I call this meeting to order. This is the land use planning and zoning committee of the city council. All counselors are present this evening in person. Thank you councilors for being here. We're going to start with our land acknowledgement. The city of Albuquerque was established on the unseated traditional homelands of the Tiwa Pueblo people, the PBLO of Sandia and Isletto. As caretakers of the middle Rio Grande Valley, the Tiwa PBlo people nurtured and cared for its human and non-human inhabitants, as well as the desert, mountain, and water ecosystems since time immemorial. Historically, the PBLO peoples have contributed to and guided the development of Albuquerque and New Mexico, and they continue to cultivate the cultural, spiritual, and socioeconomic life of Albuquerque and our land of enchantment. We also recognize that Albuquerque has long been a gathering place of diverse indigenous peoples, tribal nations, and pblo of New Mexico, and indigenous nations from around the world, that this sacred place continues to be their traditional homelands. This evening is going to be a hybrid meeting where all participants will be in person or on video or audio conference. Members of the public have the opportunity to address the committee if they have signed up for public comment for the rules published on the agenda or on our website. Friday, we're going to call for the speakers when we get to the individual agenda items that they've signed up for. Each comment is to be addressed to the committee members only. Each participant has two minutes to present and any disruptive conduct will be um will result in removal from the meeting. We're going to move to agenda item A and that is uh a receipt be noted. So EC549 community planning area assessment report Westside Mesa CPA. I move a receipt be noted. >> Second. >> Thank you for the second. I'll take um councelor Rogers. I heard that one first. And I will just say that we will um be requesting that this not be on consent um that it go on as an agenda item at the full council because the conversation really um involves two counselors districts who are not on this committee and so we want to make sure that that conversation happens at full counsel. Um so with that um do we want to have the presentation from um staff? Yes. >> Good evening madame chair. Uh we have the planning staff who will give a detailed presentation about this CPA but just a brief introduction. This is the fifth CPA out of the 12 CPAs that are identified in the comprehensive plan. This assessment report is a result of uh in-depth public engagement and public proc uh public participation and uh we have the council's uh planning staff that will give us a uh detailed presentation for this. >> Okay. Thank you. Let's move to the presentation from planning staff. >> Thank you for being here. >> All right. Can you hear me? Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, this will be a brief presentation, but I'll be available for any questions that you might have. Uh, we're good, Garrett. Yeah. Okay. Um, all right. So, thank you very much for the opportunity to present this evening. Um, the, uh, this is for the West Messa community planning area assessment on the west side. Um, recently you heard, uh, the presentation for the northwest Messa. So, this is the one right next to it. So, a little bit to the south. Um the con comprehensive plan uh establishes uh 12 community planning areas or CPAs um and outlines a process to engage community members and agency partners. The assessment report analyzes uh trends for each element of the comprehensive plan and recommends actions to address community priorities heard through the public engagement process. Uh the West Mesa CPA, as you can see here on the map, is generally bounded by the area west of the Rio Grande to the city's western edge uh west of the Double Eagle 2 airport uh and along Atrisco Vista Boulevard uh between I40 and Montano Road. And finally, uh Hila Road uh to the north and Interstate 40 to the south. Uh the CPA area consists of approximately 28,500 acres. Next slide, please. uh public engagement strategies uh took place between September 2024 and June 2025. Uh and they offered a range of opportunities for input uh discussion and consensus building around the comp plan elements uh community priorities and planning topics that came up or that were brought up by the by the community. Uh section three as you can see on the slide of the West Messa CPA assessment report correlates to each of the 10 elements of the comprehensive plan. Uh the report section also provides background on the current conditions along with summaries of assets and opportunities for each priority identified by community members. Um appendex 8 and nine of the CPA report summarizes all of the public engagement efforts that took place uh during that year. Uh next slide please. Um, as part of the CPA assessment process, the urban design and development division is tasked with recommending policies and actions that respond to public engagement data. Uh, the West Mesa CPA assessment report um, let's see here. Sorry. The West Messa uh CPA assessment report recommends 10 new comprehensive plan policies and that's located in section five of the report beginning on page 91. Uh, and 11 action items. Um and that is in section six beginning on page 95 of the report. Um if accepted by the Albuquerque City Council, the 10 new recommended policies will be incorporated into the comprehensive plan during the next schedule update and the assigned uh area planner will work to fulfill the action matrix um if it's accepted. Um the last comment I'd like to make um um in relation to next steps is that um the uh CPA assessments, you know, they're a snapshot in time, but they're also intended to focus on vulnerable parts of the city first. Um which is uh why the order is the way that it is. And I think that's important to uh point out, especially when talking about things like uh new housing options that are needed in the area. As we know, the median um housing price has gone up in Albuquerque significantly and um the long-term vision in these documents um helps to address some of those things and that's what we we heard from community members. So with that, I will stand for any questions. >> Thank you so much. All right, let's go to public comment if there are any folks signed up. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We have excuse me, [clears throat] Renee Horvath followed by Mike Vorhees on Zoom. Good evening. My name is Renee Horvath. I live on the west side and we were with I'm in Taylor Ranch and we were involved in this CPA uh for the Northwest Mesa and the West Mesa. So, I think uh we put a lot of time into it and we appreciate the dialogue we had with the planners and we uh gave them a lot of photos of to indicate what's really special out there because we do have our open space, our bobsky, the petetroglyphs, the views, the design of the buildings, how they complement them that we like. But the one action item which is in the letter that Jane sent you, the last one number 14 was an issue and uh find that real quick and it's number 14 about find it real fast. I just walked in the door, but it's about you know changing um um you know to do more options to get affordable housing and that's not the issue so much getting affordable housing but what we're seeing is even tonight when we speak on the next item at the end on the ideal amendments it's being used to change uh the zoning which will affect the things that we value there. So number 14 was the issue that um we'd like for that should not be on there eliminate it or you know reward it so it works and it doesn't impact us. So those that's what I want to say. So thank you >> Mike Forhees. >> Hello. Uh thank you very much. Um this was a great effort. Uh uh it was uh in stark contrast really uh from a lot of the city's processes lately involving uh planning and zoning where community voices have been vilified. Uh this was a an excellent outreach effort. We appreciate all of the uh the staff that engaged with the public and uh took our input. Uh, and I think it's a good report, but again, with the exception of action item 14, this seems to be of uh that it was inserted not from the community. It wasn't on any of the boards uh or the summaries or the notes uh that were used. Um, and we support efforts to in increase uh affordable housing, but the reasonzoning of of of single family uh homes doesn't do that. In every jurisdiction that has tried this, it's actually caused affordable housing to become less affordable. Uh there was a recent study uh conducted uh looking at uh upzoned and uh nonupzoned uh properties in Nashville uh to to see hey you know what's the result of this because there's been a big push in many cities to try upzoning as a way to address this affordability crisis. And what it found was it actually impacted uh lower income and medium uh income housing the worst, making it much less affordable. Uh at the very upper end, houses that were already well beyond affordability. They did lose some property value. Um but that didn't improve affordability for for people who were trying to get in to to own their first home. So if you could take out item 14, I think you'd find that we endorse it. Uh and again I appreciate all the effort the staff put in uh on this. Thanks >> madam chair. That concludes comment. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Cornelius. Uh counselors any questions for staff or the administration? >> Okay. Again, we're we're going to send this to full counsel um but ask that it be a discussion item on the agenda so that the two counselors who have um areas in this space um have a chance to have a part of the conversation. So, um with that, uh counselors, if you are um okay with move receipt be noted, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Any opposed? All right, that passes. We'll be moving on to full counsel. Um, agenda item B, uh, Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Item B is O-25-103, amending the transit system ordinance related to major transit route network service changes to the transit route network. And I would like to first move a committee sub um that is uh both in your iPads and printed out. Oh yes, sorry. >> You need to move a do pass first. >> Move a do pass first. Sorry about that. Thank you. and it's seconded by councelor Grout. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move the committee sub now that we have in our iPads and in front of us. Uh we had a chance to meet with our transit department and go through um this line by line. They had some amendments to that. Um, and we also made it clear that city councilors when the route the changes to our route come to city council, we can amend and try to request some route changes. Um, so like for instance um we have a route in off of Gibson um in my district um that I would love to have been able to keep in the routes um and there's really not a mechanism for us to do that now. Also, this would allow us to make minor changes in con in conjunction with transit. We're not count transit experts in council, nor do I want us to become. Um, we trust our teams to do those that work. Um, but if there are some routes that are critical to our areas that we want to see not go away, um, then we have the ability to do that when transit sends us the network changes. And I move I already me move that. Thank you. So, it's move the the committee sub is moved and seconded by councelor Graph. Um, all those in favor raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Any opposed? All right. That's passes on five to zero. Um, are there any folks signed up to speak on this issue? Okay. Um, counselors questions for the staff or administration or the sponsor? I had a just quick question. And I see that director Kenir is here. Um if she wouldn't mind just coming down and letting us know um transit's position on this proposal. >> Hi Madam Chair and um you know I just want to first say just thank you to Council Rogers for reaching out and working with us on this committee sub. So um you know there were several changes and to um Mr. Herz and Mr. Manakuchi as well. Um you know I think this really does document just the process that we go through. Um, I think one of the things that it also does is it does clarify in the legislation topic on, you know, what this typically is, but for the most part, it doesn't change any of the processes that we have currently gone through when we do a service equity analysis. >> Thank you so much for being here just to reiterate that for us all. Um, all right. No. Oh, yes, Council Rogers. >> I just wanted to say thank you for for bringing up a couple great points. We didn't originally were thinking it needed to come in two different pieces of legislation and we really that's how we originally wrote it and after talking to the team we felt confident that we didn't have to do that. Um and so I appreciate the feedback and and the collaboration. >> Great. Council Rogers, would you like to close? >> No. Madam Chair, u support. >> All right. All those in favor raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Any opposition? Seeing that, that moves on. Um, agenda item C. Also, Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, moving item C, which is R2, directing the city to update all maps, information, and documentation to accurately reflect the city's ownership of the Montano Bridge. Um I would like to move for a deferral um for this one on behalf of the sponsor councelor Baka and we would be deferring until our next lups meeting which is in I'm sorry the 28th counc um until January 28th. All those in favor raise your hand say yes. >> Yes. >> Any opposition? Seeing none, that is deferred. All right, moving on to item D. Um, this is by request O2, adopting citywide text amendments. >> Public comment. Oh, let me just >> I'm sorry. The deferral I thought was sticking then. So, who we have a public comment? Okay, let's go ahead and get that public comment on the record and we can they can come back again next time if they wish to as well. Sorry about that. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Annalie Desier to speak. >> Doesn't appear she's here, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Well, she will have a second chance because we are deferring it. So, okay. Thank you for that in um clarification. All right. Now we're moving on to agenda D uh O2, adopting citywide text amendments to the integrated development ordinance 1416 for the 2025 IDO bianual update. Um I'm going to move a due pass >> second >> and a second. Um so just as a clarification for the for the public, we are going to discuss this bill tonight. We will defer it and we will hear it again in LUPS before moving on to full counsel. But this is just so that we can have that discussion tonight. Um all right. So we would like to start with um the presentation on kind of what came out of the environmental planning commission. [snorts] Um and that is going to be from Mr. Matthew Cox with council services. Chair committee. Sorry, just getting settled here for the long while. All right. Um, Chair Fableorn loves committee. Thanks so much everyone. I know this was a long process. Um so I will be presenting on what came out of the environmental planning commission uh from the original submitt back in October or se September heard in October. Um just to because this is such a big lift uh for the city just kind of want to say um a couple things. um one uh IDO annual update it was changed to bianial back in 2023 that's why we are doing it every two years not every one now uh this year we had 140 plus amendments um a majority coming from uh planning staff and other admin staff but we also had uh amendments that came by request from the public uh mayor and counselor amendments um and then just a big thank you to planning department, staff and council services. Um it it really was uh the UD and D team that kind of carried most of this until it got to us. And so um yeah, just really grateful for that. Um to rewind back to when we started, uh this this originally started uh prior to January July 23rd. Um but really the public meetings and engagement aspect of this uh started July 23rd and as you can see through this this list um the planning department and council staff um really went what we think is all around the city and tried to get the information out as much as possible. Um and so we also took requests from neighborhood associations, organizations, interested parties, whatever, and and we went presented, talked through it all, tried to create some clarity in what is a very technical and large document. Um so prior to it coming to LUPS, uh it did go to the environmental planning commission for three different meetings. Uh October 16th was a IDO update review just kind of like a study session for the commissioners uh just to get um some clarity and try and just knock out um what is already a really long meeting usually. Uh then they had their first um kind of straw poll meeting uh on October 28th where the planning department took like a temperature gauge of if this was going to fail or not and brought back an amended version of that IDEO document to be fully voted on and heard uh November 20th. Uh and then we are here today January 14th and um as the chairs stated uh the second hearing for LUPS will be January 28th. uh and then the full council still to be determined. Um so just to so people are not surprised I will not be covering 140 plus amendments through this presentation. Um I appreciate the laughs. I I think that's agreement. Um, this is really going to be focused on a lot of the amendments that um that we heard uh from the public rise up uh as well as counselors and um other staff and felt we would really just focus on the substantive ones that had a a real impact on the physical change of the environment. Um there are many many amendments that are also technical in nature that really um focused on lessons we learned from uh appeals cases in the prior year. Um misunderstandings in language of the intent of the language uh just best practice correction uh whatever it might be. Um and so uh we have yeah kind of gone through those uh prior to here. Um, as part of the IDO annual update, we oftent times have smallmapped areas that come through as well. Uh, based on the fact that we do not bring quasi judicial matters to committee anymore, uh, the smallmapped area for CPO7 0264 will be heard at full counsel on January 21st. Um, and then if I do not cover an amendment tonight, happy to answer any questions. There we go. All right. Um, some lightning amendments to kind of bring down the presentation and scale. Um, but related to housing and do have a legitimate effect on our built environment. Um, one is cottage lot size minimum. Uh, citywide for cottages. Right now, we require one