CIP ... AWS
SUMMARY INDEX FOR PUBLIC WORKS/CIP & LAND USE COMMITTEE September 26, 2016 ITEM Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of Consent Agenda Approval of Minutes- September 12, 2016
ACTION Convened at 5:00 p.m. Quorum Present Approved as presented Approved as presented Approved as amended
PAGE 1
PRESENTAT ION ADA Transition PROW Update
By Maggie Rasmussen
2-6
CONSENT AGENDA LISTING
Listed
6-7
PUBLIC HEARING 11. Midtown LINC Overlay District
Approved with amendments
12. Matters from Staff
None
18
13. Matters from the Committee
Discussion
18
14. Matters from the Chair
None
18
15. Next Meeting:
October 11, 2016
18
16. Adjournment
Adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
19
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1 1 2 2
7-18
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE PUBLIC WORKS/CIP &LAND USE COMMITTEE Monday, September 26, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee was called to order on the above date by Councilor Peter N. lves, Chair at approximately 5:00p.m. in City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
2. ROLL CALL Roll Call indicated the presence of a quorum as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilor Peter N. lves, Chair Councilor Joseph M. Maestas Councilor Ronald S. Trujillo Councilor Renee D. Villarreal MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilor Christopher M. Rivera
STAFF PRESENT: Isaac Pino, Public Works Director Bobbi Huseman, Public Works Staff OTHERS PRESENT: Councilor Michael Harris Carl Boaz, Stenographer
NOTE: All items in the Committee packet for all agenda items were incorporated herewith by reference. The original Committee packet is on file in the Public Works Department.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilor Maestas moved to approve the agenda as published. Councilor Villarreal seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 1
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Trujillo moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Councilor Maestas seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 12,2016 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
Councilor Villarreal requested two changes to the minutes. The first was on page ?at the top of the page where it should say "why they struck out the provisions." The second was on page 9, fourth paragraph, last sentence where it should say, "She asked if Staff felt comfortable with the timeline." Councilor Maestas moved to approve the minutes of September 12, 2016 as amended. Councilor Villarreal seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
INFORMATIONAL AGENDA 6. PRESENTATION ON THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE ON DISABILITY (DAVID CHAPMAN)
Mr. David Chapman said he asked a staff member from KFH, Ms. Maggie Rasmussen, Assistant Project Manager, to help with the presentation. She and her staff have been working on the PROWs. Ms. Rasmussen shared a power point presentation [attached as Exhibit 1]. She said they have been surveying all sidewalks, and intersections and this is an update. They divided the City into grids and in midAugust, assigned to each a surveyor. They are now in the sidewalk survey phase and curb ramps at midblock and driveways. They are doing all major streets and the survey groups the neighborhoods together. They are using what is called a Timbrel - handheld computer with photos where surveyors input all data. And inclinometer measures the slope. As of September 20, a total of 4,924 curb ramps was completed and now are at over 5,000. They found that 4% don't have a companion ramp (on other side of street) to prevent being trapped. 1% don't go to the sidewalk, and. 7% have obstructions such as fire hydrant, lighting or sign poles.She provided examples of such obstructions [attached as Exhibit 2.] 29% have removable barriers. For sidewalks, they have surveyed 161 miles. There are 2,209 sidewalk surface obstructions so far. She handed out a map showing where the survey has taken place for intersections and sidewalks to date [attached as Exhibit 3]. They expect to complete the survey in late November or early December with full ADA review finished in early 2017. Councilor Maestas said it is a great job. There are a lot of ramps and sidewalks with obstructions. In that regard, his concern was possible loss of federal funds. He asked if the City is under any oversight by the Department of Justice or a mandate for ADA noncompliance.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 2
Mr. Chapman said the PROW is a federal requirement. The Department of Justice said the City has to comply in the ADA transition plan which was initially done in 2008 when the City did all public buildings and did not do all public rights-of-way. The feds said we had to do that also. The Federal DOT liaison covering New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, monitors our work. Once complete, KFH will prioritize all sidewalks and intersections and then he was in the process of establishing budgets for incremental improvements. Councilor Maestas asked if the City has to have a plan to correct all of them and have a timeline for construction and if that would be the compliance plan after the assessment. Mr. Chapman said they will be prioritized after this is done. Then he will submit it to the Feds for review and approval with the specific points we will cover. Councilor Maestas asked if they included bridges. Mr. Chapman agreed they were included in this survey. Councilor Maestas said there has been lots of talk about the DeFouri bridge and it was hotly contested. ADA drove Council's decision there. Mr. Chapman said it is all public right-of-way. The street is public ROW or PROW. The plan for transition includes all PROWs with curb ramps and curb cuts. Ramps can also be used with mobility devices. Councilor Maestas asked if there are any exceptions to the ADA laws. With the decision on the DeFouri Bridge, the Old Santa Fe Association then moved to preserve the other historic bridges. Mr. Chapman said there are lots of sidewalks downtown that are not ADA compliant. But as long as the City doesn't make improvements to the road (resurface) at those places, they are not on the priority list. But if we do an overlay like on Don Gaspar to the south, the City must, at that point, make the sidewalk accessible. If we don't do any street improvement, we don't have to change the sidewalk. Councilor Maestas said that was the same with buildings in 2008. Mr. Chapman agreed. If they renovate the building, then everything must be brought up to code. There is a schedule for what has to be done. Councilor Maestas noted that he works in Albuquerque and they are doing comprehensive sidewalk replacement and he thought that was from a litigated decision. The sidewalks look much wider than conventional sidewalks. He asked if ADA has a new standard for them. Mr. Chapman said the ADA regulations for the City haven't changed for sidewalk width. The new ADA regulations will be approved in December but is under review. But the City is allowed to use the 2009 set which is under review and it is a different width of sidewalk. It is 5' and then ADA has volumes of detail about it. Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 3
Ms. Rasmussen -it was once 36" but now is 48" without any obstruction and at certain intervals a 5' 6" turning space. Councilor Maestas said in Albuquerque, they are doing the entire existing sidewalk for blocks and blocks. It is a substantial and very costly undertaking and definitely the sidewalks look much wider than conventional sidewalks. He didn't know if we are subject to it. Mr. Chapman said the study has gone through the prioritization. Everyone has to do it and be in compliance with ADA and Federal DOT regulations. Councilor Trujillo asked how long has that been a law. Mr. Chapman didn't know. Councilor Trujillo said the side streets, e.g., his street, has a curb ramp with 7-8" wide sidewalk. The bottom is compliant for a ramp but not the sidewalk. He hadn't seen anything on that. Mr. Pino said about 7-8 years ago, the City got direction on how to proceed including that they would not have to bother existing ramps unless they put down a new street. This year, around town, we are trying to catch up on the ramps. Councilor Trujillo asked if the City would fix the intersections first. Mr. Chapman agreed in general but will look at the whole picture. Councilor Trujillo said there are some sidewalks that are crumbling and places where there is no sidewalk. Some are in District 1 and people in the district ask him when they will get sidewalks and paved streets. Some are right on Alameda. That was his biggest concern. He was glad they are doing the assessment but at the time of prioritizing, many have never even had a sidewalk, and ADA compliant, of course. It is pretty for the tourists but we need to think about those who live here year-round. Mr. Chapman said he keeps the Committee on Disabilities updated monthly about the priorities and progress. He could come back and talk more about ideas. Councilor Trujillo said he was definitely interested in that for his district. Councilor Villarreal asked, when doing the inventory, if they were not just looking at major intersections but also smaller neighborhood intersections across the City. Mr. Chapman agreed. Councilor Villarreal asked, when there is a need for sidewalk improvements, if the responsibility is put on the private business owner or homeowner in front of their property. She wondered if the plan will speak to that. In most cases there isn't money to do that. She was curious if there is some discussion on funding support or if it is incorporated in some way. It is confusing for private owners to understand that. Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page4
Mr. Chapman said it is a City ordinance that the owner is responsible for the upkeep of the sidewalk on their property. The funding she is talking about is beyond this project. Councilor Villarreal reasoned that the City doesn't have plans for funding that sidewalk. Mr. Chapman said the City can require homeowners to update but that is outside the project scope. Staff has aligned the work with what has already been done on the GIS to make sure their measuring data will fit into the City GIS system. Councilor Villarreal said this also puts the onus on the City. It contradicts our code with what we are trying to do here. The City also has a layer of regulation. She would have to work with Staff on it for the situations that arise. Councilor Trujillo said the Parks Division Staff are meeting tomorrow about some on the curb and sidewalk along Cerrillos Road. It is something that definitely must be addressed. That was what Councilor Calvert asked for years ago. Chair lves asked Councilor Harris to comment or ask questions too. Chair lves said regarding the GIS and from the attachment, that it looked like that would be put in the City's data. Thanks for anticipating that. He asked what percentage was complete. Mr. Chapman said when they started, they did not have an accurate total number for the City. Ms. Rasmussen said they couldn't say for sure what is left but they have all the major ramps done at intersections and now all that is left are at businesses and mid-block. She thought they were close to being finished with ramps. Chair lves said with the anticipation of a report out in January and with 161 miles of sidewalk he wondered if that part is primarily complete or not. Ms. Rasmussen said they still have lots of miles. Our estimate is about 600 miles of sidewalk in the City. Chair lves asked about the many residential areas without any sidewalks. Ms. Rasmussen said the 600 miles includes areas without sidewalks. Chair lves asked what happens in the report with the no sidewalk areas. Ms. Rasmussen said they will include that in the GIS. Chair lves said that information is needed to understand our capital needs. Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 5
Mr. Chapman added that KFH just completed a study of all bus stops and that plan was already paid for and the same organization that did it so we can use that information. It is a system to be in compliance with DOT but has that extra information in GIS for moving forward. Chair lves asked if a draft report would come back here before final publication. He would love to see that first here to know what it says and have likely comments when made public. Mr. Chapman agreed to do that. Chair lves asked if KFH will make recommendations and if there are priorities for different types of issues. Mr. Chapman agreed that they will make recommendations. The ADA priorities issue has not been established yet but KFH does this throughout the country and we will get some priority lists they have used elsewhere. Chair lves thanked Ms. Rasmussen for her presentation and for being here.
