Good evening everyone. >> Whoa, >> that's cool. He'll be here all night. Thank you. Good evening everyone. It's January 28th, 2026. I call this meeting to order. This is the land use planning and zoning committee of the city council. All counselors are present this evening. Councelor Fubicorn will be serving as alternate for councelor Tea who's excused. This is a hybrid meeting where all participants will be in person or on a video or audio conference. Uh before I read the next part, I just want to make sure that people know the vision for tonight. We're going to go through not the IDO, not O2. We'll go through the other two bills first. Uh and then we're going to when we start O2, we'll go ahead and start with amendments, break for dinner, and then come back for public comment. So that way you can have your time to figure it out. I will also be allowing two minutes for each public comment as one of the ground rules. The other ground rules are that comments are to be addressed to the committee members only and any disrup disruptive comment will result in removal from the meeting. Members of the public have had the opportunity to address the committee if they've signed up for public comment per the rules published on the agenda and on our website Friday. We will call for speakers when they get to the when we get to the individual agenda item that they signed up for. And if your name is the next one on deck, please start working your way to the front so that we can keep things rolling. We will again try to take a a break tonight at about 7:00 depending on where we're at with the amendments and the other bills. Starting off tonight, we have 06. Councelor Feeorn. >> Madam Chair, 06 amending the appointment method, membership requirements, and duties of the open space advisory board. I move it do pass. >> There's a motion and a second from councelor Grout. I don't see anyone signed. Oh, wait. No, no, I don't see anyone signed up to speak. We do. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I see it at the top now. Thank you. We do have some people signed up to speak. Let's go ahead and go to councelor Feeblehorn for an open and then move on to the public comments. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, this bill came about because we recently had um quite a kurluffle with our updating of membership on the open space advisory board. we were down to three members unbeknownst to me and I think to all of the other counselors as well. And so we were not made aware that we needed to be um proposing new folks. Um and then the second problem with that process was that I had had people from district 7 who were highly qualified who had proposed or who had um applied through the mayor's portal and I was not made aware of their applications. And so, um, just trying to make this process streamlined so that in the next time we don't get down to three voting members of a board before we know that we need to take action and that we are all aware of anyone in our districts who are applying for the open space advisory board in the future. >> Thank you, councelor. We will move to public comment tonight. Mr. Cornelius. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Aaron Hill signed up to speak followed by Vicky Arona and Estavan Whiting on Zoom who I don't see yet. >> Mr. Hill, are you here? >> I wanted to apologize. I signed up to speak on the wrong com uh wrong item. >> Did you want to speak on O2 the IDO bill? >> Yes. Okay, we'll move your name down to that. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> that concludes comment on 06. I do not see any of the other signups in Zoom. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Okay, so councilors, any questions on 06? Seeing none, councelor Feeblecorn to close, urge your support. All those in favor of approving 06, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Anyone opposed? That passes unanimously. We are moving on to R2 for councelor Baka directing the city to update all maps, information, and documentation to accurately reflect the city's ownership of the Montano Bridge. I move a deferral until February 11th. >> There's a motion and a second by councelor Feeblecorn. Uh, and I don't see anyone signed up to speak on this. We do have one. Okay. >> Madam, Madam Chair, thank you. Um, Estavan Whiting is not in Zoom at this time, so that was the only sign up. Thank you. Okay, councilors, any questions for now with deferral? The motion is for a deferral to February 11th on R2. All those in favor raise your hand and say yes. >> Anyone opposed? That passes unanimously. Moving on to O2. Councelor Feeblecorn by request. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um O2 is adopting citywide text amendments to the integrated development ordinance 1416 for the 2025 IDO by annual update. I move it due pass. There's a motion in a second by councelor Rogers. Councelor Feebleorn to open. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um I think everyone knows this process, but this is the proposal that made it through the planning department and EPC um process and our first hearing on this was at our last land use planning and zoning meeting. Um, this is just a continuation of that process um to update our integrated development ordinance to hopefully provide some um allowances for additional housing options as well as other improvements for our city. >> Thank you. We will start with the amendments tonight. Uh we're going to start. Councilor, do you have your packet amendment labeled A? We're going to call that Well, it will be amendment number one. I'd like to move it on page five, line one of 0262, delete section 4 in its entirety. There's a second by councelor Grout. This amendment removes and eliminates the legislative zoning conversion conversions for major transit and activity centers from the IDO annual update package. This is the proposal that would reszone R1 to RT, RT to MXT, and RML to MXL within the appropriate areas. Councilors, any questions or comments? Councelor Fibhghorn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so, um, the main concern that I've heard from a few folks about this part of the IDO proposal from the EPC was the change to property tax um, cap. And I just wanted to say that I think I've spoken to the tax assessor. Um he has he has very very clearly said that that there is no mechanism for him him to increase property taxes with a change in zoning. Um but I do think that there is still that allowance within state law and there is a bill being heard. It passed its committee today um that would stop that allowance in the state law and I think that's very important. If we get to the point where this is being voted on um for final and that that has not passed this the state um legislature then I would vote for this change but I think this is um premature today. Thank you council. Any other council Rogers? >> Thank you madam I was going to say madam president because I'm so used to that. Um madam chair I just wanted to ask our staff Matt um just so I make sure I'm crystal clear what this amendment does. So, I'm to Matt. Can you help me a little bit? >> Mr. Cox. Um, Chair, Councelor Rogers, what this amendment does is um basically removes all of section 4 within 0262, which section 4 within the the actual bill, not the IDO red line, uh, basically identifies those zoning conversions, which would be along U major transit corridors and within activity centers and would reszone R1 to RT, RT to RML, and um, no, sorry, RT to MXT, RML to MXL, uh, within those areas and this amendment would remove that legislative zoning conversion from the bill. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, it just undo what the EPC approved. >> Um, Madame Chair and uh, Councelor Rogers, yes, you are correct. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments, counselors? I will say that uh in addition to receiving and then I'll go to councelor Grout to close as the co-sponsor. in addition to receiving many public comments uh well not public in our emails and correspondence um even though the tax assessor there's no mechanism in place it still could happen and I think and I adhere what's happening with the state and I think that it's important for us to make sure to listen to the constituents who have reached out and and that's where my mind has been when it comes to district 4 especially in addition to further areas of the city council to Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I too >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I too um have received many many many emails and um it's not clear um I have seen a a email strand from the county assessor and it is not um perfectly clear and so I think that until it's clear we need to not make a significant change. So many people have invested their entire life savings in their homes and to um have a change happen and um it could possibly affect their tax consequences. I for one am am one that um it would it would affect me too. And um I think that we need to wait and make sure that something passes in the legislature that will make sure that we have that cap and it can't go over that when zoning changes and then we can revisit this. I urge your support. >> The motion is for amendment one to 0262. All those in favor raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Anyone opposed? That passes on a 3 to2 vote. Moving on to amendment number two labeled B in your packet. Section one IDO section 43B7F is amended as follows. Dwelling two family detached duplex. Strike the word detached. Uh and then strike in 43B5B. Strike out R1 and RMC. This amendment is removing the duplex use as being permissive within the R1 zone district. I move it do pass. >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second by councelor Grout. And I will say that I've never been opposed to being able to have any of these dwellings created. I'm opposed to making them permissive when people have bought their properties and had expectations for sometimes up to many decades. With that, councilors, councelor Feeorn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I I do want to point out that this amendment, it's my amendment. I've been proposing it for the whole time I've been on council. Um I will continue to do so if it does not pass this year. Um but it did pass the environmental planning commission unanimously. And I do want to remind folks that we have an environmental planning commission for this reason. They are experts. Each one of us, every city councelor gets to appoint someone who is an expert on land use planning and zoning to that commission. and it passed unanimously. Um, and I will just say for the record, duplexes are not scary. I have one on my block. Those folks have no, you would not know that they are any different than me. Um, and you would not know that there was a duplex there unless you were looking for it or you happen to notice that there were two different families living there. And so, um, I I do not understand the the, um, opposition to duplexes. Never have, never will. Um, it just seems to me that we need to be providing as many housing units as we can for people and duplexes are slightly less expensive than a full-size family a single family home and that would be very helpful to many people in our community. The people that I know that live in duplexes are the same as us. Um, Councelor Benton, who used to be on this council, grew up in a duplex. And I don't think that anybody could argue that he is somehow not worthy of living in your neighborhood. And so, um, obviously, I will be opposing this this amendment. And I will continue to push for allowances for duplexes in our neighborhoods. Counselors, other comments or questions? Councelor Grout to close. >> I heard your support. All those in favor of amendment number two to 02, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Anyone opposed? >> That passes on a 3-2. Moving on to amendment number three labeled C in your packet. Uh this one IDO section 43B7F is amended as follows in 43B6 C strike out triplex and add in on lots. So this one will read, "Except in UCMS PT areas, each townhouse house dwelling shall not contain more than three dwelling units on lots with rear or side lot line that abuts an RA, R or R1 zone district or with rear lot line that is across an alley from RA or R1 zone district. And in 43B6D in the RA and R1 zone districts, this use is prohibited except in or within 1,320 ft or a/4 mile of MS PT areas. Uh I'll start by making that motion. >> Second. >> There's a second by councelor Champine. This amendment removes the townhouse use as permissive in R1 citywide. Within the R1 zone district, town houses were capped at three units max, essentially making the use a triplex. Councilors, any questions or comments? Councelor Feebleorn. Madam Chair, um, also do not think that triplexes are scary. We have triplexes in many neighbors in neighborhoods in District 7. Um, they are exactly like everyone else that lives in that neighborhood. Um, I find it really insulting to say that we don't want people who can't afford a single family home in any neighborhood where any of us live. Um, I would love to have some triplexes in my neighborhood. It would give people more options for affordable housing. It would give young people an opportunity to actually have um a home that they can purchase and build up some equity on. um given that young people, well quite frankly folks under my age and I'm pretty old um are not looking to be able to ever purchase a single family home. And so we need to be providing additional housing types for those folks. Um and so again, people who live in triplexes are not scary. Triplexes do not impede on your rights as a private property owner. You can still have your single family home, but giving people a few more housing options is not a bad thing. >> Councilors, any other questions or comments? Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think it's not a shock that I won't be voting for this, but I think for me, I just this will extremely affect a lot of the housing plans we have in district six for home ownership, specifically on town homes for our state fair redevelopment. And I know the state is exempt from our zoning. So hopefully we still have some options to put some town homes there for um for specifically for affordable home ownership options. My district is 45% owners and I'm really working hard to try to make that go over 50%. But with the income in my district, a town home is the only way folks are going to be able to purchase a home. So, I just have to say that. And as a single mom, uh I only lived in town homes or duplexes for safety reasons. I choose chose my apartments or my duplexes or town homes by looking the address up on the sex offender registry. Um, and you'd be surprised how many are in apartments, um, shockingly. So, I chose not to live in those types of housing units just for safety for my children. And so, I definitely, you know, hope that we can get to a place where we can allow this type of housing units, but town homes for my district is critical for converting more homeowners um, renters into homeowners. Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments, counselors? Council Grout to close. >> Hear your support. >> All those in favor of amendment number three to 02, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Anyone opposed? That passes on a 3-2 vote. Moving on to amendment number four marked D in your packet. IDO table 554 is amended as follows. strikeout ACM MT areas and strike uh 125% and then under DT UCMS PT areas strike out 100% and 175% replace it with the 175%. This removes the parking maximum added to activity centers and major transit corridors and also reverses the amendments made to DT UCMSP areas back or back to a 175% maximum. >> Second. >> There's a second by councelor Grow. I will say that in talking with staff and learning about this, it's it's not that they can't be reduced by whoever's building the property. Um it would be fine if they did, but I don't see why we have to mandate it. Councilor's questions, comments. Councelor Peopleorn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um this was my proposal um back when we were sending these into um the planning department and um EPC. And I will just say one of the things that I hear from um the opposition to increase gentle density is that we want to be focusing on corridors um and transit corridors. That's where we should put all of our affordable housing. That's where we should put everything apparently. And so if we're going to be doing that, if we're going to be trying to move everything that we want not in our neighborhoods to transit corridors, we're going to have to make room for them. And continuing to pave paradise is not the answer to increasing density along those corridors. And so that has been the number one thing that I've heard from opposition to gentle density. And then I find it shocking that we are now going backwards on this as well because we don't want them in our neighborhoods. We want them to go over to the transit corridors, but we also don't want to make any room in transit corridors for people to actually be there. So, it's a little confusing to me. Thank you, >> Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam President. I just um wanted to ask the sponsors like maybe the reason for your thought process for for the maximums. >> Uh councelor I stated the reason that developers can put in minimums they can put in less they don't have to but there's no need to mandate minimum of that council grout >> I would agree. >> Okay and then thank you um I just want to go to to Mr. Cox. So, can you tell me what the just because I want to learn what's the process for a developer to do that? They have to they just don't have they can they don't have to build the max and they don't have to get a special except like special permission not to build the max amount. >> Um, >> Mr. Cox, >> so uh chair councelor Rogers um basically how parking maximums wouldn't be there without parking minimums really. And so we have a minimum number of parking uh spaces required uh for certain uses. Um similar to the use table, we have a table that says what each use requires uh in terms of parking spaces per square foot or dwelling unit or something. And so let's say a grocery store um needed a 100 parking spaces. Um this within these certain corridors as the bill is written right now would limit that grocery store at 100 parking spaces. Um previously and if this amendment passes uh within the DT U MS and PT areas uh it would go back to 175% parking maximum which means that grocery store could not build more than 175 parking spaces. And so this was decreasing the maximum to 100%. Um but uh also as part of the IDEO um amendment this year uh parking minimums were removed within these corridors which means uh it kind of leaves the developer up to whatever the market desires as far as parking spaces provided except for they couldn't go over this maximum number. >> Got it. Thank you. And then I noticed um madam chair on the um amendment there's some excluding that's that struck through excluding park ride alongs and depots 330 ft from a transit facility. What does that do? >> Mr. Cox. >> Yeah. >> Is that Yeah. Thank you, >> Mr. Cox. >> Um chair uh councelor Rogers. Um so basically this uh consolidated uh two transit facilities which uh my understanding is that park and rides, lots and depots are also considered a part of a transit facility. U cool and uh handy dandy over there. And um so bus stops um our uh art stations uh the areas where the buses need to turn around all those would be considered transit facilities uh which um we just consolidated that definition to make it simpler but it it doesn't really change any substantive aspect of the idea. So, um, excluding park and ride lots and depots just falls within the term transit facility. >> Is that? >> Got it. >> Crystal clear. >> Thank you. Okay. I think I I think I got it. Thank you. >> Uh, councilors, I just want to add too before we go to councelor Grout to close on this one that I think that it's also part of the conversations that we had too. I know that you and I had discussed we're not the designers. we're not the ones that are really engineering and figuring out the best number of parking spots. So, let's leave it up to them and let them figure out where that goes. Councelor Grout to go uh to go. Council Gout to close. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I I just think we need to leave it up to the developers to they know what what is expected and and if they choose to go less, they can, but we shouldn't be mandating it. So I urge your support. The motion is for a due pass of amendment 4 to 0262. All those in favor raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Anyone opposed? That passes 3 to two. Moving on to amendment number five to 0262. Ido section 43G9J is amended as follows. Uh, this use is prohibited within 1,320 ft of major open space, uh, major public open space. There's a second from council grout. This amendment changes the buffer requirements of safe outdoor spaces from adjacent to major public open space to a distance separation of 1,320 ft. uh a lot of the discussion that we had had again and I'm trying not to speak for you but uh was there's some places where there's a whole bunch of land but because there's major public open space way out acres and acres away from that that's adjacent there can't be an a safe outdoor space there. So this changes it to within it needs to be a certain distance from the major open spa public open space. Um, and so that's why we ended up coming up with that, which I believe this is the one that ends up being a quarter of a mile. >> Any questions or comments? Council Rogers. >> Thank you. I was just question wondering the very specific 1,320. Is it just because it's like a quarter mile or what's the rationale with the feet that you >> It's similar like with Main Street, you know, that just that's what we >> council Rogers. Thank you, >> Councelor Puborn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think I got your explanation, but can somebody provide an example? >> Mr. Cox. >> Um, Chair, uh, Councelor Feebleorn. Um the easiest example would be out on the west side uh where we have large tracks of land um that one side of that land uh specifically near the petetroglyph uh that might be private property and not considered major public open space uh would be like the roadway is way on the east side of that and then there are acres of meadow or desert high desert floor uh before you get to the property line. Um, but mostly on the west side. >> Any other questions? Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you. That made a lot of crystal clear things come in my brain when the way you just explained that because, you know, District 6 doesn't have a lot of open space straight up. But all of these are pretty much in my district. So, I'm hoping this means that some of my colleagues will put some safe outdoor spaces in their districts. Um, because I need the help. um district 6 can't continue to handle the brunt of homelessness and so I hope that this is in preparation of some of my colleagues putting some safe outdoor spaces in their district. Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments? Counselors councelor uh madam chair I urge your support. >> All right. All those in favor of amendment five to 0262 raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Anyone oppose? That passes unanimously. Moving on to amendment number six. Here we go. Uh this one uh amend number six IDO table 611 summary of development review procedures is as amended as shown below. Um vacation of public rideaway is going to you know what this one is enough that I would like you to describe it. So I would like cuz I do agree with it but I would like to move amendment number six and that way I don't end up convoluting details for any of you and confusing the thing. >> Second. >> There's a second by councelor Grout. Mr. Cox >> um chair and uh committee um basically uh through the EPC red line and a proposal to um essentially possibly consolidate a process for vacation. Um the EPC red line came over with a recommendation to allow the DHO to determine um what can or should be vacated um as a final decision maker uh which is the development hearing officer. Um, and currently as the IDO sets, council has that final say for anything that is in an alleyway that is 500 square ft or larger or within a general roadway that is 5,000 ft or larger or the whole width of that roadway. Um and so this change would have made that final decision-making power um go to the DHO versus council and this amendment would just undo it and we would still be under the same process that we are today with council being the final decision maker on that size of a vacation. Um it still has to go to the DHO for recommendation and to meet all the uh requirements through our different codes. Um, but it will come to council if uh this is approved. >> Thank you. That's definitely better than I would have phrased it. Uh, but I just I know for me, I didn't want to give up our final authority and and being able to make that decision. Thus, my reasoning behind supporting it and creating it. Any questions or comments? Councelor Fubicorn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Mr. Cox, this one came through unanimously from the APC as well, right? Um, I believe this came from planning staff. Um, >> came through planning from planning staff. Oh, unanimously. Then it went through the EPC and I believe it was unanimous as well. >> Um, chair councelor. Yes, it was unanimous as well. >> Thank you. Um, Madam Chair, I, you know, I'm all for maintaining city council's um, purview on things that matter, but um, we get a lot of alleyways and streets um, that need to be vacated and um, hopefully more as we move forward with density and and um, additional work on alleys and in my district, for example, we're making them in pocket parks and things like that. Um, I really don't see the need for it to come through council. And I think it really delays the process because, um, they're going to have to wait for it to go through our committee process and then go to full counsel just to get, um, a vacation on a an alleyway. It seems it seems like a ridiculously long time period to make that process even more detailed and difficult. So, I won't be be able to support. >> Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask cuz I read also that it was initiated by the planning staff, planning department. Can I just ask um Michaela a couple questions just about the rationale for you guys and what you're seeing that made you bring this change forward? Um and can you just explain for folks who are texting me saying vacation? I want to go to on vacation. What does vacation mean? Um in for the folks that are texting me asking that question. >> Good evening, Miss Ren Whitmore. uh chair, counselors, um a vacation means to let go of a right of way, whether it's in an alley or a public street. So, what you're the vacation part is that you're letting go of that ride ofway that you're holding for that um purpose. Uh the reason the planning department put this forward was that partly the delay, as councelor uh Feeorn mentioned, it adds an extra two months no matter what. no matter how fast you move, it's two months that they have to wait. It always comes through council as a um consent agenda. And for the last few years, it's stayed on the consent agenda and not even had discussion at council. So from our perspective, the development hearing officer provides the proper amount of engineering detail, the public discussion. Um there's notice that's provided. the public discussion can happen at the development hearing officer hearings and we can get those uh projects moving two months faster. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And just a couple follow-ups. Um if the if this passed and the DHO or didn't pass and the DHO had to make that decision, what's the is there an appeal process or a process that folks could go through if they don't agree with that? >> Thanks. Uh chair, counselors. Yes. So, uh, the way that that would work is someone could appeal the development hearing officer's decision. It would then go to the land use hearing officer and then to you to make the final determination. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, that process wouldn't change with >> So, today because council makes the final decision, if someone wants to appeal, it has to go to district court for an appeal. So, if you denied it, if you pulled it off the consent agenda and denied it, someone would have to take it to district court to um appeal. If this change, not the amendment that's in front of you, but what EPC recommended, if that change goes forward, DHO makes the decision, the appeal would come to you through the land use hearing officer. >> Thank you. That that helps a lot. Uh thank you. >> Counselor's questions, comments, council grout. Um, I am willing to withdraw this one if you are. >> Okay, we'll withdraw it. Yeah. >> We good. Okay. All right. Moving on to amendment number seven. This is Oh, you know what? This one I was told, councelor Grout, you're not going to move uh letter G in your packet, counselor. So, we're going to skip that. We're moving on to amendment seven labeled H. Uh, Councelor Fiborn. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, I'll move committee amendment number seven. Um, and I it's on the screen. I won't go through all the details, but I'll let um um staff explain it in detail um once we get it moved, but I will go ahead and move it. >> There's a motion and a second by Councelor Grout. Thank you. So this is um a need that we have realized that we do not have in the IDO. Um right now we do not have any definitions of composting facilities and we have quite a few you know largecale composters in our community and hopefully um more soon. And so the um sustain sustainability office did all the work on this to define the small, medium, and large scale um compost facilities and set forth the requirements for those. And if it's okay with Madame President or Madam Yeah. Madam Chair, um I can have Mr. Cox go through what is in here. Mr. Cox. >> Um Chair, Councelor uh Feebleorn, apologies. Um I will do my best and we also have the sustainability office staff here as well to uh pick up where I didn't catch. Um but really uh as the IDO today exists, we did not have a definition for a composting and so it was a bit um confusing on how to regulate uh as such. And as you can see within the use table on the screen, we added um A for um accessory and then uh P for permissive and and C for conditional for the different size and scales of those different composting facilities. And so for composting as a whole, as councelor Fableorn mentioned, there is small, medium, and large. Um one thing to point out is that large uh one it is permissive within RA which is residential agriculture where you mostly find that within the valley large lots generally has some type of garden or produce aspect to it uh or within our non-residential zone districts. Um as you go through the amendment uh you'll see that there are different um use specific standards tied to that as well. Um this use still does have to apply uh to all state and federal requirements. Um and then also um wear accessory to another primary use. This use is limited to 10% of the area of the premise. Um as you go down farther, you'll see that they we do have buffers uh for that use uh adjacent to residential areas. Um and um apologies. Uh and then uh I think one to also really focus in on is if this use is within 500 ft in any direction of any residential zone district or lot containing a residential use in any mixed use zone district, customer visits and delivery shall be prohibited between 1000 p.m. and 7 a.m. And so there is already an aspect of hour and non-disturbance kind of written into the code. Um as you go down to composting facility large um it also has a 10% uh area premise when accessory and then um the outdoor storage shall comply with standards in subsection 141643e19 which has a number of kind of protection and standards where um if it is imposing in terms of odor uh noise etc. We do have enforcement actions for that. Um, and then this use is prohibited within 330 feet of major public open space. Uh, kind of similar language to what y'all just uh approved. Um, I am not the expert when it comes to actual composting and what that means. Um, and so but we do have experts here. >> Counselors, any questions or comments? Council People Corner close. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I think it's important that we think through these kinds of definitions and our Ido before we get to the place where we have a lot of additional um composting facilities opening up and they might be too close to residential uses. They might have issues. I think this um sets forth the clear um requirements for each of the size uh facilities and makes it very clear that we do of course want composting in our in our community, but we also have some guard rails on that. So I urge support. The motion is for amendment 7 to 0262. All those in favor raise your hand and say yes. >> Anyone opposed? That passes unanimously. Moving on to amendment eight. uh labeled I in your packet. Councelor Grout. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, amendment 8 um is an amendment to undo the proposed amendment to section 6-6B, demolition outside of an HPO, a his I think it's historic preservation >> protection >> prot historic protection area, which would have required a review by the landmark commission of any structure that is 50 years old or older, regardless of location, or if it's on a state or national historic registry. Repealing item 63 will bring back the existing language today in the IDO that requires demolition review of structures built prior to 1945 and within certain small mapped areas. I would support uh there's a motion and I'll give it a second. This just to do the section for everyone's information as part of the IDO exhibit of 0262 repeal spreadsheet item number 63 in its entirety. And I will add that the idea behind this in in my perspective was that if you have a historic property or some national treasure then it should be a part of the landmarks commission and people should apply for that. Some places are super old and I think that we don't need to make everything go through the process when it comes to something um just because of its age. Councilors, any questions or comments? Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one question. I noticed um if we the amendment is about the smallmapped areas, but we crossed out the specific smallmapped areas in the amendment. So, I just am I understanding that correctly, >> Mr. Cox? >> Chair, Councelor Rogers. So, this is kind of a new uh amendment formatting. Uh, basically with the format that came over from EPC, if we were to undo the red line, add the new highlighted version of showing counselor amendments and join that all together, it turned out to be just a hot mess. And so what you're seeing below is just the language that came over from the EPC red line just to be aware of what you are repealing out. And if I may add to Council Rogers, it is kind of hard to discern on here, but that actually falls under the explanation technically. And so above that, literally the amendment is to repeal spreadsheet item 63. That's what the amendment is. Everything else with all that red line is again the details that went along with that as part of the explanation. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to follow up, what was um who initiated this this uh change? Was it the planning department also or >> um chair councelor Rogers? I do believe it was um the historic preservation division within our planning department. >> Thank you. Could I hear a little bit of the rationale from the team? It helps me decide. Miss Ren Whitmore, >> chair, councilors, our historic preservation folks are enormously efficient and still uh traumatized by the loss of the Alvarado um which didn't have a landmark status and was demolished before uh public um opposition could get in front of it. Um, and so the idea is that once buildings become potentially historically significant, which arbitrary, 50 years old, I'm 50. I would like demolition review, please. Um, that um when someone applies for demolition, our historic preservation staff looks at it within a day or two, says, "You're good. You're good." Signs off, signs off, signs off. Here comes something like the Alvarado Center. That applicant hasn't um voluntarily come forward and said, "I would like to be a landmark, please." Uh this allows our staff to say, "Okay, I'm not going to sign off. You need to apply to see the Landmarks Commission." The Landmarks Commission needs to sign off. What the Landmarks Commission can do is say, "We'd like to put a 120day pause." That's the most they can do is say pause. And during that pause, staff can go out and document that building so that we have photos, we have drawings, we have a record before it gets demolished. Um, that time can also be if landmark says this is really important, they can send it to council to have you all try to find money to purchase the property or to come to an agreement with the uh property owner to do something different than demolishing. It just buys a little time at the end of the day. the end of that 120day period, documentation's done, that person gets their demolition permit. It's really just the opportunity to have a pause button. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so this amendment, so what this amendment would do is say no more 50 years, no rolling period of significance. So mid mid-century modern is now becoming historic, which it it would not be protected. any of the buildings that you love with swoops and curves, none of that would be um protected for demolition review. Only things built before 1945. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Council Porn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I I definitely understand the thought behind this, but I I just have to say Albuquerque is a really unique city with some really unique character in our buildings. And not all of the unique character that is in our buildings happened before 1945. Um, if we have the 50-year point, we would be including things that were built in the 50s, the 60s, and the 70s. Okay, maybe not the 70s, but the 50s and 60s had some very cool architecture. And we just cannot expect that every unique cultural building in our community has gotten landmark status. And so I I just think that we need to think through the uniqueness of Albuquerque, why people want to come here, why tourists like to come here and look at our buildings and our city. It's because we have things that no one else has. we have a character that no one else has. And that's really the point behind this the proposal in the base bill, not the one that we're voting on now, was to make sure that we are thinking through each building before we get rid of culturally significant buildings. We have a process where we think, does this really impact our city? And I think Ren's miss Whitmore example of the Alvarado Center is a really good one. like we we really do not need to be destroying more historic buildings within our community. I think that is one of the things that makes us a tourist destination and makes us who we are. So, we'll be opposing. Thank you, Council Gr. >> I'll be happy to withdraw this one. >> Me, too. We'll we'll withdraw, but I might come back for a 50-year demolition review >> when I get there. >> Good job, Miss Renmore. Moving on to amendment number nine. Councelor Grout. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, amendment number nine is to uh amend out undo >> No. >> Oh, yeah. Oh. As part of exhibit one of 0262 repeal spreadsheet items C-7 and condition 10- A and M2 and condition 10 reversing EPC recommendation >> second counc. >> Thank you madam chair. This amen amendment would undo all the amendments made to the live work general retail and grocery store uses that were part of the bodega amendments. this amendment. Um, these amendments were for the purpose of introducing neighborhood scale commercial to residential area corner lots. Um, and I will just say um little corner stores in neighborhoods are are great in big cities um and in planned communities, but um so many of I I don't know that we're quite there yet. And preserving the character of single single family homes is very important. um on every corner. I I think as a a city as a whole um it's not one-sizefits-all particularly. I can tell you that um if we did this if there was a corner house or a a little shop on each corner in my area, I could have eight little stores right across the street from me because of where my house sits. So, it's it can't be in every single corner. There needs to be some more thought to that. That's my thought. >> And I guess to add on to your open and then we'll go to comments and questions. Um I was telling Mr. Cox when talking to him about this. I think that there's a potential for these bodeas to be really cool and chic and uh but I don't I don't think that Albuquerque is there yet. And I think that there are many neighborhoods although there are plenty of people in District 4 that might like it. I definitely think that there are some neighborhoods that are primarily and quite loudly going to be opposed to something like this popping up. >> Councilors, questions. Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This was one of my proposed amendments um specifically to combat food deserts in my district. And so I while I respect that, you know, may not be right for yours, taking it out altogether. And I know councelor Fiborn and I talk about this all the time like not exempting certain districts and those things. Um but I feel like that maybe should be the amendment instead of just kabashing it in places like my district that desperately need this for economic development for a food desert. Um and actually is part of the history of my district allowing uh folks who could not afford to go into business into big re retail spots. Um, and quite frankly, the Walmarts of the world have ravished my district. Um, and we need this for um, fresh food. So, I just put that out there, maybe exempt it from your district. Um, but I need it for mine um, for very important things like food deserts. We have 8 thou over 8,000 families in my district that are transit dependent alone and have to go have to go to the store every two days because of what they're allowed to carry on the bus and the specific size rollers that we only allow on our bus. Um and especially my seniors, we have a lot of transit dependent seniors. um that would be it would be helpful for them to be able to walk to their corner and get some odds and ends um for their for themselves and their families. So, I just want to put that out there in the ether is that I need this in district six and if it needs to be specific to that um I'm open to that because I need this for my district. Thank you, >> Council People. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I'm just gonna name my privilege. If I need to go to the grocery store, I get in my car and I drive to the grocery store. Um, there are an estimated, I believe, 10,000 people in Albuquerque who do not have that privilege. They cannot go and get in their car and drive to the grocery store because they don't have a car. And so by saying um it doesn't matter to us that there are people who can't get to grocery stores um I think that says a lot about um how we view um services for everyone in our community not just some. Um I will say that I heard you know we're not there yet. We're not there yet. Well we'll never get there if our answer to every single thing that comes before this council is no. That's not a possibility. Progress requires change. And until we're ready to embrace small changes like yes, if you live in a food desert, you could walk two blocks to your neighborhood bodega rather than getting on the bus. Well, first of all, walking potentially up to a mile to get on the bus, then getting on the bus, then going to the store, then picking out what you can carry home in your little carry-on that's allowed on the bus, then getting back to the bus, then driving the going on the bus back to your house, and then walking the mile back to your house. That is not important enough for us to consider. These are small incremental changes that could help a lot of people, and I really wish that we would consider them. Thank you, >> counselors. Any other questions or comments? I'll urge your support. All those in favor of amendment number nine to 0262, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Anyone opposed? That passes on a 3-2 vote. Moving on to amendment number 10, Council Grout. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. Um Madam, let's see. Um floor amendment number 10 is um number one as part of exhibit 1-0262 repeal spreadsheets items C5 and conditions 9 and items M1 and conditions 9A1 reversing EPC recommendation >> second council grout. >> This amendment repeals the amended language that EPC recommended around safe outdoor spaces. This language looked to increase the allowed sizes of safe outdoor spaces in proximity to each other, removed plumbing requirements, added managing requirements, and include social services that were to be provided by the manager of the safe outdoor space. Um, I I'm not ready to remove safe outdoor spaces from our IDO entirely. I think that they can work. Um, I do believe there needs to be safeguards and that when we um talked about them a couple of years ago, those safeguards were put in place. Um, it's important that there's running water and I think that there should be um real bathrooms. I also think there needs to be 247 security. Um, we know that things happen at night and um there needs to be 247 security. I also think that it's important to have um staff there um services available to help these people. Um I I personally want I want to get these people I it it breaks my heart to have them see them in tents. I want to get them in inside to places. I think that's much much safer for them um you know to be in a warm environment. Um, but the provisions that we brought forth a couple of years ago were compromises. Um, and I think that um I think that they're important that we keep them. >> Councilor's questions or comments? Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I appreciate some of the, you know, uh, amendments here. I think the one I it's hard for me to live with is the plumbed um water fixtures and things because this is a temporary use for land. So requiring folks to put in permanent infrastructure on a temporary permit for land just is is what's been burdensome for I think all the rest of it I could live with and you know security 247 all of that I could live with. But I think the part about what I'm hearing because again they're in district six. No other district has these. Um and so what I'm hearing from folks who want to have more of these is that's the barrier is having to have the dollars to build the infrastructure to to meet this. So I think you know I'm I'm purchasing things like hygiene trailers that have showers in them um that would have that ability to give folks that stuff. But I would wonder if you would, you know, entertain a friendly amendment to not make people have to input and pay for permanent infrastructure on a temporary land use permit because this is a temporary permit that's only good for two years. And I'm so I'm okay with all the others. I could live with all the others, but that part is really what's burdensome for folks. They do not have the money. Most of these are our church communities that have these to actually plum something on a temporary use. Councelor Fableorn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I um thank you, Councelor Rogers. The plumbing um the reduction in the plumbing requirements was actually mine and I um was very hopeful that we would get there because I do think it makes zero sense to require permanent plumbing on something that has to go away in in a certain number of years. Um there are many alternatives to plumbed bathrooms. um this the the trailers that council Rogers discussed, composting, toilets, there's a lot of options that don't require a land owner who quite frankly is doing something out of the goodness of their heart. Um they are not required to provide a safe outdoor space. But if they do want to do that, I think that we should make it easier for them to do it and cheaper. Um no one can afford to plum a parking lot um with permanent plumbing. um it is very very expensive and so um I I second councelor Rogers um suggestion. I think I will just remind everyone that we have a continual assault on our unhoused neighbors in our community and we continually hear that um we don't want them on sidewalks and in alleys. If you don't want them in sidewalks and in alleys, the answer is not always housing. Some folks are not ready for housing. Some folks are not ready for overnight shelters inside with rules, but an out a safe outdoor space would get them away from your sidewalks and your alleys, but we're not able to provide those safe outdoor spaces because we've made the requirements for them so difficult that no one can make them. And so, again, I just think that much like any a lot of the other things that we've talked about tonight, we're not looking at a long-term view. We're not trying to make it easier for the people of Albuquerque. We're we're making it a lot harder for those that want to help others. >> Councelor Champine. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple questions. Uh maybe Mr. Cox can answer these. Uh I seem to recall this coming through before and I'm looking at this first paragraph that there's it's a temporary but um you can request for an additional or re repeat of the permit again after two years and then it's approved or do you have to go through the whole thing again or >> what's the renewal process? >> Is it automatic? Um, councelor Champine, I'll look to the planning department if I get this wrong, but um, basically, uh, every two years you get the ability to extend and you have to go through the same requirements and inspections that you would the first time. Uh, and which means you have to meet all the requirements within this section and I assume some other ordinances that I am not familiar with probably environmental health code and things of that nature. Okay. >> Um but it would be essentially 2 years initially and then the ability to extend if you meet all the requirements for another two years. >> So when we say that there you have to go through Oh, >> Miss Runs Whitmore. >> Uh chair councilors that's absolutely right with one thing which is that there there is that sixmonth period where you have to stop operations. So um today you can't just extend you have to stop for six months and then you can come reapply. >> Madam chair why >> counselors uh passed that in the IDO. >> Okay. >> So >> interesting. >> I I think I think the idea is to give the neighborhood a break but uh stopping operations and then restarting operations is also enormously expensive. >> Interesting. >> Okay. Madam Chair, um the reason why I asked this is because we keep saying that it's only temporary. It's only temporary, but it seemed fit to put in here ways to renew the process giving it meaning that it's not a temporary thing because two years to four to six to eight isn't really tempor isn't really temporary. Two years isn't temporary. You can go get an associates degree two years. So you're temporarily in college. I mean, um, I don't think it's a temporary thing. Um, I I don't even want to ask the question of how long we've had homeless here in in in dealing with this issue for 5 years, 6 years, 10 years. It isn't a temporary problem. It's not going to be a temporary fix. It is a permanent fix that is going to go on and we have to adjust and adapt to these issues moving forward. uh because we've talked about it many of times uh madam chair that it's not one answer because it's not one issue that causes this problem that causes the people to be in this situation. It is different issues that affect different lives that have to have a different response but it is a not a temporary result. It is not a temporary fix. This is a ongoing issue that's been going on for years. So, um, thank you for the clarification, >> Council Pubicorn. >> U, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I just want to point out that my point was just made. We have ridiculous rules that, um, say things like you can have a safe outdoor space for two years, but then you've got to take a break. Um, and then you can have another one for two more years, but you've got to take another six-month break. That's what we're going back to with this amendment. And I think we should be moving forward, meaning getting rid of some of the rules that make it really difficult for property owners to provide these and make it easier for us to provide services for people who are unhoused in our community. So, just wanted to make the point that we we're we're making our own point. You know, my points are being um supported up here. >> Mr. Cox, can you tell me when the under on the second page of this amendment 43G9E where it says toilets, handwashing stations, and shower shall be provided as follows and the whole plumbed handwashing stations and water flush. When was that added to the IDO roughly? >> Um, I am a lonely planner and my memory is not there. >> Miss Renmark Uh, chair counselors, I believe that was 2022. >> And was that roughly when this got added to the IDO safe outdoor spaces? >> Yes, it was with the original uh safe outdoor space. >> Correct. So, I remember aggressive conversations about making sure that we added plumbed handwashing stations and water flush because it was not okay for us to be providing or not providing enough water. And uh so so I'm that that's the comment I want to bring up because I was here for that. I remember that and I also remember district 4 aggressively telling me no and that's where I stand on this. >> Madame chair, councilors, uh safe outdoor spaces were originally proposed as a permanent use and got moved into temporary during those negotiations at council. So I think the permanent use made more sense when we were talking about something permanent and I think once it got moved into the temporary that was part of the negotiation that didn't catch up. >> Thank you for sharing. >> Councelor Grout to close. >> I heard you support. >> All those in favor of amendment 10 to 0262 raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Anyone opposed? That passes on a 32. Moving on to amendment number 11. Councelor Grout. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, amendment number 11. It's as part of exhibit 1-0262, repeal spreadsheet item 29, NEPC condition 8, item 28, and item C4 and EPC condition 8 in its entirety reversing EPC's recommendation. This is on attached ADUs. >> Second, >> Miss Can we ask? >> Sure, Mr. Mr. C, >> do you want to go ahead and >> dive into this one which ended up having some pretty deep discussion? I know. I want to add like we talked about this and considered it quite a bit. Mhm. >> Um so, uh in the current IDEO, we require casitas, ADUs, um to be detached, uh which you could convert a detached, uh garage or a shed or whatever. Uh you can fit on your your property, but it can't be attached to the principal structure. Uh originally, that was because we couldn't tell the difference between um a duplex and an attached ADU. Uh but through uh the uh introduction of the amendment to allow for attached data used to principal structures uh the solution we found to differentiate between those two housing typologies is by providing a uh size limit um or differentiation uh whereas ADUs cannot be larger than 750 square ft. Uh so if it does go over 750 ft we consider it a duplex. Um some of the other changes that happened uh were changing it from um gross uh or like square feet um and gross floor area to building footprint because we found if you put your ADU above a garage and your garage is already 400 square ft then you are limited to 350 square feet uh in terms of a ADU size. Uh and then we also changed the height limit as well. um that would allow casitas to be at least 18 feet tall or if the principal structure is higher than that they could go as tall as the principal structure still meeting that 750 ft maximum. Um but yes, that's it. >> Councilors, any questions or comments? Council Peoplehorn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um so again this was my uh request through the EPC and I will point out again that it passed the EPC unanimously. So the experts that um we have all chosen to review these things um agree with me that this is a good idea. Um adding a requirement that an ADU be detached just makes it more expensive and takes more time. Um, and it reduces the amount of folks that can put in an ADU, which may be the the goal of this council, but folks do want to put in ADUs. Um, I hear from the community all the time that they do, and we already have so many restrictions on ADUs. They have to be certain amount of setback in your backyard. Your backyard has to be a certain size and it can't be more than a percentage of that size or it can't be there. It has to have off- streetet parking. It has to have a setback. It has to have the same color. It has to be detached. The um the requirements for ADUs have made it where not surprisingly there haven't been very many since we did finally say you can have ADUs in our community. Um and people ask me all the time why aren't there more? Um and my answer is because we've made it impossible for people to do them. And so the point of this proposal that went through EPC and passed unanimously by the experts was to say we're going to take some of those requirements that don't make any sense and make it slightly easier for people and slightly cheaper. It is obviously less expensive to attach an ADU to a home than to require a standalone unit. Um and that is the case in many situations including my own house. Of course, I still couldn't get an ADU because I don't have the off- streetet parking spot. So, I'm out of the game anyway. But many people who are not out of the game would really like to be able to attach an ADU to their existing structure. That is all that was in the original proposal that went through the EPC and passed unanimously. And so, again, I just want to point out that people who live in ADUs are not scary either. They do not disintegrate the moral fiber of your community. They don't have any impact on you. They do however give people a place to live that they can potentially afford. It gives folks the opportunity to maybe have their aging parents live with them. It gives people an opportunity. The woman that called me today wants to have her high school or her child that's going from high school to college um be able to live in her backyard so that she has some semblance of, you know, being separated but not too far away. It gives all those options to our families and um with with this repeal of that progress um we would just be going backwards yet again. >> Councilors, any other questions or comments? I'll urge your support. All those in favor of uh amendment 11 to O2, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Anyone opposed? That passes on a 3-2. We're going to move on to amendment number 12. Our last amendment that I see for now. Councelor Grout. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, committee, uh, amendment number 12 will amend, uh, exhibit one, 026-2 by adding the following sections and language. And I won't go through it all, but, um, this is about, um, let's see, our main streets. Um, basically, um, I think that this this amendment would prohibit the following uses within Main Street corridors as designated by the comprehensive plan. equestrian facilities, adult entertainment retail uh campground and recreational vehicle park, car wash, heavy vehicle and equipment sales, rental, fueling and repair, light vehicle sales and rental, outdoor vehicle storage, paid parking lot, self- storage, cannabis retail, pawn shops, freight terminal and dispatch centers, cannabis cultivation, cannabis derived products, uh, manu manufacturing salvage yards warehouse and this is in Main Street um just in the main street areas and I urge your support >> I'll second that motion counselor's comments questions councelor peopleorn >> sorry before you go into that councelor grout to finish your >> thank thank you the main the New Mexico Main Street program is an opportunity to shape the look and feel of a main street area and it's worked very well in knob hill and it's worked working in San P on San Pedro. The main street program is coming along really nicely and this amendment would support these efforts by uh prohibiting uses that are inconsistent with the kind of walkable small businessfriendly neighborhoods we're looking for. And I want to make it clear, drag shows are not included in the prohibition on adult entertainment. Drag shows are allowed everywhere. So, just so you know, >> council peopleorn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so I I love the idea of this proposal. Um, I I definitely support I think for me it's really important that we maintain our main streets as areas where um you do small retail, you do small um scale locallyowned businesses. And you know, definitely some of these things are not in keeping with that feel that you want. You want to be able to walk down the main street or bike down the main street and um seeing a campground or a car wash um or a self- storage unit does not give you the feel of a main street. And so I do like that. Um, but I do have a few questions about this because while some of these are obvious feel of a main street, um, some of them also seem to be more about moral, um, decisions or moral opinions that I probably do not share. And so, um, just wondering why adult retail would be included in a prohibition on Main Street. Those are generally, although not always, but they are generally locally owned. Um they are small-scale retail. Um I I've been to them. I challenge people that have say they haven't been to um tell the truth for a change. But I you know um I just wonder why we we would not want to provide um opportunities for small locally owned businesses to be participating in main streets. >> Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you. Just a question um for our chair. >> I had a question. Sorry. Waiting for an answer for I apologize people. Thank you. >> Were you asking me? >> I was asking the sponsor of the amendment. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Has nothing to do with morals or anything. It it's just >> it's just um familyfriendly neighborhood walking. >> Thank you, Madam President. Familyfriendly does not mean the same council. Can you councelor Fablecorn, can you please let councelor Grout finish her answer to your question? >> And also, I know that you had mentioned something about cannabis earlier. We have a lot of cannabis stores and so we have plenty. Um and I'm and I I really what I hate about I I don't care about cannabis. It it doesn't bother me one bit or another. What bothers me is when they're every other block because I I feel feel for the business. I don't think that there's enough support for all of them. And I hate for the people that are putting their life savings into that business. And when it fails because it's not and we have already seen a lot of them fail, they've lost that in that that um income and they've lost that um life savings and so that's the reason why for cannabis. >> Council Pubicorn. >> Thank you, Madam President. My question was about adult retail and so um I think that um I would like an answer to my question about adult retail. Why specifically would we exclude adult retail from main streets? >> Well, I don't Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think it belongs there. >> So, it is a moral decision, madam. Thank you. My next question, I'm sorry. I asked a question, I answered and I left gave plenty of time for an answer. So, am I allowed to move on now? >> Please proceed. >> Thank you. Uh my next question was I noticed that we have heavy duty vehicle and equipment sales, rental, fueling, and repair. Totally agree with that. But I noticed that light vehicles, we're only excluding sales and rental, not fueling and repair. Um, just wondering what the rationale for that is. This is a list that we Madam Chair, thank you. This is a list that we thought through when we were trying to figure out some when we're trying to build out and re revitalize um Main Street. Um, that's that's where we came up with them. If you if it really offends you, we can take it out. It's not going to bother me. >> Thank you, Madam President. I would say we need to add in fueling and repair for light duty vehicles since it's um already included for heavy duty vehicles. >> That's what you want to do. >> Um Okay. I if that's a friendly amendment, I would make that move. >> Councilors, I'm going to disagree that we can do a friendly amendment. We did just have some parliamentary procedure training. If we want to make an amendment to an amendment, I'm okay with that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I move a minimum amendment to add in fueling and repair under light vehicle sales. >> I will accept >> staff. Did you get that? So there's amendment one to amendment 12 to add in light fueling to add to the sentence that says light vehicle sales and rental add fueling comma and repair. >> And councelor Grout, did you second that? >> That's fine. Councelor Champine your question. >> Just a point of clarification. So light vehicle um so a gas station So there's no more gas stations along central. >> Um chair councilors. Yes, that would mean gas stations. >> My vehicle is a light vehicle. Is that correct? >> My personal Okay. So no more central. Four street San Pedro Broadway Bridge. Mainly central, but I'm looking at four street here too. Just I want to be able to clarify. So there's no gas stations. Now, others that are grandfathered in, there's just going to be no more new ones. >> Okay. >> We got a nod for those who are not who are on Zoom. >> Who are on Zoom? Yeah. >> Actually, I want to take I want to take that out. >> I I want >> Okay. Well, it's there's been a motion and a second for amendment number one. We can go to councelor questions and answers and >> or none. Councilorn to close on amendment number one to amendment 12. >> Thank you, Madam President. Um just just going for consistency here. If we're going to make the decision that heavy vehicle equipment sales, rental, fueling, and repair are not um conducive to main streets. Um and I also think that light duty sales, rental, fueling, and repair are also not conducive to main streets. >> The motion is for amendment one to amendment 12 of O2. All those in favor raise your hand and say yes. >> Anyone opposed? >> No. >> That fails on a two three vote. back on amendment 12. Councilor's questions or comments? Councelor Fiborn. >> And then my last question, >> councelor, your microphone is off. >> Thank you, Madam President or chair. Um I had additional questions on um cannabis retail. I know that that was answered earlier with my question that was not about cannabis retail, but I just want to point out again that we are making moral decisions about what is familyfriendly and my family might very much enjoy going to a main street and being able to buy cannabis products. Um, and I don't believe that anyone has the right um to to claim moral um superiority and tell me what I can and cannot purchase when my family is out on the town. Thank you, >> council. Any other questions or comments? Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a question. So, how if this should pass, what is what is the grandfather? Like just the the existing businesses already along the corridor that are within these are fine. And then like councelor Champine said, there would be no new ones. >> Mr. talks >> uh chair councilors that is a um the base kind of of it but uh really um yes no new ones would be able to exist but it would also limit how the existing ones could expand um or what they could add and so we have um different regulations for nonconformity within the IDO that kind of states those regulations of how much more a uh legally non-conforming site can expand and what that expansion means. Um, and there there is a whole chapter uh about that, but it ultimately does mean no new ones could come in. >> Thank you, man. Thank you. And then I just a question for the sponsors. I also wondered why for the heavy versus light. I understand the fueling and why we wouldn't want to do that, but for the repair, what's the rationale between the heavy and light? Um, I'm just trying to picture my head. heavy as like semi-truckss that they're fixing in the neighborhood type of thing or like in these corridors. >> Yeah. >> Versus just a car repair place that that is a lot of on central. >> Mhm. >> Because it's a historic Route 66. A lot of people drive through it and needed like that was the historic history of why these things existed on these corridors. Um and I know it's very different now, but Matt, can we see the map? I just um I don't know that we showed that to public what we're talking about as far as what corridors um we're talking about. So we have uh the big one in the middle is central just for for um then it looks like you named off of a couple of them counselor Champine San Pedro on the far my right people watching maybe the far left. Uh Samonteo. >> Uh, >> is it not in there? No, >> I can list them if you would like counselor. Thank you. Um, so the main street corridors as designated by Oh, chair councilors. >> Um, as designated by our comprehensive plans are >> the one where you see a gap in the middle is for street. Uh, central you, um, identify correctly. The one that goes a bit north on the far east side of the map is San Pedro. Um, the one right in the middle that just goes south of Central is Broadway, South Broadway. And then, um, the one that cuts over across the river that is not Central is Bridge Avenue. >> Thank you so much. And as soon as you said that, I found the list at the bottom of the map. Thank good. So, sorry about that. But for the public, this was good for you to to know, too. Thank you. >> Counselors, any other questions or comments? >> Little ma'am. It's a little >> chair, counselor, sorry, just one bit of clarification. Um, councelor Rogers pointed out uh vehicle repair um that it is only heavy vehicle repair and so light vehicle repair is not included on this list, which is your typical. And so if someone wants to have like their diesel 18-wheeler worked on, that would be a completely different type shop that we have different regulations for and is a different use from a mom and pop repair station. >> Yeah. Council Grout to close. >> I urge your support. >> All those in favor of amendment number 12 to 02, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Anyone opposed? That passes on a 3-2. Councelor, any counselors, any other amendments? Seeing none, we are on to O-2. I know I started the meeting by saying we would do amendments and then take a break and then go to comment, but we're not even at seven. So, I say we roll through comments and let everybody be here and not have to take a break before going. So, uh let me remind you of public comment ground rules. They will be comments are to be addressed to the committee members only. Each participant will have two minutes to present and any disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting. So Mr. uh as your name gets called, if you're on deck, please start making your way down to the front. Mr. Cornelius, if you'll call the first speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Our first speaker is Jackie Davis, followed by Steven Hullman, followed by Bianca Ensenius. Good evening, Madam Chair, many members of the committee. Um, I would be remiss if I didn't say that I'm a little disappointed in the failure to pass a lot of very important amendments for affordability in the city. Um, I want to especially point out the bodega amendment for district 6 is really important. Not only because district 6 has a lot of food deserts, but because there are many places in district 6 where you can find four cannabis shops on each single corner, but not a single grocery store within a mile. And so, it's really hard to see these amendments p these amendments fail to pass. That being said, there still is good stuff in the IDO and it should pass. Um, so I hope that you all will. Thank you. >> Steven Holman, followed by Bianca Ensenas, followed by Jordan McConnell. >> Good evening. We have submitted 892 petition signatures in opposition to upzoning. But we also submitted a comprehensive plan for prohousing community-based planning as a better path forward. If we keep the IDO to its pre2025 updates, we can use seven pillars for collaborative and equitable growth. Community empowerment with self-determination and planning for incremental growth, anti-displacement measures, ensuring people can stay in their homes with rules against price speculation, rent stabilization, emergency rental funds, eviction protections, and foreclosure protections. Diverse and affordable housing by utilizing 192 empty buildings with 1.8 million plus square feet along seven city corridors for housing. The city could sell 50% of its over 125,000 pre-platted lots to stimulate growth. We can require 50% of all new construction to be mixed housing with 25% of that permanently affordable. We can also lower or eliminate fees to further incentivize growth. We can distribute amenities across the city equally to prevent gentrification. We can build community wealth with land trusts to help children of residents to afford to live and work in their communities. We can use targeted