Work Session Meeting June 24, 2024

MINUTES

Work Session

Monday, June 24, 2024 @ 1:00 PM

City Council Chambers, City Hall

PRESENT: Councilor Johana Bencomo, Councilor Yvonne Flores, Councilor Becki Graham, Councilor

Becky Corran, Mayor Eric Enriquez, Councilor Cassie McClure, and Councilor William

Mattiace

ABSENT:

1. JOBS OF THE WEEK 1.1 SARAH RANEY, NEW MEXICO WORKFORCE CONNECTIONS

PRESENTED JOBS OF THE WEEK.

2. PETS OF THE WEEK 2.1 AMY DEFELIX, ANIMAL SERVICES CENTER OF THE MESILLA VALLEY

PRESENTED PETS OF THE WEEK.

3. AGENDA ITEM 3.1 NEW MEXICO LEGISLATIVE POLICY. Barbara Bencomo, Chief Administrative Officer introduced the topic.

Larry Horan, Lobbyist gave the overhead presentation.

Councilor Mattiace asked I have septic tanks being installed, quite a good number of them on Salopek, would this bill help actually pay some of the cost that these neighbors are now having to pay today?

Page 1 of 24

Larry Horan said that is exactly what it would do. As we have been working on this septic issue since 2008/2009, installing the sewer lines for those who now have septic. It would allow you to adopt a program to help the homeowner either you could use public dollars to pay all or a portion of that step between property line and the house. That is exactly what it will do.

Councilor Flores said I am glad to hear there is some movement on the exemptions to the Article 9, the anti-donation. One of the exceptions is health. Why can’t the hook ups from the curb to the home, to the house, why wouldn’t that qualify? I think we have had this discussion but I think it would be good for the public to know and it seems to me a health issue and besides that when it goes under and I know for utilities and other things, leaks and all that sort of stuff if it generates under the home it is on the homeowner so it is probably consistent with that line of reasoning which I really don’t support at all. Even leaks under the house but anyway we aren’t talking about that we are talking about anti-septic tanks or removing them, and it has to be a health issue. Has that ever been presented to the legislators? I don’t know how it happened, but Senator Soules was instrumental in getting the hookups in Hacienda

Acres, some not all. So, what was the reason Senator Soules was able to get that money for the hook up from the curb to the house?

Larry Horan said one possibility would be that if it wasn’t state dollars, if it was federal money then it is a different rule as to what would apply so anti-donation would not apply to federal funds so if he was able to obtain federal funds then they had a similar program. As it relates to health it is hard to answer exactly without the language and the health exemption in front of me but my recollection is that is more focused on provision of health care like Medicaid to allow for that so I have just never or heard or seen any interpretation that would consider something like sewer or septic or water as a public health issue. It is a possibility that they could explore but now we have a clear exemption that we can utilize that we make sure that you can adopt that type of program.

Councilor Bencomo said I think for me it would be really important that we try to engage with one our local legislators around doing language on that anti-donation piece specifically for these hookups obviously, definitely meet with our incredible LCU,

Utilities Director Adrienne Widmer who will have more information on the kind of work that we have been able to do with the ARPA dollars that we got that were not bound to anti-donation. We have already started that work and would love to continue it.

There is a lot more especially for low to moderate income households and so this is a really important issue to try to tackle and try to get I would additionally say funding for not just legislation but also get the state to commit some funding to that. So that would be my suggestion. On the issue of funding though I think additionally as we head into potentially this special session or even if these topics that you raised might be discussed at a this special session doesn’t end up happening for whatever reason and they get discussed in 2025, I think it is really important for us to make a really strong and firm stand on no mandates without funding. I think cities are stretched and the legislators keep talking about historic revenues and I do want to say that I think these mandates are incredibly important, but they would also be incredibly stressful for municipalities and so it’s really important that we have a really firm ground on no mandates without funding from the state. One of the things that I failed to discuss with

Page 2 of 24

you was around the initiative that we have around NAT properties, nuicance abatement properties that we really tried to address, Community Development

Department, with Fire, with PD, with codes, we have this great team working to address these abandoned nuisance properties and I talked to a federal lobbyist who said there use to be federal funding for these kinds of projects. In fact, the City of

Detroit used it and they demolished 40,000 abandoned properties or something crazy but that ended in 2021, and so I would love it if we worked with the state to try to do some sort of pilot project or some sort of project to address abandoned and now nuisance properties that have become vacant and dangerous to our community.

Councilor Graham said I just want to bring out publicly and I think you already alluded to it and I felt a little pessimistic when we first sat down when we were first talking about what is really possible with the special session. What is the appetite for that, and I do want to reiterate or have you reiterate that if these things do not happen during the special session that does not mean that they are being put aside or put to bed so I think that there is a lot of public support for the special session, especially on competency and other public safety. So, can you just reassure all of us again that even if it doesn’t role during the special session all is not lost?

Larry Horan said absolutely, and I will give a little more color just about the structure of a special session because it might help a little bit with that. A special session has to be called by the Governor. The Governor can call a special session for up to 30 days at a time. So that is the limitation and legislators typically are somewhat reluctant to go and do a special session as it is administration if you do not have agreement coming into a special session because when you have a special the cost is about $50,000 a day, there are limited topics, and the topics are limited by what the

Governor puts in the proclamation for a special session. So, if it is not in the proclamation, they can’t consider any other topic. So really what is important is that agreement before you come in because if it is going to drag on for 30 days there is nothing else that they are really considering. You won’t make a lot of progress towards the changes you are trying to affect because that is all they can consider.

They usually come in with an idea of what they think they can and cannot pass and what I will say is that we talked about this in our discussion. Just the AOT or the

Assistant Outpatient Treatment Program, that is on the books and is in statute that was carried by Senator Papen at the time. That took 5 or 6 years to pass the statute because when we are dealing with things like competency both whether it is criminal competency or civil commitment competency issues there is a lot of interested stakeholders who have legitimate concerns and there is a lot of issues as it relates to mandating treatment, forcing treatment whether or not you can detain somebody against their will and so it is a really heavy topic. So, all of these things, all of the four that we are talking about, competency, civil competency, criminal, felon in possession, and also a panhandling, or similar ordinance, they are big issues. So that is why I say, I’m looking at those and yes, we are going to deal with them in special session but this is a probably 3 or 4 year outlook on when we are going to be dealing with these issues and so even if it is not in the special I can’t guarantee a lot through legislature but I can almost guarantee that these will be back.

Councilor McClure said since we last spoke, I had some questions about every time I talked to other Community Development or Housing, it was a lot of the state won’t let

Page 3 of 24

us do that, we can’t build fast, we can’t build efficient. So, I am wondering if there might be an outlook on more bills that would allow us to build ADUs a little bit faster, things like that? Things that kind of align with what our zoning might be looking like in the next year or so?

Larry Horan said we were actually just having that conversation right before we started about some of those housing issues. So, I don’t have anything specific for you but yes I think the appetite and the ability is there for us to look at those type of issues to help streamline, speed up the process for that construction but also there is potential that I am hearing and I have been contacted about a statewide zoning statute which may not be something we are interested in because then it would free up local governments from adopting their own zoning and so we have to be careful with what is proposed because some of it may be an issue we want to maintain local control but also there are some things the state particularly constructions industry division and other maybe NMFA can help us streamline those statutes. So, I think we are in the very preliminary stages, Natalie and I, we were just talking about it so I think that is something we absolutely can explore so rightfully next time in front of you can have a little bit more meat on that bone. 3.2 REALIZE LAS CRUCES PROGRESS REPORT. Larry Nichols, Community Development Director introduced the topic.

