Loading...
10-28-2014 I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 October 28, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Godfrey Crane, Chairman 9 William Stowe, Vice-Chair 10 Charles Beard, Secretary 11 Joanne Ferrary, Member 12 Kirk Clifton, Member 13 Harvey Gordon, Member 14 15 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 16 Ruben Alvarado, Member 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 Katherine Harrison- Rogers, Senior Planner, CLC 20 Adam Ochoa, Planner, CLC 21 Carol McCall, Planner, CLC 22 Susana Montana, Planner, CLC 23 Ezekiel Guza, Associate Planner, CLC 24 Mark Dubbin, CLC Fire Department 25 Robert Cabello, CLC Legal Staff 26 Becky Baum, Recording Secretary, RC Creations, LLC 27 28 1. CALL TO ORDER (6:00) 29 30 Crane: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the 28th of October 31 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission which is called to order. 32 Let me start with the introduction of Commissioners as we usually do; 33 starting on my far right, Commissioner Clifton who represents District 6. 34 Next to him Commissioner Gordon who is the Mayor's appointee. Then 35 Commissioner Stowe who is also our Vice Chairman. Commissioner 36 Stowe represents District 1. Commissioner Ferrary is with District 5. And 37 finally Commissioner Beard, who is also our secretary, is from District 2. 38 Now we proceed to ask if ... 39 40 Beard: You. 41 42 Crane: Oh yes. Modesty once again has tripped me up. I'm Godfrey Crane, the 43 Chairman, I represent District 4. My wife will never believe that. 44 45 46 1 I II. CONFLICT OF INTEREST - At the opening of each meeting, the chairperson 2 shall ask if any member on the Commission or City staff has any known conflict 3 of interest with any item on the agenda. 4 5 Crane: Conflict of interest. Does any member of the Commission or anybody in 6 the Community Development Department have any conflict of interest with 7 any item on today's agenda? Seeing no one indicates so, we will 8 continue. 9 10 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 11 12 1. September 23, 2014 - Regular Meeting 13 14 Crane: We will go to the approval of the minutes and then I have a brief 15 announcement about a small change to the agenda which I think the 16 audience will appreciate. Any Commissioner have any comments on the 17 minutes for our meeting of September 23rd? Commissioner Stowe. 18 19 Stowe: Yes Mr. Chair, on page 5, line 15, the word "the" is put in the text twice. 20 Page 7, line 16, that's the one, no there's another. Page 9, line 1, the 21 word "more" is twice in the text. Same page, page 9, line 7, the last word 22 on the line should be "because." And page 17, line 35 the word "trigger" is 23 misspelled, it should be "triggering" instead of "trigging." And finally on 24 page 5, line 15 the word should be "formally" not "formerly." 25 26 Baum: I need him to repeat page 7, line 16 again please. 27 28 Crane: Would you repeat page 7, line ... 29 30 Baum: Sixteen: 31 32 Crane: Sixteen, your comment on that Commissioner? 33 34 Stowe: Yes. Sixteen, the word "the" is ... 35 36 Crane: Oh, the second word "the" you want to take out. 37 38 Stowe: Yes. 39 40 Crane: Did you get that madam secretary? 41 42 Baum: Yes. Thank you. 43 44 Stowe: That's it. 45 46 Crane: Thank you. Commissioner Ferrary. 2 1 2 Ferrary: On page 9, line 5, it should be "because" instead of just "cause." 3 4 Baum: That's what was said. You can't change that cause that's was said, 5 verbatim. 6 7 Crane: Our recording secretary says it was verbatim and that's what she heard. 8 9 Ferrary: Okay. In case, instead of annunciating because. Okay. 10 11 Crane: Anything else? Okay I have just one, page 2, line 37 where I said 12 something inaudible, I'm pretty sure that was the ward "corrections", am 1 13 allowed to put that in? 14 15 Baum: Certainly. 16 17 Crane: Okay. Any other comments? Then I'll entertain a motion that the minutes 18 for the 23rd of September meeting as corrected be accepted. 19 20 Stowe: So moved. 21 22 Beard: Second. 23 24 Crane: Moved by Mr. Stowe, seconded by Mr. Beard. All in favor, aye. 25 26 ALL: Aye, 27 28 Crane: Opposed? Abstentions? None. Okay then it passes six/nothing. 29 Ms. Harrison-Rogers of the Community Development Department 30 pointed out that on the agenda tonight under old business we have one 31 relatively long item, PA-14-01 review of the Arroyo Management Plan 32 followed by one relatively short item. And she made the excellent 33 suggestion that we reverse these so that those of you who've come for 34 case IDP-14-07, application of Gabriel Ortiz regarding an Infill 35 Development Proposal would not have to wait through the Arroyo 36 Management Proposal. So we will reverse those two, so after we're 37 through with the consent agenda we'll go right into IDP-14-07 and then 38 PA-14-01. 39 40 IV. CONSENT AGENDA 41 42 1. Case IDP-14-08: An Infill Development Proposal by Sandra Espiritu, 43 property owner, for variances to allow the conversion of a vacant dwelling 44 unit to a business office. The property, Parcel 02-10381, is located at 1424 45 E. Lohman Avenue and lies within a C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) 3 1 zone as well as the City's Infill Development Overlay District, Council District 2 3 (Pedroza). 3 4 2. Case Z2881: Application by Erica Lee, property owner, for a zone change to 5 a 2.34 acre Parcel 02-18631 located at 4860 Dunn Drive from UR (Urban 6 Ranch from the 1981 Zoning Code) designation to EE (Single-Family 7 Equestrian Estate & Agriculture) designation in order to build a single-family 8 home on the property. Council District 6 (Levatino). 9 10 Crane: So next is the consent agenda for those who may not know how this is 11 done. There are two items on there tonight; IDP-14-08 and Z2881, and 12 these are both cases that the Community Development Department 13 figured were probably not controversial and wouldn't require any debate, 14 so they put them into the consent agenda on which we vote without 15 debate all the items in one lump that are in that agenda, you see there's 16 two of them here. However, if there's any member of the public or any 17 Commissioner who would like to discuss either of these two proposals, 18 we'll pull them out and put them in new business. Is there anybody who 19 wishes to debate either of those two items on the consent agenda? 20 Seeing no one. We will continue with the consent agenda. I'll entertain a 21 motion that the two items, IDP-14-08 and Z2881 be approved. 22 23 Clifton: So moved. 24 25 Crane: Moved by Commissioner Clifton. 26 27 Gordon: Second. 28 29 Crane: Seconded by Commissioner Gordon. All in favor aye. 30 31 ALL: Aye. 32 33 Crane: Opposed? None. And abstentions? None. It passes six/nothing. Thank 34 you. 35 36 V. OLD BUSINESS - NONE 37 38 1. Case IDP-14-07: Application of Gabriel Ortiz on behalf of George Ortiz, 39 property owner, for an Infill Development Proposal. The proposal would 40 allow the construction of a single-family dwelling unit (with consideration for 41 the possible construction of additional dwelling units on the property in the 42 future) on a 0.14-acre tract. The property is zoned R-4 (Multi-Dwelling High 43 Density), which otherwise would not allow such a unit. It is addressed as 821 44 Fir Avenue. Parcel ID# 02-05078; Council District 1 (Silva). 45 4 1 Crane: We'll now continue to the first matter of old business, Case IDP-14-07, 2 application of Gabriel Ortiz on behalf of George Ortiz for some relief from 3 requirements for an Infill Development Proposal he has. And Mr. Guza is 4 going to address us. 5 6 Guza: Thank you Mr. Chair. 7 8 Crane: I have to swear you in. Mr. Guza do you swear or affirm that the 9 testimony you are about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under 10 penalty of law? 11 12 Guza: Ido. 13 14 Crane: Please continue. 15 16 Guza: So the first case before you this evening is IDP-14-07, an Infill Request 17 Development Proposal at 821 Fir Avenue. The property is located on Fir 18 Avenue on the north side, east of Virginia Street and west of Solano. The 19 subject property is zoned R-4. It is currently undeveloped, vacant, 20 undeveloped. And the proposal from the applicant is to allow for a single- 21 family dwelling land use and the consideration for a possible construction 22 of an additional dwelling unit or units on the property in the future. 23 Staff recommends approval of the IDP proposal based on findings 24 found in the staff report. Public comment was sent, 56 letters, 14 certified 25 letters, one comment was received just requesting clarification. 26 Your options are to vote "yes" and approve the request as 27 recommended by staff; to vote "yes' and approve the request with 28 conditions; to vote "no" and to deny the request; or to table or postpone 29 and give staff further direction. And again an aerial view of the subject 30 property. And I can stand for any questions. 31 32 Crane: Thank you Mr. Guza. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Guza? 33 Commissioner Beard. 34 35 Beard: The public comments or concerns, what ... could you give us an idea of 36 what they were pro/con and what ... 37 38 Guza: There was one, one response and they just wanted to know a little bit 39 about why it needed to go through a process to build a single-family home 40 and I explained that in an R-4 district single-family homes are not 41 permitted normally, so Infill Development Proposal could allow that use on 42 the subject property. They were not for or against it, they just wanted 43 more information. Thank you Commissioner. 44 45 Crane: Any other Commissioner have a comment? I'm a little puzzled Mr. Guza, 46 did you show that there were 56 comments? 5 1 2 Guza: Fifty-six, no 56 letters sent out, as in that was the total number sent out. 3 One response. 4 5 Crane: I'm feeling better now. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, thank you Mr. 6 Guza. Does the applicant wish to speak to us or his representative? The 7 Ortiz family here? 8 9 Guza: The representative for the applicant said he doesn't have anything to add. 10 He can answer questions if ... 11 12 Crane: Okay Commissioners, any body have any questions for Mr. Ortiz? No, 13 okay. Thank you. Commissioners we seem to have little to debate. 14 Anyone want to make any comments before I call for a motion? And then 15 1 will entertain a motion that item IDP-14-07 be approved. May I have a 16 mover? 17 18 Beard: I move that IDP-14-07 be approved. 19 20 Crane: Moved by Mr. Beard. And a second? 21 22 Stowe: Second. 23 24 Crane: Seconded by Commissioner Stowe. Any discussion before we vote? All 25 right let's take a roll call starting with Mr. Beard and remind you to say why 26 you're voting. 27 28 Beard: Aye based on discussions and findings. 29 30 Crane: Ms. Ferrary. 31 32 Ferrary: Aye based on site visit and findings. 33 34 Crane: Commissioner Stowe. 35 36 Stowe: Aye based on findings and discussion. 37 38 Crane: Commissioner Gordon. 39 40 Gordon: Based on findings, site visit, and discussion I approve. 41 42 Crane: And Commissioner Clifton: 43 44 Clifton: Aye based on findings, staff presentation, and the compliance with the 45 2001 Zoning Code as amended. 46 6 I Crane: And the Chair votes aye based on findings, discussion, and site visit. The 2 matter passes six/nothing. Thank you all. 3 4 Guza: Thank you Commissioner. 5 6 2. Case PA-14-01: Review of and action on the Arroyo Management Plan, 7 prepared and presented by the City of Las Cruces Community Development 8 Department. 9 10 Crane: Next item on our agenda and under old business is Case PA-14-01, Il review of and action on the Arroyo Management Plan. Carol McCall is 12 here to tell us. 13 14 McCall: Thank you Commissioner Crane and Commissioners. This is Plan 15 Amendment 14-01 to consider and recommend the Arroyo Management 16 Plan. I was here in June and reviewed the Plan with all of you and you 17 voted to table the discussion or postpone in lieu of more public 18 engagement and further revisions of the Plan. So what I will present 19 tonight is a summary of the events and activities that have occurred since 20 that date. Just for review, this is the study area. It encompasses the City 21 limits and the ETZ. And I want to review a couple of regulations and plans 22 in the past that are relevant to this project, not all of them, they are 23 reviewed in the Plan itself and in Appendix 2, but I thought that these were 24 very interesting in that they, they were very insightful and provided a lot of 25 forethought I thought for, for the events of the Arroyo Plan now. The 1956 26 Subdivision Regulations which were the first subdivision regulations called 27 for open drainage channels to be used for protection against flood control 28 and allowing a width of about 20 feet of an easement for erosion control. 29 And the subdivision regs pointed out that natural watercourses can be an 30 attractive asset to the subdivision as well as to the community and could 31 improve and beautify the watercourses. So that was something that was 32 built into the 1956 regulations, and then as I mentioned in June, the 1963 33 Enabling legislation passed by the State of New Mexico gave the City of 34 Las Cruces the authority to establish a Las Cruces Metropolitan Arroyo 35 Flood Control Authority. It was never established however, but the 36 legislation is on the books. And then in 1992 the Stormwater 37 Management Policy Plan, in addition to many other policies in that 38 document, calls for promoting the aesthetics and multiuse activities 39 through the use of natural arroyos. And this is the first mention in the 40 literature of linear park systems, something that the Arroyo Plan calls for. 41 Another policy calls for encouraging the preservation of open space 42 corridors along the major arroyos on the East Mesa, and preserving and 43 utilizing the major tributaries that feed the major arroyos. And I will talk 44 more about the major stems of the arroyos later when we get into the 45 buffer discussion. And lastly it says encourage the facilitation of a regional 46 stormwater management program. And this, this again is something that 7 I the Plan calls for as we had discussed with Las Cruces growing in every 2 direction, there does seem to be a need for a plan that integrates all of the 3 other policies and goals of the previous plans that have been adopted, 4 such as the Parks and Rec. Master Plan, the Transportation Plan, and this 5 policy Plan, and then there is also another Stormwater Policy Plan that 6 was adopted in, in 2003 1 believe, or 2005. And then lastly this Plan calls 7 for the utilization and enforcement of best management practices, and 8 again this is something that the Arroyo Plan calls for and is, is central to 9 the implementation of the Plan. 10 As part of the public engagement, there were some comments 11 about the Plan purpose and it was suggested to include; encourage 12 responsible and profitable development, so this was included in addition to 13 the other purposes that we've discussed; improving stormwater 14 management, flood control, and drainage functions, and protecting 15 arroyos in their natural state which then leads to protecting vegetation and 16 wildlife habitat, protecting private property from flood damage, protecting 17 utility installation and maintenance, and providing additional recreational 18 opportunities. 19 For your review, the challenges that ... issues, challenges, and 20 opportunities that the Plan discuss, discusses relate to increases in 21 impervious surfaces due to development, erosion and sedimentation, 22 slopes on the West Mesa which are very different from the East Mesa and 23 require a different type of planning effort. And the flood control dam 24 effectiveness which as I mentioned the dams were built at various times 25 through the previous century, as early as 1939 and going up until 1972, 26 and they're in various states of repair at the moment with discussion on a 27 region-wide basis and involving quite a few different agencies as to how 28 best that can be addressed. 29 Vulnerable utilities and infrastructure; as we've seen this is an 30 example, a manhole that has the, the terrain around it has eroded and left 31 it exposed. Climate change and erratic, the possibility of erratic rain 32 storms and intensity of storms is likely to increase with further growth and 33 development in both directions we will likely see destruction of vegetation 34 and habitat and a reduction in wildlife corridors. And there has been a lot 35 of public engagement expressing the desire for additional trails and other 36 recreational amenities that utilize the arroyos. 37 The goals, policies, and actions for the most part have remained 38 the same in terms of themes, land use, environment, community facilities, 39 utilities, and stormwater management. Goal one which I'll just mention 40 briefly because it's a new goal as one of the differences between the June 41 24th version of the Plan and this Plan is that Goal number one has 42 changed and now reads "Take a proactive approach to watershed 43 management." It takes into account existing drainage conditions as well 44 as conditions affected by future development. And the other goals have 45 stayed the same; to improve the safety of the flood control dams and 46 improve road-crossing infrastructure. 8 I In the environment section protect and maintain natural vegetation 2 and manage arroyos to retain wildlife corridors. In community facilities 3 which is primarily the recreation and amenities component, minimize 4 impacts created by development, create a plan for continuous system of 5 regional parks which is an extension of the MPO Trail Plan, and create 6 design guidelines for trails and trail crossings which are also mentioned in 7 the MPO Trail Plan. And in utilities and stormwater management; create 8 safe and effective engineering standards, minimize soil and slope 9 instability, and improve the safety and efficiency of utility installations. In 10 the implementation chapter, the actions in the implementation section will 11 carry out the policy or goal listed in the Plan and just as examples, I don't 12 believe that this exact wording is in the Plan itself. Amend Chapter 32 13 Development Standards to implement Plan policies, those that apply that 14 is. Consider a City development pilot project that addresses, adheres to 15 the goals and policies of the Plan to demonstrate the Plan's 16 implementation and build a new trail. That's just an example of how the 17 policies could be implemented. 18 This is just a review of the stakeholder engagement that has been 19 carried out overall before and after the previous meeting. We had two 20 general meetings, two conservation stakeholder meetings, three 21 engineering meetings which included a joint meeting with development 22 stakeholders, and then three additional development stakeholder 23 meetings, a meeting in discussion with the Paso del Norte Watershed 24 Council, and the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, as well as the 25 International Boundary and Water Commission Rio Grande Citizens 26 forum. And then as a result of all of these meetings I received quite a few 27 e-mails which are in your packet, well in your ... the digital component of 28 your packet. And then lastly the P&Z discussions that we had, the work 29 session on May 20th and the public hearing on June 24th. 30 So what I would like to do is summarize the stakeholder comments 31 and the, the changes to the plan, and then if you like after my presentation 32 I'm prepared to go back over the changes to the Plan policies in detail if 33 you desire. 