►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting 8/18/22
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
A
D
A
D
F
F
G
A
All
right,
we
are
moving
on
to
the
old
business
case,
2022-5063.
A
Twenty
two
hundred
opecus
trail
rezoning
and
twenty
two
hundred
old
pecos
trail
preliminary
flat.
We
heard
this
case
on
july
21st.
At
that
time
we
had
the
presentation
of
information
we
had
the
public
hearing.
The
public
hearing
is
now
closed.
In
this
case,
I
did
want
to
thank
everyone
who
submitted
public
comment
and
submitted
additional
public
comment
for
this
hearing.
We
did
all
receive
it
and
I
appreciate
that
people
put
in
the
time
to
provide
that
comment.
A
I
did
want
to
note
for
the
commissioners-
and
I
think
this
only
applies
for
commissioner
faulkner
for
this
meeting,
but
commissioners
do
need
to
have
been
present
at
the
last
hearing
or
reviewed
all
of
the
meeting
materials
and
all
of
the
minutes.
In
order
to
vote
in
this
hearing
today
we
did
have
a
site
visit
earlier
today
there
were
four
of
us
in
attendance
and
miss
begali.
The
the
question
had
come
up.
A
I
Lawrence
and
commissioners,
the
the
site
visit
is
in
addition
to
the
other
information
you've
received.
We,
you
know
feel
strongly
that
you
have
the
proper
information
that
you
need
in
order
to
make
the
decision
the
site
visit
was
in
addition,
you're,
if
you
were
not
there,
you're
welcome
to
ask
questions
about
it
to
staff.
I
We
were
there
all
of
four
of
us
who
were
up
here
were
there
today,
and
if
you
feel
that
you
don't
don't
have
enough
information
to
make
a
decision,
you
are
able
to
abstain,
but
we
feel
that
that's
adequate.
A
Thank
you,
mr
galley.
I
appreciate
that
and
I
would
also,
I
think,
just
encourage
any
of
my
fellow
commissioners
who
were
on
the
site
visit
and
want
to
comment
on
their
observations
as
part
of
the
discussion
to
please
feel
free
to
do
so,
so
that
can
be
part
of
our
discussion
and
deliberation
this
evening.
A
I
want
to
at
this
time.
This
is
the
time
for
discussion
and
questions
on
the
part
of
the
commission,
and
so
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
anyone
who
has
questions
that
they
would
like
to
see
answered
or
of
other
discussion
at
this
time.
Commissioner,
henojo's
fault,
please
go
ahead.
Thank.
D
J
How's
this
all
right,
I'm
sorry,
my
name
is
carl
summer.
My
mailing
address
is
post
office
box,
2476,
santa
fe,
new
mexico.
Madam
chair,
I'm
here
to
answer
your
questions.
J
I
don't
have
the
exact
language
in
front
of
me,
but
I'll
summarize
it
it
is
that
the
re-zoning
is
well.
Let
me
give
you.
J
It
is
number
three:
a
different
use.
Category
is
more
advantageous
to
the
community,
as
articulated
in
the
general
plan
or
other
adopted
city
plans.
J
Law
summarize,
the
general
plan
lays
out
policies
that
it
promotes
in
the
general
plan.
One
of
those
is
infill
and
that
infill
is
this.
Property
is
designated
as
an
infill
property
and
that
policy
is
further
advanced
by
this
infill
project.
So
it
is
more
advantageous
for
the
community
to
use
city
infrastructure
more
efficiently.
J
So
that's
a
summary
of
one
policy
that
militates
in
favor
of
a
re-zoning
because
it
is
advantageous
to
have
infill
in
in
the
city
and
and
the
policies
pretty
clear
about
infill
in
these
locations
that
it
is
and
I'll
say,
the
policy
states
that
the
target
density
for
new
infill
residential
in
order
to
address
affordable
housing
goals
is
a
minimum
of
five
units
per
acre
within
seven,
and
it
also
talks
about
that
that
might
be
more
dense
than
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
J
So
this
policy
takes
that
into
account
when
it
talks
about
being
beneficial
to
the
community.
So
that's
one
one
summary:
that's
a
summary
of
the
the
infill
it
also
the
infill
policy.
Is
it
talks
specifically
about
higher
densities
for
future
growth
areas
and.
J
K
J
Okay,
so
the
infill
project
policy
is
one.
The
separate
is
the
idea
of
the
prevention
of
urban
sprawl.
The
the
policy
of
under
the
general
plan
of
4.4-1-l-1.
J
Is
to
educate
the
community
about
the
benefits
of
limiting
sprawl
and
increasing
residential
densities.
That
is
explicit
language
right
out
of
the
code
and
a
policy
about
urban
sprawl
and
that
it
is
more
advantageous
to
have
increased
densities
and
no
urban
sprawl
than
it
is
for
to
not
have
that
or.
L
J
Urban
sprawl,
so
that's
explicit
as
well
in
the
the
plan
in
the
general
plan,
also
the
general
plan
prioritizes
land
development
and
residential
commercial
building
approvals
in
the
following
manning,
the
first
priority
of
the
general
plan.
The
policy
is
infill
development
areas.
J
The
second
one
is
approval
of
development,
approval,
developed
approval
of
developed
areas
and
third
future
growth
areas.
So
this
particular
polis,
this
particular
application,
falls
within
the
highest
priority
of
the
general
plans
policies
with
respect
to
providing
development
in
the
city.
It
is
a
of
a
tier
one
priority.
J
The
the
next
one
is
that
the
the
general
plan
has
a
clear
policy
of
providing
housing
in
the
city,
and
it
says
specifically
quote
unquote:
there
shall
be
infill
development
at
densities
that
support
the
construction
of
affordable
housing
and
designated
and
a
designated
mix
of
land
uses
that
provide
adequate
balance
of
services
and
retail
and
employment
opportunities
to
address
the
growth
throughout
the
urban
area,
including
the
rail
yard.
J
This
rezoning
will
direct
further
will
directly
further
the
policy,
given
that
the
rezoning
will
provide
residential
development
at
densities
closer
to
the
council's
long-standing
three
to
seven
dwelling
units
per
acre
found
in
the
general
plan
on
this
property
that
is
what's
recommended
by
this.
So
this
application
furthers
the
explicit
policy
in
the
general
plan
and
the
designation
for
this
property.
So
it's
in
line
with
that
policy
of
the
general
plan.
J
I've
summarized
for
you,
the
policy
of
it's
and
I'm
not
just
saying
it's
a
general
policy.
You
know
floating
out
there
in
the
world.
It
is
a
policy
of
the
general
plan
to
promote
the
infill
of
residential
in
the
same
historical
pattern
as
traditionally
occurred
to
make
more
efficient
use
of
existing
infrastructure,
so
that
policy
is
furthered
by
this
application.
It
uses
it
it
uses.
It
makes
the
existing
infrastructure
more
efficient
because
it
utilizes
it
among
a
greater
number
of
homes,
which
is
a
more
efficient
use.
J
D
D
J
The
answer
is
no,
it
is
not
because
the
infill
policy
of
the
code
is
explicit
with
respect
to
increasing
density,
and
the
general
plan
recognizes
a
three
to
seven
recommended
general
plan
density
for
this
property.
We
don't
even
reach
the
three,
but
you
can't.
You
cannot
request
a
zoning
less
than
the
than
what
we're
requesting
it
is
not
simply
a
a
plan
to
get
more
units.
It
is
a
plan
to
produce
housing
that
is
needed
in
this
town,
including
affordable
housing.
J
If,
if,
let's,
let's
assume
that
that
the
rezoning
doesn't
occur,
commissioner,
what
what
will
there
be?
There
will
be
this
property
with
nine
homes
and
there
will
be
three
four
fewer,
affordable
houses
of
houses
and
each
one
of
these
nine
homes,
as
has
been
pointed
out,
could
have
on
these.
What
would
be
larger
lots
now?
They
would
each
have
an
accessory
dwelling.
J
J
It
cannot
be
sold
separately
or
occupied
separately,
except
in
accordance
with
the
city's
accessory
dwelling
units,
so
the
re-zoning
furthers
very
explicit
policies,
not
just
oh
you're,
going
to
make
more
money.
The
look
of
this
development
will
not
be
terribly
different.
What
if
the
difference
will
be
that
there
will
be
five
affordable
homes
in
this
development,
whereas
otherwise
there
will
not
be.
