this is an attendance via Zoom this is a hybrid meeting where all participants will be in person our video our audio conference members of the public have the opportunity to address the committee if they have signed up for the public comment per the rules published on the agenda and on our website Friday we'll call for the speakers when we get to the individual agenda items you signed up for we will go to agenda item a this is ec237 the near Heights Community planning area assessment report I moved receipt be noted all right counselors have any questions yes okay we're gonna have a presentation um is there anyone signed up for speaking on this one yes go ahead our first speaker on Zoom will be Peter um [Music] there we go there we go thank you can you hear me you can thank you I'm Peter kalitzis speaking on the near Heights Community planning uh with some comments from the president of the Parkland Hills neighborhood association I'll begin with her comments uh Janice Simon we support Pat Davis's recommended Edition regarding Catherine and San Mateo as a policy stating support development along the car to honors a historic small businesses revitalizes vacant land and attracts tourists and surrounding community members um we also um support and requests that we be included in Nob Hill Neighborhood association's recommendation of decreasing the density of cannabis retailers um for that reason because it's a fact um similar to the reason that Old Town you know affecting tourism and activity we're in a Redevelopment area um we would we so we're supporting a more comprehensive lists particularly the International District I'm speaking from me now because we didn't get a chance to discuss too much on this but as that's which uh president Simon said um it's even more important in the economically depressed area along the International District we've already experienced a cannabis retailer flying in a private jet to purchase property in our area uh proliferation of these businesses would interfere with the economic development right now that there's actually a go in for a permit for new apartments in retail uh as someone who's lived here for over 30 43 years within blocks of San Mateo I've seen the loss of the grocery store pharmacy Bakery Insurance Hardware architect's office full service gas station and residents along [Music] um please include these limitations thank you very much thank you and I think that's it for public comment on this item um we have a staff presentation Insurance Adam Sharon we do we have Mr Cox who uh on behalf of council staff will give a presentation and then our friends from the planning department are also sitting out there and if there are specific questions for them they're available as well all right thank you Mr Cox aye Derek uh thank you so much we are discussing the near Heights Community planning area um this is east of I-25 South divide 40 west of Wyoming all the way down to some more area and incorporates District 76 and um so the timeline for this first CPA was a bit um all over the place where a number of reasons but we'll start with back in 2017 the adoption of the comp plan which established the kind of idea and the model of the community planning areas uh we had to wait uh for the adoption of the Ido in 2018 thank you in 2019 we went through a study to establish the order of the CPAs and also engage with the communities to understand what is the best way to communicate and reach out to them in 2020 we adopted that order and started um so the process of the CPAs um really the first part is really about going out into the community that first phase starts with um basically the the existing data that the city has demographics zoning land uses anything that our Aegis organization and other departments have obtained this looks like this on the city website different graphs tables uh trying to make it as transparent as possible for the public it also looks like this different Maps we have a whole storyboard on the near Heights website that the team worked on um the other part of the data collection is that qualitative side where we are going out into the community unfortunately in 2020 we also had Covenant uh that introduced oh so sorry all right um that introduced zoom and virtual engagement um the team did their best and attended a ton of Zoom meetings created a ton of online surveys and still practice the qualitative approach really taking anything and everything people would say and that could be as little as I Love My Park without even identifying that part it could be as great as going on a full essay about walkability in their neighborhood after the coveted restrictions were kind of lessened enlightened the team went out to the public this is kind of what it looks like on a short bit um basically a ton of community meetings going to community centers libraries um Community organizations Parks we have a plan ban that comes with Wi-Fi and a whiteboard that we can do community meetings wherever we please it's great um hard to drive but it works [Music] um and so through that it looks really similar to online engagement as well we we took anything and everything people said um and basically just discuss their neighborhoods and communities after that first phase of Engagement where it was a temperature check had really seen what was coming out from the community we went back to the community and discussed is this actually relevant to what y'all are discussing did we hear you right Etc um from there we really started working with our internal Partners the community organizations out in the neighborhoods we were going to to start kind of deciphering What policies what actions um we could accomplish what does that language look like what do departments um what can they take on in their unlimited capacity we didn't want to promise anything then no one could actually come through with um and so what that looks like in the end is a list of policies this is in section five and six of the report the policies and actions um all of these for the most part are specific to the near Heights geographic area that is the big difference between kind of normal comp plan policies that rely on a bull city-wide scale either diving into kind of a community identity that we're trying to identify um within section four of the comprehensive plan there is a significant policy section for each CPA area and so the near Heights being the first one it will be the first to be filled um this is coming to y'all as an AC and so it's a yes or no type of vote by the policies we'll come back to you all through a comp plan updates at some point in the future um and that's where these changes kind of can be thought about a bit more in detail um yeah this is what the comp plan section four things work slightly and these are the actions so similar um you'll see departments are lead responsibility and partner and collaborators um in this table as well that is the gist of it and I am here to answer any questions we also have our near idcpa team members here to answer any questions as well thank you thank you Mr Cox in this Administration have any comments on this okay counselors any questions for anyone okay um we have a motion in a second so all those info oh we have something on Zoom so we have to do it individually please call Bro yes that's right yes yes thank you all right we're going to move on to item item Item B and it's we're bitten thank you madam chair uh vitamb is 0.72 this is out adopting a text Amendment to the integrated development ordinance for the north fourth quarter character protection overlay Zone also known as cpo9 small mapped area related to the applicability of setback and step back requirements I move a representation as we pass second second thank you all right uh o2272 is a quasi-judicial request which requires special procedures to allow the applicant staff and the public the opportunity to speak this agenda item will be proceeding as follows Council planning staff has five minutes and then testimony by public speakers will be limited to two minutes each then we'll have rebuttal by the applicant for five minutes cross-examination by anyone who spoke during public comment two minutes each comments by planning department if there are any five minutes and then Council planning staff will do closing comments for five minutes City staff members of the public and the applicant must be sworn in if you'll be speaking on this item as a staff member or a member of the public please raise your right hand do you affirm no one else okay do you affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true all right oh there Peggy thank you I see you all right so we'll start with Council planning staff five minutes thank you madam chair and committee members uh this item is a component of the 2022 Ido annual update because it relates to a small mapped area it's a standalone agenda item Beyond kind of the Citywide um proposed changes that you will be considering next month to the North Fourth character protection overlay Zone I've got a map of that area on the screen generally that runs from Mountain Road to the South to the city limits to the north including all of the commercially zoned personals adjacent to Fourth Street um the proposed changes in this ordinance are technical in nature this is the newest overlay Zone to be adopted into the integrated development ordinance and unbeknownst to us when we originally drafted a language there was a little bit of a loophole that we did not foresee until it was put to the test generally the CPO seeks to create a particular pedestrian-oriented streetscape along 4th Street so as development comes in along for us today we want nice big sidewalks buildings that are a little set back buildings that include a step back um and that's that's one of the main goals of the CPO however when we drafted the language related specifically to setbacks and step backs um that language referred to something called the front facade in practice I think we would expect that buildings along 4th Street would always have a front facade along 4th Street however if the building takes up an entire block or is on a corner there's an opportunity for the developer to say that their front facade is along a roadway that is not Court Street so the proposed changes that you see here in red seek to close what I would refer to as that loophole which will make sure that any development along 4th Street that that particular facade and pedestrian Rome that we are trying to accomplish uh is always there um in the fall of last year as required by the I by the Ido individual noticed was sent to 1 740 Property Owners that's all the property owners within that Foundry uh we sent notice to the 12 applicable neighborhood associations um and Council staff myself responded to 10 phone calls from interested uh property owners who got those letters called me and said what the heck are you doing here zoning is confusing can you tell me a little bit more about this proposal most callers uh were and most public commenters were not concerned with the proposal in any way there's been overwhelming support from the public perspective on this item also required by the Ido Council staff held two pre-application meetings in October this precedes the environmental Planning Commission process where we invite the applicable neighborhood associations to just tell them about the requests before we even submit an application