Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Applicant shall comply with all provisions of the staff report. Commissioners will consider all agenda items other than subdivision items in the form of a public hearing. The normal process is as follows. First, the commission will hear a staff report followed by a statement from the applicant. Then members of the public may speak followed by any final statement from the applicant. Finally, the matter will be closed for further discussion or a motion among the commission. The commission shall then make a recommendation that will be forwarded to city council.

Thank you. Are there any changes to the agenda today? Hi, good afternoon, Madame Chair. Lisa with planning inspections. Uh we have uh item four is being requested to be postponed until the April 23rd CPC meeting. This is item four. SUSU25-000095 for spare feed unit one. Again, request is to postpone until April 23rd. Uh and then item seven, it's also there's a request to postpone that item uh until June 18. This is uh item 7 Susu 26-0000005 for Sarah Crest 31. Again, the request to postpone this item until the June 18 city plan commission meeting. Uh those are the only changes and then just to note there's a revised staff report for item five.

Thank you. Can I get a motion to approve those changes? So move second. All in favor? I. All opposed. Okay. Thank you. So, now we're going to have a call to the public if there's anybody here that wants to speak for three minutes. I do have somebody on the list. So, uh, Miss Elva, and if you're online, that would be star six to unmute. Is that you right here?

Um, chip, madam chair, she's actually here on an item. Apologize. So, we will get to we will come back to you. I apologize for that. So, is there anybody who wants to speak on something that is not on the agenda? Again, that's star six to unmute if you're online. Okay. Thank you. Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Second. All in favor? I. All opposed. Thank you. Can we move on to let's see what's the first one number five CIA Avenue good afternoon chair members of the commission so I'll font this with binding inspections. Item five on the agenda is Sealia Avenue involving a major combination application. Here's an area view of the development. This development is within city limits and it is south of Vista Soul Drive and east of Joe Battle Boulevard. Here we have an air view showing the subdivision superimposed over the imagery. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.26 26 acres of land into public rightway to be known as Seal Avenue, a minor arterial to be dedicated to the city of El Paso. The street is to be extended east to west and it will connect to Joe Battle Boulevard. This application was reviewed under the current subdivision code. Uh, next slide please. Here we have an image of the preliminary plant. Here we have an image of the final plant. The applicant is requesting one exception pursuant to the El Paso city code and that is to wave construction of 1 foot of sidewalk along both sides of Sealia Avenue. Here we have the proposed cross cross-section for Sealia Avenue. And here we have the existing conditions on Sealia Avenue. The exception is to match existing conditions. The exception request meets the criteria under El Paso city code title 19 and to conclude staff recommends approval of Salia Avenue on a major combination basis and recommends

approval of the exception being requested. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Mr. Fontes, um what is the current width of uh the sidewalk there? the existing

the existing conditions for the sidewalk on Salia Avenue would be 5T. So they're asking from 6T to 5T. Correct. Per uh the uh street design manual the requirement would be 6 feet. So the exception would be 5T to meet the current.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Can we hear from the applicant? Good afternoon, chair and members of the commission. Adrianos with CSA Design Group. For the record, we concur with staff comments and I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Any discussion before we take a vote on this one? Move to approve. Second. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. We're moving on to number six, which is a reconsideration of the North Goza subdivision. Good afternoon, chairman, commissioners. My name is Ismia. I'm the chief planner for subdivisions. Uh the item before you is item number six, Norgo subdivision for reconsideration. Uh this is the plat you all saw on back on March 12th. The plat has been approved by CPC and what's being reconsidered is actually the waiverss and the reason behind this go through final is because during the presentation the presentation and staff report uh caused some confusion. So uh the applicant met with staff and we brought it back for reconsideration. And what's being reconsidered is the applicant is seeking to wave uh 13 and a half feet rightway along PAL instead of the 20 foot. And then that'll uh allow for a 6 and 1/2t dedication to the city that'll allow for actual uh continuation of the roadway. And the applicant is here. There's the existing conditions. So we can take a look. And that's a wa request from the previous and again staff is recommending approval of this reconsideration item. I stand for any questions.

Thank you. Did we completely deny the waiver last time? Uh again, that's where the confusion did lie as to as to what actually took place because of the the conversation or the contradiction between the presentation and the staff report. And again, we met with uh the applicant in order to discuss it and it was just one of those items we decided this needs to be reconsidered.

