Planning Commission Meeting Thu, Jun 5, 2025 · Planning Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/626 == Executive Summary == The Planning Commission introduced a new commissioner, Scott Barber, and addressed several key development projects. They approved the development plan for a five-unit affordable housing project by Habitat for Humanity on Alto Street, despite some public concerns about wall height and long-term affordability. The Commission also recommended approval for the rezoning of a 1.49-acre property on Cerillos Road from R3 Residential to C2 General Commercial, aiming to align it with adjacent zoning and promote higher-density, mixed-use development. Additionally, the Commission approved the final subdivision plat for the Los Prados development on South Meadows Road, which includes 97 residential units and a significant number of affordable housing units. Public comments highlighted the need for more park amenities, particularly bathrooms and mini-pitches, and concerns about light pollution. The Commission also discussed the challenges of providing public restrooms in parks and decided to explore moving their July meeting date. == Key Decisions == - Approved the development plan for 635 Alto Street (Habitat for Humanity) to construct two residential buildings with five affordable dwelling units, subject to staff's recommended conditions and technical corrections. - Recommended the governing body approve the rezoning of 3439 Cerillos Road (Lot A2) from R3 Residential to C2 General Commercial. - Approved the final subdivision plat for Los Prados (3730 South Meadows Road), a 97-unit residential subdivision, including 49 affordable housing units, subject to conditions and technical corrections. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda with noted postponements — Passed. - Motion to approve the April 3rd, 2025 Minutes — Passed (with abstentions from Commissioners Reeland, McReynolds, and Barber). - Motion to approve the April 17th, 2025 Minutes — Passed (with abstentions from Commissioners McGee and Barber). - Motion to approve the development plan for 635 Alto Street (Case 2024-8027635), subject to staff's recommended conditions and technical corrections — Passed (Vice Chair Smith, Commissioner Reland, Commissioner Capen, Commissioner McReynolds, and Commissioner Barber all voted yes). - Motion to recommend the governing body approve the rezoning of 3439 Seros Road (Case 2025-10276) from R3 to C2 — Passed. - Motion to approve the request for approval of a final subdivision plat for a 97-lot residential subdivision (Case 2025-10420), accepting the conditions of approval and technical corrections, including the verbal corrections made by Public Works — Passed 6-0. == Public Comment == Public comments covered several themes: strong support for affordable housing projects, particularly the Homewise project, and the need for truly low-income options; concerns from neighbors about density, setbacks, and wall heights for the Alto Street development; advocacy for more public park amenities, including mini-pitches for soccer and bocce courts, with requests for lighting, open access, and restroom facilities; and concerns about light pollution from new developments. A representative from the Northern Soccer Club specifically highlighted the importance of a soccer mini-pitch in the Los Prados development. == Topics == - Affordable Housing Development - Park Amenities & Maintenance - Historic District Compliance - Zoning & Density - Water & Wastewater Infrastructure - Subdivision Plat Approval - Traffic & Road Infrastructure - Meeting Scheduling & Quorum - New Commissioner Introduction - Agenda & Minutes Approval == Full Transcript == Good evening. We'll call the January 5th, 2025 regular meeting of the Planning Commission into session. Could we go ahead and start with the Pledge of Allegiance? Commissioner, would you lead us? Thank you. [Pledge of Allegiance] Have a roll call. Yes, Chair Clow, present. Okay. Vice Chair Smith, Commissioner McGee, Secretary Morando, excuse. Commissioner Reeland, here. Commissioner Capen, here. Commissioner McReynolds, here. And Commissioner Barber, here. Do we want to take this time to introduce our new commissioner, Scott Barber? Thank you, Chair Clow. Yes, members of the Planning Commission, we have a new face, another new face joining us, representing District 4, Scott Barber. Do you want to introduce yourself to the rest of the commission and the public? Hi, my name is Scott Barber, and yes, I am brand new. I come here with experience working with the states of California and Washington. In California, I was a project manager and management analyst, and with the state of Washington, I was working with the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. So, I've got quite a bit of experience working with government, and it's been great. I'm very excited and happy to be working here in Santa Fe with all of you. Presently, I work with a nonprofit healthcare organization based out of Santa Fe, and we serve rural communities all over the state of New Mexico. Thank you and welcome. It's nice to get almost full. We just have one empty slot. Next, we'll move to the approval of the agenda. Does staff have any amendments to the agenda? Madam Chair, yes, we do. Cases 2024-8901 and 2024-8902, 2768, our free rezoning and master plan, we are postponing those cases as a result of improper notice. Are there any other changes? No. The agenda already identifies the postponement of case 2025-1017241, 57 and 4161, Walking Rain, Special Use Permit and Development Plan. So that's already on the agenda. So just those two modifications. And let the record reflect that Commissioner McGee is now present. Any amendments or comments by commissioners? If not, I'll entertain a motion. All right, I'll start the roll call. Commissioner Smith, Commissioner McGee, yes. Commissioner Reeland, yes. Commissioner Capen, Commissioner McReynolds, yes. And Commissioner Barber, yes. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. Next, we'll move to the approval of minutes. There are two sets of minutes that need to be approved. The first one are the minutes for April 3rd, 2025. Are there any changes to those amendments by staff or commissioners? It's okay. Usually, are there any changes to the minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I'll move to approve the minutes that were postponed from April 3rd, 2025. Second. All right, Vice Chair Smith. Commissioner McGee, yes. Commissioner Reeland, I'll abstain because I was not present for that meeting. Commissioner Capen, Commissioner McReynolds, I'll abstain as well because I was not present for that meeting. And Commissioner Barber, I will abstain as well. I was not present. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. I was ready to vote if need be. Actually, may I? That's actually three. Okay. Yeah. So, you will. I approve the minutes. Thank you. Madam Chair, the motion's passed. Thank you. Okay. Next are the minutes for April 17th, 2025. There are no changes. I'll entertain a motion. Vice Chair Smith, yes. Commissioner McGee, I abstain. I was not present for that meeting. Commissioner Reeland, yes. Commissioner Capen, yes. Commissioner McReynolds, yes. And Commissioner Barber, I'll abstain. I wasn't present. Madam Chair, a motion is passed. Thank you. The findings of facts and conclusions of law are not completed for case number 2025-0100094. Is that correct? There's nothing posted. So that's correct. We'll put them in the next window. That's fine. Now, we'll... There's no consent matter. There's no old business. So, we'll move to new business. And the first is case number 2024-8027, 635 Alto Street Development Plan. And I understand that Commissioner McGee is going to introduce herself. Yes, I volunteer with Habitat for Humanity and feel that it is a really amazing organization, and therefore, I cannot remain impartial. Therefore, I will recuse myself from this case. Should I step out? Yes. And so you can wait outside, and then we'll let you know when we call. Thank you so much. Thank you. Rebecca, go ahead. Thank you. Just Rebecca, are you ready to proceed? Yep. Sorry, I was just pulling up the slide. Okay, that's fine. Can everyone see the sun? Can you see the PowerPoint presentation? Yeah. Hey, Rebecca. We can, but it's not doing the presentation mode. Yeah. I don't know why it's not. Just, Rebecca, go ahead and just use the slides the way they are. Well, good evening, Madam Chair and commissioners. I'm Rebecca Clauser, and thank you for being patient with me while working through this small technical issue. The first case I am presenting tonight is case number 2024-8027, 635 Alto Street Development Plan. The applicant and agent is Santa Fe Habitat for Humanity. The request is for the review and approval of a development plan to construct two two-story residential buildings containing five dwelling units, four in one building and one in the other. The total gross floor area of the proposal