those were facilitated meetings the report can be be found in the EPC record but again there were no concerns from the participants have been meetings next step in the process was for the proposal to be considered by the environmental Planning Commission that happened at one meeting in December of 2022 there was only one member of the public who spoke at that meeting again in support of the request and the EPC did go on to recommend approval subject to findings uh that brings us to the less process uh the EPC is only a recommending body in this matter so if it is the will of this Committee in the council you can certainly deviate from that recommendation of the EPC um otherwise the EPC recommended approval that would affirm the ordinance that would make this you know kind of technical change to the North Fork CPO I'm going to pause there for a moment um there is one amendment in your packet that I can go over when you're ready but now might be a good time to ask any questions of staff and take public comment before I talk about the proposed committee Amendment okay any questions for staff all right let's go to miss Norton okay um I I guess I already swore in I'm president of the North Valley Coalition and we uh support this uh Pro this amendment uh the amendment and the change to the CPO it really just clarifies the intent as as Ms Schultz said of what we wanted in the CPO and it's to help uh forestry be a walkable Corridor but also a look nice quarter to add some architectural um features that might not be there otherwise and the problem with the corner lots and things there were a couple projects that went in that didn't have to follow this so this just amends that to reality and we are a neighborhood Coalition of everything in the North Valley from I-40 to the boundary and the river to I-25 so our executive committee was aware of this we haven't exactly met too much on it but we were involved in clarifying what we wanted here thank you thank you Miss Norton all right do we want to move the amendment now foreign be happy to talk about that um I think of a motion to move it needs to be made before I discuss yes I'll move the amendment exactly all right there's one amendment to this item that is entirely technical in nature it does not change the substance of what the bill does or deviates from the original intention in any way when staff was drafting this ordinance there was some language that was erroneously left out language that was originally proposed language that the EPC recommended approval on this was truly um just a technical error by staff apologies for the for that necessitating a committee Amendment but this will just clean up the ordinance to make sure that the intention um as put forth by the original sponsor and recommended by EPC has met all right thank you any questions on the amendment all right roll go ahead and call the roll ing yes that's right yes answer Jones yes Dr Lewis yes all right so now that we have the amended Bill let's hear from the applicant um Madam chair the city was the applicant in this case and so Council staff plays the role of the council presentation and the applicant for this item okay um so I do not have any additional presentation for you on this matter I'm here to answer any questions and I'm going to assume Miss Norton that you don't have any cross-examinations oh no I don't um all right thank you thank you all right uh planning department any questions any comments you've got five minutes if you want it all right um all right close initials uh Madam chair committee members I have nothing to close uh to close but again here to answer any questions all right any any questions all right we'll go to the role yes that's your credit yes yes thank you all right we're going to move on to agenda item C and that's counselor Lewis okay Madam chair I um apologize let me just get to the get to it we'll move on 073 it's adopting a text Amendment to the integrated development ordinance for the Northwest Mesa escarpment view protection overlay Zone small map Theory related to the applicability of height restrictions applied to structures that exist outside of the vp02 boundary seconds all right thank you um all right you're gonna hear this couple times so get ready oh 23 73 is a quad quasi-judicial request which requires special procedures to allow the applicant staff and the public the opportunity to speak this agenda item will proceed as follows we'll have five minutes from Council planning staff then two minutes from any public speakers five minutes rebuttal by the applicant cross-examination by anyone who spoke during public comment two minutes each comments by planning staff if there are any five minutes and then Council planning staff will have five minutes to close City staff members of the public and the applicant must be sworn in if you'll be speaking to this item as a staff member or a member of the public please raise your right hand do you affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true okay um initials let's start with an overview thank you madam chair committee members and members of the public um again this is a component of the 2022 Ideo annual updates we are amending proposing to amend the integrated development ordinance that I'm showing on the screen here is a map of the Northwest Mesa ascertain immune protection overlay Zone um which seeks to regulate kind of height and building mass in this Northwest part of Albuquerque when development occurs in proximity to the petroleum National monument and the assortments an area that that the city intends to be kind of sensitive to you um the proposed change I'm going to skip ahead to an image which I think will better describe the proposal here so I've taken a random snippet of parcels that exist uh within and adjacent to this this overlay Zone today what you're seeing on the screen is a the yellow area is where the height restrictions within this view protection overlay Zone exists if you're developing within that kind of yellow bubbly area you cannot build taller than 15 feet in height what the Ido says is that for any parcel where that yellow boundary line crosses any portion of the parcel the entire parcel is subject to that 15 foot boundary a little bit of history about why we have this VPO and where it came from is useful here um prior to the Ido there was a plan in place called the Northwest Mesa escarpment area plan and what it said was development within 600 feet of the escarpment is limited to 15 feet in height when the idea was adopted um this map was was based on that 600 foot boundary what did not exist was this definition that I have on the previous slide that said when that small boundary crosses the lot line that the entire parcel is subject to the Restriction so that was a new addition with the Ido what this amendment seeks to do is it acknowledges that in the Northwest uh part of town where these Parcels are pretty large in size that applying that rule in this area is pretty onerous um for these these properties most of these properties are zoned for commercial development either having mixed use that's MX zoning or non-residential zoning that's NR zoning where we expect and the comprehensive plan encourages commercial developments commercial development cannot occur within a 15 foot um building envelope we've we've looked at plans for gyms and um you know grocery stores and restaurants and 15 feet is not feasible and so the proposal on this amendment and brings back the intention of that original Northwest Mesa escarpment area plan to say only buildings that fall within that yellow boundary are subject to the 15 foot height restriction so if a property owner has an extremely large parcel and maybe you know say only 10 of it actually falls within that yellow boundary only that 10 would be subject to the 15-foot height restriction the rest of the property could develop under the rest of the Ido rules um very similar to the last item letters were sent to 11 720 Property Owners we had to notify everyone who exists within this boundary even if their property would not be subject to this change um again residentially zoned properties are not applicable for this change only mixed use and non-residential properties notice was sent to the 15 applicable neighborhood associations in the area um in December Council staff again fielded phone calls of people who got one of those 11 000 letters and said what the heck are you proposing here can you tell me a little bit more about it um most of the callers once they learned what the proposal did that it didn't affect their property it did not affect their neighbor's property we're not concerned with the request in October of 2022 her ideal requirements Council staff held two pre-application meetings again those are meetings that precede the environmental planning connection process and those facilitated meeting notes are in the EPC record those were pretty well attended and most if not all attendees of those meetings were opposed to the request for concerns over increased height density kind of activity in proximity to be escarpments um the EPC took public comments on this matter at their one uh meeting in December again quite a few folks who reside in the area showed up to that EPC meeting provided public comments and echoed the same things that I heard at the pre-application meeting which is that they were opposed to the request over concerns about um increased density and activity in the area um one more note about the public engagement process there there have been emails and there were notes about ex parte communication related to this request this request is quasi-judicial nature which means counselors the decision makers should not participate in ex parte communication outside of a public hearing such as this there have been claims in email that counselor Lewis who is sponsoring this item did have ex parte communication and therefore he should either be recused or not participate in the votes Council staff did look into that matter pretty seriously um with Madam chair in my eye may I continue patient thank you um and determined that quasi-judicial procedures were followed the interest in this change came directly to council staff and Council staff interfaced with the counselor that is normal and expected procedure for a um a quasi-judicial text Amendment to the Ido where Council staff kind of acts as the barrier to that ex parte communication um at the EPC meeting in December the planning department staff recommended denial of this request they recommended denial uh based on an assertion that the criteria required by the idea were not satisfied the EPC based on public comments of the applicant presentation planning staff presentation ultimately agreed with that recommendation and did recommend denial of the that request to this body again it is the purview of the council to you know accept that EPC recommendation and deny the request or um you do it is within your purview to also go in a different direction than the EPC if you choose to disagree with them uh to say that you do feel like the request was adequately Justified ultimately that would result in an approval of the ordinance and an approval of this change um there is one committee amendment that I can talk about in a moment but this again might be a good uh point to stop and answer any questions from the committee and take public comments okay any questions yeah councilor Lewis