J
L
D
J
J
M
I
I
think,
if
it
makes
sense
to
the
vice
chair
we
might
have
mr
esquebel
speak
on
the
exchange
in
terms
of
what
the
plan
offers
or
doesn't
offer
for
this
property.
Please.
C
Oh
madam
chair,
members
of
the
commission,
mr
mirando
carl,
did
touch
upon
a
few
of
the
areas
within
the
general
plan
that
we
also
agree
on
the
majority
of
or
the
main
focus
for.
B
C
C
L
L
B
G
N
K
O
Yeah,
so
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
one
of
the
issues
we
have
in
santa
fe
is
that
we
seem
to
be
okay
with
infill
in
certain
districts
and
not
okay
with
it,
in
others,
and
in
order
to
meet
the
needs
of
our
affordable
housing
as
well
as
our
market
housing
demands.
O
The
entire
city
is
going
to
have
to
do
some
of
the
lifting
on
infill,
and
I
think
this
I
actually
applaud
this
project
in
the
sense
that
they
could
have
chosen
to
do
in
lieu
of,
and
they
could
have
chosen
to
do
bigger
lots
that
they
could
have
sold
for
the
high
end
of
the
market
value,
and
those
lots
would
have.
I
agree
with
mr
sumner.
They
would
have
definitely
had
auxiliary
units,
and
you
would
have
had
lots
that
in
fact,
kind
of
would
fly
in
the
face
of
our
needs.
O
There
would
just
be
more
higher
value
homes
instead
of
more
market
value
and
affordable
homes,
and
so
I
I
do
feel
very
strongly.
My
district
gets
a
lot
of
infill
and
I
feel
like
it's
it's
it's
time
for
other
districts,
to
recognize
that
if
we
all
truly
care
about
affordable
housing,
then
the
whole
city
has
to
do
some
of
the
lifting.
C
A
C
I
I'd
also,
I
was
just
informed
that
there's
no
fee
in
lieu
for
individual
houses,
it's
a
project
base
to
feel
in
lieu
of
and
that
nine
dwelling
units
they
have
the
ability
to
provide
the
fee
in
lieu
of,
but
as
an
individual
owner,
a
tenant
landowner.
That
is
not
an
option
for
them.
The
other
thing
I'd
like
to
also
add
and
correct
is
that.
C
C
Houses
out
there
that
build
a
house
and
split
it,
and
then
you
have
what
looks
like
a
duplex,
but
in
reality
we
permit
one
side
as
a
guest
house.
The
other
side
has
a
dwelling
that
does
happen,
though
they're
permitted
as
an
accessory
dwelling
accessory
dwelling
units
are
not
calculated
for
density
in
chapter
14,
so
they
don't
get
included
in
the
density
calculations.
Just
because
you
have
a
house
and
guest
house.
The
only
calculation
that's
made
is
for
the
dwelling
unit
itself,
any
accessory
structure,
whether
that's
a
shed
a
guest
house
or
garage.
E
With
clarification
on
accessory
dwelling
units
which
are
allowed
in
all
our
zones
where,
where
they
meet
the
criteria
for
setbacks
and
what
coverage
went
on,
are
we.
B
C
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
commissioner
pava,
I
am
not
aware
of
a
condition
like
that
and
staff
would
not
be
able
to
provide
that
since
it's
an
allowance
within
chapter
14..
If
that
were
to
occur,
it
would
have
to
be
offered
up
by
the
applicant
and
discussed
with
the
applicant
to
the
planning
commission
so
that
we
would
be
able
to
put
a
note
on
the
plat
if
it
were
accepted,
and
that
would
then
we
would
be
monitoring
that
platform
building
further.
C
That
comes
in
for
construction,
but
outside
of
that,
I'm
not
aware
of
that.
A
E
I
I
think
maybe
the
applicant's
representative
may
want
to
provide
perspective
on
this
or
some
information
they're,
not
aware
of.
J
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
yes,
the
these
lots,
as,
as
you
all
have
seen
in
the
stat
report
and
in
the
code,
these
lots
have
a
50.
The
lot
itself
has
a
50
open
space
requirement,
so
you
have
a
limitation
on
a
lot
coverage
of
40
percent
and
a
limitation
of
50.
J
J
To
you,
houses
that
are
built
on
these
lots
are
not
going
to
be
your
house
and
guest
house
set
up.
There
is
simply
not
enough
room
on
these
lots
for
that,
and
I
suspect
that
the
policy
the
code
was
to
keep
open
space.
So
we
have
the
75
foot,
setback,
building
setback
and
then
each
slot
has
its
own
requirement
of
50
open
space
so
and
a
total
limitation
of
a
lot
coverage
of
40.
C
C
In
essence,
as
the
same,
it's
not
a
matter
of
you
get
a
75,
75
foot
setback
and
then
you
have
to
add
50
from
that
point
forward
for
some
of
the
other
lots
that
don't
have
that
75
foot
setback.
Yes,
they
have
a
50
limited
limitation
for
construction
for
those
lots
up
against
the
corridor.
C
There
is
75
feet
which
is
going
to
be
a
percentage
of
that
lot,
and
then
you
have
50
of
that
lot,
which
is
also
going
to
be
part
of
that
75
feet.
So
those
locks
are
large
enough
that
some
accessory
structures
may
be
allowed
and
again
a
single
family
dwelling,
a
large
enough
structure,
good
house
and
it's
very
common
where
you
have
a
house
and
a
mother-in-law's
quarter
attached
to
the
house,
which
plus.
E
B
C
E
E
How
many
on-street
parking
spaces
are
there
with
the
proposed
innovative
street
design,
because
in
context
again,
sir,
I'm
looking
at
pecos
trail
and
zia,
there's
absolutely
no
place
nobody's
going
to
park,
nobody's
going
to
go
park
across
the
street
and
try
to
cross
opecos
trail?
What
not?
So
I
think
it's
a
very
important
point.
C
D
P
It's
oh
orlando
ortiz.
My
office
is
at
1421
louisa
street
here
in
town
and
it
the
answer
is
13..
There's
13
on
the
street
parking
in
the
design
currently.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
a
bit
worried
about
this
development,
looking
grossly
overbuilt
in
comparison
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
L
E
L
G
G
See
in
the
plans,
walls
like
retaining
walls
around
property
lines
things
things
of
that
nature.
I
know
that's
not
commonplace
in
that
neighborhood,
and
so
my
worry
is
that
if
the
development
comes
up-
and
it's
built
here-
and
it
has
these
sorts
of
features
that
aren't
commonplace
in
that
neighborhood-
it
could
look
grossly
overbuilt.
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
could
clarify
and.
C
What
the
what
the
plan
is?
I
get
it,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
commissioner
cheryl,
that
is
actually
an
option
that
the
applicant
has
not
provided
to
the
city.
It
is
an
allowance
within
chapter
14,
since
these
are
custom.
These
are
individual
lots
for
custom
homes,
in
which
case
that
developer
or
that
lot
owner
could
put
up.
A
law
could
put
up
a
fence
if
they
so
choose.
We
are
obligated
to
follow
the
code
and
each
legal
lot
of
record
would
be
allowed
all
of
the
infrastructure
requirements
pertinent
to
that
section
that
they're
building.
G
C
Part
of
this
subdivision,
since
it's
a
preliminary
subdivision
for
a
division
only
it
does
not
trigger
development
plans
so
that
we
do
not
have
that
kind
of
authority
or
regulatory
means
to
actually
look
at
the
architecture
of
each
of
the
subdivision
as
it
comes
in
so
at
25
lots.
It
is
a
very
small
subdivision
and
it
doesn't
trigger
a
development.
Neither
does
the
zoning,
so
they
don't
have
to
provide
one.
A
P
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
mention
a
couple
of
things
from
discussions
with
the
neighborhood.
Some
of
the
additional
parameters
that
we've
included
in
our
designs
have
been
additional
setbacks
along
the
boundary
on
our
west
side,
where
we
have
some
houses
that
were
our
backyards
will
face
their
backyards.
So
we've
the
code
requires
15
feet.
We
pushed
it
to
25..
P
The
other
thing
we
agreed
to
is
only
single
fam
or
single
story
buildings,
and
so,
as
I
understand
that,
with
a
pitched
roof,
it
could
be
up
to
18
with
a
flat
roof.
It'll
be
14..
