i think you're good to go okay good evening i call this meeting porter this is the land use zoning committee of the city council all committee members are present or will be shortly for this evening via zoom this is a remote or online meeting where all participants will be on a video or audio conference we are holding this meeting remotely so that everyone can participate safely while we are conducting business under a public health emergency we appreciate your patience as we get accustomed to virtual meetings members of the public will be able to speak to the committee if they have signed in signed up for public comment for the rules published on friday with tonight's agenda before each agenda item begins members of the public will be moved from the zoom waiting room into the meeting room they will remain muted until they are called upon to speak at which point they will have two minutes to provide comment to the committee after that they will again be muted between each of tonight's agenda items members of the public will be moved in and out of the zoom meeting zoom waiting room accordingly we will now move on to the agenda item a09 we do have a quorum will the zoom moderator please move in all members of the public who signed up to speak for this item for those joining us for this agenda item that is a 09 if you're watching the youtube live feed for this meeting please mute or turn turn it off at this time the first item we'll be discussing uh councillor benton is is a councillor benton 09 adopting a zone map amendment to establish a character protection overlay zone in the integrated development ordinance for the north fourth corridor with regulations related to building massing and scale for development in the area and references to street cross sections in the development process councilor benton thank you and i'm sure for the purpose of discussion i'll move a recommendation of the due pass on 20-9 thank you councillor benton staff and members of the public are required to be sworn in for this agenda item city staff who may speak to this item please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury i do thank you counselors ms schultz is going to give an overview of the bill and address any questions we may have we will then consider an amendment here public comment and defer this bill to our next lups meeting ms schultz thank you madam chair and members of the committee um i will give a brief overview of oh 20-9 which proposes to create a new character protection overlay zone for the north fourth corridor we did discuss this item at the laps meeting two weeks ago so my overview will be brief and i will also present um on a proposed amendment um this character protection overlay zone follows the same boundary that the now rescinded north 4th rank 3 corridor plan followed it proposes to regulate building mass and scale related to building heights and building step back and it also points to the development process manual for um proposed roadway cross-sections so thinking about how the public right-of-way should be developed when a private property owner comes in to develop adjacent to fourth street um we did hear comment on this item last week that there might have been a couple of items missing from the character protection overlay zone this is due to a gap in the comprehensive plan which designates the centers and corridors of the city there is a main street designation for most of the 4th street corridor minus about 10 10 or so blocks and some of the provisions that we proposed for the cpo spoke directly to that main street corridor designation well for those 10 or so blocks where there is no main street designation we wanted to make sure that those ten blocks still receive those protections that we're considering in the cpo so there is an amendment sponsored by councillor benton tonight that will um speak directly to making sure that the articulation and design standards in the cpo cover the entirety of the corridor and also add setback requirements of 10 to 15 feet to development adjacent to the corridor with that i'll stand for any questions that the committee might have about the cpo thank you michelle's counsellors are in there any questions for michelle's sorry i didn't raise my hand properly there i'll do it try to do it next time um so i part of that the question here ms schultz that i have is um this amendment in relation to the other uh the other amendments to uh to the the ido that are in the next uh item um and how that relates to um i realize that the existing interim guidelines do not include this area or do they uh madam chair counselor benton the interim design guidelines that are in place today do cover the entirety of the corridor so the amendment uh that you've sponsored tonight uh will ensure that that continues into the future with the cpo okay because we're talking about uh i mean i think what we're considering uh i've been asked and i'm amenable to it the idea that they should track together at the next leps meeting this would maintain the protections in place [Music] if we just leave it however if we amend it does it change it doesn't it wouldn't change in a regulatory way anything until it's passed by the council right so madam chair counselor benton that's correct we're not um they enter the interim guidelines will be in place no matter what action the council takes tonight um those were in place for one year or until the ido is updated and so those those continue to be effective through this adoption process all right thank you thank you counselor benjamin so is there another amendment within our ipads that we need to move according to my script maybe not uh madam chair there is only one amendment to be moved which we already did uh councillor benton um yes um we did already move it right so yes so i think at this point we go to public comment yeah thank you so we uh unless counselors have anything else to say or any questions seeing none uh we will go to public comments in this matter is there anyone signed up to speak on this bill madam chair there are several members of the public signed up to speak i will go ahead and read those names in order now uh first of all let's talk about the public present ground rules comments are to be addressed to the committee members only please keep your comments jermaine to the agenda item you are speaking on and any disruptive com conduct or non-german comment revolve from the meeting room there will be a two-minute time limit the time and since you're going to be sworn in as is ready to speak i will ask you to raise your right hand okay the first member of the public signed up to speak is anthony rael i do not see anthony rael in the zoom waiting room um okay so we will move on to the next speaker who is loretta anderonjo lopez mranjo lopez before you begin your testimony can you please raise your right hand for me do you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury i do great please proceed so this is resolution for the uh fourth street um overlay zone or or is okay okay and i think i had it we we just wanted to support our our neighbors to the north and recommend approval and we also want to look at our areas having a stark over overlay zone which we requested in back in 2018 or when the the ido was being reviewed so that's all i wanted to comment on that thank you mr ron hello pets we'll go to the next speaker michelle's the next speaker is commissioner debbie o'malley who i do not see on the call either um so we will move on to the next speaker who is peggy norton miss norton could you please raise your right hand for me yeah do you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury i do great please proceed well i'm pleased to be able to work at this time and go between the youtube and this um and i did speak comments last time and the two concerns that we had um i do support it at this time and thank you all for your work on this oh and and i am as president of the north valley coalition doing that and i we also have an executive committee meeting tomorrow and we will be confirming it as a group we've sort of not had a lot of we haven't had any zoom meetings yet thank you so much for your comments do you have more that you would like to say no i'm done thank you thank you so very much miss shells all right our last