Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Your life. Hello. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and gentlemen. Today is Tuesday, He is one of the coastal zone, and I think we can. Basically get a motion to close down to participate Commission to arrive. Mr. President. I second. Okay. All in favor of Commissioner Acosta to participate online. I yes. Okay. Thank you. And does anybody have any conflicts of interest agenda? I'm personally have Kathleen. Property. So, Stephanie. During the. Only one that. Participation was there. Is there anybody in the process to have some participation that was not regarding the two of the two others? All right. So. Can we go back to a motion to accept the agenda that was also accepts the money. But the resolution. So agenda I second. This is for the acceptance of the agenda.

Commissioner Kessler. I. Commissioner Maxwell. Yes. Commissioner O'Connell. I always do that. Abstaining. Can I have that? You can abstain. Yes. Commissioner. Kaiser. Yes, Commissioner. Acosta. Yes. And. Chair. Yes. Thank you. All right. Just want to welcome Kristen and. She's a nice. Commissioner. So move on. You know, the reason is that I have to go. So welcome back. We're glad you're here. Moving on. What's the first item on the. On 16 of September? The presentation. Good evening. Commission. We are. Up. Okay. I have to have a motion and one and second. I move to hear item 6.1 I. Second. Good evening. Commission. Sarah Gonzalez with community development. Before you is the preliminary plat known as Stonegate Phase two. The property is located on the north side of Settlers Pass, east of Roadrunner Parkway. It is currently vacant and undeveloped land. It is following our 2001 zoning code, so the zoning is single family R-1, a medium density. The Rancho del Rey Master plan, in which this is a part of, was annexed in and approved in 1997. There was 1 or 2 modifications done 2004. The modification was to adjust the boundaries in order to realign. Essentially,

settlers pass and to rename some of the tracks that were located within them and make them parcels. When you're located as tracks or designated as tracks, they become undevelopable. You make them parcels so you can now develop the land. The second modification was done in 2012, which increased essentially the multifamily density that was going to be permitted within the multifamily or within the master plan. Here is the approved master plan as its final amendment that takes place. What is highlighted in yellow is the property in which we are discussing now. Adjacent to this property was phase one that was developed several years ago. However, now with the development of Roadrunner being connected, the development is now occurring to where we'll start to see more development take place out of this master plan. Currently, there has only been 15 acres that has been developed in this master plan. This will basically take them to about 41 acres out of the total 279. It's very hard to see based on the map, but as you can see of the surrounding properties, they are all zoned R-1, a single family residential from the original zoning that was applied onto these properties in this master plan. The applicant is not requesting a zone change, they are just requesting to basically develop to the standards that has already been approved. Here's an aerial map of the property. As you can see, this was phase one that has already been developed. This would be connecting onto phase two. The surrounding properties within this area would be the continued part of the master plan. As we continue to see more development take place within this area. This is a 28.63 acre parcel to be developed with 96 single family residential lots. When the master plan was approved, it did allow for six dwelling units per acre, but the average that the applicant is proposing for development is 3.4 dwelling units per acre. At that point, an applicant can come in and request a lower density. We just request that if the master plan was to be increased in density, then you'd have to come back and modify that master plan so they can stay underneath that

and develop different size lots. They just can't go above what was already approved in the master plan, in which they are basically following the lot sizes that they are proposing range from 0.16 to 0.421 in size. The applicant will develop all the internal local roadways, which are 50 foot cross sections, and then they will also construct settlers paths. And that's why it was highlighted in the previous slide. This will now give us that connecting road to where it's actually a complete street going up, and essentially to Rinconada Boulevard, creating those lanes. The only portion that would not be developed with this would be the sidewalk on the south side. As that development comes in, then the sidewalks would be installed, but we would essentially have a four lane road that would now basically be moving traffic in and out of that area. Here's the proposed preliminary plat as provided by the applicant. And so there is a continuation from the previous phase that will connect to the adjacent neighborhood towards the west. And then it will also leave an opening. So it will connect to the east side. When we did the comprehensive plan, that was one of the main things was to make sure neighborhoods were provided with connectivity, and we want to ensure that those continue throughout our developments, provides more access. It gives everybody the opportunity to use multiple roads in case something does happen on some road that is blocked off, you still have a way to get access to your property. So with this, staff did not identify any public safety, health or welfare issues with the following plan. It does follow the Rancho del Rey Master plan and it aligns with the suburban neighborhood place types. It also provides connectivity to those adjoining subdivisions and future subdivisions that do come in, and it will provide additional housing options to the neighborhood as well as to the community. So with that, DRC or staff's recommendation is to approve with the following findings that we did meet on May 7th and discuss this through all of the relevant departments. And through that discussion. It does comply with the city standards for subdivision code. It meets the Rancho del Rey Master plan, and it also complies with the

2001 zoning code, essentially meeting lot size requirements densities as proposed by the applicant. One thing to note from the DRC meeting was that there was a discussion about when the park would be dedicated, or basically built within the subdivision as part of the master plan requirement. It is not to come in until at least 70%. The applicant may be able to provide it at a sooner time frame, but with the development that would be coming in with this phase, we would be at about 15% development. And so that still has future development before the park is required to come in. Notice was sent to the surrounding property owners with 500ft, and we did receive one email not in support, basically because we did see that there were some concerns with the increased traffic that may be coming throughout the neighborhoods with development that comes in. The email was provided to you as part of your packet. We also did receive three calls and support, saying that housing is a need in our community right now and to move forward with the development. With that, I stand for your option or these are your options. Stand for any questions and our applicant is here as well. Is there? To provide any. So I got. In here okay okay okay. Hold on hold on. If you want to speak with I my mom was asking for a. Participation even just for the if the applicant is a presentation as well. Mr. Chair, the applicant does not have anything extra to the commission. Do you guys have any questions for first of all. Participation in the. If you want, give you three minutes. Let me turn it over to. So I'm