is 6,448 square feet. The subject parcel is a quarter acre and is located at 635 Alto Street. So, here are the aerial views in the vicinity. This is south of Alameda and across from the Footbridges Park. It is located within the Historic Downtown Archaeological Review District and the Historic Westside Guadalupe District. For zoning in the future land use map, on the left is the current zoning of the property, which is R21. It is primarily surrounded by parcels in the same zoning district, except in the southeast, abutting the property, is the Residential Arts and Crafts District. To the right is the future land use map, and it identifies 635 Alto Street as medium density for 7 to 9 dwelling units per acre. The applicant provided the legal lot of record. The lot is currently vacant and is both legal and conforming. An overview of the project summary and some historic context of the property. The subject lot, 635 Alto Street, was donated to Santa Fe Habitat for Humanity in 2022 from the city through a real estate donation agreement. A requirement of the agreement was that Santa Fe Habitat for Humanity must receive an approved development plan. The proposed development plan before you tonight includes five units in two two-story residential buildings, totaling about 6,400 square feet in gross floor area. All of the five units are affordable housing units. The applicant has received an approved water budget, and an agreement for metered service will be required at the time of building permit. The applicant is proposing private open space, 10 parking spaces. Two are proposed along Alto Street and eight are along Lower Alto Street. The proposed lot coverage is about 45%, and the combined total of the private open space is about 2,014 square feet. There are various conditions of approval and technical corrections for the development plan from City Water, City Wastewater, Land Use Engineering, River and Watershed, Land Use Engineering ADA, Land Use Engineering, Landscape and Irrigation, and a few examples included are corrections to the landscaping plan and the final approval of the wastewater plan. So here are the proposed building elevations for units A through D. And to note that facing Alameda is two stories, and along Alto Street is one story. The proposed development lies within the Historic Westside Guadalupe District and went before the Historic Districts Board on February 27th, 2024, for approval. The proposed development plan will be evaluated at the time of building permit for compliance with the required 180 points for the rezoning district. The subject parcel is also within the Historic Downtown Archaeological Review District. The property exceeded 2,500 square feet of lot coverage and was required to gain archaeological clearance. The city's Archaeological Review Committee granted clearance on January 25th, 2024. The applicant complied with the pre-application conference requirements, ENN, and public notice requirements. The EN meeting was held on Zoom on May 9th, 2024. And Planning Commission public hearing signs were posted and mailers were sent both on May 21st. The signs were visible on site from May 21st to today. The increase in maximum density in R21 districts. So I'll go over just one of the criterion in the maximum density increase and just want to highlight some things first. There are five factors that are not weighted but should be considered. It is not required for all five to be met, but up to the commission. With that, staff found that the proposed development satisfied all except the first criterion. Criterion A is if the future land use designation shown on the general plan is high-density residential. Staff found that the future land use map designates this parcel as medium density, not high-density residential. Therefore, the proposal does not strictly satisfy this criterion. However, the parcel is zoned R21, and the development complies with that zoning. The zoning, not the future land use map, governs density entitlement under Chapter 14. So, staff acknowledges that there is this inconsistency but notes that the proposed density is not out of scale with the surrounding uses or the current designated zoning. For the development plan approval criteria, staff found that the proposed development plan satisfied all of the criterion. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve case 2024-8027, 635 Alto Street Development Plan, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections. One motion will be required in this case: approve or deny case 2024-8027, 635 Alto Street Development Plan, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections recommended by staff. Thank you. And staff will stand for questions. Are there any clarifying questions from any commissioner? Commissioner Reeland, the road that the residents will be gaining access for parking along the river, is that a city-maintained road, or is there a road share agreement for that access? Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioner. I would need to check, but I do believe that it is a city-maintained road. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll move to the applicant. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Brian Waller, 2210 Miguel Chavez. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Madam Chair, he's ready to go. Thank you. Go ahead. Sorry. Would you like a statement from me? It's just if you want to add anything else, you can, or if you want to just rely on what staff presented. Well, yeah, I appreciate the staff report. I think it was very comprehensive on the project. And I just want to guess add that I believe that this project is a very good thing for Santa Fe and especially the downtown area, which is badly in need of more affordable housing. I think five units is, while a small step, it's a step in progress for more. Thank you. Any clarifying questions from commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Reynolds, in reference to what Commissioner Reeland just mentioned, are these properties going to be deeded individually to ULA owners, or will it be like a condo agreement, and would there be any HOA maintenance required as you have the project set up currently? HOA dues additional for the unit owners? I don't know about an HOA or condo agreement, but it is not a subdivided property. But they would have individual ownership of the units. My assumption is that it would be a condo agreement, but that's not really my decision to make. Any other questions? Thank you. Hi. Do I need to swear myself? Need to be sworn in. You need to state your name. Kathy Collins. Name and address. 405 Sunset Street. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. I'm the executive director of Habitat. He can speak much more to the actual plans, but this type of question is probably better for me. We're in the process of deciding which way would be better, but there will be some sort of agreement that will work best for this five-unit and for the Habitat homeowners. Any other questions? Thank you very much. We'll move now to public comment. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to step forward and make public comment on this project, please do. Hello. Steven Domas. I live at 62. You need to be sworn in. Sorry. All right. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Steven Domas, 623 Alto Street. 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 so under the penalty of perjury? I do. Go ahead. I don't have testimony to give. I have questions. So I live at 623 Alto, which is right next door to the lot that we're discussing. I saw something that was on the screen earlier, that it's, I assume, zoned, if that's the right term, for medium density, but this is asking for high or increased density. Is that correct? Why don't you ask your questions and then either staff or the applicant can respond. Continue to ask questions or wait for an answer. Normally, public comment is you making a comment on the project. I have questions about the project as I live there. So why don't you go ahead and ask your questions and then we'll go ahead and write them down and then we'll see if staff or the applicant can answer. Other question is about setbacks from my property line. I didn't see much on that, and the city regs are somewhat complicated about setbacks. I spoke to the developer several months ago and he said a driveway was going to go through between my property and where the buildings are. So my question is, is that still the plan, or is the setback just 10 feet from my property line? So the setback question and the density question are my two main things as someone who lives right next door. Thank you. Does staff want to respond? Rebecca. Madam Chair and commissioners, the current zoning is what allows for the increase in density, and the property is zoned R21, which is 21 dwelling units per acre. With this zoning, the current proposal before you tonight is only on the ground density of 20 dwelling units per acre, which is allowed