infrastructure investments as well to help lift those areas that have been traditionally forgotten. We need to zone with equity and protection by expanding historic overlays, protecting the petetroglyphs, and including racial impact studies. The ideal amendments that were made and approved by the EPC have proven tools of gentrification, and people have had every right to be upset. The EPC said the quiet thing out loud in hearings by saying, "Let developers do what they want." Currently, politicians in Santa Fe are trying to push similar laws statewide with political leverage from various parties in the non-industrial, I'm sorry, nonprofit industrial complex. I think the lesson to learn here is how to be collaborative again. We need to have collaboration between the city and its residents. Those who live here knows what's best for their communities and their voices need to be a part of the conversation instead of using dictatorial government rooted in colonialism and rigid ideology. Let's move forward together and collaborate on a better future for Albuquerque. Please reject 026-2 and allow us to have a fresh start with community-based planning. Thank you. Bianca Ensenius followed by Jordan McConnell followed by Loretta Nurano Lopez Jordan McConnell followed by Loretta Nuranho Lopez followed by Patricia Wilson. >> Hi everyone, my name is Jordan McConnell. I live in District 2. I grew up in New Mexico and supported the package as originally created. I've been part of these conversations about zoning reform in Albuquerque for years now. I gave input on many of these ideas in 2022, again in 2024, and again this past year. I'm not alone. We keep telling you what we want. Many residents have shown up repeatedly engaging in city-led processes in good faith. What's hard is watching thoughtful evidence-based proposals generate real momentum only to be narrowed or stripped down at the last moment. That pattern's discouraging for people trying to decide whether Albuquerque is a place they can build a future. For a council that says it wants Albuquerque to be pro business and attractive and welcoming, this is sending the opposite signal. I do also want to say this, the instinct to respect builder knowledge and expertise, as evidenced by some of the comments on the panel, especially around parking, is the right one. I agree. We should trust them to determine what works on their own property, including residential ones. That's why New Mexico Homebuilders, the Greater Albuquerque Area Realtors, and NAOT, who are also experts, supported this package. I'm also not sure why this committee wants to open the First Amendment issues through morally based zoning decisions, or why they want to make business plans for entrepreneurs. I'm a young professional who loves Albuquerque. My family's here. My community's here. And yet, many people my age are weighing whether it makes sense to put down roots or if we'll ever be able to buy a home or raise a family here. Brain drains been documented here since at least the 2010s. And it this is part of it. Why stay when Tucson down the street has already passed all these reforms and we keep saying no to choice and access. What's especially important to say is these aren't radical reforms. They passed in Los Cusus. No, the 3% assessment still stands. and the elected officials there supported them were rewarded with a landslide, even when challenged by opponents using many of the arguments we're hearing tonight. People across the state and the city want this. So tonight, I'm asking you to respect the years of work behind the PRO Homes package, reject amendments that strip it of its impact, pass these reforms as intended. They're needed, they're supported, and they matter for our future. Thanks, >> Loretta Nuranho Lopez. And uh I see Patricia Wilson in Zoom and her hand is up. Patricia will come to you when we get to Zoom. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Loretta Nano Lopez. I'm the president of the Santa Barbara Martineztown Neighborhood Association. Uh chair and committee members. Santa, the Santa Barbara Martinez Town Neighborhood Association continues to res respectfully request that the city councils committee sincerely consider the detrimental impacts these changes will do to a quiet and healthy residential neighborhood and vote a do not pass on 0262. According to recent studies, upzoning does not make the neighborhoods desirable loca locations or affordable to households facing difficult cost burdens burdens and may in fact worsen their quality of life and according to the H&DF report 2022 will displace the residents. Zoning does not deal with the economics. It deals with the health, safety and welfare of the residents. Upzoning was established in Martineztown in 1959 and was never dealt with in the 1990 Martineztown sector development plan or the integrated development ordinance. Under the sector plan, the neighborhood residential dwellings were zoned heavy commercial which in any neighborhood is detrimental to the residential area and it did allow single family as permissive. The current IDO does not allow single family dwellings as permissive in the MX zones except for the MXT zone to further erode the neighborhood. The MX zoning makes single family residential dwellings nonconforming. Martineztown was never given the opportunity to have only an R1 zoning for the historical single family dwellings until the zoning conversion was approved in approximately 2019. If the committee agrees to pursue to amend the IDO studies show Martinez Town is a prime example of what upzoning has done to make it more expensive for the historic neighborhood residents to live in their own neighborhood and is an undesirable neighborhood to live in the upzoning. Oh, thank you for this opportunity to speak. >> Annalie Desier followed by Joseph Greenwood followed by Benjamin Bean. I believe I see Annalie in Zoom as well. So I will come to you Annalie during Zoom comment. Joseph Greenwood followed by Benjamin Bean. Good evening, Madam Chair and counselors. My name is Joseph Greenwood and I'm a resident of District 2. I want to express my disappointment. The duplexes and town homes were struck from this package. This disregards the several months of tireless research and work that the planning department and the EPC have put into this. Not to mention the significant support from the public for this package. There is more momentum for these reforms than there ever has been. With an extraordinarily high average home price of $350,000, dignified housing remains out of reach for the majority. Specifically, the severe lack of starter homes means that young people are effectively locked out of the market. Can we blame so many of these young people for moving to cities and states that have made housing abundant and affordable? The data is very clear. We lack the proper inventory as well as a diversity of types of homes. I would submit are the local architects, engineers assessors consultants realtors, project managers, local home builders, and construction workers worthy of the continued ability to do their work? Are the countless young families, young professionals, and seniors worthy of being able to afford a home that meets their needs? As we watch cities like Los Cusus, Silver City, and countless others enact these critical reforms, is Albuquerque worthy of having a future? The time to allow middle housing across our entire city is yesterday. I implore you to bring back the entire IDO package and full council vote, especially those of duplexes and town homes in R1. Thank you. Benjamin Bean, followed by Brandon Codddle, followed by Patty Ror. >> Good evening, Madame Chair, committee. Um, I'm very disappointed with the amendments that came across tonight. Um, I had high hopes for this IDEO package and there's still some good stuff in it, but I don't understand the decisions that were made. Um, the three of you sitting in the center keep voting against or keep voting for all of these amendments and I just want to know what your plan is because your plan is not housing in Albuquerque. My daughter is three 3 months old now and I had hope because of the IDEO that in 18 years she could afford to live in this city. Now I don't know that she can. Thank you. Brandon Codddle followed by Patty Ror followed by Carlos Michel. Uh good even good evening madam chair council. Uh I I feel lucky I have a car that I can drive to the grocery store. I woke up and it was really cold outside and I'm in a bed and I have heat. So nothing you've talked about applies to me. Why am I here? I'm here because I believe in a better community. Every single person that's got up here and spoke since I've moved to Albuquerque, I empathize with them. Even if I might not agree on the points, I empathize with them. It's hard out there. I couldn't buy that first home I bought with my VA loan again today. It's quadrupled in price. I'm asking let's make it better for everybody. People get up and I don't even know where that neighborhood is because I haven't been here for 50 years. Am I not Roberto Keno? I pay my taxes here. I work here. I vote here. Let's make it better for folks. Let's make it easier. Let's make it better for folks who have nothing. Nothing. They're hungry. They're cold. I beg you, please, I I I applaud some of the changes and some of them I I don't know. Let's make it better for people who don't have a house that they can buy one. Maybe it's a condo. Maybe it's a town home. Hey, no shame. I I I lived in a condo for a while when I was growing up. I also lived in a barn. Top that. So, please, let's do the right thing for everybody and those who will come here in the future and those that aren't even born yet. Thank you for your time, everybody. Stay warm. Patty Ror followed by Carlos Michelin followed by Dennis Aragon. Greetings all around. I'm Patty Ror. I live on Kentucky Street Northeast in the Mark Twain neighborhood. We are currently mapped to go from R1 status to RT which could potentially change our neighborhood texture. I am concerned. My primary concerns are lack of notification to potentially impacted homeowners. We should each have received a letter informing us about your proposals. There has been little media coverage to my knowledge, a few journal articles, and slow input from our neighborhood association. I'm concerned that homes will be sold to outofstate developers for investment purposes. Ex existing homes could be torn down, triplexes and two-story town homes built. This could change the character and ambiance of our neighborhoods. Casitas and modest duplexes for sure. I think they would be great. I'm concerned about our infrastructure. It's old. Water and sewer will be stressed. Certainly, more street parking will occur. It appears that conditional use status will be changed to to permissive, causing homeowners near to construction to lose both notification from the city and appeal rights. It's my understanding that our 3% property tax cap may no longer be guaranteed, hence the potential for tax increases. I realize that some of these amendments are changing some of these things because I wrote this on the weekend. I would encourage you to seriously consider James Shanley's detailed major corridor property status grid and instead of neighborhood infill to build on vacant lots and where there are empty buildings that can be repurposed for apartments or taken. Thank you very much, >> Carlos Michelin, followed by Dennis Aragon, followed by Luis Sutherland. >> Um, good evening, Madame Chair and councilors. Um, my name is Carlos Michelin. I'm a resident of District 2 and I'm here in support of the citywide zoning changes that uh you just removed. Um, so I'm going to start by saying how disappointed I am and um I hope you guys are consistent and uh moving forward. Um, never again say that you're worried about our homelessness crisis because today you chose to do nothing about it. Um, but this is not the end. There's just at least one city council meeting. And moving forward, I want you to think about everybody who gave comments last time and today. Um, last time nearly 40 people from all walks of life gave comments. And I'm going to highlight a few. um people from the private sectors, groups like NAOP and the Chamber of Commerce, um groups uh affordable housing advocates, seniors and disability advocates, everyday people wanting safer, more walkable neighborhoods, um young people hoping to buy their first home and build a life here, aging citizens wanting to retain their independence as they age and wanting to age in place. Um we're all asking for the same thing. That kind of alignment doesn't happen usually. Um, and I hope you reflect on why um you're on the opposite side of of that. U why so many diverse groups from um affordable housing to NAOP are on the same side of this issue and and you are not. Um and what we're asking is simple. Simplify the rules and allow for incremental development citywide. Just make it easier to understand and easier to build the next increment uh of development. Um, and yeah, sorry I'm too disappointed with my today. So, thank you, >> Dennis Aragon, followed by Luis Sutherland, followed by Ray Taylor. >> Um, thank you. Thank you, councel. So, I'm disappointed to see the removal of the duplexes and town homes from the Ido amendments. As an aspiring young professional, the the housing crisis affects me and my colleagues directly. As a multigenerational northern New Mexican, I can see the parallels had taking place now in Albuquerque with the displacement that has already taken place in places like Santa Fe. I'm in general, I'm frustr I'm just frustrated with how my generation has been stripped of the build the opportunities to build wealth. century ago before we had including single family zoning um immigrant families were able to come into this country from Eastern Europe and historically as part of a way to build wealth built duplexes. Um these Polish pla these Polish flats allowed allowed these families to build wealth in their and keep the wealth in their communities and now that opportunity is unavailable to folks my age today. Um, this tool to create generational wealth has been made illegal and as a result of these as these laws, New Mexico's housing inventory was is uh for houses for sale was half of what it was about a decade ago. And that in that time because of our housing shortage as a result of our zoning laws, housing prices have increased 60%. Um, I'm also disappointed with the to see the removal of Bo Bodeas. Uh, I live in District 6. Um, District 6, there's a lot of places district 6 that are really dense and walkable and would could benefit from having these bodeas. Um, the legalization legalizing and just allowing bodeas does not mean that they will instantly appear um in on every corner in um every neighborhood. They're not like dispensaries. um district 4 and district 9 will probably not see and district 8 will probably not see that many bodeas just because of the nature of how those neighborhoods are built. Um this seems like just a like it seems like it's targeted targeted more at district 6 and I just you know as a resident there I don't I don't appreciate that. So thank you council >> Luis Sutherland followed by Ray Taylor followed by Dieter Hanbicki. Madame Chair and council members, my name is Luis Sutherland. I live in District 7. I'm a homeowner there. Um, I'm here to express my wholehearted support for duplexes, town homes, and attached ADUs as permissive by right in R1 lowdensity zoning throughout Albuquerque. I'm also here to support cottage courts as permissible on 10,000 square foot lots and uh also theas on corner lots adjacent to collector and arterial roads. Um well, we all know how uh the votes went. Um so I'm going to take the remainder of my time to talk about my specific neighborhood um my street specifically. Um, I know most of my neighbors um and um I've invited them into my home for dinner. I've been invited into their home. So, I actually know the modifications they've done to their homes. Um, they know what I've done, too. Um, so, uh, I want to talk about one neighbor in particular who, um, had a niece that was going to move into Albuquerque. She um she modified her home by converting her garage into livable space. That's so her niece could move into town. She was able to do that by right. What I would love to do is convert my garage as an attached ADU. I do not see what's so different about what she did and what I would like to do. So, the fact that that was voted um down is very disappointing. Um I would have been able to do that and invite someone into my neighborhood um that you know uh could afford um to rent an efficiency apartment from me um or attached ADU, however you want to word it. Um so yeah, I hope this goes to council and I hope this can be reversed in council. I really don't know how this works, but um hopefully there's an opportunity to reverse uh the votes uh against what I mentioned it before. >> Ray Taylor, followed by Dieter Hanbicki, followed by Tyler Richter. >> Good evening, chair and members of the committee. My name is Ray Taylor and I am a resident of district 2. Uh I'm here tonight to express my support uh for the idea of of putting it through without the amendments tonight um to the full council to allow more kinds of housing and to bring out small uh bring back small neighborhood tias. Recently, I took a weaving class from an uh eighth generation Chimayo weaver who's in her 20s, and she was tremendously talented and shared uh her history. Um, but the thing that stuck with me the most is that she doesn't think that she can afford ever to have a home here. Uh, those of us in the class, mostly from my generation, told her what we were always told. work hard, save, be patient. But later, I realized it's not the same anymore. When I bought my first home in the mid 80s, it cost just a little more than twice my annual earnings. Uh I was an entry-level sales rep. Uh I borrowed my closing costs from my grandmother. Um and I qualified for an adjustable rate mortgage. Um today homes cost five to eight times what people make. Um the especially the young important workers that provide you know health care and services that we so need and that door is closed for too many. That's why these changes matter. More housing types give people like this young weaver a chance to build a life here. If the ha housing shortage is a crisis, and it is, uh, it's up to us to decide how to respond. We've had research from experts. We've laid out a plan. Um, I would just urge you to not change it at the last minute. Thank you, >> Dieter Hanbicki, followed by Tyler Richter, followed by William Burley. Madame Chair, uh, members of the committee, uh, my name is Deer Hanbicki. I am a resident of District 4, uh, in the Del Norte neighborhood. Um, my wife and I, we are currently actually looking for a town home, a starter home in the Del Norte community because we truly love that area of the city. Putt Putt's coming back. We're really excited for that and we would love to be able to stay in that area. Um, however, after the changes proposed today, all the amendments that were passed, the community in that area would not be possible to be built in under the current regulatory regime. Uh, I really like that area because it has apartments, one that I currently live in. There are town homes that I would be able to afford and maybe single family homes I would be able to move into after that. And I think that should really be a model for the rest of Albuquerque to build into this mixeduse community of single family homes, apartments, town homes, nearby major arteries so that you can easily get to anywhere that you need to get to work, friends, anything like that. So, thank you for your time. >> Tyler Richtor, followed by William Purley, followed by Gary. >> Good evening. I'm a resident of District 7. Um, I had comments, but obviously you've cannonal all of them. Um, with your cowardice, um, shame, shame, shame. Uh, the research has been done. The facts are obvious. These changes need to happen. This type of building was allowed in before 1950 and then zoning changes changed it. All we're trying to do is go back to way we were. I'm the president of the PBLO Alto Neighborhood Association in District 7. Our neighborhood is beautiful. We have town homes. We have apartments. We have cottage courts. They were all built before the 1950s or in the early 1950s. And we're just trying to get back to that. That's all we're trying to do. Our best neighborhoods in Albuquerque were built underneath the regulations we're trying to put in. And you've taken them all away. You guys should all be ashamed of yourselves. William Burley, followed by Gary Eyster, followed by Aaron Hill. >> Uh, good evening, Madame Chair and the council. My name is William Isaac Burley. I'm a resident of District 7. I grew up here in New Mexico and I'm also a father. Uh, this is my first time coming to one of these meetings and needless to say, I was really disappointed. I came here to uh support the package that have been proposed because I want an Albuquerque that is uh you know promotes density and walkability um where our kids can be independent and where our families want to stay. Uh currently where I live uh if I want to take my daughter to a different park or walk her to the store I have to cross Lis and Sonteo. That's six lanes or more of traffic with cars going up to 50 miles an hour. I get to a parking lot. It's a size of a football field with cars backing up everywhere. Um, this doesn't feel like a welcoming or safe environment for a family. It feels very hostile and um I don't think uh I think we can do better as a city and I don't think these changes were very radical. I think cases, duplexes, bodeas, I think these are great and like the previous speaker said, we we had them before. I don't know why we can't allow them now. um coming to this meeting made me really sad for the future of Albuquerque if these are the decisions that we're going to make uh that that guide our future. So I'm just really disappointed and hopefully uh you know these can be changed. But yeah, thank you >> Gary Easter followed by Aaron Hill followed by William and Delicato. >> Chair and counselors. Uh I'm speaking for Knob Hill Neighborhood Association. Uh, hi Council Rogers. Um, on duplexes and triplexes in R1, our community is 5050. Our bottom line is if you do it, then try duplexes first and see how they work. On the legislative zoning conversions, we're not so good with that, especially on RT to MXL. If RT changes to MXL, they lose neighborhood edges protection and that's not good. That's not gentle. Bodeas in R1. Helenos are supportive. We would recommend if you do it that there be some uh you specific standards like hours of operation because they could be just a few feet from a family's home. Something council is not looking at now. Uh 02469 council allowed RML apartments in R1 east of the Rio Grande. Just east of Rio Grande. Really? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Apartment houses in R1. Uh we would love to see you repeal that from the IDO. Um the amendment M tonight. Uh I can't speak for my association, but it sounds great. And uh we would say uh gentle gradual changes can get buy in from most of the public if they're gentle and they're gradual. Thanks folks. >> Aaron Hill followed by William Indelicato followed by James Shanley. >> Chair councilors I am Aaron Hill a transportation here uh transportation planner here to give comments on behalf of Mr. COG and speak in support of the proposed changes to the IDEO. As the regional transportation planning organization, we appreciate your efforts on our boards and committees. Thank you for your time. The changes put forth here today are a strong response to the major demographic changes our region is experiencing. Our community is seeing smaller households with Albuquerquekey's average household size dropping from 2.4 to 2.29 in the past decade. And beyond that, 37% of all households in Albuquerque are single individuals. Smaller households mean that we need more housing to meet the demands of our current population, and those homes must be smaller. The addition of duplexes, cottage homes, and accessible ADUs can fill that growing need. The proposed IDO changes allow for new housing without putting strain on our river crossings. Our travel data shows that while vehicle miles across the region have declined 8% since before the pandemic, river crossings are actually up by an average of 20,000 per weekday. These proposed changes could be a key strategy towards alleviating river crossing congestion, something which I think all of us could agree would improve the city. The creation of neighborhoods where residents have the choice to live in a smaller home closer to their work and daily needs or even to live without a car will result in fewer and shorter car trips, lessened congestion, and lower costs for infrastructure construction and maintenance. We urge you to vote in affirmation of these measures and thank you for your time. >> William in Delicato followed by James Shanley followed by Elizabeth Parsons. Excuse me. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, city councilors. I'm William Delicado, an active duty service member at Kirtland Air Force Base. I'm speaking to give my support to the original IDO amendments. I lived in Albuquerque during my first Air Force assignment back in 2009. And back then I lived in several spots across the city, including the foothills, Knobill, and the West End. When my family moved back to Albuquerque in 2024, we struggled to find adequate housing for our family, particularly something with good walkable neighborhoods near transit with access to the base. For a while, our search even took us beyond Albuquerque into neighboring towns, which would have removed valuable opportunities for our family. I've talked with fellow service members, and these burns are not unique. There are even members who see these struggles and make the difficult decision to separate from the military rather than face these living challenges. When I think about the future my children will inherit, I know we have to make changes so they can have a healthy and vibrant city to live in. I support the original package with this pro home proposals and we cannot strip out its essence through modifications and compromises. Just as people grow and change, the places we live in need to grow and change and adapt. Otherwise, we risk a future our children will be unable to afford. When I came back to Albuquerque, I became involved in the strong talents movement. To date, we have over 300 comments in the packages in support of the original IDO comments from every zip code and every district within our city. It is rare to find a coalition as diverse and as big as the supporters for the original amendments from grassroot efforts like strong talent and GenM to students and medical professionals to GAR New Mexico homebuilders and NOP to neighborhood groups and affordable housing providers. People were excited, not scared. People wanted neighborhoods with town homes, ADUs, cottage courts, and neighborhood stores, and restaurants within walking distance, no matter which district they lived in. Moving away from these proposals undermines months of widespread community input. We cannot let fear of the unknown make us freeze in place. We need to make these opportunities, and we need to fight for a future for our children. Anything less is irresponsible. I am grateful to the work that was previously approved both from the city council and from the many city workers involved in this process. I want to thank the city for the many ways we have available to make our voices heard. Thank you. >> James Shanley followed by Elizabeth Parsons followed by Petra Morris. >> Madame Chair, council, committee members. The goal of any ordinance or regulation endorsed by this committee should be the betterment of our community for the greatest percentage of residents in the shortest practical time. Crafting such measures requires intensive study, community consultation, and preparation. When those conditions are not met, the result can be relatively ineffective ordinances like 02254, which permitted accessory dwelling units and produced a mere 15 permits in two years. Indications of inadequate IDEO amendment preparation abound from threats to the 3% property cap tax cap, non-compliance with state mailed notification requirements, and the prospect of neighborhoods deprived of notification or voice being gently infilled by private equity real estate investors whose multifamily market rate rental housing will be managed for extraction by executives in sconced in their Greenwich, Connecticut or Cayman Islands palaces. From there, they won't need to concern themselves with the visible consequences here of a LUPS committee, city council, or city administration that does not prioritize fixing what I observed this morning on a shift of the point in time count. a 33-year-old man who spent the night wrapped in a tablecloth next to a dumpster behind a Dollar General on the west side. His condition after that experience predicted that without intervention, his lifespan can be measured in days. I feel compelled to remind you on just seven corridors in our city, 192 freestanding buildings, 1.8 8 million square ft of space, 209 acres of vacant land. Thank you, >> Elizabeth Parsons, followed by Petra Morris, followed by Michael Devon. >> Good evening, counselors. My name is Liz Parsons and I am a community health nurse here in Albuquerque. Although I live in district 2, my work as an outreach nurse takes place across the city. I want to echo what many people have said before me. The discourse happening around these amendments is extremely disappointing. My request is that the original Ido amendments go to the full council. The original IDO package gives a straightforward common sense path to increasing the housing supply in Albuquerque in a gentle way in line with our community's wants and desperate needs. Our neighbors need and deserve better housing access which can be achieved with incremental development. As a city, we want ADUs and bodegas and a city that listens to evidence and the needs of its residents rather than giving way to fear and misinformation, which is what is being spread in some of the comments and amendments to the package. Um, we want this vision for a positive future, a city that is prepared to grow with housing, green infrastructure, walkable neighborhoods, and jobs that keep people in New Mexico. The original ideal package supports this vision. These are modest measures that allow for business growth and neighborhoods that are more livable for families of all ages, all without increasing taxes. I also value the humane approach in the original IDEO package with its support of safe outdoor spaces. I see people every day in my work who would benefit from more ease and flexibility with these safe outdoor spaces. We all know that we deserve dignity, safety, a place to live. And I want a community where people have housing, where neighbors can walk for errands, and where our elders can age in place in mixed types of housing. Please bring the IDO to the full council in its original form and help achieve this simple vision. Let's join other cities that are creating affordable housing. These measures will maintain the character of Albuquerque that we all love and only make it an easier place for families to live. Thank you, >> Petra Morris, followed by Michael Deon, followed by Sarah Rol. >> Good evening, councilors. Um I come before you this evening um to speak about a particular aspect of this year's annual um annual update or my annual update. Um I am speaking as a R1 property owner who would be impacted by the legislative conversions. Um I am deeply troubled by that proposal within the bill. Um and and so um it didn't really provide great notice to the public and changing a property's zoning district um has significant uh financial and legal implications on their property uh differently from adding entitlements to an existing zone district. Um and so I had some very deep and significant concerns about those conversions as uh my communications and emails to you guys have shown. Um and so I want to thank you for your time in uh this evening and thinking about these very complex land use masses that are before you with the IDO. Um and I thank you for your consideration of um amendment A. Um, my babysitter was a little bit late and so I didn't see the votes, but I I think amendment A passed and so I thank you for that. Um, and as we continue to think about our housing concerns in Albuquerque, um, I think there are a um, a lot of complex choices in front of you. Um, and I don't have as strong a feelings about the duplexes and ADUs and cottage options as I do about the conversions. Thank you for your time. >> Michael Devon, followed by Sarah Rols, followed by Michelle Gyelis. >> Good evening, Madame Chair and committee members. My name is Michael Devon and I initially wanted to give public comment to urge your support for O262, but echoing many other Benyos speaking tonight, I'm tremendously disappointed and frankly frustrated at how the amendments passed tonight have managed to completely gut this bill of all its best attributes. The state of 262, prior to its amendments tonight, was a tremendous opportunity to move Albuquerque towards solutions to the homelessness crisis, housing shortages, and financial struggles currently facing our city. And so much of the meat of that bill that could have made a meaningful impact uh has been removed and leaves a shell leaves the bell a bill a shell of what it once was. and making our zoning less restrictive and allowing duplexes, town homes, bodeas, and the like aren't crazy unfounded changes that Albuquerquey's trailblazing. I think the most bothersome thing that's emerged tonight is this idea that Albuquerque isn't there yet. I think other speakers have rightfully brought up Tucson and Silver City and Los Cusus, which have implemented many of these changes. And so I would love to hear exactly how Albuquerque isn't there yet while all these other cities making these changes are there. Last committee meeting I spoke to you about how how well over half of the lots along the quiet historic Silver Avenue area was a duplex triplex town home or apartment. And these structures were constructed prior to the introduc introduction of the mun municipal zoning code in the 1950s. So, I would love to hear how that neighborhood was there before most of us were born and the rest of the city isn't there yet. Ben Franklin once said, "You might delay, but time will not." Time ensures that our maintenance costs will continue increasing. Our infrastructure will continue to crumble if we continue our current development pattern. There isn't a status quo we can anchor to, and change is inevitable. The question is whether we want Albuquerque to grow organically and sustainably or if we want it to let it if we want to let it degrade, go bankrupt and slowly crumble. Thank you. >> Sarah Rols, followed by Michelle Gidellis, followed by Brenda Marks. >> Good evening, counselors. My name is Sarah Rols and I'm a resident of the Near North Valley and the resource development director at Homewise. Home Wise and I encourage you to find ways to permit the zoning changes, duplexes, and triplexes that were originally proposed as changes to the IDO. These changes help Albuquerque build the housing we need and also create the kinds of vibrant neighborhoods that make Albuquerque great. I live just off of Fourth Street, right between the new Pablano Place Apartments and the Cayorta development. When I moved onto my street, I rented half of a duplex. The camaraderie that I shared with my neighbor and the other half was awesome. And it was fun that I could put up Christmas lights in my small yard, but not have to take care of a whole yard. As a young single person, it was the perfect place for me. On the same street, there are a few duplexes, a small apartment building, and single family homes, one of which I now proudly own. We're a neighborhood of renters and owners of multigenerational families, younger couples, seniors, and single people. I'm super excited that all of these new apartment buildings are opening in the neighborhood so that we can have more residents on the Four Street corridor and attract great local small businesses like the Sunday service, coffee shop, and bar. Um, in my work with Homewise, we understand that increased density and building housing of all kinds is necessary to meet the urgent housing crisis facing our city. And I know from my personal experience how great it is to live in a neighborhood where more housing is built and we can attract local businesses. Homewise and I urge you to find ways to increase density in transit and activity corridors and to permit duplexes and triplexes in single family neighborhoods in future council actions. These are changes that make our neighborhoods thrive. Thank you for the work that you do to make our city a better place and thanks for listening. >> Michelle Gellis followed by Brenda Mars followed by Rajkumar Bakta. >> I'm not even sure that these comments matter. but I'm going to say them anyways. Thank you. Um, Chair Bassan, uh, committee members, my name is Michelle Gadellis and I live in District 6. Hello. Um, and I'm speaking in strong support of the proposed zoning amendments, the original, uh, before this meeting started. I I I think that they it was a really good plan. Um, when I moved to Albuquerque in 1994, I found affordable housing in a converted triplex on Silver Avenue near UNM. Um, as a student as and a young professional, I moved through duplexes on coal um, apartments just kind of around the city and even rented a house um, with a bunch of friends and then eventually bought a fixer upper in Rio Rancho while I was commuting to Tramway and Indian School. Um, this variety of housing options allowed me to build life here. Uh, but today's Albuquerque is making that same journey nearly impossible for the next generation. Um, I'm not sure if you guys have seen a lot of those buildings that were built a really long time ago. They haven't been upgraded. We need new ones. We need more. I mean, it's been what, 35 years since I was living in those. They look the same. So, just remember that. Um, also my mom's experience showed me what happens when we don't provide housing choices. She owned her home in Maryland, but was but when maintaining it became too difficult, there were no options. no small condos, um no accessible duplexes anywhere like close to her neighborhood and she refused to leave. So the alternative was because the alternative was abandoning the the community she actually loved. She lived there for 50 years and she had no way to leave. Thank goodness I had moved back at the time and was able to take care of her and take care of that house along with my house and while working a full-time job. So anyway, zoning should should actually serve people, not exclude them. That's really what I'm trying to get at. Thanks a lot, guys. >> Brenda Marks, followed by Rajkumar Bakta, followed by Althia Athetherton. >> Good evening. I'm Brenda Mars. I'm president of the Huning Castle Neighborhood Association. I think all of you got our letter U from the board, so I won't reiterate that. Um, I also was unable to get here before the vote on a our biggest concern was on conversions. We live, our neighborhood is in a transit zone off central. We've already been affected by 02567. Um, town homes, duplexes are allowed now everywhere. Um, if they're built in my neighborhood, they won't be affordable. They'll be market rate just like they are along a Calalde on the eastern edge of our neighborhood. Um, my concern about Albuquerque, I moved here in 2018. I started out in a seven a 695 square foot condo was the first thing I owned in Texas and I moved up from there to an 800 square foot town home. And then I moved up from there to a 20 2100 square foot town home. I never lived in a single family home till I moved to Albuquerque. And I live in probably the most historic downtown neighborhood there is. Cuning Castle Country Club. It has quite the history. It's all there's books written about it. And we would like to maintain the character of our neighborhood. We know it's going to be a fight. It was going to be a real big fight if if uh section four of the conversions had passed because it's so poorly drafted that you could make the jump all the way from R1 to RT to RT to MXT, which would have ended up with commercial zoning over 93% of our neighborhood. And I'm sorry, but we just can't stand for that. So, thank you for passage of a >> Raj Kumar Bakta followed by Althia Athetherton followed by Marissa Brown. >> Good evening. My name is Raj Bakta. I live in district 9 and I'm here to express my strong support for the original IDEO package that aimed to improve housing affordability by making town homes and duplexes permissive in Auburn zoning. I've lived in Albuquerque for six years and I've been a renter this entire time in district 9. The high cost of home ownership makes purchasing a home difficult in my district. U I currently live in a townhouse and I would prefer to purchase a townhouse over a single family home, but the discussions and votes tonight restrict that possibility. The original updates to the IDEO package allow for incremental and practical growth of housing options to build a stronger and more fiscally responsible city. I respectfully ask that you support and advance the full pro homes IDEO package without the weakening amendments that were just discussed tonight. Thank you for your time. >> Althia Athetherton followed by Marissa Brown followed by Mon'nique Hardy. Madame Chair, um I am a mom um and a proud resident of District 6. Um I want to echo the particular concerns raised by Councelor Rogers about how removing permissive duplexes in corner bodeas would impact District 6 disproportionately. Um and with the changes to our bus network, I'm one of many transdependent riders who's losing their access to their closest bus. uh when I go to the store alone, I am going to be that mom that counselor Feeblecorn was talking about having to walk almost a mile to get to my new bus um from the home that my family um my husband's family has owned for 35 years. Um and a bodega would have made that my life a lot simpler. Um, and while I applaud the restriction of some of the uses um that in the restrictions in the final amendment like car washes, um, some of them feel less about protecting walkability and more about imposing a specific moral agenda on our streets. My first vocation out of college was as a sexuality educator, and I still teach in community- based settings. Our nationally renowned Knobill sexuality education space has adult retail, and they're going to be going up for sale very soon. And I would hate for this archaic idea of what it means to be familyfriendly um to prevent someone from being able to buy it and maintain the educational resource that I have referred countless parents to um who are looking for health information to give to their children, a safe local resource. So this is, you know, these have much uh bigger implications than just being about toys, right? This is about education in educational spaces. And tonight I've been hearing a lot of let's leave it up to the developers um as a rationale for a lot of this the sleeping amendments. And if that's the case, I fully expect an amendment to get rid of parking minimums completely. Um I think that's going to um create safer walking conditions and then you can leave it up to the developer to decide how much parking do they need. Um and then maybe people like councelor Feebleorn could have their little ADU. Thank you very much. >> Marissa Brown, followed by Monnique Hardy, followed by Denise Willie. >> Good evening, Madame Chair and Council members. Thank you for your attention this evening. I My name is Marissa, and I'm a lifelong dis resident of District 9. I have spent my career in the nonprofit field advocating for my neighbors, which is exactly what I'm here to do this evening. I urge you to bring back the ideal amendments that support more types of housing like duplexes, town homes, cottage courts into R1 zoning, as well as the amendments that support safe outdoor spaces for our neighbors living on the street. These amendments serve to help the residents of Albuquerque in a tangible way that will increase the quality of life for all of us by easing the burden that the ongoing affordability strain is putting on our housing market and by extension all of us. The economic benefits are plain and simple. More housing means people can plant roots here, raise their families here, spend their money here, and stay here in retirement. The allowance of safe outdoor spaces and easing the restriction on these spaces allows people experiencing homelessness the chance to move beyond living in crisis and work towards a new future here in Albuquerque. Please, council, restore these amendments and pass the IDO package in full because the bottom line is that you cannot claim to care about your neighbors and our community while striking down real life improvements. Thank you. Monique Hardy, followed by Denise Willie, followed by Miss Ward. >> Good evening, Madame Chair and members of the committee. My name is Monique Hardy, and I am a concerned resident of District 6. I am here today to oppose 026-2, which is being pushed forward without consulting neighborhood associations and the many residents who care deeply about their communities. This would deprive nearby property owners of their rights to object to these developments. At the same time, these changes are likely to increase property taxes for homeowners already struggling to keep up. Many of my neighbors are older adults, working families, and people on fixed incomes. A tax hike would push them out of the homes and communities they cherish. I care about housing and I care about small businesses, but I also care deeply about fairness, transparency, and respect for the people who are already here. As it stands, this po this proposal does not reflect a true partnership with residents. It feels like something is being done to us, not with us or for us. Thank you. >> Denise Willie, followed by Miss Ward, followed by John Carlile. Good evening, Madame Chair and members of the committee. My name is Denise Willie, a resident of Albuquerquekey's west side. I live close to the petetroglyphs trail, the petetroglyph trails that I hike often. This is also a sacred site to the indigenous communities. Having this open space serves the people of Albuquerque. Amending O26-2 would expose the city's comprehensive plan regarding land conservation. Expanding housing options would only bring unaffordable housing to our neighborhoods. Reducing development costs but charging too much for studiosiz rentals. Improving land use flexibility. Another way to disregard the people of Albuquerque. Higher costs to an already highcost economy. We need to protect natural, cultural, and recreational areas. Thank you. Concern mother of Albuquerque. >> Miss Ward, followed by John Carlile, followed by Christopher Love. >> Madame Chair, councilors, color me confused. Um, so according to the published agenda, councelor Fibalorn is not a member of this committee and councelor Tea is. So, I got thrown walking into the chambers. I'm also confused as to the reason public comment was put after the votes had already been taken. And I'll skip that one. But in I do want did anyone clarify in what was amendment B what a 116 dwelling is? That's written in the text of the amendment and I don't know of any reference to that prior in the IDO. What is a 116 dwelling? And also with all the conversions and the confusion with that, has anything actually happened to RT? Is there still an RT zone? And has that been changed? Um, and oh, I've got a whole minute left. Um, what I want to say, what do I want to say? Um, and now I'm going to respond to some of the comments I was hearing. I will direct them to you, Madame Chair. Uh because I keep hearing reference to the original packet and whatnot and the original amendments. The original amendments to the IDEO were in 2019 and were a set of 300 amendments. All of the sort of hand ringing I've heard from some of the people tonight. It's like, where were you when the comp plan was rewritten in 2018 and all of the communitydriven sector development plans were eliminated. Um, and Madame Chair, please remind some of the speakers that duplexes are not illegal in Albuquerque. Where they may be built may be restricted. ADUs are not illegal in Albuquerque. 14 have been built in the last two years. Thanks. Bye. >> Uh, and just Miss Ward, just so that you know, this is not a Q&A, so I'm not going to get into that because I don't want to open that can of worms, but if you do send an email, then I can make sure that we work together to clarify some of the questions that you did have. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. >> John Carile, followed by Christopher Love, followed by Austin Anderson. >> Hi, everyone. Good evening. Miss Chairman and everybody on the council. Um, first thing I want to touch on is I do see that there seems to be an intention with making these amendments to make parts of the city better and uh make it just nicer in y'all's own light. But one thing I find disturbing in thinking about all of these positives that could come around from your changes is you completely ignore the fact that over the course of 5 to 10 years, this kind of thing could price people out of the neighborhood and make more people homeless. And y'all don't even like homeless people. Okay, so that's very strange. And I really think that reversing what you guys just did would be preferable because we live literally in a world with societies where it's very very normal for there to be duplex style very close together living spaces. Oh, but we New Mexico are just so special. We're just that special that we just have to have single family homes, no duplexes, no none of this, no none of that. That's weird. So, I advise you to reverse that. Okay. The next thing I'm going to touch on or the last thing I'm going to touch on is when you, Miss Renee, claim that this isn't a moral issue with the whole cannabis in these certain areas and adult entertainment and retail and other areas. I do drag, so I do work in adult entertainment. Um, and I was very, very excited to hear that you at least excluded drag. I would like to see that on paper, just so that we're aware. Um, it is still a moral thing even if you say it's just a family-friendly thing. Because what you're insinuating is what can be in a neighborhood around children that is just subversive enough to poison their minds, to poison them in a way. That's what you're insinuating. Adult entertainment and cannabis doesn't do that if you're actually a good informative parent. Also, >> thank you. >> Your time is up. >> Thank you so much. >> Christopher Love, followed by Austin Anderson, followed by Theo Keleyair. >> Uh, hi counselors. I think someone left their phone up here. So, um, >> thank you. We can start your timer over too if you if you'll do that, please. Thank you. >> Hi, counselors. Uh my name is Chris Love and I am currently a resident of district 8. I am an advocate for the disabled community. I strongly oppose today's amendments uh specifically amendments 2 3 9 10 and 11. Housing is one of the biggest issues for individuals with disabilities. Prices for housing within the metro area have risen beyond many individuals entire monthly income. The ability for duplexes and town houses within R1 zoning would have helped create housing opportunities inside established parts of the city. Infrastructure is vital to individuals with disabilities. access to communities including stores, transit, medical providers. It would have helped people to connect with their neighborhood and with the city. The bodeas and tandidas would have been resources or would have made resources more available to people. Currently, the areas that are affordable to disabled individuals don't have much infrastructure that helps them thrive. The lack of set infrastructure silos people without cars. To answer a question that my counselor Champine asked about the causes of continuous homelessness during the discussion for amendment 10, look at amendments two and three. The prevention of affordable housing is one of the major causes of continuous homelessness. Uh, please do not pass the current amendments to 0262. Thank you. Austin Anderson, followed by Theo Keylair, followed by William Ashford. >> Was that your phone? Yeah. >> Thank you so much you guys. Good night. >> No problem. >> Theo Keleyair followed by William Ashford followed by Carrie Averett friend. >> Hi, good evening. My name is Teao Keylair. I'm a resident of District 2. I work in construction. I just finished building an Adobe house um that I could never hope to afford. And I I don't think, you know, with my present income, I couldn't hope to afford pretty much any house on the market in Albuquerque or any house that any new construction on the market in Albuquerque. Um so, let me let that sink in. I spent a year of my life building something that, you know, is totally out of reach for me. Um, I'm disappointed in the council's decisions today to uh limit additional flexibility in housing types like duplexes and town homes that could be more affordable to people here. I mean, we've seen housing costs increase throughout the city and um clearly the single family house and this the housing supply we have currently is not sufficient to the the interest in housing in Albuquerque and the people that are from here that want to continue to live here. Um, and it's really disappointing to see these changes coupled with uh making it harder for people that are don't have a house right now to find a safe place to sleep at night. Um, and coupled with making it harder for people to get food in a place that's close to them if they don't have a car. Uh I I like to bike to work and um my biking is my main mode of transportation and so it would be really eh great for my life also not just people who don't have cars uh to have a ti across the street from them instead of having to drive to a grocery store and all coupled with the fact that we're in the state with the most traffic fatalities in the country. Is that right? Um so what you're doing doesn't really make sense to me. It seems like you're trying to preserve this idea we had in the 70s. It's a single family home and it, you know, that isn't working out. It's not working out for us. You have a chance to do something different. Thank you. William Ashford followed by Carrie Everett Friend followed by Peter Collins, Carrie Everett Friend, followed by Peter Collins followed by Adam Moffett. >> Good evening. as a local homeowner, small business owner, burlesque and drag performer and producer of local adult variety shows. I'm very concerned about the purity politics of this amendment. The central corridor is extremely important to the entertainment business of this city as it is the local hub for almost all productions. That includes things that are culturally important such as the vagina monologues and the way that this was written would exclude productions such as that and burlesque. This town, specifically the Kimo Theater, has a history of burlesque. It was the debut theater for um the very first fan dance in the world, in case you wanted a little history. We also um our shows create, foster um and support community and found family for minority folk, for the queer folk, for the um other ostracized folk in town. Are uh we create spaces for artists to bend. Um and the uh exclusion of adult entertainment that people do not have to go to is extremely disappointing. We deserve to have our spaces as well and folks deserve to have the types of entertainment that they want to have. Thank you. Peter Collins, followed by Adam Moffett, followed by Adrien Anzalda. >> Uh, good evening, councilors and staff. I live in District 1, uh, 17 Tennis Court Northwest. I've left staff a copy of these remarks. The proposal to make zoning changes to all properties within 660 ft of major corridors is bad policy and imprudent. It affects currently developed areas that are in residential use. This change will affect where I live. Loo 4600 Kors Boulevard Northwest. Lauustelle Weste is on the national register of historic places and on the state uh register of cultural properties. This kind of change is totally uh inappropriate and it affects other properties in major corridors. We live in a matrix of residential zoning uh along Kors and there are other areas along Kors north and south that have the same kind of matrix. I think this proposal is best characterized as one sizefitsall and it's really totally untrue. Another predictable impact of the proposed changes is very reduced public notice and public participation. If a proponent's project meets all the requirements of a zone and its related uh portions of the ordinance, then the proponent has approval by right, which is to say it's essentially an administrative procedure. In the context of the present upzoning, this too is inadequate. It denies adjacent owners and interested property owners ability to participate. Thank you for consideration of these remarks. Adam Moffett followed by Adrien Anzalda followed by Oyama. >> Good evening councilors. My name is Adam Moffett and I am a homeowner in the Ridgerest neighborhood and a small business owner of a local pizza restaurant. As a small business owner, I'm really concerned about the homelessness problem in Albuquerque. And as a graduate of the UNM community and regional planning school, I believe that building housing is a critical solution to the problem. The originally proposed changes to the IDO were considered by our community for a long time and many people participated in a process that led to the recommended amendments. I welcome duplexes, town homes and density along transit corridors and hope that the council can find a way to make these changes in the future. Thank you very much for listening. Adrien Anzalda followed by Oiama Umei followed by Crystal Garcia on Zoom. Good evening. Uh I'm Adrien Enzela. Uh I'm here in support of the original idea that came in front of you all. Um I don't know what you expect to do with people like me. I'm a homeowner. I'm a parent and I'm a psychiatrist in this community. Uh, as a homeowner, I hear these amendments that pass and I think this this city does not seem willing to invest in itself. Why should I invest in my home? Why should I spend money when I'm not sure that that investment is going to be supported and protected by the town in which it sits? Um, as a parent, I want my children to have access to great public schools. I want them to have access to medical treatment if they need it. And as a doctor, I can tell you that we've lost a lot of specialists in this community because their children cannot get care because they themselves cannot get care. Um we need spaces for bluecollar workers, white collar workers, doctors, nurses, engineers everyone. And if you're unwilling to make the investment in the infrastructure that's required to house that workforce, what are we to do? And then as a psychiatrist, this is this is so hard. If there was one thing I could prescribe for my patients, for the majority of my patients that would improve their lives, it would be a home. And not a fancy home, just somewhere to stay. You all have a responsibility as public officials to address the public health issues that this community is facing. and housing is one of the most fundamental public health issues that we face. We psychiatrists and mental health uh advocates and providers need to know that this city supports the work that we are trying to do for the people in this community who have serious mental illness, who have addiction. We cannot do that by ourselves. Please help us do that. Otama Umei followed by Crystal Garcia followed by Mark Hart. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the council. My name is Otamba Umi. I'm the associate state director for advocacy for AARP New Mexico. Um certainly highlighting some of the things that people have previously mentioned but really wanted to uh to point in on the fact that accessory dwelling units, duplexes, town homes, there are a lot of older individuals who are relying on the the need to be able to downsize um into smaller units. You know, it becomes really costly for them to do so. they still want to age in place and be near families, their communities, resources, access to, you know, doctors, walkability. Uh Albuquerque actually is a a member of ARP's network of of uh aging communities, which means that you have the opportunity to really take into consideration when you're you're considering zoning changes to make this a place that is more livable not only for people who are are interested in in purchasing homes as new um families, but older individuals looking to uh age in place. I live in District 7. I live in a town hall. uh we had the opportunity to take care of my grandmother who needed to downsize and move in with us. And so as you're trying to create a better uh Albuquerque, just keep that in mind as we consider the missing middle housing uh situation in New Mexico and and our senior population will will certainly exacerbate and grow well into 2030 and beyond. Thank you. >> Crystal Garcia, followed by Mark Hart. Um, good evening councilors. I strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed IDO changes. These proposals are based on unrealistic growth assumptions. Albuquerque is not growing at the pace being claimed. Yet, density is being aggressively expanded with no serious planning for water, sewer capacity, traffic, congestion, or public safety. There have been no credible comprehensive studies to explain how additional density will affect our streets or neighborhoods. We have apartments that sit empty because they are unaffordable. We don't have a supply issue. We have an affordability issue. Historic neighborhoods are once again being asked to absorb the damage. These communities will live with the consequences for decades. While developers and outside interests benefit, too many lifelong generational residents feel shut out, ignored, or steamrolled by a process that appears designed to cater to transplants rather than the people who have lived here for generations and built this city. Even more alarming is the ongoing failure to protect our sacred and irreplaceable sites, including the petetroglyphs. These are not obstacles to development. They are part of who we are. They deserve preservations and protection. Albuquerque does not need top-down planning that sacrifices neighborhoods, culture, and trust. We need real transparency, real accountability, and real community input. Until infrastructure is addressed, neighborhoods are protected, sacred sacred sites are respected, and residents are meaningfully involved, no ideal amendments should move forward. Thank you. >> Mark Hart, followed by Aaron Thornton. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Markhart. I'm a physician who grew up in District 9. I recently moved from a single family home in District 8 to a town home in Knobill in District 6. I was planning to speak tonight uh in support of the Pro Housing Ido amendment, specifically those legalizing duplexes, town homes, casitas, and cottage courts, as well as allowing neighborhood scale businesses like Tanditas and Bodeas. I purchased my home in District 8 in 2019. The change in value of that home in the last in the last six years is egregious. We are not serving our city through clutching to the status quo through continued complete allegiance to exclusionary single family zoning and allowing only sprawling development. Unwillingness to allow gentle density as delineated in the original prohousing ideal amendments keep our keeps our city stagnant, chokes our roadways with more traffic, and hamstrings our ability to address the housing shortage. The result is skyrocketing housing prices which fails to give young people opportunities for home ownership and many of our unhoused neighbors access to housing at all. I am heavily involved with the residency training program uh in my medical specialty at UNM and we are in the midst of our yearly recruitment process. Historically, we've been able to brag about Albuquerquey's affordability. Particularly since my residency in 2018 to 2022, this has become less and less true every year. Many of our residents used to live much closer to the hospital whereas now most live on the west side in Rio Rancho uh driven primarily by housing affordability. To that end, I'll point out that I purchased my home in District 8 during my residency training, which would be completely impossible uh to do so if my wife and I were in the same situation now. We need supply to keep up with demand and allowing only sprawling single family homes cannot be the only answer. Councilors, I would have asked you to support the Proousing Ido amendments as unanimously recommended by the EPC and not those introduced at the last minute and passed this evening, specifically aimed at weakening muchneeded housing reform. But here we are. Lastly, I would point out that Mr. Iser couldn't speak about the opinions of our neighborhood association in regards to the amendments passed tonight because they were introduced at the last minute. Perhaps is on. Thank you, >> Aaron Thornton, followed by Brian Dumbrosseski. >> Good evening, Madam Chair and counselors. My name is Aaron and I'm a homeowner in district 6. I want to express major disappointment for the inter amendments introduced and passed tonight that reverse these important updates. And I hope you undo this at future council. Again, I am asking for brave political leadership. It takes bravery and vision to move forward with changes to help our city prepare for the future. While it's very easy just to keep status quo, as someone who bought a home, I understand I have the power to control what I do on my property. Within city codes, I can make changes to my property. And what I also know is I don't get to pick what my neighbors do with their land and home. If my neighbor chooses to have their elderly elderly parents move in or choose to have four kids and buy each of them a car when they're old enough, that would be the same impact on parking infrastructure and me as if they built a duplex or a triplex. And I hope you would agree that banning families with driving age children and elderly parents would be ridiculous. Moving on to something we agree on. Since Madame President and Councelor Graph agree they and the city are not the designer of properties, I would love to challenge them to amend the ID IDEO to remove minimum parking mandates entirely as well. We can agree that developers are knowledgeable enough to determine what parking their property actually needs. Mandatory parking requirements raise the cost of both housing and business by forcing property owners to build expensive parking instead of productive space. Those costs show up in higher rents for apartments and for small businesses trying to expand and operate. Members of the committee have expressed desires not to micromanage people and make it easier to operate a business in Albuquerque. Let's let the market decide how much parking is needed. And I want you to support parking reforms and please bring back the original IO package. Thank you. >> Brian Dumbrosski followed by Oscar Simpson. Madame Chair and committee members, my name is Brian Deeski. I live in District 1 and I'm deeply disappointed and frustrated at the passage of these new amendments tonight. First, I'd like to state the obvious fact. The town houses are single family homes. As someone who bought one because it was more affordable than a standalone, I don't see how you can say that we aren't justified to exist in every neighborhood by right when standalone single family homes are zoned for over 60% of the city. Tonight's amendments erasing the potential of unlocking muchneeded workforce housing are just downright cruel. It would be ridiculous to say that the mere sight of someone's home sharing a wall with another is so grotesque and offensive. You cannot have it near other homes purely because of the aesthetic. But we all know the real benefit of these modest home sizes. With these easy changes in construction, we can produce homes that take up less land and cost less. And that is what I find so insulting. And honestly, it's heartbreaking. Not only are these new amendments saying no to affordability for the middle class, but we are saying yes to exclusivity and deciding that proximity to essentials like jobs, school, medical care, family, and the community you've known for your entire life is a topshelf product that must be bought. The IDO changes recommended to this committee from the EPC was not this hollowedout husk. And I'm left wondering from those of you who supported it, what are you going to do about affordability and homelessness? Is the city going to pay to build the tens of thousands of units we need in a handful of vacancies on central? Are we just going to hope with enough tax breaks, Jim Long will pull a thousand units out of thin air? Or perhaps we'll just pave over every inch of the city from Isla PBLO to Sandia PBLO. Between the last two sessions, the committee has heard the calls from the people for responsible infill, for inclusive, walkable communities, and for mixeduse development for homes folks making the area medium income can actually afford. Our city is special, but it is not so special to exist outside the law of supply and demand. So why are we needlessly restricting supply? I'm urging you to bring back the pro housing, proaf affordability intent of the original IVO amendments that we received with recommendation from the EPC. Thank you, >> Oscar Simpson, followed by Patrick Martin. >> Thank you, council members. I've been a resident of Albuquerque since 1952. I've seen a lot of changes and a lot of development throughout the town. These IDEO changes have gone back and forth and the public is unaware of what is occurring or will occur. And I hope you will take a break and educate the public and outline exactly what's going to happen before it goes to the city council meeting. Everybody needs to know how they're going to be affected and where to voice their opinion. So, please take a couple of months and do extensive public outreach and public education about these proposed changes. That's fair to the public, especially the corridors that you have not had any outreach to because of the complexity and and and variability of these amendments. Thank you very much. Patrick Martin followed by Danielle Grigo. >> Committee chair, members of the committee, I spoke at the last lups meeting as a transportation advocate speaking to the benefits of increased flexibility in the IDO um for all benefits for all modes of transportation. And I also highlighted um the United support that the preight's amendments IDO changes um had received from your transit advisory board of which I'm a member. Um, while at that meeting, however, I heard comments from my neighbors wondering, "Who are these people who support these changes?" And so, I figured I would answer that. Hi, uh, my name is Patrick Martin. I moved here from Baltimore, Maryland, where I attended graduate school. Um, while graduate student salaries are fairly meager, I was able to make ends meet and limit my living expenses by renting a townhouse only a mile away from the university and hence live without a strong need for a car. After finishing my degree, I was contacted by a recruiter for a large employer here in Albuquerque and was offered a job. I moved here a little over four years ago, which was during the pandemic when we had a really tight housing market. And really, my only options for housing in the city were condos, town houses, and a large apartment building. In fact, I ended up picking a large a four-story apartment building that had just been completed um on Central. And that allowed me to start my life here in Albuquerque and fall in love with my neighborhood, Knob Hill. I'm now in the process of buying a townhouse in my neighborhood, being fairly lucky that my neighborhood is one of the few pockets of the city that hosts um lots where town houses are allowed. I'm here in support of the IDO before the amendments tonight. Um the original EPC IDEIDO um because I want other BCOS uh existing here now and in the future to have the opportunities that I did to make ends meet by having appropriate scale housing available near their school or employment. to allow our employers to um bring their candidates here and have those candidates have housing in their preferred neighborhoods and to allow neighborhoods like my own to respond to the housing needs of those who live there. Now, I urge your support for the uh previous before the amendments. Thank you, >> Danielle Grigo followed by Maya Sutton. >> Hello, council members. My name is Danielle and I live in district 2. I would like to specifically ask council members to support the original provas bode amendment prior to tonight's amendments. As this is my first LPS meeting, I am disappointed in the amendments voted on earlier this evening. I want the opportunity to walk to a chandita in my neighborhood to grab a few groceries, to grab a tomato, to pick up some milk, eggs, bread. I want the opportunity to support small local businesses in my neighborhood who provide fresh food. These businesses help build the fabric of our neighborhood. I used to live in District 6 near the Walmart on Sonteo and obviously I used to shop there for my groceries. And as you all know that Walmart does not exist anymore. So if someone doesn't have a vehicle now, they have to walk incredibly long distances just to get some groceries or take public transit or try to find a ride from someone. They deserve fresh access to fresh food just as much as anyone else. And if our neighborhoods had Tandas, access to fresh food would be more readily available. And Tandas