Planning Commission Meeting
Thu, Jul 17, 2025 · Planning Commission
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/640

== Executive Summary ==
The Planning Commission addressed several key items, including amendments to the Midtown Master Plan, the expansion of Monte del Sol Charter School, and two significant housing developments. The Midtown Master Plan amendments aim to increase flexibility for developers by changing subzones, removing some prescriptive facade requirements, and aligning permitted uses more closely with C2 zoning. This sparked debate about maintaining architectural quality and public notification.

The Monte del Sol Charter School's request for a special use permit and development plan amendment for a new gymnasium and classrooms was approved. This decision followed emotional testimonies from students highlighting the critical need for on-campus athletic facilities and improved safety. The Commission also approved a development plan for 1111 Okate Road, an affordable multifamily housing project, after extensive discussion about ADA-compliant pedestrian access and the financial burden of off-site improvements on the developer. A bond was proposed to allow the project to proceed while solutions for pedestrian access are finalized.

Finally, the Commission approved the rezoning and master plan for a 130-unit mixed-use community at 2768 Agua Fria. This project, which includes affordable housing units and a parking reduction request, generated significant public comment regarding its compatibility with existing industrial neighbors, traffic impacts, and the interpretation of mixed-use zoning. The Commission conditioned the master plan approval on revisiting bicycle parking during the development plan stage.

== Key Decisions ==
- Approved the agenda with the postponement of case 2024-93929320 to August 7, 2025.
- Approved the consent agenda.
- Approved the minutes of the June 5th meeting.
- Approved findings and conclusions for cases A25-10100094, 2024-8027635, 2025-1076, 2025-10420, and 2024-826 KO sub time extension.
- Recommended the governing body approve the Midtown Master Plan Amendment (Case 2025 10706), subject to a new condition recommended by the land use director.
- Approved the Monte del Sol Charter School Special Use Permit (Case 202510172) as submitted with all technical corrections from staff.
- Approved the Monte del Sol Charter School Development Plan Amendment (Case 202510189) as submitted with all technical corrections from staff.
- Approved the Development Plan for 1111 Okate Road (Case 2025-1000037) with specific amendments regarding ADA access and a bond for expenses.
- Approved the rezoning (Case 2024-891) for 2768 Agua Fria from mixed-use to C2.
- Approved the Master Plan (Case 2024-8902) for 2768 Agua Fria with the condition to revisit the number of bike parking spaces during the development plan stage, subject to technical corrections and conditions of approval.

== Motions & Votes ==
- Motion to approve the agenda (with the postponement of case 2024-93929320 to August 7, 2025) — Passed via roll call vote.
- Motion to approve the consent agenda — Passed via roll call vote.
- Motion to approve the minutes of the June 5th meeting — Passed via roll call vote (Secretary Miranda and Commissioner McGee abstained).
- Motion to approve findings and conclusions for case A25-10100094 — Passed via roll call vote (Secretary Miranda and Commissioner McGee abstained).
- Motion to approve findings and conclusions for case 2024-8027635 — Passed via roll call vote (Secretary Miranda and Commissioner McGee abstained).
- Motion to approve findings and conclusions for case 2025-1076 — Passed via roll call vote (Secretary Miranda abstained).
- Motion to approve findings and conclusions for case 2025-10420 — Passed via roll call vote.
- Motion to approve findings and conclusions for case 2024-826 KO sub time extension — Passed via roll call vote.
- Motion to table Case 2025-101 (Monte del Sol) until after the next agenda item — Passed (6-0 roll call vote).
- Motion to take Case 202510706 (St. Michael's Drive Master Plan Amendment) off the table — Passed.
- Motion to recommend the governing body approve the master plan amendment (Midtown Master Plan Amendment), subject to the new condition — Passed unanimously (7-0 roll call vote).
- Motion to approve Case 2025-1000037 (1111 Okate Road Development Plan) with specific amendments regarding ADA access and a bond for expenses — Passed unanimously (7-0).
- Motion to approve the rezoning (Case 2024-891) at 2768 Agua Fria — Passed unanimously (7-0).
- Motion to approve the Master Plan (Case 2024-8902) for 2768 Agua Fria with the condition to revisit the number of bike parking spaces during the development plan stage, subject to technical corrections and conditions of approval — Passed unanimously (7-0).

== Public Comment ==
Public comments were significant, particularly regarding the Midtown Master Plan amendments and the 2768 Agua Fria development. For Midtown, a resident expressed concern about the lack of public notification for amendments deemed "far from minor," arguing they weaken the plan's original intent, especially regarding residential uses in the mixed-use film zone and the removal of setback requirements. Another resident questioned the practicality of tree planting and maintenance with reduced setbacks. For the 2768 Agua Fria project, public commenters, including a neighboring industrial business owner, raised concerns about traffic congestion, privacy impacts from the three-story building, potential decrease in property values, and whether the project truly aligned with mixed-use zoning principles given its high residential density. There was also discussion about the fairness of the applicant bearing the full cost of off-site improvements for the 1111 Okate Road affordable housing project.

== Topics ==
- Midtown Master Plan Amendment
- Rezoning Application
- Housing Density
- Parking Requirements
- Development Standards
- Landscaping Requirements
- Signage and Art Standards
- Adjacent Property Concerns
- Planning Commission Procedures
- Santa Fe Forward Initiative

== Full Transcript ==
We're live.
We're ready to proceed.
Call the meeting to order. And if we can, the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
Have a call to the roll.
Start the roll call. Chair Cloud.
Present on Zoom.
Vice Chair Smith.
Present.
Commissioner McGee.
Present.
Secretary Miranda.
Present.
Commissioner Reeland.
Present.
Commissioner Kappen.
Present.
Commissioner McReynolds.
Present.
Commissioner Barber.
Present by Zoom.
We have the ability to proceed. Could I hear a motion to approve the agenda?
Motion to approve the agenda.
Second.
Any comment? All in favor, please say "Aye." Or do we do it by roll?
Roll call.
Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure that included the postponement of the Zorb Blanco case.
I thought that was on the consent agenda.
It is not. That is, we are postponing the Zoro Blanco case from tonight to the August 7th, 2025 meeting. Do we need to note that in the motion to approve the agenda?
Please.
Motion.
Mr. Chair, there are two case numbers. If you can make sure that they're added in there.
That would be case F and G on the agenda.
Oh, I'm sorry, just G. Central. Correct.
A motion to approve the agenda with the understanding that case 2024-93929320 will be postponed until August 7th.
Motion to approve.
Second. All in favor, say "Aye."
Aye.
Yeah, Mr. Chair, we need a roll.
The person took the vote the other way in another light. All right.
Thank you. I'll start the roll call. Chair Cloud.
Yes.
Commissioner McGee.
Yes.
Secretary Miranda.
Yes.
Commissioner Reind.
Yes.
Commissioner Capen.
Yes.
Commissioner McReynolds.
Commissioner Barber.
Yes.
Smith, the motion has passed.
Can I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda?
Daniel, do we have changes to the consent agenda or as presented?
Motion. Motion to go.
Second. Call, please.
Cloud.
Yes.
Commissioner Mc, Commissioner McGee.
Yes.
Secretary Morendo.
Yes.
Commissioner Reland.
Yes.
Commissioner Capim.
Commissioner McReynolds.
Yes.
Commissioner Barber.
Yes.
Sher Smith, the motion has passed.
Consent agenda is approved. And could I have a motion to approve the minutes of the June 5th meeting? And then we can understand if there are any amendments. Motion to approve the June 5th Planning Commission meeting.
Seconded. Before we call the roll, are there any amendments?
And please call the roll.
Commissioner Barber.
Yes.
Commissioner McReynolds.
Yes.
Commissioner Capen.
Yes.
Commissioner Reland.
Yes.
Secretary Morendo.
Abstain.
Commissioner McGee.
Yes.
Cloud.
Yes.
Smith. The motion has passed.
Minutes are approved. We move to the approval of findings and conclusions. Case A25-10100094. Move to approve the approval of findings and conclusions for case 2025-010094 5211 Los Solaris Drive development plan postponed from June 5th, 2025.
Is there a second?
Thank you.
Please call the roll. Terry Morando, I mean, sorry, I'm abstained. Thank you, Commissioner McGee. Abstain.
Commissioner Reland.
Yes.
Commissioner Capen.
Yes.
Commissioner McReynolds.
Yes.
Commissioner Barber.
Yes.
Chair Cloud.
Yes.
Chair Smith, the motion's passed.
Mayor, here a motion to approve findings and conclusions of case 2024-8027635 Alto Street Development Plan. Have there been any adjustments to any of these facts and findings by staff at all from what we see in our packet pertaining to any of these cases that we're going through?
I'm sure, can you elaborate just a little bit more?
Just making sure that anything we're approving right now, if there's been any changes by staff at all from the packet that we've received to right now. There has not been.
Just as an explanation, the findings are nothing more than a snapshot of actions that occurred at the previous meeting. They're not a revote on the meeting. You're not, you know, if you think you like, in some cases it's been some commissioners have denied the findings. It's not an approval or a denial. It's more of accepting the snapshot that occurred at the meeting. If there are changes that need to be made because the findings are incorrect, then we can make those changes. But otherwise, it's just a snapshot.
Staff reviews these before they're published on the agenda.
Move to approve the findings and conclusions of case 2024-827 635 Alto Street Development Plan.
Second. Call the roll.
Commissioner Kein.
Yes.
Commissioner McReynolds.
Yes.
Commissioner Barber.
Yes.
Chair Cloud.
Yes.
Secretary Morendo.
Abstain.
Oh, Commissioner McGee.
Abstain.
And Commissioner Rein.
Yes.
Chair Smith. The motion has passed.
Can I hear a motion to approve the findings and conclusions of case 2025-1076 3439 Serios Road rezoning?
Motion to approve.
Please call the roll.
Commissioner McReynolds.
Yes.
Commissioner Barber.
Yes.
Chair Cloud.
Yes.
Commissioner McGee.
Yes.
Secretary Miranda. Abstain.
Commissioner Reind.
Yes.
Commissioner Gabin.
Yes.
Smith. The motion has passed. And finally, a motion for case 2025-10420 37 30 South Meadows Road Final Division Plat.
Okay.
Is there a second?
Please call the roll.
Chair, yes. Commissioner McGee.
Yes.
Commissioner Reand.
Yes.
Commissioner Capin.
Yes.
Commissioner McReynolds.
Yes.
Commissioner Barber.
Yes.
Chair Smith, the motion has passed.
Thank you. We move on to the eighth item on the agenda, consent. May I just ask, is this as if as pro forma as the others were pending any changes?
That would be correct.
Your motion to approve case 2024-826 KO sub time extension.
Motion to approve.
Second. Commissioner Mc, Commissioner McGee.
Yes.
Secretary Morendo.
Yes.
Commissioner Veland. Commissioner Kein.
Yes.
Commissioner McReynolds.
Yes.
Commissioner Barber.
Yes.
Chair Cloud.
Yes.
Chair Smith. The mission is passed.
Number nine is old business activity. Is there anyone? And we'll go to new business and start with case 2025 107600 St. Michael's Drive master plan amendment.
Chair Smith, just before we proceed, Howell Cruz Haber is going to be presenting this case, but I do want to let you know of your resources in the room and on Zoom. D. Bang Guestner, the civil engineer, is present on Zoom, as is Leah or Leah Ipney. I should know this by now, but she's with the NO Metropolitan Planning Organization. Daniel Hernandez with the Midtown Metropolitan, I'm sorry, Midtown Redevelopment Authority is also online. And then I believe Leroy Pacheco may be here as our traffic engineer. Just wanted to provide you with that information before we proceed. Thank you very much.
Right. All right. Vice Chair Smith, Commissioners, thank you very much. It's my first time presenting in front of you all, and I look forward to one of many. To start the first case, first order of new business. The case in front of you is case number 2025 10706, and the application is for a Midtown master plan amendment located at 1600 St. Michael's Drive. The agent is Lisa Gavioli with Enter 5, and the applicant is the Midtown Redevelopment Agency, MRA, and I'm the case manager, Coell Cruz Haver. To begin, I'm going to briefly describe the location, general background, how the master plan is applied in our code. So to begin, for all development located in the Midtown area, which is off of Serios and St. Michael Drive. We have Serrios here to the north, St. Michael's Drive also to the northeast, and then Singo Road to the south. Those are the off St. Michael's and Surango are the main points of access within the mid to the Midtown Massite area. Now, for all new development in this area, the Midtown master plan requirements is kind of the first line of defense or design criteria in that aspect. Second to that, where the Midtown master plan is silent comes the Midtown local innovation corridor, which was approved in 2016 by the governing body. And I like to go back, the master plan was approved in 2022 by the governing body. Now again, I mentioned where the Midtown master plan is silent, the local Midtown link will fill in those gaps. And then where the Midtown link and the master plan are silent, the underlying zoning district, which is C2, will fill in those gaps. So that's just a brief explanation of how the plan is applied. The sections to the Midtown master plan that are being amended tonight are development standards regulations, subzone standards, and saw zone standards and design standards general to all. To begin, I would actually like to clear up this table in the staff report. It is inaccurate. However, this is the correct version of that. The applicant is proposing to change the subzone for tract O, which is here, and the parcel with the Benildis structure from mixed-use neighborhood to mixed-use center. In addition, they are proposing to remove a facade zone along this portion of the south of the Midtown master plan. And with that, insert a footnote or this facade zone that it would be pursuant to zoning district requirements for qualifying projects that would have to be required. Again, I'll move on to the subzone standards and what's being proposed there. Essentially, what they're doing is adding a list of permitted uses based on the or a list of uses based on the permitted use table allowed within the C2 district. So, chapter 14 has E2, which is kind of a, it allows all kinds of uses. We kind of talk about it as a garbage can of uses because it allows just about everything. And part of the reason behind this is that a lot of prospective developers entering Midtown were finding that a lot of the uses that they were trying to pursue weren't allowed. So, this gives them more flexibility. And in section, in section 5.5 of the master plan, you can see where they're adopting those standards. In addition, they're changing the wording from special use permit to conditional use permit to be aligned with our code update. Third, we have the change to facade zone standards. They are proposing to remove the facade zone standards, or I'm sorry, remove the setback step back requirements for all buildings at the facade zone to provide more design options for developers. And although they are removing setback requirements, they are inserting footnotes to encourage the use of setbacks on for development. And it would also change the three-story max or that facade zone to a five-story maximum. And that is shown through these clouded bubbles here in that portion of the code. And although those height changes, those height standards are being changed, they would still have to comply with the height requirements as shown in, well, shown in our master plan or the Midtown link. Whichever one as it's qual, whatever qualifies for. There's a little blurb where they'll be adding that.
You just explained, you're saying it's going to five, but something else is unchanged.
So, they're changing the facade height requirements from three stories to five stories. And those five, the future, the future facades, even though it's five stories, they would still have to meet the height requirements for that for the Midtown link. So, for example, for qualifying residential projects, they're restricted to 52 feet. For all developments in Midtown, not a qualifying residential project, it is 62 feet. So, five stories up to those height limits. And then finally, they are including sign building standards and mural and art installation standards as they were not there prior, and as well as a change to the landscape design.

I'll begin with the landscape. Originally, the application proposed 2-inch calipers for the entire Midtown, for the entire master plan area. However, the application was transmitted to our landscape engineer, and they provided the following comment: for the street trees to be kept at a 4-inch caliber, and all other trees can be kept at 2 inches. So, they want more mature trees along the street, and what the applicant is requesting is 2-inch caliper for everywhere else.

Again, they're proposing building signage. This is really just to clearly define signage in the Midtown Master Plan. And as there weren't any standards at all, it would just be simply the Midtown link in Chapter 14, the sign standards in there that would regulate that. For sight and directional wayfinding signs, they're providing standards for wayfinding signs that you might see on the corner of a parcel that has little arrows showing where one building is, another building is. And they would like for those to be metal structures. This also includes the signage, wayfinding, sight directional signage for film studios, as Midtown is a catalyst for the film industry in Santa Fe. It is imperative that first responders know exactly where they are going in the event of an emergency. So what this allows for is, if you've driven through Midtown, there are garages that provide direct access to film studios, and simply they would just letter those and tell first responders which letter garage to go to.

And then finally, the murals and art installation. Simply, the MRA is just proposing wording so that all murals and sculptures and art installations are approved by them prior to actual installation. The applicant held an ENN on June 3rd, 2025. This Planning Commission was duly notified on July 7th, with site posts also posted on July 2nd, and the sites are required to be visible until August. With that, concludes my presentation, and I would recommend that the Planning Commission, sorry, staff recommends that the Planning Commission should recommend that the governing body approve case number 20251076 with the motion below. I will stand for any questions. Thank you.

Just real quick, going back to the approved lists, changing to lists or uses that are not approved. I just want to make sure I understood because the wording you used was a little different than what I thought I read in the packet, which is essentially we're changing from proposing permitted uses to uses that are not permitted. Right. So currently they have a list, they have a list of permitted uses that prohibit conditional uses in subzone. All right, let me clarify that. Currently, the master plan has a list of prohibited uses, and what they would like to, as a part of this amendment, is to provide the list of C2 uses for the underlying zoning district C2, and incorporate their list of prohibited uses into that C2 document. Essentially, it just gives a plethora of uses for developers to choose from that are already shown in our Chapter 14 code. Yeah. Thank you.

Any other questions?

To follow up on Miranda's question, are there any prohibited uses that would now be allowed based upon this change? I would actually defer that one to the MRA, as they are much more familiar with their list of prohibited uses for that. Yes. Yeah. We have someone in the class.

They'll be presenting that.

They will be presenting, so we can deal with it then.

I'm sure. Yeah, they can clarify all this.

Good. Any more questions for? Thank you very much.

Thank you all very much.

Apologies for the delay.

Need to be sworn.

Turn off your sound on your computer. My apologies for the delay.

So much technology. You saw me sort. Yeah, it's somebody on Zoom on a laptop in the audience. State your name and address for the record. 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.

Sworn in.

He's pressing.

There may be an echo. Apologize for that. I apologize for the delay. We're here this evening to speak about Midtown Master Plan amendments.

Thank you, Chair and members of the Commission. My name is Lisa Gabioli. I'm Senior Project and Planner with Five. I'm here today on behalf of Metropolitan Agency Santa Fe. Joining us online is the MRA Director Daniel Hernandez, and joining us in the audience is Charlie Vendidi, who's the Asset Development Manager. So, just to situate us in space, the Midtown site is approximately 64.22 acres, approximately at Cerrillos Road and St. Michael's Drive. Okay, thank you.

So, as mentioned, the underlying zoning for the parcel is C2PUDA, and the overlay district is the Midtown Link. The future land use map identifies the area as transitional mixed-use. And just to set a little more context for the site, as mentioned, the Midtown site is located within the Midtown Local Innovation Corridor District, which was adopted in 2016 to incentivize higher-density multi-unit residential development, complementary non-residential uses, and enliven street-oriented pedestrian environment within the demographic and geographic center of the city. And this is important because the Midtown Link provides for specific regulations that guide how and when development can occur, and specifically incentivizes higher-density mixed-use development, setting the stage for the redevelopment of the Midtown campus.

So, just to give a little bit more background, you're probably familiar, but I just want to run through it really quickly for you. So, in 2009, the College of Santa Fe ceased operations, and the city purchased the property, leasing it to the Santa Fe University of Art and Design. In 2012, the city collaborated to produce the REMICE document, which was a collaborative community-led revisioning of the St. Michael's Drive corridor as a vibrant, innovative hub. In 2016, as I said, the Midtown Link Overlay District was created to incentivize redevelopment efforts in the area. And in 2018, following the closure of the Santa Fe University Art and Design, the city passed a resolution to initiate the Midtown redevelopment process. And this really initiated what began multiple years of extensive community engagement that followed and resulted in planning guidelines for the redevelopment of the Midtown site. From 2019 through 2021, the city took over as master developer and worked with stakeholders and a consultant team to plan for the redevelopment of the Midtown site. In 2022, City Council passed a resolution directing staff to pursue a general plan amendment, rezoning, and master plan for Midtown. Later that year, City Council passed the Midtown Master Plan as the culmination of this four-year planning effort. The following year, in 2023, City Council adopted the Midtown Community Development Plan, which establishes the guiding development principles for Midtown.

