MEETING REPORT

Date:September 15, 2014

Place:Santa Fe Community College, Jemez Room 3

Facilitator:Carl Moore

Meeting Summary:The Homework Group reviewed and made further improvements to the September 11 meeting report, ground rules, and vision statement. Warren Thompson presented an update on the La Entrada Plat Amendment. In small groups, participants generated ideas about future development of the Rancho Viejo Village Center, the Windmill Ridge Neighborhood Center, and the Richards Avenue Employment Center.

At the next meeting, September 16 at 6:30 in Room 219 at SFCC, Santa Fe County staff will present on the county’s affordable housing requirements. As homework for upcoming discussions on the residential neighborhoods of Rancho Viejo, Homework Group members are asked to look at the different types of residential areas in the community and think about what works, what doesn’t, and how residential areas could be improved.

Meeting Agenda:1. Additions/corrections to the 11 September meeting report?2. Additions or changes to the Ground Rules?3. Additions or changes to the Vision Statement?4. Rancho Viejo update on current activity: La Entrada Plat Amendment.5. Centers

Meeting Details:Carl Moore asked for corrections or additions to the September 11 meeting report. One extensive clarification was received via email. That clarification will be added to the meeting report as an addendum, and other participants are invited to add similar clarifications as necessary. (See September 11 Meeting Report.)

Carl proposed an addition to the ground rules regarding forms of communication between meetings. He suggested that if there is any important information such as a product for review, a major homework assignment, or a change in the meeting schedule, that information will be distributed via email immediately after the

1

meeting. Other materials, including the full meeting report, will be posted on the website as soon as they are available.

The group worked together to revise the draft vision statement. Carl proposed an additional sentence: “We subscribe to the basic College District Plan principles of protecting the land system; creating a pattern of villages, neighborhoods and employment centers; and building a diverse community.”

Some meeting participants objected to the addition, saying that it gives too much weight to the role of the County and the County’s plan.

Some meeting participants expressed concerns about road routing and objected to the addition because it suggested they would agree with existing routing plans.

One person said that, rather than “We live in Rancho Viejo because…”, the statement should say, “We purchased property in Rancho Viejo because…”

Meeting participants agreed that the stated principles could be included without mention of the College District Plan.

A meeting participant suggested a change to “diverse, quality community.” Some meeting participants noted that the vision statement was becoming too

long, involved and detailed, and said that it should be more general.

Carl said that the group would have another opportunity to revisit the vision statement. This is the statement as currently revised:

We live in Rancho Viejo because of its community: its friendly and diverse neighbors, quiet streets, and safety.  We live here because of the amenities: the trails, parks, schools, and public services.  We live here because of the access to Santa Fe and its history and culture.  We live here because of the views, the open space, and the night skies.  We live here because it is a beautiful place.

We subscribe to the basic principles of protecting the land system; creating a pattern of villages, neighborhoods and employment centers; and building a diverse, quality community.

In the future, we want to create a sense of place.  We want to ensure that the amenities are maintained.  We want to protect our quiet streets and high-quality architecture.  We want to keep the open space and views.  We want to retain the original community feel.

And if we do that, we will protect and enhance our lives, community, and the value of our properties.

In response to a request for more information about any imminent Rancho Viejo development plans, Warren Thompson presented information about a new phasing plan for La Entrada. (See La Entrada 2006 Development Plan and 2014 Revised Phasing Plan maps.) He said that the goal was to change the plan to reduce density, create larger lots, and utilize better topological information that wasn’t

2

available for the earlier plans. Lot sizes will increase to a minimum of 45 feet, with a range from 45 to 100 feet. The change will reduce the number of houses yet to be built from 259 to approximately 205. Warren said that there was a small archaeological site located on the property, but it was not significant and was mitigated.

A meeting participant asked where trails would be in relation to this development, and where the access points would be from La Entrada. A trail will run north of La Entrada and there will be trail access between residential units (shown in gaps on the phasing plan map). Warren said that a planned trailhead was moved to a location near BTI, and said that the County planned to develop a trail running from SFCC to the Rail Runner station. Warren also showed a village trail on the south side of La Entrada.

o A meeting participant asked how the trail to the train station would cross NM 14. Warren said that it would utilize a closed road and a bridge across NM 14.

