Planning Commission Meeting Thu, Nov 6, 2025 · Planning Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/631 == Executive Summary == The Planning Commission meeting covered several significant development projects, with the most prominent being the proposed new Girls Inc. campus and the Tierra Contenta Phase 3A subdivision. The Commission unanimously approved the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Master Plan for the Girls Inc. project, which aims to create a youth center with extensive outdoor space, addressing a critical need for expanded services for girls in Santa Fe. This project received strong support from the community, including current participants and alumni, who highlighted its positive impact and the strategic location for accessibility. The Tierra Contenta Phase 3A project, a large-scale residential development by Homewise, also saw significant discussion. The Commission approved its preliminary subdivision plat and a variance for disturbing 30% slopes for trail construction. However, discussions around drainage pond fencing, the city's responsibility for park development, and traffic impacts remain ongoing and will require further collaboration between the applicant and city staff before final plat approval. Residents raised concerns about traffic congestion, construction impacts, and the potential for two-story homes affecting privacy and views in adjacent neighborhoods. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda as amended (5-0 vote). - Approved minutes from July 17th, September 4th (study session and regular meeting), September 18th, and October 16th, 2025 (all with unanimous or near-unanimous votes). - Approved Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for case 2024-9320 (7205 Plaza Central Development Plan) (4-0 vote, 1 abstention). - Approved the General Plan Amendment (Case 2025-111028) for Girls Inc. (5-0 vote). - Approved the Rezoning (Case 2025-111029) for Girls Inc. (5-0 vote). - Approved the Master Plan (Case 2025-111030) for Girls Inc., subject to conditions in Attachment A of the staff report (5-0 vote). - Approved the Preliminary Subdivision Plat (Case 2025-10685 TR) for Tierra Contenta Phase 3A with staff's conditions and technical corrections, with a specific provision for technical correction A2 to be worked out at final plat (5-0 vote). - Approved the Variance for Slopes Request (Case 2025-10688 TI) for Tierra Contenta Phase 3A with applicant-submitted conditions for approval (5-0 vote). - Approved the Vistas de la Sierra Phase 3 Preliminary Subdivision Plat, subject to conditions, including the applicant's agreement to limit seven homes bordering Nava Ade to single-story. == Motions & Votes == - Agenda approval — Passed 5-0 - July 17th, 2025 minutes approval — Passed 5-0 - September 4th, 2025 study session minutes approval — Passed 5-0 - September 4th, 2025 Planning Commission minutes approval — Passed 5-0 - September 18th, 2025 minutes approval — Passed 4-0 (1 abstention) - October 16th, 2025 minutes approval — Passed 4-0 (1 abstention) - Findings of facts and conclusions of law for case 2024-9320 — Passed 4-0 (1 abstention) - Girls Inc. General Plan Amendment (Case 2025-111028) — Passed 5-0 - Girls Inc. Rezoning (Case 2025-111029) — Passed 5-0 - Girls Inc. Master Plan (Case 2025-111030) — Passed 5-0 - Tierra Contenta Phase 3A Preliminary Subdivision Plat (Case 2025-10685 TR) — Passed 5-0 - Tierra Contenta Phase 3A Variance for Slopes Request (Case 2025-10688 TI) — Passed 5-0 - Vistas de la Sierra Phase 3 Preliminary Subdivision Plat — Passed (vote count not specified, but approved subject to conditions) == Public Comment == The public comment period saw strong support for the Girls Inc. project, with current participants and alumni sharing personal stories about the organization's positive impact on their lives and the need for expanded facilities. For the Tierra Contenta Phase 3A and Vistas de la Sierra Phase 3 developments, residents raised significant concerns. These included traffic congestion, particularly during school hours, the impact of construction vehicle traffic on neighborhood streets, and the need for proactive traffic calming measures. Residents also expressed worries about the loss of privacy and views due to potential two-story homes in new developments, and questioned the actual affordability of housing compared to initial projections. Concerns about the safety of unfenced detention ponds and the lack of true community gathering spaces were also voiced. == Topics == - Girls Inc. Youth Center - General Plan Amendment - Rezoning Request - Vistas de la Sierra Subdivision - Traffic Impact Analysis - Construction Traffic Concerns - House Heights and Privacy - Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety - Agenda Approval - Minutes Approval - Findings of Fact Approval - Short-Term Rental Software - Planning Commission Study Session == Full Transcript == Please let us know when we are live. We are live. Good evening. We'll call the November 3rd, 2025 Planning Commission meeting to— I'm sorry, November 6th Planning Commission meeting into session. Commissioner Barber, could you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? Do we have the roll call, please? Chair Clow. Vice Chair Smith. Commissioner McGee, present. Commissioner Mirando, present. Commissioner Veland, here. Commissioner Embry, present. Commissioner Capim, Commissioner McReynolds, Commissioner Barber, here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Next is the approval of the agenda. And I had a couple changes based on the last time I looked at it. And that was, I think we're approving the July 17th minutes and the September 4th study session and the September 4th minutes, and those aren't on the agenda the last time I looked. That's correct, Madam Chair. We put them all in there so that everybody can review them. They're just not listed on the agenda. Oh, I thought they were. Okay. So, now there's an amended agenda. The last one I looked yesterday, it was not on there. Okay. And but then also when I looked yesterday, the September, it said September 2nd minutes and it should be— I mean, October 2nd, it should be October 10th, and it's on the amended agenda. It still says October 2nd. So that needs to be amended to October 10th. Any other changes to the agenda by staff or commissioners? No, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the October 2nd meeting minutes are in the packet. We will have to bring in the October 10th meeting at the next— Okay. So, if you look at the October— if you tap on the October 2nd minutes, it says October 10th on the top. Okay. We can just postpone that until next meeting. We'll deal with that. Okay. So, we won't be looking at October 2nd or October. Yeah. Correct. That's fine. Okay. So, with that change to the agenda, we have a motion. Well, Madam Chair, we are going to be removing a variance from one of the cases. Do you want to remove that variance at the time that case comes up or do you want to do it now? It's getting kind of complicated. Maybe we should do it at the time that— I think that'd be good. All right. Motion to approve the agenda as amended. Second. Commissioner Embry. Yes. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Commissioner Reeland. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Okay. So, now we'll move on to the approval of minutes. The first one is the July 17th, 2025 minutes. Are there any changes to those minutes by staff or by the commissioners? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve as is presented. Second. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Commissioner Veland, yes. Commissioner Embry, yes. Commissioner Barber, yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. The next one is the September 4th, 2025 study session. Are there any changes to those minutes by staff or commissioners? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Morando. Yes. Commissioner Reland. Yes. Commissioner Embry. Yes. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion is passed. Thank you. And the next is the September 4th, 2025 Planning Commission minutes. Any changes to those? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Commissioner Embry. Yes. Commissioner Reeland. Yes. Commissioner Morando, yes. Commissioner McGee, yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Next are the September 18th, 2025 minutes. Any changes to those? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Commissioner McGee, abstain. Commissioner Morando, yes. Commissioner Reland, yes. Commissioner Embry, yes. Commissioner Barber, yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Okay. So, we are postponing October 2nd, 2025 minutes. The final one is October 16th, 2025 minutes of the Planning Commission. Any changes to those? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Commissioner McGee. Abstain. Commissioner Mirando. Yes. Commissioner Veland. Yes. Commissioner Embry. Yes. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. The next is the approval of findings of facts and conclusions of law in case number 2024-9320. That's 7205 Plaza Central Development Plan. Any changes to those findings and conclusions? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Commissioner McGee, abstain. Commissioner Miranda, yes. Commissioner Reeland, yes. Commissioner Embry, yes. Commissioner Barber, yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Now we'll move on to new business and call case number 2025-11028, 2904 Rufina General Plan Amendment. Case number 2025-11029, 2904 Rufina Rezoning. And then the next one is case number 2025-11030, 2904 Rufina Master Plan. All right. Good evening, everyone. Good evening, Chair Clow and Commissioners. Sorry for the delay here. My name is Alexa Hemple. I'm a senior planner with the Land Use Department. And I'm here tonight to present staff's findings on cases number 2025-11028, 11029, and 11030. The agent for this project is Jenkins Gavin, and the applicant is Girls Inc. Santa Fe. The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the future land use of a parcel, a rezoning from I1 and I2 to C2, and a master plan for a youth center. So first, I'd like to give an overview of the property and then dive into more of the details for each of the applications. So, the applicant owns two parcels along Rufina Street and the east side of Rufina Circle. Lot 3 is about 3.9 acres and is the bigger lot on the screen there. It is zoned both I1 and I2. And then their second lot is Lot 2A2-2, which is 0.4 acres and is zoned C2. The proposed project is to build a new Girls Inc. Youth Center to support a larger volume of students and services. In order to construct a youth center on these parcels, a General Plan Amendment and rezoning are required in addition to the master plan. Next, here is a zoomed-out view of the site showing the property approximated with the yellow star and then its proximity to Cerrillos, Siler, Agua Fria, Siringo, and St. Michaels. And then here are some photos of the existing conditions of the site. It was previously used as a plant nursery and has a few greenhouses left on the property in the southeast corner. You can see on the aerial image and then on the center image on the slide. The applicant is proposing to construct the main part of the youth center facility where the greenhouses currently are. The rest of the site is mostly forested, and the applicant is proposing to preserve and enhance most of this as usable open space for the facility. The photo on the right gives a glimpse into what that forested area looks like currently. The uses adjacent to the west of the property are mixed office buildings, which are shown in the top image. To the north is a bottling warehouse, which is shown in the bottom image on the slide. Then to the east are a variety of appliance repair and welding shops, and south are hotels and auto repair shops along Cerrillos and Rufina Circle. So with that background information, I'll now dive into the separate applications starting with case number 2025-11029, the rezoning. As mentioned earlier, the current zoning for Lot 3, which is about 3.9 acres, is a combination of I1 and I2 and shown on this slide. And those are described as light industrial and general industrial. The current zoning for Lot 2A2-2, which is about 0.4 acres, is zoned C2, general commercial. The C2 zoning allows for youth center uses, while the I1 and I2 zoning prohibit youth center uses. The applicant is therefore requesting to rezone Lot 3 from C2 or to C2, which will create uniformity between the two parcels and allow the master plan for a youth center to move forward. Next, in order to do a rezoning, first a General Plan Amendment is required. So now I'll talk about that, which is case number 2025-11028. So the 1999 General Plan is a comprehensive long-term plan for physical development and conservation in Santa Fe. It was intended to be a living document subject to amendments over time. The General Plan establishes future land use for parcels in the city in alignment with the themes of the General Plan. In order to rezone Lot 3, a General Plan Amendment is required because the new C2 zoning does not align with the future land use map for that parcel. This future land use map identifies Lot 3 as a mix of industrial, shown in gray, and business park, shown in purple. The definitions of industrial and business park in the General Plan do not identify educational or social services as permissible uses, while the classification of community commercial does. The applicant is therefore requesting to amend the future land use map of Lot 3 to community commercial to align with the rezoning and the intended use. I would also like to note that Lot 2A2-2 falls within the same industrial and business park future land use categories. However, a General Plan Amendment is not required because the current zoning of C2 allows for the use center use. Mismatches like this between the zoning and the future land use map are intended to be cleaned up as part of the General Plan Amendment process or General Plan Update process, my bad. So to help with visualizing, I have some relatively poorly drawn images that I made. The figure on the left shows what the new future land use map would look like after the General Plan Amendment with red depicting community commercial and the gray being industrial and purple being business park. And then the figure on the right shows what the zoning would look like after the rezoning with both parcels being shown C2, which is red. And now I will discuss the master plan, which is case number 2025-11030. So for the master plan at this location, the applicant is proposing roughly a 55,000 square foot main building from two to three stories along the southeast of the property that would include classrooms, gathering spaces, a gymnasium, and administrative offices. Additionally, they are proposing a two-story caretaker's residence and a one-story teen op entrepreneurship center. The rest of the site, which is about 2.7 acres, will be outdoor space housing connected forested pathways, a chicken coop, greenhouse, and play areas. The proposed project meets all C2 dimensional standards for height, lot coverage, open space, and setbacks. And the site will be accessed mainly off Rufina Circle via two entrances. A third entrance will be off of Rufina Street to access the caretaker's residence. And the applicant is proposing a mix of 8-foot tall fences, retaining walls, and block walls along the perimeter of the property as well as some fences within the property to separate spaces. The applicant is working with a safety consultant to determine the types of fences and their locations as well. As far as parking, Chapter 14 does not define parking requirements for youth centers. The applicant has estimated parking demand at 68 spaces but will be required to provide a parking study at the time of development plan. The master plan also includes drop-off and pickup areas adjacent to the proposed parking. The applicant completed a traffic impact analysis for this master plan, which made the following recommendations to mitigate traffic from this development. Installation of a southbound left turn lane into the property off Rufina Circle. Installation of an eastbound right turn lane at the intersection of Rufina Street and Siler Road. Installation of a westbound left turn lane at Rufina Circle and Calle de Oro. Median modifications to the Siler Road and Calle de Oro intersection. And restriping at the intersections of Rufina Street and Rufina Circle East and Rufina Circle West. These public improvements will not have city financial participation, and the list of public infrastructure improvements here are to be included and carried forward on subsequent approved master plans, development plans, public infrastructure plans, and building permit plans, and implemented as required at appropriate stages of site development. Moving on to fire prevention and utilities. Fire and emergency access requirements will be satisfied by the project's compliance with the International Fire Code 2021. All structures will include fire alarms and sprinklers. The site access road will be capable of supporting fire apparatus and will provide two remote exits. The development will add a new fire hydrant. And the site is served by an existing 2-inch water line and 6-inch sewer line. And the applicant has conditions of approval to address from city water and wastewater. We're recording this master plan, and at the time of future development plan, if this master plan is approved, the following would be required at the time of development plan. That would include grading and drainage plans, water plan, landscaping, lighting and irrigation plans, archaeological review, wastewater review, parking demand study, and architectural drawings. The applicant hosted an ENN on July 23rd, 2025, in which the applicant, their team, city staff, and a local newspaper were in attendance. No members of the public attended, and the applicant satisfied ENN and public hearing notice requirements per 143.1H. Staff determined that the applicant has satisfied the approval criteria for the general plan amendment, rezoning, and master plan. Please refer to the staff report for the applicant staff responses to these criteria. So with that, staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend the governing body approve the following cases. Number one being case number 202511028, 2904 Rufina Lot 3 General Plan Amendment. Case number 202511029, 2904 Rufina Lot 3 Rezoning. And case number 202511030, 2904 Rufina Lots 3 and 2A2-2 Master Plan, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections outlined in Attachment A of the staff report, with the addition of the following condition: that the applicant shall include a phasing plan at the time of development plan submittal should the applicant wish to phase this project. Three motions will be required for these cases. One being, recommend the governing body approve or deny case number 202511028, 2904 Rufina Lot 3 General Plan Amendment. Number two would be, recommend the governing body approve or deny case number 202511029, 2904 Rufina Lot 3 Rezoning. And number three being, recommend the governing body approve or deny case number 202511030, 2904 Rufina Lots 3 and 2A2-2 Master Plan, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections outlined in Attachment A of staff's report, with the addition of the following condition: Applicant shall include a phasing plan at the time of development plan submittal should the applicant wish to phase this project. Thank you. And I'll stand for questions. Mayor: Any clarifying questions by any commissioners before we move on to the applicant? If not, thank you. So I am actually in the Zoom elevator. Promise. [laughter] So I did, I just kept, I'll plug in your word for it. Okay. One duplicate. Okay. Okay. You guys will probably have to call up to the mic so that we can capture you on the video. Everybody, are you going to have other speakers? All right. Please raise your right hand. Each one of you state your name and address for the record. Jenkins: 130 Grant Avenue. Brown: 301 Hillside Avenue. Alexander Derk: 222 East Marcy Street. Orland: 700 Juniper 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Madam Chair, they've been sworn. You don't want to put me in the zone. I'm already in there. So, while we're dealing with our technology, good evening, commissioners. I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin, here on behalf of Girls Inc. We're really, as you can see, very excited to be here. So, I would like to introduce Kim Brown. She is the Executive Director of Girls Inc., and she's going to come up and share a few words. Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners, for having us here tonight and all of the good work that you guys do for the community. When I think about this project, I think about when I was a kid and I used to run in the forest behind our house. And I remember the sound of the pine needles under my shoes and the sun hitting me through the branches of the trees and how the world felt wide and possible. I didn't know then, but those hours spent outside shaped me as a person. They were teaching me resilience, curiosity, calm, and care. Not every child gets that chance anymore. So many grow up surrounded by asphalt instead of trees and screens instead of skies. But research shows that children need nature as much as they need food and as much as they need love. When kids spend time outdoors, hands in the dirt, face in the sun, they grow stronger in body and in mind, calmer, more focused, more creative, and more connected to one another. Nature just doesn't build healthier children. It builds a generation rooted in resilience, wonder, and care for the world around them. That's what this project is about. Remembering what children need to thrive. And that's what this project, and [clears throat] that's why this property is perfect for this project. For those of you that got to visit, there's like 200 trees on the property. Plenty of plants, water, a Cooper's hawk family that lives there, animals. [clears throat] This property, once a greenhouse, is ready to grow life again. It's 12 minutes to every school in Santa Fe, making access to families across our community, allowing us to triple the number of girls we can serve compared to our current center. It's a 4-acre site where we'll build classrooms, a gym, spaces for learning, mentorship, but most of it will remain open. Living space, gardens, walking paths, a greenhouse, an outdoor mud kitchen, which I just can't wait for, fruit trees, and even a chicken coop. It'll be a place where young people can breathe, move, connect, and feel safe, surrounded by nature right in the heart of our city. Rezoning this land from industrial to commercial isn't just a technical step. It's an act of vision to transform a once industrial parcel into a community asset that supports families, creates jobs, and provides kids with the kind of connection that changes lives. The Siler Rufina neighborhood has become a hub of service, creativity, and hope. There are a number of nonprofits, there are maker spaces and neighbors who deeply care about Santa Fe's future. And we're glad to be part of that story. Transforming this vacant lot to a living classroom where the next generation will learn not just about academics, but about empathy, leadership, and stewardship of the earth. For 70 years, Girls Inc. has helped young people in Santa Fe to grow up healthy, educated, and independent. And we've done this in a small building with big dreams, helping thousands of girls build confidence, learn to lead, and see themselves as strong, smart, and bold. And tonight, we're here because we found a place where those dreams can take root and grow at 2904 Rufina Street. And we're asking you to support the rezone from industrial to commercial so that it can serve as a youth-centered campus. So on behalf of the Girls Inc. team, our board, all the kiddos here, and the thousands of young people that will pass through this campus in the future, I ask for your support tonight to allow this land to do what it's always meant to do: to grow things. Not factories, not warehouses, and not only trees, but confidence, imagination, and community. It's more than just a building and a property. It's a promise that every child in Santa Fe deserves a space to grow strong, smart, and bold. And that in this city that we love, the future belongs literally in the hands of our youth. So, thank you for your consideration tonight. I'll stand for questions. I'm going to ask that we don't clap or show any comments. Thank you. So, it is really an honor to be here this evening on behalf of Girls Inc. You met Kim, the Executive Director. Jenkins Gavin is serving as the land planning consultant, architecture provided by Alexander Durk, who you just met, with Autoroof, civil engineering by Orland Gad Ortiz with Design Ingenuity, and traffic engineering by Bohan and Houston. Our traffic engineer is joining the meeting via Zoom should you have any questions. So for those of you who may not be familiar with Girls Inc., Girls Inc. has been around for more than 70 years, serving school-age girls in our community with after-school programming as well as summer programs. Really important service for aftercare for working parents as well as the summer. My daughter is an alum also, and so it's really such a critical service to the community. And as Kim mentioned, they are located downtown. They will maintain their downtown campus, but they have outgrown this. They outgrew this campus years ago. So this is such an opportunity for them to serve more students and serve in the heart of our community in terms of accessing more schools. So in the after-school program, for example, they actually go pick up girls from school in their buses, in their vans. So they go get them, they bring them back to Girls Inc., they do their after-school programming, then the parents pick them up at the end of the day. So being in that centralized location is really paramount to the provision of these services and the amount of students that they can serve. So, as Alexa very clearly spelled out, we have three requests before you this evening: an amendment to the general plan, a rezone from industrial to C2, and then the master plan for the campus. So, we are located in kind of that what has come to be called the Siler Rufina Nexus neighborhood. It is a really, it's a really vibrant and an evolving mixed-use community in Santa Fe. We are located, this is the intersection at Siler and Rufina right here, just towards the top right of the page. And then we're just west of that intersection. This is Rufina Circle that wraps around and connects over to Rufina Street. That's Meow Wolf right there. So, that gives you a little bit of context. And then just south of the project is Rios Road. It was, it's a former nursery. Those of us who've been in town a while, probably everybody's been there, bought plants in the spring. It was a very cool place. So, this gives you a little indication again looking at this neighborhood and how the mix of uses has really evolved over time. And as Kim mentioned, there is, there's a lot of nonprofit presence in this community. Home Wise is across the street. Kitchen Angels, the Food Depot, and then of course Girls Inc., we hope to be, you know, the next cog in that wheel. Meow Wolf, we have Siler Yard, affordable artist residences just down the street. And there are restaurants, and it's like I said, it's very diverse, and it is really, this is really such a perfect location for this use. So, as you can see here, there's a variety of things going on. It's a little bit unusual, but we have the two future land use designations of business park and industrial on the property. And then the zoning, we have the small little parcel that will eventually be consolidated with the larger parcel is already zoned C2. But then the balance of the site, the larger tract, is a combination of I1 and I2. And then this kind of zooms in on the site zoning. You can see the C2 here, and then we have the I2, and then this odd little sliver of I1. So, existing conditions, you can see there the site is very densely vegetated, which was really the draw and the attraction to this site for the campus. Back here in the corner is where the nursery development was. So, this is kind of the already disturbed area of the site. So, that portion of the property was identified that this should house the new structures for the facility. And the plan is to, as we move forward with the development plan process, we'll be engaging with the landscape architect to really re-envision the property, looking at tree preservation. Some trees aren't healthy, and those trees will likely have to go, and new plantings, and how do we want the pathways to snake through the property? So, a lot of things will remain, but a lot of things will be refined and creating outdoor classrooms, outdoor gathering spaces, orchards, you name it. So, part of the exercise of the initial, and when the design effort really kicked off, Autoro started out with really assessing the site and analyzing what are the areas of the site that we really need to preserve. And so, that's what, and so we established these preservation zones on the property. And so, everything you see kind of in the reddish pink color, those are the areas that would accommodate new structures and parking. And then you see the green areas are really those areas of the existing vegetation and existing stands of trees that are really important that we want to protect. So, after going through this exercise, we were able to develop a conceptual site plan, which is the basis for the master plan that is before you. So, I'm just going to start with the access from Rufina. We're closing two access points. And so, it's kind of a looped access here, and with a parking area here, as well as a parking area here. And then we have kind of some parallel spaces for drop-off and pickup for parent drop-off and pickup. So, they can come in and they can pull over, they can sign out their daughter, and they're on their way. And then you enter in this area here. And then we have this beautiful big open gathering space, which is really the entry, and this is really the heart of the campus. And then we have this kind of horseshoe-shaped structure that includes the classrooms, the art studio space. We have a gymnasium. We have a central courtyard for different activities and gathering. We have a courtyard here for what we call the littles, the younger children, that they kind of have a secure and separate space for their activities. We are also proposing an on-site caretaker that would actually live on site. So, we would have 24/7 presence and security on the property. And one of the really most exciting things that is part of the program is a kind of a small entrepreneurial space for the teenagers where they could have a little coffee shop or some other, a little resale shop or something of that nature to really teach them about business and entrepreneurship. And so, this would be located here, easy access from Rufina Circle. There is a lot of population in this neighborhood. People working and living in the neighborhood can buzz across the street, grab a cup of coffee, and it's just such a really great learning experience and learning opportunity for the student. Oh, and I did want to point out, currently the primary access for the nursery was off of Rufina Street. We are maintaining an access point off Rufina, but that's going to be limited to the driveway to the caretaker's residence. So, all of the guests and visitors and staff will all enter from Rufina Circle. So, this is kind of a bird's eye view of the campus. So, this is Rufina Circle. You can see our two access points and the associated parking areas. You can see our building at the back. And then we have a sport court right in front of the building there. And you have an outdoor gathering pavilion to have some shade for the girls for their activities. And then this is that kind of entrepreneurial space that is here in the foreground. So, these are just some of the details on the program. The property is about four and a quarter acres. We are proposing C2 zoning for the entire parcel to permit the youth center. The gross floor area of the building right now is around 55,000 square feet. That'll get refined as we move through the architectural design development for the building prior to development plan. Here's a really wonderful metric: 2.8 acres of open space, 66% of the site. Code requires 20%. So, this really is this amazing oasis right in the center of our community that is going to be put to a really important use. And of course, on-site parking as well, 68 spaces. And so, this effort, which is so critical to Girls, Inc. and their growth and their ability to serve more of the community, this provides so much in terms of who can be served. The accessibility, their current campus on Hillside is literally on a hillside. So, there are a lot of accessibility challenges. It's a very old structure. It's an old house that has been repurposed for Girls, Inc., and they've been there for decades. But with this redevelopment of a new campus, we're able to ensure accessibility for students, staff, and visitors. So, of course, we did conduct a traffic study of the surrounding roadway network. I think a lot of you have heard this little spiel before, but I'm just going to do it one more time. So, when we do traffic studies, we analyze intersections because intersections are the choke point in any transportation network. That's where delays happen. You have to stop at a stop sign, you have to stop at a signal, you have to navigate those intersections. So, as when we analyze these, we count the existing cars on the road today moving through that intersection, and we establish what is the current level of service at that intersection. The level of service is based upon delay. So, how quickly do the cars move through and navigate that intersection? There's different standards for signalized intersections as well as unsignalized intersections. And so, it's just a grading system. Level of service A means minimal delay. That intersection's operating fantastic. And it goes all the way down to level of service F, which is considered a failing intersection, which would require some sort of improvements to the roadway network in order to mitigate that failure. So, then we have the existing, the baseline traffic, and then we take the traffic generation from the project and we put it on top. Then we re-analyze the level of service, and that is what we call the build condition. So, we know what it is today, and then we add on the traffic generation from this project, and then we see what are the levels of service in the build condition. We have great levels of service. The intersection which you could probably imagine that presents some challenges is the intersection of Rufina and Siler. That intersection has experienced challenges. Whether or not this project ever happens, that intersection has challenges. This project is not creating the issues at that intersection. But we are doing improvements at that intersection to mitigate impact. And so, we are able to actually improve the level of service at Rufina and Siler, and we get to a level of service D based upon, and I'm going to talk about this in just a minute, the construction of an eastbound dedicated right turn lane at that intersection is really going to help the traffic flow. But as you can see with the balance intersections, again, really good levels of service. So, this is the, these are the improvements we're going to be making to the roadway network, and all of these will be engineered as part of the development plan application. So, I'm just going to kind of walk you through it. So, this is the site right here. And so, as people arrive and turn into the site, we need to construct a southbound left turn lane. There's adequate room within the existing roadway section to accommodate this. So, we'll add a left turn lane. So, as people are approaching the campus, turn left. They will not be in the drive lane. They'll have an opportunity to get out of the drive lane, wait, and then they can turn in. And then, as I just mentioned, at Rufina and Siler, which is right up here, as you are eastbound on Rufina heading toward the Siler intersection, we're constructing a new dedicated right turn lane here. So, as you approach Siler, you will have a left turn lane, you will have a through lane, and then you will have a dedicated right turn. Right now, the right and the through is a shared lane. So, we're going to be separating that out. So, there'll be three lanes. So, everybody going the direction they're going will have a dedicated lane for that turning. And then we are doing some modifications down here at, this is Calle del Cello. This is this little tiny street that connects Rufina Circle with Cerrillos Road. So, we're doing some median improvements here. So, right now the left turn lane, there's already a right, a through, and a left as you approach Cerrillos Road here southbound. But the left turn lane is really short because of the way the median is designed. So, we're going to demo out some of that median, and we're going to make the left turn lane run the entire length of this little road. So, that will create a lot more capacity for queuing for cars approaching Cerrillos Road to turn left. So, that was actually a pretty elegant solution to this. So, it's just a little bit of demolition, some new asphalt, a little bit of new striping, and so that's going to work out really well. And then as we get on Rufina Circle, as cars are approaching Rufina from Rufina Circle, we're also going to be constructing dedicated left turn lanes for people on Rufina Circle, the east leg and the west leg. As they are approaching Rufina, they will have a dedicated left to turn onto Rufina. And then lastly, we're going to construct a westbound left turn lane at Rufina Circle and Calle del Cello. So, right down here, as you're coming around, say somebody's picked up their kid and they're heading home this way. As they approach Calle del Cello, we're going to construct a left turn lane right here to enable that turning movement and support that journey. Okay, that concludes my presentation. I really appreciate your time and attention. I'd be happy to stand for any questions. Any questions? If not, we'll move to public comment. So, if anyone is here in chambers that would like to speak concerning this project, please come forward. Hello. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. My name is Cora Vienn Vanu, and my address is 301 Hillside Avenue. 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? May I proceed? Hello. My name is Kora Bianu. I'm 11 years old and I attend Wood Gormley Elementary School. This is my fourth year attending Girls Inc. after-school and summer camp program. I love attending Girls Inc. for so many reasons, but mostly because the community is so supportive. Everyone at Girls Inc. cares about us so much, and it's just a very safe space for everyone there. Girls Inc. also works so hard to teach girls how to advocate for themselves, STEM skills, kindness skills, and leadership skills that we'll be using for the rest of our lives. Girls Inc. needs to expand because right now 80 girls attend Girls Inc. after school, and that's a great number, and they each benefit so much from Girls Inc. But imagine how amazing it would be if we could triple that number and have so many more girls attending Girls Inc. Right now, Girls Inc. has limits because of our current location. Not all vans can access it. We can't have our vans sent to all of the schools, and also it's just a very small space, so we can't have too many children attending. But it would be amazing to grow. This space is perfect for us to grow because it's right in the middle of town. So we would be, like Kim said, 12 minutes from every school. And also, it's a much bigger space, so we could have so many more girls attending. And this space would be built for us. It would be amazing. It would have so many classrooms. It would have a gymnasium. It would have a teen center, and it would be a really amazing outdoor space for children to play and learn from. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. He's raised his right hand. State your name and address for the record. Isabella Willard, and my address is 301 Hillside Avenue. 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? You may proceed. Hi, my name is Isabella Izzy Willard, and I am a Girls Inc. of Santa Fe alumni. From the ages of 7 to about 16, I attended a Girls Inc. of Santa Fe summer camp program. And when I was too old to be in their programs, I then volunteered there. And then when I was old enough, I worked there for four summers as a summer camp facilitator. Needless to say, I love Girls Inc. It has been an integral part of my life, and I refer to it as my second home. [clears throat] They have been with me, both my friends that I've met there and the facilitators, my mentors that I refer to them as. They have been with me through the low points and the high points of my life. One low point has been when I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, and of course I was scared and nervous of what was changing in my life. And I reached out to my friends and mentors at Girls Inc., and they have supported me throughout my whole life, and I don't think I would have gotten through that without them. One of the many opportunities that Girls Inc. has presented me is that they rewarded me with a fully funded scholarship to attend a NOLS backpacking trip, the National Outdoor Leadership Program, where I gained my confidence back from my low point, and I learned that I could be myself even with my new change in life. And another high point was that I was rewarded a Girl of the Year in 2019 because of all the opportunities that Girls Inc. has given me, where I advocated not only within my school, but also with Girls Inc. and for the state. Without Girls Inc., I wouldn't be the person I am today. I have grown into myself. I know who I am, and I have also learned about what I want to do with my life. Because of our curriculum, I now pursue a career in STEM, and that has helped me go into college, graduate, and now I'm pursuing a PhD. And so within the Girls Inc. curriculum and with the mentors, not only within our curriculum, but also creating these friendships, I have become the person you see today. And with this new site, we could be expanding to more girls to give them more opportunities and to give them a great life also. Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat] Please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record. Ernie Romero, 2011 Bo Road, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm 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. Please proceed. Thank you, Madame Chair, members of the commission. I was asked to speak on behalf of Girls Inc., and I don't know if I have that much to say, but I do have a lot of history with this property. Obviously, everyone remembers it as a nursery, and the Salomon family from up north, Rainsville and Morta, they poured their heart and soul into this property, and it was a beautiful nursery and beautiful place to shop. I got to know David Salman. He got to a point in his life where he wanted to sell this property. We bought the property from him. There's precious little I1 and I2 property in Santa Fe. And so we, being in the real estate business, were salivating to buy it. And so we purchased it, and we started doing the planning of the property. Always looking at that property and saying, "God, it'd be a shame to tear down all the beautiful trees and bushes and so forth on the property." But we were moving forward, and then a gentleman came forward and decided he wanted to buy it, and he wanted to keep it as a private open space refuge. And so he planted it. He made more trails. He did all kinds of nice things with it. He finally moved back with his daughter to the Northeast, and he came to us and he said, "Will you sell it for me?" And my sons took it upon themselves and listed it. And immediately, because it's I1 and I2, we received a lot of inquiries on the property from developers who wanted to build storage units, who wanted to build metal buildings, who wanted to build offices, who wanted to build warehouses. And then Ginger and Kim from Girls Inc. came to me, or I talked to Kim on the phone. Actually, I had COVID, and I talked to Kim on the phone from home. I said, "I'll give you a call on Monday." And she said that they were looking for a new site for Girls Inc. And I said, "Kim, you need to take a look at this property on Rufina Street." And so we immediately took a look at it, and they fell in love with it. But they were a nonprofit surviving like nonprofits do, from hand to mouth, and they were up against developers who wanted to pay all cash quickly for the property. So I saw someone's T-shirt back there, and it said "strong, smart, and bold." And sure enough, Kim, the board of Girls Inc., decided, "We're going to be strong, smart, and bold." And they bought the property. They went to the bank. They bought the property. And so now, again, this property is going to be mostly preserved. It's going to create a campus for Girls Inc. And I don't think there's anyone who's going to be against it. It's a downzoning of sorts, and I think everyone should support this. And the last thing, all I have to say on behalf of my, I'm from here. My grandmas, my mother, my wife, my daughter, my granddaughters. All I can say is girl power. Jess Clark, 234 Irvine. 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 penalties of perjury? I do. Please proceed. Madame Chair, members of the commission, my name is Jess Clark. I've worked with Girls Inc. on their sexual violence prevention efforts for over a decade. In that time, I've seen how that programming impacts young people's lives. From teaching consent, healthy relationships, and comprehensive sexual health education to leading on trans-inclusive policies, Girls Inc. puts their participants' needs, both present and future, at the center of their work. That commitment to meeting their participants where they are has led them to begin a project that will drastically increase access to this truly life-changing programming. I grew up in Cottonwood Trailer Park on the south side of town. And at that time, youth programs, especially those so situated in natural space, were almost entirely located on the East Side and were, with working parents and regular transportation issues, I had a dad with a VW bus that was always breaking down. Those programs were wildly inaccessible to me. When I first learned of Girls Inc.'s plans to shift their physical location to Midtown, I was immediately struck by thoughts of the young people, you'll see them in the crowd tonight, that I've seen through the years grow their confidence and sense of belonging. Two, by the way, very important protective factors in violence prevention is a positive sense of identity and a connection to community. Both things that Girls Inc. does remarkably well. I've seen them through their time at Girls Inc. in our increasingly difficult world. Knowing that young people who are growing up in the neighborhoods that I did could have the same opportunities as the girls who are getting that today gives me so much hope and excitement for the future of Santa Fe. And I feel like right now we all need a little hope and excitement. So I urge your support of this project. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Ariana Fer. My address is 301 Hillside Avenue. 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 penalties of perjury? Please proceed and please talk into the mic. Good evening. My name is Ariana Fer. I'm in ninth grade at Santa Fe Indian School. I've been going to Girls Inc. for two years. Throughout my time, I got [clears throat] to make new friends and try new things. At Girls Inc., we get to do outdoor things like hike every Friday. We also get to go camping at the end of the summer. This year, I got to go to the Mountain Center. At the Mountain Center, we got to work together and build trust between each other. We also get to mountain [clears throat] climb outdoors and on a rock wall. Girls Inc. is my outside family. The only problem is we have a small area, meaning we can't do as much as we would like. For example, with this new property, we would get to do so many things. We would get to learn about agriculture with the greenhouse. The younger kids will get to learn about environmental protection, and they will also learn about the importance of water protection and so many other things. Also, with the property, many kids just like me will benefit. They will get the opportunity, just like I did, to try new things and to find a family within Girls Inc. Also, the property is perfect for Girls Inc. because of all the huge area of vegetation. Currently, Girls Inc. uses a park right across the road to play games at and to eat lunch at. The problem with this park is that it is a public park. The reason why this is a problem is because something could potentially happen. For example, someone's dog could bite a child, or someone could harm a child. So, the [clears throat] big area full of vegetation at the property could be used as our own park, but a safe one. So, I speak on behalf of all the kids at Girls Inc. when I say this property will be perfect for Girls Inc. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Linda PAC. My address is 1425 Santa Cruz 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Please proceed. Hello, Madame Chair and Planning Commission. Good evening. My name is Linda Pac. I'm one of the board members of Girls Inc. of Santa Fe. But more importantly, I'm also a parent of a child who is currently in sixth grade at Girls Inc. and has been since she was in kindergarten. She's at Adelaide Elementary and she's here. I just wanted to maybe speak a little bit to a different flavor of what folks have said tonight, but maybe similar. I think that this project is really important for working families specifically, and I know that Kim mentioned that, but I wanted to highlight that as a working parent myself and the importance of having high-quality after-school care for our children. I think that regardless of whether you're a caregiver to a young person or not, the benefit of this project for me to this community has a lot to do with just the economic development infrastructure that we're building here through this project. By that, I mean when we support working families, we're supporting a more sustainable and inclusive Santa Fe for people to live and work here. I hope that makes sense. I do think that it's about workforce stability. So, if you think about how after-school programs provide that benefit, Girls Inc. is filling that gap and that need. I think there are a lot of parents, and perhaps if you are a parent or know a parent, they will agree that someone needs to pick their kids up after school if they're still working until 5 o'clock and school gets out at 3. If I put on my architect hat, I think that this location specifically matters because of its strategic location to all the public schools. As Kim mentioned, I think that Girls Inc. and us as a community can say and fill this gap for working families by locating it strategically in this location in town. I think that is an intentional move by Girls Inc. It's a strategic response to diversifying our economy, and I hope that you will provide your support for this project. Thank you. Excuse me. Please state your name and address for the record. Weston Glass, 1301 Siler Road. 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. Please proceed. Good evening, Madam Chair and commissioners. I'll be back up here soon representing Homewise as the applicant on the next agenda item, but I thought it would be good for me to also speak on this one on behalf of Homewise as a neighbor to the site in question on this item. Homewise, our organizational home is on Siler Road, just a block away. But also, over the last few years, Homewise has made the Siler Rufina Nexus the focus of our community development activities in Santa Fe. In 2022, part of kicking off that effort was a community survey of people who live and work in Siler Rufina Nexus. What Girls Inc. is proposing for this site is exactly what people said they wanted. Speaking as Homewise, we're really looking forward to having them as neighbors. On a personal note, I'm looking forward to when my daughter's old enough to go here. So I urge your support. Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat] Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to come forward and say anything? If not, do we have anyone on Zoom? If interested in speaking, please raise your hand on Zoom. No, Chair Clow. Thank you. We'll close the public comment portion and move on to commission. Do you have any comments, questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, there are three motions that have to be made on this case. Right. We're going to make, they'll make separate ones. So, Commissioner McGee. Chair Clow, in the case of 2025-111028, 2904 Rufina General Plan Amendment, I recommend approval. Second. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Commissioner Rean. Yes. Commissioner Embry. Yes. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. In the case of 2025-111029 at 2904 Rufina Rezoning, I recommend approval. Second. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Commissioner Wheeland. Yes. Commissioner Embry. Yes. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. In the case of 2025-111030, 2904 Rufina Lot 2A2-2 and Lot 3 Master Plan, I recommend approval subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections outlined in Attachment A of the staff's report. Second. Commissioner Mickey. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Commissioner Reland. Yes. Commissioner Embry. Yes. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Good luck. All right, perfect. Madam Chair, we're ready to go. Okay, we are now back in session and we'll call [clears throat] case number 2025-10685 TRA Contenta Preliminary Subdivision Plat and case number 2025-10688 TRA Contenta Preliminary Subdivision Plat Variance. Dan, did you have something on this matter? Rebecca, start. Thank you, and thank you, Chair Clow and commissioners. I'm Rebecca Clauser, the case planner for tonight. The applicant has withdrawn the request for the variance for significant trees, which is case number 2025-10690. So tonight I'm presenting case number 2025-10685 and 2025-10688, Tiara Contenta Phase 3A Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Variance. The agent is Jenkins Gavin and the applicant is Homewise. The request before you tonight is for two cases. The first is a preliminary subdivision plat for 16 development tracks and six open space tracks in innovative street design. The second request is a variance from 14-8.2 D2B terrain management standards prohibiting disturbances of natural 30% slopes for an approximate area of 7,350 square feet. Next slide, please. For the location in Ariel, the project is located at 6120, 6130, 6135, and 6150 Po Soul, which is shown here in purple. On the next slide, the parcels are zoned Planned Residential Community. On the right is the future land use map, and the area is identified as medium and high-density residential, parks and open space, public institutional, and a neighborhood center. Next slide, please. To go over just a brief history of the property in regards to the master plan, the Tiara Contenta Phase 3A amendment was approved in 2021. The amendment encompassed a phase-by-phase development, design standards, infrastructure, affordable housing, and parks and open space. The master plan also identified future uses including mixed residential, neighborhood commercial, a school site, and neighborhood parks. Shown here is the Tiara Contenta Master Plan, and in purple is the scope for the request tonight, which is Phase 3A. Next slide, please. The applicant is proposing 16 development tracks and six open space tracks and three innovative street designs. Track 56 has been identified to be a school site, and tracks 58 and 59 are neighborhood commercial. The rest of the tracks are designated residential and located primarily around the exterior of the subdivision are five open space tracks, with Tract E being identified to be a neighborhood park. Consistent with the master plan, the applicant will construct Po Soul between Jaguar Drive and Herrera Drive, and they will also build an internal community loop road to access all of the development tracks. Along Po Soul, the applicant is proposing three innovative street designs, and these will be discussed shortly. Next slide, please. To go over the project in more detail by topic for roads and access, again, two roads are proposed: the connection of Po Soul between Jaguar Drive and Herrera Drive and the internal community loop road. All intersections in the subdivision will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service through the traffic impact analysis horizon year of 2040. For utilities, both water and wastewater will have new connection lines throughout the subdivision. A new 12-inch waterline will be constructed, and 14 fire hydrants are proposed along Po Soul in the community loop road. For wastewater, a new 8-inch sewer line will connect to the existing line. The new connection line along the northern tracks of 68 through 72 is proposed to have an access easement which will allow a community trail to coincide with the public utilities easement. Landscaping for the project is provided throughout, and conditions and corrections can be found in Attachment A1 and A2. Two items of note are alternate means of compliance requests for terrain management standards. The first is for stormwater ponding landscaping, and the second is an alternate means of compliance request for irrigation in landscaped areas. The code outlines that irrigation systems be provided in landscaped areas. However, the impacted landscaped area is 24 acres. Instead, the applicant has proposed to revegetate with native dryland seeding in accordance with New Mexico Department of Transportation 632 revegetation specification. The dryland seeding does not require an irrigation system and can rely fully upon rainfall. Staff has found both of these alternative means of compliance requests to be acceptable. The project will also comply with the 2021 International Fire Code and has also received archaeological review clearance. Next slide, please. As mentioned earlier, the project includes three innovative street designs, and the intent of innovative street designs is to better achieve Section 14-9.2. The Planning Commission may approve innovative street designs that are not included among the street types and street sections shown within 14-9.2 that provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Shown to the right is the first innovative street design. This road section is proposed along Po Soul over the arroyo. The difference here is the terrain constraints that narrow this road section. The road segment still includes bike lanes on both sides, and on the east is a 6-foot sidewalk, and on the west is a 10-foot multimodal trail. Next slide, please. Continuing to the second innovative street design, which is shown to the left. This road segment is located along the western, is located left to the western roundabout along Po Soul. The change here is on the western side of the road segment in place of a 6-foot sidewalk. The applicant is proposing a 10-foot multimodal concrete trail. The final request for an innovative street design is through the New Mexico schools property along Pelos. For this road segment, the bike lanes have been removed to narrow the roadway to mitigate traffic speeding. As shown, a 10-foot multimodal trail is proposed along the north, and street trees are proposed between the trail and the road. Staff finds that all of the proposed innovative street designs meet the intent and provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities and recommends approval. Next slide, please. As part of the project, the applicant is requesting a variance to Section 14-8.2D.2D2B terrain management standards prohibiting disturbance of natural 30% slopes or greater shall remain undisturbed except for arroyo crossings and for no more than three isolated occurrences of sloped areas where each individual disturbance shall not exceed 1,000 square feet as approved by the city engineer. Next slide, please. The applicant is proposing to disturb a total of 7,350 square feet, which is approximately 18 disturbances of natural 30% slopes for the installation of two community trails and drainage way infrastructure and open space. Shown to the right is the first trail located on the north of the school site and south of the arroyo. As proposed, the applicant would disturb two disturbances of natural 30% slopes equaling approximately 222 square feet. The red areas shown in the slope analysis are places that have been identified that have slopes 30% or greater. Next slide, please. The second community trail the applicant is proposing is located east of Tract 68, which is near Capitol High School. At the proposed location, the trail would disturb four areas of natural 30% slopes equaling 2,515 square feet. The applicant did not provide an alternate location for either community trail that would comply with terrain management standards. Next slide, please. Also included in the variance request, the applicant is proposing to construct drainage infrastructure and natural slopes. The infrastructure as shown is located in open space tracts B and C and combined disturbs a total of 12 natural slopes. So the applicant did not provide an alternate that would comply again with the terrain management standards. Next slide, please. Staff finds that the required approval criteria for a variance to the terrain management standards to disturb 30% slopes has not been satisfied. The project does not have any unusual characteristics that distinguish it from the adjacent parcels. There are no special circumstances that make it infeasible for the property to be developed in accordance with terrain management standards as the lot is currently vacant. The applicant did not provide information demonstrating the necessity for the placement of trails and drainageway in natural 30% slopes. It is therefore that staff recommends denial of the 30% slopes variance, case number 2025-10688. Next slide, please. However, staff acknowledges the importance of community trails and has included the following condition: that if the variance to 30% slopes is denied, the applicant shall work with terrain management and parks and open space to identify an alternative location for both community trails. Next slide, please. Some additional conditions of approval to highlight are from Public Utilities Water Resources. An improved water development water budget, including irrigation water demand and a 9.8 contingency, will be required prior to final plat hearing. From Public Works Traffic Engineering, prior to the development of the first tract within the subdivision, the applicant for the first development tract will be required to address all comments from the traffic impact analysis. Next slide, please. Conditions of approval continued. It was recently brought to staff's attention that the 1994 annexation agreement outlines that it is the responsibility of the city to fund the neighborhood park development. Development is a defined term under Chapter 14 as a man-made change in improved and unimproved real estate, including buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations, with the exception of routine maintenance and repair. The 2021 Master Plan Design Standards for Tierra Contenta Phase 3A outlines that the park is only to be owned and maintained by the city and that the Phase 3A design standards provide the conceptual framework for the neighborhood park. It is with this that staff proposes the following condition as shown: that the applicant is responsible for the final design approval of the neighborhood park design from the City Parks Department prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the first development tract. With this, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections, the applicant has complied with the preliminary subdivision approval criteria 14-3.7C1. Next slide, please. The applicant has complied with the pre-application requirements, early neighborhood notification meeting, and public notice requirements for Planning Commission hearing. Next slide, please. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Case 2025-10688, Tierra Contenta Phase 3A Variance to 30% Slopes. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Case 2025-10685, Tierra Contenta Phase 3A Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Innovative Street Design, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections and with the proposed additional condition proposed by staff that the applicant shall obtain the final design approval for the neighborhood park design prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the first development tract. Next slide, please. Two motions will be required: approve or deny Case 2025-10688, Tierra Contenta Phase 3A Variance to 30% Slopes, and also approve or deny Case 2025-10685, Tierra Contenta Phase 3A Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Innovative Street Design, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections recommended by staff. Thank you. Staff will stand for any questions. Mayor: Any clarifying questions from the commission? If not, we'll move to the second. Yes. I just want to let you know that we have Deb Bongaser online for terrain management. Parks is here along with traffic if you have any questions. Thank you. Okay, we'll move to the applicant. [clears throat] Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record. Johanna Gilligan, 1301 Sil Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507. 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 swear. Please proceed. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Clow. Commissioners, it's really a pleasure to be here this evening. Those who I don't know, my name is Johanna Gilligan, and I am Deputy CEO at Homewise. I just wanted to briefly set a little context before I introduce my colleague who's going to share more detail on the project with you. So we are very pleased to be here tonight. This has been a long road to this point. If we really zoom out on Tierra Contenta, this started 31 years ago. Luckily, it started 31 years ago. The city had a great vision for delivering affordable housing, and they did that by acquiring this really important land and conditioning that 40% of the units be affordable. Phases 1 and 2 were delivered, and Phase 3A, you know, took a while. So it's been almost a decade and a half that Phase 3A has been in process. So we are very, very long into this process at a time when clearly this project is very important. Our involvement has been really most clearly, the clearest marking point begins almost exactly a year ago at this time when we bought this land. When we bought the land, we committed to delivering the infrastructure, the spine infrastructure for the land, which had been on the city's ICIP list for many years but had not been built. So, we inherited the design process from the Public Works Commission, Public Works Department, which had been leading on the spine infrastructure development process, design process. So, we come to you, you know, a year in after acquisition. We submitted our packet for this development plan that you see before you this evening, June 9th. So that's almost five months ago. So it's been a long road, and we are very, very pleased to be here. We are excited to present to you the spine infrastructure that we will develop. That spine infrastructure is critical to unlock up to 1,500 homes, 40% of which will be affordable per the city's Santa Fe Homes Program affordability standards. We very much appreciate the commission's attention and decision this evening. I now want to turn it over to my colleague, Weston Glass, who is our project director for Tierra Contenta, who will provide more detail. Thank you. I need to swear in again. Please state your name and address for the record. Weston Glass, 1301 Silent Road. No, just remind me, he's still sworn in. You're still sworn. Understood. Good evening again, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Weston Glass. I am the Real Estate Development Project Director at Homewise in charge of this project. Thank you for considering our case this evening. We're so proud to be bringing before you the subdivision plat application for Tierra Contenta Phase 3A. It's been a long time coming, too long. Tierra Contenta has always been an incredibly visionary project since it was launched in 1994, and it has always been a powerful collaboration between the City of Santa Fe and the entities responsible for enacting the master plan. Previously for Phases 1 and 2, that entity was Tierra Contenta Corporation. Now for Phase 3A, we at Homewise have taken on that role. This partnership has been the key element that makes this project possible. The city bought and annexed this land and enacted the master plan, including the commitment to making 40% of homes throughout Tierra Contenta affordable to working families. To support that ambitious commitment, the city subsidized the sale of the land to the Tierra Contenta Corporation. In the annexation agreement, the city committed to developing crucial elements of the infrastructure and amenities, which includes the neighborhood park at the heart of Phase 3A. In the master plan, the city agreed to approve subdivision applications that conform to the annexation agreement and the master plan. The application before you tonight is a continuation of that partnership. Phase 3A was designed over the last five years as a grant-funded collaboration between the city, Tierra Contenta, and Homewise. I don't need to remind anyone in this room that we are in the teeth of the worst housing crisis our state has ever seen, and that crisis is felt most acutely in Santa Fe. In 1994, when Tierra Contenta was born, in 1999, the last time that the land use code was updated, no one knew how bad that