34 So in general people wanted to see improvement to flood 35 managements that affect roads, especially on the East Mesa and roads 36 that are unpaved. There was a, sort of a general feeling that people did 37 not want development to be as close to the arroyos as in the past. People 38 appreciate the open space and natural environment experience. Trails 39 and amenities are important, but not at the expense of the flood control 40 function. And natural drainage function is preferred rather than a, a 41 concrete arroyo. In the conservation stakeholder group it was felt that 42 pockets of vegetation outside the 100-year flood zone should be included 43 when we're talking about buffers or easements. Utility installations should 44 be improved to reduce erosion, and as part of the future modeling efforts, 45 recruit a wildlife biologist to discuss wildlife corridors and habitat. In the 46 development stakeholders there was a sentiment that the Plan is 9 I redundant, that there are other plans that address different components of 2 this Plan, so they did not think that this Plan was needed. It was felt that 3 the Plan will add regulation and cost. And that the maintenance of arroyos 4 is costly and burdensome, this is the sentiment of a number of different 5 people but specifically private property owners that actually have land in 6 the arroyo. 7 It was the ... during one of the stakeholder meetings that someone 8 suggested creating the pilot project using the Arroyo Plan Policies and 9 they did think that buffers were okay for public arroyos, but not necessarily 10 privately owned arroyos. And in engineering there was a strong sense 11 that regional and watershed approach was a good idea, that the Storm 12 Drain Master Plan and the Design Standards which is Chapter 32 of the 13 Municipal Code should be updated. That the buffers are okay for arroyos 14 that are not yet developed, both public and private, but that new models 15 are needed in order to do the modeling to determine what those buffers 16 might be. And that the flood control dams and how they are managed and 17 maintained and repaired are an important part of a broad watershed 18 approach to stormwater management, because what happens at the dams 19 and how they are repaired will impact downstream development. 20 And very briefly a review of some of the discussion from this 21 meeting, this body's meeting on the 24th of June, the plan is guiding policy 22 only, not regulation and that is true. The buffer explanation is vague and 23 there was a request to strengthen that in the next revision. The distinction 24 should be made about what affects existing development, undeveloped 25 private land, and public land. And again that is something that is improved 26 1 hope, in the current version of the Plan. And a sense that it was unclear 27 from the text when the Plan Policies would apply. So I will address these 28 in the course of the rest of my presentation but if you do have any 29 questions following about any of these, I'd be glad to answer them. 30 There was also additional input from the New Mexico State Land 31 Office and the Bureau of Land Management and they are in, in full in your 32 stakeholder packet but I did, I did just want to excerpt this component from 33 the Land Office e-mail that I received. There was a discussion of the 34 buffers or easements and they thought that a range of 50 to 100 feet could 35 be accommodated without losing any development potential. And what 36 this would mean is that when there is the possibility for an area to be sold 37 for development that includes arroyos, a distance to be determined at that 38 time would be dedicated to the City along with the arroyo, and then 39 beyond that point the land would be sold for development. So in this way 40 developers aren't purchasing land that they can't build on. The buffer is 41 built into the dedication that goes to the City or that if they choose to retain 42 it in their own for their own purposes. And then similarly the Bureau of 43 Land Management passed along this e-mail which I just received a couple 44 of days ago and they agree like a lot of the other stakeholder groups that 45 it's the implementation, the devil is in the detail I suppose, the 46 implementation will be challenging. And the draft Tri-County Resource 10 I Management Plan that they've been working on for the last few years, 2 they do reference the 100-year flood zone as being where the 3 conservation easement would begin and end and, but then they, they 4 don't rule out the idea of additional buffers depending on whether there's a 5 need, but it would be determined on a case-by-case basis following the 6 modeling and the discussion between the BLM and the City. 7 1 included this map because there was a request on, on the part of 8 the developers to explain how much land we're talking about actually in 9 terms of public versus private and developed versus undeveloped. And I 10 wasn't able to get exact numbers in terms of public and private and I1 developed and undeveloped but I thought this map would give you a pretty 12 good indication. The brown area is all privately owned land. The purple is 13 New Mexico land, the Land Office. And the blue is BLM land. And these 14 red areas represent the arroyos, the pink lines represent a 150-foot buffer 15 around all of the arroyos, and the green lines indicate all of the property 16 that fit that description where there is a boundary within a 150-feet of the 17 arroyo. So I did a little arithmetic and there is over 30,000 acres all 18 together of land that's within that 150-foot buffer. Of that, over 22,000 are 19 publically owned and that includes, even though only BLM and the State 20 Land is represented, are represented here, that includes the City, NMSU, 21 Dona Ana County, the school system, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and all of 22 the other public agencies that have public land in the County. So that 23 leaves about 8,500 acres of private land just within 150-feet of an arroyo 24 boundary. And on this map although you can't see it real well, these black 25 lines indicate parcels and so you can tell from the green, where it's mostly 26 green to where it's mostly black what is undeveloped and what is 27 developed. And these are the, the three major arroyos within the City 28 limits; the Alameda, the North and South forks of the Las Cruces Arroyo, 29 and the Sand Hill Arroyo. I also included the Moreno Arroyos because 30 they're ... it's in, within the City limits and the Tortugas Arroyo is partly 31 within the City limits. So as you can see there, there is a substantial 32 amount of undeveloped land that would probably for future development 33 purposes be modeled to determine whether an additional easement or 34 buffer might be called for, and I do want to stress again that a buffer is just 35 one of the ways that this could be handled for additional erosion control or 36 for the identification of a linear park or open space corridor, but it is not the 37 only way. So we can come back to this map if you like, if you have any 38 questions about it. 39 So in general I want to call out the Plan revisions that were made 40 between June 24th and the current revision. I will say that it went, actually 41 went through two revisions; there was a revision in September that was 42 posted on the web and I had additional meetings with the developers and 43 the engineers and EBID and IBWC Rio Grande Citizens Forum, based on 44 that revision, and then there was a further revision dated October 28th, so 45 this is the second one between that time. The policies were reduced from 46 75 to 60. The actions were reduced from 57 to 38. The arroyo modeling 11 I section was greatly expanded, it was originally within the body of Chapter 2 4 and I briefly thought it would be a good idea to take it out but now I don't 3 think it is a good idea, so I will be proposing at the end of my presentation 4 reinserting it into Chapter 4. The buffer explanation is clarified somewhat, 5 there isn't a lot, a lot of detail but the plan does point out that it would be 6 for undeveloped arroyos and on a case-by-case basis. And as I said, it's 7 only one way to manage erosion, but not necessarily the only way. There 8 was a request to move, to remove policies that begin with "Enforce' 9 because it was pointed out that that means that the policy or the code 10 already exists and it would be redundant to include it in this plan, so I did 11 that everywhere I could find, find it. There are one or two policies that call 12 for a strengthening the enforcement of, but I left those in. And then there 13 were many many minor revisions made throughout the document to 14 change the policies from passive voice to active voice to improve the 15 readability of the text and the narrative and to correct typos and things like 16 that. 17 Two different organizations pointed out that some of my information 18 on vegetation types was incorrect and I used riparian where it wasn't 19 appropriate to do so and in some places grasslands, grasses or other 20 types of vegetation that should be used and not shrubs, so I made those 21 kinds of corrections. 22 In the further explanation of the buffers, I did call out that the State 23 Land Office and the BLM would be involved in any cases to do the arroyo 24 modeling and look at buffer distances. There is, was one small change in 25 a paragraph moving it from one section to another section on low impact 26 development and green infrastructure. And then I found out that, whoops, 27 1 found out that at the moment there are a lot of green infrastructure 28 practices that are not allowed by the City because they're, they're not 29 allowed in the code and so I referenced from time to time that they were 30 required or that they were used, they were mandatory and that was 31 incorrect, so I fixed that. And I also added small pieces of text, a sentence 32 or a paragraph here or there to describe the role of agriculture and explain 33 the concerns about canals and the, the irrigation canals and ditches during 34 floods. And the reason that this is an issue is because all of the flood 35 water, all the runoff has to go to the river, that's its ultimate goal and it 36 uses the irrigation canals and ditches to do that. In an intense flood event 37 when there is a lot of water all at once those canals and ditches overflow 38 and so even within the City of Las Cruces in developed areas those 39 canals can overflow and cause flooding in various neighborhoods 40 throughout the City. So how Elephant Butte Irrigation District is involved 41 and how those canals are managed is very central to the overall broader 42 approach to storm water management that this plan attempts to take. And 43 so there were some points added to the plan to talk about this. And in the 44 introduction to Chapter 5 which is the goals and policies chapter, there is a 45 further explanation, again another attempt to strengthen the description 46 and the explanation of the buffers and it does call out that the Arroyo Plan 12 I is only guiding policy, it's not regulation and that any regulations that are in 2 place at the time of development are the ones that the developer follows, 3 not the, not the Arroyo Plan or any other adopted plan for that reason, it's 4 only guiding policy. 5 As I mentioned before I did change Goal one from manage growth 6 and development in such a way to make sure that the full potential of 7 arroyo systems as a community asset is realized. For the most part, this 8 is the entire purpose of the plan, and I realize that what was missing in the 9 goals is the concept of taking a broader proactive approach to stormwater 10 management and flood control. And so Goal one changes to reflect that; 11 take a proactive approach to watershed management that takes into 12 account existing drainage conditions as well as conditions affected by 13 future development. 14 And then in Chapter 5 there were various small revisions to the 15 introduction of that chapter, the actions were revised to delete 16 redundancies and this had to do with also deleting policies that were 17 redundant with policies in other plans and there's a long list of potential 18 funding sources for some of the policies and activities that the Arroyo Plan 19 calls for and so those were moved from Goal six to Goal one. And then 20 there was a resource page added at the end of the document and the 21 number of appendices was, were reduced from 10 to four. Those 22 appendices were things like; best management practices, descriptions and 23 examples of low impact development and green infrastructure, some of 24 the stormwater management statutes that are required by the EPA. And 25 what I did instead of just listing those out as lengthy appendices I put 26 where those could be found on the resource page. So we're left with the 27 maps, the detailed maps of each arroyo, the planning background which is 28 a compilation of all of the goals and policies from past plans, a description 29 and explanation of the flood control dams, who owns them and what their 30 class, their flood control capability class is. And then the fourth one at the, 31 at the moment is an explanation of arroyo modeling which I am proposing 32 to put back into the body of the document. 33 Now I would ... I want to talk in a little bit more detail about the 34 arroyo modeling itself. This caused a lot of concerns at the last meeting 35 and from then until now I enlisted the assistance of two technical writers 36 and a couple of consulting firms which provided the illustrations for this 37 and I think that it actually describes it pretty well, I hope that you will 38 agree. The Army Corps of Engineers has a resource called the 39 Hydrological, Hydrology, I have it written down ... Hydrologic Engineering 40 Center, and their HMS modeling which is Hydrologic Modeling 41 System looks at the processes of any kind of dendritic system which is 42 what an arroyo is, it just means different stems and tributaries of the 43 drainage way. And then the RAS model, stands for River Analysis 44 System, and that looks at the flow of the stormwater itself, the runoff itself, 45 and the sediment load within ... that's being carried by the runoff. What, 46 one thing that changed in, in the text is that 1 spelled out that the buffers or 13 I the modeling actually would be limited to the main tributaries of the major 2 arroyos, and this is an important difference because there, there are very 3 few main tributaries. They're the ones that reach a certain volume of 4 runoff in a given period of time and these are the ones as it turns out in the 5 Stormwater Policy Management plan in 1992, it was the main stems of the 6 major arroyos that that plan calls out for protecting as open space. So, 7 various points along the major tributaries would be modeled and I have 8 some illustrations that will indicate, that will show that. And that ultimately 9 will tell us or give us a better more accurate indication of what the flood 10 zone is. At the moment the flood zones are based on FEMA maps that 11 were done quite some time ago and they're in the process of being 12 updated but they have not been approved or adopted yet. But, the 13 modeling takes much more current data and determines a flood zone 14 based on the model which again is not real life but it's a close proximity 15 than simply looking at the map and comes up with a flood zone that may 16 or may not look like the one that's on the map. And the other thing that, 17 that the plan suggests is that the modeling extend east beyond the flood 18 control dams which is where the current modelling data stop. So since the 19 City is growing and has already extended in some places east of the flood 20 control dams, this is also an important consideration. So I hope that you 21 will be able to see these, they are in Appendix 4 of the plan. 22 This is just a section of the Sand Hill Arroyo and what the engineers 23 did was measure several points along the main tributaries of the Sand Hill 24 Arroyo and put them into the HEC/HMS modeling system and came up 25 with these peak flow rates at different times; flow rates and volumes of 26 stormwater at different locations of interest along the arroyo. From that 27 information they look at the cross sections of the arroyos and put those 28 into the HEC RAS model which looks at the flow and the sediment, 29 sedimentation of the runoff itself. So these are places along the arroyo 30 where, where cross sections were taken and here's a close up, going this 31 way, this is an example of ... this is just two of the cross sections. So if 32 you were to continue, if you were looking up stream and you were looking 33 downstream along the Sand Hill Arroyo, at any one of these points you 34 would see something that looks like this and if you go a little bit further you 35 would see something that looks like this, and a little bit further it might be 36 higher or lower just depending on what the, the geography and other 37 factors of the arroyo are. This blue, turquois blue line is the flood zone. 38 And that is what it looks like when it's mapped one section, all of these 39 little hatch marks are these cross sections and this is just a little piece right 40 in here that I (inaudible). The red line represents the existing or the old 41 100-year flood zone. The blue line represents the new flood zone based 42 on the modeling that was done. And the turquois line represents the 500- 43 year flood zone based on the modeling that was done. And the thing that, 44 that I think is really important here is that there will be cases, there will be 45 situations along any, any of these points on the main stem of a major 46 arroyo where what you thought was in the flood zone isn't, which means 14 I where you thought you could not build you could. At the same time there 2 are going to be places that you thought were not in the flood zone and it 3 turns out they are going to be in the flood zone. So as I said it is on a 4 case-by-case basis. It's technical, there's a lot of engineering and lot of 5 computer work to be done on, on every point that is modeled, but I think 6 that at least when I saw these illustrations and was walked through it step 7 by step, it made a lot more sense to me. And we can come back to this in 8 just a moment unless you have some questions at this time? Okay. 9 As I mentioned, I would like to return that section of the document 10 which describes the modeling and the buffers in greater detail to Chapter 11 4, and I would also like to change a paragraph in the soils description 12 under Chapter 3, the regional characterization. This particular text which 13 does describe clay soils and sandy soils and how they, what they might be 14 suited for, is accurate, but it doesn't really relate to the arroyos or 15 stormwater management or flood control and so the technical writer and 1 16 came up with some new language that does directly relate to the arroyos 17 and what the Plan is trying to accomplish and would read "Very claylike 18 soils have a high water holding capacity and do not promote infiltration or 19 movement into the ground water. Conversely very sandy soils provide a 20 porous environment which provides better infiltration but is, but are more 21 susceptible to erosion. Generally clay soils are better suited for 22 development foundations and sandy soils are well suited for stormwater 23 management projects requiring infiltration. The level of the water table is 24 also a factor for infrastructure placement and design. A high water table is 25 not suitable for subsurface installations such as utilities and erosion must 26 be accounted and managed for. Soil type analysis is an important step in 27 the design and placement of any infrastructure in our desert environment." 