and then councilor bin Madam chair if it's uh I think the uh the the the notes or the um uh the step recommendations or the staff you know comments and the in the uh committee um Amendment um I think are applicable to the um uh you know to what uh was just presented and so um if it's okay I'd like uh um you know our staff to at least uh describe the amendment and uh and talk about the uh just alternative findings um that uh that go along with that Amendment thank you Council Lewis uh councilman all right let's go ahead and move the amendment counselor Lewis yeah I moved the amendment one second Madam chair counselor Lewis I'd be happy to do that um what came over with the ordinance from the environmental Planning Commission is the record the record that supports denial of the request if it's the will of the council and with movement of the amendment it's the will of counselor Lewis that the ordinance be approved um the council needs to adopt findings that affirm the the ordinance and so what you have in your iPads is policy justification um adequate that adequately justifies the request does meet or further is a preponderance of comprehensive plan policies so where the EPC said a preponderance of comprehensive plan policies were not furthered resulting in a recommendation of denial the findings before you today offer a different perspective and and say that there there is adequate justification and then Madam chair um I know it's um uh it might take a few minutes to read those but I would like to ask the staff to read through those because we did read through the uh the EPC um uh finding there I think it's important just to add the record that uh the findings for this as well thank you councilor Lewis Madam chair counselor Lewis I'd be happy to do that give me a moment to pull that up it's several pages foreign okay I I will start reading these policy justifications um feel free to stop and ask questions if you have them um so the first criteria in the Ido says that the proposed small area amendment has to be consistent with the health safety and general welfare of the city as shown by furthering and preponderance of applicable goals and policies in the comp plan as amended um the response to that is the building height limits will still apply within the boundary of that height restriction I'm going to zoom back up to my map here so nothing within the yellow boundary that you are seeing on the screen today will change Building height limits will still be limited to 15 beats um while allowing more flexibility for non-residential and mixed-use developments the proposed change furthers the following applicable goals and policies in the comprehensive plan the first policy is 4.1.2 identity and design that policy says that the city should protect the identity and cohesiveness of neighborhoods by ensuring the appropriate scale and location of development mix of uses and character of building design the response to that policy is that this new protection that all of you protection overlay zones are intended to preserve areas with unique and distinctive views of that are worthy of conservation and this vp02 specifically is intended to protect views looking to and from the Petroglyph National Monuments the boundary for the hype restriction sub-area again the yellow area you see on the screen um is based upon boundaries first established in the former Northwest Mesa escarpment plan from 1987 which created height limitations for the area located within approximately 650 feet of the escarpment base in some locations where the land was already subdivided in 1987 the sub-area follows lot lines and public rights of way but in other areas it follows a simple distance buffer from the escarpment phase with no attention paid to lot lines that may have been created in the past 30 plus years or those areas that have not yet been subdivided the current application of this sub area and the maximum height limitation to entire Parcels even if only a small portion of a lot is within the sub area is significantly limiting especially for large mixed use and non-residentially Zone lots that may not be further subdivided like low density residential areas typically on this request follows that policy because it balances The View protection goals of bpo2 um this this VPO is the po2 and the long Health policy intent of the city to maintain views that are to and from the escarpment base while also allowing for appropriately scaled mixed-use and non-residential development per the underlining underlying Zone designations outside of the sub-area boundary uh Madam chair and counselor Lewis that's that's one of about the 17 policies that are Justified I'm happy to continue reading all the policy justification if you'd like um but that's a that's kind of a snapshot of some of the justification and Madam chair I think uh if you would just just I guess just you don't have to read every single one of them but would you do just a brief uh just a brief summary of each one yeah I think it's important just to have the record yeah Madam chair counselor Lewis absolutely uh the next policy Justified relates to place making which says that the city should protect and enhance special places in the built environments um that policy is furthered because it does ensure that this proposal does Ensure the continued protection abuse to and from the Northwest Mesa escarpment again because we're not touching anything without within that existing yellow boundary while creating some nuance and additional flexibility for mixed use and non-residential development policy 4.14 relates to neighborhoods which says that we should enhance protect and preserve neighborhoods and traditional communities um the response to that policy is uh this change creates an exception only for larger mixed-use and non-residential properties again it's not applicable to residentially zoned parcels and does not affect the low density residential areas um within the vp02 the next policy relates to natural resources which says that the city should encourage high quality developments and Redevelopment that responds appropriately to the Natural setting and ecosystem functions that policy is furthered because additional refinement of the applicability of the height restriction sub-area so nuancing out how that order is applied um properly responds to their setting near the Northwest Mesa escarpments limits on building Heights near the escarpment Edge will still apply while allowing a stepping up of height that is further and beyond that kind of 650 foot border that's been created goal 5.4 talks about a job's housing balance which says the city should balance jobs and housing by encouraging residential growth near employment across the region and prioritizing job growth west of the Rio Grande the response to that is providing this flexibility for mixed use and non-residential properties furthers this goal because this request may make it easier to for these larger larger personalized sites to develop with commercial uses where otherwise they will likely be limited only to residential developments within that 15-foot building envelope policy 5.4.2 talks about jobs on the west side and says that we should foster employment opportunities on the West Side very similar policy response to the previous one which was this offers some flexibility for commercial development west of the river policy 5.7.2 talks about regulatory alignment and says that the city should update our regulatory framework to support desired growth high quality development Economic Development housing a right and transportation modes and quality of life priorities this policy since the policy is furthered because it does support Economic Development opportunities the intention is to allow commercial development on the west side in a way that is maybe more flexible than what's allowed today policy 7.3.2 talks about Community character and says that the city should encourage design strategies that recognize and embrace the character differences that give communities their distinct identities and make them safe and attractive places specifically design we should the city should design development to reflect the character of the surrounding area and protect and enhance views again because we're not touching the 15-foot height restriction within 650 feet of the base of the escarpments those views will still maintain uh and be in place policy 8.1.1 talks about diverse places and says the city should foster a range of interesting places and contexts with different development intensities densities uses and building scale to encourage Economic Development opportunities um this policy is furthered by the request because allowing an increase in building Heights beyond the limits in the hype research and sub-area could help Foster a greater variety of intensities densities and uses policy 11.3.1 talks about natural and cultural features which generally says that the city should preserve and enhance the natural and cultural characteristics and features that contribute to the distinct identity of communities neighborhoods and cultural landscapes this policy is furthered because the request creates an additional Nuance within the view protection overlay Zone that again continues to preserve enhance the protections that are there today related to the cultural characteristics of the Northwest Mesa escarpments the intent of the overlay is to protect the views to and from the escarpments and that will continue within that adopted boundary okay there's only only two more um policy 11.3.4 talks specifically about the Petroglyph National Monuments and it says that the city should regulate adjacent development to protect and preserve the Petroglyph National Monument its volcanoes petroglyphs and Northwest Mesa discardments as a Priceless cultural landscape and community resource that provides physical cultural and economic benefits this VPO 2 itself is the mechanism that the city uses to to protect that special area um and regulate development adjacent to that special area by um for this policy is furthered because it adjusts the regular it adjusts the regulation slightly to respond to the needs of mixed use and Commercial development that fall outside of the the sub height area again the yellow area on the screen while still maintaining that protection within 650 feet of the face that concludes the policy justification as it relates to the comprehensive plan the environmental Planning Commission took little issue with the other criteria required to be justified for this type of request it was primarily what they perceived as a conflict with existing regulation I'm sorry policies within the comprehensive plan and that is an overview of the opposite perspective thank you Miss Schultz any questions Council again so the conflict that you were just talking about um the VPC referred to um [Music] where did where did they see that as a conduit and what way did they see that as a concept I understand they heard public comment and concluded that with what they concluded but I'm not sure I don't quite understand what they saw conflicting them sure Madam chair councilor Benson um there was this General concern because the comprehensive plan does identify that the Northwest Mesa skarmen and the petroglyphs are a special place that we should protect that allowing additional height outside of the boundary where it where it would have been allowed prior to the Ido