CONSENT AGENDA LISTING 7. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PURCHASE 1 (ONE) PLOW/SPREADER BOXES AND ONE (1) DUMP TRUCK UTILIZING STATE PRICE AGREEMENTS #22·000·00-00105, #40·805·13·10348, AND #40-805-13·10257 WITH SUMMIT TRUCK GROUP AND MCT INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $192,874.70 (DAVID CATANACH) Committee Review: Finance Committee (Scheduled) Council (Scheduled)
10/03/16 10/13/16
8. SANTA FE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT • REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF GRANT AGREEMENT FOR SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE INCREASED AIR SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 • REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF GRANT AGREEMENT FOR AIR SERVICE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR MARKETING SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 • REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF BUDGET ADJUSTMENT (CAMERON HUMPHRES) Committee Review: Finance Committee (Approved) Council (Scheduled)
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
09/19/16 09/28/16
September 26, 2016
Page 6
9. SANTA FE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF: • RATIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF USDOT AlP GRANT AGREEMENT #3-35·0037-043-2016 AND APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF NMDOT AVIATION DIVISION GRANT AGREEMENT, PROJECT NO. SAF-17-02 o Request for Approval of the Budget Adjustment Resolution •
RATIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF USDOT AlP GRANT AGREEMENT #3·35-0037-044·2016 AND APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF NMDOT AVIATION DIVISION GRANT AGREEMENT, PROJECT NO. SAF-17-04 o Request for Approval of the Budget Adjustment Resolution
•
RATIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF USDOT AlP GRANT AGREEMENT #3-35-0037-045-2016 AND APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF NMDOT AVIATION DIVISION GRANT AGREEMENT, PROJECT NO. SAF-17-03 o Request for Approval of the Budget Adjustment Resolution
•
RATIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF USDOT AlP GRANT AGREEMENT #3·35-0037-046·2016 AND APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF NMDOT AVIATION DIVISION GRANT AGREEMENT, PROJECT NO. SAF-17-05 o Request for Approval of the Budget Adjustment Resolution (CAMERON HUMPHRES)
Committee Review: Finance Committee (Scheduled) Council (Scheduled)
10/03/16 10/13/16
10. REQUEST FOR CONCEPT APPROVAL OF THE SALE AND PARTIAL VACATION OF RIGHT-OF· WAY OF AN EXISTING ALLEY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2570 SQUARE FEET ADJOINING THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF 436 CERRILLOS ROAD AND 425 SANDOVAL STREET BY PBS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (MATTHEW O'REILLY/EDWARD VIGIL)
Committee Review: Finance Committee (Scheduled) Council (Scheduled)
10/03/16 10/13/16
PUBLIC HEARING 11. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 14 SFCC 1987, CREATING A NEW SUBSECTION 14·5.5(D) ENTITLED THE "MIDTOWN LOCAL INNOVATION CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT" (MIDTOWN LINC OVERLAY DISTRICT) AND ESTABLISHING PERMITTED USES, DEFINITIONS, STANDARDS, AND Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 7
INCENTIVES FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT; AMENDING THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES TO ADD PROVISIONS FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT: 14·3.8(B) DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS, TABLE 14·6.1·1 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, 14-6.2(A)(7) DWELLING UNITS WITHIN C-2 AND SC DISTRICTS, 14·8.6(B)(4) REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, TABLE 14·8.7·2 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND POINT ALLOCATIONS, 14-8.13(E) DEVELOPMENT WATER BUDGET CRITERIA, 14·8.14(D) IMPACT FEES; RELATING TO THE BUILDING AND HOUSING CODE, CHAPTER 7 SFCC 1987, AMENDING SUBSECTION 7·1.10 APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE; RELATING TO THE SEWER CODE, CHAPTER 22 SFCC 1987, AMENDING SUBSECTION 22-6.6 EXHIBIT A SECTION 7 WASTEWATER UTILITY EXPANSION CHARGE; RELATING TO THE WATER CODE, CHAPTER 25 SFCC 1987, 25·4.2 EXHIBIT B RATE SCHEDULE 8 UTILITY EXPANSION CHARGE; AND MAKING SUCH OTHER CHANGES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE (MAYOR GONZALES, COUNCILORS IVES AND LINDELL) (MATTHEW O'REILLY) Committee Review: Planning Commission (Approved) City Business Quality of Life Committee (Approved) Community Development Commission (Approved) Council (Request to publish) Finance Committee (Scheduled) Public Utilities (Scheduled) Council (Public hearing)
09/08/16 09/14/16 09/14/16 09/14/16 10/03/16 10/05/16 10/26/16
Chair lves said the Committee will have first a presentation from Mr. O'Reilly and then move into the public hearing and then have Committee discussion. Mr. O'Reilly apologized that the packets probably did not get color exhibits which is standard procedure. They are hard to make sense of in black and white. [The maps showing the Midtown overlay and a map showing all of the overlay districts are attached to these minutes as Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5]. There are also three amendments that have been emailed and he handed those out too. [the amendments are attached to these minutes as Exhibit 6.] Mr. O'Reilly used presented the ordinance and resolution using a power point. He said this is the fourth city committee where he has presented following the information meeting in August that was attended by 75 people attending. It went to the Planning Commission on September 8 where it was unanimously approved. Before the CBQL, it was unanimously approved on September 14111 and the Sustain ability Commission heard it but took no action on it. This covers the area of St. Michael's Drive. Overlays are numerous in the City. The most recent is the Airport Road Overlay. The St. Mike's corridor is the only commercial corridor that is not covered by an overlay district. He listed them. This first corridor overlay was done during urban renewal times. This would be the second smallest overlay with about 1% of the City's area and less than 1% of lots.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 8
In 1999, after a lot of work, the General Plan was adopted and as part of it, St. Mike's was classified as redevelopment corridor and the General Plan said it was to be provided incentives for intensification and mixed use development. In 2009, Housing did a design study competition for professionals to come up with ways it might look and those were displayed in a meeting. In 2011, Council adopted the first of 3 resolutions -2011-18 recognized it as major commercial corridor and need for form-based overlay standards. Also at that time, Staff were to develop the corridor. In 2011, the Santa Fe Board of Realtors got a grant to study housing and said as many as 1,000 multifamily units could be there. Also, in 2011, Long Range Planning came up with design standards to be included in an overlay. In February 2012, Council adopted the 2nd resolution to work out transfer of road authority to the City from the State. Design Studio with SFAUD spent a year to create concepts for the overlay. The ReM ike work had a culmination in an event at a business and the results were included in the staff report. In January 2013, Council adopted the Airport Road Overlay District. In February 2014, Council adopted the 3rd St. Mike's corridor plan and directed Staff to identify jump start projects and a slate of incentives for the corridor. That same resolution directed Staff to do a traffic study and Long Range Planning got a limited traffic assessment to determine if the 7-lane roadway and 150' ROW could be reduced to 51anes. The result showed it could be done and that most locations would operate suitably. In this area, it concluded that some portions might better be left 7 lanes wide. Mayor Gonzales was invited to Charleston to present urban design projects and he presented St. Mikes corridor as his design. At this point, this ordinance has been before four committees and will go to Finance, PUC and to Council on October 26. It includes only commercial, institutional and industrial zones except for two residences- one a single family resident and also the DosSantos apartments. It intentionally doesn't include any other residential neighborhoods. Regarding uses, the district adds to the underlying zoning districts, which will stay the same. Table 2 showed what the land consists of. They surveyed every single nonresidential use in the area. The majority are retail The bill itself is in 11 different sections and structured equivalently and is laid out following the Airport Road district design. As redevelopment occurs, no current uses would violate the ordinance or be non-conforming. It includes the intent of a buffer between development and residential that is outside the district. Pedestrian/biking amenities are important. All new development must comply with all requirements. New buildings must be pushed toward the street. There may be instances where that is impossible, in which case, the Land Use Director can make a decision. It is to be centered a lot on encouraging multi-family housing. One necessary thing was to try to unify underlying zoning requirements and housing will always be required. Table 14 showed prohibited uses and permitted uses. With multi-family, there might be uses not appropriate so it establishes a few unallowed businesses. Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 9
Mr. O'Reilly said this ordinance is not complicated. It is very simple but the Land Use Code is complicated. It is designed to incentivize uses people say that they want. It encourages uses complementary to multi-family uses like restaurants and dentists, etc. The bill establishes qualifying projects to incentivize qualifying residential or non-residential uses that fit the uses desired. Table 14- 5-5 clarifies that. Non qualifying use projects can still be built but just won't get incentives to do so. Mr. O'Reilly went through responses to the survey. The bill sets out a number of design standards. To allow for increased density, the maximum height is 50'. He compared it to current underlying zoning heights. When presented at the information meeting a month ago, it was proposed at 60' but after the feedback, it was reduced to 50' and added buffering from residential. A fourth floor must be set back. In buffer areas 150' from residential, the maximum height was set at 38' and those require a 25' rear yard setback. An important change is to encourage the density needed for Affordable housing and workforce housing and to allow smaller dwelling unit sizes similar to the last Railyard project (Railroad Flats). Right now, the maximum density is 29/du/acre. We know that in other places, including Albuquerque, zoning allows them to have as many as 40-50 dwelling units per acre. Here, there is no proposed upper density. What would limit it is the height. Setbacks are a maximum of 5'. Also architecture would be different along the street. Primary fagades must face St. Mikes and sidewalks must be at least 15' wide. Perimeter screening of parking areas with periodic openings is required and hot boxes must be inside buildings. Vehicle doors cannot face the street. Rooftop equipment must be screened except renewable energy equipment. Sign age cannot be pole mounted and none is allowed to be above the roof but the number of signs is not restricted. Benches and trash receptacles are to be coordinated in design. Outdoor lighting cannot be higher than 12'. Pole mounted lights are also limited. Qualifying projects must use Option B water budget although people can propose their own water budget. Fee incentives include no construction permit fees, reduced water budget fees and purchase of city water at the city's cost. Another incentive is that qualifying facilities don't have to bring water rights but just to buy water from the City. There are no impact fees, no wastewater expansion fees. All others- including meter fees and Santa Fe Model Homes fees are not changed. Chair lves thanked him for crafting his presentation to share the highlights of this measure. Mr. O'Reilly referred to the three amendments that are proposed. One is by Councilor Villarreal and is an amendment to require developers of residential that all fee in lieu of building affordable housing would be applied in the overlay or in an adjacent residential district. An amendment would require that Councilor Lindell proposes was that the ordinance be reviewed 5 years after adoption. Staff also proposed amendments which flowed directly from the public input, especially at the Planning Commission. The first one is on height that equipment on the roof is not considered as part of the building height, so elevators and solar would not be included in the height. The amendment is that energy equipment is not counted as long as it is under ten feet high.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 10