And so I just want to take a moment to talk about the MRA. The Midtown Redevelopment Agency was established by the governing body to implement the community's redevelopment vision for the Midtown site as articulated by the Midtown plans. And so the Community Development Plan really identifies community benefits to be achieved through the development of the Midtown site. And these include things like housing choice, affordability, access to jobs and job training, community arts, and cultural heritage recognition. Whereas the Midtown Master Plan really defines desired land uses, sets of regulations and standards, and an infrastructure framework to enable development and future investment in the Midtown site. And so essentially, the Midtown Master Plan is the "how," and the Community Development Plan is the "why" and the "for whom." And together, the two documents establish a community vision for redevelopment at the Midtown site. And that is, development at the Midtown site will provide a model for equitable development and sustainable urbanism and will become a center of culture and community for Santa Feans. See if that fixed it. Did that fix the problem? Oh my goodness. See, we've already won. Winning.

So, why are amendments needed to the Midtown Master Plan? Oh, that's so much better. Let's celebrate for a minute. So, as stewards of the Midtown Master Plan tasked with implementation, the MRA staff must respond to site conditions and evolving post-COVID market conditions to achieve the desired outcomes of the plan. As implementation has begun, refinements to certain elements have been identified in order to achieve this vision. And importantly, these amendments are minor tweaks that really do not impact the intent of the plan or change the intent of the plan. And I want to make that really clear that the Master Plan will continue to be a community-generated document with overwhelming community and governing body support. These amendments don't alter the intentions of the Master Plan, as I mentioned, and they're intended to really promote and facilitate community-driven outcomes of the Master Plan. The proposed amendments will have the effect of reducing barriers for implementation, making regulations less prescriptive, more flexible, and better aligning the regulations with the community vision for the Midtown site.

And so as we proceed into going into the details of the amendments, I just want to say that it's not uncommon for master plans like this, once implementation begins, that certain tweaks are identified to really facilitate implementation of the plan. It's impossible to anticipate every nuance and idiosyncrasy of development proposals as they come forward. And the nature of the proposed amendments tonight are really to make those minor adjustments to facilitate smooth implementation of the plan. I'm going to go back just a minute. So, we're proposing to remove the Main Street Office facade zone standards from the mixed-use film northern facade zone. And this really is because that Main Street Office is not necessarily compatible with mixed-use film. What is required in the Main Street Office facade zone are numerous openings in the facade, facilitating things like storefronts on the first floor and residential above. Furthermore, it wasn't anticipated that residential development would be proposed in the mixed-use film zone, which is actually wonderful because it represents a true mixed-use environment when residential is allowed throughout, and that's also part of the nature of the amendments tonight. So the plan is to insert a footnote stating that the northern facade zone of mixed-use film will be pursuant to the Midtown Link Overlay Zoning District requirements for qualifying projects, as mentioned before. And additionally, there's a plan to, there's a proposal to change the subzone of Tract O to mixed-use commercial or mixed-use center. It's called kind of both in the plan. And this really is intended to allow a more diverse range of job-creating commercial mixed uses at Tract O, which is a really centrally located tract. So this is the existing development standards regulating plan. And again, we're looking at removing the Main Street Office facade zone from those mixed-use film tracts and changing the subzone of Tract O, including Benilda's Hall, to mixed-use center or mixed-use commercial MU. And so this is the proposed development standards regulating plan.

The next set of proposed amendments has to do with subzone standards. As mentioned, we're proposing to remove the permitted use table and replace it with a list of prohibited and conditional uses that are specific to the Midtown site. In doing so, we also plan to add reference to the permitted uses in the C2 underlying zoning, as mentioned previously, as well as inserting language that the subzones as defined in the master plan are the recommended and preferred uses for the parcel.

I want to point out also that these changes don't apply to the open space or community-oriented subzones. So those will still be restricted to a very limited number of uses. But as staff has begun implementing the plan, they've realized that the adopted permitted use table is more restrictive than desired, and that permitted uses in C2 more closely align with the vision for the Midtown site. As a result, multi-unit residential development will be permitted throughout the Midtown site, whereas previously, for instance, it was not permitted in the mixed-use film zones. Importantly, the amendment will strengthen the diversity of uses throughout the site while being guided by those subzone definitions.

I want to take a moment with those subzone definitions just to be really clear. The subzone definitions will remain in the master plan as originally adopted. These are the recommended and preferred uses for the parcels. Prohibited and conditional uses will align with those intended uses. Otherwise, permitted uses will be referenced in Chapter 14 for C2. Importantly, subzones will still dominate the conversations around development proposals, but this amendment will allow appropriate uses that were not previously anticipated to be considered in the development review process, again, such as residential in the mixed-use film parcels. Rather than overly prescribing uses, the definitions of the subzones will act as recommendations and guides, allowing for flexibility, even unanticipated creativity and innovation in achieving the vision for Midtown.

The next set of proposed amendments has to do with the facade zone standards. Here, primarily, we're proposing to remove the setback requirement for all buildings at the facade zone, allowing the facades to achieve five stories, which is permitted throughout Midtown elsewhere. So, matching the height that's allowed elsewhere in Midtown. Additionally, we're proposing to insert language that encourages the use of setbacks, fenestration, and other forms of facade articulation. This may have the impact of increasing density within the facade zones, but more importantly, it's allowing for flexibility to include setbacks where it's suitable and where it's desired. Setbacks and other forms of facade articulation are going to be strongly encouraged in the language of the amended master plan and through the development review process with MRA and PLU staff.

Again, taking the approach of not overly prescribing requirements, but relying on the robust design guidance and intentions that have been thoroughly described in the Midtown master plan in order to achieve the vision. It allows for ease of implementation as well as, as I mentioned, creativity, innovation, and flexibility to work with unknown conditions of development proposals. So, I just wanted to highlight the facade zones as they are adopted. Just as a reminder, those will remain unchanged in their definitions.

I wanted to also mention that in addition to the facade guidelines, facade zone guidelines, there's also frontage types included in the plan. This really speaks to the typological form-based approach of this plan, which is really focused on form and placemaking. It's tailored to the unique character and context of the site. It encourages innovation through flexibility and a streamlined process. That's really the nature of these amendments this evening.

Finally, we are proposing to add some language to the design standards general to all. Currently, there's no mention of landscape standards in the plan, nor mention of signage or temporary art installation standards. So the proposal is to add language that requires landscape design to follow Chapter 14 for the Midtown Link, with a note that the caliper for new street trees, in accordance with staff's recommendation, is 4 inches at the time of planting, and that otherwise at the Midtown site, it will be 2 inches caliper at the time of planting. Additionally, we'll be adding signage and temporary art language adapted from the Rail Yard Master Plan and inserting a statement that signage located in the Midtown site is governed by Chapter 14 and the requirements found in 14-8.10.

So, this is the proposed language for building signage. I don't think I need to read it verbatim, but I'll give you a moment to take a look at it. And again, site directional and wayfinding signage. We have some proposed additional text there specifying that directional signage will be metal finished in a durable, high-quality paint or natural metal finishes. And it goes on to specify further details of those kinds of signage. I want to point out here that we did comply with staff's recommendation to increase the maximum size of signage for directional wayfinding to 380 feet. We had originally proposed 250.

Finally, we have proposed text regarding murals and art installations. I wanted to point out here that this language was guided by advice from the Arts and Culture Department and really learning from past experience around murals. Arts and Culture staff, as well as the City Attorney, are developing a new mural agreement to clarify maintenance specifications, materials, reviews, and approvals, etc., for murals. So we submit that our application complies with all of the approval criteria from Chapter 14-3.9D1. Our responses to those approval criteria are in your packet. I won't go into detail here, but we will stand for questions regarding those.

Just to conclude, Amendment 1 to the Midtown Master Plan is a necessary and strategic refinement to facilitate the timely and effective implementation of the city's long-held vision for the Midtown site. As stewards of the Midtown Redevelopment Plans, the MRA has carefully identified minor yet meaningful updates that align with the plan's core intent, reflect specific site conditions, and respond to current market dynamics. These amendments are consistent with the policy direction outlined in the Midtown Community Development Plan, the Midtown Link Overlay District, and the City of Santa Fe General Plan. The MRA staff proposes Amendment 1 to enhance clarity, to support mixed-use development, and ensure that multi-unit residential housing is achievable throughout the site, all while preserving the integrity of the original Midtown vision and intent. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration and stand for questions at this time.

Questions?

: Thank you for the presentation. My question is, is that by changing the zoning to C2, even though you have the prohibited uses, there could be an applicant that could apply for a variance to allow, even though there is a prohibited use. Is that correct?

: So a developer could come in and say, even though this is prohibited, now we have a C2 zoning, we would be allowed if we get a variance from the city.

: Madam Chair Clow, Vice Chair Smith, my name is Carl Vendetti. It's a pleasure to be in front of you again, Planning Commission. It's also a pleasure to serve the MRA in my current role as the Asset Development Manager. As of December, January even, the governing body voted and approved that the MRA move forward with direct disposition of our parcels. What that means is that we must move forward with both an exclusive negotiations agreement and a direct disposition agreement in order for a developer to develop on our sites. So, they must go through the MRA, our commission, as well as the governing body. In the case that they are asking for a variance, it is likely the MRA will not suggest approval or even get to an ENA. Thank you.

: Thank you, Chair Smith. Member Reland, when it comes to a use, either a use is permitted or prohibited. So, variances can only be granted to the aspects of the use. But if, for instance, there was a doggy daycare and that was not permitted, it was listed as prohibited, that's not permitted. So under the C2 zone district, it's not listed as well. So uses are very different and typically don't get any type of variances unless there's a code interpretation.

: Other question? Yes. Question about potential future variances with the facade changing and doing the five stories. Did I hear right that in C2 the range is 52 feet to 62 feet?

: That's correct.

: Okay.

: Specifically,

: So, Mr. Vice Chair, Commissioner Capen, in the case of height, that is regulated by the Midtown Link. So on the SFUAD site, all development may go up to 62 feet. Qualifying projects in the link beyond the site may go up to 52.

: Okay. So,

: Is 62 enough for a five-story building to be of reasonable height per story with everything included and, you know, on the roof and everything?

: Vice Chair Smith, Commissioner, I'd like to defer to our MRA director who's on. He's an architect and he could better speak to floor plates, stories, and all of what we're seeing.

: I don't, yeah. And I don't, I'm not trying to bring up the nitty-gritty. I just want to make sure that we're not going to, if we're talking about changing this to five stories, that we're not all of a sudden going to see one after the other variance. Oh, I want to, you know, we need a little bit more to make a reasonable apartment height or something. And make sure that this is, yeah, Chair Clow, Vice Chair, Chair Smith, and Member Capron, I just want to also clarify that we're not proposing to change the height to five stories. The height is already five stories. So, we're proposing at the facade zones to allow the facades to meet what is already allowed in terms of height.

: What, can you clarify? Can you say that one more time? What am I missing?

: You would be able to attain five stories at 62 feet. Am I correct in, is that what you're asking?

: Heather,

: Yes.

: What are you about to help me? Commissioner Capen, so the issue is that five stories, I think the question that I'm hearing is, can you do five stories in 62 feet? And that would be very tight, but it can be done. So, but given current construction techniques, ceiling heights and the like, it's not unreasonable to think that there might be some requests for variances. One consideration would be though, was that the community was very adamant about not having buildings taller than five stories. So the amount of change would have to be very small for staff to be able to recommend that type of change. So, and then what is being discussed is the setback. So, the facade itself is permitted to be straight up and down instead of having a setback at a certain level. So, and what that's what's being proposed right now, a minimum 10-foot setback is required.

: I think I'm going to have some follow-up questions, but we can move along. Yes, Commissioner.

: Regarding the removed permitted uses and then the addition of the prohibited uses, is that in the packet, those prohibited uses and then the conditional uses? Is that what I'm seeing? Okay. And my question is because I know that the Midtown Center is supposed to be somewhat, you know, focused around film and production of film.

And some of the prohibited uses, like lighting, assembling, and manufacturing, or possibly vocational or trade schools, light industrial. I guess I'm not quite clear on what defines light industrial, but I'm thinking if they had a warehouse that's creating lights for a film production or something, would that fall under these categories?

Sheriff: Yes.

McReynolds: The light industrial uses, the intent is to control for external impacts. And so, I know that with some of the production and film production, it requires some hazardous materials and the like. And so it's a very unique type of process. But the overall intent, and we vetted this with the partners in the community in the productions of film, and it seems like these uses would cover everything that they need to accomplish.

Perfect. Thank you.

Other questions?

Yes.

Thank you, Smith. I was curious about the sign square footage. So the 380, what is the unit that that 380 applies to? It just seems like a lot.

Commissioner Cloud: Vice Chair Smith, Commission Secretary Morando, this was actually determined by me. And the idea came from simply getting the average or the largest garage that the film studios have and making it so that's up to 380. So the largest garage is at 380 square feet, and all the other garages are lower in square footage and size. Does that answer? Okay. Questions for a motion to have public comment. Is there public comment on this?

My name is Daniel.

Sir, you'll be sworn in.

Okay.

Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

My name is Daniel Rice. Address 2284 Calle Pledo.

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've been sworn. I'm a resident of the neighborhood, the Los Cedros neighborhood, a quarter mile from the Siringo entrance of the site. And having lived in the area for 19 years, I have an interest in what exactly is going on at the site. So I'm not a planner, an interested citizen, not a public speaker. So this may be a little herky-jerky, but I have several concerns about the proposed plan amendments. Perhaps I can read a few things to go along with this.

Quoting from the NB5 application letter, it says the MRA, the city's agency responsible to implement and steward the Midtown redevelopment plan, has identified minor changes to the Midtown Master Plan that align with its core vision, intent, goals, and objectives, and that further policy directives for the stated area as stated in the Midtown Community Plan, Midtown Link, Orly District, etc. I find that the proposed plan amendments are far from minor, in particular, the change in zoning and in the setback requirements. This plan was developed with considerable public input over four years. And right now, we are in a plan amendment process that was not notified to citizens in an email. I receive all the city emails. I did not receive any notification for this particular plan amendment. So I find the process to be questionable to begin with, given that the plan has been adopted and was developed over four years with considerable citizen input. So to consider this plan amendment, I would suggest, would require a more comprehensive public notification process and public input process. I was on an early neighborhood notification meeting for this plan amendment. I was the only person that showed up for the first half hour of that meeting online. So this has not been sufficiently envisioned and visualized by the public who put their input into this. I just want to bring that as a citizen to those who get to recommend this or not recommend this, and this better open public process, more input on the changes that are being proposed.

So with respect to the change, the Midtown Master Plan supplements the Link Overlay and is more prescriptive and proscriptive. Reading from the Master Plan itself, "Midtown Master Plan is the culmination of a four-year planning effort, blah, blah, blah. The Midtown Master Plan presents policies and standards that help prioritize investment and regulate private development to deliver a future for the site consistent with the community's aspiration," which again are reflected in this plan, not in amendments to the plan. Amendments to the plan do not reflect the plan. They modify the plan in ways that are significant changes to that plan. So to claim that the amendments are consistent with the plan when they significantly change the plan is patently not true. It just doesn't make sense logically. So from that standpoint, being forthright about what the plan changes are and how they affect this plan is important to me as a citizen, and I think it's important that this is an open process. However this goes down, and again, I'm in support of redevelopment of Midtown. I have my own opinions about it, but it's important that the process be proper for everybody to participate.

In the Master Plan on page 15, one of the planning guidelines is to catalyze Midtown Link zoning area. Consider how owners of properties in the Midtown Link zoning area can redevelop their properties in ways that will advance the principles and uses described. So this Master Plan is more prescriptive and more definitive in order to provide a context for the Link. This is the center of the Link. And so diminishing the standards to meet what's current Link standard is absolutely contrary to the intent of the Midtown Master Plan. And that includes changing the zoning standards. It includes changing the permitted use tables. These proposals are not consistent with the Midtown Master Plan. They weaken the Midtown Master Plan to create recommendations as opposed to requirements. We all know are not actionable. You can, with the ENA process for development of these parcels, there is no competitive process by which you're going to score this project against another project, but you get what you get. So if you don't have these requirements in place, you can't hold them to account for that. There's just not a good process for that. The process currently exists. It's the setback requirements and the zoning requirements.

Now, with respect to the zoning changes or the statement with respect to the facade change at the mixed-use film zone, there are no residential requirements at the mixed-use film zone. We all recognize that the proposal is stating that by adopting this amendment, now you can, the intent would be to provide for housing in the mixed-use film zone. You all know what zoning is about. The film studio zone intentionally excludes housing because it's an incompatible use. I don't know where you all live, but I live within a quarter mile of the Midtown site. Last summer's production of "The Missing Bus" or whatever the heck it was, the Apple Studios production, was extremely disruptive. And being in that, in the midst of that as a resident, if you're going to put residents on the mixed-use film zone, I think it's an incompatible use and it's a mistake. That's why it was not included as residential in the original Master Plan. So the contention that this somehow meets the objectives of the Master Plan when the entire rest of the site are developable parcels for residential mixed-use, it is on its face illogical. However, it looks to me as a citizen, having examined all of what's going on at Midtown, that this is an accommodation for Philip Jezoway and the Aspect Studios who want to develop housing in that zone. And that may well be, and that may well get approved. But just understand that that's what it looks like to this member of the public, that he's got a backroom deal or the city needs to develop these parcels. We all understand that, but it doesn't smell right. You guys are going to let him build that building. So that's the concern about the zoning in the mixed-use film area.

I think the setback requirements are important to consider from the standpoint of what this community expects architecturally. Pueblo architecture customarily has rooftop terraces, rooftop uses, and setback facades. That's the intent. And to remove that setback and allow five-story tall street-facing facades is not consistent. At the very least, if there's a better proposal from one of the developers or a facade that doesn't meet the exact setback requirements, but that appears favorable, that's where the variance process comes in. It exists. It's available to everyone. So nothing in the plan currently prohibits that type of development. But to remove that setback requirement means you've lost that tool. Recommend it. But again, there's nothing. So, I'll conclude by just saying that, as I live in the neighborhood, the main concern that I have with the Midtown project, not entirely relevant to this discussion, is the access to the site and the impact it's going to have of traffic in the area. The existing traffic plan indicates there's access to Yano Street on Cerrillos, which doesn't exist. There's no exit from Midtown towards Cerrillos. There's no exit towards Yano Street. If the city is really seriously truly interested in this being the center of Santa Fe, a Yano Street exit is required. There's private property available there that can be purchased or negotiated to get directly to Yano Street from Midtown. Same at Cerrillos. The St. Mike's exit is extremely dangerous. Elementary school, a high school, and it's already over capacity at the times of day when people have...

Thank you very much. Raise your right hand. Speak your name and address for the record.

Rubin, 2119 Rancho Siringo Road.

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've been sworn in. My primary comment is about the change from 2-inch to 4-inch trees. While I think it's more appropriate to plant and maintain, water, trim, care for an older tree in an existing area, I doubt that anything that I've read in the existing Master Plan supports the installation of those trees. So I have two parts to my question. One is about the placement of trees when you remove the setbacks, where they will be placed, because as I understand it, the sidewalk standard is still sidewalk next to curb, no devil strip, and now no setbacks are possible. Where is a 4-inch mature tree going to go, and how is a building going to be placed around it so that it doesn't bust out the windows? So down in the main part of the Midtown campus, that's a concern.

The second part of my concern is for the class trees, the mature trees that are already planted there, and whether or not there will be any serious realistic attempt to try to save any of those in an open space area or something like that, which requires also water maintenance, trimming, and care. And so far, there's nothing in the plan for any of those things.

