uh good evening everyone i hereby call this meeting to order this is the land use planning and zoning committee of the city council councillor harris is excused this evening and all other committee members are present via zoom this is a remote or online meeting where all participants will be on a video or audio conference we are holding this meeting remotely so that everyone can participate safely while we are conducting business under a public health emergency we appreciate your patience as we get accustomed to virtual meetings should we ever be able to get accustomed to them members of the public will be able to speak to the committee if they have signed up for public comment further rules published on friday before each agenda item begins members of the public will be moved from the zoom waiting room into the meeting room they will remain muted until they are called upon to speak at which point they will have two minutes to provide comment to the committee after that they will again be muted between each of tonight's agenda items members of the public will be moved in and out of the zoom waiting room accordingly so we will now move on to agenda item a 078 will the zoom moderator please move in all members of the public who signed up to speak on this item thank you for sending them okay we are now going to go to public comment um comments are to be addressed to the committee members only please keep your comments to remain to the agenda item you are speaking on i think we're a little ahead of ourselves we're going to have just basic public comment now okay so each of you will be have two minutes there'll be a two minute time limit the time will start once you begin speaking then we will let you know when your time is up the first public commenter this evening is miss marcia kearney miss kearney are you on the phone yes ma'am go ahead and proceed with your public comment okay the addition of two at-large members to the committee should be adopted as the comp plan is to provide neighborhood protections those two positions should be filled with individuals that are a part of neighborhood associations and not developers of real estate neighborhoods need to be at the table thank you on the phone the next public commenter signed up is ms ward who has not connected to the zoom uh call at this point madame cherry you are free to proceed now that we have gone through all of the public commenters thank you and i appreciate that uh for those of joining us for this agenda item you are watching the youtube live feed for this meeting please mute or turn it off at this time our first agenda item of the evening is 0.78 amending 1416 262 e of the integrated development ordinance to add two at-large members to the environmental planning commission uh counselors would anyone like to make a motion on this counselor yes uh madam chair i'd like to ask for a deferral on this item i'd like to make a motion for a deferral i will second that there's a motion to defer this for until the next for 30 days yes yes councilor benton you you're bent and you're muted thank you okay uh sorry uh point of order does can this be deferred before it is moved and seconded uh i'm not sure help us with that maybe we just asked for a motion and the motion wasn't full okay mr mr president uh there would need to be a primary motion on the table before uh i'm sorry madam chair let me rephrase that there would need to be a primary motion on the table before you could move a motion uh for deferral the primary motion being a do or do not pass or no wreck motion counselors would anyone like to make that motion counselor counselor i'd like to make a motion uh for do pass with no recommendation i believe that counselor borrega would be simply a a do pass is that right is that right mr millendras madam chair you have a couple of options council borrego um do pass has significance as does it do not pass as does a motion to move to full council without recommendation moving without recommendation is distinct from a do pass it means that you're not suggesting that the bill be passed to council so if you'd like to move a motion for no recommendation that that should be your motion okay then i would like to amend that motion madam uh chair for a motion to move to full council without recommendation i'll second that motion to make this keep moving thank you all those in favor say yes yes i'm sorry kelsey here we go all those in favor please raise your hand to say yes madam madam chair madam chair i'm i want to make sure that that what i'm saying is clear um in order to move a deferral there had to be a primary motion on the table that only requires a motion in a second you have options at this point now to vote on the motion on the table which is for no recommendation or to go ahead and move that deferral which i believe was the original intent i would like to make a motion that we defer this item for 30 days let me second this first i would we have to vote madam chair uh you the motion for deferral has been moved and seconded that takes precedent over all other motions uh so you need to dispose of that motion at this time through a roll call vote all right uh if we would do a roll call vote and then we do have a speaker on this uh counselors are you all right if we let the speaker speak before we vote on this okay if you would please let the speaker in madam chair and counselors there was a second member of the public signed up to speak and they had some trouble connecting to the zoom call so they are here now um and would like to utilize their two minutes to speak on this item before you move forward with your motion ms ward you are free to proceed with public comment you will have two minutes am i audible now yes ms ward we can hear you okay before my two minutes start um i want to point out that the zoom meeting link information phone number password all that information that was on the abv zone.com page under august 12th is incorrect and to get the actual the correct id and password you have to go into the pdf that is on the page so that is a major mess up from the a b c to z project scene i believe and i want that noted um so now my other question is which item is sorry madam chair award this is the first uh item on the agenda to add two at-large members to the environmental planning mission okay yes thank you very much um counselors so i do support the addition of uh members to the epz epc um as the ordinance was presented or the amendment to the the ordinance was presented uh it didn't look like i do have some concerns about the language in terms of um how it's worded in the paragraph or like if we have 11 total commissioners but you only have nine districts then um you have to have some duplication of one or two of the districts and so i think some of the wording needs to be clarified as well as some of the um uh like what constitutes advice and consent because of the council as compared to a is advice and consent it can't possibly be the same for representatives that represent each district and be at large members unless i'm confused about something because um for the district representatives uh the counselor brings forth two names and the mayor's chooses and the way i read it for direct appointment of the at-large then the mayor would name the two um addition the two at-large commissioners but there's so there's no role for advice and consent is how i read it and so i was looking for some clarification um but we do need community representation because the way the ido um is currently worded it's as if it attempts to make the epc a technical committee and that is not appropriate for its role thank you very much thank you miss ward thank you for your comments as your time is up thank you ma'am so back to the item on the floor and that is o78 with a motion and a second a motion to defer i'll second that motion uh let's take a roll call vote counselor benton yes yes counselor gibson sorry yes counselor jones yes that passes on a 4-0 the me that uh 078 is deferred thank you [Applause] the next item on the agenda is oh nine counselor benton this is your ordinance would you like to tell us what it is yes uh thank you madam chair um councillor benton give me just a second we have to there are some people who want to speak so we're going to get them into the room thank you all right i can give a brief introduction when we're ready so okay counselor benjamin if you want to go ahead and introduce your legislation and then we will uh we have some people who want to speak on it i'll go ahead and move a recommendation of a duke pass on o29 this is adopting a zone map amendment to establish a character protection overlay zone uh for the north fourth corridor within the ido um and this provides regulations uh related to massing in scale for development in the area and references to street cross-sections in the development process manual and just really quickly this has been in the works for some time now it really since uh we were really in the process of passing the video um the north fourth uh development plan which previously existed went through a lot of uh work and it was a fairly modern sector development or quarter development plan and uh ranked free plan and uh this does carry over uh many of the provisions of that uh that uh plan i think it has pretty good community support we'll hear from from uh the public from the north valley on it but uh importantly um it addresses also the difficulty of dealing with fourth street itself developed rainforest street which is limited and as you many of us know as very limited pedestrian facilities and and questionable ada accessibility so uh for those reasons alone it's very important i think that we provide a cpu for this uh corridor so we also just recently enacted a uh redevelopment plan for the area so thank you future move uh move a recommendation to pass i'll second that there's a staff and members of the public are required to be sworn in for this agenda item city staff who may speak to this item please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury i do miss schultz would you please provide a brief introduction to this item or should we go to public comment first uh madam chair i think counselor benton accurately covered uh the intentions of the character protection overlay and how they intend to build on previous efforts for the area including the old rank 3 corridor plan um we did make some revisions to this item at the last lops hearing in june based on public comment and and a few things that we missed in the initial drafting um and so i think at this time it would be appropriate to move to public comment would you like me to proceed with calling the names if you would please okay we have two people signed up to speak if i may first our our write-up on this says the members of the public are also staff and members of the public are required to be sworn in for this agenda item yes madam chair thank you um before members of the public speak tonight um i can go ahead and swear them in for you if you would like if you would please thank you okay we have two people signed up to speak the first person is ms loretta naranjo lopez who i do not see connected to the zoom call i'm going to look over to our moderator to confirm yes um so we will move on to the second public speaker who is peggy norton ms norton are you connected can you hear us uh can you hear me i can hear you yes absolutely before you start miss norton um can you please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury yes uh-huh great please proceed with your two minutes okay i was here at the last meeting and i spoke in support of this plan i was interested in uh councillor borrego's comments that she had worked on the north fourth corridor plan and that what we're getting isn't what was intended it's really been a challenge i ca i can't say how much and how confusing and how many different aspects there are we all have visions of fourth street and some of those are different um and there's things we'd like change that can't be changed like asphalt relocated things like that so and um but the short of it is that the north valley coalition does support the character protection overlay we appreciate the efforts that have been put in uh to it um and there are some continuations in the ido amendments of facade design that uh we're concerned about i know uh we're trying to figure out how to get all this past at once so we're in support of this plan thank you for your efforts both sean and councillor benton thank you ms norton nice to see you this evening thank you madame madam chair yeah counselor roberto yes i i just wanted to address uh miss norton's comment um yes i did work on this plan this is one of the last projects i worked on and managed when i was at the city and that was like in 2007 we started in 2007 8-9 and the comment that i made regarding the change was that there was some uh additional area that was added later on so i just uh wanted to make that comment thank you council virgo uh councillor benjamin it's back to you yes uh uh council uh lups members um again i think um as as ms norton alluded to the process has been complex and um you know it's been informed by developments that were built under the old sector plan that some people did not like and and certainly had questions about their designs and so forth what i would say is a really good outcome though of all that uh brain damage if you will has been that that actually i thought some of our work on the north quarter plan um the the planning department and and staff recognized that these would be good changes city-wide so actually a couple of the ones that we talked about originally have are now on the agenda tonight to be adopted city-wide having to do with building articulation and tweaking some of the things that that we we've you know discussed over the last couple of years with regard to uh glazing requirements and some of the regulation requirements on buildings so um i think that's kind of the good news is is that um that those those are good ideas and they were modern at the time that they were introduced and put into the sector plan and and their policies today so um did you see uh uh madam chair that missed miranda lopez is with us now if if you would be so kind otherwise all closed right after that you would indeed thank you councillor benton i appreciate that and mr ronjo uh lopez if you would come in and we need to swear you in please okay uh mr ronjo lopez can you please raise your right hand for us do you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury i do please proceed with your two minutes of public comment okay this is on oh 2010 right or is this um miss neuron this is in regards to the north fourth character protection overlay zone okay i just want to just uh state that um we support our neighbors in providing that overlay zone for them so that's all i wanted to say on that will i get a chance to speak on oh 2010 not yet ron joe lopez once we get to that agenda item yes there will be another round of public comments okay thank you thank you that is the last of our speakers uh counselor benson counselors are there any questions or comments not counselor benton it's yours to uh wrap up your support i appreciate the work of staff on this thing too i mean everybody's worked really hard on it and the community thank you counselor uh we will now take the roll call the motion is a do pass counselor benton yes counselor yes counselor gibson yes thank you councillor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you counselors we have one more item and that is oh 10 adopting text amendments to the integrated development ordinance counselor benton would you like to introduce this one also we're going to wait just a second while we have some more people sign up and then you'll get the screen and the sound again