um is still inappropriate even though even though that development would fall outside of an established boundary and Madam Sheriff I did uh you described a concern on the part of the public testimony before the EPC that uh that density was a concern but but this CPO density per se is not part of the CPO is it is it this is a this is a visual sight line protection and really doesn't have to do with density or what development is in other words what the uses decided upon it's applied for by a property owner but rather just maintaining that sideline that has been my understanding of the history of this I've been here long enough to have been I think involved in one of the updates if I'm not mistaken uh am I wrong about that Madam chair counselor Benson that's correct the the vpo2 itself doesn't talk about density it doesn't talk about uses um it even has Graphics that talk about what you just discussed maintaining a sight line um if someone you know standing on a property and looks at the escarpment that they should be able to maintain a view of that escarpment within that 650 pound 650 foot boundary from the escarpment itself um so yes yes and to reiterate just to make sure I heard it right that that 650 was decided upon in the original uh the original uh zoning that created this this Provisions Madam chair councilman said yes it was in 1980 what 1987. and and in that and there wasn't a map like the Ido dictates here when we adopted the integrated development ordinance when we took all of those old area plans and translated them into overlay zones if there were boundaries that were described we created Maps because it's much easier from a planning perspective to facilitate development with maps and that's that's really where the conflict comes in um because we have officially mapped that 650-foot boundary that definition in the back of the book that talks about when you have a mapped boundary and it crosses even a tiny bit of a parcel line the entire parcel comes into play um that's why that was not in effect in you know between 1987 and 2017 because no map technically existed for that regulation development would just come in on a case-by-case basis measure on their site plan where that 650 foot line fell and and would indicate compliance from there thank you madam chair thank you councilor Lewis um so question for our staff the uh so the the Ido actually extended the boundary um because uh the uh here's my understanding that I mean there's the there's the original boundary from the 80s um what the Ido did is uh is is add that um extension there where if the if the boundary you know crossed any property it would it would apply to all of the property and so uh this change um is not a change to the boundary whatsoever um it's uh it would allow portions of those properties that are outside of the boundaries uh to have the uh uh the higher you know height restriction but uh those those Parcels of the property that are portions of the property that are within the boundary um would still apply so um so I my question is just to clarify that the um uh the the idea actually furthered uh the extension of the the boundary correct the way that you just you just be accurate and the example um that is shown on the screen um some of those larger Parcels that only have a portion of that yellow bubble within them um I I think that's an accurate characterization to say that the boundary you know kind of pseudo got extended to that the entirety of that personal where it would not have been extended to prior to adoption and pido yeah so the the EPC um did they refer to the original boundary as as this would I think there there's and that's what I was understood that the EPC really kind of had some general statements uh Without Really addressing the fact that um you know if they referred to the original boundary and said that somehow they understood this um uh this uh you know one reason or another you know violating that policy it it really it doesn't at all I mean it's uh it really reflects kind of a misunderstanding of what the Ido did and then uh what this amendment uh would be doing so um because it's not an in any way an extension of that boundary and not in any way of um a a variance of height restrictions that are within the boundary foreign counselor Lewis um yes the environmental Planning Commission did not um discuss in depth the relation of how this boundary used to be interpreted prior to the Ido versus the definition that the idea created which led to the new interpretation of the entire parcel being affected I think that's correct councilor Davis I'm sorry counselor Lewis did you have anything else uh no I think um yeah we can go on to the next part thank you um so if there's no other questions from the committee I'd like to move to public testimony um Mr Colonials do I have the latest list or do you have the latest list yes okay um all right so let's start um and when you're called you can come up here and I'll give you two names in a row so you can get ready if you're in the next one first is Anthony Williams and second will be called Kyle Falls Anthony Madam chair committee members good evening I own my wife and I who's with me own a partial interest in the piece of property if you can see the uh the Panhandle on the map up there it's right at the corner of kimmick and uh and Paseo uh uh Paseo Del Norte the effect of the language and the Ido that makes all of the lot subject to this 100 foot strip has the effect of taking a hundred feet that we had at one point that was subject to the height restriction and extending it Southward through the entire 410 feet of the of the property the property is zoned mxm and would otherwise except for the height restriction uh allow allow taller buildings allow uh um commercial development for which there's a uh a viable market and that has essentially been taken away by the uh by the idea of the Ido on its face says that it shall not affect prior zoning and shock it can't be uh interpreted that way and but the effect of this together is that it it in effect has has radically down zoned our property that would be bad enough except the city and these Pro and and the property owners including us entered into a special assessment District uh Arrangement where uh the there's millions of dollars for our property alone I think it's 1.2 million of private capitalists and has come in from for infrastructure development and all of that has been based upon an appraisal that assumed that the mxm zoning was applicable to the property so we have a situation where we we have been paying Debt Service on this special assessment district for many years please support this amendment thank you Mr Williams uh Kyle Falls yes and after Kyle will be Jane and I don't know how to pronounce your last name Jane but we'll get you to tell us a minute I'm Madam chair members of the council um I'm in the same boat as Tony just spoke of um my name is Kyle Falls and um we've been at this since 1963 actually uh my grandfather DW Falls was the developer of Taylor Ranch and we've paid property taxes uh and invested in the City of Albuquerque for that long so the height restriction on commercial building I'm just gonna plead with you to please reconsider that we're not asking for a building to be built this size but we are asking for it to be lifted a little bit um the concept that I had in mind for that yellow area there would be something similar to um Louisiana Corridor there um where it'd be it'd be north of I-40 and if you'll look along that Corridor there's plenty of business that's one story but um needs to be a height elevation of more than 15 feet not by much but a little bit more so I just ask you to please consider that thank you sir so you're saying very simplistically because I have a simple mind that you don't mind if we give this word to raise the height you just want to limit it to basically uh traditional two-story exactly be fair to what businesses of Albuquerque Uptown have have done um you know we're not asking for much but we need a little bit more than 15 feet if we could just match I mean my house is a single team and the roofline is it's a little bit more than 15 feet from from my Foundation to the to the pitch of the roof so a business needs to be a little higher if it's a restaurant they're going to have um Vents and and so forth to uh to be able to operate oh and then and I'm just asking for that 15-foot restriction to be lifted just somewhat thank you I appreciate the clarification thank you sir thank you Jane I apologize for not knowing how to pronounce your last name but please introduce yourself and go ahead but thank you I would be surprised if you did I'm Jane Beckley and I'm speaking as a representative of the Santa Fe Village neighborhood association um our position has the anonymous approval of our Southern member board um Santa Fe Village lies within the Northwest Mesa statement bbo when we received a notice in November of 2022 the board strongly opposed the proposed changes to the vp02 and we remain strongly opposed we have participated in in every opportunity to engage on this every meeting from Shanna can attest to that I'm sure and uh submitted written in in-person comments I sent our written comments through the council Staff last week um detailing all of our concerns specifically as they relate to what we perceive as conflicts with key ABC um they're more than two minutes worth but that's the gist of it is we continue to see multiple and substantial conflicts with agency comp plan goals and policies particularly as they relate to protecting Heritage Landscapes encouraging culturally appropriate that development appropriate to the Natural landscape and the distinct identity of the Northwest Mesa statement we are particularly concerned about the petroleum National Monument and I would note that the ABC company in that language refers to and surrounding lands we disagree with the assertion that sector plan Provisions um don't really apply at this point because as I read the idea in fact they're cited in an explanation of the various protection overlays we're also concerned about the creation of a separate con and seemingly conflicting standard about how overlay protections are applied because throughout the city overlay protections apply to a property when it is both in and out of the boundary and these zones thank you thank you um Billy Wright and then we'll have Renee horva um [Music] I am responsible for um the uh notices to the property owners the general partner of course one and as such I am deeply disturbed by the the effect of the additional height restrictions on prospects for sale um with just the the seven acre parcel we were assessed with admitting two hundred and four thousand dollars for infrastructure and with the height restriction you can't even recover that much unless the original cost or a profit and and so it's it's it's really established a very defeating effect for your information I'm 91 years old and I one of my purposes was to last long enough to see the sale of the property and the series of existence of the sub-ass corporation and the Partnerships I wanted to see it closed out I want to see it completed and so I'm asking you to approve counselor Lewis's amendment to remove the restriction and heightened thank you very much thank you um any questions I'll have a quick question for you sir um uh doing as good a work as you are that you're it