Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

For you, the seventh wonder. 30s. Stand by. Your life. Good evening, and welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Today is Tuesday, April 22nd, 2024. It's approximately 6 p.m. And one of the. Any of the commission of the city staff of any conflicts of interest with anybody on the agenda. I know none. I personally on 77114. All right. So we remember public participation on. Is there anyone in the public that has. Anybody that's not on the agenda

for tonight? Seeing none. Acceptance of the general and the executive of the agenda also includes us accepting of the minutes and the two items on the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to accept as presented. Do we have a second? I second. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Commissioner Carl. Excuse me. Yes. Commissioner. Krista. Yes. Commissioner. Kaiser. Yes. And, chair. Yes. Thank you. Moving to authorize. I will have to step out and turn the time over to Kaiser. Is there any reason you can't stay in until we're done asking questions and then step out? No, sir. It's a conversation for the presentation and the entire entirety of the discussion. And the vote. Well, it's his property. You know, he can decide on his application to step out on voting, and he knows he can't stay for questions. Okay. So before we hear a presentation from. Staff, I wanted to. Get him a second to hear our secretary. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to

hear 7.1 as stated. This is for presentation. Thank you. Commissioner Kaiser. For the record, first I want to make before you in. Tracks. Number one is proposed language. And. This is located in northwest of the town and McGuffey Street. Total property made up of two tracks, encompasses a total of 28.6 acres in size, and they are currently vacant or undeveloped tracts of land. The zoning. Zoning designations from 19 point density, C3, and density, and one two industrial standards. Zoning. They are created by the previous parent subdivision, which was the third subdivision, which was approved in August of 2000. 22. Short track in the red or black, bordered by the red two tracks. Here you can see the zoning or large open air closed park on McGuffey. See three here for. And then the M1, M2 in the southern portion here. And showing you can see that is a. A completely vacant property. For some reason the mapping is still showing that Solar Street is coming through there. But as you can see from the subdivision, there's no plan for any type of street extension. Out from that on the street. So I think this is an administrative implant. Since it is creating an additional one that is required per the subdivision code, to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval for a second and final to that

process. So having two tracks into five units, lot one comes to 7.6 acres in size. That is the largest one block, 24.6 acres in size. Lot 37 acres in size. Lot 46.6 acres in size and lot size 2.6 acres in size. One of these lots is. Multifamily. Heads. Majority of the family's owning on the northern portion, and the other lots on commercial or commercial industrial lots. So again, this is before because it is required to come before your subdivision code following final plat process showing the subdivision. Again there's lot one, two, three, four and five of that of the of the proposed administrative replat. There's no change in the actual zoning size. It will remain the same. Same uses that were allowed before will remain as as as they do now. The only thing that's happening now is basically these two tracks are being cut out into lots. My apologies. Additionally, with this subdivision, there is a shared access agreement between lot, so there will be that as well. The next one of the McGuffey, one of the Bataan Memorial. Pardon me. So we recognized no life safety or welfare issues identified with the proposed Replat. It does meet all the requirements of Replat per the subdivision code meets the standards of the zoning code for. Lot size, minimum lot size, lot depth, width, and so on and so forth. Like that. And lots have shared access that meets the requirements of our design standards of the city of Las Cruces as well. Sent out to the property owners per the 2001 zoning code requirement and subdivision code requirements. Did receive seven phone calls, mostly general information as to

what's going on there. What's going to be built? Lot of really just unknown right now. It's just a subdivision. And but a couple actually in support of the proposed subdivision, one commercial in this area because there's many commercial entities that that that that can provide services to surrounding residential area. And some questions for potential traffic issues that they saw. One being that I was pointing out that road is not being platted into this lot. So just to clarify that again. So this proposal did go before the developer review committee in April. April 2nd of 2025. And under discussion. The proposed Replat was recommended for approval to the Planning Zoning Commission. So that staff does recommend approval for the rest of the following findings. That means all subdivision code requirements that complies with the 2001 Zoning Code, subdivision code, and City of Las Cruces Design Standards fulfills the intended purpose of la Las Cruces meets the purpose and intent for section 32 of the of the zoning code, and of course, that our DRC did recommend approval for this proposal on April 2nd, 2025. With that tonight, commission your options. Wonderful to vote yes and approve the Replat to vote no and deny three vote to amend or four to postpone. That is the conclusion of my presentation. The applicant representative is here. If you have any questions for him and I stand for questions. Thank you. Does that representative wish to say anything before? Or any questions from the Commission? Just a couple of questions. So to clarify, this is strictly unplanned. So this is not a subdivision plan that they're