28 There may be other revisions based on discussion here tonight and 29 then as I mentioned if you would like to go through the policy changes in 30 detail I am prepared to do that. Your options tonight would be to 31 recommend adopting the Arroyo Management Plan; recommending, 32 recommend adopting the Plan with the conditions which would include the 33 two future revisions that I proposed; recommend not adopting the plan. If 34 either of those, any of those three were, was chosen the tentative City 35 Council date is November 17th, and your last option, table or postpone the 36 recommendation and direct staff accordingly. I'll stand for questions. 37 Thank you. 38 39 Crane: Thank you Carol. Any Commissioner have a question or comment for Ms. 40 McCall? Commissioner Clifton. 41 42 Clifton: Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Carol. Just really kind of fundamental 43 question here, you're talking about some revisions that are going to be 44 incorporated into this document, but I don't see where they've actually 45 been made, such as the Chapter 4 revisions you want to put back in. So 46 is it safe to say that the document that we have before us tonight does not 15 I reflect your suggested revisions, nor did the document that went out for 2 public consumption reflect those revisions either? 3 4 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Clifton the, the two revisions that I'm proposing 5 are not in the document that you have. These are changes that 1 6 considered after I posted it on the web and after I put your packet 7 together, that's correct. Everything else that was mentioned is in the 8 document that you have. 9 10 Clifton: With that said Carol, staff, and our City Legal, you know as a it Commissioner I'm personally not real comfortable taking action on an 12 incomplete document. I, 1 know it wasn't the intent but it's almost kind of 13 misleading in a way and I, 1 would prefer to have the entire document in 14 one piece before we make a recommendation before it go to Council, 15 cause I mean, what, how, how do we know what gets put in there, what 16 doesn't get put in there. It's just a little bit loose for my comfort zone and 1 17 have an issue with making any type of decision other than postponement 18 until we can get a complete document. Thank you. 19 20 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Clifton. You would also be able to if you choose 21 to make a recommendation tonight to recommend adopting the plan as it 22 stands, the October 28th revision that you have, and I would go forward to 23 present those proposed revisions to the City Council along with any other 24 revisions that you suggest. 25 26 Crane: So you're suggesting we vote on what we have in front of us literally 27 without those two latter day modifications that you mentioned, but you 28 would put them in when it went to the City Council? 29 30 McCall: Mr. Chair. 31 32 Crane: Do I understand you correctly? 33 34 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioners. You would have that option. You could 35 recommend adopting the Plan as it stands or if you choose to go ahead 36 and, and consider the provisions that I'm proposing you could also do that. 37 38 Crane: I think it'd be more rational and helpful to the Council if we ask you to put 39 those in, trusted you to do it without our further review and with those 40 made vote on, vote on whether we should forward it with those made does 41 that sound good to you Commissioner Clifton? 42 43 Clifton: Mr. Chair, staff, I, I'm still not comfortable. I mean to me it's no different 44 than a master plan being presented to us by a developer and the 45 developer stating that well it's incomplete but we're going to have some 46 revisions at the Council level. There's no way this body would ever 16 I approve a master plan in that nature or that status. I've never seen it and 2 1 don't think we'll ever see that and quite frankly you know missing 3 elements, I just think it's more of a solid recommendation to the Council if 4 we have a complete document that went to the public that was complete. 5 1 don't know if the stakeholders are aware of these changes, either side of 6 the fence. It, it's irrelevant quite frankly, it's more of a notification issue for 7 me and (inaudible). 8 9 McCall: Mr. Chair. 10 11 Crane: Okay. 12 13 McCall: If I may. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Clifton. I, 1 would just like to point out 14 that what I'm proposing doesn't constitute, doesn't mean that anything is 15 missing from the Plan or that the Plan is incomplete in any way, the Plan 16 is complete and if those revisions that I'm proposing are not made, it 17 would not diminish the Plan that much. 18 19 Crane: Commissioner Ferrary you have a comment. 20 21 Ferrary: Yes Mr. Chair, if we were to have suggestions or revisions ourselves to 22 this plan and they were voted on and adopted just as Carol's suggestions 23 were, it's possible to have that so we wouldn't have it complete as we vote 24 on it. So I don't understand why with these revisions she's proposing that 25 we couldn't accept them just as we would our own. 26 27 Crane: You repeat that please. 28 29 Ferrary: Well if we made changes and we voted on them tonight they wouldn't all 30 be here and we would still be able to vote on them and they go on to the 31 City Council. Carol's changes aren't any different than ours might be as 32 long as we accept them and vote on them as additional conditions. 33 34 Crane: You think we're in the position to put in, put in her suggestions in our own 35 wording? Is that what you're suggesting? 36 37 Ferrary: No, I'm saying we should be able to accept them as conditions and vote 38 on them just as if we were to insert conditions also and vote on them. 39 40 Crane: Which is the situation Mr. Clifton is not very comfortable with as 1 41 understand it. You want to see it perfected by Ms. McCall before we vote 42 on it, is that correct? 43 44 Clifton: Yes Mr. Chair, I mean I, I'm fully aware that we can make 45 recommendations on top of what Carol presents to us tonight but we act in 46 somewhat of a quasi judicial body and that's much different than a staff 17 I person suggesting changes be made at the ninth hour before it goes 2 forward to City Council. I mean it's, to me it's simply a matter of disclosure 3 and I don't believe that we, you know we have full disclosure here. I don't 4 know who may have not come to the meeting tonight based on this initial 5 document. You know the Chapter 4 that's referenced for additional input 6 into the document, that's a pretty significant change. 1 mean, I mean we're 7 talking probably one of the most critical elements of this document. And 1 8 mean that's, that's a pretty big deal. 9 10 Crane: Okay I understand. Any other Commissioner have a point? 11 Commissioner Gordon, you're next. 12 13 Gordon: Carol in reading this document it's, it's quite voluminous and it's, it's 14 lengthy in its form, and scattered throughout the document you talk about 15 buffering and I have a, just a question, basically clarification. What 16 happens when an arroyo is designated as such and a buffer is created 17 whatever that number of feet will be determined on either side of the 18 buffer? Then commercial or residential construction is permitted, all right. 19 Because commercial and residential construction is created a lot of times 20 it will change drainage, the route of drainage, the way water flows down 21 hills or through neighborhoods because of the way streets or, or houses 22 are built or whatever. With the change in the current, and if there 23 becomes a change in the current arroyo boundaries that have been 24 designated and the buffer has been created, what happens if flooding 25 occurs because it doesn't go in the area that was expected to go to start 26 with, who becomes, and once it's been determined that building has been 27 allowed and flooding is now occurred, who becomes responsible for the 28 fact that there is now perhaps a new arroyo created by flooding and I've 29 seen it happen, who's responsible for flood control, for mitigation? Is it the 30 City, is it the residents, is it the developer? I don't know. I wasn't able to 31 find that in the document. 32 33 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Gordon, the issue of flooding and who is, who is 34 responsible for making repairs or mitigating that flooding is, is indeed an 35 issue. In the beginning the property owner is, and I don't know the legal 36 ramifications of how that's determined, how they determine what may 37 have caused the flooding. If there were some mistakes made during 38 engineering or if was just a natural thing that happened. If it's something 39 in the, in the drainage study that could be pointed to, those things would 40 have to be determined. I will tell you though that the City on a number of 41 occasions has had to repair damage due to flooding because no one else 42 was there to do it. The private property owner didn't feel responsible for it 43 because it was outside his property boundary and was in the arroyo itself, 44 but the developer and builder were no longer involved and so it fell to the 45 City. 46 18 I Gordon: But isn't the creation of the buffer zone giving a feeling of comfort either to 2 someone who plans to build a house or put in a business strip close to an 3 arroyo, perhaps maybe 50, 100 feet behind his property and then 4 suddenly boom, we get a tremendous storm and we've had them this 5 year. And it's possible that water flow could now change and that feeling 6 of comfort is now gone and the City has said according to this plan, we've 7 created a buffer that you should be protected. It doesn't specifically say in 8 here, they talked about 100 feet and other methods of determining what 9 that buffer is, but there's no, I don't think I read or perhaps I missed the 10 specific plan to create this zone. I would think that if I was planning to do 11 something I would want to make sure that I would be protected, I don't 12 think it's going to happen tomorrow, maybe it'll take 50 years, but it may 13 happen. 14 15 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Gordon. That's correct, it could happen. We, in 16 the, in one of the public meetings that we had, one of the stakeholder 17 meetings subsequent to the last Planning and Zoning hearing, that issue 18 did come up. First I will say that a buffer wouldn't necessarily be 19 designated in every situation. A drainage study would be done and if it 20 looked like additional erosion control might be called for, then a buffer 21 would be one solution. But the buffer does add a layer of protection but it 22 isn't a be all and end all. If you're, if you have a house that is built up to 23 the 100-year flood zone and there's a storm that washes away or 24 undercuts, the erosion undercuts that bank, then some property will be 25 damaged. If there's a 20-foot or even a 10-foot or however, 50-foot 26 easement there, there is added protection but as you said it may be 50 27 years but eventually that arroyo will continue to erode. That's very true. 28 That happens now without any additional erosion control and it would 29 happen regardless of what we put there. 30 31 Gordon: So then what you're saying is that this is an unwritten part of this 32 document as to be specific? 33 34 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Gordon. The Plan itself isn't intended to have 35 specifics. It's intended as a guiding document to provide a direction so 36 that, it actually calls for the creation of the database, the modeling system 37 that would identify buffers. This is something that currently there is no 38 funding for and we don't know how long it would be before there is funding 39 for it, but it isn't something that would happen immediately and it, it's, by 40 the time all the data are collected and the models are actually up and 41 running could take several years. And in the meantime any development 42 that occurs adjacent to development would follow codes that are in place 43 at the time. 44 45 Gordon: Thank you. 46 19 I McCall: Did that answer your question? 2 3 Gordon: I think so. It's just that I have this, this uneasy feeling in a sense that 4 we're talking about something that doesn't have an answer and you're 5 making it part of a document that you want me to approve and it's not 6 specific. 7 8 Crane: Commissioner Beard. 9 10 Beard: Thank you. Several points, I agree with you Commissioner that, that 11 whatever we agree upon as far as conditions will go forward to the next 12 level and they will have the document, or have the wordage anyway. But 13 I, 1 tend to favor Commissioner Clifton's point - I would like to have the 14 entire document in front of me. Somebody comes to me and says what 15 was the document that you just passed, I don't know. I'd have to go back 16 and read the minutes in order to figure out what that document is. So I'd 17 kind of like having some of those maps that were not in, in our package in 18 front of me whether I use them ever again but I would like to have them. 19 1 would like to take a look also at a slide, I think it's 33. Yes. 1 20 have, I have a little bit of a problem with, with this. This says "Generally 21 clay soils are better suited for development foundations and sandy soils 22 are well suited for stormwater management projects requiring filtration." 1 23 thought it was just the other way around. When I built my house it's on 24 clay cause I'm out there in the river basin and in order to keep my house 25 from floating we had to put pillars down to the sand in order to stabilize the 26 house. That's contrary to what I'm reading right here. I agree that, that 27 clay soils are better for erosion possibly than sandy soils, but for building 28 foundations, development foundations, I believe the sand is better than 29 clay. And I might get some opinions from the contractors that are sitting in 30 the audience too on that particular subject. So I kind of, 1, 1 personally 31 disagree with that wording there. 32 33 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard. I'm ... the reason that sandy soils would 34 not work for foundations is exactly because water seeps down through 35 them and because they're so much more susceptible to erosion. If you're 36 sitting on clay and you build your foundation on clay water will not seep 37 down, it'll just sit on top. So this is a different kind of example but I, earlier 38 this summer I experienced in the pecan orchards a lot of farmers who 39 have a layer of clay soil above their sandy soil, went to the trouble of 40 digging up their orchards in between every row to pull the sand up and mix 41 the sand and the clay because the water was not going down through the 42 soil and reaching the roots. 43 44 Beard: I can, I can agree with that. But I think as a foundation it's, I think that the 45 sand is better than the clay. 46 20 I Crane: I'd like to interrupt, we have a, at least two engineers wagging their heads 2 this way or that. Sir later you're going to speak, right? I'd just like to 3 suggest that the ... we address this issue when you come up and talk. 1 4 know what you're going to say that, impermeability is one thing and 5 absorbing water and going up and down is another. So let's not try to 6 solve the problem just at this moment. I know what you mean too. 7 8 Beard: Okay, I would like to have that addressed later on. 9 10 Crane: Yeah, we will. I'll make sure we do it. 11 12 Beard: Okay, my third, oh excuse me. 13 14 McCall: I'm sorry. If you like one of the engineers who helped me put together the 15 arroyo modeling section is here and he may be able to address that. Mr. 16 Scanlon also offered to but ... 17 18 Beard: Okay. Okay. Good. As long as we don't drop it. 19 20 Crane: Yes, we won't drop it. Can that person speak when we come to the public 21 input, would that suit you? Okay. Thank you. 22 23 McCall: Mr. Chair, may I make one more comment. 24 25 Crane: Yes. 26 27 McCall: I want to point out and, and stress that the appendices are part of the 28 document. Just because I'm proposing that the Appendix 4 that is the 29 description or the detailing of the arroyo modeling be put back into the 30 body of the Chapter 4 of the Plan, but even if it isn't, it will be adopted as 31 ... or if the Plan is adopted the appendices are part of the Plan. So 32 because it isn't in the body of the document doesn't mean that the 33 document is incomplete in that way. 34 35 Beard: Okay. I've got a third point here though. 36 37 Crane: Go ahead. 38 39 Beard: I'm looking at Goals nine, ten, and eleven. I think this sort of goes along 40 with your, your concern and it's part of my concern too. When you look at 41 these goals it says "create," "minimize," and "improve." Who does that? If 42 you look at Goal 11 it says "Improve the safety and efficiency of utility 43 installations." Excuse me. Well that's, if the City's going to be putting in 44 the utilities and we know who's got to do that, but if you go over here and 45 create safe and effective engineering standards for flood control, or you 46 minimize soil and slope instability." Who's doing that? I mean it looks like 21 I it's out there for anybody to do or not to do. I don't know if it's, who it's 2 really applying to. 3 4 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard. That's a good question. The City is 5 ultimately responsible for, for implementing the plan and carrying out the 6 policies, so it would be the City. Create safe and effective engineering 7 standards for flood control and conveyance indicates that the design 8 standards and other codes that there, there is a Stormwater Management 9 ordinance and there are design standards and there's a subdivision code 10 that those codes and other applicable codes would be amended and that 11 would have, that would take place by the City, by the Design Standards 12 Review Committee. Goal 10 is actually an extension of that. The soils 13 and erosion, sedimentation and water runoff is a separate category under 14 stormwater management and again that would be carried out through lots 15 of different policies; education and outreach, amendments to the 16 development codes, strengthening compliance with federal mandates, and 17 those are all policies within the, the goals themselves. And for utility 18 installation, that is both public and private, so the policies would eventually 19 reach through some changes in code or educational outreach, the private 20 sector as well as the City and any other public organization, public 21 agency. 