might whenever you're ready 20 20 years Vince but uh I would say uh you you based on your comments I'm assuming you concur with some of the previous speakers who say that that effectively you cannot build a commercial building within that that that's right you can and and you can't even restrict a a 15 foot high purchasers won't even look at the property for that they they just they just go on down the road they can find the property that and yet we've we've got uh houses going up uh they've just completed what to understand diamond and specified as as track C .r Horton and Abruzzo split the number of lots I think there was a hundred and something each and they've completed construction of those houses and those were just across the street from a property so um and then both is about 60 Acres just west of the property and they're visually getting the land prepared for for housing and so we've got a lot of house tops now at this time and we need commercial property on them to have a neighborhood business followed by Miss Samuel hi this guy here and I just let you know just about every door in this building is locked so it's hard to get into the place so you might figure out which door people should enter and let them know ahead of time um well I sent a letter in you probably hopefully saw it and um so I I've been involved in this area for many years because I hoped IPS will do the first photographic inventory or the petroglyphs which helped uh creation of the monument letting people know how significant the Syria is and there's no other city that has such unique topography like we do here in Albuquerque because we have a Rio Grande riff that's sinking we have mountains we have a valley and we have volcanoes not every city has volcanoes with this unique uh land formations of rock out crops and I you know even as a teenager I was hiking up there I couldn't believe how incredible this base was you know and how much Wildlife there was so there was a lot of effort to help create the National Monument and um and we're really grateful for that and it wasn't an easy effort either but the lands that we could not acquire you know it was kind of painful not to be able to acquire all that but it was hopeful that we would get you know they said well there's good design standards and I'm like okay that's a hope that we can design this so that we would complement the landscape and so a lot of that has to do with keeping the building Heights low blending with the uh Earth Tone colors and you know having a buffer away from this government really helps and as you drive up to the escarpment I'm always so grateful that their houses are low and so in this area where the overlay is it's kind of around this garments and um and it does keep the building high and slow and it's one protection that we do have and uh as we went through the EPC hearing uh you know looking at the staff report I'm like yeah she really understood because there are policies that we got that encourages sensitive development and you can see it in degrees so I just want to let you know that I I hope that we can maintain it because I think we'll better protect it because the regular ideal rules are pretty intense they allow really tall buildings thank you I'm sure yes thanks for your service to to our open space system and and uh good reason me with you on that board so thanks for that just quick question I mean do you acknowledge though that that do you understand this argument that that to a great extent um much of these these commercially zoned property that makes you Zone properties would be undevelopable except for flow density residential looks like we do kind of need low density residential and especially up there it's more appropriate uh I think it started out that way more low density residential my understanding when I first started to developed plans was the intensity would be around unsurface sale areas that would be more the urban center and more intense and everything else around it would be less so um and I and and I think we have to realize there's not a lot of access all that Mesa I only got uncertain but sale you get into town and so it's not a grid system like you have in the Northeast Heights where you can go in all different directions so traffic is an issue if you're going to increase so much density because most of your mixed use um uh zoning is pretty intense all buildings and apartments that's what's the trend now is Apartments and um and that's what we're getting a lot of apartments and a lot of people are concerned about building money so um and I know that the Park Service it says in the staff on the notice of decision that the park service and I've talked to the superintendent she has a lot of concern about how intense this area is going to get you need to re-examine this and be re-looked at how we do this because she's really worried because she thinks the intensity is going to be too much and thank you thank you sort of Korean Samuel next and then I'm sorry counselor Lewis did you have a question no sir yeah and just a question for uh Miss Horvath and and I do appreciate her uh coming down tonight but we um we've had uh we we we talked in the some of the previous speakers talked about the previous sector plans with uh which uh you know I worked with Miss horvathon on those sector plans I um you know we're always we're always working to to balance commercial and residential um and the the sentiment uh you know I think uh when it comes to you know new areas in the in like that as it like like what we're talking about is to to Really the limit residential I mean we have uh a lot of people that live on the west side but uh not a lot of services that we do on the east side and so um the uh some of the previous sector plans sought to uh um you know to really guide um you know where that development that could take place but but also I guess I would uh um uh asked Miss Horvath because we worked on this for a good while but you understand that you would agree that um that this amendment uh does not in any way change the previous sector plan boundaries uh from the monument correct um well let's see I think starting with the Northwest mesa's department plan we still have that impact area to keep the billing Heights of 15 fees and I think that's what this is based off of yeah so the the boundary is the exact same boundary as the uh the escarpment plan yeah oh okay well and the IBO that overlay zone is that what you're saying no the uh the previous sector plans they all had the boundary and so uh what the Ido did is uh effectively extend that boundary across across uh uh properties where the boundary crossed and so um what this amendment is doing is is really allowing the previous boundary to accept which which by the way you and I helped even extend that boundary uh you know from the monument you know through several of those sector plans um writer uh he said well this will give us more shopping more jobs this and that but all the MX zones uh on the West Side they're all departments they're they're not providing any jobs that this revising more high density and tolerant buildings and that's what people are concerned about and then uh as far as the the sector plans have a limit on the height and for commercial areas and that wasn't even put into Ido and that's why it's created a lot of problems too so I do see a lot of issues going on and uh and maybe there should be more discussion about you know getting more sensitive development of more appropriate out there because uh I can see if we keep on this path of financially color buildings I think it's going to create a lot of impacts up there and I think we need to evaluate some things yeah sure and of course of course I'm I'm always you know willing to do that and work with you all on doing that I think what we're talking about you know specifically this with this amendment though is is policies or recommendations or this proposal and how it furthers the policy of the Ido and I think one of the what you mentioned there was uh um was was justification for uh you know furthering the policy of the uh of the Ido and certainly you know furthering the policies of the previous sector plans and and uh and the policies of the comp plan two which had a lot of good policies in protecting our natural and cultural resources yeah absolutely and and certainly this uh this this amendment um I think it's clear and you can see that uh there's nothing in this amendment that uh um that that uh changes even what the previous sector plans and comprehensive plans had uh had done so but thanks so much all right thank you Miss Oregon all right the Samuel followed by John Edward thank you madam chair and members of the committee my name is Rhiannon Samuel and I'm the executive director for New Mexico Camp supports um o2373 um we support this proposed amendment to the vp02 or we Sorry New York supports the proposed amendments in bpo2 which set the limit of 15-foot building Heights restriction within that hype restriction sub-area but the VPO took it way further than its protective intent saying where the hype restriction overlay boundary crosses the lot line the entire knot is subject to the 15-foot height restriction this is where the VPO is currently rip in over steps the area outside of the VPO boundary is intended for relatively intense development through a variety of designations Paseo Del Norte is designated as a commuter Corridor in the premium Transit Corridor the north side of paseo is designated as the volcano Heights urban center one of only two such designations in Albuquerque and the south side of paseo is within the urban center 1300 foot buffer area zoning along the impacted area of paseo already requires a hype restriction ranging from 35 to 65 feet the zoning the transit designations in the urban center designation are all in sync for higher density development if the VPO Amendment does not pass there's a high probability that these relatively large Parcels will remain vacant urges this Committee in the city council to reverse the EPC recommendations and support this important Amendment please allow this area to develop as it was intended by the comprehensive plan thank you thank you Ms Samuel Mr Edward hello everybody all right so if a plane crashes on the border where what side of the Border do they bury the survivors do you have an answer the one they came from well you know the interesting thing is is that you recognize that the border means something in any City policies borders and boundaries don't mean anything on a map 99 of people when they look at a map and they see a line something is different on one side of that line and something is different on the other unless you're an outlet group that's really what the story is about this is a land grab and not only that that they don't Define the borders based upon the way they Define them that Peninsula that comes up to sail there is not 650 feet from the edge of the escarpment it's about 1800 feet from the edge of the escarpment that is an unnatural feature foreign it's not even close I mean his amendment is nice but it doesn't even come closer addressing the basic definition of how you define this now my family owns a parcel there we own several parses 252 Acres of which 75 Acres 30 of it is affected by this law for which you'll have to take a 77 percent reduction in building Heights and we're not getting compensated for it I think the city