on actual whetstone and I have. Sorry. Oh sorry. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and the for the people? Yes. Thanks. And help us. So I live on 2120 Whetstone. I have sent the email and that we that I was not in agreement with the build because we would be the ones affected with the amount of traffic behind us, like it looked more from what I saw, we would possibly have 3 or 2 people behind our quarter of an acre lot, so that means we would have like more neighbors in the back of us. Also, based off how construction does things. There's a lot of sand back there. So my question is, what are we going to do to make sure that we have, like the privacy that from our neighbors? And then also, are we going to encourage the construction to actually get rid of all the hills that are back there and environment and also like our views of the mountains, things like that are going to be blocked off again with having like 2 or 3 neighbors behind us with single division homes. I had proposed just to help with the traffic noise and also make sure we don't have increased traffic coming in to the neighborhood, since it's a family residency that we possibly put, maybe like a trail in the back for walking dogs, because that's where a lot of people do, is they run and they walk their dogs back there to separate us from the additional subdivision, and it just gives that space like Metro Verde has it between them and other subdivisions. So they're not like right next to each other in the behind. So that's my proposed solution to that. Thank

you. My name. Oh do you need to swear me in or. Yes, I do. Thank you for reminding me. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give the person. Yes. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Mesa, and I'm currently a resident of Stonegate. I guess Stonegate one. I did have a few questions and kind of adding on to what was said earlier, do we know who the builders are going to be in that subdivision in Stonegate? Two. Any ideas about who's going to be building their builders? I reached out to real estate agents. Yeah. Do you have any idea who those builders are going to be? I think this is just for the meeting purposes. We help to you give us your your concerns. And I put stuff in email before, so. Okay. I know I've emailed before and I think there was one email, but I know I've emailed about concerns about this, but I don't mind doing that again. Where do I send that email? I just say, just say it over what your concerns are, okay. And that's okay. Oh I see okay. So I just would like to know who the builders are going to be. That's a little bit of a concern. I'm glad to see that the that the lot sizes are going to be a pretty decent size. Speaking of the subdivision next to what is going to be the mitigation of the wildlife, I know that there's a lot of potentially coyotes back there. There's a lot of snakes, and whenever you start disrupting that area, that's going to come over to our subdivision. So I'd like to know what the mitigation is going to be regarding that. Right now. Stern gate I've looked over the covenants that currently reside for Stone gate. I'm presuming that it's going to be the same covenants for Stone gate two.

Unfortunately, there's nobody there to enforce covenants for Stone gate one, so I have a big concern there in that the covenants, there's nobody there, I think. I can't remember the name of the organization themselves, but there's nobody there to govern any sort of covenants. So we're stuck calling the city if there's any sort of issues. But there's no really nobody there to address any covenant concerns. So if it's just a matter of copying and sending that PDF to the new residents, you've got to have something to back it up. Somebody that's going to enforce those covenants. Okay. We talked about the traffic. That's still a concern right now. There are no traffic lights at Rinconada and there are not traffic lights on Roadrunner. People run those four way stops all the time. So we're potentially going to be seeing probably close to two, 8300 new residents in these new homes. That's that's definitely a concern. I've already talked to the city about adding traffic lights on Rinconada and Roadrunner. I really think that needs to be discussed at some point. Let's see. I know that there was a discussion to potentially put a park on the. What is the south side? North side of the northeast side of Stonegate? One. I'd like to know if that's still going to be in the plans. And that's all I have. Thank you, thank you. Is there anybody else for public? Please come.

Being sworn testimony that goes to the first block. Yes. Thank you. And just on the Courtney I also live on with Stone and I'm concerned if the new properties are going to come right up against our properties or if there's going to be some kind of space in between. And also the traffic on Settler's Pass right now, people drive like 50, 60 miles an hour from Rinconada to Roadrunner. In a 35 mile an hour zone. And we need some kind of like flashing speed light or something. I mean, it's very difficult even to come out of whetstone because there's a slight dip on Settlers Pass. I can't see the people coming. And when they're coming, like 60 miles an hour, they're right on top of you. When you try to try to get out. So the traffic problems and not wanting people right on top of us, looking over into our property, especially if there's a hill there or they're going to build on the hill, are they going to flatten the hill? And that's pretty much it. Did you? Good afternoon. Swear or affirm that the testimony of the game is the president of the president pro tem? Yes I do. Thank you. My name is Carmen Chavarria Chavez. I am their neighbor. I'm also on Woodstone Drive. We've been there for about eight years. When I moved in, there was about 12 homes in the area, leaving the area very

desirable because it was very quiet. Traffic was limited in 2020. There was like an explosion in that area. So now the whole area is full of homes. I think there's one empty lot. However, with that many homes that went in, it's not even half of the ones that are going to be over here going behind us. That is going to increase the traffic. Right now, there is a one way in and one way out. So if we open that up, it's going to increase the traffic on the back side, leaving us open to get all that traffic through that little area. It's a U-shape. It's going to come in there. I don't know what the plans are for that, but I'm assuming that it's planned to make an opening there for us, for people to traffic through. I'm also concerned about the wildlife out there. We see a lot of coyotes, a lot of and people don't like coyotes, but they leave us alone. That's their natural habitat, right? I mean, we're pushing them out. Snakes, lizards, roadrunners, whatever is out there. Quails. I enjoy the desert area. I'm concerned also about settlers past. As others have mentioned, it's become a racing path per se, and it's an exit or it's become a diversion from the other streets for drunk drivers because there isn't enough police patrolling. The lack of. We're also seeing a lot of crime going around our areas, not specifically in our area, but right next door in Park Hill where people are coming in, checking cars, breaking into places. That's also a concern of mine. We have a lot of children in this area. I know for myself I have an autistic child. He's a he's an adult already, but I know that there might be there's another one in the area which also can be an issue with the noise

pollution and the traffic around there. I would like I don't know if there's going to be a park. I think a lot of people use that area as a destination to go out, walk their dogs. They just walk the little hills. It's a beautiful little area. Some abuse it and take the garbage out there, but that's a big concern to so and my concern is all these people I'm not. I didn't get to see what size of the lots. I'm assuming it's going to be about 100 homes, which means lots will probably be pretty small and there would be really congested. It's going to be a lot of noise pollution, and that's for me that's you know, that's a I'm sitting right on the bottom of the hill, which means that the neighbors will be looking into my yard. So that means that I'll be running around naked so they can build a fence. Just kidding. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. But yes, that's my concern. The traffic, the noise violations, the wildlife. Also, I don't know what is planned for behind our homes because mine and Linda's are right behind that back. If there's going to be a water waves, there's going to be a road. I don't know what what's going to go there. So those are my concerns. I hope you take them into consideration. Thank you. Anyone else? Public participation. Yeah. First let's go ahead and go first. I'll let you go first on that. Thank you. Okay. Yeah okay. Sweet. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth and the governor. State your name. My name is William