Erica Craycraft, Project Manager with Freese and Nichols gave the overhead presentation.

Councilor Flores asked when you first started, I thought you were talking about the area across the street from the MountainView but this is a general revamp of the code?

Erica Craycraft said yes, it is citywide.

Councilor Flores asked the Historic Preservation part states that the city is not exempted so that means that our committee which consists of local people in our city would be making those decisions or recommendations?

Erica Craycraft said yes, it would follow the same process which is how the regulations are currently written today if I am not correct, yes?

Councilor Flores asked what regulations?

Erica Craycraft said the historic preservation regulations. Right now, the city would be subject to those regulations. This was a proposed addition to exempt the city but that was not supported by the community comments, so we took out our proposed exemption and left that part as it is.

Councilor Flores asked the city is exempted from the Historic Preservation aspect of a development so who has that oversight, is it our Historic Preservation Committee?

Page 4 of 24

David Weir, Deputy Director Community Development said roughly about four years ago the city adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance and within that ordinance there are provisions on how the city gets the building permit or modification of their properties that are on the historic registry or the state registry and so there is a process that goes forward. What there was an exemption for was when the city goes to if there was property owned by the city and the city was using federal funds, we have to get clearance from the State Historic Preservation Office and so in those instances we were asking for an exemption but like I said in the feedback that was received when the initial draft was put forward was that city property should go through the same process as private properties so that is the way the draft has been modified, or redlined so that there is equal treatment of private and public properties and then the review would take place by the Historic Preservation Commission.

Councilor Flores asked that means the state?

David Weir said no, the city’s Historic Preservation Commission.

Councilor Flores said when you started, I thought again you were referring to that place and all of this is pretty consistent with what you presented based on that community, I think it was because of Covid so it was all done via Zoom. The feedback you got from those who participated was very cohesive. I think it applies to any part in the city. So, are you using that as framework to work from in the rest of the city because most of Las Cruces of undeveloped areas do seem to be somewhat rural?

So, did you take that into account?

Erica Craycraft said yes. The comment that we asked for in the beginning of the process was very open ended about what type of development would you like to see, just getting general input whereas now we are asking we have a draft for you to look at. What do you think about this draft? So, in the beginning the open-ended input that we were hearing a lot of it was support for walkable places, mixed use, affordable housing options, things like that.

Councilor Flores said I think one of my concerns is parking and again I am focused on that area just north of Lohman and by the way it isn’t Onate High School anymore. I saw two slides with that name, and it makes me cringe, it is now called Organ

Mountain High School. I know that we had a former councilor who contributed a lot to that meeting we had in December of 2021, and there were a lot of people that were participating but that councilor was Sharon Thomas and she made the request that middle housing or low income housing would blend in with everything else and her words were that the high end properties owners would not be saying we don’t want to be too close to those people. So is that part of the plan when you incorporate housing, mixed housing or is it going to be an isolated corner?

Erica Craycraft said we have heard mixed input on support for the missing middle housing like what you are talking about incorporating more variety versus the public comments that folks have concerns about what’s in my neighborhood. I live in a single-family neighborhood I want it to be a single family. So we have been trying to really balance both of those interest and I think that our proposed compatibility

Page 5 of 24

provisions and adjustments that we made in this draft I think really reach that balance where we do still allow accessory dwelling units by right and all of the NH districts we allow the two, three, and four unit buildings by right, subject now to the design requirement since basically they have to be on a collector. So, we are still including a lot of flexibility where different types of housing can go in and just trying to mitigate the impacts in the neighborhoods.

Councilor Flores asked is that codified?

David Weir said when the Realize document is adopted it will become the zoning standards for the city and then in coordination with the zoning map it will as Ms.

Craycraft said the single family is allowed by right in all in NH-1, 2, and 3, the one to fourplexes are allowed by right in the 1, 2, and 3 and then based if you were a

Neighborhood 1, Neighborhood 2, Neighborhood 3 there are some special use for the higher density apartment units so we can look at the impacts and compatibility with existing neighborhoods but there is the ability to do that and there is an increase in the flexibility and the number of units that can be provided. I guess the other point is that all residential uses are allowed an accessory dwelling unit by right so even existing single-family homes could allow another dwelling unit on their property.

Councilor Flores asked by right, what does that mean?

Daivd Weir said it’s codified. If they came in for a building permit for that we would issue that administratively. We wouldn’t have to P&Z or city council.

Councilor Mattiace said in your codes there was a discussion made, it says, the city will mail notifications to property owners I think within 500 feet and then it went on to say that the requirement to also notify neighborhood associations in addition to property owners within 500 feet is no longer required. That is in your documents.

Maybe we could delete that, change it because there is a lady, Catrina that does a great job, I have a list of 34 associations, the captains, the presidents that I have been meeting with four or five of them almost every month. So, they are very strong. They would be a very great asset to notify when you have the public meetings and/or make any changes in the neighborhood.

David Weir said the 500 feet public notices are required by state statute for zoning and subdividing. The neighborhood association early notice is something that the city adopted by policy and in the latest revision we added that back in. We heard comments that there was a desire for additional public notice so not only the notification of the homeowners or neighborhood organization but also the process when early notification meeting would have to be required by a developer, so we are with you.

Councilor McClure said I had a question from slide 37, I definitely understand the restriction on things but some of this seems a little vague to me for example, personal services? Can you detail a little more? If we do want to have the ability to combine some things or even a grocery store. I understand we don’t want even a Walmart

Market in a residential area but smaller grocery stores, things like that. This seems a

Page 6 of 24

little bit restrictive to me so I am hoping there would be a little more clarity.

Erica Craycraft said whenever we made the original draft we did try and incorporate more of these neighborhood services in the neighborhoods again for that walkability so people maybe don’t have to drive so much to different places but in a lot of the public comments that we received online there was not a lot of support for having businesses in the neighborhood so we wanted to take another look and try to really take in NH-1that is again the most residential district and review that one the most closely and take out a lot of uses that we had included. Most of them were already requiring an SUP but anything that was not a community type use we did take those out. There is things like the botanical garden that is still allowed, maybe an art studio by SUP. The neighborhood centers that I mentioned that are the blue circles on the map that is a type of mixed use development. that would still be allowed by SUP, but you mentioned specifically about personal services being one that was taken out. We talked about those being examples like beauty and barber shops, dry cleaning, or a laundry mat, and incidental retail sales that those might have. If you had a beauty salon it would be the quick sale of shampoo and other products like that. So that was taken out of NH-1, but left NH-2, and NH-3. So just trying to take another look and recalibrate the non-residential uses.

David Weir said one of the other things I wanted to call out was the city has always had what I think is pretty robust home occupation criteria. All of that remains in this code so if you are a single operating beautician, have like a single chair you would still be allowed to do that from your home. It’s just a smaller area and less impacts, things like lessons, if you do taxes on an individual basis, those would still continue to be allowed and I believe there was a use added called sundry which are those small market places so that is another use that would be allowed in NH neighborhoods.