per the code in the zoning ordinance. I do apologize. I think the applicant might be better able to answer driveway access. The proposal shows driveway access off of Lower Alto and Upper Alto. So, Rebecca, what you're saying is that the project complies with the current zoning. Is that correct? Madam Chair, that is correct. The application complies with the current zoning. Okay. So, can the applicant respond to setbacks in the driveway? Yes, I believe there is no driveway going through the lot. There's only access off the street directly to parking on the north and south sides. There is a walkway that goes from the north side to the south side across the lot for pedestrian access, but no vehicle access across the site. And the setbacks, I believe, are 5 or 10 feet, but we're well within them. I would have to look at the plan again. All right. I think that maybe staff can respond. Rebecca, do the setbacks comply with Santa Fe City Code? Madam Chair, yes, the application did comply with the setbacks. There's the 5-foot setback, and then when it exceeds 14... Gentlemen, excuse me, staff is talking and making the statement that the setbacks comply with Santa Fe City Code. So, let's listen to what she has to say. I apologize, Madam Chair. I'll start again from the beginning. It's my understanding that the application complies. There's the 5-foot side setback, and when the height increases above 14 feet in height, it is then stepped back 10 feet from the property line. Thank you. Any other comments? You raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Joe Simmons, 216 BLA Street. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Go ahead. Hi. I live just down the street from this project. I'm also an architect. I've recently built a project there, and I'm just here to speak in favor of passage for this project. I think it's a very well-designed project. I think it'll fit the neighborhood very well. I have one little request if they would consider possibly lowering the wall on Alto Street. It's currently proposed to be 6 feet above the sidewalk. This neighborhood originally, maybe 5 years ago, had very few walls. Now, people seem to be living behind walls. I just think it's better to engage the neighborhood a little bit. It's a very pedestrian-oriented neighborhood, and it's a lovely place to live. I have a wholehearted approval for this project. Thank you. Any other public comments? Come forward, please. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Vicki Rivera, 2421 Calle Linda. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Go ahead. First of all, I just wanted to say that I am very much in support of affordable or low-income housing in the city of Santa Fe because it's very much needed. The only comment I would make is that I get concerned when people use the word "affordable." I would certainly encourage Habitat for Humanity, which has an excellent reputation, that they consider people on the very low end of the affordable income because there's too many people who cannot afford what's considered affordable in many states, in many cities. That's the only comment I wanted to make. Thank you. Any other comments? If not, Maggie, do we have anybody on Zoom that would like to comment about this project? Yes, Madam Chair, I do see at least one hand raised here. So, let me... And Mr. Utton, I will allow you to talk, and we'll swear you in before you provide your public comment. Thank you. Mr. Utton, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. This is John Utton, 655 Alto Street. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Go ahead. So I'd like to speak in favor of this project. I also spoke in favor of it in front of the H board. I think it's well-designed, good composition. I think it will be a good addition to the neighborhood. I think the use is a good one. I have one question and one comment. The comment, I also agree with the gentleman that spoke about the height of the walls. Both the walls on our property, we've kept them lower to 4 feet or lower. I think there's a little bit of a tunnel effect that's being created down Alto Street because people are putting in higher fences, and it kind of separates the properties from the street life. I think it's a mistake to have a 6-foot high wall. I think it should be, as I think the word, a good word was "engaging," to engage with the neighborhood by having walls that are lower than head height. So I would recommend 4 feet as a good wall height. And then one question, I definitely agree with the purpose of affordable housing. Maybe I missed this earlier. When the units are sold in the future, how will it be assured that the successor owner will also qualify? How would that work to assure that it continues to be affordable in the future? Staff want to answer that question? Thank you, Madam Chair. I do think this question might be better answered by the applicant. Thank you. Okay. So, on the wall issue, we are agreeable to lowering that wall. I'll leave it to my construction team to make the decision on what level that is. In terms of affordability, we do serve 80% down to 30% of AMI. So, that's a pretty... Remember, these families are purchasing a home, so they need to be able to afford an affordable mortgage. With regarding the long-term affordability, the board of Santa Fe Habitat is actually doing a retreat on June 20th to deal directly with that issue of what are the different mechanisms that we could use. So, I can't fully answer that question because the board has not completely decided on that, but we do have definitely a vision towards how do we maintain long-term affordability. Thank you, Maggie. Anyone else online? Madam Chair, I don't see any more, and I have see no more hands up. Thank you. Anyone else here present in this meeting wanting to say anything? If not, we'll go ahead and close the public comments section of this matter and move on to questions, comments by the commission. Commissioner Kaitton. Rebecca, I wanted to see if you could just clarify the comment and question that came up about the setback between this property and 623 Alto. 5 feet is the code setback, but it goes up to 10 per height. What is that for this project on that side of the property? What can that neighbor expect? Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioner. My... So the property, it goes 5 feet and then up to 14, and then once it hits 14 feet, it's stepped back. I would need to look at the drawings to know the exact how far back it is, but it does meet that 10-foot setback for when it exceeds 14 feet in height, but it does meet that 10 feet from the property line when it goes above 14 feet. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm looking at the zoning requirements, and it says the setbacks, the street 7 feet, the rear 7 feet, and the side is 5 feet. Madam Chair, that is correct. Is that the current setback for this project? Madam Chair, that is correct. And that complies with city code. Madam Chair, that's correct. Any... Commissioner Smith, do you have a question? No. Any other... Mr. Wheeland? So, this is more towards staff because looking at the project here, we're looking at one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight extra parkings coming along Lower Alto Street. A dirt road access along the river. Obviously, that's going to increase the traffic for the neighbors and the neighborhood as well. I just want to make sure that they have, obviously, I have a legal lot of record, but then they have legal access to this lot through that road, and who is going to be maintaining that with the extra vehicles going through since it is a dirt access? Madam Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Reeland, as far as the Lower Alto Street, I would have to... we'd have to do some research. I don't think that we looked into rights. If it is a city road, then it's a public access, and everybody's got the same rights and privileges to utilize that road. I think our traffic engineers here might be able to have additional information on the Lower Alto Street. I don't know if he does or he doesn't, but we did not research that particular issue. The property already is adjacent to that property. So, if that's a concern, we can look into it. It's certainly definitely probably a concern to the applicant, but we will look into it. But at this point in time, I think they do have access onto that street. A follow-up question that I had was, so with what staff was here to make a comment. Madam Chair, Commissioner Leland Breland. Prior to building permit, the applicant will be required to obtain an access permit, and all of those details will be confirmed at that time with respect to there will be an access permit process if this is approved prior to building. One more question, Mr. England. So, when you guys are saying the setbacks and so forth to building height, are we going at the street level or are we going at the level of the construction? Madame Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Reind, the