Lawrence. And it's great to meet all our our neighbors. Some of that and some are meeting today. So Melissa and I have been in the neighborhood now a little over ten years, and we love it. I mean, we think they're doing a fantastic job. I really appreciate the zoning board, if that's the correct phraseology here in Las Cruces, kind of new to the new to the area. I think you guys are doing a great job on keeping keeping the area in such a way that, you know, people want to be there. Okay. And with with the growth that Las Cruces is seeing, we can see that now the this is just a just a natural outgrowth of our neighborhood. And I think I believe that was the first time I had seen an image of the housing with the, with the streets actually kind of kind of spread out there. So that that made sense to me. Just a couple of items that our neighbors have brought up, I would like to add to for just a couple of pieces of discussion. The first one is going to be as a developer or, and I'm sure it'll be separate builders that will go in what is planning and zoning is rules on time of day for construction, right? I mean, while it's important, I understand you want to make sure that the folks that are working in the heat and the sun, we want to make sure that they're not, you know, suffering too much, you know, but we do live here. And you also don't want hearings back up, alarms on tractors and whatnot at 5:00 in the morning. Right. I already got husbands that work at 5:00 in the morning, and we feed them, and then we go back to bed. Right. So that would be just the concern is that we just address that kind of quiet hours that that are realistic and not not detrimental, but realistic. The other part that I would like to have the developer and or

builders address is construction of debris, specifically. Items that there every place that you go to, those houses being built, inevitably we've got tires that are getting shredded, right? Stuff that, you know, those are cleaning out and carrying garbage away or whatever. There's going to be materials that fall onto the ground. What kind of mitigation stand on their technique should we apply to keep the folks that are trying to do 400 miles an hour? Or maybe it's two kilometers, I don't know, right there on Summers pass, we want to make sure we've got it safe and we're not replacing tires every little shields every couple of months there. So anyway, thank you very much for the additional items. I just wanted to add to the conversation. Thanks. Thank you. The. Testimony we want to give is the truth with everything. Yes. My name is Jordan Whiskey. I live close to the area and the proposed plant area in Rincon Hills, and I write that on my electric bike. I just want to say I prefer it to the road being finished there with the separated sides, so that there's actually a place for me to ride and not be close to traffic. I, I do want to say that I can and I can empathize with owners here that has spoken, I, I faced a lot of the concerns that they have, but I also recognize that we do need housing, and that is something that is. A step further and not worse. And how do we grow and we want to grow and everything like that. And I also realize a lot of that happens outside of this committee as well, with city

council and setting zoning and stuff like that at the same time. Also, I love freedom and I do believe that there are freedoms of owning a piece of land and using it to the highest and best use, or whatever use you see fit to use it. And, and the cities that for that, that is also just. I'm a little torn, but I am in favor of freedom all the way. So I would encourage you to, to approve that. Thank you. Mr. All right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the fourth anything to the truth on her computer? Yes, I do, please state your name. Good evening. It is interesting to listen to our neighbors. And they did state. Oh, my name is Eddie. And we recognize that. We built a few houses in Las Cruces and have enjoyed working with the neighborhood, both the city and the build. Something we can all be proud of. But specifically to some of the concerns here. What I know is the time of the building of the buildings early on was representative that this would be developed in three phases development, one loss at each individual phase, and there would be no forward as likely to take place. Marketing process is unpredictable. We can have hundreds, hundreds of homes and we can have that. We celebrate our own homes, and it's an

ability that the rest of the market quite frequently. So my thoughts are having with Mr. Three steps that they've done. That take care of some of the problems that people are concerned with having vacant on that and vacant lots in various areas. One of the things that I would like to hear, everyone's intention, the truck, the most of this land was initially planned in 1975. 1997. Anyway, a long time ago there's about 600 acres in the perimeter. It was master planned for a multitude of different activities apartments, single family commercial activities. Doctor's offices and many other services that were in the community. This was put together in a master plan and the sales that took place with my involvement with them. Have all contained a sheet showing this master plan for the 600 acres. Shown to the zoning and all directions that were generated before we ever sold the first house. That way this was generated so that anybody else in that area have access to the master plan, and zoning takes place. The zoning is identified on the city maps, and I would recommend anybody that you're thinking about buying a home. Go take a look at the maps of the city that showed the zoning. So what's going on next to you? And show us where various developments take place. My three minutes is up. Can I keep going? Yes. Thank you. The subject of a park is an interesting one. When this project was master planned, the city of Las Cruces as we got

lots of land from BLM and there was no parks planned in the 600 acres because the city had anticipated getting land from the BLM in the surrounding areas, and they preferred to have the cash from the park impact fee to build farms. So therefore parks were built in here as per the planning that was existed at that time. I have challenged some of my councilors through the years that there is 200 impact fees in regards as another 350,400. In the Pines, there's another group in Pines Estates, so there's a lot of money that have been collected by the city to put a park in, and unfortunately it's been used in other parts of the city other rather than this area. In the current planning. It become obvious that a park is desirable and everybody wants a park in their backyard, so it gets to be a challenge of where do you put a park and do you put a park before you build the houses or after because no one wants to park after. They've got nothing else. They weren't before. So there is a there is an area that we're planning on a park and are working with the park people, and it's a combination of probably 4 to 7 acres, something like that, which will have a combination of storm drains that would give a soccer field that could take care of the 500 year flood if and when we ever get a rain, and it could be used as a soccer field. The other 499 years anyway. It is something that's in the planning stages and we are working with the department on that particular subject so that there would be there. I did come back to make people aware that this is all permitted property. None of it