Strike the sundry that was my misinterpretation.

Erica Craycraft said these have not been removed from all of the NH districts there are some modifications so maybe it has changed only in NH-1 for example. It is a little easier to see in maybe the tract changes version.

Councilor Bencomo said I have some concerns about the modifications that have been made that you presented on page 32, 33 in that area. How are you balancing community comments with, and you spoke to this a little bit and I guess I want to understand your process a little bit better on how you balance community comments with educating the public on why we are trying to move away from exclusionary zoning and why exclusionary zoning is harmful and educating the public on the facts as well? How are you balancing those two very real things and you as experts in this work know better than anybody that zoning laws are deeply political and so how are you sort of balancing the needs for creating healthier more vibrant neighborhoods and some of the community comments that we are receiving regarding building more barriers and lifting up even more exclusionary zoning practices?

Erica Craycraft said I think that educational component at the open house that I mentioned is going to be very important to help share that message about why we want to include these different housing types. As far as our research and expertise,

Page 7 of 24

we did take a look at, it has been a nationwide trend of eliminating single family zoning for a lot of cities across the country and so we took a closer look at what those cities are doing and how is it going? Most of the ones, all of the ones that we looked at the most that they allow in single family areas at the more conservative end it is up to four units by right and that is more of what we have shifted to. One to four units would be allowed by right. That is consistent with what we see nationwide and then our provisions for NH-2 and 3 allow a little more variety beyond the 4, even the 5 to 12 could be allowed in the NH-1 but it would require an SUP. So based on reviewing nationwide practices of what other cities have been doing and what are some of the compatibility provisions that can be included.

Councilor Bencomo said I deeply believe that some of these changes are actually creating just maintaining barriers that will allow more access to more affordable housing to be built for more missing middle-income housing to be built. I think the more barriers that we add and uphold the more it will cost for developers and the less developers will then want to develop in those areas and we are in a housing crisis in this community and in this country and arguably that housing crisis was created historically be exclusionary zoning policies that have been maintained for decades that frankly I think are rooted deeply in class and race issues and I would love to see

Realize Las Cruces be bold in how we approach the next 20/30 years in our community and I want to be able to work and right now our Housing Department works with very limited developers that really do work in affordable housing work because it is so complicated because it is so hard because those folks, that’s a small list. We want to be able to create a much bigger list for developers want to build in infill, to want to live to build multifamily housing and for neighborhoods to be vibrant.

What ends up happening also is that we end up concentrating poverty and then low- income families have less opportunities. I don’t have to tell you these things because you are the expert. I guess I just feel like there has to be a balance between what we are hearing from community members and honestly sometimes pretty politically leaning type of commentary and the education that has to be presented to the public around why some of these pieces are essential for building vibrant neighborhoods so I feel like you have done revisions and revisions to this particular piece but I still don’t think it is right. I would really love us to go back to and obviously the open house would be good, but I just don’t think this piece is right yet and the more barriers we create I think the harder it will be for us to meet the gap of housing that we are so desperately needing. On page 35 you talked about some of the cannabis restrictions.

I will definitely do my part in encouraging some of the cannabis advocates in industry to provide some of this commentary, but have you all met with cannabis industry folks that are providing some feedback on this as well?

Erica Craycraft said no, not locally.

Councilor Bencomo said I will definitely do my part and encouraging them to get involved in this and then it was brought to my attention, you didn’t present on it today but the piece around annexation. It is brought to my attention that perhaps what is in

Realize and the language right now is different then what is in Elevate and that

Elevate perhaps has stronger more definitive language and so I am just curious of what the mix sort of has been?

Page 8 of 24

Erica Craycraft said I believe that was addressed in the last draft. Unless maybe that comment came more recently. We did hear a really good comment and went back to

Elevate and took exactly the text and put it in. I think it is in verbatim in the latest draft.

Councilor Bencomo said just to Councilor McClure’s point regarding items on slide 37 and just the grocery piece caught my eye because we have been working with our

Economic Development Department as well on the opportunity that we have with retail LEDA, Fitwell Funding and things like that could potentially do expansions to grocery stores, locally owned grocery stores. I am curious about some of the data points as we are building Realize Las Cruces and if we are looking at data points like the number of population that lives in a food desert for example and then if these restrictions then add to those kind of harsh realities that exist in our community?

Erica Craycraft said we could also take another look at the list of uses that you see here. See if there is some that would be appropriate to put back in. Like the local grocery store and that already does have a square footage restriction on how large that can be and try to promote compatibility. Maybe that needs to be an even smaller one in NH-1 or something like that but we can certainly rereview this list.

Councilor Bencomo said I think the list looks generally pretty right on but the grocery store piece I think had more implications and those are really the questions I wanted to frame my comments around, the items on slides 32 and 33 in really hoping that we can continue that conversation. I just believe that is not quite right yet.

Councilor Flores asked in so far as the land use, we have builders and we have the land owners and then we have realtors and my district when I first ran for office about too many years ago, I was surprised to be attacked as a candidate to be on city council as to why the view of the mountains, the view of the Organ Mountains had been blocked and basically blaming and I guess it was a directive for me to look into and I just said who told you that you would always have? The realtor, and I said the realtor doesn’t represent the builders, the landowners and I said so that really your response. Our builders know exactly what they are building based on what the landowner wants. So, does some of this burden of representing to the perspective buyer fall on the realtor and is there anything that we can possibly do about that or not?

Erica Craycraft said we do include the maximum building heights for each district in the code, but I am not aware of anything in the development code that we could do to help with the realtor situation. That is a common complaint that we hear in cities.

Councilor Graham said I just want to add on to what Mayor Pro Tem said because I am right there with her on everything. At the top I live in a C-2, so I am actually across the street from an M-1 which means I am surrounded by some houses, some businesses, light industry. The house right next to me was residential and then became a micro business. It is now residential again and I live less than a tenth of a mile from a cannabis dispensary and somehow, I have still survived. So just throwing that out there. I think a lot of times when I get feedback about possible zoning

Page 9 of 24

changes a very common threat, I hear is how would you feel if your house? My house does have all of this stuff and it is a great neighborhood. I would not want to live anywhere else. I think I always push back on some of these neighborhood designations or neighborhood character. What I do want to say is that I can’t think of a single person I have talked to who has not said we need more housing, and nobody wants it by them, and I understand that. However, I think speaking the same as Mayor

Pro Tem Bencomo said this is deeply political and it takes political will and political courage to move ahead with change that a community needs. I think we have developers in the audience today I believe, and I think we put developers in a completely untenable situation. We are crying out for more housing, the developers say here this is what we can do and without the political courage and the political will to make it possible for them nothing can change. So, I just want to add my voice to say that I am going to act with the political courage to see increased housing density, to see mixed use neighborhoods and I agree completely that the fewer barriers we have the better and not just better for neighborhoods that are being built into developments but better for everyone. I think more about fire response times than most people because my husband drives a fire truck and when we give in and just allow building to happen only through sprawl that doesn’t just affect things like climate and drive time. We are putting our public safety advocates and our first responders at a disadvantage. You know I think, Chief Smith when Mike started, we had Station 7, we added Station 8, we are building Station 9, we already need Station 10. Chief

Story I am sure you can say the same thing and you are in a zone defense and the more that we allow sprawl to happen because it takes a lot of political courage to stand up for infill development the worse off we are across the boards.