speaker for this item is peggy neff miss neff could you please raise your right hand for me do you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury your microphone is muted at this time go ahead and unmute it you're you're muted again you unmuted yourself for a moment there you go i do great please proceed although i'm not in the neighborhood there i do want to recommend part of the ido 6-4 e-1-d where it asks for 51 percent of the residents in that area the proper own owners of property owners in that area to approve of a cpo this didn't happen in this case and i don't think it should be applied to any neighborhood who feels that they lost protections for their community i think that the cpos are a way of getting past what i think was marginalization and discrimination against neighborhoods and communities when the ido was imposed on us compare it to the west equivalent neighborhood association where the north valley plan was in place and now that was taken away without any discussions with neighborhoods now we see a whole advent of commercial activity all across uh alameda which was supposed to be reserved for non-commercial activities through the south and then compared to martinez town and to the historic neighborhood alliance groups who use their sector plans to continually develop and translate their heritage and their cultural sensitive natures that now no longer have access to that i don't understand why martinez town given their situation with challenging the legality of the ido why they weren't included in this it's only a few blocks away and could easily have been addressed to adopt some of those problems that they feel that they're facing now with the loss of their sector plans you also have to look at whole communities that have been marginalized when r270 11 has been taken out when harmful issues were able to be deliberated upon and now that's gone thank you your time is out thank you for speaking with us this evening councillor benton thank you man i'm sure since uh we're really talking about the north fork uh c cpo uh and not martinez down but since it's been raised now twice by speakers i wonder if staff could could address uh what has been done in martinez style and that that there is a cpa from martina's death um if they could please sure madam chair counselor benton that's correct when um the idea was adopted a character protection overlay zone was created for the martinez town santa barbara area it's called cp-07 um and i have that in front of me it covers items such as required usable open space setback standards uh maximum building heights has some specific sign regulations um and it looks like there's some specific regulations related to paid parking lots as well so the there you are correct that there is a cpo already in place for this area and and just to be clear madam chair um as with this cpo i mean we can we can make the uh martin johnson cpo more robust um by amendment and um the fact is uh at the time of adoption of the ido the uh the cpo for that location that that that neighborhood was um the original the original uh center plan from back in in uh i believe it was around in the mid 80s or early 80s and um and a couple of efforts were made to try to update that that were not the rear fruition and at that time when we were talking about the idiot adoption i met and um she was supportive at that time and and microphone is cutting out difficult i've been having a mic problem i think she was supported at that time and um and i stand ready to continue to work with the neighborhood on amendments to that to that character protection so thank you councilman benton are there any other questions counselors um thank you madam chair we do have one other person who signed up to speak who has joined the call since since we called public commenters that's going to be commissioner o'malley um commissioner o'malley please go ahead and proceed with your public comment uh thank you all very much it's interesting that um it's not in sync with the youtube and and getting on the call but nonetheless i just wanted to weigh in and thank you for um i want to also weigh in and in support of the um the overlay zone i think that's very critical for us to get that through uh especially since we're having more development along the corridor mass scaling all these things are very important including up i think upgrading our design standards uh the question i do have though is so is this this comment is just for um the first the first amendment or am i supposed to comment on both uh amendments commissioner kelly just for this amendment okay all right that's all i have to say thank you thank you counseling i think that that concludes our public comment would let you wrap this up yes uh so i think i do need to move the amendment to the bill which is an amendment is it coming right procedurally that's correct and i will second that motion to move the amendment yeah is there anything uh are you looking for a second madam chair uh a seconded but we'd welcome another one councillor gibson [Music] okay number two thank you counselor gibson go ahead and vote counselor benton that was counselor benton and i think he's had some technical difficulties counselor councillor yes counselor jones yes yes councillor harris councilman sir harris yes that's a yes and counselor benton uh yes thank you that passes on a 5-0 vote all right great thank you counselors we appreciate that we're having everyone's having a little bit of technical difficulty tonight so um let's move on are there okay i'm going to move it too yeah the next question we have to do is are there any questions or comments there weren't any i'm going to move to furl until the next lups meeting august 12th i have a second second second thank you yes counselor gibson yes counselor jones yes yes counselor harris yes that passes on a 5-0 vote thank you everyone we're a little shaky this evening on this one but we'll get it uh we will now move on to agenda item b o ten uh will the zoom moderator please move in all members of the public while who are signed up to speak for this item and there's going to be a little pause in the action for you at home thank you i think we have all of you ready to participate now those have signed up uh for those joining us for this agenda item if you are watching on the youtube live feed for this meeting please mute or turn it off at this time counselor benton would you like to move 010 so move madam chair second of course do you have a presentation for us good evening good evening madam chair and councillors yes um this is the second um lups hearing on the uh first annual ido update uh the first hearing was was two weeks ago on june 10th and the presentation on on june 10th at the meeting on june 10th included a staff presentation with an overview of each amendment and public comment um to remind folks who uh they've joined us last time or for folks who are new to this um there are two packets of amendments um before us this evening packet a are the amendments um that are from the epc application and these respond to the red line that is exhibit one to o ten the red line of the ido contains all of the tech edits as proposed by the planning department each amendment is is formatted to address the page numberings and sections and text of that redline document packet b has amendments that are in three different categories they are either a response to an epc condition they are a response to an epc discussion or a third category they are new and in response to constituents concerns that have been raised since july of 2019 uh i'm now going to share my screen with you um and just go through a very short presentation um that is going to cover just a couple of um uh yep um items that have come up uh from the public with discussion in the um last couple of weeks so the first item that has come up um is there are two amendments in the packets packets there is a cluster development amendment which is a4 and an amendment titled conservation development b4 um i in order to sort of provide a little bit more clarity on these two amendments i'm going to go through a timeline associated with them so in july of 2019 with the epc application the council memo proposed a revision to cluster development that is now a4 in the packet this revision to the cluster