make make a
motion at that point to table? Okay. So,
I'll make a motion to hear um or approve
uh item 7.1.
I'll second that motion.
Commissioner Costa. Yes.
Steph, it's to you now. Sorry. Okay.
Good evening, commissioners. Vincent
Benega, interim planner for the record.
here to present uh the cases involving a
master plan amendment number five and
zone changes for the Sonoma Ranch East 2
uh master plan
area. Current conditions as it relates
to this master plan area. Um, the
property is located south of the Alama
Aoyo's South Fork, if you will, north of
Sonora Springs Boulevard, east of Pagosa
Hills and Pedaluma, at least beyond the
development area that exists there and
west of the Mesa Grande Drive. The
subject master plan was originally
annexed and that contained roughly 322
acres originally. uh was originally
annexed, master planned, and zoned via
city council action back in February of
2005. The property with exception of the
water tank sits vacant. Uh and areas
around it to the north and to the east
are also vacant. Uh there is a
developing East Mesa Sports Complex to
the south, single family high and medium
density zoned residential to the
west. The applicant has requested that
this proposal and the zone changes that
go along with it be processed under the
2001 development
codes. And that's what you will hear uh
exclusively this evening in context to
those codes.
The last amendment number four uh is
what we currently follow for the area
that was approved in 2020 and it
reflects the following land uses which
consist of uh mixed or uh slash uses
involving single family high density and
multi-dwelling medium density uh uses.
There's a mix single family high density
multi-dwelling medium density and
commercial highintensity uses uh single
family highdensity uses singly
uh and commercial low inensity
commercial highintensity flood control
and flood control open space
recreation. So when I speak to the mixed
uh uses, uh those are uses that are
identified in the master plan and the uh
pursuant to the zoning that that uh
enacts those uh uses. They could develop
either one of those land uses or a
combination of two or three. uh it could
be a complete mix of land use or
singular singular use of uh any one of
the land
uses. What we're talking here about here
this evening is 122 th those are the
remaining acres uh currently zoned with
flood control. That's the FC. The R1B is
single family high density. Uh C3 is our
commercial highintensity zone and the
mixed or slash or pancake zones you may
may have heard about in the past of
R1BR3 and C3 R1BR3
uh as well as uh
FCOSR. Those are the flood control open
space recreation zones. The property
currently sits within the suburban
neighborhood place type and that's
pursuant to our comprehensive
plan. The suburban place type will be
characterized a little later. Uh but uh
the property is accessible from various
roadways uh thoroughares pursuant to our
uh future theafare plan. Mesa Grande
Drive which is proposed to be a a minor
arterial 100 feet of rideway. Same with
Kayahas. Sedona Hills Parkway is a major
collector at 85 ft of rideway. Uh Sonora
Springs Boulevard another minor arterial
and Pagosa Hills is a local uh at 50 ft
of
rightway. Here is the aerial that
represents the boundary in question. So
everything you see outlined in red,
including the water tank here is part of
the request. There's no action or no
change to the water tank property, but
nonetheless, it's been uh added as part
of the development
proposal. So master plan comparisons
um are as follows. The amendment four is
on the left. Amendment five, the
proposed is on the right. I've received
a lot of uh
input either via phone calls andor uh
emails that wanted uh a description of
what the actual changes uh were to to
look like. And as you look at amendment
four on the right, you see various
uh planning parcels is what they're
called. In fact, there's two located
right here before you get to Kayahitas
uh
Boulevard. And what they are doing in
concert to the proposed number five is
they're combining them. So, they are
combining those two planning parcels and
then adding a 2acre park parcel here
uh amongst the the two that exist in
area 4.
The land uses that are specific to
amendment 4. Uh the upper H7
uh consist of single family highdensity
land use
designation and H8 below is single
family high density as well as
multi-dwelling medium density. That
designation here with H8 goes away and
becomes part of
H7 and it all becomes single family high
density with exception of that
park below Kayahitas. You have these two
parcels are at issue here. You had
um land uses. In fact, let me see if I
can
magnify. That might help.
Huh? Sorry about
that. So, you have some uh single family
highdensity land uses designated here in
this parcel. You had a little park,
pocket park if you will, located here.
And then on H19 you have single family
uh high density residential and
multi-dwelling medium density. Those get
combined. All this gets combined as you
see over here and it'll become single
family low density
residential H33 which is a commercial
lowintensity land use designation gets
absorbed into this larger planning
parcel. So it will no longer be
commercial.
H29 which is a combination of single
family high density
residential medium density or
multi-dwelling medium density
residential sorry and highintensity
commercial.
That designation goes away because it
gets absorbed in large part into this
planning parcel with exception of a
small strip that is delineated here for
the flood plane for the a royal boundary
basically. But it
becomes it becomes in this vicinity here
all single family low density
residential. I already indicated that
AO1 is the uh a royal boundary that has
been established.
A oh I'm sorry
OS1 and OS2 are the new designations for
open space uh natural conservation and
those are part of this N1
piece part of this A2 portion down below
here and part of this H32 which is
commercial high
intensity. what is a remnant piece of
H32 becomes single family low density.
So what you have here is single family
low density here, single family low
density
here and the rest is a royal boundaries
and open space natural
conservation. Down here you have flood
control. This this one isn't changing
except for the open space recreation
designation becomes open space natural
conservation. This as I indicated was
the tank water water tank site. There's
no change
there. This is the existing zoning that
basically implements the amendment 4
provisions. Um, I've already stated what
these uses or these zoning designations
are, but again, you can see that this
piece, this larger piece here in light
yellow at least. Yeah. And this one down
here, those are all the single family
high density uh zoning
districts. this
R1BR3, this one and this one down here
were the combination
uh single family high
density and um multi-dwelling medium
density districts. And then this
one is the same except it adds a
commercial element of high intensity.
You have commercial low intensity there.
So the zoning that you're seeing here
implements amendment four. This piece
right here, just for the record, is
located in air based on the research
conducted. U two
ordinances were found that clearly
indicate that this piece here should
slide over to where it was
originally. Uh for whatever reason, it
was mapped at that location and there's
been a request to change that. So this
piece, this
FCOSR slides over to the left. That's
the current location for that zoning
designation. So this is just a map. I
won't go into great detail here. Uh
zoning follows the land use. Uh you can
see the two zoning designations up here
with
87H88 becoming one as I indicated these
two down below becoming one as I
indicated etc. So again follows land use
designations in terms of analysis and
findings. I'm combining both um because
the list is long and this kind of is a
synopsis of um both elements uh that
staff has considered. Um basically there
are no adverse health, safety, welfare
issues identified by staff during the
conduct of uh review. Uh the amendment
uh almost exclusively there's about 75%
of the total acreage that uh proposes a
single family low density development.
Um the single family residential
densities
uh are in large part reduced. So from
the high density for instance down to
the low density. Uh the proposal does
seek residential development consistent
with the surrounding neighborhoods in
the area. You do have a lot of single
family homes, detached homes meeting
either the medium density or high uh
density uh standard. Uh you also have
large lot uh uh development in the area.
The proposal single family density
thresholds fall within the place type
range for like development. And by that
I'm pertaining to uh referring to the
suburban place type where the density
range for single family development is
between 4 and 12 dwelling units per
acre.
And um the proposed zoning is consistent
with the master plan amendment uh that
they are also proposing this evening.
The master plan area falls within that
uh suburban neighborhood place type
which is characterized by low to
moderate uh density residential. Uh in
the comprehensive plan there's reference
to the style of development consisting
of retail office uh mixed residential
styles uh attached detached etc. some
multifamily some schools and
parks. Um there's also reference to a
future development map that refers to
neighborhood center locations. Uh the
neighborhood center
itself is
a type of development pattern, if you
will, that uh begins to really emphasize
mixed use, but in the context of a
neighborhood level uh mixed use. So it's
not after the big big box type uh
development. It's after any development
that helps serve the neighborhood. So
there are locations that are referenced
in that map. Uh one is north they they
all straddle Mesa Grande Drive but one
is north of the northern boundary of the
amendment. And there's one more or less
in the center between closer to
Kayahitas but between Kayahitas and uh S
um um Sedona Park I believe.
uh at that location and one further
south beyond
uh the development boundaries on the
southern
border.
The applicant and uh representative have
submitted a letter. It's been included
in your packet. uh they have stipulated
that they do not see a need for the um
neighborhood center locations in that
existing uh center locations or services
I should say can be accommodated along
Soma Ranch what's existing the town
center further north of that uh Lman
Avenue etc. So that's their position on
that and I just wanted to indicate that
for
you. The proposal also seeks to better
define sensitive areas like a royal
boundaries as I illustrated on the map
and also preserve some of the natural
areas and topography which there is some
topography out there that'll have to be
uh wrestled with a bit. And uh they also
uh seek to formalize and combine uh
acreage that was allocated for parks
along the way through all these
amendments and to relocate that uh to
the north which I showed you. Um and
that is a uh 2acre park that is being
proposed. So, it'll grant greater
accessibility to the neighborhood in
that region, especially given the fact
that you have a regional park further
south. Uh, the proposal meets the
purpose and intent of the 2001 zoning
code as
amended. And the cases were
um noticed as per code, meaning that uh
letters went out to the property owners
within 500 ft of the boundaries
uh for the proposal. And through that
effort, staff has received several phone
calls and several emails. uh the emails
that we received have been forwarded to
you and copies have been provided uh at
your desk at at at the the deis
there. Um some of the issues that were
referenced through this communication
through this input involve storm water
management what is expected to be
impacts etc. uh land use uh
clarification on what's uh being
considered. Uh the timing of
construction and roadway improvements,
uh existing zoning, uh what it what it
looks like and how it compares with the
proposed zoning, uh general inquiries
and development compatibility.
The DRC in April uh heard the case
involving the master plan and they
recommended uh through unanimous vote
approval with no
conditions. And your options this
evening as it relates to the master plan
amendment is to vote yes and approve uh
the master plan. You can vote no and
deny it. You could vote to amend and
vote to table. Uh I should note that the
commission is the final authority on the
master plan unless it gets appealed to
city
council. And in terms of the zone change
request, uh you could vote yes, which
recommends approval to city council.
Yeah, you could vote no and recommends
denial to city council. You could vote
to amend and include any conditions you
feel are re relevant. Uh and you could
also vote to table um with direction
from the commission and we'll pursue
whatever direction that uh looks
like. Uh that concludes staff's
presentations
uh presentation and we do have the
applicant uh Mr. John Mosscato and the
design engineer Mr. Paul Pompio from
Solder Miller uh in attendance and I
believe they have some information to
present to you as well.
Thank you. Can we Is it okay if we ask
for the applicant right now to uh give
us their presentation?
Thank you.
Just go up there, John. Use whatever
slides. I don't know.
Good evening, commissioners. John
Mosscato on behalf of applicants here in
Norte Development. Sorry. Sorry. I gota
I got to swear you in real quick. 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.
Thank you. Um, I'd just like to shed
some light on a few of the items that
Mr. Beneggas touched on and and a few
that that haven't been discussed yet in
terms of uh conformance to the Elevate
Los Cruuses comprehensive plan. Uh, as
Mr. Benegas pointed out this property is
in the suburban neighborhood place type
which includes low to medium density
development. This being primarily low
density development that we are
proposing. It conforms to the suburban
place type. The suburban place type also
provides for uh recommending a diversity
of housing types. Uh it's been over a
decade since low density large lot
subdivisions have been developed in the
Sonoma Ranch area. Uh everything around
it is smaller lots, more traditional
size lots. So this does include some
diversity which is lacking right now. Uh
we're also supposed to provide
transitions under the suburban place
type. If you looked at the future
development map, the property to the
east is rural neighborhood, which is
large estate lots. So this lower density
development that we're proposing between
Kayahitas and Sonora Springs provides
that easy transition between the
traditionalsized lots west of Pagosa and
the area uh in the future rural
neighborhood. Um, it's important to
realize that even though uh, Elevate Los
Cuses allows for other uses besides
residential, it allows for some
commercial, it allows for some
multifamily, it doesn't require any of
that. So, I want to make sure everybody
understands that this there's a
distinction between allowing and
requiring. So, we're not doing anything
that isn't required.
Uh the suburban place type recommends
minimizing grading activity. Uh our uh
project engineer engineer Mr. Pompio
will speak more about the technical
aspects of our development but just in
in a in a broad stroke there's massive
elevation change west to east on this
property. Our proposal would minimize
grading. Uh if you were to develop this
as a traditional neighborhood, the
entirety of the property would have to
be uh graded, stripped, lots of
retaining walls and so on. Uh and uh the
neighborhood place type also recommends
preserving the thoroughfare corridors
which we do. Kayahitas, Sedona Hills,
Sonora Springs are all
maintained. Just to clarify a couple of
issues that were raised in the um
writeup that you received from staff. Uh
Mr. Beneggas did mention earlier that uh
despite the fact that the writeup
indicates that mixeduse development is
being eliminated, that's that's actually
not the case. Uh there is no mixeduse
development in the area that we're
proposing to be reszoned. It's layered
or stacked zoning. So you can select any
of those but it's not mixed in the sense
of multiuses in the same lot or the same
building. Um the question of the
neighborhood centers is I think is
important to to detail here. Um you know
the the future development map is not
precise in the way those neighborhood
centers are located. Uh there is a
neighborhood center uh be located
between Kayahitas and Northrise. Our
justification letter indicates we
believe it's a better use for that to be
located at Northrise since Northrise
coming down from Master Grande Drive,
say from the high school south on Mesa
Grande Drive to Northrise would then
lead you to that prime uh development
corridor around uh Northrise. So we
think that's a better solution. Uh since
it's since the what's shown on the map
is is more or less equidistant between
Kayahitas and Northrise. We selected
Northrise. The one at that is east of
the boundary of our property that is
east of the future Mesa Grande Drive is
does not show in the future development
map as bordering our property. It is uh
east of our
property. Even though we are not
proposing any development within our
property of that uh neighborhood center,
there is still the possibility that a
future developer could develop the
eastern sections of that neighborhood
center.
uh if there's a market for that later.
Um the the last neighborhood center uh
that's referred to in this general area
is the one that's roughly between Sonora
Springs and Soma Springs. We recommend
that it be placed at Soma Springs since
that's the intersection that leads to
the East Mesa Sports Complex. Again, we
think that's a that's a much better use.
And of course, there's there's one
farther down on Lman, which is far
outside our property.
Uh and I think you know the the issue of
what and and how
much
commercial needs to be in this Mesa
Grande Drive corridor, how much
commercial needs to be built with all of
the neighborhood centers, I think is an
important one for us to touch on just a
little bit. And what I'd like to walk
you through is how the Sonoma Ranch
Boulevard corridor has developed or not
developed over the last couple of
decades.
Uh if you if you can picture
driving south on Sonoma Ranch Boulevard,
the first major intersection in this
general area is Soma and Kayahitas. So
in Sonoma and Kayahitas there are four
corners for commercial development and
in the past 20 years not a single one of
those corners has been developed.