belongs to the BLM. It belongs to the city of the state, all of it. And I'm paying the taxes on it. And nobody's ever helped pay the taxes. So I'll just keep playing with it. The. Only there were certain other concerns about traffic when I was with Master Plan reservoir was created as a four lane divided road. This plan Settlers Pass that runs east and west through the property is about an 85 foot road. That could be rolled out into four lanes should the traffic need to be to go that route. There is a large road there and it is designed to carry traffic. It is something that was planned early on. When you have growth, you do have traffic and everybody is concerned about traffic except their own. People don't always realize that they're calling for the traffic that their neighbors have complained about. But anyway, they traffic issues is something that's part of growth to mention and make people aware that are not aware that settlers pass from rainwater basically up to Rinconada was a road that was granted by me readily to the city to build that road, to relieve the traffic up in the Rinconada area, there was an area up there that was isolated. It only had one road in and out, and a second road was needed for safety and welfare. So I did grant the city right of way to build that road at their expense, for the benefit of the town. It is something that I don't regret, and it served its

purpose. And we will be expanding on it. And widening it on out to the normal width. Some other thoughts. If you folks have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them and try to cover all of the points regarding traffic, scheduling, design and such. And when neighborhoods are built, they're built side by side without paths between neighborhoods. In particular, the existing neighborhood doesn't have paths between them. And as you move on up and add more houses, that's the way it works. Probably best. I close my mouth and let you all ask any questions. Thank you. Thank their participation here, and I'm not going to go ahead and close the public participation. And go to. For those that prefer their. I also had several questions, but with the building on that one. So. I don't think I want to just look at I love the one for 27 years and I remember when I was pushing for it. Thanks for having me on. And so just thinking about another year and I like that all those plans that we started that we're going to be spend a day or two, possibly three and four. So it's difficult to tell, you know. Put the point about the environment around these plans have been in place for a year. And you know, I'm very sensitive about customers and traffic and. It is part of developing the city. And

providing for our the residents, you know, in most cases right now for the state. So we're going to continue to grow. And I don't like the Republic of Poland to the city came about properties or places where they want to purchase a home. And I think it's important that, you know, it's important that we educate ourselves as far as like, where are you going to build a reason to buy a home? Because you can look around and say that this is how they would develop. I happen to. And I'm not a proposals and I have worked on the area of East Mesa Red Hawk. It's popcorn building and it's just incredible happening and it's not going to slow any time. So it's something that we just have to live or we have to accept. And as Mr. Ben said, it's all equity and it's really not much you can do to stop the growth. So. Thank you. Just a couple of questions for staff. Can you clarify. Contains the master plan. I sounds like it's probably strategies that was passed. Is that correct. So were the master plan is Commissioner Kizer. Essentially this is Stella's pass which is what's highlighted in yellow. That would be the continuing line. There is property that is located on the south side of Sadler's Pass that is also contained within that master plan. And then you have vacant property that's located on the north side. The only piece that's currently developed is this portion right here. These two properties that are located right here are essentially for multifamily or commercial

development moving forward. And that's why you see kind of a gap when we do look at the aerial map, you see this gap that's right here. And so the master plan is going down to this essential red line going around this property boundary. And there was an area that was designated as the Rancho del Rey area. And then you have the Rancho del Rey master plan. And that's why it's a 279 acres that were master plan, but the area was annexed in all at the same time. So that kind of raises a couple of questions about the overall design and the planning of this master plan. Working on the proposed road network. There would be no connections. Facilitating travel to the north of right that is being shown on this map. So the parks that are going to get developed in the future would be entirely cut off. At this point, there were several sites that were Mr. Chair and Commissioner, not necessarily. You may see that these two phases may be cut off from them, but there could be future connections depending on how the lots are laid out. So if there's continued development that goes further to the east side or even from this west side connecting, there is still those potentials of where they would be connecting. At that point, staff is moving towards that. So as we see developments coming in, that is what we are requesting from developers. We want to see those connections not just on on Sellers Pass, but we will continue to request connecting points to where we see there may be topography constraints or issues in which you cannot connect to. And that's what we have to review through those grading and topography plans. Okay. And what about any sort of trail connection? Is there any discussion about that? It appears. Possible with the

future. In other discussions about the rest of the master planned area. There hasn't. Mr. Chair, there has not been any further discussions as far as trail systems. This was the first phase we've seen in several in basically 15 years come in as we continue to develop, we will work with the Parks and Recreation Department to see if there's going to provide those Connectivities as a master plan continues to grow, every phase becomes very different, and it usually depends on those constraints that are limited on the property. On the south side is what you can see is highlighted in green. That's the designated area right now for that park layout. And so we'd have to find some form of way to get everybody across that pass in order to basically get to that park. So they'll have to be some kind of trail system basically implemented at that time. Okay. That was my next question about access to the park. I think my overall concern is, I mean, this is a fundamental borrower had for years since I've been on this commission, is that. Because there's no public. Section is the only way to get those in the and engineer a trail? Or should I have? I mean, it seems like that this is our you know, it's working. We should be advancing vision here. I'm very concerned that that part is going to be very isolating for most of the residents are going to have for the vast majority of them are going to have a set of facts. And just like the weather, that's a total and I just don't understand how I don't think it's going to. Product development by just it, it's ad. There was really no plan behind this. How are residents going to access that park location with

those passes both on land and in pedestrian and cycle safety? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Keizer, as we move forward, I would agree with you in the sense that when we are doing master plans, we do have to identify roadways, cross sections. Right now, we are currently in a phase where when we updated our code, we did modify those to request some of those requirements as we continue to see master plans come in, because those have been some of the concerns that brought up by commission with dealing in current master plans that have been approved. It's very difficult to go back and say, now you have a new requirement in which you would have to meet with these being designated and continued conversations. It's the next conversation will be when the phase comes in is traffic lights. Those are the biggest concerns. Just because we know that it will now probably trigger some of those traffic impact calming needs, those will be considered at the same time that the park comes in, and how that will be evaluated, and how the continued traffic moves on. But that that is just one of the that this master plan was approved. You know, I guess those classic dated 2012 which. That's why we came into this new requirements. But what what is the plan? What's the plan that was approved in 2012 with the remaining section about? About these issues? Commissioner Keizer, when we see master plans come in, they don't designate they don't designate roadway cross sections depending on the amount of acreage. I think some of that concern comes in when we start to see the preliminary plats that are coming forward. We see how they're going to actually get carved out, because we don't know what those developments are going to be. We're putting densities on them. We're looking at what our road cross sections should be, how we follow code, how they get connected, our plans and policies. When we move forward. On a master plan that was done in 2012, the minor modification was to increase some of those