putting forward. Is that correct or am I misunderstanding. Commissioner. Commissioner Kaiser. Pardon me. So Replat, it is a subdivision, but it's replatting to existing attractions of five rocks. So. But it's called a replat because it's an existing subdivision that's being replanted into a into additional lots. So that's why we call it a plan. But technically it is a subdivision. Okay. And the proposal is for many programs streets, street applications then Councilor. That is correct. There's no street dedication required. Also, dedication already exists along Bataan Memorial Rest as well. There are improvements that are required along the Gulf which are being done by the developer at this time. Okay. So if you go back to the. Yeah. Was there a closer up version or was that it. No. Go back to that one. That was a closer one. But so the rocks that have been around for the last five, we have first of all, a private access easement to access lots one and two. This is developed. Commissioner Kaiser. All five lots actually share those shared access. Which shows here what's shown there as an actual solid riser. That's actually a flag lot. Lot two. So lot two will actually have actual frontage to Bataan Memorial here. Gotcha. But it's actually also designated as a shared access easement. Everybody will be able to utilize this for the subdivision as well for cross connectivity and access to not only Memorial, but also to the one on the east side there going towards McGuffey. This one right here means zoom in. It's actually a dashed line because that's just a dedicated easement

for access and utility, sir. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you for the question. So why? Why is the 19th Street? Why would that not continue through to the tunnel line? With the sole street? Sir, I was never actually part of this. This here is for some reason, is just shown on any map. If you go to Google, you go to Bing, you go to near maps. Everything that we have, it shows a passing through. But as you can see from our actual this is our zoning map. It it ends right there, sir. And the reason for that is there's actually no additional writer that can come down. Former consultant that exists on the proposed subdivision today, nor to the west. So it's basically just blocked right there for the extension to the south, sir. And there actually isn't enough frontage for it to actually pass through here as well because it kind of straddles the middle, the middle of the road, if you will. So it's not wide enough to allow that road to continuation down south, sir. Okay. So I guess I can see I understand you're saying a on traffic perspective. That as far as pedestrian access. There is no they're under no obligation to connect with the neighborhood, the existing neighborhood that's directly to the north of them. Then, Commissioner requirement. But that is definitely something that staff would bring in to not only the owner of the property, but any future potential development to allow for that connectivity, sir. Since the road is essentially there, it kind of makes sense. If you have the pedestrian connectivity, staff will definitely reach out to the developer for that, sir.

Yeah, certainly. When we talk about accessibility and that to me, if you don't have that connection for pedestrian access, you're basically making people walk pretty far out of their way and even drive just to literally access an amenity that's in some cases, directly behind them. So I would I would strongly encourage staff to take advantage of the fact that there's already a public right of way. And it will be taken for world domination. I think having some access from a pedestrian perspective would be valuable. Those are the questions I have. Any other questions from council? All right. Is there anyone in the sources to speak on this item? I see two individuals. So we'll start over here to my left. So if you can come up on them. And we'll give you we'll give you each three minutes to speak. Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record. And if you can get close to the mic that would be helpful so we can hear you. My name is Jamal Elias, and I swear or affirm that the testimony of the truth and nothing but the strength of the penalty area. I'm sorry. Go ahead. So I'm. I'm one of the affected persons in in these plan. I live by the street, and I do have, like, ten questions. One of them is why they're trying to do a business on a residential area. Because according to these. Zoning code that I got out of, out of