There's simply not a market for it. Uh
the next one is Soma and Sedona Hills.
That one has uh two corners east of Soma
Ranch
Boulevard. Not either of them has been
developed commercially. On the west,
they're both
residential. The next one is Soma Ranch
Boulevard and Sonora Springs. There you
have the same situation. To the west, no
commercial. To the east, there's one
commercial vacant and one that's been
developed as
multifamily. Uh Sonoma Ranch Boulevard
and Soma Springs. Another one, four
corners, all commercial, zero
development in two decades. And lastly,
at Sonoma Boulevard and Lman, three
corners commercial, one has been
developed in the past 20 years. So, I
think this speaks to a couple of issues
regarding, you know,
what's what's happening here when when
theory collides with reality. And you
know, in my experience, reality usually
wins out. And the reality is, even
though this Sonoma Ranch Boulevard
corridor has been developed for 20
years, completely developed in terms of
residential housing, all of the rooftops
that would be served by commercial exist
and have existed for a long time,
there's been very little commercial
development there. And what's the impact
of that on the
developer, on the city, and on
neighboring property owners? So, the
neighboring property owners have vacant
land next to them. Vacant land, weeds,
dust, etc. The city has no
income from development, no GRT, no
higher property taxes. It's vacant land
appraised or valued at the lowest
possible amount. From a developer
standpoint, the developer sits on the
land for how long? 10 years, 20 years,
30 years. What's what's a reasonable
length of time for a developer to hold
land and get no return on it? I don't
know how many of you have tried to sell
property. You know, it it can be
frustrating when property hasn't sold in
a couple of months or half a year. Think
about how you'd feel if you held
property for 10 years, 20 years. I think
one one of you probably has that has has
known that feeling, Commissioner
Thirsten.
Uh but it's it's just it's not a a
practical solution to over plan these
areas for large amounts of commercial
uses for which there's very questionable
demand. You look at Sonoma Ranch
Boulevard, virtually no demand. think of
how much longer it's going to take for
commercial along Mesa Grande Drive, if
ever, to be viable. So, I think I think
we just need to take a step back,
realize that there's there's a there's a
reality we need to face and that the
highest and best use for this property
that that we're proposing right now is
for for housing. uh north of Kayahitas,
it's it's medium density, uh probably
around four units an acre. South of
Kayahitas, it's the the larger lots
given the the rough terrain and and what
we feel is a is is filling a a gap for
housing that a housing type that hasn't
really been built in the city in the
last, you know, 10, 15 years. Anybody
who wants that type of housing has been
forced to go out into the county. So the
city loses the ability to attract that
type of of housing uh within city
limits. So we think it's an important uh
housing type to include and that's why
we are proposing it for this
area. Thank you for your time.
Thank
you. Are you going to have your engineer
give a little bit of background as well?
Yes. Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. I got to swear you in as
well.
Good evening, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chairman
and Commission. Paul Pompio with Solder
Miller Associates. Uh, do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under the penalty of law? Yes, I
do. Thank you. Good evening,
commissioners. I just have a few points
to make on the some of the engineering
aspects that Mr. Mr. Mscato touched on
and then I'd be happy to answer any
questions you might have. Uh first of
all is if you've been out to the side or
or looked at the documentation in your
packet, there is quite a bit of terrain
in this project area. Generally about 30
35 ft across and some in one area 60 ft
of elevation change from east to west.
Uh in some of the other subdivisions
that we have completed over along Sonoma
Ranch Boulevard, namely Sonoma Ranch
North Phase 5, um we in that one
subdivision, which would represent about
a fifth of this area, we move close to
400,000 yards of earth and there are
eight and 10 foot retaining walls
throughout that development. So in
looking at this area here which has a
higher topographic change across it if
we were trying to develop it to match
the housing patterns to the west that is
the kind of effort it would take and in
just an assessment of that cost not
respecting the topography altering
drainage patterns and things of that
nature are just not worth the the uh
return by trying to develop
that. Uh I noticed that and staff had
there was a comment or a question about
storm water management. Uh first of all
um in the southern area here because of
the city sports complex far to the south
there was a re recent FEMA mapping
update through this property of which
there now is a map flood zone. Um that
area as shown on the zoning maps. We've
respected that. We've cut that out,
created a separate track to land so it
will always be preserved as natural
royal. Um along the southern boundary,
there is about a 30 to 35 foot elevation
change right along a future roadway
there. And as noted on the the uh zoning
map, it it's our desire. We're not going
to try to do anything with that that
ridge where we've cut it out, set it
aside as open space and to stay as
natural
terrain. Uh with that that those are
just the main topics that I wanted to
point out out which is the storm water
um and the roads. Um in summary also on
the storm water management because these
are larger lots we're proposing narrower
roadways within the development. All
that leads to a great decrease in storm
water runoff in the developed condition
so that there will be no uh possibility
of any any impacts to the neighboring uh
areas to the west. So with that Mr.
Chairman, that concludes the points that
I wanted to speak about and I be happy
to answer any questions that this
commission might have. Thank you. I
before we open it up to um the comments
to the rest of the commissioners real
quick, I I have
a one of my bigger concerns lately has
been the town hall center or the town
centers and the walkability and the
mixed use and all of that kind of stuff.
And
so do you do you by chance know the the
distance from where we have all of this
open space already off of Soma Ranch to
uh so if you took Sedona Hills Parkway
do we know that about mileage of that? I
know they're talking about like the
10-minute city and being able to be on
bikes and be able to be and walk and all
of that wonderful stuff and put cafes
and things like that, but it it appears
when when you just see the application
first off, it it more seems like you
went to back to the residential side and
you removed some of the commercial
opportunities or the high density
opportunities there along Mesa Grande.
But as I'm looking at the site, I'm
starting to see that you you still pro
possibly have that same chance to still
do all of your commercial site right in
there. Do you know that? Do you know
what the walking distance is when they
do like a walk score for cafes or
anything like that for for this
distance?
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I would not be
able to answer that. I I do not know.
Okay. I'm going to have to ask the staff
that one
then. in your guys's planning of the
real eyes. Uh well, this looks more like
that that you do have sufficient area on
your town center and o over here off of
off of Sonoma Ranch. Would that in your
opinion classify as like a town center?
Mr. chairman, members of the commission,
um the town
center walkability index or the
threshold they try to attain
um I can't speak to but I can speak to
the neighborhood center they try to in
elevate I should say in elevate they try
to have a halfmile walkshed so from
anywhere in the neighborhood uh to the
area where you have mixed use where you
have possibly smallcale retail office
that kind of thing. Uh they try to
locate those
uh within a half mile distance. Uh the
town center is obviously going to be
much greater than that. Uh the whole
purpose is to really concentrate mixed
use but at a larger scale. Uh I cannot
tell you without pouring over the the
document what that threshold is uh for
town centers.
But okay, that that was really my just
after all of the planning and things
that we've been through. I'm I'm seeing
that the other clarification that I
wanted to um ask on is since this is
going to be a this is
a reszone or a m it's not a reszone it's
a master plan amendment. Now this is not
going to follow the same as realize Los
Cusus. Is that correct Mr. Chairman
members of the commission? Uh this is
both a master plan and a set of zone
change requests uh that are being
brought before you and the applicant uh
has asked that it follow the 2001
development code standards. Okay. So the
the zoning that is going to be
designated in here does not it's not
going to have the mixed use zoning
um that you would see in like the what
is like the NH1 NH2 where you're
starting to see that they have the mixed
opportunities to put an office center or
other things like that. This is not this
is going to be more designated only for
residential. Is that correct? That
that's correct.
Um yeah, when I in my presentation when
I talked about the slashzoning or the
pancake zoning or the slash use
um I I indicated that the individual
could the developer could develop with
any one of those land uses in mind. They
could do one, they can combine them,
they can combine all three if there's
three, if there's two, whatever. Uh the
point being is that with the land use
designations and the master plan and the
corresponding zones uh on the zoning
map, the zoning's there to facilitate
the possibility for mixed use. Uh they
don't have to at all, but the
possibility is there if they so choose.
Okay. And so then in the in this
amendment, if they wanted to use the
realize code, they would then have to
come back in is that to then update
their master plan again for new zoning
for the realize at Mr. Chairman,
commissioners, as per the realized
document, as per the realized code, uh
any master plan that is approved under
um for instance, in this case, the 2001
standards may
enjoy review and consideration of
subsequent actions, preliminary plat,
final plat etc. under those same
provisions. They don't have to uh go
over to the new standards. In fact, it
says that they will be reviewed under
the standards that the master plan was
approved under. Okay. So, this one this
one basically is going to follow suit
with the old code. Correct. Going
forward. Correct.
Okay. Let me see. Um I'm going to open
it up questions for
commissioners. Commissioner Costa got
one. I don't know if it's for the
engineer or for city staff, but um so
the storm water management plan like in
the steep areas, how does that exactly
look? Can you detail that for me a
little bit if I missed
it? Well, obviously on the terrain
that's out there now, there's you're
covered by the hard cap over the desert
floor plus the existing vegetation. So
it's our intent by the larger lot
development that that the lots it to the
max they can be just stays in its
natural condition undisturbed with both
vegetation and and the soils that are on
the surface. Other areas that when the
home developments come in or when the
roadways are we'll have to use
stabilization techniques where there's
cuts. But we would like as we've looked
and set pads on this area, as we've
looked at development, we're trying to
set those pads at the existing grades
that that's at now so we can keep
earthwork to a minimum so we can keep
erosion to a minimum as well.
So I guess in turn, Yep. would there be
like phasing? There's phasing to where
that's going to be so that you know some
major flood wouldn't just kind of come
while development's happening.
Well, it's our intent for the natural
waterways that are out there now,
whether it's the the primary aoyo that's
in a flood zone to the south or other
areas farther to north. We respect those
areas and stay away from those with our
development. So, the we're not going to
be filling them in or realigning them.
We're going to be respecting them and
working around them.
Thank you. And I do have one more
question just in regards to safety. Um
so narrower roads and pedestrian access
um how does how do you assess that kind
of impacting things?
Well, if we go to larger lots then
there's actually then there will be less
traffic there. Um some of the other
techniques that could be used on a
development like this. I don't want to
get into specifics because we're not far
along in the design, but um other
aspects are to have a narrower road
section, but maybe have an offset trail
for as a loop through the area to
provide more pedestrian safety away from
the roadway itself. Uh other techniques
on larger lots is to mandate through the
development standards of that
subdivision additional off- streetet
parking, longer driveways and such to
keep people from parking on the roadways
themselves. So using those kind of
techniques um if if that once
implemented then there wouldn't be a
need to pave out to 35 or 37 feet like
you would normally see in a in a
residential subdivision. We can narrow
those down to say 28ft roadways and they
would provide appropriate access as long
as the pedestrian safety and off
streetet parking was was provided for.
And so I don't know if this is for
Vincent, but how do we potentially look
at making sure that that gets
implemented along the way, I suppose,
and not kind of just approved with
narrow
roads. So Mr. Chairman, Commissioner
Costa, uh this is the master plan
process is the first step in the
development process. Um uh subsequent to
that there's going to be the preliminary
plat construction drawing. So those
latter stages are kind of when the
rubber uh meets the road so to speak and
that's when we know what they are
proposing. That's when we go to uh
additional review via DRC or development
review committee and we have the
standards in place already as to what
they have to comply with and any
deviation to that is uh a request to DRC
specifically. So that would be brought
to your attention at at that time when
those steps come forward for uh
consideration by this body.
Okay. Thank you Vincent. I think those
are kind of some of my questions and
turn it up to the rest of the
commission.
Kaiser, go ahead. Um, I have a whole
host of questions. Um, I'll try to go in
some coherent logical order here. Um,
but no
promises. Um, first, I think most of my
questions, at least at the beginning,
are directed to staff.
Um, what is the
overall difference in the potential
number of housing units that would be
constructed between what is existing and
what is being proposed?
So, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, uh,
Commissioner Kaiser, staff did a an
analysis based on the data sheet or
data, uh, housing count, density counts
that they provided that the applicant
provided for amendment
4 and compare that to amendment five. Um
the low housing count just assumes
um basically what they provide as the
range of density for the planning
parcels they reflect on their master
plan. Um it takes into consideration
uh even the slash use parcels planning
parcels. So if they show a single family
high density residential and then a
multi-dwelling medium density
residential, we would consider for just
that planning parcel the single family
component as part of the low housing
count. Uh conversely on the high housing
count uh we would assume the u
multifamily or the medium density multif
family component. So when we took that
information and calculated out uh in
terms of number of units um for the low
housing count you get a range. Obviously
they are providing ranges for the number
of dwelling units per acre. And so you
begin to see an amendment for 235 to
862 homes a number of units based on
that information.
uh on the high housing count uh 235 to
1376. Uh and then on amendment five uh
given that it's more direct singular
type of zoning uh you get 230 on the low
end and 552 on the high end. In both
instances for amendment four, uh there's
a potential for uh 3.97 acres of
commercial uh and with the possibility
for additional commercial ranging or
going up to 11.22. Those are part of the
slash land use uh planning parcels which
they may or may not build to that
standard. Um, it should be noted that in
the 2001 code for commercial land, you
could conceivably build apartments. Uh,
that was not a consideration with these
housing counts. We I looked at it as
commercial is commercial. That's it. So,
in the amendment number five, uh, for
commercial, it's zero.
Okay. Thank you.
Um, I mean, to me, this seems just like
a significant departure from what they
currently have available to them that's
already entitled.
Um, and it would appear that there's
plenty of flexibility in what they can
and cannot do. So,
um, just sort of thinking aloud here.
You know, I think one of the arguments
that they're making is that they're, um,
there's no market for certain types of
development, but it seems like they
already have plenty of flexibility to do
the things that they think better fit
market realities. Um, just in the
housing alone and then the commercial
and the mixeduse components. It seems
like there's plenty of flexibility
there. So I guess my question is
[Music]
um
what why why now? Why this significant
change? Um so that's that's a question
and I don't know the applicant is
welcome to respond to that but I I want
to hear kind of staff's perspective
first. I mean do you have a sense of
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Kaiser, from
from this staff person's perspective,
they have an opportunity to develop uh
the land. Um, and I think I think they
have an idea as to what they want to do.
It's been conveyed through the DRC
minutes uh of the type of development
they're pursuing. Uh, I think it was
touched on here this evening and and I
think they're ready to to roll with it.
and it kind of flies a little bit in the
face of what exists today. Okay. Well,
let me maybe pose the question
differently. When this was amended, I
guess amendment four, what was the
rationale for what ended up being
approved?
Mr. Chair, what was staff's analysis
basically of that?
Good question. I wasn't here during that
time. Uh but I can assume in like
fashion you had the potential for
development uh in concert with what they
were proposing in amendment four. Keep
in mind amendment four was really to
clean up a parcel that was outside the
boundary for
um uh this amendment five. So amendment
four was more cleanup in an area that
does not fall within the the boundaries
of five.