P
P
We
had
a
plan
originally
where
we
were
going
to
bridge
it
and
with
a
culvert
which
would
be
problematic
to
some
animals,
because
the
culvert
sizes
or
numbers
actually
weren't,
showing
a
need
for
really
big
culvert.
So
we
changed
our
design
and
we're
like
leaving
that
as
permanent
open
space,
so
that's
open
for
them
for
the
animals
and
I
think
those
are
the
big
ones.
I
mean
we're.
D
J
I
what
I,
what
what
we
were
proposing,
we
would
accept
as
a
condition
of
approval
on
your
development
plan.
Not
it
wouldn't
be
just
you
know,
we
could
simply
you
know,
do
whatever
we
wanted.
The
condition
of
approval
on
the
development
plan,
as
just
described
by
ms
godetto
ortiz,
would
be
acceptable
to
us
and
that
it
would
have
the
course
of
an
enforceable
regulation
on
this
development.
J
D
J
We
we
haven't
projected
what
people
are
going
to
be
buying
or
selling
houses,
we're
just
doing
the
development
of
the
the
lots
and
we
haven't
projected
home
prices.
I
can,
and
ms
ladd
can
talk
specifically
about
what
the
home
prices
would
be
for
affordable
housing.
You
would
have
asked
about
that
specifically.
She
could
pin
that
down
specifically,
but
we
don't
have
projected
home
prices,
because
that's
not
what
we're
doing
right
now.
J
You
know,
I
honestly
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
I'm
like
you,
I
read
the
paper.
In
fact,
I
live
in
the
neighborhood
across
the
street,
so
the
value
of
homes
is
along
sebastian
and
over
on
euro
side
is
looking
like
it's
anywhere
from
650,
depending
upon
the
size
of
the
house
up
to
900
000,
depending
upon
that
side
of
the
house.
So
I
think
that
what
you
just
represented
it
just
from
my
layperson's
point
of
view,
is
that
that
is
going
to
be
probably
the
range
of
homes.
D
See
that's
what
is
the
concern
for
me,
because
700
to
a
million
is
not
a
market
rate
home
for
the
average
santa
fe
person,
I'm
not
talking
about
looking
for
affordable
housing,
I'm
talking
about
all
the
state
workers,
I'm
talking
about
all
those
folks
that
make
50
to
60
to
maybe
even
70
a
year.
This
is
not
market
housing.
D
This.
This
can't.
You
can't
stand
here
and
represent
that
those
homes
are
addressing
a
need
of
the
existing
population
of
santa
fe.
That
is
such
a
need
of
finding
housing
where
they
can
raise
their
families
where
they
can
actually
put
down
a
down
payment
and
own
a
home.
These
these
houses
are
not
for
them.
J
And
I
certainly
can
appreciate
your
point
of
view
about
that.
The
entire
solely
solilomus
neighborhood
suffers
from
what
you
just
said:
the
the
value
of
homes.
There
has
gone
through
the
ceiling
and
it
is
not
an
affordable
place
for
workforce
housing,
as
you
describe
it.
That
neighborhood
is
not
keeping
the
density
at
r1,
isn't
going
to
help
that
situation.
A
Q
D
B
Q
Q
2015-92
gives
explicit
direction
to
land
use
department
staff
to
immediately
convene
reconvene
a
public
process
to
develop
standards
for
the
old
pickles
trail
cena
corridor,
and
that
was
building
on
an
earlier
one
from
1995
and
about
which
nothing
had
been
done,
and
so
the
assertion
was-
and
you
present
those
standards
for
the
to
the
governing
body
for
adoption
into
the
city's
land
use
code.
S
Q
Carried
out
and
the
job
that
the
then
land
use
staff
was
asked
to
do
and
complete
was
not
performed.
Is
that
a
is
that
an
accurate
statement
of
the
history
of
city
council
resolution
215-92.
C
My
understanding
in
talking
with
maggie
who's
done
a
lot
more
research
than
I
have
on
this
is
that
it
has
been
attempted
in
the
past
through
different
administrations,
and
it
was
not
completed
for
whatever
reason.
C
I
believe
it
had
task
force
on
both
sides
when
they
were
discussed
and
it
was
trying
to
move
forward,
but
for
whatever
reason
it
never
got
adopted
as
an
ordinance,
and
it's
not
an
ordinance
today.
So
it's
still
in
that
resolution
form
and
that's
you
know
we
are
talking
about
it,
but
you'd
have
to
talk
with
maggie
moore
on
what
those
plans
are.
C
Q
Quality
of
this
proposal
that
I
have
to
say
that's
a
great
concern
to
me.
Two
governing
bodies
adapt
to
something
it's
been
outstanding
for
more
than
25
or
17
or
18
years,
whatever
no
22
or
23
years.
That's
that's
a
great
concern
to
me.
I
was
not
clear
about
the
the
open
space
density,
the
open
space
questions,
it's
50
and
then
someone
said
40
and
10
and
10
for
garages
and
driveways
is
that
keeping
with
so
there's
40
percent
open
space.
Q
The
way
I
would
think
about
it,
grass
trees,
whatever
and
10
percent
of
that
open
space,
so-called
is
garage
and
or
driveway,
is
that
within
appropriate
city
codes
or
whatever
the
right
languages.
C
Adam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
commissioner
smith,
I'm
not
sure
how
that
was
broken
down.
I
can
tell
you
how
it's
applied
chapter
14.
I
think
it's
14
7
within
the
design
standards
for
all
the
residential
density
or
the
residential
districts
allowed
to
build
between
the
r7
and
r.
I
mean
the
r1
and
r
nine
euro,
or
I
think
it's
nine
r9
you're
allowed
to
have
50
lot
coverage
when
you
trigger
40
percent,
lock
coverage.
C
Are
12
feet
in
every
direction,
so
it's
it's
a
larger
area.
Well,
let
me
add
to
that
the
size
of
the
open
space
is
based
on
this,
the
square
footage
of
the
dwelling
unit,
and
that
is
50
of
that
dwelling
unit.
So
if
you,
if
you
have.
G
Q
One
of
the
assertions
was
that
driveways
were
being
included
as
open
space
in
the
calculations.
Are
you
aware
of
that,
or
is
that
an
inaccurate
statement.
B
Q
C
C
C
L
Q
I'm
not
sure
I
can.
The
first
point
I
made
about
the
corridor
study.
Q
C
I
don't
know
if
the
corridor
standards
would
have
would
have
addressed
those
issues,
particularly
since
I
wasn't
part
of
those
conversations
or
the
makeup
of
the
discussion,
I'm
aware
of
the
second
attempt
to
establish
an
ordinance
only
because
the
staff
involved
was
in
the
office
at
the
time.
I
was
the
initial
meetings
that
occurred
occurred.
C
I
wasn't
about.
I
wasn't
around,
I
guess,
and
my
understanding
is
it
kind
of
died
when
there
was
a
request
to
incorporate
a
no-build
zone
that
was
600
feet
from
the
right-of-way
that
would
have
been
a
taking.
We
cannot
do
that,
so
it
came
to
a
stop
in
terms
of
design
standards.
For
that
open
space
it
could
have
its
own
design
standards
as
part
of
what
would
be
that
corridor
requirement.
C
H
C
C
For
instance,
we
would
like
a
condition
that,
if
fences
are
to
be
built
up
against
that
corridor,
that
type
that
that
south
central
I
record
or
75
for
setback
to
be
split
rail.
We
believe
that
that
provides
a
sense
of
openness
trying
to
keep
with
the
intent
of
what
the
general
plan
is
trying
to
achieve.
C
D
Okay,
thank
you
well,
but
this
is
so
speculation,
mr
esquire.
If,
in
fact
the
first
issue
had
been
looked
at
then
we'd
have
the
answers
as
to
how
to
proceed.
It
would
not
be
arbitrary
and
capricious
because
there
would
have
been
a
rule
set
forth
by
which
we
can
then
apply
to
whatever
development
request
is
being
made
correct.
C
F
Reason
and
although
all
the
while,
we
have
the
south
central
corridor
overlay,
another
effort
that
I
found
and
maybe
there
were
more
but
was
made
following
the
resolution
2015-92,
but
that
we've-
you
know
kind
of
alluded
to
from
the
governing
body
to
you-
know
directing
staff
to
complete
this
process,
or
you
know
restart
it,
and
I
did
speak
with
my
predecessor,
noah
burke,
who
was
in
charge
of
that
effort.