crisis would be today. Tierra Contenta, with its commitment to affordability and its progressive urban design vision, is the best opportunity that we have to address that crisis. Madam Chair and Commissioners, as you consider our application and variance request this evening, I ask that you keep in mind the intent of Chapter 14 to promote the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the residents of Santa Fe. Having a home is the foundation for all of those things, and Phase 3A of Tierra Contenta is our best opportunity to provide up to 1,500 homes for the families who need them most. We look forward to continuing this powerful partnership with the City of Santa Fe. I will now turn it over to Jennifer to get into the thrilling details. Thank you all very much. Jennifer, you are still sworn. Leave it to the young people to help you with your IT issues. Okay, there we go. Hello again, Chair Clow, Commissioners. It is really an honor and a pleasure to be here this evening on behalf of Homewise and Phase 3A of the Tierra Contenta community. A lot of the introductions have already been made, but I wanted to make a couple of more. Civil engineering and design for the project has been provided by Orland Gad Ortiz locally with Design Ingenuity Landscape Architecture provided locally by Design Office. So these are just kind of reiterating some of those background points that Johanna and Weston touched on. A key element of this is the City of Santa Fe created this project. They created this community. They bought the property in the 80s, seeing it as an opportunity. They went through a process. The property was in Santa Fe County at the time. They had to annex the property into the City of Santa Fe. They had to master plan the property. Then a nonprofit, Tierra Contenta Corporation, was established for the sole purpose of being the master developer to build that backbone spine infrastructure. All the primary roadways and utility corridors and open spaces that you see out there today were all constructed by Tierra Contenta Corporation. Then last year, Homewise purchased the property from Tierra Contenta and took over that master developer role. And what is, there are so many things that are special about this project. I own a home in Tierra Contenta that my mother resides in. And it's just watching it evolve over the years into a really vibrant neighborhood and vibrant community. And we want to finish it, and that's what we're here to do this evening. So, a few points. These are some excerpts out of the annexation agreement. The annexation agreement from 1994 is having its 31st birthday. The annexation agreement is a contractual document, it is a contract between the City of Santa Fe and all of the, there were many landowners at the time who were involved in this annexation. So there were other outlying landowners in the surrounding area who participated in the annexation. It's a contractual agreement, and these are just a couple of key points out of that agreement that I've highlighted here. The city agrees to approve rezonings, preliminary development plans, and preliminary subdivision plats for individual tracts within the property, provided that they conform to the master plan and the phasing plan and the provisions of the annexation agreement. And then towards the end of the document, it goes on to say, "Wherever the approval or consent of the city is required by the agreement, it is understood that such approval or consent shall not be unreasonably withheld." So we have basically three requests before you this evening. We have our preliminary subdivision plat. So one of the unique things about Tierra Contenta, so we're here, our subdivision is creating what we call master development tracts, right? So we're creating a 5-acre tract, a 20-acre tract, a 10-acre tract. Those tracts that are on our subdivision plat, those will then be sold to area home builders and developers who will then develop the homes on those tracts. So, we're doing kind of what we call the backbone or spine infrastructure because these individual development tracts, they need access and they need utilities. The intent of the master plan and the annexation agreement was to maximize the developable area on each tract. So the obligations for open space, the obligations for drainage improvements, those obligations are handled in advance. So when a builder acquires a tract, he doesn't have to dedicate a piece of that to open space because the open space dedication was already handled. He doesn't have to carve out valuable real estate for a drainage pond because the drainage improvements are already handled. This is fundamental to the intent of this project, the original design intent: maximize developable area so we can maximize housing and maximize affordable housing. Innovative street designs that Rebecca touched on, I'll also touch on those. And then we have our variance request for some modest disturbance of 30% slopes. So this shows that there are five, four tracts of land that comprise Phase 3A. So what you see here, this is the existing Phases 1 and 2 of Tierra Contenta. This is the country club right here. We have Airport Road at the top. We have 599 out here to the west, and to the east we have Cerrillos Road. So, I think everybody is fairly well oriented. And one thing that's important to point out is the New Mexico School for the Deaf owns all the real estate here to the east. This is what we call Phase 3B. So, it's the balance of the final phase in Tierra. New Mexico School for the Deaf has no intentions at this time to develop that property. So for the foreseeable future, that property will remain as a big, essentially a big swath of open space. They are cooperating with us with respect to rights-of-way dedications to accommodate roadway and utility infrastructure. So we are, they are cooperating fully with that effort. But that's just kind of a nuance that I wanted to point out. So the property is zoned Planned Residential Community. It's not a zoning category we see a lot in Santa Fe. It really is intended for much larger areas. And so everything you see here in purple was the zoning that was established when the property was annexed and the master plan was approved back in 1994. And a PRC is intended to be, it's actually a really great zoning district. And I kind of wish it was taken advantage of more because it's a classic mixed-use zoning district. And we know the benefits of mixed-use. So it allows all housing types. It allows neighborhood commercial uses. It allows institutional and civic uses. So it is really a pretty dynamic category. And again, I would hope to see more of it coming in the future because it allows for a lot of design flexibility. So design standards are established that have been established for Tierra Contenta where you can get creative and you can do some things that maybe under the baseline code requirements you would maybe otherwise would not be allowed to do. So these are the existing conditions. So what you see here, the property is outlined in white. And what you see here in blue is the Arroyo Chamiso Interceptor sewer trunk line. This is the primary sewer line that serves the southern part of Santa Fe. So that is existing, that is out there right now. And so you can see kind of along the north and along the west here is where we have the terrain challenges. We kind of have these areas that are quite developable, but they're like little peninsulas that jut out. They're nice and flat, but then it drops off at the edges down into the open spaces. But then you can see here in kind of the core, in the central and in the south, the land is wonderfully flat and very developable. And this right here is Jaguar Drive. This is Paseo del Sol West that terminates right there at the fire station. And then over here we have Dulce Sol East at the intersection of Herrera. So this is the master plan in the context of the overall developed area and the overall neighborhood, and I'm going to zoom in on that here momentarily. So the objectives, so what we have presented tonight, of course, is based upon the master plan and the amendment that was approved in 2021. So innovative street design is contemplated in the master plan, and when we are utilizing that tool for a few street sections here this evening, this is really important: mixed residential housing types on the master plan. We did not get prescriptive. This lot is for multifamily. This parcel over here should be developed with single-family. This parcel should be townhomes. We abandoned that concept because we're really about encouraging missing middle housing. We hear a lot about missing middle. So on one end of the spectrum you have single-family detached housing. On the other end you have large-scale multifamily housing, but there's a lot of things in the middle that we need to be encouraging and incentivizing. We need to incentivize townhomes. We need to incentivize duplexes and triplexes. We need to incentivize small-scale multifamily. Maybe you have a small building, it's got four units on the bottom, four units on top that fits really well within a single-family neighborhood. And so it's really about the diversity of housing. So we can support all kinds of families and the type of housing they need, whether it's for-sale housing, some rental housing. And so we really are working to incentivize. We want to see tracts develop not with one type of housing. We are building this so you could have a diverse neighborhood of multiple housing types within the same neighborhood. And then again, flexible densities and providing bonuses for density. So we can incentivize multiple housing types. We can incentivize additional affordable housing. We can incentivize sustainable construction methods. And then again, the type pilot form-based zoning concepts, form-based zoning, it's a typological approach. So in our design standards, we talk about all these different housing types and what those kind of design standards are and how does the parking work and how do the setbacks work and really focusing on walkability that is so fundamental to this design. So here's our site plan. So we're going to start and we're going to just talk about the, you know, this backbone infrastructure that is really the meat of this application. So starting here in the northwest, this is the current terminus of Paseo del Sol West. So Paseo del Sol West starts, so Paseo del Sol is intended to be a big horseshoe, right? It intersects Airport Road in two locations. So it intersects Airport Road off the map up here. So we are continuing Paseo del Sol West, and this is following that alignment of the sewer line that I just showed you on the other map. So we're right on top of that sewer line, and we come down and then we head just due east and we get all the way out to the existing roundabout at Herrera Drive and Paseo del Sol East. So, we're completing the loop, which has been such a key portion of the infrastructure that has been waiting many, many years to be completed. And then in order to provide access to all the development tracts, one of the key elements of the master plan amendment was to add this loop road. Oops, did not mean to do that. So we've added this loop road, and we have two roundabouts internal where they intersect. The loop road intersects with Paseo del Sol. And so now once this infrastructure is complete, we can deploy these tracts into the marketplace, attract development, and start building housing. We also have identified a 10-acre community school site here, and through the master plan amendment process, we worked closely with the public schools to identify this location for them. And then you can see the various development tracts as they are spread out throughout the project. And then everything in green are open spaces with our trail corridors. So, one of our key pieces of utility infrastructure is a sewer line that is running right through here. And do you know what sewer lines are great for? They're great for trails. So, we're putting a trail right on top of it. And it also makes it really easy for the wastewater department to access the sewer line because they have a trail they can use to access in order to access a manhole to do any maintenance that they need to do. So we have this wonderful trail, and one of the key components in the design standards is every individual tract has to construct a connection to the trail that's out their back door. So those connections have to be built at the time these tracts are developed. So, we're going to, so once we're through, so we hope that next year you start seeing applications coming before you for subdivisions, townhome projects, development plans, whatever it may be, as these tracts are deployed and they are sold. And so you're going to be seeing a lot of Tierra Contenta applications coming before you in the coming years. And we're very excited about that. So, we have a trail here, and then to the west here is the next phase of Swan Park, which is so fantastic that we're right next to Swan Park. And so, we are showing two connections to Swan Park, one right up here and then one down here. And that aligns, and so we're working closely with the parks division. We actually have the same landscape architect, our landscape architect is the city's landscape architect working on Phase 2 of Swan Park. So, we're working on making sure that where the, you know, those final points where those trails terminate align with their planning for the park itself. And this is the other trail connection that runs through here. You can see there's a lot of existing, what we call, cattle paths or social trails throughout this space. This is a highly used area for access to Capitol High School, as you can see in all of these pathways that have developed. What you see right here is the neighborhood park. So the annexation agreement obligates the dedication of parkland to the City of Santa Fe. This tract will be dedicated to the city as part of the subdivision. We also have a trail corridor because this is a big development area, and we didn't want it to be, we wanted it to be accessible. So, from the southern portion of the loop road, we've created an open space and trail corridor for pedestrians and cyclists so they can get from the southern part of the site up to Paseo del Sol and then right across the street into the park. This felt really important because these are big development tracts. We wanted to make sure we had a lot of porosity in the community and were supporting walkability. These are just some of the metrics. We have about 117 acres of mixed residential areas. We have a couple of tracts for mixed-use or neighborhood commercial, a little under three acres. The school site is 10 acres. Over 31% of the property is dedicated open space with the trail network. Our rights-of-way for the roadways are just about 18 acres, and that gets us to our total. So, per the master plan, we are entitled to 1,175 units. But with the density bonus program I talked about, that we're using as a tool to incentivize affordable housing and diversity of housing types, we can get up to a maximum of 1,500 homes, and we're really hoping to hit that number. I just want to show you the roadway sections real quick. One of the things that occurred back, kind of pre-COVID actually, is that at the time, they were really working. Terrazas Corporation was vigilantly working to try to get Phase 3 off the ground, and they did a survey of the existing residents in Terrazas. "What works in your neighborhood? What doesn't work? What do you want more of? What do you want less of?" And boy, did we learn a lot. What we heard is, of course, walkability, sidewalks on every street, we need more on-street parking. TK and Terrazas started developing in the late 90s when some of these new urbanism concepts were all the rage. Some of those concepts were really great, and I think the idea of clustering homes, preserving open space, but some of the concepts in reality didn't work great. Some of the roads got really narrow, so on-street parking became a challenge. They would have roadways with no sidewalks. So we've sort of, I think we've taken the best of what new urbanism was trying to be, and we've incorporated that, but we've left behind some other elements. We're really focused on what we call "complete streets" here. We're accommodating every mode of transportation, whether you're a cyclist, a pedestrian, or driving a vehicle. So, Paseo del Sol, this area that we call between the roundabouts, we incorporated on-street parking in that segment of Paseo del Sol. We want to enliven the street. We don't want to turn our back on it just because it's going to be a main street, it's going to be busy. We want to create activity and life. Also, the on-street parking really serves to calm traffic. It keeps cars slowing down because it really kind of visually narrows the experience of the roadway. We have bike lanes and we have six-foot sidewalks, really generous sidewalks, and of course, median landscaping and street trees. The loop road is also again a very robust section with sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, bike lanes, and of course, the travel lanes. The interior local streets that will get developed on each individual tract will also include on-street parking. The design standards state that sometimes, for example, in a townhome development where you've got a lot of garages and driveways on the street, it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for on-street parking. So there are instances in certain development patterns where on-street parking is, frankly, just not feasible. So in those instances, we say that's fine, but you do have to provide some off-street guest parking. So you have to identify an area within your community where you can accommodate additional guest parking if the layout of your project doesn't accommodate that. Let's talk about three areas where we have some unique conditions. We have proposed some innovative street designs. Right up here, I mentioned that this is the first segment of roadway. This is just coming off of Jaguar. I mentioned we're right on top of the sewer line. So when they built the sewer line, they had to cross a very large drainage right here. This is a big arroyo. They had to cross it. What they chose to do is they built up a giant berm because they didn't want to have to go under the arroyo for the sewer line. They wanted to kind of make it a straight shot and get through that drainage way. They built a giant berm. There's essentially a road on top of it right now. They put culverts in it to allow the water to continue to flow. So we are, it's an existing condition, and it has a narrow little top, and then it drops down into the adjacent drainage ways. So we don't have as much space as you would normally want to have for a roadway section there. The second one, this is really the transition when we transition from that arroyo crossing down to kind of the standard street section approaching the roundabout. And then lastly, we have the segment of roadway through the New Mexico School for the Deaf. I'm going to touch on each of them. So this is the arroyo crossing. As Rebecca mentioned in her presentation, this is still a complete street. We are accommodating all modes of transportation, but like I said, we have some constraints that we are having to deal with in terms of the existing conditions. One other thing I wanted to point out. Up here, this is an existing trail right now. See this up here? We are crossing this. So we have an opportunity to create more of a trail connection between this existing trail right up here. I'm actually pointing at the wrong thing. It's right here, sort of right in the corner. This is the edge of the space, but there's an existing trail right here. So we have an opportunity to connect this trail down to this trail. Really cool opportunity. So we have an existing trail that runs through open space here, and then we're building another kind of east-west trail down here. What we're doing is we are actually, in lieu of a sidewalk on the west side, we're doing a 10-foot concrete trail that creates this continual connection between those two trails. So we thought that was just an opportunity we did not want to lose. We still have bike lanes on both sides of the road, and then on the other side of the road, we have a six-foot sidewalk. Then as we transition, kind of coming, I mean, we're kind of dropping down toward the roundabout, we are maintaining that 10-foot trail because we want to support that connection. Then of course, we have the bike lanes and through lanes, and then we get into a wider median because that is really the Paseo del Sol look, if you will, is the center median with the landscaping. Then we pivot to the planter strip and the street trees and the sidewalk on the east side. Lastly, we have the segment of roadway through New Mexico School for the Deaf property. Now, as I mentioned, no plans that we are aware of, that anybody's aware of, for that property to be developed. We would love for it to get developed. That housing supply would be fantastic to deploy in our community, but that is not in the cards at the moment. So, as we were developing this design, the concern was raised about speeding down that stretch of road. If you don't have any buildings on the side, you don't have any, I mean, there's nothing to visually impair you. So you are just cruising up approaching that Herrera Drive roundabout. And so because originally our concept, we did have bike lanes on the road, and again, the bike lanes just create more width, right? And so visually, the road, if there's no cycle, the road feels really, really wide. And so, and we worked really closely with city staff and public works to devise a section that could really calm the traffic. The solution we came up with that we thought was quite elegant is, in lieu of the bike lanes, we're going to do a roadside multimodal trail. So pedestrians and cyclists, just like they would do if they were in open space, they can be off-road. So we have a 10-foot trail. We were able to narrow up that roadway section, and then also we have the street trees associated with the trail that would serve to slow people down. So it really was safety, that was really the effort here, was to create this stretch of roadway as safely as possible. We have a request before you to disturb some 30% slopes. We have a couple of different circumstances related to that. The first is related to the two trail connections that I'm identifying here. Through this process, we worked really closely with the Parks Department as well as with the MPO, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is the transportation planning group in the city, about looking at where these, because we just don't want internal trails. We need to connect to our surroundings. That's why this trail connection up here along Paseo del Sol that I just described, we thought was so important. So obviously, Swan Park to our west, clearly we want to get trail connections there. One of the things we looked at is, well, where are people already walking? Because people, this area is a big swath of open space. It is used all the time. There are paths out here, and they're all over the place. So that's one of the interesting things, kind of best practices when you're designing trails. If you have an undeveloped property and you have a path that's going this way that people are using, but you build a trail over here, guess where people are going to go? They're going to go over here where they've always gone, which is a well-worn, lovely, impacted dirt pathway. So placing these trails where the activity is already occurring is really smart. So obviously, connection. So we have this trail, the sewer line trail comes across. We're going to have a lovely crossing right here to support the safe crossing of Paseo del Sol. And then you get on the other side, and you kind of, you got to drop down the hill, right? Because this is another kind of drainage area down here in Swan Park. So you're dropping down towards that drainage. And then over here on the far northeast, again, we have our sewer line trail, which is our main east-west trail on the north side of the project. And I pointed out those existing pathways that lead to Capitol High. We really want to facilitate that connection because all the kids out here, this is, that's the way they walk to school. So we really want to support that. We want to create something that is as accessible as possible. So, zooming in on that. Here is the trail, and then here are all those existing pathways that we write to the front door of Capital. This was again a specific request from the MPF. This is great, you can see this. So, these are the existing trails that are already there. We're improving it as a 5-foot paved trail, and we were able to max out the grade of only 7%. 