The third area is the proposed bikeway park element that lies between the drainage ditch and the current east perimeter road. And I haven't seen anything in the plan about what kind of care is going to be taken for the trees that exist there, whether any of them will be retained, how they'll be removed, what will be planted in the place of them, and so on and so forth. And none of that is detailed either. So planting, and there's certainly going to be no watering, underground irrigation in that area, I've been told. So that means that those trees will die also.

I'm very concerned about that. The Midtown campus, if you do a flyover, is a pretty well-treated area in some spots, not all spots. And I understand completely about the film studio not wanting the trees on their property for many reasons, and they're all film reasons. But that also connects to the bikeway part, and it connects to the rest of the campus. So I don't see how the integration of that is going to happen. I know the city's history with maintaining 2-inch trees is utter failure, so I'm glad you've abandoned that. But I don't see the complimentary part for the watering, feeding, caring, trimming, all the rest of it that's going to take place. Nor any requirement that any building without setback is going to have a tree, not have a tree. All those lovely drawings that we were shown at the Southside Library and other places, that all is out the window now, as I understand, with no setbacks. So that means no trees on the streets, and that means there are no medians in those streets, and so there are no trees. So how does that work out? I'd sure like an answer to that question. Thank you very much. Okay. Are there public comments? Is anybody on Zoom? Anyone on Zoom? If you would like to comment on this case, please raise your hand.

No additional comments, Chair Smith.

Vice Chair Smith, if I may correct the record in a few places. I would like to start by saying that we've had advanced and regular communication with our neighbors and community organizations. We've spoken with Chainbreaker at least once a month to speak about density and the impact that our development as the MRA will have on the Hopewell-Mann neighborhood to the northeast of the site. In addition, we're also working on a neighborhood stabilization plan to help mediate any of those gentrification worries that they have had as part of the community. We've been collaborating with Land Use on this, and we're moving forward with a consulting firm on this effort at this time. In addition, I'd like to point to our community development plan because we are committed to our triple bottom line approach, and that means that we're looking at sustainability in the way of the environment, equity, and the economy. So keeping that in mind, when we talk about the prohibited and permitted uses, there will be a permitted, there will be a point that points to Chapter 14 in the permitted use table as it exists now. Right now, with the permitted use table within the master plan and our Chapter 14 standards for the entire city, it does get confusing for potential developers and individuals to navigate both this plan and Chapter 14 as it currently exists. We will also have a prohibited use list, as we said, that will carry forward any prohibited uses where it does become more restrictive on the site.

And finally, when it comes to trees, looking ahead, we have done a tree survey. We've been working diligently with the Parks Division. There's been a tree survey of the entire site, as well as the eastern portion that will be known as a Royal Park. It's about 5 acres, and it's between the shopping center, the Thomas Properties shopping center, and that east road. In all cases of trees, they will be irrigated as required by Chapter 14. Also, in the case of medians and road types, I'd like to point to page 97 of the master plan. That's where you will see the neighborhood street width pathways. This is just one example of the many types of street cross-sections. There will be medians. There will be bike lanes. A setback in this case is once a setback and a step back are very different. A setback is the distance from the right-of-way on the property or parcel. And then a step back is once you reach a certain height, there is then a gradual or sudden step back of a couple feet. In this case, let's think of it as maybe a roof terrace would be up there. So, I just want to point that out and correct the record that there will be street trees as required. There will be setbacks. You're good. Yes, for sure. Oh, yeah.

While you're up here, it sounds like you have been continuing to collaborate with a lot of the amazing community organizations that were involved with this way back when. I remember that process. It was really inspiring. In addition to Chainbreaker, who absolutely should be at the table for this one, are there any of the other groups and organizations from back then still connected as far as who you would reach out to for community input in that area? Are the stakeholders still the same?

A lot of the stakeholders remain the same, of course, and we're working with the Midtown Arts and Design Alliance, which is now currently leasing space in the Visual Arts Center. So, we've been working with them, speaking to them about their experience as they enter into a DDA from an ENA and their process moving forward on the site as well. And they, of course, have 11 organizations with a letter of intent to occupy that building under a lease with them.

Yes, ma'am.

A little bit different direction while you're up here, and this may be for staff. With the changes specifically to Tract O, will any of these designated subzone changes affect the required open space requirements for that? I know this is like multi-layered, but does it change anything as it pertains to what they would have to provide for open spaces for housing being in there?

It does not change the open space requirements at this point. And I would love to discuss that more because it gets into further detail about active and non-active water harvesting. So that would then further reduce open space, but that existed in the plan currently. Okay.

Thank you.

There are others to 2282 or 2284 Kao. I'm at 2264 Kao, and our family has had that house since 1985. So I do hear him, and there are more aspects to just the Hopewell-Mann that will be affected by this. So just making sure that the outreach from staff and from the city is getting to everybody because I will support him in the sense that I did not get anything from my household. That neighborhood is making sure that everybody in the community is being involved.

Yes.

Really passionate about this project. I'm really excited about it. Thank you for all the work that's being done. And these, this is important. A lot of work has gone into this, and a lot of vision, and you all are doing a lot of work to keep that going, and I understand post-COVID tricky things. Can you speak a little bit, just I think to help everybody understand about the setbacks? What was the original intent of the community in requiring that in this original plan? And then why are they being, why are we being asked to change that? I would say about that is that setbacks, the intent of setbacks is to introduce articulation in the facade so that it's not just a sheer. I think the intent of removing the requirement but encouraging them instead is to allow for more flexibility and creativity in applying that method of facade articulation. I think for the record, for the commissioners, I don't know how folks are feeling about this. I think I would prefer for the setbacks to continue, and if a developer wants to change that, that they come forward with that request as a variance instead of that being. I think otherwise we're just going to end up with a bunch of five-story flat-faced buildings, which I do think was, and feel free to respond to that. I have one other little question about design after that, but why not have them come forward if they want something different than what was originally intended with that?

Member Capen, we don't want to overdesign for developers, right? We want to make sure that the artistic qualities of architects and designers are showing through in this site. And when we do look at our plaza here downtown, there are some articulations, right? We do see a variety of storefronts, and that developed throughout time, especially with Santa Fe style as that continued. So we don't see a lot of, you know, the same portal right next to each other in the plaza, and I think that's for the benefit of the community, and that happened naturally versus what we're trying to do. Currently, as the plan exists, it's over-prescriptive. I hear that. I think for the sake of our conversation, and I'd be interested if anyone wants to have that conversation about this, that a lot, I would push back a little bit that I think a lot of the charm, say if you want to talk about downtown, is that there are setbacks in places, right? So there are patio tops, there are terraces, there are places where, yes, they're all the way up, but then, you know, there is that. And I'm, I guess my concern is that changing this to just allow a flat five-story facade, it would seem to me that that would be an easier way for development to happen that may be easier to reduce costs or maximize housing, which I'm for, but I'm worried about there not being interest in it. And it seems like having it and then having them need to come if they want to just do a flat five-story facade might be an approach that would get us to the place that the intent was, which was to have form and interest and architecturally interesting streetscapes.

Right. Of course. And Member Capen, if I may, they, they being the developers, have to go through many rounds, like I said, ENA and DDA, and that includes the review of their architecture. So on our commission, we have various backgrounds, a few of those including architects that are well known in New Mexico, and they will be reviewing the designs as well as massaging those designs. So I want to assure that this has to go through many bodies and be seen by many eyes before getting approved. Sure.

Hi, this is Daniel Hernandez, the director of the Metropolitan Development Agency. I'm sorry I'm not there. There's been a family health crisis, and I had to come home to California, but if I may, do I need to get sworn in or?

No, as staff, Daniel, I think you're fine.

Okay.

No, you need to be sworn in. I think, I think the question is really important, and what I'm, we're already receiving offers from developers. We're massaging their offers because we want to make sure that the architecture represents the integrity of the master plan and the community to mountain plan. But what we're also finding is, you know, what something like a setback does is it doesn't anticipate adjacencies. It doesn't anticipate the kind of the nuances of a corner, and it becomes so prescriptive. It's like, really, I have to do it there too, versus like us saying, look, it would be really great for us to have an outdoor second story, third story patio, or, you know, all and kind of articulate the building based on the specific conditions of that site. So we, I mean, one of the reasons why the MRA was created was to be able to actually engage developers in a more meaningful way, particularly as stewards of this master plan and community development plan to allow us that flexibility to negotiate these terms before it gets to the design, I mean, disposition development agreement, so that we can confidently go to the podium and say, you know, here's the proposal, here's the architecture, and here's how it meets the intent and goals of the master.

Is there another comment?

Follow.

Thank you, Commissioner Smith. My understanding is that once we, if we approve or deny this, no developer is going to be sitting in front of us. So, we're going to be giving you guys a blank slate like Commissioner Cate. So it kind of puts us in a little here to where we don't have a final say of this other than right now.

And if we just say, "Have at it, you guys deal with the developers, and we're not involved at all anymore beyond this," am I correct in understanding that?

Well, Member Ryland, I would submit that it's not a blank slate. The Midtown Master Plan is very specific about what it envisions and requires. And that development review will happen through the MRA and the MRA Commission. So, if any further amendments are needed to the plan, you will have a say in that. But again, if we approve this tonight, we are giving you the ability to have straight facades, no longer setbacks on the buildings that are going up five stories.

Member Ryland, I would also suggest that we're not proposing to eliminate setbacks. We're proposing to eliminate the requirement for setbacks. It's a different approach, allowing more flexibility and applying that value as opposed to requiring it in such a way that is often quite challenging to implement in practice. And I can speak to that from personal experience in having to apply those standards in the BCD, that there are issues that come up repeatedly with applying that requirement where more flexibility would result in a better design, more creativity. And again, as Danielle spoke to, allow for designers and architects to be able to account for adjacencies, to account for site conditions that are kind of impossible to anticipate. Could I yield to Miss Lambo?

Just to clarify, Commissioner Ryland is correct in that many of these projects will be approved administratively and won't come to this board. So, just as to process, I wanted to clarify the rationale as being presented by the applicant.

And Commissioners, Vice Chair Smith, Commissioner Clow, Vice Chair Clow, Commissioners, I would also like to include that we're qualifying residential projects in the Midtown Link that will be reviewed administratively. However, for all development projects that are not qualifying residential, they will be going to you for development plans for that kind of approval. So, you wouldn't be completely taken out of the process.

Random Chair Smith, if Paula, if you could just stay up a little bit longer, just let me know if I'm right after I say a few things. So, a qualifying project essentially is really based on a predominant percentage of the development being multifamily, and it's basically just a linkage. It's that percentage that's within the link. So, essentially, it actually really comes back to that 62-foot issue. The link essentially promotes a mixed-use building where if you're going to have commercial, it's going to be on the first floor. And that's the 62 feet actually gives the link a certain amount of control because if you do 18 feet of commercial on that first floor, you're kind of bunk, right? So, it kind of limits in a certain way. If you want to do a five-story building, you can't have a lot of commercial use. There's actually some built-in control in that 62 feet. If you did all residential, 62 feet, you can do that all day, basically 12 and a half feet per story residentially. If you did them all, that's very, but if you actually, the 62 feet is upward, but just wanted to say it because it wasn't necessarily fleshed out in the discussion, but that's at least how I've really seen it because you can't do one, you can't do more than a certain percentage of any way to be qualifying. We'd have to see it. If they were proposing a large commercial use and wanting to go to five stories, we would absolutely. So, to me, at least, that's why I do not see it as a substantial change in terms of use because if the use is going to be there and it's a qualifying project, so we wouldn't see it, it's going to be a small percentage of building work. It can't have very high ceilings. It kind of cuts down on a lot of these, like you're not going to have a party, even though it's not an approved use, but you can't do that height anyway. So, there's that piece of it. But also, you know, just in terms of the setbacks, or the setbacks, the way it's changing is still a qualifying project can go that high without setbacks. I see both sides as working in the industry I work in. When you give those prescriptive setbacks, it's not an issue if we're developing individual property by individual property. But if you develop a whole block with the same setbacks, that's when you end up with developments that look like...

Excuse me, Commissioner. Can you speak into the mic so everyone online can hear you?

Sorry. It's when, to me, that's when you end up with developments that look a little bit like Disneyland, for lack of a better term, because everybody has to meet the same dimensional standards. And so, I think that is the spirit of this. I guess what I would ask the applicants, was there any consideration of instead of a setback standard, if there's something less restrictive, like actually, like the kind of thing you almost see in residential neighborhood associations where for a certain amount of feet, you need to have a certain amount of undulation? Something that was really pretty easily met. Was there any thought to something like that?

So, we hadn't discussed that. Excuse me, Vice Chair Smith, Member Miranda. We hadn't discussed the undulation in that way. We were looking at the pedestrian experience, of course, with these facade zones and the trees along the streets would then be 4-inch calipers and kind of create the room effect we're looking for. So, the articulation could happen more naturally independently throughout each development.

If I may speak, again, Daniel Hernandez. And Lisa, if you can maybe point to it, the Master Plan actually has articulation requirements for articulation in the various facade zones. So, it talks about the level of fenestration and entryways to begin to create that, what I think what you just described. And but it does happen at the pedestrian level. It doesn't necessarily happen at the upper levels. So, here you see, for example, around the plaza, we have these arcades that will be required. That's not going away. In the more neighborhood sort of scale buildings, there's also requirements for articulation for doorways to meet the street frontage. Those kinds of things are described throughout the in that facade zone requirement section of the Master Plan. That stuff is not going away.

If I could, I did forget about those. So, I appreciate it. I guess, am I right that the only way you would have something that was straight up, and the bigger reason that you wanted to potentially do that is we're talking about more of a boulevard, right? This is a broader pedestrian streetscape than you normally see in Sway. Could you just talk about the one, how much, how wide is that from building to curb? And then two, the only, am I right that the only way to not go to this commission straight up is if it was a qualifying project?

I'm just going to add, if it is a qualifying residential project, it would be reviewed administratively, whereas the other way around, all developments not qualifying, you would say...

Mr. Chair, I just want to add to that, and that is only if they trigger the development plan requirement, which is whether they're within a specific distance to residential development or they're 30,000 square feet anywhere in the city.

Vice Chair Smith, Member Mirando, if we take a look once again at page 97 as an example, you'll see here that 5.2B, 2B neighborhood street has a right-of-way of 80 feet. So, that of course includes the sidewalks, bike lanes, medians, in some cases parallel parking, and of course traffic lanes.

Again, if I may, the Master Plan has different street types throughout. So, they're, I mean, we are hearing from developers like, "Wow, your public street right-of-ways are really wide," but they're made that way to accommodate a variety of uses. So, not only the pedestrian traffic, but there's two-way bike traffic. There's the median strip, the bioswales for the trees to be planted. And then there's the two-way vehicular automobile circulation. So, they're very wide streets, and that's also why we felt comfortable in speaking with land use staff about, you know, we have really wide streets. There's opportunity for density along this type of street dimension. But I think, you know, again, what we want to do is to be able to negotiate the finesse of the architecture quality that is nuanced based on site conditions and locations of the building. And it's a huge responsibility that we have. I mean, we've heard all tonight throughout the night about the community planning process that we went through. We are in constant communication with those groups. And it's really important for us to maintain that level of integrity and trust that we have with them. We have no reason to deviate from that. So, you know, again, our charge as a redevelopment agency is to make sure that we're getting, that we're stewards of the Master Plan, and we're getting the type of architecture and urban design that is described in the Master Plan and Community Development Plan. There's still a lot of prescription we have to comply with, and we're not hearing from developers balking at that. We just want to provide the flexibility to kind of work with their architecture as they, as we negotiate and massage their proposals. Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner.

I just want to follow up. I mean, I understand what the ask is, and I like what you were saying where, I think I'm just hesitant to make it, you know, the five-story flat facade for what you're saying. If we have one, these buildings aren't five stories in these pictures. It's a lot taller than that, and bigger, and a flat facade's going to go. I think could there be somewhere in the middle when it's proposed to the developers, the language or whatever gets put in this that really articulates the interest in there being variation? I understand like a certain, you know, this and what happens at the corner and next to the building. I understand that and why that's part of what's being asked, but I think we're missing a little bit of talk about like control or what the community wanted or the vision of this or what to do. I'm all for the density in this area. It's a great spot for it, but I think if we give it to like a just a blank slate, we will see some creativity, and we will also see some uncreativity. And we want to inspire the creativity or at least or some of it to keep it a little more interesting was the intent of this. It's in our art community, you know, like so I don't want to take this on too long, but I know we do need to pass this along to council, and I don't know if you would be open to thinking about some other language, if not this, somewhere in between these two places to land.

If I may, I appreciate your thinking and your willingness to figure that out. I am too. We don't want blank facades just going out five stories. We really want great architecture and articulation of great architecture in this process. So, I'm happy to figure it out and work with the Land Use Director and her staff to come up with a compromised language to make sure that we're prioritizing these kinds of projects that we don't want to see. And maybe it's just the opposite. We do not want to see blank facades of five-story buildings as a way, like, don't give us that. But if I'm, if we may, it would be, I'm willing to figure out what that fine language, that text might be.

If you could go through Chair Smith for your, just to keep the quorum a little bit.

I mean, we definitely want to hear from you, but if you could please ask him for comment in the future.
Permission granted retroactively.
With that accommodation in mind and understood, is it time for a motion to proceed?
Mr. Chair, Chair Smith, there is just one more. Commissioner, might it be helpful to describe the review process built in because I know a little bit about it, but it might make others feel better about what they're agreeing to.
Chair Smith, Member Morando, if I may defer to our director on Zoom, Daniel, if you'd like to better detail the review process for our commissioners.
Yes. So, an offerer can submit an offer for a development parcel at Midtown. They, and we ask for a site plan in their development program initially as a sort of an initial idea about what it is that they're wanting to build there. That development program then tells us whether it's an allowable use and whether they are going to ask for variance. That has not occurred in the offers we're receiving so far.

Once we, you know, sort of agree on the general terms of a price offer and their site plan and their development program, we start discussing the fine points of it to enter into an exclusive negotiation agreement. But before we do that, the MRA commission reviews it. As Miss Carly just articulated, there are community members there that represent sort of advocacy and community groups, as well as the Dean of the School of Architecture at UNM is on our commission. And so they want, they've set aside a sort of a design process so that it's not within our typical MRA commission meetings, but there's a special meeting in which they would review plans before we get into the ENA, the exclusive negotiation agreement.

During that exclusive negotiation agreement period, it could last a year for them to pull their architecture together, and we've asked them to submit from concept to schematic at 30, 60, 90% so that we have a really good idea about where they're heading and we can provide comment. We always and often interact with Heather, the direct land use director, and her team to make sure that we're keeping on track, that they're not seeing any deviations from the master plan. So that by the time we get to the end of that exclusive negotiation agreement, we have a pretty good idea about what their architecture and site plan looks like.