While
he
was
at
the
land
use
department-
and
he
said
that
you
know
again,
they
they
drafted
ordinances.
F
They
had
multiple
meetings,
they
had
a
designated
working
group
of
some
people
that
are
here
tonight.
You
know
that
were
a
part
of
this
from
20
years
ago
and
again
nothing
came
of
it.
I
think
dan
esquibel
alluded
to
the
request
for
a
600
foot
setback
or
then
a
300
foot
setback
and
again
those
noaa
confirmed
that
all
of
the
recommendations
or
suggestions
from
the
public
were
vetted
through.
F
The
land
use
department
were
vetted
through
the
legal
department
at
that
time
in
2016
2017,
and
he
in
a
an
update
to
the
governing
body
on
the
south,
central
port
or
overlay,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
work
going
on
around
overlays
and
at
that
time
and
studies
that
were
taking
place
on
multiple
different
overlays
in
a
report
back
to
the
governing
body,
he's
recalled
that
you
know
he
said:
we've
come
to
an
impasse
with
the
working
group.
F
F
A
Thank
you,
miss
moore
commissioner
hanno
as
well.
Did
you
have
any
follow
up
for
that,
commissioner
smith,
would
you
like
to
continue.
Q
C
Q
C
Was
the
engineer
as
well
that
said
that
they
were
going
to
follow
the
santa
fe
style
theme.
Q
Oh
okay,
and
can
we
can
I
be
clear
on
accessory
structures?
I
heard
I
think,
at
the
end
of
the
day
that
some
of
the
lots
might
be
big
enough
to
have
an
accessory
structure,
and
some
might
not
that
that
would
we
have.
C
C
By
the
50,
so
that
defines
what
is
going
to
be
established,
it
would
still.
C
You
know
the
interesting
part
of
that
is
all
of
the
residential
developments
that
I
have
discussed,
with
the
exception
of
the
multi-family
residential
developments
that
allow
you
up
to
55
all
of
the
residential
developments,
one
through
nine
max
out
at
50.
So
that
means
that
every
lot
in
the
city
of
santa
fe
r1,
whatever
they're
going
to
max
out
at
50
percent,
that
is
within
those
zoning
categories.
C
When
you
trigger
40
you're
gonna
automatically,
have
to
include
additional
open
space,
because
if
you're
already
limited
to
50
of
the
lot,
then
every
lock
is
limited
to
50
of
the
lot.
The
difference
being
is
a
lot
of
the
lot
can
be
used
in
different
means
and
that
open
space
can
be
utilized
in
different
ways
where,
in
this
particular
overlay,
it
doesn't
say
you
can
have
this
here,
that
there
and
your
open
space
can
be
somewhat
mismatched
as
long
as
long
as
you
meet
these
standards
here,
it's
a
flat,
50
percent.
Q
Thank
you
going
to
commissioner
faulkner's
point
about
spreading
the
infill,
which
I
completely
agree
with,
but
building
on
what
commissioner,
you
know
paul
said
my
understanding,
so
we've
generally
agreed
that
the
housing
here
would
probably
be
between
seven
and
a
hundred
and
a
million
and
something
in
there
or
more,
not
less.
Q
There
was
a
statement
made
at
the
last
meeting.
An
assertion
that
defining
affordable
would
be
derived
from
the
neighborhood
in
which
the
development
was
occurring
within
half
an
hour
within
half
a
mile
or
something
is
that
a?
Is
that
an
accurate
assertion,
or
is
it?
How
is
affordable,
determined
relative
to
the
rest
of
the
development?
I.
N
Madam
chair,
commissioner
smith,
the
affordable
housing
prices
are
set
according
to
three
different
income
ranges.
Those
income
ranges
are
65
to
80
percent,
sorry
50
to
five
percent,
sixty
five
to
eighty
percent
and
eighty
percent
to
a
hundred
percent.
The
and
and
those
are
forty,
fifty
sixty
thousand
dollar
incomes.
N
But
the
assumption
is
that
an
affordable
mortgage
is
no
more
than
one-third
of
a
home
buyer's,
monthly
income.
So
that's
how
that's?
What
determines
the
home
sales
price?
And
then
there
are
the
they
are
priced.
According
to
those
three
income
ranges
so
that
there
are
opportunities
for
a
range
of
incomes,
so.
Q
Q
N
Madam
chair,
commissioner
smith,
these
homes
would
be
priced
between
about
200
and
high
300s
to
be
affordable
to
those
income
ranges.
Q
Thank
you.
That's
there's
another.
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
There
was
another
assertion
about
a
federal
flood
hazard
management
area
made
in
the
public
testimony
last
week,
two
weeks
ago,
last
night,
can
you
address
to
the
extent
that
is?
There
is
not
an
issue
with
this
development.
M
C
Would
be
depicted
as
that
flood
zone
has
been
removed
from
the
developable
area
of
the
subdivision.
However,
to
be
more
specific
and
to
give
you,
you
know
more
appropriate
answers,
we
do
have
our
our
subdivision
engineer
at
the
ready
for
to
answer
any
question
you
may
have.
If
my
answer
is
not
sufficient.
Q
That
leaves
me
with
one
other
question
and
it
hasn't
been
brought
up
unless
it
was
when
I
was
out
of
the
room
having
to
deal
with
the
ingress
and
egress,
and
I
am
one
of
the
several
assertions
that
were
made
at
the
last
meeting
were
that
on
zera
road,
certain
kinds
of
vehicles
would
not
be
able
to
turn
around
and
come
back
out.
Q
They
have
to
back
out
onto
the
road,
and
there
were
great
concerns
about
the
u-turn
on
old
pecos
right
in
right
out
u-turn
in
front
of
the
pecos
trail
or
pecos
cafe
or
whatever
it
is.
Can
you
address
those
those
two
things?
Is
it
the
case
that
certain
size
of
truck
or
city
vehicle
would
not
be
able
to
turn
around
in
the
smaller
of
the
two
developments.
C
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
commissioner
smith,
that
was
me
that
looked
at
assertion
and
the
applicant,
it
has
been
working
with
other
departments
as
well
as
me
to
address
those
issues
so
that
any
vehicle
going
into
that
one
little
cul-de-sac
will
be
able
to
leave
the
premises
forward
as
opposed
to
having
to
back
out
onto
west
cea
road.
P
Thank
you,
commissioners.
I
modified
the
existing
turnaround
to
make
it
work
for
a
fire
truck,
a
trash
truck,
the
vactor
truck
and
everything,
and
I
did
run
it
by
the
wastewater
department
and
the
refuge
department
and
the
fire
department,
and
they
all
approved
it,
it'll
be
showing
up
in
the
next
time.
We
come
before
you
for
final
plat,
but
it's
it
didn't
affect
the
lots.
It
just
went
into
a
well.
A
Q
If
someone
could
help-
maybe
mr
escobel
so
there's
parking
in
both
of
these
areas-
there's
13
parking
spaces
on
the
street.
How
does
that
I'm
trying
to
think
about
traffic
density?
How
does
that
compare
to
other.
Q
C
While
it
is
true
that
families
will
grow
and
vehicles
will
be
added
to
that
household,
it
is
also
typical
that
some
of
these
lots
tend
to
be
large
enough
in
the
in
the
one
acre
area
or
the
third
of
an
acre
area
be
able
to
address
some
of
these
additional
parking
needs.
So
the
additional
parking
required,
or
the
additional
parking
submitted
by
the
applicant
increases
that
volume
that
allows
for
more
parking
within
that
subdivision,
where
they
don't
have
to
actually
edit
in
order
to
meet
the
standards
under
chapter
14..
C
C
A
multitude
of
developments
that
follow
this
standard,
including
apartment
complexes,
which
tend
to
be
a
little
bit,
lighter
on
the
parking
at
1.25
and
1.5,
depending
on
whether
or
not
the
size
of
the
apartment
triggers
that,
so
that
this
is
the
maximum
that
is
allowed
for
a
single
family
blowing.
Thank.
Q
Q
C
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
commissioner
smith,
the
application
before
this
body
has
two
components:
a
recommendation
by
this
body
to
the
governing
body.
That's
your
first
motion.
It's
either
for
a
rezoning
or
against
a
rezoning.
C
The
second
recommendation-
or
the
second
is
not
a
recommendation.
The
second
is
an
approval
granted
by
this
body,
which
is
their
request
for
preliminary
subdivision
plat.