5% is considered fully ADA wheelchair accessible. Portions of the trail meet that, but we weren't able to 100% get there, but we are really, really close. So, this is for accessibility. This is fantastic. We're able to connect to those existing paths going off to the east. Now, the trail on the west side, you can see this point right here is this point right here. Look at the paths. Now, these paths are a little more of a straight shot. So, we had to, in order to establish an accessible grade, we had to do some switchbacks. We had to widen it out a little bit in order to get down this hill. We achieved a 5% grade here. This is a fully ADA accessible trail. It's so fantastic, but it is respecting the existing pattern of pedestrian activity out here, which as I mentioned, is so critical. Orin, our civil engineer, is going to speak to some of the constraints and what we tried to achieve here with respect to these trail connections. So with that, I'm going to have Orland speak further on the variance. Good evening. I'm Orla Get Ed Ortiz. What you're seeing in front of you is sheet 6A of the project site plan. This is the slope analysis. The red are the 30% slopes. So, basically on the edges of the mesa, we do have some 30% slopes. This request is to disturb a total of 7,035 square feet of steep slopes. That's about 0.07% of the site. So, let's speak about the actual disturbances, starting with that northeast connector that Jennifer was talking about. We're building the sewer line, and we're going to have a trail on top of it, and we'd like to connect to it, and it seems logical. Staff certainly, and everyone else, wants us to make that connection to get over to Capitol High. So, why have we chosen to build in this particular location? Well, primarily, it is actually where people walk. It makes sense because if you walk up a drainage way, it's actually much calmer and less steep than if you chose to go around. At the end of this trail, and I don't know if I'm as good as Jen on this, you went from the end of the trail and then tried to come up through this area. You'd be switchbacking up. It's actually a more difficult trail. It would disturb more land. This actually disturbs less land overall, but we are dealing with a drainage way and a pinch point, and we do have to disturb some soils, 30% slopes. I get that the code directs us to try to protect these 30% slopes, but let's recognize what they are. You guys have probably, some of you have visited this site. There are steep natural slopes in our community that are unstable. If we go in and build this trail and we disturb these slopes, we have to stabilize them. They'll actually be more stable by the construction of this project than they are currently. Less erosion will be happening in that case. So, why we are building these trails, we are stabilizing some of these slopes. Why we have to disturb some of these, we're making this footpath five feet wide. Currently, it's a footpath in some locations, and we also have to make room for that water to get through. So, the combination of building a wider trail and allowing the water to go through, we're a little scrunched, and as a result, we do have to end up disturbing a little bit of room. But again, this trail is 5 to 7%. It's actually fairly accessible for most people. It's more accessible than the foot trail is today. I think if you decide to deny this variance, this trail still exists. The kids are still going to use it. But the advantage of allowing us to build it is we'll make it 5 feet wide and we'll make it more accessible to more people. The second trail, we have two small disturbances related to crossing the drainages. Now, this one, honestly, I could have avoided these 30% slopes if I had chosen to make this trail less steep. I'm sorry, more steep. This is now accessible by people in wheelchairs. This is the reason I'm asking, or we're asking for this disturbance, is literally to provide a fully accessible trail for our community. I think that's a really important thing to do. I think that we need to think about these variances in terms of what's best for our community and having accessible trails for people in wheelchairs and other more difficult, or not as accessible as some kids. Really, we need to focus on that ability. We're building seven drainage ponds, and there is one existing drainage pond. Is it still there? Barely in yellow. The pale yellow one was created when the Arroyo Tamiso sewer interceptor was built. That's a 31-acre-foot pond that's out in that arroyo. It's a huge pond, and it actually is dealing with most of our drainage issues on the north side as far as meeting the requirements for detention ponding. But we're building a total of seven new ponds throughout the site, and those are shown in green. Five of those ponds will need variances to get constructed. So, why did I choose these locations? First of all, the City of Santa Fe has to maintain these ponds. So, I was trying to minimize them. I was trying to make as few of them as possible, as large as possible. I was also placing them in arroyos because that's where the water naturally wants to go. When you're doing a development, you always try to trap the water, slow the water downstream from those developments. So, all of these ponds are downstream from developments. These are the logical locations to put water, to put detention ponding, because this is where it's flowing. The other reason to put the detention ponds in these arroyos is because that's where you can get the best infiltration of water and recharge your groundwater. The bottom of the arroyos is where we have sandy soils, and that's where you want to hold water back for a minute so it has a chance to soak in. If you build detention ponds on top of the mesa, that water will never get to the groundwater, or won't get to the groundwater very likely. If you put detention ponds in an arroyo, you're feeding the groundwater. You're feeding, and that's something that I think is really important in our community. So, I want to encourage that. Let's see, what else do I want to talk about? Okay, so getting into some of the specifics of the ponds. Oh, I just mentioned this. The current code as it's written encourages shallow ponding, and it encourages basically it everywhere. Maybe that makes sense in some developments. It doesn't make sense in general. I think it wastes land. But this is actually what staff would encourage, is putting ponds everywhere, kind of on the edges as it before it falls down into the steeper slope areas. They've encouraged us to build it more on flat property. I don't want to do that. I don't believe that we should do that. I hope you guys will agree with me. But what you're seeing here are 50 ponds that make up the 15-acre, or not 15-acre feet, sorry, 13-acre feet of water that the seven ponds are doing, are holding. The ponds that we're showing in the seven, they're as much as 10 feet deep. These ponds are all only three feet deep because the city staff wants you to build shallow ponds that are no more than three feet deep, or you have to put a fence around them. If you were going to build them up on the flat area and you didn't want to build fences everywhere, you'd build them shallow. So, that's why there's so many of them, and that's why it looks kind of crazy. But that's kind of like the alternative that we hope never to see ever built. Getting into the specifics. This pond is built at the outlet of an arroyo. This is the most logical location for it to exist because it's really downstream at the bottom, just next to Swan Park. This pond is disturbing very little 30% slopes, but it does do a little bit when we key it into the sides of the hills that are there. We can't move this pond to a different location and key it into the sides without disturbing slopes, without disturbing something. So, I mean, the problem of trying to build in an arroyo is that you definitely want the ponds not to be circumvented, in essence. So, you build them from hillside to hillside. In essence, you're damning these arroyos, and those create, when you tie into those existing hillsides, you get a disturbance because that's where those edges are. That's where you've got those steeper slopes. So, that's where one of our, or one of the problems that we need a variance on. This is another one where again, you know, we could have moved this dam, and this is an earthen dam that's going to be built in this arroyo. We could have moved that earthen dam further up the hill, but still we would be up against 30% slopes when we're trying to build this dam in, you know, to connect to the hillsides on either side. This pond holds three acre feet of water. Compared to those little squares that I was showing you before, those all hold like 11,000 cubic feet of water. This holds a great deal more water. We're talking we're holding on the order of 4.2 million gallons of water in these ponds. These are not small. They take room. But anyway, this pond, I believe I put it in a location that minimized the amount of disturbance, and in every case, I tried to meet the code. But I'm not afraid to come in front of you and say this is logical. This is more respectable of the terrain, in essence, than trying to build lots of little ones in locations where the ponds are not really suited. Ponds in arroyos are very logical. The thing that's buried in this staff report requires that ponds that are deeper than three feet be fenced. I respectfully request that you pull that condition of approval, or pull that condition. I personally don't believe that public open space should be fenced. The reason that the staff requests that is that they think that these will fill with water and they'll be an attractive nuisance to children. Every single pond in this project is designed with a bottom outlet, meaning it will drain, and every single one of them will drain in 24 hours. So, I'm hoping that you guys recognize, or I will recognize, that it's more desirable to not fence public open space and allow this to be open space that kids and families can enjoy. Before I go on to that, the one other thing I wanted to point out is if we had to really fence this, we'd need a variance to install the fence because we'd disturb 30% slopes, and we didn't want to request another variance because we're hoping you're going to say we don't need the fence. But it's impossible to build a fence around this pond without disturbing 30% slopes. So yeah, and we're hoping you'll decide that we don't need to follow that condition of approval. By the way, there are other ponds in Terontenta and other phases that are built in the arroyos, and they don't have fences. So, it's not, we're not asking for something any different than has been practiced for 30 years at that area. Finally, these are three, a set of three ponds. These are different. These are not earthen ponds. These are Gabion dams, which are those baskets, rectangular baskets that are filled with rocks, built like a pyramid shape. In this case, these three dams are going to hold back 2 acre feet of water. Immediately downstream, there are some homes that we're trying to protect. These homes are, again, I believe I placed these Gabion dams in a way to minimize the amount of disturbance. But I'll tell you, it is impossible to build detention ponding in this arroyo without disturbing something, without disturbing these slopes. It would be absolutely impossible. There is no way you can do it. You can see that basically there are 30% slopes all through there. We're doing a minimal amount of disturbance, and when we're done with construction, these slopes that we're disturbing will be stable. Your staff will ensure it. That's required by code, and we will achieve it. I just want to point out this space. If we had to fence these ponds, this space would not be usable to kids. I live in a house that backs up to an arroyo in our community, and my children, my grandchildren, we all love the arroyo. I hope you continue to allow arroyos to be accessible. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Oh, and maybe just in closing, sorry, I did want to say something else. Please approve the variances so we can build two accessible public trails and so we can build drainage ponds that are common in common-sense locations, which are in arroyos. Thank you very much. So it's really important to recognize the choice that is before you this evening with respect to our variance request. The variance request, as Orland stated, is 0.07% disturbed slopes that will be stabilized and be more stable post-construction than they are today. Building trail connections, creating accessible trails for our community in locations where the trails already exist. Respecting the naturally occurring path of water. You try to divert water away from its natural path, you've got problems. The City of Santa Fe has to maintain these drainage improvements. They're maintaining the open space. They're maintaining the trails. So we have to think about those long-term implications. We are minimizing the disturbance. You disturb five acres of developable land for stormwater management. What's your choice? Would you rather have 40 homes or five holes in the ground? Excuse me, the holes in the ground eating up five acres. As I mentioned, the intent of the annexation and master plan is crystal clear. We maximize the developable area. You don't have to do anything but build your roads and build your homes. Your open space is handled. Your drainage improvements are handled. We're going to build the master trail network. You just have to build your connection to it. So when we talk about the variance criteria and we talk about what's infeasible, we are governed by an annexation agreement and a master plan that says we've got to generate housing. We've got to generate 40% affordable housing. So yeah, is it infeasible to eliminate developable land to protect these little occurrences of 30% slopes? I find that infeasible. Is it a reasonable use of the land? You get to decide what is the reasonable use of the land. Is it a drainage pond where you could have houses? That is the choice that is before you. Let's make no mistake about it. So yes, it is infeasible, and the reasonable use of this land within these development tracts is one thing: it's housing. So we have met the variance criteria. We are using best practices from a civil engineering standpoint in terms of stormwater management and trail design. And with that, I greatly appreciate your support of our preliminary plat, our innovative street designs, and our variance requests. Thank you. And I'm going to invite Lisa Gavioli with Homewise to close our presentation. Whoops. To close our presentation, state your name and address for the record. >> Gavioli, 1301. 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? Please proceed. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Lisa Gavioli. I'm a project director with Homewise, and I'd just like to take a moment to address the additional proposed condition of approval that staff have brought before you this evening. We have several different points to make about this proposed condition that I hope you'll entertain. First, with respect, the proposed condition is procedurally inappropriate. We first heard about this proposed condition less than 24 hours ago. We have been in conversation with staff today, but we do not feel that that is an adequate enough time to discuss what is a pretty, a condition of approval that has dramatic implications for the project. Second, I'd like to point out that the proposed condition is in contradiction with the annexation agreement. The city is obligated under Exhibit 3 of the annexation agreement to develop the neighborhood park in Phase 3, similarly to how it is developing Swan Park in Phase 2. It is well established that design is one of the phases of development. Staff pointed to the definition of development in Chapter 14. We feel that's an inappropriate invocation of Chapter 14. The annexation agreement is a separate contractual agreement between two parties. It is not part of Chapter 14. And it is well established that the design phase is one of the phases of the continuum of phases within what is the larger term development. And third, we really feel that requiring Homewise to take on a financial obligation that is in the annexation agreement as the city's obligation is contrary to the established precedent over the last 30 years in Tierra Contenta in the first two phases of development. And again, I'll point to Swan Park as the most clear example of this, presently being designed by the city as one of its responsibilities under carrying out that development obligation. And all of that said, I do also want to say that Homewise is more than happy to continue to engage in conversation with the city. We've been engaging with the city over the last four-plus years around this phase of development. And Homewise is more than happy to continue to collaborate and to have a conversation about how that neighborhood park is handled in Phase 3. However, we feel strongly that the imposition of an eleventh-hour condition of approval that requires Homewise to take on a portion of the city's stated financial obligation under the annexation agreement is inappropriate and unreasonable in association with this preliminary plat application. We do have time between this decision that's before you this evening and the decision that you'll make at final plat in which to continue this conversation, which again was just brought up to us 24 hours ago. So thank you for your time and attention to this matter this evening, and we will stand for questions. >> Thank you. I'm going to suggest to staff that we look at postponing the issue dealing with the park until the final plat approval because it seems it's impossible for us to deal with it tonight. I think it hasn't been developed. Legal might need to get involved. So I don't think it makes sense. Is staff okay if we postpone dealing with addressing that issue? >> Madam Chair, as long as, well, I would prefer that we have this ironed out before the applicant submits for final development plan. I just want to make sure that this is something that we can address because at this point in time there are two issues. You have the opinion of the applicant, and you have the interpretation allowed by Chapter 14 for the land use director to be able to interpret Chapter 14. It doesn't identify that the applicants get to interpret Chapter 14. It only says the land use director, in consultation with the legal department, gets to interpret Chapter 14. There's nobody else within the city that gets to do that. When we present a project, we present a project that has been interpreted in a consistent way that we do across the board. Every applicant who finds a condition that is looming over them at the last minute, last hour, always complains that there's a last minute, last hour. However, this is still under review. Nothing has stopped the review. This review continues even up until the final development plan where we continue to look at everything. >> Dan, I understand that, but I don't even know if this is an issue that is properly before us. I mean, I don't see it. I see it as an interpretation of a contract and an agreement as opposed to a land use issue. So it would seem to me, I mean, especially, I mean, I think in particular because it just developed a day ago, it's really hard to even realize how it's going to be developed. So I think it really needs to be postponed. And I don't know if it matters postponed to what, but just giving the parties in the city an opportunity to try to see what they can work out. >> That's fine. I also wanted, I neglected to mention Eric Anie, who's also in the audience from the NO Division, and Ellen Hook from the Water Division. >> Yes. I would like my next point that I was going to make is that if the city is going to be maintaining the ponds and the trails, I'd like to hear what the city has to say about the maintenance of the ponds and the trails given the request for the variance. Now, may I suggest that we bring up Melissa first, and then bring up with regard to the other variance, Debangner. >> Yes. And I think we need to figure out before we're done how we word the issue of the park in terms of it's postponed to what. So be thinking about that. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> So you brought up these trails and the drainage will be maintained by the city, and D from technical was mentioned that I would like to hear what she has to say about it, but is there anybody from the city who would be a part of the actual maintenance of it here? >> Yes, Melissa McDonald is here from Parks. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> All right. So this is a new development to us in terms of maintenance. It's very hard for me to comment on what 50 ponds maintenance would be as compared to what's being proposed. So our section has reviewed the larger pond, and the maintenance requirements are significant. All of phase, the next phase will cost the city probably two crews. So we've prepared addressing that. It's very hard for me to speak specifically to 50, you know, dots on a map. I'm not really sure what those look like. But we're ready to address anything that's designed. The city will have to bring on new crews no matter what. No matter what is put in there, there's no difference in my opinion. But in terms of that, we're going to need new crews to do it. There's no way that we can maintain any of Tierra Contenta without new crews. As far as the trails, we are working with Homewise to address the connections to Swan Park. We feel confident that we're going to be able to work with them to do that. So really the concern is whether or not the 30% slope is acceptable. >> And can you address that, or is that not in your... >> D's issue to address? I'm not an engineer, and I'm a landscape architect, and I'm not advocating to break code or not break code. I think that's more of a D question, but no matter what is put in there, we're going to need crews to do it. And so it's very hard for me to look at a decentralized map with 50. You know, we have designs that have engineering that we've already analyzed, and we've submitted our comments to looking at all of these decentralized ponds. And in general, we do like decentralized ponds. Keeping things higher in the watershed are better. But to the point, this is a pattern of development in this area. So again, it's very hard for me to comment on whether or not we can maintain those ponds because I don't know where they'll be. I don't have any grading on them. I do know that they're being proposed at 3%, three feet, but without more details, that's very difficult to determine what the maintenance plans would be. Thank you. Can we hear from D? Yes, I'm here. Is there a specific question for me? Yes, the applicant is requesting the right to be able to disturb 30% slope in, I think, five pond areas, and I wanted to know staff's position on that. Yes, Commissioner Chair and Commissioners. The code only allows three isolated incidents of 30% slope disturbance for a project, totaling 1,000 square feet each. This is a little bit difficult because this project is so large. So normally, the code is written, I would say, for a smaller area of a project, and it would be easier to comply when you have such a smaller project. But the code is the code, and this project is going above the required allowance of 30% slope disturbance. So we have to take the position that they are not in compliance with the code, but it is difficult for them to meet this requirement. It's not staff's decision to say that because this is such a big project that they can do what they are requesting to do. So staff has taken the position that we have to say they're not in compliance, and we recommend denial. So if the project was, like, a 5-acre project, then they could, they'd still have a thousand square feet of disturbance. Yes, that is correct. Okay. And safety-wise, does the city have a position in terms of whether this is a real problematic or not? Well, the 30% slope disturbance is not a safety issue. I'm not sure exactly how the code was developed, but I believe it was developed in order to retain the quality of steep slopes and hillsides and keeping Santa Fe's hilly areas, mountainous areas, beautiful and mountainous and not trying to flatten them out. So that's where the code came from. And this would be violating that, but it's not a safety issue. It's not like disturbing 30% slopes can't be made safe from an engineering perspective. Thank you, D. Any other questions? Commissioner Morando. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So just a couple of questions. So I'm going to say my understanding of why 30% slopes are forbidden under the criteria you gave to disturb, and you let me know if this is how you see it. It's one, what you already mentioned, not to disturb the natural look that is Santa Fe and regions, but also that disturbing, essentially disturbing more extreme natural drainage patterns, that's the only part of it that can be dangerous, right? That essentially if something is happening steep from water and you disturb it, that could be dangerous. Is that right? Yeah, I guess, Commissioner, that is probably correct, but there are always ways to make it safer from an engineering perspective. The 30% slopes are not primarily only in drainage areas in the city. There's plenty of applications I've seen where the 30% slopes are, there is no evidence that it's a drainage area, but from an engineering standpoint, engineers can make a lot of things safe. So, I don't think that that's one of the decisions or that's one of the factors in saying that you couldn't disturb 30% slopes just to say that we don't want the drainage disturbed. But there are 30% slopes in many drainage areas, too. But in this case, actually disturbing the 30% slopes is, at least from my reading of the topography, maintaining the natural drainage, at least more than other ways I could see. Yes, Commissioner. It does appear that in this development, the 30% slopes are in the drainage areas, but I don't think that what they're proposing is necessarily a safety issue. I think Orland's done a good job of engineering these so that they would be safe, and she has walls proposed, little retaining, small retaining walls in the areas where she's disturbing the 30% slopes and might need to protect the area. So, from an engineering standpoint, this, I don't believe this will fail. I think it, it definitely could be a good project from an engineering standpoint if we didn't have a 30% slope disturbance rule. And the variance criteria in this case, well, gives us a couple of points, but one is, essentially, if the site presents unique challenges, do you see unique challenges for the applicant on this site? Commissioner Chair and Commissioners, I see that this project is so large that they could have alternates. I think that what they're proposing in a lot of ways is because they are trying to limit or trying to allow the developable areas in the flatter portions where they could put these trails, but they want to, of course, reserve it for developing. And that's one of the reasons why, I mean, this is a big open slate. So if we wanted to hold the line and say you can't disturb the 30% slopes, there is a way to do that, but it will affect their developable areas and limit them for the affordable housing. So, that is something for the commission to decide. But is the current application more in keeping with the existing drainage patterns than carving new drainage patterns within the top of the flatter area? Well, Chair and Commissioners, the trails could go anywhere. The drainage areas will always stay the same. I don't believe that they would ever want to move the drainage areas, and then they would be also disturbing more 30% slopes if they moved the drainage areas. But the trails could be moved to other locations, and then the tracks would have to be altered, but you'd still need to get from a higher level to a lower level. You could just do it through a lot more, a lot more area, which gives you, you'd be able to have your ADA slopes, maximum percentage, but it will be a longer trail, and you would affect your, the area that you could build. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Embry. I have a question. So, is this proposal in keeping with the pattern of drainage tensions within the previous phases of this? One question. And two is, are these designs going to reduce flows versus if we have 50 different or however many different smaller detention ponds, in the opinion of the city, or is that, is there not enough information yet? I don't know. We can see if D can answer that, and then the applicant might want to answer it. D, can you answer that? Yeah. Chair and Commissioners, the city would prefer, and we are moving towards having our drainage be more of a retention than detention. So when you retain water on site, you are trying to infiltrate it or use it for landscape irrigation. When you're detaining water, you're stopping it for a short period of time and then releasing it along its way, which is what this project and what Tier Contenta has done. And that is not the current ideal for drainage. The ideal is to retain it on site, which is why you can say that we would have 50 different small ponds, but really what we are encouraging now is putting a lot more water into landscaped areas. And we're hoping that all of these areas will have a significant amount of landscaping, and they can store, retain more water in their landscaping and have less water going to these retention, to their detention areas where they're just detaining water in the arroyos. When I'm looking at new projects, I don't allow people to detain water in an arroyo ever. So this agreement was made years ago, and they did allow in Tier Contenta the detention of water in the arroyos, which I don't think is a great idea. It will be difficult to maintain for parks, and it just, it can affect the natural, the natural look of an arroyo when you have these dams in an arroyo, and then that significant amount of water being detained there can alter the way an arroyo looks. So we don't, we wouldn't allow that now on a new project. So, I do think it's a shame that we're going to have a 10-foot dam inside of an arroyo. And was there another point to your question? Did I miss something? No, I think you, I think maybe we need to discuss this further. Dan, did you have a question or comment? Madam Chair, I just want to remind the Planning Commission that the issue here is that while the authority and review has transferred from the Land Use Director to the Planning Commission for what we've presented to you, the ordinance still remains the rule of law. And that means because staff has looked at all the criteria based on that rule of law, we provided you that information. If you are going to decide on a different outcome, you must take each one of these findings and make four of these findings in order to move a different outcome. And you must move on all of them because the way this ordinance reads is that they have to meet all of those criteria. If one of them fails, the variance cannot be passed. Dan, can you also comment on the requirement of fencing? When it comes to fencing the ponding areas, I would have to defer to D on that one. So D, if under the applicant's proposal, does code require fencing around such ponding? Chair, we, this is a, that's a policy that I require. It's not in the code. So it is not something that we have to do. It's, you know, there's other places in the country that have ponds, natural ponds everywhere, but since Santa Fe does not have natural standing water anywhere, it's very difficult for children to know whether or not it's a safe area. So you have an area where when it rains, you get four or five feet of water is where I decided that we should be fencing these areas, especially in residential developments where children are going to be playing and walking, and that's just a place where kids want to go to play in the water. And in more than three feet of water, a child could drown. So it's not something that other parts of the nation do. There are, there are other entities, and I did research this before I made that decision and found a lot of other entities that did have requirements for fencing when they have a certain depth of water that's going to be standing there for a while. And then I know that Orland had mentioned that these ponds will drain within 24 hours, and that is the requirement that we, we want ponds to drain within 24 hours, but we unfortunately have ponds all over the city that end up not draining within 24 hours because they're not properly maintained, or something goes wrong, something gets clogged, and then they don't drain, and then you have standing water, which is a nuisance for children and then other things like mosquitoes. And our staff does, of course, try to ensure that these ponds are draining, but we have a very limited staff in a very large city. So there definitely could be standing water, and so yes, that's a policy, and we could change it, and it would be almost impossible to fence these arroyos. So I don't even know how we would do it. We don't allow a fence to go across the arroyo because that can be another, something to clog up the flow of water. So we wouldn't allow a fence across it, so it would never be a fully fenced area anyway. So D, let me ask you a question. So if Tiara Contenta did not have an agreement with the city dating back to, I think, 1984, would, or I think the agreement that was signed is back in the '80s. You're saying that if that wasn't in effect, then you would be requiring that there not be, that there be the retaining of water in this project as opposed to the dissemination of water. **Chlow:** Yes, we are. It's not in the code that we require retention instead of detention, but it is what we are moving towards, and the code does say that water should be directed to landscaped areas. So, in our reviews, we're just making sure that people are doing that more than we had in the past. But it is not yet in our code. We are looking to change our code to require, there are several entities in the state of New Mexico that do require 100% retention. So it is something that we want to move towards. Probably we would never do 100%, but we would like to move towards that, and we do look at that in all projects now. Thank you. Commissioner McGee. **Commissioner McGee:** So I have two questions. One might be for the applicant, and then I'm not sure who the second one is for. So the way this was described is we are moving the water to the arroyo, and the pond will be 10 feet deep. Are we digging down 10 feet? Are we disturbing the arroyo to that degree, or are we leaving the arroyo as is, but the hillside itself is 10 feet? **Applicant:** Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. Commissioner McGee, that's actually a great question. So the beauty of this approach is that it is a minimal disturbance of the arroyo. So the water is already going that way, right? So if this is the arroyo, this is the high side, and this is the low side. We build whether it's little earthen dam or those gabion baskets, like little rock-filled baskets, so we stop the, the water gets to back up, gets to percolate, right? And it's, as said, designed to completely drain within 24 hours. So the disturbance is minimal, so it really preserves the natural occurrence of the arroyo. And it's important thing to point out, there's nothing in the code that prohibits this drainage design. This has been in design. As we mentioned, we collaborated with the city, and the city was the fiscal agent for a grant from the Department of Transportation from the state of New Mexico to fund the infrastructure design. We have been engaging with Public Works, with D, with Gestner, with Land Use for two years on this design. We had, we have comments from Parks and Rec. We have comments from Watershed. We had comments from D. We had comments, and we've addressed all of those. So if this design wasn't permissible, we'd be here with a variance for that. It's absolutely permissible. Yes, maybe the city's moving in a different direction, but this is absolutely, to your question, Commissioner Embry, this is absolutely consistent with the previous phases of Tierra Contenta and how drainage is managed. The City of Santa Fe, as we pointed out in the slide with the yellow area at the top, City of Santa Fe built a giant pond in the arroyo, and they built the sewer line. City built that. So this is very consistent. There is a massive amount of open space in Tierra, and as I mentioned, this is intentional, is intentional to preserve the developable land. Absolutely. So there's nothing about this design that is prohibited. It is going to function beautifully, and it's going to preserve land and support housing. And another point, **Chair:** Wait a second. **Applicant:** Yes, I think it's better if we, as opposed to hearing argument, that we hear facts. So, **Chair:** You have a fact? Do you have a fact? One little quick, **Applicant:** Then please get to it. We'll get to it, because we have another case behind with respect to retention. D makes a valid point about collecting and retaining water within developments. The code actually does require passive water harvesting in all landscaped areas. We're absolutely already required to do that. So every landscaped area, whether it's a planter strip on a roadway, you got to swale it, got to depress it. So when it rains, the water goes in. You collect that water. You're in a multi-family community with your open space and common areas. You've got to depress those landscaped areas to collect stormwater. So we're, the code already requires. So we are absolutely going to be collecting stormwater and retaining stormwater upstream of these arroyos because the code already requires it. So it's already there. **Chair:** Can you address the issue of the fencing, because D is saying it'd be impossible to fence that area. And in terms of a liability, it's, I think, problematic. Ideally, it'd be great if it absorbed within 24 hours, but the practicality of life in Santa Fe is that things often don't get maintained, and it might not be that way. **Applicant:** The point that D was making, there are areas that, yes. And we're already doing some fencing around certain areas just to prevent ATV activity and, you know, so we do have some fencing proposed in certain areas already. But we can't cross, you can't cross an arroyo. So yes, there, there could be opportunity, obviously avoiding 30% slopes, to install, you know, strategic fencing, but you're not going to, this kind of perimeter effect. And, but it's still, it could potentially still be effective, but it would be something that we would just have to work closely with the city to lay out, lay that out in a way that made sense. **Commissioner Wland:** Yes, Commissioner Wland. This is for the city. So to understand, there's a thousand square foot allowance for disturbance of a slope. They're 30% slope. Since this development is actually broken up into tracts, and the tracts are only specifically in certain areas and not through the whole development. By implying that code, are we messing with this a little bit in the sense that the actual disturbance is only on specific tracts, not on the whole plan itself? So, should we be looking at the specific tracts for the total amount of square footage through that tract and not adding it up to the 7,000 square feet of the whole plan? **City Staff:** Madam Chair, members of the commission, you have to understand this is one big development. So we look at it cohesively in order to address the code requirements, and that's the only way we can do it. We can't isolate it into its smaller components and then take that and apply it to something that it's not. We have to look at this holistically when we review the impacts, when we review what the code is requiring us to do. It's also, Chair, member Reeland, Commissioner Reeland, the, what we're looking at really does not include the tracts at this point. So while the applicant made the argument about 50 detention ponds, what we're looking at generally is the spine infrastructure and the drainage associated with that spine infrastructure and the bigger picture because eventually there will be development on those individual tracts, and we don't know what it is. And so what we're trying to do is look at that big picture. And just if I might add, staff will be making a recommendation based on the code and based on the variance criteria, but it is certainly within the power of the Planning Commission to bind differently for that variance criteria than from staff. **Commissioner Wland:** That actually brings me to my next question. Does it, the developer, the master developer of this that's bringing in individuals to develop out the tracts, to have them actually propose in their own developments these adjustments, because then we are hearing it per the tract and not over the overall master plan. So, it's not so much on you guys as the city. Then it becomes a developer to explain to the future entities, whoever it is, Pulte, ER, and I don't know who they're going to have do this. But it's on that developer to actually follow that code at that point and not include it on the master plan itself. They're not going to be the ones developing it. We're going to see multiple development plans come through here over the next three to five years, however long it takes. Are we going to be kicking the same can down the road again? **City Staff:** Chair, member Reeland, I'm not sure whether or how their approach is, but it's, if it's my understanding, this, this is regional. It really is intended to pick everything up, but we probably should ask the engineer to go into that a little further. **Applicant:** So, not an engineer, but I'm going to take a shot at, Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Reeland. So, Miss Lamboy is correct. So the intent of the design is the ponding areas are will manage all of the stormwater throughout the entire project. Water from the roadways and the water from the tracts themselves. And again, this is intentional. We do not want to burden the home builder with dedicating, you know, 10% of his property, 20% of whatever it may be to a drainage pond when that property is intended to accommodate housing. So, this is the way the previous phases were developed is that there's no subdivision out there that's got a drainage pond in the middle of it because they utilize strategically the open space to collect and manage the stormwater. So, this is consistent with practice in the previous phases. It is not contrary to, and it is, and there are a lot of ways to skin a cat, right? But this is the methodology and the approach that has been employed in Tierra Contenta for 30 years. We're continuing that, and it has been properly engineered. **Chair:** Jennifer, I'm going to ask, please don't argue or provide argument because really we're going to be here till midnight, and we've heard it and get it. But I think right now, I'm, did you want to make a comment? **City Staff:** Yes. **Chair:** Thank you. But I thought I'd sort of provide you with a little bit more information with questions with respect to the trails, interruption of the 30% slopes. **City Staff:** Thank you. The city in the past, the St. Francis, I thought I'd give you an example of where for public good, this Public Works Department has interrupted a 30% slope with a trail, and it sort of supports D's explanation that, you know, they can be engineered to work. That would be the St. Francis Trail, east side of St. Francis Drive, St. Michael's, all along that whole, it's retained with a, you know, six, seven painting. Well, that's an extreme example. Obviously, Orland's not posing that sort of a development, but I think it helped kind of close the circle on that question of, well, what is this? Have we done this before in terms of disturbing a 30% trail with a for a public good for a trail? So, the answer is, we have. **Chair:** Thank you. That's helpful. No, that's good. That puts it in perspective. I think right now I'm going to open this up for public comment. Jennifer might want to step up. No, I'm joking. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. **Will Karp:** My name is Will Karp, 4391 Waking Sky. **Chair:** Do you solemnly swear and 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? **Will Karp:** Yes, please proceed. I'm just a viewer of this discussion, but I'm kind of shocked at the thought of us having a retention pond that was three feet or more of water and not having it fenced in. And the argument that this will give kids more space to play in without having a fence in front of them, I kind of think is unreasonable, and I would really ask the commission to consider that. And if something were to happen catastrophic, I'm not sure whether it's the Planning Commission or the city or who, but somebody is going to be responsible for that, is going to have to answer for that. I would urge that nowhere, and I live, I live off of Governor Miles, and I know there are detention ponds there and on Richards that have fences around. Now I understand why. So I would urge you folks to consider that. **Chair:** Anyone else from the public would like to comment who's present in chambers? If not, is there anyone on Zoom? Please, if you're on Zoom, raise your hand if you would like to speak. Chair, no. There are no hands raised. Thank you. I have a question. I mean, I have no idea how this is going to go, but if in fact the variance was granted and there was a fence issue, could that be deferred to staff to work out that issue later to make sure there's adequate safety? Yes, Chair. And we might be able to resolve that prior to final plat. Okay. So, we could reserve that. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Yes, Dan. Madam Chair, I did, we did work up a condition that you asked. Yes. Okay, good. Do you want to read that? The condition regarding the neighborhood park design shall be postponed in order to allow the applicant and staff to discuss and resolve prior to final plat, prior to final subdivision plan. We can also just also include the fence in that too. So that's more of a compound. Okay, I would do that. Okay. Is there a motion? Madam Chair, I just did want to make a comment. Sure. Go ahead. So, there, it came up that one of these trails was requested or advised by the MPO. Is that right? And I believe Eric is here, so it might make sense to have him on that if you wish. I thought he was going to, he thought he was going to get away with this. He was hiding back there. Madam Chair, members, committee, commission, Director Lamboy, members of the public. For the record, Eric, on a Santa Fe MPO. The Santa Fe MPO. I've been with the Santa Fe MPO for about 11 years. I've had the privilege to be part of the theater phase three master planning in depth. The Santa Fe MPO has provided some direct services and a good example may be included in terms of during the process of reviewing the master plan, during the process [cough and clears throat] of this particular element. A few years ago, MPO staff had gone out on site and looked at which agent has spoke eloquently to the connection beyond which in the spirit of transport planning, our goal is to make sure that the city has every option available to connect to not only future trails, but as developments occur, they fall in line like the puzzle has designed, if that makes sense. So, yes, the MPO has been involved, and hopefully we'll continue to be. Any other specific questions, I'd be happy to. I suppose specifically, did you weigh in at all on the issue of the trail switchbacking to maintain an accessible slope? Madam Chair, members of the commission, yes, the MPO staff has been available during a couple meetings with developers, engineer, with the messenger, the staff related to the non-room that is before you, which is the slopes. What I would like to clear about that, we recognize the code and the implications of the code is the MPL. That would be Leah and I specifically involved. Leah Indy is a me staff member. So, in maintaining sort of that neutrality, what I do want to emphasize is that the trails that have been proposed have also been indoctrinated in the Santa Fe MPO's master plan school master. They've also been indoctrinated in what was adopted a year and a half ago, which is the Safe Routes to School plan and the vicinity that spoken. What I do know to be true in terms of the spirit of the connections is that what has been presented to you tonight largely falls in line the intended connections and being in part of those meetings on the more technical was the spirit of the connections to be in alignment, not only in alignment with what was proposed to take care and do due diligence to not disturb the slopes matter that's going to to safety. So, we have been part and parcel of those conversations. We are, as you can imagine, immensely supportive of any trail connection as working in New Mexico, sometimes trails can be viewed as alternatives secondary. This is clearly a primary infrastructure, essential structure. We get that from all parties. So, we're very in support of seeing to the degree that is reasonable these trails. Any other questions or comments, or can we have a motion? Madam Chair, Yes. Just like to give you my revised condition. Yes. The condition regarding the neighborhood park design and drainage ponding fencing shall be postponed in order to allow the applicant and staff to discuss and resolve prior to final plat. Sounds good. Also, if you are going to revise the findings for the variance, please speak into the mic because we will have to use the YouTube video to address the findings for the next meeting. But if there's a motion to approve the variance, that motion could include the applicant's response to the applicant's findings, requested findings, and then we wouldn't have to read that into the record. Correct. Because it's in the record right now as part of the application. Chair Cloff, if I could address the commission, I think that would be fine as long as the commission is referencing something. Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion. Yes. Go ahead. In case 2025-10685 TR content to preliminary subdivision plat, I would like to make a motion to approve with staff's sub, I'm sorry, where did we? Yeah, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections. But with the added provision that the technical correction in A2 be worked out at the time of final plat. Would you like me to read that condition over? Yes, probably. The condition regarding the neighborhood park design and drainage pond fencing shall be postponed in order to allow the applicant and staff to discuss and resolve prior to final subdivision plat. We just want to accept that. I have it here. Yes, I do. Second. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Commissioner Embry. Yes. Commissioner Reland. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. [clears throat] Madam Chair, in case 2025-10688 TI contend to preliminary subdivision plat variance for slopes request, I'd like to make a motion to approve with applicant submitted conditions for approval. Second. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Commissioner Embry. Yes. Commissioner Reland. Yes. Could you just repeat that on the mic, please? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Miranda. Yeah. Commissioner, Commissioner McGee. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Okay, we're now going to move on to case number 2025-10006, Vista de la Sierra phase three. Oh, I don't know. Yeah, maybe. No, no. I guess we need to wait a minute because there's no one here. It's coming. Okay, we're ready to proceed. Yes, Madam Chair. Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I am Claudia Cath and I senior planner at the city and I will be presenting case 2025-11006 Vistas de la Sierra phase 3. The applicant requests approval of preliminary subdivision plat for a 128 lot residential subdivision in phase three of the Vista Stella Sierra subdivision. Phase 3 is a 24.42 acre parcel and consists of two tracks and the site is zoned R5. So you can see, this is all of Distierra and phases one and two, which are currently under construction, are grayed out and phases three, 3A and 3B are shown here. So 3A is 16.5 acres, 3B is 7.7 acres. So the this area of Vistas was annexed into the city in 2007 and it was previously known as Batty South. The ordinance had an original master plan that had 523 units with it, but the master plan at the time was kind of considered conceptual. And it says in the ordinance that changes in size or number of houses or layout can occur and there does not need to be an amendment to the master plan, just a vote by the planning commission. So in this, so I just wanted to point out in the purple line, Fourstar, the applicant owns all that land and this was the illegal lot of record. This came before the planning commission in 2020, if you recall that, where the subdivision was approved. However, phase three expired before it could be constructed, but as mentioned, phases one and two are under construction. So, this is a phasing plan again showing phases one and two, phase three, phase 3B and the AOYO open space, the park. This is a 9 acre plot that's future development and phase one here is a 3.14 acre plot that per the annexation agreement is dedicated to the Santa Fe public schools. I just wanted to show a few site photos. I know we're there yesterday, but this is very much, as you can see, under construction. Here's some more showing the drainage retention pond and power poles in the distance. Power lines in the distance. In terms of zoning, Vistas is here in the red. To the north is Villa Sonatada. To the south, Los Soleris. To the east, Nishin Viejo. And to the west, Nava Aad. And to the southwest, the Monte Deloul School. And this, the future land map. So the yellow indicates a density of 3 to 7 residences per acre. So the current zoning is in line with the future land use map. So the staff finds that the application complies with chapter 14 in terms of the plat approval criteria. There is one correction to my report. I mentioned that the lot coverage will not exceed 40%, but it can go up to 50% if open space is provided and it is provided. And then the original master plan legal out of record shows 393 units residential units and so that would mean that 122 would be built in phase three, but now the applicant is adding six more units. So the total will be 128. And then in reviewing the affordable housing, the applicant will be providing 25 affordable houses. So the current affordable housing agreement has expired. It expired with the development plan and the, so the current amend, affordable housing agreement will have to either be amended or a new one created. So and there previously the affordable housing for all three phases was 79. Now we're adding two more so it will be 81. And then this is the site plan of phase three. So the blue is the 48, 4800 square foot lot and the green is 5600 square foot and then the red indicates affordable housing units. So this is the now just going through the DRT comments. This is the fire plan and for phase three, especially here, this, there's one entrance off of Governor Miles and then there's a fire exit here, an emergency exit here and staff would like to impose a condition that states the applicant and staff and fire marshal need to meet on site to review and agree upon this connection. There is one connection already existing off of phase two down lower on Richards, which looks like this. So the fire marshalists expressed concerns about the width and the capacity of the design of the road to hold fire apparatus. So that's just a condition that we want to add that we need to work this out with the fire marshal and the applicant. This fa, this portion over here is not as critical because there are multiple streets that are joining to phase three. So this is the utility map and bringing in phase three and see the applicant is providing adequate water and sewer to all the residences at the 8 in lines for each and fire hydrants. This is the grading plan. I just wanted to point out, you can see here the grades are stacking up. These homes are about 10 feet below govern the intersection at Governor Miles and as you track back along Governor Miles it decreases to 5t and then at the Aoyo again it's steeper. When you come in this road off of Governor Miles, you can see by the contours it's steeper and then levels out where the houses are located. And with regarding traffic, there's, so just to point out again, they're going phases one and two were accessed off of Beckner. Now, with phases three, phase 3A, 3B, there will be access off of Governor Miles. So, staff has found that the project is designed to sub-collector standards with parking on one side of the roads. There's two off-street parking spaces per house. And the traffic engineer has composed DRT comments, and I would like to invite Leroy Pacheco to come up at this time and just to review those comments with you. Madam Chair, I think it's important. The traffic impact study that we reviewed was this past August, and one of the conditions of approval when this whole development got going in 2020 was that there be a revision to the actual traffic counts because that took place during COVID. Then there were interruptions due to construction of Beckner. I don't know if you remember Beckner being closed for quite a while. And then with development impact fees, the signal at Beckner and Governor Beckner and Richards, I'm sorry, was installed. So, this is the first traffic study, is the first post all of that traffic counts that have taken place. It was submitted in August. General and Wilson and Company is a city public works contract agent for doing the traffic review. Excel and del lanes, warrants and lanes at various intersections are unresolved on Governor Miles and will need to be further analyzed. The signal timing plans are going to be needed to be updated at Beckner and at Governor Miles on Richards. There's certain modifications that we're going to require at the Richards Beckner intersection. We are going to be looking at the relocation of the advanced northbound signal flasher when you're coming up Richards because it's after the signal at Richards. So, we're going to be needing to move that further south from Beckner. We need a full all-way stop sign warrant analysis at the intersection of Governor Miles and Dancing Ground, and any identified improvements from that should be instructed by this developer. Whispering Wing Road, which was previously a dead end and now connects into this development, will need to be completely analyzed for compliance with most current MUTCD signage and striping requirements. And so, we've shared all of this with the traffic engineer for the developer. They're aware of our comments for over months, and we don't, so we're working that through, but we don't feel that any of this information should impede approval of preliminary. >> And it is a condition, is it not already? >> Condition. >> Yeah, in the report. Yes. Okay. >> Thank you. So, just to facilitate with the, this map is showing some of the other streets that Leroy is mentioning, like Whispering Wing, sorry, Dancing Ground is over here, Rising Time, of course, Governor Miles, Richards, and Beckner. So, just to move on to stormwater, there is one more, and that is water resources. So, with the addition of six houses, the applicant is short of water rights. So, that is another condition of approval to, they have to add more water rights to this development. And it's, these are conditions to be worked out before final plat approval. And then with stormwater, you can see the white dashed line here, separating phase three from phases one and two. So, some of the ponds have already been constructed here, and then these other ponds are going to be added as part of phase three. So, one of the thing, another condition we're adding today, and we have been talking almost all day with the applicant and our train management team. So, the applicant removed a pond, and we just are working with the city engineer and the applicant to understand exactly how this will drain. We're waiting for the applicant to submit a letter to us stating how this will work, and then we'll have some back and forth and potentially add this pond back. What will that condition? You said you were adding a condition. What is the wording of that condition? >> So, I have those down here at the end. So, pardon me. So, you have two added conditions. >> Well, I, that would be all one condition. >> Okay. >> To down here, and then these are other conditions. Some of them I haven't gotten to yet, but like this would be to work with the fire marshal. This is for the train management. And number three is the amended affordable housing agreement. >> Correct. >> Okay, got it. >> So, I just want to remind you, D is here online to discuss the ponding. Ellen Hook is in the back if you want to discuss water rights, and again, you've already heard from our traffic engineer. >> Thank you. >> I just wanted to go over, so originally from when this was all three phases back in 2020, you can see the green is the park space and the yellow is the open space. So, the applicant more than met the requirements, and then this is phase three. So, you can see the bulk of the park space and the open space falls into phase three. These are showing the walkways. There will be walkways provided throughout the development and connect to Governor Miles here and the Nava A trail system and the trail system down here. So, this was going another condition. So, this line is the property line between Easta Stella Sierra and Nava Aad. So, they're proposing this trail here, and the orange is the existing Nava Aad trail, and this property here outside of Nava is owned by the city. So, we're asking the applicant to build the purple, which is about 150 feet of trail to connect the Easta Sierra trail to the existing Nava trail, and that is also a condition of approval. And then lastly, this is a photo taken about a week and a half ago from a drone. And you can see phase one is very, you know, moving quite along. There are a few lots that still are not constructed. Phase two starting to fill in as well. And phase, the other part of phase two is coming after that. So, I just wanted to point out this is still very much a construction site, and while these developments are houses are occupied, there are still construction going on, and they're just not complete yet. So, again, these are the four conditions. For number one is the extension of the trail. Two is to meet with the fire marshal to resolve the exit from the development to Richards. Number three is the affordable housing agreement, and four is the train management coordinating with the applicant on the drainage ponds. There was a, the applicant properly noticed for early neighborhood notification. I'm sorry, I had August in my report. It's actually July 22nd. There were approximately 25 community members in attendance, and the applicant presented the subdivision phase three. The Land Use Department recommends approval of case 20251006ier preliminary phase 3 preliminary subdivision plat subject to conditions of approval and technical corrections outlined in Attachment A, the staff report. One motion will be required. Approve or deny case 20251006 to the C Sierra phase 3 preliminary subdivision plat subject to conditions of approval and technical corrections. And with that, I stand for questions. >> Any clarifying questions before we hear from the applicant? Yes. >> I forgot two more staff members, and they're online. One is Taylor Jurgens, who's the engineer for the Water Department, and the other is Deronimo, who's our fire marshal. >> Thank you. Thank you. Now the applicant. Hello and good evening. >> Raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. >> Loris Vhill, I'm with Liaison Planning Services, PO Box 1835, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504. 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. Thank you. >> Proceed. >> Good evening. It's been a long night. So, I'll make it very brief. My name is Dolores Vel. I'm with Liaison Planning Services. I represent the applicant for Star USA. I'm here and am being accompanied by our teams. I believe there may be some online with Fourstar, Matthew Sidell, Ryan Betts, and his associates. I believe they are on Zoom to answer any questions you may have. They are out of town, so this is a convenient way for them to be available for answering questions. I am also accompanied by JC Warwick, who is in the audience here. She's with the engineer with Dr. Horton, who's the contractor. And then also I've got Mr. Carl Summer, who's here to answer any questions, and then we've got Ron O'Hanan, who's also here, who's our engineer on staff. First of all, I'd like to thank Claudia Cath and the staff for meeting with us today in reviewing all the issues that had come up from the staff report, and I believe that we have resolved all those issues before we come, now that we come before you, we can say that we feel good about what had been discussed. As stated in the staff report, Vista Stella Sierra Subdivision phase three is a 24.42 acre parcel located on the southwest corner of Governor Miles Road and Richards Avenue. The project is two tracts, 33, 16.653 acres, and tract 34, which is 7.7 acres. The applicant has also amended the previous approval to add six new lots. The applicants have reviewed the conditions of approval, and as part of the project, the applicant will construct sidewalks along Governor Miles Road and within the interior of the subdivision. As mentioned in the staff report, it states that the applicant will continue the trail and join it to the existing Nava Audit trail. Mr. Summer is here, who would like to make a statement on behalf of the applicant to address this condition. Also, the applicant agrees with all the other conditions of approval as outlined in the report and technical corrections listed in Attachment A. My name is Carl Summer. My address is PO Box 2476, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504. >> 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 penalties of perjury? >> I do. Members of the commission, I'll be very brief. This afternoon and today, we spent some time going over the four conditions that were listed at the end. The condition related to the trail that arose from the previous approval by Columbus Capital, which expired. We're willing to carry that through. The only problem is is that extension is on city property. And I was informed this evening that the Parks Department will work to get the necessary permission for us to build on city property. We don't need an easement. The city is going to want it. So, I am told that the Parks Department will work with us to get that permission, and that's, that's why we agree to it. It's not, it's not a matter of the funding. We talked to Mr. Hook this evening. We're talking one acre foot. You have to add for the additional four houses that require water rights. The engineering that we talked about this afternoon related to that pond is a very technical issue. They will work that out. It's purely science, and we'll get that done before final plat. And then finally, the affordable housing agreement is what it is, and we can do that however the city wants us to do it. So, with respect to the conditions of approval that we went over today, and I thank Dan and all of staff, Miss Cath and D and Joshua, we all had a couple of round robins today, and we got them approved. I mean, got them, got them resolved so that you wouldn't be having to decide these things. And we stand for any questions that you have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions before we open this up to public comment? Okay. So we'll open this matter up for public comment. If there's anyone here from the public that would like to speak, please come forward. You were previously sworn in. You say, "Hello, Madam Chair," instead of, "Hello, folks." Yeah, you've been, you should, you've been sitting here since six o'clock. Had I known that, I could have done, did I see a wall over here that I could put this on? Or can I put it on a chair? Sorry. Oh, if they can see it, sure. I was informed that I had about two minutes to speak. So I live off Governor Miles, and I am a neighbor. I respectfully ask you to oppose this plan. Governor Miles is turning into a sea of cinder block walls, the extent of which I marked up in those blue lines. Those are the cinder block walls that as you drive down Governor Miles, all you see, and also all the other developments within Solaris also are all walled. Not only that, but within the walled-in enclaves, all the streets are walled as well. And I would ask that we stop that. The additional stretch of land, which I thought was only the part that I put in yellow, but actually it's even greater than that, is the last remaining strip of trees we have on Governor Miles, and it's about to be demolished. More asphalt, concrete, cinder block wall. This development that you're talking about here is not a community. It doesn't represent what Santa Fe is. It's 400 homes squeezed in like rows of cell cement wall, each of which occupies 48% of the lot. Not counting streets and sidewalks, it amounts to 11 homes. Within these walls, there's no collocated space that is defined as a park or park area or community gathering space for kids or family, except for the exposed riprap dams and retention ponds and detention ponds that run under the high-tension wires that go through the property. There is no open space actually within the community. And I noticed that on some of the charts that Claudia showed, all along the edges of the road and the arroyo, they're counting that as park space and open space. No, I thought the idea of developments was to be able to have a place where community could gather together, where kids could play. So walking trails, which are provided, are all outside of the cinder block walls. There's not even any trails going through the development. And this applies to all the developments that have been taking place in Los. So you want to ride a bike, you want to have your kids ride a bike, you're going to go outside the wall. Not a single juniper piñon tree has been saved. All that land has been just leveled that you see right there. And I really beseech you to consider allowing this last piece of Governor Miles to remain as nature provided. Please don't allow any more cinder block walls. And by the way, if we're looking at affordable housing, which I've heard mentioned many times, we're looking for affordable housing for a fireman, a policeman. Let me remind you that you, the Planning Commission, approved this plan based on the price of $200,000 to under $400,000 per house. And I have the documentation for that shown there in the Mexican. Houses are currently advertised selling from $520,000 to $740,000. So much for affordable housing. I'm afraid that I'm thinking that you folks have been deceived. I hope you won't be deceived very much. And I do want to say that in my getting ready for this, and obviously you can see I'm very passionate about this, I did interface with folks that work for the city, and they were very helpful and real. Thank you. Anyone else here in chambers wanting to speak on this matter? If not, is there anyone on Zoom? Yes, Chair Clow. Richard Lang has his hand raised. Mr. Lang, if you can unmute, state your name and address for the record, and be prepared to be sworn. Sure. My name is Richard Lang, and I live on 4401 Autumn Leaf Lane in Nava A. Do you see my hand? I have, I see a hand there. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the, oh, please state your name and address for the record. Oh, 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. Please proceed. Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I lead the Nava Task Force for Vista Deas Sierra that was established in 2020. Tonight, I'm speaking on behalf of the Homeowners Association regarding our traffic concerns related to this application. But before I begin, Madam Chair, our HOA has a five-minute presentation, which I can present in whole, or we can divide it in two for another member, Julia Farber, to present. So just let me know. I would go ahead and present it in whole. I think that's more productive. This presentation outlines long-standing traffic congestion and pedestrian safety concerns at the intersection of Dancing Ground and Governor Miles Road. To begin, Dancing Ground provides vital arterial connection between Beckner Road, Estansiest Deloseris Presbyterian Hospital via Governor Miles. It is also the primary access route for Navali neighborhood and Monte del Sol Charter School. Historically, severe traffic gridlock has occurred at the beginning and end of the school day. Although severe traffic gridlock has lessened following the completion of Beckner and Railrunner roads, substantial delays and gridlock continues. If you were seeing my screen behind me, the background shows the traffic gridlock pre-COVID that multiple blocks long. Do you see that? No, we don't see anything yet. Is it possible for me to screen share? Just one moment. Try to promote you. I'm actually not sure how to do that with this format since it is through join as panelist. Okay. And in a moment, this should come. Let me turn my video on. And there we have it. So in back of me is Dancing Ground Road from Whispering Wing, Whispering Wing, which is several blocks, it's along the arroyo, but it's several blocks, city blocks from Governor Miles. And this is the gridlock pre-COVID that we worked on. So unfortunately, since school is dismissed at 3:15, that's Bonnie Soul School, and the TAs are typically performed starting at 4:00 p.m., likely this data may not have been included in the current TIA that schools the traffic from schools letting out, even though the master plan condition of approval specifically and unusually stated that school traffic should be included. So we wholeheartedly agree with the Phase 3 condition that an all-stop sign warrant analysis be conducted at the intersection. We request, however, that the analysis be initiated no later than 3:30 p.m. to include school traffic from Monte del Sol School. In addition, because Governor Miles bisects Nava A, the intersection also serves as the essential pedestrian crossing for residents living north of it to access our clubhouse and pool. Both facilities attract individual residents and families who walk to them year-round. Plus, children walk across Governor Miles to and from home. The absence of a pedestrian crossing presents a notable safety hazard. Excuse me. To address the intersection issues at Dancing Ground and Governor Miles, former Traffic Engineering Division Director Robert Romero proposed installing a roundabout there. A draft design of it was shown to us and discussed. However, since Mr. Romero's departure and the dissolution of the traffic division, no further action or discussion has occurred, despite our recent request for meetings with city staff and traffic engineers. In closing, we therefore request that approval of Phase 3 for Vista Deas Sierra be conditioned upon the following: one, that the stop sign warrant analysis be initiated no later than 3:30 p.m. to include school traffic; and two, that a meeting be held between Nava A representatives and city traffic engineers to discuss its results; and three, that we are allowed to revisit and comment on this issue before the Planning Commissioners. It's a late hour, and I truly appreciate and thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Anyone else on Zoom? Yes, Chair Clow. I have another hand raised with a C. Leeman. Miss or Mr. Leeman, please raise your hand and be prepared to be sworn. State your name and address for the record. My name is Carol Leeman. I live at 4420 Autumn Leaf Lane in Santa Fe. 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 penalties of perjury? I do. Please proceed. I would just like to say that I live at the corner of Whispering Wing and Autumn Leaf Lane, which is one block from the construction of Sierra Dea Vista. And I and my neighbors who live on Whispering Wing are very weary of huge trucks roaring up our street at all hours, sometimes beginning at 5:00 a.m. to build the development to our east. I cannot sleep with my windows open in the summer anymore, which I think is an important and beautiful part of life in Santa Fe, because of the trucks and their fumes and their noise and their rattling going to build another development. So I am requesting that there be some sort of, I'm requesting that the roads from Governor Miles into the new development be completed before there's more construction so that they can access their neighborhood to do the construction on those roads, the roads within their neighborhood, instead of coming up my street and disturbing all of us. And it's a quality of life issue that I never thought I would have to deal with in this beautiful city where I have lived for 35 years. I'd also appreciate some traffic mitigation, especially speeding on Whispering Wing, because there's so much traffic on it now, and people seem to think it's an autobahn. Thanks for staying up and listening to us. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Chair, the next person who would like to speak is Eduardo Lozano. And Mr. Lozano, please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record, and be prepared to be sworn. Thank you. My name is Eduardo Lozano for Terresia Vista in the Villa Sonata community in 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 penalties of perjury? I do. Please proceed. Madam Chair and members of this commission, I'm a resident of Villa Sonata. It's at the, as you saw in the previous slides, Villa Sonata is the community located north of Vistas de Laser subdivision, and we are 277 residents. With the support of our HOA, we also formed a neighborhood commission several months ago to learn about the details of the case being presented today. Based on the traffic impact analysis submitted by the applicant, there is a great level of concern among our neighbors that the traffic conditions in Governor Miles will become unbearable for our community. Please note that our community can only be accessed through Governor Miles. We have no alternative entry or exit points. To give you some numbers from the Santa Fe traffic count database system, there's an estimated 3,500 vehicles per day in Governor Miles, and that's the annual average daily traffic recorded in 2024. The traffic impact study shows that the Vista's Deer subdivision will generate approximately 4,100 daily trips, out of which they estimate that close to 2,000 of them will go through Governor Miles. Madam Chair and members of the commissions, that's over a 50% increase from our current traffic volumes, and such volumes will make Governor Miles eligible for what is called a complex traffic calming project, and that's per the city's of Santa Fe traffic calming program guidelines. From our understanding, these types of projects can be lengthy and costly for the city. So, what we please request to this commission is that the appropriate traffic calming measures are adopted as part of this development and not after the fact, once the conditions become unbearable for local residents. Roundabouts, four-way stops, or simply additional speed humps in our shared section of Governor Miles, so we can ensure safe traffic conditions for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Unfortunately, none of these measures were part of the development plan presented. Thank you for your considerations. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next person is Wendy Leighton. Miss Leighton, please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. Thank you. My name is Wendy Leighton. My address is 4427 Long Shadow Lane. I live at the corner of Long Shadow Lane and Whispering Wing. 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 penalties of perjury? Yes. Please proceed. Is it possible also to share my screen? Just one moment. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Wendy Leighton. I am speaking on behalf of the Nava Ade HOA board regarding Dr. Horton's construction vehicle traffic use on our neighborhood streets to access Vista de la Sierra. Despite the builder's good intentions and posting street signs to prohibit construction traffic on Ade streets, construction vehicles, including 5-ton cement trucks, continue to use Dancing Ground and Whispering Wing, a narrow neighborhood street, to access the construction site. Homeowners have reported construction trucks driving as early as 5 in the morning. In one incident, a 5-ton truck's rumbling was severe enough to dislodge and shatter a mirror from a homeowner's wall. In response to numerous Nava Ade complaints, the compliance officer stated there is little he can do because construction trucks driving on Nava Ade neighborhood streets is not illegal. We therefore request, in addition to the Phase 3 plat note which states that construction vehicles are prohibited from using Nava Ade streets, that additional measures be added to hold the builder responsible for their non-compliance and empower the city to enforce the traffic restriction if the commissioners have the authority. We therefore hope you will consider adding a measure such as a condition of approval that states the applicant must take full responsibility for prohibiting their construction vehicles from using these small Nava Ade streets, including paying fines for non-compliance. There are hundreds of foundations yet to be poured in all three phases of Vista de la Sierra. Additional measures need to be augmented to safeguard Whispering Wing street safety and our residents' peace of mind. We really appreciate your consideration in this matter. I also teach at the school next door at Monte del Sol, and I am concerned about the safety of the children. Thank you. Thank you. The next person to speak is David Spires-Lul. I'm sorry if I did that incorrectly. Mr. Spires-Lul, please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. Good evening. My name is David Spires. I live at 4409 Autumn Leaf Lane, abutting the new development. 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. Please proceed. I would like to address the house heights issue. On September 3rd and again on September 15th, Nava Ade HOA wrote a letter to Planning Four Star and DR Horton requesting that the applicant agree to make all the houses bordering Nava Ade in Phase 3 single-story. For context, seven units border Nava Ade in Phase 3. Regrettably, we have not received a response from the applicant. Our request is based on the following concerns: First, not only are we saddened by the loss of our views of the Sangre de Cristos and unobserved sky, but we are gravely concerned about the potential loss of privacy due to the second-story windows and two-story houses. Second, our request is commensurate with the developer's existing agreement with Estancias de la Sierra, which restricts housing construction adjacent to their subdivision to single-story units. And third, because the ground elevation in Phase 2 bordering Nava Ade is higher than ours, apparently by several feet or so, Phase 3 continues at a higher ground elevation. Undoubtedly, this could create more significant privacy issues for us by enabling more direct second-story views into our homes and backyards. We therefore request that tonight, on our behalf, planning commissioners ask the applicants to publicly respond to our request for single-story houses in Phase 3. We very much appreciate your consideration of this matter. Thank you. Thank you. The next person to speak is Adrian. Please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. Yes, my name is Adrian Salazar. My address is 4407 Mesa Bonita Road. 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. Please proceed. Good evening, Madam Chair and commissioners. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I will be brief as well, but also just wanted to share some of my concerns being a resident of Via Sonata. And as you've heard my fellow neighbors in Via Sonata and Nava Ade tell you about some of the various concerns, I wanted to stress to you the importance of safety in all of this. And really what it comes from is a bunch of different directions. Those being pedestrian safety, vehicular safety, safety of bicyclists and others in the area. Also though, the issue with the potential issue with flooding. I feel like this is something that has not been given enough attention, but as we all can attest to, there's been many more severe storms that have occurred in the area. Flooding is definitely an increasing risk year after year. I also wanted to mention the fact that I know that the city is pushing for Vision Zero initiatives throughout, and it just does not feel like this development is taking any of that into account with respect to again, bicyclists and pedestrian safety. So I wanted to stress those things as well, while also providing a couple of potential solutions to this development. One being that the emergency access lane off of Richards maybe could be explored a little bit more, and maybe perhaps a deceleration lane could be added, and the homes in the area could be reconfigured so that traffic has a means of getting off of Richards and into the subdivision, and maybe that could alleviate some of the traffic concerns on Governor Miles. That being said, another potential solution could be realignment of the entrances and exits onto Governor Miles so that maybe there are not four-way intersections, four-way stops that need to be installed, and instead maybe these entrances or exits can be offset and maybe they become essentially one-way direction of traffic flow, similar to what we have at the end of my street at Mesa Bonita, where traffic flows, I believe it's to the west. So I wanted to share those opinions and just solutions that maybe could be taken into consideration, and I hope that we can see something that serves all of us in the community, new homeowners and existing homeowners alike. So thank you very much. Thank you. No other hands are raised, Chair. Okay. With that, we'll close the public comment portion of this hearing and move on to questions or comments by the commissioners. If there are no questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a comment about the application. And it just generally, there's no variance request, and it does seem to meet the code, but I'd like to just say as a general statement to the applicant that I don't feel that the planning shows a lot of thought. And because this is a preliminary plat, you still have the opportunity to improve that. And what I mean by that is that there is a consistent uniformity and lack of space and lack of green space that is just really unfortunate. I'm here to vote based on the code, and I will do that in this case, but I'm also going to say, take the opportunity to really suggest that you make a place that will feel better to live in. Any other comments, questions? Yes, Commissioner McGee. I did have a question. I think multiple people mentioned conversations about a roundabout, and I'm curious, it sounds like those conversations occurred with staff. I'm curious if anyone in the room or online are aware of those conversations about a roundabout, and if they are ongoing. The condition of approval that I am aware of that specifically mentions a roundabout was in 2020, and that required the developer to construct a roundabout at its main intersection with Beckner Road and shall be constructed as a single-lane roundabout designed in a manner so that it can be expanded to a multi-lane roundabout in the future, and that was done. So I don't know if there, I mean, so that is on record in terms of what was a condition of approval passed. We are looking at levels of service on various intersections on Governor Miles Road, Dancing Ground, all multimodal. So all, and you know, it's evolutions of progression from no stops, two-way stops, four-way stops, roundabouts, signals, and those are traffic engineering warrant determinations. They're not subjective, but they're very specific, and the data will drive those. So, as we proceed into the weeds with their traffic, their next iteration of the traffic analysis, we'll be able to speak specifically to those. So, it's possible that more, more to come essentially. More analysis to come and meeting these conditions of approval. So, you know, they're pretty specific. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Yes. Yes, Heather. Sorry. Thank you, Chair Clow. So just having listened to the comments that have been given tonight, what we're going to do is work with the applicant to determine a staging area and construction traffic circulation, and we'll come back and report back to you before final plat or as part of final plan. Okay, good. I'm glad you'll be doing that. There's nothing worse than living in the middle of a construction site. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Dan. I just want to make sure that you make sure you consider the new conditions that were in there, four new conditions that were brought up tonight. Madam Chair, I did have one question for the applicant. Go ahead. And the question is regarding one of the comments from the public, I believe the La Bajada HOA, just it was just about a lack of contact about the, was it the traffic circle or was it just specifically about traffic concerns? Yeah. So, I guess I'm just curious, would you all be able to commit to the intention of reaching out to them and making sure their concerns are heard? Madam Chair, commissioners, we have sent out a letter in response to the neighbors' concerns, and I think we've addressed them, and of course we'll work with them on those concerns in the future. I guess I can speak to the two-story question. The applicant has agreed to limit those homes to one story on the west side of the subdivision. That is part of the response letter that we sent to the Homeowners Association, and we also did provide that letter to staff for the record. Thank you. Great. That's really good that you guys are doing that. Any other questions or comments? I guess we can make that a stipulation that the applicant has stipulated that the seven houses that abut Nava—no, which street is it on? Let me see. Nava. Yeah. So, let's see, that the applicant agrees to make all the houses bordering Nava in Phase 3 single story, and those are seven houses, correct? Okay, so will the applicant on the record stipulate that that's what they'll be doing, just for some untrusting souls? Chair, Commissioners, yes, that is correct. Okay, great. We agree to that. Okay, go ahead. Chair Clow, in the case of 2025-11006, Vistas de la Sierra Phase 3 Preliminary Subdivision Plat, I recommend approval subject to conditions of approval as outlined in this report and technical corrections listed in Attachment A, as well as the additional conditions outlined by staff in conversation with the applicant today and with an agreement from the applicant that they will limit the seven houses abutting Nava to one story. Very good. Second. Commissioner Miranda, can you just in the— Yes. Commissioner McGee? Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Commissioner Veland. Yes. Commissioner Embry. Yes. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Yeah. Yes, that's what I thought, too. Okay, we're moving on now to staff communications. Are there any? Yes, Chair Clow, just one. That's with reference to our short-term rental software. We recently engaged with NUMO to regulate short-term rentals, as well as help with registration and also enforcement. So, we do have a webinar scheduled next week at noon for people to join our short-term rental software presentation. And then there's an open house at 5:00 the same day, Thursday the 13th. Go to our website, and they can see all the details for planning and land use. Oh, that's good. Okay. Any matters from the commission? Commissioner McGee, I just want to confirm that we have a study session tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. in Council Chambers, so here. Yes, that's correct. Any idea how long that's going to last? I believe it's scheduled for two hours. And will that be recorded so those of us who can't attend can watch it? We are going to try. Okay, great. That'd be good. Thank you. Okay, if there's nothing further, we'll adjourn. Thank you.