And we also leave room within the disposition development agreement process, and that is approved by the governing body. So even in the DDA, the disposition development agreement, we have standards and requirements in there for submission of, once they get beyond schematic through DD's design development and before they enter into construction documents, they submit drawings to us for our review again to make sure that what we've initially approved is what they're still agreeing to and their architecture has been refined so that we can comment on it before then it goes to the formal application period to the land use office. And then they have to go to the land use office, and again, the land use office is reviewing it for the architecture as well as the compliance with the master plan.
Thank you. So are we ready for a motion that will...
Excuse me. Chair Smith, you have to close the public comment.
I'm sorry.
You have to close the public comment.
Oh, thanks. Are there any more public comments? We will close.
I'm sorry.
Hold up.
I'm sorry. I need just an understanding of the rules here.
Single public comment. Or you have to close public comment.
It's just one time that the public is left.
That's what I thought. Thank you. And we close public comment. Could we hear a motion to approve or deny or recommend to the governing body that they either approve or deny this with somehow the understanding that there will be an accommodation put in according to the conversations that have been...
I suppose I, Commissioner Smith, I'd...
Well, I'd like to ask the applicant a question about process of how that could happen. So essentially, if we put in a motion that, oh, let's say that this was, you know, passed as it was in the link, other than if three consecutive developments happened, that one of those three or the adjacent development would have to vary by five. Would that make any sense? Would that be actionable?
Vice Chair Smith, Member Morando, in the case of The Link, there's no required setback at three stories. This is entirely independent to the master plan. In the case of making that, I imagine you could amend your motion, but this would be up to legal.
Thank you. Chair Smith.
Commissioner Morando, and the Planning Commission, I'll use an example of The Art House, which is immediately outside of Midtown Master Plan area, but still within The Link, there was the setback requirements there as well. So even within The Link, the required setback is found in the land development.
Yeah. Point of inquiry. As you were saying, Vice Chair Smith, that your recommendation would be to the governing body, the same would be as your condition. Your condition would be that recommendation to the governing body. Just want to clarify that.
Yes, sir.
Let's draft a condition that would kind of encapsulate what we've been talking about that makes sense to the applicant and just to help us put it in like what is an appropriate way to capture the essence of what we're talking about.
Yeah. All right. And I'll work with management over there. But I think, Chair Smith, to go home, if I could, if I could just go over some of the key points, just if we can bullet point those key issues and then perhaps give me a little bit of time to work on a condition and we can move to the next case so that we can come back to this. So we can table this until after the next case because I think there's a lot of people in the audience that are gearing up for the next case. Then we can come back to this and I can work with both the team for the MRA as well as get your essence. So if you want to give me some bullet points to work with, I'll generate something for you tonight.
And may, in that spirit, may a motion to table this through a time later in the meeting. The motion, or do you, do you want to discuss bullets first? Uh, yeah. Oh, agree. Yeah. Uh, so motion to table case till later in the meeting. However staff, however much time staff needs within the meeting. If you want to go to the next case, it'll give me time to work with Carly. But if you want to give me the, if you recommend the tabling and before you vote on that tabling, you elaborate on those bullets and then, and then, well, I guess you can't. Yeah, you, you can vote on postponement that you can't. So, yeah. So, I, I think maybe if you just give me the bullets now and then table it, we'll...
Yes.
Just in an effort to move this along, Carly, do you feel like you understand the essence of what we were talking about and could you guys collaborate on the bullet points because I think...
Vice Chair Smith, Member Capen, I'd be happy to. I believe that I understand the intent that you want us to pursue.
And I will collaborate with Planning Manager Dan Escoel.
Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Yeah.
We can just table this to meet after the next case. Then that'll be good. And then...
May I hear the motion to table until after the next...
Motion to table this case until after the next case.
Second.
Seconded. Roll call, please.
Commissioner Miranda.
Yes. Commissioner Reeland, Commissioner Capen.
Yes.
Commissioner McReynolds.
Yes.
Commissioner Barber.
Yes.
Chair CL.
Yes.
Commissioner McGee.
Yes.
Chair Smith, the motion has passed.
Thank you. We will then proceed to case to new business B, case 2025-101, 172, 4157 and 4161 Walking Rain Special Use Permit.
All right. Good to see you again everyone. So, oh right. Okay. All right. I will be presenting the second new business item tonight and that is case number 202510172 and 202510189 for Monte del Sol Development Plan Amendment and Special Use Permit at 4157 and 4161 Walking Rain Road. The proposal is for development plan amendment to include a 20,432 square foot gymnasium, outdoor amenities, parking lot, and a special use permit to allow an educational use in a residentially zoned district. The agent is Colleen Gavin of Jenkins Gavin. The applicant is Charter Schools Development Corporation or Monte del Sol. And I am again, Hell Crusaber. Oh, sorry. Goodness. Okay. So the location of the area is near, well, this is the South's corridor. Over here we have Governor Miles of Road cruising up there north. Then we have access off Beckner Road. The site is right here. And I've highlighted the site on this parcel. We have the Nava A subdivision to the north. We have Estancias de la Soleras subdivision to the south. Then we have Vistas de la, um, de la Sieras to the east. Yeah, for a subdivision. The current zoning, zoning designation, um, it's two parcels. So the first where the primary, the existing school is, is on planned residential community. That is the base zone. The reason why it is zoned that way is because this parcel was originally located within the Nava AD subdivision in which they were required to dedicate a parcel to a school or for a school. To the south we have tract 16 and that is zoned R1 and that is where the placement of the proposed expansion of the school will be. This is the future land use designation. Current site is zone 37 dwelling units per acre. And to the south, it is a public institution for the future land use. Here's the legal lot of record for tract U1. Here's the legal lot of record for tract 16 right here. Now, it is a development plan amendment because the original development plan for the tract for the school on Q1 was approved in 2002. Um, and with their proposal, it is on tract 16, which is on a 3.02 acre parcel. As I mentioned, they are proposing in, and it's a phased approach. In their first phase, they're, um, will be providing gymnasium, classrooms, office space, additional parking, outdoor amenities. And phase two, uh, will be a 5,200 ft classroom to replace three portables located on tract 16, as well as a 2500 square foot addition at the central campus to expand their cafeteria. This is the original development plan approval. Here are the proposed site, um, improvements. You can see a bulk of it is at tract 16 down here. This is the gymnasium location. Outside there will be including a basketball court. This area will be a turf soccer field and then again additional parking for, um, faculty and staff. Uh, whereas students will be parking at the existing location. And then I would like to point out the future phases. This area here where the portables, portables are located is where that, um, 5,200 ft structure will be placed in the future. And this area here, it is currently a half court basketball and that will be replaced, um, that will be, yeah, developed at a future phase. These are the proposed elevations and they, they do represent a contemporary modern architecture, uh, design with the interpretation that it is a traditional Spanish revival. And fortunately it, it does blend or it does match with the existing, uh, campus in regard to color and design. As well as it blends with the architectural vernacular in the area. Also, the, they have provided a sign and that sign has been reviewed and meets our sign requirements in both square footage and height. This is a bit of a breakdown, little close up of the tract 16.

We got that 20,432 square foot, 84 additional parking space to the south. And of course, everything else I've mentioned and a little break up now. They will be providing an exorbitant amount of bicycle parking. I'm very pleased to see. I believe it's at 39 bicycle parking spaces. And this is a floor plan breakdown of that 20,432 square foot. And what's really nice about this is that they are relocating their faculty and staff offices to this portion of the campus, which will act as a new entrance and improving the security of the campus. Prior to that, you would actually have to walk through the courtyard of the school before actually getting to the administrative office where you would sign in as a visitor. And this will increase security immensely.

The project has been reviewed, has been transmitted and reviewed by our DRT review team for roads and access. Well, we review that they still have two access points off Walking Rain Road to the north and are proposing a third access off. Now, this access here would be primarily for parents dropping off their students in the morning and buses who would be accessing this site to drop students off. Originally, buses were parked on site all the time. With this proposal, they will not be parking buses on site anymore. So, that allows for greater parking. But something I did not drive the point in is kind of why is Monte del Sol submitting this? Well, through their in their plan submittals and pre-applications we had with them, they made it very clear that these students at Monte del Sol, they don't have a gymnasium. So they have to rent space from other schools. They have to rent, they have to go to parks and coordinate that. And when I went there on a site visit, I saw kids playing soccer in the right-of-ways. So, what this really does is just make the campus a safe place and gives them the amenities that they would need to really further the students' extracurricular activities.

The applicant has been reviewed by fire. There are two new fire hydrants placed. The gymnasium will be sprinklered. And the right-of-way is a 26-foot right-of-way, which is required for buildings that are 30 feet or taller. The application has also been sent to water and sewer, and they will be, the new gymnasium will be getting their services off Las Acequias. And the site has been transmitted to drainage where they have two, they have created two drainage ponds at the southwest and west portion of Tract 16. The landscaping plan has been approved with conditions, which I will actually get into one later in my presentation, and the lighting plan has been approved.

I'd like to bring this one up because in the ENN, there was concern from neighbors about glare and lumen pollution, lumen light escaping the property. The lighting plan does propose light shields for those lights abutting or near residential properties, and there are zero lumens escaping the property based on the approved lighting plan. Lumens is a term for light. The architectural style points have been met as I've mentioned, and oh, look at here, we have 37 bicycle parking spaces provided. And in addition, they've provided 162 vehicular parking spaces, whereas 159 are required. And in that 162, ADA is included in that count. They've had an ENN on January 30th. Following that, they duly notified this planning hearing on July 2nd with mailers sent. And the approval criteria for the development plan and special use permit are the same. So, and staff has determined that they have met those requirements as specified in my staff report.

These are for the development plan. These are a few of the conditions. One of them is that they would have to construct and dedicate or provide an agreement to construct and dedicate to water. There will be a, there's a requirement for a 15-foot landscape buffer, which I will get into. And those are just a few from other DRT members. And the condition that I would like to propose to revise is condition number four. And this really had to do with, before I read that, I'll kind of get into this. So, this portion where a non-residential use abuts a residentially zoned district, whether it's developed or undeveloped, requires a 15-foot landscape buffer. Tract 16 was annexed to the city in 2005. These portables were permitted by the county in 2004. So these are legal non-conforming structures. And when the applicant will replace these in the future, that is when they will be meeting that 15-foot landscape buffer along this portion of the property here. Currently, it is at 9 and a half. And as you can see with this landscape plan, they are proposing trees. So it does add additional screening.

Now, the change originally was that they would have to install an 8-foot fence and maintain a 15-foot landscape buffer along that property. However, and that was contingent on whether Tract W, which belongs to Vistas de la Sierra subdivision and is located here, would be deeded to Monte del Sol because that parcel, similar to this, the original Monte del Sol parcel, is to be dedicated for a school. So, with that, we've changed the condition. We've talked to landscape, and they've approved this, that the owner shall provide a 15-foot landscape or 15-foot setback landscape buffer at the northeast portion of Tract 16 when phase construction to replace the existing portable one structure begins. So when they submit for a building plan, for now, I have my recommendation. Staff does recommend that the Planning Commission approve Case Number 22510172, subject Monte del Sol Special Use Permit, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections provided in Attachment A, recommended in Attachment A, and amend and the amended condition as presented by staff. I'm sure you guys will word that correctly. And then the other is for staff recommends that the Plan Commission approve Case Number 202510189, Development Plan Amendment, subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections provided Attachment A and the amended conditions as presented by staff. Those are the motions that you may choose, and that is, that concludes my presentation. Are there any questions?

Vice Chair: I have one question, just a clarification for two. In the material we were circulated, it says the construction is 2,432. You say 20. Which is it?

Speaker: That was provided in the staff report, what you're reading.

Vice Chair: On the agenda in the description.

Speaker: Okay, it is 20,432. So, I would like to clear the record on that. Thank you, Vice Chair, Vice Chair Smith. And the other is that, and this may be being a novice, we do not have in the agenda any notification for Case Number 202510189. And was that the early neighborhood notification notice or?

Vice Chair: What you got, right?

Speaker: Well, don't mind me. I can't read.

Vice Chair: Vice Chair.

Speaker: That things are going well.

Vice Chair: Vice Chair Smith, don't you worry. That happens to me all the time.

Speaker: Questions. Quick, if you'll go back to the slide that had your updated condition on it real quick. And maybe you explained this. I didn't, the current version, there's an 8-foot fence, and is the suggestion that that is removed? Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. So, removing the fence and keeping the 15-foot setback.

Commissioner K: Yeah.

Speaker: That is correct.

Commissioner K: Okay, great. Thank you.

Speaker: Yeah.

Vice Chair Smith: I actually had a similar question. Can you explain again why you're removing that 8-foot fence?

Speaker: Yeah. Let me go here. Looking back, it seemed to be an overreach by staff to request that 8-foot tall fence. And when I reconvened that condition with landscape, they did not see a need for an 8-foot fence as the 15-foot landscape buffer is the only landscape requirement for a non-residential and residential, for non-residential use abutting an undeveloped residentially zoned district. So it just, it was an overreach by staff originally, and that's why we changed it.

Vice Chair Smith: So my understanding of the provision is you either do fence or the landscape buffer, right? No, it's not and/or. Yeah, it's the 15-foot, and that's, it's what the landscape engineer made clear to me. There are no, obviously there aren't, but for security and safety, and maybe the applicants is going to speak to this a little bit in their presentation, so we can move along to that. I guess I'd like to hear about that. You're putting in a lot of effort to make the entryway more secure, which I think is fantastic. So the question about removing fences around schools at this point is, I'd like to hear about.

Speaker: I'll defer that. Yeah.

Vice Chair: Are there other questions, commissioners? Okay. Thank you all.

Speaker: Yes, I'm sorry.

Commissioner: Sorry. You mentioned, so just north of your area that is in red, it is a lot that, did you say, can be deeded as a school as well? And I guess my question is, is there a possibility that in the future that area just north will be, will also be developed?

Speaker: Yes. So this actually is part of the, let me go all the way back here. Okay. Well, okay, give me a sec. Every time I, all right. Every time I put the laser pointer, it zooms me back out. So, this is that tract we're talking about. And if you just keep, okay. So, you can see right to the east, that's that tract I'm talking about. That is part of Vistas de La Sierra. They are currently on, they are, that tract is supposed to be dedicated to a school in my understanding, and that is through the annexation agreement that that was in place. Now they are coming in for their third phase of development. So at some point that's got to be dedicated to a school. Did that answer your question, Commissioner McGee?

Commissioner McGee: I believe it did. Thank you.

Speaker: Okay, thank you. Proceed. Thank you. Thank you all.

Vice Chair: If you raise your right hand so we can swear you in. Please state your name and address for the record.

Gavin: Pauline Gavin, 130 Grant Avenue.

Nelson: Zoe Nelson, 111 Hudson Street, 7500.

Johnson: Matt Johnson, 438 East Park.

Vice Chair: Do you solemnly swear, declare, 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? You've been sworn in.

Gavin: Good evening, and thank you again for the patience with technology. We're going to get this down someday, right? Okay. Hello. I am Pauline Gavin with Jenkins Gavin here on behalf of Monte del Sol Charter School for application for an amendment to their existing development plan and a special use permit. So, I know that, right. Thank you. Okay. So, I just want to introduce quickly our team. I know it's already been a long evening, and you have a lot of cases before you. So, here we have Dr. Zoe Nelson. She is the head learner and charter director for Monte del Sol. We also have Matt Johnson with our architecture team and Kelly Klein with our civil engineering team. We also have a representative from our developer, which is 22 Beacon, previously known as Charter Schools Development Corporation. So, you know, Hell did a great job of identifying exactly where the project is, so I don't want to belabor this, but just for clarity again, this is the existing Tract Q1 where the existing school is. And to the south is Tract 16. That is the parcel that was given to the school in 2004 and then annexed into the city in 2005, where currently there are some portable structures there that are utilized for the school programs. And then just our future use map identifying that Tract 16, which really is the subject property of the proposed expansion of the campus, as public institutional. So, our proposal is in alignment with the future use plan. So again, just identifying the parcels.

I'll go through this, and this actually, I think, is a good graphic just for understanding where we are. Monte del Sol really is the heart and soul and center of this residential neighborhood that is just south of Governor Miles Road. We have Nava Ade. We have Estancias de Lasier, which is just to the south and to the west. And then we have Vistas de la Sierra, which is currently under development. As mentioned, they're currently coming in with their Phase 3 subdivision plat. And I will go into that parcel that was touched on earlier.

So this is, I think, a good aerial just again for context so you can understand where the school is. Obviously, this aerial was taken prior to some of the current construction that's occurring to the east in Vistas de la Sierra. You can see here this is the existing campus coming off of Walking Rain Road. And then this piece here is Tract 16 with those six portable structures. And now we're going to zoom in a little bit more so you can understand again the context and the layout of the existing campus. Again, this is the existing parking lot. This is an existing entry, the interior courtyard. And then again, these are the portables here. And this road here to the south, that is Las Reales, where we are proposing our third driveway cut to provide, to distribute parking, distribute access to the campus. Pardon me.

So again, there's Tract 16 again in an aerial. So, touching on just really quickly, the layout of the campus is such that we really wanted this expansion to really blend in and incorporate and be a more holistic approach to the campus. So again, we have our existing building, and this south campus building is really there to serve the immediate needs of the school. This is a school that is 7th through 12th. They have very competitive soccer and basketball teams, and as was mentioned, they don't have any proper facilities for their students. So, as we all know, an educational experience is not just academics, right? It's about having a well-rounded experience, whether it be athletic, social, the arts. And so providing this space is not just addressing an athletic deficiency with the current campus, but providing a heart and soul for the entire school to gather and have assemblies, to have back-to-school night, to have performances, and to be able to host athletic events for the community.

So again, sorry, my [presentation] is going a little too fast here. Again, just a clarification on the Phase 2. So, yes. So, Phase 1 of the development plan amendment again is to add the 29,000 square foot plus building that will house the gymnasium, new administrative offices, five classrooms, and of course, support spaces, and then as well as an outdoor proper-sized basketball court. But then in Phase 2, we wanted to again address those portables and allow for permanent structures to be placed in that, in the southeast area of the campus, and then allowing for an expansion there on that northwest corner of the central campus building. And then this is just identifying again where the proposed development of the property would occur, just to zoom into the campus here. And I just want to get to some of the matters that were discussed earlier.

And again, our floor plan. This is the administrative offices. This will be the proper entry. Of course, our gymnasium building, classrooms in the orange, and then support spaces. And here's our elevations. Really touching on and utilizing the existing color palette that's at the existing campus with tans and kind of a clay color as a pop for our gymnasium massing. This is the existing entry to the campus, and you can see here this is the logo for Monte del Sol, which we're utilizing on the new proposed building. And again, there's those colors.

So, I want to talk real quick about just some clarification on the parking distribution. Basically, the south parking lot that comes off of Las Reales is not proposed to be utilized by students or parents. The whole point of that was to be able to take the bus traffic away from Walking Rain because there's a lot of traffic coming and going and really isolate it to this area so that we have very efficient flows of traffic coming off of Las Reales. So really that south is the staff overflow. Visitor and parents are adjacent to the new structure and that formal entrance and security point. Staff and students then are distributed to the north.

I'm not even going to get into traffic unless you guys want to talk about it because I know it's late, but I do just want to real quickly go to a question about security. Here we go. So, securing an educational campus is not necessarily about putting a fence around the entire property. When you have structures, structures in themselves have walls. Walls are a sense of security. So what we are proposing here is actually to take a wrought iron 8-foot high fence and put it between the buildings as opposed to taking the entire six-plus acres and putting a fence around it. We're taking, basically, if you look at this graphic here, you can see these lines here are identifying where fencing is going to occur in the Phase 1 where we're still maintaining those three portables. So we have fencing here between the central campus building and our new south campus building. Here we have fencing here between the existing portables and our new south campus building, and then fencing here to the east and then wrapping around. So basically, we can secure the entire campus and the area that the students hang out in and utilize to walk from class to class, from building to building, and it's secured as opposed to having, feeling, you know, like it's, I mean, I hate to say it, but, you know, like somehow you're imprisoned into a property. It does not feel, what we want to do is really incorporate the fencing and be really efficient with that. And then of course, when we move on to Phase 2 and we can go ahead and proceed with that permanent structure, of course then we will, you know, update how we maintain that security.

And then the question about having a fence along that property line there between that and the parcel, the school parcel that's part of this is the de la Sierra. Let me move on to that. So, basically, there is an annexation agreement that the owners of Vistas de la Sierra went into with the City of Santa Fe. And here we go. Here's our plat. This is a subdivision plat for Vistas de la Sierra, which is not subject to this proposal or this application. At the time of this approval, this parcel here was identified, Tract 3 was identified to be dedicated to the Santa Fe Public Schools. The reason why it was dedicated there is because it was adjacent to Monte del Sol. It makes sense, right? So, there's an additional three acres. That makes sense. It's adjacent, and that way it would allow an existing educational facility to utilize that acreage. So, in the development of Vistas de la Sierra, we have not been involved except for early on with the different phasing. They have a requirement to go ahead and dedicate that. So it is our hope that that dedication occurs soon, and we would love to incorporate that into our campus. That is another reason why putting a fence or a wall between these two parcels, 16 and this Tract 3, makes absolutely no sense. And then furthermore, actually that wall, to answer Member Mundo's question, is in the code, it actually does not require a wall or a landscape buffer. It's just landscaping of 5 feet. So, I think I addressed all of the questions that came up in your questioning of Hell, but I'm happy to stand for any other questions. And before we end, I'd like to just have Dr. Nelson just say a couple words.