Now
the
preliminary
subdivision
flat
cannot
have
a
final
subdivision
platform,
the
same
meeting,
because
that's
code
restricted.
They
must
come
back
for
a
final.
C
Plot
in
order
for
them
to
be
able
to
be
finally
approved
and
record
their
subdivision
file,
any
kind
of
letter
of
credit,
that's
required
and
be
able
to
sell
lots
and
start
construction
of
the
infrastructure
and
housing
development.
So
you
will
see
this
subdivision
twice
and
the
rezoning
ones
the
rezoning
is
a
recommendation.
C
The
subdivision
is
preliminary
approval
or
denial.
Obviously,
if
you
deny
they
have
the
ability
to
appeal
and
then,
if
you
approve,
then
they
come
back
for
final
and
they
must
meet
all
of
the
preliminary
requirements.
So
typically,
if
the
commission
has
conditions
of
approval
and
the
staff
has
conditions
of
approval,
the
final
plot
will
try
and
meet
all
of
those
standards
on
the
flat
conditions,
notes
whatever
is
required
by
the
staff,
and
you
will
be
able
to
see
that
final
product
based
on
the
preliminary
work
that
they
did.
C
C
If
the
planning
commission
approves
that
development
plan
and
approves
that
subdivision,
they
approve
it
with
a
condition
subject
to
the
governing
body
approving
the
rezoning.
If
the
planning
commission
were
to
recommend
against
the
resulting,
you
still
have
the
subdivision
that
you
have
to
act
on,
because
it's
still
a
separate
application.
C
N
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
it
there's
a
pricing
schedule,
so
there
will
be
one
or
two
houses
built
in
the
most
affordable
range:
two
houses
in
the
middle
range
and
one
house
in
the
the
higher
range.
L
N
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
you
know
absolutely
it
is
written
into
the
agreement
that
the
home
has
to
be
price
restricted
at
that
range.
Okay,
two
two
of
the
homes
will
be
in
that
range.
It
depends
the
pricing.
N
Price
depends
on
the
the
size
of
the
home,
so
a
one
bedroom
naturally
is
less
expensive
than
a
three
bedroom.
So
we
don't
we
don't
at
this
stage.
We
don't
know
what
the
what
the
the
house
size
will
be,
but
it
will
be
within
the
range
of
most
affordable.
There
will
be
two
homes
in
that
range.
Well,.
N
Madam
church,
commissioner
yano's
fault:
normally
we
would
project
for
a
home
ownership
project.
It
would
be
a
three-bedroom
home
because
that's
a
fairly
standard
home,
but
occasionally
our
builders
will
say
for
these
affordable
homes.
I
have
pipe.
I
have
buyers
in
the
pipeline
who
want
two
bedroom
homes,
not
the
three
bedrooms.
So
we
let
we
do
let
that
the
needs
of
the
actual
buyers
influence
the
size
of
the
final
home.
D
N
Dollar,
adam
chair,
commissioner,
you
know
the
pricing
schedule
is
updated
every
year,
so
the
the
sale
of
the
home
is
is
based
on
what
the
pricing
schedule
is
at
the
time
that
the
home
is
under
purchase
contract,
but
it
is
still
based
on
the
that
year's
that
year's
area
median
income.
A
O
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
have
a
question
for
staff.
That's
a
procedural
question.
If
the
planning
commission
recommends
denial
of
either
of
the
cases
related
to
this
project,
ultimately,
city
council
has
the
final
decision
and
they
could
approve
this
project
and
our
denial
is
nothing
more
than
a
recommendation.
C
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
commissioner
faulkner
the
recommendation
is
going
to
move
forward
to
the
governing
body.
If
the
applicant
chooses
to
move
forward,
if
it
has
a
negative
recommendation,
it
would
obviously
move
forward
to
the
governing
body
with
a
positive
recommendation.
O
You
and
then
I
would
just
like
to
also
echo
dilemma's
points,
really
just
rethinking
how
we
look
at
infill
it,
although
I
understand
the
need
for
infill-
and
I
am
definitely
a
supporter
of
infill
being
spread
out
throughout
the
city.
I
do
agree
that
infill
shouldn't
be
the
only
thing
considered
as
as
having
value
to
the
community.
O
A
lot
of
these
projects
that
are
info
projects
are
foregoing
things
that
are
related
to
community
development,
like
parks
and
some
other
items
that
are
critical
to
not
just
building
homes
but
building
communities,
and
so
I
do
have
to
echo
zalema's
point
that
we
we
do
have
to
start
rethinking
this,
but
I
do
think
we
are.
The
intention
is
to
address
that
in
the
revision
of
the
general
plan
in
chapter
14..
D
H
B
D
D
The
people
of
santa
fe
are
well
educated
and
well
informed,
and
they
would
have
been
here,
but
they
weren't.
So
if
I
vote
against
it
and
the
city
council
wants
to
vote
for
it,
that's
fine!
That's
why
they're
elected
officials
and
the
fact
that
nothing's
been
done
about
this
with
all
the
task
forces
about
the
corridors,
the
pecos
scenic
corridor.
It
doesn't
surprise
me,
we
shouldn't
read
anything
into
that.
D
E
Kind
of
a
statement
question
mr
esquibel.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Isn't
there
a
goldilocks
zone
in
the
chapter
14
and
what
I
mean
by
that?
It's
not
too
hot.
It's
not
too
cold,
not
too
high.
It's
not
too
ugly.
It
might
be
even
nice.
A
nice
habitable
like
a
planet
like
earth,
is
in
the
goldilocks
zone.
Isn't
there
a
plan
unit
development
zone
that
has
designed
the
intent
in
our
code
to
take
into
consideration?
E
B
E
Against
what
the
code
requirements,
so
you
end
up
with
a
development
that
might
have
more
than
13
on-street
parking
spaces.
You
end
up
with
a
development
that
is
required
to
have
certain
design
standards
and
so
on,
and
isn't
there
a
development
right
next
door
to
this
develop
this
proposal
that
actually
took
advantage
of
that
the
late
mr
chapman
developed
it.
I
believe
and-
and
I
I'm
really
not
asking
a
question
as
you
can
see,
but.
C
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
commissioner
pava,
the
application
that
is
presented
by
the
applicant
is
up
to
the
applicant
and
if
the
applicant
didn't
request
land
unit
development
of
pud,
then
we're
just
left
with
the
rezoning
and
the
subdivision.
C
The
staff
is
going
to
look
at
both
applications,
pertinent
to
the
findings
that
we're
required
to
the
body
that
is
reviewing
it
and
making
recommendations
or
approval
must
take
into
consideration
those
findings
from
staff.
The
request
from
the
applicant
and
the
comments
presented
by
the
general
public,
that
is
part
of
the
quasi-judicial
process
and
this
hearing.
C
It
is
your
determination
that
decides
whether
or
not
they've
met
those
findings.
The
general
plan,
the
rezoning
those
requirements
they're
a
little
bit
more
mushy
than
the
subdivision
standards,
which
are
it's
like
a
math
problem.
You
just
got
to
meet
those
standards
and
you
know
you're,
like
a
building.
Permit.
You
meet
those
standards.
You
get
a
building,
permit
the
rezoning
it's
a
little
bit
harder
to
to
meander.
G
C
B
C
I
don't
know
how
much
of
a
massage
could
have
done
here.
We
did
talk
with
the
applicant.
I
believe
it
was
heather
lamboy
that
asked
if
they
would
be
willing
to
to
carve
off
that
75-foot
setback
and
just
make
it
open
space
instead
of
making
it
part
of
that
lot.
Now
that
has
some
consequences,
because
it
re
reduces
the
size
of
those
lots
up
against
that
corridor.
C
That
is
an
option
that
she
she
requested.
However,
that
is
not
an
option
that
we
can
force
on
the
applicant.
C
We
couldn't
transfer
that
over,
because
the
pud
would
have
allowed
us
to
transfer
that
over
to
make
it
a
more
usable
and
friendlier
developable
lot.
It
would
still
be
subject
to
those
restrictive
requirements,
even
if
they
carved
that
area
out,
but
I.
B
C
Your
question:
I've
not
seen
any
kind
of
goldilocks
application.
That's
come
in.
I've
seen
a
lot
of
good
applications
that
have
done
really
good
designs,
but
they
are
also
starting
with
a
much
larger
lot
and
this
body's
been
a
part
of
that
and
you've
seen
many
of
those
applications
that
have
come
through.
