Planning Commission Thu, Feb 6, 2025 · Planning Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/507 == Executive Summary == The Planning Commission meeting covered a range of topics, including routine administrative approvals, a detailed presentation on Santa Fe's long-term water supply and adaptation strategies, and extensive discussion on two significant development plans: the RKSS Seros Road Multifamily Development and the Los Prados Preliminary Subdivision Plat. Key administrative actions included the appointment of Commissioner Smith as Vice Chair and Commissioner Morando as Secretary, and the approval of previous meeting minutes and findings of fact for two cases. A major focus was the city's water management, with staff outlining current sources, conservation successes, climate change impacts, and future plans like the San Juan Chama Return Project and integrated 40- and 80-year water plans. Community engagement for water adaptation strategies was emphasized. The RKSS Seros Road development saw revisions to address zoning concerns, while the Los Prados development, a two-phase project by Homewise, generated considerable public comment. This project, featuring 97 residential units in Phase 1 and a 5.12-acre public park, was highlighted for its commitment to 50% affordable housing. Public comments on Los Prados ranged from strong support for affordable housing and the park to significant concerns about traffic, potential environmental contamination from an adjacent site, the nature of the proposed "rain garden," and the long-term guarantees of the park and affordability. Commissioners requested clarification on environmental studies and the park's financial guarantee, which was confirmed to be $2 million. The meeting concluded with an update on the Phase 1 code rewrite and appreciation for a departing commissioner. == Key Decisions == - Commissioner Smith was appointed Vice Chair. - Commissioner Morando was appointed Secretary. - Minutes from January 16, 2025, were approved with a clarification regarding postponed cases. - Findings of fact and conclusions of law for Case 2023-7752 (4200 Beckner Road, preliminary subdivision plan) were approved. - Findings of fact and conclusions of law for Case 2024-8214 (Commo Delos Marquez rezoning) were approved (with one abstention). - The RKSS Cerrillos Multi-Family Development Plan (Case 2024-7909) was approved unanimously (5-0). == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda with amendments — Passed. - Motion to approve the January 16, 2025, minutes with amendments — Passed. - Motion to approve findings of fact and conclusions of law for Case 2023-7752 — Passed. - Motion to approve findings of fact and conclusions of law for Case 2024-8214 — Passed (with one abstention). - Motion to approve RKSS Cerrillos Multi-Family Development Plan (Case 2024-7909) per staff's roll call — Passed unanimously (5-0). == Public Comment == Public comments were primarily focused on the Los Prados Preliminary Subdivision Plat. There was strong support for Homewise's commitment to affordable housing and the proposed public park, with some requests for additional covered shelters in the park. However, significant concerns were raised regarding existing traffic congestion on Rufina Street and South Meadows, potential environmental contamination from the adjacent Eberline site (with requests for core drilling reports and independent review of radiological surveys), and the nature and placement of the proposed "rain garden" in the park. Skepticism was also voiced about the long-term affordability guarantees of Homewise projects, the guarantee of park completion, and alleged historical improprieties in the land's acquisition. Some speakers questioned the developer's conduct and the loss of open space, while others emphasized the urgent need for affordable housing in Santa Fe. == Topics == - Water Supply Planning - Affordable Housing Development - Environmental Site Assessment - Park Development & Maintenance - San Juan Chama Return Project - Land Use Code Rewrite - Water Budget & Offsets - Open Space Preservation - Subdivision Plat Approval - Rezoning Application == Full Transcript == We are live. Good evening. We'll call the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of February 6, 2005 into session. The first matter is the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Smith, can you lead that? We have a roll call, please. Commissioner, I mean, Chair: Madam Chair. Clerk: Thank you. Present. Commissioner Capen, absent. Commissioner McGee, she's present, she's here. Commissioner Morando, present. Commissioner Reland, here. Commissioner Smith, here. Commissioner Lawrence. Okay, just friendly minor speaking, your mics. Thank you. Next, we'll move to the approval of the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda by staff or Commissioners? Mr. Escabel? Yes, Madam Chair, members of the commission, there would be one. Instead of a vote for the two for Vice Chair and Secretary, that is an appointment by you. Thank you. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, can I ask, are we approving the findings and conclusions for 2024-9640, 2024-8550, and 2024-9304? I don't see them in my packet. The findings that are in the agenda are... No, I don't think we are. They've been postponed until March 6 on the new agenda. Apologies. Motion to approve with amendments, which is always an ever-changing agenda. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Capen. Oh, Commissioner McGee? Yes. Commissioner Morando? Yes. Commissioner Reland? Yes. Commissioner Lawrence? Yes. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. The next is the appointment of officers. After discussion with Commissioner Smith, he's agreed to fill the role of Vice Chair. Then, because he will no longer be Secretary, I've talked with Commissioner Morando, and he's agreed to fill the position of Secretary. Any comments? Madam Chair, and new Vice, new new Secretary. I do have one plat at the end of the meeting that I will need your signatures on. Okay. There's nothing on the consent agenda, so we'll move to the approval of minutes. The minutes that we're approving are January 16, 2025. I have two changes to those. We postponed case number 2024-799 and 2024-7998. I believe that the minutes should reflect that we postponed them to a date specific, which was today's date. It doesn't reflect that in the minutes. I think we need that so then we don't need to nose it up. I think so. Anyway, the... So we both of those minutes should be, should both of those in the areas discussion where it's discussed on the postponement of those, it should say that we postpone them to a date specific, which is February 6, 2025. Any other amendments to the agenda? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Lawrence. Commissioner McGee? Yes. Commissioner Morando? Yes. Commissioner Reland? Yes. Commissioner Lawrence? I already voted. All right. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. Now we'll move to the approval of findings of facts and conclusions of law. The first one is case number 2023-7752, which is 4200 Beckner Road, preliminary ser material subdivision plan. Any changes to those findings and conclusions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve minutes. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Lawrence. Commissioner McGee? Yes. Commissioner Morando? Yes. Commissioner Reland? Yes. Commissioner Lawrence. Madam, Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. And then finally, we'll move on to findings of facts and conclusions of law in case number 2024-8214, Commo Delos Marquez rezoning. Any changes to those findings and conclusion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Lawrence. Abstain. I was not present. Commissioner McGee? Yes. Commissioner Morando? Yes. Commissioner Reland? Yes. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. Now we'll move on to staff communications. Madam Chair, we have a presentation for you. Thank you. Chair, members of the commission, can everybody hear me? All right. So, I'm told if I screen, you need to be elevated. Madam Chair, this presentation is regarding water budgets and water offsets. Jesse Roach, this gentleman is stepping in for Jesse Roach, who is the Water Division Director. Some technical challenges. I'll start my introduction for this. Take time. So, yeah, I was invited to really provide an overview of sort of a parallel effort going on within the Santa Fe Water Division regarding long-term water resources planning. So I was hoping I could present sort of a status on... Apologies for the delay. You need to add him to a panel. Right, can you all hear me? Thank you. So, basically, as I was alluding to, the Santa Fe Water has initiated a long-term water supply plan. Where we ultimately have been getting a lot of feedback from the community is sort of engaging with land use relative to the questions of what type of growth can we sustain and how is our water supply adequate, not only in the realm of increasing population, but also climate change effects on hydrology. So I wanted to provide a really high-level overview of Santa Fe Water's supply so that we could sort of start thinking about what the future may hold for us and how our water plan is going to address some of these issues. So we, this is sort of what we deem the helicopter view of Santa Fe, overlooking the city and looking at the four sources of water. Starting with basically an order of how these supplies were brought online, but basically the Santa Fe River, which was the only primary source of water up until 1951. Then in the city limits, during a major drought, there was a development of a wellfield, the city wellfield, and that maintained supply up through the 1970s, along with the Santa Fe River. Then ultimately, I'm not sure, we grew into expanding our sort of what we call our supply footprint beyond the city limits out into the Buckman area for deep groundwater wells. Then in 2011, the Buckman Direct Diversion. The Buckman Direct Diversion was really critical for a more sustainable water supply relative to conjunctive management. So this plot really tries to illustrate what I would say is a really case study on how to transform to a more sustainable water supply. It's a 100-year record, but the main takeaways is that the city has basically, with the advent of the Buckman Direct Diversion, the city has basically been able to shift from unsustainable groundwater pumping to more sustainable use of surface and groundwater. We have a very strongly integrated system. Since basically 1995, when the city acquired the water system, we have really then transformed into emphasizing water reuse and water conservation. What ultimately that has done is achieved, even with a growth of population of over 30% during that timeline, we've been able to reduce our demand by about 25%. What does all that mean now in the face of climate change? How do we ultimately continue this trend of having a safe, reliable water supply of high quality with all these changes that climate change has brought? We're observing it all in the region with fire, the sediment runoff, and ultimately reduced flows. So one of the successes that has really occurred since 2011, when the BDD has come online, is it's allowed us to rest our water wells, and we're seeing very dramatic increases in recovery on the water table. So that's a success because that groundwater is effectively a storage, a reserve of water for a time of drought or any type of catastrophic supply disruption. So beyond the fact that we've achieved this sort of more reliable supply, it also created the opportunity for the Living River. The Living River really came about when the BDD came online, is that we didn't have to put so much stress and reliance on the Santa Fe River as the primary source of supply. We now brought on two sources of surface water, and we're now shifting to using groundwater as effectively our reserve. So now pivoting to the water plan and how we hopefully will be integrating and tying with land use on all the good work that's happening. This plan that we're underway with now is built on a foundation of numerous water plans that have historically happened over time. One I think that probably takes the most importance in the recent past is the 2015 Santa Fe Basin Study. That was a sort of joint effort between the City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, and the US Bureau of Reclamation. It at the time took advantage of the state of the science climate hydrology science and basically looked at projections of