22 23 Beard: So the ... to me on both nine and ten that could, that would be like if the 24 contractor is doing something the City's going to oversee that he actually 25 creates safe and minimizes these two types of things? I mean it, it 26 sounds, and it actually goes beyond the City because you're including this 27 in the ETZ aren't you? How the ETZ, is that affected here? 28 29 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard. The City only has jurisdiction over the 30 arroyos and flood control dams that are within the City limits. And the 31 reason that the entire study area is shown on the map is because the 32 arroyos extend into the ETZ. And any kind of drainage study that's going 33 to be done will be impacted by what happens that's up stream. So 34 specifically and the plan does call this out, we're talking about within the 35 City limits and only what the City has jurisdiction over. 36 37 Beard: Okay. But this is really more for the contractor isn't it? 38 39 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard. As 1 said before, the Plan is only guiding 40 policy it's not code. It's not a regulation. So anything that the City puts in 41 effect that relates to the Plan would be put in effect in order to carry out 42 this goal. It's, it's, the over arching goal that everything in the Plan is 43 attempting to do; erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater runoff is just 44 one, you know component of the bigger picture. 45 46 Beard: I can see that it's a plan, I just don't know who the plan's for. 22 1 2 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard. It's for everyone in the community. 3 4 Beard: Okay. 5 6 McCall: And the City is the caretaker of the community. 7 8 Beard: Okay. Okay I'll take that. Yeah. 9 10 Crane: It'll be for the City to implement if it chooses. 11 12 McCall: Mr. Chair that's correct. 13 14 Crane: Mr. Clifton. 15 16 Clifton: Just a few more points Carol. I know historically the City has oversaw 17 construction projects in particular a sewer line such as in the North Fork 18 Arroyo and that didn't work out too well. So I, 1 just wonder you know is 19 the government going to take care of us or who's going to take care of us, 20 I'm not sure. I'm not sure what this document does. There's not a very 21 good track record and it's, it's proven and I think Mr. Binns touched on it 22 previous to this. You talk about modeling to be done by a consultant that'll 23 dictate where the flood zone is. I thought FEMA did that. You know 1 24 have a hard time every time an individual comes in with a project that, oh 25 let's run it through our model and we'll determine where your boundaries 26 are. I understand that's going to take years to get the funding and what 27 not, but you know 1, I'm just again I'm curious, how is this going to work 28 assuming we, let's just say hypothetically we approved it tonight it 29 immediately goes to Council, it appears on November 17th. What 30 happens in December with an application that comes in and you have a 31 policy document, we understand that it's not an ordinance, but you know 32 in everyone of these packets tonight it references a policy document that 33 indicates approval or denial of the project. And I've, I've brought this up 34 multiple times before and I'll continue to bring it up, it, it is going to 35 formulate a recommendation. It is going to influence a decision. It will be 36 utilized much like the Comprehensive Plan to approve or deny a case. 37 And you know I'm not ... quite frankly it's just additional regulation that 1 38 don't think we need and I don't know but I think you stated there's 8,500 39 acres of privately held arroyo systems by individuals. Can you go to that 40 slide? 41 42 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Clifton. That's correct, but keep in mind that 43 that's also within the developed part of the City including the urban center. 44 The arroyo boundaries don't stop at the flood control dams or at 45 undeveloped properties. So I wasn't able to determine the areas that 46 we're talking about, the major arroyos and the main stems of the arroyos, 23 I how much of that acreage we're talking about, but in the entire City over 2 8,000 acres is privately owned. So that also includes the West Mesa. 3 4 Clifton: Well just generally speaking then, I'm not sure what undeveloped land 5 goes for these days, but assuming it was $10,000 per acre, you're looking 6 at 85 million dollars in reparations to private citizens. I don't know if the 7 City has a line item on the budget for 85 million dollars but that's a lot of 8 money. 9 10 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Clifton. I don't understand, I don't understand 11 what that refers to. 12 13 Clifton: The point is there has to be compensation, just true fair market value 14 compensation for individuals that won't be able to utilize their land within 15 the buffer areas. 16 17 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Clifton. That's not what the Plan calls for. If you 18 look at the map on any aerial within the City limits you will see that most of 19 that acreage is developed already. The buffers that we're talking about or 20 any particular easement where there may not be any development is only 21 for land that is not yet developed. And in addition as I pointed out before, 22 the Plan doesn't say that a person's land cannot be developed on, it 23 merely suggests that a buffer for added erosion control is one of many 24 possibilities. So if that's not clear in the Plan then that could be a 25 suggestion, a change that, that the Commission suggests, but it doesn't 26 say in the Plan that that's what would happen and I do want to point that 27 out. 28 29 Clifton: But, but it, nonetheless it's still a buffer. It's still a line item through the 30 review process. It'll be utilized in a recommendation. A buffer is a buffer, 1 31 mean when I hear that, that is an area in which you cannot do something; 32 a landscape buffer. It's a certain width that you can't do anything but 33 landscaping. So it's unclear how will an individual get compensated by 34 being forced to have a buffer through whatever ordinance will come out of 35 this policy document. You know we haven't talked about that. And we 36 don't need to go into the numbers tonight, but you know Commissioner 37 Beard's point, you know I've been around construction development for 20 38 years and I have never heard of somebody wanting to build on clay. You 39 just don't do that. There's a process called liquefaction. 40 41 Crane: Excuse me Commissioner that's going to be taken care of shortly. 42 43 Clifton: Just for the record consider Legends West. I think you're familiar with 44 what happened at Legends West. 45 24 I McCall: Mister, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Clifton, excuse me. I do want to point out 2 again that the Plan isn't going to force anybody to do anything. As has 3 been stated and as all of you know, in the absence of code, a policy 4 document can be used to make a decision but it's not binding and it can 5 be appealed. So unless the policy runs counter to code that's already 6 existing and would create a conflict by using the policy document as a 7 reason to vote for something rather than the code, if those two conflict, the 8 code is binding and the policy is not. 9 10 Crane: Commissioner Ferrary. 11 12 Ferrary: I think that as a guiding plan this is a wonderful document and as you said 13 it is something that code can be derived from and it does also keep in 14 mind that as land sales are made that they are compensated for buffer 15 zones. If the land were going to be sold to a developer and that would set 16 up the future of having the arroyos protected and also the homeowners 17 that might be in that area as well as wildlife. And I think this document is 18 wonderful and that it shouldn't be delayed any longer. 19 20 Crane: I have a question regarding the buffer zone. Considering that this applies 21 only at the moment, can only apply to undeveloped land correct? In 22 relation to the centerline of the arroyo as it stands at this moment, where 23 is this measurement made, this let's say 100 feet to grab a number; from 24 the centerline of the arroyo, from the bank of the arroyo before it drops 25 down to the bed? Where is the measurement taken from, or is it the 26 whole width of the arroyo? 27 28 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioners. I will let Mr. Ruybalid and Mr. Scanlon address 29 that because I don't know how the flood zones are determined. If I may 30 though, 1, Commissioner Clifton asked a question that I didn't, that I didn't 31 respond to regarding the FEMA flood zones. And, but it's also just to say 32 that the model that I showed you, the illustrations that I showed you are 33 from an actual study that was done of the Sand Hill Arroyo that was 34 commissioned by the City. So the FEMA flood zones are indeed in place, 35 but any, any modeling that's done that's more current will be more 36 accurate. So, and beyond that Mr. Ruybalid can answer that question, 37 he's the one that provided the illustrations for me. 38 39 Crane: Another further point and as I often do it's a tiny one, but when you come 40 up with your final version to buck to the City Council at whatever point, the 41 pagination of your chapters is off slightly in the contents page, table of 42 contents, and on page 79 your conclusions should be called Chapter 7 to 43 be consistent with the others. Basically I'm only capable of making small 44 points. Okay, any Commissioner have any other questions for Ms. McCall 45 at this moment? All right then we'll ... thank you and ... 46 25 I McCall: May I Mr. Chair? 2 3 Crane: Yes, by all means. 4 5 McCall: If I may suggest an option having to do with the proposed changes. If 6 you're uncomfortable with the change in text regarding the soils, you could 7 also choose to leave the plan as it is in that regard. 8 9 Crane: Yeah. Thank you. We understand. So now we open this to members of 10 the public. And it's not clear to me whether everybody present in the room 11 is ... wants to speak to this issue, so I see two hands up, may I see hand 12 up for everybody who'd like to speak to this. I see one, two, three, four. 13 Okay. Thank you. Now I know you're an engineer Mr. Scanlon, right? 14 Hang on a minute sir. Are there any developers here that wish to address 15 us? Okay two. Last time we had some presentations with developers and 16 we asked since we had a number of people speaking to limit it to three 17 minutes and I don't remember how long it was but it wasn't three minutes. 18 Please gentlemen make your points as succinctly as possible. If you 19 merely wish to endorse something that somebody else has said, maybe 20 one of the Commissioners or member of the public, just do that, we'll 21 register it. Can you all do this in three minutes? Anybody have a problem 22 with three minutes? One, two, three, four, five. Good. Thank you. Allow 23 our secretary to ... yes sir. 24 25 Beard: They were shaking their heads no. 26 27 Crane: No I saw nods up. Okay. If you have ... 28 29 Beard: Give them five. Okay three. 30 31 Crane: If you have problem with three minutes please put up your hand. See 32 they're all going like this. 33 34 Beard: Sorry. 35 36 Crane: So, I will ask our doughty secretary here to time you and who'd like to be 37 first? Mr. Scanlon would like to be first. Come on up. Oh and we've got 38 to make room for your engineer, right? Yes, who can appear as far as I'm 39 concerned at any point. 40 41 Scanlon: Thank you Mr. Chair. 42 43 Crane: Tell us who you are for the record and ... 44 45 Scanlon: My name is Ted Scanlon and my address is 2540 North Telshor 46 Boulevard in Las Cruces. 26 1 2 Crane: Mr. Scanlon do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 3 give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? 4 5 Scanlon: I do. 6 7 Crane: Thank you, go on please. 8 9 Scanlon: Okay. Real quickly to clarify the, the, the confusion over the soil types. 10 Clay soils are what are called high PI soils. High PI soils is the, means 11 that they have a high plasticity index. The higher the plasticity index the 12 more potential they, the soils have to shrink and swell based upon their 13 moisture content. When the soil shrink and swell based upon the moisture 14 content you get a condition in the building foundations called differential 15 settlement. Differential settlement in a building foundation can cause the 16 foundations to crack and break apart and, and damage the structure. So 17 granular soils are more suitable for building foundations than Clay soils, 18 period. 19 20 Crane: Thank you. 21 22 Scanlon: Okay. The other issues that I have are with respect to the buffer areas, in 23 particular I would like it defined like you, you mentioned where the 24 measurement is made from; is it from the centerline of the thread of the 25 stream? Is it from the edge of the 100-year floodplain out? Is it from the 26 edge of the 500-year floodplain out? If that's not clearly defined over, over 27 time the, the administrators that are doing this are going to try to make the 28 strictest and most stringent possible, I'll guarantee you because that's 29 what always happens over time. So I think that that needs to be defined, 30 exactly where that buffer is. Then there needs to be some manner of 31 compensation for the loss of that buffer land. If the person has paid for 32 that land under the anticipation of being able to develop it and is all of a 33 sudden told he cannot develop it because it's in this arroyo buffer, then he 34 needs to be compensated for it somehow, either monetarily, or through 35 density credit which means that he could achieve the same number of 36 units on the remaining land that he could have put on the remaining land 37 plus the buffer. So some method of compensation for the loss of that 38 property needs to be made. That's all I have. Any questions? 39 40 Crane: Thank you Mr. Scanlon. 41 42 Scanlon: Thank you. 43 44 Crane: And you made it under three minutes, right? 45 46 Beard: Two and a half. 27 1 2 Crane: Okay, next please, don't be shy. Everybody will get heard. You're 3 number three sir. Please tell us who you are. 4 5 Curry: Paul Curry. 6 7 Crane: Paul Curry. Mr. Curry do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are 8 about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? 9 10 Curry: Yes I do. Well the first statement is to back up what Mr. Scanlon said 11 regarding the plasticity index. All the buildings we've ever built, all the 12 engineers and architects require us to over excavate out all the clay and 13 bring in granular soil to build on. It's common knowledge throughout the 14 construction industry that you don't build a building on a clay soil. If you 15 do you're going to have trouble with the foundation. 16 Then the next statement I'd like to make is regard to the 150-foot 17 buffer for the arroyos. If you're doing a large lot subdivision where you 18 have one or two or three or four acre lots it's not an issue, but when you're 19 doing lot, small lot subdivisions 150-feet is a substantial cost taking of a 20 very experience piece of property from a homeowner for a home or 21 landowner or developer that's not going to be reimbursed. So if you want 22 150-foot, is it from the center or is it from the edge? Cause when you ... 23 150-feet is a lot of land and you take that from the edge of the arroyo and 24 you go up the side of a hill or back away from it, it's a substantial hardship 25 on the people who are going to buy the ultimate property that's developed, 26 it just raises the price and the cost for the general public in the end. 27 Thank you. 28 29 Crane: Thank you Mr. Curry. Gentleman in the light jacket there. Tell us who you 30 are sir. 31 32 Hughs: Good evening. My name is Ed Hughs. I live at 5530 Remington Road. 33 34 Crane: Mr. Hughs do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give 35 is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? 36 37 Hughs: Ido. 38 39 Crane: Go ahead please. 40 41 Hughs: First of all I'd like to just to compliment Carol McCall and her staff on 42 putting together a very readable document on a very difficult topic. I think 43 they've done an excellent job and conducted a lot of hearings in doing 44 this. I also want to say that I think it's really important that local 45 government use existing arroyos as a natural drainage structures that they 46 are. I think the document does a good job of pointing out issues that have 28 I been caused in the past due to the certain practices that, that we would 2 like to change. A couple, there are about three, three issues I want to 3 address real quickly, one of them is on page two, it's the purpose of the 4 Arroyo Management Plan, bullet number two, it says "Allow maintenance 5 of historic flows and arroyos." I'm not quite sure what that means. It 6 seems like require or some stronger language would be, would be 7 important there. That's bullet point two on page two. 8 Then on page 40, and Carol has done a, a pretty good job, a good 9 job of discussion modeling and discussing modeling and the needs that 10 we need for more current models and data which I would very much agree 11 with, having dealt with modeling in my professional career. They're only 12 as good as the data you have and many of these models are developed 13 for not our soil types or areas, so I think we very much need much better 14 data to implement these models at all. 15 But the third item I would like to address which I think is the most 16 important and I think this really has the power to really undo all that is 17 stated in the document is on page 77 under goal nine, and it's the action 18 "Participate in the creation of a regional stormwater utility - an organization 19 complete with its own revenue source that collects, treats, and disposes of 20 stormwater." Stormwater management, it really as the document talks 21 about really is to management, manage the ... 22 23 Crane: Excuse me Mr. Hughs. 24 25 Hughs: Yes sir. 26 27 Crane: Did you say page 77? 28 29 Hughs: I did, yes sir. At least on my copy. 30 31 Crane: Okay. 32 33 Hughs: I hope this doesn't count against my three minutes. 34 35 Crane: Is that the first item in the first box on the ... 36 37 Hughs: First action item, yes sir. "Participate in the creation of a regional 38 stormwater utility." 39 40 Crane: Okay. Yep, thank you. 41 42 Hughs: We on the same page? Okay, good. Stormwater management really 43 does not, does not mean to manage all arroyo flows as we've talked about 44 up stream in the ETZ as well as within the City limits. So my question 45 really is, is what power explicitly would the flood control authority have in 46 any stormwater project management, what rights to downstream owners 29 I have on retaining this historic flow? It seems to me that this is a very 2 open-ended power and that this would override any, any private owner's 3 concern downstream. So I think the powers need to be very specifically 4 laid out and any power to interrupt any flow upstream should be clearly 5 delineated and detailed in such a document as this. So I think this, this 6 one item to me has a, has a real significant impact on the, on the whole 7 document. Plus I, I, 1 just was interested in, in Mr. Scanlon and Mr. 8 Curry's comment about, about the easements and it certainly would take 9 ... 150-feet is quite a, quite a distance. But am I not mistaken in the 10 document and this is a question to Carol, that most of this, the buffer as it 11 applies to land that is not purchased would be the, delineated prior to 12 purchase and the, and the values, values compensated for at that point? 13 Cause a lot of this is public land at this point. One other, one minor 14 comment if I have a second, there were a lot of stakeholder meetings that, 15 that the public, and there were public hearings that we were part of, a lot 16 of stakeholder meetings and I, 1 would like some further public input after 17 some of those stakeholder meetings which I, 1 suppose this is it. Thank 18 you very much for hearing me. Mr. Chairman, Members of the 19 Commission. Thanks. 