E
Thank
you,
mr
esquivel.
I
want
to
thank
you
personally
and
city
staff
for
all
the
diligence
and
the
research
into
the
corridor,
development
standards
and
the
saga
of
that.
I
want
to
thank
the
members
of
the
public
that
have
invested
a
great
deal
of
their
time,
expressing
their
opinions
here
and
elsewhere,
and
I'd
like
to
ask
for
a
point
of
order
to
thank
you,
madam
chair,
to
miss
vigali.
If,
if
one
makes
a
motion
this
evening,
I
motion
to
approve
blah
blah
blah
need
one
vote
in
that
manner,
or
simply
is
that
procedural.
I
Q
Sorry,
I
have
one
other
follow-up
question.
We
were
talking
about
ingress
in
egress
and
we
got
we
did
the
zeo
road,
but
I'm
interested
in
just
knowing
what
the
final
situation
is
going
to
be
with
the
u-turn
and
are
there
going
to
be
extra
lanes
and
what
is
where?
Is
it
going
to
be?
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
the
last
question,
but
it
was
cited
as
a
significant
problem.
K
Q
My
question
had
to
do
with
egress
from
on
to
old
pecos,
when
you
turn
right
and
then
how
who
does
the
final
formulation
of
the
u-turn
in
front
of
opecos
cathay,
I
think,
is.
But
what
is
the
formulation
there.
S
S
I'm
not
sure
if
you're
asking
me
to
pull
those
up
and
go
through
them,
because
they're,
quite
technical,
but
all
of
those
details
have
been
looked
at.
The
scope
was
looked
at
site
distance,
turning
radius
delay
time,
whether
a
access
a
separated
deceleration
lane
would
be
required.
I
believe
there
was
in
this
case
based
on
cueing
to
turning
in
and
out.
I
think
it
right
turn
in
is
the
only
thing
permitted.
There's
no
left
turns
out
of
the
intersectional
pecos
trail.
S
All
of
those
criteria
have
been
given
to
the
developer
to
prove
and
the
their
traffic
engineer
gave
a
very
detailed
analysis
last
week,
a
good
10
minutes
and
it
was
reviewed
by
the
city's
traffic
engineering
team
and
it
it's
all
been
met
and
approved.
So
there's
nothing
outstanding.
That
would
be
a
red
flag
for
this
committee
with
respect
to
traffic.
Q
Operation,
my
my
my
memory
of
it
is
that
there
was
a
what
I
would
have
called
a
he
said
she
said
element
to
that
conversation
in
which
the
question
of
traffic
volume,
when
the
studies
were
done
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
There
were
two.
There
were
two
distinct
views
not
as
to
whether
the
numbers
that
were
counted
were
accurate
or
inaccurate.
They
were
accurate,
but
were
they
counted
at
the
right
time
and
at
the
right
time
of
year,
etc,
etc?.
S
S
S
You
know
we
look
for
things
like
that,
like
we
might
ask
them
to
delay
things
based
on
school
operations,
etc.
But
if
you're
asking
globally
about
the
endemic,
it
was
post-pandemic
that
the
traffic
was
counted
and
I
believe
the
question
of
traffic
projection
and
estimating
for
future
came
up
and
it
was
conservative.
The
growth
was
conservative
to
what
the
trend
is
in
the
area
based
on
the
10-year
traffic
data,
that's
collected
by
the
metropolitan
planning
organization.
S
A
A
I
I
am
sorry
you
cannot
public
hearing
is
now
closed.
I,
I
am
sorry
no.
We
are
not
taking
comments
from
anyone
who
is
not
city
staff
or
a
party
in
this
case.
A
B
M
M
D
H
M
G
G
A
A
A
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
everyone
who
was
here
for
this
case
this
evening.
I'm
moving
us
on
to
our
new
business
case,
2022-5203
1840,
paseo
de
la.
A
D
Anything
evening,
mr
chair,
madam
chair
and
commissioners,
my
name
is
lanny
mccully,
just
a
quick
introduction.
If
that's
okay,
I
have
been
employed
with
the
city
of
santa
fe.
For
14
years,
eight
of
those
with
the
land
use
office,
seven
were
in
historic
preservation
division.
I
am
now
transferred
over
to
planning
team.
B
D
D
D
Hear
me
now:
yes,
thank
you.
Okay,
they're,
looking
to
subdivide
into
four
lots
for
section
14-3.7,
which
is
the
subdivisions
of
land.
The
property
is
within
the
river
and
trails
archaeological
review
district.
D
D
D
After
our
conversations
with
the
applicant
regarding
the
complications
and
failures
of
hoas
in
smaller
subdivisions,
we
decided
we
would
like
to
change
the
condition
to
read.
The
two
proposed
drainage
pods
on
lots,
c
and
d
will
be
replaced
with
four
separate
drainage
ponds
on
each
of
the
four
lots
which
will
be
maintained
by
the
individual
lot
owners.
D
The
applicant
will
prepare
a
driveway
maintenance
agreement
stating
that
the
costs
to
maintain
the
shared
driveway
over
lots,
a
and
b,
will
be
shared
by
the
owners
of
lot
cnb.
The
agreement
will
also
state
that
each
lot
owner
is
responsible
for
the
maintenance
of
drainage,
pines,
retaining
walls
and
sidewalks
located
on
the
owner's
lot.
As
a
result,
an
hoa
is
not
required.
D
Just
a
little
additional
information
we
did
have
in
the
enn.
The
applicant
had
offered
to
provide
public
access
path
to
the
santa
fe
river
and
they
have
decided.
L
D
So
this
is
the
lot.
Can
you
see
that?
Okay,
you
can
see
the
house
in
the
background,
is
actually
on
the
other
side
of
the
river
and
then
there's
a
lot
on
either
side
that
both
has
fences
in
the
aerial.
You
can
see
the
desired
paths
that
people
have
been
using
over
the
years.
D
D
D
R
About
120
homes
in
santa
fe,
although
my
biggest
accomplishment
accomplishment
is
that
I'm
the
developer
for
kachina
ridge,
subdivision
neighborhood
of
82
homes,
I
personally
designed
and
then
built
every
home
in
kachina
ridge.
I
run
my
own
finished
cruise,
and
so
my
clients
at
kachina
are
getting
the
same
quality
of
work
that
I
put
into
my
higher
end
homes.
R
H
R
R
Over
the
years,
I've
won
many
awards
at
katrina,
ridge.
For
my
designs
in
20
and
2018,
I
won
best
master
suite
and
most
innovative
design
in
the
400
000
range
and
then
in
21
I
I
won
the
most
innovative
design
in
the
energy
efficiency
award
for
a
house
in
monte,
sereno
this
property
at
the
1840
paseo
de
la
conquistadora
is
zoned
r5.
B
R
Which
which,
which
means
that,
with
an
r5,
we
can
get
four
houses
on
it.
R
G
I
G
R
R
Like
what
happens
is
when
you,
the
the
final
lots,
when
you
do
this
range
from
1.182
acres
for
the
large
to
the
largest,
which
is
0.263
acres,
even
the
smallest
lot
at
0.182
acres
is
larger
than
most
of
the
lots
in
the
surrounding
neighborhood
within
a
block
of
paseo
de
la
conquistadora.
R
There
are
four
lots
just
on
conquistador
that
go
from
0.09
to
0.14
acres
and
kaya,
beatrice
a
street
that
that
runs
into
this
paseo
de
la
conquistadora
in
front
of
the
property.
There
are
five
lots
which
range
from
0.10
acres
to
0.14
acres.
R
R
I
do
know
that
20
of
the
homes
that
I
built
in
kachina
ridge
will
work
really
well
here
and
those
homes
varied
from
about
330
000
to
about
550
000.
So
there's
a
there's,
a
good
range
and
fortunately
it
gives
me
a
good
variety
to
offer
my
clients,
but
as
a
master
certified
green
builder,
I
will
guarantee
that
all
these
homes
will
be
energy
efficient
as
well
as
attractive
and
a
great
addition
to
the
neighborhood.
R
R
R
R
D
A
K
D
A
B
B
L
My
name
is
rick
martinez,
725
cro,
which
is
right
next
to
this
property.
I
have
president
of
the
la
hoya
neighborhood
association
and
I
do
support
this
project,
but
there
are
a
couple
of
things
I
want
to
clarify.