Councilor Mattiace asked I just have a question on values if that has been incorporated into this document and what I am meaning is that if you have a neighborhood and let’s say the homes are $400,000 to $500,000 is there a consideration David, yourself if you could answer? If you put in a smaller unit, let’s say a duplex or a fourplex what happens to the value of those other homes? Does the assessor lower those because of the lower value of something that goes into those, let’s say a gated neighborhood? What happens there and the businesses that come in? I worry about the equity, and it is a little bit of personal agenda because my daughter she just invested in a home by the golf course, and it was pretty expensive. I would just like to see her equity build so that she would have something that is valuable when she is, well she is only 30 years old but maybe it would grow in value when she is 50 and not be a target for less value because of trying to build density.

David Weir said the first way I would like to address your comment is the way the code is addressing that is putting less emphasis on use and more on the built environment. How the homes interact with the public rights of way, how the features are sided on them what they look at and so you are creating a neighborhood and a character area that goes forward so that is kind of a tradition from Las Cruces. We have always segregated uses. This is going to allow a more organic flexible development of neighborhoods and encouraging them to take pride in their neighborhood and maintain it but the safeguards for that is we still have density requirements, we have height requirements, we have landscaping, drainage requirements, and so those public safety matters are addressed. Your second question on property values is a little harder one to address. My understanding of that

Page 10 of 24

issue is that it is basically what is comparable housing of the general vicinity of that area, what those go for are how property values are established and anecdotally always get built to an area in our district. Mesilla Park has always been an area that has maintained its property value. If they haven’t grown but when you look at it you have a railroad track that goes through it, you have industrial uses, you have commercial, you have condominium, you have apartments, you have single family properties yet is one of the most stable and highly valued neighborhoods in the community. So, if you use that as an example there is even mobile home parks in the

Mesilla Park area. If we can create vibrant and sustainable neighborhoods, I think those property values will maintain.

Councilor Mattiace said I think we have political courage, and I am very pleased with the public events that you all have so that we can hear from the public and hear from the stakeholders.

Mayor Enriquez asked you said you are going to continue to work on the TIA’s on the traffic impact analysis, do have more or less a time frame on that or how that is going or next steps of where we are at on that?

Erica Craycraft said ideally, we would have it ready ahead of the open house, but it may need to continue as I mentioned in here, number two revisiting with the code users for feedback. We would like to present it to the public but that may need to continue we just want to be sure to get it right.

David Sedillo, Public Works Director said to answer your question those meetings are being scheduled currently right now, and those discussions are being had at this time.

Councilor Flores asked I thought the TIA’s were conducted once the area was already developed? Remember that fracas we had a few years ago with some land. There is going to be an apartment building and there would be a lot of traffic, it wasn’t until it was designed that the TIA’s were conducted. Isn’t that so because that is the way you would find out? We have had that subject before where the TIA’s really come in right before the proposed development, or a building goes up. I mean we can’t anticipate right now what the TIA would be.

David Sedillo said the TIA’s come in conjunction with the development as they come through. It may come in at a different step, but it doesn’t come after the development is done.

Mayor Enriquez said the other thing that we have going on is as council we have invested in MRA’s with South Solano and El Paseo. Has anything been looked at as far as the land use code, as far as this Realize, as far as MRA’s and moving forward with that?

David Weir said the Realize Las Cruces and update of the development codes are anticipated to be complementary to MRA’s, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Areas gives the city other opportunities to provide additional investment, additional technical

Page 11 of 24

service and also some financing mechanisms to allow infrastructure to be improved in those areas but they would work congruently with one another and we would have to make sure that when MRA’s are adopted that there is not anything that would create a conflict. Actually one of the recommendations in Elevate Las Cruces is to explore the use of MRA’s for redevelopment in that area so the zoning provides that base layer of what we are looking for in the neighborhoods and then the MRA is a tool to actually you utilize that taking place so the intent is for them to be hand in so it will be incumbent on us all to make sure that takes place.

Beth Bardwell, Member of the Public said I am speaking on behalf of more than one hundred members of the League of Women Voters of Southern New Mexico in support of the proposed changes to the city’s land development codes in Realize Las

Cruces. The city laid out a long-term vision and plan for future growth in Elevate Las

Cruces Comprehensive Plan in 2020, and that comprehensive planned called for balanced development, preserving our natural setting, fostering economic prosperity, vibrant neighborhoods and livable community and today’s proposed changes to the land development code are a credible effort to implement that vision and those values and they deserve your support. There are many benefits to the adoption of the proposed changes including greater regulatory flexibility for property owners to build and develop their property provided it is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The ability to build walkable mixed use neighborhoods that combine residential, office space, and community and neighborhood amenities in one place and because of their mixed use and density increase your gross receipts tax, decrease the cost of providing city services and preserve our green space. They also provide for an increase in attainable housing throughout the city such as just condos and town homes and ADUs, and duplexes to quadplexes, small apartments and cottage courts that collectively with single family detached homes that best meet the needs of our diverse city so that our children and our parents and our service workers and first responders and our young families buying their first home can find homes they can afford and buy in neighborhoods of their choice. The additional compatibility requirements mentioned today in the presentation are barriers to increasing this missing middle housing and should not be adopted.

Christopher Braunomus, Member of the Public said I am a resident of Las Cruces and a member of the Technical Advisory Committee our consultants discussed that said these comments are my own and not those of the committee. As noted in the presentation we have worked very hard in the last 15 months, 33 meetings, hundreds of hours of time were contributed. Members of the development community, advocates for affordable housing and complete streets, the bicycling community, and all others worked together respectfully towards the end. In the few minutes I have I would like to focus on two issues. Complete streets is a concept the city council has endorsed with class action that argues that we should plan future roadways to meet the needs of all forms of transportation. I quote from the document, “new development shall be served by a system of sidewalks, paths, greenways, roadways, access ways, and other facilities designed to provide the multiple modes of travel, motor vehicle, transit, bicycle, pedestrian access in circulation should be coordinated and implemented to provide a safe and efficient mobility. The second issue I would like to talk about is one that has been raised extensively, affordable housing. The median price of a home in Las Cruces is over $300,000. The median income of a household

Page 12 of 24

in Las Cruces is $50,000. If we do the math, we can see it is going to be impossible for young people and first-time homeowners to get in the market if we don’t allow reasonably designed multiple use housing as it has been outlined in the plan. Section

3.2. b, support this type of multiple use housing. I close with a request to council that you support the ideas in the development code that will allow complete streets and affordable housing to be a reality as Las Cruces continues to grow.

Liz Johnson, Member of the Public said I am a resident of Dona Ana County and a housing advocate. I am here today to express my support for increased flexibility in this land development code to build more variety types of housing throughout the neighborhoods in Las Cruces.