population, water demand, and then started exploring alternatives or what we call adaptations to overcome any type of future shortages. That could look at importing additional water, which is a very highly unpopular concept currently, or more water reuse, more water conservation, or some combination thereof of a series of projects. So that study really was built on the fact that Euro Reclamation's hydrology projections were showing reduced flows out in 2055 that could be as high as 25% reduction. So all the successes of the water conservation programs now basically are putting us back into basically building more supply, more resilience into our system. So what became of this was a feasibility study, and this was all done through grants under the Title 16 program. These are congressionally authorized projects, but the outcome, and this was one of the first studies done in this region, if not in New Mexico, that really factored in what's called the triple bottom line. So when we were exploring options on expanding a more resilient water supply, we started building in engineered factors or criteria that would recognize the values of cultural uses of water, environmental uses of water, et cetera. So we went through a very detailed feasibility study, and it landed on a project, and hopefully many of you have heard of this, called the San Juan Chama Return Project. This project is effectively, in the most simplest sense, is a way for the city and the county, who is now a partner, to basically reuse. It's Colorado River source water, San Juan Chama water, that comes into the system through the Buckman Direct Diversion. The key, key, key piece to this really important project is the ability to treat that water that arrives in the sewer shed. So we have four sources of water coming in any given day. We have very rigorous monitoring and reporting, and we're basically trying to achieve a goal of taking that water through this project, which is effectively one pump and a pipe, and bringing it back to the Buckman Direct Diversion to, under the premise of indirect potable reuse. So that project is being permitted right now, and the hopes is that it will be developed to basically add a new source of water supply for the city and the county. This planning, which is a five-year water plan, the end result of this is to basically ensure that we can maintain adequate supply into the future with these potential shortages that are based on hydrologic modeling. The outcome will be for the city and ultimately the county as well, who's also partnering on this, to become, to develop integrated 40 and 80-year water plans. So ultimately the outcome where it ties back to the land use and to this commission and the committee relative to growth and development is, do we have adequate water? Are the assumptions built into these models correct as we project out into the future? So for example, population can be a challenge in some respects to understand. We have estimations on water use out into the future, factoring in things like water rates, temperature, precipitation, so basic climate effects on water use. One of the key things that our conservation department is really starting to focus on is emphasizing conservation in the realm of outdoor water use. Indoor use, anytime we run faucets, run, take showers, et cetera, all that water now goes through the sewer shed and then ends up at the plant. where we have the abilities to retreat and reuse that water. So our models are ultimately leading to these projected demands, potential shortages based on these variable hydrologies, with the end outcome of looking at ways we can explore new sources of supply and going through this criteria that will sort of enable us to have community engagement to put value criteria on various factors: environmental, cultural, economic, etc. So where we ultimately would like to, I guess, create this sort of synergy with the commission and the associate with land use, is working collectively to try to find where these community values land with respect to sustainability, social, and environmental. And so we'll be having a bunch of public meetings to sort of lay out that sort of strategy and to get feedback. I'll spare you the modeling piece, but one of the things in the conversation I had with Maggie just even yesterday is the heat map study that was done through Santa Fe and looking at ways potentially into the future to basically create sort of a component of water that would be available for, say, essentially shade trees or integrated parks tied to development. And so these are the types of things we're starting to think of, and we want to sort of roll up into our planning. And then the question is, we're starting to ask these questions: how to best effectively do that in a manner that works best and builds synergy? So, we are at the stage now where we're working with the Bureau of Reclamation to get the latest climate hydrology. We're going to be running it through this decision model. Then we're going to be prepared for going through a community process of exploring and ranking, based on these criteria, various forms of adaptation strategy. And these will involve things like aquifer recharge, potentially direct potable reuse, wellfield expansion or enhancements. So there's a whole litany of options that may be available to us, and we just want to weigh out the cost, the reliability, the ability to design and build such structures, and really where the city, where the community sees the most value and where we want the city to look like in 40 and 80 years, especially under the effects of climate variability. So with that, I will stand for any questions. Commissioner Smith: Is there an overall timetable for the immediate work you're doing? Yeah, thank you. So right now, basically, we anticipate 9 to 12 months to complete the supply hydrology work. We're working through a program that's sponsored by the Bureau of Reclamation and involves the University of Massachusetts. There's a professor there. We've brought on a sort of an advisor who was a retired UNM professor that's renowned. He worked on the state climate plan, the 50-year plan. We're really seeking his guidance. This is part of this timetable. Effectively, the ranges of hydrology are so broad, so he's going to effectively work with us based on experience and other scientific processes to best understand what within what range is the most acceptable that we should plan around. Commissioner Weedland: With the Santa Fe County, Pojoaque Pueblo, Nambe Pueblo, all now doing the Northern Water District, is that going to affect any of our flow for the city or our allotments for the city in the future? Thank you for the question, Commissioner. So I had mentioned this term "adaptation strategy." One of the concepts, and these are really concepts right now, actually in the month of February, I think it's the 19th, we'll be meeting with the four Pueblos, which are part of the Pojoaque Regional Water System, with the idea of, would they like to participate in something we deem as an adaptation strategy, which is, is there merit and value in creating an intertie between the Pojoaque Regional Water System and the City of Santa Fe/County system that would effectively allow the Pueblos, if they're interested, who may have additional water that they haven't grown into yet of the San Juan-Chama variety, to be able to basically lease that water to the city or the county as an additional supply? Or, the other merit of that concept would be, in the case of the Pojoaque Regional Water System, there's not a designated backup water. So if that system has any type of disruptive event, we can help them in an emergency by sending water back in that direction. So that's a concept, and these are where the community involvement gets really strong in terms of where we see the most merit. Thank you. Any other questions? You have not. Thank you very much. We'll move to old business, Case Number 2024-7909, Seros Multifamily Development Plan. Let me share my screen. Oh, God, yes. Muted now. Not with everyone. How about now? That sounds better. Okay, excuse me. This is a new process for me, so give me one second. I think I'm going to get everything lined up. I see. Okay, it looks promising. Okay, thank you for your patience, members of the commission, Chair Cloud. How are you doing? So, as mentioned, this is a, this case was postponed from last meeting. So I'm not going to go through my whole staff report again, but I am going to go through the changes that have transpired since the last meeting and the changes to our recommended conditions of approval. And then I think the applicant is going to go through a little more detail in their updated site plan. So, as mentioned, this is Case 2024-7909, RKSS Seros Road Multifamily Development Plan. It's a 194 multifamily development unit, or 194-unit multifamily development. I'll get my words right on Seros Road. You know this. And so the issue that we landed on last time was the concern of Lot Parcel A2, or Lot A2 in the plan, being zoned R3 while the rest of the parcels were zoned C2. So after working with the applicant and discussing our remedy for the situation, they submitted a new site plan that removed any development from that parcel that's zoned R3 and just replaced it with a simple road, as you can see here. And to replace the removed parking to address their parking needs, they did extend Lot M to accommodate some additional parking to the north. And this will all be reflected in their updated lot line adjustments and lot splits, which are going to be approved or reviewed and assumed to be approved after the fact. So some of the, some of the changes, I'll just run through the bullet points here. So the proposed parking, dog park, recreation area from Lot A2 have been removed. And so there is no concern about whether or not those uses are allowed on that lot as accessory uses for something on a C2 lot, which was the concern from last meeting. So that concern has been removed now. The uses on Lot A2 is simply just that driveway, which is an acceptable use for that lot and that zoning. Let's see. There, the parking has been moved, and the parking has been reduced from 324 to 283 total parking. That's still well in excess of the 256 required parking spaces for the entire development. Lot M2 has been adjusted northward. I explained that. There has been a recalculation of the open space. However, they're still well in excess of the 40,500 square feet open space, with 93,681 square feet of open space. So they have the open space covered. The recreational areas are not a requirement. They were just an added amenity. So by removing those from this development plan, they have not reduced their compliance with our code. So with those things in mind, we've amended our recommended conditions of approval to remove a few of those problematic conditions that we were concerned about, or the commission was concerned about last meeting. That includes Condition 10, which was, "Applicant shall reduce parking to 303 spaces." That has been resolved because they have reduced it on by their own accord to, what did I say, 283 spaces. Yeah. And then we've also recommended that we remove all of the, all of the conditions of approval related to the rezoning of that parcel because there is no longer the requirement for that parcel to be rezoned for this development plan to be in compliance. So that includes Condition 11, "Applicant shall apply for Lot A2 to be rezoned." Condition 12, "Applicant shall submit a phasing plan." And Condition 14, "Applicant shall submit a lot consolidation." Those were all kind of unique conditions that we had come up with to try and make that, that issue work last time, but that's no longer an issue under this new site plan. Also, with that in mind, we've added a few conditions to reflect the new situation. Condition 15, "Update the application materials to reflect the updated site plan." Currently, we only have the site plan that I've shown you here. They'll have to go through and update each one of their sheets in the development plan to reflect this new design. However, the changes are very minor, and what you'll see here is the bulk of them. They'll just have to change the boundaries essentially and the parking layout of the other drawings, which is something that we would consider a minor modification, and that's something we do in the post-approval process pretty often. So it's not a concern in terms of what we're approving tonight because what you see is what you're getting. And then just providing updated lot line adjustment and lot