I'm just asking because I remember the presentation saying that all of the dedication was going to be on Pelway for the other property there. So I thought we allowed this because there was going to be no actual right of way on this property. What? Again, what I remember of the presentation and the the confusion between it was there were three there were three waivers or three exceptional waiverss being requested. One of them was for a 20 foot, one of them was for sidewalk and I can't remember the third one right off the bat. Um, but again, the confusion was the 20 foot if that was denied or approved. And again, between the presentation and the staff report, it wasn't really clear. So,

okay. Can we hear from the applicant? Oh, any questions? Nope. Can we hear from the applicant? Uh, hello, Henrika with K Consulting. We agree with all staff comments.

Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I don't believe this is open for comment, right? If someone has signed up, they Sorry. If someone has signed up, they may speak, but um this is not a public hearing item.

Okay, perfect. I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion before we vote? All in favor? I. All oppose. Motion passes. Thank you.

We're skipping number seven and moving on to eight, which is a resoning application. Good afternoon, chair, members of the commission. Alejandra Gonzalez with planning and inspections. Item number eight on the agenda is a resoning request for a subject property located at 1401 North Mesa. Here is an area of the property which is located east of I 10. The property is 73 acres in size and is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting to resone the subject property from A3 apartment to C1 commercial to allow for a restaurant. The future land use map for the northwest planning area designates the property as G2 traditional neighborhood which includes small blocks and rear alleys, buildings directly facing the streets and schools and small shops integrated with residential areas. Here we have the conceptual site plan showing the area for the resoning request highlighted in yellow. Vehicular access to the property is from Cliff Drive and River Avenue. The conceptual plan is not being reviewed for zoning requirements and is not binding. Here is an image of the subject property. Properties to the northwest across Cliff Drive and southwest across River Avenue are zone special development and include business and professional offices in a parking lot. Properties to the northeast on Mesa Street and to the south across the alley are zone A3 apartment and include a school, professional office and apartment buildings.

The subject property is located within EP Central Business Association and Sunrise Civic Group which were notified by the applicant. Public is public notices were mailed to the property owners within 300 ft of the subject property on March 13, 2026 and the planning division has not received any communications in support or opposition to the request. With that staff recommends approval with conditions of the resoning request. The conditions are as follow. Number one, that no vehicular ingress or egress be permitted along Mesa Street. And number two, that no less than 80% of the building facade shall be set back more than 20 ft from the property line along Mesa Street. As mentioned uh the policy for G2 traditional neighborhome land use designation states that the majority of this sector includes buildings that face streets directly. This condition is in intended to safeguard the character of the existing neighborhood. And lastly, to reinforce the previous condition that a detailed site development plan be reviewed and approved by the city code prior to the issuance of certificate of certificates of occupancy and completion and this concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? No. Can we hear from the applicant, please? Good afternoon, commission. This is Charlie Gomez. I'm sorry.

Miss Sorry about that. I think they I think they muted themselves. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Scared me. Um Charlie Gomez representing the um the property um or the property purchaser there. Um, we re we were with staff recommendation and uh we've met with them and I think we we are in uh we we concur with what their recommendations are going.

So you said you think you concurred. Do you Oh no, we concur. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah, we're good. We're fine. Any questions? Thank you. Is this for a uh tacoto restaurant or it appears so at this point? Yes. Oh, okay.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anybody here that would like to speak specifically on case number eight, the resoning application? And if you're on the phone, that is star six to unmute. Okay, we'll go ahead and close public comment. Can I entertain a motion?

Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I I All oppose. Name. Can I get a roll call, please?

Okay. I'm going to call for your vote, and this will be on item number eight. Um, Commissioner Badil, I. Commissioner, Commissioner Massud, I. Commissioner Borego

I Commissioner Hansen I am. Commissioner Ribe. Hi. Commissioner Rean I. And Commissioner Dolowski. No way.

So I believe that takes us back to discussion. Was there a specific reason? No. Yeah. The motion passes. I believe it was 6 to1. Thank you. So, we'll move on to number nine, which is also a public hearing. That's going to be a reasonzoning.