But some of the others three two before
that etc. Uh there's a lot of in fact I
provided some information in the packet
that kind of described some of the
changes and the history of those changes
and it just seemed to me that there was
a lot of differing opinion on on how
much acreage should be allocated to this
land use etc. And that you know it kind
of vascillated back and forth between
amendments.
Why that happened, I couldn't tell you.
Okay, thank you. Um, and then, uh, there
was a a comment at some point about, uh,
the density being, um, that is under
what they currently have, amendment
four, being inappropriate for the
suburban neighborhood. And I just wanted
to um point out that actually the gross
density for multifamily is 15 to 30
dwelling units per acre which I believe
is what is
currently there right under amendment
four
the uh I believe that's correct. Yes for
the multifamily component. Correct. So
basically multifamily is appropriate in
this suburban neighborhood at 15 to 30
dwelling units per acre. Correct. Thank
you.
Um going back to uh what a question
Chair Thirstston had about the um
neighborhood um uh neighborhood
centers. Um I believe the question that
you had was what is the distance to the
closest neighborhood center from this
part of the development?
Um, do you know the answer to that? I do
not.
Okay.
So, do you accept the does staff accept
the rationale that the applicant put
forward that these other neighborhood
centers are more appropriate than what
presumably could be located in this
location with under the current
amendment four?
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Kaiser, the
comprehensive plan
is rather unique as it looks at
neighborhood centers particularly. Um
there's language in there that talks
about the ability for the location of
neighborhood centers to shift slightly
and that's literal context. And then
there's another section that kind of
implies that they can be relocated to a
much greater extent. So there's kind of
two two provisions, if you will, in that
policy that conflict. So which one's
right, which one's wrong, I couldn't
tell you. I could just tell you that the
the portion that I referenced as it
relates to the three locations near this
boundary
uh certainly seems to imply that a
slight shift is is warranted.
Um, it also says that in the
neighborhood center context that this is
above and beyond any commercial
corridors, any other neighborhood
centers and any other town centers.
So if you look at that language then the
distribution of neighborhood centers
throughout the city is certainly
implied. Okay. Thank you. Um just to
kind of pull on that thread a little bit
more. So the neighborhood center is
defined in elevate loss cusus is that
these are walkable activity centers to
provide local employment, shopping and
entertainment opportunities and provide
for a diverse mix of residential living
options. Neighborhood centers are
located at key neighborhood
intersections and provide transition
between single family residential
neighborhoods and areas of higher
development intensity. So, I certainly
can see how you might want to flex this
um you know to find the best location,
but I'd also counter that um part of the
whole reason you have a neighborhood
center is to provide amenities that are
more easily accessible by transportation
modes other than the vehicle. Um, and
given that we don't know how far uh the
closest neighborhood center is to this
section of the development, I'm having a
hard time tracking how that specific
change would be consistent with Elevate
Los Cusus. Um, I also want to point out,
and I know that this development is not
uh beholden to the realized Los Cusus's
development code that just took effect,
but one of the central points of that
effort was to create more mixed
neighborhoods,
neighborhood amenities, different types
of housing. That was one of the driving
factors behind that. And I know they're
not beholden to that code right now, but
I see amendment four, what they
currently have, as being more in line
with what we just
did than what they're proposing here
tonight. I see this almost taking a
massive step backwards. Um, so I just
want to point that out that I I think um
while I recognize that there's a need
for some of the flexibility there, I'm
not quite sure I
see an analysis that tells me that
they're being consistent or in line with
the spirit of both Elevate and and the
process that we just undertook with the
updates to the development code.
Um I also just want to point out uh
because the comment came up that you
know the market sort of dictates things
that we do and these commercial parcels
have gone undeveloped around um Sonoma
Ranch. Um it's also true that low
density development, residential
development
undercuts the uh economic um
uh realities of commercial development.
When you have a a low density dispersed
population, you you can't support those
smaller neighborhood retail and
commercial centers. It just doesn't
work. That's why you have to have these
massive strip malls. It's why you have
to have the Walmart supermarkets
um because that's the only thing
that that can support a low density
population. What I see with Amendment
Four is an opportunity to actually
increase the density and to make those
now more viable. Um, if we just sit here
and say, well, the developer doesn't
think that, you know, commercial is is
ever viable, then we're just going to
end up with sprawling residential,
single family development and no
commercial services. So, it it is a
balance for sure, but I don't think we
can easily just dismiss that and say,
well, the market didn't support it in
the last 5 years, and therefore, we're
just going to turn everything into
single family, lowdensity, uh,
residential. Um, the other thing I
wanted to point out, and maybe staff
could uh, talk a little bit about this,
um, but I noticed in one of the staff
reports or in the staff report, um, I
think it was one of the exhibits,
um, it would appear that
almost all minimum residential
density requirements would be eliminated
under this proposal. Is that correct,
Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Kaiser, that
seemed to be a theme in the latter
amendments, but yes, that uh the minimum
goes away. It's just capped at a
maximum. And that started I think four
reflects some of that. And if I'm not
mistaken, three as well.
So, we find ourselves in a housing
crisis.
Why why eliminate the floor? We need we
simply put need more housing. And now we
have an opportunity to do so with uh
with amendment four. And with amendment
five, we're basically saying 230
is they could do less than that.
I mean, would eliminating minimums be
appropriate in staff's mind? Does staff
support that?
I I think um Mr. Chairman, Commissioner
Kaiser. A more important component to
that is the zoning code and the
densities that are outlined
there. But if we're saying there's no
minimum density, they
could they could build less
than what the zoning code says. Is that
correct?
That's correct. Um just as an example if
I could uh a little
bit
R1C is intended to be that's that's one
of the zone uh zones that would pertain
to the single family low density um land
use planning parcels that are being
proposed. The R1C is intended to be our
urban large lot uh type of development.
It
um comes in at a maximum uh number of
dwelling units per acre at one. That's
not uncommon for any of the uh zones
that we have. The maximum density is at
four, but that's in the code. That's
already there. That's in the 2001
development standards code. there's a
maximum, there's no
minimum. So even if the the master plan
said there is a
minimum, if the language remains as it's
shown today in the 2001 code, they could
still go below
it because there's no minimum in this
development standard table. There's a
maximum, but no minimum. Okay. Thank
you.
Um and then I think at least for the
moment my last
question is
um kind of to the point of land
disturbance storm water management.
Um it seems like one of the the
arguments the applicant's making is that
by reducing density it would actually
reduce uh you know land disturbance
grading requirements um whatever it may
be. Uh was there any consideration for
any type of cluster development um that
would essentially achieve the same thing
in fact probably reduce the land
disturbance even more. So, if that was
uh a central tenant in this update, was
there any consideration for something
like that? Mr. Chairman, Commissioner
Kaiser, uh it's funny you brought that
up because as that question was asked,
that came to mind, but it certainly
wasn't part of the discussion I've had
with uh the applicant or andor the
design professional. Paul,
okay, thank you. That's all I have for
the moment.
Anybody else?
Um, all right. Uh, we're going to move
on going to move on to uh public comment
now. And I got to find my sheet real
quick. Draw on 15
sheets. We're going to start on public
comment on the Do you go from the front
to the back? We're going to start on the
left side. my left side and we're going
to start in the front. Um, any of those
who have public comments, go ahead.
We'll go for the first row. Anyone
public
comment? Uh, I guess I should say raise
your hand if you do want to talk on the
left
side. We got one in the back first. Go
on. Go ahead and come on
up. I got to swear you in and then also
we're going to give you two minutes to
talk.
Yeah.
Uh, my name is Michael Harris for the
record. Okay. Michael, 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.
Thank you. Um, thanks, Commissioner
Chair. Um, so upfront, I don't live in
this area. Um but my work does take me
through there uh quite often. I I used
to live in the area also um kind of in
that in that Sonoma Ranch development.
And um I had emailed a comment saying
that I was kind of
generally in favor maybe of this change.
Um but also, you know, I have a lot of
mixed mixed feelings about it. Um the
having the commercial there right in the
in the neighborhood is generally good. I
think people should be able to to go
there and not be forced to walk. I think
an answer to a lot of the questions the
answer is two miles. Um I I checked that
on the map so you can you can cross
check me but to the the nearest
commercial area I I think it's 2 miles.
Um so that's quite a ways to have to
drive for any sort of service. Um that
said, um putting denser development on
the outskirts of town and forcing all of
those people to drive into town where
there's actually commercial development
is not so great maybe on a from a
traffic perspective. Um and it it does
sound like there might be legitimate
technical reasons uh why you might want
lower density in this area. Certainly
having to move a lot of dirt is not real
environmentally friendly. Um there's the
flood control issues and um and all of
that and plus uh the low density
development is also not real financially
stable for the city. You know, it costs
a certain amount for the city to provide
utilities to a certain amount of road.
And if you've got 10 houses on that
road, that pays for that uh stuff a lot
better than if you had five houses or
two houses. Um, so you know, long-term
sustainability is is also a question.
Um, but moreover, I think that we should
listen to uh to the folks who live there
and uh and see what they
[Applause]
want. Go ahead. Come on up.
Hello. My name is Vicki Hwick. 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.
First of all, I'd like to say that our
family is supportive of these uh uh this
zone
change. Uh according to Mr. Beneggas's
uh presentation, Sonora Springs and
Pagosa Hills are currently considered
minor arterial roads. This will
undoubtedly change if this is further
developed. Uh we would recommend our our
family would recommend that Sonora
Springs from Cayey Abu east to Pagosa
Hills be modified to include medians and
speed bumps such as you can find on
Cayas west of uh Soma Ranch. Therefore,
we recommend that you the commission
would vote for option three that is uh
to include these street modifications
but to approve it. Thank you. Thank you
for the commission. Thank
you. All right. We were on row I think
it was six.
So we are now on row seven in the blue
shirt in the back left.
My name is Steven Vantine. I'm president
of the Sonoma Ranch area.
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 penalty of law? I do. Thank
you. Just had a concern about uh the tax
base. How will fire and police be
supported with these changes? Will there
be an increase in taxes, i.e. like a
mealoostru tax like they do in other
suburban areas? Has that something
that's been considered?
I'm I'm being told we just take comments
right now and then we'll we'll address
all of those afterwards. Okay, that's
all I had. Thank you. Thanks.
All right.
Next up
left. Good evening. My name is Mary
Wson. I am a resident of Sonoma Ranch
East and in answer 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. Thank
you.
Uh in answer to your question as to how
far um this area that in question is
from commercial, uh it is approximately
my sister lives very close to
um Sonoma Ranch where you have a lot of
commercial availability, but yes,
nothing has been built up yet. So, in
fact, if you uh did if you were to build
up that as commercial on Sonoma Ranch,
um this whole area, you could walk it
would be approximately 15 minutes from
anywhere in the neighborhood um to
Sonoma Ranch. So, give or take a
depending on how fast you walk. So,
uh hopefully that answers that. I think
it um I think we're all happy. I think
you can see that from the turnout today
that we care very deeply about our
neighborhood. We have invested heavily,
in fact, for most of us, our life
savings. And I would venture to say that
the majority of people here are very
much in favor of um the passage of uh
these plans as presented. Thank you.
Thank you.
We're in the very back back row. Here we
go. All right.
Hello. My name is Joey Prepio and I live
Oh, go ahead. 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. Uh, so I'm coming from the
standpoint of father of three young
kids. Um, we just bought a house right
on Pagosa
Hills and I'm all for high density
areas, but it seems like to me the city
is doing it backwards like they should
have done that.
They they need to do that in an area
where it makes sense where there's not
already a bunch of residential
homes. Like there's me and my wife and
my kids always take walks through there.
And I can just imagine commercial comes
in like that that ruins our walkability
because that's a that's a big street
that uh Sedona Hills that's like a
four-way lane and I can just imagine
that becoming super high traffic. So, I
don't think you're going to get this
walkability thing that you guys want. I
think high density needs to be more in
like a downtown
area where there's more shops. You know
what I mean? I I live just right. I can
get in my car, 5 minutes, I'm I'm at
Walmart. 5 minutes I'm at uh Starbucks.
I I don't think we really need that. I
honestly think the walkability would be
worse in that
area. And I'm all for this amendment.
Thank you. Thank you.
[Applause]
All right, we are now. Did I get
everybody on the left side? I have one
more. Okay.
Hello, I'm Linda Atwood. 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. Um my concern is that I live in
Soma Ranch East right on in the
neighborhoods that leave out onto
Pagosa. We have one entry area into all
of our homes in Sonoma Ranch East. One,
two, three, and four. They go up Pagosa
Hill, which winds up a hill and back
down a hill. It's a windy little road.
And the only way into our homes is
Pagosa. There are walls all the way
around the side, walls all the way
around the back on
Caywell. There's no way out of our
neighborhood except onto Pagosa Hills
Avenue. If it got to be high density on
the other side of Pagosa, it would
create tremendous problems just getting
home, just getting into our neighborhood
because we only have these little roads
coming out onto Pagosa. and that's how
we get home. It's how we get back. So,
we're very concerned that that would be
high density across the road with a lot
of traffic coming and going and keeping
us from entering the road.
Thank you. Thank you.
All right, we're going to move on to the
right side in the front. Anybody
comments? First row, second row. We're
going to the fourth row. Go ahead and
come on up.
Hello, my name is Aaron Lucas. Do you
swear or affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth and
nothing but the truth under the penalty
of law? I do. Thank you.
Uh, I've been here before when they went
to amendment 4 and they added the
commercial H33 and H32, which I thought
was kind of interesting, but after 5
years, there's, as was pointed out,
nothing's happened on Snowoma Ranch. If
you want commercial area close, build
something in Sonoma Ranch Boulevard.
That's it. If you want this community
center, build it on Soma Ranch
Boulevard. It's within a mile. instead
of putting off somewhere where it's been
shown, we're not interested. We love
this idea of a very wide area with a
gradient kept
uh low density because we do have
problems getting in. And it seemed from
maps that was shown on a trash barrel in
our area that the entrance and exit of
both of those areas are going to be off
uh
Soma Hills. uh Boulevard. Is that
correct?
Or did they leave already?
Yes. Is that correct? Yes. He says it's
correct. So, we're all happy with it and
thank you for being here on the first
day after a holiday. So, late in the
evening. I appreciate it. And that's
about that. The other questions were
about
uh is it going to be a gated community?
Do you know? Can you can you talk into
the mic for us? Yeah, that's it. I just
But he was here and you're here and that
never came up because it's not soon
enough for that. But thanks. Thanks for
your time. Thank you. Byebye. Thank you.
All right, man in the blue shirt.
My name is Brent Shel. 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.
Thanks. All right. I want to add to the
commercial zoning that's a mess and
hasn't been used. Uh I'm an owner at uh
Sonoma Ranch 2 and at the corner of Cay
Abuo and Cayas
uh where it curves right there, there is
a lot that's been for sale for the five
years I've been there and it's nothing
but an overgrown weed pit. Nobody wants
it. Okay? Grow what you have or sell
what you have before you go and build
something new. And then in addition to
what the lady said about the
modifications for speed bumps. Okay, I'd
like to second her because uh need
street modifications on Cay of Wo and
Cayas because they have become
racracks. My home is pretty much at the
corner on the loop of uh Galasteo and
Cay Auelo. You go out there right now
and there are uh skid marks all over the
place cuz people are out there using
that as a drag strip. Okay. We have
right down the street half a mile within
your onemile range is the police
department and we have no coverage.