thank you so so shhh we have everyone in would you like to make your promotion now yeah yes uh on the uh the matter of oh 2010 adopting text amendments to the integrated development ordinance 14-16 for the annual update in 2019 uh i move a recommendation of a due pass i'll second that and with that uh we can have a brief introduction or a brief brief introduction by ms moore so we can go to public comment which would you like to do ms morris would you please provide a brief introduction for this item good evening um councillor jones uh um madam chair and counselors thank you yes i'm just going to go to share my screen so you can see um a powerpoint screen um and i'm just going to go through a a quick overview of each of the amendments where there has been a revision since the june 10th introduction of the amendment packet um the first amendment that's had a change to it is a 17 site lighting um this was revised uh uh after the for the june 24th and the eighth august 12th today's lups meetings the revisions uh exempted lodging uses and added some language on how to measure light levels when the development is at or on the property line amendment fair chair i just wanted to mention that i'm not seeing this on channel 16. what petra's showing i'm seeing something different um i'm continue if there's anyone who has their ah okay it's on on mute now okay so amendment a18 um this was revised this is the transit parking reduction this was revised for the june 24th lups and this added a area to exempt the university neighborhood area from the transit reduction amendment b3 this was revised um for this august 12th lups and this added a relevant section uh from the red line to the amendment that was inadvertently overlooked amendment b4 this was also revised for this august 12 flux the only revision to this amendment was to rename it we made an error in naming this amendment since it's in such a way that it's a little confusing so this amendment has been revised to be titled remove conservation development to make it very clear of what the intent of this amendment is this amendment uh proposes to strike all references to conservation development in the red line of the ido amendment b5 was with withdrawn at the request of the sponsor uh it's still in the packets because of the numbering associated with it and we know that uh it was it was out there initially and so while it's withdrawn at this point um it is still kind of still in the packet for for transparency amendment b-20 um this was this is the tech edits this was revised in response to issues raised by the community and further review of the tech edit spreadsheet this was revised for the august 12th lups cumulative impacts this was revised um for the august 12th lups and there is also a revised version out tonight the revision between the june 24th lups and uh what was sent out last week um limited the geographic scope of this to a half a mile from the bnsf rail line and a quarter mile from the sawmill spur and it also removed certain uh related um uses outdoor vehicle storage paid parking lot parking garage park and ride lots and artisan manufacturing the amendment that's before you tonight that has a small tweak to it also refuse removes any references to air quality impacts as these are addressed through and are processed with environmental health and the removal of this is to ensure there's no overlap between the two um amendment b-24 this is a new amendment uh this amendment is was added to the packet in response to public comment that we received at the june 10th and june 24th amendments uh lapse meetings um the comments were concerned about the creation of a a no man's land between the wall required on the subject sites and the adjacent property the ideo requires a landscape buffer with a wall in certain situations and what this amendment does is it switches that landscape buffer from being outside of the wall to inside the wall when the landscape buffer was outside of the wall as you can see in the illustration under outcome today you would have the subject sites building the wall or fence the landscape buffer and then the adjacent property with the buffer kind of in between the wall and the adjacent proxy as no man's land uh this would be switched up with this amendment and so it would go subject site and building uh the landscape buffer the wall or fence and then the adjacent property so this would move the landscape buffer interior to the site the other amendment uh that is new is also in response to public comment we received uh there was concern that um existing um pre-ido approved site plans that have residential uses on them and not considered a residential zone district there are ripples for um how those properties receive or don't receive protections under the ido this amendment would add all pre-approved uh sorry pre-ido approved site plans that have developed with residential uses to be part of the residential zone district this would extend the protections of being a residential zone district to such properties um this would include uh uses such as light vehicle fueling some intense industrial uses it would also include liquor retail that was that use was inadvertently left out of the explanation but it is also part of the list of residential zone districts that that uh this pd edition would have their protection for um that is all of the changes um to the packets since june 10th um and so that is the end of my my short presentation uh my colleague chandra and i will be available for any questions now or after public comments thank you miss morris uh councillor benton you have a question yes just really quickly diagram um the labeling of the diagram just on the uh explanation is is uh maybe confusing uh to anybody who uh might be looking at it for the first time it was to me if you could go back to that slide uh that'd be great if not i can describe it that was uh the p24 right near the end yeah okay so that diagram uh i think the current regulation is on the right in other words this is the problem that that of the way it was written is that it appears to say that that the oh okay i beg your pardon i misread it myself so never mind thank you counselor i like to never mind i think i think that's the end of the presentation and counselors we do have several people signed up for public comment so i'll turn this over to shanna to take care of that thank you thank you madam chair we do have about 20 people signed up to speak tonight um we are not required to swear in folks for this public comment so i will read the names feel free to unmute yourself and turn on your video if you desire and your two minutes will begin when you start speaking first on the list is alejandria lyons madam chair members of the committee my name is alejandria lyons i am swaps environmental justice organizer and today i'm speaking in support of amendment b-21 cumulative impacts so i know that there's been a lot of push back back on this amendment and by some by the city's legal team but i would like to ask the committee as well as these two parties i mentioned what they know about the status of the environmental justice community san jose and what they know about environmental racism in our city so my group created a report seven years ago on air quality in the city and i wanted to read you all some of the things that we published which is this is a mostly chicano community and that have fought impacts of the large and diverse industry that resides near their homes community centers and schools as a result of the line running their community as well as zoning laws that cater to heavy industry these residents have to deal with industry presence that includes refineries asphalt companies an intermodal facility cement plants metal recycling plants chemical and gasoline storage facilities san jose is also in between two superfund sites so we are asking for a cumulative impact amendment this seven years ago and i would just like the council members as well as this committee to realize that it's now or never and that we've been waiting for a long time and that we are responsible not only for economic development in the city but for the health outcomes of our community so thank you all and thank you for allowing me to speak thank you next speaker the next speaker is marisol archuleta ms archuleta are you connected hello yes i am here um thank you all for your time my name is marisola chileta and for 11 years i've lived in the neighborhood behind the giant gas station on 2nd and rio bravo which is essentially sandwiched in between the san jose and mountain view neighborhoods right next to the railroad tracks and i'm ready to voice my strong support for the b-21 cumulative impact amendment to the leps committee i door knocked my neighborhood when i was six months pregnant to fight a development of apartments by ronald paise that now currently create traffic problems and environmental issues and suck up water that we don't have to offer he did not seem to have any problems getting his land reason getting that land rezoned regardless of the fact that resident after resident showed up and opposed it we've lost so many battles in this neighborhood and you can smell the results as you drive down 2nd street or use the bosque bike trail port-a-potty companies recycling auto repair demolition materials are what line our bosque in our neighborhood and i can't tell you how many meetings i've gone to just like this where our agenda item is last but thank goodness we got through this one so i could give the comment this time um so hopefully when this meeting is over today i ask you who will actually experience the effects of the decisions you make it will be my neighbors and myself and my family not the business owners who will go home to their clean air communities at night and not probably you all who are in positions of power and who do not live anywhere near our neighborhoods so tonight with this decision what is on the line for folks for businesses it's money for you elected officials perhaps it's your position of power for us and our families it's our little right to breathe and live life so the priorities of money power or right to live which do you think should take precedent tonight would be a night where you could tell the people who look up to you that you stood with low income people who live by the railroad tracks in albuquerque that you fought for clean air and for people over a company's right to make money because you can't breathe money you could stand on the right side of history tonight you could stand with the families who live here my neighbors and i will be watching to see if you listen to us to see thank you thank you ms archer your time to protect our water and families thank you so much thank you very much next speaker the next speaker is sal perdomo mr perdomo go ahead and unmute yourself at this time all right can you hear me okay yes we can my video is still um on hold from the host which is fine so good evening madam chair and lups committee my name is sal perdomo with titan development i'd like to thank you and council staff for everything you've done for the ido and for all the updates that we're working through right now i know it's a very heavy lift we are in support of the changes to amendment a17 regarding sight lighting amendment b-21 regarding cumulative impacts and amendment b-24 related to edge buffering we are also in support of the removal of amendment b5 among the lups technical edits and amendment b20 are several that propose to reject epc conditions number 46 and number 47. the result of these edits are to not allow any requests for a variants on sites that also require a conditional use we believe and i believe that lups should follow the epc recommendation and reject these technical edits to redline pages 419 444 447 in 449 we agree with the epc in the red line draft as written that property owners should be allowed to request both a variance and a conditional use for the same property the decision-making body can then make a determination on the requests based on the evidence presented to them rather than outright prohibiting the requests from being made in the first place thank you again for your work and we appreciate the opportunity to speak you mr purdoma and the next speaker the next speaker is juan reynosa mr reynosa go ahead and unmute yourself at this time good evening everyone hope you all are doing well um i'm here once again to speak in support of amendment b-21 the cumulative impact ordinance um as alex mentioned earlier this is a piece of work that communities who live in the south broadway area going further down into san jose and mountain view this is an issue they brought up for years generations almost you could see it in the ej task force that recommendation was put in over 10 years ago we've tried to pass policies at the city level to get this going with the air quality control board and yeah we have seen a lot of resistance mostly because of the economic arguments against us but i agree with previous speakers that this is an issue that can't be uh taken lightly this is an ongoing environmental racism issue that needs to be addressed by the city i know we have a lot of movement towards more equity along racial lines right now and i hope that that extends itself into this committee i think we have to start thinking along these lines so that not one race or community in albuquerque is inundated with something that oppresses them more than another uh we've done studies that show sanho has a life expectancy rate of 20 years less than someone who lives in the far northeast heights with better air quality and that's the issue we're trying to bring to light here i think the ido is a great place for it because in many venues we fought against zoning arguments and i feel that like we need to solidify something in a document like this in order for environmental justice communities to move forward so we definitely are willing to make this work but it wouldn't be have a huge impact for these communities and we really hope that you all support it thank you thank you next speaker the next speaker is marcia kearney miss kearney go ahead and unmute yourself at this time i did um hello my name is marcia carney and i just want to say the ido plays a critical role in implementation of the comp plan goals and policies technical edits are to improve the clarity and implementation of the ideo based on challenges in applying new regulations and neighborhood protections in rural world contexts so far the ido in the case of mixed use zones has in many ways ignored both the comp plan goals and as it relates to neighborhood protections and it's also given the neighbors little to no voice and when we are in a pandemic the continuation of these hearings at such a great rate is a travesty to the people you serve amendment b9 is stating should be rejected the council has the authority to address matters that impact the public health safety and general welfare in a timely member manner the ido in many situations is doing the opposite on these mixed-use lands the city council needs to listen to what the people they represent have to say and allow them the time needed to do the review of these critical parts of the ideo thank you thank you very much very next speaker our next speaker is eleanor walther miss walter go ahead and unmute yourself now um i'd like to speak on a18 revised transit parking reduction the ido decreased the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for a proposed development that was in 1 320 feet in any direction transit stop or transit station from 10 pre ido to 30 percent in the ido this is a significant change if this proposal is passed increasing the peak frequency required for buses from 15 minutes um to 30 minutes is another big impact i suppose that if you don't have to make