development would require that homes be kept in small clusters of about 15 with areas of open space preserved between them in response to this proposed change to cluster development the epc recommended in july of 2020 the creation of the conservation development form this would not require the small clusters of homes as required by the council memo this conservation development format is pretty much exactly the same as cluster developments today unrevised in june of 2020 so this month um the epc in response to the epc recommendation in packet b there is an amendment b4 that proposes to strike all references to conservation development the because there are two amendments on this there are there's a table in each amendment that has uh an explanation of how voting on different uh in different ways on these two amendments would have different outcomes depending on what the desire of the council is the second review topic is liquor retail in the mixed use medium zone um today in the ido liquor retail in the mixed use medium zone is a permissive use with the exception that when it's within 500 feet of a residential property sorry zone district or a non-residential um parks or open space zone district or a group home use the the use is conditional in addition the ido carried over the protections from the sector plans and so uh liquor retail is prohibited unless it's accessory to a grocery store in the downtown neighborhood area the east downtown character protection overlay and historic protection overlay the north fourth street area the south yale area it is prohibited regardless of of a grocery store in the nob hill highland area and it is prohibited in the university neighborhood area unless it's associated with a grocery store and west of university boulevard amendment a11 in your packet makes the following recommendation that liquor retail be a conditional use in the mixed use medium zone this would not make any changes to any of the youth specific standards um however it would be conditional regardless of its proximity to residential a non-residential park or open space or a group home but it would not make any changes to those sector plan protections that carried over into the ido the next topic of review is cumulative impacts uh this is amendment b 21 in the packets this amendment proposes to create a new procedure to require the study and mitigation of certain uses and their potential cumulative impacts on new resid on nearby residential developments as drafted this amendment applies city-wide to properties that meet all of the following criteria you're located within a quarter mile of a residentially zoned property it the proposed use is within the motor vehicle transportation and industrial categories and is within 660 feet of another use within those same categories if all three criteria are met a cumulative impact study must be reviewed by the epc i'm now going to move on to the three amendments uh that had revisions in the packets that went out on friday um 660 feet the first packet amendment that had a revision associated with it is a17 site lighting uh this revision added an exemption for lodging uses the site lighting amendment requires that all sources of light measure at 300-foot lamberts when measured from the property line um and this uh revision would exempt lodging uses from this as they are very similar to residential uses um a18 is the transit parking reduction amendment this amendment proposes to increase the peak frequency of um for the 30 minute 30 reduction in off street parking from 15 minutes to oh my hang on a second um uh well that was dramatic uh the front door just flew open i think we're getting a rainstorm um so a18 transit parking reduction um this would increase the peak frequency from 15 minutes to 30 minutes to receive the 30 reduction in off street parking and it also adds back the 10 reduction for properties within a quarter mile of transit service um the revision to this amendment adds an exemption for the university neighborhoods um area uh the university neighborhoods uh has a quite a heavy amount of on-street parking in the area due to their proximity to unm and cnm in addition the ido has a lot of parking exam reductions associated with premium transit and much of the university area is impacted by that premium transit there is concern that these additional off-street parking requirements in this area where there are already parking concerns and these parking reductions uh would would uh make parking up more of an issue in the area and so the university neighborhoods through this revision would be exempted um from this subsection of the ido and the last amendment that has revisions um the sponsor for this council of bassan has requested that this amendment be withdrawn i'll still review the proposed changes to this as we may have some public comments on this so the amendment b5 density and multi-family development the previous amendments focused on adding dwelling units per acre as a way to limit intensity on a site however in order to address some concerns from the community the amendment was revised to shift the focus from density to usable open space the amendment proposed to add 50 extra square feet of usable open space per unit in the um rml mxt and mxl zone districts on lots adjacent to low density residential use in the ra r1 and rt zone districts and they are not within an urban center activity center economic center main street uh major transit and premium transit area um however this amendment uh has been requested that it be withdrawn from the packets before the counselors vote on it that is all of my presentation please um uh let me know if you have any questions thank you miss morris uh counselors do you have any questions i see no hands going up therefore we will go to public comment uh is there anyone signed up to speak on this bill madam chair there are several members of the public signed up to speak i will go ahead and begin calling their names now let me give the ground rules one more time just in case we do have public comment ground rules comments are to be addressed to the committee members only please keep your comments germaine to the agenda item you are speaking on and any disruptive conduct or non-germane commentary will result in removal from the zoom meeting room there will be a two minute time limit the time will will start once you begin speaking and i will let you know when your time is up thank you okay our first member of the public is nancy beers miss beerus are you connected i do see miss beerus in the room we will give her a moment to unmute her microphone i'm unmuted now thank you can you hear me we sure can please proceed wonderful good evening counselors uh as you heard my name is nancy burst i am speaking in support of counselor davis's amendment for liquor retail as a conditional use in mxm zones to the ordnance or the o2010 without this amendment you ignore statistics regarding the density of retail package liquor sales with increases in criminal behavior and the deterioration of business corridors and residential neighborhoods as a whole our city realizes no benefit from any business that inflicts this burden on its public it is a liability that has shown to draw down on radi on city resources it is a liability that impacts economic development and investment in the city reduced investment coupled with increased liabilities diminished the city's financial capabilities such as low-interest public bonds leaving the city the citizens tax dollars to pay higher interest rates over a 20 to 30 year span that's my comment thank you for your time and attention thank you miss burst thank you for being here this evening thank you the next speaker is sal perdomo mr perdomo go ahead and unmute yourself can you hear me okay we sure can all right good evening madam chair members of the lups committee my name is sal purdoman with titan development and i'm here to speak to the ido amendments and redlines we appreciate you and your staff's efforts on the ido and understand this has been an incredibly heavy lift by all i'm here to speak on two items amendment b2 and amendment b21 amendment b2 increases the maximum building height across various zoning categories by three feet to accommodate for parapet and proper floor height i'm in full support of