**Dr. Nelson:** Good evening, Vice Smith and members of the Commissioners. My name is Zoe Nelson, and first of all, I want to share my appreciation with some of our legislators who have supported this capital program in the last couple years with appropriations up to close to a million dollars. So, that support from the Santa Fe delegation is a huge boon. And I mentioned that because a couple years ago, a senator was, we had invited him onto campus, and they walked into the gathering space where we currently hold everything. And they had a memory of back early in the 2000s of being in that space with the then governor. And the governor turned to this senator and said, "Let's build these guys a gym." And so here we are 20 years later working on building a gym. And I think that's a notable story because we have been around for 25 years as one of the oldest charter schools in New Mexico, and we have had competitive sports teams, and we've maintained a really strong community in this space. And when I first started working there in 2010, there was nothing around us except for Nava Ade. And so I think it's also our time to build up and be part of the community that has built around us over the last decade or so.

We have invited some students, and I think they're still here, so you'll get to hear some of their stories hopefully also. And I just want to highlight a couple parts of this phase for the, because it's not highlighted in our specific building plans, but the future phase of removing the remaining portables after the first three were to go is an arts building. That would be the plan phase, which is one of our core pillars, is to have a 5,200 square foot building there. And then the other building where the current, by the kitchen, we have a commercial kitchen that serves our dual credit culinary art classes. And so the vision there would actually be to expand that so we could have a teaching kitchen and continue to build that work-based learning program out. I think that's all I have, and I also stand for questions. Thank you.

So, I don't have anything else to add, but if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you very much. You, now time for public comment. Are there those who would like to make public comment? And what I say from our earlier presentations, is there not a limit we like to honor?

**Chair:** That's up to you, Mr. Chair, if you'd like 1 minute, 2 minute, 3 minutes, that's completely understood. There was a 3-minute general.

**Chair:** We can certainly put that on a timer.

**Chair:** Let's not be too militant about it.

**Chair:** Here comes trouble.

**Chair:** Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Joseph, 2410 KOA.

**Chair:** 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?

**Joseph:** I do.

**Chair:** You've been sworn in.

**Joseph:** Good evening. I'm part of the boys basketball team, but I'm not here as just an athlete. I'm sorry. But I'm someone who deeply believes in the culture, and I want to talk about something that's more than just four walls and a hardwood floor. To us, it's very different. I would say it's just not any gym, but I want it to be our gym. Right now, we practice at public parks. It may sound okay, but it's really not. We practice really late nights, and there's a lot of homeless people around and a lot of needles on the ground, and sometimes we're very scared, but yet we still practice, and we still want to play for our school. We love our school, and it's our home, but we just want to have a home.

We spend nearly $20,000 a year just to rent gyms. The gyms we rent out aren't the best. They don't have a lot of accessibility for handicap needs, which leaves a lot of our classmates with disabilities, or even that one parent or grandparent with a disability. We want them to watch us grow as we grow. It's very hard playing home games at a different person's home. In my opinion, it's very embarrassing, and we want to feel like we're at our school. We're missing more than basketball or any other sport. We're missing an opportunity and pride. For athletes like me, sports are more than a game. They're hope, they're an escape, and they're a future. It's one thing that really keeps us going. At the end of the day, it's more than a court, it's a home. Thank you.

Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

Sane, 3991 Camino Juliana.

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?

Good evening, Santa Fe Planning Commission. My name is Sarah. I'm a student athlete at Montrose, and I'm here on behalf of the students and athletes of our community here at Mont to speak about some important factors why we need a gym for our community. First, sometimes it's hard for students and parents to go to different locations for practices and games. If locations are changed or if weather is not acceptable to practice, constant changing of practice locations can cause issues with participants not being able to get there. Second, having a home-based gym, we will have a safe place to practice and play games. You would not have to worry about who's around because only the people who are supposed to be there will be allowed to be there during that time. Third, having a home-based gym, we would have a place to promote team building and skill building as athletes. PE class would have their own place to work on these skills as well and not be in a place where other classes may be. Lastly, as a student and athlete, we need a sense of home court advantage. Having a home-based gym, there will be a sense of pride and motivation for players, coaches, and the school community to come together for the home of the Dragons. I believe that having our own gym will help our school have a sense of community pride and a place to create real team-building experiences. I want to thank you for your consideration of making this dream come true for our community here at Mont.

Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

Lonzaka, 41 Kyle.

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? He's been sworn.

Hello, my name is Alonzo Baka. I am a rising junior at Montasul. These new structures that we are hoping to get at this school will help us have the ability to keep a lot more events on campus and hold a lot more people. Additionally, it will also help us to hold more grade-central events such as clubs without disrupting the older or younger years with their clubs. The gathering space, which is an open-air space, is where we hold a lot of our gatherings and activities. This new gym, we're hoping, would be able to alleviate some of that space. This would also give us a better place to hold our mentorship activities or events because it would provide us with more space to have more people come and appreciate the activities and the mentors that help teach the students. Mentorship is an important thing to us because it helps students see if they want to go into a certain profession or if they want to do a certain hobby that they can get good at. We hold it at the Lensic II and our gathering space currently, and with the gym, we're hoping that it would give us more room at our gathering space so more kids can come.

When I had first entered Montasul in seventh grade, it was kind of intimidating to be put straight in with the high schoolers. With this new building, with the four new classrooms, we are hoping to put the seventh graders with the four core classes in there so they won't get thrown immediately in with the high schoolers so they have some room to breathe and mingle with each other. We will also be getting a field, which is a good thing for us during lunches and little breaks. A lot of students like to play soccer, and our current soccer place is in front of the school where a lot of cars come and go, so it's not really that safe. This field will give us a better and safer place to play soccer and just hang out without having the risk of falling and not getting hurt on the asphalt. These new structures will also give us more security because it would consolidate the area and give teachers a better way to keep a watchful eye on us so nobody will get hurt and nobody will be in danger, and we'll be able to watch better of everybody coming on and off the campus. Other than that, these new structures are something that I know a lot of students at this school really would love to have, and it would brighten the day because they would have better places to play, better places to have. It would give a lot more students more comfortability and a more comfortable environment to be around. Thank you.

Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

Penser, 13 Dwende Lou.

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? Been sworn in.

Good evening, members of the planning board. I'm Erica Penszer, the assistant headliner at Monte Doul Charter School. And aren't our students amazing? I'm here tonight to request your approval for our school to move forward with the permitting phase of our new facility expansion. This project represents more than just additional square feet. It's about opportunity and our students' future. For 25 years, our charter school has served this community without a gymnasium, performance stage, or outdoor athletic facilities. Despite these limitations, our dedicated teachers and resilient students have achieved remarkable success. However, we've reached a point where our physical limitations are constraining our educational potential. Our proposed gym, along with the new outdoor athletic spaces, will finally allow us to offer comprehensive physical education and competitive athletics. Programs that develop teamwork, discipline, and school pride. The new stage will provide a venue for student performances, graduations, and community events that strengthen the bonds between our students, families, and larger community. The additional classrooms and administrative offices will reduce overcrowding and create specialized learning environments that our students deserve. This isn't just about meeting current needs, however. It's about positioning our school to serve future generations effectively. Dr. Zoe Nelson and her team have conducted thorough environmental reviews, engaged with neighboring residents, and designed a facility that complements our school mission and values. This expansion represents a significant investment in our students and families. By approving our request tonight or recommending it to the governing board, you're not just permitting a building project, you're championing educational excellence and community growth. I respectfully urge you to approve our application so that we can move forward with the permitting phase. Our students have waited long enough for these essential educational spaces. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Are there any people on Zoom or elsewhere who want to comment?

Yes, Chief Smith, we have two folks who would like to speak. The first one is Joan Dickerson and has her hand raised. Joan, you may unmute and please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn for your comment.

Joan Dickerson of 4721 Los Plazuelis.

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.

We certainly in Estancia de la Solaris want to be good neighbors to Monte del Sol and appreciate the importance of the project and especially appreciate the safety aspect of the project and the additional classrooms as well as the gymnasium. We do have some concerns, however, with the ingress and egress of buses along Los Besus and would like to know if there are traffic controls that are going to be established at that intersection where Viento del Norte enters to Las Besus and the proposed driveway will be entering to Las Besus because there are traffic problems already along Las Besus. We have worked successfully with Dr. Nelson regarding some parking issues and appreciate her cooperativeness in working with us and getting students to park in designated spots instead of in our neighborhood. The last thing I'd like to mention is that we have existing irrigation along Las Besus, and we understand that there will be a certain amount of digging and scarifying of substrate before putting on a base layer and then asphalt for the driveway. We ask that you coordinate with us so that we can adjust our irrigation so that that is not damaged and that the irrigation will continue to water the trees and bushes in our neighborhood. We spend a lot of money on water, and we don't want to waste it. I can give my email address to the developers so that they can contact me, and I can contact the landscapers regarding the irrigation. I serve on the board, and I am the board liaison to the landscape committee. If you would like me to state my email address, just let me know.

Miss Dickerson, I believe that Dr. Nelson may have your email address, and they're nodding yes. So I'm sure they understand your request and will follow up.

Okay. We certainly would appreciate that so that we can make the necessary adjustments to the irrigation when that driveway is laid. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all the comments that I have. Thank you. There was one other hand raised. However, that seems to have fallen off. I want to remind folks if you want to speak, please raise your hand right now. It's not coming back up. Thank you.

Are there any comments or if they'll be ready for what would be?

May I make a point of inquiry? The public member who commented just now, they had a comment about traffic. We do have our traffic engineer here, but I would like to be if that needs to be addressed. Leroy, may you come up? Let me close public comment as we're waiting for Leroy.

Mr. So, with respect to traffic in the school, the school hired, I believe it was Bohan and Houston, who performed a traffic analysis that was reviewed by the city's traffic engineering agent, Wilson and Company. The school's population is not growing by these changes. It's facility expansion, not population expansion. So there was no additional traffic impact. We can work with Sphan and review their work with respect to access and such. We did look at it all, and it met muster. But as this moves forward, we'll continue to work with the applicant.

Thank you.

Okay. Are we ready? Do we need two motions? Two motions. So, could I hear a motion on case 202510172, 4157 and 4161 Walking Rain Road for a special use permit?

Yes.

Yes. I'd like to make a motion in case, do I have to make them separately or can I make?

No, we need two.

Yeah. Okay. In case 202510172 at 4157 and 4161 Walking Rain Road, special use permit, motion of approval of the case as submitted with all technical corrections from staff. A second.

Second it.

Discussion. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Rland.

Yes.

Commissioner Gen.

Commissioner McReynolds.

Yes.

Commissioner Barber.

Yes.

Cloud.

Yes.

Commissioner McGee.

Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes.

Smith. The motion is passed.

You and Commissioner Miranda.

Yeah. And I'd like to make a motion in case 202510189 at 4157 and 4161 Walking Rain Road, development plan amendment. I'd like to make a motion for approval as submitted with all technical corrections from staff. There second.

Second.

Please call a roll.

Commissioner Cid.

Yes.

Commissioner McNuts.

Yes.

Commissioner Barber.

Yes.

Chair Cloud.

Yes.

Commissioner McGee.

Yes. Commissioner Miranda.

Yes.

Commissioner Ruth.

Yes.

Smith. The motion has passed. Motion is approved and you got your program. I was just going to ask, it's been two hours. Would people like a five-minute break? I just, I just bought the most expensive peanut butter cups in the world. What? They are. Okay. Can we call the meeting back to order, please? And can the conversations in the back of the room ease? Maybe not. I'll call the meeting back to order. And do we have a report on the, we had a motion to postpone. So I will ask that the motion, the case of 1251070600 St. Michael's Drive master plan amendment be raised again for and to hear of the report for the amended motion.

Chair, I don't know if you need to have a vote to take it off of the table before we can start discussing it. Nope. Can we vote to take it off the table?

You'll need a motion and a second and then.

Separate motion. My God, where are we? Okay. May I hear a motion to take it off the table?

I make a motion to bring back case 20251070600 St. Michael's Drive master plan amendment referred.

Second. Second, please call the roll.

Commissioner Rando.

Yes.

Commissioner Wheeland.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaden.

Yes.

Commissioner McReynolds.

Yes.

Commissioner Barber.

Yes.

Sher Cloud.

Yes.

Commissioner McGee.

Yes.

Smith. The motion is passed. Now, do we have to make the motion again or what is the order in front of the commission?

At this point, I think it's best if we report back to you the results of the response to a condition regarding facade articulation. And this was put together by the applicants, the Midtown team, as well as Dan Esqel reviewed it as is in his role as planning manager and I have reviewed it also in my role as land use director and support this. So for this, the standard is all building facades exceeding three stories and facing a public street shall incorporate articulation at regular intervals of the building facade to enhance the pedestrian experience and soften architectural massing within the streetscape. Methods of articulation include, but are not limited to, recesses or projections on the building wall plane, changes in material, color, or texture, roof line variations or parapit offsets, balconies, roof decks, and stepbacks. What is the, I'm by now out of gas in terms of what the appropriate motion would be, but Commissioner Miranda, I'm sure you are not. Oh, Commissioner McGee.

Thank you, Chair Smith. In, in case, I would like to make a motion in case 202510706 at 1600 St. Michael's Drive, master plan amendment. I'd like to make a motion with approval with, with, with additional inclusions and corrections from staff including.

That would be to recommend the governing body approve the master plan amendment subject to the new condition as recommended by the land use director.

Okay.

So be it. Yeah, I'd like to recommend that the, the motion would be for the governing body to recommend approval subject to added condition and yeah.

All right. Okay.

Second.

More discussion.

Yes.

I just want to say thank you. I think that was really well-crafted and captured what we were talking about. So, nice work. Thank you.

I second that. Thank you.

Then may we hear the roll call?

Commissioner McGee.

Yes.

Commissioner Mirando.

Yes.

Commissioner Weland.

Yes. Commissioner Cabin.

Yes.

Commissioner McReynolds.

Yes.

Commissioner Barber.

Yes.

Chair Clap.

Yes.

With that, Cher Smith, the motion is passed. Good evening, Chair Smith, commissioners. I am talking about case 20251037, which is 1111 Okate Road Development Plan. The applicant requests approval of approximately 119,540 square feet of new construction for affordable multifamily housing on 5.64 acres. The site is zoned C2 general commercial. The agent is Leazison Planning, applicant Santa Fe Civic Housing Authority, case planner Claudia Cath. So this is a vicinity map that shows, just get the laser pointer. So here's Serios. Here's the site. This is Airport Road, Jaguar. Here's Pate and Los Solaris. This is a slightly more zoomed in image of the site. There's an auto dealership here, an auto dealership here, the Walmart. This is mobile home park. This is vacant land owned by School for the Deaf. This the high school. This is a zoning map. You can see here's the site in the gray is primarily is C2. The dark orange is the mobile home park and the lighter orange is the planned residential communities and these are multifamily developments. This one is currently under construction and this will be coming in for a development plan. These are photos of the site. The site is currently vacant. There are two abandoned buildings on the site. So, this is one of the abandoned buildings. This is Okate. This is a view onto the site. This is a view off of the site. This is a view looking west in the other abandoned building. This a rendered site plan showing, here's Okate Road. You enter, you can enter at this driveway or at this driveway. There's parking along the perimeter and covered garages. This is building A, which is the largest. This is building B, smaller, a community building. And then there's two tot lots, one for younger children, one for older children, a grass area, rain garden and pond, another pond, and another pond. There's perimeter screening, street trees, street trees along the roadway. Required for this development, the required parking is 130 spaces and the applicant is exceeding that with 142. Five of those are ADA are required to be ADA requirement. The applicant's providing eight. Four ADA van spaces are required. The applicant is providing four. All parking is standard for standard cars at 90 degrees and wheel stops will be provided per code at every parking space. For this development size development, 12 bicycle parking spaces are required. You can see in red the applicant has eight bicycle locations with at least four at each location. So there are upward of 30 spaces provided. I think I also on here, I just wanted to show the garage parking. The purple is the standard parking and the blue is the ADA parking. And there are two covered ADA spaces provided as part of the development plan. The applicant is providing on-site improvements. This is currently the intersection of Okate and Serios. So, right now you can make a right in, a right out, you can turn left, you can turn left this way, turn left this way. We, the applicant will be providing more traffic calming devices where you can only turn right in, turn right out. There can be no left turn anymore. There's a signal down here at Los Solaris where someone would have to go down here, make a U-turn, and then could go north. One of, one of the international building code requirements is that there has to be an accessible path of travel from the door of the development to public transportation. So, there's a bus stop right here. And after discussions with the DRT team, our recommended preferred option would be to just have a sidewalk along the north side of Okate Road and then there's an existing crosswalk at Serios where someone could cross safely and then go to the bus stop. So there, this is the way it looks right now looking north along Okate and this is what it would look like with a sidewalk. There is in the code, chapter 237, that the public works director can request the property owners along Okate to build a sidewalk on their property so that the applicant is not tasked with 500 feet or so of concrete. So that is one option in the code. However, if that did not come to fruition, the applicant would have to construct that sidewalk. It's a condition of approval. There is another option proposed by the MO that there could be a shorter distance of concrete sidewalk installed and then a midblock crossing because there is an existing sidewalk on the south side of Okate. So, and then they could access the public transportation. So this is the existing condition again and here would be a shorter sidewalk and then a midblock crossing. So, you see merits to both. Staff thinks the sidewalk just on the north side is preferred, but this is also a viable option and we would like input from the planning commission. And moving on, these are utilities. The dash lines represent existing utilities. So there's an existing water line in Okate. There's an existing sewer line in Okate. So both, the water will run around under the loop road and stub out to the buildings. The sewer will come up through the center and stub out to the buildings. Both are 8 inches. The lighting. There's two lights types of lights proposed, a pole down light and a wall pack down light. So the wall packs you can see will outline the buildings and the pull lights are shown as are as shown. The applicant has a little tuning up to do on the photometric plan, but that, I'm sure that will happen before recordation. Then these are just elevations of the architecture. So this side of the building would be facing the interior garden area. This would be facing the loop road. This would be facing Okate and this would be facing the north side of the project and that's building A. And then this is building B, smaller. So again, this would be facing the interior. This would be facing the loop road. And then I may have switched, but this would be the looking towards Okate and this would be the north side and then this is the community building and these are elevations showing the garage, the ends, the back. So the applicant conducted an ENN meeting on April 16th, 2025. The EN was held virtually. City staff and the applicant's team and no members of the public were present. The recommendation is the land use department recommends development plan approval of case 20251037 1111 Okate Road subject to conditions of approval and technical corrections as outlined in attachments A and B of the staff report. One motion will be required in this case. Approve or deny case 2025100037 1111 Okate Road development plan subject to conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report and technical corrections listed in attachments A and B of staff report. And I stand for questions. Just when you said 119,000 square feet, you were talking about the entire lot as opposed to the 80,491 that will be constructed.

And I should mention the applicant complies with all the setbacks. The lot coverage is less than 60%, and the building height is under 45 feet for the C2 district.

Thank you. Are there questions, members of the commission? Yes.

I just have one question to orient. You mentioned there was a big orange section that I think is future residential development. Do you know what that is? Is that Tiara Contenta? Let me get back to the zoning plan.

Yeah, right here.

This is vacant land.

Oh, I thought you said it was like future.

This is the Rancho Santa Fe. These two developments. This one's under construction. This is going to be coming in as an application. This is the high school.

So, planned. Sorry, I can't. Planned something community.

Planned residential.

Yeah, I was just curious if we knew what it was since it seemed like it's already been planned.

So, here it is. Vacant, vacant, and high school. Other questions?