would offer an opportunity for economic development for individuals who are interested in becoming a small business owner. So again, I urge council member members to support the original proje. Thank you. >> Maya Sutton followed by Cararin Lithgo. Maya, can you please accept promotion to panelist? >> Go ahead. Maya mute. There we go. Good evening, uh, Madame Chair and committee members. My name is Maya Sutton and I'm the president of the INZ Neighborhood Association in the Uptown area. At a recent meeting, our Inz residents said they had not heard a believable reason given by the city council or the mayor for these zoning changes. They want to know what the real reason for this upzoning is that will affect our INZ residents very very much. They want our um us as officers of the board of directors to follow the money. So who is profiting? Who's making money? Not us residents. The residents believe that it's inaccurate to say that this density will provide more affordable housing. Those words do not appear in the proposed amendments and nothing as we know that developers build ever has the intention of lowering their profit. So we don't understand that the pursuit of density will uh achieve the outcomes that it is claimed to have. So, we do worry that if our stable, safe neighborhoods are purposely damaged by these zoning changes, um, that we'll never again regain that safety and stability that our current neighborhoods have. And therefore, the city will lose one of the most positive claims that it can make to invite new residents into Albuquerque versus the reputation as a crimeridden city. Our current R1 neighborhoods are very safe and very stable. R1 residents intend to live in our homes for the rest of our lives. I've owned mine for 50 years and I can promise you that I intend this to be my final residence. So, please do the right thing for us today. Thank you very, very much. >> CNN Lithgow followed by Johanna Stein. Good evening, Madame Chair and present committee members. My name is Sier Lithco. I have the privilege of being a homeowner and resident of District 6. And tonight, I'm here representing Generation Elevate New Mexico. We're a 260 member organization committed to positively shaping the future of New Mexico. We champion projects that have the potential to enhance quality of life, bring economic opportunity, and increase housing options for New Mexicans. That's exactly what the ideal amendment package proposed by planning staff and the EPC promised. It's very disheartening to have witnessed the attempted reversal of a majority of those incredibly promising changes. I'd like to remind everybody of a 2024 city of Albuquerque initiated housing needs assessment that identified severe rental affordability gaps, cost burdens, and overcrowding as major challenges facing Albuquerquey's housing market. This is true in every single district, not just one, two, and six. Practically, this update would not have only helped people achieve housing. It would have also helped the economy by allowing developers, large and small, to pursue a wider range of projects. This would facilitate incremental growth throughout our communities across the city while alleviating housing, food, and other persistent challenges. I urge you all to reconsider your amendments when this advances to the full council. In tonight's public comments, I have heard 31 people in favor of the original EPC amendments, three with mixed opinions, and only nine in opposition. And we're not done with public comment yet. So, I hope you councilors are listening. Thank you very much. >> Johanna Stein, followed by Phoebe Row. >> Hi there. Thanks so much, counselors. Uh I think this is maybe my third or even fourth time coming uh before you and uh asking very nicely uh for the support for both cases in our neighborhoods throughout Albuquerque. I'm a resident of District 7. I'm a small real estate developer with a small portfolio of multif family apartments throughout the city uh in multiple districts and we have a couple of properties that we put another unit on if the rules were simplified. It's just too complicated to figure out what's going to happen with ADUs and duplexes for us to uh make the investment. And I'm likely not the only real estate investor who's ready to build more housing in Albuquerque if the rules were simplified. I'm really disappointed to hear that like uh these amendments that that have come forth uh before you today have reversed some of the really positive amendments that uh to the IDO that were just proposed and uh obviously uh unanimously passed the EPC. uh it's it's just a a real disappointment and we've had a lot of uh speakers come before you just defeated and I hope that what we're seeing uh between now and the full council meeting is some positive change here and that you guys can work together to actually have pro- business and pro-ousing legislation get passed by the city council. It's wild that other cities like Los Cusus can get this through their city councils and we can't in Albuquerque. If we're supposed to be one of New Mexico's most progressive and pro business cities, uh we need to actually act like it. And uh by passing uh the original package, we would be much closer to achieving those goals. Uh I thank everybody who's worked so hard to work collaboratively together for many years. Thanks so much. >> Phoebe Row, followed by William Witter. >> Thank you, council members. My name is Phoebe and I live in District 6 and am a proud homeowner in a beautiful neighborhood that I love. And like many people who have spoken tonight, I was so excited about the original Ido package and what it could do for my community. And I'm deeply disappointed by the surprise amendments that came through tonight. I really hope that we can all agree that access to food and housing are just basic human rights and those are rights that we as a city should be very proud to provide to our citizens. So, I really really urge you to work together and do what you have to do to bring back the original pro housing IDE package. Bring it to full counsel and pass it through uh and listen to your citizens and pass these changes that that so so many of them tonight are asking for, including myself. And I really do appreciate your time and service. I know that you don't have an easy job. And I trust that you will take your power very seriously and you will listen to all these passionate residents who supported the original IDO and you will pass it through. Thank you very much. William Witter followed by Andrew Bride. >> Good evening, chair and counselors. My name is Son and I'm a lifelong Albuquerque resident and graduating senior at UNM. I love the city. I grew up here. I chose to stay here for my education and I'd like to continue staying here, but I'm worried that Albuquerque won't have room for me or my peers. The 2023 basic needs study found that 46% of UNM students and 63% of CNM students experienced housing insecurity. I've seen classmates drop courses because they couldn't find stable housing. I watched friends leave for cities where they could actually afford to live. As I approach graduation, I'm asking myself really difficult questions. Where will I live as a young professional just starting out? Will I be able to stay in the neighborhood I grew up in? And someday, if I want to start a family, where will there be a home for us? Or will I have to leave the community that raised me? The amendments before you tonight, specifically those that support small and multifamily construction in the form of casitas, duplexes, cottage courts, town homes, and the reduction of parking mandates would allow more of the smaller homes and apartments that people like me actually need. Not everyone starts out being able to afford a large single h single family house, and that shouldn't mean people like me have to leave. I'm asking you to invest in Albuquerquey's future by making room for the next generation. Approve these amendments so students like me can become the professionals, the neighbors, and the families who keep the city thriving. Thank you. >> Andrew Bride, followed by Brandy Thompson. >> Good evening, chair and counselors. My name is Andrew Bride and I am a student at UNM. Today I wanted to provide comment on the economic benefits that the Ido amendments would provide. How increasing workforce housing would improve labor mobility so that people could find the jobs they want and build the economic futures that would fuel their families. how new smaller homes that fit the need of students and young people would help with housing and security so that people could graduate and get better jobs and provide more taxes to fuel our city. But with the amendments that were proposed and passed today, instead of that optimistic look for our economic future, I have to ask you why. Why are we going to ignore the amendments proposed by the professionals working on behalf of our city based on a robust slate of academic literature? Why are we going to continue doing the same thing and expect different results that address the concerns and challenges that face our communities? Why are we going to continue to push the burden onto young people like me and my peers as well as the most vulnerable people within our communities? I hope that you will reconsider the amendments that were passed today and when moving to full council return to the original slate of amendments proposed by the EPC. Thank you. >> Brandy Thompson followed by Haley Davidson. Uh, madam chair and committee. Thank you. My name is Brandy and I'm a homeowner in district 7. Um, I work in healthcare. So, I'm going to do a little analogy. So, okay, if you get a surprise splitting headache, you go to a doctor and they're an expert. They have a college degree. They are trained to diagnose the problem and recommend treatment plan. So, now imagine the doctor says, "You have a serious issue. It we might have to do surgery. Here's a CT scan. Here's your lab results. these are the medications that I recommend. And then I respond with, interesting, but I just don't feel like that's right. So, I'm not going to do it, but I'm going to continue to complain about it. That's exactly what's happening here at this meeting. Like, the city hired planning professionals using taxpayer money, our money. You commissioned a housing assessment using taxpayer money, our money. The experts did the work, analyzed national data, laid out a clear treatment plan, and now the council is choosing not to follow it by introducing all these amendments to the original package. Not because the data is wrong, not because the practices have changed, but because a small some of you are getting like yelled at from a small vocal minority in the community. Let's be clear, these zoning changes are widely supported. As many people have said, there were three times as many supportive comments than negative for the EPC draft. At the last leps meeting, there were three times as many comments for the amendments or for the package than against the package. The coalition is broad that our people are here. Seniors, disability, like environmental groups, private business owners, homebuilders, you've heard this. By refusing to act, this council is legislating for a city stuck in the past. And in doing so, you are quietly erasing opportunity for an entire generation that wants to live and work and raise families here. And some of you are hypocritically saying you're pro- family. Like the amendments that you just put in this bill are anti-family. I have a new child. This is not a city that is like pro- family and like thriving for a for a young child to grow up in with these amendments. So, we don't need counselors who distrust experts and ignore data and think that they're smarter than everybody. We need counselors willing to build a city that can actually succeed in the future. Leadership is the job you were elected. >> Thank you, Miss Thompson. Your time is up. >> Watching it not happen. >> Haley Davidson, followed by Peggy Norton. Uh hello. Can you all hear me? >> We can. >> Uh my name is Haley. I am a homeowner in district 1 and I really want to speak to the concerns that keep coming up which is preserving the character of Albuquerquey's neighborhoods. And I think it's important to ask what does this character look like? Historically, the answer is white and wealthy because of our history of redlinining in this country and in Albuquerque, which really kicked generational wealth off into overdrive specifically for white Americans. This is also a result of exclusionary zoning. When we mandate that only single family homes can be built, then only people who can afford a single family home can live there. So, it's a kind of financial segregation. The reason that the duplexes are so important and all the other housing diversity is that the act of dividing a property into smaller parcels makes it inherently cheaper, making it more accessible to those with less wealth. It's affordable housing at market rate. No government subsidies needed because it's naturally smaller, more affordable. And these neighborhoods are the ones that have opportunities, better schools, better commutes. And yeah, please, please just reconsider the amendments that strip this ordinance of all of its teeth and leave us exactly where we are, which is an affordable housing crisis. Thank you. >> Peggy Norton, followed by Solomon Johnson. Good evening, uh, councilors. I'm surprised to hear how much the earlier amen amendments were going to do such a fab fabulous job of solving housing and homelessness. There is already much variety of housing in Albuquerque and many places to build a variety of housing, including American furniture. Nothing addresses affordability in these amendments. How about something that works? progressive property tax rates, encouraging small starter homes, support for ownership. I do support the concept of adjusting Main Street uses to align with the vision in the comp plan, although those uses could uh warrant more discussion. We've worked very hard on Fourth Street to make it be a main street corridor. There is a state statute and an IDEO process requiring notification to property owners of zone map changes. The city presumably on the advice of attorneys has not complied with either of those processes. However, there is such a thing called integrity and complying with the intent of the requirements. The city should have that sense of integrity and notify individual property owners so each one is aware of their changes. Nonconforming uses uh can create uh nightmares to neighborhoods. Currently, we have an auto repair shop that is also operated as a junkyard with unmaintained infrastructure and operating under numerous codes. uh doesn't comply with the IDEO, but that seems to be fine. Additionally, a new cannabis shop without the micro business license has been allowed right next to another cannabis shop. Why? Non-conforming uses. Bodeas seem a thing of the past. I remember Mart's Corner allowed on collector streets which carry heavy traffic to high-speed arterials. How does that support neighborhood pedestrian accessibility? Thank you for your time. >> Solomon Johnson, followed by Meredith Paxton. >> Good evening, council. Thank you for your time. Uh, I am a resident of Albuquerquey's District 6. I have lived in Albuquerque since 2017. I have lived in New Mexico my whole life. It has been a great Albuquerque has been a great city to live in and I have gotten to know the exceptional quality of its people. However, I am worried about the fact for housing there's a limited amount of quality housing options in the city and the ones that do exist are increasingly expensive. I was a fan of the proposed IDO uh changes prior to the new restrictive amendments tonight. I do hope that the IDO proposal is passed with its original intent to relieve the demand for diverse housing options in our beautiful city. Between longtime residents leaving and newcomers deciding not to stay due to limited housing options, it means we are losing out on a lot of young talented people who are needed for the sustained growth of Albuquerque as a good place to live. We also lose the possibility for people to move to smaller homes as their lives change. Without the opportunities for people to live and invest in their future here, it degrades the vibrancy of life for everyone by losing out on people who move elsewhere. With more housing options, it would mean people are more flexible and and able to live the lives they'd like to here in Albuquerque and bring the talents and resources to the table. I ask the council to please consider what options non-homeowners will have if we do not improve the opportunities to build more diverse homes here in Albuquerque, not limited to majority of standalone singular housing. I know from my experience having a good housing situation means a lot in how you see what one's future or your own future. Thank you for listening and your time. >> Meredith Paxton followed by David Sidabaka. You are muted, Meredith. >> Not there. Thank you. I didn't realize it. Okay. I represent Spruce Park Neighborhood Association. We are a significant contributor to the cultural heritage of Albuquerque that should be protected by the comp plan from the irreparable damage that would come from some of the IDO amendments. Before tonight, we have two recognized historical districts. Spruce Park Historic District is over a hundred years old and listed on the National Register of Historic Places as well as the State Register of Cultural Properties. Many homes in the neighborhood are unique and hold an irreplaceable niche in the history of the early development of Albuquerque. The 1950s era homes in the companion Sigmakai Road Historic District add to this timeline and I emphasize about 40% of our dwelling units are already multifamily and Spruce Park is in no way comparable to other neighborhoods in the city where more recently built housing is exclusively single family and on our larger lots connected by wider streets. Because we are literally across University Boulevard from the main UNM campus, we are especially vulnerable to extensive ownership by profitdriven investors. We oppose reductions in all minimum our lot one lot widths to 25 ft 3500 square foot lot. And also we ask in considering retail in neighborhoods that you please imagine a child on a bicycle sharing a street with a large Cisco truck delivering food to a store. Please make that use conditional if it's approved. Although Spruce Park is not now in a major transit corridor, the densifications there are quite similar to those of the ART premium trans corridor. that affects about 70% of the neighborhood. Thank you. David Cedabaka, followed by Michael Vorhees. Mike Vorhees, excuse me. David, I saw you freeze up there and I think you have some connection problems. Um, I'm going to come back to you in a moment. Mike Vorhees, followed by David Cbaka. Winds in the east, mist coming in, like something is brewing and about to begin. Can't put me finger on what lies in store, but I feel what's to happen. All happened before. I quote Mary Poppins and the song because this is not new. We have seen other um apparently the video is cutting out. >> Can you still hear me at all? Can you start? >> We can still hear you, please. Okay. So, um, Upzoning started back in the 80s in Australia, and they went, uh, all in on, uh, trying the very same things that we're throwing at the wall at the same time. And it went from an affordability, uh, of of 3.3 times average yearly income to a disastrous 16.4 times. Currently, uh, businesses are failing. All of the nice little walkable restaurants and consumer amenities in these these infilled areas in major cities in Australia are going bankrupt at an unprecedented rate because this kind of upzoning leads to land speculation that makes it wildly unaffordable. I hear so many passionate people saying, "Well, we want what Tucson's doing. Tucson is 20% less affordable than Albuquerque." and they've just started doing all of this. If we go down this disastrous path, it's going to be really problematic. I really appreciate that uh the LUPS committee has uh taken uh some of uh this testimony uh to heart and realized that this is problematic. Uh and and I thank you for several of the amendments tonight uh that took some of that off the table. I've heard metaphors thrown around like, "Oh, this is like not listening to the experts in medicine." Well, it's more like a case of polypharmia where they're throwing multiple medications at a patient all at once without understanding how they interact and what the overall condition is going to be. Uh what happens is the patient usually dies or gets terrible complications. You see ads for medications to undo the multiple psychiatric medications that are being prescribed. uh the attacking this problem with so many amendments at one time is very pro you know nobody understands how they all work unless we look at other cities where they have failed miserably so thank you for for some sanity it's still a bad bad uh process >> Richard Schaefer followed by Merritt Tully Uh thank you councilors. Uh many of the amendments you've been considering this evening support what I consider to be the developer investor community's arguments for that they're hamstrung by regulations whether it be zoning or state or local laws all based on the need for addressing affordability and affordability is a real issue today. I'm old and I apologize for playing the history card, but much of our nation's housing affordability problems were caused by wealthy investors like me u buying up multiple housing units on the cheap in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. a crisis that was caused that caused a crash that resulted in plummeting home prices and incredibly cheap mortgage rates under two in the my case 2.6%. Um uh as a result, housing became an investment commodity as investors got between prospective homeowners and America's housing supply. not just single family housing, but event condominiums or anything that had home ownership involved with it. Now, that same sort of realtor developer lobby is arguing that keeping any limitations on their investment options would hamper them from solving our housing and affordability and homeless problems. Please don't be fooled by the new deregulation rhetoric. That same investor class has little or no interest in solving affordability with private investments with their own private investments or being held accountable for damages when the dere their deregula deregulation efforts that you are considering implode. Again, instead of supporting hyper deregulation, Albuquerque should think toward those innovative solutions that have actually worked, such as uh land trust developments. >> Thank you, Mr. Schaefer. >> Albuquerquey's sawmill development. Thank you, >> Merritt Tully. Followed by David Cabbaka. Chair bes counselors, good evening. I'm Merritt Tully here speaking again for Near North Valley Neighborhood Association. I'm the current president. My remarks will focus on the housing proposals in O262. First, we appreciate your passing amendment one removing the corridor upzoning. As we've said previously, we don't support the upzoning for higher density and commercial uses along major transit corridors. Our opposition goes beyond the unresolved property tax issue. This upzoning is not fair. It will destabilize established residential areas only in certain parts of the city. And it's counterproductive because residential properties will be upzoned to commercial zones. We will lose housing to commercial uses we don't need. There's the creation of non-conforming uses, the creation of stark boundaries, and most important, the complete lack of direct notice to the hundreds of property owners who would be affected by the upzoning. On the other hand, with respect to amendments 2, 3, and 11, which deal with duplexes, town houses, and accessory dwelling units, respectively, we are disappointed you pass those. As we said during the January 14th LUPS hearing, Near North Valley has long supported diversity in housing and gentle increases in density. We were early supporters of ADUs as a permissive use and we fully support adding duplexes and town houses as allowable uses in single family R1 zones citywide and adding opportunities for increased opportunities for ADUs. Expanding allowable uses in R1 zones throughout the city is a fair and practical way to add the housing Albuquerque needs both in numbers and variety. We have duplexes and triplexes scattered through our area now. They add character to our area and make it more affordable. We hope 2, three, and 11 are reconsidered. We need fair and reasonable increases in density but not overreach. We urge you to strike an appropriate