Also at the Planning Commission at the extreme east and west end, there are overlaps with some other districts and the concern was that the overlap not mean being held to the highway corridor height standard. The ordinance originally required that the fourth story be stepped back 15' and the amendment is proposing now a 10' step back. There would be hopefully workforce housing and that must be limited for the amount of square footage that is non-residential and how much income that can be derived there through the 21-G program. We think there is still room for setback but smaller at 10'. On page 11 is the issue about wall or building mounted signage and extra greenery. The bill allowed for them to be moved around and clustered so they would not block signage. Setting signs back should be done. But things like directional signs should not have to be set back that far. At the Planning Commission there was concern about requiring benches for every 10,000 square feet of gross square footage. The amendment is proposing benches based on the ground floor square footage only. The concern that lighting not be placed behind buildings was difficult because we hoped most parking would be in back so the compromise was to not do that within the buffer strip. Finally, on page 18, it allows for approval of a development plan administratively by the Land Use Director for qualifying and did not give a threshold. It would be amended to read for more than 10,000 square feet, a development plan is required. Those are all of the amendments proposed so far. Chair lves asked where this goes from here. Mr. O'Reilly said it moves on to Finance on October 4, PUC on October 5 and Council on October 26 with a public hearing. Public Hearing. Chair lves opened the Public Hearing and suggested 3 minutes each. Ms. Naomi Marquez Flores on behalf of Chainbreakers with 500 members and many in the Hopewell Mann neighborhood, one of the poorest in the City and at high-risk for displacement in the health report. She said Chain breakers doesn't oppose this ordinance and many of the changes are what they have been working on. But without clear and strong protection for residential, it often leads to gentrification. We want development without displacement. We encourage the Councilors to spend the same energy on protecting residents that go into the overlay proposal. We would be happy to work with the City on solutions. Mr. Dean Butler, property owner of a retail store just off St. Mike's and most of their customers use St. Mike's to get to his store. He is very interested in the project. When first proposed, he began attending early planning meetings for improvement in functioning and the aesthetics. he recently got a detailed briefing Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 11
from Mr. O'Reilly and thought this embodies the original concepts that captivated the imagination of business owners. When the ReMike event was held in 2012, there were hundreds who attended it. Lots of idea were presented that require code changes. This embodies most of those so he is very much in favor. We need to keep in mind that while it is an important corridor, those businesses are patronized mostly by Santa Fe residents. That is a benefit for quality of life for all of Santa Fe. Mr. Simon Brackley, representing the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce, said Mr. O'Reilly has done outstanding work mostly meeting the concerns of the neighbors, businesses and landlords and giving shape to that and he was grateful for his work. There were over 300 people at ReMikes. The Chamber supports it. It will create opportunity for workers in Santa Fe. Right now, more than half of the workers live outside Santa Fe and will help in the St. Mike's area with housing. This is the right time for you to plan the center of our community as it has grown randomly over time. This will create jobs and improve sustainability - so please support it. Mr. Ken Hughes, representing Land Alpha International and the Sierra Club said this has been a long time coming. There is no time like the present to correct past mistakes and make it more livable and this can be used by many people for years to come. Ms. Chris Swedeen, 20 Casa del Oro Loop, said she has worked on economic development here for 12 years, particularly focused on the creative sector and was thrilled to see what is happening here tonight. Mr. O'Reilly and Staff have put in years of work to put in ideas from the community and glad to see that the ideas have been incorporated here. All the public input has paid off. This actually supports the Economic Development Plan you voted for in 2004, focused on creative industries, with green technologies and workforce housing. So she hoped the Committee will support it. Mr. Keith Gorges, 645'Y:! East Palace Avenue and a business with Tierra Concepts on Pacheco Street. He wanted to add his voice of support. This is a brilliant initiative and very well needed on several levels. He learned recently that the City is suffering from over $100 million in deferred maintenance needs so anything that can be done to stimulate economic development is positive. Socially, it is a great project. That corridor is not pedestrian-friendly now and this is an opportunity to change that. He is all for the multi-family element. He had no plans to do anything there in their business but hopefully this will keep people in our community. Also, if anyone voices opposition to the incentives, he would say as a builder, that the incentives will help builders get over the hump. He didn't think it will be quick but would happen over years and decades. Ms. Terry Buell represented the Santa Fe Homebuilders Association as its president. Last week Mr. O'Reilly came and presented to the Association and we appreciated it and are very much in favor of the plan. Incentives. As a HERS rater, the green aspect of this overlay will help promote energy efficiency as well. Thanks for the work that went into it. It is a win-win for everyone.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 12
Mr. John Nye, representing the New Mexico State Chapter of LAI, an international land economics group of professionals working in urban planning and design. He said they have reviewed and waited for this proposal since Mayor Coss' administration. They feel this is a very opportunity not only for Midtown but the whole city. It is positive not only economically but also for life style. He saw it happen recently in San Diego with linear parks and it made a positive change in value and bringing in affordable housing. LAI has experienced this elsewhere and are in favor of it. He said he drives St. Michael's every day and you have to be careful not to get run over now. Ms. Germaine Chappelle, said she is also a member of LAI and a local attorney focusing on land use issues. She also worked with Councilor Trujillo at DOT and also with Councilor Maestas. She related that she had a paper route there in junior high. Having seen how it was then and seeing it today, she saw the positive benefits of the Second Street developments and then made an analogy with the Nob Hill area in Albuquerque. When she graduated law school, they started a nonprofit there to do redevelopment and they did it responsibly and sustainably. Now there are concerns about gentrification issues but here, we are early enough in the process that those concerns can be dealt with. She is a proponent of small business in our community as opposed to large ones. Projects like this will help fuel the small business engine. There were no further speakers from the public regarding this case and the public hearing was closed. Councilor Villarreal commend the Staff who worked on this over the years. It is not something that just appeared but developed in lots of iterations. Mr. O'Reilly took the lead and a lot of others were involved plus community input which is big and important. This is personal because is an area where she grew up. It is not very safe right now. Traversing the street is difficult with potential accidents that can occur. She said she has worked with Staff to help protect neighborhoods there, many of whom are lowincome. Although not necessarily in the district, we have worked to figure out how best to do this, especially with low income people. If there is flexibility to allow more innovation, it will be beneficial but also with that comes responsibility. With Affordable housing, she worked with Staff to figure out the best way to support affordable housing, realizing that funding for multi-family is very different. Any intricacies to make projects function economically in the City. She proposed these amendments to hope there will be an affordable project in this area. Their contributions will go a long way in this area. There are affordable census tracts that qualify for federal subsidy. She would work with Staff for ways the Committee can be more involved in the process with things like rental assistance. The housing plan states that the most need here is for rental assistance. The Affordable Housing Staff knows that already. She thought the City will get more feedback and she wanted to hear more on it. Mr. O'Reilly has taken a lot of time with her to help her to understand all of it. It is amazing how Staff figures out how to do things more effectively. One thing for Mr. O'Reilly, if this gets approved, is for making changes right off the bat. She wondered what happens because there are no plans yet to take over the road. How do we make those street designs work while working on these projects? Mr. O'Reilly explained that one reason it took a while was Staff and perhaps Councilors and others were not sure what to do first. This was a sign to him to work immediately to talk with the NMDOT about Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 13
the street. Over the last 20 months, he has worked with them. And during that time, we have three3 different District 5 Engineers. Whatever happens to this roadway, it is likely to happen back-to-back on curbs. It is unlikely that the whole street will be ripped out. Mostly, it will be bulb outs, more parking, safer crosswalks and signals to help pedestrian safety, but between the two curb lines. Then it becomes less important to wait for that but to work on the Land Use Code. That said, the changes to the roadway are important and for some, the most important part of this effort. This roadway actually creates a physical barrier for residents on the north for things they need. Their library, their school, their shops. So the road is important. The bill has added landscaping and wider sidewalks. This bill does not accept the road for DOT nor how we will pay for it. We need to continue to work on those things. There is an existing road agreement since 1981 and it has not been amended since. We've met with the DOT Secretary and we are trying to get a way forward on the road. So the fact that it isn't included doesn't mean it isn't important. We will keep working on that. Councilor Harris said certainly everything west of Llano is very important to the people of district 4. Now there has been a traffic assessment. In it, he asked if there has been any consideration about what it might to do to Siringo and Camino Carlos Rey. He has gotten emails from those who want to know how it will affect these neighborhoods. Mr. O'Reilly said the limited traffic study procured by Long Range Planning mostly asked for the possibility of a lane diet. Most studies include long-range projections. In the study, you notice in terms of existing traffic that it is more than adequately sized. 1-25 is only 4 lanes. But for future development, it remains to be seen. A little of that depends on how fast that development happens. The thinking is that the development will happen slowly over the next 20-30 years and he based that on his experience with Tierra Contenta. In the late 80s, he helped design it and it is just half-built out in the last 25 years. So things will happen slowly but traffic will have some uses move out and others move in. The parking lots are available to be developed. You probably saw that study didn't find such traffic moving into side streets or how much would move into side streets with future development. So we don't have a plan yet and whether we should try to take it over. Councilor Harris asked if they plan to change the curb cuts from the affected properties and what would drive traffic to Llano, for instance. Camino Carlos Rey is a residential street but a tremendous number of cars use it daily. So will it drive traffic to the side streets, like Llano, for instance? Mr. O'Reilly thought it will change as there are new developments. Access to those business would be from the side so traffic would turn onto those side streets for access to the businesses. Whether they would choose to drive on down those streets is unknown. But potentially, with sidewalk style businesses, it will become less safe for them turning off St. Mikes directly into parking lots. Some may have to access directly from St. Mikes where the side street access is not possible. Councilor Harris suggested it would be great to see the impact in color, rather than in shades of gray. He asked why the Coca Cola Building was not included in this overlay. The type of operations through the distributing business will eventually move out.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 14