connections to another bus this change might not have such a large impact there are not many places where one can commute within just one bus line i think that the change from 15 minutes to 30 minutes makes commuting by bus much more onerous in addition peak frequency is defined as 7 to 9 am and 3 to 6 pm this definition is not workable for people who do not have eight to five jobs furthermore the peak frequency definition does not specify which days of the week the times are applied to um so do these changes really only work for certain people also what happens if services change and busts become less frequent the then these cumulative changes have high impact on the residents of the development thank you [Applause] thank you for your comments on our next speaker our next speaker is esther abeda miss a beta go ahead and unmute yourself now okay oh give me one second hold on can you hear me yes yes mr beta we can okay um sorry this is a little challenging for me doing this um hello madam chair and loops committee members my name is esther abeda and i live in sankho said neighborhood i am here tonight to support b21 primitive impact amendment to the ideal this amendment is necessary because of the disproportionate location of handy heavy industrial industry companies and community of colors five generations ago many industrial companies started locating in my neighborhood the people living in my neighborhood thought it was a good opportunity to get a job the zoning was changed to accommodate businesses by our elected officials years later people living in my neighborhood started getting sick we did not know about the effects of polluting pollution on our neighborhood we later learned that locations many polluting industries in one neighborhood was not good for our quality of life health family and also our pocketbooks we have suffered with unknown illnesses only later to determine what health disparities are and the reasons our neighborhood is afflicted with higher rate of illnesses that late to low lifespans as compared to the rest of the city we also found out that forcing heavy polluting industries into community of colors as racial as racial discrimination i have attended many loops meetings zoning hearings air quality permit hearings to know the laws are stacked against our neighborhood it is obvious that san jose neighborhood is suffering from oppressed racial discrimination over the last few months many people have become woke and now understand that practices the past need to be changed i urge you to approve b-21 commutative impact amendment to be heard in front of city council i also like to mention when the idea was in front of full council to be voted my husband and i spoke and the only counselor who publicly expressed concern for our community years ago was ken sanchez my husband and i would like to thank today concert benton for sponsoring this amendment to hopefully help the community of san jose thank you thank you mr beta next speaker the next public speaker is loretta naranjo lopez miss naranjo lopez go ahead and meet yourself now miss naranjo lopez oh there you are you are muted okay okay can you hear me now yes we can okay my name is loretta naranjo lopez and i'm speaking on behalf of this dark neighborhood alliance the stark neighborhood alliance requests on wednesday august 12th at the land use planning and zoning committee that the amendments a1 through a18 be reviewed individually and to allow any of the public that wishes to comment on these items two minutes to comment on each individual item the request follows the new mexico opens meeting act the text amendment to the integrated development ordinance require community input and the opens meeting act provides the public for opportunity to speak on each individual item the text amendments for b1 to b25 and the recommended text amendments in the ido should be scheduled on specific dates for each group the historic neighborhood alliance requested the new mexico state statue and the new mexico state opens meetings act is followed and the city council provide community meetings to further review the rejected amendments that are not neighborhood-friendly so i have several amendments that we have put in a uh peggy neph has put in a in um in a chart and so i'm i'm just gonna state that the h a has reviewed packets and b and still has many questions that need to be answered and the reasons for further reviews to protect the health safety and welfare of the residents and to also preserve the character of the neighborhood further the historic neighborhood alliance requests the protection of the environment the h a would like to further note on the amendments b1 accessory dwelling units in mspt and b6 exis existing accessory dwelling units be rejected the zone category for r1 and mspt existing accessory dwelling units needs to be allowed only through a conditional use without a kitchen kitchen shall not be allowed south broadway neighborhood association requested this is a requirement in their sector plan or in the ido cpo the h a recommends that city council and left slow the process down so so that all text amendments are generated by the community any decision thank you okay i wanna thank you thank you for your time thank you thank you the next public speaker is becky davis miss davis go ahead and unmute yourself now miss davis you need to unmute your microphone we overlapped good evening council uh brief comments uh the ideo red line document still shows definitions and discussion about the conservation development even though several members of our community have expressed opposition to that amendment before please rescind conservation development from the ido there is still no definition of density except in terms of dwelling units in the glossary of terms in the ido people per square foot are a valid definition they define traffic transit patterns utility usages power water sewage of a neighborhood not dwelling units please create a density definition in the glossary based on people not dwelling units thank you thank you miss davis thank you for being here this evening our next speaker our next speaker is g andres romero mr romero go ahead and unmute yourself now thank you madam chair and thank you members of the committee my name is andres romero and i'm the state representative for house district 10 which includes some of the communities that we heard about san jose that run south all the way into the mountain view community i'm here to speak in support of amendment b-21 the cumulative impacts amendment um as you've heard from community members there's a disproportionate amount of heavy and dangerous polluting industry within that area along the railroad tracks and i think that um the cumulative impacts amendment would go a long way to ensuring that these communities are relieved of the burden placed on those communities as you've heard from from the community members that have been working on this issue for a long time these these communities suffer from disproportionate adverse health effects and i think we all can understand that we want our families and our communities to truly thrive and i think the cumulative impacts amendment goes a long way in taking that initial step in ensuring that the communities and all communities in albuquerque have have the the desired effect and the ability to thrive thank you madam chair thank you committee thank you for being here with us our next speaker madam madam chair yes councillor i would just well i just would like to welcome our state uh representative from the south valley who was speak just speaking i i i it's really a delight when we see our legislators get involved in these issues and and then and respond to their communities and their constituents thank you for being here thank you council grego thank you sir just quickly i want to echo what uh council borrego said um representative andres romero has been a a great partner um in the time that we've served together uh in an overlapping manner much of his district is not within the city limits but he's been a great partner in the neighborhoods like san jose and kirtland and south broadway um he's always there you know when we need to pick up the phone and talk i mean some really important issues having to do with with uh with these environmental issues primarily but also water and infrastructure so we appreciate this partnership thank you thank you councillor benton i think that concludes the speaker and uh our next speaker the is public speaker is deborah meyer miss meyer go ahead and unmute yourself now miss meyer are you connected uh miss meyer is in the zoom room but it looks like she is not connected to audio at this time we will continue to move through the public comment list and if she connects we will go back to her does that sound acceptable madam chair thank you thank you the next public speaker then is kelly cockrell um it says you can't start your video because the host has stopped it can you hear me miss cockrell i can't hear you okay and i'm seeing um debbie meyer um is now connected so maybe she can speak after after me um where is uh don harris i connected earlier a little late so i was just wondering where my counselor is isn't he in this committee miss cockle uh councilor harris has been excused for the evening okay okay great um all right so first of all i'd like to say that um b21 i fully support that um um i at that amendment and um you know human beings need to be considered and it seems like it's kind of crazy that we have to um fight for this um the ideo seems to me that it's more developer friendly than it is human friendly but anyways i appreciate the fact that um counselor benton has put forward that amendment and this amendment the amendment is b25 plan development um and it um i think that it's important um i support it because um humans and other living beings thrive in planned developments um i know this because i live in a tent uh a plan development called town park and we just got defaulted into a planned development um by no choice of our own when the idea was implemented so this is really really important to all plan developments in the city and as i understand it uh pds are either 100 residential or 100 commercial or the mix of the two um and because town park is a hundred percent residential it would only stand to reason that town park should receive consideration for the same safety mechanisms like conditional use permits as well as residential zones and furthermore why would the city of albuquerque not want to protect all of its residents from potential disasters or adverse industry in planned development zones like they do in residential zones we all pay property taxes and we all care deeply for the environment that surrounds our homes so we should all be equally protected i feel like if anybody does not support these amendments b21 and b25 then they are not friendly with their they are not for the people they're for the developers um it's for this reason that i support the amendment and i think councillor benton thank you mr cochrane uh we will go back to ms meyer i see her video is on it looks like she might have audio connection now ms meyer go ahead and unmute yourself ms meyer it looks like your microphone is still muted if you're able to hit the unmute button okay i'm ready great we can hear you now okay great i support your amendment to revise the definition for residential zone district to include property zone pd this will have a huge impact on future construction of noisy and dangerous establishments so close to where residents live for example revising the ido will prevent light vehicle fueling stations from being constructed within 75 to 100 feet of homes an issue currently faced by town park residents now the ido allows this kind of construction next to an otherwise safe clean non-polluted residential area specifically murphy corporation is going to build a self-service gas station on the northeast corner of eubank and central open from 5 a.m to 11 p.m daily adjacent to the backyards of the residents of town park the disturbing short long-term effects of a gas station with benzene vapor emissions operating non-stop for 18 hours daily will be detrimental to the health of the adjacent residents in addition to the light and noise pollution the air will be polluted with benzene a known carcinogen that is known to cause leukemia and other blood cancers the environment is a social determinant of health and can be modified as are other determinants of health such as education and literacy literacy access to health services and socioeconomic status i'm a registered nurse and hospice and palliative care nurse i've cared for dying patients with the same cancers that are caused by benzene vapors and these lives end in pain suffocation and agony please prevent this for the residents of town park and all city residents whose zoning permits construction with detrimental health effects thank you for your time in revising the ido and please consider making the zoning retroactive for town park to stop construction of the murphy fueling station adjacent to our residential community thank you the next public speaker is bill ashford mr ashford go ahead and mute yourself at this time okay uh is my audio okay yes we can hear you great thanks um my name is bill ashford i'm an albuquerque resident and i'm speaking on behalf of the nob hill neighborhood association i have comments related to amendment a17 the site lighting amendment firstly i'd like to thank the ido staff and counselor pat davis and his staff for writing the amendment a17 and sponsoring it through the ideo update process we are supportive of the a17 amendment and we think it should be incorporated into the ido bright lights can be a nuisance eyesore and detract from a resident's quality of life by creating unwanted glare and disruptive light pollution bright lights affect adjacent neighbors and in the case of multi-story commercial buildings bright lights on the upper stories affect non-adjacent neighbors historically the allowable exterior illumination is limited by zoning ordinance and the ido is no exception in nob hill a deficiency in the ido lighting ordinance was discovered an excessively bright multi-story commercial building on central avenue with bright lights active in 96 upper story windows was found to exceed the ordinance unfortunately because the illumination originated from internal and not external fixtures the ordinance was not enforceable amendment a17 would correct this deficiency by revising the ido to also apply to illumination originating inside a building the allowable brightness for external lighting uh is not reduced by this amendment so existing and new lights in parking lots alleyways and sidewalks are not changed in fact the maximum allowable brightness has been slightly increased with this amendment thank you for consideration for your consideration on this item and hopefully amendment a17 will be approved and included in the updated ido thank you mr ashford our next speaker our next speaker is ms ward ms ward go ahead and unmute yourself at this time ms ward go ahead and unmute yourself would you repeat the speaker's name please uh ms ward that's you you're up okay thank you counselors i direct your attention to subsections 55c5 parking reductions beginning on page 249 of the redline version of the ido update this section has a combination of shell language and may language it appears to give the planning director or anyone the planning director names is the designee authority to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for development based on various factors that are not codified in a meaningful transparent or reproducible manner this sort of arbitrary authority is given in other subsections as well please indulge me this anecdote relayed by a local business