You
see
the
trail.
That's
there.
I
built
that
trail
helped
build
that
trail.
I
got
safeway
watershed.
I'm
hoping
the
previous
owner
gave
me
permission
to
do
that
trail.
L
There
it's
at
the
edge
of
his
property,
but
his
property
line
still
falls
a
little
further
down
on
the
trail
and
since
he's
because
I
saw
the
stakes
laid
out
when
they
did
it
so
so
we
we
have
to
have.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
do
get
that
part
of
his
a
little
bit
of
his
property.
That's
the
trails
on
part
of
this
project.
L
Still
have
to
give
us
access
to
this
little
bit
here
this
trail
to
keep
it
continuous
to
you
as
a
walk.
There's
a
the
trail.
That's
that
goes
through
la
jolla
that
comes
down
to
the
royal
street
and
the
syria
they're
redoing
that
and
they're
not
gonna,
put
any
more
access
into
it
or
into
the
the
parks.
The
river
and
trail
coordinator,
they're
they're,
just
graveling
the
la
jolla
road
they're,
not
putting
in
another
trail
any
same
with
the
alejandro.
L
L
Unless
they
create
a
trail,
for
us
is
just
all
the
way
up
on
the
ceiling
and
I'm
not
sure
if
you're
familiar
with
that
area,
but
this
trail
here
leads
to
another
basket.
That's
on
the
top
there
that
we
maintain.
We
keep
that
for
the
neighborhoods
for
all
people
to
walk,
but
I
just.
L
L
This
could
take
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
bill
to
bring
all
that
trucks
in,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
trucks
that
that
come
down
to
with
all
that
dirt
does
not
use
his
neighbors.
That
ask
me
on
alejandro
in
la
jolla.
We
do
not
have
large
trucks
coming
down
that
road,
and
I
just
want
to
guarantee
on
that
that
we
that
those
neighbors
are
protected
from
heavy
trucks.
L
L
I
say
I
do
support
the
project
and
it's
a
good
infill
project.
You
know,
because
we
have
worked
on
kybernese,
that
project
la
jolla
in
la
hoya
used
to
go
across
the
riverbed
down
on
to
the
other
side
of
the
river.
I
fought
that
and
got
that
road
closed.
So
I
put
a
lot
into
this
neighborhood,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
walkability
through
that
connectivity
through
that
here
would
still
there
not
shut
off.
So
that's
what
I
have
to
say.
Thank
you!
So
much.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Mr
montoya
brought
up
a
good
point
about
the
social
trails
that
crisscrossed
the
the
lots
is
there
in
fact,
do
we
know?
Is
there
actually
something
in
writing
that
it
dedicates
or
otherwise
reserves
public
access
through
the
site?
And
I
asked
that
frankly,
as
a
point
of
disclosure,
I
live
about
a
mile
away
and
I
know
very
well
what
you're
talking
about
mr
montoya
about
the
access
there.
I'm
sorry,
mr
martinez,
so.
B
L
E
R
Sorry,
we
had
a
meeting
on
site
with
the
staff
and
the
staff,
and
it
says
here
in
the
report.
Staff
conducted
the
site
visiting
and
concurred
that
not
only
is
the
easement
unnecessary
as
there
is
an
access
to
the
river
to
the
east
and
west
of
the
property,
but
the
access
at
the
north
edge
of
the
property
where
the
property
above
the.
R
River
is
steep
and
unsuitable
for
public
access
problem
is,
is
the
the
the
portion
there's
a
10
foot
hill
right
at
the
back
of
the
property?
It's
not
on
my
property
and
the
santa
fe
river
is.
Is
that
their
they're
redoing
and
fixing
the
river
all
the
way
along
there,
but
not
not
behind
my
property
and
three
doors
down
on
la
jolla,
there's
a
there's,
an
access
and
then
five
doors
down
on
on.
S
R
R
E
No,
I
that
provides
the
the
background
and
context
that
I
was
curious
about
and
what
you've
tried
to
do
and
being
familiar
with
the
neighborhood
and
walking
all
those
trails
where
I
probably
shouldn't
at
this
point
the
older
I
get
yeah
it's.
It
is
a
bit
precarious,
it's
fun
to
go
explore
that,
but
it
is
private
property,
so
yeah.
I
appreciate
your
your
your
explanation
of
that,
mr
sproul
and
and
also
mr
martinez.
Thank
you
for.
B
A
K
A
I
suppose
we
might
say
that
we
have
already
somewhat
reopened
the
public
hearing.
If
someone
is
trying
to
speak,
it
seems
like
it
would
be
fair
to
recognize
them,
and
so
I
think
we
should
recognize
miss
hayes
if
she
would
like
to
make
a
comment.
Okay,.
I
Hold
on
miss
hayes
if
you
could
be
sworn
in,
do
you.
D
H
H
I
just
want
to
say
I
support
my
husband
and
I,
both
at
712
cali
beatrice
just
a
few
steps
really
from
the
property
under
discussion.
We
totally
support
the
building
and
improvement
of
that
property,
as
has
been
described.
It
sounds
like
the
builder.
The
developer
has
been
very
cautious
and
covered
all
bases,
so
we
fully
support
it
and
we're
avid
hikers
on
the
river
trail
and
we
have
no
problem
finding
another
access
to
the
trail.
A
L
L
According
to
the
river
coordinator,
river
trails,
coordinators,
they're,
not
allowing
that
trail
that
goes
on
the
top.
You.
B
L
You
look
at
this
upper
part.
There
there's
a.
They
did
some
work
up
on
there.
They
had
a
slope
and
they
didn't
want
to
create
a
walkway
up.
The
top
people
started
using
that
walkway
and
we
created
that
walkway
because
it
was
kind
of
dubbed
not
to
have
a
walkway,
because
this
is
the
only
way
you
get
away
from
french
field
from
the
left-hand
side.
Instead
of
having
to
walk
on
the
highway.
L
A
D
A
Thank
you.
I
believe
that
brings
us
to
staff
communications.
K
New
zealand
boy-
thank
you
karen
lawrence
I'd
just
like
to
let
the
planning
commission
know
that
we
are
going
to
be
having
some
cases
that
are
going
to
the
governing
body.
One
case:
full
tough
road
rezoning
will
not
be
going.
It
was
planned
for
august.
31St
will
not
be
going
to
the
governing
body
on
that
date
due
to
a
noticing
error,
so
there
will
be
more
to
that,
and
then
we
either
have
other
cases
as
well,
and
thank
you
for
your
efforts,
appreciate
it.
A
Thank
you
all
any
matters
from
the
commission.
A
I
will.
I
want
to
just
say
as
a
note
in
terms
of
the
education
of
the
commission,
things
have
been
popping
up
and
I
would
love
at
some
point,
perhaps
a
brief
educational
presentation
on
the
open
space
requirements.
I
think
that
would
be
wonderful
for
us
to
have
a
better
understanding
of,
and
I
don't
think
we've
recently
had
an
update
on
water,
and
that
would
be
wonderful
as
well.
Thank
you.
F
Chair
lawrence,
I
I
did
re
speak
with
jesse
roach
about
you
know
when
he
would
be
available
to
come
in
to
to
give
a
presentation-
and
I
believe,
we've
scheduled
the
mpo
officer
eric
ani,
to
come
in.
I
think,
on
the
1st
of
september,
to
give
a
presentation,
and
one
of
the
challenges
we've
been
looking
at-
is
the
the
cases
that
are
coming
before
the
commission
over
the
next
several
months,
midtown
being
one
and
then
south
meadows
as
well.
Some
large,
you
know
cases
significant
cases.
F
A
F
F
So
that's
why
we
got
eric
to
speak
on
the
transportation
issues
and
then,
but
he
was
going
to
be
available
either
october
meeting
or
november
meeting
or
december
meeting
so
I'll
firm
that
up.
E
You,
madam
chair
staff,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you're
aware
that
the
american
planning
association,
new
mexico
chapter
is
holding
its
annual
conference
in
albuquerque
the
26th
to
28th
of
october.
There
will
be
planning
commissioner
training
on
the
agenda
and
I
believe
there
is
a
cut
rate
for
planning
commissioners.
I
would
suggest
that
perhaps
staff
look
into
seeing
if
there
is
a
budget
or
a
means
to
afford
any
planning.
E
Commissioners
who
would
like
to
attend
not
only
planning
commissioner
training,
but
just
to
get
more
background
on
the
issues,
whether
they
be
legal
financial
land
use.
