[Music] so [Music] [Music] [Music] good evening everyone this is the march 30th 22 2022 meeting of the lups committee welcome everyone who has been willing to wait for so long to see us on tv and all together we'll try to be in our best behavior which is very difficult for some of my fellow counselors but we'll do the best we can i call this meeting to order is the land use planning and zoning committee of the city council all committee members are present today would you please stand for the pledge of allegiance the pledge of allegiance in english will be led by councillor sanchez and the pledge of allegiance in spanish will be read by councillor clarissa pena thank you thank you all this meeting is being held in the vincent e griego chambers and public participation is via zoom members of the public city staff and the media have the ability to view this meeting live through youtube and zoom webinar the live stream can be accessed from both smartphones tablets or computers for those watching on the live stream thank you for joining us written comments were received for today's meeting and were provided to counselors members of the public have the opportunity to address the committee if they signed up for live public comment for the rules published on the agenda and on our website friday i'm sorry i also forgot to mention that we are on zoom in case someone missed that if you are watching the youtube live feed for this meeting please mute or turn it off when you are called upon to speak we will call for the speakers when we get to the individual agenda item they signed up for so here are the general public comment ground rules comments are to be addressed to the committee members only each participant has two minutes to present please keep your comments germaine to the topics on the agenda and any disruptive conduct will result in removal from the zoom meeting room there will be a two minute time limit when you are called upon to speak the timer will start once you begin speaking then the zoom moderator mr moya will let you know when your time is up we will now go to public comment mr moya madam chair i think you need to swear in some individuals that are signed up for uh public comment on a portion of these okay thank you would everyone there's no one present so do all of you swear to tell the truth yes thank you madam chair the the swearing-in is for the public commenters who wish to speak to the cannabis regulations in old town i would suggest that we let mr moya move those folks into the zoom room um and then uh i believe it's scripted for you to ask them to raise their hand and swear in um and we can proceed with public comment thank you so much mr moya adam chair there uh both the speakers are in the zoom room so if you can just read the swearing in on your script thank you please i don't have it on my script but do you do you do you swear to tell the truth thank you thank you okay our first speaker is sylvia ramos cruz your two minutes will begin when he starts speaking thank you very i'm a property much and resident of old town i have previously submitted testimony in support of the cannabis related amendments outlined in the ideal for the old town hp zone as you know old town occupies an area of less than a mile or about ten city blocks though timing some have called this area the heart of albuquerque as it calls its history it was founded in 1706 as mediaville in a pattern similar to all towns built by hispanics around the world homes and businesses spreading out along the narrow streets and alleys from a plaza tower going to church it became old time when the settlement developed around the railroad that reached albuquerque in 1880 in country distinction this new settlement that is called newtown i fully the demands of states and cities have to be financially self-supporting and successful this means foreign i am concerned that in the search for revenue and preserving the unique character of this village allowing canada will do nothing to enhance the quality of life for its residents those who work here or the tourists and families who have to learn about history and blizzard over a 300 year old church furthermore i believe it will accelerate the pace and which is the demise of the thank you very much thank you our next speaker is jesse ehrenberg jesse your two minutes will begin when you start speaking thank you very much and the importance of maintaining it both as a historical and a tourist location as they say in business image is everywhere and the old town has already suffered from businesses moving in with a very different vision on how it should be commercialized and what it should look like as regards cannabis sales i have heard two main points first the fact that several new businesses have moved in selling alcohol and therefore if we were talking about an ordinary business district or a shopping center there they could develop yourself cannabis discount or put in a dollar store but at all times is not ordinary it and is why it's albuquerque's main tourist destination a place where parents can feel comfortable between their children and family so for all these reasons i revealed the sale thank you madam chair will now move on to public speakers that signed up for general citywide changes and our first speaker is rhiannon samuel rhiannon your two minutes will begin when you start speaking thank julian thank you mr chair and members of the committee my name is rhiannon samuel and i'm representing the commercial real estate development association for the city i want to speak in support of 8 11 and 8 10 both of which um um of supportive resources and services provided to residents now this really if somebody has thank you our next speaker is bradley day bradley please feel free turn our video on and your two minutes will begin when you start speaking bradley day are you are you there there you go yes please proceed um is in addition homeless people who um like and that is is thank you our next speaker is martin baca martin your two minutes will begin when you start speaking good for evening 20 years my understanding is is and our customer rates that uses our facilities at night for example construction companies customers employees and citizens thank you our next speaker is peter kalitzus peter your two minutes will begin when he starts speaking yes please proceed peter institutions on pages is religious organizations to be excluded the way this is written private and purple corporations these facilities and land um would be permitted of thank you our next speaker is michael buck michael your two minutes will begin when you start speaking hi my name is is thank you our next speaker is avery volkman avery your two minutes will begin when you start speaking um is is trying to accomplish is as it is uh thank you our next speaker is jane beckel jane you're two minutes to begin when you start speaking um thank you our next speaker is michael brasher michael your two minutes will begin when you start speaking is over the years we do not believe changes it's substantive um and thank you very much thank you our next speaker is guillaume curley gillam your two minutes will begin when he starts speaking thank you uh is futures mental health issues um is thank you very much thank you your time is up thank you our next speaker is patricia wilson patricia your two minutes will begin when you start speaking is and businesses is in the southwest have been paying attention thank you our next speaker is leslie padilla leslie your two minutes will begin when you start speaking leslie you are muted um where um um um um thank you our next speaker is peggy neff peggy your two minutes will begin when he starts speaking [Music] there is a difference between is is has created a house humanity should be involved is thank you peggy thank you your time is up our next speaker is sandra parea sandra your two minutes will begin when you start speaking i'm sorry can you repeat that oh okay all right rachel we'll we'll hear from you next uh please feel free to turn your video back on and your two minutes will begin when you start you madam speaking for the opportunity to speak i support the comments of mr california written comments that were submitted my name i'm the president of the is neighborhood association the residents of our neighborhood we have developed an alliance with the neighborhood associations over the past two years and now the development of an operation plan for the proposed gateway it has been a trial by fire as we have had to pull ourselves to keep them from being concentrated we support the epc's recommendation that um this process thank you rachel thank you your time is up our next speaker is sandra pereira your two minutes will begin when you start speaking uh association and the written testimony this is thank you madam chair that'll conclude public comments thank you mr moya and thank you all next we're going to agenda item a counselor benton thank you madam chair uh agenda item a is oh 10 this is sponsored by myself and yourself adopting the city-wide text amendments to the integrated development ordinance 14-16 for the 2021 ido annual update and adopting text amendments for a small mapped area the old town historic protection overlay zone hpo5 i move a do pass i'll second then and counselors at this point oh at this point we will begin with some a presentation on this legislation by city staff thank you thank you madam chair at this point you do need to swear in any city staff who will be speaking to this item because of the quasi-judicial nature of the changes to old town thank you would any city staff that is planning on talking to this please raise your right hand thank you city staff do you promise to tell the truth i do thank you okay counselors hello um this is the second land use planning and zoning committee hearing on the proposed changes to the integrated development ordinance for the 2021 ideo annual update the beginning of my presentation will look very similar to the presentation you saw two weeks ago we will then move into some individual slides on the 20 amendments before you after i give a brief overview of an amendment i will pause the committee can deliberate and if if the sponsor so chooses they might move that amendment but we'll take them one one at a time if that's the pleasure of the committee uh so here is an update of our a timeline of the update so far um in september of 2021 uh all the amendments were distributed to the public for their review these are the amendments that the planning department had compiled since the last update over the summer during the fall to propose to the epc later on in the winter in october of 2021 the department held public meetings and open houses to discuss those amendments they invited members of the public to give their input on the proposal at hand that would be heading to epc take feedback hear about new amendments really try to engage with the public on what was going to be proposed in december of 2021 the environmental planning commission or the epc held their first and only hearing on the matter they unanimously ended up recommending approval to the city council in february the planning department transmitted the packet over to the city council for introduction through the regular process that leads us to march of 2022 where we are now in the land use planning and zoning committee process where the subcommittee of the council first hears the proposed changes might pose their new amendments before recommending up to the full council action on the item um at some point in the future the council the full council will consider any amendments you might pass tonight or at a future lapse hearing and will have an opportunity to amend the bill as well worth noting is that the epc heard two separate applications at their december hearing excuse me one was for proposed changes to the old town historic protection overlay zone that's hp05 related to some proposed cannabis regulations you've heard public comment about that today the second application um is a legislative action and applies citywide and proposes more general changes to the to the documents we'll hear you've heard public comments on both the citywide and the hpo5 amendments public