amendment b2 as it will allow for proper design and the needed flexibility to create both functional and visually appealing buildings next amendment b-21 the cumulative impact study amendment i do not support amendment b-21 for the following reasons first amendment b-21 will have a direct negative impact on economic development efforts by delaying and deterring economic-based job creators many businesses in the industrial and transportation use categories are important job creators for our economy and adding additional regulation will create barriers of entry for these groups we want to promote a pro-business climate in albuquerque not an anti-business climate and this amendment directly supports the latter second amendment b-21 is a blanket amendment that is a reactionary that is reactionary to one specific and isolated neighborhood this amendment should not burden the entire city lastly amendment b-21 has not been properly vetted and is not of the details necessary to be implemented this amendment will have major implementation challenges that will place undue burden on the applicant in their project for these reasons i am strongly opposed to amendment b-21 and ask that the lups committee recommend denial of this amendment lastly i'm also i would like to also ask that the red line comment section 5-7 c2 be removed this is the red line that states wall shall not encroach into public water lines we'll wrap up your comments please uh your time is up thank you i appreciate it thank you again for your efforts thank you our next public speaker is dan regan mr regan go ahead and unmute your microphone party amendments that's the 22 in a and uh eight no 22 and b and 18 and a now we've got 40 amendments in two minutes is absolutely insane for good exchange last night at 8 51 i sent an email to the lups group asking that the same thing that y'all did with cpa assessments push it back until february uh happened to packet b as the titan guy i just of the amendments in b have been even basically vetted by anybody but the writers of them mr benton said last meeting he wasn't even aware of the impact of any of all of those amendments um right after b became public on june 5th i asked what the intention was are you going to treat b with the same value and weight as you did packet a i got no response from anybody on love's miss jones the chair tells a journal reporter what their intentions are for lups and that appears in the paper today i gotta say that that's a massive sign of disrespect for all the neighborhood folks who've been trying to follow what's going on to go to the reporter but not to neighborhood associations and coalitions i consider a slap in the face and we've been at this for over a year and for that to turn into that today i think is a sign that once again lups and the council will do it to the neighborhoods and the residents of this city without having the ability to give input please wrap it up your time is up thank you sir thank you counselor benton you have a [Music] question just a response to uh mr regan i i said what i did because the fact is that the amendments in packet b are prerogative of city councilors who have sponsored them and uh so i i'm not in collusion with anyone on anything that i put forth uh and i'm sure the other counselors are not either however as representatives of our community each of us has the right to put forth an amendment in response to community concerns or industry concerns or personal concerns for that matter that's the prerogative of city council mr regan is implying that every thought that crosses the mind of the city councilor must be vetted with uh his interest group then uh he is mistaken thank you thank you councillor benton uh councillor gibson thank you madam chair um i wonder if it might uh it might be helpful i think it might be helpful if um either miss schultz or miss morris could again tell us some of the sources for those um amendments in in packet b that they because i understand they didn't all come from counselors but they came from eps possibly other places glad that correct thank you councillor gibson i think miss morris might be able to do that for us madam chair councillor gibson yes um packet b kind of breaks down into three general categories uh the first category is amendments uh drafted in response to epc notices conditions in the notice of decision either a request from the epc or changing something that the epc did in their notice of decision the second category is items that were discussed at the epc uh either raised by the neighborhoods or the development community but that the epc chose not to make a recommendation on and then the third category are items that are uh new to the discussion but that have been uh raised to a counsellor by a constituent since july 2019 ms schultz and i have been keeping a list of concerns that counselors have have received from their constituents that they wish to address and that those are those newer topics thank you miss morris thank you thank you madam chair thank you council for gibson counselors are there any more questions um mr schultz if you would call our next speaker please the next speaker signed up is jay rembe who i do not see signed into this zoom meeting so after him is patricia wilson miss wilson are you connected uh yes i am and i just unmuted can you hear me yes we can please proceed um i i i don't have a lot of specifics because i've just been trying to go through amendments today but i might um echo some of mr regan's discussion that i feel like there's just a not enough time or understanding of um what's going through with some of this and i'm especially concerned about the oxbow project and cluster development because that's the big the first big major cluster development project and if we get it wrong uh there's no fixing it thank you very much thank you very much we appreciate you coming to talk with us the next speaker is becky davis miss davis go ahead and unmute yourself now okay uh apparently host has stopped my video uh you are able to enable your video at this time if you'd like there you good go you miss davis thank you um i submitted comments i will read them here uh dear counselor uh jones and lups members the proposed amendments packet a and b and technical edits are still too turgid and obscure for mere citizens to comprehend we taxpayers of albuquerque look to lups in the planning department to show an appreciation for albuquerque's public health safety and welfare and for its future livability all the edison amendments need proper explanation and definition i'll move on the amendment a10 this amendment does not go far enough please remove all references to the maximum extent practicable from the ido if the ideo regulations are to work they must be obeyed by developers ebc and the drp without waiver or variance amendment a18 don't reduce parking breadth and depth in this city don't provide a special exemption for one neighborhood a18 does not help the health or welfare of america of albuquerque amendment a4 revise cluster development and yes rescind amendment b4 b4 would allow too many bad developments amendment b5 density you've already withdrawn it but the ido can define a grocery store therefore it can define density in terms of people not dwelling units i won't relabel the issue thank you for the work you have done in the planning department and all the heavy lifting on these many target involved amendments and technical edits please keep the long-range future of albuquerque topmost in your minds thank you very much thank you ms davis the next speaker is miss ward miss ward go ahead and unmute yourself now i believe i was unmuted by the host is that correct yes that is correct we can hear you okay um so these comments refer pertain to the red line version of the ido update there are multiple instances of increased allowances decreased requirements and permissive use changes being put in the ido and being referred to as technical edits there appears to be whole cloth creation of development uses or redefined air or special areas or small areas and these uh actions need much further scrutiny and it appears that inconsistency has been introduced in the various buffer requirements that we saw before with the 330 feet no 300 feet 330 feet that appears to have returned note the creation of