Public Works and Utilities Committee Meeting Mon, Apr 21, 2025 · Public Works and Utilities Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/73 == Executive Summary == The Public Works and Utilities Committee meeting focused on two main topics: a resolution concerning a lot line adjustment for the Zia Road widening project and the designation of Midtown as a Metropolitan Redevelopment Area (MRA). The Zia Road discussion involved significant public comment from residents opposing the use of Candelero Parkland for road widening, citing legal and procedural concerns. The committee ultimately approved a resolution to direct the City Manager to appoint an agent to apply for the lot line adjustment, despite concerns about due process and the appropriate administrative procedure. The committee also discussed the proposed MRA designation for Midtown, which aims to facilitate economic development and address urban blight. This designation is an economic plan and does not directly alter existing land use regulations or building height restrictions, which are already addressed by the Link Overlay Ordinance. The committee unanimously approved the resolution to designate Midtown as an MRA, moving forward with plans for future redevelopment. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda and consent agenda (with item O pulled). - Approved the resolution directing the City Manager to appoint an agent to apply for a lot line adjustment for the Zia Road widening project. - Approved the resolution designating a majority of the Midtown Local Innovation Corridor Overlay District as a Metropolitan Redevelopment Area (MRA). == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda — Passed 4-0 - Motion to approve the consent agenda (as amended by pulling item O) — Passed 4-0 - Motion to approve the resolution for the lot line adjustment for the Zia Road widening project — Passed 3-1 (Councilor Castro: Yes, Councilor Michael Garcia: No, Councilor Romero Worth: Yes, Chair Chavez: Yes) - Motion to approve the Midtown Redevelopment economic plan (Resolution Number 2025 for MRA designation) — Passed 4-0 (Councilor Castro: Yes, Councilor Romero Worth: Yes, Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes, Chair Chavez: Yes) == Public Comment == Public comments primarily focused on the Zia Road widening project and the proposed use of Candelero Parkland. Aku Oppenheimer, Rick Martinez, and Margaret Marshall, all residents or representatives of the Candlelight Neighborhood Association, expressed strong opposition. They argued that the proposed lot line adjustment was an improper and legally unjustifiable method for using parkland, asserting that the city was circumventing proper legal processes for vacating or changing the use of dedicated parkland. They felt the neighborhood was being unfairly labeled and that the city was not following due process. == Topics == - Zia Road Widening - Metropolitan Redevelopment Area (MRA) - Parkland Dedication Legality - Lot Line Adjustment Process - Midtown Campus Development - Midtown Height Restrictions - Community Engagement == Full Transcript == You let me know when we go live. We are live. Thank you so much. All right. So, today is Monday, April 21st, 2025. It is 5:00. I call to order the Public Works and Utility Committee meeting. If I could get a roll call, please. Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Castro, present. Councilor Michael Garcia, present. Councilor Romero Worth, I'm here. Councilor Lee Garcia, excused. Chair Chavez, here. You have a quorum, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Next is approval of the agenda. Are there any changes from staff today? No changes, Madam Chair. Okay. Can I get a motion from the committee? Move to approve. I have a motion and a second. Because we have some virtual committee members, could I get a roll call vote, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Romero Worth, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Councilor Castro, yes. Chair Chavez, yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Next is the consent agenda. The only item I was aware got pulled was item O. Is that correct? Are there any other items? Correct, Madam Chair. Right. With that, could I get a motion? Move to approve as amended. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve as amended. Could I get a roll call vote, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Romero Worth, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Chair Chavez, yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Next on our agenda is public comment. I now invite anyone in the chambers to come to the podium if they would like to speak. This is our time for public comment. Is there anyone here that would like to come up? Please come up. You'll introduce yourself, and then you'll have two minutes. All right. So, if you could just tell us your name, and then I'll put two minutes on the clock. Okay. Can you hear me? Yeah. I can hear you perfectly. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Aku Oppenheimer. I'm the president of the Candlelight Neighborhood Association, and I live in Candlelight. The resolution being considered tonight to widen Zia Road by authorizing a process to apply for a lot line adjustment of Candelero Parkland leads with a false quotation of the park dedication. It claims that the parkland is dedicated to the city for public use. The actual park dedication on the plat does not say this. Instead, it states, quote, "The streets and parks shown hereon are hereby dedicated to the public for its use as such forever. These are dedicated to the public as use as parks, streets, and city utilities forever." In New Mexico and in the City of Santa Fe, land that is protected by a perpetual dedication for a specific use can only be vacated or partially vacated in accordance with Santa Fe City Code 23-1.2 and New Mexico Statutes Annotated Chapter 3-20-12. The Zia Road widening resolution misrepresents the dedication in a way that is supposed to make it possible to vacate the parkland legally by means of a lot line adjustment instead. But the process it sets forth to do this is also not in accordance with Chapter 14 statutes that govern the re-subdivision or lot line adjustment of a dedicated subdivision with a perpetually dedicated road, utilities, and park easements. So tonight, we're faced with what we find to be unjustifiable legally, no matter how you do it, lot line adjustment or dedication vacation. So tonight, the Candlelight Neighborhood and the 489 signers of our petition, who are objecting by signing the petition to the way the city is trying to repurpose parkland, we're putting on the record that the City of Santa Fe is not, for reasons we have stated, in compliance with its own municipal code. Thank you so much for being here today and speaking. I just want to make sure we give everybody two minutes, and if we go over that, then we become a little unfair with our time. The resolution will not fix this. It is not properly legal. Thank you. Rick Martinez, 725 Zia Road. I'm here because I've been working with this neighborhood for the past eight years on this project, even before. I just want to say that this has never come up. It was in the plans. It should have been caught in the plans. Staff should have seen that. Staff should have alerted you that this park was ready to be used for the Excel lane, but it never was. Even when you read this report, you all should have caught it. It could have been negotiated out a lot better. Why it's not being negotiated now still bothers me because it makes this neighborhood sound like they're NIMBYs because they're fighting for what is truly theirs. That park is given to them at that point. It's not right to treat a neighborhood like that, treating them as everyone else in the city is calling NIMBYs for standing up for what is right. The fault of staff and even whoever read that when it was approved should have seen that there was the need to have a dedication for this property. To do it is waiting for the last minute to do it to a resolution, and a resolution done by a councilor that's not even representing that district. That just kind of drops in the boundaries of, I don't know where it shouldn't have, shouldn't work like that. Councilors who were in that district should say, "Well, maybe we should do a resolution, work with the neighborhoods, and come up with a better plan instead of having another councilor from another district bring this in." That's all I really want to say. I just think that it really puts a black eye on the neighborhood when you do something like this and don't do it. Because they did this to me with a state they dug up, and the developer got away with it, and this is the way it's always going to happen. We have to keep a better eye on what's happening with the plans before it really gets approved. When they're approved, and then the neighborhood finds out, you need somebody else to double-check, make sure that you don't have any questions before being done. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in chambers that would like to come up and speak for public comment? We have one. Yeah, come on up. Margaret Marshall, and I'm also a resident of the Candlelight Neighborhood. I concur with both the previous speakers and Rick Martinez. It again, Rick mentioned the NIMBY aspect of things, and the city has stressed so much, "Well, it's only 1% of the park," and they put both "one" and then in parentheses "1%" with the number one just to emphasize 1%. But that is not the issue. The issue is if you want something that belongs to somebody else, you ask them for it, and if they say yes, and you ask in the proper way. In this case, you ask or request, and if you get an agreement, then that's fine. I don't take something from somebody else that belongs to them and then try to justify it in terms of, "Well, I needed it," or "It will make everything better." It just is not a correct way to do things. Honestly, I feel like we all know it, and the law gets complex and complicated enough that you can kind of maneuver and negotiate through it and come up with something like this resolution that was introduced at the April 9th governing body meeting. But as was pointed out, this is not the correct way to do it, and it is in fact not the legal way to do it. So I just wanted to add my comments to the others. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you being here and speaking during public comment. I'm going to ask one more time if there's anybody else that would like to come up, and I don't see anyone else. So we will move forward with our agenda, which actually takes us to item O, which is a resolution authorizing and directing the widening of Zia Road to accommodate a necessary deceleration lane using adjacent unimproved land comprising approximately... I keep getting kicked out of the page. Hold on. It's going to do it a few times. I apologize. Approximately 1% of Candelero Park on its far northern boundary and directing the city manager to designate an agent to apply for a lot line adjustment and any other administrative steps required as the governing body's agent. This is sponsored by Councilor Jamie Cassutt and co-sponsored by Councilor Pilar Faulkner. We have Assistant City Attorney Rebecca here to help us with this matter right now and Leroy Pacheco. Who was this pulled by? I'm sorry. Oh, Councilor Garcia. So, Councilor Garcia, I don't know if you want the presentation or if you want to just start with some specific questions that you may have this evening. I mean, I'm well aware of this issue, but I don't know if my colleagues... Presentation. Happy to. Okay. So, we'll give the questions to you. Right into questions for you, Mr. Kerman. First and foremost, why is a resolution needed? I mean, couldn't we just move forward with applying, not having to even go through this process, which ultimately a resolution is not law. It's just the governing body giving their opinion. On such a very complicated matter such as this, I would think we want to deal with law. So why is a resolution needed? Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the question, Member Garcia. So, the resolution is needed because the city, the governing body in this instance, would be acting as the landowner rather than an adjudicator. So, what we've recommended is a lot line adjustment. Lot line adjustments are decided, reviewed, and considered by the land use director through an administrative process, unless the land use director decides it's appropriate to refer it to the planning commission for a decision. In this case, the governing body is the owner of the park, or the city is the owner of the park. The governing body, as the voice of the city, would be voting on a resolution to appoint an individual to act as an agent to submit that application to the land use director for her consideration. Okay, thank you for that clarification. And the line adjustment is for vacation of land, correct? So, our code does not contain a definition of vacation. We do have a section in Chapter 23 regarding vacation. However, that section, the analysis applies to rights-of-way. All of the analysis under that section goes to when a publicly owned right-of-way is to be vacated, how does that impact the community? How does it impact the scheme of travel? In this case, there is no vacation of a right-of-way. Our code considers the movement of lines of a lot line to be an administrative decision and does not include it in that section regarding vacation of plats. It includes it in the land development code under administrative determinations by the land use director. So it was our conclusion in this case, this does not involve a vacation of a line, but it would be a lot line adjustment as that term is used in our code. We're using a lot line adjustment for what? Can you help me understand why? Typically, a property owner would have a lot line adjustment to split up property. Somebody has a bigger piece of property, they're splitting it up, maybe sell half, maybe give half to their children, et cetera. That's not the case in this matter. Why are we splitting up our property? So, thank you for the question, Member Garcia. In this case, I guess I wouldn't define it as splitting up the property. The city, Zia Road is a road that's maintained by the city, and the park is also maintained by the city. This does change the use of city-owned land, so there's no change in ownership. But that portion of the park, that sliver of the park that abuts Zia Road there, would be converted into a deceleration lane. So it would no longer be park. The lot line of the park would be moved inwards by approximately 1% to make way for that deceleration lane on Z Road. Okay, thank you. So even though the city is not giving up ownership, they're changing use of the property, which means changing use of parkland. Isn't there a proper process to go through when we want to change the use, whether it be rezoning, but ultimately in this case, changing the use of parkland? Because right now, it's open space where somebody can go walk their dog, take a jog, whatever. They're not going to be able to do that on that space anymore unless they would want to get run over if this were to move forward. So I guess what is the proper process if we wanted to change the use of any park in our city? Not specifically Candelero Park, any park. What's the process if we wanted to change use? So this is the process that we've identified under our code. So we don't need a rezoning. The area as it's zoned currently does allow for streets to exist, for parks to exist, and so there isn't a need to introduce a use that's not permitted by the zoning in this area. However, the park, I mean, this area would no longer be park, and so it does move, it does slightly expand the street. It does slightly diminish the park. Some part of the street, part of the extension of the street will be sidewalk. So it will be an area where people can walk along the park boundary there. But it's not something that would require a rezoning. So for that reason, we did not recommend a rezoning procedure. Gotcha. And sorry to go back to this, but I forgot to answer this question regarding vacation. So within city code 23-1.2, the purpose of this section, it says, it gets into why it's done, and it's for a long sentence here. I'm trying to find a good break where this starts because this is probably the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen. This is probably the whole paragraph. So the portion I'm really interested in here is it says, "whether the public right-of-way is a necessary integral part of the city's traffic and neighborhood scheme for travel balanced against other interests such as whether the public right-of-way is no longer needed or used as a public right-of-way or has become a public nuisance and no other reasonable remedy is available to abate the nuisance." And so you're getting into use of travel right now and traffic use. And that's the intention around, I'm going to say what it is, it's a vacation of land because that's what we are. We're vacating the use of parkland for traffic. And it's identified here. And when we go back to the process here, it clearly states within this portion of our code that it should go before the Planning Commission. Why is this not going before the Planning Commission? Why is it coming to us? If Planning Commission can ultimately review and deem if this is necessary, they can provide their recommendations to us because I know the Planning Commission or the land use experts governing body is, we get put into the quasi-judicial role where we're not necessarily those experts unless we get put in that role, which we are not. And so I guess the question is, why does that not pertain here in this case? Why is this not going before the Planning Commission? And Director Lamboy is on. Mayor: Oh yeah, Madam Chair. Yes, the portion or the language that the councilor is citing to, can we please get a number, a cite so we can look it up? Councilor: Sure. It's 20-1.2 A under purpose. Mayor: Thank you. We, and we have Director Lamboy with her hand up. So I'd like to give her some time to speak to that question or anything that has been said. Director Lamboy: Thank you, Chair Chavez. I'm sorry I'm virtual, but I have a cold. So with reference to, I'll start with what Councilor Garcia was speaking about as to why this would not go to the Planning Commission. Well, it is within my authority to send it to the Planning Commission, the lot line adjustment, but it is considered an administrative decision regularly. And as it is just an adjustment of a lot line, not creating a new lot, not doing anything of substance other than shifting a lot line. I would like to point out that the lot itself or the portion of the lot is actually going to be a sidewalk. So, as you might know, there's a sidewalk there. Now, what the new sidewalk will do is be more safe in that there's going to be a tree along, well, not necessarily trees will be there, but there's going to be a landscape setback from the roadway where the deceleration lane is. So, the net difference is really in the pavement. It's not, there is a sidewalk that is a like-for-like, and another sidewalk is going to be built. So, you know, that is the net difference. And the reason for the lot line adjustment is to clearly define what is right-of-way versus what is park, and both are owned by the City of Santa Fe. And that's why that is coming to the governing body. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, Director Lamboy. Given that this is parkland and we've heard from constituents loud and clear that this is used parkland, I'm deeply concerned that there isn't due process here for residents to participate in the process. What due process is part of this besides having somebody come and speak tonight? There's no other way besides emailing, calling, etc. What due process rights do residents have? City Attorney: Thank you for the question, Councilor Garcia. So, this matter did come before the governing body previously, and it also came before the Planning Commission previously. It came, and when I say this matter, I guess I should clarify, the matter that came before the governing body was the Zia Station preliminary development plan. And so as part of that plan, that plan did include a traffic impact analysis which included the deceleration lane. However, we don't think that the packet of materials included information about the change in ownership. And so, so that element of it was not part of those prior proceedings, like the change, or not, I'm sorry, not the change in ownership, but the change in use of the park. And so, so that part did not come before the land use boards previously. And so in this section, so as far as this specific proceeding goes, when I say this specific proceeding, I mean the recommended lot line adjustment, the process is essentially the city, like any other landowner, would apply for a lot line adjustment. So the code doesn't require a hearing process necessarily for a lot line adjustment. As Director Lamboy said, she could refer it to the Planning Commission if she thought it was appropriate to do so. However, in some circumstances, due process can just mean review and consideration of an application by the landowner. And so that's what our code seems to contemplate in this instance. Mayor: Okay. But given that this is parkland, and it's not necessarily a mechanism where, you know, I, and the way I look at it is, sure, the city is ultimately the owner by deed, correct? But every person in this room is an owner of that park. Every resident of Santa Fe is an owner of that park. And to the point you were making earlier that it was, it went through the Planning Commission, it went through the governing body. I can confirm because I sat through those hearings. It did not, it was not brought to our attention that a lot line adjustment would be needed. That's unfortunate. So this is where again, there needs to be due process. This is my concern and challenge here is we're not including it when the city goofed up here ultimately, and we want to, I want to work to remedy this, and I want to work to remedy it in a manner where not only do the residents of Candela neighborhood, but anybody that might use that space as an opportunity to provide their input in the matter. I mean, would that have changed the vote when it initially happened? I don't know. But that's, that's critical information when we need to change boundaries of parks. Residents will come out and say, do or do not do that. We've heard it loud and clear. This, not only, we're hearing it now in this case, but many other cases we've heard it. So, at this moment, I can't support this. I wish we would send this to the Planning Commission. And I wish there was another mechanism where there could be due process. That way public ultimately has a say in how their parkland is used. And that's, that's how we should treat not only parkland like this, but all parks throughout the city. So thank you, City Attorney, for the responses and Director Lamboy. I appreciate all the information. Mayor: Thank you, Councilor Garcia. Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you for the presentation. I had some questions regarding the traffic study and complete streets. So I think that might, yeah, thank you so much. And really the overarching question is, have we exhausted all the other possibilities in building this road? And in particular, are we taking into account this governing body's and other bodies' desires to have road diets and maybe at least regulate some of the speed on some of our roads so that we wouldn't need a deceleration lane? Sir, you hear me? I think your mic's off. Can you hear me? City Staff: Thank you, Councilor. I think that first of all, I did make a presentation to the neighborhood, and I believe all understand and concur that the deceleration lane is for the benefit of the public safety. We have deceleration lanes to lessen the probability of rear-end collisions. Rear-end collisions are the most common type of traffic accident in the country, and I believe 8% of them end up with fatalities, head injuries, brain injuries, spinal injuries. So it's very important that on this particular high volume, relatively high speed for the city, the speed limit's 35 miles per hour, that the traffic that is going to turn right onto Galisteo Street eastbound is in its own protected deceleration lane. The traffic study also at that intersection created a bulb-out so that traffic heading east on Zia in that lane won't be able to continue and make a free ride onto St. Francis. They need to be into the lane over. So, this is dedicated solely to those turning, I guess it's southbound onto Galisteo Street. In addition, those leaving Galisteo Street will not be able to take a left turn out, prevent that type of collision, right out only at Galisteo with the bulb-out. That intersection has been designed. It'll be the city's first ox signal with its pedestrian-oriented, prioritizes the safety of pedestrians. It will be our first. So with the development that went in place and the proximity to a train depot, a federal highway US 284/85, this is the safest, greatest public good for park users and public traveling on the city street, which the city is in the bigger picture responsible for both. So, it is a small sacrifice to the park. As Heather said, it's the sidewalks remaining, which it's being shifted over, but all of us, the neighbors, and those who use Zia heading east, north, and south onto St. Francis Drive, will ultimately be much safer, as well as train users and pedestrians using that new protected intersection. The engineer who stamped and ratified the traffic study is one of the premier traffic engineers in the state. He works for Goheen and Houston. So I think, you know, just from a, I know there's a concern about the protocol, how the city's doing this, but really from public safety for park and streets, this is the safest and best use of the land for the city. For full transparency, I think the project is not the concern. I think you're right in hearing that the process and the procedure is really what is concerning folks on this day. Will you just address a little bit about that community meeting? Was there a lot of resistance and did community members express some of these concerns about process? I think the three spoke really encapsulated the meeting that we did have with the public. In terms of, as Ms. Marshall at the end stated, it was more process. I believe she even looked at that. He understands the safety concerns. It's really how the city is doing this. It's not so much the question of, is this the better solution or not? And it just was a small, it was disclosed. It wasn't all the documents. I think the city just assumed since they owned the land and they owned the park that this shift of less than 1% of the park was not going to be problematic. The developer did realign Galasto Street to pull it further west away from St. Francis Drive, and there was a whole dedication of that right-of-way. So we did this process of land use transfer. It did occur during that process. This particular 1% somehow was missed, unfortunately. But there was no, I think it was just, the city owns it, so it can happen. And it's a six-acre park, and I think this is about 2,000 square feet. Thank you. No, thank you so much. So I guess my final question would be to Director Lamboy. If there is an opportunity, and if it would cause problems in this timeline for the development, if we were able to have more community meetings or have input from those 400 folks that did sign the petition. Thank you, Chair Chavez, Council Member Castro. We can certainly have another community meeting, certainly if that is the will of the community. I'm certainly most about, I really think it's important to communicate and to hear comments. So, and it is likely with this lot line adjustment, if I get direction from the governing body to go ahead and start preparing that lot line adjustment, that I would refer it to the Planning Commission for review. And as you know, the Planning Commission does have a comment, does give public procedure for any decision that they make. So there will be opportunity for the community to comment, and the commission can consider it. Okay. Thank you so much. No further questions. Thank you. And I am going to go ahead and give the mic to our remote committee member, Councilor Romero Wirth. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start where we just left off, which is the process that Director Lamboy has just pointed to and what this resolution is actually doing. This resolution is basically appointing an agent. Maybe can somebody speak to what's going on here and then what will happen if this resolution passes and how the community will have an opportunity to participate as the process of a lot line adjustment is made? Thank you, Councilor Romero. I think I can answer that question, although there may be, we may want Director Lamboy to weigh in as well. So what this resolution would do would be to give the city manager authority to appoint someone as an agent of the city to basically sign that application for a lot line adjustment. And so typically there is not a public hearing for a lot adjustment. It would be an administrative process. So it would be a packet of materials that is reviewed by the Land Use Director and her team in the Land Use Department, and then they would render a decision administratively. And so there would not be a public hearing unless the Land Use Director referred it to the Planning Commission for such a hearing. Okay. And so the city manager, through this resolution, is directed to appoint an agent. And I think we did something similar. So, who would that? We'd be looking for an attorney. We'd be contracting with somebody. Who would the city manager be looking to appoint? I don't think a staff member, not anybody. If it's an administrative decision, it wouldn't be somebody in the Planning Department. Right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilor Romero Wirth. We did not suggest a specific person in the resolution. It's likely an appropriate person could be someone in the Public Works Department, possibly someone from the developer's team, somebody who is knowledgeable about the program, about the project, and would be able to fill out the application according to the governing body's desires. Okay. So that person is making the application for a lot line adjustment. That's correct. All right. I may come back to that, but I think I would like, I know that Councilor Garcia and I are pretty familiar with this because this is in District 2. I would be interested in the presentation that you may have put together. I know we've been forwarding to you the questions from the neighborhood. And I would be interested if you had a presentation, if we could just back up and maybe go through that, unless you think you've touched on everything that you were going to give us in a presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilor Romero Wirth. I think I have touched on everything. I was just going to give a general background if the chair wanted to hear it. And all of the points that I was about to cover have been covered through the questions, but I'm happy to address any additional questions you might have. Okay. So maybe if we could just, I think it's helpful, especially for somebody watching this later, somebody who may not be as familiar with what's happening here. Can you just give us an overview of what the issue is? Why, you know, what is the issue? How did we get here? And what's, what this development, if you could tell us a little bit about all the things that have gone on in the approval of this development. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilor Romero Wirth. So actually, Director Lamboy might be a better person to answer questions about the history of the development since it has been going on since before my time here, and it came to the governing body before my time as well. But I can say at least as far as this project is, the immediate question before the committee tonight is about these road improvements that are occurring on the intersection of Zia Road and St. Francis Drive. These road improvements were recommended as part of a traffic impact analysis when the city approved the Zia Station preliminary development plan. So that includes some multi-family housing units as well as some improvements to the road to account for future increases in traffic. And as Mr. Pacheco had discussed earlier, some of those, some of those recommended road improvements include a crosswalk, improvements to the sidewalk, some more ability for not just traffic to turn into those developments, but also to make it safer for bicycles, pedestrians, and people who might be trying to cross Zia there in that part of the road. And so construction at this point is underway on that section of the road. And so that's, that's, that's where we are in the proceedings. So that's phase one of the development, which is installing these city improvements, which were requested by the city as part of their conditions of approval that the developer build, make these road improvements before they move on to the construction of the housing units and the, I think there's some commercial there as well. But I think Director Lamboy, did you have anything you might like to add to that? If you don't mind, I'm just going to chime in too. I think, you know, over four years ago-ish was when this was in front of, I was a member of the Planning Commission at the time. But if anyone could just touch on the topic of traffic, because as this conversation has moved through time, the hot topic within it has been traffic. And so, and you know, when we were, when I was on the Planning Commission hearing this, that was a lot of what the community across Santa Fe emphasized in regards to being very concerned and safety and just how the flow would be impacted. So there was a lot of work that went into really assessing traffic and what the impact would be. So could someone touch on that? And I'm sorry, Councilor Romero Wirth, that you have the floor, but I think the traffic topic, which was has been emphasized throughout this project, would be something good to touch on if we can. Chair Chavez, members of the committee, traffic was a major discussion point. I've reviewed the record, and both with the Planning Commission as well as with the governing body. At that time, I was not present on staff, but I do live right by the deceleration lane. So while I'm at home, I can see it from my window. So the issue of traffic is, you know, there's been a big change since 1980 when that park was dedicated. So this subdivision was developed around that time, and at that time, Zia Road was actually a dirt road. But as time has gone over, gone by, it's slowly been increased in size because our city has grown from the south to the southwest, and a lot of people use this roadway to get to work. And so there is quite a bit of traffic in the mornings and then some traffic in the afternoons associated with people's paths through the area. So the issue of traffic, there were lots of graphics in those presentations showing the deceleration lane, but it was not abundantly obvious that the park, you know, it was showing the deceleration lane going through the park, but a person who, you know, a lay person in the community, I will say, probably would not understand clearly that that was the case. So, you know, I would definitely, you know, own the fact that we could have done better in that particular case. But we're going to try to fix it now. And really the overall impact, you know, we've looked at this with Public Works, with Leroy Pacheco as a traffic engineer, Regina Wheeler as a Director of Public Works. You know, this is going to be a very complicated intersection. And a piece of that that was developed at that time, which was really forward-looking, was a Hawk signal. So the pedestrian traffic could safely, you know, circulate in that area because the folks that are on the north side of Zia Road that will be living in those apartments will be wanting to go hopefully to the light rail station and be able to, you know, make their commute as part of the rail rather than actually having to drive. So there's a lot of different things that go into the development, as you know, Councilor Chavez, of this intersection, and the overall intent is really to help, you know, things move quickly and safely, well, not quickly, safely for the community, for pedestrian bicyclists as well as vehicles. Thank you for that. And I'll give it back to you, Councilor Romero Wirth. Oh, we do have Leroy Pacheco here, though. I don't know. Let me let you chime in on traffic. All I would add is just for an understanding, there's, this is going to become a much more pedestrian bicyclist destination area in the city. Decades ago, the city invested millions of dollars in an underpass across St. Francis Drive from the north side of the development to the Walgreens. So there's, you know, there's a lot of dense multi-family apartment units at Siringo, at Zia, and down at Sawmill. So there is, that is sort of becoming the nature of those three intersections. It's a federal highway. There's a state major commuter train that runs through there. We worked extensively with the DOT, with the DOT Rail, and again, Bohan and Houston to develop this traffic study. I mean, I won't go through the list of the intersections that were studied for impacts, but I will make a—I'll read something from the engineer's summary really briefly. Due to the short distance between this intersection and St. Francis, there are safety concerns for northbound and southbound left-turn movements attempting to cross the through traffic. And he means from Galasto, at which point there will be no left turns from Galasto in either direction, east or west. Again, I talked a little about the northbound right-turn lane will be perpendicular to the Zia Road and with a short bulb out, so only those in that lane, they won't be able to continue on, they're going to be turning right, and that's all they're going to be doing. So, again, I guess it's just important to reiterate the overall overarching public safety benefit of this design and not lose sight of that as this discussion of the change in the city's ownership of roadway right-of-way to park limits. But that's an important point to keep in mind. **Councilor Marworth:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it'll be important, and it may be Director Lamboy that needs to continue on with sort of the history here, but if you can help me understand all the approvals that it went through. At the time, the Planning Commission approved it, then we had to do something, we approved it, there was a development plan approval. Can you just walk us through those different pieces of how this, all the hoops this development had to jump through, and all the process that was involved? **Chair Chavez:** Yes, thank you, Councilor Romero, Chair Chavez, and members of the committee. So, as part of a development plan, there are several different steps. The first step being that there is the need for a plat as well as