comment received since the epc made their decision in december is listed on this slide at your last hearing you heard from about 19 members of the public who spoke about a variety of topics tonight i think you heard from about 17 or 18 folks as well and in your ipads you will have about 41 written comments that have been collected from both the march 16th hearing and tonight's march 30th hearing um i've listed the topics that folks commented on and it's nearly every amendment that the council is proposing tonight with the exception of a few i will quickly review the proposed changes to old town this is the the quasi-judicial portion of the packet that proposes to implement some regulations for cannabis uses in the area the map that i'm showing on the screen is the hpo5 boundary and the proposal before you tonight is to prohibit cannabis any type of cannabis retail cannabis cultivation or cannabis derived products manufacturing within that area generally the epc received comments of support for that proposal and they did unanimously recommend to the city council that that proposal be approved moving on to the city-wide regulations counselors here's where we will get into the individual amendments that have been sponsored those are listed a 1 through a 20. members of the public will note that the packets they're likely viewing go to a17 there were some last minute amendments posed this afternoon that are posted on the abc dash zone website if those members of the public would like to follow along they can go to that website to access the newest packet that came out around four o'clock today okay amendment a1 um this amendment is not going to be moved by the sponsor this related to additional regulations for car sell surf car wash establishments you heard public comment about this today um staff has heard from members of apd that this amendment is not needed uh to accomplish what we were hoping to accomplish to address trespassing on these um establishments and and if we don't need to have regulations in our zoning code there's no need to move the amendment um counselors are there any questions about an amendment that will not be moved okay okay amendment a2 this amendment proposes to allow a kind of special procedure for the conversion of non-residential uses to residential uses i'd like to be clear about something that is maybe not clear in the packet non-residential uses can be a variety of things i think generally and at the last meeting we talked a lot about hotels and motels however non-residential uses is more than just hotels or motels that could be office spaces it could be warehouses it could be industrial areas i know the narrative has primarily focused on hotels and motels but the way the amendment is written it would cover all non-residential uses i'd like to be clear about that so the council can be clear about what they might be adopting the purpose of this amendment would be to allow the conversion of a non-residential use to a residential use to provide a lesser kitchen today in the ideo the there's a pretty explicit definition for what a kitchen has to require that would be a sink of adequate size to wash hands or dishes and a full oven range or stove this amendment would allow a hot plate or a microwave in lieu of that full oven range or stove and i believe that we have representatives from the department of family and community services here who initially asked for this amendment if there are questions from the committee about the purpose of the amendment how the department expects this amendment to kind of play out in the real world i would invite the committee to to ask those members to come down to speak counselors are there any questions counselors give us just a second thank you thank you and madam chair i will note that you have three competing amendments in your packet for this for this topic um there was originally one proposal at the march 15th leps hearing and and uh staff has been given direction to draft three kind of different versions of this idea not all three of these ideas can be adopted they would be in conflict with each other so i would be happy to describe the difference and at some point the council will need to determine which version they would like to adopt thank you mr c councillor sanchez did you have a question thank you madam chair i was just sitting here thinking if we have three different versions maybe we should make a motion motion to uh for this one um so we can actually work it through a little better madam chair if there's interest in not taking action on any particular amendment tonight that would not necessarily require a motion to defer uh and you would just not move to adopt that amendment when we're ready to defer the whole bill will need to be deferred but individual amendments do not need to be deferred if there is not a motion on the floor councilor sanchez i'd like to look at it further maybe have more discussion in reference to all these that way we can maybe come together make a better decision thank you counselor benton yes i'd like to hear the difference between the three before we do anything or not do anything madam chair counselor benton sure i've outlined the the kind of highlights on the slide here for you there's one the original requirement as the proposal was first submitted required that these projects these conversions of non-residential uses to residential uses could only implement the lesser kitchen requirement if they were associated with funding from the department of family and community services that is to say that there would be some kind of affordable housing dollars associated with the project to maintain the affordable housing elements um to the project so option one still requires that that that partnership with the city uh stay intact but it would limit the occupancy of the units based on the number of bedrooms and i believe in the amendment it would limit the occupancy to one person for an efficiency unit two people for a one bedroom unit and four people for a two bedroom unit option 2 has all the same base requirements as the bill as it as it was proposed on march 15th but it would strike the requirement that city funding be associated with the project this would allow any developer to take a non-residential use and convert it to a residential use with the lesser kitchen requirement without the use of any kind of city funding or affordable housing dollars option three again would still require the city funding be intact but would require that full kitchens be installed within two years of that residential use receiving its certificate of occupancy so that's that's to say that they they would get a pass for a lesser kitchen for two years but after that two year mark they would need to install full kitchens these are three different approaches to the same idea and staff would really appreciate any kind of deliberation or direction on which which option the council might want to go with sure yes um miss schultz so um i was involved in option one discussing that and the issue of number of bedrooms um so essentially with a total occupancy of four if i understood that correctly you still would not have to have a full kitchen madam chair councillor benson um the occupancy is not related to the lesser kitchen requirement the the lesser kitchens could be required or could be are allowed no matter the occupancy this just dictates how big the units are would determine how many people can stay in those units oh so that's separate from the kitchen issue madam chair counselor benton yes that's true and i believe staff is asking you to move a little bit closer to your microphone okay well yeah the the uh i think the issue here is is you know when we go beyond one or two people in one of these dwelling units i mean the likelihood that somebody needs to actually prepare food for someone else or for themselves in the unit does increase and i'm i'm concerned about doing essentially two bedroom apartments that that could sleep numerous people um and uh not having an actual kitchen essentially being reliant on on a hot plate or something like that or a uh microwave so um you know i think in these emergency situations where the department of family community services has involved them i think we can kind of keep a grip on on that situation as far as what's developed uh through just administratively through the the city and its administration but i do i am concerned about uh broadening this and i think um you know there's some basic housing code requirements that we ought to be looking at as well we talked about that the housing code is separate from the ido but uh but it's relevant here um so you know i think this is an important discussion i do want to facilitate these motel conversions but i start to get concerned we start talking about two and three bedroom apartments numerous people in them and being reliant on a hot plate or a microwave for for your food preparation counselors any other questions yes madam chair i have a couple of um things on this i kind of worked with this extensively with some of the folks that went in to my office and we talked a little bit about it and i have some questions about receiving funding through the city of albuquerque department of family and community services in reference to these units and the questions i have is are we just limiting to um funding through the city of albuquerque is this going to be or can this be a private in denver and the funding where's the funding coming from i also wanted to know is this going to just be um conver conversions only or also uh and not new builds what are we looking at here madam chair counselor sanchez i i might ask someone from the department to come down and ask answer your questions specific to the funding but i can go ahead and answer your second question which was about is this only relevant to conversions or could new construction take advantage of the lesser kitchen requirements and the way the amendment is written it would have to be an existing non-residential use i.e an existing building who could take advantage of what this would allow so a new build would not be allowed to do this okay and then the other question that i had in reference to that is i basically feel that it's more important to have a refrigerator and nowadays you can actually get by with a with a hot plate a microwave and probably an air fryer but i think a refrigerator is probably a little bit more important and probably should be provided maybe some sort of trade-off there so i think there's quite a bit more discussion that we need to do on in reference to this madam chair counselor sanchez there is a requirement in the amendment that a refrigerator must be provided so that that is an existing requirement um but i will defer to the folks at the department of family and community services to answer your questions about funding okay thank you thank you mr obama madam chair counselor thank you for joining us and helping yes thank you thanks for having me here um so our the funding sources that the department of family and community services currently has available for these types of projects are hud dollars specifically hud home dollars and also hud community development block grant dollars could be used for this and we have our local workforce housing trust fund dollars we are typically what we do is we contract with a local nonprofit developer with these dollars to develop affordable housing so the city typically doesn't do the project ourselves we contract with a local developer nonprofit developer to construct or acquire and rehab uh affordable units okay and i'm you at this is it private or just the city can provide it the city though so i think councillor santos you're asking about option number one the way that is worded is it would be limited to projects that receive funding through the department of family and community services so the projects would be completed by a private entity by a non-profit developer but in order to be eligible for this exemption they would have to receive funding through public funding through the department of family and community services okay already i gotcha thank you thank you thank you are there any other questions um mr paul i think i've i've heard