owner who went through the process of demonstrating compliance with parking requirements the business person made multiple trips and had multiple encounters with different city staff unfortunately for the business owner different staff provided service on different visits after leaving a visit with the information needed for compliance and taking the appropriate action and returning with evidence of the action the business owner was told something different than what the previous staff person advised this situation occurred at least twice upon the third or perhaps fourth visit the business owner silently asked is this where i bribed him is that how this works i submit that the language in the aforementioned section is an invitation to continued experiences as related here on any given day perhaps any staff person may decide which standard if any will apply to an important question contrast this situation with very specific shall language with regard to granting of variance requests the ido has subverted state law by essentially saying it does not apply to variance requests before a public body or agent purported to comply with legal standards at some point an appeal will make it into the court system and the city of albuquerque could be found to be in violation of state law please listen to and address the concerns raised by neighborhood groups appropriately and meaningfully thank you thank you for speaking this evening our next speaker next public speaker is virginia nikko chea please go ahead and meet yourself now yes hello good evening my name is dr vithinia nicol and i'm here in my capacity as the executive director of the new mexico environmental law center and we stand in full support of revised amendment b-21 and in full support of members of the san jose and mountain view communities and it's a well-established fact low-income communities and communities of color continue to be disproportionately impacted by land uses that cause environmental pollution um front-line communities suffer disproportionate health impacts from environmental pollution and the disproportionate impacts on frontline communities can be traced to discriminatory land use policies such as exclusionary zoning or discriminatory practices such as redlining albuquerque we know is no different and we see these practices that continue to impact these communities and we also see that the vast majority of industrial land uses transportation corridors and superfund sites in albuquerque are to no one surprise located in low-income communities of color such as san jose and mountain view and so um we support um be the b-21 cumulative impacts amendment and we see it as an opportunity for the neighborhoods along the historic rail corridor to be protected from large polluting companies and for city officials to begin to remedy historic environmental racism and that is why on the new mexico environmental lobster we express our full support of the revised amendment b-21 so thank you all for your work and commitment to our communities thank you for your comments our next speaker our next speaker is stephen aveta mr abeyta go ahead and unmute yourself now mr a beta you you still need to unmute your microphone there you go okay thank you very much thank you very much madam chair and council members that we hold in high esteem for being in the lups meeting tonight the reason that we're here tonight is for the b-21 cumulative impacts amendment and uh what's happening in our neighborhood of san jose is that we have a lot of industries that have located in our neighborhood over the years these neighborhoods this neighborhood is suffering from what's called racial discrimination by land zoning i was never aware of this until the united nations came right directly to our house and we spoke with the people with the human rights network of the united nations and they told me directly you're suffering from racial discrimination and we've seen this all over the world where heavy industrial companies are located in poor communities of color when i heard that i was taken aback because i've always had trust for our leaders i've always believed that they were going to help us and never do anything to harm us and so we have an opportunity tonight to change the practices that we've been doing in albuquerque i know there's a severe racial issue that's happens in albuquerque it's called uh the spaniards versus the mexicans some people will say well i'm not a mexican i'm a spaniard uh but what happens is is what they do is they go on ahead and approve terrible zoning laws when they're in charge of different departments they do everything they can to make sure that the polluting industries are located in neighborhoods like san jose and not in their neighborhoods uh this is oppression and it's been happening to give you an example a similar house mr abeda thank you your time is up thank you for being here thank you i appreciate you giving me the opportunity goodbye the next public speaker this evening is daniel regan mr regan go ahead and unmute yourself now mr regan you still need to unmute your microphone we can see your image i believe i'm a muted you are we can hear you now sir love chair and members i'm dan regan i represent the nap heights neighborhood association and the district 4 coalition for zoning purposes several of you have indicated over time that you think we are dealing with administrative and legislative matters over which the city council has complete control and can do as they think best when it comes to the ido i suggest that all of you recognize that you are dealing with the private property rights of all homeowners in the city and that according to state law changes to an individual's property rights be they residential or otherwise cannot be made by government bodies without the knowledge and offered participation of those property owners impacted by the changes i cannot possibly imagine that a six day notice emailed within a meeting announcement of two brand new ido amendments and changes to six others would pass the smell test much less a legal one when the changes could impact my private property rights what were the dates of publication in the local newspapers for these changes i posit that you as a as a council committee are not sufficiently grounded to even consider passage of oh 2010 in a wholly legitimate way and as to how you are proposing to process all the text slash text edits and amendments i can only say that it is preposterously ridiculous that a single up down vote on a whole package would hold up in court that's close to 680 pages of legalese at least 130 of which have not even been seen by 95 percent of the property owners in the city i suggest you slow down this substantially i will forward to you these comments and my comments on amendment b2 and b i support b-21 holy as it is and i wonder what happened so that the rest of the city is no longer considered necessary to protect thank you thank you mr regan and our next speaker our next speaker is peggy norton ms norton go ahead and unmute yourself now okay i'm really concerned to hear dan reagan's comment about the 21 leaving out the rest of the city because we really struggled with cumulative impacts in the north valley with the transfer station i hope the north valley wasn't left out of that but we do definitely support cumulative impact legislation last time around i made a comment on cottage development i'm not sure of exactly the consequences of changing those to mxm we have mxm properties do cottage development apply to them do they get their choices of what they want there needs to be a little more discussion about that because we did spend a lot of time at the beginning of the ido with that i'm concerned also to hear that there's con some sort of construction yard amendment and it's very pertinent because we're just dealing with a variance that's been requested in our neighborhood for a construction yard to be allowed um the drb criteria we supported last time that that third criteria that they use be retained and not deleted heights we do not support the increase in heights we were totally led in the beginning that heights have no relationship to number of floors and now we need to increase the heights to allow certain number of floors and then the zhe shortcomings of notification that we've run into this is my first time dealing with zhe and variances and trying to put it together as a coalition for an area that doesn't have neighborhood on associations and seems like there is some processes that could be improved there the facade designs we do support that although maybe they shouldn't be universal across the city other neighborhoods have weighed in on that i believe thank you miss norton that the time is up thank you miss norton for being here thank you our next speaker our next public speaker is jim strozier mr strozier go ahead and unmute yourself now thank you madam chair my name is jim strozier and i first want to thank this committee and the council and planning staff for all their hard work and encourage you to move these amendments to the full council i do have one comment on behalf of myself and naiop regarding amendment b20 that rejects and you heard about this from mr perdomo it rejects the epcs conditions number 46 and 47 and what that amendment does is it it will cause unnecessary delay in development projects and we respectfully request that you support the epc's recommendation on this that would allow and provide the ability for applicants to request a conditional use and a variance at the same time this is important because i think for a couple of reasons one is that i think it's important to be able to present the project in in a more complete form when you go to the zhe rather than breaking it up into parts i think this is also true when we go out to the neighborhoods and discuss the project because you want to be able to talk about it as a whole rather than split those processes up i also want to express my complete appreciation for your consideration of my comments related to amendment b-21 regarding cumulative impacts i think those changes are helpful and focus the regulations to the areas that need it and it should be applied to and with that i want to thank you very much for your time and consideration of my comments as always thank you thank you mr strozher our next speaker our next public speaker is renee horvath miss horvath go ahead and unmute yourself now can you hear me now yes miss horvath we can okay thank you i just want to um i just want to express i'm with the west side coalition and uh one of the things that has been very good process of two minutes uh trying to give uh public comments on 41 amendments and 13 pages of technical edits uh we have gone uh we several of neighborhood representatives have met together to provide a spreadsheet of going over just the amendments itself not the technical edits to try to give some comments to them most of them we are asking to reject meaning hold off on approval because there needs to be a lot more explanation on some of these amendments because they really some of these could have very undesirable results uh in the in the community of albuquerque if we don't look at these further and for example uh we're asking that there'd be more review on cluster development it's a great design but it it's good for some uh places but it needs more discussion same with cottage development great design idea but there's a lack of vision and definition on that uh neighborhood edges uh we're starting to see uh problems building two massive buildings right next to residential areas one is transit parking that will not work here on the west side and i doubt that it will work for most albuquerque we are already experiencing problems with reduction in parking where we have angry customers confronting businesses having not enough parking uh also solar protections love that idea i'd like to see more discussion because i s we're starting to see solar protection as being affected uh with residential um technical edits there's 13 pages of them have had not had time to review them i think don't please don't vote on all these yes thank you your time is up thank you ms horvath for being here this evening madam chair that concludes our public comment for oh 2010 this evening thank you counselors are there any questions or comments any questions of the staff okay seeing none there are 42 amendments uh this evening 18 in packet a and counselor you didn't see my hand up i thank you councillor borrego go ahead um i'm a little concerned counselor counselors um that there are um still comments from the neighborhoods that are asking for a little more time for review and even myself i mean i i went through these in the last couple of weeks and there were a lot even uh some added just today which um or in the last day or so and i think that it's um there's not there's not any strict rule in place that says that we can't have three lups meetings regarding these um i think that you know and you you all know my position um when the ido was adopted and i didn't have the votes and i tried to bill to slow things down and that actually did never got a second on that so i was not able to do that but now i'm concerned that we're moving things again uh very quickly um and i i probably don't have the votes again to slow it down but i would like to consider that we had a have a third lups hearing on this on on these amendments and that we refine things um before we send them to um full council i i think that i heard enough i mean a whole whole couple of coalitions telling us that they um would like to hear some more discussion or have some more time you know i think we could have a third lups meeting and then um you know take our chances at that point there are some amendments here that i support um but there are some that i still have questions on myself so i would like for the the lups representatives to consider that we have a third love's hearing counselor borrego if i may this is the third lups hearing on these amendments sorry a fourth i guess to be correct thank you counselors are there any comments on counselor borrego's request then we have counselor benton had his hand up and then councillor gibson councillor benton thank you madam chair and um certainly we want as much public comment as we possibly can but let's just look at the uh the title of this bill is the 2019 amendments uh to the ideo and whether we agree or not with the pace of the ideo and and any of what was laid out in the ideo for that matter um it's there and it's enacted and it's a commitment the ideo along with the comp plan rewrite or update were commitments uh that had that included schedules how things would occur and um you know i know uh madam chair that that you were gracious enough to let these amendments uh stay out there during the month of uh july uh most of us were working pretty hard on our regular council work in the month of july but i know i didn't get much time off but uh um but it was out there for the public as well and we were there and our staff was there for the public as well during july and i don't know how many more we can you know how long we could extend it uh to a time when when every person is um is able to fully understand um you know that this very arcane work which is part of the induced regulation no question about it and and so i'm sympathetic to counselor concerns and for those expressed and i do think um we ought to get this to the full council and we've got a lot of voting to do yet we uh contrary to maybe popular perception we're going to vote on every single one of these amendments tonight and any questions about them but uh i'm sympathetic to the intent but but i can't support the motion thank you councillor benton and counselor gibson you have a question thank you uh madam chair so my question