setback, there are two things. You've got a setback which is to the base of the structure, and then you've got a step back which is relevant to the height of the structure. And what the code says is structures in these are just in the residential districts because they're different in other districts. But if you're within 10 feet of the property, if you're within 14 feet, no, let's see. You cannot exceed 14 feet within 10 feet of the property lines. So that means that if, as Rebecca stated, relative to the property and this, and I guess the footings or the threshold or the base of the structure, if you're going to go up 14 feet, and height is kind of a complicated issue because you have 14, you have the height of the structure plus 4 feet when you're dealing with a slope, and that allows you so that you can level out the structure, and then you measure from sort of the average of the height of that structure in order to get that issue. So, we're looking at whatever that height is, if you go to 14 feet, you go 10 feet back, and then you're up, you're able to go up to 24 feet. And then if you are going to go above 24 feet, there's another step back beyond that that requires you to step it back another distance before you can get to that 36-foot height limit. At this point in time, the applicant, the building itself is set back five feet from the property line. So that's the measuring point. And if we look at that height limit as it goes up, we start measuring that height relative to the property line, and if it exceeds that 14 feet, that goes back that additional requirement. Knowing the land and the topography, like you say, and it's a slope. So that's right. So height is a complicated formula to put out. It's not very well written, but we have done it for such a long time that when we see it, we know what needs to happen, and the applicant met those requirements. Any other questions, Maggie? Thank you, Chair Clow. I just wanted to bring up the question about the wall height and what was approved and considered at the Historic District Board. Thankfully, we have Frank Rubald sitting in tonight for Rebecca while she's out. Frank was, we were reviewing the record of approval, the most recent record from 2024, and they did not consider a wall along Alto Street in that approval. And so we think that it should be considered by the Historic Board, at least by staff, on what an appropriate height would be for that streetscape. There is another specific formula that Historic Board uses or staff uses to calculate what the appropriate height is for different streetscapes, and we think it's important that that evaluation take place. I will state, Frank looked back through the record as well, going back to 2011, and a similar proposal was before this property that never was built. And that was approved with a 3-foot 6-inch wall, so more of a low yard wall that we would describe. So, but I think in this instance, we should consider it. And I'll have Frank clarify or add anything else that I might have missed. Madame Chair, my name is Frank Rubelin. I've covered the Historic District Review Board and advised the Historic Preservation staff for almost four years now. And I just see that there was a discussion about the wall in 2011. But in February 27th, 2024, when this was considered by the Historic District Review Board, there was no discussion about a wall. And I can almost guarantee you from handling historic preservation and H-Board matters, a 6-foot wall would probably require an exception, which doesn't mean to say that it would not be granted, but I know the board has a lot of questions about wall heights. A calculation is based on the average height of other yard walls on the streetscape, and there are all these definitions as to what constitutes a streetscape. But they would scrutinize a 6-foot wall in that area. So, as I understand it now, there's no wall in the picture for this property, and they'd have to go back to the H-Board to address the issue of a wall. Correct. Yes. Any other questions or comments? Sorry, I'm not seeing the access from both sides on the drawings. It looks like the setbacks go into some private allotted space for a couple of the units and into the parking areas. Could someone just point out where the access to the property would be on either side? Like, is there a driveway all around the property, or is it these unit owners would access from Alto? These other unit owners would access from Aguafria or Alto, excuse me, Alto and Alto Lane. Madam Chair, for Becca, I can pull up those drawings. We can see them a little bit better. So, access is proposed. This is Lower Alto, which is to the north. Upper Alto is to the south, which is down here. So, there are two parking spaces here that would be accessed for Unit D. And then there are eight along Lower Alto, which would access these units. And then there is, I believe, this is the sidewalk along the property to access the lot as well. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, do we have a motion? Mr. Cathan, let's see here. Get it right here. Madam Chair, I move to approve case 2024-8027635 Alto Street Development Plan subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections recommended by staff. All right. I'll begin the roll call vote. Vice Chair Smith. Commissioner Reland, yes. Commissioner Capen, yes. Commissioner McReynolds, yes. And Commissioner Barber, yes. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you very much, and good luck on the project. It sounds like a good one. Do we want to get Commissioner Mickey? You don't. Okay, we'll now call case number 2025-10276, which is 3439 Cerillos Rezoning. Good evening, Madame Chair and Commissioners. I am presenting this evening case 2025-10276, 3439 Cerillos Road Rezoning. This is a request by the applicant to rezone a 1.49-acre property from R3 Residential, which is three dwelling units per acre, to C2 General Commercial. The agent is Jen Jenkins Gavin. The applicant is RKSS Santa Fe 1, and I am Claudia Cath, case planner. Okay, we're back in business. Whoops. Okay, this is the location and vicinity map. You can see the, let me get a pointer. The site is right here. And this is Cerillos and Rufina. This is Richards and the Home Depot. And this is Trailer Ranch right here. So, if you recall, in January of this year, the applicant came before the Planning Commission requesting approval of a development plan spanning four lots, which you see on the slide here, including this property that we're talking about tonight, Lot A2. The Planning Commission postponed their decision on the application due to concerns about the mix of zone districts, R3 and C2, and the mix of uses proposed within the development plan not being consistent with the existing zone districts. The initial proposal included an access road, park arcing, and an open space dog park on Lot A2, which is zoned R3 and was planned to serve the residential uses proposed on the other three lots, which were zoned C2. Following the postponement, the applicant amended the proposal and removed the parking lot and dog park uses from A2. The only remaining proposed development was a lot access driveway at the southern end of the subject property connecting the other lots within the development plan. Later, on February 6th, the applicant returned to the Planning Commission and received approval for this amended proposal. This was case 2024-7909. I just wanted to show the slide that the applicant owns the property that's outlined in white, and the parcel we're talking about is right here. This is the existing zoning. You can see this is the parcel, which is R3. This is the RKS Development Multifamily Development Plan that's dashed in white. This is the proposed zoning, changing this lot to C2. Again, the dashed is the RKS Multifamily Development Plan. This is the future land use map. So this is the parcel. You can see basically it's 50/50. The upper portion is Transitional Mixed Use, and the lower portion is Community Commercial. So, the proposed zoning, which the applicant is requesting for approval tonight, is consistent with the other parcels making up the RKSS Multifamily Development Plan as outlined in the City of Santa Fe Development Code. All rezoning requests must demonstrate consistency with the General Plan's Future Land Use Map. The subject property is identified on the film primarily as TMU, Transitional Mixed Use, and Community Commercial. The property's existing R3 zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan's Transitional Mixed Use and Community Commercial. The TMU land use category is intended to support a diverse mix of uses and residential types, promoting flexibility in development patterns. The proposed rezoning to C2, if approved, would be consistent with the underlying TMU and CCOM designations as the C2 zone allows for a compatible mix of commercial and residential uses envisioned in these future land use areas. Therefore, the requested C2 rezoning