20 21 Crane: Thank you Mr. Hughs. Gentleman standing up. Tell us who you are sir. 22 23 Moscato: John Moscato, 4935 Ocotillo Road. 24 25 Crane: McCarter. 26 27 Moscato: Moscato. 28 29 Crane: Moscato. Mr. Moscato do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are 30 about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? 31 32 Moscato: Yes. 33 34 Crane: Go ahead please. 35 36 Moscato: Although Carol has made an attempt to improve the plan, I still think there 37 are lots of defects that haven't been cured since the original version. For 38 instance, there's no clarity as to what land will actually be affected by the 39 plan and the ordinances that flow from it. There's discussion of three 40 arroyos. There's a map of more than a dozen arroyos. There's mention 41 that additional arroyos may need to be managed later on in the plan so 42 from a private property owner's prospective there is no clarity whatsoever 43 on the basic question of what land that I own will be affected by this. As to 44 the buffer, there's no specificity as far as how that buffer will be 45 implemented, how it will be forced upon private property owners, how they 46 might be compensated. None of those questions is answered here. 1 30 I think we're going down a slippery slope when you propose approving a 2 plan that the purpose of which is future implementation of, of ordinances. 3 In the meantime staff inevitably will use the plan as the basis for review 4 comments and limiting private property rights. I don't think there's any 5 doubt about that. 6 1 also want to point out one item that I thought was very interesting 7 in the, in the conclusion, I'll just read a sentence of two here. This is the 8 conclusion to, to the plan. It says "As development has increased, arroyos 9 have been rerouted, channelized, and dammed to prevent or mitigate 10 flood damage. In some cases these actions were the only alternatives to 11 protect downstream property." Well I think that's pretty amazing 12 admission in this document because the very rerouting channelization and 13 damming that is admitted here to have been necessary to mitigate flood 14 damage and to be the only alternatives to prevent, to protect downstream 15 property are the very processes that would be prohibited by this plan. So 16 there's no, there's no reality in terms of how this matches up to the, the 17 challenges of development. It, it's just, it's a lot of feel good provisions, 18 plans, policies, goals, but in the end it's just going to have a negative 19 impact on private property owners and we simply don't know what, what 20 the eventual impact's going to be. I think until that kind of clarity is 21 included, Carol mentioned that one of the stakeholder meetings that it 22 would cost upwards of $100,000 to fully model each major arroyo. 23 Where's that funding coming from? If it's so important that this plan be put 24 forward at this time, why shouldn't the modeling be done up front so 25 everybody; the property owners, the Commission, the Council, everyone 26 involved, the general public, they know exactly which property will be 27 effected by this plan and the, and the ordinances that inevitably will, will 28 stem from it. Thank you. 29 30 Crane: Thank you Mr. Moscato. Anyone else? Gentleman in the white shirt. Tell 31 us who you are sir. 32 33 Chavira: My name is Steven Chavira. 34 35 Crane: Mr. Chavira do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 36 give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? 37 38 Chavira: I do. 39 40 Crane: Continue please. 41 42 Chavira: Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I speak 43 today on behalf of the Las Cruces Home Builders Association as their 44 Chief Executive Officer. And I want to support all the commentary that 45 has been made before me. This plan that you see before you is a, is, as 46 Commissioner Clifton aptly stated is an incomplete plan and the, the 31 I slippery slope that is being introduced to you all tonight is one that I think 2 you all should carefully consider as you make your judgements tonight in 3 your proceedings. This plan is ... although Ms. McCall has done a lot of 4 hard work and really put a lot of effort into this, it's clearly demonstrated by 5 all of the, the slides that we saw that the, the plan is very very broad and 6 it's, it's still even with all the changes and the pages and pages of changes 7 that have been proposed, it's still a very vague plan. It is, I think would be 8 in, in the community's best interest and this Commission's best interest to, 9 to, to exercise your option to not let this go forward. Certainly in the 10 vagueness that it's, that it's showing right now. I think that as we look at 11 this plan and start to, start to really put it all together we realize that you 12 know the private owner rights, the property rights of the owners is really 13 what's at stake here. Looking forward at what we've got to, what is being 14 proposed in a policy document will just create a whole lot of opportunity for 15 ... as it begins, as the development begins to happen, as the progress 16 begins to go, as this plan moves forward, there's a lot of problems that are 17 going to be occurring because of, of this plan moving forward as it is right 18 now. I would agree with Commissioner Clifton that it would not be prudent 19 to put a, an incomplete document forward and you know certainly take a 20 look at that as you go forward. Make the right decision. 21 22 Crane: Thank you. Ms. McCall did you have an engineer you wanted to bring in? 23 Okay. Tell us who you are please. 24 25 Ruybalid: My name is Jonah Ruybalid. 26 27 Crane: Rubles. 28 29 Ruybalid: Ruybalid. 30 31 Crane: Rubales. 32 33 Ruybalid: Ruybalid. It's, it's a tricky one. 34 35 Crane: Okay. I got it. Mr. Rubales do you swear or affirm that the testimony you 36 are about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of 37 law? 38 39 Ruybalid: I do. 40 41 Crane: Go ahead please. 42 43 Ruybalid: Okay. So I had talked to Carol just about the buffer zones and just to 44 provide a way that they could be developed. Then when we had 45 discussed these buffer zones we hadn't discussed a, a set distance 46 whether it be from the centerline or the outside edge of the arroyo. We 32 I had just talked about how to develop these buffer zones with HEC/HMS or 2 HEC RAS. And so those buffer zones would be based on the output from 3 HEC RAS. And so that you could determine them based on the 100-year 4 storm, 500-year storm, whichever that you preferred, but they would be 5 what was delineated on a map. Okay, so HEC/HMS would be utilized to 6 determine flow rates and volumes that would be put into HEC RAS and 7 then that would give a, I guess you could say flood zone based on 8 whichever storm you used and then that would be delineated on a map 9 and then that could be used as the buffer zone if you wanted to. It 10 wouldn't be necessarily 150-feet from the centerline or 300-feet or 11 anything like that. 12 13 Crane: So it remains to be established just what a, how a buffer zone would 14 defined? 15 16 Ruybalid: Can you repeat that? 17 18 Crane: It remains to be established. You haven't got a firm definition of that at the 19 moment. 20 21 Ruybalid: Correct. 22 23 Crane: Okay. 24 25 Ruybalid: It'd have to be determined based on some further modeling. 26 27 Crane: Thank you. 28 29 Ruybalid: Yes. 30 31 Crane: Anyone else wish to speak to this issue? All right then I'll close it to further 32 public participation. Commissioners? Commissioner Ferrary. 33 34 Ferrary: Ms. McCall is the modeling, further modeling to determine where the 35 buffers zone would start or end, is that dependent on what or where that 36 arroyo is? I mean it's future modeling so it's not anything that you can 37 determine now is it, or if you define that now then it would just be used for 38 future modeling. 39 40 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Ferrary. It isn't something that would be 41 determined now, in fact as this example points out it would be, it would be 42 done later on as, as development occurs or as there is a need to 43 determine whether there would be a buffer required or wherever there 44 might need to be a drainage study that, that this modeling could help 45 inform. That's all. 46 33 I Ferrary: So it means then that something like that can't be concrete. It is 2 something that changes with time and also the arroyo that you're 3 modeling. 4 5 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Ferrary. That's correct. And for the purposes of 6 this plan it also isn't necessary. 7 8 Ferrary: Thank you. 9 10 Crane: Anyone else? 11 12 McCall: Mr. Chair may I make, make a couple of corrections? 13 14 Crane: Go ahead please. 15 16 McCall: A couple of the speakers referred to a 150-foot buffer and I ... there isn't 17 anything in the plan that discusses any kind of distance. 18 19 Crane: I only saw 50 and 100, correct? 20 21 McCall: No. Those refer to, well there's the 100-year flood zone. There is 22 reference to a possible easement distance of 50-100 feet in reference to 23 the input that was provided by the State Land Office. And that's the only 24 mention of any concrete distance. And again, as they point out it would be 25 determined in the process of dedicating the arroyos to the City. 26 27 Crane: Thank you. Mr. Clifton. 28 29 Clifton: One last question Carol, just ... can you walk me through what happens 30 30 days after this is adopted by City Council' Mr. Scanlon comes in with a 31 development project that is adjacent to one of these arroyos, what 32 happens? I mean what happens to the application, the review process, is 33 there going to be an argument between the City and the development 34 engineer versus the HEC RAS study? What I want to know is what the 35 process is going to be, has that been discussed? 36 37 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Clifton. You had a similar question at the last 38 meeting and the process is the same as any development proposal; it 39 would go through the review process by all of the reviewing parties and all 40 of the departments and then it would come to this body and then if 41 applicable it would go to the City Council. 42 43 Clifton: Well I understand, and that's extremely general and really kind of blows 44 over the actual process. But I, 1 think everybody in this room knows that 45 once it hits that office over there we're going to have a staff packet with 46 recommendations based on that policy document much like the 34 I Comprehensive Plan. And I, 1 am really struggling with how is that going 2 to play into the recommendation, has that been discussed at the staff 3 level, what happens? I mean it really seems like you're putting the cart 4 before the horse and I, I don't know ... having been on the reviewing side 5 of this I understand that a comprehensive plan, you're going to use it for or 6 against whatever the staff decides. And so once that comes in front of us 7 it's going to put, well some of us in a pickle on a decision. 8 9 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Clifton. I was going to call on Mr. Ochoa to ... 10 11 Crane: He's on his way. 12 13 McCall: Detail the, to detail the, the current planning application process. I'm not a 14 current planner and I don't have a lot of experience in that, so I'll put him 15 on the spot. 16 17 Clifton: Well to save time Carol I don't know that we need to hear that. What 1 18 want to know is situational. When ... cause it's going to happen, it will 19 happen. It's not a matter it might or it may, it will happen. I can guarantee 20 you it will happen. There's a lot of arroyos here. There's a lot of private 21 land adjacent to these arroyos. You've heard these gentlemen speak of 22 that. I want to know specifically what happens to that development 23 application that's adjacent to the arroyo prior to the implementation of any 24 ordinances, when you just have this policy document. 25 26 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Clifton. Again I'll call on Mr. Ochoa to answer 27 that. 28 29 Crane: Mr. Ochoa you may have missed the beginning of Mr. Clifton's question, it 30 was a very practical one; suppose Mr. Scanlon comes in with a proposal 31 for some development that abuts an arroyo, what would be the process at 32 the point ... I presume Mr. Clifton you're saying that the City, we have 33 approved and the City Council's approved, correct? 34 35 Clifton: Yes, what I, you know typically what I'm assuming still happens is it goes 36 to the Development Review Committee which we get the minutes in our 37 packets, and then in that committee meeting they will discuss, well okay 38 we have the arroyo, the buffer, what are we going to do with the buffer? 39 Well there's going to be a contentious disagreement between the 40 developer and the City yet there's no policy document to directly impact 41 that recommendation, so the recommendation's going to be just simply 42 based on policy. Has been thought through? 43 44 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Clifton. I would, I would just guess that this, 45 whatever new submittal that comes in I'm guessing to be something very 46 initial being an annexation or master plan sort of thing, would be submitted 35 I to the City for review. And that review process would take place going to 2 all different varieties of departments at the City for review. That policy, the 3 Arroyo Policy of course will be looked at from a long range planning 4 perspective, from a planning perspective whether what they're proposing 5 in their development, if there are supporting factors within that, in that 6 policy just like the comprehensive plan rf you will, maybe Transportation 7 2040, the EI Paseo Corridor, Blueprint Plan, all different policy documents 8 out there to see if there's ways we could support the proposal that is being 9 set forward before us. And then with that as you've seen numerous staff 10 reports, there would be some findings either for support or denial of the 11 proposed project that is before you. 12 13 Crane: That help Mr. Clifton? 14 15 Clifton: Well I, 1 think it just demonstrates the problem is all it does and that's all 1 16 wanted to get to the surface is just that, that it is a problem. It's a 17 superfluous document that you cannot tie an individual's denial or 18 recommendation then bring it to us to struggle with competing interests in 19 a buffer, wherever that buffer may be, without a codified ordinance 20 substantiating that recommendation. I, 1 just see a cascading effect of 21 confusion if this thing's adopted as is. 22 23 Crane: Ms. Ferrary. 24 25 Ferrary: My understanding is that this is a guide and for planning, future planning. 26 If the codes aren't already enacted or they would work with just current 27 codes to make approval or denials, these would be adopted slowly and 28 implemented, not something that would probably affect what is happening 29 in direct applications but in future sales of public land to private, I would 30 see most of that. And I think that you're assuming that this would make 31 dramatic changes right away when it is just for policy, future policy 32 planning. 33 34 Clifton: Mr. Chair, I, 1 understand what you're saying but I respectfully disagree as 35 demonstrated with one previous case tonight, staff recommendation 36 based on findings for approval. One of those findings is based on the City 37 Comprehensive Plan Economic Development, Mixed Use and Infill 38 Development Goals and Objectives and Policies. Okay, in a court of law 39 they're going to ask you what were your findings for the basis of your 40 approval or denial of this project? Okay, the findings in effect establish 41 your recommendation, correct? 42 43 Ochoa: That is correct. 44 45 Clifton: So within that findings effect the staff is utilizing the policy document and 46 that's my point. Nothing more. That you are in fact using a policy-guiding 36 I document to formulate a recommendation. And without a codified 2 ordinance ... 3 4 Crane: I think we see your point sir. Did you have something else to say Carol? 1 5 mean I'm not forcing you, but if you have something. 6 7 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioners. I did just confer with Mr. Ochoa and when 8 there is code in place staff is obligated to recommend approval of the 9 proposal. So if staff came before this body or the City Council with a 10 development proposal and it fulfilled the obligations of the codes that are 11 in place, staff would be recommending approval regardless of what the 12 policy documents say. And this is hypothetical of course. 13 14 Basyat: Mr. Chair if I may ... Mr. Chair. 15 16 Crane: Yes ma'am. 17 18 Basyat: If I may address Commissioner Clifton's ... 19 20 Crane: You're not on the mike ma'am. Perhaps you should come up here. 21 22 Beard: And get the name. 23 24 Crane: And we need your name and (inaudible). 25 26 Basyat: Srijana Basyat. I'm the Senior Planner with Community Development, the 27 City of Las Cruces. 28 29 Crane: And I'll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are 30 about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? 31 32 Basyat: I do. 33 34 Crane: Go on please. 35 36 Basyat: I just wanted to point out that Commissioner Clifton's concern as to, in the 37 situation where you have policy and you don't have code. Okay, I don't 38 want to paraphrase Commissioner, I will just address his concern. The 39 reason you have policy, the reason you need a guiding document before 40 you can have code is that you need that policy support to actually create 41 regulations. So you can't actually have the regulations in place before you 42 have the policy, which is why the Arroyo Plan would come before any sort 43 of codified regulations on buffer distances or specifics. 44 45 Crane: Let me ask something to clarify. As I understand it and what you said a 46 few moments ago Ms. McCall, that if there's regulation in place, zoning 37 I regulations in place they take precedence in making a decision over 2 anything else. Mr. Clifton's bringing up is I think, let me paraphrase him 3 and he'll correct me if I'm wrong, that if zoning regulations are in place but 4 the questions arise that Mr. Scanlon's project brings up, they're not 5 covered by zoning regulations, and the only document that exists faintly 6 relevant to that is the Arroyo Plan, what legal, what influence does that 7 plan have subtly and unofficially or unsubtly and completely officially on 8 the decisions or recommendations of the Community Development 9 Department? 10 11 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioners. In the absence of code a decision maker 12 would look to policy to inform the decision, but the decision maker or 13 decision making body would not be obligated to follow the policy if he or 14 she chose to vote a different way because the policy is not binding. In 15 addition for example, if the decision making body did use the policy to 16 inform their decision and, and voted appropriately, because it isn't binding, 17 because it isn't code, well either way actually the applicant would have the 18 opportunity to appeal that decision. There's always that opportunity. 19 20 Crane: Thank you. Mr. Scanlon did I state your question correctly? 21 22 Clifton: Mr. Clifton. 23 24 Crane: (inaudible). Sorry Mr. Scanlon. 25 26 Clifton: I have a little more hair, sorry. 27 28 Crane: Of course. 