A meeting participant asked how the change in the phasing plan would impact Rancho Viejo’s affordable housing requirements. Warren said that Rancho Viejo originally needed 30% affordable housing, but now the requirement for Rancho Viejo is 15%, and the number of affordable units will be reduced with the smaller number of lots. At the September 16 meeting, County staff will attend to discuss the county requirements.

o Meeting participants asked where the affordable units would be, and Warren indicated areas on the map on the eastern side of La Entrada.

A meeting participant asked for clarification on the number of units to be developed. Warren stated that there were originally 456 units planned to be developed in La Entrada, and 197 were built in the first phase. The balance, 259, would be reduced to approximately 205 in this new phasing plan.

A meeting participant asked how La Entrada would accommodate more vehicles. Warren said that two-car garages would be standard with the larger lots, and there will be an additional entry point. The existing traffic studies indicated capacity for the number of vehicles coming in and out of Rancho Viejo.

o A meeting participant asked about the location of off-site parking to prevent parking on the street. Warren said that the garages would partially address this issue, and said that he was open to suggestions about where additional parking was needed.

A meeting participant asked if there were any imminent plans regarding employment centers. Warren said that there were no imminent discussions with any tenants.

A meeting participant asked about the development of townhouses related to the affordable housing requirement. Warren said that while some townhouses had been built in the past by SunCor, none were in any current plans.

3

Joe Porter presented a new process diagram outlining the Homework Group’s work, and explained that while all of the topics are connected, this is an attempt to break the work into manageable pieces. (See Decision Process Diagram.) The topics are Centers; Residential Neighborhoods; Parks, Open Space, and Water; and Circulation and Transportation. For each topic, the group will work toward developing guiding principles; the developer can use these principles when considering any future project, and the residents can use these principles when evaluating future projects.

Joe presented some of his initial ideas about what might be developed in the designated employment, village, and neighborhood centers. At the Richards Avenue Employment Center, his ideas included a center at the north of the property, near SFCC, including a coffee shop and small offices. Near BTI, there could be walkable commercial that might soften the appearance of BTI. In the far south, there could be a large grocery or other large commercial in the long term, 15 years or more into the future.

A meeting participant noted that his description seemed like a village center, not an employment center. Joe said that there was a great deal of flexibility in the code, and residents should feel free to consider different types of places and suggest what seems right for the community.

When discussing the Rancho Viejo Village Center, Joe noted that it was no longer as large as originally planned, but it has a strong road system and residents could explore options for commercial and multifamily uses. Joe said that he thought it would be difficult to do freestanding retail at the Windmill Ridge Neighborhood Centers, but these sites could be simple services, perhaps on the first floor of multifamily buildings.

A meeting participant asked about ordinances that would prevent carryout package liquor in the village or neighborhood centers because of the proximity to Amy Biehl School. Faith Okuma said that ordinances generally prohibited liquor within 300 feet of schools.

A meeting participant asked if the commercial lots in neighborhood centers should be considered separate from the Rancho Viejo HOAs. Faith said that the zoning allows for a lot of flexibility in uses, and she said that design guidelines could be part of the process so the commercial spaces would abide by the same guidelines as the HOAs.

A meeting participant asked Joe if he would mangle the land to see his commercial vision. Joe said that he never tried to mangle the land in development, and Warren said that as he read the vision, one of the shared goals was to honor the land.

Meeting participants broke up into small groups and produced ideas about potential uses, constraints, and principles that should guide the development of the centers. Two groups worked on the Richards Avenue Employment Center, and those groups are marked A and B:

1. Rancho Viejo Village Centera. Potential uses for the center:

4

i. Wildlife, education center or facilityii. Progressive health care center – like graduated assistance

livingiii. Luxury apartmentsiv. Gym, exercise facility – 24 hour accessv. Restaurant

vi. Small businesses, professionals like lawyers, accountants, doctors

vii. Medical office, place to get a flu shotviii. Art gallery, art studios, especially ones involving IAIA and

students thereix. Farmers market (south side market could move here)x. Low-cost studios for artists

xi. Community center, room rentals, party spaces, exercise spacesxii. Businesses/spaces catering to services like gardeners,

landscapers, pet services, plumbers, paintersxiii. Hacker space – where you can rental tools for building projectsxiv. Bookstore/book exchangexv. Pet supplies

xvi. Dry cleaners/laundryxvii. Adult/elder care

xviii. Child care, day carexix. Live/work spacesxx. Upscale wine bar

xxi. After-school teen facilityxxii. Drugstore / five-and-ten

xxiii. County building satellite – different services provided on different days.