densities. You know, in 20 or in 2004, it was to modify a road. It wasn't to request any additional roadway connections or parcel boundaries. Sometimes you don't get into development until you start moving some of the dirt and you start coming into design features. I know that was some of the process. In this case. This process has been going on for over a year now, because a lot of it ran into the topography of the site. Until you start doing those grading plans, you start actually doing the construction and the development. It's very hard to say where a road may or may not go. Some of those get modified through plans, and that's where we see those changes happening. You won't see them in an area that says, we want to designate so many properties for this many acres with zoning, that's what we tend to see as a master plan. I think some of the master plan development you may be referring to is when you have a developer or builder that comes in, takes 60 acres, develops it, but they know exactly what they're going to build because they're building a planned community or something of that nature, but they have full control over that. In this case, we're building out pieces by pieces. Developers are coming in requesting a piece to be built out of a master plan. Those are two different scenarios as far as how master planning would work. We're starting with something. As 300 acres in size, it's very difficult to pinpoint where those roadways are going to be without amendments coming in after if they're not taking place. So if you go out, you start doing one development. You tend to see that the topography of the grading is going in a different direction. You now have to amend all of your plans to now justify why you're changing them. And so we start with a broader format through our master planning process, because we are dealing with different development situations. If we had something that was a little bit less something that was planned, usually if you see gated communities, they already have an outline. They know where their roads are going to go. That's a different master planning process. So we're dealing with two different ones. Understand? Yes. I push back on the idea that the topography of this appeal is the only get out there with with a skid steer. We

know ahead of time we can engineer around that. We know we can zero into the role of Cinderella. Three of the four elements of the roads. But I understand I think the last question for staff is. Are there any has there any discussion and what are the plans for? Traffic calming and seconds pass as those gates that are coming in highway. That's a question for staff at this time. No, no okay. Commissioner Keizer, right now discussions will be taking place as we further develop the property. There is a threshold in which the city can request traffic calming measures to take place or traffic lights to come in based on a person's or developer's site. Once you meet that threshold, then it is the discussions of who pays for it, how does it come in? What are our next steps in order to implement the next phases coming in and to accommodate the traffic that's going in? And so those are already ongoing conversations throughout our department just because of the area and the designated space we do have. So the conversations are when can a light come in? Where is the funding for these lights? What are those resources that we can now fund in store and basically put into here? In the next phase, it was determined that a traffic impact analysis would be required by the developer whenever he came in with phase three of the project. So that way we could see what those traffic calming measures are going to amount to. If you have a lower density, sometimes it doesn't trigger it. It's based on the densities and the housing units that are going in. Yeah. Let me rephrase my question a little bit. How many residents does it take that currently at this body or then submit feedback to the city that

says it's 5060 on a graph in such a way that as a posted speed limit, say 35. At what point is the city inside and do something to ensure that people are driving the speed limit? Because I've been out there on this road and people have passed me driving the speed way, and we'll pull this thing out to be essentially a fairly normal is going to be in this trap out there. And this isn't theoretical. We see it all over the see, we just had years of discussion with us about these very issues. And so I don't think it's acceptable to sit here and just say that. They say that we would think that happening, especially not something. At what point do we say enough is enough when there's a traffic problem, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Keizer, that is what traffic impact analysis are for. They identify how many people are using the roadways, what are the issues or concerns that are brought up, and then what traffic measures should be implemented based on each road you can drive down down Del Rey, you can see the same kind of impacts that are along those roadways, wider roadways. It's based on speed limit. They can be posted, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a way to mitigate every single scenario that's going to come in. So as we continue to see traffic impact analysis come in, that is what's defining how a roadway should be developed. That's why we made the technical manual to follow whatever traffic manual was going to be better in this case. And so when we're using these multiple books of traffic calming and measures and developments coming in, that is why those reports come in to us and say, these are what needs to happen because your area is growing now, it's the impact now it is that time. We do see that a lot of the developments will come in, and then they will trigger those street lights to come in with them, along with those. It's having the conversations with multiple

developers in order to get those installed and implemented into where they become part of their plan before development extends growth. That's not always the easiest conversation. We do have to have them with developers and surrounding property owners that may be impacted as well. As growth continues and vacant properties, and we see them all the time. We have to work with our traffic engineers, the city departments and then the public to say what is going to be those needs. And that's those reports definitely will generate a lot of that information for us. I have no further questions. Excuse me, could I have a comment? Hopefully it is not on the screen to show you, but when I say a master plan, unfortunately there doesn't have it on the screen. It is master plan. Roads are laid out, sewer lines are laid out. There's gets there in the morning to do something. But it wasn't when the sewers where the roads are going to go. It identifies the different tracts of land for different purposes, whether it be apartments or whether it be houses. So this is planned. And the roads are laid out on the topography so that they are draining and handling the traffic in a safe manner. So this isn't haphazard. There master plan I'm referring to is a document that shows the roads, the various activities and such, and I would feed back on the finished product. The high range neighborhood is one that I was involved in from day one. There was one going through that was a raceway. But we have we have radar and we put it under control. And that's what happens to take place when you have instances where traffic is accelerated and speed and beyond. But the planning that took place in our range is a good example of master planning. Same thing took place in Sonoma

Ranch when it came on, and the same type of planning is what's taking place here is not haphazard, it's master plan because we're putting in we're putting water lines in, we're roadways and we're feeders are going to go so that it's done intelligently. Thank you. Anybody else thank. CoStar on. The questions I do have a question for staff. She's my friend. So is I just need to know. So there's going to be classified as a main arterial road or a collector. Do you know that Mister Chair and Commissioner Acosta? It is a collector right of way. That's why it's classified as an 80 foot wide cross section. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Is that all your questions? Yes. Thank you, Mister Chair. I only have one question. Which kind of is this? An application of the rules. Las Cruces, or is it in the form of. Code? Which one is this important? Mister chair, this is following our 2001 zoning code. So what is what is the cutoff right now? Because we are in transition, our development standards will take place in January of 2026. For real life, Las Cruces to be the only code in which we're moving forward with now. Master plans are a little bit different just because they were already master plan properties. And so we're working with the developers because we do have to find a zoning that would essentially be compatible or comparable to what the master plan was originally approved with. So we will follow through with the master planning zoning as originally documented from the codes in which they were implemented and put into place. And can I have is the.