Thank
you. All right, we're going to go to row
five. Anybody in row five?
Anybody else on the right that would
like to speak? Here we go. Come on up.
Diane Starbucks for the record. 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. Thanks. I live on Paluma
Avenue which is
uh west of where Mr. Mosscato is
considering putting in the higher
density. Um I would like to thank Mr.
Mosscato for
uh rearranging the park situation. There
are two small neighborhood parks but
they are both in the south neighborhoods
and the northern neighborhoods have we
can't really walk to those um unless you
want to spend some time. Um so to have a
park on the north side uh would be
really great for everyone who lives
north of Kayahitas Boulevard. I would
like to second what the last gentleman
said. There is commercial development. I
did not see it on the map that was
displayed. There is a little corner
there on the corner of
Cayas and whatever he said that was
correct. Um, and it's been empty. I've
been there seven years. It's been empty.
And like he said, it's weed infested. If
someone wants to do commercial uh
businesses there, that has always been
there for them.
Um, I'm also concerned about if when
this is developed, is Cayas Boulevard
going to be extended for the
construction vehicles? Otherwise, they
are going to have to be driving through
neighborhoods on uh Paluma or Azure
Hills Road. That's the only other way to
get back into that area. Thank you.
Thanks.
Is there anybody else on the right hand
side? I guess we got one one hand left.
Here we go. Coming up on the left hand.
My name is John Hellwick. I live in
Sonoma East. 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. Thanks. Uh I
was looking at amendment four and
amendment five. Has anybody taken into
consideration the water usage on all of
those residents and how it would affect
the water usage in all of Sonoma Ranch?
Uh amendment four has got approximately
2,000 residents that are they're
planning to move in there. Thank you.
Thanks. All right. Anybody left on the
right? I believe that is everyone. So,
we're going to go ahead and close public
comment. Oh, got one more.
Found found the courage. Here we go.
U My name is Janice Garcia and I live on
Pagosa Hills Avenue. 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. Um I'm just going to give my two
cents here. I'm living on Pagosa Hills
and
um when we first moved into our house
almost 18 years
ago. Um I considered it a dream house
for us. I was looking for something with
views and we found one. beautiful views
of the Oregon mountains right outside
our front door. Um, when we are having
dinner with our beautiful windows every
time people come over to our house, what
amazing views and the realtor told us,
"Don't worry, they're not building
anything out here. This land, you don't
have to worry about it." And so that was
one of the selling points of why we
purchased that home. and it took a lot
of homes looking at many homes because
that's what we wanted.
Um, also the street uh in front of us,
Pagosa Hills, we didn't have that much
traffic and now of course as Linda
stated, all the houses there behind us
in the area, they have to use that road
to get to their house, which is fine,
but other especially now with the uh
recreation center there, there are
people driving not 25 miles per hour. A
lot of uh we also have a lot of the um
vehicles the that ride in the uh desert
out there that are going out there. Kids
on their dirt bikes and they're just
going crazy on the road. You know, it's
ridiculous. I worry that there's going
to be an accident soon out there and
that is without this proposal coming to
light. So, I'm just worried about our
street. I'm worried about our
neighborhood and I don't want it to get
worse than what it is already. So, I'm
also worried about the drag racing
that's going on. Those guys are good at
it. They race two, three races, cops are
going to come and they take off. I just
want the assurance from those who are
going to be building. Thank you. Thank
you.
All right, we're going to close public
comment now and go to back to the
commissioners. Does any any
commissioners have anything else?
Kaiser.
Um, yeah, I appreciate everyone coming
out this evening to speak on this item.
Um, I just wanted to clarify a couple
things um with staff. So can you just
clarify once more
the what it means to not have a
minimum
density
in Mr. Chairman, uh, Commissioner
Kaiser, in relation to the master plan,
um, master planning, at least from the
perspective of what the city of Los
Cusus has done for a great many years,
is they typically will provide your low
and high range for the variety of land
use designations they propose in any
given planning parcel.
Um what I saw with
this master plan is that through the
various amendments you you started out
with high low and then they got away
from the low but it's still you still
have to point to the regulations in
effect the the zoning regulations in
effect. So even though the master plan
might not have a minimum uh the zoning
which ultimately gets approved for
whatever amendment takes place uh there
it is stipulated in uh page of the
development standards that illustrates
all the zoning designations what the
maximum density allowance is. There is
no minimum density. So even though the
master plan may or may not have a
minimum, uh as long as the zoning
coincides with the land use
designation, they can uh certainly
develop to a lower density standard, but
not a higher standard. There's a cap, a
maximum, but no minimum. Okay. So
basically, there's no requirement for
them to build high density anything.
That's correct. They could go below
that. Yeah. Um Okay. And in fact,
there's no requirement for them to build
any multifamily
per the current zoning. There's no
requirement for highdensity multif
family development. That's correct. So,
as it stands today, there is no
requirement that multifamily
highdensity development would take place
here. it is at the discretion of the
developer giving them flexibility. So
the the fact that by not approving this
amendment suddenly a high-rise tower is
going to go out in the middle of the
desert, that's not
true. Um so just wanted to clarify that.
I also want to clarify because there was
a comment about one of the existing
roads.
um believe it was uh Pagosa Hills uh the
any if the developer chose to do any
higher density residential development.
Again, there's no requirement for that
to take place, but if they wanted to,
that would take place not on Pagosa
Hills, but off of uh Mesa Grande
Boulevard. So there wouldn't be
apartment traffic uh coming and going
off of Pagosa Hills according to the
current amendment number
four.
Um another thing I noticed in the staff
report actually just a moment ago. So
that
table that you had provided when I asked
about the number of housing units. Um, I
also just now noticed, and I apologize,
that uh the table in the staff report
was formatted and it was hard for me to
understand, but there's also this
proposed buildout number
117 that happens to be the same for the
low and the high. So, is 117 units what
the what the applicant is actually
proposing to develop?
Paul or John, would you like to share
with us what the actual development is?
I'm going to defer to the applicant or
applicant representative for
that.
Currently, we are looking at layouts
that consist of approximately 1acre lots
with a total buildout of 58.
But I'm not standing here before you
guaranteeing that that's what the final
number will be, but that's we're that's
somewhere what we're looking at right
now.
Thank
you. And that 58 would be regardless of
this amendment, correct? I mean, you
could do 58 under amendment four. Well,
as we Mr. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, as
we go forward with this land use
application
and variances or to roadways and and
preserving topography and all these
things, one of the goals in development
is we have to have some certainty that
that's what we can get to. And if we're
stuck on high density or we're stuck on
commercial, all of those things, there's
no guarantee that a preliminary plat's
going to be approved by this commission,
which may not be you all, may be others.
So, we believe that the the zoning and
the land use should be complimentary to
what we're actually proposing to do on
the property,
but couldn't you accomplish the same? I
mean, what I see the current zoning, I
mean, it's basically
R1B. I mean, there's a a couple little
tiny parcels for C3, but everything else
is
R1B. Am I Am I misreading? No, but we
just, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, we
just believe that the application with
the zone change um to remove some of the
commercial properties to set aside vast
amounts of open space, natural open
space, recreation, a royal lands, and
things like that. It's more
complimentary to the end product that
we're trying to do.
Okay. Thank you.
Um my final point was is I I I think
there are some good things to this
application. And I think the the parcel,
the park being uh relocated, the
additional open space, the protection of
the Royos, those are all good things.
Um I'm just I'm skeptical that the way
we're going about it is the right way.
Um so that's that's just where I stand.
um it seems like there's already plenty
of flexibility or if the goal really was
to do these very specific things of
reducing
um uh land disturbance, increasing open
space, um addressing some of the other
things that we that we just spent four
years talking about and and seeking to
address with the new development code.
it it really feels like we're
um we're we're just missing it
somewhere. Um and that's just that's
just me. That's where I'm coming from.
But I think there's other ways to to
accomplish the things that we're talking
about tonight. Mr. Chairman, if I might
just respond to a couple of the
questions. I think that if you look at
the aerial image, can you give me back
to the arrow?
Thank you.
I mean, as you're aware, I sat with you
on those committees and we talked a lot
about this and a lot of those concept,
majority of those concept are very good,
but I want you to take a good look at
the aerial that's before you. The this
land was developed by Sonoma Ranch
Limited back when 20 25 years ago that
was the development pattern. Mr. Mscato
has purchased this land and he him and
his other business partners have
purchased this. This is a whole new way
of looking at going from amendment four
which was under one group of developers
going to to amendment five which is on a
new development. Also things have have
changed in terms of the demand for a
product. um the people that you heard
that live in the adjacent neighborhood
although the concepts of of having these
clusters of commercial for these
neighborhood uses I don't believe can be
supported by this land and the people
that to the west have already bought
into a development pattern which they're
they you know you've heard from them
they should be respected and and as we
go forward into other undeveloped areas
I mean look at the state land to the
west I mean after Mesa Grande comes and
it will come someday then there's going
going to be the state land leases.
There's going to be development and
you're going to see development on the
adjacent lands one square mile at a
time. And if we look back to vistas of
Prescidio, which all of this area was
mapped out and zoned and such, there's
all kinds of commercial activities, but
we believe that that would be based on a
new development pattern. I just simply
submit to you that this is the final
area of Sonoma Ranch East. the
development patterns have been set by
previous development and and now we're
just trying to go a couple of steps down
so so as once again respect the storm
owner topography. So that's why we
believe our application is sound and and
we stand before you uh and hoping that
you'll approve it.
I appreciate that um that perspective. I
guess the follow-up point I would have
for staff is even under the current or I
guess the previous code, the 2001 code,
they would still be required to
address things like not building in the
AOYO flood plane. Correct. There would
still be development standards that
would protect these sensitive resources
in their development absent this
official open space reserve parcel.
Correct. That's correct. So, I guess the
point I'm trying to make is I
think we're undercutting ourselves and I
respect Mr. Pompeo. Um, and I I I I
think we both um know that we can
respectfully disagree with each other
and we have at times on the the
technical advisory committee for Elevate
or Realize Los Cruuses. So, I think from
my perspective, it just seems like
there's
um just a different way to go about
getting the same things. Um and I also
want to point out that this zoning
that's currently there has been there
for how when was that approved? In 2008,
I believe is what you said. So, it's
been there for a while. These aren't
this isn't a surprise.
2020. 2020 was amendment four where they
increase the options. Okay. So, it's
been there, you know, it's still been
there since 2020. Um, so I I guess from
my perspective, it I just think there's
there's other ways to accomplish the
same goals without
um rewriting it for the sake of
rewriting it. My point of view,
Mr. Mr. Chairman, point of
clarification. If you were uh
Commissioner Kaiser, if you were
referring to the original uh approval,
yeah, that would have been uh
uh 200, what did I say? Five,
which would have included the what we
current what we're currently looking at
this evening. Or some version of it.
Yeah, some version of it. Correct. An
early version of it. The original
version.
Anybody else got any questions? No.
Okay. Uh, I have just one last question
on there. Can you go to the go to the
web or to the view where it shows the
open space the new open space on version
five? Yes.
That's so that's the that one right
there. A1. Mhm. Um, is is there going to
be any access to that for like trails or
anything like that? Because if you're
preserving it, is it is it just are we
backing up to that or are we going to
have any trails so people can walk in
the AOYOS?
Mr. Chairman, members of the commission,
as it's uh currently proposed, uh
the the land use is designated as flood
control and open space. natural
conservation. Uh I don't otherwise it'd
have a recreational designation
associated with the open space and since
it does not I would assume it wouldn't
be prohibited but it's not going to be
you answered my question when you said
it was the flood if there's flood in
there because if you put trails in there
then it's just going to get washed away.
So thank you. That's all I had.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion
please.
I make a motion to approve the proposed
master plan amendment as known as Soma
Ranch East 2, amendment number five,
case number 24 CS0500131.
I'm being told for for uh we don't need
another motion because the motion is
already on the table. We just need a
call for a call for a vote. Is that
correct?
So then teach me on the process of that.
We just say
so we're just call call for a vote uh
and but we're just saying to call for a
vote of yes or how how do you clarify
that be whether it's a yes or no with
table a
so I'll I'll do the roll call right now.
The first one being on the master plan
amendment the second one being on the
zoning change. So uh uh on the case uh
regarding the master plan amendment uh
commissioner Costa.
Yes. Commissioner Costa point point of
clarification if you could base it
on findings. I thought we don't have to
this year. No. Is there okay?
Commissioner A. Costa.
Yes. Janet Commissioner Janet A. Costa.
Yes.
Commissioner Kaiser. No, I just don't
think that there was enough analysis
here tonight to um determine that this
is consistent with elevus chair. Yes.
Okay. Motion passes. This one is on the
uh amendment for the proposal for the
zoning change. Uh Commissioner A. Costa.
Yes.
Commissioner Janet A. Costa. Yes.
Commissioner Kaiser. No. based on my
previous statement of um what I believe.
Chair. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.
All right. We will now uh move on to the
discussion item 8.1 which is the
discussion uh to discuss the El Paso and
South Solano Metropolitan Redevelopment
Area Plan.
Are they running?
should be.
Good evening, chairman and
commissioners. For the record, I'm Blair
Flores with the city of Los Cusus
Economic Development Department. We are
here this evening to present the Alpo
and Salano metropolitan redevelopment
area plan which has been prepared by
sites southwest over the past year. The
plan was shared with you um in advance
of tonight's meeting and we hope you've
had the opportunity to review it. To
provide some context, a metropolitan
redevelopment area or an MRA is a
designated area within a city that has
been identified as physically or
economically blighted and in need of
revitalization.
At this time, I'd like to introduce
Danny Wilson from Site Southwest, who
will provide a more detailed overview of
the plan and its
contents. Thank you, Blair. Move this
down. Can you all hear me? All right.
Okay. Uh, good evening, Mr. Chair,
chairman, commissioners, um, and thanks
for making time for hearing this, uh,
today. Uh, as Blair mentioned, the draft
plan was shared with you a few weeks
ago. Um, so tonight I'm not going to go
through the thing in its entirety. You
know, it's about 160 pages long without
the appendices. Um, so I'll provide you
with some of those highlights and really
focus on what our recommendations are
for implementation and next steps for
city staff to make sure that this plan
uh continues to live on beyond the
planned stage and has projects that are
actionable for the city moving forward.
Um, I think I can control this. Yes, I
can. Okay. So, quick context and
background here for those who are uh new
to the process. Uh, uh, my name is Danny
Wilson, as I mentioned, but I'm a
planner with Site Southwest. I was the
project manager on this project. Uh, we
also worked with three subconultants to
provide more context for specific
aspects of the project. Uh, so Civic
Plan Studio was our urban design uh,
partner on on the plan. They're they're
no strangers to Los Cusus. They also
helped us out with the East Lomen uh
redevelopment master plan um and have
been really instrumental in helping to
illustrate the vision that the community
has shared with us for this area. Um
RCLO provided our market analysis and so
there's a good section in the plan
itself that talks about the market
potential uh for different types of
development in this area moving forward.