Mr. O'Reilly said there was an effort to be restrained on the boundaries of the district. There are other areas where existing commercial properties were not included because they wanted some to remain in the buffer areas. With this building, it could be included. And if this Committee wants to recommend that, it is fine. But we didn't want the boundaries to extend too far. Councilor Harris would like the Committee to consider including the Coca Cola Building in the overlay. It is ripe for redevelopment and would probably be well served in this overlay. With properties like College Plaza, there are little parcels such as Carl's Jr. is a separate little lot. He asked how such parcels will be created. Smaller parcels would be more likely to get sold and developed. Mr. O'Reilly clarified that this overlay does not propose any changes to the subdivision process. The ordinance does have a lot of reforms to the parking requirements which are often the limited to the development. It would allow parking to be shared at different parts of the day. It would not require them to split off another parcel of land. Sometimes those small lots were done because they were business condominiums and sometimes shared. But the bill doesn't attempt to modify that part of the Land Use Code. Commissioner Harris opined that the 5-year retention of qualifying conditions seems a little short. Railroad Flats is 15 years. There are some at 20 years and the developer agreed to it. Five years might be too short. He also said 22 units per acre is 2 over 1. He thought 60 would be a better height refinement. He would like to hear what others say about that. Mr. O'Reilly said they did start with a 60' height and responded to requests to lower it, based on concerns of the neighbors. He thought it is still doable at 4 stories. He thought the five-year restriction could be made longer. The idea was to not hamper the uses. The qualifying uses are restricted and this was not to restrict uses for too long but it could perhaps be 10 years. Councilor Trujillo said he drives through there every day down Llano Street to St. Mike's. If ReMikes does become a reality and the whole reinvention of that corridor is something that those of us who live there would finally see something happening for the locals. That is the great thing about it. Many things are for tourists but this is for the locals. He went to a lot of those seminars. This is about walkability and is the first step. He was definitely grateful for the work Mr. O'Reilly and Staff have done. There is more to be done but he definitely supported this and felt they could talk more about the height at 60'. He didn't see the need to restrict it to 50'. The need is to have housing. He wanted it to create something his family could walk to. It would be a place to eat, etc. for people on the south side of Santa Fe. Las Soleras is coming up and he is ecstatic to see what it brings to that section of Santa Fe. For too long, the City has been business unfriendly. Let's encourage businesses to come to Santa Fe and increase our GRT. Look at Albuquerque -the City Council there is happy to have Santa Feans move down there. Councilor Maestas thanked Mr. O'Reilly for the presentation. He said he campaigned on this issue. This is a good step forward. The only concern apparent tonight was the representative from HopewellMann and he would like to see that neighborhood revitalized. The discussion has gone on for several years. Having people go through charettes to do the code change is a big change. He was a little Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 15
concerned about the rapid pace here and it is not like he wanted it to go slow but to have a way for public involvement on things that were done in 1990's. It is significant and happening now but there hasn't been a robust community dialogue on it. We need to add more public involvement. Please think about that. Councilor Maestas pointed out that this part won't change the road. We need to continue this dialogue to come up with the strategy. In the TIP program there are intersection improvements coming up in FY 17. But the funding for sidewalk improvements were postponed to FY 19. He sits on the MPO Board and wanted to make sure the sidewalk project would retrofit to15' wide sidewalks. The real catalyst for roadway improvements to move forward is to show the development community that we are serious. We are not moving on that roadway change. That could stall some initial developments. We also need to provide highspeed broadband to that whole area. That needs a real plan on transportation improvements with milestones to put the pieces together. He read the traffic study from 2015 and saw that all the signalized intersections fail without improvements. The impact to the intersections with road diet, is maybe underestimating or not quite modeling traffic behavior. He would like to see in this planning a pilot where they start by striping a lane to prepare to drop it. That pilot needs to be part of the strategy within that initial 5-year period. That would be a great trial run to see how traffic would behave. His other concern was on the bicycle pedestrian aspect which should be referred to BTAC. They discussed how the road diet went down in flames for Paseo. But this is a road diet that is more significant. BTAC should be part of this presentation on the trail continuity. The Rail Trail project is coming in at 2018. How would this affect the underpass at St. Francis. A presentation would go a long way for BTAC. Specifically, on the alterations, this doesn't go into great detail on what would be an eligible alteration and leaves it up to Land Use Director for incentive eligibility. He didn't see any discussion on defining the alteration extent like if it has to be more than 50% of original footprint. That could be significant because it could be the way it starts- through alterations instead of new construction. There needs to be more there instead of just on a case-by-case basis. If there is an alteration that doesn't quite fit, then it could go to the Land Use Director. Parking is also a significant issue and it calls for shared spaces but he didn't see anything about waiving parking for existing businesses to allow new developments. Like right in front of K-Mart, would this give a waiver to K-Mart of their required parking? Maybe it is implicit in there but it needs to be more explicit. He was also concerned about the height limit because of the very large tracts and big boxes get set so far away. But if this puts buildings right on the frontage at 50' high he tried to imagine how it would look from the parking lot and how they would incentivize phasing so it is tasteful. Mr. O'Reilly said when Tierra Contenta began, if was a big plan and in a green field. This is different because it is an area of great investment. Part of that, going to his concern, is that some are owned by families for a long time or a long-time lease that includes parking that can't be taken away. Those are issues particularly with large national retailers. Some developers might have to wait for leases to expire.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 16
The ordinance is not tied to square footages of alteration but to use. If someone wanted to expand a small restaurant, they would get an incentive that applies to them. Those incentives still apply whether an alteration or not. It is also possible, although difficult, that those buildings way in the back that followed the 1960's design, could have buildings on top of them and be incentivized to do that. He shared that concern for incentivizing phasing and it was part of what they were working on it. We are desperate for affordable housing, particularly for young people so he was uncomfortable going lower on the height limit. We really have to encourage this density to happen. There is no really clean solution but it might arise as it goes along. Councilor Maestas had a concern is that there is not a natural connection with SFUAD and the corridor. He was just looking for some opportunity to incentivize maybe a bike/pedestrian corridor to connect SFUAD with the corridor overlay. Right now it doesn't lend itself to connecting to that massive property. Mr. O'Reilly said he has thought about it a lot and there are a couple of hopeful things there. With a potentially new investor coming in to revitalize the University and drastically increase enrollment, particularly at College Plaza in the back could provide retail to the University- to make it two sided. So those buildings could have add-ons at the rear to address the University. The possible new investors don't like the guard house and University as a fortress. He saw that as positive thing. The City also has property south of the university where there is also some opportunity to create some permeability so the campus is not so isolated. Councilor Maestas said his last comment was on the impact fee reduction. We are lncentivising infill. Albuquerque adopted a variable impact fee system that was struck down by the courts. He asked if Mr. O'Reilly could follow up on that so we make sure the impact fee reduction is legally defensible. Mr. O'Reilly said he has had detailed conversations with the City Attorney about it and she feels this is absolutely defensible. Chair lves noted that the City is in process to adopt the WERS standards and rooftop capture which is where we need to be headed. He asked if that will simply apply by being brought into the code, especially with mixed use projects. Mr. O'Reilly agreed. They will all apply. We didn't put it in here because the Council has not adopted it yet. If the Green Code is adopted, it would apply here too. Chair lves asked if there are possible requirements on rooftop solar also. Mr. O'Reilly said he was not an expert on Solar PV and told that it can be costly. We did say it shouldn't count against height. As part of Green Code, it might not right now be a requirement in the overlay. Chair lves was not clear on the how this will ensure greater walkability and access day-to-day needs those things that really promote health and welfare for the City and how to build community by having neighbors meet in their neighborhoods.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 17
Mr. O'Reilly said the requirement is for really wide sidewalks and one speaker talked about the concept of a linear park - large enough for seating and a big public space there - a refuge of greenery and separation from the traffic that it would provide. It is a concept of the 24-hour city. Now people talk about 18-hour city. Santa Fe maybe is a 12-hour city. There is nothing going on late at night. But with the more people on the street- that is what will allow that to happen. He thought that is where we want to end up. People asked where the park is and there is no property available for that but maybe there could be a park there someday. Chair lves said he needed to understand the removal of the covenant. Mr. O'Reilly said the City offers significant incentives and they would obtain incentives and start installing uses that are not qualifying for which they should not have gotten incentives. So it runs with the land and they have to do this. So what if they sign the covenant and then don't do it? The resources are what we can do in Chapter 1 of the Code. That is the path we would follow. If this body or Council feels 5 years is too short, it would probably be okay to have a longer period. Councilor Villarreal moved to approve the ordinance with the proposed amendments. Councilor Trujillo seconded the motion. Councilor Maestas asked for a friendly amendment to include a presentation at BTAC.
He said the next BTAC meeting is October 14. Councilor Villarreal agreed and Councilor Trujillo agreed the amendment is friendly and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
12. MATTERS FROM STAFF
There were no matters from Staff.
13. MATTERS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Councilor Trujillo requesting cleaning around Cerrillos Road. Mr. Pi no said Rob Carter is focusing on that.
14. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR
There were no matters from the Chair.