Good afternoon, chair, members of the commission. Uh, Jose Baw planning and inspections. So, this next item is a proposed resoning for 7321 North Loop Drive. So, here's just an area image of the subject property. Uh, again, it's located on the corner of North Loop and Hawkins. It is, uh, a little over 13 acres in size. Uh, and as you can see, it is currently vacant. So, the current zoning is ranch and farm, and the proposal is to reszone to a C2 commercial for to permit the use of office warehouses. So the current feature line use map for this area is a G4 suburban walkable which uh calls for introducing additional commercial uses to uh supplement the surrounding residential. Um as you can see the property is located along a commercial corridor uh it being North Loop and Hawkins uh and uh as well as as being located along two major arterials which makes it suitable for the C2 uh zoning district. So, here's just a conceptual site plan of the property. Again, uh at this time, this is not being reviewed for compliance. Uh it is not binding. Uh vehicular access is proposed from North Loop and Hawkins as well. So, mentioned before, the property is currently vacant. And here's just a a picture from of the of the property itself. So looking to the surrounding development to the north of this property is the uh El Paso Community College campus. Uh that is Zone Ranch and Farm. To the east and to the south we have single family dwellings uh some automotive uses, a restaurant and a bar as well as a vacant lot. And these properties are zoned C1, C2, C3, and apartment office. To the west across Hopkins, we do have uh a gas station, a contractor's yard, and a professional

office as well. And these are zone C1 and M1. So as part of the request, the applicant did notify the neighborhood associations that lie within the subject property. Uh those notices were sent out uh to everybody or every property within 300 ft on March 13th of this year. And uh as of today, the planning division has not received any communication support or opposition, but just two phone calls of inquiry. Here's just a notice map of those properties that were notified. Uh due to the size of the property, it did require on-site posting. There were two signs placed, two signs placed, one along each rideway and uh uh yeah, as of today, just two two phone calls of inquiry. So to conclude, staff does recommend approval with uh conditions and again we are considering the proximity of the property to the ranch and farm zoning districts as well as the single family dwellings that exist in the area. Uh so these conditions are first one is for a 10-ft landscape buffer. We're abudding the ranch and farm zoning district. Uh condition two is for a detailed site plan uh to be approved by city code prior to development. Uh a second part of this condition is for the traffic engineer to review the proposal and determine if a traffic impact analysis will be required. And condition three is for a 500 foot distance to be required uh for properties or businesses meeting the two sub points. Uh first one being uh properties earning the majority of their income from the sale of alcohol and the second uh sub point is for those that emit amplified sound and again take into consideration those surrounding uh uses and zoning districts. Uh with that concludes my presentation. Thank you commissioners. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions?

Madam Chair, just for all that don't know, that's the old farmer's dairy that had been there boy, ever since I could remember. Yes, you are correct. Any other questions, comments?

Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant, please? Hello, Andrea with CA Consulting and we agree with all staff comments. Any questions, comments?

Thank you. This is a public hearing, so can we please hear from Miss Ela? Uh good afternoon chair and uh city plan commission members. My name is Elvia Gran, coordinator for Stell's Garden Neighborhood Association. Uh this zoning um I did ask for the zoning back in last year to include all the way to or gain uh all the way uh north loop all the way to the railroad tracks. Uh right now my concern is he said something about uh I think alcohol or something like that. Okay. the residents wouldn't oppose to this request of zoning uh from ranch to farm to C2. But uh what I want to know is how big this office warehouse will be and what we would like or to request is that the applicant oper honor the C2 plan and not change it. Keep community in mind with a development such as a laundrymat, restaurant, bakery or the store. Things that are as are easy to access uh by walking for residents to enjoy in the area. Um, I would I would want a restriction not to put an oil change barrage due to environmental concerns. And for the record, we don't want singing trucks in the area. Thank you

for your attention to this matter. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on item nine? That's star six to unmute. Thank you.

Can I entertain a motion for this? Move to approve. Second. And do we have any discussion? I do. Um, this is just a zoning change from um ranch farm to C2 and only what C2 allows will be allowed in that area. This is not binding to any certain buildings, any certain um businesses or anything.

So, it's just a zoning change only. I was second time for the record. Uh Mr. B, you are correct. Um any use that are that is allowed in the C2 would be uh allowed as far as for any specific uses or intended uses, I would defer to the applicant.