is um would be this if we did uh defer this for one more meeting what uh what ramifications are there what uh what would happen that we would not want to see happen councillor gibson if you are right with us i'll ask mr valentis or miss morris to answer that question ms morris adam chair counselors um so timing wise uh if this was deferred it would go to the september um and so that would mean that the annual update would assuming it moved out of lups in september um would be reported out at the second council meeting in september and so this would not actually get heard by the full council until october um this means that the 2019 annual update would overlap with um the 2020 update which actually technically the planning department would have some trouble submitting as some of the language about the small mapped areas is in this update so there is there is stuff in the this annual update that the neighborhoods are waiting for that the development community is waiting for that the planning department is waiting for um so the the pushing this to september would would push all of those things to october councillor gibson do you have more comment yeah so uh then i guess that makes me wonder if there are those things that are being waited for for decision on if we could um pass those uh and not without passing everything to council um i can ask a question on that miss morris or or mr melendros but the question is me counselor gibson only is another counselor is how do we know which ones that the city needs and if those are the same ones that the neighborhoods don't like and what would we accomplish by doing that well it was already stated and i think after hearing as much public comment as we have so far as as well as getting email hearing from our constituents [Music] i think that we could probably make you know a pretty good determination of which ones at least the neighborhoods are really interested in seeing to move forward i i i'm not really making i'm not not really necessarily trying to make a strong case for this i'm just for sake of discussion and and exploring that as an option really it may be that um that really may not save us that much time you know thank you councillor gibson chris uh mr melenders would like to call thank you madam chair i want to just kind of um point out some of the trajectory here and some of the maybe practical and technical limitations that may play in to that type of approach moving forward um if i understand it correctly the concept is that some but not all of the amendments um would be final and that they would be passed along and some that are perhaps require less that are kind of deemed as less controversial or require less ongoing debate perhaps would be passed and the others could be held one of the technical issues that we would run into if we attempted to go in that direction is that we're dealing with a single bill and so those amendments have to be attached to that bill in some form and so the question really in order to vote on that bill requires some final determination on those amendments um either up or down in order for that bill to be ready to be voted upon or for those amendments to be withdrawn and if those amendments you know in concept i you know i think that the council needs to have latitude to do what's appropriate under the circumstances but as far as the timing issues in order to appropriately deal with those amendments um would require the introduction of a new bill if you wanted to hold them um without voting on them as part of the bill that's before you now and so that process um would would be significant and and the ido does discuss that new bills being introduced do go back to the epc and they go through the whole process again and that's part of why the ido contemplated a single annual update because it contemplates that it's a predictable process where you'll have one opportunity to deal with these issues and it's predictable for the public in that regard and transparent for the public in that regard so that you're not juggling multiple bills that do different things and that if something doesn't get through this time you'll have the opportunity to address that through a subsequent annual update madam chair thank you mr melandrus and councillor gibson i'll let you respond to that and then i see your hands counselor benton thank you okay uh so thank you for that that that makes a lot of sense we don't want to go we don't want to uh introduce or pass some of the i would think this is what i would prefer not pass some of these uh amendments and uh amend the bill pass the bill and then create another uh update a 2020 up or 2019 update number two and go through the whole process again that that makes a lot of sense to me of course so um all right thank you i'm i'm satisfied no thank you thank you councillor gibson and councillor benjamin you're next and i see your hand counselor borrego uh yeah just quickly um so the next uh meeting at which this could be heard barring uh immediate action out of this committee would be a month from now on the ninth full month um for further discussion of these there's also nothing to prevent any counselor from bringing one of these back that's an amendment before the full council if i'm correct i believe i'm correct about that uh that this will come to the council as a as a bill but uh please someone correct me if i'm wrong we any counselor can bring forth an amendment to any of these amendments or for that matter a new amendment before the council once it reaches the council madam chair counselor that is correct um the council has the opportunity to entertain amendments before the entire assembly even after the the committee has finalized its recommendation after that mr melander madam chair i would just just say that i as always would encourage anyone who you know native speakers mentioned different things that they they still had questions about and it's always been the case during my time in the council that that if a member of the public no matter where they're coming from community neighborhood perspective business perspective they've got something between now and that month that they need to have clarified with any of these and of course they can they can work with their counselor they can work with our staff um questions will be answered by staff in a professional and expedient manner i can tell you that uh if you have specific questions about how something is worded if we were to pass it so i just want to point that out as well it's really important although it seemed like we were down in the weeds when we passed the ido about how this was going to unfold whether it's this or whether these annual updates or whether it's a community planning area process which has been delayed unfortunately first administratively and now by the pandemic um these are commitments that were made to the community and um make it or hate it this is the venue that we've created for the for everyone all of us and the community to to uh to tackle these issues and to hopefully continue to improve a zoning system that that is is new and the old one believe me had a lot of improvement and all constant amendments going on with it and it's all very complex no doubt about it i i will listen to any any constituent uh whether a business person or a community person and and um and i'm sure the staff will answer their questions thank you thank you councillor brandon councillor borrego thank you thank you councillors um and i totally understand councillor uh benton with regard to the intent of the ido and that it has been adopted and we are on a on a trajectory to approve and review review and approve amendments throughout and i understand that we're looking at a a set of amendments for uh you know a certain year and we're going to be starting another year but we've also heard from at least two different coalitions tonight the west side coalition and the um the uh heights north west heights coalition who have both said that they didn't have enough time to review these and i think that even though there is an overlapping process there's nothing to prevent us from adopting these in september at the lups and request immediate action and so there's not really a reason that i'm that i'm understanding that we couldn't hear them immediately after our lips hearing in september at a council at a full council meeting in fact if they go to full council there may be issues with other councillors that may have uh concerns and this is going forward as a packet so if there were amendments that were not approved at the full council meeting this would still have to come back to lups as a packet and so that those are those are concerns that i have that um and i may not have the votes tonight i think in addition to that we have issues with regard to covet that has limited our public input process to what we're dealing with tonight is zoom um if unless i'm being told tonight that there's something that's pending at the planning department or at at the epc level or somewhere i don't really see why we can't defer for one more meeting get some more input make a decision ask for um another hearing at lups and then you know send it forward to the um the full council with an immediate action request um i i'm i'm having a difficult time and probably i'll lose this vote but i would like to make a motion that we defer uh to our next lups meeting and i may not get a second but i think that i heard enough sir there you go may i interrupt that there is a motion on the floor already uh i understand its procedure mr melender says if you want to correct me on this i think the procedure is we must vote on the uh motion on the floor and then we can come back for another motion i thought we had to vote on them each individually uh well there's the most on the floor to uh for a second to do pass madam chair the the motion on the floor um would need to be dealt with unless a motion that takes precedent is made um a motion to defer would take precedent and could be taken up for a vote prior to your final disposition of the motion that's already on the floor thank you mr melendrez that's why i ask you so miss uh councillor baraco if you'd like to go ahead with your motion make the motion i did make the motion thank you counselor okay there's a motion on the floor is there a second to defer seeing none let's go back to the original motion of do pass there was a second for that um we need to do a roll call on that and then we'll come back and if it passes we will address the individual is the motion on the floor is a do pass for the entire packet to go to full city council and we would not have to come back and vote on each item or would we i'm adam chair councillor i wish that i could tell you you didn't have to vote on each item since we're doing roll call votes virtually um but if you were to to pass the bill vote on the motion that's on the floor without first voting on all the amendments um then all the amendments would need to be reintroduced at city council because they would not have effect from the committee so you do have to vote on those amendments in order to make them part of the bill once those amendments are voted upon the final vote would be to move to council with do pass as amended so point of clarification we have to vote on each item prior to voting on the bill of duke house madam chair councillor baraco yes uh counselors unless or other questions it sounds like we need to go to the um amendments mr melendez does it matter which order we go in should we go with the b's or the a's first um madam chair you know i think our planning staff has done a really good job of staying organized on this and so i would defer to miss morris and miss schultz about the the practical order of of the votes and how we could best take those thank you mr melenders miss morris madam chad councillors um i have some slides for each amendment and so what i suggest is i'll share my screen um so you guys can see which amendment you're on as you take each vote um and so i would suggest we start with packet a and amendment a1 thank you councillors are we ready to go there on that one okay then uh councillor benton would you like to move the amendments or would you like for me to do it uh you're welcome to do it if you like uh uh as co-sponsor uh you're the chair probably would go faster that way thank you i would suggest that we move each for unless one of the members of the committee is sponsoring one that we just kind of go through them uh that way and um for purposes of discussion at least to move each one uh separately and put forward unless there are any objections counselor i think i will move each one where one of us is here to remove each one unless one of us on the on the committee is a sponsor and i will ask if that sponsor would like to move it how's that can i get a show of hands on how that works if anyone's happy with that okay first one is uh amendment a1 i move a do pass it's barbed and razor wire is the title of it and the information is up on our screen counselors i need a second on that i'm madam chair if there's not a second that's fine by me otherwise i have a comment okay just a minute we're doing a little computer adjustment here okay counselor benton um do we have a second on that if not counselor oh thank you councillor gibson thank you for the second uh councillor benton you have comment yes thank you uh i'm going to pose this amendment um the original barbed wire language in the original previous zoning code was something that i sponsored and uh i think it's correct i recognize the concern of some commercial property owners to want to put up razor wire and i believe under certain circumstances they still can but uh i don't see these uh i think there are many ways to protect uh your property other than mirrors and um so we had in there originally suited me fine and i will not support this thank you councillor benton counselors are there any other comments there's a motion on this and a a second on the floor for a due pass on a1 we're going to take a roll call on this councillor benton no councillor bordego just a clarification so this is this is changing our existing um zone code to read this am i correct what's on the screen madam chair counselors this is a summary of the bill um the details are in the amendment um and this makes changes to the barbed wire regulations for commercial property owners but it also does have some impacts on residential properties and that is the concern that councillor benson was referring to earlier i'm going to vote yes councillor gibson yes councillor jones yes and that passes on a 3031 vote thank you let's move on to a2 counselor benton this one is yours thank you uh i'll move uh committee amendment uh a2 this is the cannabis retail suite of amendments and these were in anticipation of state action on legalization of recreational marijuana a second counselors is there any discussion there's a motion and then a second on a2 [Music] uh take a call now counselor benson yes counselor bodego no counselor gibson yes councillor jones that passes on a 3-1 vote thank you councillors that passed on a 3-1 vote the next is a3 civil remedies procedure this is a counselor harris's bill i'll move a do pass second do i have a counselor borrego second there's a motion in a second any discussion roll call please counselor benton yes councillor bordego yes mr gibson yes councillor jones yes that passes on a 4-0 counselors that one passed on a 4-0 the next is a4 cluster development counselor borrego would you like to introduce this one um yes thank you counselor um this sets some criteria and um let me let me go to my page here some criteria for grouping low density residential units located within cluster developments and counselor senna and i are proposing this and counselor are you moving a do pass yes i'm sorry