>> Coun. Davis: GIVE US A FEW MINUTES. WE ARE GETTING OUR TECH OPEN AND STARTING OUR MEETING IN JUST A MINUTE AS SOON AS WE ARE READY TO BEGIN. HANGOUT WITH US FOR JUST A MINUTE. WELCOME IF YOU ARE JOINING US ON LINE. I JUST WANT -- DID YOU GET THE NEW EMAIL THAT MS. ORTEGA SPENT YOU WITH LAST MINUTE ADDITIONS? >> SEVENTEENTH MEETING OF THE 24TH CITY COUNCIL WILL COME TO ORDER. A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. ALL COUNCILORS EXCEPT COUNCILLOR HARRIS ARE PRESENT CURRENTLY AND WE EXPECT HIM TO JOIN US IN A FEW MINUTES. ONE QUICK NOTE TODAY FOR THOSE OF YOU FOLLOWING ALONG AT HOME, YOU MAY HAVE FOUND THAT IF YOU TRY TO JOIN US BY THE ZOOM LINK THERE WAS TECHNICAL ISSUES. MEETING ID AND PASS WORD LISTED FOR ZOOM ARE CORRECT. THEY DO WORK AN A NUMBER OF FOLKS ARE JOINING US THAT WAY. YOU CAN ALSO JOIN US LIVE ON YOUTUBE AND GOVTV. AGAIN, IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE TRADING TO JOIN US, VIA ZOOM, MANUALLY LOG IN WITH ID AND PASS WORD. BEGIN TODAY LIKE WE DO ALWAYS WITH THE MECHANIC PLEDGE OF ALE IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH. (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN ENGLISH) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN SPANISH) >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. AS WAS NOTED IN PRESS RELEASE AS POSTED ON WEBSITE AND AGENDA, THIS MEETING HAS SPECIAL PROCEDURES WE ARE CONTINUING BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNOR'S DECLARATION. TODAY'S MEETING LIKE MOST RECENT ARE HELD VIA ZOOM. IF YOU TRY TO JOIN US DURING VIDEO LINK YOU MAY HAVE HAD TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. BUT THE ID AND PASS WORD DO WORK. >> YOU CAN FOLLOW ALONG THROUGH OUR PLATFORMS, GOVTV, 16 AND WEBSITE AND YOUTUBE. THESE CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH SMARTPHONES, TABLETS OR COMPUTERS. FOR EVERYBODY WATCHING, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. VIDEO RECORDING OF THIS AND ALL COUNCIL MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ON THE COUNCIL'S PUBLIC WEBSITE AT ANY TIME. IF YOU NEED ASSISTANCE IN ACCESSING THAT OR IN FINDING A SECTION OF A MEETING, ALWAYS CALL STAFF DURING THE NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS, 768-3100. UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT PERMITTED AT SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETINGS. IT IS OUR INTENT TO SUSPEND THIS RULE TO ALLOW FOR COMMENT. WE WILL TAKE THAT VOTE MOMENTARILY. IN ADDITION WRITTEN COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY COUNCILORS THROUGH THE WEB FORM AND 1:00 TO COUNCILORS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING THROUGH A SPECIAL EMAIL. TONIGHT'S PROCLAMATIONS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY. FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT WE DO HAVE A FEW. SUSPEND RULES FOR PURPOSES OF ALLOWING GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. I AM CHECKING AND THANK YOU COUNCILOR BASSAN AND OTHERS SECONDING. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. 2/3 VOTE NEEDED. >> Councilor Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Pena: YES. >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> Coun. Davis: YES. THANK YOU. >> PUBLIC COMMENTS WE ASK YOU TO REMAIN ON MUTE UNTIL WE CALL YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE A MINUTE AND A HALF TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE CITY COUNCIL. AFTER THAT YOU CAN LEAVE THE MEETING AT ANY TIME. >> MR. MOYA IS MOVING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN AT THIS TIME. HELLO EVERYBODY JOINING US. >> HERE ARE GROUNDS RULES. AS WE JUST SAID WE HAVE A MINUTE AND A HALF TO PRESENT YOUR COMMENTS. NOT REQUIRED TO USE IT ALL. BUT YOU CAN'T PASS YOUR TIME ALONG TO SOMEONE ELSE. ONLY ONE PERSON AT ANY TIME AND YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANOTHER PERSON. COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED TO COUNCILORS ONLY THROUGH THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. IN OTHER WORDS WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INVITE DEBATE OR Q AND A BUT WE DO WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. DISRUPTIVE AND YOU MAY BE REMOVED. >> MR. MOYA, WE'LL TURN THIS OVER TO YOU AND CALL OUR FIRST SPEAKER PLEASE. >> MOYA: MARCIA KEARNEY. UNMUTE YOURSELF. >> MARCIA: MAJOR THEME OF BOTH THE STATE STATUTES, ABC COMP PLAN AND IDO IS PROTECTION OF NEIGHBORHOODS. I UNDERSTAND IDEA WAS WORKED ON AND REZONING COMPLETED IN A THREE YEAR PROCESS. I UNDERSTAND AMENDMENTS THAT ARE TECHNICAL IN NATURE BUT TO MAKE CHANGES THAT REDUCE PROTECTION TO NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED THROUGH THIS PRESENT PROCESS. THERE WAS A THREE YEAR PROCESS THAT WENT THROUGH FOR DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR CHANGES LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN THIS FASHION. I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT PARKING LOTS. WE SEE A BUFFER FROM 50 FEET TO 15 FEET IS A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON PROTECTSES THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AGAIN, IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBSTANTIALLY. ALSO, THE EDGE BUFFER LANDSCAPING IS ANOTHER GREAT EXCELLENT EXAMPLE. BY MOVING WALL TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE LAND SCAPE EDGE GREATLY REDUCES PRIVACY SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE REASON GIVEN WAS FEAR THAT 15-FOOT WOULD NOT BE MAINTAINED. THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE. ISSUE IS YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THESE ACTIONS THAT TAKE AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD GREATLY AND WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR THE CONSTITUENTS? WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT IS BEING DONE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HEART OF ALBUQUERQUE, IDO IS FAILING YOUR CONSTITUENTS. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER PROTECTION OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS, OPEN SPACE. ADDRESSING -- AND INVOLVEMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS. >> Coun. Davis: YOUR TIME US UP. WE APPRECIATE IT. >> Coun. Benton: IMAGINE THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN PREVIOUSLY. THERE WESTBOUND A 15-FOOT NO MAN'S LAND BETWEEN ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE REST OF THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. SO, FIRST OF ALL THERE IS NO ABILITY TO MAINTAIN IT. SECONDLY, IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY PUSHING PARKING LOTS AND DEVELOPMENT AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY, THIS IS MUCH, MUCH MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE. AND CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY WE BUFFER PARKING LOTS AND SUCH FROM NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS WAS A TECHNICAL FIX AND IS IN NO WAY INTENDED TO HARM THE NEIGHBORHOODS. >> Coun. Davis: AND MR. MOYA. >> MOYA: OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MS. WARD FOLLOWED BY MR. ABEYTA. >> AM I AUDIBLE? MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS THROUGH THE TOO MUCH INFORMATION AND TOO LITTLE TIME WE SEE DOUBLE TALK CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED PREVIOUSLY. I FOCUS ON THE MAJOR TRANSIT TO PREMIUM TRANSIT AND ELIMINATION OF ADVERSE IMPACT ASSESSMENT BY DECLARING IT DISCRETIONARY. A SIMPLE SEARCH ESTABLISHING URBAN CENTER MAIN STREET AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT WITH REGARD TO HEIGHT DENSITY AND SETBACK. THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE IN TABLE 512 AND SUBSECTION 55C5A. ALSO PLEASE KEEP SUBSECTION 66G3C PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL IN AMENDMENT B23. IN THE ANIMAL FARM OF ALBUQUERQUE IDO IS SEVEN COMMAND MEANTS. ALL ANIMALS ARE CREATED EQUAL BUT IN REALITY ENFORCING A DISTORTED POWER STRUCTURE, SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. THIS INCLUDES THE MISLEADING EMAIL SPENT BY THE ABC TO Z TEAM REPORTING THAT IDO UPDATE HAD A FULL HEARING AND UNSUBTLY SUGGESTING THAT TODAY'S MEETING IS FINAL HEARING. FURTHER STUDY IS NEEDED TO TRULY UNDERSTAND MAJOR EFFECTS OF SMALL CHANGES. THANK YOU. >> ABEYTA: GOOD AFTERNOON. I RESIDE IN THE SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THE C2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS UPDATE. MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS INUNDATED WITH POLLUTING COMPANIES. MANY PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME, WHAT IS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. WHEN I EXPLAIN DISPROPORTIONATE LOCATING OF COMPANIES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY JUST DON'T GET IT. BECAUSE IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPT. SO, I DRIVE THEM AROUND AND SHOW THEM THE VARIOUS REFINERIES, PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITIES, METAL SHREDDING, CHEMICAL STORAGE, RECYCLED PLANTS, ASPHALT PLANTS, RAILROAD CHEMICAL OFFLOADING FACILITIES. SUPERFUND SITES AND SO ON. AT THE END OF MY TOUR, MY GUESTS TELL ME ALL ABOUT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WE ARE EXPERIENCING IN SAN JOSE. THEY SAY IT IS WRONG AND SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT. TODAY YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP REMEDY OUR SITUATION BY APPROVING THE C2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS UPDATE. PLEASE APPROVE THE UPDATE AND END ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM AFFECTING THE SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. >> LOPEZ: GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM THE PRESIDENT OF SANTA BARBARA MARTINEZTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE SENT A LETTER OUT SEPTEMBER 9 ASKING THAT WE LOOK AT GIVING MORE TIME FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON THE PACKET ABC INCLUDING TEXT AMENDMENTS. THE PUBLIC PROCESS IS FLAWED BECAUSE THE LUPZ COMMITTEE REJECTED THOROUGH REVIEW AND NOT ENOUGH TIME TO DISCUSS. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU DO APPROVE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY THAT IT IS APPROVED AND WE ALSO ARE LOOKING AT MAKING SURE THAT OUR COMMUNITIES ARE SAFE AND HEALTHY AND SO WE REJECT THAT YOU APPROVED A5 RECOMMENDING THAT A CONSTRUCTION YARD IS A CONDITIONAL WHEN WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS VERY DETRIMENTAL TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. H AND A RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL SHOULD SLOW DOWN SO ALL AMENDMENTS CAN BE EVALUATED BEFORE ANY DECISION IS MADE. WE ASK YOU LOOK AT THE CHART THAT PEGGY SENT THAT SHOWS ACCEPTED WITHOUT CHANGES WITH ADJUSTED AMENDMENTS AND REJECT OR DEFER. THIS IS CRITICAL THAT WE TAKE OUR TIME ON THESE CHANGES AND WE IMPLORE THAT YOU SLOW DOWN THIS PROCESS, AND GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THESE CAREFULLY AND MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT THEY ARE HEARD AND IMPLEMENTED IN THE PLAN. OTHERWISE -- >> YOUR TIME IS UP. >> WE ARE NOT HEARD AND WE ARE THE COMMUNITY SO WE ARE THE ONES THAT GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ON THAT SEAT. WE NEED YOU TO LISTEN, THANK YOU. >> REAGAN: SPEAKING TO ZONING. AS YOU GET CLOSE TO VOTING, I NOTE SEVERAL ANOMALIES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF YOUR IDO. SECTION 5-2C1 OF THE IDO SAYS IN ESSENCE THAT SITE DESIGN SHALL AVOID LOCATING DEVELOPMENT IN FLOODPLAIN FLOOD AREAS AND ARROYOS. THAT IS PRETTY PLAIN LANGUAGE YET FIVE DAYS AGO EPC ISSUED APPROVAL FOR 60'S MILLION, 281 APARTMENT COMPLEX AN 16 ACRES INSIDE THE PINO ARROYO. HMMMM. SECONDLY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR SAID LAST DECEMBER THAT NONE OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REQUIRE ANY APPLICANT TO ATTEST TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE FACTS IN THEIR APPLICATIONS. LAST FALL AN APPLICATION WAS IF ID THAT CONTAINED -- FILED CONTAINED FALSE STATEMENTS. THEY WERE WALKED THROUGH AT THE HEARING AND INTO A ZHE NOTICE OF DECISION WHICH MAKES THAT NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE IDO. COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION WERE NOTIFIED OF ALL OF THE ABOVE THIS PAST DECEMBER AND JANUARY AND NOTHING, NADA HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THAT NOD OR THE APPLICATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY THAT MY CITY ADMINISTRATION AND COUNCIL WILL CEASE OPERATING IN BAD FAITH WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IDO. THANK YOU. AND I WISH YOU LUCK WITH THE REST OF THIS MEETING. >> LYONS: THANK YOU. ATTENTION MR. PRESIDENT, I AM SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT. TONIGHT I'LL BE BRIEF. LAST WEEK I ADDRESSED ABOUT WORKING WITH SAN JOSE COMMUNITY AND PASSING C-2 PREVIOUSLY C-21. AS I MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS COMMENTS THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TAKES THE BRUNT RELATIVE TO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY. I KNOW COUNCILLOR BENTON HAS SEEN A LOT OF IMPACTS FIRSTHAND. REPRESENTATIVE ROMERO CAME AND HE HAS SEEN A LOT OF THESE IMPACTS. COUNCILOR BORREGO EXPERIENCED SOME OF THIS THROUGH HER PLANNING EXPERIENCE, WITH THE COUNTY AND I HOPE THAT WE PUSH THIS AMENDMENT THROUGH. I MEAN THIS IS ONE WAY WE CAN CONTINUE TO PROTECTS SAN JOSE BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE EVEN JUST THE SUNPORT BOULEVARD EXTENSION WHICH IS GOING TO AFFECT THIS COMMUNITY WITH ITS TRAFFIC. THIS AMENDMENT WON'T EVEN INCLUDE THAT. AS ABEYTA MENTIONED THERE IS A LOT OF IMPACTS IN THIS COMMUNITY AND SO WE KNOW THAT SAN JOSE IS ONE OF THE MOST VULNERABLE SO I HOPE WE SEE SUPPORT FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THIS AMENDMENT AND THIS IS A WAY WE CAN UNDO SOME OF THE WRONGS THAT WERE WRITTEN BY OUR PREVIOUS PLANNING FOLKS AND WE CAN START TO MAKE ALBUQUERQUE A MORE JUST AND EQUITABLE CITY. THANK YOU. >> ARCHULETA: HELLO. THESE ARE MY DAUGHTERS. AND WE LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT BEHIND GIANT GAS STATION OFF OF SECOND STREET AND MY DAUGHTERS HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. >> HELLO. ALMOST EVERY TIME I GO TO THE PARK IT IS VESTINGY. VERY STINKY. >> HI, MY NAME IS -- >> AS CAN YOU SEE THERE IS LOTS OF KIDS THAT LIVE VERY CLOSE TO THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW THAT YOU ALL ARE TASKED TO VOTE ON AND IT MEANS A LOT TO THEM. IT IS SPECIAL THEY WERE ABLE TO SPEAK RIGHT NOW. SO, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> PRODOMO: CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR EFFORTS IN MOVING THIS PROCESS FORWARD. I RECOMMEND THE IDO AMENDMENTS AND RED LINES BE APPROVED TODAY. THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE REVISIONS OVER THE PAST 10 MONTHS BY STAFF, EPC AND LUPZ. THE DELAY OF THIS APPROVAL IS HOLDING UP DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN ALBUQUERQUE. HAVING A DIRECT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN THE CITY. I ASK THAT COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS AS RECOMMENDED AT LUPZ, ANY PACKET C AMENDMENTS BROUGHT FORWARD THIS MONTH. ALL OTHERS SHOULD BE DENIED. MOVING FORWARD, I ASK THAT COUNCIL NOT SUBMIT NEW AMENDMENTS AFTER LUPZ MAKES FINAL RECOMMENDATION. SUBMITTING AMENDMENTS AT 11TH OUR DOES NOT ALLOW THE COMMUNITY TO PROPERLY VET WHAT IS PROPOSED. THIS PROCESS IS HARD ENOUGH TO TRACK AND ADDING NEW AMENDMENTS AT THE LAST MINUTE DOES NOTHING TO ENHANCE THE IDO. WE APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK TO DATE AND I HOPE THAT COUNCIL WILL VOTE TO APPROVE THESE AMENDMENTS TODAY AND NOT DELAY THE PROCESS ANY FURTHER. >> ANCHANDO: MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, I AM A CLINICAL LAW STUDENT AT UNM SCHOOL OF LAW. I AM PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THE C2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO THE IDO. SAN JOSE IS KISS DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED. 95% OF RESIDENTS ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR. EPAHAS A TOOL AND ANYONE CAN GO TO THE WEBSITE AND SEARCH AN AREA OR SPECIFIC LOCATION IN THE U.S. IT SHOWS INFORMATION ON THE STATISTICS THAT ARE PROVIDED AND WHAT MR. ABEYTA TALKED ABOUT. IT SHOWS THAT THE SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOOD HIDE IS IN THE TOP 1% OF NEIGHBORHOODS NATIONALLY IN AN AN ENVIRONMENL INJUSTICE CATEGORY. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE TOP 10% FOR CANCER AND RESPIRATORY RISK FROM AIR TOXIC FACILITIES. PASSING THIS CUMULATIVE IMPACT AMENDMENT WOULD BE A GREAT STEP ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AT PREVENTING FURTHER DISPROPORTIONATE HARMS THAT COMPANIES HAVE CREATED IN SAN JOSE AND MOST IMPORTANTLY AMONG ITS PREDOMINANTLY MINORITY AND LOW INCOME RESIDENTS. THANK YOU FOR OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THESE REMARKS. >> JANS: THANK YOU. I AM A STAFF ATTORNEY HERE ON BEHALF OF THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER. I AM HERE TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT C1. DEFINING CIVIC VALUE IN THE IDO. C2, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FORMERLY B21 AND C10, INCORPORATING PUBLIC HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE PURPOSE OF THE IDO. ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS GO A LONG WAY AND IMPORTANT FIRST STEP IN ADDRESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISPARENTS THAT COMMUNITIES SUCH AS SAN JOSE AND MOUNTAIN VIEW AND OTHERS HAVE SUFFERED BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITY. THIS IS A BURDEN THAT SHOULD BE SHARED BY ALL OF US AND ALL OF US SHOULD SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT PASSAGES TODAY. THANK YOU. >> ANOSA: THANK YOU. DEPUTY DIRECTOR AT SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT. HERE AS WELL TO SPEAK UP IN SUPPORT OF THE C 2. CUMULATIVE IMPACT AMENDMENT. FOR THOSE KEEPING UP WE HAVE BEEN HERE AT MANY MEETINGS. THROUGH THE SEVEN OUR MEETING LAST WEEK AND WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL MAKING THIS SPECIAL MEETING FOR US TO COVER THESE ISSUES NOW AND GIVING US TIME TO SPEAK. YOU HAVE SEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS FROM LOCAL CITY COUNCILORS TO REPRESENTATIVES, A LOT OF DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS. THERE IS A WIDE SUPPORT HERE AND IT WAS EXPLAINED WELL THAT NO OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT MANY OTHERS IN ALBUQUERQUE, HAVE TOO THIS CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRY. IT NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED AND THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A STEP FORWARD AND HELP THIS COMMUNITY TODAY. IT COULD BE A PRECEDENT THAT IS GREAT. IT WOULD HELP THIS COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE VERY MUCH SO. INCLUDING THE CHILDREN WHO LIVE THERE. SO, JUST THINK ABOUT THE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT YOU LOVE AND CARE ABOUT AND QUALITY OF LIFE YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. I ASK YOU ALL TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT TODAY. THANK YOU. >> MOORE: GOOD AFTERNOON. ON THIS TESTIMONY THIS EVENING REPRESENTING INSTITUTE, GARDENS INSTITUTE WHICH IS A GRASS ROOTS ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE ORGANIZATION. LET ME BEGIN BY THANKING THE COUNCIL FOR THIS SPECIAL SESSION. WE SUPPORT THE C2 COMMUNITY IMPACT AMENDMENT. AND WHAT I DID WANT TO SAY IS THAT CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER AND CLEAN SOIL SHOULD BE A RIGHT AND NOT A PRIVILEGE. THESE ARE ISSUES THAT IMPACT AND CONSEQUENCES ARE WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM. I WOULD LIKE THE REMIND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WE ARE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THE ALBUQUERQUE CITY COUNCIL (INAUDIBLE) AROUND THIS ISSUE OF COMMUNITY IMPACT. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT THE COUNCIL HAS NOT DONE NOR THE MAYOR HAS DEALT WITH ISSUES OF MARTINEZTOWN AND THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FROM HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE, SO, AGAIN WE SUPPORT C2, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> HORVATH: YOU CAN WE DID SA INDIVIDUAL SPREADSHEET AND COMMENTS. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT PROCESS TO ADDRESS SO MANY OF THESE ISSUES. AND I JUST THINK THIS IS NEEDS TO BE A BETTER PROCESS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF DETAILS THAT IS CRITICAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> RENE, YOU ARE FINE, GO AHEAD. SOMEONE IS LISTENING AND ON A DELAY. >> I WAS SAYING THAT THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS AND I THINK A LOT OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND THEY NEED CAREFUL REVIEW AND IT IS HARD TO DO AT THESE MEETINGS GIVEN 1 1/2 MINUTES TO DISCUSS ALL THESE THINGS AND BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THESE THINGS COULD BE RESOLVED VERY EASILY IF WE HAD MORE TIME TO DISCUSS THEM BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AND SO, I HOPE CAN YOU CAN STIL HEAR ME. SO, I JUST WANT TO SAY IT IS NOT A BAD DESIGN BUT WON'T WORK FOR OPEN SPACE. THE BIGGEST THINGS IS YOU NEED BUFFER NEAR CRITICAL SENSITIVE AREAS LIKE WILDLIFE PRESERVES AND IN PETROGLYPH YOU NEED MORE BUFFER BUT THE DESIGN ISN'T BAD FOR SOME AREAS. COTTAGE, WE ARE MOVING IN THE REALM OF A ZONE CHANGE BUT IT NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. GAVE YOU EXTRA TIME FOR ACCOMMODATE FOR THE DELAY. WE WERE ABLE TO HEAR YOU THE WHOLE TIME. >> NEFF: >> WE HAVE FIVE OTHERS THAT SIGNED UP BUT DID NOT JOIN US AT THIS MEETING. IF YOU WANTED TO GIVE MS. NEFF MORE TIME. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. HERE IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. WE HAVE A FEW ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS TO TAKE CARE OF SO, I AM GOING TO ASK MR. MOYA TO MOVE EVERYBODY ELSE OUT OF THE ROOM AND IF YOU CAN CONNECT YOUR AUDIO, JUST PIPE UP AND LET US KNOW YOUR CONNECTED. IF WE CAN GET TO YOU BEFORE WE OPEN THE FLOOR TO COUNCILORS, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO LET YOU SPEAK AS WELL. WITH YOU GO AHEAD AND MOVE OUT THE PEOPLE FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS BACK TO THE WAITING ROOM. YOU CAN CONTINUE TO FOLLOW EITHER BY ZOOM OR ONLINE. WE'LL TAKE A BRIEF BREAK WHILE WE DO THAT. >> NEFF: I AM HERE TRYING TO LOG IN -- >> Coun. Davis: I KNOW IT IS FRUSTRATING. GIVE ME A SECOND. WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. >> MOYA: YOU'RE 1 1/2 MINUTES WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> NEFF: HELLO. >> MOYA: ARE YOU THERE? LOOKS LIKE YOUR SPEAKER IS ON BUT WE CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING FROM YOU ANYMORE. >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU. MY SCREEN IS BLACK BECAUSE I AM TRYING TO STAND IN SOL IDARITY. OKAY. MY NAME IS PEGGY, MY VIDEO IS BLACK BECAUSE I STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH THOUSANDS OF ALBUQUERQUE RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS KEPT IN THE DARK REGARDING THESE ISSUES YOUR ADDRESSING TODAY. >> YOUR FOLLOWING ON YOUTUBE OR GOV. IF YOU COULD JUST FOLLOW THE AUDIO IN THE ZOOM MEETING. WE CAN HEAR YOU FINE. >> OKAY, I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT MY TELEPHONE NO. 5 05977-8903 IS ON THE RECORD. SO THAT -- >> MOYA: I HAVE IT. >> I ADD THIS BECAUSE IF ANYONE REVIEWS THE RECORD OF THIS SPECIAL MEETING, I WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ME DIRECTLY, IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONTINUED DENIAL OF THEIR RIGHTS. THE DELIBERATE DENIAL OF RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, NEGATION OF THE RIGHT TO LAB RATHEON -- CONTINUED ABUSE OF OPEN MEETINGS ACT IN TIME OF PANDEMIC WHEN GOVERNOR STIPULATED THAT DISCUSS OF NONELECTION MATTERS NONESSENTIAL MATTERS. I TRIED TO BE AN EFFECTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY MEMBER TO ATTEND THESE MEETINGS. NONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT RAISED HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED FULLY, TRYING TO ATTEND ONE OF THE MEETINGS AS PLAZA DEL SOL I WAS TOLD MEETINGS WERE MOVED AND PLANNING PEOPLE HAD NO IDEA WHERE THEY WERE SHIFTED TO. ONE MEETING HAD ISSUES ON THE BOARD FORCOMMENTS AND IT HAD BEEN PASSED AT CITY COUNCIL. 90% OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED IN PACKET D AND B ARE -- >> MOYA: TIME HAS EXPIRED. THAT CONCLUDE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THIS IS CONSIDERED SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WE DON'T HAVE ANY TOPICS UNDER OTHER ITEMS EXCEPT FOR ANNOUNCEMENTS. I UNDERSTAND COUNCILOR PENA HAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT. >> Coun. Pena: THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO DO THIS KIND OF IN A PUBLIC FORUM. APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT YOU ARE GIVING ME. AS YOU ALL KNOW AT COMMITTEE MEETING WE HAD A ZONING HEARING FOR CONDEMNATION OF SOME PROPERTY SO THAT THEY CAN DEMOLISH IT. REST OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE ON COUNCIL WHO DO A GREAT JOB WITH IT, I KIND OF JUST IN PROTEST HAVEN'T VOTED FOR THESE ZONING ISSUES BECAUSE I JUST REALLY WANT US AS A CITY TO DEVELOP A PROGRAM TO HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE FACING CONDEMNATION CAN BEING ABLE TO REPAIR THEIR BUILDINGS AND I THINK THE PREVIOUS MEETING TO THIS, COUNCILLOR BENTON HAD DISCUSSED WANTING TO KIND OF BE PART OF THAT. WE ARE DOING A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THAT IMPLEMENTED. SO, MY OPPOSITION WOULD STILL STAND BUT DIDN'T CHANGE THE VOTE. I AM GETTING CALLS THAT I VOTED AGAINST IT. IT WAS JUST THE IMMEDIATE ACTION AND WITH IMMEDIATE ACTION, I HOPE TO BRING IT TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING SO THAT WE CAN JUST VOTE ON IMMEDIATE ACTION. I DON'T WANT TO DELAY THIS AND I KNOW THE REST OF THE COUNCIL DOES A GREAT JOB IN VOTING ON THIS. I KNOW I'LL BRIEFLY GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY NOT FOR MYSELF, BUT THERE HAS BEEN FOLKS, A GENTLEMAN IN MY DISTRICT WHO THE SAME THING WAS HAPPENING AND ON THE VERNAL OF GETTING HIS MOTHER'S PROPERTY DEMOLISHED. HE HAD MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET HIM SOME HELP AND HE WAS ABLE TO FUND -- HELP HIS MOTHER TO FIX THESE VIOLATIONS THAT THEY HAD ON THE BOOKS. I JUST AGAIN THOSE ARE THE REASONS AND I KIND OF STILL STAND IN PROTEST. I DON'T THINK THAT HINDERS THE PROJECT AT ALL BUT WANT TO SUPPORT THE IMMEDIATE ACTION. THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE UNDERSTAND AND WE APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. WE'LL BE SURE TO LET FOLKS KNOW WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THAT PROPERTY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS. FINAL ACTIONS. >> Coun. Jones: I AM NOT PAYING ATTENTION. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND, PLEASE. >> Coun. Davis: LET ME DO HOUSEKEEPING WHILE WE ALL CATCH UP. HERE IS HOW WE INTEND THIS, TODAY'S MEETING IS JUST ABOUT THE IDO. TWO ACTIONS WHICH IS AMENDMENTS AND THEN COUNCILLOR BENTON HAS O9 A ZONE MAP AMENDMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE HAND BUT ONLY AFTER IDO. COUNCILOR ^ S HAVE A PACKET. WE REVIEWED THOSE AT LAST MEETING, OUR SEVEN OUR MEETING, BUT EVERYBODY HUNG IN THERE AND LET STAFF REVIEW THOSE. WE HAVE 10 AMENDMENTS TODAY TO REVIEW THAT STAFF PREPARED. WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE AND THEN COUNCILOR BORREGO INTRODUCED 15 AMENDMENTS AT ABOUT TWO MINUTES TO THE MEETING. WE'LL LET HER EXPLAIN THOSE. COUNCILORS, IF YOU'RE READY, BACK TO THE SPONSORS AND LET THEM INTRODUCE O10. >> Coun. Jones: O TAKEN, FINAL ACTIONS, ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 14-16 ANNUAL UPDATE IN 2019. I MOVE A DO PASS. >> Coun. Benton: SECOND. >> BACK TO THE SPONSORS, I BELIEVE, SPONSORS -- WELL COUNCILOR JONES DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS MOTION BEFORE WE MOVE TO AMENDMENTS. >> Coun. Jones: JUST A SHORT SPEECH ABOUT THIS. NOT A SPEECH. THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR CLOSE TO A YEAR, VETTED MONTH AFTER MONTH AND MEETING AFTER MEETING, PUBLIC MEETINGS, ZOOM MEETINGS, IN-PERSON MEETINGS. NOTHING IS EVER PERFECT WHEN DEALING WITH GOVERNMENT OR TRYING TO MAKE THINGS WORK IN DEVELOPMENT IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF TOWN AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE BUT WE HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB ON THIS. THE PEOPLE INVOLVED HAVE TRIED TO DO THE BEST THEY CAN. I DON'T BELIEVE EVERY ONE WILL EVER BE HAPPY BUT AMENDMENTS CLEAN-UP A FEW THINGS AND THEREFORE I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT PEOPLE GIVE THIS A TRY AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO BECAUSE EVERYTHING CAN BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE. WITH THAT I TURN IT OVER TO MY PARTNER IN CRIME COUNCILLOR BENTON. >> Coun. Benton: THANK YOU. DON'T SAY PARTNER IN CRIME. SOMEBODY IS GOING TO TAKE US LITERALLY. >> I HEARD UNDER PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION THEY WERE GOING TO LOOK AT ZONING CODE REFORM, AND COUNCILOR JONES WAS SPONSORING I IMMEDIATELY VOLUNTEERED TO SPONSOR, I THINK COUNCILOR JONES AND I COME FROM KIND OF OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY KNOWS WE COME FROM DIFFERENT POLITICAL SPHERES BUT BOTH INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT IN OUR LIFETIME CAREERS AND FROM DIFFERENT ASPECTS. COUNCILOR JONES DID A LOT OF WORK IN COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE AND I AS ARCHITECT WORKED IN A LOT OF PUBLIC WORK AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKING FOR NONPROFITS. WE HAD KIND OF A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THINGS. WE REPRESENT TWO VERY DIFFERENT DISTRICTS IN THE CITY, KIND OF POLAR OPPOSITE IN SOME WAYS. SO, I WANT TO THANK HER FOR ALL HER WORK OVER THE YEARS ON IDO. I WANT TO SAY ABOUT ENACTMENT OF THIS ANNUAL AMENDMENT OR UPDATE, WHICH INCLUDES NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS, THAT WHEN I LISTEN TO THE SPEAKERS, SOME OF THE SPEAKER WHO SAID SLOW IT DOWN AT THE SAME TIME I HEARD CONSTITUENTS WHO SAID WE REALLY NEED THIS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AMENDMENT. IT IS A CONTRADICTION IN A WAY. ALSO SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NORTH FOURTH CHARACTER PROTECTION OVERLAY. IN TWO CASES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DISTRICT 2 AND SOUTH SIDE, I HAVE MANY CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE VESTED IN US GETSING THIS ANNUAL UPDATE PASSED. SO IT IS A CONTRADICTION, CLEAR CONTRADICTION TO SAY THAT YOU SUPPORT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AMENDMENT AND AT THE SAME TIME SAY WE NEED MORE TIME. THE WHOLE POINT OF ANNUAL UPDATE IS YOU DO HAVE MORE TIME. WE HAVE GOT TO UPDATE ANNUALLY. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. THAT IS THE WAY THE PROCESS WAS LAID OUT. FURTHERMORE, WE HAVE A COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA PROCESS. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WHO FEELS LIKE SOMEHOW THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS GONE ONTO GET INVOLVED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA OR AREAS. THAT INFLUENCE THEM. BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. WE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH ANNUAL AMENDMENTS EVERY YEAR. THAT IS THE THING ABOUT THE IDO. IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL WORLD IT IS CALLED CONTINUOUS PROCESS MANAGEMENT. OR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT. I THINK THAT IS ONE THING I LIKED IMMEDIATELY WHEN I SAW WHERE WE WERE HEADING WITH THE IDO. I THINK IT IS VALID AND I'M IMPROVES COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDING IF PEOPLE START SAYING SLOW IT DOWN AND GET INVOLVED AND DIG INTO IT. ZONING LAW AND ORDINANCES ARE VERY OBTUSE. I SPENT MY WHOLE CAREER AS ARCHITECT INTERPRETING THE OLD ONE, INTERPRETING IN QUOTES, RIGHT BECAUSE IT WAS VERY, HOW SHOULD I SAY, IT HAD VERIES COHESION. BEGAN IN 1959 AND AMENDED WILLIE NILLIE AND BECAME A DIFFICULT DOCUMENT TO WORK WITH AND DID NOT SERVE US WELL. I BELIEVE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR CITY AS REFLECTED BY THE OLD ZONING CODE IS NOT THE GREATEST THING. THIS IS A CHANCE FOR EVERYBODY TO GET INVOLVED AND PAY ATTENTION. I APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION PAID BY MANY SPEAKERS BUT WE CAN'T HOLD PROCESS UP INDEFINITELY. THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT IS DESIGNED TO BE DONE. WE COME BACK EVERY YEAR IF WE NEED TO AMEND AND WORK ON NEW AMENDMENTS AND START WORKING ON THE PROCESS. THAT HAS BEEN DELAYED BY A YEAR BECAUSE OF COVID-19. THAT WILL BEGIN IN JANUARY AND EVERYBODY GET INVOLVED. IF YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THE FIRST THREE YEARS, SOUND LIKE I AM DOING A CLOSING. I AM TRYING TO DO AN INTRODUCTION. I AM SORT OF SPEAKING TO THE PUBLIC WHO I RESPECT AND APPRECIATE THEIR SUPPORT FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACT. THIS IS A BIG ADVANCEMENT AND WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE IDO. THAT IS IT. I DO -- I'LL MOVE THE AMENDMENTS. WE HAVE TO MOVE THESE ONE AT TIME THAT ARE IN THE PACKET. I'LL LET THE STAFF KIND OF GUIDE US THROUGH THAT. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. NO. 1 IS GOING TO BE PACKET C1. IT IS YOURS. IF YOU WANT TO MOVE IT THAT WILL BE NO. 1. >> Coun. Benton: I'LL MOVE AMENDMENT C1, CIVIC OR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS. THIS IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT SOME PEOPLE SAY WHY DID THIS COME UP AT THE LAST MINUTE. IT CAME UP BECAUSE OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT C2. IT MAKES A REFERENCE IN THE C2 ABOUT -- GO BACK TO C1, PLEASE, ABOUT THIS TERM OF CIVIC OR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT. THIS TERM OCCURS IN TWO OTHER PLACES IN THE IDO. I SAID WHAT IS THE DEFINITION. IT TURNED OUT THERE WASN'T A FORMAL DEFINITION OF THIS AND I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY BOTH THE C2 AMENDMENT BUT ALSO THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR CLARIFICATION WITHIN THE IDO AS A WHOLE. THIS CREATES DEFINITION OF WHAT CIVIC ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT IS. >> Coun. Davis: SECOND? >> Coun. Jones: I'LL SECOND THAT. >> Coun. Davis: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. I AM GOING TO PULL UP MY LIST SO I CAN SEE HANDS. >> Councilor Bassan: I THINK GIVEN SOME CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAVE HAD OF LATE, I DO SUPPORT DEFINITIONS. I FEEL THEY ARE GOOD TO HAVE, WE CAN ALSO MAKE FURTHER ADJUST LITTLE BUT IT IS IMPORTANT WE DEFINE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SO, THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR GIBSON? >> I HAVE HAD A SECOND LOOK AND I WOULD LIKE TO PICK UP THIS CONVERSATION. IS THIS APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO THIS? I'LL ASK THE SPONSOR. DOES THIS COVER B20? >> Coun. Benton: COUNCILLOR GIBSON, I DON'T THINK SO UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING WITHIN THERE THAT INCLUDES THIS DEFINITION. BUT I'LL ASK STAFF TO HELP OUT WITH THAT. >> MORRIS: >> SCHULTZ: CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME WHAT ASPECT OF B20 YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. >> Coun. Gibson: THIS IS ABOUT THE PROHIBITION OF VARIANCES IN CONDITIONAL USE PROPERTIES AND THAT WAS REFERENCED IN B20. MAYBE B18. >> YES, COUNCILORS, B TWENTY WAS TECHNICAL EDIT AT LUPZ. AND THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE IN THE TECHNICAL EDIT CLARIFYING WHEN YOU CAN GET A VARIANCE AND WHEN YOU CAN GET A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS REVISION WAS MADE TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE AND I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT MR. MELENDRES CAN TALK TO MORE ELOQUENTLY AS IT HAS A LEGAL BACKGROUND. I'LL HAND THAT ANSWER OVER TO MR. MELENDRES WHO I BELIEVE IS ON THE CALL. >> MELENDRES: THANK YOU. WE DID ADDRESS THIS AS LUPZ AND I'LL RESTATE THE CONCEPT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT DISCRETIONARY PRACTICES THAT WILL COME BEFORE THE CITY FOR TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF APPROVAL. FIRST IS A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, SECOND IS A VARIANCE APPROVAL. BOTH OF THOSE APPROVALS BEFORE THE CITY ARE SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT STANDARD AND DIFFERENT TESTS THAT MUST BE SATISFIED IN ORDER FOR ONE OR BOTH TO BE APPROVED. SOMETIMES THEY ARE CONSIDERED BY DIFFERENT BODIES AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN TIME. SO, WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS THOSE TIMES OF APPLICATIONS GO BEFORE THE CITY'S ZONING HEARING EXAMINE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY ARE MAKING FINDINGS ABOUT IS THAT THAT PARTICULAR CONDITIONAL USE COMPLIES WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDO. WHEN THAT FINDING IS MADE, PRESUMABLY THE DETERMINATION IS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IDO WILL BE SATISFIED AS THEY ARE STATED IN THE IDO WITHOUT ANY ANTICIPATION THEY WILL BE VARIED TO ANY DEGREE IN A WAY THAT COULD IMPACT THE PROPRIETY OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE THAT IS BEING REQUESTED. THAT FINDING IS BEING MADE. ANOTHER MADE FOR CONDITIONAL USE THAT PROPOSED USE WILL NOT CAUSE ANY HARM TO THE COMMUNITY. CONDITIONAL USE IS NOT WHAT WE WOULD DESCRIBE AS A USE BY RIGHT, IT IS A USE APPROPRIATE ONLY IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS CAN BE SATISFIED. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A HIGHER DISCRETIONARY THRESHOLD. WHEN THAT REVIEW IS HAPPENING, TYPES OF CONCERNS THAT ARE BEING ADDRESSED ARE WHETHER IT CREATES HARM FOR THE COMMUNITY AND WHETHER OR NOT IT COMPLIES WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDO. IN A TIME SUBSEQUENT A VARIANCE IS REQUESTING SOMETHING NOT PERMITTED BY THE IDO, IDENTIFY PRESCRIBES THE WORLD WITHIN WHICH LAND USE OPERATING WITHIN THE CITY AND VARIANCE PROVIDES POTENTIAL ESCAPE HATCH IF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION INCLUDING THAT THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT IS IMPACTED IS GOING TO SUFFER HARDSHIP UNDER IDO IF VARIANCE ISN'T GRANTED. IF A PROPERTY COMES FOR THE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED A CONDITION USE APPROVAL AND THEY APPLY FOR VARIANCE, THE FACTS THAT APPLY TO THAT SITE AND TO THAT APPLICATION HAVE NOW POTENTIALLY CHANGED FROM THE FACTS THAT EXISTED WHEN THE ZONING AND HEARING EXAMINER MADE A DETERMINATION FOR THE REQUESTS USE NOT CAUSE ANY HARM AND THAT YOU WOULD COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDO. SO, PUTS THOSE TWO CONCEPTS TOGETHER THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD HELP ENSURE THAT WHEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS PROPOSED AND ULTIMATELY APPROVED, THAT THE FACTORS THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THAT APPROVAL WOULD REMAIN WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO BE WAIVED THROUGH A SUBSEQUENT VARIANCE PROCESS. ALSO, TO KIND OF CLOSE THE LOOP ON THE IDEA THAT CONDITIONAL USES ARE SPECIAL, THEY ARE NOT USES BY RIGHT AND IF YOU'RE GETTING TO DO A USE YOU NEED TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDO WITHOUT ANY DEVIATION. >> Coun. Gibson: THANK YOU FOR THAT. REALLY A GOOD EXPLANATION AND I DO RECALL IT FROM LUPZ. >> IT SEEMS TO ME THERE COULD VERY WELL EXIST CONDITIONS, CERTAINLY IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE AND WILL HAPPEN AGAIN WHERE THERE IS NO HARM THAT WOULD BE CAUSED TO A NEIGHBORHOOD BUT THAT FOR, YOU KNOW, SOME COULD BE VERY INCIDENTAL THING, A BUILDER MIGHT REQUEST A VARIANCE. IT COULD BE SOMETHING ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW. COULD BE A REQUIREMENT, SOME MINE OR LIGHTING VARIANCE. IF THAT IS THE CASE, WOULD THEY -- WOULD A BUILDER OR DEVELOPER IN REQUESTING OR NOT REQUESTING, BUT GOING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE ON A PROPERTY, WOULD THEY BE NOT TRUTHFUL IF THEY SAID, NO, WE'RE -- WE WILL COMPLY WITH THE IDO AND SOLLY THERE IS A VARIANCE OPTION WITHIN THE IDO. I DON'T REALLY MEAN TO BE SPLITTING HAIRS HERE BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I COULD, IF I WERE A DEVELOPER, I COULD, IN GOOD FAITH, PURSUE CONDITIONAL USE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY STILL SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE. DOESN'T MEAN I AM GOING TO GET IT, PARTICULARLY SOMETHING THAT IS MORE THAN A MINOR CHANGE. MORE THAN SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT HAVE IMPACT. SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK? SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN AND PROBABLY HAS HAPPENED, I EXPECT WITHOUT HAVING ANY IMPACT? >> MELENDRES: CERTAINLY IT IS GOING TO BE IMPOSSIBLE SITTING HERE IN THIS MEETING OR ANY MEETING TO PREDICT WHAT TYPE OF FACTORS COULD PLAY OUT AND SAY THAT EVERY INSTANCE IS GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. I THINK YOUR TAPPING INTO SOMETHING THAT IS PRACTICAL AND TRUE WHICH IS THAT YOUR EXAMPLE WOULD BE POSSIBLE WHERE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE APPROVED BUT, THEN, A SUBSEQUENT VARIANCE MAY NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE FACTORS THAT LED TO THAT APPROVAL. I THINK WHAT IS VERY SORT OF MAYBE JUST BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE TEST FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS THIS CONCEPT THAT IS WRITTEN INTO THE IDO AND WRITTEN INTO PRIOR TESTS FOR CONDITIONAL USES, WHICH IS, THAT A CONDITIONAL USE IS NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL. IT IS NOT A SINGLE FAMILY IN AN R-1 ZONE. IT IS CAR WASH, ALL OWE ORIENTED USE. IT IS USE THAT IS DIFFERENT AND POTENTIAL TENSIONALLY PROBLEMATIC IN THE WRONG SPOT BUT POTENTIALLY OKAY WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT AS A WHOLE. WITHIN THAT KIND OF CONCEPT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT WAIVER THAT THE ZONING HEARING EXAMINER IS MAKING A DETERMINATION ABOUT, IS WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSAL WILL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDO PRESUMABLY AS STATED WITHIN THE IDO. SO, IT GETS A LITTLE BIT GRAY WITH RESPECTS TO THAT PARTICULAR TEST FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. BECAUSE, IT APPEARS TO SET FORTH A POLICY WITHIN THE IDO THAT ONE OF THE STANDARDS FOR GETTING THE SPECIAL NON-NORMAL USE IS THAT YOU MEET REQUIREMENTS AS STATED. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE POLICY JUSTIFICATIONS THAT APPEARS TO TILT THE SCALE WHEN TRYING TO SOLVE THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF FAVORING A COMPLETE SORT OF DETACHMENT OF THE TWO PROCESSES. IF YOU GET THIS SPECIAL APPROVAL YOUR EXPECTED TO MEET IT WITHOUT DEVIATION. >> Coun. Gibson: I APPRECIATE THE INTENT BUT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS. THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE POTENTIAL FOR EXCEPTIONS. YOU KNOW. WE CAN DRAW PERFECT PLAN ON PAPER AND WHEN WE ACTUALLY SEE IT IN 3D, REALIZE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COULD WORK BETTER. >> Coun. Davis: BEFORE SKI FOR A SECOND THERE. I WANT TO BE SURE I CAPTURE THAT AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IS TO STRIKE FOLLOWING LINES, TO B20. FOR 19R. FOR FOR R. FOR FOR 7R. AND FOUR FOUR 9R. IS THAT RIGHT? >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Davis: DID YOU CAPTURE THAT. WANTED TO BE SURE. WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT AHEAD OF TIME. SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS FOR THAT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SEE BORREGO AND ABOUT A SAN AND BASSAN WITH COMMENTS. >> Coun. Gibson: WERE YOU TALKING TO ME. >> Coun. Davis: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT COUNCILORS WHO WERE NOT IN LUPZ HAD BENEFIT OF THAT DISCUSSION. CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOUR MOTION FOR THOSE LINE ITEMS RELATES TO AND HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT. >> Coun. Gibson: CERTAINLY. >> WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL DO WILL REVERSE ACTUALLY ONE PART OF WHAT WE DID AT LUPZ. THAT ONE PART PROHIBITS ASKING FOR A VARIANCE IN A CONDITIONAL USE AREA. SO, IF I MAY, MS. SCHULTZ, DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? >> SCHULTZ: YES. INTENTION OF YOUR AMENDMENT IS TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW AS HAPPENS TODAY A PROPERTY OWNER TO REQUEST A VARIANCE IF THEY HAVE AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE FOR THEIR PROPERTY. WHAT WAS PASSED AT LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING WOULD PROHIBIT THAT ACTION FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE SO THE INTENTION OF YOUR AMENDMENT IS TO REVERSE THAT ACTION TO CONTINUE THE ALLOW VARIANCES TO BE ASKED FOR ON CONDITIONAL USE PROPERTIES. >> Coun. Gibson: THANK YOU. >> Coun. Borrego: I SECOND THAT. COUNCILORS BORREGO AND BASSAN, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU. >> Coun. Benton: POINT OF ORDER. FIRST I DON'T BELIEVE WE WERE STARTING WITH THE FIRST ITEM C1. IS THIS IN ORDER OR THIS IS IN THE NATURE OF AN AMENDMENT ABOUT A PREVIOUS ACTION ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT COUNCIL OR BORREGO. IT SOUND TO ME LIKE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT C1 DOES MENTION -- DOES APPLY IN FACT TO CONDITIONAL USES. >> Coun. Davis: I BELIEVE THAT I ALSO THE WAY IT GETS THIS IS IT MEXICOS CONDITIONAL MENTION. >> Coun. Gibson: JUST TO EXPAND A POINT THAT IS KIND OF HOW I STARTED MY COMMENTS GOING FORWARD. I AM NOT SURE THAT BELONGS HERE. BUT, THEN WE GOT INTO THE EXPLANATION AND MY AMENDMENT. COUNCILLOR BENTON IT COULD BE THAT THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR IT BUT I WANTED TO BRING IT UP NOW AND BE WRONG OR NOT BRING IT UP WHEN I SHOULD -- >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE CLERK TO BE SURE WE GET THIS RIGHT. I CAN SEE IT GERMANE AS LONG AS IT DEALS WITH CONDITIONAL USE. BUT IT HAS TO BE NEW TEXT IN FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 1. IS THAT CORRECT? >> MELENDRES: I THINK THAT RECOGNIZING COUNCILLOR BENTON'S POINT ABOUT PROGRESS AND A FORMER ACT IN THE PROCESS, THERE PROBABLY IS DISCRETION AS TO WHERE THIS MIGHT APPROPRIATELY BE PLACED. THERE IS NO LIMIT ON THE COUNCILORS ABILITY TO RAISE THIS AT THIS POINT IF THE PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL IS PREPARED TO ENTERTAIN A VOTE ON IT AT THIS TIME. >> Coun. Benton: I DON'T THINK IT FITS HERE. IT WOULD SEEM TO FALL UNDER CATEGORY AS FAR AS I CAN TELL OF AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUS ACTIONS OF THE LUPZ. WHICH IS DEFINITELY BEFORE US THE WHOLE BODY OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED BY LUPZ ARE BEFORE US AS OF THE IDO BUT THIS IS A SPECIFIC AMENDMENT HAVING TO DO WITH A DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT. THE ONLY REASONABLE THE STAFF EXPLANATION INCLUDED CONDITIONAL USE IS BECAUSE THIS DEFINITION IN SOME CASES WOULD APPLY TO A CONDITIONAL USE, BUT THIS IS NOT A PLACE FOR SUCH AN AMENDMENT. I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING IT TO THIS AMENDMENT. >> Coun. Davis: LET ME ASK QUICKLY MR. MELENDRES OR SCHULTZ, I HEAR YOUR POINT, COUNCILLOR BENTON. I COULD SAY IT GERMANE BUT A LITTLE WONKY. WOULD THIS BE MORE APPROPRIATE ADDED TO C8 WHICH IS TECHNICAL EDIT. THAT SEEMS LIKE A CATCH ALL. IT WOULD ALLOW THE CLERK TO MORE EASILY INCORPORATING IN THIS. WOULD YOU BE ALL RIGHT IF WHEN CAN GET -- >> Coun. Gibson: SORRY. THANK YOU FOR THAT SUGGESTION. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. I DO HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH. IF WE DO DO THAT, PUT THIS AMENDMENT ELSEWHERE, WOULD THE -- AND I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS -- BUT THERE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE ADJUSTMENT OF THE DEFINITIONS. DEFINITIONS ARE DEFINITIONS, CORRECT. OKAY. THAT IS WHY I STARTED OUT THE WAY I DID. I AM NOT SURE THIS BELONGS HERE BUT HERE WE GO. I I'LL WAIT WAIT UNTIL O9. >> Coun. Davis: I'LL TAKE THAT AS A WITHDRAWAL FOR NOW. WHEN WE GET TO C8, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU FIRST. C EIGHT IS TECH EDITS. THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT DISCUSSION. COUNCILLOR BENTON WE WERE ON YOUR AMENDMENT. COUNCILORS THAT WANTED TO WEIGH IN WERE COUNCILOR BORREGO AND BASSAN. >> Coun. Borrego: THANK YOU. ACTUALLY, I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH EACH ONE SEPARATELY. OR IF WE CAN JUST -- I HAVE SOMETHING THAT I NEED TO OFFER AS PART OF THE COUNCIL AMENDMENTS IN MY PACKET AND I NEED TO PULL OUT AND PLACE IN HERE. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION OR IF WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE. >> Coun. Davis: WE ARE GOING TO TAKE EACH ONE IN ORDER IN THE PACKET, C, 1, 2, 3. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE ONES PRE-SUBMITTED THOSE 10 IN ORDER. >> Coun. Borrego: I HAVE ONE FOR C6. >> Coun. Davis: REMIND US. >> Councilor Bassan: THANK YOU. HONESTLY THIS IS NOT ABOUT -- MY APOLOGIES. THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND COUNCILLOR BENTON I DO NOT MEAN TO WORK A LITTLE BIT BACKWARDS. I FOR GOT TO ASK M R. MELENDRES, I HAVE HAD PEOPLE REACH OUT AND MENTION THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULD ATTEST TO THE FACTS NONE OF US HAVE ANY PERSONAL GAIN OR ASSOCIATION WITH CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITY AND WE HAVE NO PREJUDICE PRIOR TO VOTING. I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO DID THAT PERSONALLY BUT I TALKED TO MR. MELENDRES ABOUT THAT EARLIER AND I WAS WONDERING IF HE COULD HELP CLARIFY THAT PRIOR TO VOTING. >> Coun. Davis: WILL YOU RESPOND TO THAT. >> MELENDRES: EVERY TIME THIS COUNCIL KASS AS VOTE IT IS DOING SO SUBJECT ALREADY TO THE CITY'S CODE OF ETHICS WHICH HAS IN PLACE REQUIREMENTS THAT COUNCILORS NOT BE VOTING ON ISSUES THEY ARE SELF INTERESTED IN. SO, REGARDLESS OF ANY STATEMENT MADE OR NOT, THOSE OBLIGATIONS FLOW TO THIS BODY AS EVERYBODY KNOWS WITH THE OATH OF OFFICE THAT WAS TAKEN. AND FOLLOWING THE CITY'S CODE OF ETHICS. >> Coun. Davis: WE ARE BACK ON FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 AS PRESENTED. >> TAKE THE ROLE CALL ON FLOOR AMEND. NO. 1. >> Councilor Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: , NO RESPONSE. >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> Coun. Pena: YES. >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> Coun. Davis: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. 9-0. >> Coun. Davis: UP ON FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 2. COUNCILLOR BENTON, I BELIEVE THIS IS ITEM C2. ARE YOU PRESENTING IT AS NO. 2. >> Coun. Benton: THIS IS FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 2 AND I MOVE THIS. THIS IS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT AMENDMENT WE HAVE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT. >> Coun. Davis: LET ME MAKE A NOTE FOR ADMINISTRATION I SEE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FOLKS FROM ADMINISTRATION FROM ADMINISTRATION, IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN, BE SURE YOUR RAISE YOUR HAND OR JUMP IN. I UNDERSTAND ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T WANT TO COMMENT ON ALL OF THEM. WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN TO AVOID GOING BACK AND FORTH. WE HAD A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR BORREGO. >> Coun. Benton: IF I COULD, SO, JUST QUICKLY, THE HISTORY OF THIS AMENDMENT, I THINK, THE COUNCILORS WHO HAVE BEEN ON LUPZ HAVE HEARD IT AND AT THIS POINT AFTER OUR LAST MEETING, I THINK THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE HAVE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT. THIS GOES BACK TO CONCERNS IN OUR OLDER PARTS OF THE CITY. THAT PREEXISTED EVEN THE OLD ZONING ORDINANCE WHERE DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED AD HOC. SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE RAILROAD CAME INTO ALBUQUERQUE IN THE LATE 19TH CENTURY AND WHAT WAS CALLED NEW TOWN SPRUNG UP, NEIGHBORHOODS SPRUNG UP ALONG THE RAILROAD LINE, ALONG NOT ONLY JUST DOWNTOWN AND BARELAS AND SOUTH BROADWAY BUT UP AND DOWN THE LINE. WORKERS, SIMPLY WORKING PEOPLE WHO HAD JOBS ALONG THAT CORRIDOR, BUILT HOMES THERE OR RENTED HOMES THERE OR HOMES WERE BUILT THAT THEY RENTED. THAT IS HOW THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS GREW UP AND THAT INCLUDES, IF YOU STARTED FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN, THAT WOULD INCLUDE GREATER GARDNER WHICH IS UP IN GRIEGOS WEST OF THE TRACKS AREA. GOING ON DOWN TO WELLS PARK, SANTA BARBARA MARTINEZTOWN EVEN THE SAWMILL WITH THE SPUR THAT WENT OVER TO THE OLD SAWMILL. GOING ON DOWN TO BARELAS, SOUTH BROADWAY AND SAN JOSE. AND THAT PATTERN CONTINUED IN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY. THAT S WOULD NOT SANCTIONED BY ANYONES. THOSE WERE THE DAYS IF YOU HAD LAND YOU BUILT WHAT YOU WANTED TO BUILD. AND THOSE WERE USES THAT EVENTUALLY LED TO NATIONAL MOVEMENT TO ENACT ZONING. IN ALBUQUERQUE THESE ARE THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE HEAR SO MUCH ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE EXISTS FAR BEYOND THIS BUT IN THE CASE OF THE OLDEST NEIGHBORHOODS, THIS IS WHERE WHAT HE SEE THESE CONFLICTS BETWEEN NOXIOUS INDUSTRIAL USES AND LO AND BEHOLD THEY ARE ALL IN DISTRICT 2. THIS IS WHY I TOOK THIS ON. WE CRAFTERRED THIS AS A CITY WIDE BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE. IT MAY HAVE SOME USE CITY WIDE BUT WE LIMITED THE AREA FOR NOW BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY HISTORICALLY WHERE WE FIND THE PROBLEM. >> PRETTY MUCH YOU HEARD ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF IT. AND I HAVEN'T HEARD A WHOLE LOT AGAINST IT. SOME INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE COMMUNITIES STILL DON'T LIKE IT BUT THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT THESE USES FROM GOING IN. HOWEVER, IT DOES ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS AND THEY ARE NOT PARAMETERS -- THIS IS NOT PLACING BURDEN ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ITS DID PLACE THE REQUIREMENT TO CREATE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS WHICH IS NOT SOME MAJOR SUBSIDY BUT A FORM WE DEVELOPED THAT THEY PHIL OUT FILL OUT IF THEY ARE IN ONE OF THESE AREAS. IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT, THEY DO NEED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT WE DON'T NORMALLY ASK IN ZONING. IT GOES BEYOND NON-HARMING APPROACH TO OUR ZONING BECAUSE THESE PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY ZONED FOR THESE USES. IT RECOGNIZES THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF SUCH USES CAN BE HARMFUL TO RESIDENTS IN THE AREA. WE HAVE GOT THESE CHECKER BOARD MIXES. SO THAT IS WHAT IT IS ABOUT. THANK YOU. >> Coun. Borrego: THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SORT OF ADD TO WHAT COUNCILLOR BENTON WAS DISCUSSING. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND SORT OF THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS. IN 1957 WHEN THE ZONING CODE WAS ADOPTED, THE CITY ZONING CODE, MANY OF THESE AREAS WERE KIND OF UP ZONED BECAUSE THERE WAS SORT OF A, I THINK, A WISH ON SOME OF OUR FOREFATHERS IN TERMS OF THE WAY THAT THE CITY WOULD DEVELOP IN THOSE INNER CITY AREAS. SO, MANY OF PEOPLE HAD, YOU KNOW, VERY HIGH ZONING LIKE R3, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, C3, MANUFACTURING ZONES THAT WERE ADOPTED ON THOSE PROPERTIES. AND THE PLATTING THAT OCCURRED ALSO BACK IN THOSE DAYS, WE WORKED ON SOME OF THAT IN THE 80'S AND 90'S AND WE ACTUALLY DOWN ZONED SOME OF THESE AREAS AND WE BELIEVE WORKED WITH THE COMMUNITIES IN SECTOR PLANS AND EVEN BEFORE THE SECTOR PLANS, URBAN RENEWAL TO ENSURE THAT SOME OF THESE IMPACTS WERE LESSENED BECAUSE THE WAY THAT THE ZONING WAS ADOPTED AND THEN THE WAY THAT IT ACTUALLY DEVELOPED, WAS CHAOTIC TO SAY THE LEAST. BECAUSE, YOU HAD A NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO MANUFACTURING ZONED AREAS AND SO, THEN, IN SOME INSTANCES YOU ACTUALLY HAD MANUFACTURING OCCURRING ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. I THINK THAT THIS CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS IS SOMETHING THAT OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ONTO ENSURE THAT WHEN USES ARE ADOPTED OR REZONED, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE FOLLOW SOME SORT OF METHODOLOGY THAT PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORHOODS. SO, I THINK THIS IS REALLY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND IT IS A DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY AS A CITY BEEN GOING IN FOR MANY YEARS BUT WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE. I THINK THIS HELPS US TO CONTINUE THAT JOURNEY. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION TO COUNCILLOR BENTON TO CLOSE. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT. I KNOW IT HAS BEEN TALK THE ABOUT FOR 30 YEARS AND YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT AND DURING THOSE IDO MEETINGS THIS WAS SOMETHING YOU TALKED ABOUT THEN, ENSURING WE HAD THE TIME TO DO IT. SAY THANK YOU. >> I DO SEE SOMEONE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION JUMPED IN. >> RAEL: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COME BENT THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION. DID I HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT WITH OR VISIT WITH COUNCILLOR BENTON YESTERDAY AND WE HAD A LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT INTENT AND IDEA HERE AND AS I THINK COUNCILOR BORREGO MENTIONED, BY SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF LOOKING AT A HIGHER LEVEL OF CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE RAIL CORRIDOR AS WE LOOK AT SOME OF OUR COMMUNITIES, OLDER COMMUNITIES, IN THE CITY. ALSO I WOULD SIMPLY SAY I THINK IT THIS GOING TO BE A WORK IN PROGRESS AS WE LOOK FOR A PROCESS THAT DOES WHAT CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS IS AND WHAT IT WILL BE AS IT RELATES TO THE DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS A BIT AVENUE AREA FOR US. IT YOU NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DONE BEFORE NECESSARILY. AND OBVIOUSLY WE'LL WORK WITH THE COUNCIL ON THIS BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO WHAT COUNCILOR BENTON DESCRIBED WHICH IS REALLY CREATE A BETTER VOICE FOR OUR COMMUNITY IN THAT AREA OF THE RAIL LINE BUT IT WILL BE SOME WORK IN PROGRESS FOR OUR DEPARTMENT AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND OBVIOUSLY FOR THE COMMUNITIES IMPACTED WITH THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNCIL KNEW THAT WE WERE WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS TO MAKE IT BETTER. >> Coun. Davis: THANKS FOR JOINING US FROM YOUR REMOTE UNDISCLOSED LOCATION. >> I AM HERE AT YOUR FAVORITE BALLOON MUSEUM. >> Coun. Benton: THANKS FOR THAT WORD OF SUPPORT. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHECKLIST IS A STANDARDIZED FORM SHOULD BE EASY TO ADMINISTER AND IN MY OPINION PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD FOR ANY APPLICANT TO FILL OUT. THAT THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, COUNCIL SERVICES AND ALSO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT. SO, WE LOOK FORWARD TO ALL THAT EXPERTISE AT THE TABLE OF DEVELOPING THAT CHECKLIST. I WANT TO THANK THE FOLKS THAT POINTED OUT PRECEDENT. I HAVE TAKEN A TOUR OF SAN JOSE FOR MANY TIMES. SAN JOSE IS A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT AS WE SAID, IT GREW UP AROUND A LOT OF PRETTY NOXIOUS USES. AGAIN, IT IS MAPPED VERY STRATEGICALLY ON ONLY FOLLOW THE RAIL CORRIDOR. MAIN LINE, NORTH AND SOUTH AND THEN ALSO TO SOMEWHAT LESSER EXTENT SAWMILL SPUR. THAT IS HOW IT IS CONNFIGURED. I DO WANT TO THANK ESTHER AND STEVE ABEYTA AND OTHERS WHO WORKED ON THIS. CHRIS MELENDRES WHO WE STARTED OUT WITH DOING RESEARCH ON OTHER CITIES AND SCHULTZ WHO HELPED US CARRY IT THROUGH CONCLUSION HERE. I DO HOPE MY FELLOW COUNCILORS CAN SUPPORT THIS AND RECOGNIZE THAT THESE ARE UNIQUE AREAS OF THE CITY THAT REALLY DO NEED SPECIAL PROTECTION. URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >> Coun. Davis: MY APOLOGIES. I MANAGED TO OVERLOOK COUNCILLOR GIBSON WHO RAISED HER HAND JUST AS MR. RAEL WAS FINISHING. I'LL GO BACK TO HER. >> Coun. Gibson: WE RECOGNIZE PROBLEMS AND WE AREN'T AFRAID TO TACKLE THEM. I THINK THIS IS REAL BIG. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER CITIES DO BUT I'LL BETTER THIS NOT AS FAR ALONG AS WE ARE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Coun. Davis: YOU'LL TAKE THAT AS A COMPLIMENT. SEEING TO OTHER DISCUSSION, ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLE ON FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 2. >> Councilor Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> Coun. Pena: YES. >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> Coun. Davis: YES. >> 9-0 ON AMENDMENT NO. 2. >> Coun. Davis: CONGRATULATION S. NEXT UP COUNCILOR BORREGO, ITEM C3 IN PACKET. ONE WITH THE BLUE TABLE. THIS WILL BE FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 3. GO AHEAD. >> Coun. Borrego: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS. WHAT THIS DOES IS IT CREATES USABLE OPEN SPACE FOR MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS CITY WIDE. AND BASICALLY WE GO BACK TO SOME OF OUR OLD ZONING AND WE BASE IT ON OUR NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN THE MULTI FAMILY UNITS. AND I WORKED ON THIS WITH SHANA AND PETRA. IT ENSURES ALL MULTI FAMILY UNITS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OFFER OPEN SPACE FOR THEIR RESIDENTS. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. I SEE COUNCILOR ZNA AS A SECOND. OTHER COUNCILORS FOR DISCUSSION? SOMETHING NONE. OR COUNCILOR BORREGO, I'LL TAKE THAT AS A CLOSE. >> Coun. Borrego: THAT IS GOOD. >> Councilor Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> Coun. Pena: YES. >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> Coun. Davis: YES. 9-0 ON AMENDMENT NO. 3. >> Coun. Davis: NEXT UP IN PACKET C FOR, I'LL INTRODUCE AS FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. FOR. AMENDS ONE OF THE TABLES FOR 21 FOR ALLOWABLE USES TO MAKE LIQUOR RETAIL CONDITIONAL INSTEAD OF PERMISSIVE UNLESS ACCESSORY TO A GROCERY STORE. LIQUOR RETAIL IS ONE OF THOSE USES GENERALLY SEEN AS IN-COMBATABLE WITH NEIGHBORHOODS. WE HEARD ABOUT A PARTICULAR CHAIN OF COMMUNITY STORES IN THE SOUTHEAST THAT DECLARED A NUISANCE LAST YEAR IN PART BECAUSE OF ONGOING ISSUES WITH INDIVIDUAL AND RETAIL LIQUOR SALES. THIS WOULD MAKE THOSE LIQUOR RETAIL CONDITIONAL IN THOSE AREAS, SO, ESSENTIALLY JUST IN MXM MIXED USE LIKE CENTRAL AND WYOMING MONTGOMERY COORS ET CETERA. TO ENSURE THAT NEIGHBORHOODS AND COUNCIL HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THESE ISSUES AND ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUAL LIQUOR RETAIL IS APPROPRIATE USE FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 4. >> Coun. Borrego: SECOND. >> Coun. Davis: ANY DISCUSSION ON FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 4. >> Councilor Bassan: WHERE I CAN SEE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS I HAVE TO REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE TO CLARIFY AND GET MY 2 CENTS IN, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK ON SOMETHING ASKING LEGISLATURE TO REGULATE ALCOHOL SALES AND WHATNOT IN THE FUTURE BUT GIVEN THAT GAS STATIONS OR OTHER USES THEY ARE PRIVATE BUSINESSES, I STRUGGLE WITH BEING ABLE TO CURTAIL WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T SELL SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. >> Coun. Davis: OTHER DISCUSSION? >> TO RESPOND, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND ALTHOUGH I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT LIQUOR RETAIL IS -- LIQUOR USES ARE ALREADY THING WE REGULATE IN OTHER PLACES. FOR EXAMPLE, SEX BUSINESSES ARE ALSO ONES THAT ARE CONDITIONAL OR REQUIRED EXTRA VARIANCES. I DON'T THINK IT IS ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER AREAS THAT WE REGULATE. IT IS NOT BANNING IT BUT REQUIRING SOMEONE WANTING TO ADD THAT USE HAS TO GO THROUGH CONDITIONAL USE SO THAT CONCERNED FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND WE COULD MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT APPROPRIATENESS. SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL ASK MS. ORTEGA TO CALL THE ROLE. >> Councilor Bassan: NO. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: NO. >> Coun. Jones: NO. >> Coun. Pena: NO. >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> Coun. Davis: YES. PASSES ON A 5-FOR VOTE. >> BACK TO YOU, C5 WHICH IS AMENDMENT 5. >> Coun. Benton: THANK YOU. AMENDMENT NO. 5 READS AS FOLLOWS. ADD A FOOTNOTE TO TABLE 512 CORRESPONDING WITH THE FRONT MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN AREAS UNTIL MIXED USE ZONES AS FOLLOWS. RENUMBER SUBSEQUENT FOOTNOTES AS NECESSARY. WHERE OUTDOOR SEATING OR GATHERING AREA, OR OUTDOOR DINING AREA IS LOCATED BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND PARKING OR LOADING AREA, A THREE FOOT WALL AND TREE SPACED 20 FEET ON CENTER BETWEEN THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA AND GATHERING AREA OR OUTDOOR DINING AREA AND ANY PARKING OR LOADING AREA SHALL BE REQUIRED. SO, THIS APPLIES TO AN AMENDMENT ALREADY PASSED AT LUPZ AND JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND, THE ORIGINAL IDO REQUIRED ON MAIN STREET CORRIDORS AND SIMILAR CONDITIONS THAT THE BUILDING FRONTAGE BE MAINTAINED UP AT ESSENTIALLY AT OR CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT ON ANY GIVEN PROPERTY, THAT 50% OF THE FRONTAGE BE PLACED ON THAT PROPERTY LINE. THAT WOULD LEAVE THE OTHER 50% AS REALLY, WHATEVER IS ALLOWED UNDER THE ZONING. SO IT COULD BE A PLAZA LIKE THIS OR IT COULD BE A PARKING LOT. THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS PASSED PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED A PATIO, OUTDOOR DINING PATIO TO BE COUNTED AS PART OF THAT BUILDING MINIMUM FRONTAGE OR IN LIEU OF THAT MINIMUM BUILDING FRONTAGE. THIS AMENDMENT -- I HAVE SPOKEN TO COUNCILOR SENA ABOUT THIS WHO SPONSORED PREVIOUS AMENDMENT BUT THIS AMENDMENT SAYS, OKAY, ACCEPTED STREET FRONT DINING IS A GOOD THING AND CONTRIBUTES TO VITALITY OF THESE MAIN STREETS SO IT IS FINE AND CAN COUNT BUT INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING A DINING AREA THAT IS OUT -- THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN AWAY THAT STREET WALL, THAT ORIGINAL INTENT, BUT PICTURE THAT 25% OF THE FRONTAGE CAN BE THE DINING AREA, OTHER 25% CAN BE A PARKING LOT. OR DRIVEWAYS OR ANYTHING JUST GENERAL OPEN SPACE. BUT IF YOU WERE TO DO THIS AND YOU HAD PARKING ADJACENT TO THE DINING AREA, THERE SHOULD BE A LOW WALL AND TREES TO PROVIDE JUST TO SOFTEN THE IMPACT OF HAVING MORE PARKING. EFFECTIVELY WITHOUT THIS A PERSON COULD JUST HAVE A SLAB AND PUT SOME TABLES OUT THERE AND YOU WOULD SEE ALL THE CARS IN THE PARKING BEHIND IT AND CARS GOING BACK AND FORTH. >> Coun. Harris: I AM JUST REALLY OPPOSED TO THIS BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC. WE DO THIS EVERY YEAR. THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER NEXT YEAR BUT WE HAVE RESTAURANTS GOING OUT OF BUSINESS ALMOST EVERYDAY IN ALBUQUERQUE AND SOME OF THESE PATIO ARRANGEMENTS ARE THE ONLY THING KEEPING SOME OF THESE BUSINESSES ALIVE. I THINK THIS IS SOCK THAT THE MARKET CAN TAKE CARE OF. WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SEATING WHICH IS REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THE DINERS, THEY ARE NOT COMING BACK. I THINK YOU DON'T NEED TO REGULATE THIS, NOT THIS YEAR, NOT WHEN WE HAVE RESTAURANTS GOING OUT OF BUSINESS WEEKLY, IF NOT DAILY. SOME OF THESE CONFIGURATIONS YOU SEE AROUND TOWN ARE A LITTLE FUNKY. I GET THAT BUT LET'S SEE AFTER WE GET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PANDEMIC AND LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE SOME EXISTING TENT SITUATIONS THAT NEED REGULATING BECAUSE THEY REFLECTS POORLY ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. RIGHT NOW I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PUT UP WITH THE FUNKINESS UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THE PANDEMIC. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. >> Coun. Sena: THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO GET BACKGROUND ON THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT. JUST SPEAK TO COUNCILOR SANCHEZS WITH THE ONE THAT BROUGHT THIS FORWARD AND REALLY HE WAS AHEAD OF HIS TIME BECAUSE HE SAW THIS IN A WAY THE ORIGINAL CONVERSATION WAS BROUGHT FORTH IN THINKING ABOUT HOW CAN WE MAKE IT MORE INVITING AND MAKE THE AREA MORE INVITING FOR PEOPLE TO WALK AND PEDESTRIANS JUST WALKING UP TO RESTAURANTS TO ENJOY ESPECIALLY ALONG WEST CENTRAL. TO MY CONSTITUENTS CONCERNS THAT SOMEHOW THIS WOULD MAKE PATIOS ALL THE WAY TO COORS. I WANT TO MENTION INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT WAS ALSO TO THINK ABOUT OUR FUTURE PAST COVID-19 OF MAKING OUTDOOR DINING SPACES A LITTLABILITY MORE OF OPTION FOR RESTAURANT AND MAKE IT MORE ENJOYABLE AS WELL AS PEOPLE WALK TO THESE PLACES SOME ENJOY FOOD. BUT, I DO HAVE SOME ISSUES JUST THAT I HOPE THIS DOES THE MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT. I LOVE IDEA OF INCORPORATED MORE TREES AND MAKING IT A GREENER SPACE. THAT IS WHAT I AM WILLING TO DO BUT I JUST HOPE THIS DOESN'T MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO CREATE MORE OF AN OUTDOOR DINING SPACE. I AM WILLING TO CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION. I AM ON THE FENCE ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT BUT APPRECIATE BRINGING THIS FORWARD BECAUSE IT BRINGS THAT CONVERSATION TOLL WHAT CAN OUR OUTDOOR DINING SPACES LOOK LIKE. >> WE JUST, WHAT, LAST MONTH, I THINK IT WAS LAST MONTH, APPROPRIATED 300,000 TO RESTAURANTS TO HELP CREATE SPACE FOR OUTDOOR DINING. SO, I THINK THAT THAT IN ITSELF COUNTERS THE ARGUMENT THERE ARE FEWER DOLLARS AVAILABLE. I AGREE BUT THAT IS WHY WE DID THE APPROPRIATION. I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE INTENTION OF THAT APPROPRIATION. SO, MAYBE THAT IS A QUESTION. LET ME CHANGE THAT INTO THE FORM OF A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WOULD THIS BE -- OR ADMINISTRATION MAYBE. WHOEVER MIGHT KNOW. WOULD REQUIREMENTS LIKE A THREE FOOT WALL IF NEEDED, SOME KIND OF GREENERY, WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED BE A APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR 300,000 OF GRANTS OR PART OF THAT MONEY? >> Coun. Davis: I AM NOT SURE IF OUR STAFF HAS TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO TALK ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CARES ACT MONEY. >> Coun. Gibson: I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WOULDN'T BE. WE TALKED ABOUT GREENERY AND, YOU KNOW -- >> Coun. Davis: HE DIDN'T VOLUNTEER BUT I SEE MR. VARELA FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I MIGHT PUT HIM ON THE SPOT TO SEE OR ONE OF THE COLLEAGUES WOULD LOOK AT THE QUESTION OR OPINE BRIEFLY. ARE YOU STILL AVAILABLE SOMEONE FROM CITY LEGAL. IF NOT, WE'LL KEEP IT GOING. WE HAVE ANOTHER COUNCILOR AND WE SEE IF THEY CAN GET YOU AN ANSWER. >> ARE YOU STILL THERE. I SEE YOU UNMUTE. >> VARELA: I AM HERE. IF YOU COULD PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR AND REPEAT THE QUESTION SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING REGARDING CARES ACT FUNDING. >> Coun. Gibson: CERTAINLY. LAST YEAR -- LAST MONTH, THE 300,000 DOLLARS APPROPRIATION WOULD PASS AND INTENDED FOR RETAILERS AND RESTAURANTS TO CREATE COMFORTABLE SPACE FOR THEIR SHOPPERS OR FOR THERE ARE DINERS. AND, WE TALKED ABOUT, AT THAT TIME, SHADE COVERINGS, EVEN TENTING WITH SIDINGS, SOME KIND OF LANDSCAPING, YOU KNOW. POTTED PLANTS AND WHATEVER. I AM WONDERING IF WHAT IS IN THIS AMENDMENT C5 COULD ALSO BE QUALIFIED AS AN APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURE FOR RESTAURANTS. >> VARELA: WITHOUT HAVING A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE NEW MEXICO FRONT OF IN FRONT OF ME IF THE IMPROVEMENT IS DUE TO THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY AND OUR EFFORTS AND ESPECIALLY THE COUNCIL'S EFFORTS TO INCREASE THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY THROUGH THAT GRANT MONEY, AS LONG AS IT IS COVID-19 19 RELATED IMPROVEMENTS THEN YES CARES ACT MONEY AND THE MONEY APPROPRIATED VIA THE ACT SHOULD BE USABLE FOR THIS. >> Coun. Gibson: THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: SORRY TO PUT ON YOU THE SPOT. THANKS FOR JUMPING IN. COUNCILOR JONES AND BACK TO THE SPONSOR. >> Coun. Jones: WHEN THIS WAS FIRST PRESENTED BY THE SPONSOR, I WAS VERY, VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF IT. I STILL AM, HOWEVER, I THINK THERE ARE A FEW DETAILS THAT WEREN'T ANSWERED. ONE OF THE MAJOR ONES IS THIS EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVE OR FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION? BECAUSE, MANY RESTAURANTS HAVE OUTSIDE DINING AND DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY NOR THE SPACE TO PUT IN THE TREES AND I LOVE THE IDEA. BUT, MAJOR QUESTION IS, I GUESS I HAVE TO ASK THE SPONSOR, IS THIS INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE RETAIL FACILITY TO BE RETROACTIVE. >> Coun. Benton: THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY IF A BUILDING PERMIT WERE APPLIED FOR. SO IT DOESN'T REAL QUESTION APPLY TO ANY EXISTING SPACE THAT EXISTS THAT IS A PATIO. BUT IF YOU HAVE GOT AN EXISTING PROPERTY WITH A BUILDING AND AREA TO DO THIS AND IT IS ON ONE OF THESE PREMIUM TRANSIT CORRIDORS OR MAIN STREET OR URBAN CENTERS, REMEMBER THIS IS ONLY PLACE THIS APPLIES. IT DOES SPECIFIC CORRIDORS. THEN, YOU WOULD APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND AT THAT POINT YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THIS FEATURE TO YOUR PATIO. >> THAT CHANGED A LOT OF OUR PERSPECTIVE AS TO HOW THIS WOULD BE DONE. >> Coun. Davis: TEMPORARY VERSUS PERMANENT PIECE OF THIS. >> MELENDRES: TO KIND OF PICK UP ON BOTH CITY LEGAL AND COUNCILLOR BENTON'S COMMENTS, AMENDMENTS THAT YOU ARE DOING HERE TONIGHT AND ACTION YOU'RE TAKING WOULD OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY. REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT APPLY RETAIL FACILITY RETROACTIVE. WITH RESPECT TO MONEY APPROACH RATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HELPING WITH BUSINESSES DO MORE OUT CORE DYKE FOR THE PURPOSES OF PUBLIC SAFETY, THOSE APPROPRIATIONS WERE FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR SPACES. SO THIS WITH APPLY TO COUNCILLOR BENTON MORE PERMANENT OUTDOOR SPACES. AND, ALLOWANCES THAT WERE PERMITTED FOR RESTAURANTS WERE TO DO THINGS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN PERMITTED TO DO UNDER THE CODE WITH UNDERSTANDING THEY WERE TEMPORARY. SO THE FUNDING THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER, WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THOSE TEMPORARY FIXES WHILE WE CONTINUE TO ENDURE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY WITH OCCUPANCY LIMITS BUT NOT FOR PERMANENT UPGRADES TO A BUSINESS MOVING FORWARD AS WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THIS AMENDMENT. >> Z. >> Coun. Jones: THANK YOU. (CHANGE OF ? >> BEING RIEWSHES THAT PERMITTED THESE THINGS AND ALLOWS FUNDING FOR IT, TAKES CARE OF THAT, THAT IT IS ALLOWED SO AGAIN, THIS WOULD ONLY GO INTO EFFECT, AND I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT ABOUT THIS, IF YOU HAD TO PULL A PERMIT, AND IT WOULD GO TO THE PLANNING DESK AND AT THAT POINT, SOMEBODY WOULD SAY, YOU'RE POURING CONCRETE, YOU'RE NOT JUST CONVERTING A TEMPORARY AREA OF SOME KIND, THAT THEN AT THAT TIME YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THIS. AND I THINK THE INTENT REALLY IS , I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN, COUNCILLOR HARRIS, BUT I THINK THE INTENT IS CERTAINLY NOT TO PERMIT THESE TEMPORARY INSTALLATIONS TO HELP PEOPLE. IN FACT, I SPONSORED 1 MYSELF ON A STREET IN OLD TOWN. IT'S DONE NOW AND OPERATING, A SMALL STREET TO ALLOW THAT HE THINGS TO HAPPEN. BUT FOR A PERMANENT PROVISION OF THE ZONING CODE, I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR BENTON. BEFORE WE GO BACK TO COUNCILLOR HARRIS, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE MS. MORRIS WHO WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION. >> MR. PRESIDENT AND COUNCILORS, YES, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE 2 BILLS THAT COUNCILLOR BORREGO SPONSORED AND COULD I GO COUNCILOR GIVEN ON, I ALREADY MADE THOSE CHANGE THAT IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DURING COVID. THERE IS FLEXIBILITY BUILT INTO THE IDEA FOR OUTDOOR DINING AND OUT DOOR RETAIL AREAS, TO BE ACCOMMODATED ANYWHERE ON THE SITE. AND THAT WAY, ANY OF THOSE ISSUES, I ALSO WANT TO ADD A CLARIFICATION OF THE SCOPE OF THIS AMENDMENT. AS WAS MENTIONED, IT'S BEEN IN AREAS, BUT IT WAS ONLY APPLIED WHEN THE DINING AREA IS LOCATED BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND A PARKING AREA. SO IF YOU WERE DEVELOPING AN MANY OUTDOOR DINING AREA, LIKE KELLY'S, IT WOULDN'T APPLY, BECAUSE THE BUILDING WRAPS THE DINING AREA. IF YOU HAVE A DINING AREA THAT RUNS PARALLEL WITH THE BUILDING, AND GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF THE LOT, FOR EXAMPLE, IT ALSO WOULDN'T APPLY, BECAUSE IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY THE SIDEWALK AND THE PARKING AREA. SO IT IS QUITE LIMITED IN SCOPE. ISN'T ADDRESSED, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOT OOJ COVERAGE, AND IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER A MINIMUM STANDARD, BECAUSE NOT EVERY DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH SPACE FOR THOSE TREES AND FOR THOSE THAT 3 FOOTBALL. SO I -- FOOT, WALL. I THINK THAT THIS NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW. YOU MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT. BUT I THINK THAT FOR THOSE REASONS, I PROBABLY WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MA'AM. SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, BACK TO COUNCILLOR BENTON TO CLOSE. MANY. >> >> Coun. Benton: JUST REALLY QUICKLY, APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM COUNCILLOR HARRIS AND COUNCILLOR BORREGO. SO THE PARAMETERS HERE REALLY AREN'T ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE SOACHES SO MUCH AS FRONTAGE, SO THE ORIGINAL PROVISION THAT WAS AMENDED IN COMMITTEE WAS ABOUT FRONTAGE, NOT SQUARE FOOT FOOTAGE. SO LET'S TAKE A QUICK EXAMPLE. LET'S SAY YOU HAVE 100 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE, REGARDLESS OF YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE UNDERLYING LANGUAGE THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE IDO SAID, PRIOR TO TO THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT, THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THAT, OREGON AN -- OR 50 FEET OF THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE -- 20 OF THAT 50 BOB PATIO AND ALL I'M SAYING IS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ABLG BACK BEHIND IT IT OR SOME KIND OF BACK DROP BEHIND IT. THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THE PARKING LOT, THIS IS REALLY ONLY A PARKING SCREENINGS, WHICH WE HAVE A MYSTERY IN THE CITY OF -- HISTORY IN THE CITY OF SCREENING PARKING FROM OTHER USES. L WHERE IT IS NOT SAYING IT IS AN YOU'VE THING, IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO HAVE ON ANY GIVEN SITE. A SMALL SITE MAY PRECLUDE EVEN THE ADDITION, MUCH LESS THE PAT PATIO, IF I NEED IT ALL FOR PARKING. BUT THE POINT IS TO SCREEN THE PARKING. I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND OUT THE LANGUAGE THAT COUNCILOR SENA SPONSORED, AND MY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THE GENTLEMAN FOR WHOM COUNCILOR SANCHEZ BROUGHT THIS FORWARD HAS GONE AHEAD AND APPLIED AND HAS A BUILDING PERMIT IN PROCESS, SO HE HAS FOUND SOME WAY TO DEAL WITH THE OLD LANGUAGE. I LIKE PATIO DINING ON THE STREET. EVERYBODY LIKES IT, ESPECIALLY ON A MAIN STREET IN THE URBAN CENTER. SO I THINK IT IS ALL FINE. BUT THE INTENT OF THE 50 PERCENT WAS NOT TO HAVE LITTLE PIECES OF BUILDINGS ALONG THE FRONTAGE WITH 75 PERCENT OF THE REST OF THE FRONTAGE NOT BEING BUILDING, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE NEXT 1. SO IT IS AN ODD KIND OF URBAN FRONTAGE THAT MAY RESULT IN FROM IT. MUCH BUT I'M WILLING TO LET THAT GO. BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO SCREEN PARKING FROM ACTIVE USES. I YOUR HONOR YOUR SUPPORT -- I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR BENTON. MAD MADAM CLERK, CALL THE ROLL. >> >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> >> Coun. Borrego: NO. >> >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> >> Coun. Jones: YES. COUNCILOR SENA: YES. >> >> Coun. Davis: YES. >> >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> THANK YOU THAT, PASSES ON AN 8-1 VOTE. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS ITEM C 6, WHICH WE WILL CALL FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 6. BUT BEFORE WE ACKNOWLEDGE TO PRESENT IT, LET ME TALK ABOUT PROCESS HERE FOR A 2ND, SINCE IT IS A LITTLE HARD TO DO ON ZOOM. COUNCILLOR BORREGO HAS MENTIONED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE RELATING TO THIS TOPIC, AND SO I JUST WANT TO GO TO COUNCILLOR BORREGO FOR 1 MINUTE SO WE HAVE IT READY FOR YOU. COUNCILLOR BORREGO, I BELIEVE THAT PAGE 12 OF YOUR PACKET RELATES TO ITEM C-6 ON NOTIFICATIONS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> >> Coun. Borrego: I'M LOOKING FOR THE PAGE NUMBER HERE, COUNCILOR. I CAN READ IT INTO THE RECORD, IF YOU'D LIKE. >> >> Coun. Davis: WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHOW IT. BUT YOURS RELATES TO A NOTIFICATION AND POST IN THE FACILITATED MEETING AS DOES THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS ALREADY HAD IN THE PACKET. SINCE THOSE 2 PIECES OF LEGISLATION, ORTHOS 2 LANGUAGES -- IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR AMENDMENT WOULD DELAY HERS, WHICH ARE NOT COMPATIBLE. I THINK THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS IS TO GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE THE PACKET IN FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER C-6. WE WILL SHARE YOURS ON THE SCREEN, SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT. BUT COUNCILORS, IN ORDER TO DO YOURS, WE WOULD HE HAVE TO VOTE NO ON FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 6, AND GO OUT OF ORDER AND INTRODUCE YOURS, IF THAT FAILS, BECAUSE WE CAN'T PASS A BILL AND DELAY IT IN THE SAME MOTION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WE WILL TAKE THE INTRODUCTION OF C-6 AS FLOOR EVENT NUMBER 6, AND THEN WE WILL ASK MR. MOYA OR MS. MORRIS TO SHARE THE LANGUAGE, SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT BOTH. WE HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE. WE CAN'T DO BOTH. SO, INTRODUCE C-6, AND START WITH YOU AND PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. PRIOR TO STARTING, I'M DEFINITELY GOING TO GET SOME EXPERT OFI -- EXPERTISE TO READ INTO THE RECORD. THIS IS A 5 ACTION AMENDMENT HERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT ME TO GO ABOUT IT IN THE BEST WAY. >> >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILOR, WE ARE SHARING THAT ON THE SCREEP. YOU DON'T HAVE 20 READ IT WORD FOR WORD. BUT JUST INTRODUCE ITEM C-6 IN THE PACKET AS FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 6, AND WE WILL GET SOME EXPERTS TO TALK THROUGH THE PROVISIONS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE C-6 , AMENDMENT C-6, WHICH IS THE NOTIFICATION FACILITATING MEETING PROCEDURES AMENDMENT. AND I'LL HAND IT OVER. >> >> Coun. Davis: GREAT. WE NEED A 2ND REALLY QUICKLY. I'M LOOKING FOR HANDS. COUNCILLOR BASSAN -- COUNCILLOR BENTON -- COULD I GO THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR BASSAN WILL TALK WHEN WHY HER OPTION WILL DELAY THIS, AND WE WILL COME BACK TO THE MOTION, ARE THAT WAY WE HAVE BOTH IDEAS UP AT THE SAME TIME. MS. MORRIS OR MR. SCHULTZ, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THOSE PROVISIONS? >> ABSOLUTELY, THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT AND COUNCILLOR BASSAN. SO THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO TAKE 5 DIFFERENT ACTIONS. THOSE ARE BEFORE YOU ON THE BULLET POINTS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. THEY ARE RELATED TO PUBLIC NOTICE. SO THAT'S THE MAILED NOTICE THAT FOLKS RECEIVED WHEN DEVELOPMENT IS TO OCCUR AROUND THEIR PROPERTY OR WITHIN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOUNDARY. AND IT ALSO PROPOSES SOME POST FACILITATED MEETING AND THAT'S THE MEETING THAT SOMEONE CAN ASK FOR AFTER AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE CITY. SO THE 1ST BULLET POINT THERE SIMPLY REQUIRES THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO CREATE TEMPLATES FOR NOTIFICATION. I KNOW THAT MANY COUNCILORS AND CERTAINLY WE HAVE HEARD FROM CONSTITUENTS OVER THE LAST YEAR THAT SOMETIMES THE NOTICE THEY GET IS SO INCONSISTENT IN THE LEVEL OF INFORMATION THAT IS PROVIDED. SO BY SIMPLY REQUIRING A TEMPLATE BE REQUIRED TO FILL OUT , APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PROVIDING THE SAME NOTICE TO EVERYONE. AND THAT SHOULD BE REALLY HOPEFUL TO THE CONSTITUENCY THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM. THE NEXT 4 ITEMS ARE ALL IN RELATION TO POST SUBMITTAL THAT SILL DATED MEETINGS. THIS IS HOW TO CHANGE IT IN THE IDO. IN THE IDO TODAY, YOU CAN REQUEST A POST FACILITATED MEETING, BUT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS DISCRETION OVER WHETHER THAT FACILITATED MEETING IS GRANTED OR NOT. SO THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO AMEND THAT A LITTLE BIT TO SAY THAT THAT DISCRETION NO LONGER LIVES WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IF YOU ARE, INSTEAD, I'M SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT BULLET .2, IF YOU ARE A PROPERTY OWNER WITH 330 FEET OR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN 660 FEET OF A PROPERTY SEEKING DEVELOPMENT, THEN YOU GET A POST SUBMITTAL BE FACILITATED MEETING. THIS IS A LITTLE MORE ALIGNED ABOUT HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKED PRIOR TO THE IDO. THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY A GREAT KEEPER. THIS WILL ALLOW THOSE POST SUBMITTED BE FACILITATED MEETING TO HAPPEN. THE 3RD BULLET POINT WILL BE ACTION 3 IN THE AMENDMENT. IT DOES NOT ALLOW AN APPLICANT TO OPT OUT OF A POST FACILITATED MEETING, SPECIFICALLY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS. IN THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT, THERE WAS AN ALLOWANCE THAT IF AN APPLICANT DEPARTMENT AGREE THAT A POST SUBMITTAL FACILITATED MEETING SHOULD HAPPEN, THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SAY, NO, I'M NOT GOING TO HOLD 1. THAT IS NO LONGER IN THE AMENDMENT. THE NEXT 2 ITEMS ARE ALSO RELATED IN THE POST SUBMITTAL FACILITATED MEETING WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR POLICY DECISION. THEY ARE THE BIG DID HE SEEINGS -- DECISIONS FROM THE CITY THAT GO THROUGH MULTIPLE BODIES AND BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH MORE PUBLIC INTERACTION FOR THOSE DECISIONS IT DID NOT SEEM NECESSARY THAT POST SUBMITTAL FACILITATED MEETING ALSO BE ALLOWED, BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO INTERACT WITH THE DECISION MAKERS AND THE APPLICANTS ON THOSE DECISIONS. WITH THE 1 EXCEPTION OF A POLICY DECISION THAT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THAT PURVIEW, WHICH IS A ZONE MAP AMENDMENT EPC. THAT IS TECHNICALLY UP THE UMBRELLA OF A POLICY DECISION, BUT IT IS THE 1 POLICY DECISION WHERE THE EPC IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER, AND THAT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE TRAIN OF LOGIC WITH THE OTHER POLICY DECISIONS WHERE THEY HAVE MUCH MORE PUBLIC REVIEW UNDER MULTIPLE BODIES BECAUSE THEY ARE THE 1 AND ONLY FINAL DECISION MAKERS. SO THIS MAKES CLEAR THAT YOU CAN STILL SEEK A POST APPLICATION FACILITATED MEETING FOR THOSE PARTICULAR DECISIONS. L OVERALL, THIS AMENDMENT TRIES TO TIGHTEN UP THE NOTICE THAT THE IDO REQUIRES, AND REALLY REFINES THE FACILITATED MEETING PROCESS IN THE IDO. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS MUCH THANK YOU. >> >> Coun. Davis: SO COUNCILLOR BORREGO, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD DELAY OR DEFER OR PUSH THIS OFF TO NEXT YEAR, SO WE WILL PUT THAT UP ON SCREEN AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT 1 AND LET YOU TALK ABOUT THAT, AND WE WILL GO BACK TO DISCUSSION AMONG COUNCILORS, BECAUSE 1ST MOTION WOULD BE WHETHER TO APPROVE DOIRS EVER COUNCILLOR BASSAN, AND IF THAT FAILS, WE WOULD GO TO YOURS. SO COUNCILLOR BORREGO WOULD YOU LIKE OF LOOK AND SEE, IS THIS THE CORRECT AMENDMENT? L I BELIEVE IT IS NUMBER 12, IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG. >> >> Coun. Borrego: YES, ITS. MY AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY BASED ON INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED FROM NEIGHBORHOOD SO A LEGSES -- COALITIONS. BASICALLY, WHAT THIS DOES IS, IT ASKS THAT WE DELAY THIS UNTIL OUR ANNUAL REVIEW. AND PART OF THE THINKING REGARDING THIS IS THAT WE ALSO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCE THAT'S BEING REVIEWED CURRENTLY, AND THAT WE SHOULD ACTUALLY TIE THIS TO HOW THAT REVIEW IS COMING ALONG, WHICH WE HAVE NOT HAD AN UPDATE ON THAT RECENTLY. BUT THIS BASICALLY ASKS THAT WE PUT THIS ON HOLD BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY AND THEN WE VET IT A LITTLE FURTHER AND BRING IT BACK SO I'LL MOVE THAT AMENDMENT. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, SHALL COUNCILLOR BORREGO: ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK WE CAN MOVE THAT AMENDMENT, BECAUSE 2 AMENDMENTS CANNOT WORK TOGETHER. SO WHAT WE WILL DO IS ASK COUNCILORS TO DISCUSS -- >> CODE,. >> >> Coun. Borrego: CODE, A POINT OF ORDER. I THINK I CAN MOVE MY AMENDMENT. IT CAN BE AN AMENDMENT TO COIBSZ COUNCILLOR HARRIS COUNCILLOR BASSAN'S AMENDMENT. >> >> Coun. Davis: I'M DEFERRING TO THE CLERK WHO SAY THEY ARE NOT COMPATIBLE, BECAUSE THEY WORK CROSS WAYS WITH EACH OTHER. SHANA, I KNOW YOU DID SOME ANALYSIS, WE CAN'T PASS LEGISLATION THAT HAS 2 CONFLICT PGS ACTION ITEMS. SO MS. SCHULTZ. >> YES, MR. PRESIDENT, THANK YOU THE CONFLICT WITH THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT IT PROPOSES TO INSERT TEXT INTO THE INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, OUR REGULATORY DOCUMENT FOR HOW DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS IN THE CITY, THAT TALKS ABOUT DELAYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. AND IF THE INTEREST OF THE SPONSOR IS TO JUST NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CHANGES THAT AS THEY HAVE BEEN PROPOSED I THINK THE CLEAREST WAY TO DO THAT IS VOTE NO ON C-6 AND HAVE THAT AMENDMENT NOT GO FORWARD IN TOTAL. THE WAY THIS IS DRAFTED HERE, IT ESSENTIALLY PUTS THE NO VOTES INTO THE IDO. SO AN APPLICANT WOULD PHYSICALLY SEE THE TEXT DUE TO THE COMPLEXION AT -- COMPLEXION IT'S OF THE DOCUMENT, AND THAT WOULD BE CONFUSING TO STAFF TRYING TO ENFORCE THE DOCUMENT. >> >> Coun. Bassan: THAT WASN'T THE I KNOW DEPARTMENT. THE INTENT WAS TO DELAY THIS AMENDMENT. >> >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR BORREGO, THERE IS NO WAY TO DELAY. YOU CAN DEFER THIS AMENDMENT, BUT IF THE BILL, ITSELF, PASSES TONIGHT, IT WOULD JUST DIE. SO THE STRAIGHT ANSWER WOULD BE, JUST TO VOTE NO, ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 6. AND IF YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT VOTES TO DEFEAT THE AMENDMENT, THEN THE AMENDMENT WILL NOT ANYBODY PLACE, AND SOMEONE COULD BRING A NEW VERSION BACK. >> >> Coun. Borrego: WHAT I'M SAYING, CODE, IS THE INTENT WAS TO DELAY THIS AMENDMENT UNTIL THE AND YOU'LL REVIEW WHICH IS NEXT MONTH -- ANNUAL REVIEW, WHICH IS NEXT MONTH, TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE TIME TO DEAL WERE THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS. I THINK THIS COULD BE EASILY CHANGED. MAYBE DELETE THE RED LINE REFERENCE AND JUST RECOMMEND THAT IT BE DELAYED. >> >> Coun. Davis: IF YOU LIKE, WE CAN HAVE MR. MELENDREZ PROVIDE YOU WITH A DIFFERENT WAY OF TALKING ABOUT IT. BUT ESSENTIALLY, YOU CAN DELAY THIS AMENDMENT, BUT THE INTENT OF THE COUNCIL TONIGHT IF THE COUNCIL PASSES THE IDO ITEM THAT IS ON THE FLOOR, O-2010, THERE IS NOTHING TO DELAY IT TO. THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO BRING THIS BACK UP THROUGH THE ANNUAL UPDATE WOULD BE AS A NEW PROPOSAL ON THE ANNUAL UPDATE IF IT FAILS TO PASS AMENDMENT NUMBER 6. BUT I SEE MR. MELENDREZ HERE. I KNOW HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. I THINK THE EASY ANSWER IS, TO VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 6, AND YOU CAN BRING IT BACK IN NEXT YEAR'S UPDATE. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILLOR BORREGO, YES, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING HERE, AND I DO RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ESSENTIALLY KIND OF TABLE THIS QUESTION FOR NOW AND RESURRECTOR IT PERHAPS WITH THE NEXT ANNUAL UPDATE AND THAT MAKES COMPLETE CONCEPTUAL SENSE, AND AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE WAY I THINK THAT THAT PLAYS OUT HERE IN THIS INSTANCE HAS BEEN STATED BY MS. YOU WILL SCHULTZ AND ECHOED BY PRESIDENT DAVIS, WHICH IS THAT THE MOTION SON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDMENT, AND SO A MOTION UP AND DOWN ON THAT AMENDMENT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE PATH FORWARD AT THIS POINT BECAUSE, A MOTION TO DENY, OR A VOTE TO DENY THE AMENDMENT WOULD GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE RESURRECT IT NEXT TIME, DURING THE NEXT ANNUAL UPDATE. AND THE WAY THAT THE IDO WORKS AS A REGULATORY DOCUMENT, THE SORT OF SETTING A A FOOTNOTE FOR FUTURE INTENTIONS IS NOT APPROPRIATE. IT DOESN'T EXIST ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE IDO. THAT IS SOMETHING WE NOTE, WITH COUNCIL STAFF AND TOGETHER WITH YOU AND YOUR INDIVIDUAL STAFF, TO REST RESURRECT NEXT TIME TO BRING FORWARD AGAIN. WITH RESPECT TO THE AMENDMENT THAT IS ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW, OUR COUNCIL RULES DO INDICATE THAT PRESUMEDLY THROUGH THE EXTRAPOLATION OF THAT AMENDMENT, IT CAN'T BE AMENDED TO CHANGE THEIR PURPOSE. SO THAT BASICALLY MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO VOTE UP AND DOWN ON THE AMENDMENT, AND AMENDMENTS WOULD EVA AS SOON ASLY UNDO WHAT IS ON THE -- ESSENTIALLY UNDO WHAT IS ON THE FLOOR WILL HAPPEN THROUGH THE UP AND DOWN RATHER THAN A SECONDARY AMENDMENT TO THAT. I KNOW THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A MOUTHFUL TO SAY AND A LITTLE BIT ESOTERIC TO COUNCIL PROCEDURE BUT HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES SENSE IN SOME WAY. >> >> Coun. Borrego: OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON COUNCILLOR BASSAN AMENDMENT, AND IF I NEED TO PULL THE OTHER AMENDMENT, WE WILL. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU SO MUCH. COUNCILORS, DISCUSSION ON ITEM C 6, WHICH IS FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 6. I SEE COUNCILLOR BASSAN, BUT BEFORE I DO, I WANT TO GO TO COUNCIL LOWER SENA, BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION, WE WILL LET YOU RESPOND AND CLOSE, COUNCILLOR BASSAN. COUNCILOR SENA. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. IS IT POSSIBLE TO PULL UP THE PRESIDENT ON THIS SPECIFIC -- THE PRESENTATION ON THIS SPECIFIC -- >> >> Coun. Davis: JUST A 2ND. THIS? >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I DO APPRECIATE THAT IT IS BRINGING A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSISTENCY, ESPECIALLY IN REQUESTING FACILITATED MEETINGS. AND GIVING THAT TO MORE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND GIVING DEFERENCE TO THEM IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST IT, IF THEY FALL WITHIN THE PROXIMITY. SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT NEEDS TO HAVE MORE OF THAT TEMPLATE OF WHAT'S STATED AND MORE STABILITY, AND ALLOWS A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO PARTICIPATE. SO, THANK YOU. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MA'AM. LET ME RECOGNIZE MYSELF AND THEN WE WILL GO TO COUNCILLOR BASSAN TO RESPOND AND CLOSE IF NECESSARY. LET ME SAY THANK YOU. I DO AGREE. I APPRECIATE MS. MORRIS AND MS. SCHULTZ IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORKING WITH US. THE NOTIFICATION ISSUE HAS BEEN 1 THAT'S BEEN CHALLENGING. I VISITED EARLY ON LAST YEAR WITH SOME RESIDENTS, FOR EXAMPLE , IN THE VICTORY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, TO LOOK AT ONLY OF THE NOTIFICATION THEY RECEIVE, AND AS MS. MORRIS SAID, THEY DO REALLY VARY, AND SOMETIMES IT VARIES BECAUSE OF THE APPLICANT, AND SOMETIMES IT VARIES BECAUSE OF THE EXPERTISE, OR LACK THEREOF, AND EXPERIENCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THESE ARE COMPLICATED TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT I HAVE TO, AFTER 5 YEARS ON THE COUNCILLOR PEÑA, STILL HAVE A HARD TIME FOLLOWING SOMETIMES WHEN WE GET INTO THIS REFERS TO THIS, AND GETTING DOWN TO SOME OF THESE TECHNICAL MAT, AND THEY ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. SO WE ARE ASKING VOLUNTEER NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS TO INTERPRET COMPLICATED THINGS AND I THINK A STANDARD TEMPLATE ON HOW TO DO AND ALONG WITH TRAINING TO ENSURE THAT NEIGHBORHOODS DON'T MISS SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT IS TECHNICAL, ALSO JUST MAKES IT SIMPLER FOR EVERYBODY TO SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE. SO I APPRECIATE EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FOR WORKING ON THIS, AND I APPRECIATE COUNCILLOR BASSAN FOR WORKING THROUGH SOME OF THOSE CHALLENGES TO GET THAT RIGHT. COUNCILLOR BASSAN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS TO RESPOND AND CLOSE. >> >> Coun. Bassan: THANK YOU HAD MR. PRESIDENT, AND I WANT TO START BY SAYING, THANK YOU TO MS. SCHULTZ FOR EXPLAINING ALL OF THIS, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE A LOT LONGER, IF IT WERE LET UP TO ME 20 DO SO, BECAUSE SHE CAN SAY IT SO ACCURATE AND DONE SIZE, BUT STILL -- CONCISE, BUT STILL IN GHTS TOTALITY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I CLARIFY, TOO, THAT I AM THANKFUL TO COUNCILLOR QUEZADA AND OF -- COUNCIL LOWER SENA AND CODE COUNCILOR DAVIS, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S MAKING A LOT OF THE PUBLIC UN EASY RIGHT NOW IS HAVING THESE QUESTIONS COME UP THAT CAN PERHAPS BE IRONED OUT THROUGH TEMPLATES. BUT I THINK THIS IS GETTING US STARTED ON THE RIGHT TRACK, AND I DON'T SEE ANY CONTINUED DELAY TO FORWARD PROGRESS, IT IS GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT, THANK YOU. >> >> Coun. Davis: MS. ORTEGA, WOULD YOU CALL THE VOTE ON FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 6. >> >> Coun. Bassan: YES. >> >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> >> Coun. Davis: YES. >> 9-0 ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 6. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, AS PROMISED, COUNCILLOR BORREGO, I SAW YOU VOTED YES ON THAT AMENDMENT, BUT -- >> >> Coun. Borrego: I WILL WITHDRAW MY AMENDMENT UNLESS THERE IS WAY TO NOT INCORPORATE THIS INTO THE IDO. I MEAN, WE COULD CHANGE THE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS US TO RE VISIT THIS UNDER THE ANNUAL REVIEW. >> >> Coun. Davis: CERTAINLY, MR. HE MELENDREZ, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE, BUT WE CAN REVISIT THIS LATER WITH COUNCILLOR BORREGO. >> >> Coun. Borrego: OR I COULD WITHDRAW IT, COUNCILOR, AND BRING IT UP AGAIN, AT THE ANNUAL REVIEW. >> >> Coun. Davis: SURE. AT THIS POINT, IT IS NOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION -- >> >> Coun. Borrego: I DID MAKE A MOTION, AND I'M WITHDRAWING THAT MOTION. SO WE WILL JUST LET IT WAIT UNTIL OUR ANNUAL REVIEW. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT UP WE HAVE ITEM C-7, WHICH IS BACK TO COUNCILLOR BENTON, FROM THAT GENTLEMAN FROM DOWNTOWN. >> >> Coun. Benton: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THE INCEPTION OF THIS IS FROM THE NORTH UNIVERSITY AREA, AND NOT DOWNTOWN, BUT THAT'S PART OF THE DISTRICT, AS WELL. ORIGINALLY HAD 12 YEARS AGO -- WELL, LET ME GO AHEAD AND MOVE, THIS IS FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 7 , I BELIEVE. >> 2ND. >> >> Coun. Benton: THIS HAS TO DO WITH BARBED WIRE. ABOUT 8 YEARS AGO, I SPONSORED AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE THAT ADDRESSED BARBED WIRE, AND THE INCEPTION THAT CAME UP BECAUSE, SOME SPECIFIC CASES, BUT 1 OF THEM WAS SOMEBODY WHO DECIDED TO PUT BARBED WIRE PROTECTING OR ON THE TOP OF THE WALL OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FACING A PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. AND THAT'S KIND OF STARTED THE DISCUSSION. AND WE CAME UP WITH THAT ORIGINAL BILL A FEW YEARS AGO. SO THIS IS TRYING TO GET THIS -- THIS EXPLODED AND I THINK IT WAS AMENDED, THE LANGUAGE WAS AMENDED OUT. BUT I'LL LET THE STAFF KIND OF EXPLAIN WHAT THIS WOULD DO. IT DOESN'T COMPLETELY GO BACK TO THE OLD BILL, BUT IT DOES DISCOURAGE THE USE OF BARBED WIRE IN SOME INSTANCES. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MS. PETRA AND MS. MORRIS. >> MR. CHAIR, COUNCILORS, THANK YOU. SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT, SORRY. MY SCREEN JUST VANISHED. SORRY. SO THIS AMENDMENT JUST REVISES THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT TO SEPARATE OUT THE SUNSET AS IT APPLIES TO THE MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICTS, AND NOT AS IT APPLIES TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE AMENDMENT. SO THE PROVISIONS ABOUT NON RESIDENTIAL ZONES STILL STANDS, THE SUNSET IS IN SOME DISTRICTS. AND THE DEFINITIONS ON CRYSTAL INFRASTRUCTURE REMAIN. IT JUST TAKES OUT THE SUNSET FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS TO ENSURE THAT THE PROHIBITIONS FROM 2012 REMAIN IN PLACE. AND WITH THAT, I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> >> Coun. Davis: SEEING NONE, BACK TO THE SPONSOR TO CLOSE. >> >> Coun. Benton: URGE YOUR SUPPORT COUNCILORS. >> >> Coun. Bassan: YES. >> >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> >> Coun. Harris: NO. >> >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> >> Coun. Davis: YES. >> PASSES ON AN 8-1 VOTE, AMENDMENT NUMBER 7. >> >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE WILL HIT AMENDMENT NUMBER 8, BUT WOULD HAVE WE DO, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. WE HAVE BEEN HERE 2 AND A HALF HOURS, WE HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH A GOOD CHUNK OF THE PACKET AND THE CHAIR NEEDS A BREAK, AS WELL AS OTHER FOLKS. SO WELL TAKE 10 MINUTES AND BE BACK HERE AT ABOUT 5:35, OR SO. AND TRY TO FINISH THESE. AND THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO -- WE WILL HAVE COULD I GO -- COUNCILOR GIBSON AND COUNCILLOR BORREGO'S PACKET. WE WILL SEE YOU IN 10 MINUTES. ASK SCOUN. DAVIS ALL RIGHT. WELCOME BACK TO PART 2 OF OUR SPECIAL MEETING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. WE ARE, IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG AT HOME, WE ARE AT ITEM C 8 IN OUR PACKET, AND THE FLOOR WOULD BELONG TO COUNCILOR JONES, IN THAT SHE IS PRESENTING IT. IT WILL BE FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 8 >> Coun. Jones: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WE WORKED HARD ON THESE. I THINK SHANA PROBABLY -- THIS IS DEFINITELY CLARIFIES A LOT OF THE PROCESSES AND -- SCOUN. DAVIS COUNCILOR JONES, YOUR COMPUTER CUT YOU OFF. WOULD YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF AGAIN AND COME BACK? >> Coun. Jones: MY COMPUTER JUST TOOK ME BACK. GOOD. SO IT HAS SOME CLARIFICATIONS AND IF MS. SCHULTZ WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT IT, IF THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE HER TO, I'M SURE SHE COULD EXPLAIN THE DETAILS. >> MR. PRESIDENT AND COUNCILOR JONES, YES, I CAN RUN YOU THROUGH THIS AMENDMENT. SO THIS AMENDMENT CONTAINS THREE ACTIONS THAT WE ARE CALLING TECHNICAL EDITS. THESE ARE MINOR FIXES AND CLARIFICATIONS IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE COME UP SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE TECH EDIT SPREAD SHEET AT THE LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE. THE FIRST ITEM RELATES TO CONSTRUCTED WALLS ENCROACHING ON WATER LINES. WE HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THE WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY SINCE HAD THAT TECH EDIT SPREAD SHEET AT L USPS WERE PASSED AND THEY WERE AMENABLE IN SOME LANGUAGE CHANGES RELATED TO HOW WALLS EXIST IN WATER EASEMENTS AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR CHANGE NUMBER 1. CHANGE NUMBER 2 RELATES TO SMALL AREAS. THE AMENDMENTS IN THE RED LINE DOCUMENT APARTMENT AMENDMENTS PASSED AT LUPS TALK ABOUT HOW YOU AMEND A SMALL MAP AREA IN THE IDO. THOSE ARE OUR HPO'S, ETC. THERE WAS A DEFINITION THAT WAS LEFT OUT OF THAT PROCESS WHEN WE CREATED IT. AND SO THIS ACTION ITEM NUMBER 2 THIS AMENDMENT CREATES A DEFINITION OF A SMALL AREA. AND LASTLY, THE FINAL ACTION OF THIS AMENDMENT CLARIFIES DURING AN APPEAL HEARING WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COUNCIL VOTES AND NO MOTION PASSES. THIS IS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT WHEN TIES HAPPEN, AND THE IDO WAS UNCLEAR IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT APPEAL. SO THIS PROVIDES CLARIFICATION. SO THAT THERE IS CLEAR DIRECTION IN THE INSTANCE OF THAT HAPPENING. AND THAT'S IT. SCOUN. DAVIS THANK YOU, MA'AM. COUNCILOR JONES, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER. >> Coun. Jones: NO, SIR. READY TO CLOSE. SCOUN. DAVIS GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE, COUNCILOR JONES TO CLOSE. >> Coun. Jones: THANK YOU ALL. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >> Coun. Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> Coun. Sena: YES. SCOUN. DAVIS YES. >> Coun. Benton: I'LL MOVE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 9. IF THERE IS A SECOND, WE CAN TURN IT OVER TO STAFF. >> SECOND. >> Coun. Davis: MS. SCHULTZ OR MS. MORRIS. >> MR. PRESIDENT AND COUNCILORS, THANK YOU. THIS AMENDMENT RETURNS A REDUCTION IN PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT STATION A STOP. THE PREVIOUS CODE HAD A REDUCTION OF TEN PERCENT FOR ANY PROPERTY WITHIN 3 HUNDRED FEET OF ANY TRANSIT STOP OR STATION ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. THIS AMENDMENT CHANGES THAT FORMAT, AND IT IS A TEN PERCENT REDUCTION WITHIN 330 FEET. THAT'S A STANDARD MEASUREMENT USED IN THE IDO. AND IT IS A PEAK FREQUENCY OF 45 MINUTES OR BETTER. THIS IS LIMITED TO 45 MINUTES OR BETTER IN ORDER TO ADDRESS AREAS WHERE PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO ACTUALLY USE TRANSIT, AND MAYBE HAVE TRANSIT AS A REASON TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES. AT A PEAK FREQUENCY OF 45 MINUTES OR BETTER, PEOPLE ARE MAYBE GOING TO USE TRANSIT FOR THEIR WORK OR OTHER DAILY ACTIVITIES. SO THAT'S WHY THIS IS 45 MINUTES >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MA'AM COUNCILLOR GIBSON, SEEING -- COUNCILLOR BENTON, SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION,. Q. BACK TO YOU TO CLOSE. >> Coun. Benton: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >> Coun. Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> Coun. Davis: YES. >> 9-0 ON EVENT NUMBER 9. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. NEXT UP HERE ON ITEM C 10, AND THAT WOULD BE FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 10 AND COUNCILLOR PEÑA. >> Coun. Peña: MR. PRESIDENT, CAN YOU READ THAT INTO THE RECORD? I JUST AM SHUFFLING SO MANY PAPERS, I CAN'T -- >> Coun. Davis: IT IS A LONG AMENDMENT, BUT WE ARE GOING TO SHARE ON THE SCREEN HERE THE PURPOSE, AND I'LL READ WHAT I CAN HERE. FOR COUNCILLOR PEÑA, HAD FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 10, WOULD ADD TWO NEW PURPOSES TO THE IDO. ONE SAYS, PROTECT COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY UNDER SERVED AND THE SECOND WOULD BE TO PROMOTE SMALL SCALE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. AND WE HAVE SEVERAL SECONDS: I'M GOING TO SEE COUNCILLOR BORREGO FIRST, AND ON TO COUNCILLOR PEÑA TO EXPLAIN THE BILL, AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION , IF NO OTHER COUNCILOR DOES. I THINK COUNCILLOR BORREGO MAYBE HAS A QUESTION AS WELL. >> Coun. Peña: ACTUALLY, CAN I REFER TO SHANA TO EXPLAIN THIS? >> Coun. Davis: OF COURSE, MS. SCHULTZ. >> MR. PRESIDENT, AND COUNCILLOR PEÑA, HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE. THIS ADDS TWO NEW PURPOSE STATEMENTS TO THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE IDO. THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU ENCOUNTER WHEN YOU OPEN THE IDO. THE SECTION. AND IT KIND OF SETS THE STAGE FOR THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT. AND SETS THE OVER ARCHING GOALS AND PURPOSE OF WHY WE HAVE AN IDO AND WHAT WE HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH WITH AN IDO. SO THESE TWO ADDITIONAL CLAUSES SEEK TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS DMIEWNTS HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY UNDER SERVED AND 13458 SCALE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. SO THAT LATTER ONE IS CONTINUED TODAY KIND OF THINK ABOUT OUR MOM AND POP SHOPS AROUND TOWN SAN THE IDO SERVING THEM AND DOES IT CONTINUE TO SERVE THEM IN WAY THAT PROMOTES THEIR SUCCESS. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. LET ME ASK A QUICK QUESTION, I'LL RECOGNIZE MYSELF REAL QUICKLY, IF MS. SCHULTZ, IF YOU WILL CLARIFY FOR ME, AND THEN WE WILL GO TO COUNCILLOR BASSAN, I THINK IT IS EXCELLENT AND A GOOD ADDITION TO THE IDO, BUT MS. SCHULTZ, I WANT TO BE SURE IS, THE CONCEPT OF PROTECTING COMMUNITIES ADEQUATELY DEFINED ELSEWHERE IN THE IDO? SIMILARLY, SMALL SCALE IS SERVING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, IS THAT ADEQUATE REDEFINED? IN OTHER WORDS, IS IT DEFINED WELL ENOUGH THAT SOMEONE COULD RELY ON IT LIKE AN EPC OR PLANNING OFFICIAL TO DECIDE IF AN APPLICATION IS APPROPRIATE IF IT IS NOT, I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT MAYBE IN THE NEXT UPDATE, WE DIG INTO THOSE DETAILS A LITTLE MORE. BUT PERHAPS THEY ARE WELL DEFINED ALREADY AND I MISSED IT. >> MR. PRESIDENT, I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. WHILE NOT EXPLICITLY DEFINED, IN SAY THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE IDO, WHEN WE CREATE A PROVISION IN THE IDO SUCH AS THE 2345EUB HOOD EDGE BELOW TEXT, THAT'S A PROTECTION THAT'S DESIGNATED TO PROTECT A COMMUNITY, AND SO AS WE GO THROUGH THE IDO, AND SEE PROTECTIONS LIKE THAT, SUCH AS C MO'S, THE NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE PROVISION, THE LIGHTING REGULATION WHICH ENSURE THAT YOU'RE NOT SHINING WILL BRIGHT LIGHTS INTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S YARDS, THOSE ARE ALL PRACTICAL WAYS WE SEE SEE THE IDO IMPLEMENTING THAT PROTECTION OF SORTS. >> Coun. Davis: I PLESH EIGHT THAT. THESE WHY SMART PEOPLE GO TO SCHOOL FOR THESE THINGS AND CAN EXPLAIN TO THEM TO ME IN PLAIN ENGLISH. COUNCILLOR BASSAN. >> Coun. Bassan: THANK YOU. I HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO GET SEPTEMBER OVERS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT GOT MIXED IN THE MIX OR NOT. I DON'T SEE IT IN THE iPAD. I FIND IT MINIMAL IN LANGUAGE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT COULD MAKE AN IMPACT. COWED COULD YOU JUST READ IT IN FOR US, SO WE DON'T MISS IT? >> Coun. Bassan: YES, I WILL. THIS AMENDMENT IS GOING TO BE -- WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS AMENDMENT. 1-3 OF THE IDO AS FOLLOWS. IF YOU GO TO 1-3-M, IT IS PROTECT, INSERT "ALL COMMUNITIES" AND THEN INSERT "ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY UNDER SERVED." SO IT WOULD READ, PROTECT ALL COMMUNITIES ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY UNDER SERVED AND THE EXPLANATION IS THAT IT PRO 30ESS TO REVISE THIS AMENDMENT IN THE PACKET TO ADD ALL COMMUNITIES, IN ADDITION TO THOSE WHO ARE HISTORICALLY UNDER SERVED, AND ONCE -- IF IT GOT MIXED UP OR WHATEVER, IT IS IN THE BLUE OF WHAT WE ARE GETTING OVER. BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE, AND I SEE THE INTENT HERE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE 20 NOT LEAVE OFF ANY OF THE HISTORICALLY UNDER SERVED COMMUNITIES, BUT TO CLARIFY, WE ARE NOT NEGLECTING TO SAY THAT ALL COMMUNITIES NEED TO BE REPRESENTED, AS WELL. SO TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE, ONCE AGAIN. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MA'AM I SEE COUNCILOR JONES SECONDING. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M GOING TO WORK WITH THE CLERK WHILE WE ARE SITTING HERE TO BE SURE TO GET IT RIGHT. THE NEW ITEM M, WOULD READ, PROTECT ALL COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY UNDER SERVED. IS THAT RIGHT, COUNCILLOR BASSAN >> Coun. Bassan: THAT IS CORRECT , MR. PRESIDENT. IF I MAY, THE ADDITION -- >> Coun. Davis: I'M SORRY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE CLERK GOT IT LIGHT SO WE CAN GET IT IN THE RECORD, SO WE GET IT RIGHT. WE ARE GOOD OWRN SIDE. GO AHEAD. >> Coun. Bassan: THANK YOU. THE ADDITION OF THE SECTION RE REINFORCES THE IDEA IN THE IDO, REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICULAR USE, FOR EXAMPLE, AS FUTURE IDO ANNUAL UPDATES ARE CONTEMPLATED THESE NEW ADDITIONS CAN BE USED TO SEE HOW THE IDO CAN BRO EFFECT AND PROMOTE VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN THE CITY. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. I THINK WE EMERGENCY THAT HAD I SAW A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR JONES. COUNCILLOR BASSAN -- COUNCILLOR BORREGO ON THE FLOOR AMENDMENT. >> Coun. Borrego: WOULDN'T THAT LANGUAGE GO INTO THE IDO SIMILAR TO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO WITH THE LAST AMENDMENT, AND IT IS NOT REALLY APPROPRIATE? TO COUNCILLOR BASSAN'S AMENDMENT >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR BASSAN'S AMENDMENT ADDS A DIFFERENT WORD THAT WOULD EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF COMMUNITIES TO INCLUDE ALL DMIEWNTS. AS WE LOOK AT YOUR AMENDMENT -- >> Coun. Borrego: IT IS HARD TO KNOW. COULD SHE REPEAT IT, PLEASE? >> Coun. Davis: 1450UR. COUNCILLOR BASSAN OR THE CLERK. >> Coun. Bassan: I DON'T MIND DOING IT. I'M GOING TO READ IT AS IT CURRENTLY IS WRITTEN A I'LL READ IT AS I AM PROSING. SO IT WOULD -- IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN TO SAY: PROTECT DMIEWNTS HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY UNDER SERVED. -- COMMUNITIES. AND I'M ASKING FOR THIS AMENDMENT TO SAY: PROTECT ALL COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY UNDER SERVED. >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR BORREGO? >> Coun. Borrego: THAT'S BETTER, THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILORS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE COUNCILLOR BASSAN AMENDMENT TO FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 15 10? SEEING NONE. >> Coun. Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: NO. >> Coun. Borrego: CAN I GET A CLARIFICATION BEFORE MY VOTE? FROM COUNCILLOR PEÑA, TO SEE IF SHE SUPPORTS THAT? >> Coun. Davis: THAT WOULD BE OUT OF ORDER, COUNCILLOR BORREGO WE HAVE TO VOTE IN ORDER, I THINK, AS COUNCILLOR PEÑA POINTED OUT IN A PREVIOUS MEETING, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW ROBERTS RULES HERE. SO THE FLOOR IS YOURS FOR THE VOTE. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> Coun. Peña: NO. >> Coun. Sena: NO. >> Coun. Davis: I'LL VET YES. BUT COUNCILLOR BORREGO, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE YOU, IF YOU'D LIKE TO REVISE YOUR VOTE. I KNOW THAT'S A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER, BUT I'LL GIVE YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY. >> Coun. Borrego: I APPRECIATE THAT, COUNCILLOR DAVIS, I WOULD. >> Coun. Davis: SO HOW DO YOU VOTE MA'AM? >> Coun. Borrego: NO. >> Coun. Davis: MADAM CLERK? >> AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO AMENDMENT 10 PASSES ON A 5-4 VOTE. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR BASSAN'S AMENDMENT PASS ANSWER WE ARE BACK ON COUNCILLOR PEÑA'S AMENDMENT NUMBER 10 AS AMENDED. OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO TO THE SPONSOR TO CLOSE? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE? COUNCILLOR PEÑA. >> Coun. Peña: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU KNOW, I JUST URGE YOUR SUPPORT. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT. I UNDERSTAND COUNCILLOR BASSAN'S AMENDMENT, BUT REALLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE REASON THAT WE THINK IT IS EVENNESS TO PUT THIS KIND OF LANGUAGE IN IT IS BECAUSE WE REALLY HISTORICALLY KIND OF, AS COUNCILLOR BENTON WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, HISTORICALLY HOW WE HAVE DONE ZONING AND PLAN IN ING IN -- PLANNING IN OUR COMMUNITIES HAVE SOMETIMES OVERLOOKED N COMMUNITIES OF NEED , OR DMIEWNTS OF COLOR, AND SO FOR THAT -- COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, AND FOR THAT REASONS SHALL I DIDN'T SUPPORT TESTIMONY BUT I URGE YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS. THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. MADAM CLERK. >> Coun. Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> Coun. Davis: YES. >> Ms. Ortega: AMENDMENT 10 PASSES AS AMENDED. >> Coun. Davis: THAT'S THE END OF OUR MAKE ETHNICITY. BEFORE WE GO TO OUR -- I THINK STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING TO MAKE THAT A STAND ALONE AMENDMENT, SO IT WAS MORE CLEAR FOR PROCESS WISE. SO COUNCILLOR GIBSON, WE WILL LET YOU INTRODUCE THAT. AND BY THE MAGIC OF TECHNOLOGY, SOMEONE IS SHARING THIS FOR YOU. SO WE CAN ALL SEE. >> Coun. Gibson: YES, THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I THINK THAT'S MS. SCHULTZ WHO IS HELPING US OUT. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT UP FOR US TO ALL TAKE A LOOK AT. SO I CAN READ IT. BUT I THINK WE CAN ALL READ IT. BASICALLY, IT JUST CHANGES THE FOUR LINES IN THE OUTCOME, SHOULD THIS PASS, IS THAT THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN AT LUPS ON THIS TECHNICAL EDIT AMENDMENT WOULD BE REVERSED ONLY FOR ONE THING, AND THAT IS FOR THE PROHIBITION OF VARIANCES ON THE CONDITIONAL USE. AND YOU KNOW WHAT, I SHOULD HAVE LET SHANA DO THIS. >> Coun. Davis: LET ME GET SOME PROCESS OUT OF WAY. COUNCILLOR GIBSON, I THINK I JUST SAW COUNCILLOR BENTON SECONDING AND I ASSUME THAT'S WHAT IT IS. IF I'M WRONG, HE WILL YELL AT ME >> Coun. Gibson: I'M MOVING THE AMENDMENT, MR. PRESIDENT. >> Coun. Davis: THIS IS FOR FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 11, SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR BENTON, THANK YOU. SO, COUNCILLOR GIBSON, YOU'RE GOING TO YIELD THE FLOOR TO MS. 14U89S WHO EXPLAIN THIS A LITTLE BIT. >> YES, MR. PRESIDENT AND COUNCILLOR GIBSON, JUST TO RECAP THE DISCUSSION WE HAD A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE TO GO THROUGH, A A MORTGAGE OWNER WHO HAS AN APPROVED -- A PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE WILL ABLE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR WHATEVER THEY NEED A VARIANCE FOR ON THAT PROPERTY. WHAT THEY APPROVED WAS THE PROHIBITION OF THAT, TO SAY IF YOU HAD A CONDITIONAL USE, YOU NOT ELIGIBLE TO SEEK A VARIANCE. THAT WOULD UNTIE THAT AND BRING THE SYSTEM BACK TO HOW IT OPERATES TODAY. >> Coun. Gibson: THANK YOU: MR. PRESIDENT, IF I MAY, THANK YOU, MS. SCHULTZ, THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL. I JUST WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS. THIS IS, AS WE MAY RECALL, THE COUNCILORS WHO DO SERVE ON THE LUPS COMMITTEE, THIS WAS A PART OF A SPREAD SHEET OF SEVERAL EDITS, AND SO THIS KIND OF IS BURIED IN THERE. I'M SORRY THAT I DIDN'T BRING THIS UP DURING LUPS. BUT THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT THIS IS BEFORE THE -- THERE WAS A DEFERENCE OF OPINION ON THIS FROM THE EPC MEMBERS AND STAFF ON HOW TO GO FORWARD ON THIS. EPC DID NOT AGREE WITH STAFF, WHO THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THIS, TO HAVE THAT AMENDMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, STAFF WANTED THE PROHIBITION OF THE VARIANCE, AND EPC DID NOT SEE IT THAT WAY. SO IF THIS PASSES, THIS WILL BE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE EPC. ANYWAY, THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MA'AM COUNCILLOR BENTON. >> Coun. Benton: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WANTED TO -- I DID SECOND THIS FOR CERTAINLY PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS PRETTY IMPORTANT TOPIC. AND IT DOES CERTAINLY MERIT FULL COUNCIL DISCUSSING IT. I WANTED TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE, PERHAPS FROM STAFF, AS TO THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THIS, AND HOW THIS CAME ABOUT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT DOES. I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT DOES. THIS IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT, ON THE SAME PROPERTY, YOU CAN HAVE BOTH A CONDITIONAL USE AND A VARIANCE. I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT, WHAT THAT MEANS ADMINISTRATIVELY IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WHAT THE ADVANTAGES AND POSSIBLE DISADVANTAGES MIGHT BE FOR BOTH THE CITY AND A PRO BONE AND THE. -- BELOW BONE -- PRO BONE AND THE. >> Coun. Davis: I'M GOING TO THROW THAT OUT TO THE GENERIC ALL PURPOSE STAFF. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILLOR BENTON, IF MR. MELENDREZ IS STILL ON THE LINE, I WOULD DEFER THIS QUESTION TO HIM. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, AND SHANA AND COUNCILLOR BENTON. IT IS A LITTLE BIT, I GUESS ESOTERIC IN A WAY TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE WAY THAT IT COULD EFFECT DIFFERENT PROPERTIES. SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS PRO BIGS WOULD -- PROHIBITION WOULD APPLY TO A SINGLE PROPERTY AND A SINGLE PROJECT? >> Coun. Benton: YES. I MEAN, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT THIS HAD TO DO WITH JUST ANY GIVEN PROJECT THAT IS MOVING FORWARD, THAT THESE, BOTH THE VARIANCE AND THE CONDITIONAL USE COULD BE APPLIED FOR CONCURRENTLY, OR LET'S SAY A CONDITIONAL USE HAD BEEN GRANTED , YOU COULD COME IN LATER AND APPLY FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SAME PROPERTY WITH THAT UNDERLYING CONDITIONAL USE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> SO AS PROPOSED, AND AS NOW, AFTER LUPS,. >> Coun. Benton: YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT WAS CHANGED. >> -- IT WOULD PROHIBIT A A VARIANCE PERIOD. IT BOWPT MATTER ABOUT THE -- IT WOULDN'T MATTER ABOUT THE TIMING AS IT IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED. AND THE RATIONAL FOR THAT, AND AGAIN, THIS BEING A A POLICY DECISION FOR THIS BODY, SPECIFICALLY, THE RATIONAL FOR THAT IS JUST TRYING TO TAKE A LADY AT WHAT THE IDO -- REED AT WHAT THE IDO CRITERIA IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE, AND PEELING BELOW THE SURFACE THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDO, AND BY IT'S NATURE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MEET THOSE. THE POLICY FOR CONDITIONAL USE IS THESE TYPE OF USES ARE JUSTIFIED ONLY WHEN YOU CAN MEET WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS SET AS A GENERAL POLICY FOR THE LAW OF THE LAND. AND AS IT EXISTS TODAY, IT ACCOMPLISH THAT IS. IF THE POLICY IF THIS BODY BELIEVES THAT THE POLICY SHOULD BE THAT A CONDITIONAL USE CAN STILL BE JUSTIFIED WITHOUT MEETING THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE IDO, THEN AMENDING IT BACK WOULD SERVE THAT PURPOSE. L. >> Coun. Benton: SO MR. CHAIR AND MR. MELENDREZ, IN A SENSE, YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, THE ORIGINAL ACTION OF PROHIBITING A VARIANCE WAS TRYING TO SOLVE OF. BASICALLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE AQUAS TAKEN AT LUPS WAS -- THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN AT LUPS WAS TO SAY, NO, ONCE YOU'VE GONE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE, AND A CONDITIONAL USE EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY, YOU MADE A COMMITMENT THAT YOU CAN COMPLY WITH THE REST OF THE ZONING CODE. AND THAT YOU DON'T GET ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE BY COMING BACK AFTER YOU JUSTIFIED YOUR CONDITIONAL USE AS BEING NONHARM ING ETC. AND KNOWN START TO AMEND OR START TO ASK FOR VARIANCES ON THE REST OF THE ZONING CODE. >> MR. PRESIDENT, THAT'S CORRECT SO THE WAY THAT YOU LAID IT IT OUTLINE EVA ARRESTLY IS -- LINEAR LFNTLEC IS THE VARIANCE COMES. BUT THERE IS SOME EXISTING AMBIGUITY IN THE IDO WHEN THAT MEANS WHEN IT HAPPENS IN THE OPPOSITE SEQUENCE. IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND GETS A VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER MEET THE SET BACK FOR, AND THEY JUSTIFY IT BASED ON HARDSHIP, AND SIX MONTHS LATER SOMEBODY COMES IN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT YOU NOW THEY ARE IN POTENTIALLY A POSITION OF A BY GREW IT'S, WHETHER THAT VARIANCE MEANS THEY ARE NO LONGER MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDO. PROCEDURALLY, THEY MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDO IN THE WAY THEY WENT THROUGH THE SLAYER ANSWER PROCESS. BUT THE OUTCOME IS NECESSARILY AN OUTCOME THAT IS OUTSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE IDO. SO IT IS PART READING INTO WHAT THE TEXT FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APD TO HAVE INTENDED, SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USES, AND ALSO, TRYING TO CLEAR UP SOME POTENTIAL AMBIGUITY HOW TO INTERPRET THAT LANGUAGE IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROPERTY WITH A VARIANCE BRIEFLY APPROVED COMES -- PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMES IN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE. >> Coun. Benton: SO JUST TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE LOGIC, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE SPONSOR OF THE AMENDMENT, AS WELL. I'M HAVING A A HARD TIME WITH THIS ONE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EXISTING CASES WHERE THIS HAS BECOME A PROBLEM, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS READY FOR PRIME TIME, IN MY OPINION. BUT I'LL ASK THE SPONSOR TO PROVIDE MORE OF HER OWN JUSTIFICATIONS. >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR GIBSON, BRIEFLY IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND, AND THEN WE HAVE COUNCILLOR SENA AND COUNCILLOR BORREGO AND MAYBE MYSELF, AND THEN WE WILL GO BACK TO COUNCILLOR GIBSON, AGAIN. BUT, COUNCILLOR GIBSON, IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION , AS THE SPONSOR. >> Coun. Gibson: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. COUNCILLOR BENTON, I HAVE HEARD, AND I THINK IT IS PROBABLY IN EVERYBODY'S IN BOX RIGHT NOW, FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES, WHERE OAFT -- EVIDENTLY THIS HAS BEEN A CONSIDERS, AN ISSUE, WHERE CONDITIONAL USE ALLOWED THAT THERE WAS STILL SOME, AND SOMETIMES I'M TOLD THEY CAN BE REALLY PRETTY MINOR THINGS THAT NEEDED VARIANCES FOR. SO IT IS TELLING ME, THEN, THAT SOMETIMES GETTING THE CONDITIONAL USE JUST IS NOT QUITE SUFFICIENT FOR SOME PROJECTS, AND SOME DEVELOPERS. SO THAT'S WHY I'M DOING IT. AND THE THING IS, TOO, THAT I DON'T THINK WE REALLY GOT A GOOD LOOK AT IT AT LUPS. I WILL PLEAD GUILTY ON THIS, BECAUSE IT WAS IN SPREAD SHEET. IT KIND OF US ESCAPED ME. THAT'S JUST THE WAY THINGS ARE SOMETIMES. WE GO THROUGH SEVERAL AMENDMENTS LIKE WE ARE DOING FOR THE IDO. SO I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION OR NOT. BUT I WOULDN'T BE -- YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T BE OFFERING THIS AS AN AMENDMENT IF I REALLY DIDN'T THINK THAT IT HAD BEEN A PROBLEM THAT COULDN'T BE SOLVED HERE. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MA'AM I'M SORRY, COUNCILLOR GIBSON, I THINK I CUT YOU OFF THIS. OKAY GREAT. NEXT UP WE HAVE COUNCILLOR SENA, COUNCILLOR BORREGO, AND I MAY HAVE A COMMENT TO CLOSE, AND WE WILL TAKE IT BACK TO THE SPONSOR SORE TO CLOSE. >> Coun. Sena: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. NOT BEING A PART OF THE LUPS COMMITTEE, I REALLY APPRECIATED MR. MELENDREZ'S IN DOPETH EXPLANATION -- IN-DEPTH EXPLANATION. THE FIRST TIME, IT BENLT OVER MY HEAD, BUT THIS TIME, GIVING MORE EXAMPLES, BEING ABLE TO FOLLOW THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE, I THINK I CAN KIND OF GLEAN IN WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS AT LUPS. SO I THINK WHEN COUNCILLOR GIBSON -- I THINK WHEN COUNCILLOR BENTON ASKED HIS QUESTION, MR. MELENDREZ KIND OF CLARIFIED MINE. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR BORREGO. >> Coun. Borrego: THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR GIBSON ON THIS AMENDMENT. I REMEMBER PROPERTIES THAT WE DEALT WITH IN THE INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THE COUPLE USE DEALT WITH ACTUALLY THE USE, MAYBE WHEN SOMEBODY HAD LIKE A HOME OCCUPATION, OR SOME TYPE OF ACTUAL USE AS PART OF THEIR ZONING, AND THEY JUST NEEDED SOME KIND OF A CONDITIONAL USE THAT ALLOWED THEM TO EXPAND THAT HOME OCCUPATION, OR SOMETHING, SQUARE FOOTAGE. WHEN I THINK ABOUT HOW VARIANCES WERE USED IN THE PAST, THEY WERE REALLY USED MORE FOR THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF LIKE A WALL HEIGHT, OR A SET BACK. SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF INSTANCES IN THE CITY ACROSS THE CITY WHERE A DEVELOPER MIGHT NEED A CONDITIONAL USE AND A VARIANCE. SO HAVING HAD THAT EXPERIENCE MANY TIMES, I THINK SHE IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MA'AM WE ARE GOING TO GO -- I'LL PASS MY COMMENT FOR A MINUTE. WE WILL GO BACK TO COUNCILLOR BENTON BRIEFLY AND COUNCILLOR GIBSON TO CLOSE. >> Coun. Benton: JUST QUICKLY, MR. CHAIR, MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK COUNCILLOR BORREGO CONVINCED ME, OR REMINDED ME OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, WHICH WAS THAT CONDITIONAL USE IS ABOUT USE. A VARIANCE IS TYPICALLY ABOUT DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE HEIGHT. SAME EXAMPLE MIGHT APPLY TO AN UNUSUAL CONDITION WITH A SET BACK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I THINK SHE HELPED CONVINCE ME THAT THIS DOES MAKE ZONES, AND THAT WE -- SENSE, AND WE MAY HAVE GONE A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR BY SAYING THERE WOULD NOT BE INSTANCES WHERE BOTH WOULD BE APPLICABLE. >> Coun. Davis: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I SEE THE VALUE OF HAVING THAT IN THE TOOL BOX, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS APPEALABLE. BOTH ROUTES ARE AWE PEEL ABLE TO US. SO IF IT IS A CONFLICT, OR AN ISSUE THAT RAISES LUPS CONCERN, IT WILL BE OUR FAULT FOR HAVING TO HAVE THAT HEARING IF WE PASS THIS TONIGHT. IN ONE WAY, IT IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD. BUT I ALSO JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL. WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT -- SOMEONE JUST REMINDED ME THAT IT THE LIQUOR CONDITIONAL USE PIECE , WHEN I DOING VARIANCES AND OTHER ROUTES, THERE ARE STILL OPPORTUNITIES TO GET AROUND THE INTENT OF THE IDO, AS WELL, TO CREATE THE APPROPRIATE DISTANCES AND APPROPRIATE USES. SO WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT CREATING TOO MANY LOOPHOLES ESSENTIALLY IN THE IDO AND I THINK WE SHOULD WATCH THIS ONE CLOSELY. IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE IS ANYTHING -- NO ONE POINTED TO A PARTICULAR CASE WHERE SOMEONE REALLY NEEDED IT AND COULDN'T, BUT IF WE START TO SEE IT ABUSED I THINK WE OUGHT TO REVIEW IT. BUT I AGREE, COUNCILLOR BORREGO ALSO MADE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT, AND I AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR BENTON THAT SHE DID SO. SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT. COUNCILLOR GIBSON TO CLOSE. >> Coun. Gibson: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. JUST ONE LAST THOUGHT. JUST BECAUSE YOU REQUEST A VARIANCE DOES NOT MEAN YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY GETTING A VARIANCE THIS JUST ALLOWS THE PERSON COM ING IN TO DESCRIBE WHAT THOUGH NEED, AND MAKE THAT REQUEST. IS ANYWAY, I UNDERRING YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. -- I YOUR HONOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. >> Coun. Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> Coun. Sena: NO. >> Coun. Davis: YES. >> Ms. Ortega: AMENDMENT 11 PASS ES ON AN 8-1 VOTE. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR BORREGO, YOUR PACKET. >> Coun. Borrego: YOUR HONOR -- COUNCILOR, I'M NOT GOING TO MOVE ALL OF THESE, AFTER OUR DISCUSSION ON THE ONE THAT WE JUST DID, WHICH WAS, I THINK, THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE NR ZONE. I THINK THAT WAS THE ONE. AND I TALKED TO THE ATTORNEY, LET ME SEE WHICH ONE IT WAS. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. IT WAS THE -- NO, I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT WAS. THE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES. SO WHAT I'M GOING 20 DO IS, I'M -- TO DO IS, I'M ONLY GOING TO MOVE FOUR OF MY AMENDMENTS, AND AT THE END OF THE BILL, I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THE OTHER 12, OR NOT 12, SORRY, 8, I GUESS. SO THE ONES THAT I'M GOING TO MOVE ARE -- I'M TRYING TO GET MY NOTES HERE. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. >> Coun. Davis: IF YOU HAVE PAGE NUMBERS, THAT'S EASY FOR US TO FOLLOW. >> I'M GOING TO MOVE A 5, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS YARD. >> Coun. Davis: THAT WILL BE PAGE 2. >> Coun. Borrego: I DON'T HAVE THEM BY PAGES. I'M SORRY. I AM GOING TO MOVE A 7, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT. >> Coun. Davis: THAT WILL BE PAGE 3. >> Coun. Borrego: AND I CAN DISCUSS THEM INDIVIDUALLY, BUT I WANT TO MAKE 1450UR I -- MAKE SURE I GET THEM OUT THERE. I AM GOING TO MOVE -- CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR'S YARD, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT, REQUIREMENTS IN THE NR ZONE, AND MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDOR. THOSE ARE THE ONLY FOUR I'M GOING TO MOVE NOW. >> Coun. Davis: SURE MANY IF YOU'LL BE OKAY, COUNCILLOR BORREGO, LET US PULL THOSE PAGE NUMBERS OUT SO WE CAN MAKE THEM AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO SEE GIVE ME JUST A SECOND. SO COUNCILORS, AND FOR FOLKS FOLLOWING ALONG AT HOME, AND COUNCILLOR BORREGO, I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE THE PAGE NUMBERS, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE PAGE NUMBERS SHARED ON THE SCREEN THERE, SO WE CAN FOLLOW YOU. >> Coun. Borrego: DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THE EXPLANATION ON THESE >> Coun. Davis: JUST A SECOND. IF IT IS OKAY WITH YOU, JUST SO THE CLERK IS SURE WE HAVE ALL THE RIGHT PAPER WHEN WE DO IT. YOUR PAGE NUMBER 2 RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION YARD USE. YOUR NUMBERS 3 AND 4, PAGES 3 AND 4, RELATED TO COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE TWO OF THOSE. YOUR NUMBER 5, PAGE 5, BEING RELATING TO NR ZONE, AND YOUR PAGE 13 IS THE TRANSIT CORRIDOR. COIRK AND I'M ONLY -- >> Coun. Borrego: AND I'M ONLY GOING TO MOVE THE FIRST ONE OF THE COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT. >> Coun. Davis: GREAT. THEN THE NEXT FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 12, AND YOU CAN PICK WHATEVER YOU LIKE TO AND WE WILL FOLLOW YOU. >> Coun. Borrego: I GUESS I WILL START WITH CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS YARDS. THIS AMENDMENT IS STRIKEING 5, THAT THIS BECOMES A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE NR ZONE AND DAYS ALLOWS THE CHANGE TO PERMISSION I HAVE USE. >> Coun. Davis: THAT WOULD BE FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 12. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I THINK THESE COUNCILLOR GIBSON. WE WILL TAKE THAT AS A SECOND FROM COUNCILLOR GIBSON. COUNCILLOR BORREGO TO INTRODUCE OR EXPLAIN THE BILL. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. COUNCILORS, THIS WILL JUST MAKE IT CONDITIONAL THROUGHOUT THE CITY. >> Coun. Gibson: MR. PRESIDENT. OF. >> Coun. Davis: MADAM VICE-PRESIDENT FOR COMMENT. >> Coun. Gibson: THAT WASN'T REALLY A SECOND. WHAT I'M TRYING TO DISCERN HERE, ARE THESE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PART OF THE PACKET BEFORE, OR ARE THESE RELATIVELY NEW ONES >> Coun. Davis: . OF CLARIFICATION, COUNCILLOR GIBSON , THESE WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL PACKET THAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN PACKET. COUNCILLOR BORREGO PROVIDED THESE AMENDMENTS JUST BEFORE THE MEETING STARTED TODAY, JUST A COUPLE MUCH MINUTES BEFORE. HER ANALYST SENT IT TO STAFF AND US. I DETERMINED THAT IT DID MEET THE DEADLINE TO BE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE MEETING STARTED. >> Coun. Gibson: OKAY. >> Coun. Davis: AND THE CLERK ASKED ME TO CLARIFY, SHE DID UP LOAD THEM TO THE I PASDZ AS WELL , ALTHOUGH I KNOW SOME FOLKS MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM. YES, MA'AM, GO AHEAD. >> Coun. Borrego: MR. CHAIR, OR MR. PRESIDENT, -- >> Coun. Gibson: MR. CHAIR, OR MR. PRESIDENT, JUST A THOUGHT ON THIS. I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT VOTING ON THESE AFTER PLANNING STAFF HAS HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM, AND WRITE UP -- YOU KNOW, DO A STAFF WRITE UP. OR MEET WITH US, LIKE WE HAVE BEEN DOING BEFORE. AND EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT. AND I'M SORRY, COUNCILLOR BORREGO, I DON'T MEAN ANY DISRESPECT HERE. >> Coun. Borrego: I UNDERSTAND, COUNCILOR. IN THE LAST TWO DAYS, I RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE COALITION, THE WEST SIDE COALITION OF NEIGHBORHOODS, AND MUCH OF THIS INFORMATION WAS INCLUDED IN THEIR WRITE UP. SO WE ONLY HAD A DAY TO ACTUALLY REVIEW ALL OF THESE, AND THAT'S WHY THEY ARE COMING TO YOU TO LAST MINUTE. AND I THINK THAT THEY ARE SIMPLE YOU KNOW, WE VOTE THEM UP OR WE VOTE THEM DOWN. I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE NEED TO HAVE STAFF -- TWO OF THEM ARE REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USES AND ONE OF THEM IS EXCLUDING COURTS FROM MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND THE THIRD ONE IS REGARDING WALLS SO I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY REASON WHY WE COULDN'T REVIEW THEM. THERE ARE ONLY FOUR OF THEM. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR BORREGO. MADAM VICE-PRESIDENT, YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR. SHE WAS RESPONDING TO YOU. AND THEN WE HAVE COUNCILLOR HARRIS, COUNCILLOR BASSAN, AND THEY ARE BEHIND YOU. GO AHEAD. >> Coun. Gibson: I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A . I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO MAKE MY I DON'T MEAN ANY DISRESPECT ON THIS AT ALL. IT IS JUST THAT IT IS NOT FOLLOWING THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING AND I UNDERSTAND COUNCILLOR BORREGO HAS BACKGROUND IN PLANNING, I DON'T. I DON'T. MY BACKGROUND IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. SO SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, AND OTHER I DO HORSE -- COUNCILORS CAN HAVE THEIR OWN OPINION, I WOULD FEEL MUCH BETTER TO HAVE THIS GO THROUGH A PROCESS LIKE WE HAVE BEEN DOING. THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY, THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR GIBSON. AND BEFORE I GO TO THE OTHER COUNCILORS, I'M GOING TO TAKE DOWN COUNCILLOR HARRIS, COUNCILLOR BASSAN, AND COUNCILLOR PEÑA, WHO WANT TO SPEAK HERE, BUT PROCEDURALLY, I'M GOING TO ASK MR. MOYA TO CLEAR THOSE, FIRST, ABUSE THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 12, AND SHE DID NOT CLEAR SECOND IT, AND SO WE NEED A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND ON FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 12? GOING ONCE? GOING TWICE? COUNCILLOR PEÑA, I BELIEVE I SEE YOU AS A SECOND. WE WILL TAKE THAT. NOW WE WILL GO BACK TO THE COUNCILORS IN THE ORDER THAT WE HAVE THEM. THAT IS COUNCILLOR HARRIS, COUNCILLOR BASSAN, AND COUNCILLOR PEÑA. BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, MS. MORRIS FROM STAFF WANTED TO WEIGH IN BEFORE COUNCILORS DO THAT, AND SO VERY QUICKLY, MS. MORRIS. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, I WANTED TO OFFER THAT SHANA AND I ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT EITHER THE BACKGROUND OF THE AMENDMENT. EACH OF THESE ARE REVISIONS TO EXISTING AMENDMENTS, AND SO WE ARE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE AMENDMENTS. WE MAY NOT ABLE TO NECESSARILY SPEAK TO THE INTENT BEHIND THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY SPEAK TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT, THE BACKGROUND, AND WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE MIGHT BE. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MA'AM WE WILL GO TO COUNCILLOR HARRIS, THEN COUNCILLOR BASSAN, THEN COUNCILOR JONES. >> Coun. Harris: THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, I WANT TO QUOTE COUNCILLOR BENTON. THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS. THE FACT THAT THE COALITION WOKE UP ON THIS WEEKEND, OR WHATEVER; NOT A REASON FOR US TO SKIP THE PROCESS. I THINK THE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO THE EPC IN DECEMBER. THE COALITION JUST GOT THEIR ACT TOGETHER THIS WEEKEND. I'M AGAINST ANYTHING THAT IS COMING UP AND SUBSTANTIVE, CHANGING A CONDITIONAL USE TO -- I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PUNT ALL THESE UNTIL THE NEXT PROCESS IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS. >> Coun. Borrego: COUNCILLOR HARRIS, MAY I RESPOND? >> Coun. Davis: NO, MA'AM, HE DIDN'T ASK A QUESTION: SO WE HAVE TO LET OTHER COUNCILORS RESPOND, AND IF THEY WON'T RESPOND TO THE QUESTION, YOU CAN CLOSE AT THE END. COUNCILLOR BASSAN. >> Coun. Bassan: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I JUST WANT 20 ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION AS WELL. THE AMENDMENT THAT'S ON THE SCREEN IS NOT ANYTHING IN THE i PAD. I WILL HAVE TO ADD NATURE I CAN'T EVEN -- ADMIT THAT I CAN'T EVEN SEE EVERYTHING ON THE DESCREEN WHEN WE HAVE THE PARTICIPANT LIST 77 AND ALL OF THE PICTURES. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE VOTE ON THIS WHEN IT IS NOT IN OUR i PADS RIGHT NOW. >> Coun. Gibson: IT IS IN YOUR iPAD. >> Coun. Bassan: I DO NOT SEE THAT IN MY iPAD. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR BASSAN. THE CLERK HAS UP LOADED THEM TO THE FOLDER AND SHE CAN TELL US WHERE THEY ARE, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT , THEY WERE UP LOADED AS THE MEETING BEGAN. MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU . THE COUNCILORS TO THAT, SO THEY CAN MOVE FOLLOW ALONG. IF THEY LIKE. >> SURE N ORDINANCE FOLDER, IT IS SORTED BY THE ALPHABET I CAN ORDER, AND IT IS THE ONE ON TOP, MOST CURRENT RECEIVED. AND IT IS IN ALL CAPS. AND IT IS A PDF THAT HAS 15 PAGT WE ARE LOOK BE -- LOOKING AT IS PAGE 2 OF THE PDF. >> Coun. Bassan: THAT DOES CLARIFY, MR. PRESIDENT. I WAS LOOKING IN THE BRIEF PACKET. >> Coun. Davis: NEXT UP, WE HAVE COUNCILLOR PEÑA AND THEN COUNCILOR JONES. >> Coun. Peña: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. JUST KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OF . OF ORDER, I WANT SOME CLARIFICATION. I FEEL LIKE COUNCILLOR BORREGO, I WOULD AGREE IF THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT BY COUNCILLOR GIBSON THIS EVENING THAT WAS SUBMITTED JUST THIS EVENING, AS WELL, AND SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW, PROCEDURALLY, SEEING AS THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT HER SUBMITTING THEM AT THE LAST MINUTE, BUT THE ATTORNEY, MR. MELENDREZ, CAN YOU ACTUALLY CLARIFY, CAN AMENDMENTS BE INTRODUCED AT THE MEETING AND CAN AMENDMENTS BE MADE, NOT MADE UP FROM THE FLOOR, BUT FROM THE FLOOR? >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILLOR PEÑA, YES, AS WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR, AMENDMENTS HAPPEN AT ANY TIME, ALL THE TIME, AND THE COUNCIL RULES REQUIRE THAT AMENDMENTS BE IN WRITING. SPHIESMTION SOMETIMES AN AMENDMENT WILL BE QUICKLY JOTTED OUT TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. BUT NOTHING PRECLIEWDZ SOMEBODY FROM PROPOSING AMENDMENTS AT ANY TIME DURING A BILL. THAT SAID IF WE HAVE IN THE PAST , WE HAVE END COUNTERED INSTANCES WHERE COUNCILORS DIDN'T FEEL THEY HAD TIME TO REVIEW THEM, AND THAT'S BEEN A REASON NOT TO SUPPORT THEM. THE WAY WE DEAL WITH AMENDMENTS GENERALLY IS PRETTY OPEN, AND SOMEWHAT LIBERAL WITH RESPECT TO THE WAY THE COUNCIL ENTERTAINS AMENDMENTS, AND THAT'S PROBABLY APPROPRIATE, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THE COUNCIL IS DOING ITS BEST TO CONSIDER ALL IDEAS. BUT AS FAR AS HOW THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE COUNCILORS AND WHAT BASIS THEY CHOOSE TO DENY THEM ON, WHETHER IT IS TIMELINESS OR OTHERWISE, THAT IS ALSO WIDE OPEN. >> Coun. Peña: THANK YOU, MR. MELENDREZ, AND 34R7, I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION. I JUST FELT THAT COUNCILLOR BORREGO DIDN'T NEED TO EXPLAIN HERSELF. SO THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. COUNCILOR JONES. >> Coun. Jones: I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND COUNCILORS THAT I HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE IDO THAT CAUSED THIS TO HAPPEN. AND IT WENT THROUGH EPC. IT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I AM NOT SURE OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGING THIS AT THIS ., JUST THAT IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, AND TIP , GOING -- AT THIS ., GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS. O. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO MOVE FORWARD, ON SUCH A BIG PROCESS THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON, THIS IDO. I WOULD THINK THAT ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE WHEN WE REVERSE SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN JUST RECENTLY APPROVED IN THE IDO, THAT WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS. I WOULD THINK -- I KNOW WE HAVE A CONCERN, EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE A VOICE, AND THIS IS LEAVING OUT MANY, MANY PEOPLE, WHO HAVE NO VOICE IN MA -- IN WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. HOWRVETION EVERYONE WHO WANTED TO PARTICIPATE WAS ABLE TO SPEAK AND BRING FORTH THEIR OPINION WHEN THIS IS THE IDO. SO I CAN'T POSSIBLY SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THE PROCESS WITH WHICH IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, NEXT UP WE HAVE COUNCILLOR SENA AND THEN COUNCILLOR GIBSON AND THEN COUNCILLOR BENTON AND THEN BACK TO THE SPONSOR TO CLOSE. >> Coun. Sena: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M THINKING OF THE WHOLE PROCESS ITSELF. I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS. I KIND OF JUMPED SOMEWHAT IN THE MIDDLE, I FEEL LIKE ALMOST AT THE END. BUT SPEAKING TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND LOT OF MY AMENDMENTS THAT I BROUGHT FORTH TO THE IDO WERE ACTUALLY THROUGH COMMUNITY OUT REACH THAT WAS FIRST STARTED BY COUNCILOR SANCHEZ, AND THEN MYSELF. AND BRINGING FORWARD A FEW OTHERS THAT I FELT WERE APPROPRIATE. SO I THINK IT CAN BE RISKY, IN SETTING A PRECEDENT, BUT I THINK THAT WE DO HAVE PRECEDENCE WHERE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INTRODUCE AMENDMENTS. SO I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO THIS AMENDMENT AND SPEAK AND ASK QUESTIONS ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS. I WAS WONDERING, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS JUST BRIEF, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE PERSPECTIVE FROM EITHER SHANA OR PETRA TO TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, WHAT THIS WOULD DO FOR THIS AMENDMENT. >> MR. PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. SO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT A-5 TOOK CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR YARD FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMISSIVE IN THE NR ZONE. THE NR ZONE IS MAPPED MOSTLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN, AND IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS. HOWEVER, IN A FEW LOCATIONS PARTICULARLY ON THE WEST SIDE, THE NR ZONE IS ALSO IN SOME COMMERCIAL AREAS. PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE IDO , THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR YARD USE WAS PERMISSIVE UNDER THE OLD CODE. BUT IT HAS SOME CONFUSING LANGUAGE WHEN STORAGE OF PROPERTY. THE IDO KIND OF FIXED THAT, BUT MADE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR YARD A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS MADE IT INCONGRUOUS WHERE THE IT IS NOW, BECAUSE DO YOU HAVE COME IN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE. SO CONSTITUENTS REACHED OUT TO US TO SAY, HEY, WE HAVE THIS CONSISTENCY, CAN YOU CHANGE THIS TO PERMISSIVE. THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT, WAS TO MAKE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR YARD PERMISSIVE IN THE NR ZONE, AND THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT ALSO INCLUDED SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD KEEP IT CONDITIONAL AND LOCATED WITHIN 330 FEET OF A A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. KEEPING BRO TEXTS PARTICULARLY ON THE WEST SIDE WHERE IT MAY BE NEAR RESIDENTIAL. THE WAY THIS AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN, IT WOULD JUST UN DO THAT ORIGINAL AMENDMENT. THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT, A-5, AS COUNCILOR JONES MENTIONED, WENT THROUGH EPC AND WAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT EPC, AND IT WENT THROUGH 4RU7S, AND WAS APPROVED AT LUPS WITH A 4-0 VOTE. AND I THINK THAT'S ALL THE BACKGROUND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR SENA. >> Coun. Sena: YES, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK, BECAUSE AS WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH EVERY SINGLE AMENDMENT, I'M MOVE A VISUAL LEARNER. SO YOU'LL HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, PARRED PARDON A ME. ESPECIALLY BEING IN THE SITUATION THAT WE ARE, SPEAKING ON THIS TOPIC NOW AND NOT THROUGH THE PROCESS. YOU JUST BROUGHT UP THE WEST SIDE, AND PARTICULARLY I'M THINKING OF MY DISTRICT. CAN YOU GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THIS WOULD APPLY? >> YES. SO MOST OF WHERE THE NRC IS MAPPED IN THE CITY IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF IT IS AROUND THE EUBANK AREA, GOING INTO -- THERE IS A LARGE CHUNK GOING INTO THE EUBANK AND CENTRAL AREA, AN INDUSTRIAL AREA THERE. ON THE WEST SIDE, I BELIEVE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF NRC NEAR COTTONWOOD MALL. IT IS MOSTLY IN LARGE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING AREAS. SO WHILE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR GUARD CAN BE REQUESTED THERE, IT IS NOT LIKELY TO BE REQUESTED, BECAUSE THEY ARE ACTIVE COMMERCIAL AREAS BUT AS I SAID, MOST OF THE NRC IS MAPPED IN RELATIVELY INDUSTRIAL AREAS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CITY. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A WAY FOR US TO PULL UP A 3457 AND WE COULD -- A MAP AND WE COULD KIND OF SHOW IT. >> Coun. Davis: I SEE COUNCILLOR SENA IS WAVING THAT OFF. THAT'S OKAY. >> Coun. Sena: YES, THANK YOU, 34R7 AND MS. MOVIES. I THINK BECAUSE -- MR. PRESIDENT , AND MS. MORRIS. I THINK BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY GETTING INTO WEEDS, I WOULD APPRECIATE TAKING A LOOK AT THIS AT ANOTHER TIME WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE, JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLEX, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF THOROUGHLY VET IT, WHETHER IT GOES THROUGH WHATEVER COMMITTEE. BUT REALLY HAVING THE TIME IF HE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK TO MY CONSTITUENTS ON THIS TOPIC, EITHER. SO I THINK I'M JUST GOING 20 LEAVE IT AT THAT. BECAUSE AGAIN, WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING ANOTHER ANNUAL UPDATE, WHETHER WE HAVE TO CHANGE THAT OR NOT. SO, APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. NEXT UP, COUNCILLOR GIBSON. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO HEAR YOU. >> Coun. Gibson: I'M SORRY. I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH MY MOUSE SO THIS IS PROBABLY NO LONGER PERT NERCHGHT BECAUSE IT HAPPENED -- PERTINENT, BECAUSE IT HAPPENED LIKE A MONTH AGO. BUT I WANTED TO RESPOND. THE AMENDMENT THAT I PUT UP WAS NOT A NEW AMENDMENT. THAT WAS THE SAME, IT WAS A PART OF AN AMENDMENT THAT WE VOTED ON AT LUPS. SO IT WAS AN EXISTING ONE THAT I REVIVED, AND ONE THAT WE HAD TIME TO CHEW ON A LITTLE BIT, I GUESS. KNOW WAY, I JUST WANTED -- ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT. I HAVE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT I'M GOING TO BE BRINGING UP, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO WAIT, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PUSH THEM THROUGH. ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I REALLY WANTED TO SAY. I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO THAT . THANK YOU. >> Coun. Benton: JUST QUICKLY, THIS IS VALID DISCUSSION, CERTAINLY, BUT I KIND OF FEEL THE SAME AS WAS SUMMARIZED BY COUNCILLOR SENA, THAT, YEAH, WE HAVE GOT THE 2020, WE ARE ALREADY A YEAR BEHIND ON THIS, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, BUT WE HAVE GOT THE 2020 AMENDMENTS COMING UP RIGHT AWAY, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REVISIT THIS BUT I DO THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILLOR BORREGO, THE FLOOR IS YOURS, MA'AM, FOR RESPONSE AND CLOSE. >> Coun. Borrego: I DO HAVE SOME RESPONSES, THANK YOU, COUNCILORS SO THERE ARE THREE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING UP TONIGHT THAT WE VOTED DOWN AT LUPS, AND THOSE INCLUDE SOLAR, AND THEY INCLUDE, LET'S SEE, I THINK IT WAS CIVIC ENVIRONMENTAL, AND MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT I DO RECALL SOLAR FOR SURE, AND LIQUOR, AND THEY CAME UP AGAIN TONIGHT. THESE PARTICULAR AMENDMENTS THAT I'M RAISING NOW ARE NOT NEW AMENDMENTS. THESE ARE AMENDMENTS TO AMENDMENTS THAT WE APPROVED AT OUR LUPS MEETING. AND SO IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CLEARLY A FLUID PLANNING PROCESS , IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE, YES, MAYBE THEY GOT IT TO US LATE, BUT THEY DID SOAPED US A SPREAD -- SEND US A SPREAD SHEET FROM THE WEST SIDE COALITION AND I WENT THROUGH THAT IN DETAIL IN THE LAST TWO DAYS, WHICH TOOK A MUCH OF MY TIME, BY THE WAY, WHICH IS MY JOB, BUT THAT'S THE REASON WHY I'M BRINGING THESE FORWARD. THOSE ARE NOT NEW AMENDMENTS, THEY ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE AMENDMENTS WE APPROVED AT THE LUPS HEARING. I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. WE VOTE THEM UP OR WE VOTE THEM DOWN. I MEAN, THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS, IF WE ARE TRULY TALKING WHEN KEEPING A PLANNING PROCESS FLUID, THEN WE ARE KEEPING IT FLUID, OR WE ARE NOT. SO I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNCIL UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ARE NOT BY DEFINITION NEW AMENDMENTS. THEY ARE AMENDMENTS TO AMENDMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED AT THE LUPS HEARING. SO THEY ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT I JUST, YOU KNOW, DREAMED UP. THEY ARE RESPONSES TO INPUT THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM MY CONSTITUENCY. AND WITH THAT, COUNCILORS, I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE VOTE THEM 77 OR WE VOTE -- UP OR WE VOTE THEM DOWN. >> Coun. Davis: THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE TO OUR CLERK. >> Coun. Bassan: NO. >> Coun. Benton: NO. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: NO. >> Coun. Harris: NO. >> Coun. Jones: NO. >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> Coun. Sena: NO. >> Coun. Davis: NO. >> Ms. Ortega: THAT FAILS ON A 2 -7 VOTE. >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR BORREGO, THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 13. WHICH WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE? >> Coun. Borrego: THE NEXT ONE IS RELATED TO COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT. BASICALLY, WHAT THIS IS, IT'S ADDRESSING COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE UC PT ZONE, AND IT REQUIRES THAT COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE CONDITIONAL >> Coun. Davis: SO THAT WOULD BE AMENDMENT NUMBER 13, FOR THOSE FOLLOWING ALONG AT HOME. THIS IS COUNCILLOR BORREGO'S PACKET, NUMBER 3. WE NEED A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. IS THERE A SECOND FOR FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 13? COUNCILLOR PEÑA OFFERS THE SECOND. COUNCILLOR BORREGO, IF YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT AND THEN WE WILL GO TO DISCUSSION. >> Coun. Borrego: I THINK I JUST DID COUNCILOR. >> Coun. Davis: ANY DISCUSSION FROM COUNCILORS? SEEING NONE, MS. ORTEGA. >> Coun. Bassan: NO,. >> Coun. Benton: NO. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: NO. >> Coun. Harris: NO. >> Coun. Jones: NO. >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> Coun. Sena: NO. >> Coun. Davis: NO. >> Ms. Ortega: FAILS ON A 2-7 VOTE. >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR BORREGO, IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT, IT WOULD BE FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 14. >> Coun. Borrego: 14, THANK YOU, COUNCILOR. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE NR ZONE, AND BASICALLY, THIS IS RELATED TO THE WALL, ADDING A WALL, OR ANY -- FOR ANY FRONT OR SIDE YARD SET BACK. AND BASICALLY, WE WOULD INSERT THE LANGUAGE FOR ANY NR ZONE OF NR ZONE DISTRICT, A ZONE VARIANCE MAY BE ALLOWED FOR SIX FOOTBALL WITH MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OPACITY, AND THAT'S REALLY LIKE OWE OPAQUE. I THINK WE REDUCED THAT TO LIKE 25 PERCENT. SO WE ARE ADDING THAT BACK UP. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND FOR FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 14? GOING ONCE. COUNCILLOR PEÑA, THANK YOU. AND COUNCILLOR BORREGO, FIRST, IS THERE DISCUSSION FROM OTHER COUNCILORS. COUNCILLOR BORREGO, ANYTHING ELSE? >> Coun. Borrego: WELL, I THINK THE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS IS THE MORE OPAQUE YOUR WALLS ARE, THE LOWS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY -- THE LESS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. SO THIS IS SOMEWHAT RELATED TO, WORKING WITH OUR POLICE. >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR BENTON HAD A QUICK QUESTION. >> Coun. Benton: DID I STEP ON YOUR CLOSE, COUNCILLOR BORREGO? >> Coun. Borrego: NO, GO AHEAD,. >> Coun. Benton: I JUST WANT TO SAY, AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING I'M VERY INTERESTED IN. AS WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AND I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS GOING FORWARD. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE SIMPLE STUFF, BUT IT IS PRETTY COMPLICATED STUFF WITH REGARD TO, YOU KNOW, CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, AND KEEPING EYES ON THE STREET. I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT. AND I'M NOT CONVINCE THAT HAD WE HAVE GOT IT RIGHT IN THE WAY THE IDO IS RIGHT NOW. SO I'D BE HAPPY TO TALK MORE ABOUT THIS, BUT I'M IN THE PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS. OF THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN SEEING NONE, WE WILL HAVE THE ROLL CALL >> Coun. Bassan: NO. DOIB NO. >> Coun. Benton: NO. >> Coun. Borrego: NO YES. >> Coun. Gibson: NO. >> Coun. Jones: NO. >> Coun. Harris: NO. >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> Coun. Sena: NO. >> Coun. Davis: NO. >> Ms. Ortega: FAILS ON A 2-7 VOTE. >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR BORREGO, IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER, IT WOULD BE FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. 15, AND I THINK WE ARE FAST FORWARDING TO PAGE 13, IF WE FOLLOW THE OUTLINE. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. BASICALLY, WHAT THIS DOES IS, AND I UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE I TALKED TO THE STAFF ON ALL OF THESE, BY THE WAY, SO THEY ARE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT I WAS WORKING ON, WHAT WE ARE ADDING HERE IS EXCEPT BEING ALL OF COORS BOULEVARD. I KNOW THAT IT ALREADY DOES THAT , BUT THE COALITION IS VERY SURE THAT THEY WANT TO ENSURE THAT COORS BOULEVARD WAS EXEMPTED FROM THIS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT. AND I . >> Coun. Davis: AND I SEE CODES DID A SECOND. SO -- I SEE COUNCILLOR SENA IS A SECOND. SO, COUNCILLOR BENTON WITH A QUESTION. >> Coun. Benton: I DO WANT TO ASK 1256 ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE AGAIN, IN LINE WITH SOME OF OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, THAT WE DON'T HAVE REDUNDANCY WITHIN THE IDO. IF WE HAVE GOT IT COVERED, WE HAVE GOT IT COVERED. I JUST WANT TO ASK STAFF ABOUT THAT. >> MR. PRESIDENT AND COUNCILLOR BENTON, THE COORS BOULEVARD AREA IS REGULATED BY A VPO AND A CPO. THOSE OVERLAYS TALK ABOUT HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THAT AREA. SO EVEN IF SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE IDO MIGHT ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, THAT VPO WOULD PREVAIL AND THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION WOULD PREVAIL OVER WHATEVER OTHER HEIGHT ALLOWANCE MAY BE. SO THIS THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IS SPEAKING TO THE MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDOR, WHICH COORS IS. THERE ARE ALSO OTHER MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDORS IN THE CITY. BUT COORS WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROTECTED MOST OF ALL BY THE VPO >> Coun. Benton: THANK YOU. AND A QUICK FOLLOW-UP, MR. PRESIDENT. AGAIN A LOT OF THE CRITIQUE OF THE IDO HAS BEEN IT IS TOO LENGTHY AND COMPLICATED. OF COURSE, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE PREVIOUS CODE WAS NOT LENGTHY AND COMPLICATED. BUT I DO THINK THAT ANYTHING THAT CONTRIBUTES TO AN IMPLICATION THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS NOT COVERED ELSEWHERE, WHEN IT IS, IS PROBLEMATIC. SO I WILL OPPOSE IT. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR BENTON. COUNCILLOR SENA, I SEE YOUR HAND HERE MANY I'LL GIVE YOU THE FLOOR. >> Coun. Sena: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. IT WAS A SECOND. BUT I DID, YOU KNOW, PUT MY HAND DOWN AND RAY RAISE IT BACK UP. I WANT TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT THE BELOW TEXTS ARE -- PROTECTIONS ARE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. BUT JUST THINKING OF THE PROTECTIONS, REALLY WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS DISCUSSING, WITHOUT HAVING THE LANGUAGE IN FLOPT OF ME, IS REALLY TALKING TO THE ISSUE OF HAVING A PUBLIC BENEFIT SO MEANING THAT WHERE WE HAVE WORK FORCE HOUSING, OR PARKING, THEN IT IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE WOULD GRANT THEM A POSSIBLE HEIGHT. SO I JUST WANTED TO HAVE SHANA OR PETRA CLARIFY ON SOME OF THAT ESPECIALLY FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS. I THINK IT IS VERY CRITICAL THAT WE PROTECT O OUR VANTAGE POINTS. BUT CAN WE SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ON WHAT THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT WAS TALKING ABOUT FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT? >> MR. PRESIDENT, AND COUNCILLOR SENA YES. WHAT IS IN THE RED LINE DRAFT TODAY OF THE IDO IS AN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ALLOWANCE IN THE MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDORS, IF YOU'RE DOING WORK FORCE HOUSING, OR STRUCTURED PARKING. SO THESE ARE HEIGHT BONUSES ALLOWED ELSEWHERE IN THE IDO, IN OTHER TRANSIT CORRIDOR, AND I THINK YOU EXPLAINED THAT TRADE OFF WELL, IN THAT YOU ARE PROVIDING A BENEFIT. WORK FORCE HOUSING, AS WE KNOW, THE CITY DESPERATELY NEEDS, AND STRUCTURED MARKING ALSO PROISES A CIVIC BENEFIT TO THE CITY IN THE FORM OF NOT HAVING SURFACE LOTS ALL OVER THE CITY. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THE TIME AND MONEY TO DO WORK FORCE HOUSING AND STRUCTURED PARKING, WE SAY IN DIFFERENT AREAS YOU CAN HAVE AN ADDITIONAL STORY OR TWO. WHAT THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO DO IS ADDS IS THE MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDOR TO ALLOWANCE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE MAJOR CORRIDOR TO GET THE EXTRA HEIGHT IF THEY ARE DOING EITHER OF THOSE TWO THINGS, BUT I WILL AGAIN REITERATE THAT ALONG COORS BOULEVARD, EVEN IF YOU DOING WORK FORCE HOUSE AND COULD GO UP AN ADDITIONAL 12 FEET, THE VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY WOULD TELL YOU THAT YOU CANNOT ACTUALLY DO THAT. >> Coun. Davis: COUNCILLOR SENA, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> Coun. Sena: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY, AS WELL, AND I APPRECIATE THAT EXPLANATION, BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO MY CONSTITUENTS,ING THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROTECTIONS FOR COORS, AND THIS IS NOT PARTICULARLY APPLIES. BUT I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT, BECAUSE I KNOW OUR CONSTITUENTS NEED THAT REASSURANCE. HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO ALSO MENTION, BECAUSE THIS WAS BROUGHT UP MULTIPLE TIMES, AS WELL, WHATS THE PROCESS OF CHANGING, IF WE WERE TO CHANGE COORS TO PREMIUM TRANSIT, WHICH WE ARE NOT TRYING TO DO TODAY, HOW DO WE DO THAT PROCESS? WHICH AGAIN, WE ARE NOT DOING. >> MR. PRESIDENT, AND COUNCILLOR SENA, YES, THIS QUESTION HAS COME UP IN RELATION TO THIS PARTICULAR PAGE IN THE IDO. IN ADDITION TO THE REBRANDING OF THE RAPID RIDE AS ART X ALONG COORS BOULEVARD, A FLN HAS BEEN CONCERN THAT COORS IS NOW A SUPREME 77 TRANSIT CORRIDOR. THERE IS ONE DOCUMENT THAT REGULATES THE SEGMENTS AND CORRIDORS IN THE CITY, AND THAT'S THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, EVENLY THROUGH AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN KNOWS CENTERS AND CORE DOSHES BE CHANGED -- CORRIDORS BE CHANGE. WHEN THE CITY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ADOPT BEING THE COMPREHENSIVE IN 2017, COORS WAS A DISCUSSION, AND THE ULTIMATE DECISION WAS TO KEEP IT AT MAJOR TRANSIT. AND THAT IS THE CORRIDOR DESIGNATION AS IT EXISTS TODAY, AND AGAIN, CANNOT BE CHANGED UNLESS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. TO DO, THAT YOU GO THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE OF LUPS COMMITTEE, AND UP TO THE FULL COUNCIL. THERE WOAB A VERY PUBLIC PROCESS TO DISCUSS ANY CHANGE OF THAT MAGNITUDE. >> Coun. Sena: THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. APPRECIATE IT. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MA'AM SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I THINK WE WILL BE BACK AT COUNCILLOR BORREGO FOR CLOSE. >> Coun. Borrego: URGE YOUR SUPPORT, THANK YOU. >> Coun. Bassan: NO. >> Coun. Benton: NO. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: NO. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Jones: NO. >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> Coun. Davis: NO. >> Ms. Ortega: THAT FAILS ON A 4 -5 VOTE. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. COUNCILLOR BORREGO, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? >> Coun. Borrego: NO, I DON'T. I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE END, THANK YOU. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. COUNCILORS, SEEING NO OTHER AMENDMENTS, COUNCILLOR BENTON AND COUNCILOR JONES, WE ARE BACK ON O-10 AS AMENDED MULTIPLE L TIMES. >> Coun. Benton: YES, THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WANT TO MAKE A NUMBER OF THANK YOUS. AGAIN, THIS IS AN ANNUAL PROCESS WE ARE GOING TO START IT UP AGAIN RIGHT AWAY, BECAUSE WE ARE SO DELAYED WITH THIS ONE. BUT I DID WANT TO THANK A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, STARTING WITH MR. MELENDREZ AND MS. SCHULTZ AND MS. MORRIS FROM OUR STAFF DID GREAT JOB ON THIS, A LOT OF HOURS, A LOT OF WORK, AND WE ARE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE ALL THREE OF THEM ON OUR STAFF. ALSO THE LUPS MEMBERS, THEY DID A LOT OF LIFTING ON THIS, AND OVER TIME GOT THIS TO WHERE WE ARE. AND A LOT OF LENGTHY MEETINGS. AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF, OF COURSE, WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM MUCH TONIGHT, AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY DID A REALLY GOOD JOB AND THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE WE ARE, BUT I WANT TO THANK THEM, AS WELL, FOR ALL THEIR WORK OBJECT -- ON THIS PROCESS, AND THEN ALONG THAT SAME LINE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO DELVED INTO THIS AND PROVIDED A LOT OF GOOD FEEDBACK TO US. THANKS TO EVERYBODY. AND TO MY CO-SPONSOR, AS ALWAYS, COUNCILOR JONES. I DO URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. COUNCILOR JONES, ANYTHING TO CLOSE IN. >> Coun. Jones: VERY QUICKLY. THANK YOU 20 ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT COUNCILLOR BENTON MENTIONED THE VOLUNTEER HELP ON THIS WAS UB BELIEVABLE. WE APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORHOODS, TOO, WHO GAVE US CONSTRUCTIVE INFORMATION AND IDEAS ABOUT HOW WE COULD DO THINGS BETTER. IT WAS A COMMUNITY WIDE PROCESS. IT IS AN UNENDING COMMUNITY WIDE PROCESS. THIS WILL GO ON. THE PLAN IS, WHEN WE STARTED THIS HOW LONG AGO, COUNCILLOR BENTON, FOUR YEARS AGO? WE KNEW IT WOULD BE -- IT HAS TO BE ONGOING. IT HAS TO BE CHANGING. FLUID. IT HAS TO BE A FLUID PROCESS. IT WILL MAKE THINGS EVENTUALLY EASIER IN THE CITY ONCE WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT, AND IT WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER WITH MORE UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT. SO, THANK YOU ALL. THANKS FOR SUPPORTING T THANKS FOR DIGGING IN ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND LISTENING TO US AND OUR LEGISLATION, WHICH SOMETIMES CAN BE MIND BOGGLING. WITH THAT, WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, SPONSORS. COURTED, PLEASE CALL -- >> Coun. Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: SORRY. I TURNED IT OFF BECAUSE MY DOG WAS BARKING. YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> Coun. Davis: YES. >> Ms. Ortega: PASSES 9-0 AS AMENDED. >> Coun. Davis: CONGRATULATIONS COUNCILORS, YOU WORKED LONG AND HARD ON THAT. NEXT UP, COUNCILLOR BENTON, O-9, OUR LAST ITEM TODAY. THIS HAS A LITTLE SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN IT BECAUSE OF WHAT 2 IMPACTS. COUNCILLOR BENTON, AS YOU INTRODUCE THIS, AND GET A SECOND , I'M GOING TO ASK YOU STOP THERE AND LET MR. MELENDREZ EXPLAIN WITH ABOUT SWEARING FOLKS IN FOR THIS AND WHY IT IS IMPORTANT. SO COUNCILLOR BENTON, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> Coun. Benton: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. COUNCILORS, O-9 IS ADOPT BEING THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A CHARACTER PROTECTION OVERLAY FOR NORTH 4th STREET CORE TORE. I THINK EVERYBODY HAS HEARD A LOT ABOUT THIS ALREADY, BUT IT DATES BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SECTOR PLAN, AND THIS INCORPORATES A LOT OF IT. I THINK IT IMPROVES ON A LOT OF THAT OLD SECTOR PLAN, BECAUSE AGAIN, LIVING THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE, THAT SECTOR PLAN, PEOPLE PUT A LOT OF STOCK IN IT. BUT THEN SOME OF THE RESULTING BUILDINGS WERE NOT VERY WELL RECEIVED. SO THIS IS HOW WE LIVE AND LEARN , AND I THINK IT HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY. SO I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT IT, BUT I'LL MOVE A DO PASS ON IT. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. COUNCILOR JONES HAS PREEMPTIVELY SECONDED YOU FOR THAT ONE, SO WE WILL CLEAR THE BOARD. I'LL MUTT A PAUSE HERE. MR. MELENDREZ, I WILL PROVIDE UP THERE IS A SPECIAL PROCEDURE AND REMIND US WHY AND WHO IT APPLIES TO AND WE WILL GO BACK TO THE SPONSORS. >> SURE, MR. PRESIDENT AND COUNCILORS. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN BUSINESS AS USUAL, AS FAR AS THE CHANGE TO THE ZONE MAP, BECAUSE IT DOES FOCUS ON A MORE LIMITED AREA AND DOES IMPACT CHANGES TO THE WAY THE DEVELOPMENT CAN OCCUR. THERE ARE SOME HEIGHTENED PROCEDURAL STANDARDS THAT REQUIRE US TO CREATE A LITTLE BIT MORE PROTECT ED RECORD, AND THAT INCLUDES SWEARING IN PARTICIPATE PANTS WHO ARE GOING TO BE TESTIFYING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER TONIGHT. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU. MR. MELENDREZ. FOR THE RECORD, FOLKS WHO ARE TESTIFYING WILL BE ASKED TO RAISE THEIR HAND AND SWEAR IN TONIGHT. LET ME ASK, MS. SCHULTZ OR COUNCILLOR BENTON, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS OR EXPERTS, EITHER FROM PLANNING OR THE COMMUNITY ON THIS BHIL? BILL? COUNCILLOR BENTON SAYS NO, MS. SCHULTZ SAYS NO. THAT MAY BE A MOOT . IF WE SEE ANYONE, PIPE UP QUICKLY, AND THEN WE WILL LEAVE IT TO COUNCILORS, WHICH IS EASIER. EXCELLENT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE BILL FOR O -9? GOING ONCE? TWICE? AND BACK TO THE SPONSOR TO CLOSE >> Coun. Benton: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS, FOR YOUR INDULGENCE. FINALLY GOT AROUND TO THIS ONE ALONG WITH THE IDO AMENDMENTS. THEY HAD TO GO HAND-IN-HAND. BUT, YEAH, I DO WANT TO THANK THE NORTH VALLEY COMMUNITY WHO CARES SO MUCH ABOUT NORTH 4th. NORTH 4th HAS A LONG HISTORY OF BEING PART OF ROUTE 66 AT ONE TIME. IT WAS REALLY THE MAIN STREET OF THE NORTH VALLEY. AND STILL IS, IN A SENSE. BUT IT HAS ALSO SEEN BETTER DAYS , WITHOUT QUESTION, AND SO WE WANT TO HELP BRING IT BACK. I WANT TO THANK THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN REALLY VOCAL AND WHO HAVE BEEN REALLY INVOLVED MR. THIS, AS WELL AS THE SAME STAFF MEMBERS THAT I MENTIONED, WHO WORKED ON THIS IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >> Coun. Davis: THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR BENTON. >> Coun. Bassan: YES. >> Coun. Benton: YES. >> Coun. Borrego: YES. >> Coun. Gibson: YES. >> Coun. Harris: YES. >> Coun. Jones: YES. >> Coun. Peña: YES. >> Coun. Sena: YES. >> Coun. Davis: YES. >> Ms. Ortega: PASSES YOU AN 23457B HUSBANDLY. >> Coun. Davis: COUNSELORS, BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS, WE WILL ADJOURN. LET ME SAY A SPECIAL THANKS TO ALL OF OUR STAFF WHO WORKED ON THE IDO, AND THEY WILL START AGAIN IN A MONTH OR SO AND ESPECIALLY TO MS. ORTEGA, MR. MO YA, AND K50E7G ME ON TRACK ON THESE AMENDMENTS. I APPRECIATE AFTER YOUR HELP. PARTICULARLY MS. MORRIS AND MS. SCHULTZ WHO HAVE SHEPHERDED THIS IN OUR SIDE. THANKS FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND AND TIME FOR THIS SPECIAL MEETING THIS. MEETING IS ADJOURNED.