a development plan. And so both of those were heard concurrently at that time. And as a result of the traffic study, it was determined that the Galasto right-of-way would have to be vacated and relocated. And so the city, as property owner of the Galasto right-of-way, had to take action to relocate that right-of-way, which was done at that time, and that was a separate case. So that was a follow-up to the approval of the development plan and the plat, which identified the need for a change in the right-of-way location. And then the governing body acted on the Galisto right-of-way change to the right-of-way as well as the deceleration that was part of that. So, but like I said, the exhibits weren't 100% clear, although they did show the park. I can understand how the layperson really wouldn't understand that completely. And there were several Planning Commission hearings about this as well as governing body hearings at multiple, if I recall correctly. **Councilor Marworth:** Okay. And I, as I recall, I think I don't—I'm not—I wasn't on the Planning Commission, but I remember we did this over two meetings on Zoom. **Chair Chavez:** That's correct. **Councilor Marworth:** And so just to make sure I'm understanding, the right-of-way and the deceleration lane, that was after we'd already approved the plat and the development plan, and all that had been approved by the governing body. Then in a separate process, and I remember that now that you say it, we approved the right-of-way and the deceleration lane. **Chair Chavez:** Councilor Chavez, member, that is correct. **Councilor Marworth:** Okay. But as part of that, so is that where we got into this? Is that we just, to your point, in that process is where maybe it should have been clear what would a lot line adjustment have been the thing that we should have done then? **Chair Chavez:** Chair Chavez, member Romero Borth, Councilor Romero. So at that time, it could have been made more. I, of course, read the minutes and the discussions that were available to me. I did not actually review the Zoom. I'm sorry. But it's hours. So, but the thing is, is that the deceleration lane and its length was discussed, but not necessarily brought to attention that the city would have to do an action to move its boundary from public right-of-way and park to a wider public right-of-way. And so, although the documents illustrated the deceleration lane, that was not front and center. That action was not front and center. And I don't know what happened, but actually the staff member that was managing this was promoted to a different position with the city, with Midtown, and it may just have been dropped unintentionally. **Councilor Marworth:** So, the issue was that we should have done the lot line adjustment back then, or we should have just been more clear about how we were moving the right-of-way? **Chair Chavez:** Chair Chavez, Councilor Romero, I think both. I think we should have done a lot line adjustment at that time. There was the presumption that it's city property, whether it's right-of-way, whether it's a park, and that maybe was not expressed well enough because there was an assumption being made that it's city property. **Councilor Marworth:** So, and typically, how do we use lot line adjustments? I know we've seen a few of these. How are they used? **Chair Chavez:** Chair Chavez, member or Councilor Romero Worth, the reason we have a lot line adjustment, and I'll give an example over in Midtown, for instance, we did lot line adjustments to establish right-of-way and organize the lots in a way so that they could be sold or available for purchase, that that was a buildable lot. So lot line adjustments can be done for other reasons as well. Like Councilor Garcia mentioned earlier, a lot line adjustment can be used to give a piece of property, enlarge a piece of property, for instance, for a family member, what have you, but it does not create a new lot. All it does is shift a line. So no new lot is created, and that's why it's administrative because certainly the professionals in land use as well as the surveyors and the like, we all review that for accuracy as the plat is reviewed as part of this administrative process. But really, it does not create a new lot, and that is the basis for it being administrative. **Councilor Marworth:** Okay. And there's concern in the neighborhood about, I mean, obviously they think they're expressing that vacating the land would be the proper process. Can you speak to that just a little bit about why or why not that's not what we're doing? **Chair Chavez:** Chair Chavez, Councilor Romero Worth, vacation of the land intends—so we can't vacate our own land. So for instance, if there was a property owner that was a private property owner and there was an alley, and we vacated the alley, then the alley would go back to that property owner. We see this in South Capitol, for instance, there are these really small alleys, and if that land, which is public right-of-way, were to be vacated, it would revert to the adjacent property owner. In this case, we can't vacate our own land. It will revert back to us. So it's the line adjustment as we're the property owner is the most appropriate avenue. **Councilor Marworth:** Okay. And there's also concern about this being a park. And while I think you have a—do we have that slide of the—that illustrates what we're talking about? I'm sure it's in the packet. There are 444 pages in the packet. I can't tell you which page it's on. I assume it's there. Do we have that slide somewhere? **Chair Chavez:** Let me pull it up. Just one moment. I do. I think it's an instructive slide. Sorry. I'm sorry. **Councilor Marworth:** And will you have the ability to share your screen? Are you a— **Chair Chavez:** Yes, I'm a panelist. **Councilor Marworth:** Have you been given sharing privileges? **Chair Chavez:** Yes, I have. That'll be the next problem. It's pulling up. Just one moment. Okay. It's funny, you know, I always tell myself I have way too many windows open on my laptop, especially when I'm trying to make a presentation. Let's see here. Okay. So, this is the PowerPoint that was shared with the community when we had a community meeting, and I will just go to the graphic. So, we shared with them lots of record and the overall evolution of the subdivision, the development plan. And this is the illustration showing that the park would be impacted because this is a deceleration lane. Zoomed in the traffic impact analysis, and then this is the graphic that you're looking at, correct? **Councilor Marworth:** Yes. So help us understand this graphic. **Chair Chavez:** So, Chair Chavez, members of the committee, the total right-of-way that is going to be impacted is 2,775 square feet. We do have to remember though that there is a sidewalk there already, and so that sidewalk is actually going to be shifted. So, the sidewalk right now is part of the right-of-way, which means that the total new street area is 1,154 square feet. So the net difference is that 1,000 square feet approximately. **Councilor Marworth:** Okay. And it's the green. Let's see. Help me understand the green and the red. Red is the, looks according to your thing, and it's very small, total right-of-way. **Chair Chavez:** Yes, that's correct. And the new street is the difference. **Councilor Marworth:** And what—how—where's the park? Where—where— **Chair Chavez:** Chair Chavez and Councilor Romero Worth. So, the park, so the area to the right here, for lack—I don't know if you can see my arrow, is the ownership of Zia Flats, which there was a dedication of right-of-way by Zia Flats to the city. To the left is the park and the property line. So at the beginning of the pink area that's over on the right-hand side, that's the area of the park. So my only analyzed for the very specific area of the park, it does continue on towards Galasto Street, the relocated Galasto Street, through the applicant's property for Zia Station applicant. **Councilor Marworth:** So the part of the park is just from that line to, I don't know whether to say left or right because it probably depends on where you are looking at this. Right. That line to the west, generally speaking, okay, is the park part, but this part to the right is not park. **Chair Chavez:** That's correct. That's controlled and owned by the Zia Flats entity. **Councilor Marworth:** Okay. All right. I think this is helpful to show what we're talking about. I don't think we need to see that anymore. Let's see. Okay. So there's concern in the neighborhood about, I mean, obviously they think they're expressing that vacating the land would be the proper process. Can you speak to that just a little bit about why or why not that's not what we're doing? **Chair Chavez:** Chair Chavez, Councilor Romero Worth, I've heard that concern as well. And our charge at the city is community health, safety, and public welfare. And the city does everything in its power to reserve those park spaces the best we can to the uses for which they were intended, which is the recreation, community's recreation, and enjoyment. I don't know that this is going to set a precedent. In fact, with the update of the land development code, we're going to be creating a new zone district that's called Parks and Open Space. And this is a tool that's been used in other jurisdictions to give the community a feeling of predictability, a sense of predictability as to what's going to happen with those public resources. So, the zone district will be Parks and Open Space. And to have a different use, there would be a required rezoning, which would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as well as the governing body. And so that provides an extra level of assurance that will be taken into consideration as to protection of these valuable recreational and open space