Google. I'm not an expert, obviously. But there's some. Urban shipments that needs to happen. And I'm also concerned about my children's safe community safety traffic issues that Montgomery Street. It's very narrow. So there's going to be a lot of traffic in there. I'm also concerned about my privacy. My wall is not that tall. So and I do have a over the ground pool. And I have two kids. So I this is like a huge concern for me. And there's also in front of the, the area where they try to they're trying to build this business. There's a daycare and there's a temple in there. So again children safety community. I just see a lot of issues in here. And last but not least, I love my view, the organ view. I mean, I just I just love it. And they're going to take it away from me. So thank you. Thank you. All right. And then we'll go to the gentleman that was on my right. If you can come forward. Your acoustics are terrible. If you can step. Forward. Yeah. My name is Eric, right? On Latin for and against

estates. And do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth and the truth and the keyboard. Yes. Okay. My first question was on the page three that Adam had up there. I was a little confused as to what he was telling us with regard to one section being C-3 and piece B, and another designation. We come up here and clarify that if you want me to finish speaking and we can address any questions after. Okay. Okay. You made mention Mr. Kaiser. You mentioned about a pedestrian entrance. Where were you talking about that? I unfortunately for the. Well, when you finish your questions and I was just. Otherwise you wouldn't use up all the time. Are these going to be leases or are they going to be individual sales? I'll wait for that answer. Is it possible? I know everything is possible. Is it possible that we could place a height restriction on all the ones on our property? That's all I have. Is there anything else who wishes to speak on this item? All right. Coming back to the commission. So, staff, if we could just pull it back up and kind of the capabilities, the zoning, if you can hold those facts or what's going on. Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Kaiser.

So the zoning that existed on the property is the northernmost portion up here is on our team, which is multifamily low density. The southern portion of a larger portion of that track is zoned C3 commercial high Intensity. And then the southernmost portion of hedge funds here is on C3 slash, M1, M2. All zoning is already in effect. For these properties. So those land uses development standards. It's already vested. So there's no change in that. If they wanted to come in and develop a shopping center on those tracks, as is another split the lots, they'd be allowed to come in and pull a permit tomorrow morning for that by running and multifamily as well. By. Right. The reason we're here to support a subdivision, slicing up those two tracks into five lots, essentially what's going on when it comes to how the developer will be selling those, or leasing or staff isn't aware of exactly what they'll be doing. We do know one lot is that is being sold. We don't know how the rest will be done. To answer the question about having the privacy and. Buildings right next to your property, the commercials, since they are a single family around, there are some requirements and landscaping requirements will be needed. Won't be required when development occurs. These properties as well. So those that that that will be taken care of as well. When it comes to height restrictions. That can only be done when a zoning, the zoning is being questioned or being brought before you. There's a zoning being involved in this proposal. It's a it's a subdivision. Code matters or not not not zoning. But there is height restrictions on associated with those zones.

What they're doing with that. So our maximum height 35ft. C3 maximum height is 60ft, which are extremely rare between Las Cruces. My 17 years here and then went into is 60ft as well, sir. Thank you. And then can you maybe just describe a little bit about what what some examples of the types of uses that would go potentially to the C3 and then the C3 M1m2. Sure. What you're what you're looking at is the retail shops will be going home. Shopping centers can be located in here. We're currently have under review a tractor supply company that will be going into one of these lots. Excuse me. Office space can be developed in here as well. Restaurants. There's also permitted use gas stations. All these types of uses are allowed to buy right in these zoning designations. Thank you. And just to clarify one question on the pedestrian access, is that what I was referring to is the. The street that corner there. Again, based on what we're seeing the other as possible, but just encouraging staff if it is that it should be considered as part of this project. So thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Mr. Chair, I present to move forward, make a motion. Oh, we're mixing things up tonight. So we're just going to vote. This is all for item 7.0. Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner. Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Kessler. Yes. Staff

recommendation and consistency with elevate. Las Cruces and the chair had a conflict. Thank you. Can we get a chair returned to the vice? Page for. What? I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you. All right. If I understand this right now, a motion to hear 7.2. Can we get a motion to hear? I make a motion. Second. I'll second. Okay, so the proposal before you is for Sonoma Ranch North Master plan amendment number four. And the corresponding zone changes. Currently, the property is located on the east side of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, south of North Rice Drive. The total master Plan, when it was approved in 1997, encompassed 275 acres. What's remaining is 106 acres. That is essentially as part of the master plan, but it's not being modified. And so there's 25 acres that's undeveloped. Five of five and a half acres or so, 5.75 acres is what's being requested to be master planned and rezoned, which is currently zoned flood control and Open Space Recreation. This is currently the vacant portion that is about