15. NEXT MEETING: October 11, 2016 Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 18
16. ADJOURNMENT Having completed the agenda and with no further business coming before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03p.m. Approved by:
Peter N. lves, Chair Submitted by:
Carl Boaz for Carl G. Boaz,
~J
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 19
ACTION Convened at 5:00 p.m. Quorum Present Approved as presented Approved as presented Approved as amended
PAGE 1
PRESENTAT ION ADA Transition PROW Update
By Maggie Rasmussen
2-6
CONSENT AGENDA LISTING
Listed
6-7
PUBLIC HEARING 11. Midtown LINC Overlay District
Approved with amendments
12. Matters from Staff
None
18
13. Matters from the Committee
Discussion
18
14. Matters from the Chair
None
18
15. Next Meeting:
October 11, 2016
18
16. Adjournment
Adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
19
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1 1 2 2
7-18
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE PUBLIC WORKS/CIP &LAND USE COMMITTEE Monday, September 26, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee was called to order on the above date by Councilor Peter N. lves, Chair at approximately 5:00p.m. in City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
2. ROLL CALL Roll Call indicated the presence of a quorum as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilor Peter N. lves, Chair Councilor Joseph M. Maestas Councilor Ronald S. Trujillo Councilor Renee D. Villarreal MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilor Christopher M. Rivera
STAFF PRESENT: Isaac Pino, Public Works Director Bobbi Huseman, Public Works Staff OTHERS PRESENT: Councilor Michael Harris Carl Boaz, Stenographer
NOTE: All items in the Committee packet for all agenda items were incorporated herewith by reference. The original Committee packet is on file in the Public Works Department.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilor Maestas moved to approve the agenda as published. Councilor Villarreal seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 1
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Trujillo moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Councilor Maestas seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 12,2016 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
Councilor Villarreal requested two changes to the minutes. The first was on page ?at the top of the page where it should say "why they struck out the provisions." The second was on page 9, fourth paragraph, last sentence where it should say, "She asked if Staff felt comfortable with the timeline." Councilor Maestas moved to approve the minutes of September 12, 2016 as amended. Councilor Villarreal seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
INFORMATIONAL AGENDA 6. PRESENTATION ON THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE ON DISABILITY (DAVID CHAPMAN)
Mr. David Chapman said he asked a staff member from KFH, Ms. Maggie Rasmussen, Assistant Project Manager, to help with the presentation. She and her staff have been working on the PROWs. Ms. Rasmussen shared a power point presentation [attached as Exhibit 1]. She said they have been surveying all sidewalks, and intersections and this is an update. They divided the City into grids and in midAugust, assigned to each a surveyor. They are now in the sidewalk survey phase and curb ramps at midblock and driveways. They are doing all major streets and the survey groups the neighborhoods together. They are using what is called a Timbrel - handheld computer with photos where surveyors input all data. And inclinometer measures the slope. As of September 20, a total of 4,924 curb ramps was completed and now are at over 5,000. They found that 4% don't have a companion ramp (on other side of street) to prevent being trapped. 1% don't go to the sidewalk, and. 7% have obstructions such as fire hydrant, lighting or sign poles.She provided examples of such obstructions [attached as Exhibit 2.] 29% have removable barriers. For sidewalks, they have surveyed 161 miles. There are 2,209 sidewalk surface obstructions so far. She handed out a map showing where the survey has taken place for intersections and sidewalks to date [attached as Exhibit 3]. They expect to complete the survey in late November or early December with full ADA review finished in early 2017. Councilor Maestas said it is a great job. There are a lot of ramps and sidewalks with obstructions. In that regard, his concern was possible loss of federal funds. He asked if the City is under any oversight by the Department of Justice or a mandate for ADA noncompliance.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 2
Mr. Chapman said the PROW is a federal requirement. The Department of Justice said the City has to comply in the ADA transition plan which was initially done in 2008 when the City did all public buildings and did not do all public rights-of-way. The feds said we had to do that also. The Federal DOT liaison covering New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, monitors our work. Once complete, KFH will prioritize all sidewalks and intersections and then he was in the process of establishing budgets for incremental improvements. Councilor Maestas asked if the City has to have a plan to correct all of them and have a timeline for construction and if that would be the compliance plan after the assessment. Mr. Chapman said they will be prioritized after this is done. Then he will submit it to the Feds for review and approval with the specific points we will cover. Councilor Maestas asked if they included bridges. Mr. Chapman agreed they were included in this survey. Councilor Maestas said there has been lots of talk about the DeFouri bridge and it was hotly contested. ADA drove Council's decision there. Mr. Chapman said it is all public right-of-way. The street is public ROW or PROW. The plan for transition includes all PROWs with curb ramps and curb cuts. Ramps can also be used with mobility devices. Councilor Maestas asked if there are any exceptions to the ADA laws. With the decision on the DeFouri Bridge, the Old Santa Fe Association then moved to preserve the other historic bridges. Mr. Chapman said there are lots of sidewalks downtown that are not ADA compliant. But as long as the City doesn't make improvements to the road (resurface) at those places, they are not on the priority list. But if we do an overlay like on Don Gaspar to the south, the City must, at that point, make the sidewalk accessible. If we don't do any street improvement, we don't have to change the sidewalk. Councilor Maestas said that was the same with buildings in 2008. Mr. Chapman agreed. If they renovate the building, then everything must be brought up to code. There is a schedule for what has to be done. Councilor Maestas noted that he works in Albuquerque and they are doing comprehensive sidewalk replacement and he thought that was from a litigated decision. The sidewalks look much wider than conventional sidewalks. He asked if ADA has a new standard for them. Mr. Chapman said the ADA regulations for the City haven't changed for sidewalk width. The new ADA regulations will be approved in December but is under review. But the City is allowed to use the 2009 set which is under review and it is a different width of sidewalk. It is 5' and then ADA has volumes of detail about it. Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 3
Ms. Rasmussen -it was once 36" but now is 48" without any obstruction and at certain intervals a 5' 6" turning space. Councilor Maestas said in Albuquerque, they are doing the entire existing sidewalk for blocks and blocks. It is a substantial and very costly undertaking and definitely the sidewalks look much wider than conventional sidewalks. He didn't know if we are subject to it. Mr. Chapman said the study has gone through the prioritization. Everyone has to do it and be in compliance with ADA and Federal DOT regulations. Councilor Trujillo asked how long has that been a law. Mr. Chapman didn't know. Councilor Trujillo said the side streets, e.g., his street, has a curb ramp with 7-8" wide sidewalk. The bottom is compliant for a ramp but not the sidewalk. He hadn't seen anything on that. Mr. Pino said about 7-8 years ago, the City got direction on how to proceed including that they would not have to bother existing ramps unless they put down a new street. This year, around town, we are trying to catch up on the ramps. Councilor Trujillo asked if the City would fix the intersections first. Mr. Chapman agreed in general but will look at the whole picture. Councilor Trujillo said there are some sidewalks that are crumbling and places where there is no sidewalk. Some are in District 1 and people in the district ask him when they will get sidewalks and paved streets. Some are right on Alameda. That was his biggest concern. He was glad they are doing the assessment but at the time of prioritizing, many have never even had a sidewalk, and ADA compliant, of course. It is pretty for the tourists but we need to think about those who live here year-round. Mr. Chapman said he keeps the Committee on Disabilities updated monthly about the priorities and progress. He could come back and talk more about ideas. Councilor Trujillo said he was definitely interested in that for his district. Councilor Villarreal asked, when doing the inventory, if they were not just looking at major intersections but also smaller neighborhood intersections across the City. Mr. Chapman agreed. Councilor Villarreal asked, when there is a need for sidewalk improvements, if the responsibility is put on the private business owner or homeowner in front of their property. She wondered if the plan will speak to that. In most cases there isn't money to do that. She was curious if there is some discussion on funding support or if it is incorporated in some way. It is confusing for private owners to understand that. Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page4
Mr. Chapman said it is a City ordinance that the owner is responsible for the upkeep of the sidewalk on their property. The funding she is talking about is beyond this project. Councilor Villarreal reasoned that the City doesn't have plans for funding that sidewalk. Mr. Chapman said the City can require homeowners to update but that is outside the project scope. Staff has aligned the work with what has already been done on the GIS to make sure their measuring data will fit into the City GIS system. Councilor Villarreal said this also puts the onus on the City. It contradicts our code with what we are trying to do here. The City also has a layer of regulation. She would have to work with Staff on it for the situations that arise. Councilor Trujillo said the Parks Division Staff are meeting tomorrow about some on the curb and sidewalk along Cerrillos Road. It is something that definitely must be addressed. That was what Councilor Calvert asked for years ago. Chair lves asked Councilor Harris to comment or ask questions too. Chair lves said regarding the GIS and from the attachment, that it looked like that would be put in the City's data. Thanks for anticipating that. He asked what percentage was complete. Mr. Chapman said when they started, they did not have an accurate total number for the City. Ms. Rasmussen said they couldn't say for sure what is left but they have all the major ramps done at intersections and now all that is left are at businesses and mid-block. She thought they were close to being finished with ramps. Chair lves said with the anticipation of a report out in January and with 161 miles of sidewalk he wondered if that part is primarily complete or not. Ms. Rasmussen said they still have lots of miles. Our estimate is about 600 miles of sidewalk in the City. Chair lves asked about the many residential areas without any sidewalks. Ms. Rasmussen said the 600 miles includes areas without sidewalks. Chair lves asked what happens in the report with the no sidewalk areas. Ms. Rasmussen said they will include that in the GIS. Chair lves said that information is needed to understand our capital needs. Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 5
Mr. Chapman added that KFH just completed a study of all bus stops and that plan was already paid for and the same organization that did it so we can use that information. It is a system to be in compliance with DOT but has that extra information in GIS for moving forward. Chair lves asked if a draft report would come back here before final publication. He would love to see that first here to know what it says and have likely comments when made public. Mr. Chapman agreed to do that. Chair lves asked if KFH will make recommendations and if there are priorities for different types of issues. Mr. Chapman agreed that they will make recommendations. The ADA priorities issue has not been established yet but KFH does this throughout the country and we will get some priority lists they have used elsewhere. Chair lves thanked Ms. Rasmussen for her presentation and for being here.