splits plats. That goes without saying to reflect this different configuration that they're proposing. And both of those would be prior to recordation of the development plan, which means that staff will have, will approve any change, further changes to make sure everything is compliant. We review the lot splits, make sure those are compliant. And so the development plan will not get recorded until everything is, is compliant and all those, all those application pieces are submitted. So I think that's everything I wanted to present on. I can stand for questions and then let the applicant speak. Are there any clarifying questions by the commission? If not, we'll move on to the applicant. I solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury. Please state your name and address for the record. Jennifer Jenkins, 130 Grant Avenue, Suite 101. Good evening, Chair Cloud, Commissioners. I'm Jennifer Jenkins. I'm with Jenkins Gavin here this evening on behalf of the applicant, requests for development plan approval for the RKSS Seros Road project. I don't need to plug in. I just share. Gotcha. Keep this brief because I think Daniel covered all the salient points quite well. There we go. So I'm just going to jump ahead. I know we covered a lot of the details of the project at the last hearing, but we made two key changes following the concerns that the commission expressed about that little R3 parcel. And so we just came up with a pretty elegant solution. It's just, let's just remove the improvements on that parcel. We did add a little square footage to the project at the northeast corner to accommodate, so we made sure we hit our parking targets. And so that, that Lot A2 just has an access drive and a sidewalk. That's it. And then Lot M2, which is our northeastern, grew by about 0.6 of an acre to, to reclaim some of that, that lost parking. So you can see here, there is the main piece. This is, this is the A2 piece right here. And then you can see how this is the area we added to, to just make it a little bit. And this again, the zoning map, you can see the yellow is the R3 Lot A2 there. And so zooming in on the site plan, there is an existing storage building on that property, so we will, that'll be demolished. And so, as you know, Now, as when we go, when we develop, a couple of these buildings have already been demolished, but there's one here that is still existing. And so we come in, we build this driveway, nothing's changed with respect to this building and the associated parking right in front. Then this is the parking that was added. So everything else with the project remains the same. The unit count, as mentioned, we are not counting lot A2 in our open space. We probably could, but we decided to be very conservative in our approach. And so even without counting that parcel, where we have almost twice the requisite open for the project and still have a really lovely package of resident amenities that are detailed. And so we think it's going to be, as I said, a really nice community with lots of recreation and outdoor space opportunities for the residents. And we already touched on this. These are the improvements to Cerrillos Road. We're going to be eliminating, this is currently full access, which is really not safe in Cerrillos Road. So we're, the left turns coming out of the site will be eliminated. So left-in turning movements will be permissible, but there will be no left out. So we're actually increasing the safety. So I think I'm going to leave it there and be happy to stand for any questions. Any questions? Thank you. We'll open this matter up for public comment. So if anyone here is present who would like to comment on this project, please come forward. Ma'am, before you speak, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Then please state your name and address for the record. My name is Rita Gentry. I live at 3466 Cerrillos Road in Sand River Co-housing, which is generally across from the development. And members of my community use the left turn lanes all along that area. I assume you've, thank you, by the way, Madam Chair and members of the commission for the opportunity to speak. It's much more pleasant speaking to you in person than on Zoom. I assume you've seen my letter asking you to acknowledge the neighborhood needs of the residents in the communities along Cerrillos Road between Avenida de las Americas and Vegas Verdes. I want to say now that any new development in a Santa Fe neighborhood needs to enhance the existing neighborhood, not diminish it. Therefore, on behalf of my neighborhood, I ask the commission on behalf of the city for the following enhancements: First of all, a traffic light and a crosswalk on Cerrillos at the West development entrance. Number two, a road from the proposed development across the approximately 12 acres owned by the developer to Rufina. Number three, public pedestrian access to any future dog park on the developer's property. And four, relocation of the development's four-story building along Cerrillos Road toward the back of the development site. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to talk on this project? If not, is there, is there anyone on Zoom? If you would like to speak on this project, please raise your hand on Zoom. Jared appears there are no speakers on Zoom. Okay, we'll close the public comment and I'll move this to Commissioner's comments by Commissioners. If no comments, a motion. Commissioner Morando: Madam Chair, does anybody have a comment? I was going to make a motion. Okay, in case 2024-7909, the RKSS Cerrillos Multi-Family Development Plan, I'd like to make a motion to approve per staff's roll call. Commissioner Smith: Commissioner Lawrence? Commissioner Lawrence: Yes. Commissioner Smith: Commissioner McGee? Commissioner McGee: Yes. Commissioner Smith: Commissioner Morando? Commissioner Morando: Yes. Commissioner Smith: Commissioner Reland? Commissioner Reland: Yes. Commissioner Smith: Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. Now we'll move to case number 2024. Well, I think there's one matter that we need to address, and Commissioner Morando brought to my attention that on the findings of PLS and conclusions of law, 44200 B Road Preliminary, a Serial Subdivision plat, that he voted on that and he had recused himself from hearing that matter. So the record needs to note that he recuses himself from voting on the findings and conclusions. We'll make sure that is in the record. Thank you. Okay, now we'll move to case number 2024-7998, Los Prados Preliminary Subdivision Plat. My apologies. Good evening, Chair Clough and members of the Planning Commission. Janice Bnov, Long Range and Strategic Planner for the City of Santa Fe. This evening I'll be presenting for you case number 2024-2530 South Meadows Road. The agent is Jenkins Gavin. The applicant is Home Inc. Here's a location map showing you the location of the property in the city, and then a closer aerial view. Animation is not, I apologize, there's quite a lag, so I'm just having to accommodate for that. The slide shows the zoning and the future land use map. The current zoning on this property is R6, and the general plan future land use map has it designated as low-density residential with 3 to 7 dwelling units per acre. As you can see, this is consistent. The R6 zoning is consistent with the future land use map. The legal lot of record was provided by the applicant. This was established in 2023 in this recorded survey, and it includes Tract 4B at the top, 4A in the middle, it's the largest and the subject of this request, and then Tract 3 is at the bottom. I'll give you a little bit of historical context on this docket to begin with before we go into the details of the current request. In 2023, a master plan for this property was approved, and it included the three parcels I just spoke about: Tract 3, Tract 4A, and Tract 4B. The current request is a preliminary subdivision plat of Tract 4A only. This is the largest, and it is 14.41 acres. The master plan approved the phasing of development for this Los Prados property, and you can see here in the table below, I've broken out those two phases. Phase one will include 97 residential units on Tract 4A. That is the subject of the current request, and this will be, this will consist of 55 single-family detached homes and 42 townhomes. Concurrently within this Phase One, Tract 4B will be developed as a city park, a neighborhood park specifically, and this is as required by master plan. However, the development of the park is not a decision item for you this evening. This docket is specifically only for the subdivision platting. Phase two includes Tract 3 only, and this will, or is anticipated to include 64 condominiums. Here's the approved master plan, but I have added some graphics onto it to illustrate the phasing plan a little bit better. You can see in blue, Phase One includes both the park and the residential subdivision, and Phase Three, which is Tract, or sorry, Phase Two, which is Tract 3, includes the condominium parcel. This is the proposed preliminary subdivision plat, so you can see the configuration of the various lots as proposed. And here I'm highlighting in green the city park parcel, the single-family detached homes and townhomes parcel, and the condominiums parcel. This is a graphic depicting the configuration of how the townhomes will be clustered together on the, if you can align this in your mind, East is North, East is the top of the screen, South is the right of the screen. So along South Meadows, the townhomes will be clustered, and then facing the future condominiums, the rest are all single-family detached homes. So I'd like to describe the project by topic areas. It's the best way I think to understand this. And the main component here is, funny enough, not actually up for decision tonight, but it's really the heart of the Los Prados subdivision, and that's the city park that will be developed concurrently with the residential units. This will include a 5.12-acre neighborhood park, and per the master plan, it will be completed as part of Phase One before moving on to Phase Two. The park elements will include such items as trails, sport courts, play areas, and parking spaces. There is a rain garden in the Northwestern corner of the park parcel to collect the stormwater from the subdivision, and this will be in an area of natural depression that's already collecting stormwater there. This rain garden will be maintained by the Los Prados HOA, and they, this will be accommodated via an easement on the final plat and a perpetual maintenance agreement as well. Here's a detailed view of the proposed park on the Northeast corner. The Park's Director, Melissa McDonald, is here this evening to answer any questions that you have about the park proposal. And here's some more detail, the Northwest corner. You can see the rain garden there in the upper left. Again, Melissa McDonald and also Scott Overly are here to answer any questions about these elements within the park details. Moving on to the next topic of the proposal, roads and access. Two access points will be developed off of South Meadows Road in Los Prados. This will be Avenida de los Prados and Camino Delano. Or internal sub-collectors at 50-foot rights-of-way are also proposed, and all roads for the code will be dedicated to the city. The traffic impact study submitted with the proposal anticipates no significant change in traffic, retaining or maintaining an LOS of Level C or above. Regarding water infrastructure, two 8-inch connections to the 16-inch line existing in South Meadows Road will be connected. Four new fire hydrants will be added, and I wanted to also mention that Clinton Peterson from the Water Division is joining us via Zoom, and he can answer any questions that you have about the water system. I also wanted to mention that additionally, there will be one more connection in the Northwestern part of the park property because it was determined as we worked through the water plan that a system looping would be necessary in that corner to connect to Morning Drive in the adjacent subdivision. This is to maintain fire suppression pressure and also to ensure system turnover. Regarding the housing topic, this project proposes 49 affordable housing units of the 97 residential units that are proposed here. This ends up calculating out to 50.1%, and only 20% is required by code, so this is far in exceedance of the affordable housing requirement. Regarding ENN and public notice requirements from the code, the early neighborhood notification meeting was held virtually on