25 acres or so, plus or minus as far as acreage. The rest of the master plan would consume all of the single family residential, the commercial office multifamily that is located along Sonoma Ranch. And so essentially these parcels here are not affected by the requested master plan, amendment or zone change. The only portion that we are here to discuss would be the smaller portion, located at the very bottom of the master plan. Of these 25 acres. This area right here is our flood control and open space. It's 5.75 acres that is still vacant and undeveloped across from essentially the state police office. If you've driven down Sonoma Ranch. So the master plan amendment is to modify the planning parcels six and ten, essentially, ten was the original planning parcel that encompassed the 5.75 acres that is going to be modified. And then they're also creating planning parcel 17. What they're doing is basically modifying some of the land uses within those designated acreage. It's an increase in residential uses, reducing flood control because flood control is actually being used through the arroyos that are currently there by the natural flow, maintaining the open space and recreation, and then creating office, commercial and multifamily zoning along Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. So essentially, the zone change that goes with a master plan, because you have to do both processes together. You'll see that zone change for parcel six. The 0.99 acres is being added to the R-1a and R1B zoning designation. Then you have parcel ten which is remaining. That will stay the two acres of flood control and open space. Then parcel 17 is created with 2.76 acres that can be either used for C-2, which is our commercial medium intensity O2, which is Office Professional Limited Retail, or R-3, which is our multi dwelling medium density. This will give you a better idea of what the map is

changing from, and what the existing zonings are and what is being proposed. So this is the modified area at the bottom of the actual zoning map. And you can see in blue that it's flood control and open space north of that has been rezoned in a previous master plan that was done in 2018, where it shows commercial, office and multifamily. These are all zoned single family residential. This area is not being modified. So what you can see is the one acre is being added to the R-1a and R-1 be to increase the residential district flood control and open space is going to maintain the two acres. So that way we see the park coming in for development. And then this portion right here is the commercial office and residential multifamily. When staff did their analysis. What we look at is there's always going to be goals and actions that will follow through. But there's also some of the development strategies that we're looking at. Whenever you propose something, when you're looking at a suburban neighborhood type, it is saying to intermix basically your residential, your commercials have nodes that are going to actually impact the neighborhood along all of these areas, you can see where those commercial services have become very useful to the neighborhood, because took a lot of residents to get those developments to actually take place. Now you can see a lot of those commercials, as you were stating earlier, there's some of them that actually do have walkable spaces from the roads behind the commercial buildings. So people have pedestrian activity. They're not relying on vehicles. They can go to random services. Not everything has become necessarily drive through restaurants or something of that. Say you have Edward Jones, you have different office services provided now. So when we looked at this by allowing the commercial to go along that frontage on Sonoma Ranch, you're also creating a buffer. You're putting the higher traffic along the higher roadways, which is your major arterials. That buffer is now providing, you know, leeway to the park. So they're not directly on Sonoma Ranch. That could create an impact as far as traffic moving through. And then you're creating the next buffer that

goes over into a residential. So you create a transition. We did take this to the DRC on April 2nd. They do review master plans. However, they are not a viewer of zone changes as they move forward. So when DRC looks at master plans, are looking for infrastructure access. Any of the improvements that would be required for a commercial development or residential development coming forward? There was very little discussion as far as any impacts that would be negatively, negatively impacting the neighborhood. Based on the proposed zone change and modification of the master plan. So with that, DRC did recommend approval. Once again, zone changes do not require a recommendation by DRC. We did send out notice as part of the subdivision code because that is what the master plan does follow to the 500ft within the surrounding neighborhood. We did receive. I did receive one call yesterday. Some of the concern was more that our people are allowed to park on the streets next to the commercial development, or behind the commercial development. The way the roadway network has been created is those are local streets, so it does provide additional access in order to basically access those commercial developments. So if you don't want to be along Sonoma, you would have an easier access point. With that, staff's findings are that the master plan and the rezoning do match and are consistent with the sections outlined in 38 two in the 2001 zoning code. It also does meet the intent that elevate has provided, showing that you do have a mix and a variety of land uses going throughout the development and suburban neighborhood. It is harmonious with the character areas. It is not out of context with what is currently there and existing and being developed. So with that, your options are to vote yes and approve, vote no, to deny, vote to amend or vote to table. I stand for any questions in the applicant's representative is here as well. Thank you. I'm going to open it up to questions for the