some questions about the number of occupants in the different size units yes and i don't have a copy of that amendment that talks about the occupancy standards um i think we i there was some discussion about this that i had with uh one of the counselors about just wanting to make sure that there was an appropriate number of people living in the unit depending on the unit size so if it's an efficiency apartment you know we'd want to make sure there's not three people living in that unit so setting some occupancy standards would be a reasonable way to go about that and also in line like the albuquerque housing authority has occupancy standards this is a standard way of making sure there's appropriate number of people living in a unit and and may i assume that you will give to us a briefing on some of this when it comes before full council so we can ask the questions and get specific answers on these absolutely i would be happy to do that thank you ma'am yes councilor sanchez um madam chair thank you miss got another question in reference this is looks like option two and number four states an agreement providing a minimum of 40 hours of support services will be provided to residents um and shall be provided rep oh gosh let me read that again an agreement providing that a minimum of 40 hours of support services will be provided to residents shall be provided with application materials so [Music] i don't understand that what kind of services are going to be provided who pays for the services how long will those services take to get taken care of [Music] those are some of the questions i have i it doesn't say anything about where the services or the funding for the services come from madam chair councillor sanchez thank you for that question i know this was language that was added to the second version of the amendment so i can give you my interpretation of of how i read this um in in my mind this would be essentially requiring someone to be on site at least 40 hours a week to provide a basic level of service coordination to the residents living at the property so for example if someone was having trouble had run out of money and couldn't buy food or they were having a mental health crisis or they were having trouble paying their rent this would be a person that they could go to on-site to say i'm struggling i need some help also the on-site service coordinator could kind of keep an eye on folks too if they didn't see a resident for a couple days they could kind of check on them make sure that they were okay that was i think that that's how i interpret this although i understand that and it's not written exactly that way um how and i i think it would be on the um developer the owner of the property to figure out how to how to fund that those services okay just curious how the if is the developer going to want to jump into that kind of obligation and so there's still a lot of questions to be answered in reference to that amendment uh madam chair councillor sanchez i mean i don't i don't know if there's a lot of developers that will want to take on that obligation i think our non-profit developers that provide affordable housing to low and moderate income folks some of those developers do provide on-site service coordinators at their property for so for them this is not a totally unusual model um but for other for-profit developers or just regular landlords or owners of these buildings this would be you know i'm not sure what the interest will be in doing this and 40 hours of service who determines when the 40 hours is over and i'm just curious as to um where the providers come from the city as well is that where they come from and that's who's paying for them we are madam chair councillor sanchez um the requirement in the amendment is that just the agreement be provided to the planning department at the time that the application comes through to do this conversion so the department would not necessarily be you know going out and seeing who's on the clock are they on the clock for 38 hours a week for 42 hours a week we're asking for the agreement where the property owner is committing to this okay it's just i just have a lot of questions in reference to that that section it's very very vague and i think we need to look at that a little bit more thank you counselor counselor pena and then council fevercorn madam chair i think we go back to what we were talking about initially is just i'm hearing these amendments later so we have an opportunity to talk to the staff to talk to other counselors to see if we can all um kind of get to on the same page i know um this is permanent housing so we just have to make sure that we do our due diligence to make sure that we're just not warehousing people and then if there's a potential for family members to be um with young children to be housed in these um um hotel rooms that we make sure that we're providing the services needed and to ensure that they're able to have access to good meals in terms of preparation and not just fast food and you know microwave items so that's all i had to add madam chair thank you thank you counselor and counselor phoebecoin thank you madam chair i just wanted to respond to councillor sanchez's question i think it's important to remember that this was supposed to be um somewhat transitional housing right it's not that we're putting people in these places for ever it's a step above um where they are maybe likely coming from and the reason that amendment 2 was put in there that has that requirement for services to be provided if it's developed by a developer is because we heard at the last lups meeting from quite a few developers that they were interested in doing this kind of project and so i wanted to open it up to allow that to be done by the by the by the market rather than by the city but i want to make sure that if we're doing that that the people living in these units still get the services that we were going to be providing if it was a city project and so that was the point of having the services requirement if a developer does this project so i'm open to the conversation i'd really like to have further conversations on it but that's the rationale behind at least that part of option two thank you counselor and i believe our intent tonight is to listen to all of this and ask questions as we we like but we'll probably hear most of this again for full counsel um madam chair that's the purview of the committee that you are welcome to move and vote on any amendments you choose tonight if there are some that aren't ready i would probably encourage you to not move on those um but you have the option to either keep this in the lups committee for another hearing if you feel like some of these need to be massaged by by the the smaller version of the council first or you also have the option to move the bill out tonight as well thank you miss shelton i know you have more to talk about are there any other questions on these particular uh top three options here yes counselor pena so just for clarification i know council counselor people corn just stated that it was for transitional but i was of the understanding that this is for permanent housing madam chair counselor pena i might ask the department um who initially drafted the original version of this amendment to kind of talk about their intentions about transitional verse permanent housing okay thank you madam chair uh counselor pena thank you yes this is permanent housing um i think we that the idea is this is folks can live in this housing it's a it's an apartment that they'll rent they can live there as long as they want to i think our hope um an expectation is that folks who are living there you know the opportunity to live in a safe and stable place will allow them to take care of themselves and become more stable and over time hopefully folks will move on to other types of permanent housing as well as well but there won't be a time limit on how long folks can stay thank you thank you miss havel and madam chairs so if i could just add to that um hence kind of why i really want us to make sure that we do our due diligence if this is going to be considered permanent housing that we make sure that we have the wrap around services and you know access to um nutritious meals for for kids and and that being not just the microwave so thank you thank you counselor counselor sanchez did you have another question yeah i'd be happy to actually table this for a while and and get together with everybody so we can make sure that we're doing the right thing for the folks that are in there thanks your counselor sanchez and i think we're going to hear the rest of the presentation and and uh miss schultz is very seems to be very amenable to our interrupting her and asking questions whenever we want so uh this is a good time to to forage out some of the questions that we might have and then expand on them again thank you michele if you'd like to continue thank you madam chair and thank you counselors for the discussion on on a2 i know that's a complicated one and you've given us a lot to think about as staff and we will certainly be in touch before the next meeting whether that's lapse or full counsel to see what we can do for you in terms of an amendment okay with that said we will move on to amendment a3 amendment a3 proposes to amend the calculation for cottage developments sorry i'm getting to that page in my packet today when you want to develop cottage development you have to do a semi-complicated formula and the ido today directs you to either round up or round down at a certain point in that formula council staff did some research on on the adoption of the ido and when cottage development came to be in the document and the council adopted no such direction to round up or round down um that was kind of an administrative direction the planning department took uh to specify that there was going to be rounding in that equation this amendment proposes to delete the requirement to round to say that you can use fractions of numbers in that calculation which still comes out to a completely acceptable end result to determine how much square footage of a building you can have on a lot in cottage developments and counselors if they're i'm happy to answer questions about this but um this is also an opportunity to move and vote on amendments if if the committee is feeling that there aren't questions um or if they're comfortable with with the amendment thank you miss schultz and counselors if you would like to would you if you'd like to make a motion to vote on this one on the uh a3 we certainly can at this meeting i'm sure do we usually move the entire bill forward without the voting on the amendments we don't do we i'm getting i'm getting myself we have to vote on each amendment and some of the amendments are going to be moved on to full council without without okay well i'd make a motion to um for um committee amendment number three counselors any comments there's a motion and a second for committee amendment number three madam chair just to be clear this is committee amendment one a3 sorry for the confusion on the two different numbering systems but this is the first committee amendment great are we ready to vote on that if no one has any comments all right there's a motion in a second all those in favor say yes yes please chance because they have to take account yes opposed the motion carries unanimously great thank you thank you we will move on to amendment a4 which is also related to cottage development this amendment proposes to allow again talking about that formula that a property owner uses to determine how much square footage of building they can they can have in cottage development in the r1d lot which is our largest r1 lot there is a b c and d those get progressively larger from a to d r 1 d is the largest lot this proposes to add a special kind of provision for the r1d lot that you can do a multiplier of 2600 which would be different than the multiplier you would be able to do in r1 a b and c to acknowledge that the r1d lots as they are the biggest in the city may be able to accommodate more building square footage thank you are there any questions on this one no i'm madam chad i'd like to make a motion to