February 21st of 2024, and the signs were posted at several locations of the subject property and as well as mailers, both of these events happening on December 30th of 2024. The signs have been visible on site since December 30th until today. So rather than reiterating the criteria that we analyzed verbatim, we thought that we would summarize the criteria requirements that were applied here. Criterion One speaks to the appropriateness of the subdivision citing. So we have to verify that due regard was given to natural features and systems. This property has already received archaeological approval from the city's ARC, and the stormwater flow patterns that exist on site are being retained and enhanced. Criterion Number Two speaks to obtaining the opinions of other public agencies within the city, and this is our DRT review that you're familiar with. This specifically looks at the suitability for platting and residential occupancy use on the subject property. Our DRT members gave us many conditions of approval, technical corrections, and redlines to this preliminary plat, but all of them did state that if these conditions of approval are satisfied, that they approve of this proposal. Specifically, stormwater will be conveyed and detained in an appropriate location for these three properties. Criterion Number Three speaks to compliance with infrastructure design standards. This is Article 14.9 in our land use code, and again, pending compliance with all of those. the conditions of approval and technical corrections. Staff finds that this criterion is satisfied. Regarding infrastructure design and criteria for four and five, speak to this plat proposal not creating any non-conformity or intensifying an existing non-conformity to Article 14 or any part of the Santa Fe City Code. Staff finds that in applying this criterion, the proposal does satisfy these criteria. So I've been mentioning the conditions of approval, and I didn't want to include a huge laundry list here. You have them all in your packet, but I'll summarize various conditions of approval that were submitted from our DRT members. These required different types of analyses, various studies, and various plans for the final plat stage. The specific DRT members that required these were Public Works, Traffic (I also wanted to mention that Mr. LeRoy Pacheco is here; that DRT member can answer any questions you have about the traffic analysis), City Water, City Wastewater, City Parks, Fire, Land Use Engineering, Land Use Planning, and the MO. Also, various technical corrections will be required for the final plat stage, and these came from City Water, City Parks, Fire, Land Use Engineering, Land Use Engineering ADA, Land Use Engineering Landscape Irrigation, Public Works, Traffic, and Land Use Planning. Some examples of the conditions of approval and the technical corrections that are required include a finalized water plan, final rain garden design approval from the engineer's office, final park design approval from the Parks Department, and an all-weather road that meets the specifications for the Fire Department for fire apparatus. Although I did summarize the conditions of approval, there are a few items of note that I felt were important to read into the record. Condition number 28 states, "Per the Los Prados Master Plan, the park must be completely developed, receive final inspection by the city, and be formally accepted by the city before the applicant may submit an application for Phase 2 of Los Prados." Condition number 31 states, "The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all conditions of approval, technical corrections, and plan redlines from Land Use Engineering as found in Attachment B, City DRT Conditions of Approval, Technical Corrections, and Comment." And number 33 states, "The applicant shall receive final approval of the lot line adjustment LLA case number 2024-254 and have recorded the final plat." Considering the analysis of the criteria and the conditions of approval and technical corrections that will be met in the final plat stage, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Case 2024-7998, Los Prados Preliminary Subdivision Plat, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections. One motion will be required in this case to approve or deny Case 2024-7998, Los Prados Preliminary Subdivision Plat, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections recommended by staff. That concludes my presentation. I stand for any questions, and also we have the agent here who has her own presentation. Thank you. Thank you for a very clear and concise presentation. Any questions, any clarifying questions before we hear from the applicant? Okay, we'll move on to the applicant. Good evening. I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin, here this evening on behalf of Homewise, in request for preliminary subdivision plat approval for Los Prados. It has been a long road, so it is really an honor, honestly, to be here tonight. We are thrilled and excited to be reaching this very critical milestone for this really special project. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. I'll keep it as brief as I can. Janice did a great job of sharing the details. So, just a few brief introductions. As I mentioned, Homewise is the owner and developer of the community. Engineering services for civil engineering, as well as traffic engineering, provided locally by Santa Fe Engineering, and we do have our engineering consultants joining us via Zoom, so if there are any questions for them directly, they are available to answer those. Landscape architecture provided by Sites Southwest, and also George Radovich with Sites is also joining us via Zoom this evening. And surveying provided locally by Rick Chat. So, as Janice mentioned, there were a lot of actions taken by this body, as well as the City Council, almost exactly two years ago today, which is kind of interesting. We had general plan amendments, rezone applications approved, as well as a master plan to govern the development of the property, which includes a two-phase development. So, we are here this evening for Phase 1, which is the subdivision and the park, and Phase 2 is going to come later, which will be a multi-family condominium development. This is the master plan, and as you can see, what we are proposing today comports with this almost identically. Obviously, as we got into engineering, there were refinements and things shifted around, but it's pretty much the same as what we presented back in 20. So, here is our subject parcel. So, we are right at the southwest corner of Rufina and South Meadows. So, this is the Rufina roundabout. So, this is kind of the western terminus of the Rufina corridor, and this, you know, this stretch of kind of look at the Rufina Airport Road kind of sandwich, if you will, of that corridor that we're kind of right in the middle of. It's an incredibly diverse part of our community relative to land uses and zoning, and which we think really creates a lot of vibrancy in a community, creates a lot of walkability in a community. So, this is the future land use map. So, just the sheer rainbow of colors that you see on here is indicative of that diversity. And so, we are designated as low-density residential, and then of course, the zoning is R6, allowing six dwellings per acre. And you can see we have, you know, commercial zoning, we have a variety of residential densities in this area, and then of course, along the Airport Road corridor, again, a lot, a lot of diversity. So, just zooming in, the property is currently undeveloped. And so, as mentioned, we have 97 homes in the subdivision, which is going to be a combination of traditional single-family detached, also townhomes, kind of capturing what we've come to call that missing middle housing. Homewise is really committed to serving as many types of families and households as they can. Not everybody wants a three-bedroom, two-bath house or needs a three-bedroom, two-bath house. So, we're really, Homewise is really able to serve a broader segment of the community by offering a variety of housing types. And we are very proud of the fact that we are hitting a 50% affordable housing metric project, which is, as we know, greatly needed in this community. And also, as part of Phase 1, as mandated by the master plan, is our 5-acre community park, which is going to be really diverse and dynamic with the types of outdoor amenities that are proposed. We've been working very closely not only with the community, with a lot of community outreach on the design of the park, but very close with the city's Parks and Recreation Division. Homewise is constructing this park at their own expense, so this is to no expense of the City of Santa Fe. The park, once complete, will be dedicated to the city, will be owned and maintained by the city in perpetuity. So, one of the key areas of feedback that we did receive from the community is to make sure that the park included kind of natural, just open space, that we didn't, you know, create and develop every, every corner of it, so you could just go and enjoy and throw a frisbee to a friend or a ball to your dog or whatever, and just really have some, you know, beautiful open spaces to enjoy. So, that is really a key component to the park, in addition to sport courts and children's play areas and walking trails, picnic tables, shade structures. So, five acres is pretty big, it's pretty significant. It's about the same size as Patrick Smith Park. So, this is, this is not a tiny little, you know, what we've come to call little pocket parks, this is not that, this is a proper. Here's our site plan. So, as Janice pointed out, so along South Meadow, and then in this area, those are the townhomes, and then in these two kind of pods, and then along our west boundary are the single-family detached. And so, we, we have two access points on South Meadows. The southernmost access will be full access, that'll have right in, right out, left in, left out turning movements available there, and that will be constructed in Phase. Both access points will be constructed in Phase 1. And the northern access is a little more limited. It will allow left turns to the site northbound on South Meadows, but there will, and because of our proximity to the roundabout, we won't have any left out turning movements available. And we have a, you know, nice little looped roadway network. The only dead end we have in the whole community is just right here, you know, at the north as we, you know, approach the park. And we have really generous on-street parking provided within the community. We think that's really important for that additional parking supply, and it also has a nice traffic calming effect. It really slows cars down when you, when you, when you have cars parked on the street. And then of course, at the north end of the site is our park. We also have a trail connection going to the Tamo Lindo neighborhood to the west. So, this will create an opportunity for that neighborhood to access our sidewalk system to, if they wanted to, obviously get to the park, which is going to be an important destination, but of course, just getting over to the sidewalk network along South Meadows and walking to Walgreens or walking the kids to school at Sweeney or, you know, whatever that. So, it really creates a nice, we don't have an opportunity for vehicular connectivity to the west, but we do have the opportunity for that pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. So, this just zooms in and shows those access points. This is the northern access point. See, we have that left in, but there will not, there'll be a median in there, so there will not be an opportunity for a left out. And then, and this at the south access, and that is full access. So, this is zooming in on the park, and I'm just going to walk you through some of the highlights. So, we do have a small parking area, in addition, you know, the adjacent roadway will have generous on-street parking opportunities as well. But the city was really interested in having a nice parking supply that was off-street just to serve, just to serve the park. So, down here in the, in this kind of southwest corner, we have shade structures, picnic tables, and kind of the more formal children's play area. And the play area is designed to really work with children of all, children of all ages. So, it's, you know, small toddler type play equipment, then larger play equipment for older children. And so, so that is done here. And then we have this wonderful big turf area that is really