We know that um this is being designated
because there's been a lack of the
development that the city wants to see
here. There's been a lack of forward
momentum and so we want to talk about
what is most uh feasible for developers
in the city to partner on in the future.
And then lastly, we had Wilson and
company helping us out uh providing our
engineering expertise and specifically
as it relates to transportation
engineering. They were sort of our
grounding partner to make sure that
anything that we were thinking about in
terms of streetscape recape redesign was
really uh founded in engineering
principles as well as uh the
aspirational vision of what community
members wanted to see on El Paso, South
Solano and all the connecting tissue
that's
there. Um so I wanted to highlight this
briefly as the original MRA project
area. This is what we started out with,
but as you'll see as we continue through
the presentation, uh we proposed a
boundary at extension that would pull
that down to University Avenue to the
south. Um there were several large
vacant parcels in this area as well as
uh a little bit of that lack of
redevelopment that we wanted to see and
we wanted to make sure that that was
aligned with what we were proposing for
the rest of the MRA
area. A quick look back at time. I can't
believe it's been this long, but we
started this journey last year in March.
Um, at that point in time, we focused on
the initial site evaluation. We met with
staff. We met with stakeholders. Um, we
hosted focus groups to get a a good
sense of what was happening on the
ground today in the MRA area, knowing
that this is such an important area
between downtown and MSU, NMSU. Um, and
there's a lot of stakeholders who are
invested in that area. uh nonprofits,
churches, neighborhood associations, we
wanted to bring them to the table. And
so in that next step, when we were
looking at that existing conditions
assessment, we uh conducted a a
workshop, a multi-day workshop with a
lot of those members where we had a
chance to deep dive into some of the
issues that we were learning about. Um
from there, we took all those ideas and
we tried to formulate our plan as well
as our catalytic projects through the
winter. And then finally, we've been
through this um we're about midway
through the review process right now.
So, starting with staff, starting with
key stakeholders. Um and now there's a
public review draft available on the
city's website. That is the one that you
saw in your
packets. Um so, setting the groundwork
again, there's a few reasons why the MRA
plan is really important for the city of
Los Cusus. Um ultimately, our goal is to
provide a framework for the
transformation of this area. We've seen
it lagging behind other areas in the
city and we want to make sure that
there's a foundation there for the city
to build on to make this everything that
it can be. Um we want uh to ensure that
this is pedestrian friendly. That is
something that came up multiple times in
our planning process and is a high
priority for community members moving
forward. Um and I'll talk a bit about
that later. Um and then we wanted to
also make sure I wanted to emphasize
these points of sustainable and
equitable. Um, it's one of the areas of
the city that has the most diverse
neighborhoods you might imagine, uh,
with a wide socioeconomic range of
people living there. Uh, we want to make
sure that they have the same, uh, vital
assets to creating healthy, thriving
lives for their families that other
families do in other parts of the city.
Um and all of that uh our background as
a firm is founded in uh landscape
architecture, sustainable development,
uh green storm water infrastructure.
Incorporating a lot of these ideas into
our concepts was really essential
throughout the the process. Um and then
you'll see over there on the right side
just highlighting some of the focus
areas of the plan as we were getting
into it. And you'll see that carry
forward as I talk about some of our
catalytic projects.
So, this one I won't belabor too much,
but I did hear a question in the
audience about what is an MRA? And so, I
wanted to just highlight quickly. It's a
metropolitan redevelopment area. Um, and
what that does is it specifies an area
for redevelopment. Uh, projects that
will hopefully begin to eliminate some
of those blighted conditions that were
identified in the designation report
that was passed a few years ago. Um,
some of these projects can include uh
land acquisitions or building
acquisitions if there's opportunity
sites for the city or for developers.
Um, making some of those pedestrian and
transportation improvements which we
heard loud and clear through our
process. Um, making improvements to
community facilities, public spaces and
parks um, and housing. And I will say
especially on that last point, the city
is already making a lot of investments
in this area. And so we're trying to
build on that momentum in a lot of cases
where we're focusing on certain nodes
because it's a very large area. So
you'll see that coming
up. Um wanted to also highlight some of
the key tools that are um benefits of
the MRA designation. So once this plan
is approved, the city um can enter into
public private partnerships to access
additional funding and resources to make
these projects happen. That's like the
bottom line for us here. We want to make
sure that the city has flexibility to
incentivize development where up until
this point we've just not had enough
oomph and momentum to make it enticing
for developers. Um so some of those
tools are also highlighted over to the
right side. It can take many different
forms. Um and a few of these are already
being um implemented by the city like
the zoning code changes. I will say it
was really interesting to move alongside
this planning process as uh realized Los
Cusus was coming into fruition. So we
had a lot of conversations with staff
about you know what they were proposing
and what we also thought would be
helpful in the process. So we were
really grateful for that open dialogue
through our our planning
process. Um this one I apologize I this
is a typo on my part. This should talk
about some of our engagement tools. Um,
but I mentioned we had some of those
listening sessions and focus groups
early on. Uh, that community design
workshop was a really um, incredible
time honestly where we saw community
members coming together and expressing
their desire for what the vision of this
space could be. Many folks lived in the
neighborhood, but there were also folks
who were um, employees in the area or
who shopped or uh, conducted business in
the area who participated. Um, a few who
are in the crowd I noticed this evening.
So glad to see that representation. Um
we had a community survey that was
conducted through the winter. We wanted
to take some of those ideas we heard and
make sure they were right or begin to
tease out some more details there. Um
and we had over 2,000 responses which I
will say credit to communications and
outreach teams at city staff and
everybody who told their neighbors about
it. Um, we had some creative ideas for
that, but ultimately um, there was a lot
of energy put into that to get the
responses that we did and 32 of those
were in Spanish, which we were pretty
happy with. It's still kind of a low
number, but given the household
composition of this area, it it was
something. Um, and then finally, we have
that public review draft open now. Um,
and we're using a hopefully more
interactive tool so that it's not too
cumbersome for people to look through
160 pages of a document. We have
sections that allow them to jump to the
different chapters or you can even
search by a keyword. Say you're really
interested in um pedestrian safety. You
can find where that's discussed in the
plan easily using the tool. So hopefully
we get some good responses
there. This is really small, so I
apologize. You probably can't read it
very well, but I wanted to just
highlight some of what we heard in terms
of the top priorities for redevelopment
in the area from the community. And
number one was the focus on safety and
security. Maybe no surprises there. This
is something that is very um uh sort of
it can be a part of your day-to-day
experience as you're in a space. It can
impact how uh if you go into a business
or not. Um if you're a student walking
from school to a restaurant up the road,
all of that comes into play. And so we
have recommendations that are targeted
toward um addressing those concerns uh
with both the the business community and
the the neighbors as well as uh
LCPD. Um number two, and this is
probably again no surprise, um the
transformation of El Paso Road is is
number one in everyone's minds because
this has been a part of the the public
dialogue and conversation at this point
for decades. It's really been a long
time coming and so we're hoping that
this plan gives you and the city staff
the momentum you need to to make that
happen and hopefully begin to identify
some of the resources to do it. We know
it's not going to be a cheap project.
This is going to be a huge investment by
the city. Um so hopefully we we've given
you the foundation to get there. Um
broader uh focus on neighborhood
improvements was also prioritized as
well as um thinking about our business
community. what can we do to support
them here? Especially those small
businesses that in spite of maybe some
of the safety and security concerns have
really stuck it out and want to make uh
their investment worthwhile
here. Um and this is also kind of hard
to see. Uh the previous presenter was
doing the zoom trick which I may or may
not be able to do. Uh magnify slide. We
might be able to get in there. Um, so
essentially what we wanted to do was,
but then actually I'm going to jump back
out. I'm going to go through the bullet
points first. Uh, what we wanted to do
overall for this area is reinforce El
Paso as that primary corridor and
connection between downtown and NMSU.
South Solano is also very important, but
it's not the same uh high uh sort of
institutional commercial use. It's more
of that mom and pop shop style uh
commercial which actually has a really
good baseline infrastructure to work
with. We think there's a lot of good
things happening over there and so um
really ALPO is the one where we're
focusing a lot of what we're proposing
as initial investments. Um we want to
encourage a mix of commercial and
housing around here. Um, in some cases
there's uh examples of that already
happening with some multif family
projects going in, but we want to build
on that, especially between the roads of
Compo and Idaho and even stretching that
down a little bit to bouts in the high
school, but especially Compo to Idaho.
There's real opportunities there. Um,
and as I mentioned, South Solano already
has a good physical fabric to work with,
but we want to um think more about local
business support along that corridor as
a possibility.
And then a few more points to to make
here. Um, Valley View Park has already
seen some improvements. There's some
funding available for master planning
there. Um, and so we want to build on
that. We want to realize that as
lowhanging fruit and also make a
pedestrian connection ideally um using
the Los Cruises uh over to Young Park,
Young's Park, excuse me, uh, in the
northeast. So creating a nice green
corridor for residents to access these
um facilities as well as the library uh
the Munen Center and Valley View
Elementary that are on the west side
there and a lot of I should say to the
the family services that are going in
with the Boys and Girls Club and uh FYI
developments as well. Um we've
identified a few key infill sites for
future uh development um that we'll talk
about on the next slide. Uh we want to
make sure we're reinforcing neighborhood
identity. Some neighbors have this
strong sense of neighborhood identity
already and we want to support that in
areas which maybe don't have that same
kind of identity or attention yet. Um we
want to use those drainage ditches for
trail connections. And then finally
address those safety concerns. And I
realize we're running a little short on
time so I'm going to scoot through these
next few slides. Um so as I mentioned
the area itself is very large. um
over,200 acres we're talking about here.
And so in order for the city to get the
most bang for its buck, we're
recommending focusing on a few of what
we're calling opportunity nodes. So the
first being uh the Brickyards District.
This is kind of taking a fun play and a
name for the Feather Light uh brick area
that is just north of Valley View Park
there. Um POS Verde is the new uh
residential development going in kind of
in the core of that second zone. uh near
the library, near the senior center,
near those family services, Boys and
Girls Club, FYI. Um number three is
looking at kind of our higher density
residential areas and a few projects
that are going in there slash one that's
moving out and offers a nice um pallet
for a potential new residential
development in Foster, Montana. Um,
these areas are also important because
they offer really good walkable uh
residential areas to that commercial
that's offered on El Po. And so we want
to think also about safe connections and
safe crossings in order for people to
safely access those. And then finally,
uh, the French and Gomez parks area or
university residential. Um there's some
nice parcels and opportunities for
partnership actually with some of our uh
faith institutions in that area who
could help to spur uh more of that
development that we want to see in the
MRA. Um and so we we have a set of
strategic recommendations that are
organized under these categories of
public safety, housing, transportation
and mobility. uh community places and
programs, which is kind of a broad
umbrella for a lot of neighborhood
improvements, park improvements, uh
community facilities, uh economic
development, and
sustainability. And I encourage you to
take a look at those in the plan. I
don't have a ton of time to go into
detail on those tonight. Um but there's
some good substance there. And if you
have comments or feedback on them, we we
definitely welcome them. And then
finally, I wanted to walk us through
some ideas for where we can get started.
Um and I also have a few uh
organizational capacity recommendations
in addition to these projects, these
physical projects. So I'll touch on that
briefly at the end. Uh so number one
priority is El Paso transformation and
there's a lot of work and resources that
needs to go into this to make it happen.
But luckily we have a very strong
foundation for what the community wants
to see here. And we have good alignment
at this point and support from uh other
planning projects that the city has
conducted both that are specific to El
Paso and then broader city plans. Um so
in order to do this we uh kind of walked
through some of the steps of conducting
that feasibility study and creating the
schematic design. Um looking at multiple
options. We offered very rudimentary
design options to get a to take a
temperature from the community on what
they wanted to see here as part of our
planning process. But ultimately, it's
going to need to go through the full
design uh process with an engineering
firm uh to make sure that that is
aligned with what the the city wants and
and what uh works well for property
owners there as well because it's going
to take some um some convening and a lot
of conversations with property owners uh
because we're proposing some changes
there. Um finally, those recommendations
would go through council for that preser
preferred design option. Um and then
using that we could identify funding
sources for the next phase of work and
then proceed with engineering and
construction. And uh we note this in the
plan but we know there's already funding
allocated for some intersection
improvements at Idaho and ALPO as well
as Bouts and El Paso or at least that's
been targeted in CIP. And so we want to
try to as much as possible not backtrack
on that work but align those
intersection improvements with work on
the corridor in those sections.
Um, this is tangential to that, but
ultimately as we begin to redesign the
street of El Paso, it opens up
opportunities for infill development um
that could be mixed use along the way.
This is something we saw strong support
for from both businesses and residents
in our process. Um, this would allow for
not only the creation of that pedestrian
safety that everybody is is looking for,
but um it could also allow for
additional uh tax options and
opportunities for the city itself uh
rather than letting uh land sit more
vacant or parking lot. Uh it's it's
something that is kind of a win-win for
the city.
Um, it would take, like I mentioned,
that strong collaboration with current
property owners to make sure this is
successful, to make sure that it's
aligned with the vision. Um, and
ultimately, uh, could meet the needs of,
uh, the current infrastructure that the
city has in place there.
Um, and I think that's all I'll say on
that because I know taking up some time
here. Uh, South Solano, as I mentioned,
was really focused on, uh, supporting
those existing businesses that are along
that corridor. We heard from several of
them who um mostly were were concerned
about the safety of the area and wanted
stronger partnerships with LCPD. Um
wanted some physical improvements to
just make sure things like lighting um
you know design assistance with their
properties was in place just to make it
more feasible for them to stay because
that was the biggest concern was like if
something doesn't change we might not be
able to stay here for for longer. And
and that's the thing is it's much harder
to attract in a new business. It's
easier to keep an existing one. And so
as much as we can prioritize that um the
the needs and concerns of those existing
businesses, that's going to be um good
for the city to do.
Uh we also uh recommended reviewing the
permitting process for some of these
businesses to make sure that um
standards were flexible enough that it
wasn't too cumbersome for them but also
was adhering to what we were seeing as
uh important design principles for
pedestrian safety um and comfort along
the corridors here. Um, and then
finally, we wanted to just make sure
that there was that crosscoordination
across city departments um to to think
about potentially organizing a business
association of some kind. There's not
always an appetite for this and we
recognize that it is a lift for staff
and so this is something that is if
there is demand there and if the
capacity for staff opens up this could
be something that could be really
helpful to have one voice from the
business community rather than having
sort of dispersed concerns and things
happening and and uh not a good way to
consolidate
that. Um value view park activation.