Parks and Rec. In the nine nine, which is vastly different from what we currently have with the 2001 code. So because it would require I'm just curious because in in this, it would require that the developers, for example, not the city to put in the park. And so with those coming forward, I'm just curious as to what is that going to help the developers. But as far as this one goes, it's still under the 2001 for these. These maps will just be paying the park fee. Correct. Mister chair and commissioners, at this point, there is already discussions essentially on the parkland and the actual dedication there already. Mr. Benz is already working with Parks and Recreation to see if there is going to be or not be a agreement formulated prior to the code or the adoption being done based on the size of the park, though that's already been talked about and discussed. The size of the park actually meets the current code requirements and realize Las Cruces. So yes. So it's already being discussed and implemented in January. Yes, the fees would be new impact fees because the impact fees are following whenever a subdivision plat is filed. And so that's already changed and been modified. And he plats that are filed essentially where a subdivision comes in now follows the new current impact fees. So this this phase right here before I get into the 2001. Correct. And the 2000 and part says, no, Mr. Chair, it's any subdivision when it comes in and gets filed. And so the way the process works is a subdivision will come in and go through the preliminary plat process once they have received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, they go to final plat and construction drawings. At the time that the final plat is filed with the Dona Ana County Office, that is when the park impact fees are implemented. Based on that date, we already have updated fees,

and so they follow those current fees for those four years. So yes, they'll be moving forward with the new fees. Any subdivision that's basically filed from this point on will have new impact fees. Okay. Well, if this is for the platform, the updated fees that have been adopted, correct, Mr. Chair? That's correct. If you were to come in today and file it at the county office, it's going to follow the new impact fees. The discussion comes down to the parkland dedication and improvements. That is the current discussion moving forward with the Parks and Recreation Department. Different processes. There is a fee in the development. Program, which is probably the missed, but there is a feeling that the developer is supposed to pay the fee in the room just for the middle of the. Parks. Now and then. On top of that, there's a fee. Richard, you are correct. And so you have two different processes of which you're outlining. You have the master planning and subdivision process in which the developer is required to dedicate the required land and build the park as part of their subdivision development. Then you have the second portion in which a builder will come in, develop a home, and they require an impact fee at that point. So there's two different processes, two different steps. The step we're discussing tonight would be when the applicant comes back with the parkland. They are to dedicate it. So there's a subdivision process and the actual impact fee process two different phases okay. So there's two. The formal is that we're getting around that. Right. And Mr. Chair that is correct. The fee in lieu is only coming in whenever we see a development that maybe is coming in with 30 lots and doesn't have the land to dedicate, then we would see the payment in lieu coming forward, because there's not enough land to actually provide a decent park for the

neighborhood to actually be using. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Right now we're not taking any fees. We'll have that discussion when the parkland comes in. Perfect. Yes. I'm a good person. So, Mr. Burns. Commissioner Kaiser, Mr. Simmons, I asked this question in light of his concerns about the park and safety and the traffic. Knowing that it could be unstable. Have you given any thought or consideration to possibly putting in a. Another track on that site space? For a more practical, the current park that's on. There is good points there. Some of the early designs of the park has put in a parking lot and part of it, so that the parking is off site and is available for people using the park, rather than parking in Senators Pass. So intelligent design has been played with in on that subject. The general area here, there's a couple hundred acres around this, and we're looking at putting enough acreage in the park to cover future development that's going to take place in the seven and a half acres or so that's that's planned on this tract. The there is another major area of this 600 acres that has taken place, and it is an area that I look to have some discussion with you

folks on a couple of special issues. And I don't think we want to go into right now, but there is another 300 lot subdivision that's in on the paper, and there is a part of this land adjacent to it. So that answer your question. Locations are certainly on the table and on the drawing board. Thank you sir. All right. This to the to the screen. We're going to need a motion. Motion. You just got a vote. Gentlemen. Are you still on the. I think it's a really great. Yes. I believe she may be disconnected. Okay, then, over on page 6.1. So do we have to pay 100? You always call, right? Okay. Right. Correct. Yeah. Commissioner McCaslin. Yes. Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner. Ramona. Yes, Commissioner. Canyon. Yes. Chair. Yes. And Janet was not available. Thank you. Next one, we're going to excuse myself. And there's my cheat sheet for you. We will let chairperson exit the room before we move on to our next item.

Don't get struck by lightning. It's great. All right, so this is the way we do this now is, in addition to appearing on 6.2. I moved over here at 6.2. Turn it over to staff. Okay. Before you is going to be a outdoor lighting variance request for 4050 Longview Lane. We start out with essentially the aerial of the property. As you can see, this is going to be extended from Settler's Pass onto Longview Lane, which gets essentially to angler. And Thurman is a single family residential lot with a single family home and accessory building. And there is a field located within the property. Lot of the properties that are around this area were annexed into the city and considered essentially a rural zone, and we are seeing development that is taking place as far as the single family residential going in now of a higher density. Here is the zoning map of the subject property along with the area. This is going to be our neighborhood one zones. It is following. Realize us Cruces adopted code. And so essentially the property is still single family has densities that are up to 16 dwelling units per acre, but that would be outside of the purview for this variance. Under realized Las Cruces 30 8-9 the outdoor lighting zone is LS one, which refers more to our residential zoning districts. There is a maximum of 450 lumens per fixture that is available on each property. Code is silent, however, when it does come to recreational facilities or field lighting when it is on a residential private property. So additional case specifics. The property has a five acre lot. It does contain a private recreational field. There has been six polls put onto the property that are approximately

25 to 27ft in height. They are separated about 73 to 76ft apart. There are three on the north side, three of the south side of the soccer field or recreational field that's built. Each fixture is at a lumen of 30,924. So the variance request before you this evening would be two 30,474 per fixture. The first light pole as part of consideration would be it's 95ft from the front property line. But I would say that's also extended because they do have a road easement on their property. So when dedication is provided, it would still be at 95ft. It's really more about 145ft essentially from the property, because there is dedication for road easement if it ever is needed for that road to be built out. The applicant has provided the justification that it will be used for family activities and gatherings. The lights will not remain on for extended hours or and they're not triggered by any motion sensors. Trees have been planted along the entire south side in order to basically shield from the property boundary on the south side whenever it is to be developed, so that way the lights are not reflecting into the property. Also, the lights will be used intermittently and responsibly. The idea would be is to use these lights only whenever they're outdoors, just because they are located within those rural areas. Some of the safety concerns, because of the natural wildlife out in the areas as to be visible. Here's a site plan of the subject property. As you can see, each light pole is about 74 or so feet separation. These are the six light poles. This would be the 95 foot buffer to the property. This area is still considered the property boundary, but it is a road easement. And that's why the wall has been constructed in a different location. I provided these image. This would be me standing essentially in front of the owner's property from the street view. So if this road was to be dedicated, this would be essentially where you would see. Here are the light poles that are erected onto the property.