aligns with the General Plan Future Land Use Map. Staff finds that a different zone district, in this case C2, would allow for more advantageous development of the property as part of the RKS Multifamily Development Plan. It would enhance compliance with the General Plan policies, specifically the themes and policies like higher densities, compact urban form, and infill as growth management. The C2 rezoning request has potential to provide long-term higher density and mixed-use solutions where infrastructure is already present. Furthermore, the C2 zone district will allow for density and enable a wider diversity of permitted uses. Also, to follow up on utilities for the site, you can see there, the green is existing wastewater, which is readily available. The blue is water. The proposed site would like to rezone. The site gently slopes north to south and is suitable for development. These are photos of the site. The applicant conducted an EN meeting on March 11th. It was held virtually. City staff and the applicant's team and one member of the public and one member of the press were present. The member of the public asked if additional buildings were planned for A2. The applicants answered that only parking and recreational facilities were planned for the parcel. Staff answered that if any further buildings were to be proposed, it would require a significant amendment to the development plan and would require a hearing. The Planning Commission. There's one staff recommends. The Planning Commission should recommend that the governing body approve Case 202510276, 3439 Seros Road, rezoning from R3 to C2 as outlined in this report. No conditions are recommended with this rezoning request. One motion will be required for the case. Recommend the governing body approve or deny Case 202510276, 3439 Seros Road, rezoning. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Any questions? We will move on to the applicant, Miss Jenkins. Jennifer Jenkins, 130 Grant Avenue. I solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do so under the penalties of perjury. I do. Good evening, Madam Chair, commissioners. I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin, here on behalf of the applicant. Claudia's presentation was incredibly thorough. I also have a presentation, but I'm also happy just to stand for any questions. As she stated, we were here in February. The development plan for the multifamily project was approved after we removed the proposed improvements from Lot A2. So now we're just back just to kind of clean it up and bring A2 to be in compliance with the adjacent zoning of the project. So again, I don't have anything to add. I really appreciate staff's effort on this and I'll be happy to stand for questions. Any questions? If not, I'll entertain. Oops, sorry. We'll open the matter for public comment. Anyone here from the public who would like to comment, please come forward. State your name and address for the record. David Surl, 3471 Seros, number 93. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Go ahead. Thank you very much for allowing me to ask a couple of quick questions. I must confess I'm nervous, so I do apologize for that. I live in Trailer Ranch, which is directly opposite of the property that's going to be developed. This parcel in particular is not so much concerning, but I do have a quick question, probably for the applicant. It was at one time considered, excuse me. That's correct. It was considered at one time to have a dog park as part of the development. That has been removed. What is going to be put in its place? I'm just a little ignorant about what C2 versus our classification actually does mean with regard to their capability of development in that particular parcel. Miss Jenkins: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I'll answer the second question first. The primary objective when we're looking at doing residential development within C2, it really is a function of the kind of density that is achievable. But in this instance, we had properties, most of the property was already zoned C2. So it is, you know, we're just bringing this into compliance. But R3 is kind of, would be very low density, like single-family detached homes, as opposed to C2, which is actually a really great mixed-use zoning district. It allows a variety of uses, but it does also encourage and allow multifamily development as well. So with respect to the plans, our focus right now is to get the development plan that was approved in February recorded, get a permit, and start going. Obviously, if we weren't going to do something with this property, we wouldn't even have bothered to rezone it. There wouldn't even have been a point. So my honest answer is we don't know what the end plan is, and it's primarily going to remain undisturbed. There is an existing building on the property that will, that is an old storage building that will likely be demolished as part of the development process. But once we get underway with this, then we will look at, because it would require an administratively approved development plan amendment. So we have no appetite for delaying construction, especially in our current climate of uncertainty that we are in right now. So yes, so we're just kind of going to put a pin in that and then we will circle back on Lot A2 a little bit later. Thank you. Anyone else present would like to make a comment on this project, please come forward. If not, we'll move to Zoom. Maggie, is there anyone on Zoom with their hand raised? Thank you, Chair Clow. I do not see any hands raised on Zoom right now. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and close the public comment and move to commissioners. Any questions or comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I move that the Planning Commission recommend the governing body approve Case Number 2025-10276, 3439 Seros Road, rezoning from R3 to C2 as outlined in this report. I second that motion. All right, I'll begin the roll call. Vice Chair Smith. Commissioner McGee, yes. Commissioner Reeland, yes. Commissioner Capen, yes. Commissioner McReynolds, and Commissioner Barber, yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Okay, now we'll move to Case Number 2025, 10420, 3730 South Meadows Road, final subdivision plat. Madam Chair, if you'll give me just a moment, since Rebecca is having problems with her PowerPoint, I am going to be forwarding those cases, but just give me a few minutes to log in. Good evening, Madam Chair and commissioners. Again, I am Rebecca Clauser, and I'm presenting the Los Prados final subdivision plat, Case Number 2025-10420, located at 3730 South Meadows Road. The request is for the review and approval of a final subdivision plat on 14.41 acres for a 97-unit residential subdivision. The final subdivision plat consists of 42 townhomes and 55 single-family detached dwelling units. The property is located within the Suburban and River and Trails Archaeological Review District and is zoned R6. Here we have the location and the aerial of the property. It is currently a vacant lot. Next slide, please. I think you have to go one more time. For the zoning and the future land use map. On the left shows the current zoning as the property as R6, and on the right is the future land use map, which shows the property as 3 to 7 dwelling units per acre. The current zoning is aligned with the future land use map. Next slide. The applicant provided the legal lot of record. This is the recently approved administrative lot line adjustment, and this was a condition of approval from the preliminary plat hearing. Next slide, please. The master plan and phasing plan to go over some brief historic context of the subdivision. The master plan was approved in 2023 for three lots: Tract 3, Tract 4A, and Tract 4B. The current request before you tonight is the final subdivision plat for only Tract 4A. Per the master plan, the subdivision was approved in a phased approach. The phased approach included two. The first phase is for Tract 4A, 97 residential units, of which 55 again are single-family detached homes and 42 townhomes. Also in Phase 1 is the city park. However, the city park will not be accepted until the park is finished being developed. When the city accepts the park, then Phase 2 can be submitted for Tract 3 of 64 condominiums. Next slide, please. Here is the approved master plan. In blue is Phase 1, and in the center is the request for tonight, Tract 4A. To the right is Phase 2, and is Tract 3 for the 64 condominiums. Next slide, please. The proposed final subdivision plat for Los Prados subdivision substantially complies with the preliminary plan. Some items of note that were conditions of approval and technical corrections from the preliminary plat was that the applicant complied with land use engineering comments. These are included but not limited to approval of the rain garden and ponding, and as shown earlier, but just highlighting again, the administrative lot line adjustment