acre uh to to develop a cottage use. Um, the amendment would bring that one acre down to 10,000 square feet citywide. Currently, uh, within urban centers, main street uh, corridors, and premium transit areas, cottages are allowed to develop at a 10,000 square foot lot. And so, this would just be matching that language citywide. Um y'all might have seen in this past year and the uh image on the bottom right side of the screen um the Pew Institute came out with some nationwide research but also focus on Albuquerque for dormitories and making dormitories permissive and the RML and MXT zone districts which is multif family and mixeduse transitional um was an amendment that kind of came out of that research uh and basically allows a new flexible housing typology uh that does not require a kitchen for every uh dwelling unit but uh rather a cooperative approach. Um and then the other uh in the lightning round is allowing uh casitas or ADUs to be attached. um why they are detached currently in the IDO is that uh we found it difficult to distinguish between um a unattached ADU um and a duplex. But uh what you'll see tonight is that we um came up with language that kind of distinguishes between a duplex and an ADU. And I will go into greater detail in that um later in the presentation. uh for the really big ticket item uh zoning conversions. Um this is a proposal uh to upzone three uh distinct districts along major transit corridors and activity centers. Um R1 to RT is a uh single family zone district to townhouse zone district. Uh and then RT to MXT is townhouse to mixuse transitional. Uh RML multif family to MXL which is mixeduse low inensity. Um and uh we have we have discussed major transit a number of times this year but major transit its intention is to have a 15inut or frequent uh bus route along there. And so you will see um Manol, Montgomery, uh Lomus, Central uh and Kors um which are all part of the new bus network and and kind of why they exist and were not amended this past year. Um, when we get into the kind of the key differences between these zone districts, uh, this is a, uh, table that kind of shows the different permissiveness, um, between the current zoning and the possible upzoning. Um, and really what you'll notice is that it basically allows a denser, more intense type of dwelling unit as you upzone. Um and so uh town houses you you can have six units on a property all connected um and uh MXT multif family etc everything else um but then the the kind of larger changes that are more visible um are the difference in height and so between R1 and RT there is no height change it stays at 26 feet which is essentially two stories um and R1 and RT do not get any entitlements if they are within a center or corridor. Um, where we start to see that change is this RT to MXT, which jumps up citywide four extra feet from 26 to 30. But within activity centers and major transit areas, um, and depending on some of the other height bonuses we'll talk about tonight, uh, it has a potential of jumping up to 42 feet uh, in activity centers and major transit and 54 feet in uh, urban centers, main street, and premium transit. um RML to MXL, same height citywide but within corridors um 50 and 62 feet respectively of the center or corridor. Um so just to address what we have heard uh from the public and many of y'all have inquiried about um we have approached um the county assessor and uh has um confirmed some language within 736212 [clears throat] uh a property tax statute uh in New Mexico which basically says is a section around the 3% cap on residential properties uh And I'm just going to read it out for everyone in in the audience. The value of a property in any tax year shall not exceed the higher of 103% of the value in the tax year prior to the tax year in which the property is being valued. And it goes on for some uh technical language. And then this limitation on increases in value does not apply to. And the language to focus in on is the subsection B. this use the use or zoning of the property has changed in the prior year prior to the tax year which um we can't argue that there is a potential of uh the elimination of a 3% cap uh for residential property. Um but to also look back at history of of how this has um gone in recent years for legislative zoning. Uh most recently when the IDO was adopted and then when we also allowed people to down zone uh for an opt-in uh back in 2018 um property taxes did not have a lightning increase at that point. Um and mostly because uh the county assessor kind of explained their their process and really property tax is fully tied or historically in the equation through Bernalo County has been tied to improvements. So whether that is um a garage edition, uh the addition of a a unit in your attic, um really anything that you have to pull a building permit for, which we have a communication line between the city and the county for building permits that are tied to your deed or anything else. But we do not have a communication line for zoning districts. So while it has historically not happened, we also can't guarantee that it won't happen. just to cover that. All right. Um on to the more substantial um or more complex amendments. Um well, really want this one's not too complex. This uh ultimately is an amendment that would allow duplexes within the R1 and RMC zone districts. Um R1 does incorporate R1A through D and ultimately it is um allowing two units attached within the or in a single family zone district where we currently allow um single family detached and casitas for the most part. Uh the next one uh similar in line but one extra unit is uh allowing town houses to be permissive within the uh R1 um zone district. Uh R1 uh and RA uh it does or not RA because town homes are not allowed there. in the R1, but also adjacent to RA, you are limited to three units, whereas elsewhere where town homes are allowed, you can have up to six. And so that's kind of the the one cap that remains through this amendment. Um, but uh dwelling townhouse, um, they come in all shapes and forms as the picture shows. It can be the the cottage courts you see in some of our historic areas or some of the new development, but ultimately sharing a a party wall um to connect them all. Um where duplex and ADU kind of intermingle uh is this amendment where it is proposing to allow accessory dwelling units attached to the primary structure uh on the property. Um and so as you can see in the image, uh there's various ways you can attach an ADU. Um but ultimately, um this this was a desire one to allow people to take advantage of unusable or unused space in their house or um garages that may already be attached to their home. Um now the kind of the devil in the detail around um around this is uh a few different changes. Um one, we are changing the the language around uh the size rather than allowing a a gross floor area uh of 750 square ft just point blank. We're we're tying it to a building footprint. And that's ultimately to tackle that um the idea of if you're going to put an accessory dwelling unit over a garage that you're not limited by the garage uh square feet as well, but um ultimately you can kind of match the size of the garage above it. Um oh, going too [sighs] fast. Um, and now the difference between uh duplex and ADU uh ultimately is that 750 square feet. If if it is attached ADU, uh it has to be 750 ft or less. If it's over 750 ft, we're going to determine that a duplex. Um really really quite simple. Um but uh that was kind of how we we came over that hump of um the detached and attached uh concern. All right. Um, safe outdoor space. Uh, this was an amendment, uh, between, um, the mayor proposed an amendment and councelor Rogers. Uh and really what this did was uh what came out of EPC was that we are going to keep the 2-year limit on safe outdoor spaces uh with someone able to renew that two-year limit every two years uh for an extension. Um the other difference is increasing the size of um the the separation size of safe outdoor spaces from 10 to 20 spaces and 15 to 30 occupants. Uh currently existing within the IDO, it says um any safe outdoor space with 10 spaces or um 15 occupants has to be at least 660 ft away from another safe outdoor space. And so this is just increasing that that size limit. Um the other amendment that made it through uh was also removing uh permanent plumbing requirements. So you can have uh portaotties or portable showers uh rather than having to hard plum something in. Um, and then, uh, the management plans were the other piece that made it through where if you have 20 spaces or less, um, you have to have on call support from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. And larger than 20 spaces, you're going to have to have 24-hour on call support. Um and that has to be made visible or available to the public residents and put on the HH or health housing and homelessness department site. Um and then on top of this is the requirement of three different types of supportive services. Also included in that is um income support services. And so there's a list of about 10 within the Redline IDEO of um uh mental health services, substance abuse, uh workforce development, etc. Um we had some questions from uh multiple counselors as to currently where safe outdoor spaces are allowed. And so what this map is showing is in green where safe outdoor spaces are conditional or permissive and red is that buffer from uh residential uh zone districts the 330 ft. Um and so yeah. All right. The next kind of multi-prong one are uh bodeas or tiendas. Um which uh again councelor Rogers and the mayor had a vendetta against each other and I'm joking. Sorry I'm lightening it. Yeah. Um but basically um two very similar amendments going through and um and uh the mayor won out on this one in some ways but basically what bodeas and tias are looking to do and and it is nickname bodega and tias in in real life you're going to find the you specific standards under dwelling live work general retail and grocery store and Um, this is really focused on corner lots within residential zone districts. And so, as you can see by the table, uh, dwelling live work, uh, would be permissive within, uh, R1, RT, and RML on corner lots, uh, greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet. Um and uh basically when when you picture a live work scenario, everything that is permissive currently within live work would be uh if you're a chiropractor and want to have an office in your in your house. If you are a jewelry maker and want to sell jewelry outside the front uh but we also through this added uh retail, grocery and restaurants. Um what I want to ensure uh to everyone is that um liquor sales, nicotine and cannabis are not allowed uh within dwelling live work and could not be used or located um in this area. And um also for everyone's understanding, nicotine and liquor sales um and cannabis uh are all separate uses within the use table. And so they have to be permissive within whatever zone district the use table currently allows for them. Um so then for general retail uh permissive within residential zones on corner lots with collector or arterial streets which are essentially streets that we have a certain amount of traffic volume on generally the the larger ones. Um and then conditional if it is to local or neighborhood streets um and which would require a public process uh notification of neighbors um the whole shebang. Um and then grocery stores uh similar but uh in MXT has to be less than uh 10,000 square ft. Um, and just to kind of show what this what the use table looks like, um, it it changes or adds permissive into a number of different zone districts and changes it from conditional to permissive in a couple. Um, but you'll also have to go to the use specific standards for each of those uses to see the particular rules that I just went over uh, in the prior slide. Um, all right. So the next um change tied to uh centers and corridors uh for residential zone districts um would be the increase in height uh for RML and RH. Um as a reminder RML is multif family uh and RH is our most intense residential zone district uh as can be seen by by the height height allowance um below. And so essentially within activity centers and major transit um they get a height bonus up to 50 and 60 feet and that is the the cap is 50 and 60 feet not added 50 feet. Uh and then within UC MSP it is 62 and 72 feet respectively. Um but then included uh in this are bonus heights for workforce housing and structure parking which can be seen on the bottom right which is 12 and 24 ft for the different zone districts. Uh a similar amendment for mixeduse zoning districts uh across the board. MXT to MXH um within uh activity centers and major transit uh bumps up MXT to 42 uh MXL50, MXM 60, MXH 80. And then in Urban Centers Main Street and Premium Transit, it is 54 feet, 62, 72, and 92. Um the language that you see below that is taken into consideration the the height allowance that came through 069 that says for multif family residential dwellings in or within a quarter mile or of m mainstream premium transit there is no height limit as it exists now. Um the the next change is um kind of a consolidation of the R1 zone district. Currently R1 is broken down into four different subzones, R1A through D. Um and basically what this does uh is consolidates them all into the R1A dimensional standards. And so, uh, which is at 3,500 square f feet, whereas R1D is at 10,000 square ft. Um, but yeah, through this amendment, they just all take on the characteristics of R1A. Um, okay. So, kind of a lightning round of parking minimum changes as well. uh what came over from EPC was a general 20% reduction for all uses uh related to their parking requirements. And so the only ones that were exempted from this are single family detached campgrounds, RV parks, and dwelling temporary, which dwelling temporary is um basically when you have a construction site and you need someone on site for security or to to watch the site, you set up an RV and dwelling temporary. Um the other really large change uh that came through is the elimination of minimum parking requirements within all centers and corridors. So major transit, main street, premium transit, um I think that's it. And then all centers, urban center, employment center, um downtown and activity center. Uh also on top of this um we did reduce uh added reductions for workforce housing uh which is one space per dwelling unit um in the EPC red line. Um so then on top of these um reductions uh also looked at multif family individually uh which brought um the changes down for multif family. One space per dwelling unit with two or fewer bedrooms and then one and a half spaces per dwelling unit with three or more bedrooms. And then you'll also see that workforce housing uh reduction as well in that table. On the other side of the spectrum, parking maximums. Um, we did have uh parking maximums existing for um UCMSP, but what was added in this was parking maximums uh across the board for all centers and corridors and also a reduction on the existing as well. And so, um, within, uh, downtown UCMSP, uh, it went from 175% maximum down to 100%. Uh, within activity centers and major transit areas, um, the created maximum was 125%. And so, ultimately, if you are a use that requires 100 parking spaces and you are in downtown UCMSP, you are limited at 100 spaces. Um, if you are in an activity center or major transit, you can build up to 125 uh, parking spaces. But there is also flexible language added to this amendment to say if you feel justified that you need more parking spaces, you can write a letter to our planning director to ask for that justification if um, you need the flexibility um, for whatever reason you find. All right, that is my overall kind of large presentation and uh was going to jump into councelor amendments. >> Thank you. Um so we do have a few amendments that we're going to move before we do public comment so that folks know what's coming through. Um so I think I'll just turn that over to Councelor Rogers to move her amendments. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. I'd like to move amendment A in your packet, but we'll call it one. Amendment number one. Um, this one is on the Bodega amendment in EPC mayor's version. And that was funny, Matt, about me and the mayor. We uh just have to say that. That was kind [snorts] of funny. Um, but uh it was changed to where mayor's proposal wanted to um allow 5,000 square feet. Um, and I want to move it back to 3,000. And the reason is um we know that for instance, Circle K has just announced that they want to have storefronts of 5,000 square feet. I don't want a bunch of Circle K's in my neighborhood. Um um hopefully they wouldn't want to because you can't sell liquor or or nicotine, which is their big business. Um but this will make it extra sure that we don't have um a lot of those in our neighborhoods. And so I wanted to put that back to shall not exceed 3,000 square foot of gross floor area for district 6. The reason I put this forward was because we have food deserts. Um and this will allow our local growers in our district. We're working on food justice right now to sell their goods in a local little mom and shop uh store in our neighborhood. We have some of my neighborhoods, it's up to a mile or more to get access to fresh foods. So for the for my district, it's critical to get access to fresh foods. Um and so I would move amendment number one. I'll second that. So amendment number one has been moved and seconded. Um any questions? Council Rogers to close. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. All right. I urge your support. >> All right. All those in favor of amendment one, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Any opposition? >> Seeing none, amendment one passes. Council Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move um in your packet uh committee amendment number two labeled B in our packets. And this one, this one was just a I think a mistake that we made in um in our planning. I was getting emails and thank you Matt also for pointing this out that people were thinking we were getting rid of R1 single family zoning across the whole city. So that change in our titles from RL to R1 really caused a lot of confusion in the community. So, I do want Matt to just kind of talk a little bit about that because we are not trying to get rid of single family homes across the board altogether. Um, and so I really think it's are one with duplexes and town homes permissible, right? Not we're getting rid of single family homes because that caused a lot of I was getting a lot of calls and texts and emails about that particular one. So, I think just for clarity, it's R1 and and Matt could please take >> Council Rogers, can we move that so that we can Oh, yeah. Thank you. I would like to move that >> and I will second. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> And I'd like to go to Matt. Yes. Thank you. >> Um chair committee. Um ba b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b basically what what this amendment did was reflect um an editorial change mo mostly in that uh with the passing of duplexes and town homes um with through EPC. This change was made between EPC and now um to kind of reflect reality of what uh the R1 zone district would become with duplexes and town homes. It wouldn't solely be uh single family anymore. Um and so that's why you saw the editorial change, but to um correct some of the property tax concerns and also reflect that we are not trying to change your zone district that you live on. Um, that is why this is in front of you all now. >> Thank you, Mr. Cox. And I just want to also give space to our planning director. Um, if you have anything you wanted to add to Michaela to that or or Ellen, whichever. Michaela's like, "Nope." [laughter] >> And committee chair and uh counselors, the planning department supports uh this semantical correction. Thank you. Any questions, councilors? >> Council Rogers to close. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I heard your support. >> All right. All those in favor of amendment two, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Any opposed? That passes. Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Next one is um amendment C in our packet. I'll label it number three. Again, this is come out of our food policy uh program that we have in district six around access to fresh foods. And we need some more options for community gardens. And so this would amendment would make community gardens permissive in the NRLM and NRGM zone districts. And I urge your support. >> Moved and seconded by councelor Champine. Was that a second? Oh, that was a question. I'll second it so we can get discussion. Councelor Champine. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I just need clarification of what uh NRLM and GM are. >> Mr. Cox, >> Mr. Cox >> uh chair and committee uh NRLM and if I botch this I will look at the planning department but uh is non-residentidential limited manufacturing and GM stands for general manufacturing um and frankly I just don't know why it's conditional in those locations because it is permissive everywhere else and so um I don't know the backstory as to why. Yeah. >> Thank you madam chair. Mr. Cox. Uh, can I get an example of these two zones? >> Madam Chair. Oh, we have James Ronda, I think, is here today. >> Mr. Ronda. >> Madam Chair, councilors. It's actually light manufacturing, general manufacturing. We have no uh opposition or angst against it. I just wanted to correct the record. Thank you. >> So, can someone give the example that councelor Champine asked for? Um, chair committee, give me just a moment. Um so generally um in the planning nerd speak uh all our zoning across the nation is colorcoded and so purple is different uh generally reserved for industrial land and so an RLM uh is kind of considered an industrial type zoning district. Um and you'll find that along uh the railway um or the rail spur. Uh and then as you go up I25 is also generally what where you find it. And so that can be um uh h what are the uses too? Um >> please. Thank you. Hi uh Michaela runs Whitmore from the planning department. I'll just say that in general light manufacturing all the manufacturing has to take place in the building. General manufacturing some manufacturing can happen outside. So a cement batching plant would be general manufacturing. Anything that's produced inside a building light manufacturing. >> Thank you. >> Perfect. Uh madam chair, Mr. Cox, the map was actually really helpful. Can I see the GM on the map then? Yes. Once the wifi Okay. [snorts] >> I know. I'm like making me feel like a teenager again. Um I just got to find it now. As you can tell, we are limited in our manufacturing or uh industrial land. But um so here is NRGM. Uh and as Miss Renwitmore stated, a lot of the activity is outside structures. Mr. can you zoom out? >> So the so the the LM is the purple. >> Um, >> no, keep going out of the entire >> the light purple. >> So LM is the lighter purple and GM is the darker. Ah, >> okay. >> GM LM. >> Ah, I see. Okay. Yeah, >> my father and son would be cursing me right now. They're both color blind, so it's hilarious, [snorts] >> but perfect, Mr. Cox. Madam Chair, thank you. >> Definitely. >> Thank you. Any uh Council Bassan? >> Madame Chair, how many places have community gardens in these locations already and how many would be likely to use it? I mean, I like the idea of allowing the opportunity for more community gardens, but I also with what I'm picturing don't know if I'd want to be growing my vegetables in some of those places. >> Yeah. Um, so, Chair, um, Councelor Bassan, I I don't know right off the bat. Um, I can tell you from some of the work we've been doing um around mostly district 6 is that oftent times some of this land can be unusable and takes a a large amount of investment to get the the intended use of it off the ground. And we have seen community gardens pop up in temporary ways in this way. And so what we've seen is oftent times community gardens may last for a certain amount of time and then maybe move on to another plot of land, but as far as what exists in these zone districts now, I I don't I [snorts] don't know of any, frankly. Madam Chair, and what is the uh since it seems as though there's not a plethora of them, which I realize maybe we want a plethora of them, but if that's the case, then what is the barrier to going and getting a permit and having the conditional nature of it? >> The um chair, councelor Bassan, uh the barrier is just the the added process, but uh and just meeting the criteria under conditional use. And then, Madame Chair, for the planning department, when you issue a permit for something like this, does it involve analyzing whether or not the property is okay for growing food? I'm assuming it's to grow plenty of food, so not just flowers. So is that part of the analyzation process when you're going to decide on whether or not to grant a permit there? >> Chair councilors, number one, the the community garden um applicant would be choosing to go into a space and part of that due diligence is looking at where you want to be. Um I will point out that general agriculture is permissive in both NRLM and GM. So this is well within you know what is already allowed. um general agriculture too might not want to be next to an outdoor cement batching uh plant. So we would really be looking for the applicants to do that as we do the review. Um there is a requirement that you look at soils. Um so there need to be good soils if they're going to be in the ground. If they're going to be above ground and bring in all their um soil, that's a different nature. And this could be either in a in a greenhouse or outside, either one. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh well, I guess in my opinion, I don't think that we necessarily need to micromanage and permit things and people should have some accountability. And if they want to choose to grow their food wherever they want to choose it within these zone districts, then I hope they do figure out whether or not it's going to be healthy or not. Um I started out not wanting to support this. I'm gonna hope that people are responsible in evaluating where they want to grow a garden. >> Any other questions, counselors? All right, Councelor Rogers to close. >> Thank you. And I really do appreciate those questions. Councelor Passan, we um for district 6, we're at mapping out spaces like this and we do have a partnership with UNM sustainability who will be helping us test the soil and a lot of ours is aviation um near aviation and near the airport for some of these for us. Um so we absolutely um will be working with UNM sustainability to test the soil and make sure we're growing responsibly. Um, and really agriculture is also I thank you um, for pointing that out because that's already allowed in these to have big farms for agriculture. So, we do have um, one community garden that's on aviation land right now and we're working with them to potentially expand those if we can't change it to housing, which we're working on also. Um, and so I appreciate your support. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Rogers. All those in favor of amendment three, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Any opposition? >> Seeing none, that passes. All right. So, we have an amended bill. Um we're going to start the public comments now. Everybody has two minutes. Um, I just want to remind everybody that one of the changes that was um, unanimously just put on to the bill was a strike of the RL when replacing it with R1 throughout the entire document because that is I think one of the things that we heard from the most people about. So, um, that is now in the base bill. Um, so I'll turn it over to Mr. Cornelius to get us going on public comment. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Our first speaker, Jordan McConnell, followed by Nicholas Fanion, followed by Carlos Michelin. >> Hi, good evening, Madame Chair and counselors. My name is Jordan McConnell. I'm speaking just for myself in strong support of 0262. I've heard a lot of fear about these changes that it would mean an entire block of single family homes suddenly turning into duplexes. That's just not what the market shows happening in cities that adopt these reforms. Even in high demand markets like Portland, Oregon that adopted this, the changes are very gentle. Wholesale change doesn't happen. What does happen is more access. Abandoned or underused lots near transit find new life. Young families have options. Seniors can downsize without leaving their neighborhoods. Realtors can make transactions. Local builders can compete. These are changes that would reinforce our MRA zones. I think of East Central as an example, where empty and abandoned lots currently attract disinvestment. Here in New Mexico, research from the New Mexico Homebuilders Association show that every hundred new homes creates 500 jobs and generates $8.7 million in gross receipts tax. That's $60,000 per home in the first year. These aren't abstract benefits. They're real economic activity for our city. I can also speak personally. It's discouraging to see two-bedroom town homes next to light rail for sale in Minneapolis or Portland cheaper than the 600 square foot condo I've looked at in downtown Albuquerque. That's a signal that something we're doing here is not working. Cities that make these reforms aren't just keeping young people and professionals, they're attracting them. I just tooured Los Cusus after it's passed these reforms. The difference is striking. The city's open to neighbors, businesses, and ideas. And no, despite citywide zone changes, homes there were not reassessed or stripped of their 3% cap. What did change was choice. And that's the powerful thing about this legislation. Beyond just the affordability effects to improving homelessness or safety, it makes us welcoming, a place people want to stay, build their families and their businesses. After years of input, we've asked for these changes. Many of us supporting this want our city to make space for us and our loved ones. Voting yes on this legislation does that. Thank you for our Thank you for your time. >> Nicholas Fion followed by Carlos Michelin followed by Michelle Gidelis. >> Hi, my name is Nick Fion and I moved to Albuquerque four years ago to be closer to my wife's family. I live in Hooning Highlands and I'm on the board of our neighborhood association. Our board submitted a le letter of appro letter letter of support for the IDO amen amendments allowing gentle density and neighborhood retail citywide. But tonight I want to talk about why I support these amendments as an individual. When my wife and I initially moved here, we moved to Park Plaza, a 14story residential building at 14th and Central. It's the tallest residential building in New Mexico. Um, renters and condominium o condominium owners live there. And directly across the street are single family homes and the desirable Huning Castle neighborhood next to Albuquerque Country Club. The way I've heard some distract detractors talk about these amendments. They make it sound like due to my 14-story building, there should have been crime, vice or corporate takeover takeover of the neighborhood or somehow all those things at once. It hasn't happened and Park Plaza and its 130 homes are still illegal to build today and they still will be illegal to build with these amendments. These amendments are modest and legalized small buildings like duplexes and town homes. There are still height restrictions including solar rate restrictions. It's important for these changes to apply as widely as possible. When upzoning changes apply only to specific neighborhoods, they bear the brunt of new development. This can lead to less affordable housing in those upzone neighborhoods like has been seen in cities like Nashville. I encourage the counselors not to water down these amendments further. They are already a compromise. I now live my wife and I were thankfully able to find a place of our own to own in uh Huning Highlands. Not everyone is so lucky. I want my peers to have the same opportunity my wife and I have and that means more housing choice in more places in Albuquerque. Um, I'm encouraged that my neighbors agreed and I decided to endorse these amendments. Thank you. >> Carlos Michelin followed by Michelle Gidellis followed by Lewis Sutherland. >> Madame Chair, councilors, my name is Carlos Michelin and I live in district 2. Um, I'm here to ask you to adopt the proposed ideal updates, all of it. Um uh put simply the package before you would legalize gentle density. If you want to know what that looks like, I invite you to come to and walk my neighborhood um Han Highlands uh which developed naturally before we had this extremely restrictive zoning laws. Um we have a beautiful mix of lowdensity archetype, single family homes, duplexes, and cyer apartments. This is what makes it such a beautiful and walkable neighborhood. Um, and the the invite is serious. I'll walk it and show it to any of you guys. Um, madame chair, these updates are both modest and transformational. They are modest at the neighborhood level where it will relegalize gentle density that fits right into existing neighborhoods, but at the same time, it's transformational because small changes scale citywide, a duplex here, a casita there, um, scales up and can make a real change on our housing shortage. We've seen it happen in cities across the country and even here in New Mexico. Um, cities are choosing to make homes legal to build again are seeing results in terms of housing affordability and rental stabilization. Last cruises, only one year after adopting similar pro homes reforms is already seeing the price of homes stabilize. Um, the package before council was developed by professional city planning staff, shaped through extensive public input, recommended by the EPC, and reflects best practices nationwide. I hope you pass these reforms that have been through a lengthy process and reflect what we know works. Thank you, >> Michelle Gyelis, followed by Lewis Sutherland, followed by Patrick Martin. >> Good evening. My name is Michelle Gadellis and I'm here is to speak in support of the proposed IDO amendments. Um, every company considering expansion asks, "Where will my people live? Without adequate housing, jobs go elsewhere and growth stops." Albuquerque faces a shortage of roughly 30,000 housing units by 2040. This forces young families to drive until they qualify. Um, moving farther out, eroding quality of life, adding to gridlock, and draining vitality from our core. Some will call these changes radical, but what's truly radical is telling families they can't build an ADU for aging parents or preventing a widow from converting her too large home into a duplex for supplemental income. Not everyone wants or can afford a single family home. Empty nesters want to downsize without leaving their neighborhoods. Young professionals want walkable areas without yard work. Seniors want less maintenance, not isolation in oversized houses. These aren't experimental ideas. This is how neighborhoods naturally evolved for generations before we outlawed it in the 1950s. We're not proposing something new. We're we're returning to what worked. Some worry about neighborhood character, but expensive, exclusive neighborhoods lose character when teachers nurses firefighters and young families can't afford to live there. Real character comes from economic diversity, from multigenerational households, from grandparents living near their grandchildren, and yes, from corner bodeas with cats that judge you while you're on your while you buy your morning coffee. Cities like Minneapolis, Austin, and Denver face the same choice we face today. They chose to let their families make their own decisions about where their prop about their own property. Their economy strengthened, their downtowns thrived, and [clears throat] young people actually stayed. If we don't act now, we're not preserving anything. We're pricing out the ne next generation. We're telling our own children and grandchildren they don't belong in the city that they grew up in. And that's not the Albuquerque I want to leave behind. I urge your approval. Thank you. >> Lewis Sutherland, followed by Patrick Martin, followed by Brian Donrowski. >> Uh hello, Madame Chair and uh council members. Uh my name is Luis Sutherland. I'm a homeowner in district 7. Um, shout out to the chair. Um, I'm here today to express my wholehearted support for the proposed amendments in the Ido. Uh, I'm extremely happy to and excited they have made it this far and I ask that you vote uh to approve them with recommendation. Voting yes will bring variety and dare I say character to our neighborhoods. These proposed changes are smart, well thought out, and prag an apragmatic way of bringing infill to our city. Let empty nesters modify their home to allow a new young couple into the neighborhood. Allow a small local local builder the opportunity to design and construct a beautiful cottage court. and allow more options for people who people who simply want to downsize. More duplexes, town homes, cottage courts, condos, dandas, casitas, and yes, even even single family homes are needed in Albuquerque. So, please vote yes for variety, infill, and roofs over our heads. Thank you for your time. >> Patrick Martin, followed by Brian Dumbrosseski, followed by Brandon Codle. Madam Chair, City Council, um my name is Patrick Martin. I am a hopefully soon to be a town home owner in District 6. Um but I'm usually speaking with you all as a transportation advocate. Um and I am going to do that here today as well. Um I first want to um reflect on the transit [clears throat] advisory board, which I'm a member, our unanimous support for these audio updates. Um but I also want to bring the bicycle advocacy perspective for this. Our IDO has limited flexibility in it, but the flexibility that it has is really centered around transit infrastructure. Where we have a high frequency and where we have premium transit services, uh we allow different uses in our land use. What is missing is that there's not much accommodation for bicycles in there. And what that means is that even though this ideal recognizes that the modes of transportation available to a person impact the land use desires and um what makes that land use really effective in the city, that only applies to transit. And so these IDO updates really increase the flexibility of the IDO so that in areas that are not necessarily along major transit corridors along premier transit corridors but have um easy access to cycling to convenient routes that have um that allow connectivity to Tandas and Bodeas um that it allows the land uses that that structure really implies and more of our bicycle infrastructure is really informal. We have our transit lines and we go through these big processes to put them down on the ground. But with bicycle infrastructure, each time we put in a bike lane, we're not going to come back here to update the IDO to allow the concessions and the bonuses that that land use would imply. Um, it's simply these IDO updates allowing people to really look at, okay, what transportation options do I have here? What transportation options am I looking for? Not just transit, but also bicycles. Um, can I get the land use around that that really suits my needs? So, I urge your support for the IDEO updates. Thank you, >> Mr. Um I'm sorry. Hang on. Mr. Martin, did you say that the transit advisory board had passed a resolution in favor? >> Yes. >> Of this. Would you mind forwarding that to the counselors because we did not get I did not get that and I think it'd be helpful for us in our deliberations. >> Thank you very much. >> Brian Dumbrosseski followed by Brandon Codle followed by Michael Devin. >> Hello. Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Brian Dowski. I'm a board member of the Taylor Ranch Neighborhood Association, but tonight these comments are strictly my own. I'm a homeowner on the west side in District 1. And something I really treasure about my neighborhood is the walkable destinations. I can walk to the barber, I can walk to my eye doctor, and I can walk to the dentist. And I hate the dentist. [laughter] And it's great because as I walk, it's only 5 minutes. I don't have to sit in traffic. I don't have to wait for the bus. I don't have to worry about finding a parking space. I can meet my neighbors as they're out of their mailbox or as they're watering their garden. I can ask them if their grandkids are coming to visit again this summer. I can see if they met the newlywed couple that just bought a house on our street. And I can ask them, did you know how quickly the city fixed the water mean break the other night? They were here in an hour. We actually get to chat and I really get to connect with them and I really get to a sense of my community that I don't really get when I travel by car and all I can do is a brief wave as they pass by. But not every trip is walkable and certainly not in many parts of the city. For me, the trip for groceries and everyday items without owning a car is not feasible. Having to cross Kors Boulevard. And for pretty much everyone in my entire neighborhood, walking to the grocery store is not an option. I own a car and fortunately can still make that trip. Uh but I do worry about some of my neighbors who've been living in this community for their entire lives. If they lose their ability to drive, they will lose their ability to stay in this community. By bringing small-cale and mixeduse development alongside bodeas and tandidas back to our neighborhoods where for generations they were cultural pillars of community and business, we have a chance to reaffirm our connections with our community and become a stronger and more resilient Albuquerque. Please give this item a due pass recommendation to full council. Thank you. >> Brandon Codle followed by Michael Devin followed by Jackie Davis. >> Good evening madame chair and council. My name is Brandon Codle. I lived in three of your districts so far. I'm currently a resident in district four. I'm trying to stay there. Uh I'm very happy to hear the acknowledgement at the beginning. This city and this council understands history. History is being made tonight. And every time this council meets, every time this committee meets, just like the eye, we're at a crossroads route right now. Generations of help me out here. Burkenos. I'm still learning how to pronounce it. Don't tell L crues I moved up here. Um, they're going to look at tonight and in a couple weeks and they're going to have the positive ripple effects from the IDO. Generations, people that aren't even born yet, they're going to feel the effects. A long time ago, we pulled up the ladder behind us. My ask is that y'all are smart. Y'all have the data. Y'all know that these changes are common sense. They're gentle. They've been proven in city after city across this country. My ask is that you adopt them. Is it everything? Is it a silver bullet? No. But it's going to help my neighbors kids who are adults and work multiple jobs and can't move out on their own. It's going to help the unhoused veterans that are close to me. It's going to give them a space to get back on their feet because thanks to them, we're here today. It'll help keep our neighborhoods the character, the stability, but it'll let our parents, our grandparents age in place. It'll let the next generation have a fair shot. Let's let down the ladder. Let's take care of our fellow community members, our neighbors, our families. Thank you for your time tonight. Y'all have a good one. >> Michael Devin, followed by Jackie Davis, followed by Loretta Lanho Lopez. Madame Chair, committee, thank you for your time. My name is Michael Deon and I stand in strong support of the amend amendments proposed in 262. I've lived in a few different parts of Albuquerque and I currently live in the Silver Hill neighborhood a block away from Silver Avenue near the section of Silver with the tree covered medians. I think pretty uncontroversially a pretty enjoyable street to be on. And I did the very reasonable thing and color-coded a map showing a satellite view of uh Silver Avenue from Sycamore to um to Buenav Vista showing all of the different types of housing styles that are higher density than a single family home. Um many of the residences built along this corridor were built before Albuquerque introduced the zoning code. And based on the county assessor's website, this section of silver contains 37 standalone single family homes, nine single family homes with a secondary building or casita, 17 duplexes, triplexes or forplexes, two town homes, and four apartment buildings. It's now extremely difficult, if not outright illegal, to build communities with this type of mixed development throughout much of Albuquerque under the current IDO. The changes proposed in the amendments in these amendments allows for the next logical step for Albuquerque to grow organically where single family homes can coexist along casitas, duplexes, and town homes throughout the city just like along this section of silver. And I bring up silver because it showcases that this organic growth is not something to be feared. And in fact, it can be something that's quite beautiful. I've struggled to find someone complain about crime, traffic, or a loss of neighborhood character along this section of silver. These are small property bypropy improvements made over time that have continued to be shown to make housing more financially attainable and allow for more residents to enjoy living in beautiful vibrant neighborhoods. And the changes proposed in these amendments are tremendous step in the positive direction. And I strongly urge your support. Thank you. Jackie Davis, followed by Loretta Murano Lopez, followed by Steve Hullman. Steven Hullman, excuse me. Loretta Moranho Lopez, followed by Steven Hullman, followed by Aaron Hill. >> Good evening, chair and committee members. The historical neighborhood alliance respectfully requests the city council loves committee to vote to vote a do not pass on 0262. The reason for denials, it is impossible for all citizens and property owners to address 150 amendments to the integrated development ordinance in a short period of time. These decisions are made for well-funded organizations and land speculators who want to dictate our destiny for the future of our children and grandchildren. HNA understands these outside organizations want to get rid of zoning completely and the reason is to have affordable housing. HNA ask affordable for who? And please define affordability. HNA knows that Houston, Texas has no zoning at all, but are now similarly afflicted with spiking home prices which have risen by nearly 50% in five years. The planners made no effort to allow the community to assist in the clarification of community goals, objectives, and policies in upzoning. There is no way to know the long range consequences of EPC's decision to approve the upzoning since these decisions will no longer protect neighborhoods. Well-educated and trained planners know that planning is about allowing the community to deter determine their own destiny and zoning is a regulation to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens. The Albuquerque Bernalo County Comprehension Plan is required to preserve and protect historical neighborhoods. If the language is not strong enough to protect us from land speculators, then city planning department needs to work with the community to address those flaws so the historical neighborhoods are not gentrified. HNA um recommends the city of Albuquerque planning department to meet with all neighborhood associations to begin educating the community on the citywide tax amendments recommendations and provide time for community to give their own recommendations. Property owners have a vested right to have their properties protected from land speculators. Thank you for the time. >> Steven Hullman, followed by Aaron Hill, followed by Joseph Greenwood. >> Hello. Um, tonight you're going to hear from the politicians through their puppet organizations. These organizations have their people ready, have been giving classes to prepare and humanize their stories for you tonight. You received the petition with 832 signatures from everyday residents in opposition to this, which far outnumbers those in this room. You've been sent studies in how this shutifies and has little no effect on housing costs. Removing one amendment, by the way, that was illegally added by planning um that would reszone the entire city does not offset the harmful ones that are still within the IDO. This still reszones thousands along mass transit corridors. They will see tax reassessment due to the zoning change and due to the increase in value of improvement. Many will be priced out despite the fiction from the.org shills that are shining Los Cusus. Look at the mass transit zones and how they avoid the most affluent neighborhoods and target workingclass non-white and historic communities. This is targeted gentrification begging for a class action. The city has 125,000 pre-platted lots for housing. There's millions of square feet in abandoned office and retail space for housing. Middle housing is not banned as theor grifters lie about. You just have to follow process and planning notice and community input under the law. These people want to remove the process. Remember what is at risk. Forced reasonzoning on those transit corridors. Removal of community notice input and self-determination. No guarantees against private equity or developer price speculation. No mandated affordable housing of any kind. No planning or water or environmental impacts. No measures against apartment rental ownership by major investment corporations. No protection for low-income tenants. And no impact studies on racial inequity. Who can afford hundreds of thousands to convert housing? Not everyday citizens. Who benefits with 14.2 billion in property values to exploit for profit? The EPC said the quiet thing out loud. Let the developers build what they want. Don't sell out Albuquerque. Aaron Hill, followed by Joseph Greenwood, followed by Tyler Richter. Good evening, uh, chair, counselors. I am Aaron Hill, a transportation planner here to give comments on behalf of the Mid Region Metropolitan Planning Organization in addition to the letter we submitted earlier this week. I've come to speak in strong support of the proposed amendments to the IDEO, such as those that enable a greater amount and diversity of housing, increased opportunities for neighborhood retail, and reduced community members needs to drive for daily necessities, and to allow for increased dens density and walkability in the areas of our region that can most support it. Our region is currently experiencing a major shift in demographics. While Albuquerquekey's metropolitan area is not experiencing much population growth, our region is nevertheless experiencing a housing shortage due to a rising number of single person households. Specifically, per the US census, 37% of households in the city are single person households, a much higher rate than in decades prior. This is due to a mix of factors such as our aging population and fewer households choosing to have children. The result is that there is a drastic need for more housing units as smaller average households require more housing units to provide for the same number of people to support our changing demographics. Our region will require a far larger number of homes than currently exist. Without amendments like these today's building that many homes would require more roads, more utilities, more subdivisions, more public services and retail centers, and more highways. This will create massive burdens on our transportation system in both new construction and new maintenance, as well as potentially worsening commuting times and increasing the distance residents must travel for their basic daily needs. The amendments put forth today would allow the worst of these burdens to be eased by channeling development into the areas of Albuquerque most able to support it with pre-existing infrastructure, walkable neighborhoods, and nearby opportunities for jobs and services. Failing to adopt these changes will not prevent strain on our system, but force them into the areas of our city most unable to handle them. Thank you. >> Joseph Greenwood, followed by Tyler Richter, followed by Eleanor Walther. >> Good evening, Madam Chair and councilors. My name is Joseph Greenwood. I'm a resident of district 2 and I've lived in multif family housing for almost my entire time in this city. From duplexes and quadplexes and university heights to my current small apartment in west downtown. Cities like Portland and Austin which have allowed significantly more middle housing to be built are currently seeing dramatic drops in cost and rental prices beginning to approach down towards those of Albuquerque. [clears throat] When we consider the economic growth, ample jobs, and affordable housing in these cities, is it any wonder that so many UNM graduates pack their bags for places like these? Furthermore, young families who are stuck renting and looking to build equity desperately need the options that middle housing offers. They deserve the dignity of being able to own a starter home, which is severely lacking in our market. This affects seniors as well, like empty nesters who no longer need their three-bedroom home and want to downsize to smaller options. My own father was affected by this, finding that most homes on the market were too large and too expensive for his needs. I love Albuquerque. It's a city all of us here want to remain in. To fully realize such requires passing these amendments if we are to bring down housing costs and provide dignified choices for current and future generations. Allowing more housing and mixeduse zoning will also act as an economic stimulus creating jobs and allowing local businesses and local homebuilders to enter the market. I ask you please vote your conscience. Vote for equity. Vote for economic growth. Vote for the future of this city for all generations. Please pass all of these amendments. Make duplexes and town homes permissive in all R1 zoning. Thank you. >> Tyler Richter followed by Eleanor Walther followed by Gary Easter. >> Good evening councilors committee. My name is Tyler Richter. I'm a resident of D7. I'm here to speak in strong support of the proposed updates to the integrated development ordinance. I attended the inauguration for city council and the mayor. Congratulations uh and thank you for your service. I was there not as an official capacity but as a parent. My son plays the saxophone in that Albuquerque High Mighty Bulldog Jazz Band. And I am a bandad. I hope you enjoyed their participation. I certainly did and I was incredibly proud. That pride is what brings me here tonight. I have three sons. My oldest is 15 and after Albuquerque High, he plans to attend UN M using the opportunity scholarship. I was fortunate to be among the early recipients of the lottery scholarship in 1999 when I graduated high school. After college, I looked around in Albuquerque and I felt there wasn't a clear path for me. So, I left. I spent nearly 18 years living and working across the entire United States from coast to coast, Canada and Mexico before my wife and I decided to come home and raise our family. This story isn't unique. Many of my friends are also returning home. For years, we've worried about brain drain, about educating our kids only to watch them leave. I want to say clearly Albuquerquekey's kids are coming home. This is a wonderful city and a great place to raise a family. The question is whether our children will be able to stay. At its most basic level, the IDEO update helps answer that question. It creates the conditions for young people to live near opportunity, for students to return to our urban centers, and for am families to grow without being pushed out. It allows us to have more neighbors. It allows my parents to stay in their neighborhood they know, while opening the door for new families to make a home in a house that's been too big for them for years. Trust professionals from the city. Trust the professional business organizations. Trust the professionals that support this these amendments. Please say yes to more neighbors. Please say yes to the future