b. Potential problems (constraints, conflicts) in developing the center:i. Traffic

ii. Concern about air, water, land pollution from businessesiii. Law enforcement availability and safety with increased

number of people, traffic, businesses in area.c. Principles that should guide the design and development of the

center:i. Soft impact: low energy usage, low water usage, minimize

amount of resources for these activitiesii. Community-centric, geared toward what we in our community

neediii. Space that can evolve, recognizing that over years/decades

businesses and people will come and go. What’s built is not so constrained that it can’t change.

iv. Architecture should be compatible with existing community architecture.

v. Accessibility: all facilities should be accessible to everyone in community. Walkable. Portals/benches/resting spots.

5

vi. Nothing over 2 stories. Preservation of views.vii. Security lighting. Balance of lighting and safety.

viii. Shoestring starters. Facilities can encourage people who want to start a business on a shoestring.

ix. Draws people to come. An anchor facility.2. Windmill Ridge Neighborhood Center

a. Potential uses for the center:i. Adult day care

ii. Child day careiii. Assisted livingiv. Community centerv. Art center

vi. Senior rental housingvii. Housing

b. Potential problems (constraints, conflicts) in developing the center:i. Resolve conflicts btw north and south HOAs to allow

development of community centerii. Consideration of traffic along Richards Ave.

c. Principles that should guide the design and development of the center:

i. Retail not appropriate.ii. Nothing taller than existing townhomes, 2-story.

iii. New buildings need to be architecturally compatible.iv. Maintain views for existing residences whenever possible.v. Safe connections to trails and open space.

3. Richards Road Employment Center Aa. Potential uses for the center:

i. Investment, wealth management, banking, customer supportii. Health-related

iii. Design architectureiv. IT softwarev. Light manufacturing

vi. Restaurantvii. Progressive care facility

b. Potential problems (constraints, conflicts) in developing the center:i. Zone interface with RV residential roads and lanes

ii. Ability to attract and keep in Santa Fe young, educated talent to work in zone

iii. Obtain state and/or county economic develop $s to support some development in zone and share some risk

c. Principles that should guide the design and development of the center:

i. Honor land and viewsii. Focus on quality, sustainable businesses

iii. Focus on businesses with technology bias, clean companies

6

iv. Give careful consideration to integrated designs for commercial, including distinct architectural profiles

v. No non- or not-for-profit organizations (no institutional uses)vi. No RV association subsidies for zone maintenance

vii. No water parksviii. No go-karts

ix. No miniature golf4. Richards Road Employment Center Group B

a. This group presented a number of ideas, rather than breaking down their thoughts into the categories:

i. Take connecting road out, move it over.ii. Honor topography as no-development area.

iii. Add major intersection at SFCC, keep other major intersections.

iv. Joe’s idea is a good idea – northern location has community, school, community college. Start with village center there. Horseshoe around small plaza. Coffee shop would be effective because of location. Live/work units.

v. Farther south, commercial center – performing arts center, plaza. Haven’t yet discussed what major commercial might be.

vi. At location of BTI, office as buffer. Office as buffer/connector between two centers.

vii. Off of commercial center, office/housing. Maybe more dense townhouse housing.

viii. At far north, housing or maybe office.

7

ix. Independent and senior housing at southeast corner. Against supermarket concepts.

x. This is 40-year plan. North could come soon, south is long-term. When development moves into east, it will be time to look at this space.

xi. No tall buildings, 2-story maximum.

Parking LotTwo statements were made on September 11 in the discussion of the vision to be kept for the future:

We want to create resilience in our community by encouraging local sources of food, local employment, reuse of water, recycling of resources.

Statement about compatibility of functional categories within the communities. Functional architectural and aesthetic compatibility in residential, commercial, and other types of entities.

Other items to be kept for future discussion: Velocity Way / Canada del Rancho intersection

8