is in a rough tough spot here if they don't pass this to the extent that it's a land grab it's it's a removal of value and if you go back to when Lou Columbo and Michael cadigan first came to us and said we want you to plan this area we're going to do it as a as a as a heart of the West Side the west side has no heart there is no place making ultimately it is now an urban center but they came to us and they said you know we're going to maybe put buildings in there that are 150 feet tall and now you're telling me 15 feet this is not fair it's there is no integrity and I think that his Amendment brings a little bit of Integrity back to what the average property owner when they look at a map a boundaries should mean something thank you Mr Edward all right we're going to move on to folks on zoom and I do you know I couldn't see folks when they were on Zoom so when we turn on your camera we're going to ask you to raise your hand and do the affirmation just to make sure we're completely legal we'll do in order James Hoffman Baxter sosabee and then Chantel Walter so Mr Hoffman can you raise your right hand and say do you affirm under penalty of perjury that you that your testimony today will be true yes I do thank you go ahead all right I I urge uh Council to uh approve this uh Amendment proposed by Chancellor Lewis I think the uh EPC ruling missed a few points has been noted there you know this area is also an urban center that's in the volcano Heights plan they don't mention that they mentioned the other two sector plans they they as we've said this is also going to reverse something the the Ido created they seem to indicate in their findings that planning was done like this for decades for the Ido it wasn't it was created by the idea um I also submitted a written comment describing the overlay Zone which there are maps in from the escarpment plan um the area north of Jose del Norte if you if staff could put up a map later on you'll be able to see the the monument is over a half mile wide at that point there's a thousand feet as the previous speaker mentioned not just the 650 because the way the this garment undulates through there so there's a lot of protections that are in there whereas other areas actually where some of the speakers Santa say Village and uh the volcano Cliffs were prematurely planted uh the uh plan says the Santa Fe Village of marsh Peninsula areas somewhat were planted close enough that you can't even construct uh trails to damage the snow you know that was on page 91 and I do want to say that I was frustrated because these neighborhood associations got the benefit of the facilitated meetings whereas I'm part of uh Paradise Hills and I never got any notification so I don't think that we were fully represented in that staff report thank you thank you Mr Hoffman Mr socibi hello okay I do see my cameras up Sir would you just raise your right hand and say that you do affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true I do thank you go ahead okay thank you uh councils and staff members I oppose your old 2373 this proposal is another degradation of the original concept for this area to be a sustainable walkable community area with a mix of residential and low impact commercial Enterprises Instead This rush to increase Heights will destroy the view not only for the nearby residents for the entire city looking toward the Northwest Mesa Central and East Albuquerque residents may not have this on board on their radar but they will be quick to notice when the skyline begins polluted with tall buildings remember it was these residents who drove the original height stucco color and non-reflective glass restrictions uh for for this area uh consider your choice a Skyline of three and potentially five-story buildings right up against this yellow line uh office blocks or a view of the mesas from the entire city and volcanoes unhindered by one and two-story residents at low impact uh commercial stores this is your call the directions should be back to lower Heights Center not vertical growth I urge you to listen to the residents of the EPC and hold the line against the developers who care only about profit per square foot not about the unique character of Albuquerque in my closing remarks I guess I'd like to point out the the background I have which is the San Diez which is a beautiful feature of Albuquerque imagine that Skyline you're looking at with three and five-story buildings running across the lower edge of it thank you for your time thank you Mr sosavi all right chantille Walter Miss Walter if you wouldn't mind raising your right hand and answering do you affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true I do thank you go ahead thank you my name is Chantel Walter I'm the Environmental Protection specialist at Petroglyph National monument and I'm speaking on behalf of the National Park Service and for superintendent Nancy Hendricks who's unable to be here this evening we submitted some comments and I'll just highlight a few things so concerning this vp02 amendment the National Park Service is opposed to this on June 27 1990 Congress passed the Petroglyph National Monument establishment act which created the monument as a unit of the national park system and we're co-owned and co-managed with the City of Albuquerque it was created in light of the national significance of the West Mesa escarpment and the petroglyphs and the urgent need to protect the cultural and natural resources of the area from urbanization and vandalism the monument is a cultural landscape and in particular the 17-Mile escarpment is listed on the national register of historic places as an archaeological District the area contains significant cultural resources including more than twenty thousand petroglyphs and numerous archaeological sites the monument is also one of the most outstanding features of the West Mesa and is sacred to 29 puebles and tribes it's important to the residents of the West Mesa and attracts visitors from the United States and around the world protecting the Petroglyph National Monument one of the few Urban national parks in our country provides aesthetic and economic benefits to the residents and visitors the proposed change the vp02 would allow building Heights that block views of the escarpment block views of the volcanoes and effect views of the cultural landscape across the Mesa Top This would profoundly and forever affect the values of the monument including the sacred cultural landscape and view sheds that are extremely important to 29 pubbles and tribes and weaken the view protection of the archaeological district and the views to and from the Mesa we respectfully ask the members of the land use planning and zoning committee to keep the vp02 as currently written please help us protect Petroglyph National Monument for this and future Generations thank you thank you Miss Walter and I believe that's all of the folks that were signed up for public comments so the next thing on the agenda is five minutes of rebuttal by the applicant and I'm going to open that up to council staff or counselor Lewis whoever would like those five minutes Madam chair Council staff doesn't have any rebuttal at this time um based on testimony given are we is counselor Lewis still with us okay yeah I just want to make sure we're getting a weird message here all right um counselor Lewis did you have anything that you wanted to add as an applicant well and I think this is uh I mean it's a little bit I'm just we're we're going according to our our rules and how we introduce amendments like this and so um so really to say this would be a rebuttal is probably not the best uh you know term for it me being the uh the sponsor I mean uh you know our staff explain how these amendments come about um uh and they they come from uh you know residents and people that have interest in in these areas that are zoned these ways and so they go they follow through our our staff here and so as a sponsor I'm I'm uh like anyone else like any other counselor where this might be in your district and the legislative process requires that a city councilor would would um uh would would do this so but I certainly support the amendment um I uh you know just the the previous speaker spoke about uh the monument um this is a very unique monument and it happens to be completely surrounded by city um by by a city um and and I would also say that uh the the monument is surrounded by some of the oldest parts of the city uh some of the areas in Paradise Hills that have been here for many many years and um and uh and we've been a really a very good partner uh with the monument in fact we've we've extended that boundary in previous sector plans and comprehensive plans um the city does a lot for the monument um uh we the council has spent uh Capital dollars to to clean up uh parts of the monument where we use our resources to clean up parts of the monument from debris that's been there for you know 100 years you know for a long time and so um uh so I do take exception to the uh you know to the speaker you know from the monument that uh that had some challenges with this but partly because we've extended that boundary as well as the fact that um we have that that's this this amendment does not in any way uh turn back some of the original the original comprehensive plans the sector plans that set those boundaries um it doesn't violate that in any way whatsoever uh in fact the Ido um uh went far beyond uh what those previous uh comprehensive plans did and so uh which the uh you know certainly the parks were you know supportive of that um and so uh you know there's been a lot of good comment tonight I think we have enough that's in the record to be able to uh to be able to move this forward thank you Council Lewis all right we do have um an allowance for anyone who spoke to in public comment to get two minutes additional to do any cross-examination of um basically Michelle's if you have any further questions um if you do want that yes I wanna yeah um I I'm I believe I've heard that the adopting this will return the boundary into a previous sector plan a previous plan in which it was 600 or 650 feet but the height restriction sub area is 330 feet so I I don't I I don't see how this change would limit it limits it the um height restrictions by the area two dollars 330 feet only on each one of those Parcels so I don't get where the 600 people if someone can and help me understand that the Schultz um Madam chair I was referencing what I thought was where that yellow line that you are seeing on the screen was determined from my understanding of the Northwest Mesa escarpment Harriet plan my understanding of that plan said that and I I'm going to fact check myself while I'm responding um said that 650 feet out from the escarpment that is where Heights would be limited to 15 feet so that's what that yellow line represents today I understand the public speaker to be saying that that should have only been 300 beats that that's the actual language of the idea the high restriction sub area is 330 feet from the rock face on either side so then further out um I've I would need a little bit of time to research that Nuance but I I think the outcome is the same whether the old plan said 300 or 600 the Ido adopted this boundary based on what that plan said um the idea then went on to extend the 15-foot height restriction Beyond where that plan says in 15 foot height