29 30 Clifton: You know I don't know that it was such a more of a question than a 31 comment. I mean I understand the order of policy and, and ordinance but 32 nonetheless as I referenced the policy still being used to formulate a 33 recommendation that does have an impact, positive or negative on a 34 property owner and I think that just ... you know that needs to be 35 discussed. 36 37 Crane: Okay. 38 39 Clifton: Thank you. 40 41 Crane: So Commissioners. 42 43 McCall: Mr. Chair. 44 45 Crane: Yes ma'am. 46 38 1 McCall: I'm sorry. May I make a, a couple of additional comments? 2 3 Crane: Go ahead. 4 5 McCall: Just based on some of the public comment I, 1 want to point out some 6 places in the Plan that more specifically describe an opportunity or an 7 option to use a buffer and the cost to the property owner and to the City. 8 And you know what, I, 1 apologize but when I printed this document out 9 there are no page numbers. But if a buffer is found to be needed for 10 erosion control purposes in privately owned areas, eliminating 11 developable land could come at a high cost to the City. Incentives play a 12 major role in encouraging private landowners to participate in these 13 strategies. For instance it may be practical to use buffers for access to 14 utility infrastructure where necessary. And I, 1 point this out because as 1 15 described before, a buffer or an easement is only one option. If it's 16 determined to be a case in which some additional acreage or distance is 17 needed. Another could be to create a conservation easement that is tax 18 deductible. Another would be to use the acreage for your park credit or to, 19 as the speaker pointed out to have density bonuses in exchange for that 20 property. So there are a number of ways that it could be carried out 21 without the, the property owner necessarily losing his land all together or 22 needing to be paid out right for it. In addition one of the speakers called 23 out in the conclusion the, the history in which arroyos have been rerouted, 24 channelized, or dammed to prevent or mitigate flood damage. There isn't 25 any place in, in the document where it says that these things would be 26 prohibited if this, this plan were adopted. And I just wanted to point that 27 out. In addition, this version of the document is on-line and will remain on- 28 line if you were to recommend or not recommend adoption and it went 29 forward to the City Council, this is an, it's an additional one month public 30 input period in which people would have an opportunity to respond and 31 come to the, to the City Council meeting and make their opinions known. 32 Thank you. 33 34 Crane: Thank you. So Commissioners let's come to a vote on this and we have 35 to vote on it in a positive sense. In other words we will, the motion which 1 36 hope to hear in a minute will be that this Case PA-14-01 be accepted. 37 May I hear a motion to that effect? 38 39 Ferrary: I'd like to move that we adopt Case PA-14-01. 40 41 Crane: Thank you. Moved by Commissioner Ferrary. May I have a second? 42 43 Beard: I would like to hear some discussion. 44 45 Crane: Well we'll have a motion and then we can discuss it. That's the way it's 46 done. 39 1 2 Beard: Okay. 3 4 Crane: I think. 5 6 Beard: I'll second it. 7 8 Crane: So you're seconding. All right, seconded by Mr. Beard. Let me say at this 9 point so we don't have to repeat ourselves, from members of the public 10 and from many Commissioners there have been a number of points which 11 generally have trended in the direction of saying that this is not the best 12 possible final plan we could come up with to send up to the City Council 13 because there's a number of things that we all agree, I think Ms. McCall 14 would agree need some attention. In fact you brought up a couple of 15 those points yourself, so it's something to bear in mind when we come to 16 our decision on how to vote, that if you feel that there is something ... that 17 more polishing needs to be done to bring up a final copy that's worth 18 sending up to the City Council without any ifs, ands, and buts, then we 19 should vote against this. And Ms. McCall has full notes I'm sure and 20 access to the minutes and we're putting a heavy burden on her if we make 21 this extend but we've got to do the best job we can. So that in mind, 22 would anybody else have any points to make? Yes, Ms. Ferrary. 23 24 Ferrary: My understanding is that if we do approve this any of those improvements 25 can be made at the City Council level in the suggestions that Ms. McCall 26 had or the City Council. 27 28 Crane: At the, at the City, City Council level did you say? 29 30 Ferrary: Yes, when they go to approve it. 31 32 Crane: But that would mean that we have no opportunity to look at them again 33 and make sure that every little thing that was brought up is implemented 34 would it not? So I (inaudible) your point is, okay. Do have a comment on 35 that? 36 37 McCall: If you don't mind, Mr. Chair, if you didn't chose that option you would also 38 be free, there seems to be an issue with the, the soils component; one 39 option would be to recommend that the plan be left alone so that that 40 change is not made or that that statement be corrected to read accurately. 41 So as I, as I ... 42 43 Crane: It's going to make for ... 44 40 I McCall: The way the motion is phrased right now, you would be voting on the plan 2 as it is without any further changes. But you can propose that those 3 changes be made and then they would be presented to the City Council. 4 5 Crane: Quite. And there was a point of which I was going to suggest, this would 6 be about an hour ago, that we do that, with your two suggestions and 7 maybe a correction regarding the, the wording on the soil because you 8 (inaudible) completely wrong in that but it, well you're both right, let's put it 9 that way, but it needs to be modified. However, we went to I think quite a 10 number of other points, the buffer, the size of the buffer and some other 11 things if I am wrong tell me. And it's got to the point of which we would 12 find it very hard to specify in a motion exactly what needs to be fixed or 13 not. Now if any of my fellow Commissioners feel that they can frame a 14 motion in a way that would encompass all the requirements people have 15 brought up, so be it. 16 17 McCall: Mr. Chair. 18 19 Crane: Right now we have a motion on the floor. Since I was talking to her I'm 20 going to let her answer if she wishes. No, nothing. 21 22 McCall: I apologize. 23 24 Crane: Mr. Beard. 25 26 McCall: No, I do, I do have, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, you said that one of the, 27 one of the things that was proposed to be changed is the buffer distance, 28 but what I want to point out is that there isn't a buffer distance in the plan 29 and there probably never would be because it's case-by-case. It would 30 depend on the development proposal or the dedication of arroyos to the 31 City by the State Land Office or by the BLM. So in this document there 32 cannot, there just would not be a buffer distance stated. 33 34 Crane: But would there be a definition of what constitutes a buffer zone. I mean 35 where you measure it from is absolutely crucial. Regardless of size are 36 you measuring from the center of the current ... 37 38 McCall: Right. 39 40 Crane: Arroyo tract or ... 41 42 McCall: That could, that could be added. 43 44 Crane: Okay. 45 46 McCall: That could be added. That could be clarified. 41 1 2 Crane: Commissioner Beard. 3 4 Beard: Well there's going to be a whole bunch of changes made. If we approve 5 this, if we approve this without making any recommendations we're ... 6 you're still going to be making a bunch of changes to this document, true? 7 8 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard. I would only make the changes that you 9 include in your conditions. 10 11 Beard: But we've gone past that phase. 12 13 McCall: And as, by my count it would be the arroyo modeling, correcting the soils 14 statement, and making the point that the ... clarifying where the buffer 15 would be measured from. 16 17 Beard: Okay. 18 19 Crane: And the two points that you brought up. 20 21 McCall: Those, I included those. 22 23 Crane: Yeah, okay. 24 25 Beard: Okay. 26 27 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman if I may interject please? I apologize. 28 29 Crane: Mr. Ochoa. 30 31 Ochoa: What could happen since there is a motion and a second on the floor, 1 32 spoke with legal and a, a, an amendment can be made to that motion to 33 add those conditions at this time. 34 35 Beard: Okay. 36 37 Crane: Well is everybody on the Commission quite sure that those points that 38 Carol just listed are the, cover everything that was brought up? 39 40 Beard: But, but she gave two alternatives to that soil foundation and I would like 41 you to keep the modified one in there and then modify so that it is correct. 42 43 McCall: Chair, Commissioner Beard. I understand what you mean and I can do 44 that. 45 46 Beard: Okay. 42 1 2 Ferrary: I'd like to amend. 3 4 Crane: Commissioner, actually I think Commissioner Clifton had his light on his 5 first and then it's you Commissioner Ferrary. 6 7 Clifton: If I could point out something procedurally Mr. Chair, yes we do in fact 8 have a motion but I, 1 believe Commissioner Beard was kind of, I don't 9 know how to say it, he had to make a second so we could continue the 10 conversation, but I know where he was going and, and I believe you were 11 hesitant because you know you, like me you're not very comfortable with 12 the document incomplete in the nature that it is. But now that we have a 13 motion and second that kind of rules out a, a motion for postponement 14 which should've been a viable motion as well cause that was the third of 15 the three that was presented, so I mean if it gets denied or approved, 16 either way it moves forward with or without our input. 17 18 McCall: Commissioners. 19 20 Crane: Yes Carol. 21 22 McCall: If the motion that's on the floor at the moment is voted down then you can 23 make a new motion to postpone. 24 25 Crane: Yes. 26 27 McCall: So it, it doesn't, it doesn't necessarily eliminate that option. 28 29 Crane: Yeah, we can, Mr. Cabello. We can, can we not, vote the, this motion 30 down and then readdress the issue with the conditions, correct? 31 32 Cabello: Correct. 33 34 Crane: Yes. So we don't have to tangle ourselves up here. So ... 35 36 Beard: I would still like to make another point too. 37 38 Crane: Go ahead. 39 40 Beard: I'm hoping, I would like to get this to the City Council. I would like to get 41 their opinions and maybe they'll send it back to us with some objectives 42 that we can go by. Right now we're sort of operating all by ourselves and 43 we don't know what the City's thinking or the City Council's thinking. So 1 44 would certainly like to get an opinion from the City Council and get this 45 thing to them with our ideas in it. 46 43 1 Crane: Well City Council is not thinking anything because we haven't given them 2 anything to think about. 3 4 Beard: Right. 5 6 Crane: Now we've got to send them something and I don't know if they can send 7 it back to us for another ... 8 9 Beard: Yeah they can. 10 11 Crane: They can? 12 13 Beard: Yeah. 14 15 Crane: All right, well ... 16 17 Ochoa: Mr. Chair. 18 19 Beard: The, remember the Horizon thing, they sent it back to us twice. 20 21 Crane: The which one? Oh yeah. 22 23 Beard: The Horizon Tower. 24 25 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, yes sir for clarification, this is Adam Ochoa again, sorry. 26 Yes, the City Council can choose to remand this back to P&Z if they 27 choose to. 28 29 Crane: Mr. Clifton, your light's gone out. Are you ... you want to talk about ... 30 31 Clifton: Well that is correct, but will they? I mean that's (inaudible). 32 33 Crane: Well it's their business. Mr. Gordon. 34 35 Gordon: Carol perhaps you could, one other item, you did touch upon it for several 36 solutions to the cost of taking land. I don't want to use that word taking 37 land, but the land that is lost to a buffer. You may want to consider doing 38 some investigation and perhaps putting in some suggestions and following 39 up with it, whoever has to make those decisions tax-wise, cost to the City 40 as part of your presentation. 41 42 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Gordon. Thank you. I'll do that. 43 44 Crane: Mr. Beard. 45 44 1 Beard: If we approve this could you give us even though it's been approved, 2 could you send us a copy, a complete copy just for the heck of it? 3 4 McCall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard. Yes I can. 5 6 Beard: Thank you. 7 8 McCall: And not just for the heck of it, but for the real of it. 9 10 Crane: What's your definition of a complete copy? 11 12 Beard: With the changes that she's going to provide to ... whatever goes to the 13 City Council I would like to have a copy of it. 14 15 Crane: Oh, okay. 16 17 McCall: Mister. 18 19 Crane: You realize if there's any confusion or misunderstandings between us and 20 her about the materials to be put in, it's escaped from us and we never get 21 to fix it, don't you? 22 23 Beard: Well we'll have the minutes. I mean we can always refer to the minutes. 24 25 Crane: But it's escaped from us. It's gone up to the City Council. 26 27 Beard: Yes it has, it has. 28 29 McCall: Mr. Chair. 30 31 Crane: You're prepared ... yes ma'am. 32 33 McCall: I'm sorry. If I may, as I understand it the procedure is that this, the 34 October 28th draft would go to City Council. And what I would do is attach 35 the proposed changes and indicate where they're inserted and then go 36 through that at the City Council meeting. If, Mr. Ochoa can probably 37 confirm this but it's my understanding that the material that you see is the 38 same material that Council would see. So there would not be another 39 complete revision made, but the revisions would move forward with the 40 existing document, is that correct? Or is it possible for me to amend the 41 plan and take another revision forward to City Council. 42 43 Crane: For the record Ms. McCall is asking Mr. Ochoa. Go ahead. 44 45 I Ochoa: I believe it can. I believe you can actually modify that with the, with the 2 conditions as, as stipulated by the P&Z as long as those are done you 3 know as the P&Z instructed if you will. 4 5 McCall: Thank you. 6 7 Crane: All right our motion stands that the plan as presented to us be approved 8 unless the people who moved and seconded that wish to rescind the 9 motion and make a substitute. Who was it who moved? 10 11 Ferrary: I did. 12 13 Crane: Okay, how do you feel about that? 14 15 Ferrary: I would like to rescind the motion, the first one and make a motion that we 16 adopt Case PA-14-01 with the conditions that we've spoken about and do 17 1 need to point them out? 18 19 Crane: You had better read them to us, yes, at least in outline form. 20 21 Ferrary: Okay. I have that we would include the conditions of the modeling and 22 also the changes to the soil ... 23 24 Crane: Statement. 25 26 Ferrary: Right or the you know, yes. And then also information about the buffer 27 zone. And the distance, yes. 28 29 Crane: Just those three items? 30 31 Ferrary: Was there one more? 32 33 McCall: Mr. Chair those are the only ones that I recall. 34 35 Crane: Okay. Mr. Beard you had your light on. 36 37 Beard: When she was hesitating about the soil I was going to say modify, what is 38 it the presentation number 33, slide number 33, so that it is more correct 39 as far as erosion goes. Okay. 40 41 Crane: Okay. That's four. Any other Commissioner have a point to make? Mr. 42 Gordon. 43 44 Gordon: I think there was one additional point about the fact of, of making some 45 clarification determination of the value of the land that perhaps might've 46 been lost in the buffer. 46 1 2 Crane: Yes, we covered the definition of a buffer zone. Okay. So does that make 3 a fifth one or was that present in yours Ms. Ferrary? 4 5 Ferrary: I think that was present in mine with the buffer description and also 6 compensations already kind of described it. 7 8 Crane: Yeah, right, right. Okay, so may I have a second to that? 9 10 McCall: Mr. Chair. 11 12 Crane: Ms. McCall. 13 14 McCall: If I may, Ms. Basyat reminded me that the motion regarding the buffer the, 15 as I recall the question was how and where the buffer is measured from, is 16 that correct? 17 18 Crane: Well the definition in my view, was that ... 19 20 McCall: Okay, that would be included in the definition. I just want to make sure 21 I've got them. 22 23 Ferrary: If that's possible cause ... 24 25 McCall: Okay. 26 27 Ferrary: The modeling changes and ... 28 29 McCall: Right. 30 31 Ferrary: I don't know how that would actually be defined. 32 33 McCall: No that, that, that would be included in the definition, so yeah. 34 35 Crane: All right may I have a second for the new motion. 36 37 Stowe: I second the motion. 38 39 Crane: Seconded by Mr. Stowe. Let's start with a roll call vote from this end. Did 40 we start here before, I can't remember. Mr. Beard. 41 42 Beard: I approve based on discussions and the plan that's been presented before 43 us. 44 45 Crane: Ms. Ferrary. 46 47 I Ferrary: I vote aye for discussion and findings. 2 3 Crane: Mr. Stowe. 4 5 Stowe: I vote aye based on discussions, presentation. 6 7 Crane: Mr. Gordon. 8 9 Gordon: I vote aye based on discussion and the amendments that were made to 10 the plan. 11 12 Crane: Mr. Clifton. 13 14 Clifton: I vote no based on a, an incomplete document being submitted to the 15 Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration and furthermore as 16 the perception of improper notification to the public with this incomplete 17 document. 18 19 Crane: Chair votes aye based on findings and discussion. So we pass the 20 measure five to one, will go to City Council. Thank you all. 21 22 McCall: Thank you. 23 24 Crane: Yes, and you did very well. Before we continue may I see whether the 25 remaining members of the public are here for the next item of new 26 business, PUD-14-02? I was going to call a comfort break but I think I'm 27 going to call that anyway. Let's meet again at, I think we make it 25 28 minutes to nine, okay? That gives us about seven minutes. We're in 29 recess. 30 31 BREAK TAKEN 8:28 THROUGH 8:38. 32 33 Crane: Okay ladies and gentlemen it's time to restart the meeting in spite of the 34 fact we're short one Commissioner for a moment, but I think we, she left 35 her purse so she's not going far. 36 37 VI. NEW BUSINESS 38 39 1. Case PUD-14-02: Application of Las Cruces Investment Group, LLC, 40 property owner, for a Concept Plan Amendment for a Planned Unit 41 Development (PUD) known as the High Range PUD. The proposed 42 amendment is to increase the maximum density permitted for multi-family 43 development from 16 dwelling units per acre to 24 dwelling units per acre and 44 to permit the use of off-premise development identification signs for the 6.29 45 +/- acre undeveloped western portion of the original Parcel 1 of the High 46 Range PUD. The subject property is located east of the Las Cruces Dam 48 I and west of the Golden Mesa Retirement Facility with access to Roadrunner 2 Parkway through the Golden Mesa Retirement Facility; Parcel ID# 02-13611. 3 Proposed Use: A new multi-family apartment complex; Council District 6 4 (Levatino). 5 6 Crane: Okay Mr. Ochoa you're going to address us on PUD-14-02, correct? 