Thank you. Any other questions, discussion? All right. All in favor? I. All opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. We have our last item, which is proposed amendments to the landscape ordinance. All right, let's try it again. All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. Tonita la Cruz with the planning inspections department. Item number 10 is a presentation and discussion on title 1846 related to the landscape ordinance of the city of El Paso. As you can see on the screen, primarily one of the things that we've been briefing our council members on is that on this specific ordinance, we weren't able to uh produce red lines easily because this is a major reorganization. It's not major changes, but we will cover the major changes that we are recommending as part of the amendments. But what happened with this ordinance is in discussing with our development community, architects and engineers. Uh, one of the things that is really throwing off a lot of the reading of the ordinance is there there's scattered provisions of the ordinance through scattered provisions of the landscape requirements throughout the ordinance. So, one of the things that we did is really realign the ordinance to address a property as you're coming in from the street towards the property and really just following a simple guidance on it. identifying that you're going to begin at the street, you're going to have street trees. Once you get onto the property, you're required a 10-ft landscape buffer. Uh, and then once you get onto the property itself, then you go into your required landscape calculation area. Finally, once you're

done with that, you go into your canopy trees requirements for parking spaces. So that's the that's the major realignment and reorganization of it, but we'll cover the major amendments that we're recommending to be accepted as part of the new landscape ordinance. So overall, as I mentioned, purpose really to simplify and clarify the code requirements. By doing this, what we're uh looking to achieve is really beautifying and improving the visual aesthetics for our residents, business, businesses, and visitors. This will be done by increasing landscape density and by moving the distribution from behind buildings towards the street frontages along all our commercial corridors. One thing to note is that this landscape code applies to commercial development. It does not apply to residential and there are no residential modifications being proposed to through these amendments. So to give you a chronology of our landscape ordinance, the city of El Paso has had a landscape landscape ordinance in effect since 1995. It didn't go in it wasn't uh enforced until 97. Just council at that point decided to push it off a few years, but it's been modified throughout the years. So modifications, as you all are aware, to ordinances are not uncommon. Once we have a few years to understand, okay, did we screw it up? Is it too strict? Do we need to be a little bit more flexible? So, this is basically one of the latest uh ordinance amendments that we're recommending. I think the big one that really occurred was the revision in 2007 when the landscape ordinance was moved from title 20 to title 18, the construction codes. So at that point really it shifted everything and then it moved on to address smart growth development to address really buildings that are being built more towards the front of the property line and removing some of the

landscape that can't be accomplished when you have zero setback buildings. As far as the public outreach we've met this ordinance has been in play now we've been working on it since approximately 2018. Uh earlier revisions that occurred were reducing landscape requirements for manufacturing facilities, largely trucking facilities where we reduced the landscape that was placed towards the rear where all the trucks are parked because really we weren't getting the benefit. You have a 6ft landscape wall, 6 foot rock wall around that back area, highly secured. And what was happening was that the trailers were actually tearing down the trees as they were moving through the yards. But we have met with our developers focus group on multiple occasions. Really their main question and Mr. Massud can attribute to this is when are we going to get this done? You know it it's they've been waiting for quite some time on this. It's been some time. Yes, Commissioner. We have coordinated with our utility companies to ensure that the proposed amendments and locations of trees aren't going to be in uh creating imposition on their utilities. uh and as well as having public meetings with our landscape architects and the licensed irrigators of the community. Finally, we met or we met with our sustainability department to ensure that the proposed amendments were in keeping with the climate action plan. Overall, we had to negotiate a little bit more with them and I'll go into detail a little bit further in the presentation. And finally, we did meet with our local architects chapter. So we'll uh jump into the proposed major amendments. So currently as I mentioned you have street and buffer trees. So as you're looking at the picture on the left hand side from the left side of the sidewalk to the right that is public rightway. Okay? That's going to be what

we call the parkway. From that line to the left that's actually now beginning to be the property. One of the amendments that we were recommending and we negotiated with our climate action uh department was the street and buffer trees. So current code requires one tree per every 30 ft feet of rightway frontage. We actually wanted to increase it to 40t uh to promote faster growth and greater shade canopy at tree maturity. Uh our sustainability department was not completely in favor of this. So what we because they were concerned that developers would give us a tree that only gives us a 20- foot canopy. So what we recommended at that point was changing adding a option for our development community that if they're choosing a large or medium tree from the El Paso plant list that reaches a 40 foot canopy at the time of maturity that those trees can be spaced at 40 feet. Anything that doesn't meet that criteria would still have to maintain the 30-foot spacing that is currently in the books. Additionally, the additional spacing would allow for additional the spacing between the trees to place required shrubs between the trees at the tree at the buffer zone. One thing that you just saw the condition that we always place when commercial abuts residential development. you see it regularly where it's always a condition that we place on it. What we're saying now with this proposed amendment is let's put it into the landscape code. So at that point cases that come uh for resonings through the commission this condition would need to be placed on the property. It wouldn't encumber the property with a condition rather it would just be a requirement based on the city code. So whenever a property comes in, if it's commercial and subing residential development, the 30 uh the 10-ft wide