commissioners. Do you guys have any questions? Mr. 783 New Zealand. Any idea of what was going to be open, open space and recreation? Mr. Chair and Commissioner Smith, that's going to be two acres that are going to remain because a lot of it was designated for the flood control, not necessarily the open space recreation. The flood control is now being handled through those arroyos that are along the property boundary. And so this will be for that park area. There's usually some kind of flood zone or flood components that are always associated with parks, but that'll be generally where the park and open space are maintained. Thank you. I have a couple chair. Coming up on, the commissioner asked. Explaining why this was originally a master plan back in 1997. What was the plan for the open space reclamation? What was the rationale for that? Five and change acre parcel? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Keizer, I do not know what the rationale was to have that five acres. I don't necessarily know that it was approved as five acres in 1997. There were a lot of modifications. The primary modifications took place in 2018. So a lot of the parcels were rezoned. When we took it in 2018, 22 parcels were modified and we ended up creating more. And that's when that five acre parcel was essentially more established as to what it could actually be developed as from the original master plan, I would not answer that of knowing what those things were. But when we changed in 2018, a lot of those modifications took place. Okay, so in 2018, what was what was the plan? That was a designated open space at the time. In 2018, it was open space and flood control because a lot of the water was moving to that area, as we've noticed. And going through that in, the applicant can also explain how the arroyo has affected where the drainage is no longer necessary for that parcel, and

that's why it's being reduced. If it was to be maintained, a lot of it was going to be probably a giant pond that was going to maintain any of the water coming off sites. But because that's no longer in use, this is going to become essentially the park area. We list them as flood control because there's always flood control components whenever you're building those parks. But the open space element of it was open space flight control recreation. So. We're trying to break apart. What was Mr. Chair and Commissioner Keizer. Yes. It's always going to that essentially was always going to be the designated park area for the for the master plan itself. In that park area, though, there was an increased acreage to accommodate flood control. Now that that's not needed, the park is remaining. The park is not changing. That's going to be essentially the park for the neighborhood that was originally planned. Okay. So we so in 2018. Five acre parcel was identified for flood control and a park. And we were reflecting as apparently necessary, even though we have a lot more impervious surface out there. And so therefore we were reducing the park component by. X percent. I think I forget how did we do some of that? Or the park isn't changing, we're just stripping out the section. So how do we distinguish between those two? Mr. Chair and Commissioner Keizer? I'll go ahead and have the applicant's representative explain one how the water is being separated. If flood control is being separated from the process, why that's available now as far as the park remaining, the two acres would always be the park that was already established that would still remain as the park, the flood control and park, the way that it's zoned and designated, is always to show that we have

that component to go associated with the park. Whenever we build the ponds that are going to suffice the park, and so we don't just leave them as open space because they're going to have some type of drainage component with them, but it will still be within those two acres that the park is developed. We're not stripping away the two acres of the park that was originally planned. So the flood control was only specifically for the park. The flood control was always specifically for five acres and a portion for that park. Yes. Now we're just reducing the amount that's needed for flood control. Okay, I'd like to hear from the applicant to better understand how that control what they did in 2018. Good evening commissioners, that. On behalf of the applicant. I guess we will. This will affirm that technically we're about to give is the truth of the truth of the 21. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, basically, this rezoning to remove the flood control component comes from a variance request that the developer has submitted to the city of Las Cruces, whereas we were going to store the runoff from around all its lands North will be contained behind the Las Cruces flood Control Dam. So as such, we do not need the that volumetric storage within the development and thereby it's been removed in before after that theory was put forward in the city, we had discussions with Parks and Recreation. What Parks and Recreation wanted was a two acre developed park. They were not interested in any other property outside of that. So

that's what reduced it down toward that two acre threshold. Thank you. You just have a couple more. Back to staff. How many units? Residence elements of our plan for the expo piece. That's going to result to residential. Two. You know, can you say three? Two residential? No. Two additional lands by getting that property disclosure regarding. No, no, no. The residential. That's. Mr. Chairman, I can answer that question. Yeah. Okay. So due to the lot configuration along this edge of the of the arroyo and the property lines, we're getting two additional residential lots by the rezoning of this area right here being rezoned from open space, recreational and flood control to Rhna would be okay. Thank you. Any other questions? I have a couple of questions here in the. Dia. Is this a DRC report? It says that the basically Parks and Rec wasn't there at the time. And so it says I do not see parks here. And this over under basically public parks did say as long as the development or as long as the developer works with them through the design and approval. So. From