This one's again like I said kind of the
lowest hanging fruit of the bunch. um
there's already investments happening
here um and so it's just a matter of
aligning with that getting residents to
the table when it comes to the master
planning process um and and making sure
we have our partners there as well. So
uh Elephant View Irrigation District has
been very supportive so far in our
conversations of um thinking about the
overall potential of our drainage spaces
and w water corridors. um they are on
board with thinking about trail
connections and recreation opportunities
in addition to that primary purpose of
moving water safely through our
communities. Um and then finally we were
just thinking about activation of these
spaces. And so there are some ideas
within our community uh survey responses
about activation and programming that is
also relevant in terms of uh
recommendations for staff especially on
the neighborhood side.
um infill redevelopment. This is uh one
of those things that we can't be too
spread out in how we're thinking about
this. We really tried to be strategic in
the sites that we offered as having the
most potential for the city for
redevelopment. Um so looking in that
Brickyards district, the Feather Light
property near the Valley View Park. um
thinking about building off there's a
few vacant parcels that are around where
the Boys and Girls Club and FYI are
going in that really could create this
potential gateway to El Paso at Combo
Wyatt and El Paso. Um real potential
there. Um we want to make sure that
we're facilitating that by working with
property owners and being as flexible as
possible when we're thinking about
future development at these sites. Um,
but then also we're we're helping them
along the way. So if they don't have the
expertise or skills, we were thinking
about how we could expand or uplift the
work that the design review committee is
already doing uh to perhaps offer some
special assistance when it comes to
design and making sure that that design
is aligned with what the vision is for
this area for the MRA plan. And then
finally, uh, with the updated zoning,
this is kind of already in place. The
zoning really is aligned with what we
see also as a vision for this area. So
that's pretty much good to go. And then
finally, we thought about creating a
concise housing resource guide for
potential developers. And I will say
this is not our idea. This came from
staff. And so staff is already thinking
about how do we facilitate the kind of
development that we want to see? And
this is one tool that could help with
that. Um, public safety improvements.
This one's a tricky one, but LCPD is
already doing a lot of work. Their
community outreach team talked to us
about a lot of the programs that they
already do, like the bike rodeos, the
pop-up events, and so I think a lot of
it comes down to visibility and public
education and frequency. Um, so really
just continuing to do what they're
already doing, but making that
connection uh more concrete, especially
with local businesses. I think that
could go a long way. Um, we thought
about there's a small parcel right
between Fringer and Gomez parks. Um,
that actually could be optimal for a
potential future police substation. This
is a many years down the road thing. Um,
but we know there's a lot of concerns
around the parks there and there is a
bit of a gap there as well in terms of
those types of services and so we would
offer that as a consideration for a
future uh police substation. Um, we
wanted to make sure that we were
partnering again with those business
owners to potentially establish private
security that would complement the
police presence. So, um, thinking about
programs where you could have that
virtual presence and security uh to to
to expand the capacity of our in-person
police force. Um, and then finally,
there's physical improvement. So
thinking about safety that comes from
having better lighting on in the
evenings, uh better shade, sidewalks,
just improving the overall experience of
the public realm so that people feel
better and safer out there moving uh
moving around.
Um, as I mentioned, trail connections. I
won't blavorver this one too much, but
there's already plans in place um for
some of these uh water corridors. And
so, we are all on board with doing that
to make sure we have those nice
separated pedestrian connections.
There's one that goes east, west, and
north, south. And so, we would we would
advocate that both of those be
implemented.
um for neighborhood uh and community
placemaking. We again just want to uh we
heard from neighbors that they a lot of
them have ideas for what they could
already do to improve their areas, but
it would really help to have some extra
city capacity to help them carry out
those ideas. So, uh cleanups and
property improvement days were something
that came up. Um something as simple as
a neighborhood signage program can
really go a long way. There were
thoughts about partnering with the
students from Los Cruus High School,
maybe the woodworking shop who could
support that and and you could bring
that together
uh for both of those groups. And then
finally, just making sure again it's
it's tough when you have an all
volunteer association. And so having a
little staff capacity to support those
neighborhood associations could go a
long way uh in just creating continuity
for them.
Um and then before I jump to questions,
actually I did promise I wanted to jump
a little bit into uh where we recommend
that the city should start with this. Um
and the first was in the capacity
organizational area. So ultimately none
of these projects can happen without
people and resources behind them. Um,
and so we did recommend that for the uh
future championing championing of MRA
projects that an MRA committee or
something like that be created um that
would work with staff that would look at
not just this MRA plan but future MRA
area plans uh to determine what projects
to start with and champion moving
forward. Ultimately, city council would
still be uh the final approver of those
projects and those recommendations, but
having a dedicated group with
representatives from local institutions,
uh neighbors, developers, uh and the
like could be really helpful in keeping
uh the momentum on this work going.
Um the second was making sure that we're
including that expanded MRA boundary
area that goes south to the university
boulevard. Um, so we want to make sure
that as part of this process, we're
including that so that we're not
backtracking and going back to include
that. So we're proposing actually um re
uh working that that new boundary into
the MRA plan so that when we go for
approval of the plan overall, we could
also designate that new area at that
point in
time.
Um, and I think that's about it. I know
I've been talking for a while, so I
think I will jump and open it up for
questions. So, thank you.
Any commissioners have questions?
I can start. I'll probably be short, but
um I guess yeah, like so it's this
initial concept of a plan. Um you know,
my comment is just, you know, having a
business in the downtown area, having
lived in that area for quite a long
time. I mean, I've seen it get
progressively worse, exponentially worse
over the last, you know, 5 years, 10
years. We can continue to go on. So, I
appreciate the smile and the enthusiasm,
but it it sounds like lipstick on a pig,
just to be blunt, right? And so, the the
problem there is safety. I don't I mean
you can talk to all the business owners
go look back at the um when Governor Lu
Han came down last summer and we listed
our grievances that were not ever heard
and listened to and then we're you know
still struggling beyond that. And so I
mean in terms of response time from from
police um to local businesses I I
currently struggle with that downtown
and I know many people have have just
about given up. You know what I mean?
It's like people wanting to just police
themselves and you know residents are
frustrated and and then we have the
Amadore Center that's not on El Paso but
it's a couple blocks away and that just
leads to a flood of of unfortunately you
know traffic that is just have has
caused a lot of issues and I I I feel
for those people and I feel for that but
I also feel for the business owners and
the homeowners and everybody trying to
go to Albertson's and walk in there
safely and not feel afraid. worried
about their family or their car or
whatever else is going on in that area
and everything else. And so I don't
necessarily know how to um propose that
we need to start there before we start
dumping money into anything else. But
you know that's that's like my question
is how how do we make that you know step
one before we start painting you know
all these pictures and these visions of
these nice things when you know last
year this has been a problem. this has
been on record a problem for our our
city and you know that's just that's
that's my big core concern here. Yeah.
No, and I I think that's exactly right
like you're echoing exactly what we
heard from businesses and residents like
over the last year. I think that the MRA
plan by nature needs to be holistic and
that's why we're thinking about all the
aspects of what it'll take to transform
this area. I think public safety is
essential to that. That's foundational.
Um, but it also includes the physical
transformation and the vision we want to
see not just for the next five years but
for the next 30 years for this area. So
that's also why we've included a lot of
the physical developments and projects
that we have. Um, but I think you're
right and and I will also say there's no
silver bullet. We're coming at this from
the angle of physical and economic
development, but there's a lot of work
that's going into this from the human
resources, from the uh neighborhood
services side, from a lot of the folks
who are working in that area. Um, one of
the things we did as part of this
process was we handed out um flyers and
talked with people as part of a food
drive uh in the in the area that we did
in coordination with Real Life Church.
And so I I see that there's a lot of
need there. And I will say that the MRA
plan can't do it all realistically like
we are one aspect of this and ultimately
we will not be the final uh the final
say in terms of public safety response.
All we can do is make recommendations
for how the city might begin to approach
that when thinking about how to
holistically transform this area. But I
understand what you're saying and that
if that doesn't happen first, it's going
to be very difficult for these other
things to happen in terms of
transformative projects. So I appreciate
what you're saying and I think that
something we can do is begin to revisit
that. This is draft form and if there
are areas that we can improve and beef
that up, we'll do our best. But I will
also say this is a plan for the
community. This is a plan for staff.
This is a plan for leadership. But it's
going to be housed within economic
development. um and community
development too. Um so also just
thinking through the lens of like
ultimately what can those staff do to
help transform this area is something to
consider. Um yeah, to that point, I mean
to to go and build new places for the
windows to get broken and and all these
things to happen and people to invest
all kinds of time and money and we're
not solving the crime and and the issues
in that area. I mean, we are just right.
We're just not doing it. And so anyways,
thank you. Yeah. No, I appreciate that.
To piggyback off of my uh fellow
commissioners, I think public safety is,
as we all know, is number one. That's
fundamental to number two is um how do
we attract those businesses? How do we
attract those small local businesses? We
need to throw incentives. We need to
help grow instead of being a city of
anti-growth. We need to be an a city of
growth and invite everyone in and say,
"Let's do this. How can we help you grow
your business?" Whether you're a small
local business or you're a big
corporation, I think we just really need
to do that. I think we have a stigma
here in Los Cruus is that we're not a
friendly city. If you have a business,
you don't want to come here and you
don't want to grow because, you know,
there's zoning issues. There's I mean,
there's I can go on and on. But, um, we
need to open up our doors and be
business friendly, bottom line, whatever
that looks like. And I think with small
businesses, we need to initiate, um,
some incentives. Mhm. So, public safety
obviously is number one in the core for
our our our residents here. And then
growing businesses, I mean, you can
build a beautiful corridor and and
invite people over, but if you don't
have
um businesses to support that, then
you're going to look at disasters.
Definitely. And I will say on that note,
we do have recommendations for programs
that can be funded through the MRA to
support businesses. So, exactly to your
point, it's attracting new, but also how
do we provide some incentives and some
uh rewards to those who who have stuck
it out and are trying and want to stay.
Yeah. And then reaching out to our local
organizations. I I mean, I can name a
couple and I'm not trying to, you know,
just in general, I think there's a lot
of them out there, but the Greater Los
Cruus Chamber, for one, is pro business.
Uh you've got Hispano Chamber. You've
got many, many organizations out there
and a lot of leadership that are pro
business. And if you were to just set
them up in a room, you would you would
get great ideas. Yeah. And I will say,
so we've met with several folks from the
chamber. Um, and they were also invited
into our workshop and so we had
representatives there as well. Um, so we
yeah, we're we're trying to incorporate
all of those ideas as much as we can.
But yeah, and thank you. Yeah. Thanks.
Yeah. U Yeah, I'll just echo uh some of
the previous comments. Um, but I I do
want to emphasize
um that I think you you said it a couple
of times in in different ways, but this
idea um a direct quote was improve the
public
uh improve the experience of the public
realm. And I think um a lot of the
issues that were identified in that
questionnaire that slide that you had
shown while not everything is 100%
attributable to our physical environment
a lot of how we feel in a space does
affect that right so so development of
El Paso corridor is not going to solve
the problems that you guys identified
but I think at the same time if people
start to be feel more comfortable being
outside. They feel safer. There's things
to do. There's programming at the parks.
The parks have amenities. Um you feel
confident uh and um and you take
ownership in the space. That goes a long
way. Um it's not a s silver bullet by
any means, but I think people uh
underestimate how how much that actually
affects a community's success in the
long term. I mean you look at some of
the most successful communities up and
down the inner inner mountain west
across the country they all have similar
things in common and that's a built
environment that is built around people
whereas El Paso is built around cars and
nothing else and and it's been pointed
out in several reports um that we have
on the corridor that this car centric
design it's how we essentially got to
where we are. It's just an unsustainable
way to develop. It's unsustainable for
so many reasons, but when people start
to feel unsafe and uncomfortable in that
public space and and I would even go
further to say it's not just the public
rideway, but also the third spaces,
right? The even on private property, you
know, standing in the middle of a
freaking parking lot without shade for a
mile in either direction is a miserable
experience for anybody, especially here
in the state of Los Cuses for most of
the year. So how we feel there and what
we do to improve that I think will will
be a very positive step in the right
direction. So I also just want to say
thank you for this report this um this
document. It was refreshing to read
something like this for the city of Los
Cusus. Um I really enjoyed the attention
to detail and it showed that you guys
have really great ideas and it's not
just you but the whole project team. I
want to thank the city for selecting
this team. Um, I think they were the
right team for the job. Um, I loved the
the catalyst projects. I loved sort of
breaking down this larger area into
these smaller little neighborhoods. I
thought that was fantastic. Um, I think
overall it it it I really enjoyed
reading it. Um, so thank you.
Um
I am a little nervous um that when it
comes to the where the rubber meets the
road, we we seem to struggle there in
the city of Los Cruises, right? We're
told, well, this was just a a vision. It
was just it was
conceptual. Well, but it's the concept
we all bought into. So why we can't then
apply that when we have project
developments and applicants come before
us, I I don't understand. Um, I mean, I
understand it's conceptual and things
change and shift, but you can't ask us
what we want for the pizza party
tomorrow and then when we all show up
and it's salads, you tell us, well, the
pizza party was conceptual. It kind of
doesn't make a lot of sense, right? Um,
so I'm a little concerned about that
specifically. Um, some of the things
that that um we didn't see get through
in the realized Los Cusus. I think this
body up here unanimously wanted to see
drive-throughs in the urban core, which
would include this area, become special
use permits, not by right. That wasn't
that didn't make it. So, I'm a little
concerned that we're going to see
businesses that see opportunities and
they're going to come in and it's going
to be great. We want to welcome them. We
want banks. We want all these things.
And they put in their application and
it's more drive-throughs. It's more
autocentric development, which is
exactly where we how we got here in the
first place. So, I'm concerned about
that. I don't know what the city's plan
is to address something like that, but
um I am a little concerned that we're
just this is great. I love
this. Let's go make it a reality. And
how do we do that? Um so, that's just
one comment. Um, another comment I have,
um, uh, around the one of the catalyst
projects that was the
Aoyo corridor thing. Um, uh, Niffwiff
currently right now has a grant
opportunity,
uh, where potentially storm water
retrofitting, which I think this
concept, uh, absolutely fits into, could
be something that fits their criteria.
I'm happy to work with staff to make the
connections, but that's happening right
now. Uh it the deadline is coming up,
but my understanding is it's it's sort
of an open revolving thing. So, um I you
know, I think that there's an
opportunity right now to maybe do
something to really move this forward.
Um so, I think those are just my
comments. I'm I'm really excited, but I
I do have some reservations about, you
know, how we actually see this become a
reality. Yeah. And I I appreciate those
comments. And I will say I'm glad we're
coming to you at this point in the
planning process because we still have
time to clarify or dig into those things
that that might just help us bridge from
plan to reality. So, I appreciate that
comment.