John Munoz, Member of the Public said my comments will be primarily focused on downtown districts. As President of the Downtown Las Cruces Partnership and the

Chief Experience Officer of Electronic Caregiver I am encouraged and I am excited about the proposed revisions to codes as discussed today. The mission of the Las

Cruces Downtown Partnership is to promote business culture and art. Removing restrictive regulations is a dream come true which will open many doors to residents, businesses, artists, and museums. The Downtown Partnership saw record crowds with the recent New Year’s celebration, the Chile Drop covered by CNN internationally and we are attracting other folks into the downtown areas with things like the Zombie

Walk and other events and so when I talk about the downtown it is like the living room of Las Cruces. It is core to our community. What is also core is that small business like the State of New Mexico employs 53% of New Mexicans so when you are supporting local business you are supporting neighbors, friends, colleagues, and relatives. When the awnings were removed some time ago and Main Street was opened up that was considered a bold move. Fast forward to today that initiative has had such a positive impact not just in downtown and districts surrounding it but in the entire city. Having housing and employment options means we keep residents here, it means we keep families together contributing to the overall economic health of Las

Cruces. This is an extraordinary time for Las Cruces. This is the next step in our journey, thank you for your support.

Troy Mitchell, Member of the Public said I am here with the HBA. So, the Home

Builders Association has quite a few people here today. We are here to discuss the

Realize Las Cruces. We think there is a lot of good construction and industry partners here today to discuss some issues that we find within the current draft. We think that

Realize Las Cruces does a good job on some aspects and some things but there is some problems within the current draft that kind of lead to a lack of sustained living and sustainable growth in terms of affordable housing. The problems that we have outlined are few. They are smaller problems within the Realize, the 400-page document itself but we are here to highlight some of those issues and you will hear a majority of them as we go through them you can kind of follow along if you like. What we are actually requesting and what we hope as we are trying to get through these we highlight enough issues that you see fit to have a stakeholder meeting with the HBA and the consultant and potentially the Planning Department so that we can go through some of these issues and really make sure that we are either not as vague as some of them are or change them all together and so a few of the issues I wanted to discuss here are going to be Chapter 3. It discusses vehicle and bicycle parking

Page 13 of 24

specifically. This goes hand in hand with Section 5.2, F3 e6, and 5.2 n So, these we feel should be completely done away with. They actually limit the number of bicycle and vehicle parking. The minimum as well as the maximum. There is a little bit of contradiction there and we wanted to kind of discuss that with the consultant if we could get a meeting. Those are my issues. We are hoping you all listen to everything everyone has to say.

Councilor Graham asked just to make sure I am understanding the document, the red font is the HBA?

Troy Mitchell said the whole font is the HBA, the red font is after the draft came out on the last week. We went through and some of them had been changed, some of them hadn’t been changed.

Steve Green, Member of the Public said I just wanted to address on my section would be 43C 4.b, which it discusses how the customer service approach to the subdivision application process basically. If the city is looking to create a more approachable application process, then why is the time frame for reviewing construction plans being increased by 50%. In addition, if construction plans had not been approved after two reviews the Community Development director should prioritize communication applicant and resolve outstanding issues and if advisable arrange to make a meeting to do so. This is a suggestion that was made. There was no change to this document.

I think it is fair to bring this up because that is what we have been working to try to strive to and I think we have been even approaching that with this current city saying.

You know Larry and them, they have been working to that. Your department has been working to that and to see that it wasn’t written into this was kind of disappointing. We don’t want to prolong things if we can get items addressed quicker let’s try to do that.

Next up on mine would go to Chapter 5 which is addressing underneath D, which is cul-de-sac design, dead end streets. So basically, it says if a cul-de-sac is permitted if a pedestrian bicycle access is provided. I would just like to see some clarification on that. Exactly what and how that is going to be done through the process. It also encourages to basically get rid of cul-de-sacs which, why? I am not sure from a realty standpoint, from design standpoints. A lot of people like living on a cul-de-sac. They find it better for the development of their children. It is a safer little space. We would like some definition on why the reason to get rid of the cul-de-sac. Mine was also on

Section E of Chapter 5 about roundabout design. It is stating that all roundabouts should be used in all intersections. Now I think that must be a typo or mistake or not.

We would just like clarification on that because would that mean every intersection including inside the internals of us, actual subdivision would require roundabouts?

Kelly Fort, Member of the Public said I am with the Fort Construction, and I am also here on behalf of the Home Builders Association. I really want to summarize this pretty quickly. My background is originally civil engineering with an emphasis on traffic and transportation way back when I worked with Dan Soriano in the City of Las

Cruces, we did a ton of fun stuff. I will focus on the TIA element of the draft but one thing I kind of want to point out for example if you look at Section 4.3, A1 c, I think it is on the third page. There is instances where we have words that are extremely vague kind of context and I want to warn anyone before they put something into code you do

Page 14 of 24

have to be careful of how not specific we are going to be and how specific we are going to be because it really limits what you can and can’t do at the end of the day.

Regarding the TIA’s, one thing I would like to push is just that when we are in the preliminary stage of design and development it doesn’t do a ton of good to try and be extremely specific with the TIA. Essentially, they are asking for a TIA when we do the preliminary and once we go to final plat it would be asking for another TIA and then in addition anytime anyone wants to develop they would require that person who is building, who is pulling the building permit to perform a TIA as well. So that is three

TIA’s performed throughout the process and one thing I will leave you guys with a note. I build houses for a living, we just dove off into the development and I would like to commend the city, they have been extremely helpful in us getting it off the ground but I will reiterate that any cost that is dumped on me as a developer gets pushed to the builder and once it gets pushed to the builder I push every cost that I am incurred to my end customer. It is just part of the process and therefor I really want you guys to think about what we are requiring people to do because at the end of the day it is the public that pays for it.

Steve Montanez, Member of the Public said I was part of one of the subcommittees of

Economic Development during the Elevate Las Cruces and I also spent the last four years on the Planning and Zoning Commission at Dona Ana County where I oversaw close to 120 amendments to their UDC which I was also part of the Dona Ana

Initiative. I do want to thank the Mayor for our discussions and just touch on Section

5.5c which pertains to park impact fees. I personally believe and I’m sure many of you will nod your head and agree that we do have a very good exceptional impact fee system in place. In our current impact fee system, our developers have generously and graciously donated the lot. They designed the park with what we have seen are very good park standards, once the park is designed and built it is deeded back over to the city and also in addition to that park impact fees are still collected from builders, developers and also as Mr. Fort mentioned also in essence paid for by the homeowner. In Section 5.5c this completely eliminates this initiative that our builders and developers have taken and just requires them to do it. Gives them a general standard which is not going to be as high quality as you are seeing now. When you are forcing a builder or developer to build a park, they are just going to build to that standard that is required of them and that is it. This is a great time to commend some of our developers like the Thurston’s for their development in Rincon Hills or Rincon

Mesa, Sierra Norte for their development of pocket parks and some other concepts in

Metro Verde, and some of the others that you have seen. With that we have a very giving community, a very giving development and builder community and this section here is kind of a jab to them. Making a requirement instead of the system that we do have in place. I did have a couple more here to touch on, you do have copies. I would also like to join the HBA in requesting another meeting with the stakeholders and with our consultants. We did have a very effective meeting at the development of Elevate

Las Cruces where a lot of provisions were removed and adjusted and I think we can get a lot of that accomplished if we are able to meet again with the consultants and potentially some of you. Lastly, Councilor Graham I would love to speak with you one on one about some of the challenges in infill development anytime just reach out to me online.