for committee amendment number two approval there is in a second i'll second that there's a motion in a second for committee a four right madam chair committee amendment two commandment two item a4 all right all those in favor please raise your hand and say aye aye opposed motion carries unanimously thank you counselors we will move on to lep's amendment labeled a5 this is a kind of bundle of changes to cannabis provisions in the ido if you'll recall last year doing during the ideo annual update the council amended in a regulatory framework a zoning framework for cannabis retail cultivation and manufacturing in anticipation of that adult use cannabis being legalized in the state starting this week this kind of builds upon that work that was started last year and makes four changes it institutes some operating hours for both retail uses where you buy the product and on-site consumption areas where you are consuming that product that you just purchased from 8am to 11 p.m it would require on-site consumption areas to be within a fully enclosed portion of a building that's to say you wouldn't be able to have a smoking patio or you wouldn't be able to eat your edible good out on a patio it would need to be within a fully enclosed portion of a building um it would limit retail in the mx t zone and i'm sorry i have a i again have a typo here this says mxm zone limits the retail size in the mxt zone to 10 000 square feet retail in the mxt zone of other types not cannabis related is limited to 10 000 square feet so this is kind of a consistency change to make sure that this retail use also is at 10 000 square feet and then it would also require that if someone's doing cannabis cultivation or cannabis manufacturing that they need to provide to the city a letter of availability from the water utility authority thank you mr schultz any other questions i would like to move a due pass any comments motion on us and a second for do pass just have a comment oh yes a comment madam chair thank you i will not be supporting this amendment um the hours of operation that are allowed for cannabis retail stores are very limited under this and there is absolutely no justification for that we have a lot of businesses that are open late at night they are also cash heavy the one rationale that's been put forward for this is that this is going to be a cash heavy business we do not close down car washes we do not close down 7-elevens and we do not close down bars and so it seems unfair to me that we would be limiting the hours of operation for this new industry that we're trying to grow into an economic development agent for the city so i will not be supporting thank you counselors any other comments all right i'll call for a vote please raise your hand and say i all those in favor aye got it and madam chair can you call for the oppose vote please yes i will and those opposed the motion is defeated on a 3-2 vote thank you thank you counselors um moving on to amendment a6 this amendment will also not be moved um this amendment proposed to regulate the brightness or i'm sorry externally illuminated illuminated signs in proximity to a residential zone district council staff has looked a little closer at the lighting section in the ido and has been working with the planning department and the code enforcement division in particular about about lighting in general in the ido and truly the entire lighting section needs an overhaul in lieu of regulating this very specific thing council staff will be pursuing a contract with a lighting specialist who can give us some advice on the lighting section in the ido so that we can take a more holistic approach to all the lighting regulations whether they're from signs or light poles whatever to address this issue thank you uh councillor benton thank you madam chair yeah i i appreciate the thought that went into this in the first place but also appreciate uh the reset and kind of looking at this as a larger issue um you know this particular product that was singled out here may or may not be an offensive sign depending on what it is you know a lot of these signs that are basically we used to just call them can signs in the architect business if you're if you're putting doing a commercial uh development and um this is the lowest common denominator economic common denominator for a sign it's a box with fluorescent lights inside and plastic covers and sometimes they really are garishly bright and and you know and and you know could create problems sometimes others are with a darker color and the letters are not as just bright white or something like that and they're not offensive so i think trying to find that medium and again i don't i don't love this kind of sign i'm used to that because i used to have to you know i used to have clients that said well that's what we're going to put in and we would put them in but but at the same time uh you know there could be some nuances to this that we might be able to regulate to just make them uh more attractive and uh still do their job so thanks counselors you know their comments of course his legislation was put forth by one of the lights that you and i don't like counselor uh and it was it's uh cause a wreaked havoc in a residential neighborhood so there are reasons that we need to do these things but i will um i think i'll uh defer this until the full council i can't i have to move make a motion to approve madam chair the the direction you gave was that this this amendment would just not be moved we would just skip over it all right thank you moving on to leups amendment a7 this is related to self-storage facilities and internal lighting this amendment would call for any kind of self-storage facility and you can see an example on the slide there's a photo of kind of a big bright box that that these types of facilities when located within 200 feet of a residential zone district need to dim their lights uh by 50 percent the previous amendment that discussed lighting talked about a full-on prohibition of that type of sign um this amendment takes a different approach to lighting and just says you need to turn them down instead of saying you know you've got to turn them off completely or you can't do the use at all thank you are there any questions comments i'd move a do pass this will be number four there's a motion in a second for number four do pass all those in favor raise your hand please and say yes yes got it and and the opposed and those opposed that passes on a four one thank you counselors thank you madam chair moving on to leps amendment a8 this is related to the bicycle parking calculation in the ido this proposes to amend the calculation for elementary middle and high schools when the idea was adopted there was a metric put in there of three spaces per classroom at a recent epc case this year a school had to come in for a site plan and had to kind of put this regulation to the test we hadn't seen a school do that before so i'm just not sure that we really knew how that calculation was going to play out and a school that houses about 700 kids was going to be required to provide about a 160 bicycle parking spaces and they testified at the hearing that that metric just seems very unruly and egregious anecdotally they shared that maybe 20 to 25 of their students biked to school but yet they were going to have to provide 160. so we took a look at this calculation to see if we could come up with something a little more realistic it is proposed to be amended to five bicycle parking spaces or fifteen percent of the required off street parking spaces whichever is greater this um type of calculation is more comparable to other non-residential uses in the ido that have to provide bike parking and if you were to put this calculation to the test for the previous case i was talking about instead of having to provide 160 spaces they would have had to provide about 20 spaces so this was i think a good real world example where we we we were able to see an approval come through the city um kind of test a regulation that had gone untested before and and realized that it wasn't quite working i will also note that this this will not be applicable to aps schools aps is not subject to any of our zoning regulations because they're a function of the state so this is really only applicable to private charter schools thank you councillor benton yeah i i'll uh i'll go ahead and move the amendment um for discussion purposes um i'm not sure that we've got the percentages dead on here but i do think given that most of these schools are not aps schools do draw from all over the city so they're probably less of a neighborhood school than most schools that aps runs and i think you know this may be appropriate and i'm a cyclist and i'm a cycling advocate but uh but i don't think we ought to overdo it and i would hope that these schools would also just really know their know their audience and know their student population and and want to accommodate them so when they're if a school that does have an unusual number of uh students riding on their bike to school that they'll they'll deal with it but uh so i'm still pouring over in my mind the 15 of required off street parking spaces but in the meantime i guess that we could amend that before the full council if we saw a reason too madam chair counselor benton that's correct you could pass it tonight and we could amend it at full council and all i'll also note something you alluded to these are minimums and as you said because they're minimums a school could choose to provide more if they felt the need so i i will move committee amendment this would be number five i'll second that councilor feeble corn thank you madam chair i i also um support this concept but i am concerned about the 15 with the math that's done in this example that ms schultz gave us that would give us just the number of spaces that the school needs right now and as we know um we are trying to get more people on bikes and so i just have a concern that 15 is a little too low i would propose a 20 to give us just a little bit of cushion as we move forward with our biking initiatives for the city so that's what i would be supporting at the council so uh madam sheriff i may i'll accept that as a as a friendly amendment uh if uh do we need to vote on that as a friendly amendment or can we just uh if it's okay with everyone we'll make it 20 as opposed to 15 for this the purpose of this amendment madam chair uh counselor benton staff has indicated that we don't need a vote for a friendly amendment i'll just be clear that the percentage in the red text would change from 15 of required off-street parking spaces to 20 percent of required off-street parking spaces correct thank you thank you and councilor sanchez has come in thank you madam chair um since it's charter schools my kids actually attended charter school and i think that even 15 percent was reasonable 20 still sounds reasonable and the reason i say that is because most individuals who are coming from out of district actually had their parents arrive drop them off and pick them up so there was a very very small percentage of bicycle use so i think what we're proposing is totally reasonable so thank you thank you councillor sanchez any other comments councillor benton i just urge your support as amended thank you all those in favor as amended raise your hand and say yes yes opposed motion carries unanimously thank you thank you counselors moving on to left's amendment a9 this amendment has been revised since it was initially provided in the packet on march 15th and since it was redistributed last friday i will say the intention of the amendment hasn't changed staff has just been able to clarify the language in a way that the planning department might actually be able to enforce this i'll give you a brief overview of of what this does uh in the mxl mxm and mxh zone districts if you're wanting to do a townhouse development which is considered a type of low density residential development and you are a budding so directly next to the right-of-way of a premium transit corridor uh within the premium transit area or um within a main street corridor your townhouse development the front facade of that townhouse development has to face