the oxymoronic use conservation development this new use appears to be the same as cluster development so what purpose would it serve other than to obfuscate a particular concern is the attempt to up zone coors boulevard a major transit corridor by adding mt corridors to the ucmspt areas where extra allowances for workforce housing and parking reductions are granted this action directly undermines the expressed desire of the city council to maintain coolers boulevard as a major transit corridor with regard to allowed uses as previously established and there are many examples of what appear to be variants by tech edit that bypass due process on behalf of uh the srmr srmna board of directors i request rejection of the proposed conservation development use rejection of mt corridors being open to workforce housing and parking reduction bonuses or allowances and a thorough public examination of the hundreds of proposed changes to the ido thank you thank you the next speaker is deborah conger miss conger you you're free to speak now we sure can go ahead okay thank you good evening counselors my name is debbie conger i live in the south los altos neighborhood i am requesting a change in clause 43d 17g under light fueling stations to clarify the spirit and intent of the law the law is meant to protect residential use in residential zones from potential adverse effects from some non-residential uses recently i became aware of an application for a fueling station proposed at an intersection near my home i became aware of this because of a maximum setback variance requirement request although the request was in regard to the setback my initial concern was about yet another fueling station being put in at an intersection where there are ready fueling stations on two of the four corners during the course of a facilitated meeting with the applicant's architect i heard concerns brought up by town park residents town park is directly to the north of where this fueling station is proposed and residential development concerns about emissions and inability to get certain mortgages when so close to a fueling station were brought up after hearing these concerns i looked at the ido to see why a conditional use approval process was not followed and that's when i saw that the clause was written if located to any residential zone district and i might note zone district is not capitalized so that leaves some interpretation there but adjacent to any residential zone district this use shall require a conditional use approval and i found out the applicant was not required to apply for this conditional use because town park although a community of residences is zoned pd i see this as a technicality in the way the clause is written and it needs to be rewritten to clarify that the spirit of intent of the law was protect residential areas so thank you for listening thank you for being here this evening next speaker the next speaker is renee horvath miss horvath go ahead and unmute yourself now okay um thank you uh i'm with the taylor ranch and the west side coalition and i did send in comments this afternoon can you hear me yes ms horvath we can thank you uh so uh i did focus on packet a but i do have to agree with the previous speakers that this is a pretty immense uh undertaking to look at pack a a packet b and the red line draft and try to address all these issues in comments written comments much less trying to do it in two minutes so we do have some issues that we'd like to talk to more linkedly but please read my comments and i will start with packet a and start with cluster development because i really always love that concept of cluster development because i can see it being beneficial near open space areas particularly and we have a good example like with la luz development here on the west side with houses on one side open space on the other and since the west side has a lot of open space like the petroglyphs we do see problems when houses are too close to sensitive areas such as the escarpment we've seen flooding issues grain drainage erosion issues wildlife conflicts but the best designs that we have in taylor ranch along sensitive areas if there's a large enough buffer and a single loaded street to separate the development so i like the cluster development being proposed with the meandering street and the clusters on each side but i do think we need another design to show us a lot you know the cluster on one side but the single loaded street and a large buffer on the other side so we should consider another design element to demonstrate other types of clusters particularly near sensitive areas uh the other issued i your time is up thank you very much thank you for being here this year sir denton yes madam chair uh uh i did want to follow up on uh ms horvath's question about the single loaded streets and just is that addressed in um the new cluster development language madam chair counselor benson um the single loaded street is actually in a different subsection so um it would apply if they are adjacent to major public open space whether it's a plastic development or not um at present in the ido the preferred treatment adjacent to major public open space for a development is a single loaded street um and however there's a uh there's a waiver option that if the open space superintendent does not want this as the treatment so for example if there are erosion issues or concern about access to areas that are sensitive a landscape buffer can be requested uh the ido redline proposes to increase that landscape buffer from i believe 20 feet to 45 feet uh i can see um miss schultz nodding her head so i think i've got the numbers right on that um so that would apply no matter what type of development is adjacent to the major public open space and that would include cluster development thank you counselors are there any other questions thank you next speaker the next speaker is leah armstrong i'm here can you hear me yes we can go ahead okay um i thank you madam chair for your time tonight and counselors i am here to speak uh in favor of counselor jones um amendment to a8 drive-throughs uh it's kind of unprecedented times for everybody and believe it or not the things that best weathered this storm the the food guys the best weather the storm were actually drive-through uh retailers so it just kind of reiterated the importance of why we need to have them in smart developments and in smart areas but i am in favor of counselor jones amendment um to a8 i am also uh wanting to speak against b21 uh it it seems too vague to be spread across the entire city uh so i think it needs some work before we can make that make sense for the rest of the city and so i am against b21 so thank you for your time thank you mr armstrong next speaker the next speaker is kelly cockrell miss cockrell go ahead and unmute yourself now hi can you hear me yes we can excellent okay um my name is kelly cockrell and my comment is in regards to a light vehicle fueling station and that section is 43d 17g and i am piggybacking off of debbie conger's statements regarding inclusivity of planned developments she just spoke about three or four speakers back in this section the verbiage states if located adjacent to any residential zone district this use shall require a conditional use approval pursuant to subsection 1466 i would like to request that in that language where it says if located adjacent to any residential zone be changed to if located adjacent to any residential zone as well as planned development zones this use shall require conditional use approval um and the reason why i request this is because humans and other living beings thrive in plan development zones as well i know this because i live in town park which is a planned development why would the city not want to protect its residents from potential disasters or adverse effects in planned development zones like they do in residential zones any area that has humans living in it should receive the same protections as any other area for instance an application has been submitted to put up this gas station near us and their first set of gas pumps shall be 50 feet from our community walls and less than 100 feet from several of our houses now because of the semantic and incredibly sketchy language of residential zones versus