Jason Lorenz, Member of the Public said I build homes here in Las Cruces under the

Page 15 of 24

name of Veloz Homes. In the packet you got today if could please turn to page 7.

There is a couple of items there that I would like to talk to you about. Chapter 5-2 and

1, it is talking about sidewalks in residential lots that they should be required. On 5.2,

M6, a2, it is talking about when those sidewalks should be built. Basically, what it is saying is that the sidewalks should be built during the development of the subdivision when they put in streets, curb and gutter, that kind of thing. If we put in sidewalks at that time those sidewalks are almost surely going to be demolished during construction and going to need to be rebuilt again after the construction of the home is complete. I completely believe we need sidewalks and I build them every day, but they should not come at the time of development. I realize that there is this public safety issue for people walking down the street, but I promise you walking down broken sidewalks trying to push your baby stroller during construction of that house is not a benefit to them. These sidewalks need to come afterwards. The additional $1,500 to $5,000 per house will affect Mayor Pro Tem’s concern about affordable housing when we have to build every single one of those sidewalks twice. The next thing I want to talk about is on the last page of the document that you received, it is the very last item 5A, e6, earlier on in Section 5.2, F4, a1 it talked about when a residential property was built next to an arterial, in that earlier section it says on an arterial or collector that the resident should be built to face that arterial and then access to that residence should be from an alley way back but yet in Section 5.8, E6 it says we should build a six to eight foot high solid masonry screening wall in front of that house that we were just required to build on that street and it just seems like an oversight. It just needs to be one way or the other. Either the front of the house goes there, or the back of the house goes there. It doesn’t make sense that it can both.

John Moscato, Member of the Public said I was a member of the TAC Committee for the last 18 months and I am here just as a resident and not as a member of the TAC

Committee. Just wanted to highlight a few technical items though as a developer for instance in the summary of approval authorities there are certain applications for instance for TIA’s and for drainage studies that are limited in applicant input totally.

So, there is no DRC, no P&Z, no city council it is just a single member of the city administration who is responsible. There is no input from the developer or applicant allowed at all. There is also a provision at 4.2, A3, c that indicates that construction plans should be submitted with some resubdivision plats, and that the construction of those adjacent roadways should be required as a condition of the plat. That is totally opposite of what is the requirement now. It would really be putting the cart before the horse because when you are submitting for a plat you don’t even know if the plat is going to be approved so why go through the process of creating plans and then requiring the developer as opposed to the vertical business user to build those improvements. Then in the summary in the Substantial Completion Section which is

4.4, D1 there are requirements for street lighting and electrical connections in parks but at the time when we are requesting substantial completion we don’t have power, sometimes water is only available at the very end of the process so you can’t build a park without power and you can’t build a park without water. That is why park improvements historically have been shifted after substantial completion as a separate process and not a requirement of substantial completion.

Randy Hilgrim, Member of the Public said I very much appreciate the changes that I see that have been proposed. I especially applaud the requirement that sundry stores

Page 16 of 24

have 10% fresh produce. Getting rid of food deserts is always a good idea. My request is that you remember that while walkability is important, for many of us walkability is very limited. Please bear that in mind when you design parking so that someone has to park in the back of the business and walk to the front to get in.

Debra Dennis, Member of the Public said I have a request to make of the Mayor, Dr.

Judy Berryman who is the city’s Chair of the Las Cruces Historic Preservation

Commission could not be here today to speak for herself. She has prepared a written statement which I will distribute. She asked that I be given permission to read it into the record, it is 3 minutes. These are her words. Community Development failed to give the Historic Preservation Commission any opportunity to meet with the consultant to discuss Chapter 2 or its revisions. However, there is an opportunity to correct this oversight during the upcoming phase. The Historic Preservation Commission fully supports this as the time for a major revision in the city’s development codes and the commission is requesting a seat at the table in order to assist the city to meet its expressed interest and commitment to promote and protect the historic fabric of Las

Cruces as stated in Chapter 2, Declaration of Policy and Intent. Las Cruces is one of only ten New Mexico entities that have qualified for designation as a Certified Local

Government. The city gained this status in 2021. The New Mexico State Historic

Preservation Officers stated that he welcomed the city of Las Cruces as a local partner in the Federal Preservation Program and looked forward to working with the city to preserve what makes the community special and significant. As council may be aware the position of historic preservation specialist became vacant last month with

Dr. Troy Ainsworth abruptly resigning. To maintain its certified local government status the city is required to have a Historic Preservation Specialist on staff who meets the professional standards set forth by the state certified local government statutes. Making matters worse consultant changes in Chapter 2 specify that city staff can make decisions regarding historic eligibility, conduct surveys, inventories, and evaluate prior surveys. The term city staff throughout the document must be removed and changed to Historic Preservation Specialist as written in the original historic preservation ordinance. As Councilor Corran stated in her recent Bulletin article,

Realize Las Cruces is a long-term policy strategy designed to address the housing shortage and we must do so from every angle. One of those angles must involve the preservation of the city’s unique history and culture. Historic preservation is an essential part in helping any city to appreciate its past and to responsibly develop its future. Speaking for the Historic Preservation Commission I implore you Mayor, City

Manager, City Councilors to give us a voice during the next phase of Realize Las

Cruces. Over the past two months the commissioners and I have had public discussions regarding specific recommendations modifying the current draft of

Realize Las Cruces. We ask that we can present these recommendations in a Work

Session with city council as soon as possible so that they might be incorporated into the next draft of Realize. Thank you for your consideration. Judy Berryman

Juan Garcia, Member of the Public said Councilor Graham, with all due respect and I appreciate your honesty, but in my opinion your comments earlier came across as arrogant, condescending, and in essence they epitomize what we usually talk about as we are the government, we know better so shut up and take it.

Lisa Parrott, Member of the Public said what I have not heard the words said today

Page 17 of 24

was free enterprise. If a person wants to live next to a dispensary. Let them. If a person wants to live in a suburban home with a yard with a view, let them. When any home is built it will allow when that home is sold, it will allow homeowners to move up the ladder or first-time homebuyers to get into their starter home because it will open up a home further down the line, so it doesn’t have to be a certain type of housing built. Any housing built will help with the emergency. I was 17 years old, graduated from high school with a job before I graduated in South West Virginia in a town that didn’t even have a McDonalds. I had a job at a law firm. I was married two weeks after graduation at 17 and we lived for eight years in a 10 by 55 foot mobile home and we stayed there for eight years and then we parlayed into a larger home, a double wide.

Fast forward to my current husband, we started in a home the size of I am guessing

750 square feet. He was an engineer with 18 years with Raytheon out in Bristol,

Tennessee. We parlayed and we saved and worked hard. I worked until our son was born, I stayed home with him, and we worked hard, and we saved. We moved 3 times in 4 ½ years when we got to this point, we bought and sold by owner three homes, property values and restrictions are extremely important and now that we are in retirement age I don’t feel that our hard work for our whole entire life should be threatened by the property values going down, you sign a deed, that is what you expect to live in until you sell.