the corridor um that's a kind of convoluted explanation to say that if you're going to build a townhouse in these areas your front your front door basically needs to front the corridor instead of your your side yard or your backyard which does not create a very urban environment and in our premium transit corridors and our main street corridors we we do encourage more urban developments we have seen recent examples in the city where there has been town house style development that has been able to put their their side yard right up against the street which means they get kind of a big tall wall right up against the street and this provision avoids to aims to avoid that counselors any other comments i'll go ahead and move this uh this would be amendment number six and uh yeah just to reiterate um a lot of what this is about in these kind of urban conditions is to having eyes on the street for the purposes of uh security and and just just vitality of the area so um that's what this is really about and i think michelle's described it well thank you counselor any other comments there's a motion in a second for do pass on a9 as amended all those in favor raise your hand and say yes yes yes that passes on a four to one vote thank you i'm going to introduce this next one on behalf of councillor lewis who could not be here this evening uh a-10 climactic and geographic responsiveness if someone would like to explain what that is thank you madam chair uh this amendment proposes to strike language in the ido related to climatic responsiveness and geographic responsiveness that was put into the ido last year these are two different requirements that call for an analysis if you're doing multi-family development above 20 units or any type of non-residential development except industrial you would have to provide a climatic responsiveness analysis and what that asks you to do is to provide a kind of sun and shade analysis on your building at certain points of the year to identify if you're building kind of orientation and design is being responsive to the climate the geographic responsiveness portion calls for uti an applicant to identify if they're preserving any views of specific features outlined in the sections such as the the bosque the sandia mountains or the northwest mesa escarpment councilor lewis's office heard from the development community about these two requirements that they don't necessarily have any teeth to them they do call for an analysis or or call for an identification of features that are being preserved however if the developer chooses to identify that their building is not being responsive to the climate or is not preserving a view there's no teeth here for the city to require something different to happen it's been characterized as a superfluous requirement and the ido tries to not have kind of more policy directed requirements and and really tries to have something that can check a box or not um additionally there there was some data provided that these analyses are not cheap particularly the sun and shade analysis does require someone to 3d model a building in a program like sketchup and then run the sun across it at the certain times of day and that that can cost thousands of dollars if you if you've got a simple kind of box shaped building or an upwards of ten or fifteen thousand if you've got multiple buildings or kind of an irregular shaped building thank you cancer mentioned any comment yeah i i i strongly support this uh this amendment and uh really thought we were on the wrong track when this was passed last year so it was kind of a feel-good uh idea and i even did speak to the first four architects who were involved in helping the planning department with this language and it was they told me in certain terms it was never their intent that we would do this and then not have any teeth in it that it would just be something that that we would ask a developer whether they were a humble small developer uh trying to get it done on a tight budget with with an architect having to pay for your time to do this sort of thing as opposed to something that really would have teeth in it and i think i would absolutely support something and have teeth in it that might end up being more like along the lines of part of our building code and our energy code as opposed to a zoning regulation and as ms patty wilson who's an architect spoke on this and said well any architect or any designer that would essentially try to paraphrase her uh who's worth their salt would do this sort of analysis on their design and i agree they they would they should but it's very hard to regulate this and it's this is not regulation this is just putting people through hoops and making them spend money with absolutely no ability to enforce it on the city's part so um you know i'm sorry for my uh i'll apologize i guess i suppose to my environmentalist friends who think i'm on the wrong side of this and that i'm just on the side of evil developers but that that's not the point the point is is that we're going to do this kind of thing then let's really make it work and let's really make it result in a different building form than than what this does which is it doesn't do anything other than put both the applicant and our staff through a bunch of checking of boxes that that results in nothing so i strongly support this amendment thank you counselor and ms schultz would you tell us did you have a question council people please too um thank you madam chair i i just want to um second what councilor benton said you know i i love climactic responsiveness i think it's really really important um as you all know i love energy conservation codes and making sure that we're doing the right thing for the environment but in the zoning document that is the ido this isn't very helpful and so i will um be pushing for this to be included in our energy conservation code which will be coming up for um renewal and updating pretty soon so for that reason i'll be supporting this but it's not that i don't believe that we should be doing as particularly the sun and shade analysis that is so important to making sure that we minimize the amount of energy used in new buildings thanks thank you council feeble corn and miss schultz please would you restate what we would a yes or no vote would do to this particular piece yes madam chair and and staff doesn't have a second logged for this motion did madam chair you move this on behalf of counselor lewis was there a second okay thank you counselor benton if this motion passes there are two sections in the ido that will be stricken in total that require a developer to provide a an analysis or a response to climatic responsiveness that's the sun and shade analysis and the geographic responsiveness so if this if this is approved they would not have to provide that as a part of their development applications moving forward thank you miss schultz counselors are there any questions on that are we clear okay there is a motion to not pass madam chair the the motion on the floor is to pass amendment number okay seven okay there's a motion do pass all of those in favor please raise your right hand and say yes yes opposed that motion carries thank you thank you counselors moving on to amendment a11 this amendment proposes to overall reduce the number of required off minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for multi-family development general retail development and grocery store development this is also being sponsored by councillor lewis and his office heard from a few developers in town who were able to provide him with some metrics about development they have completed in the city recently related to the actual number of parking spaces that are being used by the by the residents of multifamily um and the more recent multi-family developments are being over parked this over parking leads to kind of unused asphalt that could be better used by something like more landscaping potentially more dwelling units the kind of real world data behind this change is is what drove the amendments for the for the multi-family portion i'll say counselor lewis also asked staff to look at our retail um parking requirements and while there weren't any local developers who who kind of came to the table and said you know we're over we're over parking general retail as well council staff looked at some kind of sister cities you can see a list of those on the second page of the amendment and looked at their parking requirement minimums and the city of albuquerque is requiring more parking for general retail and grocery stores and some of our comparable cities and so the numbers that you see in this amendment better reflect what what other cities are doing thank you counselors are there any other questions comments yes madam chair i have a comment and this comes from my experience working in around hotels i mean not hotels but apartment complexes and what i've noticed just with my experience and i don't have to keep saying it but as a police officer one of the things that we actually experienced a lot as a police officer is the apartment complexes themselves hiring a tow truck company to go into these apartment complexes and as long as they signed the agreement they would get towed and so what would happen is if you inadvertently lost a registration or it expired then your vehicle was was towed away what it also caused is it also caused individuals in the surrounding areas to are the people in the apartment complex to park their cars outside of the actual gates of the complex just to make sure that they avoided anything so instead of parking in the complex you had people parking outside in the neighborhood areas so i don't know that this ordinance actually supports enough people that have friends and family my sister was actually a victim of of being inadvertently towed when she went to a friend's house for a birthday party and it was for a young kid's birthday party on a friday night and since there was not enough room in the apartment complex the apartment complex sent the tow truck out there to actually tow all the vehicles that did not belong on the on the premises and it was just that friday night so it was really a real burdensome thing for my sister to have to try to figure out on a friday night who the tow truck company was that towed her vehicle and actually to get that vehicle back because she had no knowledge that she was going to be towed that night so um i i'm not sure how you park two cars in 1.8 spaces so i'd like to get a little more discussion on this maybe with it whether it be in the full council or even here today thank you council chancellor sanchez would you like us are you moving then for to full council without a recommendation we have to do a yes madam chair if the decision of the committee is to not move this amendment forward i would just recommend that no no motion be made we've had the discussion and council staff can note that this should be posed at a future either leps hearing if that's the will of the committee or at the next full council hearing when this item's heard thank you councillor benton um submissions could you address the 1.8 i mean that's a cumulative um how does that get calculated and is that rounded up or rounded down madam chair counselor benton um procedurally we we didn't have a we did not have a motion on this amendment um i'll move it for discussion purposes i mean i i we may not need to vote on it tonight thank you and council phoebe corn voted uh gave a second okay great thank you um so there you will find fractions of parking spaces in this calculation however you end up multiplying that by the number of dwelling units and the number of dwelling unit types so you know say for example there's a 100 unit apartment complex and all of those units are three or more bedrooms um you would take that 100 number and times it by that 1.8 and that would give you your final calculation for for off-street parking um i believe that parking calculations in the ido are all rounded down if if there's an occurrence of a fraction um but this the kind of tiered system that's presented here tries to get at the fact that as you do increase in in the number of bedrooms you likely will have an increase