My my question is is why why as a land
developer and a home builder and a
business
owner, why would I care about anything
in the MRA versus just buying land
that's uh already vacant land and I can
develop it just using the Real Eyes? Why
would why would I want to come down into
a downtown area that is already known
for struggling, right? And if I put a
business in there, then I'm going to
have vagrants break my windows and steal
my stuff. Why would I What is it about
an MRA
that I would be interested in? Like, why
would I go there? I'm gonna actually
jump back a few slides because there are
some incentives that the city can use to
help to make that case. So, I think
you're exactly right when you're looking
at my potential development, residential
development, say, uh, in the core of the
city of Los Cusus versus maybe in, you
know, a suburban area like we were
looking at ear earlier or or even in the
county, you know, why why choose this
area over one of those? And I think the
answer lies somewhere in here. One might
be you actually have a um this doesn't
always happen, but sometimes you do get
these community-minded developers,
especially smallcale developers who
believe in the area, who want to see it
come to fruition at a small scale. We've
seen some residential projects happen
like that. Um these won't be your large
scale developments most likely, but in
other places that has happened. I um
moved here from the city of Detroit
about six years ago and uh that was
something that was more motivating than
you would realize. But I will say that's
the exception and not the rule when it
comes to developers. I think where the
rubber hits the road for a lot of folks
is in these tools that we see on the
right hand column there. Um so there are
ways that the city can enter
partnerships. Say uh there's a publicly
owned property that they really want to
you want to see developed. um you might
be able to enter into a partnership with
a potential developer at a lower rate um
than they would get in another area. Um
there's also the opportunity to create a
a a TID here or a TIFF here. Um and we
talk a little bit about in the plan
about the differences between tiffs,
tids, and bids and what might make the
most sense for this area. Um there's
already the template for the downtown
TID in place. And so that's something
that might be uh an opportunity here to
provide additional funding for some of
these projects to happen for some of
those developers to go in. Um there's
there's other things that we could do in
terms of industrial revenue bonds. Um
creating uh some some additional
programs that would support that
development. Yeah. So just wanted to
highlight that. These are a lot of tax
tax incentives, right? So yeah, we have
tax already incentive to go downtown.
Yeah. And you don't really go downtown.
So is there is there
you do I mean downtown has been a lot
better, right? Like the city did have us
put a lot of money into it to I mean
look at Amodore man, right? Yeah. I mean
it's a big vacant building now that we
all invested a bunch of money in. Yeah.
And and I guess the only other point
there in terms of I love the idea of
cleaning it up, making it look
beautiful, attracting better, you know,
people, but again, as the violent crime
statistics have 42% increased since last
August, downtown being a major focus,
downtown's got the revitalization and
we're it's still a sketchy place to go
walk. I wouldn't let my little daughter,
you know, go out and play in the park
and without being absolutely paranoid. I
mean, there's weirdos out there every
single day. Like, it's bad. And I mean,
that's not going to change even if you
make it pretty. Yeah. So, so do you have
any examples of more of more of like how
the rubber hits the road? Okay. So, you
got maybe a revitalized place in Houston
that used to just be the big box stores,
but now you got the big box stores that
have now kind of shifted to different
developments, right? it. And then, you
know, I I think we need some I guess if
as a developer, I'm sitting here
thinking, okay, you got to give me some
storyline that it worked somewhere and
where did they start?
Because I I see these and it's
wonderful, tax incentives, all that kind
of stuff. But really, like I I would
still personally not go down there and
develop. Yeah. like just because I got a
tax incentive. The the rest of the area
I we have people right now that come to
me and say, "Do you have commercial land
on the other side of town?" Because I
don't want to be down there. I'm sick of
my business over here because I keep
getting broken into. So there is I
that's what I'm trying to say is is just
because now we have a new MRA, what is
it? What actually incentivizes me to
come in there? And I don't think it's
good for the city to just put more tax
incentive because then like in
development we need to put more meat on
the bones for the city, right? Like the
city needs the tax the tax increase. But
if we just if I incentivize you to come
and put your building here and I'm not
going to give you I'm not going to
receive any money as a city for taxes
then how do I have more money to do more
things in this area? You don't. So it's
all given away but it's it's just a
band-aid again. So I don't I would just
yeah I'd love to be able to see some
type of a uh example where it worked cuz
I mean we got the whole United States
you can pull from examples and see where
it's worked. That's just I'd like to see
those. So as a developer I'd be hey if I
did plan whatever that is here's here
was a success plan and this is how they
did it. This is how they got rid of the
vagrance. is how they got rid of the
um basically the bad situation that
they're in and how how do we bring that
back to it? I I don't know. Yeah. No.
And and we can definitely work on some
case studies. I and I can't remember if
it it was in the plan yet or not, but
one that we talk about that's local or
localish local to Albuquerque is the
Sawmill District, if you all are
familiar with that. um took decades to
get there, but this was an area that was
very industrialized, close to the
freeway. Um has been enormously
successful at this point in terms of
having uh started with city partnerships
and a nonprofit, the community land
trust that's there. And then from there,
we've seen this ballooning of
development um private developers coming
in now and on their own without that
city help uh making projects happen. And
so one one lo local example that comes
to mind, but I do think you're right in
that if you are a developer looking at
this, you're like, well, why should I
and and where has it happened and been
successful? And so I think that is
something that we could add into the
plan still. So I appreciate that.
Oh yeah, for sure. Oh actually, and I'm
going to defer to staff real quick.
Hi Blair Flores again. Um so just to
answer a couple of the questions um in
terms of um what MAS are um doing for
areas like this. So uh New Mexico is an
anti-donation um state and so
municipalities are not able to help
businesses directly. designating these
areas um as MRAs give municipalities the
power to to work with small businesses
and um create um public private
partnerships but also um what we're
learning through the process at looking
for funding and grants is that we
qualify um for a lot more funding
opportunities because we um have
designated these areas as MRAs and we
can again work around the anti-donation
clause laws. So, it opens up a lot of
funding opportunities that we don't
necessarily have for areas that are not
designated MAS. Um, as Danny mentioned,
Albuquerque has been probably the most
successful within our state for MAS.
They have 20 plus MAS. Um, many have
been extremely successful. We we have
already within our department started
reaching out to other municipalities
within our state um to learn um from
their processes of MRA. What's working,
what's not working, what are some
funding opportunities, what are some
needs um within our department. We've
already started discussing potential
programming to address some of the
needs. I personally met with over 300
business owners within the El Paso
Salano MRA. I conducted um surveys with
all of them. I listen to a lot of their
concerns and grievances and and I feel
like what we heard um in Deian's
presentation is a true reflection of
what I heard. Um and so I specifically
have been
um have been looking at programming
opportunities and funding opportunities
to directly address some of those needs
and public safety is one of them. um
within our department, we've looked at
some of those programming um
opportunities and said, "Okay, how many
how many programs can we create that
addresses um public safety? How many can
we look that addresses housing um
needs?" And so that that that is all
that we are taking into consideration.
That is developing, but that is the work
that's being done behind the scenes um
to to take all of that into
consideration. So yeah, the funding
opportunities are great once an MR is
designated and that's the biggest
distinction in our ability to help small
businesses directly. Um, what I also
would like to say is that, um, just in
our public outreach and the public
meetings, um, we've heard from a lot of
interested, um, small businesses and
organizations that want to know what
potential incentives are in the area.
And they may not be big box um,
commercial businesses, but a lot of
small local businesses that are like, I
need help getting my business off the
ground, so what can you offer me? Um and
so so yeah, there is interest already
and that's very exciting. But um
hopefully the catalytic projects will um
upstart some interest in the area and
see that the city's putting money into
that. Um and also I think because of the
funding opportunities that MAS provide,
um that also is a huge um factor into
the MRA plans not just sitting on the
shelves. We have a lot of funding
opportunities with the designations that
hopefully will push these projects
forward and obviously that um our
department it is a priority. So
hopefully that answers some of your
questions. So do we have uh money
allocated already earmarked specifically
for this project already or are we just
is it in progress? Um so we have already
um been working with tax and rev um for
all six designated MAS to begin the
baseline for um GRTs. We are working um
to begin the property taxes um process.
Not to get too much into the weeds of
that, but we that those processes have
already we're starting to work on those.
Um so that is just one opportunity. And
then um we have been working with our
grants department and then again looking
at programming and um potential funding
sources as well. So we don't we
currently don't have any earmarked money
yet. We're just it's right now working
in progress other than um the GRT
baseline and um that go ahead. Go ahead.
Good evening everybody. I'm Elizabeth
Teters the economic development
director. Um so actually the Blair is
correct. Um, we did get $100,000 in this
year's budget just approved to do a um
kind of like pilot programming to start
taking these ideas that Blair has and
bringing them to fruition to see what
works and what doesn't work because we
understand there's going to be tax
increment, but it's going to take it's
going to we we saw it in downtown. It
takes a while to get the taxes and get
everything moving. So, we're at least
getting $100,000 this year to kind of
get things moving and hope that we can
kind of get the investment in there to
start getting things really going.
Thank you for the clarification. Yeah.
Uh, good afternoon, Natalie Green. For
the record, I'll also add that we did
receive a million dollars from the state
of New Mexico. We are using that um to
jumpst start one of the housing
developments and that will bring um
about $15 million worth of investment to
Los Cusus to build um the first phase of
Pio Fertes. So that's 80 units of
affordable housing um 20 which will be
set aside for veterans and then the
other 60 is for our workforce uh working
along the corridor. So um that's some
additional investment that we
anticipate. So I have one additional
question to follow up on that if I may.
So is that um complex city-owned or is
it private owned with partnership with
the city?
It will be uh public private
partnership. So uh the property
currently is owned by the city but we
will be transferring that to the
developer who will then own the
development.
Just a follow on question to that. So, I
noticed in the report um it talked a lot
about how the opportunities or I guess
the um the economic environment is not
necessarily ripe at this moment for some
of these larger say mixeduse
residential developments that I think 30
years from now we we or maybe sooner but
um I guess the point I'm trying to make
is is the city exploring kind of
different ways to get at the affordable
housing things. I noticed a lot of what
we do is just apartment complexes.
That's it. And it seems to me that in
this area it would be more beneficial
given that we have somewhat limited
funds at the moment to kind of have some
smaller
um proof of concept of you know
duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, garden
style apartments that are maybe, you
know, 10 or 15 units as opposed to 85.
Um is the city exploring anything like
that as a strategy for the area when it
comes to their affordable housing
development?
uh chair
uh and commissioner Kaiser. Uh yes. So a
as the affordable housing section, we do
have a continuum of projects that we
work on from single family all the way
to large multifamilies. Um I will add
that one of the largest incentive tools
for affordable housing development is
the low-income housing tax credit
program which is funded through the
state of New Mexico. That's where you
see the largest um investments. And so
oftent times uh there's a sweet spot for
development and it's usually anywhere
from 60 to 80 units is why you're seeing
those multifamilies uh projects, but we
do have other investment tools. Um we
have a couple a triplex coming up and
some other things. Um and then as part
of the MRA, they've added some stuff in
the foster area where we're going to uh
densify some of the old public housing.
And so, um, we do try to sort of
rightsize development to wherever we're
going, um, based on the funding sources
and the incentives that we have
available to us. Yeah, I appreciate
that. And it makes a lot of sense. I
think I just get concerned that, um,
when we basically just stick all the
affordable housing on one parcel. It it
it's a it's a project, right? I mean,
that's proven to be more or less a
failure, you know, in public policy over
the course of our history. And it would
be nice to just see some more um uh you
know mixtures. I mean you can do larger
projects where say 40% are affordable
units and everything else is market rate
and you you get this you know this
mixture of people in in place which is
proven to be you know the most effective
way of doing affordable housing versus
when it's just the apartment complex
down the street. Well then everyone's
just going to say well that's that's
them. They're they're not a part of us
right? And so I think finding different
ways to go about that I think will help
with some of the other issues that were
brought up um earlier. Yeah. And and
we're in agreement with that. We do try
to spread these across towns. Um often
the challenges is those incentive tools.
So um the low-income housing tax credit
for example, it's an old Reagan program.
It's not ideal. Um but it only funds a
certain income level. And so oftent
times you have to find other funding
sources which an MRA would allow us to
do that mixed um more mixed income
development which is our goal because we
do agree that uh mixed income income
communities are more successful.
Thank you. Anything else for discussion?
All
right public Oh yeah, I'm supposed to
open up. Do we got any public comment?
Come on
down. Thank you. Thank you for waiting.
Thank you. Sim economic development. Um
Gregory Shermanic for the record. You
want to swear me in?
I don't have to swear you in for this
one,
gentlemen,
ladies. I want to see development
down in that area of town also, but I'm
not sure the MRA will do it for you.
Your last item on the agenda, you had a
problem. You have residents and no
businesses. Here you have businesses and
no residents. But in order to use any of
these tools, you need to make the tax
revenue or GRT grow above what it is at
the base level. As you know, Mr.
Thirsten, the AOY they're talking about
is directly behind your business. And
I'm not really sure that the city would
like the liability of having a whole
bunch of people riding down a trail of
rocks from Young Park
to
El. I live in this area and this is
really urbanization at its highest form.
what they're presenting today. I also
attended almost every single MRA
meeting. Congratulations on the 2,000
uh solicitations on your survey. I would
like to know how many more be
have given you information on the survey
that's still online right now since you
2000 came from earlier surveys. Correct.
Okay. So, how many people have answered
the survey now? So, we currently have a
plan open for comment. No survey. Okay.
Well, sorry. We got we got to if we're
going to ask questions, she's got to be
able to answer. Um I don't think this is
urbanization realize and the MRA is not
appropriate. Thank you. Thanks.
Ready to move on?
Yes.
Or do you or do you want to you want to
table this for next time?
All right, here's the last one. One one
more for the end of the
day. Well, good evening, Commission Adam
Community Development for the record. So
this essentially we kind of kept it
rather broad just to get everybody's uh
opinion uh when it comes to our staff
reports and our presentations that we
have before you. Uh we've been going uh
within the last couple years we've kind
of evolved what our staff reports have
become from this rather
lengthy admittedly kind of repetitive at
times as well staff reports to a much
more condensed staff report that kind of
mimics more what city council has. and
then we just try to present everything
to you all. Uh we did speak to uh
chairman uh Thirstston and he did say he
would like to see some changes to that
maybe additional information,
information that may not be too
pertinent to uh items. Uh we did uh
provide you all up there a handout,
excuse me, kind of a cheat sheet if you
cheat sheet if you will uh that kind of
explains the different types of uh
applications that we take
in. a quick ex uh explanation of what it
is and kind of what we're looking for or
what you should be looking for when
reviewing those types of cases to help
you or give you a refresher or if you're
new to kind of give you a little more
guidance as to what you're going to do
uh while you're up on on the uh on the
dasis there. Uh, but at this time I
could take any suggestions you might
have. Um, uh, I know it's kind of last
minute like to just tell you what what
do you want us to put on our staff
reports, but staff is willing to
definitely still take emails. Uh, first
of all, uh, Commissioner Kaiser, thank
you for that staff report from U. City
of Santa Fe. We've had looked at that in
the past as well. Uh, we've had other
uh, staff reports that we looked at as
well throughout uh, other communities to
see what they do, just kind of compare
and contrast. Uh but we'll take any
suggestions tonight. If none, please
email us. Uh we'll put something
together. Uh
next meeting should be a rather light
meeting so we could probably put
something together options for you could
see what we what we can put on there if
that works for you. Uh of course that's
kind of trying to fit a a square peg
into a round hole because not all staff
reports are created equal. As you as you
saw the one from Vince today, that was
rather intense one compared to what I
and John wrote. Uh it's it's definitely
uh apples and oranges. Still fruit, but
apples and oranges. But any suggestions,
I'll definitely take those now. If not,
uh we could definitely take those uh
emails after the
fact. And phone calls. We do pick up the
phone. Well, uh I'm just going to start
real quick. The main main purpose of it
was um I think it was two meetings ago
when we had like a master plan change
and it was pretty vague and so I just
felt like hey I'm I'm approving this
with a concept that I think I understand
but yet it wasn't fully like I think we
had some questions about a park. There
were supposed to be a park in it. it was
the final round, but then we didn't know
if the park was in it or wasn't in it.