Faith Hutson, Member of the Public said I would first just like to say Councilor

Bencomo and Councilor Graham, I really appreciate what you had to say about affordable housing. Affordable housing is a crisis that we are dealing with nationwide as well as in the city. This requires us to think outside the box in all options that we might have. Affordable housing cannot be just big apartment complexes. We need to look at all of our options and that includes single family dwellings, that includes AD units, that includes mother-in-law apartments, carriage houses, all that kind of stuff.

What I am requesting out of you is to consider the importance of historic homes in this and part of that is having a very strong Chapter 2 with clear language about the preservation of all of our cultural properties which aka would also be our historic homes. I served on the Historic Preservation Ad Hoc Committee and the intent of

Chapter 40 at the time was to protect all cultural properties not just in historic districts and not just those called designated cultural properties. This is in my opinion dangerous language that needs to come out of Chapter 2 to just say cultural properties. So, part of that is preservation is affordable housing, it really is. It is not a dichotomy between the two. They need to be looked at synonymous because they can help solve the situation. That also means looking at ways that we can help owners that have properties that are run down, abatement should not just be the first option on that. We don’t have luxury of abating houses in order to afford affordable housing. We need to look at infill. The city owns a lot of empty lots themselves, what can be done with those? Encourage homeowners, give them incentives to help them fix it up so it can become affordable housing. HPC needs to be at this table.

Nicole Perez, Member of the Public said I am the Executive Officer of the Las Cruces

Home Builders. First and foremost, I want to say we are not here to oppose the

Realize Las Cruces plan. We are just here to clarify some of the wording in there. I do want to thank my Government Affairs Committee for all the hard work that they have put into going line by line. Especially John Moscato who has spent several years just looking at the plans and just reviewing all of it so a big thank you to them. I do want to

Page 18 of 24

reiterate that we are asking for a meeting just as a stakeholder meeting with the consultants and city staff just so that we can describe a little bit more of that packet that you guys did receive earlier, thank you. Did Christine have any more of those that we could give to the consultant and Larry? I just wanted to give one to the consultant.

Davin Lopez, Member of the Public said I am President and CEO of Mesilla Valley

Economic Development Alliance. First of all, I want to say I want to applaud the effort on trying to make the development code more flexible and usable. I personally like the idea of bringing more services closer to the neighborhood. In the nimble discussion however, I have not heard really a discussion on nimbleness on economic based development opportunities and I am specifically referring to the corridor around 70 all the way going up towards White Sands. What is missing there is really a complete lack of industrial space, light industrial space that might be available to support the asset that we have at value, White Sands Missile Range and White Sands Test

Facility. Specifically, I am referring to the grid, its categories 123 and 124, light industrial fabrication and warehousing. Also, industrial printing is category 100, 3D printing falls under industrial printing and 3D printing is one of the fastest growing technology industries. We just lost a project to Texas, they were paying a minimum of $60,000 a year and up to $120,000 a year and then small data centers as we see the change in that going forward. That is also excluded from this as well and other technology driven industry and all of this comes down to when we talk about limiting residential spaces, we are also now talking about limiting opportunities for higher wage job creation especially on the east side of town. I think just take that into account in terms of this decision you are going to make and hopefully we can have more conversation. The other thing is I was reading, and I was hearing about a committee being formed and I read in the plan, New and Unlisted Uses. I am not sure exactly what that means. It says it refers to the Community Development Director making the final determination. I would just add that maybe you should bring an

Economic Development voice into that. Bring your Economic Development team into that discussion so that it is a balanced discussion on not only housing but also the opportunities for job creation.

Kary Bulsterbaum, Member of the Public said I am commercial real estate broker in this community for about 21 years. I am just going to piggyback on what Davin was saying. If you look at that I-25 to Highway 70 corridor, you are almost eliminating this plan almost 50 acres of industrial light industrial zoned land and pockets and I can’t stress enough that when you look at the highest producing revenue companies along this corridor which is almost a 10 mile stretch going out towards the city limits and the highest producing revenue companies are contractors that do business out at White

Sands, construction companies that do business out at White Sands and obviously we are seeing from what I do anyway more and more need for just general storage and light industrial needs up and down that corridor as the housing has just grown and grown and I am not talking about intense industrial type stuff. I am talking about organizations that need 50% to 75% office and scope, maybe some small shop for what they do most of it being general storage, some discrete and opaque fencing and discretionary fencing and it is almost like you are taking that away under this plan. It’s almost like you are turning your back on companies that kind of put that area on the map and certainly support our biggest employers and I don’t think that is right. As the housing has grown out there, we have seen more and more interest. Basically, to

Page 19 of 24

meet the demand of that housing by especially convenience store operators, gasoline operators, and carwash operators, and things like that. The next horizon now that

Sonoma and 70 has grown out seems to be Mesa Grande and Highway 70. The one thing I just want to mention is that these companies, anytime you look at any corners whether at any time it had a life to it, Sonoma and 70, Rinconada and 70. Don Roser and University, anything that you are a fan of in this town typically you have to crawl before you walk. You have to start with convenience store, light fuel services to start and those are just sales where you get your light eateries and then there is a domino effect of other retail you might be a fan of whether it is medical development, retail development and what have you. I don’t understand why that has to be a special use permit conversation when you look at the history of it any major intersection, it kind of starts in that format and you are creating barriers to the entry by companies that are either actively closed on land in this area, looking to close on land in this area and that are likely to go to Castle Rock, Colorado, Yuma, Arizona, or anywhere else in between if you are just creating those type of barriers. I just hope that you will look at that corridor. It is a ten mile stretch that you are looking to eliminate that, and I really think you have got to relook at that.

Sarah Smith, Member of the Public said I want to say thank you to the Community

Development Office, David Weir and consultants for lots of work on this. To address

Councilor Bencomo and Graham, I would really like you to look closely at the current code compared to even this new revision there are still significantly more opportunities for apartments, for triplexes, duplexes in this new version that they just presented than there are in the existing code right now. So, we have a situation where some people would like to live in an apartment area and some people want to live in a single-family home area. I have mobile homes on my street. I have HUD apartments really close to me. It doesn’t bother me but if some people would like to still have those zones they should be allowed to have those zones. This new code even as revised now is still going to provide a lot more opportunities for apartments and triplexes and duplexes in some of these other housing types that you guys would like.

So, I think it is a really good compromise personally between what people are wanting, what you guys are trying to achieve for moving things forward in a way that can please everybody, hopefully. One other thing, the parking I would like to reiterate.

There is some serious problems with the maximum parking caps that are built into the new revised code. As an example, a 3,000 square foot restaurant which could have seating for 100 customers and 15 to 20 staff would only be allowed to have 15 parking spaces with the way it is written in this code right now. Las Cruces has tried having a maximum parking cap before. They got rid of it because it didn’t work right. It limits the businesses. I know this is a place where there is common ground for people on both sides saying, they really want to get rid of the maximum cap so I would hope that guys would please remove the maximum parking cap, leave it up to the businesses so they can decide.