the heart of the project, again, providing that kind of passive open space. Over to the right are our sport courts. So, we are going to be constructing the first mini-pitch soccer court in the City of Santa Fe. I think we all recognize how there was actually an article in the paper, was it today or yesterday, about some capital outlay funding that the city, and there was a charitable donation to the city that the city has accepted for improving the soccer facilities in, in, in our community for our youth. And so, the mini-pitch, it's, it's kind of like a mini soccer field, but it's, it's has a low wall around, and so the ball kind of bounces off the wall, and so it creates, it's a little bit of a different type of game, but in, but really popular. And so, the soccer community here in Santa Fe advocated strongly for the mini-pitch. So we're really excited to provide the very first one. And we also had some members of our neighborhood advocating for bocce ball courts. We said, "Okay, let's put in some bocce ball." Apparently, there's a pretty robust bocce community here as well. And then, of course, just south of that, got to have a basketball court. So we got a basketball court. And then up in the northeast corner, that's going to be kind of a more native area that we're really looking to have a very light touch on and not do much. Have a small kind of fenced-in dog park area, so if you want to take your dog off-leash, there'll be an area to do that. And then up in the northwest corner is the rain garden that is going to be really densely and beautifully vegetated. This is going to be kind of a contemplative space. And we're also going to have some opportunity for some interpretive educational signage explaining about stormwater management benefits of the approach we're taking here. The walking path goes around, and it's going to be really, really stunning. So one of the really exciting things about where this park is located is right here is going to be a new extension of the Agia Trail system. And it's the City of Santa Fe project, and it is moving forward, and they've already done preliminary design. So these arrows here show these opportunities for connections into that trail system. And so what this really is going to generate, once this trail system is done, you're not going to know when you're off the trail and in the park. It's just really going to blend into one more significant community amenity. So we're really excited about the trail, and we're hopeful that the timing of that, of the city's construction project and our construction project, align really well. So these things can be enjoyed in tandem. So this shows the Agia Trail. And so starting at the Rufina roundabout, just at our northeast corner, extending all the way through and then eventually connecting to the Santa Fe River Trail. So this is going to be a really huge, huge amenity and important outdoor space improvement for this part of our community. Then zooming in, you can see, so the timing could honestly not be better. So as we mentioned, 50% of the homes will meet the City of Santa Fe's definition of affordable housing relative to the Santa Fe Homes program, but 100% of the homes are priced below market. 100% of them, all of them. Homewise is dedicated to not only deeply subsidized affordable housing, but also housing that is attainable by our workforce. There are members of our workforce who don't qualify for affordable housing. They make too much money, but some of them don't make enough money to really compete in the open market. So that's a really unfortunate gap that Homewise strives to fill. So this, I think a lot of times, "What is affordable? What even is that?" So let's talk about what that is. So a one-person household, for example, maybe one of the townhomes, there could be a single-person household. But I think definitely when we get into the multifamily development, we probably will see more single-person households. Somebody making $42,000 a year can afford that home at a $1,200 a month payment. You can't even rent a one-bedroom apartment for $1,200 a month in Santa Fe. A two-bedroom household, $54,000 a year annual income, $1,300 a month monthly payment. A four-person household in a three-bedroom home, $60,000 a year, $1,400 a month monthly. So we did conduct a traffic, and I think you guys are familiar with how traffic studies work. Traffic studies, we study intersections. Intersections are kind of the choke points of any roadway network. Intersections are where delay happens. You're just cruising along, you don't hit a stop sign, you don't hit a traffic signal, you have no delay. Your traffic is free-flowing as it would be on a freeway or certain types of highways. But within an urban center, we have intersections. So there are standards whether the intersection is signalized or unsignalized in terms of what is that level of service. It's like a grading system. It's based upon the amount of delay a vehicle experiences at that intersection. And we study intersections at the peak hours, at rush hour. We study them in the morning, usually between like 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning. And we study them in the afternoon, usually between 4:00 and 6:00. So that's what the traffic's doing at 2:00 in the afternoon, it's probably fine. So we really focus on those peak morning and evening rush hours. So the better the grade, the less the delay. The more the delay, the worse the grade. And so the DOT has established that a level of service D is considered an acceptable level of service. So we studied, pardon me, so our signalized intersections that we studied were Airport and South Meadows, just to our south. And then, of course, the roundabout. It's not signalized, but it is a controlled intersection with the roundabout. And we also studied all of those neighborhood streets in that stretch of South Meadows from Airport Road up to Rufina because the city was interested in making sure we weren't going to have a negative impact on how our neighbors on the east side of South Meadows were going to be navigating that stretch of the road. So as you can see, we, it looks like all the neighborhood streets, most of them are level of service B or C. Again, in a densely populated urban area, it's considered quite good level of service. And the only place that we run into getting into a level of service D is just in the AM for a pretty brief period. We run into a level of service D in the morning at Airport and South Meadows. So the city has a couple of really important improvement projects in the works just a little beyond the scope of our traffic study at near Airport Road, not Airport Road, Agia Road and South Meadows. So I thought it might be worthwhile to provide a little update. And we communicate with the Public Works because we just wanted to see where are these projects today. So there's two projects. One is the intersection of Agia and South Meadows. There's some new geometry improvements and new signalization improvements happening there. And that is under construction right now. They've been focusing on some utility relocates. So if you've driven over there, you might have seen some of that activity. And then just west of that at Cottonwood, that leads to the Cottonwood community here, right, that you can see here, that's going to be a new roundabout. So that is going to have a really positive impact on how traffic is going to flow through this segment of the Agia corridor. So the intersection improvements, like I said, they are underway right now. It is a fully funded project. And they are estimating that this project is going to be done and operational with the new signal and everything before the end of the year, probably third quarter this year. So that is really exciting. I know it's been a long time coming. And the people living in this community have been waiting for this, and it's going to be, and it's going to create much-needed improvements in the traffic. And then the roundabout, they are, that is going to get underway probably in May. And that'll probably take a year to a year and a half. So we're looking at probably before the end of '26, the roundabout should be open and operational because they do, of course, have to keep traffic moving on Agia. So if you were just going to go out there and build that roundabout, you could probably do it in six months. But with all the traffic control and everything else that has to happen, it draws out the timeline. So that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions from Commissioners? Commissioner Weiland. Commissioner Weiland: So I was not present or commissioner at the time when this first came about, just to clarify that. But growing up in the area and graduating from Capital High School, I know along Airport Road and a few of the neighboring areas have brought this up as far as any contaminants coming from business that was operating off Airport Road. I noticed in your study you guys mention it. I looked through the packet, I didn't find any results or anything like that. I don't know if that was ever presented. I have it right here. So we did several studies. So what Commissioner Weiland is referring to is the Everline site, which is adjacent to us to the south, is in the process of being decommissioned through the New Mexico Environment Department right now. So that process is ongoing. So we did a, we started out with a Phase One Environmental Assessment of our property, and there was nothing identified through that study to show any issues as far as any contaminants or radioactive material present on the subject parcel. And then following that in 2021, we did a radiological survey. And I'll just quote it, "Results of the survey show radiation levels in the property that are the same as ambient environmental levels present in the rest of the community. Survey no impact from Everline decommissioning site has been seen during the survey." Then subsequently again in '23, we actually did soils testing. So we did soil gamma spectrometry testing was conducted, and soil samples were actually from the site and analyzed in a lab. The results were all, "Results are indicative of a natural soil sample. No results indicative of contamination or activation." Thank you very much. You're welcome. Any other questions? Mr. McGee. Mr. McGee: Hi, Jennifer. So I know that we're not voting on the park today, but it seemed like a lot of both presentations were about the park. I'm curious, do you know when you'll come, like, do you need to come back to us for park approval, and do you know when that will occur? You know, I'm happy to let staff answer that. Chair Clown and Commissioners, I think the answer is no, but I'll let. And so the park design, like I said, we've been working closely with staff. It is a mandate per the master plan, so it, and like I said, like Janice said, it's the heart of the project. So we wanted to share it with you because it's the piece of this that people are most interested in. Madam Chair, members of the commission, the park was originally approved as part of the master plan, and it was allowed to go through the Parks Division. And what they did is they held a couple of ENN so that they can gather the information from the community to decide what was to be built on that park. So the park is going through their design parameters, and once it's complete, then it'll go through an inspection. We'll accept it, and it becomes ours. But it does not have to be voted on again. It does have to be completed with Phase One. That was a condition that was adopted as part of the master plan. So Phase Two will not be able to come before this commission until that park is complete. Any other questions? Commissioner Weiland. Commissioner Weiland: Just one comment. Try to save as many of the plum trees as possible. Those things when they blossom are beautiful. They're not taking out any plum trees. Yeah, I love those trees. They're fantastic. Yeah, we love them. Yeah. Any other questions or? Okay, Commissioner, I mean, I'm sorry, E. Lombard. Commissioner Lombard: Thank you, Chair. I just want to let people know to raise their hands on Zoom. When we get finished with the testimony in the room, we will be calling on you individually. So is there anyone here in the room that would like to come up and comment on this project? Please come forward. Hello. Please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record. Hello, my name is Fabian Trujillo, and I live at 1157 Vuelta de las Olas. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Fabian Trujillo, and I'm present. I represent over 4,000 residents on the South Side, which is about a half a mile to three-quarters of a mile from the proposed subdivision. There are also over 650 homes that we represent. We are the working class of Santa Fe. We have roughly a 70% minority population. We are the ones who were the essential workers during the pandemic. We are made up of a lot of families who attend the schools over there on the South Side. First of all, I would really like to thank Homewise for this development. We are a big supporter of Homewise. They have made it possible for many people in Las Acequias to have their own home, so we are very supportive of their efforts to bring affordable housing into the City of Santa Fe's affordable housing program. The Los Acequias Neighborhood Association had a neighborhood association meeting two nights ago. Homewise was very nice to participate, and we talked about this. Los Acequias stands in full support of this development, but there are a few things that we would like to talk about. First of all, the biggest thing that we like about this project is the park. The park is bigger than Los Acequias Park. Los Acequias Park is substantially used, especially in the summers. It has created a lot of traffic problems because there are no parks in this area of the city. So we are very thrilled there's going to be another park, and also thrilled that there's going to be access to the Las Acequias Trail because there's no access right now from Las Acequias to the River Trail or any of the trails over there on the South Side. So we're thrilled about that. The only suggestion that we would have after listening to all of the things, we are especially thrilled about the soccer stadium that they're going to do. That is wonderful. There are a lot of people who play soccer at Las Acequias; they play volleyball. But one of the things that we think there's been an oversight is that there's not enough covered shelter. There are going to be some picnic sites over there, but there are three—this would be the third park in the area. There's Romero Park that's over at the county, there's Las Acequias Park, and now this park. All of them get full, especially during the summer, with people that are having parties and neighborhood association meetings. There are several neighborhood associations and HOAs in this area, and it would be good if there's more covered shelter. But otherwise, we're thrilled about the park. The other thing that I was really glad to hear about is some of the traffic considerations that were discussed over here by Jennifer Jenkins. This is going to be the third or fourth subdivision that's in the area. There's Jackson Subdivision that just got completed just a couple of years ago, and there's the Rufina Casao Subdivision that was approved and still hasn't started construction, and there's part of the Cielo Azul Subdivision that's going on over there. So there's a lot of traffic going up on Rufina. The traffic intersections over at—I'm glad the city is going to work on the intersection over at South Meadows and Agua Fria because we can still see some of that traffic coming into Rufina. But still, the traffic intersection at Calle Tajo and Rufina is still inadequate for the number of cars that are going on that road, especially during the peak hours. Also, it's backing up over at Lopez Lane and Rufina, and we are hoping that the city can fix that intersection. We were told that when the Jackson Subdivision and the Rufina Subdivision were approved, that they were going to look to put a roundabout there. We hope that happens because there's a tremendous amount of traffic that is on Rufina, and a lot of these people are racers too. So anyway, we're thrilled about that area. The other thing that I was very happy to hear tonight was about the work for the environmental issues with Eberline. I've had many of my residents who have contacted me about this project with regards to that. I appreciate the fact that they brought the information from the Environment Department, and I think that will resolve some of their questions. These are the things, and the thing that we are most happiest about of all of this, besides the park, is the affordable housing units that it's going to be offering. We're happy that they're all at market and below market. There's a great need for affordable housing units in Santa Fe, but especially on the South Side, and we appreciate the fact that these are going to be stick-built homes and townhomes because we are not in support of manufactured or mobile home projects over on the South Side. We have way too many of them. Again, to sum it up, we would like to thank staff, and we'd like to thank Homewise for bringing this project together, and we stand in full support. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. It's nice to hear that the community is supporting the development. Next, please state your name. Mara Emerton: Mara Emerton, and address at 2826 Vera Oriente, 87507. Mayor: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Mara Emerton: I do. Mayor: Thank you. Go ahead. Mara Emerton: Hello. I'm very hopeful that you will approve everything that's been said tonight. I really believe you will not ever have a better partner in this than Homewise. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Mara Emerton: And Watkins, 2138 Candelero. Mayor: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Mara Emerton: I do. Mayor: Thank you. Go ahead. Mara Emerton: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. Let me thank you for your work because I know it takes a lot of your time, and it is very important for the community, and we all really appreciate that. I'm a member of the Community Development Commission. I am not here tonight to speak on behalf of the commission, let me emphasize that. But as a member of that commission, I am painfully aware of how desperately we need affordable housing and workforce housing in this community. This is a very exciting project. It's a big project. The commitment to have 50% affordable and 50% less than the median home price in Santa Fe is exactly the direction we need to go, and I commend Homewise for going in that direction. As you know, delays only drive up construction costs, and they also drive up costs for people who have to commute into Santa Fe and who may just be discouraged from working here because of that commute. So I encourage you to support this excellent project and expedite it as quickly as possible. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber wanting to come and make a statement about this project? If not, we'll move on to Zoom. Chair: Thank you, Chair Cloud. Johanna Garcia, you can unmute. Good evening. Mayor: Can you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Johanna Garcia: I have my hand raised. Johanna Garcia, 1190 Morning Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87507. Mayor: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Johanna Garcia: I do. Mayor: Go ahead. Johanna Garcia: Good evening, Madame Chair Cloud and Commissioners. I have a few items here that I have questions on. First of all, I'm going to touch on the Eberline issue. We have not—we have been asking for the report from Homewise to be able to review the outcome of the core drilling to see how safe it is out there because we understand that if the ground is moved, radiation and other contaminants that occurred over at Eberline may have come underneath underground. They could have traveled, and so we have great issue with that in the Temples Lindo Subdivision. So that's the first item that we would really like for you all to consider before you go forward and approve this project. We need to find out what is going on. Even if it's under decommissioning, it's not clear yet, and it's very dangerous as far as we understand. So there's part number one for you to please consider before we move forward on that because people's lives are at stake, maybe not immediately, but it could be later on in life. So that's the first item that I have. Then the second item is the rain garden, which is hidden in the language of the park as a rain garden. It's actually a sludge pond, a retention pond, and no matter what the engineers or even the parks talk about it, this is runoff that's going to come into the retention pond from the homes there. This sludge pond or this retention pond, you know, rain garden, should be in the subdivision, not in the park. It should be somewhere away from the park because there's going to be people, and you need to—the engineers need to really consider how that's going to be absorbed into the environment because it's dangerous. We don't know what the people uphill, above grade, are going to be using in their homes, their driveways, cleaning contaminants, pesticides, or anything like that in that retention pond, that rain garden. It doesn't matter how much you try to clean it up, it's going to be seeping into the aquifer without knowing what contaminants lie uphill. So that's the—that's the second part that I have that I'm hoping that you all consider when you go to the drawing board. And I know the park isn't that issue, and it's going to slide in, but this is important because it has taken up a large piece of property away from the park. The park should be 5.12 acres, but if you look at it, it's a big chunk where the rain garden is supposed to be, supposedly the retention pond. So there's that. Then I have a question on the quality of homes that affordable housing is going to be in. It costs an awful lot of money to build, and if there's going to be a lot of affordable housing in there, how do we know that quality isn't going to be part of it? Those—that's an awful lot, you know, for you all to please consider. We looked at Patrick Smith Park. We took a drive-by. We went and we hung out over there, and they don't have a rain garden. They don't have a retention pond that takes up half of their park. So you need—someone needs to check into that, into that natural space of Patrick Smith, and then the retention pond that there's going to be, the rain garden in this subdivision. The other thing that we have, of course, is traffic. The traffic on South Meadows, Agua Fria. We understand that the intersection of Agua Fria and South Meadows is getting worked on, but I don't know how many of you have been backed up all the way. I get out of work at 5:00, and by the time I get to get home up at the Camino Royale School, I'm past that. I'm up at the roundabout waiting to get into line to get to the intersection. So it's outrageous. And then with all of those apartments that are in there now on South Meadows, it's overwhelming. And that little park, the fellow before, he talked about Los Acequias Park. You know, we don't even know that that's a public park. We just assume that that's the Los Acequias Park. So I don't know how many people are going to be able to enjoy this park in Los Pros. Mayor: I'm going to ask you to sum up, please. Johanna Garcia: That's it. I'm done. Thank you. Mayor: You're welcome. Is there anyone else on Zoom? Chair: Yes, Chair Cloud. How many—how many people do we have on Zoom? Mayor: There are three other people who have raised their hands. Chair: Okay, thank you. The next person to speak is only identified by a number. That's 19612. You can unmute. Ellen Stone: Hello. Is this me? Chair: That's you. Ellen Stone: Okay. My name is Ellen Stone. Chair: Ellen, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? "Hi, so I have a few things, and I'm going to try and keep it as brief as I can. I don't know why we are celebrating Homewise so hard because the things that are being provided have been required of them. But I do want to first ask, this hasn't been clarified up until now, up until January. This original meeting, we had been told it was going to be 96 units in phase one, and now it says 97. I'm unsure about why that has changed, but I don't know if you guys answer me or if I wait. What do I do? Continue talking? Okay, so I'm not sure why that has changed without explanation. And then also, the address that's been on the yellow posters, I don't know what they're called, outside of our neighborhood have the wrong address. I mentioned this to the lawyer last month, and I'm not sure if that had been fixed. And then I have a huge question because I know, and it's been discussed heavily, that the park has to be done as part of phase one. But on, I wrote down number 28, I think that was the slide that was being discussed at the time by Janice, what if Homewise chooses, changes their mind, and doesn't want to do phase two? Are they still