for our children. Support this themselves and a future we can all be proud of. Thank you for your time and for your service. >> Eleanor Walther followed by Gary Ester followed by Ray Taylor. Good evening, chair and members of the LUPS committee. My name is Ellaner Walther and I'm speaking in opposition to 0262. I support reasonable planning and understand the need to periodically update the IDO. However, this ordinance goes far beyond minor adjustments. It proposes approximately 150 technical citywide changes affecting allowable uses, zoning procedures, accessory dwelling units, parking standards, and development regulations throughout Albuquerque. Many residents do not yet understand how these changes could affect the properties, neighborhoods, streets, or local services. The volume and complexity of these amendments makes it extremely difficult for the public to meaningfully engage. There are real concerns about unintended neighborhood impacts. Proposed changes to ADU regulation, heightened parking standards, and residential and mixed use provisions could lead to development that is out of scale with existing homes, increase parking and traffic pressures, and alter established neighborhood character without adequate protection for adjacent properties. While increasing housing options is an important goal, the density should be balanced with infrastructure capacity, traffic safety, and public services. As drafted, 0262 appears to prioritize expanded housing types without clearly addressing those safeguards. Finally, the public process is inadequate for an ordinance of this scope. Limiting public testimony to two minutes does not allow residents to provide informed input on the proposed amendments. For this reason, I respectfully urge the committee not to endorse O262 at this time, to request additional public outreach and clear explanations of key position provisions, and to consider phased or targeted updates rather than broad citywide changes. Thank you. Gary Easter followed by Ray Taylor followed by James Shanley. >> Madame Chair, councilors, my association has sought input from the community so that we could develop a statement, but we haven't been able to get hardly any yet because the community is in the dark. So, uh, I want to ask you, I want to ask planning to work hard the next two weeks, get the word out. I'm addressing you in a personal capacity for now. uh first allowing duplexes and town homes in R1. Uh maybe duplexes would be enough at first. Uh further changes could be implemented in succeeding updates so we can see how things work. Second, zoning conversion from RT to MXT. The maximum height grows 4 feet as Matt said, but in premium transit area it grows a lot more than that. It also introduces commercial uses like hotels and banks into what was RT. So we lose housing when we do that. Finally allowing RML dwelling multifamily in the R1 zone within a quarter mile of Main Street and premium transit areas north of central. All of Knobill north of Central is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. That's where this would allow RML right in the middle of the R1. I for one don't want historic houses surrounding my one-story 1930 house demolished for apartment cubes. Historic character isn't just stucco and tile roofs. It includes the context around the community. The discussion of the bill in the bill around the comp plan is incomplete, especially around community identity and heritage conservation. There are plenty of sites all over town where multifamily can be built. RML in the middle of neighborhoods is not gentle. Thank you. >> Ray Taylor followed by James Shanley followed by Marissa Brown. Madame Chair, committee members, I'm a very grateful resident of the Billes neighborhood of Albuquerque and appreciate all the investments that you have made in our neighborhood. Uh, having lived in other states, I can tell you there are many aspects of life in which New Mexico and Albuquerque excel. Um, care for our seniors, help for the less fortunate, access to our government in the process. Um, you've all made steps to remedy an area. however, that we had fallen behind revising our zoning codes in light of today's challenges, and I wholeheartedly support these changes. I have learned much from listening to Bennyos of all ages, joining them for events like the livability series that was sponsored last year. These important changes are needed to be sure that all people can see a path to having the type of home they want. As elders, we want a city that is walkable and sustainable with ways to adapt to our needs for housing for changing needs. That means we need more types of housing in every neighborhood and more corner stores at every stage of life. We want to be able to transition to home that fits our needs without moving out of our neighborhood. Important changes in the IDO aren't so much changes as they are allowing things like bodeas that we always had and served us well. It'll just be available again. I realized the fears I had of change are unfounded. I do not want our legacy to our sons and daughters to be a community that locks them out of being able to live here. I appreciate the generations following us that have shared their wisdom and patience and kindness and I hope that more of us can join neighbors of all ages to support these changes and I would urge support. Thank you. >> James Shanley followed by Marissa Brown followed by Brandy Thompson. >> Madame Chair, uh councelor of committee members. Um, I'm a resident of Mark Twain neighborhood in district 7 and I have been connected to Albuquerque since 1969. You are hearing today comments for and against Ido amendments intended to realize housing densification within neighborhoods of Albuquerque, of which 160,000 per census data are single family homes. I'm not here to argue whether we have a housing crisis in terms of available dwelling units. What is indisputable, however, is that housing in Albuquerque is too expensive both for rent and purchase relative to the income for too many households. What I wish to convey is that our major corridors are in a state of decay and disinvestment that is screaming for priority attention and is a far more immediate opportunity for housing densification at scale. Major corridors are the senue of our urban life in terms of transit and commerce. Just seven of them. Central, Zouri, Lomus, Manol, San Pedro, San Mateo, and Fourth Street have over 5,100 discrete properties, both commercial and residential, and are home to over 2,800 business premises, of which today 685 are closed or vacant. That's a lot of lost jobs and dead dreams. These seven corridors hold 208 acres of unused land on 261 lots. They hold 185 freestanding empty buildings with 1,857,500 square ft of interior space, most with amenities. If you want to have transformative impact on Albuquerque with maximum speed and lowest cost, please direct priority attention to our corridors. Thank you. >> Marissa Brown, followed by Brandy Thompson, followed by Althia Athetherton. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and counselors for your attention. My name is Marissa and I'm a resident of District 9. I was born and raised here in Albuquerque and I've worked in the nonprofit field for the last 12 years and I've had the privilege of serving my neighbors and learning what makes Albuquerque truly special which in my opinion is the overwhelming sense of community that appears all across the city at any given moment. And I think you can find that in many of these amendments that are up today. I'm here to speak today in support of the IDO amendments that allow duplexes and town homes into R1 zoning. These middle housing options will not only help to relieve some of the strain on our housing market by creating more stock, but these area of town these areas of town often promote a greater sense of community by bringing people together literally rather than separating us by a quarter acre, a picket fence, and hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single family home. The amendments also address the lack of bodeas that have created food deserts which affect each and every one of us. I personally work in the food nonprofit area. Um, I and I personally would love to be able to walk to my neighborhood corner store that's owned and operated by my neighbors. Uh, but no such store exists in my area, nor across many of our neighborhoods in the city. Um, so council, please approve the proposed amendments to allow duplexes, town homes, and bodeas into R1 zoning. Thank you. >> Brandy Thompson, followed by Alia Athetherton, followed by Beverly Hill. Good evening, Madame Chair and counselors. My name is Brandy. I'm thrilled to be here actually because I have a three-week old fresh baby at home and so I haven't been getting out much. So, it's so lovely to be here. Thank you for opening this to the public. Um, so I'm here, as I said, representing myself and also I have a new child. His name is Rex. He's super cute. He can't vote yet. He can't donate to your campaigns. He can't sue you with his neighborhood association when he doesn't like what you're doing. Um, and frankly, his public comments are mostly at 3:00 a.m. Um, so I don't sleep, but um, you know, he is just as much your constituent as everyone in this room. And it is your duty to serve him and the other children of Albuquerque who can't speak for themselves in an election, just as much as it's your duty to represent all of us. And so I come here with him in mind. Um, I'm asking you to approve the IDEO changes. The decisions you make tonight will shape the city that Rex and other children grow in. Whether he can afford to live here someday, whether his teachers, nurses, service workers, and friends can live near their jobs, and whether this city plans for the future or keeps reenacting the same policy choices and acting surprised when the same thing occurs. If we do nothing, if we cling to the status quo, we know what happens. James just gave us a great picture of what happens when we cling to the status quo. Housing stays tight and expensive. Families get pushed out. Businesses leave. Homelessness increases. Young people leave. Essential workers commute farther. We don't preserve our neighborhoods. We hollow them out. So these proposed zoning changes are not radical. They are practical. Cities across the country are doing them. Cities that we compete for jobs and employers are enacting these changes. It's time for us to do the same thing. Um they they we are we should enact them because they work. They allow a little more housing, a little more flexibility, and a little more room for the next generation. Please approve these changes if not for today's residents, but for the future generations that can't speak yet. Thank you. Miss Thompson, please um welcome Rex to the D7 community. We look forward to seeing him at all the neighborhood association meetings. Althia Athetherton followed by [laughter] followed by Beverly Hill followed by Dennis Aragon. >> Hi um Madam Chair Feeorn. I also brought my mom hat with me today. Um you may know me as an evangelical transit writer or my neighborhood association president, but I um am the mother of two children under three years old. Um and um we are actually raising our children in the very home that my husband grew up in. So um we rent it from his parents and it's been incredibly wonderful. Um and I'm actually um celebrating my 10th anniversary of moving to Albuquerque myself. Um and we chose to move to his hometown to be closer to his family. Um and I'm very excited about the um Albuquerque ride forward changes that are coming. But unfortunately, as councelor Rogers said earlier, um we're going to be losing a significant amount of the access in my little corner um of the neighborhood. And so um we're going to we're kind of trying to figure out what we're doing right now. I'll just be honest. We're trying to decide if we're going to move. We're trying to decide um you know, if we can make it work um in our home because our my walk is going from about 5 minutes to about 15. These Ido changes would allow more opportunity for us to be able to stay living close to transit. Um, and would allow us um not only that, but also, you know, uh because of the major transit corridor changes, but also because of the duplexes um and uh town homes that would be more available. Um, another way that I would be able to maintain my independence though is to have bodeas and access to places that I could walk to in my neighborhood where I could get, you know, my uh, bread or my eggs or my whatever I needed to get that day. Um, and I just want to say as a bus rider and as a pedestrian, I see and talk to a lot of people who sleep on our streets. Um, and as a mom, I can't help but think that every single one of those people was a baby at one point. Every single one of them giggled. Every single one of them, you know, had that same kind of connection. How would you want your children to be treated? Let's welcome them into our neighborhoods. Please pass. Thank you. >> Beverly Hill, followed by Dennis Aragon, followed by Elena Wakeman. Where's the mic? >> Here's the mic right here. [laughter] >> Where is it? Okay. Can you hear me? I'm blind, so it's a little hard to stand up here and speak. I live in that strip of Knob Hill that will be completely consumed by these zoning changes. And my neighbors have primarily lived there for decades. They've raised their children there. Their houses are paid off. and they're concerned that the entire character of our historic neighborhood is going to be dramatically changed as people age out and sell their homes and whatever. I understand the merits of increasing density and making neighborhoods uh more walkable. We have Central just a block or two away from us and half the businesses there are empty. Maybe not half, but quite a few are empty because the rents there are so high because of the um land owners who know that they can get high rents along there. And we're losing businesses, not because there isn't enough residential population to support the businesses, but because they can't do business on a scale that can support those rents. So I think in all these changes it would nice be nice also to address some uh rent caps or affordability issues in addition to just increasing density. And also in the IDO it says that um improvements to the homes will have to be compatible with surrounding uh architecture and that sort of thing. Who's going to oversee that compatibility when permits are issued? I mean, are we gonna uh and a clarification point maybe somebody can give me in RT are multiple family homes permitted in RT? Because that will be apartment blocks all over, you know, that strip of Knob Hill. It's just a little concerning to those of us who, you know, have lived there for a very long time and um feel as though the neighborhood is in decline, not because there aren't enough people, but because there's too much greed. Dennis Aragon followed by Elena Wegman followed by Andrea Calderon. Council, Madame Chair, thank you. Thank you all for the opportunity to speak today. Um, I live in District 6, also in the Knobill area. Um, barely. It's kind of expensive by the law school. Um just as others have pointed out as others have pointed out already this type of housing I support the ideal amendments um all 150 of them. This type of housing is not new. There are plenty of neighborhoods there are plenty of neighborhoods that um within the city that already exists that have this type of housing. Um ju um this kind of housing this kind of housing is historic housing. um duplexes to solve the housing crisis. We can look back to how people before single family zoning uh built neighborhoods and used home ownership to build wealth. About a century ago, many immigrants from Eastern Europe settled in the Midwest. These immigrants built and lived built and lived in duplexes. These were called the Ger the Polish flats and German duplexes. And many of these duplexes still exist today. Um the folks who built and lived in these homes were able to use the second unit uh the second unit as a means to secure extra rental income. This rental income allowed these families, all of whom were working class, to create generational wealth. Many of these duplexes were also multigenerational homes. We talk about fears of displacement from our historic neighborhoods. Um, one of the best great remedy for that, right? It would be multigenerational homes allowing people to convert their homes to duplexes or build cas. This is the these serve as another tool to prevent displacement. Um, these proposed amendments to the IDO are the least we can do to make Albuquerque attractive for aspiring professionals like myself to call home. Um, I this morning I just started my final semester of law school. I want I love New Mexico. I want to build my career here. I want to serve the people here. I also am from northern New Mexico and I've seen what Santa Fe has done to their youth in displacing their youth and I don't want Albuquerque to turn into that. So, thank you for your time. Elena Wegman, followed by Andrea Calderon, followed by Renee Horvath. Hello, my name is Elena Wegman and I'm a teacher at Albuquerque Public Schools. I currently work in the Northeast Heights and despite working in what is considered a wealthy neighborhood, I do see how quickly students can fall through the cracks. Since the pandemic, we've seen the right price of everything raise. And I believe that changing zoning laws will allow for affordable and diverse housing structures. In the neighborhood that I work in, there are lux either luxury apartments or single family homes available as housing. This results in a lot of families putting most of their income towards housing so that their students can have access to a good school. It leaves little room for essentials such as groceries and school supplies. I also have students who regularly travel up to two hours to school daily so they can access their education and students who solely rely on school lunch to get by. I don't want this to be the reality for so many young people and I want the zoning laws to change to make more housing available. This would alleviate the financial pressure for families and I also want to see the future of the city thrive. I think that creating security in our housing and zoning laws can eliminate a lot of these financial barriers so that my students don't have to worry about basic needs. And it is my hope that speaking publicly today will allow for the public and our elected city council to consider new perspectives and new futures for everyone that resides in the city. When we talk about zoning, poverty, housing, and homelessness, I think that children and younger young people have to be considered. So, please allow for 0262 to pass and for duplexes and town homes to be built in this city. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. >> Andrea Calderon, followed by Renee Horvath, followed by Christopher Love. >> Good evening, chair and members of the committee. I'm speaking on behalf of the Albuquerque Affordable Housing Coalition in support of this packet. In order to achieve housing and prosperity for all of the Albuquerque metro area, the Albuquerque Affordable Housing Coalition supports and advocates for housing that serves all people, including an adequate mix of housing types and sizes throughout the Albuquerque area to support access to neighbors neighborhoods of one's choosing. AHC also supports and advocates for housing that serves all people and reflects the rich cultural diversity within our state's unique heritage. We support initiatives that build housing that is appropriate for traditional lifeways and their contemporary adaptations, including housing that gives preference to those who are part of a cultural community. We seek the removal of zoning rules that have eliminated culturally relevant uses, such as corner stores and small mom and pop stores and seek rules that allow our neighborhoods to develop organically and encourage zoning rules that allow such uses to exist. On a personal note, I want to express my support for the amendments that would allow duplexes and town homes in R1 zoning. My family lived in a town home until I was 16 in a neighborhood that was primarily comprised of single family homes. This allowed me whose parents were a manicurist and a hotel worker to grow up with a friend with friends whose parents were doctors, professors, and offices and worked in offices that afforded them the ability to own single family homes. I got to feel a part of that community and built social connections that allowed me to land internships, obtain guidance on career pathways, etc. Ultimately enabling economic mobility for both my brother and I. This is consistent with the Raj Cheddy's research on social connections as an enabler of economic well-being and mobility. I want to encourage counselors whose districts are comprised primarily of single family homes to encourage zoning in their areas that would allow for middle housing to be built. It would make our city stronger. Thank you. >> Renee Horvath, followed by Christopher Love, followed by Anna Lee Des. >> Uh, good evening again. And, uh, yes. Uh, I think one of the things that's been very frustrating about this whole IDEO process, there was 150 amendments. They were very substantial amendments doing a lot of zone changes, a lot of dimensional standards changes and parking issues. And it was very difficult to try to zero in on a lot of them because they can be very impactful. But one thing that I noticed in supporting the that I'm hearing to support all this is like they're saying our zone code is old and outdated. Well, I just want to make it clear that the zone code was adopted late 2017, finalized May 2018. So, it's not that old. We did like the prior zone code. It gave us all those things. Apartments, duplex, town homes, single family, commercial, neighborhood commercial. But now the zone, this new zone code has upzoned everything and we're getting a lot more apartment uh building going on. There's a lot of zone uh zoning that on the west side. I can think of nine apartments complexes that have been built since the IDO has been approved. And when I drive around town along Central, Ford Street, other places, I see apartments being approved. So, we are building a lot of housing units. We're also building houses on the west side. Probably what I'm hearing too is a lot of uh concern about affordability. Unfortunately, a lot a lot of the out ofstate guys that are building these apartments, their rents are very high and that's been a problem. It's and it doesn't we don't have a supply issue. We do have an affordability issue and I don't think changing the zoning is going to correct that. So, um, these could be very impactful and I am glad you're deferring this because I have a lot of questions that I need to talk to you about drainage and understand your amendment a little better. So, I'll give you a call. So, thank you >> Christopher Love followed by Anna Lee Des. >> Hi. Uh, I'm Christopher Love. I'm a resident of district 8. Um, and I am also a disability advocate. Um, I would like to encourage the land use and planning and zoning council to pass 0262, the higher density um, amendments to uh, R1 zoning to allow duplexes and town houses and single families. family zoning. Um, several disabled people their entire income is uh from social security, social security disability and their entire amount that they received for one month is less than the average rental price. Um, and so a lot of folks are looking for roommates or unfortunately end up homeless, which we're just creating um, you know, a higher cost that the city has to pay for those people. Whereas if we were allowed duplexes or town houses, multiple people to uh live in already established neighborhoods that have um you know uh the infrastructure that people rely on such as transit stores um being able to access. Um, anyways, so my thing is for disabled people, um, please pass 0262. >> Annalie Des San followed by Aaron Thornton on Zoom. >> Hi there. Uh, my name is Anelie and I was born and raised here in Albuquerque and I have been housing insecure for a majority of my adult life. Right now, I'm paying 50% of my income to rent. Um, I'm here to speak against the adoption of this Ido. I live in Badelas, and this plan targets us for changes that are not being done um to similar areas in the Heights. I'm talking about Second, Third, and Fourth Street with ML um MXL. Our neighborhood continues to be pursued by developers um for racist campaigns of gentrification. We understand that we will meet the same future of displacement like Echo Park, Oakland, East Austin, and Northeast Portland. When similar policies were enacted, areas like ours, the rent went up and not down, and black and brown populations plummeted. Um, even when rents drop, like supporters um of these policies claim, per their own studies, the most rents have dropped to 7%. And I did the math and that's $77 for me. Um, I will still be housing insecure. I will still be paying more or less 50% of my income to rent. Um, and this will not make a difference in the housing security of people like me here in Albuquerque. Um, if this council cares about housing, you'll get behind policies that do put a dent in um the housing crisis, like rent controlled, publicly owned, dignified housing. Um, if it's publicly owned, we can rent control it. Um, considering the state prohibition, which is also many legal experts say that if you did challenge, it would be unconstitutional and would get overturned. Um, so, uh, we really need to do housing for the purpose of housing not lining the pockets of developers that come to New Mexico to loot our neighborhoods, land, and water. We're not going to solve the housing crisis by putting it in the hands of the same people who are currently profiting off of it. Thank you for your consideration. >> Aaron Thornton, followed by Crystal Garcia. >> Hello. Good evening, Madam Chair and counselors. My name is Aaron and I'm a homeowner in District 6. I wanted to express support for many of the IDO amendments included to help our city address our housing and livability challenges. However, I wanted to highlight the importance of eliminating and reducing the arbitrary parking minimum mandates across the city. Driving around the city, what sticks out is vast and mostly underutilized parking lots. These lots these required lots are a poor use of public space, detrimental to our water supply, and first force further encroachment on our vital natural spaces. Mandatory parking requirements raise the cost of both housing and businesses by forcing property owners to build expensive parking instead of productive space. These costs show up as higher rents both for apartments and for small businesses trying to open or expand. Other car centric cities like Fagatville, Dallas, and Denver have modernized their codes and have seen more housing, local business, and more reinvestment without the world falling apart from parking shortages. Members of the committee have expressed desires to not micromanage people and to make it easier for businesses to operate. So I ask you to let the market decide how much parking is needed. I want you to support parking reform and the rest of the pro housing amendments. Thank you very much. >> Crystal Garcia followed by Brian Nhard. >> Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Uh two minutes is not enough to address all the issues raised by these proposed changes. So, I will highlight a few key concerns. I strongly oppose uh 0-26-2. This ordinance is upzoning without accountability. It removes traditional single family protections across much of the city. The city claims it held community meetings, but that is a meaningless formality. Most residents were never properly notified, and the city did the bare minimum to inform the public. Holding a meeting without ensuring residents are aware is not communitya engagement. It is checking a box. Ordinary property owners had almost no opportunity to review the 150 proposed amendments or provide meaningful input. There's no requirement for affordable housing, no safeguards for restored neighborhoods, no guarantee that infrastructure impacts will be studied before development moves forward. Meanwhile, this kind of upzoning can trigger land speculation, higher property taxes, and displacement, particularly affecting seniors and longtime homeowners. Most of the strongest proponents of this ordinance are newcomers to Albuquerque. If the current character of our neighborhoods and community is unsatisfactory to them, one must ask, why did they choose to move here? Decisions that reshape neighborhoods should not be guided by those should be guided by those who understand the needs and characters of our community, not by those unfamiliar with how Albuquerque functions. Proposals like converting residential areas into small commercial lots or bodeas are particularly ills suited for Albuquerque. These developments do not match the character and needs of our neighborhoods, and they do nothing to address the housing challenges the city claims the IDO changes will solve. We've seen similar changes in other cities. Minneapolis eliminated single family zoning citywide, but critics argue it has done little to reduce affordable housing while raising property taxes and encouraging outside investment instead of protecting residents. We should learn from that experience before rushing to change Albuquerquekey's neighborhoods. Neighborhoods deserve protection, not on track development. Zoning should preserve a >> Thank you. Your time is up. Let's move to the next speaker. Brian Nhard followed by Patricia Wilson. >> Thank you to the chair and members of the committee. My name is Brian Hheart. I'm a homeowner in District 9 and I'm speaking today in support of the proposed audio amendments. I support these changes for many reasons, but the main reason is flexibility. I was born and grew up here in Albuquerque, and we drove almost everywhere. When I was young, as a student without a car, I was limited in where I could go, to the few restaurants or stores within walking distance of my school or even fewer near my house. Now, as an adult with a car, I still find myself limited in how I can get where I need to go, often choosing between a 20inut drive or a 2hour bus or bike ride. I've been fortunate to live in different places before I settled back home in Albuquerque. And the places where I have most enjoyed living and spending time have always had multiple ways to get around and businesses close by and accessible to my residential area. I would love to be able to walk to a local store or coffee shop for a quick trip while still having the option to drive across town to go to some specialty store or a particular restaurant. Giving more options for local corner stores closer to where we live supports local choices for where we shop and improved accessibility for how to get there. Giving more options for housing types will allow us to choose something that makes sense for whatever stage of life we are in without having to move across town. The proposed audio amendments do not remove all zoning definitions and building restrictions altogether. rather the proposed changes provide more flexibility within our existing neighborhoods. I look forward to the future potential of these changes that uh the changes that these uh proposed amendments can enable increasing flexibility in housing, small businesses and transportation options. For these reasons among many others, I encourage you to support the proposed IDO amendments. Thank you. Patricia Wilson followed by Ali Sale. >> Thank you, [clears throat] Madam Chair and counselors. I'd like to speak to process and the unintended consequences that over 700 amendments can cause. After a decade and over 10 million, Austin scrapped code next, the total rewrite of its land development code. They have subsequently and successfully added amendments to the LDC that allow additional dwelling units, smaller lot sizes, and reduced parking. Sound familiar? However, a major difference is that Austin's LDC has a staged amendment process. First, initiation, second, development and/or engagement, and third review and/or adoption. A summary page clearly shows where each amendment is in the process. There were four in the adoption phase in last November. And it also identifies those with substantial benefit to housing capacity or cost. In a 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, Austin had a total of just 65 amendments. Albuquerque had 65 amendments in the 2023 update alone. Since the adoption of the IDO, many neighbors have pushed for a better process. Perhaps this first instance of the bianial update with its overwhelming 140 plus amendments could provide that opportunity to fix this broken process and I just don't know what to do with the remaining 30 seconds. Thank you very much. Counselors >> Ali Sale followed by Veronica Toledo. Madame Chair and members of the committee, I'm Ali Sale, a homeowner in District 6, and I'm here to support the proposed updates to the IDEO, particularly the changes that expand housing options, neighborhood services. These changes would greatly improve our neighborhoods, not just for everyone, but for some of our most vulnerable populations. One such population is special needs individuals. My sister is a young adult with Down syndrome. She is largely independent, but she cannot drive. As she plans for her adult life after college, it has become very clear to my family how few housing options exist that support independent, non-institutionalized living. The options that do exist are often age- restricted or disconnected from everyday life. At the same time, most of the housing that is available is simply not right sized as they tend to be large single family homes that are difficult to maintain and poorly matched to long-term independents. What would work for her and for many others is smaller, simpler housing, casitas, cottagec court homes, and other middle housing options that allow people to live independently without being isolated or overwhelmed by the scale of their home. These options uh make it possible to downsize, to live affordably, and to stay a part of the neighborhood over time. Just as important are neighborhood businesses. Because my sister cannot drive, walkable access to basic services is essential. It is not a luxury for her. Being able to meet daily needs on foot is a core part of dignity and autonomy for people who cannot drive. Small groceries, cafes, and everyday services close to home are what make independence possible. The proposed ideal change changes move Albuquerque in this direction. They support livability, inclusion, and dependence across a lifetime. For those reasons, I urge you to support them. Thank you for your time. >> Veronica Toledo, followed by Benjamin Bean. >> Good evening. My name is Veronica Toledo and I serve as the director of policy and advocacy at Homewise. We are in strong support of the proposed changes to the IDO that will make it easier, faster, and more cost-effective to build housing in Albuquerque. Homewise is a nonprofit community development financial institution whose mission is to help create successful homeowners and strengthen neighborhoods so that individuals and families can improve their long-term financial well-being and quality of life. Since our founding in 1986, Home Wise has helped over 7,000 New Mexicans become homeowners and has built or renovated approximately 1,000 highquality, affordable forale homes, including 10 mixed income communities, within the last decade. We know from our experience that the lack of housing supply is driving up housing costs for both renters and homeowners. Current zoning rules in Albuquerque are contributing to the housing supply problem. Homewise support supports the proposed changes to the IDO that promote a mix of housing types that promote increased density and building heights and activity centers along major transit corridors and other areas where high density makes sense that reduce minimum lot size that reduce minimum parking requirements and that simplify review and approval requirements for housing projects and more. These are incredible next steps for our city and will lead to more housing across the housing spectrum in our community and for Albuquerque residents. Thanks so much. >> Benjamin Bean, followed by Jesse Aranchic. >> Good evening, Madame President, counselors. Um, I am here as a new parent of a three-month-old, as a board member of the Downtown Neighborhood Associations, and as a homeowner in District 2. Um, the proposed changes to the IDO offer a lot of benefits to Albuquerque, including removing barriers to incremental housing development, enabling more diverse and affordable housing options. They also alleviate burdensome parking requirements in the construction of cassitas, which is something that has prevented me from building a cassita, and other small-cale housing units. And they provide flexibility to our small business owners along major transit corridors. When taken together, these modifications promote a more vibrant mixeduse community by allowing for the development of local businesses like ice cream shops and corner stores. This leads to a healthier city with improved walkability, bike ability, and social ability. I also want to quickly talk about who should oppose these changes. Those people who prefer the status quo. Those who love cars and want to preserve the city's current automobile ccentric design may resist these changes as will those who who uh prefer a city dominated by large retailers like Walmart over a diverse mix of