yes the motions do pass a4 is there a second i'll second that motion in a second for a4 would you call the rule counselor benton yes councilor bordego yes councillor gibson yes keller jones yes that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you counselors moving on to a5 construction contractor yard use i am the sponsor on this one are there any questions i move a do pass do i get a second thank you counselor benjamin for the second there's a motion in a second for a5 would you please call the role councillor benton yes councillor bordego no councillor gibson yeah i'm sorry yes counselor jones yes that passes on a 3-1 vote thank you that passed on a three-woman next is councilor benton thank you madam chair uh i'll move uh this would be uh a6 whatever number it is now um yes yes this is amendment number six um and this is the uh cons contextual standards uh language and and changes to that and i'll ask staff to explain it and do a better job than me madam chair counselors yes contextual standards um this uh reduces the um contextual standards for larger lots that are closely located to urban center's main streets and premium transit this allows for greater flexibility when subdividing existing lots um this is intended to help with infill in those key areas the that are in close proximity to urban centers main streets from premium transit which the comprehensive plan has identified as our key areas for infill development and madam chair i'll second your motion thank you for that madam chair it's important to point out in the explanation that um within what in the ido when they do when they created these contextual standards um it actually reduced the uh or increased the minimum life size uh than what existed previously in the code so this is in part to deal with that at least when adjacent to uh the main street and the uh urban transit corridor so that's what it's about that's the intention properly but but that's an important um madam chair counselor counselor i just wanted to make clear that this does not affect property uh streets on the west side it's only for premium transit right am i correct councillor benton i would ask staff to correct that i think it's uh any any of the designated quarters that are mentioned there so that includes uh urban center uh main streets and uh pg i forgot what pg is true madam czech council is um the main street and premium transit uh would not affect um any of the west side with the exception of central avenue um an urban center is volcano heights so um for areas in the volcano heights area that have the r1 d zone category um they would have some flexibility in subdividing their lots in that area however that would not apply to the volcano um heights uh cpo character protection overlay as it has a minimum lot size and so it wouldn't be able to trump something that is controlled by a character protection overlay and the characteristic of that area is the large loss um so just central avenue thank you miss morris councillor brego do you have other questions no thank you there's a motion in a second for a6 chicago councillor benton yes councillor bordego yes councillor gibson yes councillor jones yes that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you counselors next councilor benton 87 thank you madam chair a7 is uh a uh amendment to cottage development and uh i'll ask staff to uh recommend this this has to do with reducing the size of a cottage development minimum acreage adjacent to those same quarters that were just mentioned counselors all second that motion are there any are there any questions of staff i think unless we have questions for the sake of going home sometime tonight uh we'll simply introduce the legislation and get a second and if there any staff or any of the counselors have a question please just raise your hand or just call out so there's a are there any questions on this one okay so this is uh a7 there's a motion second for a due pass councillor benton yes councillor bordego yes councillor gibson yes councillor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you next in line is a8 drive-throughs uh it is affecting the way drive-throughs are are being set up all those i need a second make a motion to approve do i have a second second thank you uh counselor gibson there's a motion in a second any questions motion in a second on a8 councillor benton yes councillor bordego yes councillor gibson yes councillor jones yes cass is on a 4-0 vote thank you the next is also uh a9 general retail sizes and we will do pass second do i have a second thank you councillor borrego are there any questions call the role counselor benton yes counselor yes counselor gibson yes councillor jones yes yes and that passes on a four zero vote next is a10 uh to the maximum extent practicable language i move a due pass for councillor cena and sena and bassan second is there thank you councillor borrego any questions counselor benton yes councillor bordego transfer gibson yes councillor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you counselors what's next is a11 councillor davis's bill retail in the mxm zone i'll move a do pass for councillor davis is there a second councillor benjamin any questions if you'll call the roll please counselor benton yes counselor yes counselor gibson no counselor jones no that fails on a 2-2 vote okay um next we have a-12 neighborhood edge parking lots counselor benton thank you i move uh passage of this amendment second second are there any questions counselors uh therefore a motion to pass on 8 12. benton yes councillor bordego yes councillor gibson yes councillor jones yes yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you counselors next is a13 requirements in the nr zones i move would do pass second you have a second second thank you councillor gibson there's a motion in a second for requirements in the environment all the all those in favor take a while sir benton yes councilor yes councillor gibson yes councillor jones yes that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you next a14 outdoor dining this is councillor davis's bill i move a do pass second thank you counselor gibson there's a motion in a second for a 14. now sir benton yes pastor bordego yes counselor gibson yes councillor jones yes that passes on the 4-0 vote thank you counselors a15 primary building frontages this is councillor senna's build i move a dupe pass second thank you councillor borrego are there any questions there's a motion in a second for a15 i do have a question on this yes yes thank you councillor benjamin i wanted to ask staff about this um uh basically this it has to do with the minimum frontage requirements um and uh this is required again on urban centers main streets and premium transit and this bumps up those the the uh well basically as opposed to a building frontage on these uh quarters it uh correct me if i'm wrong allows up to 50 of it to be outdoor dining in lieu of a building that's a pretty strong percentage i just wanted to ask that came up how that was arrived madam chair counselor benson um this language came from um looking back at the downtown neighborhood area sector plan which um had some similar language to the ideo about building bringing buildings up to the frontage it had an allowance that allowed um patios to count towards the 50 primary building frontage so um it's modeled on that that previous sector plan so half of the frontage of a lot has to be either a building um or an outdoor gathering seizing and gathering area madam chair um i i understand and support the basic idea here um but what we're talking about is 50 of 50 am i correct in other words um the requirement is 50 of the frontage and now we're saying the building can only be 25 of the frontage and and the other part is also open space this would be the dining and then the rest could be for instance a parking frontage if i'm not mistaken am i correct about that chair counselor benson um so the ideo already requires that the building be at least fifty percent of the front edge um if this amendment doesn't pass it just wouldn't allow that some of that frontage area include outdoor seating and gathering areas um the the seating and gathering gathering area would be um in any percentage uh of their primary area um miss schultz worked on this one so she might be a bit better able and audible to respond on this one let me repeat my question 50 of 50 is 25 so this would result in a frontage that's only 25 percent building madam chair councillor benton the 50 of the 50 um is not quite accurate for this amendment we're all we're only thinking about what this amendment says is any amount of that 50 can either be made up of building frontage or of the patio it doesn't further distinguish how you break down the patio frontage or the building frontage it just says that it all may count towards the total requirement of 50 percent you know i i'm gonna oppose this uh counselors and i think this totally goes against the intent to create some sort of building wall um along these these major corridors so um i i'd be happy to discuss it with counselor cena more and see what we could do before the full council but i will oppose this amendment madam chair i have a a a a a question actually my question yes councillor gibson thank you madam chair and i guess i'm going to ask this of mitch schultz so it sounds like i'm going to rephrase what i think i heard you say was that the building frontage could be as little as 25 as the uh of the entire length madam chair counselor gibson it could be as little as 25 it could be as little as one percent if someone chose to make up the other 49 um of that requirement with patio the the purpose here is that the flexibility exists that a development could have could meet this requirement either with a patio or building frontage with the intention that there's some kind of activity right at the street um essentially this prohibits a parking lot from from counting towards that 50 but for the purposes of the ido as long as there is a building or a patio that would hopefully be occupied by diners um that the intent of having activity for at least 50 percent of that frontage so i'm trying to think of an application i don't want to take a whole lot of time on this but uh an application maybe a the front of a building that somehow comes to a a point a rather a shallow angle point sure madam madam chair counselor gibson i can give you a practical example that you might be able to uh picture um so uh a development that i can think of off the top of my head on central avenue there is a bob's burgers that was recently renovated in the last couple years and actually looks quite nice um they have a regular a relatively small building footprint but a giant outdoor patio if that type of development wanted to come into one of these urban areas that giant outdoor patio under today's rules would not be able to count towards that 50 percent linear footage requirement what this amendment will allow to happen is for them to count that patio in addition to the linear frontage of their building towards that 50 percent gotcha thank you counselors any other questions counselor benjamin yeah just quickly so here's how i can satisfy this right 50 of the frontage is a dining patio with the building in an undefined location behind that and the other fifty percent of the friend uses the parking lot this is what we really want on an urban center i would possibly it does not so uh i think this i send the sentiment and i support some percentage but i don't think this is written in a way that i can support it and i hope the other counselors will not also read them councillor borrego you had your hand up um i i think that the intent is really good but i i have some questions about the percentage i'm still going to support it because i think we can amend it at full council if we need to madam chair and and councillor benton i i would like to clarify that what's in the ideo today is 50 um so this this amendment does not add that 50 requirement to the ido all it does is allow for an outdoor patio or seating and gathering area to count towards that existing regulation counselors are there any other comments or questions quickly uh i i'll go ahead and support this and and talk to those are saying about if we could possibly tweak these numbers somehow thank you counselor bench and i think we all have questions on this one but it's uh i also will get it moving forward and see if we can get it a little more comfortable for most of us um at the council meeting so counselors any more questions okay so there's a motion in a second for a15 council benton yes councillor bordego yes councillor gibson yes and councillor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you next we have a16 notification and facilitated meeting procedures this is a piece of legislation by councillor davis and bassan i will move approval is there a second there's a second by councillor benton any comments any questions therefore there's a motion in a second for a16 yes councillor borrego i i was wondering why this is not tied to the neighborhood ordinance that we're in the process of revising and maybe the staff could answer that question for me madam chair counselor jones um the ido has very specific regulations about notification um the in adopting the ideo we took the approach that it made more sense for the notification stuff to be in the document uh related to the application so that it was easy for the public to look in one place um and so that is why the notification requirements specific to ido masses are in the ido prior to the idea they were in some in the narrow and some in the zone code um and that was confusing okay but that still doesn't answer why are we reviewing this as part of the neighborhood ordinance neighborhood association ordinance madam chair councillor jones yes where there is overlap that is part of the review of the narrow ordinance okay i'm i'm probably not going to support this uh madam chair because i think that this is a a policy that we should look at as part of that neighborhood association ordinance council borrego thank you i am not comfortable with this the way it's uh it's stated either so i will also be opposing but there are there any other comments uh there's a motion in a second we're gonna do pass for a16 council section yes councillor bordegal no councillor gibson no counselor jones no and that fails on uh thank you counselors next is 817 this is a bill by councillor davis site lighting petra counselors counselor benton second there's a motion second by counselor benton are there any questions or comments call them rule counselor benton yes councillor yes councillor gibson councillor jones yes and that passes on a four-zero vote thank you councillors one more in the a packet this is transit parking reduction councilor davis's bill i'll move a do pass may i have a second second thank you councillor gibson any comments questions there's a motion to pass a 18 transit parking reduction counselor benton no counselor no counselor gibson no counselor jones yes and that fails on a three against one four thank you counselors do we want to take a little break or do we want to move right on into bs counselors do we need a five minute break no that would be a no no no okay here we go we're moving into b1 uh accessory dwelling units counselor banting huh thank you i'll move uh approval of amendment b1 second any questions any comments i i just had a question to be clear i think i think i know the answer but i just want to be clear for the record this also does not address um i mean this does not affect paseo del norte and unser boulevard because they're not premium transit is that correct madam chair council benson that is correct uh premium transit areas between louisiana and also thank you thank you counselors