CONSENT AGENDA LISTING 7. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PURCHASE 1 (ONE) PLOW/SPREADER BOXES AND ONE (1) DUMP TRUCK UTILIZING STATE PRICE AGREEMENTS #22·000·00-00105, #40·805·13·10348, AND #40-805-13·10257 WITH SUMMIT TRUCK GROUP AND MCT INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $192,874.70 (DAVID CATANACH) Committee Review: Finance Committee (Scheduled) Council (Scheduled)
10/03/16 10/13/16
8. SANTA FE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT • REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF GRANT AGREEMENT FOR SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE INCREASED AIR SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 • REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF GRANT AGREEMENT FOR AIR SERVICE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR MARKETING SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 • REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF BUDGET ADJUSTMENT (CAMERON HUMPHRES) Committee Review: Finance Committee (Approved) Council (Scheduled)
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
09/19/16 09/28/16
September 26, 2016
Page 6
9. SANTA FE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF: • RATIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF USDOT AlP GRANT AGREEMENT #3-35·0037-043-2016 AND APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF NMDOT AVIATION DIVISION GRANT AGREEMENT, PROJECT NO. SAF-17-02 o Request for Approval of the Budget Adjustment Resolution •
RATIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF USDOT AlP GRANT AGREEMENT #3·35-0037-044·2016 AND APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF NMDOT AVIATION DIVISION GRANT AGREEMENT, PROJECT NO. SAF-17-04 o Request for Approval of the Budget Adjustment Resolution
•
RATIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF USDOT AlP GRANT AGREEMENT #3-35-0037-045-2016 AND APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF NMDOT AVIATION DIVISION GRANT AGREEMENT, PROJECT NO. SAF-17-03 o Request for Approval of the Budget Adjustment Resolution
•
RATIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF USDOT AlP GRANT AGREEMENT #3·35-0037-046·2016 AND APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF NMDOT AVIATION DIVISION GRANT AGREEMENT, PROJECT NO. SAF-17-05 o Request for Approval of the Budget Adjustment Resolution (CAMERON HUMPHRES)
Committee Review: Finance Committee (Scheduled) Council (Scheduled)
10/03/16 10/13/16
10. REQUEST FOR CONCEPT APPROVAL OF THE SALE AND PARTIAL VACATION OF RIGHT-OF· WAY OF AN EXISTING ALLEY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2570 SQUARE FEET ADJOINING THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF 436 CERRILLOS ROAD AND 425 SANDOVAL STREET BY PBS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (MATTHEW O'REILLY/EDWARD VIGIL)
Committee Review: Finance Committee (Scheduled) Council (Scheduled)
10/03/16 10/13/16
PUBLIC HEARING 11. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 14 SFCC 1987, CREATING A NEW SUBSECTION 14·5.5(D) ENTITLED THE "MIDTOWN LOCAL INNOVATION CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT" (MIDTOWN LINC OVERLAY DISTRICT) AND ESTABLISHING PERMITTED USES, DEFINITIONS, STANDARDS, AND Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 7
INCENTIVES FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT; AMENDING THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES TO ADD PROVISIONS FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT: 14·3.8(B) DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS, TABLE 14·6.1·1 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, 14-6.2(A)(7) DWELLING UNITS WITHIN C-2 AND SC DISTRICTS, 14·8.6(B)(4) REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, TABLE 14·8.7·2 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND POINT ALLOCATIONS, 14-8.13(E) DEVELOPMENT WATER BUDGET CRITERIA, 14·8.14(D) IMPACT FEES; RELATING TO THE BUILDING AND HOUSING CODE, CHAPTER 7 SFCC 1987, AMENDING SUBSECTION 7·1.10 APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE; RELATING TO THE SEWER CODE, CHAPTER 22 SFCC 1987, AMENDING SUBSECTION 22-6.6 EXHIBIT A SECTION 7 WASTEWATER UTILITY EXPANSION CHARGE; RELATING TO THE WATER CODE, CHAPTER 25 SFCC 1987, 25·4.2 EXHIBIT B RATE SCHEDULE 8 UTILITY EXPANSION CHARGE; AND MAKING SUCH OTHER CHANGES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE (MAYOR GONZALES, COUNCILORS IVES AND LINDELL) (MATTHEW O'REILLY) Committee Review: Planning Commission (Approved) City Business Quality of Life Committee (Approved) Community Development Commission (Approved) Council (Request to publish) Finance Committee (Scheduled) Public Utilities (Scheduled) Council (Public hearing)
09/08/16 09/14/16 09/14/16 09/14/16 10/03/16 10/05/16 10/26/16
Chair lves said the Committee will have first a presentation from Mr. O'Reilly and then move into the public hearing and then have Committee discussion. Mr. O'Reilly apologized that the packets probably did not get color exhibits which is standard procedure. They are hard to make sense of in black and white. [The maps showing the Midtown overlay and a map showing all of the overlay districts are attached to these minutes as Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5]. There are also three amendments that have been emailed and he handed those out too. [the amendments are attached to these minutes as Exhibit 6.] Mr. O'Reilly used presented the ordinance and resolution using a power point. He said this is the fourth city committee where he has presented following the information meeting in August that was attended by 75 people attending. It went to the Planning Commission on September 8 where it was unanimously approved. Before the CBQL, it was unanimously approved on September 14111 and the Sustain ability Commission heard it but took no action on it. This covers the area of St. Michael's Drive. Overlays are numerous in the City. The most recent is the Airport Road Overlay. The St. Mike's corridor is the only commercial corridor that is not covered by an overlay district. He listed them. This first corridor overlay was done during urban renewal times. This would be the second smallest overlay with about 1% of the City's area and less than 1% of lots.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 8
In 1999, after a lot of work, the General Plan was adopted and as part of it, St. Mike's was classified as redevelopment corridor and the General Plan said it was to be provided incentives for intensification and mixed use development. In 2009, Housing did a design study competition for professionals to come up with ways it might look and those were displayed in a meeting. In 2011, Council adopted the first of 3 resolutions -2011-18 recognized it as major commercial corridor and need for form-based overlay standards. Also at that time, Staff were to develop the corridor. In 2011, the Santa Fe Board of Realtors got a grant to study housing and said as many as 1,000 multifamily units could be there. Also, in 2011, Long Range Planning came up with design standards to be included in an overlay. In February 2012, Council adopted the 2nd resolution to work out transfer of road authority to the City from the State. Design Studio with SFAUD spent a year to create concepts for the overlay. The ReM ike work had a culmination in an event at a business and the results were included in the staff report. In January 2013, Council adopted the Airport Road Overlay District. In February 2014, Council adopted the 3rd St. Mike's corridor plan and directed Staff to identify jump start projects and a slate of incentives for the corridor. That same resolution directed Staff to do a traffic study and Long Range Planning got a limited traffic assessment to determine if the 7-lane roadway and 150' ROW could be reduced to 51anes. The result showed it could be done and that most locations would operate suitably. In this area, it concluded that some portions might better be left 7 lanes wide. Mayor Gonzales was invited to Charleston to present urban design projects and he presented St. Mikes corridor as his design. At this point, this ordinance has been before four committees and will go to Finance, PUC and to Council on October 26. It includes only commercial, institutional and industrial zones except for two residences- one a single family resident and also the DosSantos apartments. It intentionally doesn't include any other residential neighborhoods. Regarding uses, the district adds to the underlying zoning districts, which will stay the same. Table 2 showed what the land consists of. They surveyed every single nonresidential use in the area. The majority are retail The bill itself is in 11 different sections and structured equivalently and is laid out following the Airport Road district design. As redevelopment occurs, no current uses would violate the ordinance or be non-conforming. It includes the intent of a buffer between development and residential that is outside the district. Pedestrian/biking amenities are important. All new development must comply with all requirements. New buildings must be pushed toward the street. There may be instances where that is impossible, in which case, the Land Use Director can make a decision. It is to be centered a lot on encouraging multi-family housing. One necessary thing was to try to unify underlying zoning requirements and housing will always be required. Table 14 showed prohibited uses and permitted uses. With multi-family, there might be uses not appropriate so it establishes a few unallowed businesses. Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 9
Mr. O'Reilly said this ordinance is not complicated. It is very simple but the Land Use Code is complicated. It is designed to incentivize uses people say that they want. It encourages uses complementary to multi-family uses like restaurants and dentists, etc. The bill establishes qualifying projects to incentivize qualifying residential or non-residential uses that fit the uses desired. Table 14- 5-5 clarifies that. Non qualifying use projects can still be built but just won't get incentives to do so. Mr. O'Reilly went through responses to the survey. The bill sets out a number of design standards. To allow for increased density, the maximum height is 50'. He compared it to current underlying zoning heights. When presented at the information meeting a month ago, it was proposed at 60' but after the feedback, it was reduced to 50' and added buffering from residential. A fourth floor must be set back. In buffer areas 150' from residential, the maximum height was set at 38' and those require a 25' rear yard setback. An important change is to encourage the density needed for Affordable housing and workforce housing and to allow smaller dwelling unit sizes similar to the last Railyard project (Railroad Flats). Right now, the maximum density is 29/du/acre. We know that in other places, including Albuquerque, zoning allows them to have as many as 40-50 dwelling units per acre. Here, there is no proposed upper density. What would limit it is the height. Setbacks are a maximum of 5'. Also architecture would be different along the street. Primary fagades must face St. Mikes and sidewalks must be at least 15' wide. Perimeter screening of parking areas with periodic openings is required and hot boxes must be inside buildings. Vehicle doors cannot face the street. Rooftop equipment must be screened except renewable energy equipment. Sign age cannot be pole mounted and none is allowed to be above the roof but the number of signs is not restricted. Benches and trash receptacles are to be coordinated in design. Outdoor lighting cannot be higher than 12'. Pole mounted lights are also limited. Qualifying projects must use Option B water budget although people can propose their own water budget. Fee incentives include no construction permit fees, reduced water budget fees and purchase of city water at the city's cost. Another incentive is that qualifying facilities don't have to bring water rights but just to buy water from the City. There are no impact fees, no wastewater expansion fees. All others- including meter fees and Santa Fe Model Homes fees are not changed. Chair lves thanked him for crafting his presentation to share the highlights of this measure. Mr. O'Reilly referred to the three amendments that are proposed. One is by Councilor Villarreal and is an amendment to require developers of residential that all fee in lieu of building affordable housing would be applied in the overlay or in an adjacent residential district. An amendment would require that Councilor Lindell proposes was that the ordinance be reviewed 5 years after adoption. Staff also proposed amendments which flowed directly from the public input, especially at the Planning Commission. The first one is on height that equipment on the roof is not considered as part of the building height, so elevators and solar would not be included in the height. The amendment is that energy equipment is not counted as long as it is under ten feet high.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 10