And it was just kind of so so once that
started happening, I started feeling
like, hey, maybe I'm going to have to
start tableabling things instead of
being able to approve things. And that
was just kind of my personal feeling
because I I love growth. I love pushing
it forward and I like doing. But it it
on that one I I started getting to the
point where I'm like, "Okay, maybe I
should table things and then get more
information to bring it back to the
next." I don't like that. But
the even tonight's concept a little bit
um it would be nice to have a little bit
more background um even understanding
kind of what the developer is wanting to
do. Um me myself as a developer I know
we we try to put it as vague as possible
right because then you're not bound to
anything but that's but then there's
also other master plans that you see
throughout I just went to Houston and we
came back and their master plan was
phenomenal. They had a town architect.
They told you what buildings are going
to be in there, what it looks like, like
the whole works. And so you there was no
there was no vagueness. You were coming
in with a master plan and you said,
"This is what my concept is. This is
what I wanted to do." They went out
there and they basically prairie built
the whole thing. Cuz the electrical
still hadn't been in yet. And they had
the whole place sold out. It was called
an aggra. But that was kind of a it was
it was just an eye openener for
different things that other cu uh cities
are doing than what we're doing. We'll
allow you to basically come in and give
us a concept and say okay we should have
about 15 in this area 15 in that area 30
in that area and that's kind of how
we've done it probably ever since I was
a kid. That's what I've known in this
town, right? But then when we have a new
master plan or a new realized loss
cruises coming in, how do
we going forward? I think right now is
more with a new realized loss cruises.
How do we how do we understand what
we're actually planning for the future?
Because it's a planning and zoning board
is not just a zoning board. As of right
now, we're a zoning board. Like we don't
plan really anything. We just all right,
the zone is there. He can do it. If
that's the design of it, I'm great for
it. I mean, that's the way it is. But I
just I just needed to more have this
conversation and understand really when
you give the presentations, I need to
know, okay, during this master plan,
like right in here, it says trails and
park land concept locations. This last
one, we didn't really there was a park
location, but we didn't talk about
trails. We didn't talk about I'm just
trying to get more of a feedback and
understanding of in that master plan
phase of when we're really supposed to
be putting the right effort in from our
side and then some of the presentations
will help us and guide us into okay
these are the questions that we should
be asking and things like that.
um like final plats. When you get down
to final plats, those are basically just
a procedural process, right? Preliminary
plat a little bit more in-depth, but a
final plat that that's kind of
procedural. We're going to move forward.
Those are already all done. So kind of
wanting to understand more of the
planning process of it and then the
presentations that are given
uh just have more background in it
especially when I'm doing a like tonight
the this is the fifth master plan or
master plan amendment it would be nice
to have a little bit more background
onto that to make better decisions
because if we were that's just my
personal opinion the other one I think
that I've talked to you about u my
suggestion this is the last one was just
timelines on how long it takes the
developer to basically get to the point
that they're at. Um because if it's a
master plan and that they've already
gone seven rounds with the city, not you
know whether it's the developer causing
the issue, the city causing the issue, I
just don't want to be the guy that's in
here and said, "Okay, it's it's taken
you two years to get here and now go
back and do some more." You know, but I
I just would like to know some timelines
on on things of how we can be more
productive on I guess as a as a board to
to help that out. Those are my only
suggestions.
So I I just have some feedback and
comments and I sort of feel similarly to
Chair Thirstston that I just I feel like
I'm not
getting really any information about
projects in the staff report. I
appreciate the fact that the
presentations typically have more
information, but that's not really
helpful when I'm trying to prepare for
the meeting. when I'm trying to
understand the project, what are the
issues, what is my position, what's my
interpretation. Um, so while it's great
to get it here, um, I feel like it's
that's not you're just supposed to be
this is a formality, right? The the
staff report is also public information.
It informs people out in the community
what's on the agenda. Sometimes you look
at an agenda, you have no idea what the
project's about for most people, right?
I mean, us up here, you know, we
typically kind of understand more or
less with the description, but a lot of
people have very little concept just by
reading these very technical
descriptions about zone changes and
master plan amendments and final plats
and preliminary plat. So I think it's a
disservice uh to them as well of not
really understanding when they see the
sign posted outside or in the paper or
whatever of like what actually is the
project. I think the staff report should
present the case publicly and then this
is just the formality where we now have
a chance to have a dialogue. So I think
from my perspective just I really don't
feel like I know what is happening with
the project before I walk in here. Um
and it's kind of an uncomfortable
feeling. So I think the Santa Fe example
I shared I think is a just a nice way to
organize it. I mean they kind of break
it down right into some of the big you
know the big topics. You know they have
um everything from access and traffic is
its own section um where they they
actually analyze what is the project
proposing and what is that doing what
are the traffic impacts if there are any
um how people access the site not only
access the site but how are they you
know traveling around the site um I mean
these things are all important to
understand whether or not the project is
consistent with the codes and policies
that the city has in place um I don't
believe believe it's enough for staff to
just say that it is. I think you have to
present some evidence that it that the
project is proposing to do those things.
Um I'm not saying that it has to be
every little minute detail, but when you
make a statement that it's consistent
with the zoning code, okay, well, what
parts of the zoning code is it
consistent with? You know, what's the
density? Is it consistent with the
minimum maximum densities? And I think
especially as we go into this new phase
with realize Los Cruises, I think that's
going to become even more important
because it's it's all new for all of us.
And I think just being able to say like
here's what they're proposing, here's
what the application is, and here is how
it aligns with the new code. Um I think
is is going to be really important. um
you know the Santa Fe one is just one
that I was able to find that I thought
uh was like robust enough to be an
example but I agree with the point
earlier that not all staff reports are
created equal right some projects are
super small like you know that what we
had earlier on the consent agenda was
just subdividing you know a halfacre
parcel to one quarter you know two
quarter acre parcels like yeah we don't
need we don't need a lot there but I
think you should still present enough
evidence that it's being consistent with
the codes and policies set forth. So, I
think for me that would just be really
helpful. Um, I think having some sub
um subheadings maybe would would be a
vast improvement of just having a more
cohesive organized flow of the document.
Uh, sometimes I feel like I'm reading
one paragraph and then the next
paragraph I'm like we're completely in a
different direction and there's really
no transition there. Um, so I think it's
the content helping us make the informed
decision. Um, I think the
um the organization of the document too
to just kind of have a this logical flow
of organized and cohesive um narrative.
Um, and then I also realized I think the
last two meetings it seems like staff's
uh recommendation is no longer part of
the template. So like is staff
recommending
approval approval with
conditions denial that I don't think
that's on the staff report template
anymore. Um, so that would be helpful
like what is staff's position?
Um, so I think I think those are just my
general comments. I think really I would
just like to see more info and also some
analysis. So, you know, not just stating
verbatim what the applicant put in their
letter, but having staff evaluate the
proposal against the policies that we
have. Um, and I think it should be no
secret at this point with this group of
kind of what what questions we ask from
meeting to meeting. So, I think you can
kind of gauge. I'm going to ask about
biking. I'm going to ask about
transportation. So, you know, that that
should that could probably be a section
in it, right?
Um, so anyway, just my thoughts. Chris,
you got something?
Yeah, thanks, Chair. Chris Favor,
community development uh department. So,
all good comments. And so, I I just kind
of wanted to toss this out here. So
tonight, knowing that the zone change
that was proposed was somewhat
complicated, I I thought it was best
that we have the applicant come up and
speak a little bit towards that. Is that
something that you feel could be
beneficial on most things moving
forward? Did you like the way that tied
in with what staff was doing? Yeah, not
all the things brought to PNZ will be
that complicated in the future, but just
trying to gauge how you felt the
applicant weighing in in combination
with the staff's presentation, how that
worked for you in this instance.
I felt um that was beneficial very much
hearing it from the developer side of
it. I mean, they they have the right to
develop however they want as long as
they follow the code, right? Or what's
presented. And I think hearing it from
John Mscato's perspective and what his
goal is and what his thought process was
was very helpful.
I have a a slightly different view on
that. Um I think I I appreciate having
applicants present their projects. I
think that should always be an option.
But I think my preference would I want
to hear what staff has to say because
we're not we're not a rubber stamp up
here, right? Just because the applicant
comes forward and says, "I want to do
this." We have to say, "Yep, go for it."
Um, I want to hear staff's analysis. Um,
I want to hear what staff has to think
about it. Um, and if there are questions
that staff can't answer, then I think
it's appropriate to, you know, direct
it, redirect it to the applicant. But I
think first and foremost, I want to hear
what staff has to say because we don't
work for the applicants. We work for the
community and we work for the city. And
so that's my first um uh that that's who
I'm representing. Um, and so I I want to
hear from staff first.
I thought it was beneficial as well. I I
thought the uh having a little bit more
perspective from the developer did help.
Um, I think that could have helped in
previous ones as well. It would have
clarified a couple of other things. So,
that was nice for me.
Um, and then also being able to ask the
applicants a little bit more questions
has helped me clarify some of the things
that I wanted to know. Sure. So that was
good. Do we have any other discussions
on this or or anything that would help
you guys uh to get the information you
need? Um I just just for a point of
clarification. So like a DRC review
versus the staff review or
recommendation. Um can you clarify that
for me? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Costa
DRC is essentially staff now to realize
it's actually our directors. So they're
the ones actually have the power to say
at that meeting that's not going to
work. Let's try to do this kind of
thing. So it's still staff. So even if
you don't get a a staff recommendation,
you're getting DRC recommendation which
is still staff. Um um we did uh separate
them typically in the past because staff
would have their findings of fact uh
just to show this is why it said and
then in there would say because DRC said
it they recommended approval. Uh so we
could definitely go uh try to go back to
that realm as well. But like I said DRC
and the minutes and the discussion that
happens there that's explaining to you
why they're recommending approved
because that no issues from an
engineering standpoint because it meets
all development design standards,
traffic standpoint because it meets all
traffic requirements so on and so forth
like that.
Uh I like that because you could refer
to it. I but I get I do get that the
implication of the applicant just kind
of being standalone kind of directing it
with a city almost you know kind of
helps to mitigate any sort of bias or
anything like that I think when you put
kind of the staff recommendation out
there just up front just from my
perspective. Yes sir.
Anybody have any other suggestions just
so it helps you clarify things. I think
that was the main purpose of this for me
was just to
I guess help me be
to make better decisions, more informed
decisions. And I think that was it. I
just I just wanted to have a little bit
more information for me to be able to
make that. So, I just if I had those
feelings, I was thinking maybe you guys
had some of those as well of like what
you'd like to see differently in a
presentation just so that it's easier
for you guys to also understand that,
you know, what the applicant is asking
for instead. Sometimes it's a little
muddy and so we're just trying to
clarify that. So, and just making it
quicker in the process so it doesn't
have to be drawn out so long we can get
home get home quicker and we can really
get down to the same points. Like for
example, if it's we're always going to
hear about bike lanes, right? So, put
that in the report. Where's it? Where
are they? Right? Or they just might as
well say I'm not putting one in, you
know? So, those are those are things
that we already know is going to happen
and it'll just speed the process up. So,
that's that was really my thing. Yeah,
if I just interject real quick here, Mr.
Chair. Um, so things like that and the
example you brought up from Houston,
that's a great example, but those are
not only master our our master plan is
more of a just a planning tool. Those
types of master plans are not only a
planning tool, but it's actual
implementation and development. Uh, I've
been I worked at communities where
they've been both sides of the spectrum
where literally a master plan just said,
"This is my piece of land, and I'm going
to do this because I'm allowed to." Of
course, this is in Texas, so they said
yes. Then to somewhere like this where
you're kind of showing where the roads
kind of go. You're providing some
densities, traffic count, so on and so
forth. Then you get into those really
intense ones where where I was looking
in California where infill, you're
allowed to do infill, but you got to do
this and they basically handed
everything to them and they just signed
off and they walked away. So there's
different aspects when it comes to uh
master planning. Uh so just because you
hear the word master planning, there's
different interpretations what a master
plan is depending on a municipality.
Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks.
Yeah. To me, a master plan in Los Cruus
is the here's your zoning area inside
the land that you own.
It's not with your densities. Yeah. Some
tabular information. It's more of it's
more of a density of okay, you're going
to put, you know, in in areas whereas
it's not as much of a planning document
as I mean it kind of is, right? But it's
more of it's kind anyways. So
it's very prelim yeah very preliminary
on that. So where you see some other
places where it's like okay they're a
little bit more so I mean we are los
cruises you know the more strict you get
the less business friendly you get as
well right so we're trying I don't want
to also go down that road either I'd
still like to to keep it in this way but
there's got to be a point where if the
citizens of Los Cusus voted for realize
or the whole process and and we had all
of that go through right everyone says
this is what we're doing city council
passes it then there's got to a point
that we somehow on the planning and
zoning board have to kind of agree and
start pushing that through type of a
deal versus just whatever the applicant
wants. So there is kind of that little
balancing act of like I don't know
you're you're kind of playing the judge
up here but also like allowing
developers to do what like it's their
land it's their right to do what they
what they want. So I it's it's a tough
touchy subject. So, anyways, I'm not I'm
going to stop. We can all go home. But,
uh, if you could help out just add a
little bit more of that clarity to each
one of those, it it'll help me out a
lot.
Oh, staff. Sorry. We're going to go on
to staff
announcements. We will be having a
planning zoning commission meeting uh
next month. So, just uh make plans for
that, please. It should be a light uh
agenda. So, make up for this one. We'll
be home before the sun goes down for the
next one.
Thank you. And and no one thought to
congratulate anybody in this room on the
adoption of realized Los Greus. It's
finally official. Yes. So,
congratulations to everybody. It was a
long process. We finally got there. So,
I'm looking forward to going going
forward and implementing.
One last comment. Um Chris, thank you
for your team and for guiding them and
and thank
you Adam as well. So tell your sta tell
all city staff thank you. So I know they
work really hard and they have to work
with different personalities. It's a
diverse audience. So but thank you for
all your hard work. Appreciate that.
Thank you.
Do we have to have a vote for
adjournment or a motion? I'll make a
motion to adjurnn.
I second.
All in favor? Hi.
Thank you folks.