[Music] hi everybody I call this meeting to order this is the land use planning and zoning committee of the city council all councilors are present this evening with councelor bassan joining by um Zoom hi councelor bassan I want to start the meeting with a land acknowledgement the City of Albuquerque was established on the unseated traditional homelands of the Tia peblo people the pblos of Sandia and Isleta as caretakers of the middle Rio Grande Valley the T with people nurtured and cared for its human and non-human inhabitants as well as the desert mountain and water ecosystem since time in Memorial historically the PUO peoples have contributed to and guided the development of Albuquerque in New Mexico and they continue to cultivate the cultural spiritual and socioeconomic life of Albuquerque and our land of enchantment we also recognize that Albuquerque has long been a Gathering Place of diverse indigenous peoples tribal Nations and poblo of New Mexico and Indigenous nations from around the world and that this sacred Place continues to be their traditional Homeland all right with that out of the way we will get this meeting started this is a hybrid meeting where all participants will be in person or on video or audio conference members of the public have the opportunity to address address the committee if they signed up for public comment for the rules published on the agenda and on our website on Friday we'll call speakers when we get to the individual agenda item you signed up for as a reminder the public comment ground rules are that comments are to be addressed to the committee members only through the chair each participant has two minutes to present and any disruptive conduct will result in removal from this meeting we're going to go to our only agenda item um that is 073 councelor rout and Rogers thank you madam chair um 073 is amending the Ido ordinance regarding regarding appeal I move a du pass second thank you we have a move a motion and a second um do we have speakers on this item go ahead Mr Cornelius thank you madam chair our first speaker is Patricia Wilson Follow by David Ellis good evening two minutes oh my goodness what am I gonna do um Madame chair committee thank you first of all councelor Rogers and councelor grout for sponsoring this legislation I strongly support o 2573 and have suggestions for legislation to correct other egregious parts of 0 2469 some of 069 was about increasing density but most parts of the ordinance only served to disenfranchise Neighborhood associations and circumvent the Ido amendment process putting the cost burden on only on neighborhood associations was intended to be punitive and the narrative claiming appeals to be speculative and frivolous is just not true and I thank you for recognizing that when the Ido replaced Albuquerque zoning code the goal was to update coordinate simplify and make development more predictable Last Summer the nyop director said the Ido had not necessarily made life easier for developers quote time kills all deals she said so in addition to blaming appeals for delays developers can't be bothered with following the review process good developers know that neighborhood Buy in creates smoother more successful projects many municipalities throughout the state and across the country have turned their zoning codes into the boogeyman responsible for lack of affordable housing while up zoning can increase available housing it can also cause gentrification and ultimately harm those that it was intended to help we have too much crisis legislation in the last two years two multifamily housing projects in District Six are on hold because of financial issues not because of appeals or designations so again thank you for this legislation and I hope that it gets us support David M Ellis followed by Evelyn feltner Evelyn felner followed by anami D appeals create leverage leverage means you can negotiate with developers the inz association and Northeastern Association appealed the standard Walmart plan for the Wyoming mall that had been approved by APC then we were able to persuade them not to build a noisy Tire in lubes door to have security patrols that would be guaranteed to run around the parking lot rather than just sit to have landscape trees of a minimum 2 in diameter trunk to have outside sails that would not impinge on the parking spaces and to have input into the design and the color of the Walmart building it was designed to reflect the Sandia sunsets Sandia Mountains Are to the east of there and can be clearly seen from the parking lot in order to Plate the residents who were startled to have this happen in the middle of their residential area he took all these steps as a result the residents came to see the Walmart as a convenience and fairly attractive rather than an intrusive ISO we could not have appealed under the current rule we could not have risked the finances of our associations the idea that two classes of litigants were created by this rule is manifestly unfair I appreciate that Rogers and gr counselors realize this and I hope that not only this committee but the council will pass this legislation an namias followed by Ian Robertson a late sign up hi y'all um I'll be quick um I don't know I was well I won't be quick I think um I was late to the meeting so I don't know if y'all noticed but the word still is repeated twice on the first page uh in the last where statement other than that I think this is great and a wonderful thing thank you for introducing it uh appreciate your time we have Ian Robertson followed by Jordan McConnell on Zoom up next we have Jordan McConnell followed by Jane Beckley good evening it's nice to see everyone virtually my name is Jordan McConnell I urge you all to vote no on 073 a fair appeals process allows communities to have a voice but this bill removes accountability Shifting the cost of failed appeals onto home builders renters and taxpayers instead of those who chose to file them that's not fairness it's obstruction we're in a housing crisis homelessness has increased 87% the median home prices are Out Of Reach for most New Mexicans many baros myself included our rent burden spending over a third of our income to keep a roof over our heads yet this proposal asks us those struggling to afford housing to bear the cost of appeals that delay or block homes they're not just frustrating these delays they're expensive in beralo County these delays cost home builders $20,000 per unit a number that's likely ground since that dat is from 2022 in Santa Fe county that numbers hit $80,000 per unit this is the difference between a home being built or not between a family being housed or priced out indefinitely meanwhile Builders renters and homeowners must absorb these costs but neighborhood associations that file these appeals aren't even being asked to cover legal fees some say requiring a majority of nearby neighbors to support an appeals enough accountability but wider