Also at the Planning Commission at the extreme east and west end, there are overlaps with some other districts and the concern was that the overlap not mean being held to the highway corridor height standard. The ordinance originally required that the fourth story be stepped back 15' and the amendment is proposing now a 10' step back. There would be hopefully workforce housing and that must be limited for the amount of square footage that is non-residential and how much income that can be derived there through the 21-G program. We think there is still room for setback but smaller at 10'. On page 11 is the issue about wall or building mounted signage and extra greenery. The bill allowed for them to be moved around and clustered so they would not block signage. Setting signs back should be done. But things like directional signs should not have to be set back that far. At the Planning Commission there was concern about requiring benches for every 10,000 square feet of gross square footage. The amendment is proposing benches based on the ground floor square footage only. The concern that lighting not be placed behind buildings was difficult because we hoped most parking would be in back so the compromise was to not do that within the buffer strip. Finally, on page 18, it allows for approval of a development plan administratively by the Land Use Director for qualifying and did not give a threshold. It would be amended to read for more than 10,000 square feet, a development plan is required. Those are all of the amendments proposed so far. Chair lves asked where this goes from here. Mr. O'Reilly said it moves on to Finance on October 4, PUC on October 5 and Council on October 26 with a public hearing. Public Hearing. Chair lves opened the Public Hearing and suggested 3 minutes each. Ms. Naomi Marquez Flores on behalf of Chainbreakers with 500 members and many in the Hopewell Mann neighborhood, one of the poorest in the City and at high-risk for displacement in the health report. She said Chain breakers doesn't oppose this ordinance and many of the changes are what they have been working on. But without clear and strong protection for residential, it often leads to gentrification. We want development without displacement. We encourage the Councilors to spend the same energy on protecting residents that go into the overlay proposal. We would be happy to work with the City on solutions. Mr. Dean Butler, property owner of a retail store just off St. Mike's and most of their customers use St. Mike's to get to his store. He is very interested in the project. When first proposed, he began attending early planning meetings for improvement in functioning and the aesthetics. he recently got a detailed briefing Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 11
from Mr. O'Reilly and thought this embodies the original concepts that captivated the imagination of business owners. When the ReMike event was held in 2012, there were hundreds who attended it. Lots of idea were presented that require code changes. This embodies most of those so he is very much in favor. We need to keep in mind that while it is an important corridor, those businesses are patronized mostly by Santa Fe residents. That is a benefit for quality of life for all of Santa Fe. Mr. Simon Brackley, representing the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce, said Mr. O'Reilly has done outstanding work mostly meeting the concerns of the neighbors, businesses and landlords and giving shape to that and he was grateful for his work. There were over 300 people at ReMikes. The Chamber supports it. It will create opportunity for workers in Santa Fe. Right now, more than half of the workers live outside Santa Fe and will help in the St. Mike's area with housing. This is the right time for you to plan the center of our community as it has grown randomly over time. This will create jobs and improve sustainability - so please support it. Mr. Ken Hughes, representing Land Alpha International and the Sierra Club said this has been a long time coming. There is no time like the present to correct past mistakes and make it more livable and this can be used by many people for years to come. Ms. Chris Swedeen, 20 Casa del Oro Loop, said she has worked on economic development here for 12 years, particularly focused on the creative sector and was thrilled to see what is happening here tonight. Mr. O'Reilly and Staff have put in years of work to put in ideas from the community and glad to see that the ideas have been incorporated here. All the public input has paid off. This actually supports the Economic Development Plan you voted for in 2004, focused on creative industries, with green technologies and workforce housing. So she hoped the Committee will support it. Mr. Keith Gorges, 645'Y:! East Palace Avenue and a business with Tierra Concepts on Pacheco Street. He wanted to add his voice of support. This is a brilliant initiative and very well needed on several levels. He learned recently that the City is suffering from over $100 million in deferred maintenance needs so anything that can be done to stimulate economic development is positive. Socially, it is a great project. That corridor is not pedestrian-friendly now and this is an opportunity to change that. He is all for the multi-family element. He had no plans to do anything there in their business but hopefully this will keep people in our community. Also, if anyone voices opposition to the incentives, he would say as a builder, that the incentives will help builders get over the hump. He didn't think it will be quick but would happen over years and decades. Ms. Terry Buell represented the Santa Fe Homebuilders Association as its president. Last week Mr. O'Reilly came and presented to the Association and we appreciated it and are very much in favor of the plan. Incentives. As a HERS rater, the green aspect of this overlay will help promote energy efficiency as well. Thanks for the work that went into it. It is a win-win for everyone.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 12
Mr. John Nye, representing the New Mexico State Chapter of LAI, an international land economics group of professionals working in urban planning and design. He said they have reviewed and waited for this proposal since Mayor Coss' administration. They feel this is a very opportunity not only for Midtown but the whole city. It is positive not only economically but also for life style. He saw it happen recently in San Diego with linear parks and it made a positive change in value and bringing in affordable housing. LAI has experienced this elsewhere and are in favor of it. He said he drives St. Michael's every day and you have to be careful not to get run over now. Ms. Germaine Chappelle, said she is also a member of LAI and a local attorney focusing on land use issues. She also worked with Councilor Trujillo at DOT and also with Councilor Maestas. She related that she had a paper route there in junior high. Having seen how it was then and seeing it today, she saw the positive benefits of the Second Street developments and then made an analogy with the Nob Hill area in Albuquerque. When she graduated law school, they started a nonprofit there to do redevelopment and they did it responsibly and sustainably. Now there are concerns about gentrification issues but here, we are early enough in the process that those concerns can be dealt with. She is a proponent of small business in our community as opposed to large ones. Projects like this will help fuel the small business engine. There were no further speakers from the public regarding this case and the public hearing was closed. Councilor Villarreal commend the Staff who worked on this over the years. It is not something that just appeared but developed in lots of iterations. Mr. O'Reilly took the lead and a lot of others were involved plus community input which is big and important. This is personal because is an area where she grew up. It is not very safe right now. Traversing the street is difficult with potential accidents that can occur. She said she has worked with Staff to help protect neighborhoods there, many of whom are lowincome. Although not necessarily in the district, we have worked to figure out how best to do this, especially with low income people. If there is flexibility to allow more innovation, it will be beneficial but also with that comes responsibility. With Affordable housing, she worked with Staff to figure out the best way to support affordable housing, realizing that funding for multi-family is very different. Any intricacies to make projects function economically in the City. She proposed these amendments to hope there will be an affordable project in this area. Their contributions will go a long way in this area. There are affordable census tracts that qualify for federal subsidy. She would work with Staff for ways the Committee can be more involved in the process with things like rental assistance. The housing plan states that the most need here is for rental assistance. The Affordable Housing Staff knows that already. She thought the City will get more feedback and she wanted to hear more on it. Mr. O'Reilly has taken a lot of time with her to help her to understand all of it. It is amazing how Staff figures out how to do things more effectively. One thing for Mr. O'Reilly, if this gets approved, is for making changes right off the bat. She wondered what happens because there are no plans yet to take over the road. How do we make those street designs work while working on these projects? Mr. O'Reilly explained that one reason it took a while was Staff and perhaps Councilors and others were not sure what to do first. This was a sign to him to work immediately to talk with the NMDOT about Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 13
the street. Over the last 20 months, he has worked with them. And during that time, we have three3 different District 5 Engineers. Whatever happens to this roadway, it is likely to happen back-to-back on curbs. It is unlikely that the whole street will be ripped out. Mostly, it will be bulb outs, more parking, safer crosswalks and signals to help pedestrian safety, but between the two curb lines. Then it becomes less important to wait for that but to work on the Land Use Code. That said, the changes to the roadway are important and for some, the most important part of this effort. This roadway actually creates a physical barrier for residents on the north for things they need. Their library, their school, their shops. So the road is important. The bill has added landscaping and wider sidewalks. This bill does not accept the road for DOT nor how we will pay for it. We need to continue to work on those things. There is an existing road agreement since 1981 and it has not been amended since. We've met with the DOT Secretary and we are trying to get a way forward on the road. So the fact that it isn't included doesn't mean it isn't important. We will keep working on that. Councilor Harris said certainly everything west of Llano is very important to the people of district 4. Now there has been a traffic assessment. In it, he asked if there has been any consideration about what it might to do to Siringo and Camino Carlos Rey. He has gotten emails from those who want to know how it will affect these neighborhoods. Mr. O'Reilly said the limited traffic study procured by Long Range Planning mostly asked for the possibility of a lane diet. Most studies include long-range projections. In the study, you notice in terms of existing traffic that it is more than adequately sized. 1-25 is only 4 lanes. But for future development, it remains to be seen. A little of that depends on how fast that development happens. The thinking is that the development will happen slowly over the next 20-30 years and he based that on his experience with Tierra Contenta. In the late 80s, he helped design it and it is just half-built out in the last 25 years. So things will happen slowly but traffic will have some uses move out and others move in. The parking lots are available to be developed. You probably saw that study didn't find such traffic moving into side streets or how much would move into side streets with future development. So we don't have a plan yet and whether we should try to take it over. Councilor Harris asked if they plan to change the curb cuts from the affected properties and what would drive traffic to Llano, for instance. Camino Carlos Rey is a residential street but a tremendous number of cars use it daily. So will it drive traffic to the side streets, like Llano, for instance? Mr. O'Reilly thought it will change as there are new developments. Access to those business would be from the side so traffic would turn onto those side streets for access to the businesses. Whether they would choose to drive on down those streets is unknown. But potentially, with sidewalk style businesses, it will become less safe for them turning off St. Mikes directly into parking lots. Some may have to access directly from St. Mikes where the side street access is not possible. Councilor Harris suggested it would be great to see the impact in color, rather than in shades of gray. He asked why the Coca Cola Building was not included in this overlay. The type of operations through the distributing business will eventually move out.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 14