These are the designs essentially. So it is a single pole that has two basically flat lights that are located on the top and directly into the recreational field in these images through here, trees have been planted all the way along the boundary wall, which is going to separate them from the south boundary. Here's another image, essentially, of what those light poles look like from view of essentially entering that property. Staff did not identify any health, safety or welfare issues based on the property or the proposal. We understand that this is a private residential recreational use that was not considered whenever we reviewed, realized Las Cruces and updated our outdoor lighting ordinance. Private recreational facilities should be considered for all properties. As we continue to move forward. A lot of people are putting basketball courts, trampolines. Things are located within front yard, side yards, backyards in order to keep kids, you know, from recreation at home as well. And so it's basically you have your own recreational fields. Recreation activities are limited in rural areas, as we do not tend to see as many parks that are being developed because a large lots, they're not basically coming in with development. You will see that the closest one to this property is over a quarter of a mile, which is what is the recommendation by Elevate Las Cruces. The other consideration is once again natural vegetation and wildlife. Wildlife. They do exist within this area because it is so rural. You will still see some of that out there. So if your children are out playing. The consideration would be is that you need enough lighting in order to support what you're seeing outside when you are. However, with that, staff is recommending denial as it does not meet the criteria in which we have the authority to basically say variance is not required. However, if PNC does recommend approval, some conditions that you may consider to be placed on the property is to limit the hours in which the lights can be used. And so we've seen before where time limitations can be used on lights and everything is turned off at a specific hour, that could be a condition. The other

is to say if the recreational field is no longer in use, the lights to be removed from the residential property. The reason we say PNC does have the authority to approve variances. Consideration should be made as to if it's contrary to the public interest, if it is a special condition in which it results in an unnecessary hardship, does it meet the spirit of the zoning regulations as observed? So is it meeting the intent and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan? Notice was sent to the public for the public hearing, to the surrounding property owners. Within 500ft? We only received two calls just inquiring about what was taking place on the property to get more information, but there were no concerns or no complaints as far as it not being available. And with that, I have your options available. I do believe there is a representative to at least relay the information from our commissioner who did have to step out. That can further reiterate the concerns with the property. Thank you. Is the applicant's representative wish to say anything? Yeah. And it's interesting. Her name for the record. And Vicki go ahead. All right. So I'm a friend of Amy and I've been asked to present the following in their behalf. Thank you for letting me speak today. I'm here to request approval for special use permit related to lighting that we installed in the front portion of our five acre property. The purpose of these lights is to allow our family to use a large open pool on our property for playing sports at night. The family lights are purely for personal use. Let me explain how we got to this point. At first I met speaking from authority which financing for the. At first I met with my electrician to plan for field lighting. Due to the cost, we decided to hold off on installing the lights.

Initially, however, we went ahead with the installation of the underground electrical to be ready for LEDs later a few weeks. A few weeks later, we decided to move forward with installing the lights. We ordered everything we needed for the permit, and the latter were inspected and passed. At the end of the project, I was told that while we had the correct permit for the underground electrical, we did not have the right permit for the field lights themselves. It was at this point that we also learned the field lighting requires a special use permit, which is why I am here today. The lights are already installed, fully inspected and passed all safety checks. This special use permit is the final step. The field work period is about 400ft wide and 100ft in length. The field is meant to be a safe space for our kids, extended family and friends to play the game, to play and gather. The summer day time is the summer heat is intense, but the aliens are nice to spend outdoors in the lights allowed throughout the recreation. There are not many places within our sponsors that have residential areas like this, and we want to make good use of the land. We have taken steps to be respectful of our neighbors and mitigate any impact to them. To help reduce the light pollution, we have planted about nine new trees, 90 trees along the southern side of the property to act as a living barrier. These trees will block most of the light once they literature. We have also installed perimeter fencing to prevent any gathering or use of the lights without any supervision or permission. The surrounding area includes vacant land to the south, which is not owned by any family owned property to the north and east, Longhorn land to the west, which already has street lights installed. Park lights are constantly on a city, lights are constantly on until about 1030 11 p.m. When, when city

regulations require them to be shut off, our lights will not be turned on. Consistently turned on. Occasionally, when we are using the field, our desire is to use our five acre property in a way that promotes safe, healthy activity just like many others do on their own land. We are committed to being good neighbors, and our hope is that you will approve this special use permit. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Thanks. Just based on just the background, how tall are we propose and. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Smith, the light poles are about 25 to 27ft. The pole itself is 25. And then the light fixture stands on top of those poles. I'm not sure how I wonder about the point, but. It would. It would seem like if there's. Three times as tall, I mean there were several in the area. And, you know, possibly a stable, so I don't have and I don't think it represents the state of the property to the house on. My family and also to the east. So we really are looking at. Any particular proposal will come from the from the west side. Mister Chair. Commissioner Enrico, I believe and that's why the applicant because of where this is located, the home right here would be blocking any of that light that would be reflecting. And that's why they planted essentially almost 100 trees down here to create that buffer. So as they continue to grow, it will shield that light. All of