wealthier neighborhoods routinely mobilize against affordable housing the very projects that are least able to absorb delays we can't afford to keep doing what we've always been doing and then wonder how we are getting here appeals shouldn't be a free tool for blocking housing I urge you to vote no keep accountability in place keep us building and show the state that we're taking this crisis seriously because they're thinking about taking these decisions out of our hands because at the end of the day if you went through the McDonald's drive-thru why am I paying for your burger we need the courage to act let's move forward not backward thank you Jane Beckley followed by Leslie Padia Madam chair and counselors I respectfully request that you support o 2573 earlier today I submitted lengthy written comments including responding to the uh claim that it is neighborhood association appeals that delay housing or increase costs I will not repeat those o 2469 was fundamentally about disenfranchising neighborhood associations it was rooted in a bias that neighborhood associations represent an obstacle to be overcome or bypassed their views are always frivolous and without Merit and their associations are restrictive undemocratic and not representative of their members views or interests none of these are the case to be clear threatening any neighborhood association with potentially thousands of dollars in Fields is chilling the sfna account might be sufficient to cover one hour of usual legal fees certainly not two and assigning penalties to a neighbored Association appellant only is clearly intended to be punitive it's a strategy that could have inspired the current US Administration it effectively prevents a neighborhood association from appealing any development any use variance or zone change no matter how objectionable or harmful this is but one of the systematic efforts of O 2469 to circumvent neighborhood associations it is not the only one that should be rescinded it is a place to start it represents an opportunity to demonstrate Fidelity to the justifications for 02215 and the public engagement it purported to protect thank you for your time and attention and thank you councilors grout and Rogers for sponsoring this Leslie Padilla uh thank you and uh thank you madam chair it's good to see you tonight um and I also appreciate the efforts of councilors grout and Rogers for for bringing this item I spoke to the council in January about the ordinance and this was the focus of my comments uh because um as a practicing attorney uh to my knowledge uh there are very few statutes out there that require only one side of an appeal to pay the cost of the other side if they lose the appeal as one of the previous commenters mentioned they're manifestly unfair um requiring the appellant to pay the attorney's fees of the applicant when the appellant loses would dissuade any challenge in the first place not just frivolous appeals it discourages all appeals um most individuals um and neighborhood associations have very little or no ability to pay for their own attorneys much less the legal fees of the other side I think this provision if allowed to stand will have the effect of allowing land decisions however badly reasoned or poorly decided to go unchallenged and I had wanted to mention this uh one particular instance about a year and a half ago Parkland Hills neighborhood association on on the board we appealed a decision uh by a hearing officer no we didn't appeal we engaged in the initial hearing of a uh uh conditional use permit for a cannabis store it wanted to open a consumption lounge and it was located 320 ft from a local Elementary School and we heard from the school and neighbors that they were concerned that having a cannabis Lounge uh open during school hours was a problem so we we intervened we actually got a good uh outcome but if we had had to appeal the Cannabis lunge was allowed to open but it limited the hearing officer limited the hours to non-school hours that was a good outcome but if we had lost um I don't know that the neighborhood association would have been able to appeal and and I think that was a good a reasonable outcome for for for everyone the Cannabis Lounge is allowed to open but students you know aren't subject to any potential harm um so that was a good outcome for it's not just about um uh building decisions other other things that this would affect thank you so much for the time thank you madam chair I will Circle back David Ellis and Ian Robertson are not present so that concludes comment thank you thank you Mr Cornelius okay I think we have a presentation on this bill from um Mr Cox is that true um chair uh president counselors no that is not true sorry it's noted here that we have a presentation from Mr Cox but we will move on to questions from the committee I see oh councelor champine thank you madam chair just to clarify a um how is it written now that if if I'm a neighborhood association I file for an appeal and I lose I have to pay it um because there was some comments in there kind of gave me some confusion that if I if I win then they pay or the company pays so how is this what are we changing uh chair and counselors um so the appeals cost section that was presented in 069 is the first time that language has existed within the Ido and so as it stands right now each different party within um an appeals case pays their own um price for attorney fees whatever else may occur um but everyone is independently responsible for their own costs Madam chair then okay so if this passes then who who pays their lawyer fees them if they lose or if they win uh madam counselor champine so the 069 as passed did include a provision that said that uh if you are appealing a matter related to an application that was approved if you're appealing something that was approved and lose in that appeal then you would be responsible for all sides attorney's fees um if you are appealing something that was denied then each party shall be responsible for its own cost uh this is struck in its entirety in this um uh in this amendment 2069 and in that case uh each party would be responsible for their own attorney Fe no matter whether it was an approved or denied application okay Miss ke thank you Madame chair um prior to the enactment of 069 both sides paid their own attorneys fees so generally for you know know up until right now both sides pay their attorneys fees and no one to date has had to pay attorney fees because 069 was just implemented any further questions I just have a a couple um and I I don't think that the any of the um sponsors of the original Bill were here so I'm going to ask um Mr Maro but can you just tell us the rationale that was used for including this in the original Bill uh Council chair fubble corn uh my understanding of the inclusion of it was to [Music] um in or I guess disincentivize uh filing appeals on projects that had been approved at the the