Whatever
it's
shaping
up
to
be
a
very
good
conference,
it's
called
stories
of
resilience,
so
it's
about
coming
back
into
whatever
the
next
normal
is
so
just
leave
it
at
that.
O
I
have
two
issues:
I'd
like
to
bring
up.
One
is
when
we
look
at
the
or
we
hear
the
south
meadows
case.
I
know
I
had
talked
to
staff
about
doing
a
tour
of
district
3
prior
to
that
hearing
and
then
possibly
having
that
hearing
at
the
south
side
library
to
make
it
easier
for
people
from
district
3
to
attend
that
hearing-
and
I
just
want
to.
F
Yeah
chair
lawrence
commissioner
faulkner.
Thank
you
for
bringing
that
back
up.
We
we
do,
have
it
on
the
agenda
to
be.
You
know
we're
looking
into
holding
it
down
at
the
south
side
library
working
with
the
librarian
there
and
our
it
team
to
make
sure
we
can
hold
a
meeting
down
there.
I
don't
believe
it's
been
done
with
the
hybrid
option,
so
we're
still
ironing
out
those
details,
but
I
should
have
more
detail
very
soon
and
the
for
the
field
trip.
F
I
can
just
say.
I
think
today's
field
trip
went
really
well,
and
so
I
think
we
need
to
probably
nail
down
some
details
about.
You
know
the
logistics
on
that.
It
probably
would
be
important
that
we
were
all
in
a
caravan
at
the
very
least
or
in
one
vehicle
to
do
something
like
that.
F
I'll
have
to
consult
with
legal,
and
you
know
kind
of
see
how
historic's
traditionally
done
that
type
of
thing,
but
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
experience
of
the
tour
is
consistent
for
all
members
of
the
commission
and
that
you
know
we
have
a
kind
of
an
agenda
that
to
go
along
with
that.
I
would
think
so.
Maybe
we
can,
commissioner
faulkner.
We
can
talk
about
what
your
vision
is
for
that
and
how
we
could
get
that
into
a
reality.
O
Thank
you
so
much
and
I'm
more
than
willing
to
do
anything
to
help
the
other
question
I
had,
and
I
hope
I
can
articulate
this
when
we
are
seeing
cases
that
in
lieu
of
is
in
play,
is
it
possible
for
us
to
in
the
staff
reports
to
get
some
kind
of
information
that
would
tell
us,
like
you
know,
the
the
developer
is
is
buying
their
way
out
of
say,
33
units
at
this
much
of
the
lieu
of
bees
and
then
what
that
translates
into
as
far
as
helping
families
or
low-income
populations
get
into
the
into
apartments
or
how?
O
What
is
the?
What
is
the
difference
between
what
in
lieu
of
what
is
paid
in
lieu
of
and
what
the
benefit
of
in
lieu
of
is?
Is
that
did
I
make
that
clear?
F
Yeah
lawrence
commissioner
faulconer,
I
you
know
following
I
think
our
july
meeting
on
the
original
hearing
of
the
22
old
pickles
trail,
I
did
meet
with
alexandra
ladd,
because
there
was
a
number
of
questions.
I
think
that
were
raised
at
that
time
and
a
lot
of
misunderstanding
around.
F
You
know
how
these
programs
are
working
and
how
who
they're,
supporting
and
and
how
exactly,
and
so
it
was
a
very
illuminating
conversation
and
I
can
try
to
go
into
some
of
those
details.
But
you
know,
I
know
that
you
know
they
have
a
list
of
eligible.
F
You
know
home
buyers.
That
is
quite
extensive,
and
you
know
that
was.
I
think
what
she
was
alluding
to
tonight
is
well.
If
we
have
someone
on
the
list
that
needs
a
two-bedroom
house,
that's
what
we're
going
to
build.
So
it's
very
customized
and
it's
very
highly
regulated
by
not
only
you
know
local
and
state
laws,
but
the
federal
government.
F
And
so,
basically,
when
we
talk
about
a
two
hundred
thousand
dollar
house,
well,
that
two
hundred
thousand
dollar
house
is
going
to
have
a
three
hundred
thousand
or
four
hundred
thousand
dollar
covenant,
or
you
know,
restriction
on
it
that
is
held
either
at
the
city
or
more
likely
at
home
wise,
and
so
you
know
that's
where
that
money,
I
believe,
is
going
in
part
for
down
payment
assistance.
You
know.
F
So
I
don't
know
if
I'm
answering
your
question,
but
I
think
that
you
know
that's
where
that
money
goes
right
is
to
help
with
rental
rental
assistance
to
help
with
covering
you
know
that
gap
between
what
it
actually
costs
to
build
a
home
now,
which
I
think
the
average
price
is
358
a
square
foot
give
or
take.
So
that's
where
that
money
goes.
It's
it's
that
public
influx
to
support
that
to
cover
that
gap
to
make
it
affordable.
F
So
I'm
you
know
happy
to
have
alexander,
come
back
and
explain
it
in
much
better.
You
know
detail,
but
I
think.
O
O
I
need
to
know
that
if
they're
giving
us
400
000
how
many
families
can
that
help
with
renters
assistance
or
how
many
families
can
that
help
with
just
putting
in
an
average
size
home,
because
right
now,
there
there's
it's
hard
to
it's
hard
to
wrap
your
head
around
the
value
of
in
lieu
of,
because
we
really
don't
see
project
to
project
we're
not
seeing
how
what
that
money
translates
to
in
in
in
real
life
right.
We're
told
that
goes
to
all
these
programs
and
alexander
is
awesome,
and
I
have
faith
in
what
she's
doing.
O
I
just
would
like
to
be
able
to
wrap
my
head
around
what
it
literally
translates
to
like
again,
if
they
give
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
the
luau
fees,
and
that
comes
out
to
approximately
30
units.
How
many
people
can
we
help
with
that
money,
and
is
that?
Are
we
getting
the
bang
for
our
buck?
Like
is
the
city
and
the
citizens
of
the
city?
Are
they
getting
the
the
most
value
for
the
eluv
program?
O
O
Renters
the
the
lua
fee
for
the
project
to
getting
people
into
those
same
apartments
through
renter's
assistance,
and
the
gap
was
like
33
units
that
they
got
out
of
for
the
amount
of
money
they
paid,
but
that
money
could
only
get
13
families
into
those
same
apartments,
and
so
just
on
that
simple
level
it
looks
like
we
could.
O
We
could
adjust
in
lieu
of
a
little
bit
more
and
leverage
it
a
little
bit
more
towards
helping
families,
especially
in
the
apartment,
complex
sector.
So
for
me
to
to
feel
comfortable,
I
I
would
just
like
some
kind
of
something
in
the
report
that
tells
us
what
what
how
these
numbers
could
play
out,
not
necessarily
how
they
are
going
to,
but
something
that
gives
us
some
kind
of
formula
that
makes
it
easier
to
understand
what
value
we're
getting
for
allowing
in
lieu
of.
Q
I
am,
I
agree
with
commissioner
faulkner
and
I
think
and
again
I
may
not
understand
this
fully,
but
in
the
rental
analysis
that
we
saw
the
last
time
you're
helping
13-
or
maybe
it's
a
few
more
but
for
one
year
and
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
what
happens
the
second
year.
So
I
think
I
really
do
think.
That
is
something
that
we
need
to
study
and
think
about
in
terms
of
creating
incentives
or
regulatory
recommendations
that
balance
profit
against
affordability.
M
M
The
developers
know
pretty
much
mathematically
to
the
percentage,
what
they're
saving
when
they
go
to
in
lieu
of
and
the
the
biggest
reason.
Why
is
construction
cost
once
in
lieu
of
gets
broken?
Oh
it's
two
issues.
Once
it
gets
broken
from
the
market
rate,
then
it's
not
going
to
be
equal
anymore
and
they're
always
going
to
take
in
lieu
of
it,
but
the
other
side
of
it
is
them.
M
It's
the
same
thing
as
a
permit
fee.
If
they
don't
have
to
prove
with
a
contract,
then
it
will
not
be
the
cost
that
it
actually
is.
It
just
won't
be
and-
and
that
honestly
happens
with
permits
too
a
pretty
significant
degree.
That's
a
separate
conversation,
but
it's
the
same
issue
in
terms
of
improving
the
construction
cost.
Those.