in the number of cars needed but the data shown from three-bedroom two-bedroom one-bedroom and efficiency style complexes in albuquerque is showing that the ratios that are provided here are more accurate to what you know people in albuquerque are actually using thank you councillor benton if i could too we all know that the cost of development is you know it's getting more expensive land is more expensive construction is more expensive and i think in some of these things some of these uses whether it's making housing affordable and not using up very expensive land with unnecessary parking and then in the same sense when we want retail especially in some of the retail that we went in our local neighborhood areas where we're trying to get infill retail to serve the community that that excessive number of parking spaces again reduce the likelihood that somebody's going to make some of those projects pencil out and actually occur so i think it's it's good to be fine-tuning this in this way any other comments yes madam chair if i could also address counselor sanchez's comments about the requirements for vehicles being registered to park at at certain complex parking lots and being towed that is not something that the city regulates or the ido regulates each individual complex owner or property owner gets to determine kind of the rules for who parks on their property sometimes they might require placards sometimes they might just require an updated registration but that's not something that this amendment aims to address or that the ido addresses in any way thank you counselors any other questions i would like to move then to full council without recommendation madam chair the motion on the floor is a do pass a floor amendment number eight okay and madam chair if if i may since i made the motion i mean if there's a discomfort with this the way it is now i'm fine to leave it in committee and leave it for more discussion but otherwise you know i would be inclined to vote on it if the counselors are ready then let's take a vote on it if you're all agreement okay there's a motion in a second or to approve all those in favor please raise your hand and say yes yes yes opposed motion carries thank you counselors moving on to amendment a12 um a12 is titled the safe outdoor spaces amendment this amendment would create a new land use called safe outdoor spaces and do a couple of things first it would identify the zone districts in which a safe outdoor space is appropriate um that would be conditional in the mxt and mxl zone district so a conditional use process through the zoning hearing examiner would be required or permissive in the mxm mxh nrc and our bp and our lm and nrgm zone districts it then goes on to create some use specific standards about what what uh kind of requirements the city wants to see for these safe outdoor spaces a couple of examples of those requirements are things like toilets and hand washing stations fencing requirements the identification of some services potentially being provided on site distance separation requirements that's all outlined in the amendment as well and lastly there's a definition created because we're creating a new use we need to define exactly what that use is you'll see various colored text in your amendment packet this is indicative of how the amendment hasn't has evolved since it was first introduced um staff has worked really closely with the sponsors and with the community who wants to support these safe outdoor spaces who want to start doing these safe outdoor spaces and so there have been a number of changes over time um the most recent changes you will find in green text in your packets staff would be happy to answer any specific questions about safe outdoor spaces at the will of the committee thank you counselors there any questions seeing none madam yes cancer madam chair i i just have a few just a couple of comments in reference to this um i have kind of a little different idea and reference to um to the homeless that that we have here in albuquerque and i still see a very large criminal element tied to the homeless community and i see it every single day of the week how is there something in here that that expressly states that if they violate the laws that we can literally go in there and and actually make an arrest or how is it set up the law is the law and i just want to make sure that if someone's breaking the law while they're in there that we take care of that madam chair uh councillor sanchez i think that would be assumed for any land use in albuquerque if someone is breaking the law whether it's at a safe outdoor space or at a restaurant or at a bar that the albuquerque police department has the right to go in and enforce any kind of city law this that is not specifically called out in this use in a youth specific standard and that would be abnormal to call out something that applies already to everything in the city what if we if somebody breaks the law will they be allowed to return or are they not madam chair counselor sanchez that would be that would be to the purview of the operator of the safe outdoor space the person who kind of owns that property and is allowing that safe outdoor space to occur on their premises they have the right to say who gets to stay at those safe outdoor spaces or not whether that's the city operating a safe outdoor space or a private property owner that would be under under their discretion and do we make the rules of the safe outdoor spaces or is that different to the owner as well madam chair counselor sanchez that would be deferred to the the owner of the safe outdoor space to kind of set forth the rules of you know maybe people can only come and go during certain hours of the day that's all left to the individual operators of these safe outdoor spaces thank you are there any questions uh councillor benjamin um thank you man i'm sure um you know i know that both this and the next amendment um of temporary account campgrounds are getting a lot of discussion a lot of questions being asked i'm not sure that we've got every detail in these perfectly thought through yet um and i think it it could stand some more time for the public to look at it and ourselves to look at both of these so as one as the sponsor of one of the sponsors of one and the sponsor of the other um uh you know i welcomed more discussion about it along the lines of the question that counselor sanchez asked but uh um you know i don't think we're ready to move these to full council yet um i do think there's a need i i think this and i appreciate the co-sponsors and i appreciate everyone uh wanting to keep be open-minded about this but i'm getting a lot of questions as as one of the sponsors getting a lot of questions about uh how's this going to work when's the first one coming in next door to my house etc and um you know we do we do have to be clear about these some of us went up to denver and saw some of these spaces in denmark and how they're being operated they're just one of a tool many many tools that we need to to address homelessness and folks who are on the street with uh in the case of these extremely low what we call a low barrier uh shelter opportunity for people it's it's one step from being on a sidewalk essentially and the folks who are running these in denver we're operating them um who are actually the site the site staff of the of these facilities are former homeless persons themselves and formerly addicted persons so they're doing a good job of just recruiting people from the streets and to into these sites where social services are more readily reachable they're more reachable with with help on these sites and they can count on on a a couple of good meals a day at least usually provided by non-profit organizations that help out with that um but it's a low barrier um you know to unders to really understand how these work um we do need to look at these uh good models and and again in edinburgh that's a big city and we only saw two of them there and they they both were considered to be temporary and that's why i brought forward the next amendment which has to do with temporary establishment of such things because it was kind of the nature of the situation in denver that they were happy to find a place where they could do it on a temporary basis and that that space might be developed in the near future but at that time it was suitable for for the use so um i do think this is a really important component of what we need to be doing in the city it's just one though and it's not a panacea but it is a step up from the street thank you counseling in the comments uh this is oh counselor yes thank you um counselor benton thank you so much for your for your insight and reference to this and i think it's really important that i think we do continue a little more discussion and reference to this um be nice to get um a really nice template look it over see what they do if they have some of these issues what do they do with the with the issues where they break the rules or they break the law um or use or use drugs or alcohol to an extent that that they shouldn't be there or that they're harming themselves or others and you know something like that would have actually helped i mean they already have it in place they must know what the rules are in reference to what they deal with so we can maybe somehow take a look at those and maybe implement some of those rules and regulations here would really really help so thank you for that yes counselor feeblecore madam chair i have a question um you know it's been my understanding that um the ido amendments before us are just allowing safe outdoor spaces but we are not trying to actually design a program um through the ido and so i i just want miss schultz to speak to that you know this is just an allowance for this type of activity all the details of how an actual safe outdoor space or a temporary campground would actually run would be the next step in this process is that correct madam chair counselor feeble corn yes this is just setting you know the land use rules for if someone wants to do this on the property what are the minimum requirements that the planning department is going to check for any kind of operational requirements the ido typically does not dive into that for any land use we leave that to individual property owners to determine how those activities occur on their site this this does as you said just set some really basic parameters and creates it as an option because you cannot do something like this in our code today our code does not complement contemplate it at all thank you miss schultz that's a really important distinction to me and i've gotten a lot of emails and a lot of phone calls recently um you know wanting to know how these are going to be implemented and it's just really important to remember that we're just allowing the conversation to start with these amendments to the ido all the details could be worked out at a later date i'm fine with with deferring this for you know discussion further but at some point we really do need to move on services for the homelessness population and this is an important part of that so i would really like to see it move forward as quickly as possible thank you council feeble corn and it's my understanding we're just going to hold it over to the next lobster meeting and discuss some more madam chair there was no motion made to move this as an amendment it's been just discussion and so without without a motion made um yes this would be up for discussion again at the next meeting thank you and councillor benton would you like to make a motion like that for a13 covered at all madam madam uh chair i think the the uh the course of action is is that we're not going to move we're not going to move 813 if that's acceptable to you as one of the sponsors of that one and then we will not be uh uh actually a13 was the one that i'm sponsored but the one that's labeled a12 we would not be moving either the one label a 12 or a a13 tonight but rather continue to hear about them and to fine-tune them uh at our next lups meeting thank you that's my understanding too so yes madam chair counselors thank you for the discussion on a12 um staff will be sure to follow up um