buffer would be required with trees every 30 ft on center. We did provide some flexibility uh for the department because many times what we can see is that you may have a commercial development that abuts a residential zone. But what you see in that residential zone is a 30-foot easement for the electric company or a pond. At that point, this condition makes no sense. So, we did write into the ordinance that when conditions like that arise, we can wave that requirement. And of course, the benefit overall is that it will provide a sound and visual barrier for adjacent residences and really codifies a routine zoning condition imposed on the properties. re the required landscape area like we mentioned we want to make sure that we we get benefit out of the landscape that is being provided currently our current code requires requires a certain extent of landscape which I'll cover in the next slide but what happens is that many times that landscape to make it fit they're planting in the back of the building so if you guys have ever driven behind uh Walmart or something like that you start seeing landscape that really is in the uh back area of the building that provides no public benefit. We're saying all your part all your landscape is going to be required from the back of the building wall towards the front of the property. And in doing that, we are reducing the area where they could put landscaping. So that really leads us to the unit requirements in order for us to be to work with the community by us reducing the landscape area. We're modifying the unit requirements. So for those commissioners that aren't uh as well verssed with the landscape ordinance, when we run the calculations for landscape required, we look at two four

factors that I mentioned previously, the street trees, uh that's one component, the buffer trees, which is another component, and then the project. This specific area deals with the project. So at this point, if all of a sudden we said you require 10,000 square feet of landscape area, we divide that by 1,000. That tells us you require 10 units. Every unit requires currently one tree and 45gallon shrubs. What we're recommending is since we're limiting the area where you can plant, we're recommending that we still maintain the one tree, but we're reducing the 45 shrubs by a third down to 30 shrubs. Out of that total calculation, 15% of the required shrubs would need to be placed within the 10-ft landscape buffer, increasing or resulting in beautifification of our corridors. Uh, and then finally, the big one that a lot of the development community asked us to uh look at including is a buyout option. So, currently there is a buyout option within the landscape code, but it's limited to unmanned facilities. So the organizations that typically take advantage of these are cell cell phone antenna providers because they lease a small piece of land but they put all their equipment on there and rather and typically they require less than one unit. So what they and what is currently in the books is they could just say you know what we'd rather pay out rather than hiring a landscape architect the irrig uh licensed irrigator to prepare the drawings buying the shrubbery and then paying somebody to install it. So, the buyout uh current fee is $5,300. What we're saying with this amendment is let's extend it to already developed sites. If you have a a shopping center, for example, and you're going to be doing a small addition that only requires one unit or less of plant material, again, one tree and under

current code 45 shrubs that they would be allowed to buy out instead of uh of pro instead of installing the uh actual landscape. That money could be used for to enhance existing landscaping throughout city assets. So it could be used for parks, medians, uh fire stations, for example, where stuff needs to be replaced. They could use the the city could use this funding to do those upgrades. And that concludes my presentation, ladies and gentlemen. I'll open it up for questions.

Did you say that the buyout is also included in fire station maintenance? Well, you could use it for any city asset. Okay. Mhm. There has been conversations with the some of the council members. They would really like to see the buyout fee allocated to their specific district if the building is going to be located within their district.

Why isn't it treated like the park fees where it goes into an account specifically for that area? We do have a account but right now it's just a general account. It's not specific to the area. That's a discussion that council members have brought up to us that they would like it dedicated to their specific area.

Okay. So, it's something that will likely be coordinated with OM to ensure that that happens if that's the wish of city council. So, it's not that that's not going to happen. It just hasn't been organized yet. Correct. Okay. Um, another question. Is there a different area? So, I know that uh landscaping moved from chapter 20 to 18. Is the residential landscaping included in chapter 20 or where is that?

Actually, that's more included in title 19 of the subdivisions. Okay. Because the way this is written completely removes all of the residential requirements. Mhm. This one has actually never included residential. It was designed for commercial development.