lower approving body so the the idea was that uh most uh appeals are not uh successful and so they impose an additional burden on the applicant that has already uh had their application approved by the Z or the EPC or the dho whatever the the lower approving body was and so the idea was that um to allow those developments to move forward without the additional incurring the additional cost of appeals um to be imposed on them it was to reduce the cost of of things that had already been reviewed and approved at the lower level thank you Mr marrow I I think that um you know this original Bill had a lot in it um I did not support the original bill without all the Amendments that we were able to moveed forward I think we cleaned up a lot of things in that bill um I do think that this is a problem section um and I appreciate that we're um addressing it I I agree that appeals are a problem but I do think that um all the other things that were in the original Bill including making sure that the neighbors who are actually next to the development have to be participatory in the appeal um things like making City projects no longer appealable after they've gone through the entire process I think that gets to the heart of what um was was intended with that legislation and so I I appreciate this proposal and and will be supporting it are there any other questions council person just want to make sure we're getting you there we go yes ma'am sure Madam chair thanks uh you know and I I can hear and understand a little bit from both sides I do think that the reason I am able to continue my support for the way 069 is written is because of the fact that there is a differentiation between an appeal on an approved situation versus an appeal on a denied situation and so I do think that that is something significant to keep in mind um you know there's a whole process that everything goes through and so if by the end of that process there is an approval and then there's an appeal I do think that at some point in some I mean in the judicial system sometimes it is required that if you are on the losing end you have to pay attorney's fees and so to me that is that is the differentiating factor that I think is very significant is the difference between an approved or a denied land use matter thank you counselor um I do have a question based on that I um and it's it's really just for the sponsors um the way the original bill was written it it seems clear to me that the denials um that would be appealed are from developers um but an approval that would be appealed is always going to be from you know community and so so that seems unfair uh I would just like to understand why the choice to delete both rather than just making it equal for um for both sides if there's an appeal you have to pay your fees plus the lose the winning side just wondering what the thought process was that on that section so Madam chair I I um I too understand both sides um but I think it's important to remember that the um neighborhood associations and the neighbors they don't um they're not allowed to um collect does they don't have they don't have they don't have like a lot of these others have um and 069 I understand the changes I understand the need for many of the changes um but it was also told to us that um they wanted these neighborhood associations who were appealing and it was causing um the housing to not be built um so um I have a list here where in the last um since November of 23 um there's about 30 different um appeals and only four of them have to do with housing so um you know I it's not all it's not just about housing and that's the way it was sold you know it's causing a problem with housing and so um that is that is my concern oh I'd also see know it's frustrating for developers when it's very hard um to get through the process to be able to start digging a shovel and building um so you know I think we need to be more thoughtful when we um consider appeals um really think about both sides um so with um the people um I I listen to my neighborhood associations they're very concerned about um it's they're already having a difficult time getting people to participate and so then if you're going to go around and ask for to help with these appeals um fund these appeals that's even more difficult so just listening to the neighbors and um that my my thought councelor Rogers thank you madam chair um for me this is a direct reflection of what I'm hearing from my constituents um especially in my neighborhoods communities that um particip participation is definitely a problem but also lack of the ability to even fund an appeal in the first place for my districts they're I do feel like they're being thoughtful because they can't afford the attorney fees to even bring an appeal forward so for me this was about listening to to my not just neighborhood associations even just individuals business owners I were reaching out about things in their neighborhoods that they wanted to appeal that this would mean they wouldn't be able to do that and so for me and I've had very tough conversations with my neighborhoods about this and I know my my constituents that are here um I've been very honest with the fact that I believe it needs to have the majority of the folks who live in the neighborhood to participate and we've had those tough conversations and um I believe that thorough thoroughly that we should have that but I think this is a way where we can compromise with our neighborhoods and still get to the point of if you not to appeal housing projects unless you have the majority of the neighborhood behind you to do that and so for me this is just a compromise so that we don't um inadvertently overburden our already burden neighborhood associations and to counselor grout's point they can't require fees um for membership into your associations even though we ask like help help help out the neighborhood association but they can't require it so it's hard for them to come up with the funds to even do this thank you councelor Rogers any other questions other comments um I will just say that um I think councelor champine has heard me say this several times really really dislike when we pass something and then we immediately change it um and nine times out of 10 that is in my opinion a very bad idea but in this in this case I think there were enough you know last minute changes to that bill we were we were working on it until that night and I think that um fixing this issue now does make sense so um with that I will move for a close from whichever the sponsors would like to do that or both I urge your support okay let's go to the vote councelor basan no councelor champine yes councelor grout yes councelor Rogers yes chair feor yes that passes on a 4 to one all right congratulations counselors we will get that moved on to full Council and um being no more business we will adjourn for the evening thank you all for coming out [Music] [Music]