with any counselors who have questions counselor sanchez we've taken notes on your questions and and we will be sure to sit down with you to talk through those before the next hearing thank you and miss schultz do you have uh some information for us on a13 yes um a13 is related to temporary campgrounds counselor benton laid a little bit of the groundwork already for this it creates a a kind of similar use to what safe outdoor spaces contemplated but on a temporary basis with a couple of different requirements the temporary nature i think is the biggest distinction between safe outdoor spaces and temporary campgrounds but otherwise they have a lot of the similar rules related to the requirement for buffering and screening through a six-foot fence hand washing stations bathrooms etc and if the committee has specific questions about temporary campgrounds very similar to the safe outdoor spaces um staff would be happy to try to field those now or or follow up after the meeting before the next hearing on on these items thank you michelle's counselor sanchez do you have any more questions i'd like to do the same thing with this one there's a lot of red and green in here and it'd be nice to actually go over it a little more with a little finer tooth comb than what we're doing here absolutely we agree thank you michelle's madam chair counselor sanchez thank you we will be be sure to follow up thank you yes um i'm sure can i just make one comment on a13 um just for the record i know i said it last time but do you have concerns about the barriers that we're placing on um particularly a13 and a12 um you know some of the requirements are onerous we've heard from some faith-based groups that really want to provide these services to the community and i i'm just worried that they're it's too hard to set these up and so um as part of that discussion i'd really like to remember that we've heard from people who literally want to do this as soon as possible at their church or at their um community group and and we're and they're telling us that it's too hard and so i'd just like to make sure that's always in our conversation thank you we appreciate that very much this is this is new ground for all of us so miss schultz if you would like to go to a14 thank you madam chair a14 um relates to the vacation of right-of-way process this proposes to add some text to the uh procedural direction outlined in the ido for when a portion of a of way is proposed to be vacated um staff has heard from some utility agencies that they're concerned about well what if there are utilities in that right-of-way that is proposed to be vacated how does the city help ensure that those utilities will that we will still have access to those utilities that an easement will be maintained um where does the ido address that the audio does not address that today so the proposed language in red will give some direction to private property owners who are vacating a portion of right-of-way that has a utility whether it's electric water sewer gas whatever that that private property owner needs to coordinate with that utility agency to determine the best path forward to ensure that there is still access to those utilities if necessary it doesn't hold the city to kind of negotiate between that private property owner and the utility agency the city in fact should not put themselves in that position but instead give some direction to the private property owner to go do that thank you good information i would like to move would you pass on that and that is amendment number 14 nine amendment number nine there's a motion on a second for a 14. all those in favor please raise your hand and say yes yes opposed motion carries thank you counselors moving on to amendment a15 this is a very technical change to the ordinance itself all night we've been talking about changes to the ideo as a document this is an amendment to the ordinance that adopts the amended ido in the ordinance that that was drafted and sent over to the city council there was some language missing about how the ordinance would is to be compiled by the folks who compile any legislation that the council passes this truly is boilerplate language that every ordinance that the city passes needs to have on it so this amendment is is kind of a technical fix to get that boilerplate language back into the ordinance itself thank you any questions i would like to move a do pass on amendment 10 which is a15 there's a motion in a second all those in favor please raise your hand and say yes yes opposed motion carries unanimously uh madam chair counselor is moving on to a16 a16 is a small spreadsheet i think there's five seven or eight changes of kind of technical edits to the ido to improve the clarity of language that exists in the ido so this doesn't necessarily propose this does not propose to add any new regulation but instead proposes to clarify existing regulation this spreadsheet is at the request of the planning department these are changes that they didn't catch until after the epc made their recommendation on this year's ideo annual update normally these types of fixes would be included in the epc packet but as the ido is a massive document sometimes things just don't get caught until later in the game so this this would propose to adopt technical changes in seven or eight places of the ido thank you any questions madam president i'll move the duke this would be committee amendment number 11 is that right i'll move it uh do pass on this and i'll second that any conversation and madam i'm sure just you know for those we oftentimes hear well you know why are we having to amend this idea every year there's something wrong with it i mean this is what's nice about the process that's set up is that it is a scheduled discussion about it every year and and for things like this that we through just regular use we find there are aspects that need to be clarified so i think it's a perfect example of why we do the annual update and i would point out that in our old system this didn't occur this occurred if somebody decided to bring it forward whether the administration or a counselor uh to fix one thing at a time randomly um and that's the way we did it in the past so um you know in in um in organizational culture it's it's uh this is often called uh continuing it continuing improvement process it's just a continued always keeping our eye on on on our our system and and having it work as best as possible so uh just a good example of that thank you councillor benton uh miss schultz we're moving on to a16 uh madame arc a madam chair uh we need a vote on the previous amendment it had been moved and seconded but no vote has been taken on a16 yet you're really messing this up aren't you we could move so much faster okay we have a motion in a second on a16 all those in favor raise your hand and say yes yes yes opposed raise your hand and say no motion carries on a madam chair counselor pena can you clarify your vote on that were you a yes or a no thank you thank you okay madam chair moving on to amendment labeled a17 this relates to variances and waivers a property owner can come request a variance or a waiver when they need to deviate from a standard in the ido if their property cannot accommodate a standard in the ido there is specific review and decision criteria that the appropriate body has to consider and one of them is that the variance or waiver will not materially undermine the intent and purpose of the ido the applic or the applicable zone district this amendment proposes to also ask the applicant to consider any overlay zone that they may be in so if the variance that they're requesting is on a property within an overlay zone that could be a character protection overlay zone a historic protection overlay zone or a view protection overlay zone that they have to really think of the character that that overlay zone is trying to protect or preserve or maintain and identify how their variants will not undermine that thank you counselor councillor banton yeah i'd like to move uh this amendment which would be 13 12 excuse me um and i'll second that and and counselors the uh this came about um this was actually came bubbled up from from uh constituents in this case in the north valley who have a character protection overlay and felt that we needed specific language that wouldn't just let these be willy-nilly changed by by minor administrative variances or other type of variances without special consideration of what went into that overlay so i think it was a really good suggestion it strengthens the overlay zones um as to how people want to see their own individual areas and uh and and it helps make them work better for for uh for the neighborhoods okay any other questions then we will take a vote to accept this all those in favor of accepting this please raise your right hand and say yes yes opposed same sign that passes thank you thank you counselors okay we are now on to amendment a18 i will note for the public that a 18 a 19 and a 20 were not distributed last week these are new to the packet this week um and again as i mentioned at the beginning of my presentation you can access these at abc-zone.com the website that the planning department manages you can find these new amendments a18 proposes to amend the wall the maximum wall height permitted in the front yard or street side yard from three feet to four feet in residential zones mixed use zones and non-residential zones this concept first came up at the environmental planning commission the epc did consider this request they heard a lot of public comment on it and ultimately voted that the council should not adopt this it is the council's right to you know propose any amendment whether the epc recommends approval or not and so this one is back for consideration by the committee thank you councillor pena so madam charles make a motion for approval of amendment number what was it again 13. and um the reason i brought this forward is just as you know [Music] many areas of the city um southwest area in particular have a lot of fences that are four feet in high and it's really a safety feature for a lot of neighborhoods so that's why i brought it forward again and hearing from a lot of my constituents and other um community members throughout the city that um you know they use this a lot for safety reasons in their communities madam chair counselor pena i just i'm not sure what how what's the an example of what you mean because i we have a similar areas and i'm just as curious as to what you mean what what the way it works just hearing from community members some people are you know um are being just the fences are four feet high and some people thought that it was important to to have that option of being able to um have their fences at four four feet high just because of safety reasons sometimes you know now there's a lot of people kind of jumping over people's fences getting to the yards taking things from their yard you know a lot of the neighborhoods on the southwest mesa in particular are smaller parcels which um unfortunately sometimes the front yard is a lot of their only yards so you know to ensure that their children are safe playing outside in the front yard and and the like the only concern i have is again from my public safety background is that i'll tell you if you need to get in there it really is nice to have a lower fence and to jump that fence is a lot easier to jump in a four foot or three foot fence than a four foot fence and uh i can tell you that i've jumped many many many fences to get into a house that um that where somebody needs the help they need the services and we've had to you know sometimes i mean we've actually literally had to knock fences down in order to to get through and i'm kind of opposed to this one just based on on public safety issues counselors if i may make a comment here and that is these these next uh topics that were here are only for discussion they weren't uh received by our offices until 10 till five so we may discuss or you may simply introduce and and however you want to do it but yes madam chair i'd just like to clarify that per the council rules counselor pena is free to move these yes my opening commentary was just to alert