7 8 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman that is correct. Your next and final case is PUD-14-02, it is 9 a proposed concept plan amendment for an existing Planned Unit 10 Development or PUD known as the High Range PUD. 11 Shown here on the location/vicinity map, highlighted here in the 12 stripes, subject property's located here directly east of what is the Las 13 Cruces Dam, west of this property here which would be the Golden Mesa 14 Retirement Facility. As you can see it is located in a PUD. That PUD is 15 zone in the High Range PUD area. 16 Just a little kind of history and kind of current conditions of the 17 property. This is actually the western most portion of the original parcel 18 one of the High Range PUD which was approved back in December 1980. 19 That PUD set in place a couple of standards, what's permitted, single- 20 family use, multifamily use, office, and commercial uses and it set 21 densities as well. That's the extent to what that PUD went to, essentially 22 everything else fell into City standards from there. The subject property is 23 now currently Lot 1 of the Las Cruces Retirement Resident Subdivision 24 which was subdivided back in June 1999. This parcel, 6.29 acre parcel 25 was actually supposed to be the second phase of the existing retirement 26 center directly east of it. 27 The subject property is currently vacant and undeveloped and just 28 for clarification and just for an information standpoint this property does 29 not have actual frontage along any right-of-way. The closest frontage, the 30 closest right-of-way to it would be the, Roadrunner Parkway, it actually 31 has access to Roadrunner Parkway through 27-foot wide access 32 easements that run through that eastern lot of the Golden Mesa 33 Retirement facility. 34 Shown here in the aerial, the vacant property showing those two 35 easements that run to the subject property there through the Golden Mesa 36 Retirement Center to Roadrunner Parkway. 37 Now for the proposal, the developer is seeking now to develop the 38 property for a new multifamily apartment complex. Currently the PUD has 39 a limit to the maximum density of dwelling units on the property to 16 40 dwelling units per acre allowing approximately about 100 dwelling units on 41 the property. This amendment will increase the maximum density 42 permitted to 24 dwelling units per property which is roughly, which is 43 roughly about 150 dwelling units but the applicant is actually seeking to 44 develop this apartment complex with 120 dwelling units. Included in this 45 amendment the applicant seeking the approval to use what, what is 46 defined as an off premise development identification sign for the new 49 I apartment complex. The applicant has created his own standards for 2 these signs for him to be able to utilize. These types of signs are actually 3 not currently permitted under the current City of Las Cruces Sign Codes, 4 so with this amendment they are allowing themselves the capability to be 5 seen or found from public right-of-way on Roadrunner Parkway by placing 6 their development ID signs relatively in the same area where the Golden 7 Mesa Retirement facility has their signs now. Although their development 8 standards for the property shall follow R-3 multifamily medium density 9 zoning requirements, not including density of course since that is one of 10 their, their amendments and the Las Cruces Design Standards. 11 Here is a conceptual view of what that property would look like. 12 Property with buildings around the parking and driving aisles of the subject 13 property. Here are those PUD notes which stipulate not only the off 14 premise development identification signs, what they are, what they're 15 going to be used for and some standards maximum number, maximum 16 height, maximum size, where they'll be located, elimination requirements, 17 and so forth like that. Along with this when this PUD amendment went 18 through review there were a couple of departments who still had some 19 outstanding issues that were more directed towards the development of 20 the property. With that the applicant has added a, a couple of additional 21 notes to the PUD stipulating that a comprehensive drainage analysis shall 22 be required at the time of construction permitting and a traffic impact 23 analysis shall be required at the time of construction permitting, there we 24 go. I lost that word right there. But that's essentially been taken care of, 25 the concerns of those two departments in the City. 26 With this amendment code does require that the applicant provide a 27 public benefit for the City to not only ... to essentially help the balance of 28 the benefits to the community and to balance that out with the actual 29 interests of the applicant. The applicant has agreed to landscape the 30 median on Roadrunner Parkway that is found between the two entry 31 points of Golden Mesa Retirement facility. This landscaping requirement 32 of the median is typically required of new, new developments anyway, but 33 since this property actually, for properties adjacent to that right-of-way but 34 since this property does, is not actually physically adjacent to it, they are 35 volunteering as a benefit to actually landscape that median. That median 36 shall be required to be landscaped at the time of construction of the new 37 apartment complex. The proposed High Range PUD Concept Plan 38 Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of Comprehensive 39 Plan 2040, the intent of the 2001 Zoning Code, and the standards of other 40 plans and codes of the City. 41 On October 1st, 2014 the DRC did review the proposed 42 amendment. They do review these types of items from an infrastructure, 43 utilities, and improvement requirements standpoint. After some minor 44 discussion at the DRC meeting, DRC did recommend approval without 45 conditions for the proposed High Range PUD Concept Plan and staff also 46 does recommend approval of the proposed concept plan amendment with 50 I no conditions based on the findings found within your staff reports. With 2 that ladies and gentlemen your options are 1) to vote "yes" recommend, to 3 vote "yes" and approve the PUD as recommended by staff, Case PUD-14- 4 02; vote "yes" with conditions as deemed appropriate by the P&Z and 5 added to this PUD; vote "no" for Case PUD-14-02; or 4) vote to table and 6 postpone and direct staff and the applicant accordingly. The P&Z is a 7 recommending body for this Concept Plan Amendment to City Council. 8 Just for the record, staff did, well two points for the record, this 9 development did require or staff felt it met the requirements for early 10 notification requirements to adjacent property owners. The applicant went 11 ahead and did contact adjacent property owners letting them know about 12 the proposal and so forth like that so they did meet that early notification 13 requirement before coming forward to the Planning and Zoning 14 Commission. Additionally, though I would like to add that staff did receive 15 one phone call from a resident actually from within the Golden Mesa 16 facility and he did have a number of concerns with the new proposal and 1 17 believe he is here tonight to state his concerns. I believe there are other 18 people here from the public who are willing to state their concerns as well, 19 but the applicant and his representative are here to answer any questions 20 you might have as well. And I stand for questions. 21 22 Crane: Thank you Mr. Ochoa. Questions for Mr. Ochoa Commissioners? 23 Commissioner Beard I think you had your light on first. 24 25 Beard: The sign, that went right over my head. What kind of a sign, I mean, how, 26 is that going to deviate greatly from what the code is on the sign, signage 27 or? 28 29 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard. The difference being in the City of 30 Las Cruces currently under the sign code you are not allowed to advertise 31 your or to advertise something that's located on your property on a 32 different piece of property. The only real ones that are allowed to do that 33 are real estate signs, directional real estate signs and billboards 34 essentially. So since this type of sign that they're proposing is not defined, 35 excuse me, by our code, the amendment is to allow them to do so to allow 36 the sign on the adjacent property where the access points are. 37 38 Beard: Okay. And it would still meet all the codes then otherwise? 39 40 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard. They actually set their own 41 standards and their own code for their signs since the City Sign Code 42 does not have regulations to regulate those signs, they set up their own 43 standards and their own signs in their notes. 44 45 Beard: So are we going to get to know what it is? 46 51 I Ochoa: Yes sir, if you look at it under the PUD notes number six, that stipulates 2 essentially everything that is required of a sign when staff, City staff 3 reviews sign permits. We look at placement, we look at setbacks, we look 4 at maximum height, we look at maximum square footage, and we also 5 look at illumination as well. All those have been covered by the standards 6 as well as them setting their own standards by having to, they actually 7 have a, a, a sign agreement in place with the property owners of the 8 Golden Mesa Retirement facility for them to be able to place their signs on 9 their property so they'll have to follow those requirements as well on top of 10 the standards that were developed for them by the PUD Amendment. 11 12 Beard: And, and they have identified an approved property owner to put that sign 13 on? 14 15 Ochoa: I apologize, I didn't get that. 16 17 Beard: Well it's not on their property, right? 18 19 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman that is correct. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, that is 20 correct. The sign, that's what I'm saying, the, the sign, the agreement with 21 the adjacent property owner is to place their signs on their, on the ... 22 23 Beard: And they have agreed. 24 25 Ochoa: The adjacent property owner's property. 26 27 Beard: They know about it. Okay. 28 29 Crane: Commissioner Gordon. 30 31 Gordon: Adam I have several thoughts and concerns about this petition. Number 32 one, this is a simple request that perhaps could be made to the developer 33 in terms of landscaping the median. According to the aerial photo it shows 34 that you're only going to landscape the median that runs basically from the 35 point of egress from the Golden Mesa home down to some point that 36 doesn't quite extend the length of the property. There is a cut through and 37 then there's another median that starts, I don't know how much further 38 down before another cut through where there's an office building located 39 to the side of the property, but perhaps in order to make some continuity 40 and some beauty in front of Golden Mesa to continue the landscaping 41 down further. That you would have to discuss with the developer. I don't, 42 I'm not demanding it but I think it would look nice. That's number one. 43 Number two, I walked this property. I did a site visit and I'm just 44 wondering if there is going to be any type of buffer between the rear of 45 Golden Mesa and the front of the proposed apartments? Right now 46 there's nothing, there's just a slope of land. Are they planning to put up 52 I some kind of trees, some kind of division of the property between Golden 2 Mesa and the proposed apartments? That would be my second question. 3 And my last question is, what I'm really very concerned about is the 4 amount of traffic that this proposed apartment house is going to generate. 5 Golden Mesa has a lot of ... basically all elderly citizens who are living 6 there, it's a retirement. I think it's an assisted retirement living facility and 7 I'm sure that a lot of people will perhaps when the weather's nice go out 8 for a walk and with the amount of traffic that's going to be going out either 9 one of these two easements which are just two roadways that go, that exit 10 the community, as to whether or not there's going to be some type of 11 traffic flow device, perhaps maybe speed bumps or road bumps, 12 something to slow down traffic from anybody coming out of the apartments 13 and exiting out through Golden Mesa to make sure that they're going slow 14 enough to avoid possibly hitting someone. So I don't know how that could 15 possibly be done but I think that is a primary concern that I have is the 16 amount of traffic. I know that here in New Mexico and in Las Cruces it is 17 the way of doing business here is that you do your traffic study when you 18 put in your building, request for building. I don't know how much traffic 19 this is going to generate. If it's going to be split, is it going to be the way 20 the traffic's going to be directed out from the apartments to exit both of 21 these easements or is there only going to be one easement, I can't quite 22 understand between the two. Oh, I'm sorry. Between the two whether or 23 not there is ... both roadways are being used or just one. It says an 24 easement not easements plural. So that, those three items I think are, are 25 what I'm looking to get some kind of an answer to. 26 27 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Gordon. Those first three points that you 28 brought up I'll let the applicant's representative touch base on those for 29 you. As for the access easement, it, it is singular because it's actually one 30 complete loop, it's a 27-foot loop that runs essentially from this entry point 31 all the way down into the subject property and then loops back out to this 32 access point here. So it's two access points and one big loop of an 33 access easement. So essentially residents at that new apartment 34 complex would have the capability of utilizing both exits and entrances on 35 Golden Mesa, on the Golden Mesa facilities retirement, retirement 36 facilities property, there we go. 37 38 Gordon: How about the division between the two properties? If that roadway's 39 going to cut across the property line there will be no way to divide these 40 two properties with maybe landscaping, trees, or something to give some 41 privacy to both parties. 42 43 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Gordon. The only things, the only item that 44 is actually being cut through the Golden Mesa would the actual road here. 45 There will still be, just going back to the conceptual, it would be the roads. 46 The other areas would be open for development and the applicant could 53 I potentially answer any questions that might, you might have when it 2 comes to that. Just to let you know they are required to landscape the 3 subject property a minimum of 15% of the entire site minus the building 4 gross floor area. So they would have to provide 15% landscaping and 5 then the required number of trees, shrubs, and so on and so forth like that 6 and some of that could potentially be utilized as a buffer. I don't know 7 whether they have any plans for any walls or fences as of now, but I'll 8 leave that up to the applicants to answer those questions for you sir. 9 10 Gordon: Again, has there, hasn't been any thought given to speed control? 11 12 Ochoa: Again Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Gordon, I believe the applicant can 13 answer that for you. 14 15 Gordon: Okay. Thank you. 16 17 Crane: Commissioner Ferrary. 18 19 Ferrary: I have the same concerns. My mother-in-law used to live at Golden Mesa 20 and there are a lot of people who like to walk outside to get exercise, there 21 is a lot of people in those casitas that are outside of the main building area 22 that have to cross over for each of their meals. And if we have, and this 23 isn't just a flat, this goes up a huge hill and people, just even the traffic for, 24 that's not very much because most people don't drive that live there, but 25 even the traffic of visitors and people coming up and down and in and out 26 of that area that's down at the bottom of the hill, can be really difficult and 27 you have to be really careful. So if we have 120 to 150 possible residents 28 back here who are probably of a younger set and going in and out quite a 29 bit, I can see them also instead of going to the south exit where you have 30 to go south and there's not a cut out to be able to go north, they're going 31 to be going from the southern end through the parking area where it's very 32 narrow, no sidewalks, and then up and out of that big hill again. So there 33 can be congestion coming from both sides where it forks and then goes 34 out to Roadrunner that you know I just can't see how we can approve this 35 without a traffic analysis. 36 37 Crane: Yes I had a similar reaction myself thinking of 120 apartments, 240 cars 38 trying to get out of there during let's say an hour and a half rush hour with 39 people who are not used to having traffic of any significance running 40 between the small apartment houses, the casitas and the main building, 41 walking across that street with this, that density of traffic flow. I realize this 42 may be early times to bring it up but it looks to me to be a potential 43 problem. Perhaps we can hear from the applicant later about this. Any 44 other questions for Mr. Ochoa. Mr. Clifton. 45 54 I Clifton: Mr. Chair, Mr. Ochoa, during the review process and at the DRC level was 2 it ever discussed, I think that's Copper Ridge (Quail Ridge Apartments) to 3 the northwest, was it every discussed to share access with them. Cause 1 4 actually remember this project when it came in through the City and that, 5 yeah that was clearly Phase 2 of the retirement and that's why it was 6 subdivided at the time for future plans. And at the time I don't think it was 7 anticipated that an apartment complex would go in there. But were there 8 discussions for shared access through that additional multifamily area? 9 10 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Clifton. No, that wasn't. That's something 11 we can definitely discuss with the applicant and the applicant's 12 representative now, whether that is a viable access point for them and if 13 that's something they could potentially look into as well. 14 15 Crane: Any other Commissioner have questions for Mr. Ochoa? In that case 16 thank you sir. I, to the public, I may have forgotten to bring up the process 17 we have for our debates and you've probably seen what it is from the 18 discussion about the Arroyo Plan, but as you see the Community 19 Development gives it's presentation, we ask questions, then we open it up 20 to the applicant and we may ask questions of the applicant and then finally 21 we open it up to the public, if the public wishes to speak. And we may 22 have questions of them. And when everybody's had their say, we close 23 the matter to further discussion and we take a vote. Does the applicant 24 wish to address the Commission? Mr. Scanlon. Let's consider that you're 25 still sworn in, unless of course you've done something bad in the 26 meantime. 27 28 Scanlon: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I don't have a 29 whole lot to add to Adam's presentation. As you can see the, the property 30 was intended to be Phase 2 of Golden Mesa. Golden Mesa is not going to 31 do Phase 2 so they offered the property for sale and my client purchased 32 it. You can tell by looking at the apartment complex next door relative to 33 the density of development on Golden Mesa, there is operationally a 34 considerable difference between the density requirement for a, an 35 assisted living center and an apartment project to make them work 36 correctly. We do have two points of access into the property, here and 37 here and we will provide a loop situation where there'll be complete cross 38 flow of traffic. We will work and approach with Golden Mesa at the time of 39 design methods whereby we might be able to calm the flow of traffic within 40 the property. Now on, in ours we have designed it so that it's not like City 41 streets. It's like driving through a parking lot, so you go, you've got to be 42 really slow in, in this area. But as I mentioned we, we do have easements 43 from Golden Mesa for both the roads and for the signs. 