Just a quick question regarding options one and two for the sidewalks. So, option one, would option two only come into play if landowners refuse to participate in option one, or are you asking for—

We're looking for feedback from the Planning Commission, really, and whether option one or two is preferred. So, option one, there's no crossing. I mean, there's already an existing crosswalk at Crios. It's an anticipated stop when you're driving. On the other hand, option two takes advantage of the existing sidewalk on the south side of the road and tasks the applicant with a much less amount of sidewalk.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, in option one, basically the governing body can require that all of those landowners build the sidewalk, or—

The Public Works Director.

Okay. Public Works.

And then if they refuse, then the applicant has to pay for it. I guess I—so, I could use some assistance on this.

What was the question? I'm sorry.

I guess I don't understand the ordinance, maybe, that you can submit a notice of violation to the owners of those parcels, and then they can decide, I guess, either to comply with that notice of violation or not, and then the applicant would have to pay for it. Does that make sense?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, if there's a requirement of the city code and we have inspectors, the normal course of operation is they're going to give them a first, you know, in a case like this, I would venture to say that they would give them a letter to address what's going on. Then they'd give them a certain amount of time to address the issues. Then it would become a notice of violation. If they still maintain status quo, then it becomes a citation that ends up in court.

Okay. I guess just my personal input on option one or two would be option one because it is a stop. Option two, you have people coming down a street unless there's like more established crosswalk.

Thank you, Chair Smith. The challenge here is that this road was once part of the county. So, originally when it was developed out, I think that's Newman's Nursery, when that was developed, it was part of the county, and no sidewalk was required at that time. The Subaru Honda dealership that's to the south, this part of the city was developed as part of the—when it was part of the city. And so that's why the sidewalk was constructed. Typically, what we're wrestling with here is typically we require those connections to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as just providing for safe passage for residents to transit, or, you know, mostly to that transit corridor, as well as Serios Road and other services. We would require for a typical residential development that they build that sidewalk, and we are within our right to do so as off-site improvements. But this is a 100% affordable housing project. So, staff has been really trying to work with the bottom line. It's a bit challenging, and so we're offering some options that potentially could help the applicant. Yes, Commissioner Pen.

Just to follow, and I think you mentioned this. Is there an option for a more developed crosswalk, like one of the speed tables that has the crosswalk with the lights next to it, like that's on Guadalupe, where as a happy medium, just so that it's such a straight, long road? I get it, and I think it's a good solution, but I would be worried about, especially if someone is moving slowly or in a wheelchair or something, getting across there and enough. So, would that be an option as a happy medium?

I'd like to defer it to Leroy Pacheco, our traffic engineer. Sure. Okay. So, the answer to your question is we follow—that's an engineering apparatus and would require an engineer by state law to stamp such a crossing. And the process for that, because it's not at a controlled intersection. It's simpler at a controlled intersection because it's stopped or signalized. Those are somewhat no-brainer. But uncontrolled crossings can be safer. In other words, letting a pedestrian choose where to cross based on where they're going and volume speed. Sometimes the choice with an—using an uncontrolled crossing is actually safer than a controlled crossing, which raises liability. And when you're telling a pedestrian, "Here's the crossing, cross here," and if the engineering work behind that, traffic study, pedestrian counts, et cetera, there's a whole matrix you go through, it can be challenging. And so you have to be careful. The answer is yes, but it's—it would require an engineering study. And as I looked at the exhibit, it seems to be that there's an overflow parking lot on the north side of—maybe we can click on that. That is probably serving the dealership. It looks like it's an overflow parking based on ownership for the—so, one option would be to really ask for that entity to study that. I mean, are they needing a crossing? Or, you know, is this that 80 feet of missing sidewalk potentially something they should be doing? And, you know, it's unfortunate had they come in through the process, and we've been asking those questions prior to that existing, we would have required that. We'd have required that owner to do the study, probably post-operation study. Is this the place to cross them and fill in that missing 80 feet because that's attributable to their development? It's an impact that they're creating. And so it's a—we were in a challenging position because, you know, as the Land Use Director mentioned, we're looking at the situation. The need for this is there, but we're in the sort of like, "Well, how do we attribute it and how do we get this done?" So, that's why there's two options, and I think there's even this third category of possibility that was mentioned from Chapter 23. So, it's a, you know, it's a conversation we have, but I think that just putting a crossing and picking it out of the blue might not be to our best advantage. Might, you know, we can continue to talk about it, but we would want an engineer to stamp and say, "Yeah, this is where we want the crossing, and it's going to be safe." So,

I have a follow-up.

Yeah. Am I understanding correctly that option two is not your first choice for this project? The shorter crossing across the street at a random place. No, I wouldn't say that that is my—my—I see the logic of the existing sidewalk on the south side of the street.

Yeah, which is great. My only comment might be, well, where we put the crossing, and is it warranted by the matrix of volume speeds and actual users in these peak hour time frames that the choice that an engineer would make to say, "Okay, we're going to need," or to leave it uncontrolled. And a, you know, a person might be crossing to Newman's, a person might be crossing to the parking lot, a person might be going further. So, forcing crossers to a certain point without the traffic study may not be the best place to—I don't know where to put the crossing. I don't know where the pedestrian traffic is, and this is going to generate new pedestrian traffic. I've been in conversations with the applicants saying, "Well, most of our people are going to actually go the other way to the school, probably." So, I'm just saying it's a great gap of hitting sidewalk as soon as you can. There's 80 feet missing. I think it's very generous of the MO to have thrown that in. I would just say I'm not so sure about the marked versus uncontrolled.

Can you just clarify? Uncontrolled means unmarked.

Yeah. So, just leave that as—it doesn't sound like that's an option, right?

Well, it's the—it's how the world is. Most of the places as you're going along a street provide you an opportunity to cross. And even, I'm thinking of perhaps Alamita near Deor Street, there is a marked crossing closer to—well, there's one at the intersection of St. Francis. Then there's a mid-block marked crossing, but there are actually ADA cuts, various further along the street on both sides where, and you may not choose—if you're able-bodied, you can almost cross wherever you feel safest. But if you're not able-bodied, there are opportunities to cross beyond just those marked crossings. There are ADA ramps that kind of get you closer to intersections that provide opportunities unmarked or uncontrolled. I mean, unmarked. Okay. We're in the position of advising. Is this something—let me just ask—that you would like, when the motion is made, to include a recommendation around the crossing in the sidewalk, or is it just advice? Yes, Mr. Chair. Members of the commission, one of the things that we have to consider is this is an ADA requirement that was already provided to us by our technical review division and our ADA expert. So, it isn't something that we can just simply avoid, and it is an obligation of the applicant who's developing today. So, there is an option by which we can pursue possible requirements of adjoining property owners to build their own sidewalks. You know, that could go through several iterations. It could go to court. I mean, we don't know what that's going to do. On the other side of the story, it's still an obligation as a direct result of our ADA compliance requirement so that they can hit that bus station. Especially if you have somebody on a wheelchair, you don't want them running on that. You don't want them going on that street. You don't know who's going to rent those apartments. And if they're in a wheelchair, there should be a safe place for them to travel to get to the bus station. So, you know, if we go with option one, if we give the option to go towards those neighbors, there still has to be an obligatory requirement that requires financial guarantees. So, in the event we hit a wall, we're going to have to build that—they're going to have to build that sidewalk.

Yes, Commissioner. I guess my question is, has the applicant indicated that building this sidewalk would be a major hardship and might impact the building of this development? And I guess secondly, if the answer is yes, are there other options that the city has around funding to support? I mean, we're talking about affordable housing. So, I think we are all very much in—well, I say that, but I mean, it seems like a great project, but I'm curious if A or B are our only options, or if there are other things that we can explore here.

See, that's a good point. I think that these are two generous options, or two options that came from the MO review, and they make sense, and I mean, their goal is understandable. I think it was brought up in Claudia's presentation that there's also the Chapter 23 possibility, which is a—in the code, Chapter 23, there's the ability for—and typically developers build our infrastructure, and that chapter is typically used when sidewalks are falling apart and they're unsafe.

The Public Works Department needs to site old existing neighborhoods. You've seen it around town where they're asking people to go in and fix 40, 50-year-old sidewalks. It's not typical that you kind of maybe miss that overflow parking lot, but that would be something that could be thought of or talked about as it's outside of these options. Is there a possibility that, I think it's Nissan, whatever this company is that built this overflow lot, he approached and explained that there's this missing 80 feet? So that's not option one or two, that's another possibility.

And I think with respect to the applicant and their attributable impact, it would be, I would say, legitimate to request that post-construction, post-buildout, they be, as an engineer, I would say you'd be required to tell us, do a pedestrian traffic study so we know what your pedestrian impact is to this street because we're kind of guessing. If the pedestrians are heading the other way to the school, I don't know what the data would tell us. So I think that would be attributable and fair to say to this applicant that once this is an existing condition, we'd like a follow-up traffic study, pedestrian impact study for the street. That would be a thought. I don't want to change anybody's wording. I don't know, I haven't mentioned that. I don't know how they'd react to that.

With respect to getting the 80 feet, that seems like a logical smaller piece because then it addresses ADA. And then they're required, anyone doing anything is required to follow ADA law, it's federal law. So that is almost like a non-debatable point. But the ADA law is very specific as to how that needs to be met, and it doesn't necessarily dictate certain elements. It doesn't dictate, okay, it's slope, cross slope, permeable, solid path, but it doesn't give you exactly what that needs to be. It's not technically sidewalk, ADA sidewalk, because as you know, we live in a world where they don't exist in some streets just based on the age. So I think they don't have, they have no choice but to follow ADA because that's federal law. And that criteria is a little bit different than the specifics that might be in these.

So I'm asking specifically, has the developer indicated that it would be a hardship to build up to Serrios, and would that impact the development of this project if that was a requirement? Because I think if the answer is yes, then it feels like we have a more concrete conversation. But I don't know if we've been told that the answer is yes.

They do their presentation, we'll probably continue the conversation.

Mr. Chair, just for clarification, there's 80 feet that was discussed, but the length between the edge of the property to the area that needs to be accommodated by ADA access is about 800 feet. So I just need you to understand that value.

Let me understand this before we go to the next presenter. Who wants the next presenter? There's the 80 feet, there's then the 720 remaining feet. Then you cross the road to the bus station, or is there the 80 feet and you cross the road to the sidewalk and walk to the bus stop, or?

Affirmative.

So you've got to cross the road either way, right?

That's affirmative.

So the question, and there's a sidewalk on one side and there isn't on the other. So one way you're talking about 800 feet, and the other way you're talking about 80 feet and creating a crosswalk.

That's correct.

Smith.

Yes.

I want to ask two quick questions to staff. Does the 20% rule come into play here? I'm assuming on ADA improvement, is that the financial threshold of 20% of the project? I would have to defer that to, you're, hold on a second, let me think about this. You're talking about 20% of the project's value. Yeah, you're limited in ADA total ADA improvement on the site at 20% of the total project. Now, I get that's a lot of money, but that's an avenue I believe that's open to, but the, I guess the other question, well, I'm just going to hear from the, yeah.

We also have Leah, who is with the MO, that has raised her hand. Would you like for her to contribute?

Briefly, and then I'd like to hear from the applicant.

Yes, go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to point out one thing about the midblock crossing is that one advantage that hasn't been discussed, and maybe you were alluding to it, that there's a crossing either way to get to the bus stop, but the crossing at the midblock is about 25 feet versus at Cerrios, about 50 feet. So I think that there could be some real safety advantages to doing it there, especially if safety-proven safety countermeasures are taken, such as a raised crosswalk, signage. There are lots of established strategies to make sure that a midblock crossing is in fact safe. Thank you. That's it. We are preparing for more testimony. Sorry.

Good evening. Hello. Sorry. Hello. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

Dolores V. Hill, 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, nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

She's been sworn.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Dolores V. Hill. I'm with Liaison Planning Services, and I represent the applicant, Santa Fe Civic Housing Authority. We're excited to present to you Okate Apartments, a 100% affordable housing apartment complex. Our team of experts have worked diligently to produce a project that not only meets development review requirements, but also provides housing with amenities for those in need, specifically families with children. As you can see, the 5.6-acre site is well-suited for multifamily development and is located near transit and commercial services to the east on Serrios Road. The commercial corridor has public transit located within a quarter mile, as well as a grocery store, pharmacy, banks, restaurants, and retail establishments. The impact of the development in the community will be well-received. Multifamily development is a permitted use within the zoning standards of this site. The City of Santa Fe is in a critical need for additional affordable family housing, and this development will contribute to the solution of the affordable housing crisis.

Project description: The project is comprised of three buildings situated on 5.6 acres. Can you see that? Okay. Zoom in. Situated on 5.6 acres, Buildings A, B, and a community building situated on the north side of Okate Road. Building A will be a mix of three to four stories and will have one, two, and three-bedroom apartments. Building B will primarily be three stories with one and two-bedroom apartments. The community building to be utilized by residents, staff, which includes community room, leasing office, manager's office, computer area, community space, and a community kitchen. Heather, okay, the community. Okay, here we go. Here we go. In addition to many of the amenities that are proposed, there will be a children's playground, multi-purpose playing field, communal open space, covered parking garages, walking trails, and benches. The buildings are set back from Okati Road, which will minimize impact to the roadway. Two access points allowing traffic to flow in and out of the property will ease with ease are proposed. We can't zoom. Let's see. Turnarounds and access for emergency vehicles and parking for visitors will be provided at the entrance of the property. Internal crosswalks will be provided at crucial crossing points. A six-foot rod iron gate will be provided along property lines surrounding the entire property. Landscaping that meets city standards is proposed throughout the site and maintained by a timed drip system.

It's important to note that we have taken the surrounding properties into consideration, primarily the mobile home park to the west. We provided buffers with garages along the western lot line and provided parking that faces the apartments and not the manufactured home park. Lighting will be shielded and will meet the code requirements, which will minimize light pollution in the neighborhood. As you can see on these elevations, architectural points, height, massing, and colors meet the standards and elements within the code. I'd like to turn this over to Mr. Ed Romero. He'd like to do a brief presentation to the commission. Thank you. And then I will end with a conclusion and I'll address the rest of the conditions that we discussed earlier. Name and address for the record.

Romero, 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? You've been sworn. First off, I want to thank the city staff for the project. I think that Dan never wants to see me do another project again because I spend all my time calling him and saying, "Okay, but what if?" because it seems like all our projects have to squeeze to get in. Our last project was Resolana four years ago. It's the last project that the city has seen built brand new construction. And the terrible problems there weren't the ADA access. We got ADA access pretty easily, but we had a heck of a neighborhood. So this time we turned around and said, "Okay, well what if we looked at, you know, a little bit further out but in a growing market that is a fantastic place to live, I believe, because you can walk to Walmart, you can walk to the hospital, you can walk to so many other things." But the problem with that is it really hasn't developed to make it feel or to make it fit into issues like an ADA process.

Obviously, we want to take care of all of our residents, particularly our ADA people. And we've been exploring ideas as to how to get there. One of the ideas we did is we came in for a CDBG grant this round and asked, "What if we opened up Hernandez Road?" Because in my mind, it's not the people going to Sri Road that are the issue. It's the kids between the complex, the trailer park, and us that are going to make their way to the schools. So we looked at that, and that's an idea that we'd still like to explore. But right now, our biggest problem is time. When things get delayed, it creates havoc within our projects. I've got, you know, probably eight different partners in this deal, my construction loan, my contractors, my, and it stretches out because it goes to your subs, goes to everybody that's involved in this project. Well, what if it gets delayed another three months or six months? Then what happens with all the things that are happening in the world right now? So I've got to keep them all calm and moving forward.

I think the question that came from the staff was, "Is this vital to the project?" I think my biggest issue right now would be, I think the red was that we would have to commit and build these crosswalks before we got this platted. My answer is, I'd like to look at the three options. Maybe the sidewalk on the north side of the road, the 800 feet or whatever that is, is the best option for this project. We have some problems because it obviously makes us pay for something that somebody else owes. But on the other hand, I don't want to put in a position Newman's Nursery. I mean, they've been there forever. Is it right for us to put such a tax on an entity like that? I'm at a crossroads on what is the right answer.

Is the right answer going through Hernandez? Is the right answer going down this path and asking those people to participate? The easy answer is, give us the crosswalk. That buys us some time while we figure out where we're going everywhere else. But more importantly, get me through the zoning process. We've been doing these deals for 12, 13 years. We've got 14 in behind us. We're not going anywhere. If we get through zoning, we're going to find a way to find the funding to make any one of these three options. But I think it's too early to make us pick one of the three, or the two, one of the two that is being looked at. But we'd like to explore that third, which we think, we take a sidewalk up to the trailer park, and then we take a crosswalk and we get people out to behind Walmarts, which also has a handicap bus stop and other stuff going that way. So, that's an idea that we'd like to explore, but we'd like to explore it while we have a deal that's alive. And right now, my project is sucking air because I don't know that I can keep this thing together long enough and to keep all my funders together long enough to get that going. So, I hope I answered your question. It's not super vital, but we'd like to make the right decision on how to get these people out. Thank you.

Thank you, Ed. Let's see. So, we all know what the conditions of approval are and the issues that we face. So, we understand that the need for ADA routes, which we provided internally. Sidewalks and safe crosswalks we feel are very important. Requiring offsite improvements without studies may be premature. We would like to offer a remedy by paying our fair share. The current system of adding sidewalks like patchwork as developments happen on Ocate Road does not work because there is no ultimate plan for Ocate Road. The sidewalks are set by curb and gutter and lane width. The need for right-of-way acquisition is dependent on the roadway section, again, unknown. Also, we have prepared a cost estimate for options provided. I think this is important for you to know what it will cost to have these improvements done. The cost estimates are: Option one, sidewalk to Srios Road, $115,000. That doesn't include acquiring property to put in the sidewalk. Option two, 100-foot sidewalk to crosswalk. It says 100-foot, but we know what that is, $38,000. According to the city code, the owner of the property adjacent to the roadway is responsible for construction and maintenance of the sidewalk. The city has several mechanisms, as we've discussed, to require the owners of the properties or the city to build the necessary improvements determined by the Public Works Director. The city also has an impact fee ordinance and the funds of these types for these types of improvements, which we hadn't discussed. We ask that the commission reconsider conditions 1, 2, and 7 and take into consideration the need for affordable housing projects such as this. Also, I'd like to point out that these conditions, as stated on the staff report, mentioned that these improvements would have to happen prior to recordation. I don't know about you, but having someone put in off-site improvements to something that hasn't even been recorded is almost impossible. We can't even get a building permit. In conclusion, multifamily construction in Santa Fe is comprised of mostly market-rate apartments, as we all know, leaving low-income residents with few options. Within the primary market area, projected increases in population and households bode well for demand for Ocate apartments. Approximately 57% of renter households in the primary market area earn less than $50,000 annually, indicating a strong need for affordable housing in this area. This concludes our presentation. Thank you for your time and we hope that we can figure out how we can get this approved. We stand for questions.

Other question? Yes, Commissioner C. I don't know the right way to say or ask this, but this feels like an incredibly peculiar thing to ask the commission to weigh in on in an advisory way or something about which decision to make. It seems there needs to be access. There needs to be ADA access. We're hearing that crossing the street, I mean, I wish that was a viable option because $38,000 is better than $100,000. But I just feel awkward about the position we're being asked to be put in. Hold on one sec. Let me just finish my thought and then I'm happy to hear. I think the question was asked whether or not there is any mechanism in the city's affordable housing department or something to help support the cost of this. $100,000 is a lot, but it's not a million dollars. And so, is there a partnership with the city's affordable housing program or the state's affordable housing program that can help with this? I don't think it's a good neighborly approach or to try to put this on Newman's Nursery in some kind of violation and using that mechanism does not feel like a good precedent to bring in here. It seems a little out of, not the intended use of that. And what else? Sorry, I'm just saying all the things. I'm getting kind of tired. But yeah, this feels peculiar and like it's not quite worked out enough in a way for us to be in the position we're being put into.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the reason the options are there is you have two departments, two divisions that are making recommendations. So, as a land use department, we accommodate both of them as we present both of them. As you've heard today, one option is going to be a lot more difficult than the other option, and the other option is going to be a lot more expensive than the more difficult one. The problem is, it has to happen. It isn't something that we can just not let go. It's a fundamental requirement that the city has to meet in order to address those ADA requirements. All developments suffer the same problem when you come to underdeveloped roads, and that's how the city grows. The city grows by development. And unfortunately, this is one of those times where you have a really good development that is going to have a much higher expense in order to address the needs to develop on the property that they've chosen in order to meet their requirements and the city requirements. This means that as Commissioner Miranda identified, that you have that 20% rule. Well, when you look at the cost of development based on the application they submitted and the development fees that we waived for them, it will not exceed that 20%. However, that price is high and they do have a limited amount of funds because they're in that position. So, the best thing I can offer at this point in time is that we meet the condition. Now, it's not about the construction. That was basically a requirement that meant for them to place on the plans prior to recordation. That was taken literal and it wasn't something that we actually expect somebody to go out and build it first before we actually record the plans. That's kind of silly. However, we could try and postpone some of these actions by requiring them to bond for it until we can see if we can find alternative solutions that may be amenable for everybody. But in the event we can't, unfortunately, that condition has to be met and we can include that as part of a bonding mechanism so they can record their development plan and we can start talking about how to fix it. And we can do that administratively and we can work, we can work with the traffic division and we can work with the applicant to try and mitigate those impacts so that we can achieve everybody's goals, at least try to achieve them.