planned development zones our community shall not be protected by conditional use permits and why we all pay property taxes here miss cockwell thank you so very much miss cockrell thank you your time is up okay thank you very much the next public speaker is eric johnson mr johnson go ahead and unmute yourself now good evening thank you for the opportunity to speak with you i i would like to talk about amendment b 21 and the cumulative impacts overall i thought the purpose of the ido was to provide clarity and this amendment i think does the opposite at least the way it's currently its current state um the details of the cumulative impact study are extremely vague and would be left for uh immense interpretation um in general i think the amendment is overly burdensome on development the additional requirements would uh negatively impact development and hurt job growth from a practical standpoint the large majority of uh entitled industrial land that can be used for transportation or industrial purposes is already within a quarter mile of residential so it's gonna i think it's overly burdensome and going to impact every most every new development in town so i am against amendment b-21 i appreciate your time okay the next speaker is gosh i'm sorry if i butcher your last name michael velasquez that's correct wonderful we can we can hear you go ahead fantastic my name is mike velasquez i'm a civil engineer with mohan in houston and i'm calling specific in reference to red line amendment 5-7 c2 that was requested as a part of the water authority pertaining to walls currently they're asking that walls not be allowed in their easements at all and the way that it's currently written it's noted as shall and i have a number of projects that we're currently working on that we work hand in hand with the water authority to adjust our plans and or work with them directly to ensure that either the wall is minimally in their easement or not and having the word shall in the language results in some challenges down the road as it relates to approval so my request for for this effort is to the possibility of uh amending that language as a part of that red line thank you thank you sir thank you for uh appearing tonight next week the next speaker is deborah meyer miss meyer you should be unmuted go ahead and begin your comment thank you good evening counselors i'm my comments are in line with kelly cockrells and debbie congers i'm requesting a change in clause 4-3-d 17g to comply with the spirit and intent of the law so a light fuel applicant would be required to apply for conditional use in pd-zoned areas this is particularly pertinent in a current situation where a gas station wants to build right next to a neighborhood zone pd in this case the gas station is of course not required to apply for conditional use and they would be right on the other side of my wall where and i live in town park there there would be many negative effects on our community because of this but most important to me is the negative impact on health kelly said and i i agree the gas pumps from the maps show that they'll be within 50 feet of the homes creating a danger of explosion i recognize is rare but also emitting fumes associated with the gasoline specifically the carcinogen benzene is emitted as a vapor from fuel storage tanks benzene is a known cause of childhood leukemia and other cancers our population includes the elderly as well as families with young children these are both vulnerable populations and they are susceptible to the environmental hazards that a gas station will bring other problems associated with this will be respiratory ailments with potentially dangerous aggravations of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder benzene the carcinogen vapor carcinogenic vapor is hematotoxic it poisons the blood it causes leukemia lymphoma multiple myeloma studies show that statistically significant increases of leukemia are associated with people who have been exposed to benzene i'm a hospice nurse i've seen people die from cancer from lung cancer from blood cancer they they fear suffocating in their last minutes if we could do something to affect the environment because the environment is a determinant of a determinant of health if we can control this and prevent the gas station thank you ma'am for appearing tonight your time is up i'm sorry thank you thank you okay our next public speaker is jamie jaramillo miss jaramillo go ahead and unmute yourself now good evening madam chair and counselors my name is jamie jaramillo i'm with argus investment realty and sedbury and associates my comments today are regarding amendment b-21 cumulative impacts the intent of this amendment as stated is to protect specific neighborhoods or communities with an emphasis on specific that have historically been burdened with large factories processing plants and junk yards more than others this is something i think we can all support two or three neighborhoods should not carry all that weight with that said this regulation should not be applied to the city as a whole but to those two or three neighborhoods jim strozier principal of consensus planning submitted a letter for council's review on june 23rd i fully support the recommendations made in this letter regarding the need to identify the specific neighborhoods to which this amendment applies and the need for the city to conduct the baseline analysis on which to compare future project impacts in those specific neighborhoods in closing the ido is not perfect but this process allows us to make it stronger and in support of the comprehensive plan the ido is supposed to be an implementation tool for the comprehensive plan with that said the comprehensive plan names infill as a priority in 63 locations and specifically names infill as a priority in 20 goals policies and actions as written this cumulative impact amendment will decrease the number of all infill projects if applied generally throughout the city i urge your support of either changing the amendment per mr strozier's letter submitted on june 23rd or by completely withdrawing the amendment thank you thank you mr romeo next speaker the next speaker is peggy neff miss neff go ahead and unmute yourself at this time miss neff are you there i'm here can you hear me yes we can okay thank you for having us here amazing that you think this is appropriate for the city of albuquerque trying to help you get through it civil remedies a3 you need to take and build a database so this information is available to all people a4 and b4 cluster development throw them both out and revise the entire issue of clustered developments you can read my notes on it a9 general retail sizes no you want to focus on small businesses being small businesses a13 requirements for nr zones recommending deferral so that this can be drafted as per the expected amount of employees not per category a6 notification and facilitation of meeting procedures i have had terrible terrible experiences here add in that a comment period for neighborhoods regarding the report and for developers regarding the report that's submitted should be able to add their comments back in that are taken out building heights giving more protections for communities is important remove residential zones from this amendment i'm an open space definition don't include utilities in common open spaces parks and open spaces yes add to open space we all need open space you go and talk about definite problems with the technical edits you have my comments on those cumulative impacts this is a great start but it doesn't go far enough we need fifty percent on the surrounding we need to also address lots where neighborhoods are not organized we need to address pc and pd zoning as if they were neighborhoods you got to do a whole review of that pc and pd zoning because it didn't work you can't marginalize your time in our communities you missed your time criteria needs to be revised yeah if your time is up yes again okay our next public speaker is kathleen adams go ahead and mute yourself good evening i'm very glad to be here and i really appreciate your time i want to say specifically that i appreciate the planners who are here today i appreciate shanna and petra who have made themselves available to work with citizens and i want to say