any other questions counselor benton yes counselor yes counselor gibson no counselor jones yes and that passes on a 3-1 vote thank you councillors uh b2 is building heights this is mine i move a due pass may i have a second second thank you councillor gibson there's a motion in a second are there any questions or comments counselor benton i do have one question as as a sponsor uh chairman chairwoman jones uh is um there's another amendment to reduce that ground floor minimum height right yes would that interface with this potentially i mean obviously someone would rate that if that is reduced by two feet um i mean don't they kind of go hand in hand in a way miss morris would you like to answer that madam chair counselors um it it it does to to the degree that um if both past there's there's greater flexibility for those different lev um stories or for or flaws um however this amendment on building heights is is really aimed more at addressing the issue um of parapets and um the the clear height amendment is um if both pass there's the greatest amounts of flexibility however if only one passes um this one really gives more flexibility towards parapets whereas the other one is very specific to that ground floor area in particular zones all right thank you thank you council benjamin good question there's a motion in a second for b2 counselor benton yes counselor yes counselor gibson yes counselor jones yes and that passes an enforcer of vote thank you moving right along to be three common open space definition uh this is counselor sentence move a do pass second there's a motion in a second any questions counselor benton yes councillor bordego um i'm still deciding on this i have i'm sorry we're already voting on it but i just wondered um can i ask you questions go ahead and ask questions yes [Music] so how does this affect um cluster development madam chair counselor joan madame chair counsellors um this is very specific to cluster development the common open space is the area that is preserved in a cluster development uh the intention of the common open space is to preserve the land um that was there prior to the development so it's it's the features that you you want to protect um whether it's agricultural land in the valley um or uh perhaps some um areas on the on the escarpments that is undeveloped uh in a in a different type of development if parks are considered part of the common open space area this defeats the object of protecting an existing feature of the site as the park is an improvement that is brought to the site um this uh common open space to include parks was actually um a revision made at the epc the technical edits uh originally clarified that parks were not part of the common open space they haven't been in the past it was a technical edit and there was public comment provided at epc and epc proposed to include parks as part of the common open space um and what exactly is the opposite and what exactly is the revision in this so i understand it completely oh the revision added an extra section that was inadvertently overlooked from the red line um so the revision um for this up for this amendment i just made sure that we had caught all of the relevant sections of the ido okay thank you i vote yes councillor gibson yes and councillor jones no and that passes on a 3-1 vote sorry i was on mute talking and no one's listening uh counselor borrego and councillor sena are the sponsors of b4 councillor regal i would like to move this this particular amendment and basically what it does is it removes all references to conservation development from the use table use specific standards chapters um et cetera et cetera thank you all second that as did councilor benton councillor benjamin do you have a question also no thanks just wanted a second thank you there's a motion segment for b4 counselor benton wait hey madam chair yes councillor uh so i do have a question on this i and i understand that there's a a link between this and one that we uh that we heard and uh successfully passed a4 i believe and i believe that uh um miss morris can uh tell us how they're linked and the uh uh you know in the final analysis what would happen the outcomes for well there's the start right there so thank you ms morris please uh discuss this for us thank you madam chair counselors yes uh you you just voted to pass a4 um and so you've you voted a yes on a4 so if you vote yes on this b4 amendment remove conservation development this would mean that the only option for cluster type development would be this improved version in a4 um if you vote no on b4 then the idea would include two types it would include cluster development and conservation development um conservation development would allow uh the type of development where you preserve a chunk of land on the site and then the remaining area could develop in any form you wanted whether without necessarily requiring clusters or nodes of buildings so madam chair if i may one follow-up question um from miss morris um so is are there other provisions um in the code for uh conservation developments or is it this sounds like it's a brand new thing that we don't really have a spot for yet or do we so madam chair councillors um conservation development is cluster development in the ido today so when we introduced the amendment with the revisions to cluster development in response to this the epc uh recommended we create conservation development uh which would keep which would be basically what we have on the books today for cluster the concern was that if we have both cluster development and conservation development that it undermines the changes made in cluster development the argument for conservation development is you've got more choice available okay thank you miss morris i'm probably going to be a no on this although i i certainly appreciate the planning department's uh work on this um well i'm sorry i'm going to be a yes on this i said that wrong uh to remove this so that uh not duplication it sounds like there's some duplication there thank you counselor gibson if i may i ask you to get closer to your microphone when you speak it's very difficult to hear you but i got it the last time it's just difficult i'm getting old the counselors are there any other comments there's a motion in a second for a due pass of b4 yes yes yes and council jones yes and that passes on a four zero vote b5 has been removed so we're going to b6 councilor benton thank you madam chair i move uh approval of uh amendment b6 the second this has to do with uh with uh non-conforming uh secondary dwelling units and trying to allow them to be legal if they were legal at the time they were built thank you councillor benton there's a motion in a second for b6 councilor benton yes counselor borrego yes councillor gibson yes and counselor jones yes and that passes on a four-zero vote councillor benton you're up again b7 thank you madam chair i move approval of b7 facade design second counselors there's a motion in a second for b7 i'm sorry madam chair i didn't i had a question and i didn't jump in quick enough i'm sorry counselor borrego i'll give you a chance to ask a question thank you so my question to staff is why aren't we not doing this for all of mixed use and i have another question after that madame chad councillor jones these um are applicable to the oven main street and premium transit areas um facade requirements for other mixed use areas um but because the plan asks for more um urban perform in these key areas our sensors and corridors that find supplies okay so my follow-up question is that uh it's only premium transit so it doesn't affect paseo del norte and unser boulevard correct madam chair councillor borrego this is applicable in urban center main street areas and premium transit corridors and adjacent to paseo is an urban center so mixed use development in in that urban center would have to comply with these facade design regulations but only in the urban center area madam chair counselor borrego yes okay thank you and my vote is uh yes counselor kissing counselor gibson yes also yes yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you counselors sorry i let that one get a little confusing b8 is ground floor clear height measurement move a due pass second thank you councillor borrego there's a motion in a second also better benton yes yes yes officer jones yes yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you b9 we're about halfway through this last batch b9 ido text amendment criteria move it to pass is there a second oh oh i'll second that and counselors it sounds like there's some questions are there any questions on that for staff so this these are the text amendments that uh i put somewhere right the list of yes amendments okay there is one on here madam chair counselor borrego let me i'm sorry counselor gibson let me clarify um i believe you're referring to the batch of technical edits which is not the amendment we are on now um b9 relates to the text amendment criteria that someone must follow when they want to apply for a text amendment to the ido we will get to those technical edits that that spreadsheet that you have in hand a little bit later thank you miss schultz thanks for that clarification thank you counselors are there any other questions did i need a second yes yes okay there's a mercenary second councillor benton benton yes councillor bordego yes councillor gibson yes and councillor jones yes yes that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you councillors the next is b10 regulations adjacent to public open space i move a do pass second thank you councillor gibson council gibson you have a question no she doesn't mean counselors are there any questions i have a question i have a question i would like for the staff to explain how or if this affects sensitive lands madam chair counselor borrego this um this amendment is narrowly tailored to the regulations that are applicable when someone is developing adjacent to major public open space in the ideo today if you're developing adjacent to major public open space there are some extra design regulations that you must account for to address that sensitivity that you have open space adjacent to your property what this amendment tries to do is say is say when when that major public open space is across a very wide roadway that those design regulations do not apply um those design regulations are very important when the major public open space is very near to the subject site but in those rare instances where the major public open space is say across a freeway the design considerations could be different which is what this amendment calls for so only for those types of roads are principal arterial or freeway madam chair counselor borrego yes that's correct okay thank you thank you thank you councillor borrego are there any other questions there's a motion in a second for do pass on b10 counselor benton yes counselor yes counselor gibson yes and counselor jones yes and that passes on a four zero vote thank you counselors the next is b11 pet grooming use i move a do pass second thank you council burrigo there's a motion in a second counselor in any questions counselors there's a motion in a second for do pass 11. council benton yes yes gibson yes and council jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you next is b12 rear setbacks and you see mfpt this is councillor davis's uh legislation i move a do pass second there's a motion in a second any questions any comments thank you there's a motion in a second counselor benton yes councillor yes oscar gibson yes and counselor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you councillor benton the next is yours b-13 thank you madam chair i move approval of uh the amendment labeled b-13 second counselors motion in a second on b13 recessed recessed window requirement counselor benton yes yes mr gibson yes and counselor jones no and that passes on a 3-1 vote thank you counselors b14 is about smoke shops this is councillor davises i move a do pass second thank you counselor gibson there's motion second for b14 councillor benton yes councillor no counselor just um uh may i ask a question here out of here gibson um so the only difference i noticed is the only difference between of the use or mix and mix used for mixed-use tea transitional i guess that means is between liquor retail and nicotine retail is uh ca uh conde is that conditional what what is ca cancer games and i'm going to have uh shanna answer that for us okay madam chair uh counselor gibson a ca in the use table indicates a conditional accessory use um so not only is the use conditional so you must go through the conditional use process through the zoning hearing examiner but that use must also be accessory to another use so in the mxt zone you could not have a nicotine retail store uh as a standalone it would have to be attached to something like a gas station or a grocery store right okay okay one other thing circle no i didn't thank you very much miss schultz thank you madam chair oh and my vote is yes and councillor jones yes and that council jones yes yes yes and that passes on a three one vote thank you um 15 solar protections in the rml zone this is councillor davises i move the do pass second thank you council gibson there's a motion in a second counselor benton you need to michelle yes getting tired thank you councillor benton councillor yes councillor gibson yes and councillor jones yes yes passes on a 4-0 vote next is b16 counselor gibson thank you um i'm gonna move approval on b16 street side yard working and uh there's a second second counselors are there any questions there's a motion second to pass for p16 yes councillor gibson yes and councillor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you councillor gibson do you want to take b-17 uh sure um okay i'll move approval on b17 the maximum size setbacks in uc ms and pts i'll second that counselor benton thank you madam chair i do have a question is um am i reading this right uh i'm looking at the actual language change isn't it supposed to be for lots where there are three or more street side lot lines or is it really two madam chair council benson it's two um the third being the front uh but the front uh has its own setback so if you have three streets but um street side is is defined okay i i i understand thank you thank you counselors any more questions so there's a motion in a second for b17 councillor benton yes councillor bordego yes councillor gibson yes and counselor jones yes yes and that passes on a 4 0 vote thank you councillor benson b18 second any questions motion in a second for b18 councillor benton yes yes councillor gibson yes and councillor jones yes yes passes on a 4-0 vote thank you uh next is b19 counselor benton approval of b19 second thank you counselors any questions there's a motion in a second for b19 councillor benton yes yes councillor gibson yes and councillor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you councillor benton you're on a roll b20 uh for purposes of discussion i'll move b20 second and madam chair if i could mr perdomo spoke to this uh in his comments um with regard it maybe i think i'm correct here um i think this is the right one just a second um madam chair counselor benton it is that this is the one with uh where there was a question mr predominant was speaking in favor of the and i think mr strozier of the ability to simultaneously uh apply for a conditional use along with a variance could you clarify this again uh ms schultz or ms morris whoever adam chair counselor jones um if mr malendras is available i think he might be though the one kind of best place to explain this one um otherwise i can take a stab at it i am available um could you repeat the question please uh my chair mr millendras uh my question was about uh