Mr. O'Reilly said there was an effort to be restrained on the boundaries of the district. There are other areas where existing commercial properties were not included because they wanted some to remain in the buffer areas. With this building, it could be included. And if this Committee wants to recommend that, it is fine. But we didn't want the boundaries to extend too far. Councilor Harris would like the Committee to consider including the Coca Cola Building in the overlay. It is ripe for redevelopment and would probably be well served in this overlay. With properties like College Plaza, there are little parcels such as Carl's Jr. is a separate little lot. He asked how such parcels will be created. Smaller parcels would be more likely to get sold and developed. Mr. O'Reilly clarified that this overlay does not propose any changes to the subdivision process. The ordinance does have a lot of reforms to the parking requirements which are often the limited to the development. It would allow parking to be shared at different parts of the day. It would not require them to split off another parcel of land. Sometimes those small lots were done because they were business condominiums and sometimes shared. But the bill doesn't attempt to modify that part of the Land Use Code. Commissioner Harris opined that the 5-year retention of qualifying conditions seems a little short. Railroad Flats is 15 years. There are some at 20 years and the developer agreed to it. Five years might be too short. He also said 22 units per acre is 2 over 1. He thought 60 would be a better height refinement. He would like to hear what others say about that. Mr. O'Reilly said they did start with a 60' height and responded to requests to lower it, based on concerns of the neighbors. He thought it is still doable at 4 stories. He thought the five-year restriction could be made longer. The idea was to not hamper the uses. The qualifying uses are restricted and this was not to restrict uses for too long but it could perhaps be 10 years. Councilor Trujillo said he drives through there every day down Llano Street to St. Mike's. If ReMikes does become a reality and the whole reinvention of that corridor is something that those of us who live there would finally see something happening for the locals. That is the great thing about it. Many things are for tourists but this is for the locals. He went to a lot of those seminars. This is about walkability and is the first step. He was definitely grateful for the work Mr. O'Reilly and Staff have done. There is more to be done but he definitely supported this and felt they could talk more about the height at 60'. He didn't see the need to restrict it to 50'. The need is to have housing. He wanted it to create something his family could walk to. It would be a place to eat, etc. for people on the south side of Santa Fe. Las Soleras is coming up and he is ecstatic to see what it brings to that section of Santa Fe. For too long, the City has been business unfriendly. Let's encourage businesses to come to Santa Fe and increase our GRT. Look at Albuquerque -the City Council there is happy to have Santa Feans move down there. Councilor Maestas thanked Mr. O'Reilly for the presentation. He said he campaigned on this issue. This is a good step forward. The only concern apparent tonight was the representative from HopewellMann and he would like to see that neighborhood revitalized. The discussion has gone on for several years. Having people go through charettes to do the code change is a big change. He was a little Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 15
concerned about the rapid pace here and it is not like he wanted it to go slow but to have a way for public involvement on things that were done in 1990's. It is significant and happening now but there hasn't been a robust community dialogue on it. We need to add more public involvement. Please think about that. Councilor Maestas pointed out that this part won't change the road. We need to continue this dialogue to come up with the strategy. In the TIP program there are intersection improvements coming up in FY 17. But the funding for sidewalk improvements were postponed to FY 19. He sits on the MPO Board and wanted to make sure the sidewalk project would retrofit to15' wide sidewalks. The real catalyst for roadway improvements to move forward is to show the development community that we are serious. We are not moving on that roadway change. That could stall some initial developments. We also need to provide highspeed broadband to that whole area. That needs a real plan on transportation improvements with milestones to put the pieces together. He read the traffic study from 2015 and saw that all the signalized intersections fail without improvements. The impact to the intersections with road diet, is maybe underestimating or not quite modeling traffic behavior. He would like to see in this planning a pilot where they start by striping a lane to prepare to drop it. That pilot needs to be part of the strategy within that initial 5-year period. That would be a great trial run to see how traffic would behave. His other concern was on the bicycle pedestrian aspect which should be referred to BTAC. They discussed how the road diet went down in flames for Paseo. But this is a road diet that is more significant. BTAC should be part of this presentation on the trail continuity. The Rail Trail project is coming in at 2018. How would this affect the underpass at St. Francis. A presentation would go a long way for BTAC. Specifically, on the alterations, this doesn't go into great detail on what would be an eligible alteration and leaves it up to Land Use Director for incentive eligibility. He didn't see any discussion on defining the alteration extent like if it has to be more than 50% of original footprint. That could be significant because it could be the way it starts- through alterations instead of new construction. There needs to be more there instead of just on a case-by-case basis. If there is an alteration that doesn't quite fit, then it could go to the Land Use Director. Parking is also a significant issue and it calls for shared spaces but he didn't see anything about waiving parking for existing businesses to allow new developments. Like right in front of K-Mart, would this give a waiver to K-Mart of their required parking? Maybe it is implicit in there but it needs to be more explicit. He was also concerned about the height limit because of the very large tracts and big boxes get set so far away. But if this puts buildings right on the frontage at 50' high he tried to imagine how it would look from the parking lot and how they would incentivize phasing so it is tasteful. Mr. O'Reilly said when Tierra Contenta began, if was a big plan and in a green field. This is different because it is an area of great investment. Part of that, going to his concern, is that some are owned by families for a long time or a long-time lease that includes parking that can't be taken away. Those are issues particularly with large national retailers. Some developers might have to wait for leases to expire.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 16
The ordinance is not tied to square footages of alteration but to use. If someone wanted to expand a small restaurant, they would get an incentive that applies to them. Those incentives still apply whether an alteration or not. It is also possible, although difficult, that those buildings way in the back that followed the 1960's design, could have buildings on top of them and be incentivized to do that. He shared that concern for incentivizing phasing and it was part of what they were working on it. We are desperate for affordable housing, particularly for young people so he was uncomfortable going lower on the height limit. We really have to encourage this density to happen. There is no really clean solution but it might arise as it goes along. Councilor Maestas had a concern is that there is not a natural connection with SFUAD and the corridor. He was just looking for some opportunity to incentivize maybe a bike/pedestrian corridor to connect SFUAD with the corridor overlay. Right now it doesn't lend itself to connecting to that massive property. Mr. O'Reilly said he has thought about it a lot and there are a couple of hopeful things there. With a potentially new investor coming in to revitalize the University and drastically increase enrollment, particularly at College Plaza in the back could provide retail to the University- to make it two sided. So those buildings could have add-ons at the rear to address the University. The possible new investors don't like the guard house and University as a fortress. He saw that as positive thing. The City also has property south of the university where there is also some opportunity to create some permeability so the campus is not so isolated. Councilor Maestas said his last comment was on the impact fee reduction. We are lncentivising infill. Albuquerque adopted a variable impact fee system that was struck down by the courts. He asked if Mr. O'Reilly could follow up on that so we make sure the impact fee reduction is legally defensible. Mr. O'Reilly said he has had detailed conversations with the City Attorney about it and she feels this is absolutely defensible. Chair lves noted that the City is in process to adopt the WERS standards and rooftop capture which is where we need to be headed. He asked if that will simply apply by being brought into the code, especially with mixed use projects. Mr. O'Reilly agreed. They will all apply. We didn't put it in here because the Council has not adopted it yet. If the Green Code is adopted, it would apply here too. Chair lves asked if there are possible requirements on rooftop solar also. Mr. O'Reilly said he was not an expert on Solar PV and told that it can be costly. We did say it shouldn't count against height. As part of Green Code, it might not right now be a requirement in the overlay. Chair lves was not clear on the how this will ensure greater walkability and access day-to-day needs those things that really promote health and welfare for the City and how to build community by having neighbors meet in their neighborhoods.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 17
Mr. O'Reilly said the requirement is for really wide sidewalks and one speaker talked about the concept of a linear park - large enough for seating and a big public space there - a refuge of greenery and separation from the traffic that it would provide. It is a concept of the 24-hour city. Now people talk about 18-hour city. Santa Fe maybe is a 12-hour city. There is nothing going on late at night. But with the more people on the street- that is what will allow that to happen. He thought that is where we want to end up. People asked where the park is and there is no property available for that but maybe there could be a park there someday. Chair lves said he needed to understand the removal of the covenant. Mr. O'Reilly said the City offers significant incentives and they would obtain incentives and start installing uses that are not qualifying for which they should not have gotten incentives. So it runs with the land and they have to do this. So what if they sign the covenant and then don't do it? The resources are what we can do in Chapter 1 of the Code. That is the path we would follow. If this body or Council feels 5 years is too short, it would probably be okay to have a longer period. Councilor Villarreal moved to approve the ordinance with the proposed amendments. Councilor Trujillo seconded the motion. Councilor Maestas asked for a friendly amendment to include a presentation at BTAC.
He said the next BTAC meeting is October 14. Councilor Villarreal agreed and Councilor Trujillo agreed the amendment is friendly and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
12. MATTERS FROM STAFF
There were no matters from Staff.
13. MATTERS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Councilor Trujillo requesting cleaning around Cerrillos Road. Mr. Pi no said Rob Carter is focusing on that.
14. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR
There were no matters from the Chair.
15. NEXT MEETING: October 11, 2016 Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 18
16. ADJOURNMENT Having completed the agenda and with no further business coming before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03p.m. Approved by:
Peter N. lves, Chair Submitted by:
Carl Boaz for Carl G. Boaz,
~J
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee
September 26, 2016
Page 19