that i'm very representative of citizens and you need to hear me because i am representative i have no financial interest in development i have community interest in making albuquerque be the best it can be i have little or no interest in how the ido results in a final product but i am here to criticize the process i am attending the meeting so that i can learn and i need more opportunities to learn i cannot access the amount of information that you have presented to us in technical edits it is overwhelming and it is quite inaccessible for people such as myself who want to be able to participate with knowledge even if we lack the expertise so i'm suggesting that you need to look at how you're organizing this and i am suggesting that you might want to have more meetings like this covering smaller amounts of information so that people from neighborhoods can hear each other's comments and have conversations about what seems to to make most sense we're the ones who live here we're the ones who can talk to you about impact and about the visual effect of what things are going to look like and i did want to make a brief comment about uh b5 but it's off or before and what i wanted to say was that i was very offended by someone who at last meeting a week ago said that if we had any density requirements it was going to make it almost impossible for developers to build affordable housing and if you can't build affordable housing in a pleasing less dense way then you need to go back to architecture school because i'm sure that miss adams thank you ms adams your time is up thank you for being here thank you the next public speaker is peggy norton miss norton go ahead and unmute yourself at this time hi uh i'm peggy norton president of the north valley coalition i agree with what's been said specifically kathleen adams that the process for all of this could be a lot more informative and discussion oriented some specific things the cannabis issue i saw where the distance from residents was a thousand feet reduced to 330 feet i really think we need to address the growing and processing impacts of cannabis on cottage cottage development being reduced to a quarter acre we had so many meetings on cottage development with planning and other members of the community i really would and i don't even know if it's going to impact the north valley corridor because so much of the zoning went from r1 to mxm so b2 the increase in heights we don't support that nothing about a maximum says you have to build up to the maximum and then add some more on to it um b23 that opposes eliminating significant adverse impact mitigation by the drb i think that's a serious issue that they should be addressing um and b21 i know there was a lot of comment last time around and we uh it affects a lot more than just one neighborhood cumulative impact so i'm really glad to see you're addressing it i don't know if there's a clearer way to write the um b21 um but i think that is important to neighborhoods that's it thank you mr snow thank you for being here this evening okay thank you okay our final speaker of the evening is loretta naranjo lopez miss naranjo lopez go ahead and unmute yourself now good evening my name is loretta neranja lopez i'm a member of the santa barbara martinez town neighborhood association and i've already raised my hand and i would just like to state for the record that we had no impact on the ideal at all so um the integrated development ordinance effect when it was cast was to omit the sector development plans and all public hearing processes which critically affected neighborhoods of color the amendments that that are numerous do not address these two issues so uh the one major issue that i want to address is that the h a recommends approval of b-21 cumulative impacts that also affects our neighborhood and this is necessary um to stop the discrimination against our neighborhoods i this is a necessary text amendment we were not able to look at all this this is a extensive um list and there's not enough time but one of the other issues is a construction contractor facility and yard we recommend denial of this in the nrc um these are this is a use that emits toxins and noise pollution and should not be accepted in any of our neighborhoods um the other issue that we raised was b2 to there is no reason for us to extend more height it's um it really impacts um the the the um the city of albuquerque with these buildings that are not in character with our neighborhood and i think we need to go back as planners to review the state statute regarding this we raised a lot of other issues regarding the cpa this issue was discussed with staff but they were not clear they did not have a clear process in understanding the cpa and um we expressed its disapproval of the process at this time uh thank you mr angel lopez your time okay thank you counselor benjamin i've been watching your hand raised you're very patient do you have a question um i i had a question um about uh two things um first i want to make clear to anyone who is listening that um we are going to take a hard look at b21 we did you know in the initial mapping look at that as a city wide i would certainly not want to eliminate the neighborhoods which have historically been affected by uh by uh cumulative impacts and need to be protected at this time but i want to make clear that with regard to any of these we are going to be deferring these vermont uh until august action and so there's a lot of time to call our staff as as one of the speakers said our staff is great about about taking your call and specifically answering your question so i think that's really important to know um i i did want to ask about the speakers from town park and the gas station that apparently the pd zones are being treated differently from another low density residential zone is that correct madam chair councillor benton um give me just a moment to pull up that you specific standard and i can tell you what the language reads so the ido today says that if located adjacent to any residential zone district this use shall require a conditional use of approval so the public commenters accurately read this you specific standard um pd and pc zones are not considered residential zones uh it's only the zones that have the r in front of them so r1 ra rt etc so any pd or pc zone would not be considered for that conditional use approval so pd and and and pd and which pt pd and pc pc um are uh can contain low density residential however um they're a their pass along from the old zoning code of properties that were developed with a governing site development plan approved by the the epc correct madam chair counselor benton yes that's correct i'm wondering if there's a i'm also wondering you know of course that depending on what we do if anything much with uh cumulative impacts b21 would that address this because aren't fueling facilities uh presently in the language in b21 madam chair counselor benton yes they are under the use category of motor vehicle related uses we talk about that category as a whole and light vehicle fueling station is within that category um however if i can pull up the language quickly i believe the cumulative impact ordinance or amendment also refers to residential zone districts not residential uses right so i think this uh something we need to look at further and i'm very interested in it um and just in general uh with regard to the obtuseness of what we're talking about today it is and uh so was the previous zoning code extremely obtuse for the average citizen and then we go in and we're we're changing it and um i can understand why it would seem to be overwhelming but uh this the process we have established and also i think many of these questions um especially when they're related to to individual communities in the city will be you know properly and extensively be given a a venue for a discussion and for understanding as part of the community planning area process so i just wanted to point that out that that um and that's why we've been frustrated and just getting started with that process so far because it was it was established upon adoption of the ido but we're still we just finished kicking a can on that one down the road till early next year um understandably because of the code covid and so forth