George Pearson, Member of the Public said I am a member of the TAC but not speaking on the behalf of the TAC and I am also Vice President of VeloCruces, a local bicycle and pedestrian advisory organization. Realize Las Cruces is an important update to our zoning code. Its intent is to create a more flexible environment and to promote additional housing units and safe travel for all modes of transportation including bicyclists and pedestrians. Car ownership costs is in the area of $10,000 a

Page 20 of 24

year with affordable housing and infill area and proper bike ped facilities a family could change from two vehicle family to a one vehicle family and be able to put that $10,000 in their pocket but this won’t happen if there are not safe bicycle facilities.

This includes safe and secure bicycle parking at destinations. For example, grocery stores. Right now, safe and secure bike parking does not exist at most grocery stores.

Current and the Realize Las Cruces update only requires bike parking for new construction. However, parking lots are over built. Increasing bicycle mode share is a solution to multiple problems including traffic congestion and added health benefits and economic prosperity. So please require bike parking for existing properties. You can have reasonable limits. Maybe properties that have 15 parking spots require would be the minimum to require bike parking and you can phase in the requirement over a certain number of years instead of requiring it immediately. So please consider this change. This was talked about at the TAC. There was no push back at the TAC so that is kind of disappointing that this didn’t appear in the draft.

Donald Wilson, Member of the Public said I am the current President of VeloCruces. It strikes me today that there are some common themes that this Realize Las Cruces effort is hoping to bring about. When I look on the website for the City of Las Cruces, talks about wanting to be an inclusive community and having a vibrant quality of life, enhancing our livability and having a socially sustainable and doing all this in a socially sustainable manner. So, this is a great opportunity, the updating of this code.

If we are only going to do it every 20 years we have to be sure that we do it right when we do it. So, the thing I am struck with today is given how many people are interested in this it is probably makes sense to take a step back and get some more input from people rather than moving forward with the plan. I think the idea of meeting with the

Home Builders Association and while I worked in business and when government was going to regulate me, I always wanted to be at the table even if I didn’t like the end result I felt that I had the opportunity for input so I would encourage council to think about that. Two other thoughts that I had in listening to all of this, walkability is important for all of our citizens, roadway design standards are very important.

Councilor Mattiace talked about equity. I would like the council to consider equity in a different context which is to make the roadways and the spaces accessible to all Las

Crucens and finally I want to reiterate my pitch for this City Council to adopt a Vision

Zero approach that will take us into 20 years from now, 30 years from now so that eventually we will have a city where all users of the roads, pedestrians, bicyclist and drivers can do so safely.

Susan Cabello, Member of the Public said I am the Executive Director of Downtown

Las Cruces Partnership. I would like to echo the comment of our Board Chair John

Munoz. We are really excited about the possibilities of Realize Las Cruces and the development code. The very old numbers are that there about 6,000 people that live and work in a one-mile radius of downtown. That is a probably 2016 number so I would say that is 20% to 30% higher now. So, what we want to provide people is a place that they can live and work downtown where they are not driving as much. that is walkable. I was showing our interns our district and I said we really want to make it walkable and Kylie our genius intern said well technically any distance is walkable. I sent them out this morning, the came back, they were red, they were hot, they were sweaty. It is just a big area and there are some areas that aren’t safe for pedestrians.

If you cross Compo you are taking your life into your own hands, downtown. So, I

Page 21 of 24

really want to emphasize, I know Campo redesign is in the works and making this a walkable area, I was so excited when I saw the parking lot with the green space.

Really kind of want to avert some of those effects of us being a heat desert downtown. We love the plaza but its concrete and it kind of makes things hotter. Also really excited about the possibility of mix use development downtown. So commercial space on the bottom, maybe some residential on top. We are in the fantastically awful place of running out of space for retail downtown. All of this is exciting, thank you for your consideration. We are all excited about making Las Cruces more walkable for our citizens.

Jody Kreie, Member of the Public said I am a member of AARP Las Cruces. I was asked to come and give a little presentation. I have a letter that I can give to the Clerk from our Executive Director, Dr. Sanchez. The City of Las Cruces is a designated member of AARPs network of age friendly states and communities and is well positioned to support housing that will offer walkability options being close to schools, amenities, jobs, etcetera. In particular we hope that Las Cruces will consider policies that encourage the development of missing middle housing, particularly ADUs or accessory dwelling units. An accessory dwelling unit is an independent housing unit built on an existing home site. It can be an independent building, it could be an apartment within a building. What it allows is for seniors to age in place. You can build an ADU that is completely accessible for a senior who is getting some mobility issues.

You can have multigenerational housing so that an adult child could be living in that or a traditional granny flat where an older person moves in with an adult in a more independent way. Seniors are a rapidly growing segment of the population especially in New Mexico. We are predicted to have the third largest percentage of seniors by

2050 or something. Land use regulations that facilitate ADU’s and other middle level housing permit the housing needs and prepare the community for the housing needs created by demographics of change. I encourage the city to address those needs as they develop the codes.

Mayor Enriquez said before we finish, I just want to acknowledge those who were on the TAC Committee. We want to recognize you and say thank you for all the work that you did. I think that kind of answers as far as the open house event. Maybe look at having some meetings with the associations that requested the invites and maybe coordinate with staff and get those meetings done and I know Mr. Sedillo had mentioned that the TIA meetings are going on and progress as well when our open house comes up and maybe then we can have all those issues addressed. I hoped that helped, the comments and everything else.

Erica Craycraft said yes, that was very helpful. Thanks to everyone who shared their comments. I wanted to make a suggestion.

Mayor Enriquez asked that does clarify that instead of scheduling a date on the open house that pushing it back as you saw planned to get some input from the other associations in those private meetings first?

Erica Craycraft said yes, my suggestion was here on number 2 where we say, conduct the open house event and revisit with code users for feedback. We switch

Page 22 of 24

those and instead of doing that at the same time with the open house we could meet with the code users. That would include the Home Builders Association, etcetera, ahead of the open house instead of at the same time.

Mayor Enriquez said yes, that would be fine I think that would be good. Again, like it was said earlier it has been 20 years. I don’t think we have to just check the box as

Mr. Wilson was saying, we don’t need to just checked the box, and say we fulfilled it.

This is an opportunity, this is exciting, this is good for Las Cruces and we want to do it right and we want to do a good job and so thank you all for your input we really appreciate it.

3.3 GO BOND QUARTERLY UPDATE David Sedillo, Public Works Director gave the overhead presentation.

Natalie Green, Housing Neighborhood and Revitalization Administrator continued the presentation.

David Sedillo continued the presentation.

Mayor Enriquez asked as I recall we had a consultant as a project manager in the previous GO Bond and you now as Public Works you guys are fulfilling that obligation as the lead project managers, correct?

David Sedillo said that is correct. We are trying to maximize the funding to be able to do more improvements on these projects as they are more advanced.

Mayor Enriquez asked how is it going?

David Sedillo said it is going well.

4. ADJOURNMENT 4.1 Councilor Becki Graham moved, seconded by Councilor Johana Bencomo, to adjourn at 3:45 p.m.

RESULT: Carried

MOVER: Councilor Becki Graham

SECONDER: Councilor Johana Bencomo

AYES: Councilor Johana Bencomo, Councilor Yvonne Flores, Councilor Becki

Graham, Councilor Becky Corran, Mayor Eric Enriquez, Councilor Cassie

McClure, and Councilor William Mattiace

Mayor

Page 23 of 24

City Clerk

Page 24 of 24