The one online currently right now. Yes. If I'm not mistaken, I am I'm pretty sure it says residential. So like if if this was removed, if it's followed the way it is, which is the current chapter 18 is removed in its entirety to be this. And nowhere else in the code is residential landscaping included.

You hear what I'm saying? Like there's just no requirements for that anymore. Okay. I I will double check on that map. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Yes, Mr. M. Yeah, Tony, this is to be presented to council win. Uh, right now, uh, given the presentation to the commission, we're looking at placing it on what's the next agenda, Kevin? You're better at that than I am.

Um, it probably would be introduced here in midappril. Mid April. And, uh, chances are, uh, be public hearing would be end of April. Um there is a chance it may go in May, but we're looking at it public hearing to be in uh end of the month of next month. Was that sent out to any of the members of the developers focus group?

Not at this point. We wanted to ensure that the city plan commission had ice on this. Okay. But then it will be because otherwise you will never hear the end of it from Richard. You know Richard once we have the date solidified we will notify the appropriate parties. Sure. As well. Okay. Thank you. And again, what is the requirements for going from 30 feet to 40 feet on the trees?

Yes. So, they would the designer would have to show as part of their landscape design that it's a tree that has the ability to reach a mature canopy of 40 feet. If and we have a a city of El Paso plant list that clearly identifies which trees can reach that maturity canopy. Okay. And have you gone and looked at areas where the planning has been required and then years later go back and look at how it's been because I know a lot of places they've actually had to go in and take out shrubs because they've overgrown because there's so many because that's what was required. And also like with the trees going along a a busy road and the visibility of going in and out of those businesses.

Correct. So we are addressing the visibility as you're leaving an establishment uh requiring the 20 foot visibility triangle whenever you're coming out of a development uh in areas. One thing that this ordinance doesn't cover and that would likely be done by the street by environmental services department is the medians. So this doesn't cover the medium is just the parkway directly in front of the property that's being developed.

So are you going to put um stipulation on the trees that can go in the rightway? Uh won't be blocking off traffic. Well, the the main stipulation would be maintain the 20ft visibility triangle. Uh the trees would be selected from the El Paso plant list.

Go ahead. You know, when uh developing a shopping center, uh it's a big concern to the users that their signage won't be blocked because, you know, that's that's where their livelihood is. If you want to find a business, you see the sign, you drive in there. So, so one of the things, and I know the canopy and all that is great because of our weather. So, I'm just a little concerned that uh some of the shopping centers are not going to like trees in front because it's going to block, you know, the the view of all these tenants.

That's one thing. And the second thing is uh uh you are you going to include sprinkler systems on all these uh on all these uh rules. So so so it'll be sustainable that is already included within the city ordinance. We're not proposing modifications to the that specific section of the code. So sprinkler systems would be required. I think one of the things that sometimes we have a bad tendency of doing and I'll even admit it for some of the city facilities is that we tend to overwater. Uh so the sprinkler provisions or the irrigation provisions that we already have within the code allow for smart meters that will regulate how much you're watering when you're watering. Because realistically once a tree goes dormant, you really don't need to water it as often as you need. Primarily if you're using drought tolerant trees, the high uh component would be probably the first 6 months to a year where you really need to maintain the watering. But with our honey msquets, our desert willows, you can substantially reduce that watering amount as you as the tree gets stronger and really acclimated. So those provisions are in the code. um the provisions for the and we've heard it from some of the developers in the past, the provisions for the trees in the front, those have actually been in effect since about 2007, you know. Uh so that but that was one of the reasons why we said, can we increase that separation distance? Can you if you give us a wider canopy that will hopefully provide you the visibility from the street to your business? Yes, sir.

Anything else? I had a question. Mr. Dela Cruz, did I understand you correctly that the buyout option is that a flat fee or is it um per unit? So, currently it's limited to more no more than one unit. So, it's a flat fee per unit and is there an opportunity to change that for a larger property?

We'd have to look at it, ma'am. I think right now the if it's a man facility, we definitely don't want them buying out because that negates the really the intent of the overall ordinance. So right now the the one unit is the one where they're providing so it's having such a little impact with them giving us one tree and uh 45 shrubs that the department and the developers were in agreement with that one unit for an expansion. Keep in mind that an expansion for one unit would roughly be about 6 to 7,000 square feet.