44 To answer the question about the signs, the, we're going to comply 45 with all of the, all of the Sign Code requirements except for the provision 46 that, that the sign be on premise. And so we, we agreed to that during 55 I the, during the staff review and the, and the DRC meetings. I don't know if 2 there is a possibility to get access in to this area for another, for another 3 point of access through this development. We would, we could approach 4 these people and ask if they would be amenable to that. They may or 5 may not be, we don't know. The character of this development is going to 6 be very similar to theirs, probably less dense though, that's pretty high- 7 density development in that area. And as we were asked by the City staff 8 to, for public benefit to landscape the median, we've agreed to do that. 9 There will be planting and there will be trees planted between Golden 10 Mesa and the apartment project as part of our landscaping for the project. 11 So were there any other questions that I have failed to answer? 12 13 Gordon: Landscaping in the median. 14 15 Crane: Commissioners? 16 17 Gordon: The landscaping of the median. 18 19 Scanlon: I'm sorry. 20 21 Crane: Commissioner Gordon. 22 23 Gordon: The landscaping of the median, I'm sorry. 24 25 Scanlon: Yes. Yes we've agreed to landscape the median in front of the, the, in 26 front of the, the Golden Mesa, between the two access points. Here and 27 here I guess. There's a long median in there I think it's some 300-feet 28 long. 29 30 Crane: Any other Commissioner have question for Mr. Scanlon? Mr. Clifton. 31 32 Clifton: Mr. Chair, Ted, did you guys, have you guys thought about possibly gating 33 both entrances into this? I mean that would certainly slow traffic down and 34 their, the other complexes have gates. 35 36 Scanlon: That's a possibility. Certainly we would discuss that. For sure. The, the 37 problem, it's a balancing act when you come to trying to keep traffic slow 38 and still not inhibit the ability for emergency responders to enter and exit 39 the property's too, so we will sit down in the design of this thing and, and 40 meet with the planners, with the traffic engineering, and with fire to make 41 certain that what we have designed is going to work for everybody. So it's 42 a normal course of business when you do a project like this so. 43 44 Crane: Commissioner Ferrary. 45 56 I Ferrary: I think the idea of having like speed bumps or something that would slow 2 traffic would be not good for the ambulances that arrive there quite often. 3 4 Scanlon: They, they get in there a lot. 5 6 Ferrary: Right and having gated ... 7 8 Scanlon: And the fire trucks. 9 10 Ferrary: I don't think they do much either. 11 12 Scanlon: The fire trucks always proceed or arrive at the same time as the 13 ambulances, so there's a lot of fire trucks in and out of there. 14 15 Ferrary: Right. 16 17 Scanlon: But we'll work with fire and make sure that we have some, a design that 18 will satisfy their ability to respond not only to the Golden Mesa facility but 19 to the apartments and come up with a design that'll work for everyone. 20 21 Clifton: And actually when I was ... 22 23 Crane: Commissioner Clifton. 24 25 Clifton: When I was talking about the gates I meant on the actual property line, not 26 at the entrance into the facility. I mean it's, it's blocked now, essentially 27 there's no access in there. So that we would be inconsequential to the 28 facility for fire and emergency access if it was gated at the property line. 29 30 Scanlon: You're talking about ... 31 32 Clifton: Yes, exactly. 33 34 Scanlon: Here and over here. 35 36 Clifton: Yeah. Exactly. 37 38 Scanlon: Okay. 39 40 Clifton: And then one last question, has your client met with any of the residents of 41 Golden Mesa, cause I'm sure there's a lot of people in there that had 42 assumed there was Phase 2 going in there and so they're probably 43 surprise ... 44 45 Scanlon: We sent out an early notification. And what an early notification is, is an 46 invitation for any interested parties on adjoining properties to request from 57 1 us a public meeting or a public information meeting, anything like that and 2 we got no such request. We got no responses to our early notification on 3 this project. 4 5 Crane: Commissioner Ferrary. 6 7 Ferrary: Did that notification go to the Golden Mesa managers or to all their 8 residents? 9 10 Scanlon: I'm not sure. My client sent the notification out so I'm not sure how it, how 11 that, that works when you have a facility like this. 12 13 Crane: Mr. Ochoa. 14 15 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ferrary. Just to answer that question for 16 you. By code what's required for early notification is to notify the property 17 owners within 500-feet of that subject property. So the property owners 18 were made aware of it. 19 20 UNKNOWN: (inaudible) (person not at the mike). 21 22 Ochoa: Correct. 23 24 Crane: Question about the gating. It seems like a good idea except it's not going 25 to slow down traffic going through the Golden Mesa Property is it? 26 27 Scanlon: No but 1, 1 think we can find some methods. We, we, we're going to 28 seriously work with the Golden Mesa people and, and with the City staff 29 and see if there's some, some methods that we can use to delineate those 30 (inaudible). 31 32 Crane: I think speed bumps, they can be a hazard to people walking. I know a 33 couple of people have taken a tumble on them even if you paint them 34 yellow. I think traffic's got to be something addressed sooner rather than 35 later. 36 37 Scanlon: There are some pretty creative ways of, of calming traffic so to speak in, in 38 areas like this that, that we'll certainly entertain. 39 40 Crane: Commissioner Ferrary. 41 42 Ferrary: I think it's not so much how fast they're going, but the volume that is of 43 great concern. Because you know there, with that many homes and at 44 least probably two people per unit that, that's quite a bit of traffic going in a 45 very close, they're not wide streets there's no sidewalks, and there are 46 people who are out walking a lot. 58 1 2 Scanlon: Sure. Well we'll, we'll work on those issues, there's always solutions. 3 4 Crane: Anything else from Mr. Scanlon? Okay thank you Mr. Scanlon. 5 6 Scanlon: Thank you. 7 8 Crane: May I see a show of hands from the number of members from the public 9 who would like to speak? One. Only one. Very well. Two. Okay. Can 10 you do it in three minutes? 11 12 Aldridge: I'd probably take five. 13 14 Crane: Okay five. Okay. Tell us who you are please. 15 16 Aldridge: My name is John Aldridge. 17 18 Crane: Mr. Aldridge do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 19 give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? 20 21 Aldridge: Yes sir. 22 23 Crane: Go ahead please. 24 25 Aldridge: All right I'm a resident of Golden Mesa and first of all from what my ... 1 26 come here with two of my fellow residents and they are not physically able 27 to maneuver the steps or else they may want to talk too. One of them told 28 me that this has been gone through about eight to ten years ago and that 29 the City denied the request for expansion of that property. That's on a 30 historical basis. In January of this year I heard that something was going 31 to be built back there and Golden Mesa people told me and it was the 32 rumor floating around that it was an upscale retirement community. It's 33 not. We, we formed a small committee and called all around everywhere 34 and nobody knew anything about a proposed building, however there 35 were trucks there with the developers name on it, that's what, that's what 36 alerted us in the first place. In, then in fact it got to the point where, we 37 were told that because this upscale community was going to have a lot of 38 good facilities we would be able to use their gym and use their clubhouse 39 and all this sort of stuff. But then it kind of just, just faded. I, 1 noticed the 40 sign on the, on the street this morning. I was told about it oh maybe three 41 or four days ago but it's hard for me to get up to that's, that portion of the, 42 of the property. And the big problem is that in Golden Mesa those of us 43 who live there. I'm one of the younger, younger people. I'm 76 years old 44 and I'm rather mobile. A lot of the people there are over 80 years old. A 45 lot of them are very infirm, they have walkers. I've got a walker myself 46 which I don't use too often but only in long distances. And a lot of people 59 I are in the electric scooters and chairs and they use the parking lot to get 2 from their cottage ... I live in one of the cottages, to get from their cottage 3 to meals and a lot of the foot traffic is the people going to meals and a lot 4 of those are infirm. We've got a lot of people who have got very bad 5 eyesight, they're blind or at least almost legally blind. There are other 6 ones who have hearing problems. There are other ones who are in the 7 first stages of dementia, they don't exactly, you know they know, you can 8 talk to them but they're not quite all there and they may not look left and 9 right when crossing a street. I, to my mind if there's 120 units with two 10 cars in each unit, maybe a motorcycle or two and I can just picture one of 11 my, my friends being, walking over to, to dinner and being cracked up by 12 a, by a car or a motorcycle. The, the street as was mentioned are quite 13 narrow anyway. I don't, I, 1 agree with people say that speed bumps won't 14 help, in fact they'll hinder for the poor people why are trying to maneuver 15 their electric, their electric wheelchairs. I cannot see how, all I can, all 1 16 can vision is a, a, mass conglomeration of, of, of cars at eight o'clock in 17 the morning, during the morning rush hour and at the evening rush hour. 18 It's hard enough to get onto Roadrunner Parkway now because that's 19 becoming a heck of a lot more, I mean a lot more traffic. And that I think is 20 just about it sir. And I would like to invite you know any of, any of the 21 Commissioners to come out and take a look and let me walk them around 22 the, the facility and show them the, the widths of the road, introduce them 23 to some of our, our, our residents because when we're talking about 24 Golden Mesa we're not talking about a regular facility, we're talking a 25 people who are older and we just don't have the capacity that younger 26 people have to, to adjust and especially traffic. I mean I, 1 really really 27 believe that someone would, would get killed and you know they talk 28 about grandma under the bus. This is really, really dangerous. 29 30 Crane: Thank you Mr. Aldridge. 31 32 Aldridge: Thank you. 33 34 Crane: Somebody else? The lady in red. 35 36 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman if I may interject. I do have a wireless microphone so if we 37 do have a ... members of the public who can't walk up to the podium, 1 38 can certainly make this available to them. 39 40 Crane: Did you hear that members of the public? Mr. Ochoa has a wireless mike 41 if somebody'd like to use it. Tell us who you are please. 42 43 Krauth: My name is Sara Krauth and I live at Golden Mesa and have for about 11 44 years now. The point that I ... 45 46 Crane: Let me ... 60 1 2 Krauth: I swear to tell the truth forever. Is that long enough? 3 4 Crane: Call, we'll call that a yes. Thank you. 5 6 Krauth: Okay. The point I want to make is we said that this, this was investigated 7 several years ago when another company wanted to buy the property and 8 they did. We came to the City Council at that time. I was on that, on that 9 board that presented it. We also found that the two streets that you are 10 eluding to, entrance and exit, they are not 50-feet wide, they are not a 11 standard street for the City of Las Cruces residential area, although you're 12 expecting to put additional traffic through that street with people like my 13 husband that recently died being partially blind, driving his scooter across 14 that street with people coming and going. I implore you to consider what 15 you're doing and I'm sorry if Mr. Curry is invested, but, money in that, but 16 that was a done deal years ago and he shouldn't bring it up now. 17 18 Crane: Thank you ma'am. Anybody else from the public? Are you on your way 19 down her ma'am? Tell us who you are. 20 21 Stryker: My name is Sherri Stryker. I am the manager of Golden Mesa. 22 23 Crane: Could you speak a little more into the mike please? 24 25 Stryker: My name is Sherri Stryker. I am the manager of Golden Mesa. 26 27 Crane: Ms. Stryker do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 28 give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? 29 30 Stryker: I do. 31 32 Crane: Go on please. 33 34 Stryker: First I want to let Mr. Curry and them know that I did call and asked them 35 to come out and speak to our residents. I was told by a representative at 36 his office they had nothing to tell us yet. And when they did they would 37 call us. We've not heard from them. Sorry (turned to Mr. Curry and said 38 Sorry). I am concerned for my residents. I'm also concerned for my 39 business. I have been told by 50 of my residents they will move if this 40 happens. They're concerned for their safety. They have a right to be. 41 Please consider it. I know a few of you have been out there, so you know 42 what it's like. I'm sorry Representative Ferrary was just there speaking 43 with one of our residents who is blind. He walks around the entire 44 community. He goes swimming. He's on the backside of that community 45 where they're going to be building. They're not building 50-feet away from 46 us, they're building at the back end of our pool. So it is a concern for us, 61 I we're concerned for our residents' safety and we want them to make sure 2 they're going to be taken care of them the way we do. Thank you. 3 4 Crane: Thank you Ms. Stryker. All right, anybody else from the public? In that 5 case I will close the meeting to further input from the public. 6 Commissioners any comment before we take a vote? In that case ... 7 Commissioner Ferrary go ahead. 8 9 Ferrary: I think it's critical that we consider if we approve this, in the Development 10 Review Committee that there is also an insinuation that if they could I 1 manage their ... architect could design it where they could get in 150 they 12 would do so, so if we even assume that they were just going to go to 120 13 there's a possibility of 30 more units and I'm concerned that even you 14 know at 100 units which they can build without the PUD that it would still 15 be very dangerous for this citizens or the residents at Golden Mesa. 16 17 Crane: Thank you. Commissioner Gordon. 18 19 Gordon: I would like to make a motion to table this until we get further information. 20 21 Crane: Pending what sir? Table it till? 22 23 Gordon: Further information. Further information. 24 25 Crane: As to what exactly? 26 27 Gordon: Traffic, some of the things that they're planning doing that will help to take 28 care of our concerns as to what we brought up this evening. 29 30 Crane: Is there a second to Mr. Gordon's motion to table this matter? 31 32 Ferrary: I table. I mean I second. 33 34 Crane: Seconded by Ms. Ferrary. Any discussion? 35 36 Ferrary: I would like to just, in tabling that, getting more information besides a 37 traffic analysis, if there could be an alternative roadway so that it would not 38 impede with the residents. 39 40 Crane: I will make the comment as a, as a Commissioner that I think there's a 41 very ... that means that Community Development wants to go home. 42 There's a great incompatibility between this 120-apartment development 43 for general population people. I see that, I see that these are ... I could be 44 there, my children could be there, any body, any member of the 45 community who can rent apartments could be living there. An 46 incompatibility between your average citizen and the needs of the people 62 I who are going to be, have priority on these small streets with the hills and 2 the curves and the walkers that must be addressed before this goes 3 forward. Anyone else want to comment before we vote? Commissioner 4 Ferrary. 5 6 Ferrary: I forgot about mentioning the lighting. There is no lighting along the, the 7 streets either. 8 9 Crane: Good point. Okay. So lighting is also an issue. So, as to roll call vote 10 starting with Mr. Clifton. 11 12 Clifton: I vote aye. 13 14 Crane: Mr. Gordon. 15 16 Gordon: I vote aye. 17 18 Crane: Mr. Stowe. 19 20 Stowe: Aye, aye based on findings and discussion. 21 22 Crane: I'm sorry was that an "Aye" sir? 23 24 Stowe: Aye. 25 26 Crane: Ms. Ferrary. 27 28 Ferrary: I vote aye for a site visit, discussions, and findings. 29 30 Crane: Mr. Beard. 31 32 Beard: I vote aye. I just ... Golden Mesa has to agree upon what's going to 33 happen here. I don't know, I'm not sure that we understand that. And this 34 new development can't come into this and start using somebody else's 35 property without having an agreement. So I'm not sure ... I think we 36 should know what that agreement is. And so I vote aye. 37 38 Crane: (inaudible) They apparently have an easement but that stands from the 39 previous arrangements, nevertheless ... 40 41 Beard: Right, we didn't, didn't hear that. 42 43 Crane: That's part of the package. And Chair votes aye for findings, discussion, 44 and site visit. I guess I will rescind the word findings, but just discussion 45 and site visit. So that was six to zero. Thank you. 46 63 I Ochoa: Mr. Chairman. 2 3 Crane: Mr. Ochoa. 4 5 Ochoa: Sorry to interject. The applicant does want to know and for point of 6 clarification also, will this, is this being tabled to a date specific or just 7 indefinitely sir? 8 9 Crane: I think it will have to depend on the applicants getting back in touch with 10 Community Development when he has something, someway to meet our 11 needs. Thank you. 12 13 VII. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 14 15 Crane: Any other business Mr. Ochoa? 16 17 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, no there is no other business tonight. 18 19 VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 20 21 Crane: Any further public participation? 22 23 IX. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 24 25 1. National Community Planning Month Proclamation 26 27 Crane: Staff announcements. You're congratulating us on being Community 28 Planners? 29 30 Ochoa: Yes sir. You all believe, I believe you all received a copy of the, the 31 proclamation made by City Council for a National Community Planning 32 Month, just to give you all kind of a heads up and a pat on the back, you 33 are part of it as well and the staff wanted to thank you all for your roles 34 that you play assisting us in this process and look forward to many more 35 cases like those we had tonight to continue those processes. Thank you. 36 37 Crane: No 10% off at Denny's or anything? 38 39 Ochoa: It's not that big unfortunately sir. 40 41 Crane: But this is frame-able? 42 43 Ochoa: It sure is. 44 45 Crane: Okay. 46 64 I Ochoa: Ours is. 2 3 Crane: Thank you. 4 5 X. ADJOURNMENT 6 7 Crane: In that case meeting is adjourned at 9:26. 8 9 10 11 12 13 Chairperson 14 15 65