balance. Thank you. >> David Sabbaka, followed by Renee Horvath. >> Hi, my name Can you hear me? >> We can hear you, David. Sorry about that. >> Yeah, my uh my app crashed. Sorry. My name is David Cbaka. I live in District 4, born and raised in Albuquerque, and I'm a support of the original IDO amendments 0242 or 262. I live in a manufactured home complex already flanked by some very unique land uses. It's very clear the housing demand has gotten continuously higher, which that supply pressure pushes into older, vulnerable communities that have not been permitted to change even incrementally in decades. Me and my relatives and my generation still live with our families, and we're still worried that we won't be able to buy a home here anytime soon. My grandmother lives in the Albuquerque Meadows, which was prayed on by out of state firms taking advantage of scarce supply. There's many of my classmates that are that were not willing to stay in the city that their family and friends live. many moving out of state to other cities uh that brought the bar to housing lower. And my godparents have who have lived in Academy Acre Acres North for 40 years. Last year there was only two kids out on Halloween when in past years their house was the most popular because they love to decorate. Um which is very clear that our communities are dying currently. Um our also traffic congestion has only increased here due to the west side Rio Rancho building out most of the new housing which is exclusionary and car dependent. of forcing even more car traffic through here. For saying that Albuquerque isn't ready for neighborhood shops, we already have businesses along San Pedro Drive Northeast where I live, which is a collector street where more people and I also walk and bike despite the 40 mph car traffic only because there's strip malls, trails, parks, offices, and a hospital in walking distance already. So, I can already see it see what could have had happened what we could have had to improving that environment. We also have an RV lot near us that I've seen people living out of. And there's clearly a demand for small entry-level housing and safe spaces, which is better than seeing more homeless in aos and alleys in our area trying to survive. For all these reasons that makes opposing these changes very uncristlike and bringing an unwelcoming future for our families and others looking to live in commerce here. Good night, >> Renee Horvath, followed by Laya Blazing Star. Uh, good evening. Um, my name is Renee Horvath. I would be here in front of you, but I am sick, so I'm here on Zoom. But, um, I'm glad to hear that some of the amendments that were very concerning have been dealt with. And I know the young people feel like it's a disaster, but it's not because it will not give them what they want. I I I too grew up here in every quadrant of the city and I thought what we did had all kinds of different types of development with single family shopping, town homes, apartments. They were more in scale. And speaking of character, a lot of them were Southwest character. As Feeblecorn said, we want to preserve that Southwest character because it's unique. And all the meetings I go to, people say we'd rather have that than this ugly box that they just built. So, I just want to say that in 2018, they changed our zone code. It is much more dense. It has less parking. and are taller buildings. Now, for us on the west side, this is a lot of density, a lot of change. It has created a uh what we used to build as one and twotory buildings for apartments. Now they're three and four story. And so, uh this has created some conflicts when they back up to neighbors because they're out of scale in character. And along course is a view corridor. So we look over the Bosi and the mountains and the initial development. They were really good at how they designed the area so you can preserve the views. You know, keeping the building heights low, blend with the natural landscape. We're hoping that we can achieve that on top of the mesa. When the buildings are too high again creates a lot of conflicts. So that's why I'm trying to say but we haven't this creates more conflicts than solves it will and all the apartments that they built recently. >> Thank you Miss Horvath. >> Okay. Thank you >> Laya Blazing followed by Alan Smith. >> Chair Bassan councils. My name is Laya Blazingar. I'm here once again speaking on behalf of the Near North Valley Neighborhood Association, of which I'm a board member, specifically concerning proposed changes to safe outdoor spaces that were a part of the IDO amendments in 026-2. We're very disappointed by amendment 10 passed before public comment today. Our board strongly agrees that if the city is to allow safe outdoor spaces, it should do so in a workable manner that supports willing churches, nonprofits, and other organizations who chose to provide these spaces. The existing IDO regulations create too many burdens for these organizations. The IDO should, in a simple, straightforward way support the intent of safe outdoor spaces, which is to provide unhoused persons with a safe, secure, and sanitary place to exist. Safe outdoor spaces are meant to provide a modest place of stability which people can go about their lives, go to work, school, appointments, whatever else they need to do and know that they will return to find their belongings safe and secure and can sleep. To meet this intent, we want to reiterate that we supported most of the amendments to the safe outdoor spaces ordinance as written in the post EBC red line, especially these allowing safe outdoor space permits to be expend extended every two years indefinitely as long as the spaces are in compliance. Removing the current requirement for permanent plumbing and removing the requirement for 247 on-site support. Regarding permanent plumbing, as I recall, last time I visited Balloon Fiesta, the bathroom bathrooms were provided were in a trailer. They're not permanently plumbed and they were nice. We do think that the ordinance still needs a couple of key improvements. We strongly believe that all safe outdoor spaces, regardless of size, should at least have on call support available 247. Fires, frozen pipes, a lot can happen at any time and regardless of a space's size. We also believe that portable drinking water should be provided at safe outdoor spaces. There's no provision in the current safe outdoor space ordinance nor in the proposed amendments that requires drinking water be accessible an over a site we urge you to address. Thank you. >> Alan Smith followed by Abjet Supreme. >> Right. Uh thank you committee members for taking my comment. I'm a resident of district two. I'm here to show uh support for the um IDO amendments that's passed by the EPC um particularly around density. Uh making it easier to build dense middle housing and um attached ADUs throughout the city will address key challenges around housing availability, affordability, uh sprawl, car dependency, and promote sustainability. Uh many young professionals prefer to um uh prefer smaller dense housing options closer to key amenities such as work and commercial development. Um the IDO amendments as passed by the EPC would help attract more young talent to Albuquerque and help the city um promote more uh sustainable economic growth. Additionally, I do support um reducing or eliminating parking minimums um as it's a better use of land and increases its value. Um I also support the uh defining a composting facility and providing more clarity there. Thank you. >> Abre followed by Patricia Wilson. Uh so I live in district 8 and I want to speak on behalf of my uh disabled and imunocmpromised friends and family as well as economically underserved folks. Um for myself as someone who is already very privileged in so many ways uh it is still quite difficult to um if I'm walking if I'm not using my car uh to get food to get enrichment to get uh community access to community centers. And so I can't imagine how much more difficult it is for other folks who may not have time, who may each day have to make a choice of what they want to do and sometimes have to skip uh because they're tired because uh they don't have access to local grocery stores, to local uh enrichment activities, to public transport uh and dense housing. Um, I think it is honestly quite disheartening to see these amendments pass uh when they are such minor improve things that could significantly improve the livelihood of the people in the city. And for someone who wants to live here, um, I want to be welcomed here. I want to be uh I love this city. I love the diversity here. I love the community here. And I want the, you know, rules and regulations of the city to love me back, uh, to welcome me here and to make me feel like there are communities I can be part of. Thank you so much, Patricia Wilson, followed by Annalie Design. Madame Chair and councilors, everyone's been talking about the amendments. I'm going to speak to process. The IDEO of date process is broken. Since the preep submittal last July, I have personally submitted 30 letters. The goal of writing the annual to bianial amendment in 2023 was not to double the number of changes to review in a single update. Eight years ago, we threw out our two- foot high stack of sector development plans. The IDEO has grown from 624 pages to the current redline draft of 712 pages. Since the first update in 2019, there have now been over 700 amendments. No other city does this. Continuous major changes to the IDO defeat its purpose of providing stability and predictability for development. hard for the major players and basically impossible for small incremental developers. Let's write an amendment that would demand that all future IDO amendments establish metrics to determine if an amendment is technical or substantive, require all substantive IDO amendments to be addressed through the CPA assessment process, and have analysis by the planning department that would provide impact and beneficiary statements, review of unintended consequences, and examples, including maps and diagrams. Miss Ward and I both remind you that all duplexes are not illegal. They are conditional, not permissive. I am not opposed to modest gentle density. I am opposed to the loss of notification. I urge a do not pass on O262. Thank you very much. >> Annalie Des followed by Shelley Allighter. >> Good evening. Um my name is Anna Lee. I'm in district 2, a resident of Badelas. Um I think you've all received a lot of uh feedback when it comes to details on amendments. So I wanted to take a this time um actually to give a feedback on the process and kind of the bigger picture. There's disagreement about these ch how these changes will materialize. Some are terrified it will raise rents and price them out of their community while others hope that it'll help them achieve home ownership. Um but what's apparent is that this is a top- down process that is deeply lacking in um the community's participation. We need planning that is communitydriven and it needs to be from the bottom up instead of handed down often in sort of undignified chastising manner that says you know we know better for you whether it's you know coming from uh public agencies or from from developers or in those joint meetings that has been our experience um I think it would be really beneficial for planning in this council to do the ground work to repair the trust with the historic communities um starting with real solutions of past injustices that have been com committed in the neighborhoods of Martinez Town and Budelis and others. Um yes, it'll take time and resources, but um staying at odds um you know that that's not a great option either. So I think we should just get started. Uh much of this discussion has framed zoning as a silver bullet for the housing crisis. Uh we know it's not. It's it's a gamble about how you know these will materialize. You might hope for it to um but we really don't know and available data doesn't account for demographic changes or displacement because this is a an you know a market approach. It's treating housing as a commodity instead of focusing on what's happening to the people in those neighborhoods. Um, and I think we should all get behind programs that will improve the housing crisis like eviction prevention, rental assistance. Um, and um, also talking about affordable housing and knowing that 50% of renters are are 50% of renters are costbururdened. >> Thank you. >> So, um, mandates that do market rate to Thank you very much. Your time is up. >> Shelley Allighter followed by Evelyn uh, Evelyn Rivera on Zoom. Hi, I'm fourth generation of Albu, but I don't I've never done this before, so excuse me if I'm not proper. Um, I'm fourth generation Albuquerque. I live in District 6. I do own a home. Um, and I was just informed that the reasonzoning would be because of the 660 ft for the transit. I don't understand that. If you don't have to have it for a bus, why do you have to have it for transit? I also think that this process is backwards. Um, I've sat here all night. I've listened to everybody. Why did you vote on things before you listen to your constituents opinions? Because obviously most of the people here are they weren't happy. Let's put it that way. So anyway, I have changed my mind about things just sitting here listening to the people that I've talked. One of the things I changed was the boettas which I call grocery stores. My opinion was why put them up? They Walmart and Costco and Sam's have put them all out of business. So why do that? Plus I live in a culde-sac. The requirements for the parking. Where are they going to park for the grocery stores? Where are they going to park for the restaurants? They park in front of my house. They have no regard for me. Oh, I'm just going to be there 15 minutes. Well, I'm 15 minutes late for a meeting. So you can't block my driveway. So I deal with this already. So that was my issue with that. But I see that my neighborhood wants it. So I I'm willing to say that, you know, let's let it do individually. If somebody wants their house to RT, let them go to zoning and get it. I have a small business or did uh in my home. You go and you apply for it. It's very easy. You know, it's not hard to get a business in your home. Um, that's the other one. Uh, where are people going to park? Parking is a real problem. I live at Lis and Wyoming. That's going to be two major transits. I'm It's going to be a nightmare. Um, thank you very much, >> Evelyn Rivera. >> Madame Chair and committee members, I just have a few miscellaneous um observations. Um, according to the US Census Bureau, there are 21,181 duplexes and triplexes in Albuquerque. Another observation, when Manol Boulevard was converted to a major transit corridor, we were told there would be no zoning, and now that's part of the proposal. I thought of another un unintended consequence. When the IDO was first implemented, a lot of residential subdivisions were developed in um when the zoning for them was SU1. When the idea was implemented, that zoning was converted to MXT. The proposal to allow dormitories in MXT zoning would result in dormitories in single family residential neighborhoods. The my biggest concern is the lack of notification to single family homeowners is is absolutely disrespectful. It's not being a good neighbor and it's not community building. Those of us whose greatest asset is their home, uh it it would affect us financially. So, I urge you to do not pass. Thank you so much for your time, >> Madam Chair. That concludes comment. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, counselors. We're on O2 as amended. Any comments, questions? Council Fable Corn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I just wanted to make a few comments. I I thought somebody um and I did not know note down who it was, but somebody said, you know, everybody has the right to dignity, safety, and a place to live. And I tend to agree. I don't think that's really controversial, although perhaps it is. Um and I I think we should really think about what that means. Is it more dignified to sleep in an aoyo or to sleep in a safe outdoor space? Um, is it more dignified to stay in your car or to find an affordable apartment or um an ADU that you can afford? And is it more dignified to have seven adults living in a small house on my street um because they can't afford their own houses or would it be more dignified to have a couple of duplexes and maybe some more ADUs in my neighborhood? I think the answer to that is pretty clear and I think it's shameful that we are not giving people that dignity for safety. Is it safer to have seniors who need to downsize but um don't have a place to go living in their traditional giant homes where they don't have someone checking in on them every day or to have an ADU, an attached ADU, the horror. Um that they would be living with their multi-generational family and they would have somebody checking in on them every single day. I think that's safer. Is it safer to have folks living in some of the slums? And I I use that word on purpose. There are slums in Albuquerque that are dangerous to live in. Um, and we hear about them all the time, and Councelor Rogers just recently tried to protect some folks from those situations, but we won't do that either. or is it better to have more housing options where those people could potentially move out into something that's more that's safer? Um, and then is it safer to live on my street now or would it be safer to have more people living on my street? I will tell you in district 7 in 1950 there were 3.6 people living in every house. So on my street that is 14 houses. So, in the 1950s, there were 50.4 people on average walking dogs, walking to the neighborhood store, which we don't have anymore. Um, you know, out walking in the morning, in the afternoon, having people moving about my neighborhood. Now, in district 7, there are 2.1 people on average in every home. So, that's less than 30. It's 29. Is that safer? Every single study that I have ever read says that the more activation in a park, in an open space, and in a in a neighborhood, in a city, the more people out and about doing things, the safer. And so, all in all, we are just doing things tonight that reduce dignity and reduce safety for our citizens. And I think it's really, really sad. But I do want to say to the advocates that said over and over again, you know, can you can you bring it back? Yeah. I will say this committee um and I'm an advocate. So, you know, when I'm thinking of committees at the state level, there are kill committees. We all know what that means. But there are more people on council and there are more opinions on council. And so I will and councelor Rogers has agreed to to sponsor with me. Bring all of this back and let's have that conversation at full council because the people of Albuquerque have spoken loud and clear for years and you will not be pushed out by one committee meeting. And so don't give up. Um, it's a long hard road and I don't know that we will win this year, but don't give up yet because we will be bringing it back. Thank you, >> council. Any other questions, comments? Councelor Rogers. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just wanted to echo that I think I willing to work with our colleagues that are on this committee to figure out what makes sense for us because I think that there is hopefully some middle ground here and I'm always hopeful that we can find that. Um, I'm not going to give that up. my polyiana view of collaboration and that we can figure this out for the folks. I just have to say I am so proud of my district. Um all the amount of D6ers that came out tonight. I'm so grateful whether you were for it or not for it. Whatever your opinions are, I'm just so grateful to see so much engagement from my district. Um I'm really grateful for all of the opinions that came tonight. Um, and I'm grateful that that our district is so invested in one way or another what's happening in our city. And I'm just so grateful to to all the constituents that showed up tonight. Um, because it really makes me proud. Regardless of your opinion, if we don't agree, it's just really awesome to see so many of district sixers here. Um, and really invested in this in this. And I know we can we can figure this out. I, you know, being a new counselor, I I I have a hard time with the IDO. I've learned to love land land use and zoning and this committee. Um, but I think us making broad stroke changes across the whole city is really hard and it and there are some things that my district needs that maybe another district doesn't need. All right. And I think making these broad strokes across the whole city is really hard. I'm not saying we should, you know, I don't know what that fix is and I'm scared to even open that can of worms, but I really have to say that for me, you know, I really liked, you know, researching what we did before and what makes sense for that specific neighborhood and being able to have the flexibility about that. I don't know how to do that um for what we have right now. Um but I'm just grateful for all the district sixers that came out tonight and keep showing up, keep telling us your opinions because it really does matter. So, thank you all for being here. >> Councilors, any other questions or comments? >> Councelor Grout. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to say that we have received hundreds and hundreds of emails, not just the hundred people that came out tonight. Um, 80 I think 80 people came out and thank you all for coming out and speaking um in person or on Zoom. But we've also received hundreds of emails. So, even though um one group has been more dominant in our conversation tonight or listening tonight, that doesn't mean that we're not hearing those emails. Um believe me, we have a lot of them. Um it is I thank you, Councelor Rogers, for your comment. Broadstrokes thinking that everything is is ac all across the board is needed in Albuquerque. You know, when I was out walking last year, I was amazed at how many empty single family homes are in all of the in my district. There are a lot of vacant and abandoned single family homes that are empty and we need to figure out how we can activate those homes and get some a family in those homes. Um, so we I think we need to work on that. Um, I do like town homes. I do like um duplexes. Um, but it doesn't make sense in every single neighborhood. I think it belongs in some of them, but to to change a a character of a of um a completely change a character is not going to make for a better better community. Um, and the biggest um, thing for me was that it's permissive and not conditional. Um, not having that communication with your neighbors um, is not going to bring harmony. Um, and we want to we want it to work. And, um, so a conditional use is always the best use in my opinion to have that conversation. Um, I had I I've said this before. Um 15 years ago, u my neighbor wanted to put in a cassita and um so he and his wife came over and um showed us their plans and it was blocking a view um a little bit of the view, actually a lot of the view. And so we asked if they would um move it a little bit east about 12 feet and they said, "We can do that. We can do that." and they have their cassita and we are still great friends and um we have a little bit of a view. we we we lost a lot of our view, but we have a little bit and so we're good. But but if there was not that conversation, that wouldn't have made for good neighbors. We would have had that. We would have been it wouldn't have been good. And so I always think it's important that we have communication. Um also, um a lot of people this is a big change. This is a huge huge change what's being proposed and um while a lot of people that are in the know and know how the process works and it started last summer, the majority of Albuquerque does not and they're just getting wind of this big change. And so um so it's nice that people are actually starting to say we didn't know about it. We didn't get notified. So, it's important that we continue the conversation and um and we we need housing. We need help. But again, I don't know that all of these um proposed changes are are going to change the affordability um in one broad stroke. So, I think there still needs to be more conversation. Um so, thank you for your comment. I do appreciate it very much. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilors, we're on O2 as amended. All those in favor of moving it to full council as a due pass, raise your hand and say yes. >> Yes. >> Anyone opposed? Passes on a 3-2 vote. That being said, I don't think there's any further business. This meeting is adjourned.