that was recorded. The applicant complied with the corrections and conditions of approval from the Fire Prevention Division. If we could forward through to highlight on the plat that shows highlighted in green at the top is the city park. In orange below is the request for tonight for the 55 homes and 42 townhomes. And then below in purple is for future, which is Phase 2 for the 64 condominiums. Next slide, please. Just to reiterate though, that the city park and the Phase 2, Tract 3, are not part of the request for tonight. The applicant received an approved water plan for all new public water and infrastructure and fire services. The water plan was approved on May 16th, 2025. Next slide, please. Another condition of approval that was met from the preliminary plat is from Public Works Traffic Division. The applicant removed the right turn deceleration lane into Los Prados from South Meadows and included the 50-foot right-of-ways into the subdivision. Next slide, please. So to go over the project summary by topic: roads and access. There are two access points off of South Meadows, and there are four internal sub-collectors with all 50-foot right-of-ways. All roads will be dedicated to the city. The traffic impact study anticipates that there are no significant changes in traffic, and all studied intersections will retain a level of service of C or above. For water, there are two 8-inch connections to the 18-inch line in South Meadows and four new fire hydrants. There are 49 affordable housing units proposed, which is 50.1% when only 20% is required. Next slide, please. The applicant complied with the pre-application conference, EN, and Planning Commission public notice requirements. The EN meeting was held virtually on Zoom on February 21st, 2024, and the Planning Commission public hearing signs and mailers were sent on May 21st, 2025, and they were visible on site from May 21st, 2025, to today. Next slide, please. There's one condition of approval that is an item of note, and that's from the Public Utilities Water Division, specifically Water Resources, and that is that an approved development water budget, including irrigation water demand and a 9.8% contingency for Santa Fe City Code 14-8.13E1, will be required. A technical evaluation request for a development water budget needs to be submitted to the City Water Division for review. Next slide, please. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Case 2025-10420, Los Prados final subdivision plat, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections. Next slide, please. One motion will be required in this case. Approve or deny Case 2025-10420, Los Prados final subdivision plat, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections recommended by staff. Thank you. Staff will stand for questions. Any questions? Okay, we'll move to the applicant. Miss Jenkins. Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners. So it is really amazing to be standing before you here this evening. We started this journey in 2021. We had a series of seven neighborhood meetings, six public hearings that brought us to where we are today. Again, staff did an excellent job with a very thorough presentation. I do not have anything to add, but I am here to respectfully request your approval of the final subdivision plat for Los Prados so we can move forward and build the housing that this community so desperately needs. Thank you. I'll be happy to stand for questions. Any questions? Okay, we'll move to the public comment. Anyone here from the public would like to make comments, please come forward. All right. Good evening, everybody. This morning, please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Name is Scott Hushen, 2020 Ottawi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Scott Hushen, and I'm here on behalf of the Northern Soccer Club to ask for your support in approving the Los Prados project, especially the park that includes a soccer mini-pitch. Northern Soccer Club is a nonprofit that serves over 2,200 kids in Santa Fe. In 2024, we provided more than $51,000 in scholarships so every kid has a chance to play regardless of income. But we are just one club. There are thousands of kids in our city who love soccer, and right now there just aren't enough places for them to play. In fact, Santa Fe currently only has five dedicated soccer fields for the entire city. That's nowhere near enough, especially for a sport that is the most played amongst our youth. A mini-pitch helps fill that gap. These are small, enclosed fields designed for pickup play and small-sided games. They are safe, durable, and high-use. Across the USA, they've installed more than 700 of these mini-pitches. The results have been very clear. The US Soccer Foundation had some numbers. I looked at it, and it said 99% of communities report increased physical activity, 98% feel safer, and 91% say the pitch became a hub for the neighborhood. But to truly make this work for our city, we need to do it right. That means lights for evening access, especially in fall and winter. No locked gates so kids can safely play after school and on weekends without barriers. A commitment to open, inclusive access. No permits needed. Just show up and play. This isn't just a patch of turf. It's a tool for equity, safety, and youth development. Mini-pitches are low-cost to maintain, high-use, and they create a space where kids can build confidence, friendships, and lifelong habits. So tonight, I'm asking for your support, not just for a field, but for a safe, free, and welcoming space where kids across Santa Fe can play, grow, and belong. Thank you all very much. Good evening. I'll be translating. You'll raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Reena, 1519 Fifth Street. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Go ahead. Now I will be translating for Miguela Bernal. She lives at 6151 Airport Road, Trailer 222 in Country Club Gardens Mobile Home Park. I have been a Chainbreaker member since the pandemic. I joined Chainbreaker because I believe in the work that they do and how they help people. I want to start by thanking the Planning Commission for all the work they have done for this development, and Homewise and their team for being dedicated to building more affordable housing at a time of great need and critical urgency. While we know the completion of this project is still some time in the future, we know that your approval now sends a message that the city is acting to address the needs of renters and low-income residents. If I could access one of these homes, it would mean that my family would be safe and I would have a stable home. I want to thank you all for your attention and also Homewise. We hope that a lot of these low-income renters' dreams of being a homeowner can become a reality. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Dan Goen, 2421 Calle Linda, Santa Fe. 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 so under the penalty of perjury? I agree. Go ahead. According to Google, Santa Fe has 77 parks. They offer basketball, tennis, baseball, horseshoes, pickleball, shuffleboard, frisbee golf, soccer, etc. Out of all these different offerings at all these different parks, there's not even one public bocce court. Bocce is a game that anyone, young and old, with varied capabilities, can play. Bocce leagues are a fun way for people to get out in the open air, socialize, and enjoy a little friendly competition. Also, the cost, if any, is very minimal. Personally, for the reason of having a small startup bocce league, we would prefer to see at least two courts installed in New Prados Park, but we are happy to settle for one just to get started. Not required to be regulation size, which is 91 by 13. We've played on courts as short as 62 by 12. My wife, Vicki, and I have to drive to Albuquerque in order to play bocce. There are several different courts over there of various sizes. It is my understanding there are several leagues over there as well. It would be nice to have one other thing. Installing some sort of restroom facilities, be it simple porta-potties or something more permanent like vault toilets within a reasonable distance from the courts, would be most appreciated. A portable handwashing station would help as well. I've spoken to others in the city who have also shown interest in playing. I believe the time has come for the game of bocce to become a part of the City Different, and that Prados Park is where it should begin. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public would like to come forward and make a public comment? Maggie, do we have anyone online? Chair Clow, I do see a few hands raised. So, members of the public on Zoom, I will ask you to unmute, and before you give your public comment, please state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. Thank you. I have Isaac first. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi, everyone. Yep. Raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record, please. Isaac Hammond Paul. And your address? 