obligated to complete the park? Because that's not clear. The requirement is that they have to complete the park before they can apply for the second phase. But what if they just decide to not continue with the second phase? I'm concerned about that. From the gentleman who presented the water discussion earlier this evening, I just want to draw your attention to how we really need that park, whether or not, worst-case scenario, Homewise doesn't want to do phase two. We need this park. I mean, if you want to leave phase two, we need all the land we can get because that will lower the temperature for our area of town. Because on that water presentation, there was a heat map of Santa Fe. The east side of town is all nice and cool. The south side, the northeast, the south side of town where this addition is being built, it's super hot already, and we needed this land originally for open space, and part of that was to control the temperature of this side of town, and that has now been changed. So again, back to the whole park, are we sure we're going to get this park? So then, let me look what else. So those are some glaring concerns. The AIA trail system, again, Miss Jenkins mentioned that that is in the works, but this entire time, let me back up. I am kind of a poster child for Homewise. I purchased my house through Homewise in 2020, and that's when this kind of all started, and we've been talking about the AIA Trail almost being in the works for four years now, and that's been a springboard for Homewise and this whole park for quite a while too. So are we going to keep saying that the AIA Trail is almost ready to be started, or is it going to be started? Is another concern for me. And then, gosh, Miss Stone, I'm going to ask that you sum up. "Yes, I've been keeping track. I have a timer right in front of me, and I'm still at four minutes. I have, well, out of my four minutes, I still have a minute left. We normally, normally we just allow two minutes. I've been letting you go past two minutes, and so I'm going to ask if you could please sum up." "Okay, what guarantee are we going to have that everything is actually going to be as affordable as you've stated? Because Desert Sage, the addition that's close to I-25 on Richards, when it was first in its inception, was guaranteed to be entirely affordable by Homewise, and that changed. They didn't start developing until over a decade later, and then at that point, only 40% was affordable, and the rates were still pretty high for the unaffordable. So there's that part too. Gosh, it's just, I thought we were done with this, guys. I really thought we had already decided this, but here we are still, still, still talking about it. So I really, truly hope, and I sincerely thank all you Commissioners for being here, and I hope you guys are able to support the community that is actually the community, not the one that is owned by Homewise and being developed by Homewise. We have a strong presence on the south side of Santa Fe. You can hear my beeping, but really, I appreciate you being here for the people who live here, not the people who are developing it. So thank you." Chair Cloud: "The next person to speak is Diana Woods. Diana, please unmute, state your name and address for the record, and be ready to be sworn." Diana Woods: "My name is Diana Woods. I live at 121 Moore Street, Santa Fe." Chair Cloud: "Do you solemnly declare and confirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury?" Diana Woods: "Yes, I do." Chair Cloud: "Go ahead." Diana Woods: "Madam Chair, Commissioners, I've lived in Santa Fe since 1979. I raised my kids here. I retired from teaching here in the Santa Fe Public Schools. If I hadn't bought my house so long ago, I wouldn't be able to stay here. I couldn't afford even the rent. We need this to pass. We need this, we need this plat to be approved so that Homewise can get started. Building costs are going up. People are leaving here in droves, and I'm talking about people who could be police officers and really good teachers and healthcare providers and elder care providers and children providers, childcare providers. They're leaving because we just, we just don't have enough affordable housing. We, we, we cannot drag our feet. We need to get started. I urge you to approve this preliminary subdivision plat so Homewise can begin to build 47 affordable homes and townhomes and start to create a lovely five-acre park for our families to enjoy. And I would like to remind you of Homewise's very excellent record. That's all I have to say. Please approve this. Thank you." Chair Cloud: "Thank you, Miss Wood. The next person to speak is Helen. Helen, please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record, and be ready to be sworn. Helen, are you unmuting yourself? If you have your phone on, should I, if I shut it off, can you hear me? We can hear you. Just shut off the other one. Okay. Oh dear, I'm going to shut off my phone. Thank you. Can you hear us, Helen? Helen, we'll let you deal with the technology, and we will come back to you. The next person who is up to speak is Marisia. Marisia, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record." Marisia: "Hello, can you hear me?" Chair Cloud: "Yes, we can. Just go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Raise your right hand." Marisia: "Cathalina O'Keefe, 1181 Warning Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico." Chair Cloud: "Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?" Marisia: "I do." Chair Cloud: "Go ahead." Marisia: "I have a few questions. One of them is, are the city or state administrators responsible for nuclear safety for our state comfortable with the Everline Radiological Survey prepared by Homewise in January of 2022? And I ask that question because there was a question about the integrity of the study, and the way I understood it back then was that the Commissioners and Jennifer would look into it and make sure that the administrators were comfortable or approved it. My second question was if we could have results of a current traffic study that is with accuracy at the AIA South Meadows traffic light because we're already congested and oversaturated. So I was wondering how current is the information in the survey and how good the traffic study was done, the integrity of it. And my third question is if anyone knew if there was a timeline for the traffic light construction because so far, I feel like it was started a year ago. I am not an engineer. I don't know how long that project should take, but I was wondering if anyone knew that. And my last one is to Jennifer and Homewise, and we've talked about a fence that they would put up that would block out light. But when I gave it more thought, I would like to request that Homewise, please consider building a cinder block wall to decrease the sound and car lights from Los Prados into Tempos Lindos' houses. A fence will only block the car lights, and now after listening to about the anticipated possible park volume, the noise is, is, is an issue. And initially, a handful of us here 30 years ago helped save it into open space. Everybody knows the story, but I'm just reiterating, took away the open space after years and sold it, and all of the issues that arose. I, I feel like it's owed to us to at least put up a good wall, and those would be my questions and concerns. Thank you. You're listening." Chair Cloud: "Thank you. We have a Helen back, and Helen, please unmute and state your name and address for the record." Helen: "Can you hear me now?" Chair Cloud: "Yes, yes. Hello, please state your name and address for the record." Helen: "Helen W., 1115 Morning Drive, District 3." Chair Cloud: "Please raise your right hand." Helen: "And I do." Chair Cloud: "Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?" Helen: "You better believe it." Chair Cloud: "Go ahead." Helen: "Thank you. Good evening, Chair Cloud and Commissioners. I speak to you not only as the past Area Development Committee Chair for the Tempos Lindos Homeowners Association, but as a now retired member of the Civil Engineering and Land Development community, and most importantly, as the author of the original open space application to Colac for the South Meadows Open Space in 1999. I appreciate your attention to this. I'm intimate with this particular parcel of land, including its drainage characteristics, the wildlife there, the local traffic patterns, the surrounding neighborhoods, and the very real radioactive threat at the elevated part of the site. I'm also intimate with the nefarious history of the developer obtaining this land. Things were done by the county and making a deal with the developer that were in violation of the Open Meetings Act, all Sunshine rules, and in direct defiance of the clear intention of the County Open Lands, Trails, and Parks Committee. You see, CPAC specifically requested applications for open space Southwest Santa Fe, recognized even in '99 as an underserved community, which it still is, even more so now. The South Meadows Open Space application was applauded and approved, and all of us taxpayers paid a million dollars for it from 2000 until 2020. Chair Cloud, Commissioners, it's not too late to stop this. This was a bad deal. It was all behind the scenes. Certainly, a deal can be made with a developer. His purchase price is still held in escrow. He has bigger fish to fry now, having obtained 10 times the amount of land in Tient, as well as some 27 million in a terrible gift recently. Chair Cloud, Commissioner Smith recently on another matter mentioned something about the developer taking the risk. This developer did. He rolled the dice. He bullied and intimidated the public. He was dishonest about the character of the land and its use for generations, and our public officials have been under. Chair Cloud and Commissioners, we want our open space back. We did everything right. We paid for it, and we want to keep it. Thank you very much for your attention, and I hope that you can have open ears to this and a willingness to become more informed about the history of this and the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. So I appreciate your time, and I plead with you because the truth really has not come out about this, and it needs to, despite, and I was in the land development industry, so I know all about the pretty pictures and all this kind of a business. And Jenkins given has to do their job for the developer, but please keep your, your minds, your hearts, your interest, and getting more information about this case before you do approvals. I appreciate your time. Everything I've said is true. It's all documentable. So thanks." Chair Cloud: "Thank you. We have one more speaker with a hand raised, and that is Alba Blondes. Blondies, please state." My name is Alba Blondes, and I am a resident in Tierra Contenta in District 3. My address is 7042 Valentine Loop. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Go ahead. Thank you. Yes, I just have a quick request for some clarification in regard to the timing of the park within Phase 1. As I recall, in discussion some months ago, when the final phase of what was going to be included was negotiated, the park, which has been designated within Phase 1, as I recall, was supposed to be built first. That is to say, since the edifices are a part of Phase 1 now as well, I would like to know if the park is still going to be the first shovel in the ground, followed by the construction of the buildings. That wasn't made clear, but as I recall in the negotiation with the community, the park was supposed to be the very first thing that was created, and I believe Mr. Lofton at the time promised that to the community. So I would like a little clarification on that, if possible. Thank you. Thank you. There is another hand that has been raised, and that is Barb T. Barb, you may unmute. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Barbara Toes, and it's 1127 Morning Drive. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman and counselor, for your time. My main concern is the Aberline radiation. I know that Homewise had given us an N5 report at one point. I had the environmental department kind of put it in layman's terms so I could understand it because a lot of it was numbed and stuff going over my head. And they confirmed to me that that report was testing, but it was all done on the surface. None was underground. And I know that Ms. Jenkins said that they did underground. I have asked them for that report, and I had never received it. I called them two, three times when they first said they had it and that they tested underground, but they never gave it to me. But I'm a nobody, so I just assume that's why they didn't give it to me. But I really would like for somebody to, if they say they did another test for the underground, it's a separate test than the one that they gave us initially. I would like a specialist to look at it, a scientist. We have, oh, what's our neighbor's name? He worked in Los Alamos, and he would be one that I would like for him to look at that report also to make sure that they did test and did go underneath where it would be safe for it to be built on or not. I'm really, really concerned about that. I'm a cancer survivor, and I'm not saying I got the cancer from there, from walking it and whatnot, but then I can't say it wasn't, you know what I mean? It's one of those know and don't know things. But I would like to make sure that nobody else, if there is some contamination there, that it is not going to hit our future generations on that. And then on the pond, my concerns about that. I know they call it rainforest and stuff and all that, and I understand it, but it's supposed to help the environment in some way. But how is it going to help the environment if nobody's going to be there maintaining it? Who's going to maintain it? I keep hearing that the HOA, the Homeowners Association, they're going to be doing it. How are they going to get the funds to keep it maintained? Are they going to be willing to pay duties, a fee for every year, a membership? Their membership is not going to take care of their yards and the development itself. They're going to have to maintain this part for the whole city. I don't see that becoming reality. I think it's going to be abandoned, and then it's going to be a big mess there and contaminations, and you want our kids to go and play around that with the fleas and the flies? Oh, that's a nightmare for me. And then I don't know, Mr. Lehman and I, we all butted heads with him, and now I understand he got a big donation. He should just turn around and donate this whole property back to where he got it from because we really do need a big development, open space for this side of town. It's like Howen was saying, pay attention to what you're saying because what you're saying is true. Look at the documents. They're there. If you really want to read them, they're there. We're trying to pull them out, but because we were, he kept saying that we're against having people having affordable housing. We're not against. I'm born and raised from here. I would want people, and what the development is great. I like the sound of it, but why does it have to be on an open space that will be to help our environment too? That's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Chair, there are no other hands raised. Okay, if there's no one else present or on Zoom that wants to comment during this public section, we will now close the public comment section and move on to comments or questions by the Commissioners. This is for the applicant. I'm sure there's a lot of people on Zoom and in the room that might not understand what a Phase 1 and Phase 2 study is of a land. So if you or maybe the engineer, if they're still on, if they want to put an emphasis on this to help the public better understand the soil sampling that goes on in a Phase 2. Commissioner Freeland, Chair, Clerk, and Commissioners, so we did the initial Phase 1, which is a little more of a, you know, higher-level analysis, and then we kind of leapfrogged the Phase 2 into more detailed analysis following that. So just, and in your guys's Phase 2 study, you did not scrape the entire area of soil. You did specific drilling of sites. Yeah, we did. We did a sampling throughout the site, yes. So we had the initial Phase 1 environmental, and then, and then we did a specific radiological survey to assess the site for any detectable radioactive activity, if you will. So that was conducted in '21. It did not show any undue radiation levels, but that was, that was a surface kind of just in terms of the ambient reality on the property. And then subsequently, that's when the soils testing was conducted, and there were soil samples taken from the site which were analyzed in a lab. So there were really, it's kind of like three levels, three levels of analysis, and all this has been submitted to the City of Santa Fe. It's been part of the public record for the project since, since we started this process. You're welcome. You also explain for the public the issue in terms of when the park will be completed and the bond that needs to be put into place to ensure the park is completed. Thank you, Chair, Clerk. So there's already a financial guarantee in place with the City of Santa Fe for over $2 million to ensure construction of the park. So for some reason, Homewise decides not to proceed with this project, the City of Santa Fe has access to those funds and can use that money to develop the park. So that financial guarantee is already in place with the city. The park will be constructed as part of Phase 1. Will it be the first thing? It will not be the first thing. It'll be constructed in parallel with the homes, and there are some very particular reasons why. First of all, the park is reliant on the infrastructure within the subdivision. You can't even drive to the park unless we build roads. You've got to get water to the park for the irrigation, so we've got water lines in there. A lot of things that have to happen from an standpoint of infrastructure first of all in order to develop the park. Secondly, I don't think it would be wise or safe to have homes under construction across the street from an active park. There's nothing more interesting to a child than a construction site. It is not a safe environment. We're going to have on-street parking, and we're going to have homes, and we're going to have construction vehicles in all of this happening while we have an active park across the street. That is a recipe for disaster. So the initial homes that are closest to the park need to be far enough along in construction, and also the dust and some of the other elements that get generated during construction, really, it's really bad for plants. Plants do not thrive in that environment. So to have brand new plantings and you have all this construction activity going directly adjacent to the park, also not a great scenario. So our obligation in the record with respect to the master plan approval is very clear: the park is constructed during Phase 1. The actual order of operations and how the whole thing is staged and how this works, that is, you know, we know generally as I've described how that's going to work, but the specifics of that are yet to be determined, but it will be done in parallel with the development of the sub. Any other questions or comments? Commissioner McGee. Hi, Jennifer. Just going back to the Aberline study and the questions from multiple people about having reached out, did you all provide it to? So our, we have a general policy with respect to requests for documentation that we refer those requests to the city because we think it's really important that everybody knows the information they're getting is directly from the application materials. And so there, so it's like somebody, well, I got this from them, it's different than what's over here. So we always refer those inquiries to the city because like I said, everything is with the city, is, is public. Thank you. And then one other question regarding the request for a more covered shelter in the park. Is that something that you all have considered? You know, this, this is brand new information. It's something we, we're happy to have that conversation with staff. Like I said, we've been working very closely with the Parks Department on the programming for this park, and they're looking at this from a variety of angles, one of which is long-term maintenance and, and, and the different amenities and how the park will be utilized. We do have quite a bit of shade and quite a bit of, you know, seating already in the park, and so, but we're happy to explore that with staff, absolutely. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I will make a motion to approve Case 2024-the subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections. Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Lawrence. Yes. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Morand. Yes. Commissioner Reland. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. We'll move on to new business, which I don't think there is any, or, but maybe that, that's all there is. I do have a clarification on your original statement at the beginning of the agenda regarding the findings of facts that were in question from Commissioner Mirando. If you can go over that again because I want to know what that's about. I just want to know which, which actual case. It's the first one on the first findings of facts, 44200 Beckner Road, preliminary serial subdivision plat. He had recused himself from that case, so he had not heard that case, so it wasn't appropriate for him to be voting on the findings on that case. We, we have him making the motion on that. I know that he didn't do the Fiesta, he has a bloody nose. Yeah, I know that he recused himself from the Fiesta Hyundai dealership, but the Beckner is in, in, in Los Alamos. I'm not quite sure I remember that. So yeah, I think you might be right. I think we'll have to wait for Mr. Mirando to come back. He, I think he, I think he got confused because it was, it was the Fandi one that he recused himself from. So we can keep it as it is because that is not coming up until next month, so we're fine. Thanks, Dan, for catching that. So we'll keep it as it is and we'll let them know. Thank you. Okay, any updates from staff? We ask matters from the commission. So I have a question in terms of the Phase 1 of the rewrite. Can you give us an update on that schedule? Yes, currently we have been through a lot of the revisions and discussions from our city team, and we are scheduled or hoping to schedule the introduction at the City Council on February 26th. After that, we do have to go through public committee or Council committee hearings, which includes Quality of Life and Finance and Public Works committees. And then it will go back to City Council. But in the interim, after the introduction, we'll be bringing this back to the Planning Commission for a vote so that you can have the final version with changes that we will annotate that occurred during that final staff review. So do you know what date that will be? I would imagine the first meeting in March would be the one we would put this on to an agenda. Also, we do have the third in the series of four community engagement meetings coming up. First, we had "Built for the Future." Second, we had "Built in the Past." We have scheduled for March 19th, "Getting Down to Business," which will be a community forum held on business licensing, code enforcement, and short-term rentals. So there'll be more to come on that, but that is penciled in for March 19th, and you might want to hold that date if you're interested. Any matters from the commission? I have one. I want to thank Commissioner Lawrence for her great service. We're going to miss you. I appreciate that. I will miss you all as well, very much. That was also mine. Well, what you missed was that you were wrong. The matter you recused yourself on was the Fiesta Hyundai, and we didn't hear those. They're not coming before us until March 6th. But thanks for confusing us. Not as confusing as the bloody nose, though. I think you couldn't handle being in the hot seat, huh? We actually owe the catch to Hoel. It's part of being in the city different. Yeah, it's nice to have Hoel here. Thank you. Any other, anything else from the commission? Just like to make a brief comment on the South Meadows application. I believe in the time I've been here, that is the highest percentage of affordable housing that's gone through. It was also dedicating a park to the public that the developer was paying for, and was the only case I've seen that gave us the amounts for each unit. Frankly, I'm a little deflated that the reception was as negative at points as it was, because at a certain point, I don't know what we're asking for when we talk about wanting affordable housing, when we talk about wanting more amenity. That's it. Thanks. Well, it was good to hear L. Aus being so positive in their big community, so that's great. If there's nothing else, we'll adjourn. Thank you. Yeah, right. So we need to sign.