the public comments about uh this particular amendment and the desire of some in the development community apparently to simultaneously apply for variances in conditional use at the same time to the uh 90s hearing or to the uh thank you um madam chair council benton so there's a little bit of um a complexity i guess just to the dueling processes that are associated with conditional use permits and variances and uh variance is um i think can be pretty readily described as a safety valve from the zoning code that um is available to people when they are out of options within the zoning code for how to develop their proper property because of hardships that they would experience that are unique unto themselves that are not also experienced by their neighbors or other people in similar situations um and so it's it's sort of an escape hatch from the requirements of the zoning code that requires a pretty stringent test in order to satisfy and that's the hardship test how are you different from anybody else and why are the rules as they apply to you why are they unfair sometimes when a conditional use request is proposed that request can go in advance of a request for a variance and when the zoning hearing examiner is reviewing requests for a conditional use permit the zoning hearing examiner must make an express finding that the use as proposed can meet all of the requirements of the ido and sort of by its nature a request for variance this escape hatch from the ido indicates that you cannot in fact meet the requirements of the ido and so there's a concern that if a conditional use permit is requested and approved that the facts upon which that approval is made could change over time through a subsequent request for variants which could invalidate the rationale for that approval of that conditional use permit because again in order to get a conditional use permit you are demonstrating and the zhe must find that you can meet all of the requirements of the ido if at a subsequent time for example an applicant goes to the epc and requests a variance it could be that the facts that justified the conditional use permit at time one are no longer in place and so this is an attempt to try to ensure more seamlessness and to ensure that when a conditional use permit is approved which authorizes a use that is so sensitive and special that it is not a use by right that the circumstances that justify that can't change on a community after the fact such that something that was important like a setback or a wall height to the conditional use can be varied in a way that would allow the conditional use to proceed under changed circumstances thank you that's helpful thank you counselors we have a motion and a second on b21 council benton yes councillor borego yes councillor gibson yes and councillor jones yes yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you next is b-22 it's too bad councillor harris isn't here to talk about this it's his bill about massage parlors i'm sorry b-21 b-22 we're actually on b-21 b-21 so this is councillor benjamin's yeah cumulative b-21 cumulative impacts thank you i'll move approval of b21 and uh second and and just as was stated i think uh uh council we there were some changes made in this due to uh due to some conflicts and questions with regard to the air quality components but this otherwise is the original uh cumulative impact amendment we did this cut a lot of discussion so i think it merits me just making a quick statement um we did narrow this to the railroad corridor the historic railroad corridor including the sawmill spur really is where these communities grew up and um they grew up with company zoning they grew up with uh the railroad there and and a lot of desire for industrial uses but also a lot of desire for affordable housing for workers in the facilities along that rail corridor so when we narrowed this from citywide to to the rail corridor i think there was a lot of symmetry in that because that really is where some of our most struggling communities exist and it's because of that historic lassie fair development that occurred for for many years starting in the late 1900s so i think this is important i think we've done a lot of good work on it there's a lot more work to do with regard to air quality and i know that that that's our concept that we had but meanwhile i think this is a really good uh a really good amendment that that i appreciate all the work by staff and all the mapping and everything that shannon did on this to for us to see what it really looks like and we did include a half a mile from the center of the main rail line and then a quarter mile from the sawmills per thank you councillor ben kemp counselor gets to me you have a question yes uh i'll actually just comment i'd just like to thank uh councillor benton for sponsoring this i think it's a really good idea and also thank you for removing the the air quality aspect out of that that could just be complicated that you know and since we're already doing air quality testing in the city quite well i'm glad that this focuses on water and discharge of water so i'm very happy to uh to support this manager yes council server um i want to thank councillor benton also for pushing this forward um i was actually the one of the individuals who helped create the superfund site in the san jose neighborhood and the zoning impacts that have been going on for many many years have drastically hurt some of those neighborhoods and also the sawmill area helped move the spur in that particular neighborhood i think that in the future we may want to look at some other areas of the city that have similar issues and i hope that we can this is just the beginning for this type of legislation thank you councillor borrego there's a motion in a second for b21 councillor benton yes yes councillor gibson yes councillor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote now we go to b-22 councillor marriage's bill and move uh do pass second thank you counselors any questions there's an emotion in a second for b-22 councillor benton yes councillor bordego yes gibson yes councillor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote thank you next is b23 drb criteria i move a do pass may i have a second thank you councillor benton are there any questions i have some questions regarding this madam church my questions are with regard to the just the term discretionary and it seems to me like what we're doing here is where we we are removing the discretionary authority for the planning director and that gives me a little bit of heartache because i think drb actually has is created in um as part of an arm of the planning director so i i a little concerned about this and i'm also concerned that um you know the drb should have some authority to uh send things back to the planning commission if they so choose um and so i guess i need to be convinced otherwise still if the staff wants to respond yes they can i would if i could i'm sure i'll just piggyback on that question yeah i i also i second this for for us to go ahead and start discussing it but i do want to ask perhaps yourself as sponsor counselor jones or staff um the language that's being removed uh says that uh a requirement is that the site plan mitigates significant adverse impacts on the surrounding area to the max maximum extent practicable i know we removed that maximum extent practicable language uh and i sort of understand that um but this is the key right here as as shown on the slide is it not appropriate even though this is a staff and a technical board do they not have a responsibility as well to consider uh everest impacts in the sense of what's in the best public interest even though we know they're not a a public board they're a technical board that's my question counselor i'm going to ask mr melandrus to answer that thank you madam chair council borrego and councillor benton i'll try to address both questions i want to start off by pointing out that this does not um address what the drb is doing anywhere outside of its review of certain site plans um and so the discretion that the drb would have as staff members or otherwise in their capacity of the drb are is unaffected by this amendment this amendment is related to a resolution that was passed by the city council r19152 last year that tried to address some of the um potential issues with the drb's capacity to act in a quasi-judicial manner and in doing r19 152 certain tests were amended and certain authority of the drb was amended in order to ensure that the drb and its processes were satisfying procedural due process requirements that are owed to parties that come before it on certain applications not all applications but in certain ones and this amendment is sort of a progression of that and the particular language that's at issue is particularly relevant to this type of um of consideration for the drb because it injects almost unbridled discretion into the drb's role as to how it will address um impacts that that without without guidance and so many of much of what the drb does and counselor borrego referenced um referrals to the epc and how the drb may need to send things back to the epc that that process is is what it is and it would be unaffected by this particular amendment and so the drb functioning as a technical board doing things like ensuring that setback requirements are met on a subdivision plat or site plan i'm ensuring that adequate infrastructure exists reviewing certain delegations from the epc that are more factual and technical rather than discretionary all of that would remain in place and the test that the drb would apply here would still have requirements for them to evaluate and ensure conformance with requirements of the ido the dpm to ensure that adequate infrastructure exists for for these certain site plans and the only thing that would be eliminated by this amendment is this portion that gives the drb this discretion um in many ways unlimited discretion to to make a determination about rights associated with site development plans and the drb can potentially exercise that type of authority and has appropriately exercised that type of authority the drb can exercise whatever authority you delegate to it but the problem with that vesting that type of authority with the board like the drb is that we're asking them to wear multiple hats that are sometimes inconsistent with one another on the one hand they're the city staff person that is answering the phone when a developer calls when a citizen neighborhood person calls they're answering that call and they're asking quest answering questions and giving guidance about city processes related to site plans and then at a later point in time we're asking them to sit in judgment on that same exact site plan and that can result in issues related to ex parte contacts which are a requirement for quasi-judicial avoidance of ex-parte contacts a requirement for quasi-judicial procedural standards that the city must follow and it can also lead to procedural issues at the drb hearings where the drb is called upon to um make decisions you know based exclusively on evidence in the record based on uh uh offer parties the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and so it places this heightened procedural requirement upon the drb that the drb and planning staff members believe makes their job job almost impossible to wear those multiple hats thank you counselor do you have any further questions and counselor borrego councillor benton first and then counselor no that that that helps uh quite a bit thank you thank you councillor borrego so chris um is the drb chair representative of the planning director correct um the drb chair yes i i believe is uh a planner traditionally um i don't know that that i mean i guess in many ways it's representative of the planning director but it's a specific appointment to the drb on behalf of the planning department right so the explanation you just gave in terms of possible conflict could also happen with the planning director but the planning director has that discretionary uh authority i guess i mean so what is the difference between the drb and the planning director if the planning director overrides some sort of decision um don't they i mean the the same argument could apply that's a great question and um again i just want to refocus that this is in the context of a delegation of authority to review certain site plans to the drb and that the planning director would not have the authority to overrule an action of the drb in that regard so what you're kind of parsing apart though is the various review levels that can exist within the planning department in the city in general and they extend from a determination by the planning director or the ceo on a matter which is an individual officer that has been delegated authority by the city council to make relatively minor determinations about what the zoning code requires and the like those all being appealable to the city council through appropriate procedures and processes the drb similarly is delegated that authority for certain things but the biggest distinction here between what the drb does and what the planning director does is the fact that the drb is meeting as an adjudicatory body and so when they meet together not unlike the epc or the city council that forum that they're in is what brings in this presumption that they should be conducting themselves under heightened procedural standards just like the city council and the epc and that conflict with their regular role as staff persons is what makes this a particular challenge for the drb so that authority that you just talked about that legal authority um or legal uh responsibility um does it have that's not in this amendment right i mean we're not discussing that in this amendment madam chair cancer borrego you you actually are and it may be it may appear a little bit oblique to a casual observation but this amendment is um is getting rid of one component of the test that the drb would apply to a site plan that gives that unbridled discretion that puts them into that quasi-judicial decision-making framework and so so in that sense this is directly dealing with that issue um madam chair um i think what i'm i'm probably going to vote no on this for now i may vote yes when we get to full hearing but i i really think that um from what i read um we may need to do some further refinement on this thank you counselor are there any other questions counselors there's a motion in a second benton yes councillor no councillor gibson yes and councillor jones yes and that passes on a 3-1 vote thank you counselors good questions good discussion next is b24 edge buffering uh move a do pass second from councillor benton any questions counselors there's a motion in a second for b-24 councillor benton yes councillor yes councillor gibson and councillor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote okay this is our last one b-25 planned development councilor benton i approval of b25 i'll second that any questions or discussion there's a motion in a second for b25 counselor benton yes councillor counselor um yes counselor gibson yes councillor jones yes and that passes on a 4-0 vote counselors i believe that there is no further business duh uh there is a big business left i move approval of the bill as amended second there's a motion in a second to pass a bill as amended all those in favor take the counselor benton yes councillor and i'm just gonna explain my vote i'm going to vote no because i wanted to defer this but um so that's my vote councillor gibson yes councillor jones yes yes and that passes on a three-zero vote counselor counselors thank you for your patience so is there any other business therefore this lups committee meeting is adjourned thank you thank you good job you