restriction should exist um I'm sorry if there was um a lack of clarity about the 300 or 650 I'd be happy to look into that but I can't do it on the Fly sure and I just I want to clarify because that now I'm confused and I thought I was not confused so the yellow area is 650 feet from the mean Square Madam chair on this map that's the discrepancy I think we're discussing right now is whether it's 300 or 650 okay what um I want to make sure that we stay on track here I'll come back to you counselor but we do have someone else that wanted to do a cross-examination you have two minutes sir but how are the buildings that are treated that are inside that line not just dividing a lot but inside that line already they've already violated the the commentation how does that apply foreign school and there's several two-story homes Mr Edwards you're you're saying that within that yellow boundary we're looking at it on the screen today there are buildings that are taller than 15 feet yeah there's an APS school over by 98 where it comes in over by uh near Haven development there's also about Walmart grocery store just below this and there's homes that above the northwest side and Eastern sides of uh this not a budget but they're within the yellow boundary lines all you have to do is uh Madam chair Mr Edwards um I think we would need to look at the individual approvals for those development requests to understand um you know if they perhaps if they came in before the Ido was in place that they were not within the boundary or perhaps before the sector plan established that impact area which is what we're talking about but um I can't speak to how prior development was improved as a part of this request for a future audio Amendment I'm sorry please follow up you have some time left if you had another one well it seems as though that uh all right thank you and I do believe we have someone on Zoom who is it thank you madam chair um sure Mr Hoffman yeah I just want to provide a little bit of clarification on the 650 feet and from the Northwest discarment plan I provided written public comments you should all have that the Northwest Mesa sharpen plan to find the nine percent slope area that was surveyed and should have been put into Aegis uh system and then from there there is 300 feet for the conservation area or double Lots where it was previously planted prior to the escarpment plan which is the case uh south of Paseo in volcano cliffs and then on top of that 300 for the conservation area where you're not supposed to build at all there is 350 feet so 300 plus 350 is 650 that is the m was the impact area and that is what the the yellow line actually depicts it's it's clearly in there in my written public comment to answer any of those questions and but as I said you know because of the way the assortment moves around that area north of paseo is over a half mile wide so it's in many cases from the scarman face it's actually much more than 650 feet thank you um the initials did you have a response to that uh Madam Madam chair no response but thank you Mr Hoffman for clarifying um the the 650 number came from two different metrics from the previous plan that got added together to create this yellow boundary um in part okay and we have one more online Baxter social media and Madam chair I just want to clarify that the two minutes for these speakers is specifically supposed to be for rebuttal to the applicant and so um that that information was helpful for Mr Hoffman but the this portion of the agenda is supposed to be for questions directed at me um to challenge anything that I maybe said during my presentation that they would like to disagree with right cross-examination all right Mr sosby yes thank you um and for for the council's consideration uh maybe this is the cart before the horse uh if everything through the west of that yellow line was pulled back to the 26 foot uh restrict restrictions then uh that would be good that would allow these Property Owners to commercially develop in a sustainable and low impact way and then this amendment would begin to make sense in my view so I would ask councilman Lewis and U-Haul to consider an ideal change to pull back to the 26 feet and include this amendment as part of that and then I think you would get uh uh concurrence from not only the property owners for these commercial development but also all of the all of us who oppose this thank you Mr susby was there a question there because we are in cross-examination I want to make sure if there's a question for Miss Schultz the question is is why don't you consider uh changing the Ideo back to the 26th or to to the 26 foot restriction and then uh proposed this amendment Madam chair Mr sosavi the the scope of this request was was very narrowly created last fall um it is the purview of the council while we have the VPO open to consider other changes to it uh but myself as a staff member I'm not a policy maker and so it would not uh be my purview or responsibility or interest um to consider those types of changes good answer Miss Schultz all right I want to make sure that anybody else that had signed up to speak and spoke earlier if you have any questions let me know I don't see oh yes yes sir yes visuals the uh do you know part of a special assessment District 228 is is changed from what the drawing up there in terms of the impact and the footprint of the um of the restricted area as a result of the language in the in the Ido that says the entire lot is included um Madam chair and I'm sorry I'm totally witnessed uh Mr Williams special assessment districts are not a consideration when the council in their legislative Authority creates or amend zoning um we don't consider special assessment districts those are those are kind of private agreements between property owners and developers in which the city is not a party to from my understanding and if there are lawyers in the room that would like to correct me on that please do um so I I do not have that information because it would not have been relevant to the consideration in this request I don't know the answer to this but you're suggesting that a a a zone change that takes away the develop ability of the property upon which the special assessment District was based is not on the table um Madam chair Mr Williams I think I understand the question a little more directly now it sounds like you're you're discussing what we would call it takings um which would uh which which would be a problem if we were making the property completely undevelopable um the regulations as they exist today even with the 15-foot hype limitations do allow for development um it would just be low density residential development that is perhaps not desired for the comprehensive plan in this part of town um if we were establishing a zoning regulation that would make a property entirely undevelopable that would certainly be a concern and a consideration for the council but my understanding of what's on the books today and what's proposed through this ordinance um that is not the case even if the zoning assumption that was made at the time of the district was that it would be a multi-story lewd students um Madam chair Mr Williams in their in their legislative capacity the council does have the authority to change zoning over time um and so even though a zoning entitlement in District which may have existed at one point in time the council can can change that and and that's that's how that's how the council exercises their land use of Landing Authority okay all right um seeing no more cross-examination we're going to move on to comments by the planning department if they have any is that is that a shaking head no all right Council planning staff five minutes to close um Madame chair committee members I don't have any further information in closing if you have questions or clarifications about the request about the amendment um I'm happy to answer those and councilman you've had a question earlier did you still have that I don't recall okay any other questions from any counselors um Mr counselor Lewis yeah I think um I wanted just to address the uh the the the final um comments there regarding the sad and I I would be interested I think this would have been something that would have uh uh of come up during the finalizing of the of the sad and maybe it didn't but um I would like to hear at some point Maybe not maybe not tonight in this but um uh I think it's a valid point that the sad was established that sad228 was established uh with certain revenues that would come from uh the um you know from the from the tax dollars that would pay off uh the infrastructure that was put in that's what it's designed to do um but if if in the in the in in that time or after that is uh you know the sad begins and then the council uh comes in say with the Ido uh and and makes changes to what that property uh could ultimately be developed as and yet uh those properties are being assessed in a way um uh that they would be developed in a certain way and so I I do think that um you know there's some valid um you know questions there regarding that I think that but but I I don't know if there's I think it doesn't it certainly gives justification for this amendment um uh but I think there's also some other um ramifications of that that could could leave the city vulnerable in in some ways and certainly would would uh you know damage the whole ultimate purpose of that sad which is to be able to you know we don't just allow homes to be built on the on the Mesa without any infrastructure and so an sad you know provides the infrastructure to be able to uh build uh you know good neighborhoods you know um the kind of neighborhoods that we want to uh that we want to see and so um not really a question more of a comment that I I would like to hear more from the staff I think at a certain point uh regarding the effects on the sad but uh if anything it certainly justifies uh this amendment this change thank you councilor Lewis Miss Schultz do you have a information on that Madam chair counselor Lewis I think I understand that that question pretty clearly and I can commit to before the next hearing whether it's at this body if it's the will of this body that this item be deferred and stay in this committee or this still has to go before the full city council um we can definitely get that answered prior to any next hearing on this matter and Madam chair like I like I mentioned I I don't think it affects this decision right now so I certainly don't think it I'm not asking that so that we can have some time that we would defer it I think uh you know Pro and really probably it would just be an opinion of our city attorney's office on it which I don't think would take very long and certainly wouldn't Merit any kind of deferral of this bill thank you counselor Lewis uh counselor Ben yeah I mean I think the point of this amendment is to remedy the situation with the sad not to I mean a decision were made we don't know exactly how those decisions were made during the development of the Ido which converted our old zoning structures to this um and I and I I could guess as to that it might have seen administratively more convenient or something along those lines I don't know that if that were the case the decision could have been made to exclude uh uh from the protection area uh you know part of a site so uh decisions were made that we don't quite understand of how that