but um but i just want everyone to understand that that i think there's going to be a lot more opportunity to delve into this and a lot more face-to-face time with the great planners like the folks we have in the in the council staff but also in the planning department for for the community to understand so the land use regulation somewhat better so thank you thank you councillor benton and councillor gibson thank you for your patience you've had your hand waving for a while thank you thank you madam chair um i just want to make an observation and uh and then say one other thing real quickly uh first of all the observation is that we've heard from a number of people who um you know like the gas stations near the um planned development um you know being concerned about having uh uh you know exhaust fumes and and gasoline fumes and and that type of thing um which is very understandable and we've i can't remember there was someone else who was talking about something else that made me think of this and then on the other hand we have several people who've spoken against um one of the amendments uh b21 i think it is yeah the cumulative impact statement that that would be um too onerous or um i don't remember what i'll like i heard about it but they they thought that it was a little too much to be asking and i would i would say that i think that we've had several people giving us evidence for the need for b21 so i think that's something to uh for us all to think about contemplate as as as we go forward with these amendments uh second of all um the other thing that i heard that i've heard several times tonight we all have councillor benton just spoke about it uh was that this is moving too quickly and you know i kind of i understand that too because it's a lot to get through i have to give myself breaks uh in reading through it but i think it might be helpful and i know that our planning staff has done a really good job in communicating with uh constituents who do have questions or um issues with with some of these amendments but i'm wondering if we could give the um website for or how how to get copies of of the packets both a and b and uh perhaps how to find the aeido in the city web pages could we do that please so give us and thank you i'm going to ask uh mitch schultz to answer that question for you madam chair counselor gibson um yes the packets of amendments are available online um i can list that website now if it's helpful if folks would like to write it down they can also always reach out to miss morris or myself and we're happy to forward them to the correct location uh to get these documents uh that website is a b c dash zone so z o n e dot com on that webpage uh on the front page you'll see kind of a box that talks about the 2019 annual update um on on that front page you you can find a link to amendment packet a as it has been revised since our last lep's hearing amendment packet b as it has been revised since our last leps hearing and you can also find a link to the an interactive draft of the ido that incorporates the recommended changes from the environmental planning commission um those all all three of those can be found on that website i just listed that help counselor gibson thank you uh and counseling thank you michele sir borrego thank you for your patience uh you have your hand up i did uh counselor thank you my other phone is ringing i'm sorry for that um i guess i first of all would like to say that i don't envy the staff because they have a lot of work ahead of them and there are people um i'm sorry i have two phones ringing now they there are there are counselor borrego your microphone has stopped working counselor borrego we are unable to hear you counselor counselor borrego okay looks like she she saw me sorry about that that's okay we can hear you now let me start again so that i have my thoughts together i don't envy the staff because there are a lot of amendments included in this and these are not just technical amendments there are some very substantial amendments that are included in here i'm glad to see the cumulative amendment it's a start there's a lot more that needs to happen and i think that for example in the fueling station when we talk about a planned development area that is by default a residential area and we should not be eliminating you know we should be inclusive of all residential areas whether they be planned development or single family residential so that would be my first comment for with regard to that specific uh issue that was raised in terms of um conservation versus cluster development i think that we need to take some time and really look at that cluster idea because different people have different definition of what cluster means and so i think it's really important especially on the west side where we have uh and and also in in along tramway in areas like that where we have a lot of open space in the north valley we need to be careful to be able to preserve those qualities of our community that you know enhance our our lifestyle i guess you could say or a healthy lifestyle and encourage people to walk and i know counselor benton you've been wanting to you know you've been working a lot on that with bike lanes and that sort of thing so i think we really need to take the time and if it means that in august that we take a little more time and as you all know when i got on laps that's the one thing that i wanted to do with ido and so now i'm kind of seeing that maybe you know we do need to take that time because the community is telling us that and it will even be better for the developers because they will have a much more quality development so um you know we have a month and a half now and uh you know i support the deferral counselor jones thank you for pushing that forward and i look forward to hearing from the community some more thank you councillor borrego i believe that concludes our comments uh counselors do you have any other questions or comments if not counselor benton would you like to uh close this yes thank you madam chair and uh agree with a lot of what what uh counselor borrego just said and something to think about during our month and plus time that we have um many of these are not have not raised any controversy and and you know i don't know whether there's we could do a staggered approval on this as a council or as a committee um uh when there is a volume like this it's hard to to delve into the the let's say four or five that have really risen to the top of the comment list here today um so i'd like to speak more with staff about how we we might be able to do that and not leave everything else dangling while we tackle some of the tougher ones like communal cumulative impacts which i think i think we know where we need to go with that to to protect communities but i i did raise my eyebrows really when when i i i guess i never knew that town park was a planned development but it is a beautiful you know well it's old now it was a modern residential development at the time and um and i've had uh for councillor gibson's time we had the smith's gas station at the carlin constitution i mean that was a firestorm of you know an old neighborhood that used to have a little one pump gas station with a mechanic stall in it and it became a 12-pump smith's gas station fueling facility and um you know that was uh that was a failure of the old code not this one but uh but that's the kind of thing we're trying to prevent with this one so uh thanks everybody for your attention to this and uh i know i know it's uh it can warp your mind looking at it sometimes but believe me the old one did too thank you medicare so i guess we we did move for the deferral right or did we uh not yet where oh you would like that i'll move the deferral until the next one that would be a deferral until the next leps meeting on august 12th and councillor borrego has seconded that uh we'll do a roll cal roll call on that one counselor benton yes councillor bordego councillor bordego sorry i didn't make i muted myself yes councillor gibson yes councillor jones yes yes counselor harris yes that passes on a 5-0 vote thank you for everyone who participated especially our staff who worked so hard on this and there being no further business this leps committee meeting is adjourned thank you all