Okay. Thank you. Through the chair, Mr. Lacruus. Yes, sir. I appreciate your presentation. I like that the city is looking to plant more trees, more control of the trees where they are, how they grow, and the whole nine yards because um it's important that we plant more trees because uh the heat island here in El Paso is just tremendous and getting worse every year. Mhm.

But my biggest concern is how we are starting to allow trees from other areas. Um in particular the Palo Verve which is a sonor and desert tree. And I've noticed that a lot of these developers to go the cheap way they landscape in Palo Verves. And those are a big um they're just a big problem for us here. They're not native to the Chihuahuan desert.

And uh once they start growing and maturing, those trees become their own forest. And you could see it uh underneath the spaghetti bone, the text did, the mosquite, the natural uh trees for this area. But seeds came in from the spalo and they just take over and it's a big mess. And I'd like to see an ordinance where some trees are banned. They're banned. Well, we only need Chihuahua desert trees. We only need our type of uh environment. And I've seen them uh again on new lots and they bring in these uh trees and oh my god, they're just terrible. It's terrible. Well, I think this ordinance specifically allows anything within the city of El Paso plant list and that tree is actually with within that plant list. One option that we could look at uh in the future would be amending that tree tree and plant list to identify which trees are appropriate for our area. I mean, if you look at it, it actually has the Texas Met drone. I don't know if you guys are familiar with that tree. The only place I've seen that tree is in the Guadalupe Mountains. I've never seen one here, you know. So, there are some trees. Uh, but I believe that that board would have to be reconstituted because I don't believe that that board ever since they adopted that tree and plant list has taken action on that list itself.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Doowski, I don't know if I got close. No, I'm good. Okay. Anything else? Madam Chair, there is a member of the public that would like to speak to the commission on this item.

Okay. Sorry, I was late. I was late. I didn't sign up to speak. So, thank you for allowing me to say something. You know, I I like the idea about the uh furnish trees, but uh on most of the lots that we develop, there's an easement for the public service board right on the front. And the public service board do not allow trees and their easement. Also, text dot anything fronting a rightway, a text. They also don't allow trees. So, I hope that you guys can maybe put a little sentence in there for these conditions because as of today, I mean, today I had just an issue like we need to put trees here per city ordinance, but the BSB said no, we can't put trees in there. So, I don't know who to follow.

Yeah, that's right. If you could just come up with some kind of a solution for this situation, special situation on easements and dex income. Thank you. So there are provisions already within the landscape code for landsc uh for the landscape on text dot rightways. So for those we defer to text dot on those. The issue with the El Paso or the utilities is that when you look at their policies, they actually do allow landscape. The we do coordinate with the El Paso water utilities primarily whenever they identify that there's an easement. And let's be honest, when you're looking at subdivisions, where are all our easements now? Always at the front. No, the back actually started going away. So all our back easements for utilities actually used to be along alleys or 10 five foot into each property and as the city grew all our easements as you're looking through your subdivision plants move to the typically the 10-ft front area. So we have had discussions with El Paso water and many times what we do is mark the lines. Let's figure out how we can stagger the trees to I to avoid their lines and also use root barriers that prevent the the roots from actually growing downwards into their lines.

So only the the percentage requirement after the street trees can be substituted with shrubs currently. Yes. Okay. Mhm. And there's a limit on how much you can substitute. Okay. Um it sounds like you said that the problem just presented is addressed in other paperwork, but I think an interesting solution to that would be to allow the shrubs in areas where specifically those trees are denied for whatever reason.

True. I don't know if that's still a problem to fix. So the street and buffer trees have to be placed. Those you can't substitute. Anything that's a project tree, those can be substituted. So, if there's a 30-foot PSB easement who won't let you install trees, I guess I'm I'm just wondering. It sounds like you guys have conflicting information. So, I want to make sure that you're saying that there is a provision that allows installation of trees within that 30%

based on the policies of El Paso Water. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. So, do you on that situation would you have to not put in as many trees or you have to put them somewhere else? We would work with El Paso Water Utilities to mark the lines so we can identify how we can stagger the trees to avoid their lines.

And you still have that you can take off one tree for so many bushes. Correct. For the project. Yes, ma'am. Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. I appreciate your time.

All right. Any discussion before we adjourn? Move to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I. All oppose. Thank you.