small businesses. I believe that we can make a great leap forward in the quality and livability of our city. Please support this bill. >> Jesse Adamic followed by Vanessa Meski. >> Good evening, councilors. My name is Jesse Adamek and I'm a resident of district 8 and I'm here in strong support of this IDO update. This plan addresses that housing costs are rising far faster than wages. Long commutes are hurting families and residents have no choice but to travel long distances for basic necessities like groceries. I believe this IDO update takes a smart and balanced approach with increased housing options like cassitas, duplexes, and small apartment buildings, especially near transit and activity centers. This will foster rich communities that families and young professionals alike can call home without sacrificing the existing neighborhood character. Ido also supports walkable mixeduse neighborhoods where small grocery stores, local businesses can thrive and where people aren't forced to drive for every trip. I would like if the small retail uh bodeas and DMD does were not necessarily restricted to corner lots as I think this would give even more opportunity for entrepreneurial and highly localized economic activity. In any case, I strongly support the removal of the parking minimums as I believe repurposing of parking will be a much better utilization of the existing space. This plan will have a wide-ranging positive effect on housing choice, affordability, and long-term resilience all throughout Albuquerque. I fully support this update, and I hope we can all continue moving our city forward together. Thank you for your time. >> Vaness Vanessa Meshki, followed by Laya Blazing Star. >> Good evening, counselors. My name is Vanessa Meshki and I am a homeowner in district 8. I'm speaking with you tonight in support of the IDEO because of how I experience my own neighborhood. I don't live very far from a grocery store, but if I want to walk there, I have to cross two busy streets that don't feel very safe for pedestrians. And so, even though it's nearby, I almost always drive to get there. I never walk. And that's really the difference between what a walkable city and what a car dependent city is like in real life. Walkability isn't just sidewalks. It's about how our neighborhoods are designed and how we interact with them. This plan helps by allowing more housing, more small businesses, and more services to be closer together. And by encouraging development patterns that support walking, biking, and transit instead of forcing every trip into a car, people can experience this for themselves. In addition, I also want more third places to show up in our communities um that we can just walk to as well. Whether that be cafes, small shops, libraries, or just gathering spaces, I want to be able to go there and see the people that I live by without having to get in the car. This plan doesn't build those spaces directly, but it does really help make them possible by supporting the mixeduse zoning and neighborhood scale businesses. This kind of growth helps build real communities when people can walk to places, they can run into their neighbors, they can support local businesses, and they can feel connected to where they live. This update moves Albuquerque in that direction, and I urge you to support it. Thank you very much. >> Laya Blazing Star followed by Jacob Miranda. >> Feeblecorn counselors. My name is Laya Blazing. I'm here speaking on behalf of the Near North Valley Neighborhood Association of which I'm a board member concerning changes to the safe outdoor spaces in 026-2. Our board members uh don't all come to the issue of homelessness in the same way, but we strongly agree that if a city is going to allow safe outdoor spaces, it should do so in a workable manner in such a way that people are provided a safe, secure place to be without overburdening the churches, nonprofits, and other organizations that are willing to provide these spaces. We support most of the proposed amendments to SOS approved by the EPC. We support allowing SOS permits to be extended every two years indefinitely so long as the spaces are in compliance. We support removing the current requirement for toilets, sinks, and showers to be outfitted with permanent plumbing, a burdensome and costly obstacle for wouldbe SOS providers. We support removing the requirement for 247 on-site support. However, we do not support the distinction that the proposed amendments would allow between large and small scale uh safe outdoor spaces in terms of on call support. Under the proposed amendment, as approved by EPC, smaller spaces would only be required to have an on call maintenance person available Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This seems negligent to us. bites, fires, frozen pipes, a lot can happen at any time and problems can happen at a smaller space just as easily as they can at a large shelter. As we asked the EPC, um, why should residents of small outdoor safe outdoor spaces and their neighbors get second rate care and attention? We strongly believe that all safe outdoor spaces, regardless of sides, should at least have on call support available 247. One more thing, there is no provision in the current SOS um ordinance nor in the proposed amendments that requires drinking water to be accessible. This is an oversight that we would urge you to address. Thank you, >> Jacob Miranda followed by Rian Samuel. >> Uh good evening, Chair Feeblecorn and counselors. Thank you for your consideration of this important update. Um, I'm here representing myself as a resident of Albuquerque in District 8 and a member of Generation Elevate New Mexico, a group dedicated to promoting growth in our city and state more widely. I want to express my support for the 2025 IDO update and its suite of changes with one select exception. I moved to Albuquerque just over three years ago directly out of college. I've grown to love this place. In conversations with friends uh many of whom who moved here from places like Chicago and Minneapolis, I've heard equal parts appreciation for the unique people uh character culture of the city and also gripes about different aspects of our built environments. Uh things like lack of walkability, difficulty getting around safely and easily and rising costs of housing and living to name just a few. I believe this update has the potential to urge our built environment in a positive direction, one that matches both the special history of Albuquerque and supports a bold vision for the future of our city where everyone enjoys opportunity, affordable living, and enriched quality of life in a beautiful uh connected and safe urban fabric by promoting a more diverse range of housing types in core urban areas and facilitating meaningful enhancements to our urban fabric through limiting unnecessary parking and increasing uh muchneeded grocery options. This update is an important step towards Albuquerquey's growth in a way that maintains our character, supports interconnectedness throughout the city, and unlocks opportunity for all of our neighbors. Uh, the one exception is actually about sidewalks and residential development. Uh, 5-3D1. Without gradual progress made to expanding our sidewalk network, our active transportation network won't be able to reach its full potential. Um, and in general, as somebody who wants to continue building their life in Albuquerque and seeing the city prosper and see other young people like myself grow and thrive here, I hope you'll support these forward-looking uh, changes. Thank you, >> Rian Samuel, followed by Lena Smid. >> Good evening, Chair Feebleorn and members of the committee. My name is Rian Samuel and I represent NOP New Mexico. We appreciate your service and thoughtful consideration of all of the amendments before you this evening and in the subsequent meetings you'll surely have. Um I sent a letter earlier today via email and as outlined in our letter, we fully support many of the proposed changes but remained concerned just about a few um that could unintentionally hinder infill development, delay investment or add costly and unnecessary barriers to the permitting process. Uh specifically, we oppose any um amendments that are in conflict with the city's stated goals um of density along centers and corridors as well as changes that reduce parking maximums, overregulate and complicate landscape or infrastructure requirements. We also would offer technical or we have offered in that letter technical revisions um for clarity and consistency in items related to platting and IAS. So, a lot of NEOP's feedback, as you've come to expect, over the years are very technical. Um, I'd really encourage you to look at the letter for the um details of which, but we remain committed to predictable, transparent zoning that supports responsible growth and reinvestment. So, thank you so much for your time and consideration. I'm always available if you have any questions or I can bring in technical experts at any point to help you in your um consideration of all the amendments ahead of you. Thank you. Lana Smiddle, followed by Petra Morris. Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm the director of the Homebuilders Association of Central New Mexico, and I would like to first thank you for your continued efforts on the Ido review and for your openness to the range of updates that support positive outcomes to housing. Um, we do support many of these proposed changes, including measures that can help reduce housing costs. We know we've heard a lot of people address that this evening. Some of these that we do support are some of the amendments on cottage developments, town homes, ADUs, duplexes, and the reduction of lot sizes. We all recognize that Albuquerque is facing a major housing crisis that must be addressed through a comprehensive, multiaceted approach. So, we appreciate the collaboration and shared commitment to advancing these meaningful solutions. Thank you, >> Petra Morris, followed by Meredith Paxton. >> Good evening, counselors. It's a pleasure to speak with you again uh this evening. Um I hope to be in person, but unfortunately caught a bit of a stomach bug and so decided to share just my thoughts and not my germs as well. Um I'm here this evening on two fronts. One is to express my support for uh the many changes before you in the red line um that support uh the getting miss the missing middle back into Albuquerque. There are a large number of changes in front of you this evening that will have a very big impact on improving uh the housing situation in Albuquerque. However, I would also like to draw your attention to um section four of the bill, the legislative conversions. Um I do not support these proposed changes and are concerned about them. You have a rather long email from me um in your inbox um that goes into it in a great deal of detail. Um I won't go through it all tonight on my in my two minutes but um broadly speaking these legislative conversions have not noticed the individual property owners. Um there is the potential to create a number of properties as non-conformance which have significant financial and legal impacts for the property owners. Um there is a loss of neighborhood protections and scale with some of these conversions and there is the potential for future financial impacts and non-conformances in um through future changes. Um in addition to the potential for a tax assessment increase, there was some mention that in the past uh there were not um increases in tax um assessments on properties, but the uh tax assessor has changed since those previous uh zone convers uh legislative conversions and so there is the potential for a different perspective. Um I am open to uh Oh, time's up. Thanks. >> Meredith Paxton followed by Jesse Harden. Spruce Park Neighborhood Association requests your do not pass vote. This ordinance applies a broad brush approach in inappropriate areas. The especially dis detrimental impacts to our n small neighborhood are because 70% of our homes are within the RML quarter mile distance of the Central Avenue art line and we are across University Boulevard from the UNM main campus. Our neighborhood consists of two historic districts. Spruce Park listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the New Mexico State Registry of Cultural Properties and Sigmakai Road on the State Registry. These homes have been lovingly maintained by owners owners who see themselves as stewards of an important part of Albuquerquekey's cultural heritage which the directives of the comprehensive plan would protect. About 40% of our dwelling units are already multifamily. Nevertheless, densifications that would become permissive by this a AIDO revision would make the existing structures obsolete because property values would shift to the land. Image one, please. The buildings could be replaced by apartments with no limits on their heights or the number of units. The impact could be similar to what happened during the 1969 upzoning of the neighborhood immediately south of the main campus. Those projects were so detrimental that the residents demanded and got down zoning. According to state law, the proposed legislative conversion of R1 to RTZ3 makes most of spruce spruce park vulnerable to tax lighting lightning. city procedures for land use changes that affect much smaller areas. Image two, please. Than those that would result from the current IDE revisions require notifications of nearby property owners. And state law 321-6 requires mailed notification to property owners when the affected area is larger than >> Thank you, Miss Paxton. Your time is up. James Harden, followed by Peggy Nef. Hello, my name is Jesse Harden and um pastor of New Creation Albuquerque and the operator of Safe Outdoor Space in the International District. Uh I just wanted to give comment. I can't claim to understand the comprehensive IDEO, but I want to speak to the aspects that speak to the SOS and reduce some of the burdens there. I think it would be wonderful and we would see more safe outdoor spaces if some of these burdensome restrictions were lowered. And I want to speak in support of those. I think I saw the most recent pit study or maybe 2024 2025 83% of those surveyed said they would uh be happy to be in a safe outdoor space. Um and I think we have a waiting list of about 50 people that are waiting to come into our safe outdoor space. So I encourage the adoption and uh reducing the restrictions on the SOS. Thank you very much. Have a great night. Sorry, Jesse. Thank you. Peggy F, followed by Oscar Simpson. >> Hello. Good evening, councilors. As an active neighborhood member for many years, I've come before this committee and council to address the inequities and the flawed processes of the annual IDO update. I sincerely oppose these IDEO amendments and I ask you to insist on revision of the update process. I've forwarded a spreadsheet where I applaud many things herein. I've addressed the terrible idea of having one person for recommending terminations of rightaways. I've addressed the legislation of privilege and the granting of unearned value in regard to sidewalks. I've pleaded the case for resisting reductions of open space requirements in our urban center. I've outlined how this is an arbitrary and capriccious process. I've attempted again to explain how necessary it is for you to have impact summaries in regard to the proposed housing changes in order to protect our most fragile community members from evictions and the need to provide safety nets for these folks. For this matter only, you should hold back any decision on these amendments. Even ask for an estimate of how many folks will face evictions. In this vein, I want to point out to you a few things for those who who claim the success of upzoning in Portland. Did you know that before enacting this type of legislation, Portland had a map layer in their GIS system that identified vacant and abandoned properties? They had a TV and mail campaign. They had TV and mail campaigns for notifications. They had housing changes that were notworked with another 100 plus issues. They had legislation written for community land trusts. They had neighborhood contacts that could explain things to their community members. They had incentives for affordable applicants. They had multiple bank and agencies standing ready with financial products for new homeowners and community-based investments in new constructions. We have none of this. We do not. But we do have outside investors standing ready to create market rentals and our communities fade. Please, I urge no vote. >> Nikil Ananda followed by Merritt Telly. I'm sorry, Oscar Simpson. Then Nikil. My my mistake. Thank you, sir. Oscar Simpson followed by Nikquille Ananda. Okay, we'll go to Nikil Lenda, followed by Oscar Simpson. >> Yeah, so uh my name is Nikil. Uh you know, I'm a District 4 voter. Uh but I wanted to share briefly that uh you know I grew up in a pretty small town in Washington state where uh you know I was very happy to have had access to a lot of the outdoors uh you know to uh things like garden space and parks and that kind of stuff. Uh, and I was very happy over the Christmas holidays to have uh been with my brother when uh after many many years living uh out of state uh he's finally looking to buy uh a residence for himself back in our hometown. uh and he's been able to uh in part because uh my hometown over the last few years has built uh has opened up the housing uh options to allow for things like duplexes, triplexes, uh so that somebody who's in the in the middle class going out of college like my brother uh can find a place to live that's both uh comfortable uh and in access of major amenities like a coffee shop within walking distance, a bike ride away from uh the trails, uh access to things like buses so that you don't have to drive all the time in traffic. Uh and I just think about how uh in Albuquerque where, you know, I I live right now, I'm very happy to live here. Uh, you know, I I constantly hear about people who grow up here and have to move uh out of state because uh there just aren't the kinds of housing options uh that work for them uh that that provide uh for a middle class uh kind of lifestyle uh at at the kind of incomes we're seeing uh in the economy today. Uh so I I very am in favor of the Ido amendments. I believe that these kind of options should be available to to folks here in Albuquerque just like they were for my brother uh in our hometown. Thank you. >> Oscar Simpson followed by Merritt Tully. >> Thank you very much. I'm Oscar Simpson. I live in District 2. I lived in Albuquerque at the I moved I lived in Albuquerque since 1952. So, I've seen significant changes throughout the city, expanded tremendously. My comment is this is tremendous amount of changes without a lot of public education and letting know the residents in