occurred with the Ido and the consultants and the planning department and everyone who worked on it but I do think this remedies the the sad question and it would be good to have have more clarity on that um but uh I think it's important to note that um that the idea was a very large overhaul of our zoning everyone knows that it it was intended it was never the intention though I think of the council and counselor Jones and I were the co-sponsors of the idea I I won't speak for her but but I don't think it was the intention ever to drastically change the regulatory structure of of zoning in Albuquerque but rather to try to make it more uniform and understandable and you know we're also have annual updates for that very reason that we want to we we want to stay on top of it and and find areas where it's not working this is one where I think time is of the essence so um this is just some comments thanks all right any any other questions Madam chair and councilor Lewis I'd uh this is Kevin Morrow on standing in as the City attorney and what we're happy to work with Miss Schultz and Council staff and and uh find an answer to your your sap questions thank you Mr Morrow um I have a couple questions um so I just want to make sure I understand the amendment that's on the table right now is the amendment that councilor Lewis Moon um that basically replaces the EPC findings with new findings that say that this um this change is is Justified and is that a correct way of boiling that down Madam chair that's exactly correct okay all right so um unless there are any other questions we are going to move to a vote on the amendment councilor Lewis's amendment is what we're voting on yes yes a good job yes yes no that passes on a fourth one vote all right now we're back we are on the amended bill um I'm sorry the amendment ordinance uh any questions on the amended ordinance we're going to move to and it was a due pass moved by councilor Lewis seconded um by I believe it's councilman is that true I just want to make sure we have a second yeah okay yeah oh thank you um so we're on the on do pass as amended um to full Council and no questions yes yes yes counselor no that passes on a 4-1 vote all right thank you all for coming out and participating this evening um this is by far the most people have ever shown up for a lux meeting in my tenure here so good to see you all right we're going to move on to agenda item d d is 076 applying a historic protection overlay Zone to the East End Edition identifying the distinctive cultural significance of the area and providing General preservation guidelines almost the past second all right so oh 2376 is yet another quasi-judicial request which requires special procedures to allow the applicant staff and the public the opportunity to speak this agenda item will proceed as follows five minutes for Council planning staff 10 minutes for the application applicants presentation two minutes each for Testimony by public speakers five minutes for rebuttal by the applicant cross-examination by anyone who spoke during the public comment period will have two minutes each comments by the planning department if they have any for five minutes and Council planning staff closing argument comments uh five minutes anybody who's going to be speaking on this city staff members of the public and the applicant must be sworn in if you'll be speaking to this item as a staff member or a member of the public please raise your right hand do you affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true um I believe it's Miss Morris who will be again this um the opening comments hi Miss Morris good evening councilors um this is 076 uh this bill proposes to adopt a historic protection overlay zone for the East End Edition um I believe that there is showing on the screens either right now or any moment now um an image showing the general vicinity of the East End Edition it's a whole oh okay yes I can put I can share my screen um hang on a second um hang on a second kiddo um so showing on my screen is the um General location of the proposed to start protection overlay zone so it's the North West corner of Lomas and Wyoming it is uh 12 Apostles zoned r1c um on Virginia Street uh there are 10 properties here two of the parcels are vacant um the historic protection overlay Zone um is proposed for the first African-American suburb in Albuquerque um I believe um Miss Naji is is with you guys to provide a lot more background on the history of this area and the need um and so I won't repeat what she's probably about to say but I'm available for any questions all right to come on text to the committee for the request Madam chair um the uh Eastern Edition has been sort of in the news for the past 30 years um changes have have come so that it was sort of dropped many years ago it is a very small community it but it still is a community um it was developed in early 1950s the land had been owned by a black Investors Group and one of the daughters went to develop this back then finding funding was virtually impossible because they would not lend to Black neighborhoods um so they found a developer that was in Arizona who had done some earlier Development building there in in Phoenix and brought them out here and began building um these remaining homes that are here on Virginia Street they were originally 16 homes that were built by the um original developer the the first property owner a lot of the land that had been quite an extensive piece of property but because of the cost of building and infrastructure and the uh property taxes then they had to sell off most of it so so there were two blocks originally uh like I said there were 16 homes that were built by the original developer and within the next 10 years there were probably another 16. so that included Vermont and Virginia the properties on uh Vermont were largely demolished um and and they were built later and they've had massive um Redevelopment to them so that they don't really maintain the integrity slowly the properties are starting to be demolished pushing up from Lomas um so we felt like we really needed to do something to be able to protect this area rather than it being a footnote or history books to be able to still show this community um we did as I say there are only 12 Lots there are only 10 homes that remain but they could be built rebuilt it would be nice if we had some control over what went on there and to prevent further demolition we've been out to talk with the neighborhood to convince them or see if they're interested we we did get a positive response from the people in the community there's not a neighborhood association for that area with beyond the Coalition so we didn't get a lot of input from from them but we did go out and knock on doors and it is Our intention should this continue through city council then we would set up some very specific meetings with the remaining and the property owners to work on exactly what we want to do with those guidelines it is not currently a registered historic district with the state or or with the the national registration but we do have plans to perhaps pursue that but we felt like we needed to get something to to honor and Mark and protect this area um soon as possible thank you um I don't have any public speakers signed up for this item is that still true okay um so there'll be no testimony by public speakers no rebuttal no cross-examination so we'll move to the planning department if they have anything to add and they do not um so Council planning staff Miss Morris if you want to do any closing comments then we'll go to questions from the committee thank you madam Chad no no uh closing comments or questions um but I am available for any questions as is um Miss Naji thank you all right questions from the committee I just have a couple yes thank you madam chair um I think this is wonderful I think it's a um I actually have one of my customers lives on the street so I'm thrilled to know that it will be safe um you mentioned um that there are two lots that don't have any structure on them right now how will somebody proceed um to to build will it have to be just like those before well typically the way that we've set up our guidelines for the historic protection overlays is that any new construction has to go before the landmarks commission um generally what we would be looking for would be residential homes that would be at the same scale with the same front yard setbacks um and things like that they wouldn't have to exactly mimic the houses that are there which considering there's only 10 houses and there's probably four different styles of houses out of those ten um there's a lot of variety one can use to do that um but but we would hope that um if any buildings were to go on those sites that that it would be um residential and at the same scale that is currently on the stream thank you thank you councilman um yeah the presentation uh Mr you you mentioned it it would uh I think he uses say prevent uh demolition but it would entirely prevent demolition is that right it would just put or or could you explain that um generally the way we do demolition reviews within hpos is that um if somebody wanted to demolish a property they would have to show that there was no possibility of it being able to be preserved or to to generate income um these homes that are there now I mean and it's a questionable thing when a property gets vacated um you know the sooner you can get somebody back into that home the less likely it is that it falls into disrepair and I think there's a strong Community there and they they have been concerned with that we did make efforts at one point to prevent the last the latest demolition but we were unsuccessful with that um it's not to say that they never could but we could certainly put a hold on it for I think we're given um a year to be able to work on Alternatives and that can be you know to get somebody else to purchase the property or um whatever else we might come up with so it puts that cushion of a period to try to come up with alternatives to demolition yeah it doesn't entirely right thank you councilor thank you madam chair one more question what what kind of um shape are these farms in right now um they're in good shape you know I mean like I said the last one that was demolished um it had been it had been vacant for a while okay and so you know there are some security issues just in that area because it's close to the highway yes interchange there Wyoming but um some of the people have been there since the 1950s or the house has been within their families one of the houses has just been like completely restored and so you know they sort of run the range between completely restored and having been lived in for 60 years but for what they are they're in they're in reasonable shapes thank you thank you any other questions from counselors I can't see counselor Lewis all right um with that I'm just going to say that you know this is in my district I was really excited to learn about it I didn't know the history of that area and if I didn't know the history of that area I'm guessing a lot of folks don't and so this is a really great opportunity to do some education um and so I'm pretty excited about the whole process so with no further questions we'll go to uh we'll call them yes yes all right they're being part of the business this Lux committee meeting is adjourned thank you everyone