our lights are still required to basically go down. So that way they are not spread out as far. And so you're looking at them from a down version. So you're doing the same thing that you would be doing with the city lights as it projects to a certain degree. And then it's supposed to be reflected down, but you're covering space. And so with the three lights that would be placed on here because of the length of essentially, I believe you said it was 300ft. Yeah. The 300ft, three light poles on each side is covering that area. And so if you reduce that then it would reduce essentially how much you can actually reflect from how tall it is. So even if the pole is coming down, I think our city lights are at about 25ft as well, if not a little bit higher. So you're getting the same visual respect as to what the light is actually able to project on the field. Okay. Thank you. Question. Can you say approval condition based on the analysis as part of the site guidance on what the areas will be? And then second part of that question is how would we enforce that? Say they go ahead and have that time frame? I just see issues enforcing that if they forget to shut off and then we're calling the codes, which is not necessary to shut lights off. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Murray, a lot of times what we will see with conditions is we place the conditions onto the property just because then if you do have any concerns or complaints that do come in, we have a way to enforce them. If we don't put those conditions onto the property, then there's no enforcement. Essentially, they could be on at any time of the day by placing a condition or a limited time hour onto there. Then if codes was to receive a call, we can go ahead and notify the property owner. Hey, these have been placed on your condition of your variance. You're in violation. Please make sure that they're actually being addressed. As far as time limitations, there isn't a set time limitation in which we would have lights on or off for. If the commission determines 10:00 is the time, or 11:00 is

that time, that would be to the discretion of the Commission. It's just one clarifying question around the use aspect of this. I know you mentioned in the staff report and your presentation, I think that this is sort of a recreation use, but I just want to clarify, though, that private. Recreation wouldn't the public could still have access to said facility like it's being rented at a. Public access facility. But that's not the case here. The case here is strictly for personal use, correct? Mr. Chair and Commissioner Kiser, that is correct. It is the reason we're calling it a private field and not a public one. When we realize when we redid the code for realize Las Cruces, the allowances are now saying that it has to be a public field as opposed to a private. And that's why we made sure that it was basically for the personal use of private property. It would not be extended to anybody else. This would not be a facility that could be rented out. It would be used for only personal use, which is why the restriction would be if the field is no longer to be used for those personal uses, one of the conditions would be to remove those lights so it doesn't further continue, because a variance lives with the land, it does not live with the owner. Okay. Yeah, right. Answers my question. I think if this. Commission was a previous ideas to have at least one condition around updating the

lights. I think we need to have, that would also be open to the second condition, which is the final. There is a theme for the. The purpose of which the audience can. Remove lights. I believe the way we do it now is we need to make that motion second vote before we vote to implement that. Second, yes, that is correct. So whatever your conditions would be that we would. Yes. So I think what we do is the motion for the conditions are listed on the staff. I mean. I think need to be turned off by 10:30 p.m. At the latest. Seems reasonable. According to the city, since that is. Yes. So question is there a. Coincidence? Statue of 5000. So there is. We did look into that. And then I've I've lived that as well playing pickleball down off but off the park. So they operate the park. They would shut off around 1045 1050 I think from what we read at 11:00 for city parks, but non-expert though, for me. Thank you. Okay. So I just wanted to say, but I just wanted to. Make this before we make the motion. So there's only wishes to speak

on this item. Seeing none, we'll. Sir, please. State for the record and give a few minutes. All right. Once again, my name is Adam Adams, and it's been an education center of one of the activities that goes on in the planning and zoning, because I've observed it for the last 67 years. And almost. As an will come. It's interesting. Just project that you're reviewing. And I'm sitting here listening to it. I would certainly encourage the approval of it with your conditions, which makes sense. Logically, I have occasion to visit with Mr. Thurston about recently displayed over in Rancho del Rey. Generally settlers pasture area, but I did not feel it would be compatible with the type of neighborhoods that I was dealing with. Whereas the current location looks like it's a lot more feasible. And so my comment is to encourage the support of it, because it's nice to have some types of facilities of this nature out of town, whether they're public, private or whatever, because we need more activities to involve our teenagers and our kids so that they're doing constructive things under the supervision of their parents. And that's what this looks like. It's everything I think is very strongly encourage your support of it. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? All right. Seeing none, we'll come back to the commission. So. Looking for. To by conditions of state that came out of that first condition of looking for a motion. I know that. Approve

this request with the recommended conditions of related to the plan and also in the at the profile of the walls were approved. I second sorry okay. So this is on the road to 6.2 to include the items to shut up 11 plan and to remove the lights. If the playing field is no longer used or removed. Commissioner McCaslin. Yes. Commissioner. Smith. Yes. Commissioner. Mullen. Yes. Commissioner. Gonzales. Yes. And, Commissioner Costa, can you hear us? Yes. Is that a yes? You can understand? Yes. Very well. Yes and yes. Thank you. Claudia Councilor looking for a vote to. Federal approval of the conditions have been approved. If we vote yes to approve, the conditions will be attached. I would make a motion to approve the variance as as stated with the conditions. Yeah. Sorry, I got you just voting on this item. Commissioner, you need to. Motion is more than one motion to vote. So I resend it and I say I would like to make a

motion to approve the. Okay. Perfect. Thank you for saying. Okay. This is a vote to approve item 6.2. Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. And Commissioner Costa. Yes. Thank you. Confirming the rights of the chairperson. Bencomo. Item. Baleful. And he was. He is tall. Thank you. Hello. Thank you. So it's a little a little struggle. All right. We've got to Monday seven. Do we have any discussion? No. I think this is more. I had just one idea to throw out to the commission and given the name of doing something simple like the rest of this year, I'd like to propose that we. By staff, provides quarterly updates on some of the big initiatives that we have done in the city.

Updates on the implementation of US exclusives, the latest of the redevelopments, as well as some of the other projects that we have and specifically go through the process. I think the quarterly update and ask for a little while, just since these are kind of more vaccines and. Issues that came out and but just. Having that, is it. The is this the proper form to do such a thing? Mr. Chair? Commissioner Kaiser, you're just suggesting that it's something that we can discuss amongst staff or if you're trying to have a discussion amongst the rest of the commission, I would be a little hesitant to bring certain things in front of this body at certain times. If it's a project that's not necessarily a private development, that may not have necessarily to come to NZ for some sort of a discussion, I would just be careful on some of those projects. If it's a city initiative that's been met, and certainly staff can come with a presentation, but I would just use that as a, as a sort of a guide between which projects will go for discussion. So that staff for discussion, I think just briefly addresses, I think that's the biggest redevelopment of everything. So I think having some updates would be nice, but certainly. I understand that. The value of the sale. So I would leave that to you all. But I think getting the agenda, just showing up for any. Time is a little bit to me that we've had some meetings and within 20 minutes, I think we do have a chance to just get some updates

on some of the big things that we've recently said. Anybody else for discussion? Stephanie. The. Stephanie. Nope. No announcements from staff. All right, 12 month engagement. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Hi. Thank you, thank you.