Lux rezoning

Opposed the 55 apartments, citing neighborhood safety, children walking to school, unnotified Kodiak homeowners, and impacts on home values.

Objected to the project's traffic, ecology, school crowding, and lights, and criticized how the September P&Z meeting was handled.

Cited existing congestion, the nearby 218-unit complex, and school-walking safety; asked for a comprehensive independent traffic study covering both developments.

Said the area already has about 1,500 apartment units within two miles, questioned safety at the entrance near a bus stop, criticized the P&Z process, and doubted the retail component's viability.

Strongly opposed, saying building windows and lights would overlook his backyard, views would be blocked, and there is no effective buffer.

Described near-misses crossing on a blind hill of Camino Venada, noted the plan grew from 36 to 55 units and now includes PR-land buildings, and questioned the traffic numbers.

Cited three recent accidents in the median and his own count of 732 cars, and proposed the city repurchase the parcels and rezone them as green space.

Asked for denial, citing master plan inconsistencies, growth from 35 to 55 units, parking shortfalls, and impacts on the established single-family neighborhood.

Said the city has historically favored developers at residents' expense, criticized the project's design, and urged a no vote.

Briefly said the complex will not be lux — no covered parking, pool, or office.

Listed specific objections: wrong location for high density, no comprehensive traffic study, access-constrained site, shifting plans, and no demonstrated public need or affordable housing.

Focused on pedestrian safety, citing New Mexico's pedestrian fatality rate, and asked for conditions including a roundabout study and pedestrian connectivity if approved.