the applicant's testimony, he says the two acre park. Is that correct, Mr. Chair and Commission? That is correct. Okay. So the flood could flow open space recreation. There's enough two acre park there. Mr. Chair. Commission. That's correct. Yes. And the one later for a pond or anything such as that, Mr. Chair, that is also correct, because all of that is going through the actual dam. Okay. I just want to confirm if palms on parks and ponds don't like to meet together for some reason. And so I just wanted to tell everyone, is this going to be going under the water? Is this under the raised or is this over to the other code? This is Mr. Chair. This is currently under our old code because as everyone knows right now, we're unable to use our new code. And so based on the development, that's why you see the zoning designations that are placed before you being from the 2001 zoning code. Okay. And then based on here's a question about do I have. I get it find my notes here. There it is. We have any public comments. Is there any public of wish to make any comments at this point? Okay. I guess. Hold on. Oh just a vote. So I'll vote. Mr. Chair, may I interject? We do need to take two votes. Just so there is an understanding that we have two cases that are being presented. PNC is the final action on the master plan, and then PNC is a recommending body to City Council. And so I would

appreciate the votes to be separated out. So that way they are very clear moving forward to City Council. Okay. So this is the same thing. This is a mr. Chair. I would just recommend approval or recommend approval of the master plan first and then go through the recommending approval of the zone change presented. Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve the master plan as presented. Do we have a second? So. We don't need the motion. Can can I get a point of clarification? So the master plan that was. That's what the master plan, Mr. Chair. That is correct. That is saying that the boundaries are being modified to reflect those areas as far as being residential, commercial and open space. So. Okay, do you want to have a case number on it then? Because we got two case numbers on the one. For one okay. Are there any of those. Second for the motion of a. Oh no. I have a question for staff real quick. Which case number is associated with which items are. Mr. Chair and commission case numbers that begin with CS is going to be your master plan. The case referring after that has the O

is going to be for zoning ordinances. Thank you. Okay. So this is for the master plan. Case number 24 CS 0500088 Commissioner Smith. Yes. Commissioner. Mayor. Yes, Commissioner. Crystal. Yes. Commissioner. Keyser. And chair. Yes. Thank you. And this one will be for the zoning change. Case number 25 0000500089, Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner. Mayor. Yes. Commissioner. Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Keyser. No. And. Chair. Yes. Thank you. Before moving on to discussion items, is there any. You got a hand in the audience? No. Do we have any other discussion on that? Commissioners chair? I just have a question asked by staff to the annexation, updating us on the progress in the project. I would just like to request that that got added to next month's agenda. Yes, we can get that on. Anybody else for discussion. This is I don't know if I can bring this up, but I'm curious about the Loman corridor. I know it's been several years and I know our city manager approved with the city councilors back then on widening the Loman

Corridor for public safety. Right now it's getting pretty bad. Do you have any information on that? And if you can bring it forward, maybe in one of these meetings so we can kind of get updated on that, please, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Acosta, yes, we can look into something on that to see what the progress is for. Loman. Yes. Thank you. I one discussion for discussion on the next two minutes. Some of the presentation is sometimes it's confusing to me when we're receiving it from staff. And so I wanted to basically just reach out to you guys and say, hey, is there any other formatting or other information that you guys are needing from staff to make the presentations a little bit easier for us to understand? One of the. Examples for the last, last month was when we were talking about whether it was in the audience or if it's there. It's not. So I think some of the history that personalities and other things that I'd like to, but I want to open it up for discussion next time and just basically give it to you guys for, you know, recommendations so that it makes it easier for us. Or, you know, all of us are a little bit different. And so whatever it sticks out to you and what you want to see if we can bring that forward recommendations kind of right amongst it, we can go over that. So it'll be easier for us when we're getting some recommendations or giving recommendations to staff of what we would like to see from them. Other than that, I don't have any other items for discussion. We'll move on to the staff announcements. Staff does not have any announcements, chair or commission. Okay. We need a motion to adjourn. I have to

adjourn a second. The consent agenda. Will I sit down? Oh, I . Okay.