resources. **Councilor Marworth:** Okay. And back to the due process question. So this resolution stops here tonight. It's supposed to move on, I believe, to Quality of Life. I'm assuming that's on the agenda Wednesday and then at the governing body next week. **Chair Chavez:** Next week, it's my intention to make sure that we not only pull this resolution, but that we move it to after petitions from the floor so that the public, anyone in the neighborhood, pro or con, and any other interested parties could be heard prior to a final vote about their thoughts about this. And just like I think in other stops, there's everybody gets, everybody can have a chance to speak to the resolution prior to its final passage. Is there a reason why an administrative review would be the path that you all are taking versus sending it to Planning Commission? I think you said you would be willing to send it to Planning Commission, but what does, why administrative versus Planning Commission? Is it, I mean, is it just our call or is there a reason for one versus the other? Chair Romero, I'm sorry, Chair Chavez, Councilor Romero-Worth, it's set forth in Chapter 14, all the different processes that we do. I believe it's 14-3 something, 3.6, I believe. All those processes are clearly defined. The lot line adjustment is defined as an administrative process, but there is a footnote stating that the Land Use Director can choose to refer it to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Okay. And so, and then the Planning Commission would do something similar to what I've just described to you. I intend to do on final passage next week is allow everybody to speak for or against, and then the Planning Commission would take a vote, and then would it come back to the Governing Body or are they the final, basically, again, back to what we're doing here tonight, the only thing we're doing here tonight is passing a resolution that directs the City Manager to appoint as agent. We're not actually approving a lot line. Chair Chavez, Councilor Romero-Worth, that's correct. We're appointing an agent and we want that agent to be independent. Councilor has indicated that she has some money in her budget to hire a consultant to be able to do that on behalf of the city. So that's the purpose of the agent to act on behalf of the Governing Body. The case itself would be processed like any other case that goes to the Planning Commission in that staff will make a report and a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will consider that and also consider public comment and then weigh the facts and render a decision. That decision would be appealed to the Governing, or can be appealed to the Governing Body, but that would be the only case in which the Governing Body would hear it. Okay. And then of course that triggers the other piece, right, which is if it can be appealed to the Governing Body, it then can, if you still don't like it, you can appeal it up to the District Court. Chavez, Councilor Romero, that's correct. Okay. And this development is underway and the developer has stopped while we do a lot line adjustment. So, it sounds like, I mean, this process, depending on the path we pick, could be really important for the work that's underway and again, underlying the safety issues with getting this deceleration lane in place as they make the road adjustments in that area right now. I don't know if you all have driven through there, and I guess you live over there. That traffic is very disrupted right now with the development that's going on. Travis, Councilor Romero-Worth, the traffic is really disrupted. The applicant or agent is actually able to do construction in the center of the roadway. I mean, he's been pouring the medians and the like, the turning lanes. It's just that one portion that the applicant won't be able to work on and the relocation of Galisteo Road won't be able to happen until the deceleration lane is resolved. Okay. And so, and, okay, just a couple things, and I'm sorry, Madam Chair. So I just heard you say something different than what was stated earlier, which is who the agent will be. It sounds like Director Wheeler has money to hire a consultant to be the agent for us. Is that what you just said? Who will submit the application to make the lot line adjustment? Chair Chavez, Councilor Romero, that is correct. That's the discussion that I had with Public Works Director Wheeler, but Public Works Director Wheeler may want to confirm. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and Councilor Romero and Director Lamboy. I'm happy to support the process in any way. Okay. So, all right. So, I think it's just really important that we would be hiring somebody to be our agent, be the city's agent in presenting an application through our lot line adjustment process, which is an administrative one. And how long would that take? Chair Chavez, Councilor Romero-Worth, I would imagine that would just depend upon the amount of work our consultant has. It is a fairly straightforward process, but I can't estimate. I would be very general in saying maybe three to five months, but I could be wrong. So that intersection is going to be disrupted like that under an administrative process for three to five months until we can get the lot line adjustment we need for them to finish the deceleration lane. Chavez, Councilor Romero, that's correct. I have a clarifying question if you don't mind, Councilor. Sure, Madam Chair. If the process would just skip the committee process it's currently on and go straight to Planning Commission for approval or rejection, would that be quicker than what is being proposed right now, or am I confused? Because that's what I, like, I would have seen if this needed to be clarified or represented or whatever, because it was already presented. So this lane was there in the images, it just was not emphasized. It wasn't clear what it would be disrupting around it. So to me, what would make sense in going faster, if time is what we're concerned about, is putting a presentation together that goes to the Planning Commission for vote and for public comment, and then moving forward from their recommendation. That to me seems like an expedited process. Is there interference where that process cannot exist and is that why we're not doing that? Madam Chair, if I could address that question, even if this were to go to Planning Commission on Director Lamboy's recommendation, we would still need the Governing Body to appoint someone to submit that application. So it would still need to go through this committee process and would need a decision by the Governing Body. Question. Madam Chair, if I can, I think the important thing is what this resolution is doing. This resolution is asking, is directing that the City Manager appoint an agent to represent the city in a lot line adjustment application that is an administrative process. And we're so, and again, I think there is in passing this resolution under the, under the process I outlined, where on the night of passage, I think we can move this resolution to after petitions from the floor so that everybody who wants to speak to the resolution and to this issue will have the opportunity, and all of that information can be taken into consideration as an administrative review is done down the road once we have an agent. So either way, an agent is required. But I think the big concern is that many of us, including myself, feel like it would be appropriate for it, the application, to go to the Planning Commission, which as it's written, seems the purpose is to skip that step so that it can be done quicker. That's just my interpretation. I don't know anyone else's interpreting it, but I don't know how comfortable I feel with that. I think that if we're focused on, the only way that we can get to an application is if we assign an agent, which is what we're discussing right now. So that needs to occur no matter what. I think though, as this goes through committee, what is something that I'm going to continue to voice is that with a recommendation that it goes to Planning Commission. But I just want to be clear that for us to even have a discussion about how this is going to look or what it's going to impact, we need an agent because that's the only way we'll have an application to present to the community. Does that make sense? I think that I just wanted to put it, yeah, make it as clear as possible. Am I right in what I'm saying? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, that is correct. If I could, Madam Chair. Yes. I think the only thing that I would make a distinction about what you said is that a lot, I think the testimony is that a lot line adjustment is an administrative act. It's not about, I'm just pointing out that it's going to be a much longer process if we go to Planning Commission, which isn't required. It can be done, but it's not required. And I don't think the staff is suggesting that we're doing this because it's faster. They're just saying the way we do lot line adjustments is to have an present an application for an administrative review. There is an option to go to the Planning Commission, and all I'm saying is even the administrative review is going to take, if it's going to take five months, a Planning Commission process is going to take longer, especially when you consider all the appellate process that could happen, and this development is underway and this traffic in that area is just disrupted. We have approved for, development has been through quite a bit of process already, and we, the Governing Body, have approved this development. So I'm kind of wondering if we're not, you know, making it just kind of belaboring this in a way, like we can, we can have public comment on the resolution, which will allow for people to talk about, you know, whether they support or don't. And Councilor, you're breaking up. We're not, we're not hearing you. Okay, I appreciate that. I just, I just am concerned. Yeah. About the timeline, and so I'm just concerned that, yeah, you're frozen. Yeah, I don't think, I don't think we're, yeah, I don't think we're trying, I don't think they're trying to do something hurry up because the, the, the process is to, is to be an administrative review. Yeah, I think my only concern, and this could be taken care of by staff, so to me what Councilor Maroworth is saying, and if I speak, if I don't speak accurately in what you were trying to say, please interrupt me, but what I heard is that the Governing Body, at the Governing Body, public's going to have an opportunity to speak similar to like what you would have at the Planning Commission. So we'd be able to get all of your information. All of that would be heard. That information would be given. My only issue with this, and this is something that staff could take care of when we get to Governing Body, is we need a presentation then, because I think what makes Planning Commission very different is that there's a presentation that's published that emphasizes the concern, right? So we would be able to show the lane, show the impact, have visuals, make that very clear. The public would have opportunity to review that information prior to having to speak publicly at Planning Commission. The only way I see the Governing Body option being appropriate is if the same thing would occur. So is if, you know, when that, that packet gets published, that we include presentation specifically on this impact if approved through, if signed. I'm tired so I can't find my words. But so they have all the information and they know what they're speaking to publicly and can reference within the packet what is necessary to have a clear understanding because at Governing Body, we're just looking to approve the authorizing agent. Did I say that right? Authorizing agent. So really it's not about the application itself. So there's a big piece of information that would be missing unless we kind of include that early on prior to the application so that we know, okay, the public had that information come Friday when every, when the packet is published and we know that. they have all the information they need to publicly speak at Governing Body. With that, I would feel very comfortable with this process and maybe even not recommending a Planning Commission. But if that information cannot be included in a timely manner by Friday before the packet is published, then I would say it's not similar to what they would have an opportunity to do at the Planning Commission. So, I'm just going to put that information out there, and I hope I made sense. I'm sorry. Yeah, no, Madam Chair, if I can, I think having a presentation is where I would have started tonight. I think that would have been important because I think this is a little bit complex. So, I think a presentation when this item is pulled so that people can comment appropriately would be important. Yes, no, I agree. And I don't know if we had a presentation prepared with the change specifically or not, but I think we know that we want that information. And that's a very good point, Counselor. Thank you. Counselor Garcia, you had another comment. Just a quick question around the agent. Do we have to go externally for an agent? Can't we identify a city staff person? Thank you, Madam Chair. Member Garcia, the resolution does not specify a specific person, and so it could be a member of Public Works. That sounds like that might be something that they're in a good position to do. It could be the developer. The developer is responsible for building the road. It could be whoever the city, there's no limitation on who that person can be in the resolution. Well, given that it's city property, I would not feel comfortable with the developer applying for us. So, I would not want us to go out and contract with a consultant or somebody else to spend money when this should be an internal task. Secondly, I don't see any pushback, and Mr. Scott, you're here, so I'm going to ask you a question. Do we need to give you a resolution to say to apply for this lot line adjustment? Because this is again, we're going through a step that is unnecessary because ultimately City Manager Scott can identify a person. That person can then begin the application process. That process could then include the Planning Commission, which is where it should have been in the first place, given the process and given the topic at hand. Not include us because we're going to slow down the process. So, with that being said, I guess I had more comments than questions, but again, I don't think this resolution was unnecessary. We don't, we can do all this work internally in a process that includes due process by going to the Planning Commission. So, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Counselor. Are there any other questions or comments? Well, go ahead. Can you hear me now? Yes, hopefully my connection is better. I'm sorry. It's better. I think actually, if the City Attorney's office could speak to this, I think actually we do need to appoint somebody. We just went through this with Los Estraas, I believe, was the issue where we had to appoint a lawyer to act on behalf of the city. And this is, this is sort of, there's a parallel here, isn't there, at the City Attorney's office? I think we do need this resolution. We do need to appoint, we do need to say as the Governing Body, we do need to direct that somebody be appointed to make this application on behalf of the city. If the City Attorney's office could speak to that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Member Romero Worth. Yes, so that was our, that was the City Attorney's office's conclusion was that because it's a permanent change in the use of the land, the Governing Body does need to express its will in some way through a resolution and then can give a directive to the City Manager, but the City Manager could not do that absent express authority from the Governing Body. Right. So, I think we do need this resolution, I guess, is my point. Madam Chair, I would move to approve. Second. Could I get a roll call, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Counselor Castro. Yes. And I would like to explain my vote. Councilor Michael Garcia. Nope. Councilor Romero Worth. Yes. Chair Chavez. Yes. And I would like to explain my vote. Motion passes. So, just very quickly, I think that the point that Council Chair Chavez made was really important. Since we already have that presentation, if we could make that available to the public immediately, that would be wonderful. Thank you so much. And I have the same point. I think that the public has a lot of information to offer us and should be able to voice their concerns. I do want you to have all of the information as clearly as possible, though, and so I know our city staff, I'm very confident that they'll make sure that that is available to you. Packets for the previous, for the next week's meetings are always published Friday. So, for Governing Body, it would be published this Friday. So, you would find it available online, and I would just recommend that you spread the word that everyone review that and bring questions or concerns that they may have for public comment, because then this would be very similar to what you would have the opportunity to do at Planning Commission, but it would be saving developer time and just the inconvenience. And when we have, when we have development like that taking place, it also poses a safety threat. The longer we keep a process going, the process is happening. What we want to do is we make sure that it continues going in the right direction and as quickly as possible so it's not disrupting our community as long as it has to. So, please just know that we can take care of everything. Come to the Governing Body meeting, but I just want to make sure you have the information you need to publicly speak on that. And staff, thank you for that as well. And I am still having internet issues, so let me try to reload again. We are now going to our discussion item, I think, or action item, or both. Action item discussion agenda here is consideration of Resolution Number 2025 to be determined. A resolution making a finding of necessity and designating an area comprised of a majority of the Midtown Local Innovation Corridor Overlay District as a Metropolitan Redevelopment Area. And we have Daniel Hernandez here, Carly Vendetti, to speak on this. This is sponsored by Mayor Weber, co-sponsored by myself and Councilor Cassette. So, I will turn it over to you all to give us some info. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a presentation this evening. It is the same presentation presented at Quality of Life. So, I do apologize for the repetition, but we have an additional member, Councilor Romero Worth, who did not see this presentation previously. So, let me pull this up for you. So, very quickly, this is regarding the Metropolitan Redevelopment Area designation report for the Midtown District. As I previously said, it was introduced March 28th. And so this is the second meeting it's been to, from Quality of Life now to Public Works. It's also been before Economic Development Advisory Committee, Metropolitan Redevelopment Commission, and so on. This will be a quick presentation this evening. Brief introduction to our staff, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Act, Metropolitan Redevelopment Area, the physical and/or geographic boundary that we are proposing, the Midtown District, those MRA benefits, as well as the schedule for creating the MRA. Really quickly, our planning team, of course, includes the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency. That is myself, Carla Vendetti, Daniel Hernandez is our director, and Jack Kelly. We have a range of backgrounds in architecture, planning, and real estate development finance. We have chosen to contract with the team Planned, a planning firm based out of Albuquerque, as well as SB Friedman, a subcontractor to Planned. They both have experience working across the state on very similar Metropolitan Redevelopment Areas. They have familiarity with the state statute, and they bring expertise in urban economics as well as community engagement. So, while they have familiarity, not all of us in the room do. The Metropolitan Redevelopment Act is an act in the state that allows municipalities to create redevelopment areas that then access tools designed to facilitate economic development. In order to do this, an area must qualify under the act based on criteria. Hopefully, you were able to have a chance to review the report in the packet that goes further into depth about those criteria, but a few to include them are deteriorated or deteriorating structures, defective or inadequate street layouts, out-of-date or impractical planning and platting, along with defective or unusual conditions of title, often referred to as clouding of title. Moving along to how an MRA is established, we are past the first step here. So, the first step was appointing a Metropolitan Redevelopment Commission. This has already occurred. The Mayor has appointed and Governing Body previously approved members of that commission. These members have varying backgrounds and varying terms on this commission. Of course, that is step one. We are now in step two. It is the first resolution of two in order to go ahead with this planning process. This first resolution is, of course, designating a Metropolitan Redevelopment Area through a finding of necessity. This is the report, as I said before, identifying the criteria of the state statute apply to the geographic area we have outlined. Governing Body approval is required in a public meeting designating this report as a finding of necessity that benefits the public health, safety, and welfare, excuse me. The third step is a second resolution. So, this is a two-pronged approach with two resolutions, that being the adoption of a Metropolitan Redevelopment Plan. This, of course, follows the potential approval, excuse me, of this report and identifies and deploys methods to eliminate or prevent economic development challenges in the future. So, this aligns with the redevelopment goals identified previously in the community development report and those the community identifies as needed during time of community engagement. Moving along to this actual geographic boundary, it aligns with the Midtown Link Local Innovation Corridor exactly, with the exception of one parcel. That parcel being outlined in yellow here in the presentation. That's the Trace Santos Apartments complex. For those of you who are familiar, it's where St. Francis and St. Michael's meet. We did this because we wanted to focus only on commercial properties at this time. That is within the intent of this. So, you'll see the jagged edges do carve out any sort of residential boundary there. To explain further why a Metropolitan Redevelopment Area is necessary, we have to look back to the 2022-2023 Community Development Plan and Midtown Master Plan efforts that were community-led. Those identified this Metropolitan Redevelopment Area designation as a critical path forward. It's not recreating any sort of new planning method. It's building on the previous planning efforts within the area. Those being the Remake Plan from 2012, the Midtown Local Innovation Corridor approved and designated in 2016, as well as the Midtown Master Plan that I mentioned in 2022. The city-owned Midtown site exemplifies many of the criteria, as you'll see in the report, that are outlined in the state statute and required. If we were to move forward with this Metropolitan Redevelopment Area and subsequently then a plan, it serves as a catalyst to development across the Midtown District and that commercial corridor. So, we will have a more resilient mixed-use Midtown district for years to come. Reviewing some of the benefits very quickly, these often are highlighted later after the planning process, but to highlight them right now in the area designation plan: it increases the access the city has to funding, establishes a governance structure through that Metropolitan Redevelopment Commission, prioritizes resources that goes right back into the community, drives financial investment decisions, engages the public, recognizes flexibility in city-owned properties, as well as maintains governing body approvals for any disposition of city-owned property. Additional methodology that I hinted at earlier could be public-private partnerships or tax incremental financing districts or tax incremental financing (TIF). So, looking ahead at the timeline at the potential approval of this Metropolitan Redevelopment Area, we will be headed for the vote hopefully on April 30th. And barring that vote, we hope to have the projected approval of an MRA plan in fall 2025 at the latest, if not sooner. This, of course, depends on our consulting team and their best methodology. So, that is the conclusion of my presentation. I want to invite our director, Daniel Hernandez, up here to help me field any of your questions. Thank you very much. I will turn to the committee. Are there any questions, comments? Mr. Castro, I do have a quick question, and I know that we've talked about this before, but for the public, can you talk a little about the height restrictions and the changes there? The height restrictions, Madam Chair, or building, I apologize. Are there any changes in height restrictions for buildings? Madam Chair, Councilor Castro, this is all dependent on the Link. That does not change it. I want to reiterate that this report is an economic plan, not a land use plan, rather. Perfect. That was actually the answer I was looking for. So, I just want to confirm and reassure our community that this does not affect buildings. This does not affect what the corridor looks like. Is that correct, Madam Chair? Councilor Castro, that is correct. This is an economic plan that does not look at building heights. Perfect. Thank you so very much. No further questions. Thank you. Garcia, did you want to speak? Yeah, just in reference to that. Councilor Castro, maybe I don't know if you were referencing or not, but the Link Overlay Ordinance was passed in 2016, which does set framework around height, building facades, etc. And with that ordinance that was passed almost 10 years ago, it does allow for more dense building and increased height. So, I don't want to mislead the public in regards to, well, this plan doesn't include that, but it's building off of an already a plan in place that's been approved nearly 10 years ago. Quickly try to pull it up. Number height, but it's a lot higher. Well, we don't operate off stories. We do feet. So, it's like how many feet in the Link Overlay? Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, that's 62 feet on the Midtown site and then less than that on all other adjacent properties. So, I can get you the code very quickly. Okay. And it's Ordinance 2016-39 for those interested in learning about the overlay. Thank you, Councilor Garcia, for that clarification. Any other questions or comments? Yes. So, I just take the opportunity. Is there any other big concerns that the Midtown Redevelopment Commission is hearing from the community that you would like to address? Madam Chair, Councilor Castro, at this time, no. We have reached out to all adjacent property owners. We have not received any big concerns. Wonderful. No further questions. I would say the only thing I hear is people want to see it developed. So, we're moving in the right direction. And with development, I think it's also, I just want to emphasize, this is part of the steps in making sure we meet the community plan and the community's input, right? The more decisions we make to create more opportunity at Midtown is going to make it what the community has envisioned it to be. So, I just want to thank the team. I want to thank the commission for that. I'm excited. That's all. Well, I say that often. I'll be more excited once we actually start seeing things over there, just with all of this movement and all of these things that we're being so mindful about. I hear from a lot of people, I just can't wait to see what it brings to Santa Fe. So, thank you for the presentation. Motion to approve. I have a motion and I have a second. Could I get a roll call, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Councilor Castro, yes. Councilor Romero Worth, yes. Councilor Michael Garcia, yes. Chair Chavez, yes. Motion passes, Madam Chair. Right. Thank you. Thank you for your time. I do not have an agenda in front of me because my computer will not work, but I believe that we're on matters from staff. So, I will turn it over to you, Director. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since you were just talking about Midtown Campus, I'll let you know that the guard shack has been demolished and we're getting ready to take out that big speed hump and also do some pavement rehabilitation as interim stabilization to support activation of the campus. So, you'll be seeing some things happen, even if they're, and if you can get back to the back corner where film is, they've broken ground. They've got a brand new gigantic electrical line already installed, about a million-dollar project, and they've broken ground on their buildings. So, there's a lot of construction happening, actually. Thank you so much. That's great. That's great. Next is matters from the committee. Any matters? All right. I don't see any. And with that, we are adjourned until what? Cinco de Mayo.