Can I ask a question? If we did what you just said and so they were able to bond, which of these solutions would be the timeliest in terms of what the earlier testimony said was the time pressure under which they are operating that will cost them the entire project and they have to go back and refinance everything? But which solves their problem?

If I'm not mistaken, and perhaps Ed can come back up to the podium, but I heard Ed say that he needs the approval so that he can solidify the process. What we're talking about are the details in order to go for the construction.

I have a question, Commissioner Clow.

Wait, wait, wait. Excuse me.

I haven't said one word all night.

I know. I'm sorry, Commissioner. I just, I didn't recognize your voice and the cameras are off.

Okay, please proceed.

The question, I'm really confused. So, and you know, I agree with Commissioner Penn that what you presented is really confusing in terms of there's this option, that option, and what do you guys think about it? The MO, which is usually more stricter than the city, is saying they're okay with option two. My question is, is the city okay with option two? Because I can't really understand what the city's necessarily saying about that we have to comply with the ADA, but does option two not comply with the ADA? It's confusing.

Chair Smith and Chair Clow, the issue is that there is not agreement amongst the engineering community whether somebody would stamp the plan. The option here though that is being presented as something that can be done, the details have to be worked out and certainly other parts of town we have speed humps, we have raised crosswalks and the like. But what I think Mr. Pico is communicating is that there has been concern raised by the traffic engineer for the applicant about doing such a mid-block crossing and you know, just you're right in terms of being put into this position, my apologies, but we're really trying to come up with some sort of innovative solution for the applicant. You know, the overall project cost is going to be $8 million, so it does not meet that threshold for 20%. And one of the things that the commission could do, if that's the pleasure of the commission, is say they must comply with the ADA standard for an accessible route. Go find how to do that and then that would then the staff and the applicant would work that out.

Yes, Chair. That's correct.

And it could be option one or it could be option two.

Yes, whatever is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Okay. So, I think the problem is we don't have all the information we need to be able to make a final decision on that. So, we can just do it generally by saying that they need to comply with the ADA on that issue. Is that correct?

Yes, Clow.

Okay. I think we should move on and do that and that's all I have.

So, I like the idea Dan brought up. I think, you know, we're more interested in spending our money wisely than we are in terms of spending it less. What I would propose is that we bond at the higher number, the $155,000, get this through contingent on us doing the study of the mid-block and whether that makes sense and or continuing down to explore the Hernandez thing, which I believe is the best solution. We have a problem with spending money off campus, but we also have a problem with not making our sites as safe as possible for our children and our families. So yes, we'd be prepared to bond tomorrow if you guys, if that was an idea that needed to be handled.

Thank you. Yes, Commissioner P.

I know we don't know if we have more to talk about in that direction towards Srios, but we haven't even really started talking about the other direction. And I mean, you're bringing up that, but we haven't really talked about, I guess, both.

This, first of all, the project is great. I just want to say that out loud. I'm excited about it. It looks really good. But you do have an issue of where it's located, where it's being developed for families with that intention. And there's two schools off this way that we haven't talked about, like safe connectivity for kids if that way. And we have connectivity here.

Going to Hernandez Road is a great idea, or is it, what is the road down there? Cerro del Sol, or is that the one, Hernandez? Okay. But also preventing people from getting to restaurants and the whole Cerillos corridor isn't ideal either. Picking one or the other, it's not a great position to be in, but we haven't really even, what is the connectivity right now from the property to the area of the schools? Like how would kids get to school from there? There's Capital and Nina, right?

I learned a lot in listening to the director. I hadn't really spoken with him at all about this, but in the traffic impact study, there is a discussion of kind of impending future development. As he alluded to, this is a very dynamic area that's under kind of intense energy for development. And that's, I think that the issue with this, the way the conditions that were raised as being sort of questionable, the ADA is a given. It's federal law. No one has a choice. But the way the timing of those other conditions were written is the problem. So, in other words, I don't think anyone's opposing the ultimate goal laid out by the NO and the city and public works. We share the same goal of safety and connectivity. But because it's so dynamic, it's hard to force the issue without, you know, without knowing what's going on.

I know that the approved development on the south, I guess if you pull up, there's one development waiting for Hernandez Road, which would not only from a, sorry, while you're plugging that in. If we were to do what the director suggested, could not this all be looked at as opposed to from 10:45 to 11, right? So, let's not have a conversation about something that we've already agreed there might be a solution, which will then allow for the best solution to come up. If that makes...

>> Yes, Commissioner. Yeah, I think it'd be one thing if we could not see a path for them meeting ADA from right away to the other in terms of the school. One thing, just what the code requires is one connection to public transportation, and it doesn't necessarily specify, like, no, no, no, no, no. I get it. I'm not there yet. Not there yet. So there are more constraints on that. But in terms of paths that make sense to the community, that doesn't necessarily need to be a sidewalk that pressure.

>> Okay. But can we, but can we agree that we have, excuse me, Commissioner, excuse me. Can we agree that there is a path forward and we can vote it and the conversation will occur that will address the issues that have been raised? Yeah. So, do we need to continue discussing them amongst ourselves? I'm just, okay. Yes, Commissioner.

I mean, the existing, the existing are all those footpaths you see that lead to behind the football field, obviously from the existing residential area. There's an apartment complex, Teta Quintontenta Road South, and Edetta hasn't been connected to Okate, but when that land develops and it's discussed a bit in the TIA, those improvements will be made by that developer.

>> Okay.

>> So there's a lot going on in that area where these improvements will be addressed. So we all share the ideals that have been brought up in these conditions. I think what Dolores alluded to was the timing. The idea that it needs to be done prior to recordation is problematic. And if those could be, that language could be tweaked so that, you know, what they're, they can agree to future bonding for making the best solution work without getting into the weeds of which one it is, that would probably be best. So, how do we frame the motion that needs to be made that would...

>> Public comment? Is there anyone on the Zoom that says survive?

>> Anyone in the room that would like to make public comment, please come to the podium. Bore 1713 D Montana Street, Mexico.

>> Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do so under the penalties of perjury?

>> I do. See, thanks. I just, you know, in respect to the conversation about the bus stop, just spitballing here, but why don't we just put the bus stop in front of the develop MTA, figure out how to get the bus? Sounds like there's a lot of development going that way. It would really save a lot of, add that to the motion. Okay. So,

>> Let me now ask the question, Director Lamboy, if we approve the case as it is, as it is presented to us, does that include the notion that we can proceed with the bond and look at all the alternatives after recordation?

>> Chair Smith, the condition itself reflected the need to update the drawings prior to recordation. So, does it have anything to do with the construction?

>> So, that's, that's maybe it's not written clearly enough, but that is the condition. So, the Planning Commission may consider the motion being that there should be Americans with access provided that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act standards to, well, I don't want to say Serrios Road particular, but an accessible route should be provided to a transportation corridor, something like, and that conditions in the numbers one or seven do not apply. Which, which are those conditions that deal with the different options? One, two, and seven. Okay. That those, those have been removed and you're replacing it with that.

Mr. Chair, so I have kind of a rudimentary condition. The applicant shall include as part of the financial guarantee funding to construct an ADA compliant path from the property to Serrios Road. The applicant, the applicant together with the city, shall explore all alternatives for ADA compliance.

>> Is that acceptable?

>> I apologize. Can you say that one more time? The applicant shall include as part of the financial guarantee funding to construct an ADA compliant path from the property to Serrios Road. The applicant together with the city shall explore all alternatives to comply with the ADA requirements. A question for the applicant. Have you had any conversations with Newman's, since they are a very old Santa Fe family?

>> I have not.

>> You have not. Thank you for answering that. I'd like to make a motion to approve case 2025 1000037 with the amendments of items number one, 12, and seven presented by city staff and replace it with the applicant and city staff will work together to find an ADA compliant access to community services and transportation and a bond will be set up in time by the applicant to cover any expenses incurred with access for public.

>> Second.

>> Move to roll call.

>> Yeah. Please call the roll.

>> Commissioner McReynolds.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner Barber.

>> Yes.

>> Chair Cloud.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner McGee.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner Miranda.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner Reind.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner Caven.

>> Yes.

>> Chair Smith. The motion is passed.

>> Well, down to one.

>> You are welcome. Thank you. We now have E and F were, will require two motions. I'm thinking case 2024-89012768, Awa Reszoning, with Mr. Kabber. Hi, Braden.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Waiting for this to load up and we'll go as fast as a planner. All right. Okay. Final case tonight is case number 20248901 and 8902 at 276A Aua and it is for a reszone and master plan. The applicant, the agent is Jenkins Gavin. The applicant is Cold Water Development Fund QoZF LLC and the request is to reszone 4.12 acre property from mixed use to C2 and request a site plan with a 130 unit mixed-use community. The general location of the site is east of Silo Road in Aua Fria intersection and it is adjacent to the Sierra Mesa Industrial Plaza to the west. There are other multifamily developments in the area including Homewise Siler Yard Apartments and Boiling Lofts. The legal lot of record, the Planning Commission approved in April 2024 a certificate compliance for this parcel as legal lot. It is located in the Trails and River Archaeological District. I'll skip that. Again, the current zoning is mixed use. This is the site. It does abut industrial, light industrial and heavy industrial to the south and west with residential and C2 zoning to the north and east as well. The future land use map designates the property here as transitional mixed use. So it does meet the requirements or general description for C2 and yeah, they are symbiotic with each other. These are street photos for the site and I will go into more in depth about the proposal. So there are three buildings consisting of one two-story and two three-story structures, 61,790 square feet. There are, they are proposing 160 parking spaces, which is part of a parking reduction request. I will get into the open space. They have met those requirements for 250 square, 250 square foot per dwelling unit. And there is a 42 foot easement to the south of the parcel as shown here that I will get into. And they are proposing 13 affordable housing units, which is 10% of 130 and 5% will be a fee in lieu. Again, this is a rendering, just a colored rendering of the sites. This is the 42 foot easement that the MO has conditioned. And if this is ever to be developed, these six parking spaces would have to be removed. One of them is ADA, removed and relocated or removed, sorry, the ADA would have to be relocated. And that is also included in their parking reduction request. So that would bring it to 154. That's completed. And for the parking reduction request, the required parking for the site is 185 units. So they are requesting a subtraction of 31 spaces to that 154 if that easement's created. And this is a breakdown of, you know, potential parking reduction based on the square footage of units, which is how parking calculations are determined. And the parking study was completed by Bohannan Hust and they used the Institute Transportation of Engineers sixth edition to create their parking demand study for the site, which they've determined they would only need 123 spaces. Now, staff has reviewed their parking reduction request and concur with their results and agreed to their parking reduction. I'll start diving in deep to this potential, this 42 foot easement. So currently what, what's proposed to make up the 42 easement is a dog park, which if this is relocated, if this is removed, they would still meet their open space requirements. It was conditioned by NO for the idea of connecting this Isaiah Lane to Cooks Road here, but it is all dependent on if this parcel ever sells and the city would acquire. Again, the application has been submitted to DR2, to our departmental reviewing team, and they provided the various conditions of approval and technical corrections for this project, which are shown in attachment A of your staff report. As for the dimensional and density standards, one of the big reason why they are, the applicant is proposing to go from mixed use to C2 is to allow for a greater density. Now, in mixed-use buildings of 25 feet or less in height, they shall not exceed a minimum of 12 dwelling units per acre. And from 25 to 35 feet in height, they shall not exceed 14 dwelling units per acre. Whereas in C2, there aren't any restrictions for density. There was an EN held on January 24th and April 23rd for this project. The public notice for this was duly notified. They have sent notices 300 feet to property owners and then have sent certified mail to property owners within 100 feet.

This project was postponed at the June 5th public hearing and is reconvened here. So, they did not have to send letters to applicants notifying of the new public hearing. The approval criteria for the rezone and master plan have been met as determined by the findings by staff. The recommendation from staff is that the Planning Commission recommend the governing body approve case number 20248901 for the rezone only, for the rezone, and you would be approving the master plan. You have two recommendations tonight to the governing body for recommending these. Staff recommends that you recommend approval to the governing body for both of these cases. Here are the motions. Are there any questions?

Okay, I will let the applicant go. Your name and address for the record.

Jennifer Jenkins, 130 Grant.

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. Please proceed.

Good evening, Chair Cloud, Vice Chair Smith. I'm Jennifer Jenkins. I am here this evening regarding the proposed multi-family community at 2768 Agua Fria Street. I'm also joined by Edmond, who is just behind me here. I'm going to try to get through this with some speed and efficiency. I'll try to just touch on, I think, just rounding out our team, civil engineering provided by Civil Design Group, and traffic transportation plan provided by Houston. We do have our consultants on Zoom.

We are here this evening with basically three requests: requesting to rezone the subject property from use to C2. We're requesting a master plan approval for a 130-unit multi-family community that's also a mixed-use community. We have a small commercial, neighborhood commercial component that is incorporated in the project as well. As mentioned, we did prepare a parking demand study that is supportive of a reduction in the required parking on the site. The parking demand study, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, is really part of the master plan approval. I'm not sure that really requires a separate motion, but that is embedded in part of the master plan.

This is the 4.12-acre subject property. We are located south of Agua Fria Street. We're just east of Siler Road intersection at Siler. Existing conditions, as you can see here with the topographic contours, the property is gently sloped. It's undeveloped, and it is eminently appropriate for development. You can see we have an existing trunk sewer line that traverses the property across the north part of the property. We also have a sewer line and waterline road at our southwest corner. There's also a waterline, excellent access to utility and roadway.

Future land use map: we are transitional mixed-use, which is supportive of the requested C2 zoning and the zoning map. This neighborhood, I'm going to venture a guess that it's one of the most diverse neighborhoods we have in Santa Fe relative to mix of land uses. One of the things our general plan touches on a lot is it's about mix of housing types and a mix of uses in all neighborhoods. The general plan is not encouraging of the neighborhood just being one. We really want to create that diverse mix of housing types and mix of land. This neighborhood nails it, absolutely, at objective.

This is just a few things we highlighted. This neighborhood has evolved a lot over the years. Kind of starting up here on the north side of Agua Fria, we have the Acequia Lofts, a residential multi-family community that was completed a few years ago. So we've seen more multi-family housing being developed in this corridor, downside yard community with a really exciting affordable housing project that is on Siler Road. So kind of halfway in between, we have a new opportunity to create housing in this corridor. We have a lot of variety of residential densities from high-density multi-family to more traditional suburban-style single-family development. We also have restaurants, and we have tons of employment, and we have services, and this is actually quite a walkable neighborhood. So we think it's a great place for new housing and a really great place for affordable housing.

This is the proposed site plan of the neighborhood. We will have our primary access off Agua Fria Street, and then we have down at Cooks Road that is going to be reserved just for emergency vehicles. That'll be gated for emergency vehicles only. But there will be a pedestrian gate there so pedestrians can get out there and get over to Siler if they want to, taking their bike over to Java Joe's or something, have a more direct access to get to Siler.

I've rotated the image just so we could zoom in on it. So now Agua Fria is on the left side of the page. That's the north side of the property. So we have our access drive. This little element here is our neighborhood commercial element. We're looking, maybe it's going to be a coffee shop, maybe it'll be some sort of studio space. That is to be determined, but we really wanted to incorporate kind of a small neighborhood commercial component there. Then we have a drive lane that runs across our east boundary. This, our first building here, this is a two-story building, and we received some feedback when we went through our two neighborhood meetings that the experience on Agua Fria is more of a single-story and two-story experience as far as that streetscape goes. So we wanted to honor that. And so our front building as you enter is a two-story building. And then we have our next building behind, which is a residential building with an interior courtyard. And then the parking lot kind of wraps around in this S-curve. And then we have our largest building here also with an interior courtyard. And then at the back, we have our amenity space. So that's our clubhouse and our proposed pool.

As mentioned, we are dedicating the easement that would at some point in the future connect from Acequia Lane to our east over to Cooks Road. So we don't want to just leave that area empty. So we want to utilize it because it could be 20 years from now. Who knows when that is ever going to get constructed? So we're going to make good use of it. If that is ever constructed, there would be six parking spaces that would get removed, but we are providing 160 parking spaces with this plan. And then this would be our emergency access right here south.

Amenities are going to include a clubhouse, outdoor recreational space, also going to have lounge space, fitness, and all of those elements that we come to expect in our family, and most importantly, 10% affordable housing. So 13 of those units are on site.

This just goes into the specifics on the project. Our unit mix, we have a pretty diverse unit mix. We're providing everything from studios up to three-bedroom homes, which we really like. So, really able to serve a lot of different types, members of our community, different family sizes, and different needs. We are compliant with the open space, and then again, parking. We have 185 spaces that are required, and in addition to the parking reduction, we're also doing what we call a shared parking plan. So we have five spaces that are required for the commercial, and obviously the uses are at different times of day. The commercial is going to be busier during the day, and the residential peak demand is in the evening, so there's an opportunity for shared parking in that. So demand analysis addresses not only requested parking reduction but also a shared plan.

These are just some of the high points regarding the rationale for the parking reduction. I think those of you who've been involved in the code rewrite for the city's land development code know that in phase two, parking is going to be a significant element, and it's going to be revisited because we are not in step with national trends. What our code does now is it's an inducement to car ownership. There is so much data and academic study about what these more outdated parking requirements and the impact those have on our environment and on the built environment and walkability.

Interestingly, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the ITE, is the institute that establishes traffic generation data. So whenever we do a traffic study, we don't just get to decide how much traffic affects generates. We're like, "Oh, it's going to generate this." No, there are national standards that we access in order. So all traffic studies are done in accordance with these same standards. They also have standards. So in looking at the ITE standards for parking, it says this project would require 123 spaces. We're providing 160. We have a lot of multimodal transit opportunities. We are on route one of the Santa Fe Trails bus line. We have a lot of bikeways, and the Santa Fe River Trail is just around the corner, and it's an easy walk accessible off of Siler. So we have, and we have sidewalks. Again, a lot of multimodal opportunities in this neighborhood.

Also, looking at this particular census tract, we have high rates of zero vehicle ownership in this particular census tract and low rates of renter households that have more than two vehicles. Also, the City of Santa Fe has multiple studies and plans that really speak to having appropriate parking provisions and not over-providing parking. They touch on it in the general plan. I mean, I have a list, if you want to know, I can read them all out to you, but many plans and policies developed by the city over the last.

One of the parking management strategies that we'll be employing, and this is also becoming a very common national trend, is to unbundle the cost of parking. So if you have a car, you pay a little extra in order to park your car at the community. If you don't have a car, your rent is less. So we are not. It creates more equity, and it also supports affordability. So when you unbundle that, it really can create opportunities. You know what, I'm living here, and my job's over here, and you know what, I got the bus right here. Maybe I don't need a car. It's, and my living expenses are going to go in a lot of different ways if I don't. So the parking management strategy around unbundling those costs is really important.