the public that they might not have seen them yet and where to access them okay i'm sorry i thought that we it was too early to vote on them since we didn't see them either madam chair um procedurally there is nothing in the council rules that prohibits that thank you councillor benton council phoebe corn first and then counselor benton thank you madam chair i just had a couple of questions i um i was not in office when this was originally discussed i to me three feet four feet sounds the same i have not jumped over a three foot fence or a four foot fence counselor sanchez so i don't really know i'm just wondering if um ms schultz could tell me a little bit about the conversation that was had at epc and what the pros and cons of this kind of change would be madam chair counselor feeblecorn the epc got quite a bit of discussion from community leaders on this amendment um the three foot requirement for front yard walls and street side yard walls has been a long-standing requirement in the idea or in the previous zoning code that was rolled over into the ido with the idea that when you have a lower wall in your front yard you can kind of see what's going on on your street from your home that's a concept called eyes on the street that's part of a larger concept called crime prevention through environmental design we refer to that as sept head there are septet principles that talk about the way you configure the physical attributes on your lot really can increase the safety and a three-foot wall might contribute to that for the reason i just mentioned about being able to have more visibility to your street it might create less of a haven for someone to hide behind we i think we heard com the epc did hear comments that a four foot wall might actually make it easier for a criminal to kind of hide behind if an officer or someone else is roaming the streets trying to look for someone the conversation at epc definitely surrounded around kind of maintaining the character so we don't just get a canyon of walls right up against the sidewalk and the the crime element that i think we've heard a couple of different perspectives on thank you mr schultz and and this is just walls not fences right so it's a solid piece of wall i guess madam chair counselor feeble corn walls and fences are both regulated by this section in the ido um so fences would also be um required to stay at three feet as well thank you councillor benton yeah i i i was interested in that i'm going to ask ask the same question about the ipc discussion and it reflects my feeling about this um we do have parts of town where uh there's special overlays and i believe some areas where we allow uh taller front yards if i'm not taller front yard walls if i'm not mistaken uh um correct me if i'm wrong there uh madam chair counselor benton there is a procedure already in the ido to request a wall that's taller than three feet that's called a wall permit major um there's a process in which you have to kind of prove that you meet your lot meets certain conditions so it's not that they're totally prohibited from ever happening in the city you would just have to kind of seek special approval for doing a wall uh taller than three feet and and i think that's how they came about sometimes i think in places uh if i'm not mistaken around old town there might might be some of that but um i do think that this question of the neighborhood character since it has been three feet for so long in the front i think that's an important uh situation because to consider because you start burying it then you're going to have a variation of some people will choose to to do the higher wall and some people won't and it'll be less just consistent as far as the neighborhood so um and i also do agree with with the idea that that for in terms of eyes on the street a forefoot is is going to be provide you provide you from your side from the home side looking out with a less clear view of what's going on and then on the flip side of that as councilor sanchez just said it could provide more obstacles to public safety and possibly a place for people to to hide which is the the septet argument also is that that on your sides that face the street which is the front and a corner side yard that you want to be able to have the maximum visibility from the home out onto that street but uh so so i i am concerned about this one i don't know if i'm ready to to support it i i think uh my initial thinking on it is this has stood the test of time for so long and of course it doesn't prevent anyone from putting uh up to an eight foot tall wall in your backyard if you want to really really enclose a space you know um and that does not face the street that uh that's still your an option thank you thank you councillor benjamin uh counselor would you like to speak to this yeah i would just urge your support this just came from constituents and you know i thought it was important to at least try to move it forward so thank you and i appreciate that madam chair we didn't have a second note noted for this bill counselor payna did make a motion um can you what was the second i didn't have a second uh so if i may i would like to say if i may that because we got this so late and we haven't seen the legislation itself nor have i don't think anybody has seen it or read it i believe that i would like to recommend that we defer it to the nexlups meeting so that we can read it and know what's going on and have a viable input on it madam chair again so when it says that we got it so late i just hate for that to be out in the public because it wasn't late because counselors can submit um and i did submit it in a timely manner in terms of what my deadline would be so um i just um we just won't move the amendment we don't have to it doesn't seem like there's any support so we just i won't move the amendment thank you councillor penta pena um and i'm sorry to say so late it was late for me because i was already down here when it came in so i'm sorry um and counselor pena you have another piece here madam chair a19 relates to neon signs in the city and the ideo today there are pretty specific sign requirements and if you are doing a neon sign along central avenue at specific intersections where central avenue crosses other streets neon signs get bonuses um this is a way to kind of incentivize more neon uh along the central avenue corridor as kind of a doing to encourage the the neon character of central um so where where a neon sign might have a certain set of restrictions in one area of town if you're on central you might get to do a bigger neon sign or or a taller neon sign this amendment proposes to allow those bonuses specifically for neon signs everywhere in the city not limiting it to the central corridor anymore but allowing those those incentives to be utilized city-wide thank you councillor pena thank you so i would move amendment number still the same number right 13. thank you councillor pena i need you know second on that there is a second from councillor sanchez um any other comments counselor penny anymore edited your support i think shanna did a great job in explaining the image okay there's a motion in a second for do approve um let's take a roll on this for a do approve please say yes and raise your hand or say no enrage say yes all of our favor that is a two for all opposed no that fails on a 3-2 vote thank you and counselor pena you also have another piece of legislation madam chair there's a little bit of unclarity about the vote on that last amendment do you mind if we for clarity purposes all those in favor of amendment floor committee amendment number 13 can you please raise your hand for staff and say yes so there's all those opposed no madam chair thank you you're very welcome thank you counselor pena madam chair moving on to lep's amendment a 20. this one was provided to you as a standalone piece of paper you should have it at the dias this is titled the ido updates this would add some requirements for when the the city does the ideo annual update process on an annual basis they submit the planning department submits a packet of proposed changes this typically comes in the form of a spreadsheet where they outline the section of the ido that's being amended a brief explanation of why the amendment is being posed the epc goes on to consider that the epc then recommends that whole packet up to the council and then the counselors can also as you have seen tonight pose their own amendments uh this document proposes that for every amendment that is proposed whether it's to the epc or whether it's by a counselor that these 11 items of information must accompany each amendment proposed um so that's you know basic items such as the page number and the ido that the that the amendment um is proposing to amend a justification of the need for the amendments an explanation of how the amendment benefits the public an example of the proposed change a summary statement of the expected impact such as the number of residents that the change will affect and any known possible unintended consequences or community risks verification that any city departments support or oppose each amendment and all public comments that have been submitted for that amendment with a statement of whether the public supports or opposes that amendment thank you councillor pena would you like to make a statement i'd like to make a motion for approval of committee amendment number 14. councillor benton i don't know was there a second no there was not a second do i hear a second council penny i'm sorry there is no second on that so what i'd like to do is just move this so we can have the discussion since there's since there's not a second this really came from community members again you know they gave some suggestions i think they said they shared it with other counselors hoping that they could you know really have the discussion about how neighborhoods are notified and how they're engaged and part of the ideo process as as you all know since it is an annual update and we have a process in place sometimes these amendments like many of the ones that i heard from community members tonight not put forward there's just really not necessarily a process so if they would have all been approved tonight they would be approved this evening without really the community having that opportunity to give their input so we really have to have the discussion about how we make sure that there's a notification to community members and how we better engage them in the process so i would actually just hold this and we'll hear it at the next laps or council meeting uh councillor benton would you like to meet yeah i'd just like to comment i i i i'm not opposed to the idea here i'm interested in what the planning department staff administration feels about this you know whether this would be more difficult and and our staff as well i suppose as opposed to councillor benjamin council meet you on the uh yes madam chair i have been asked to note that without a second discussion on this amendment isn't appropriate okay all right thanks so that fails for a lack of a second thank you counselor pena and is that i did it didn't didn't isn't going to be heard uh madam chair that concludes all of the amendments uh for tonight's presentation the council or the committee i'm sorry did move nearly a dozen of the amendments tonight so you will you will not have to rehash those at a later date unless you so choose um so at this point you are able to either defer the entire bill as amended to the next leps hearing or any future leps hearing or move it to full counsel what is the will councillor benton i'll i'll make a motion to defer the bill as amended to the next slots hearing and i'll second that there's a motion and there's any comments motion and second to defer until the next lups meeting madam chair if you could specify that that motion is to the uh april 13th lapse meeting there's motion and a second to defer this till april 13th a lapse meeting all those in favor raise your hand and say yes yes opposed that motion carries thank you i think we have gotten through this long complicated piece of material tonight thank you all for being here and see you on the 13th [Music] [Music] you