1263 Camino Montecello, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Go ahead. Alright. So, I'm happy I get to do this for the first time. I formerly worked at Homewise for four years and got to spend a lot of time on this project, but never got to publicly talk about how cool it is. Since it's been with this body in some form or another for a while, I thought it'd be just a good opportunity to share how I feel about the project and why I think it's so important. I'm also currently the Chief Operating Officer at Santa Fe Youthworks. We work with young people in Santa Fe who are pursuing pathways to career and also are at the greatest risk of being the next generation of Santa Feans who can't afford to live in Santa Fe and work in Santa Fe and raise their families here. So first of all, I think the applicant, Homewise, has gone above and beyond in terms of creating the greatest number of affordable units that they could, at 50%, which is, I think, two or three times the city's minimum. They've done an incredible job thinking about the safety of the site, and a thorough job thinking about the safety of the site, and designing an incredible public resource that connects the site to the rest of the city and to employment centers. They've built this incredible asset in a park that so many families, including mine, will be so excited to use when this thing finally gets built. So yeah, my full support for this project, and I'm excited to see this get to the next phase and get some dirt moved. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Miss Diane Woods, please state your name and address, and then we will swear you in for public comment. Okay. My name is Diana Woods. I live at 121 Moore Street in Santa Fe. Was there something else? You raise your right hand. Okay. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Go ahead. So, my name is Diana Woods. I'm a retired teacher in Santa Fe. I moved here in 1979, and I can tell you the change I've seen here. People who work here can't afford to live here. Homewise is proposing to build 161 units. Half of them are affordable, and the other half are below market. They have jumped through all the hoops. This could be 161 homes for teachers, childcare providers, police, young people, old people. Homewise has jumped through all the hoops. I've been watching this program for four years, and I know it takes a long time, but the need is desperate. The way Santa Fe has changed is really sad to me. We really need this project, and I support that you pass this master plan once and for all. Let's get this project off the ground. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you. Okay, thank you. The next person on Zoom I have is Ellen. Again, please state your name and address for the record, and we'll swear you in before public comment. Hello. My name is Ellen Stone. I live at 4762 Morning Street. Ellen, I just wanted to interrupt. We're having a difficult time with your audio here in the room. Is it possible to speak closer into your microphone? Sorry about that. I'm naturally a quiet talker. Is this better? It's a little bit better. Please. Okay. Use your big voice for tonight. Thank you. Sorry about that. My name is Ellen Stone. I live at 4762 Morning Street. Ellen, can you 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Go ahead. Hi. So, I am no stranger to this project. Thank you all for letting me speak. I live close to the site. I only have a couple of questions, but I am in support of the project at this point. If we waste any more time, it's just going to cost more, and we don't need that, do we? My only question is, well, two things. The gentleman who mentioned the mini-pitch had mentioned lighting to make things safe. I did want to reiterate my own desire, but I have heard this from my neighbors as well, the desire to keep the lighting low. Definitely for safety, we need lighting, but in my neighborhood, which runs along the property, has no overhead lighting. The color is still soul. I think the neighborhood adjacent to me does have lighting, and Country Club Gardens has lighting that I can see. But overall, there's not that much lighting. There's not much light pollution on the south side. We have a very wonderful, beautiful view of the night sky. So, I don't know when is the appropriate time to bring this up. I've brought it up for years now. But just keeping in mind to keep the lighting at the lowest light pollution. It's just so pretty out here. We don't need, we would prefer to preserve it, if at all possible. And then I understand why you're doing this separately from the park, but when are the next park meetings? I knew that they were going to be done separately, but I'm wondering what the timeline will be on that because it is going to be proposed separately to the Planning Commission. But that's all for now. Thank you so much. Maggie, do you have a comment at all when the next park meeting is? I do not. Dan, maybe you could explain. I do not. Rebecca, in terms of us not addressing the park issue at this point in time, Madam Chair, the master plan already identified the park conditions of approval and handed the design and process over to our Parks Department. So, it's been out of the process for the preliminary subdivision, but the Planning Commission has approved, and the governing body as part of the master plan approved, that the park tag along with phase one of the subdivision so that it was built with phase one. The applicant did agree to those conditions, and that's where we're tracking. We do have Melissa McDonald in the audience who can talk a little bit about the park, but I must remind the Commission that this project, tonight's case, is not about the park. We're not approving the park or amending the park. That is following a separate track with Melissa. Melissa, does the Commission want to hear about the park? Okay, we'll move forward. Any other public comments? Yes, Chair Clow. I do have one more hand raised on Zoom. This is Barb T, and I will allow you to unmute yourself. Please state your name and address for the record, and we'll swear you in for public comment. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Okay. Barb, it looks like you're unmuted. If you want to state your name and address, we'll swear you in. Barb, we're not getting any audio in the room. I apologize. It does look like you are unmuted. Madam Chair, I'm not sure what's going on, but this is the last hand that is raised on Zoom. Thank you. We'll move on. Anyone else here in chambers would like to talk on this project? If not, we'll close the public comment portion and we'll open it up for comments or questions from the Commission. There are none. So, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, go ahead, Madam Chair. I didn't want to do it during the public hearing, but I'm Leroy Pacheco, representing Public Works with Traffic, and I wanted to point out for the record that the DRT comment review that Public Works submitted to staff must have gotten lost in the shuffle because we directed it to Janice, who isn't—I mean, she's—so I'm not sure how it didn't get in there. Actually, the one that's in the packet is the one we deleted. So, I don't know if it would be—none of this should slow down or stop or change the direction of your decision-making, but I don't know if I should just read what our comments were and point out, but the actual comment that's in the packet is one we actually deleted. Yes, I would go ahead and, for the record, do that. Sure. Can you hear me? So, the following are in direct reference to the conditions of approval that were required for the preliminary subdivision plat approval. See attached. So, comment number six: lighting analysis shall include full street light coverage on South Meadows and options for either full coverage within the subdivision compared to partial coverage at key intersections where pedestrians and motorists may conflict prior to building permit. Number seven: pedestrian scale sidewalk lighting, solar lighting options preferred, shall be provided. This was in the packet, and we've deleted that requirement for pedestrian scale lighting. Number eight: remove the right turn de-lane into Los Prao subdivision from South Meadows Road. We moved that to the technical correction section out of conditions of approval. Number nine: on the temporary traffic control plan, advanced construction ahead warning signs shall be placed prior to the roundabout on Rufina and South Meadows, as well as on South Meadows from Airport Road. That was completed and it's in their plans. And then into the technical corrections: Public infrastructure plans must bear the seal of the engineer of record who is professionally responsible for all plans, designs, drawings, and specifications. And then we provided a chronology of that discussion, and that is also prior to building permit. I just wanted to make sure that the record was accurate. Thank you. Any questions based on that? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Commissioners, yes. I move that the Planning Commission approve Case 2025-10420, request for approval of a final subdivision plat for a 97-lot residential subdivision on approximately plus or minus 14.41 acres, accept conditions of approval and technical corrections outlined in this report and included in attachment. Second. I think you also need to clarify the verbal correction to the corrections and specifications by—I'm not quite sure the right wording for that, but to so note that there are verbal corrections in the record that will be added to the report. That'll work, Madam Chair. We'll get them in the conditions. Great. Thank you, Mr. Halen. Ken. All right. I'll begin roll call vote. Vice Chair Smith. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Reeland. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Yes. Commissioner McReynolds. Yes. And Commissioner Barber. Yes, Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Now you can go out and celebrate. Okay, we'll move to staff communications. Madam Chair, we're good. Any matters from the Commission? Commissioner Ken. Chair Clow, I know a representative from Parks is here, and I don't think tonight's the appropriate night, but I would really like to ask again for some time for us to hear about some of these things that keep coming up about, specifically, about bathrooms and things at the park, and what are the requirements and how that all works. I think as we see these bigger developments happening on the south side, and hopefully more parks, that we can get some info on that. Madam Chair, members of the Commission, at the next hearing, we can invite Melissa to just give us an update on that park from staff communications. They still have phase two when it comes in, so it'll still benefit you to at least know where they're at. And I think it's a bigger question, though, in terms of parks in the city and facilities, etcetera, etcetera. Madam Chair, Commissioners, I'm sorry, I was in the back of the room and people were leaving, but I think what I'm gathering is that you would like me to address a group about parks in general, or do you have a specific—I'm hearing that you're concerned about parks. What specifically do you want me to tailor my presentation toward, Commissioner Kalin? Capelan. Capen. It's okay. Okay, you'll get there. For me, my specifics, I'd say the number one is around bathrooms, water fountains, amenity facilities for these parks, especially the parks that have children's areas. What is required? It doesn't seem like anything at this point in a lot of the development. And then, I guess another point is like safety in parks around requirements for fencing adjacent to the roads when parks are built and the children's areas. Things like that seem to be—I would like to hear about that. And then tonight, I think things came up around the night lights, lighting at night specifically to this project and the surrounding areas, gates and access at non-sort of traditional business hours. And then things like a gentleman brought up Bocce, which made me realize, how do the amenities get chosen for these parks, and is there like some kind of list of requests from the community that get asked of the developers? So, that's my long short list. Madam Chair, other Commissioners, are there other items that you'd like me to address? Anyone else have things? Commissioner McGee. Thank you, Chair Clow. We've also heard questions about seating and shade structures in previous Commission meetings. So, I think it would be helpful in general just to understand what's required and also what can we request of developers when these questions are asked by the community. Great. I'll prepare something for you. I will tell you that all of these questions can be answered through our Parks Master Plan. And so, a lot of what I'll be doing is referring back to that. And I do want to make a comment about bathrooms because I get asked about that all the time. And really, only parks that require bathrooms are the regional parks, which like Swan Park, those types of parks, mainly because that's a big cost to the city, and it's not just about what's required and what's desired. It's a real cost to the city. So, there is some judgment there, and I'll bring it up when I come back to present, but I just wanted to let you know none of these things are things that we haven't heard before, and I'm happy to talk about why and why not certain things get decided upon. But that's a big one, and people really do often ask about that, and it's a huge financial burden for the city to build restrooms. They usually cost about a million dollars. They require 24-hour staffing, and things like that I'll bring to your attention, but I just think it's important to understand that those types of things are not lost on us. We hear them. It's just we do not have budget for them. Thank you so much. Commissioner Capen. Just one follow-up, maybe for this presentation, is I have been to numerous parks in different states that have, and in other countries really, that have lower impact, more creative bathroom situations. And I'd love to hear if the city is thinking about that or researching that. And I very much understand the cost of putting in like a plumbed, you know, building with all the things and the 24-hour care, but it does seem like there are some options out there that would really benefit this community a lot if we could. Yes, we are looking at the Portland L and composting toilets, and you know, those require a certain amount of service as well, though, because of our state laws. So, they have to be cleaned out very similarly to like an RV or something like that. So, it's not exactly equated because of our state laws, but yes, we are looking at them, and really the issue is the 24-hour staffing. That's the biggest issue because we have huge amounts of crime in the bathrooms, and so we really find it challenging to keep them open. But we do have some creative ideas, which I'll talk about. One of them is we're working with ranger stations and linking them to our bathrooms and to some of our facilities so that rangers can be patrolling the parks and in the parks. And those are happening in some of our regional parks. We're talking about that for Swan Park. And I think that's going to be probably our next way of addressing some of the concerns that come up in these bathrooms. We do have some creative solutions that we're working on for sure. And I mean, I hate to say no, but I'm just kind of letting you know I'm saying no because I do not have budget to build bathrooms unless outside of the regional parks because they do take a tremendous amount of money. But these alternative things we're looking at may evolve into a way addressing some of that. Yeah. And we would, I think, love to support the efforts of the department. It's not like up with it, but if the community wants this to move forward, we need to, you know, yeah. And I know we have the most porta-potties ever in any of the bathrooms. So, we hear that, too. But I do want people to know we're trying our best to cover as much as we can. But I'll bring it all back next time I come. When is the next meeting? Dan, all the meetings are on the first Thursday of every month. Okay. I may be out of town for that one, but if not, I'll come to the following one. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sure. I'd be happy to provide that for you. And Madam Chair, that brings up a good question that I'd like to segue into, and that we do—our next meeting is July 3rd. We tried to move it. Maggie tried to move it, but we didn't find a spot. So, we're stuck with July 3rd, and I need to know if we're going to have a quorum. So, of you members, how many are you going to be here on the third so that I know we have a quorum? One, two, three, four, five. Guess this would be Thursday. So you will be here. Thursday is Juneteenth. We do, well, I don't know what's scheduled for the second Thursday in July at this point in time. So I'm hesitant to put cases on there. So that's why I was looking for, so I think Commissioner Smith. Yeah, the first Thursday is, hold on a second. Yeah, the first Thursday is the 3rd, and then the second Thursday is the 17th. So, I think we could have a meeting on the 17th if that would be preferable, or we can stick with the 3rd. Yeah, July 17th is the, well, I think it's the second. It's the first. I'm sorry, the third. Yes. Sorry. Yep, exactly. Yeah, the second option, and sorry. Yeah, so we've got July 3rd, first Thursday, and then July 17th. I think I'm hearing people would prefer July 17th. Is that kind of the consensus? If that works for staff, okay, we will confirm. Okay, we have space, and you know that we should, and we'll communicate. Okay, perfect. Any other matters from the commission? If not, we'll adjourn. Oh, Mr. Esco, I have signatures. Oh, thank you. Just from, yeah. Hey, like that guy. Thank you very much.