This just shows from a multimodal perspective everything that kind of the color that here, the yellow and the orange and the blue, those are all bikeways designated bikeways by the City of Santa Fe. We have route one of Santa Fe Trails along Agua Fria Street. You can see we have bus stops east and west within an easy five-minute walk. Then just across the street, we have our river trail that takes you all the way into downtown.

This was something that I thought was really compelling. Why introducing housing in this neighborhood and in these types of neighborhoods is so beneficial is that there are over 2,000 jobs within a 20-minute walk of this property. 2,000 jobs, and this shows the walkshed. So that is because this is the Siler Rufina nexus area, right? This is a really dynamic town, a lot of interesting things going on. We have a lot of nonprofit organizations. We have a lot of makers. Make Santa Fe is down the street, and they are doing amazing things in this community. So this is a rapidly evolving, really dynamic part of town, and so we love the idea of creating more housing opportunities that are so close to so much.

We did conduct a traffic study. I'll touch on that really quickly. These are the intersections that we analyzed. Starting at the east, we did Harrison and Aubria. We did our site access, Siler Park Lane and Aubria, Siler and Aubria, and then Siler Park Lane and Siler. So Filer, it's that little, all three of those. So with respect to the trip generation, how many vehicles will be generated by the project as established by the ITE, it shows here that in the morning we have 15 cars coming in, 48 cars leaving. In the evening, we have 48 cars entering and 28 cars exiting.

So when we do a traffic study, it's based upon intersection and how they function is determined by a level of service. It's a function of how much delay does a driver experience at that intersection. There are different standards for signalized intersections like Agua Fria and Siler than there are for unsignalized. So it's a grading system. You have a level of service A, your delay is less than 10 seconds. You're just cruising through that intersection, great level of service. Then it goes all the way down to an F, which means that a particular intersection is failing and there needs to be some sort of mitigation. Maybe you need to construct another turn lane, or maybe the signal timing needs to be adjusted, or whatever else it may be.

So these are our levels of service. Agua Fria and Siler, overall that intersection operates as a level service C. In this urban environment with these two significant roadways, that is fantastic. It's a really great level of service. And then we go down here to our unsignalized intersections. And unsignalized intersections, they really look at individual turning movements: eastbound left, westbound right, whatever you're doing. So, as you can see here, everything in the AM, and this is after this project is constructed, we take that trip generation I just showed you, after we've counted the cars at those intersections, we added our traffic on top, and this is the level of service we get in what we call the build condition after this project is occupied. And so in the morning, we have A's, B's, and C's, and in the evening, again, A's, B's, and C's. So the roadway network will continue to function really well after this project. With that, I would be happy to stand for any questions. Thank you very much.

Yes.

Sure.

So I just have a quick question about parking. I definitely support reductions in parking in order to make more space for housing. I'm curious, I noticed that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you have 12 bicycle parking spaces, but you're reducing parking spots recommended down by 31. Is there a reason you're not increasing bicycle parking to encourage individuals to bike instead?

One of the elements that isn't reflected here, because we're still at a fairly conceptual level with the master plan, is in addition to the exterior parking, we're also looking at an interior bicycle storage element that would be incorporated. So when we come back with our development plan, we will have more detail on all those particulars. Yeah.

But I don't disagree with you that I think beefing up the bicycle parking is a great idea.

I would just add to what you're saying, there's so many people on electric bikes.

Yeah. So at this point, and that's a great area for that.

It is. While getting on the river trail is doable, it's like a little bit of a, yeah, you know, and there's just so many electric bikes zooming around. So seeing something that had like a protected...

With electric in it where they could charge.

They could charge. Absolutely.

Yes. This is actually a question for staff. She's basing her analysis on the future plan master plan. Do you find as staff that that's suitable considering that we're reviewing this before that's even been adopted by the city? She based her numbers based upon the future, what land use is trying to do with the city, asking for us to approve that, but that has not been, from staff's standpoint, do you feel that that is acceptable?

Chair Smith, Commissioner Relent, we certainly are heading in that direction, but it has to be vetted publicly. And so that's the reason that she's asking for that exception to the rule. But certainly we can state that that is an aspiration, but we've done the analysis based on the current code. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. 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? Please proceed.

Like that.

I'm watching you.

My name's Brian Wit. Yeah, which you heard. I'm part owner of Capital Scrap Metals, and we're surrounding quite a bit of this property that's being proposed. The proposal to change this property from mixed-use to commercial needs to have the brakes pumped just a little bit. Some considerations need to be made. Back in the day when mixed-use designation was made, it was for the purpose of developing property so the city could accomplish its goals of infilling unused properties. The goal was to transition from housing to industrial. The property that is being discussed this evening is the extreme example of the difficulties of infilling and the polar, because what we have is two polar opposites. We have housing on the Harrison side of this development. There are two commercial buildings. Behind that, there are three houses. On the Cooks Road side, there is Capital Scrap Metals, which is a heavy industrial scrap metal business. The difficulty transitioning is what is being proposed today is the exact opposite. It's extreme in the opposite. The proposal that is being proposed is an apartment complex and a monster complex, three-story, that does not serve the purpose of blending the two sides. It takes it to the extreme. The argument is that yes, the property does and should be developed, but with a much more reasonable use of the property to maximize the potential to blend from the housing side to the industrial side. The property should stick to the mixed-use designation.

I would also like the commissioners to consider some of the negative effects of the apartment complex. The first thing is traffic. There appears to be, there were two proposed exits from the complex tonight. She did mention that the Cooks Road side was going to be used as an emergency. I will acknowledge that the other side is Agua Fria, which is already a very congested road. So my suspicion is that traffic will not exit the, will exit the complex and go up to Harrison or Los Sienna and use those roads as a way out, because crossing Agua Fria during the day is virtually impossible. The Cooks Road exit is also very difficult. The street is a very narrow, unmaintained by the city street. So the combination of people trying to get to Capital Scrap Metals to sell their recyclable materials, also on their street, the auto mechanics, body shops, towing services with very limited parking. They have a tendency to park in the street, which essentially reduces the street to a one-lane street, very difficult to get in and out.

Secondly, the size of the monster complex appears to take away the privacy on the residential side, all the way from the immediate neighbors to all the way to the Harrison side, because it's three stories high. It appears to me that it'll make it very, they will be able to look directly into their homes, their backyards, etc.

Lastly, I would like to discuss the damaging effects a monster apartment complex does to the property values of all the surrounding properties. Whether it's the housing side or the industrial side, this kind of monster, highly densified complex has to and will damage property values.

My third and final point is Capital Scrap Metals is one year away from being in its 50th year of business. We are six months away from being in its 40th year at the Cooks Lane location. During this time, hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds of recycled materials have gone through our little place. The net effect of this is that it has had a positive impact on things like landfill diversion, convenience for people to recycle properly, and to keep, encourage people to keep tidy properties and reduce urban clutter. Also, the whole time everybody received money for their efforts to do this, which makes me very confident to state in the last 50 years, Capital Scrap Metals has been one of the most, one of the top 10 businesses with positive impact on this community. The reason I am bringing up this point is because I want it on the record very clearly that we've been there a long time and we were there first. Having been there 40 years and our contributions, what I'm trying, lost my spot. Back in '84, when we were moving to this location, we were encouraged and pushed towards this section of town to open our scrapyard. What I am saying is that I want it on the record clearly stated, however it has to be done, that we have been there a long time and there are negative aspects of living next to a scrapyard. I acknowledge that. But they are choosing to open up an apartment complex next to us. We are not opening a scrapyard next to any housing projects. That is a very important point and I think it should be addressed. Thank you, commissioners, and you all have a good evening. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

I'm Brian Gutierrez, 7625 Baca Lane.

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. I'd like to thank you, commissioners, Chair Cloud, Chair Smith, all of you here for both your service to the community and letting me speak so late. I'll make it quick. I have a few things I'd like to address. So, we're in a new world of AI. And if you Google mixed-use zoning, City of Santa Fe, this is what comes up: "In Santa Fe, mixed-use zoning districts allow for a combination of residential, commercial, and sometimes industrial uses within the same area, promoting a more efficient use of land and fostering vibrant, walkable neighborhoods. Districts are designed to control sprawl, encourage affordable housing and economic development, and promote alternative transportation methods." So, as what we've heard from the C2 zoning to this mixed-use, they're mirroring each other. The only difference is really density. I want to take my hat off to the last project where they not only were 100% affordable, but they were also cognizant of the neighbors that they were impacting. I don't think this project's doing such a good job thinking about the neighborhood. I'm going to just read some things I've highlighted from the staff report and in your packet, guys. And I just want to, I'm going to make some comments. I really want to make it quick, but I want to get my point across. So stick with me for just a few more minutes. I know it's late. So this is under project analysis: "According to the future land use map, future land use, the property is designated as transitional mixed-use. City's official zoning map designates the property as mixed-use." Those are one and the same. It's where it should be in the future land use map, it's where it is now. "The code requires that the rezonings be consistent with applicable policies of the 1999 general plan, including the future land use map." It is, it's mixed-use. It is, it complies with that. This is General Plan Policy 3D3: "There shall be infill development at all densities that support construction of affordable housing and a designated mix of land uses that provide an adequate, I'm sorry, it's an adequate balance of service, retail, and employment opportunities."

This project is 70-some thousand square feet. I don't remember off the top of my head. 2% is going to be commercial or something else. Everything else is housing. You got 1,400 or 1,650 square feet of retail in this project. So, when you go back to what's in this general plan, it doesn't—they don't mix. It's off the master plan. I'm on the master plan. The master plan includes a pool, clubhouse, courtyard, playground, dog park, 12 bicycle parking spaces, and 185 vehicular parking spaces. I'm wondering that if you guys approve this past master plan tonight, it's approved with 185 spaces, and they're asking for 154 spaces. 160 has been mentioned, but we know six are disappearing if they make the connection. So I just find a little bit of a discrepancy in that.

Then I'm going to hit a little bit on parking, parking and loading requirements, table, parking requirements. The project is required to provide 185 spaces. However, the applicant submitted a parking demand study proposing a reduction of parking down to 16.76% or 31 parking spaces. Commissioners, you're sitting here, and you are to interpret and also go with the code, and I know we're talking about studies and less parking. However, it hasn't been codified, and I don't think it's something that you have much leeway to go with. I mean, it's just my opinion on that, the zoning approval criteria.

So, number one, original: Was there a mistake in original zoning? No. Number two, there is criteria from the city. There has been a change in the surrounding area altering the character of the neighborhood to such an extent as to justify the change to changing the zoning. What was mentioned was Bolin, which is—I'm not sure which project that is, but I know that everything on the Agua Fria side of this would fit in a mixed-use zoning. It's under 35 feet, and they're all two stories, everything that's in this property. So there's been—okay. And so the response was, "The area has gradually densified over the years, resulting in a diverse neighborhood of suburban residential development patterns, multifamily." But this, and this is the applicant's response, this is what really gets me: "The most significant and relevant change is a housing shortage that Santa Fe is currently facing." You go back up real quick to the criteria. It says, "Has there been a change in the surrounding area altering the character or neighborhood to such an extent as to justify changing the rezoning applicant's response?" "The most significant and relevant change is the housing shortage that Santa Fe is currently facing." So answering that with the change, I don't think really that—

Staff also mentioned—I mentioned this before—changing the surrounding area, the home-wise condominiums, yards, and secular offs. This is another one of the criteria. It's in number three. This is a response: "On the C2 zoning designation would allow for additional housing density than the current mixed-use zoning. Additionally, the C2 designation allows for additional flexibility in the terms of building form." In this case, the building form would be C2 zoning for height and for extra density and programming that the mixed-use zoning doesn't. But it said, "Both components better support the general patent themes." Both components. So the mixed-use and the C2 zoning. So I touched on it before, but here's a big one in criterion three: "The rezoning is consistent with the policies, including the general plan and future land use map." It says, "The project enhances the mixed-use environment of the Agua Fria corridor." And so it's all housing. There are not little stores in this project. There's not something that enhances the mixed-use environment on that.

If you can—

I am. I am.

You may lose this in a minute.

No, no, I'm with you. So criterion six: "Unless the proposed change is consistent with the applicable general plan policies, the Planning Commission, the governing body, shall not recommend or approve any rezoning, the practical effect of which is to allow uses to change character significantly different from or inconsistent with the prevailing use and character area." And this it does. And even more so on top of this, the applicant did not directly address this criterion. This wasn't addressed by the applicant about changing the significant area from what's in there. So I guess in conclusion, when you look at this area and you see what's on Agua Fria, and you see there are two-story buildings there, they've been built. Everything that they've referenced has been sitting on vacant land. Nothing's a demolition remodel. This doesn't fit in this area. This is a little too much for this area of what it is. The parking, like I say, it doesn't meet code. There's just a lot of inconsistencies in this application that I think that the commission should recommend denial for the rezoning. And I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Are there participants on the Zoom who want to participate?

Chair, participants have their hands raised.

The public, are there questions of anybody from the members of the commission?

Yes. I'm curious, and I may have missed this, but what level of density does mixed-use zoning allow?

Chair, Commissioners, and Commissioner McGee, so mixed-use is a little unusual. If you have a two-story structure up to 25 feet, you're entitled to 12 units per acre. And if you have three stories up to 35 feet—it's really hard to get three stories in 35 feet—but you're entitled to 14 units per acre. So, it's very unique within the code that the density is based upon. It's kind of an—

And what is the proposed density for this project in particular? How many units per acre?

Mr. Chair.

30.

I also want to add—

Yeah.

I want to add to the mixed-use zoning density characteristics because with mixed-use, you have to have a percentage of residential and a percentage of commercial. So it's not all 100% when you have commercial. So it's a 60/40 split. So your density is kind of limited with a mixed-use as opposed to a C2 district where there is no density. It's all performance-based.

Questions?

Yes.

Yes. Chair, I'm curious if there are concerns at all about the heavy metal yard next door. I think I saw it come up in multiple of the ENN comments, and so I'm just wondering where we are with that now.

Absolutely. We are very aware of our neighboring activities, and so, respectfully, we spent a lot of time working on the site plan. So on our common boundary with Capital Scrap—I love scrap, I have a whole box of recyclables the city won't take, take to Capital Scrap, it's a lot, my favorite place. So our common boundary with them is parking. So we have moved and pushed that residential building at that end of the site away from our west boundary just to create a buffer, and we also have opportunity with a very nice wall there to, you know, just deal with—and one of the kind of, I guess there's a good thing about it is Capital Scrap is busy during the day, quiet use at night. So that's one of the, I think, the beauties of when we talk about real mixed-use is you activity, peak hours of activity tend to be differentiated. And so when you live next to commercial areas, like I said, quiet at night when there's a lot more activity going on residential. So when we get into the final design and get into the development plan, we'll be looking at what are those other kind of measures or opportunities we need to do just to be, you know, respectful of our context. It's an unusual context. We absolutely acknowledge that. But it is something that we feel confident that we can address. We'll have an opportunity to talk more about that stage.

So, and then I think maybe one final question. So, you mentioned when I asked about the 12 bike parking spots, you mentioned you're exploring internal—

Interior.

Interior.

Should I assume that a resident would need to pay for that bike parking in order to access it?

For interior, typically it would be a little bit of an extra amenity fee. Yes, anything outside would not be, you know, would not—would that just be free? And so, I think it's a good idea that we look at increasing the outdoor—

In addition to, in addition to the interior storage.

I agree. Especially if we're also including affordable housing. We don't want to both say you can't have a parking spot, you have very limited bike parking unless you pay for it. It just doesn't seem to make sense. So, I would be willing to offer that we would double the exterior parking from 12 to 24 spaces.

I would accept that as a condition of approval.

Other questions?

Can I hear a motion? Yes, Commissioner.

It's a question, more of a statement. The unbundling of parking. Which I understand and is an interesting idea and I think happens in more denser urban areas. I think it can inadvertently penalize certain people that really need cars, families, kids, folks that are not super mobile. And in the study, I feel like I learned a lot in that study.

It's a really—isn't it? I know. It's a really good read. Yeah.

But it seemed like there were two ways that they proposed framing it. It was like, what did I say here? Like not increase, like the rents are the rents, and you can have a discount, but you're not getting penalized above, not penalized, but having to have an additional thing. While I love the vision of Santa Fe being more multimodal—

Yeah, we're not quite there yet. And that area is not quite there yet. And I think realistically a lot of people, you know, in order to live and work and move around Santa Fe, need to have cars. So I'd just like you to consider that as far as that model of unbundling seems—

Totally agree. I think there's some refinement, you know, it is sort of a new area we're—

With projects. Like I said, unbundling if—no, you shouldn't. But I think the messaging and optics around that is important.

Yeah. And then—

Mr. Chair.

Yes, sir. I just want to make sure that you guys are aware that the increase or decrease in rental fees as a result of not having or having a vehicle is not an enforceable item by the city. So that is something that we would not be able to know. We would not be able to control or any other aspect of that. That is clearly something that the applicant is offering, that they are proposing to do. Whether they do it or not, we would never know.

Thank you, sir. Are we ready? Can I hear a motion? Do we need two motions or one? Two. So, first a motion on Case 2024-891 rezoning.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if you've closed the public comment portion. I thought it closed on us, but yes, I did. But thank you for your years of service that for a long time. We understand that. Obviously, the developer is realizing what kind of neighbor they're going to get next to. That is their choice. I understand where you're coming from, and I agree. To go both ways and as a developer, find out one way or the other. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time.

Is there a motion?

Yes.

Are you guys discussing the bike number?

We are. We're assessing whether 24 is enough given a 130-unit.

Yeah. Coming back just—

Okay then.

Sure.

With you. I'm thinking about it though for the development plan. The more the merrier on the bike parking. Okay. I'm going to move to approve Case 2024-8901 at 2768 Agua Fria for rezoning.

Second.

Are there conditions?

Nope.

Second.

Commissioner Barber: Yes.
Cloud: Yes.
Commissioner McGee: Yes.
Commissioner Miranda: Yes.
Commissioner Reeland: Yes.
Commissioner Capen: Yes.
Commissioner McReynolds: Yes.
Smith: The motion has passed.

2024 890268 Master Plan.

So in case 2024 8902 2768 Aqua Master Plan, I recommend approval with the condition that we will revisit the number of bike parking spaces when the applicant comes back for the development, subject to technical corrections.

Second call.

Yes, but it should also be subject to conditions of approval and technical corrections.

Thank you, Chair Cloud.

Subject to conditions of approval and technical corrections. Thank you.

Chair Cloud: Yes.
Commissioner McGee: Yes.
Commissioner Miranda: Yes.
Commissioner Reeland: Yes.
Commissioner Capen: Yes.
Commissioner McReynolds: Yes.
Commissioner Barber: Yes.
Chair Smith: The motion has passed.

Very much. May we move on to, are there any staff communications?

Oh, good.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to introduce you to one of our new employees. Her name is Rachel Hamilton. You will introduce yourself properly.

Hi everyone. Rachel Hamilton, Planner with the Current Planning Division. I moved here to Santa Fe from Maine about four weeks ago. And I have my Master's in Urban Planning and Community Development and was working for the State of Maine and NOAA, National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration, in coastal zone management in Maine, at implementing the state climate action plan and updating the state climate action plan. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Welcome and great job. Anything else?

Yes.

Also have presents for the Planning Commission. It's the Santa Fe Forward bag, and then there's a notebook as well. Just so you know quickly, Santa Fe Forward is marching along. We published the assessment report and we're getting comments back on the assessment reports. We also are out in the community a lot. This past weekend I was at the Lowrider Festival. Rachel and another planner, Alexa, were at the Movies in the Park, and so we're really trying to engage with the community and get out into the community to get some feedback. So we'll be providing an update on Santa Fe Forward in the near future.

No.

Also, Mr. Chair.

One more thing to talk.

I do have something that I need the Chair and the Secretary to sign. It's in the back of the room. So before you leave, if you can put your John Hancock on there, that'd be great.

Okay. Are there matters from the Commission? I can declare meeting adjourned.