New Mexico in Albuquerque what's really going to happen. So, when you when the IBO first chain started, they had significant public education and in information and public meetings. I highly recommend that you slow this process down and really identify and and educate the public on what's going to take place. Thank you very much. >> Merritt Tully followed by Charlotte Parsons. Chair Feebleorn counselors, good evening. I'm Meritt Tully here speaking for Near North Valley Neighborhood Association. and I'm the current president. My comments will focus on key housing amendments, but first I want to share our disappointment with the IDO update process itself. It's too fast. It's very, very complicated and too few people know about it. Our board asks that the city pause the process to at a minimum directly notify and educate property owners whose properties would be reszoned. That said, Near North Valley has long supported infield development, gentle increases in density and diversity in housing, including ADUs, and subsidize affordable housing. In keeping with that long-standing support, our board voted to support allowing duplexes and town homes, town houses in single family R1 zones citywide and ask that you support this as well. This is a fair way to increase housing incrementally and organically through the city. We appreciate your passing councelor Rogers amendment to keep R1 zoning titled as R1 zoning. The change was unnecessary and as councelor Rogers said has caused confusion. We also support the amendments that could increase ADUs, dormitories, and cottage developments and ask that you support these as well. On the other hand, we oppose the upzoning to higher density and commercial uses along major transit corridors and ask that you oppose the upzoning. We have many reasons. the lack of notice. It's too much change at once, contrary to the gradual change advocated by Strongtown's founder, Chuck Moran. It would create stark boundaries within existing residential blocks and be destabilizing. And based on the information from Matt's presentation earlier, it appears property taxes may increase. We will lose housing to commercial uses. Our existing commercial areas will be undermined, including at Avonu Plaza. and it's an unfair approach because it disproportionately affects certain areas of the city. Thank you for your consideration. >> Charlotte Parsons followed by Mike Vorhees. >> Hey there, uh, Madame Chair, council members, thanks for having me. My name is Charlotte Parsons. I'm a residential realtor with the Greater Albuquerque Association of Realtors. Uh I'm also an experienced housing policy and outreach adviser and I'm part of our government affairs committee within the association. Um I am here to talk about the fact that I've been working to find affordable housing options for our local community members for 10 years and the idea of a starter home is all but disappearing. Um first-time home buyers median age is now at an all-time high of 40 years of age. So affordability is crashing in a really scary way. Um I heard in a smart smart growth and sustainability course I took last week that the US is the only first world country that had the vast majority of our development occur after the invention of the automobile. That created a very carentric community which means uh it takes actual work and change to create a more walkable community oriented affordable city to live in which is what we're doing now. Um, I'm here tonight to speak in strong support of 0262, the changes to the IDO, uh, especially regarding duplexes, town homes, cassitas within existing neighborhoods, and in support of the Bedadega Tanda sections. Um, specifically duplexes. I thought this would be passed by now. I can't believe it hasn't, but I will say I think it's really important that we normalize converting existing structures into duplexes to create extra income for working families. Um, I think that we are, it's hard to qualify some people and if they had the extra income of the rental income of half of the duplex, we could actually qualify them and get them into a starter home, creating an investment for them later to be able to um buy a second home and be uh landlords. And it also expands housing options. As many have said, it creates that missing middle, meets the diverse needs of families, seniors, smaller households. Thank you so much uh for everything. >> Mike Vorhees followed by Oyama Umi. >> I live in a multigenerational home and share a vision for Albuquerque to become affordable for its people. These amendments will do the opposite. Staff have not had time to describe each of the amendments in this massive proposal. Even the so-called highlights glossed over significant issues and impacts. Creative euphemisms in zone change wording does not change the substance. Staff seems to be recommending for this to move forward on the hope that the county assessor will violate state law. Fingers crossed. Staff failed to mention section 736 21.3 the impact to low-income seniors and disabled. 15,000 households who could see jumps to their property assessment of between 26 and 89%. These amendments staff describe technical changes as lessons learned from lawsuits. It seems to be the opposite. Rather than the city not doing the illegal thing, they are recommending legalizing the violations where the courts ruled against the city. That is the opposite of learning a lesson. Even if many proposed changes were actually good ideas, each should have its own hearing. individual property owner notice and time for the public to discuss the complexities and nuances so that unintended consequences and impacts were well understood by counselors. Lumping them together is bad process, a violation of state law, and will lead to bad policy. Many of these will make Albuquerque less affordable, and much of this push ignores the strains this will place on our limited water. The prognosticated need for 30,000 homes cited is based upon a non-existent growth rate with that would double Albuquerque in 35 years when the city's population is actually leveled off. Proposals should be based on actual real world data. Two to four amendments every four years is typical for a city. 12 is unusual. 100 per year is absurd. 150 is insane. You want to improve livability and affordability? Consider amendments individually. Encourage participation. Look at real data and let them stand or fall on their merits, not buzzwords, labels, or a mischaracterized emergency. Thanks. Oamba umi followed by Andrew Bride. >> Good evening, members of the committee chair. My name is Otamba. I'm the associate state director for advocacy and outreach for AARP New Mexico. We certainly appreciate the city's efforts to uh expand housing choices and support thoughtful uh and inclusive growth. Uh we think that expanding then allowing these additional housing options such as duplexes, town homes, etc. uh can certainly help meet an a growing need for smaller and more affordable living situations, especially for those who are on fixed incomes. Uh older adults who also desire to age in place um where they want to stay closer to their families. um be in their communities. Um and we think that this housing can sort of fill uh multiple roles. Uh take for example um older adults who may want to downsize to smaller houses or maybe our aging parents um who need to live uh you know in smaller places or close to us instead of costly nursing homes. Um also living quarters for caregivers be be they family or or someone else. This all allows uh individuals to preserve their autonomy, make their own choices and also help them save money uh for theel themselves and their families. Another thing is that Albuquerque is a member of ARP's network of age friendly states and communities. Um, we believe that the city of Albuquerque is well positioned uh to provide housing that offers walkability options um that are close to schools, jobs, uh medical services and resources and other amenities and will in turn benefit generations to come. We thank you for your service and time and ask you to support these amendments. Thank you. >> Andrew Bride followed by David Cedaka. >> Hello madam chair and counselors. My name is Andrew Bride and I am speaking on behalf of Strong Towns Albuquerque in support of the proposed amendments. We collected over 300 comments from Albuquerque representing all of our city zip codes. This diversity of support from our community reflects the diversity of benefits present in the proposed amendments to the IDO. Namely, these comments speak to and we support measures that legalize gentle density, including duplexes, cottage courts, and town homes, commercial to residential reuse and cooperative conversions, reduction of parking minimums, and gradual adjustments to building flexibility that support easier construction for casitas and other small developments. Cuminively, these will help address our critical shortage of homes, providing missing types of homes that speak to the diversity lived circumstances of our neighbors and also allow business people within our community to do the work and concentrate that wealth within the community. We also support provisions allowing tantas, family daycarees, small shelters, and safe outdoor spaces that will add economic resiliency, vibrancy, and safety to our communities. Humanly, these amendments will support a more fiscally sustainable, affordable, and family-friendly Albuquerque for all of our neighbors. I will briefly speak personally. Uh, as a student at UN M, I know myself and many of my peers are scared. We are nervous for a future in which we will not have affordable housing options in the city. And if we are lucky enough to find something that is affordable, it may not fit the circumstances we need at a dynamic time in our lives. I hope that the council will consider students, young professionals, and recent graduates and the dynamic needs that they have in their life so that they can continue giving back to the city that has given so much to them in their education. Thank you for your time and your consideration. >> David C. Debbaca. >> Good evening, chair and committee members. I'm David Cabbaka and I was born and raised in Albuquerque and I'm in support of the Ido amendments regarding more housing types and neighborhood businesses or tendas. Firsthand, I've seen the housing crisis manifest in my own community and the problems my neighbors are facing, such as my grandmother and her neighbors being afraid of losing their home due to increasing rents and fees like the manufactured homes in Albuquerque Meadows. My former classmates not as willing to stay or move here. Uh older neighbors hear complaining of empty streets where there aren't they they they don't hear as many kids out as they used to. Um more forced car traffic as people live further from destinations than each other and people like me living here just off of San Antonio Drive and my sister in Hing Highlands in our 20s. Still living with our relatives and not being able to easily achieve more more independent living. All while prices keep raising and uh services and older businesses decline. A lot of these post-war built neighborhoods were initially built on policies of exclusion and individualism, which also excludes the needs of our broader community. And as someone who grew up Catholic, doesn't seem very Christlike. Not only does amendments like 22 262 allow the housing where people want to live in the types of housing that's in demand to be built, but it relieves the depressure of demand from their neighborhood regardless if it's deemed affordable or not and allows others to uh uh to of all walks of life that I described to move in or stay and gives them more living choices. Uh most of these most of the housing crisis as you know and gentrification is caused by the limiting of free market and induced scarcity through things like these uh zoning policies and uh uh it's addressed from changes like it's sorry uh but yeah no as someone who lives in district 4 me and my community support these amendments and um you know any hypothetical that can situation that might come from them isn't as that is increasing homelessness or poverty of of the working class. So, thank you for having me tonight. >> Madam Chair, that concludes comments. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Cornelius. Um, and I want to thank everybody that came out. Um, no matter how you feel about this bill, I think it's important to remember that everybody has a right to their own opinion. I understand that there was some really unacceptable um, comments made in the audience during that. And I just I want to say that we have security here. We always have security here and anybody that feels at all unsafe given those comments that were made, please stick by stick around afterwards. We will get you a walk out to your car. Um, and again, shameful that people do not feel safe to come to city council and make comments no matter which side of the issue they are on. Um, all right, we're going to move on to um any questions from counselors. All right. Well, I have a few. Um, so, um, sorry. Um, these are mostly for Mr. Cox, I think, but um I just wanted there were a couple of things that came up today in conversations and um things that were mentioned tonight that I just want to make sure we get straightened out so that we all have the same understanding of what's before us because you know this came through a process and just came to council. So this is the very first hearing. Um, one of the things that was mentioned is that um, there was some opposition to change to neighborhood edges um, in the proposal before us. I do not see any changes to neighborhood edges. And so I just wanted to clarify um, what if any changes are in the proposal that's before us to those neighborhood edges. >> Sure. um chair committee. Um there was at one point prior to submittal to the EPC a proposed change to neighborhood edges um but due to public um disappointment in the change. uh it was not uh added to the EPC packet and basically there is some small clarifying language within the neighborhood edge section that says um kind of clarifies that uh entitlements that come with centers and corridors do not um affect neighborhood edge apart from the existing um 50-foot reduction within urban centers um premium transit and Main Street corridors, but no no other change, just clarifying language that um seemed to uh create some more comfort within the public. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. For folks that were concerned about that issue um and you've you see a different interpretation of anything, please just reach out via email to my office and we will connect you with Mr. Cox and we'll we'll get to the bottom of that because I don't I don't see any changes. So, just wanted to clarify that. Um, one of the other, um, emails that we got a lot today, um, Mr. Cox, was that there's a a substantive change to cumulative impacts requirements and can you talk us through what is actually in the proposal that's before us? >> Um, sure. So, chair committee, um, basically we have we have two regulatory documents around design. Uh, one being the IDO, one being the development process manual and the DPM. Um, and what was removed out of cumulative impacts was reference to DPM and any uh requirements that could live under there for traffic scoping. And basically the whole point of that was to untangle the IDO and the DPM from each other because it is um assumed in the near future hopefully that the DPM is opened and will live on its own as a document rather than them interacting together. Um I believe I got that. >> Okay. >> Miss, would you like to come down and help us clarify just so folks understand exactly what is in the proposal before us? >> Sure. Thank you, chair counselors. The way that I would phrase that is that the DPM and the IDO are compliment suddenly I'm loud. Uh are complimentary not in conflict. And so the language that's shifted in the IDO just defers to what's in the DPM. So if you meet the traffic thresholds that you need to do a traffic impact analysis, you do one per the DPM. If you don't meet those thresholds, you don't have to do it. Um the language in the IDO made that unclear. The language that's proposed is meant to make it crystal clear that what what the DPM says goes. If you need to do a traffic analysis, you do. Thank you for that clarification. Again, if folks are still concerned about that or have any, you know, different interpretations, please reach out and we will connect you with the experts so we can get all on the same page. Um, and while you're up here, Miss VWor, I um [clears throat] I'm so sorry I'm um very ill this evening, but um one of the question or one of the comments we heard a lot tonight was just that the process has been really fast. Can you just walk us through the timeline and um all the meetings that you've held on this process? >> Sure. The process for the public began in July. So um in July and August we had a series of public meetings and those built like a snowball. Um so I I will I will freely admit it is hard to tell 550,000 people what's happening. Um you all know it's also a struggle to to make sure everybody knows everything. Um, but we kept those meetings happening through July and August so that we did catch people as they heard more. That was all before we submitted to the planning commission. As Matt said, we made adjustments based on what we heard. Uh, then we submitted to the planning commission in September and then held meetings again in October prior to the hearing before EPC so that people could ask questions, um, discuss the amendments, you know, without a two-minute time limit. um hopefully uh interacting with staff and certainly um went to any um meetings where we were asked to go and give uh updates or explanations. Uh then the hearing process uh one hearing at EPC in uh November uh and a second hearing oh study sessions too but uh thank you one hearing in um October and then one in November. Um and since then we've um also responded to any requests to go out and explain things and happy to still continue to do that. Of course, we like taking uh Matt with us so that we've got um everybody on the same page in terms of what's going on. >> Thank you for that clarification. Um any other questions or comments from counselors? All right, with that and we said at the beginning we were going to defer this, so I move a deferral to the January 28th LUPS meeting. >> Second. >> Seconded by councelor Grout. All those in favor raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Any opposition? Seeing none, that is deferred. And seeing no further business, this LUPS meeting is adjourned. And if anybody does want a walk to their car, please, there's security um throughout the back. Please um take advantage of that. And I apologize. [music] [music] >> [music]