good evening everyone welcome to our meeting this evening this is a special meeting of the land use planning and zoning committee of the city of council of the city council i hereby call this meeting to order all committee members are present today 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 lups meetings are conducted in this way members of the pub public will be able to address the committee if they have signed up for live public comment per the instructions published on the agenda on and on our website friday speakers will be moved into the meeting room two at a time they will remain muted with their camera off until they are called upon to speak at which point they can turn on their camera unmute themselves and will have two minutes to provide comments to the committee after that they will again be muted and returned to be an attendee of the zoom webinar written comments were also received and distributed to the committee members in advance of the meeting members of the public city staff and the media have the ability to view this meeting live through youtube and zoom webinar the live stream can be accessed from most smartphones tablets or computers for those watching on the live stream thank you for joining us today's agenda contains both quasi-judicial and legislative matters for that reason council staff will be square comment we i don't believe that counselor gibson is here yet but i know she is planning on attending so we will go ahead and begin um we will now go to agenda item a 060. o60 is adopting text amendments to the integrated development ordinance 14-6 for the 2020 ido annual update including text amendments for small mapped areas i would move a do pass i don't see a second on there counselor benton has seconded that so let's begin with a staff presentation by miss petra morris good afternoon thank you for for joining us uh uh madam chair thank you uh counselors um i am going to share my screen now and uh take us through a presentation um that goes through each of the lups amendments so in in starting this discussion just a bit of background for those who may not be as as familiar with this topic the ido section 6 3d uh talks about a regular ideo annual update uh process oh i've just been reminded that we need to be sworn in and i that should include me so um julian would you like to swear me in all staff members that may address the committee today please raise their right hand do you swear to tell the truth i do thank you thank you okay um that was a good reminder okay so the ideo annual update um is a aspect of the ido the intention behind this quite an echo oh there's a quite an echo i don't know thank you thank you councillor benjamin we're hearing that here too we're going to try to fix it right now so give us just a minute while we work on that let's see if this works just a little bit better is that better still still there councillor benton does that work better for you no i was wondering you know maybe that if everybody mutes while petra's talking maybe that would help i don't know ah yes because we're in the same room uh so are we we're music okay no echo council do you still have an echo on that end are you not petra would you talk for just a second oh yes how about that any echo okay uh so the ideo has a built-in annual update process and this is this application is the this is our second annual update um the the first one being the 2019 ideo annual update this is the 2020 ideo annual update um we are at about the midpoint in the process for this annual update it starts with a submittal to the planning commission um and uh then moves on to full council and this is the beginning of the council process um the notice for today went out on the abc to z email list as well as all the standard legal required notices this went to over 10 000 people on the abc to z email list the epc process started with two applications the first part was citywide amendments these are regulations that apply to the ido um throughout the city and then the second application was for small mapped areas regulations that are specific to an area uh such as sawmill or nob hill in a particular mapped portion of the city both of these applications were combined in bill o 2160 which is the bill before us this evening and the epc recommendations are reflected in this through exhibit 1 which is a red line of the ido to track the recommendations of the planning commission uh the city-wide amendments are in red and the small mapped areas are in green the epc held three hearings the gen one on january 21st where both applications were heard and then on february 18th uh the epc had just the small mapped area amendments and then on march 4th they had the city-wide amendments and made recommendations at each of those meetings and so as i mentioned today is the beginning of the lups process which is the beginning of the council process this is today's may 5th this is the first lapse we are anticipating that there will be a second lups next week on may 12th and then uh from from that point on potentially move on to the full council process so i'd like to focus most of my attention uh on and this presentation today on the packet of amendments um and so i'll go through each amendment with a little bit of background and summary on on what each of these amendments uh do so first amendments in the packet is the arroyo definition this amendment is in response to uh public comments that was received during the epc process this amendment adds the phrase concrete or reinforced arroyos to the areas that cannot be considered common open space in a cluster development this amendment is specific to the cluster development building form and a common open space is about the area on the site that is intended for protection it's the thing that's special about the site and and why you would want to do the cluster development the common open space is a mechanism by which uh to preserve the sensitive lands on the site and so by clarifying um uh that concrete and reinforced arroyos are not part of this we're clarifying that those those are not really the set the type of sensitive lands that we're considering here um arroyos are part of the sensitive lands list amendment a2 this is a amendment that would um make a campground an rv park take it from the non-residential uh sensitive use zone district to being conditional in the mixed-use medium and permissive in the non-residential commercial and non-residential business park this is an amendment that was previously submitted to the planning commission um there was not support at the planning commission and this this amendment re reconsiders it a little bit and takes the recommendations to conditional as i mentioned in mixed-use medium and permissive in the non-residential commercial and business park um campgrounds and rvs uh are very different from the other uses listed on the non-residential sensitive use list in that it's non-polluting it doesn't generate a lot of traffic and has very limited impact on adjacent uses we feel it's a little bit outdated that this this use is still on the sensitive use list and should really just fit into the regular list of uh table of uses and so these are the recommended zone districts for that uh we are also seeing increased interest in um uh campgrounds and rv parks as uh albuquerque and new mexico as a popular snowbird destination um a amendment a3 um this amendment uh looks at two uses in relation to cannabis cannabis is divided into three uses cannabis retail cannabis cultivation and cannabis manufacturing in the cannabis cultivation and the cannabis manufacturing use specific standards it states that if the use is within 330 feet of a residential zone district school or child care facility it's prohibited with a prohibition there is zero flexibility and this really limits where this use could could occur for example if you have which is quite popular a school in a non-residential business park no properties within that 330 feet of that school would be able to be used for cannabis cultivation or manufacturing regardless of the size of the site or conditions they could be you know several buildings away from from that school and so by shifting this from a pred prohibited use to a conditional use it provides a little bit more flexibility to consider sites um for the cannabis cultivation and manufacturing oh and this is a new amendment um it's a and it's a topic that has come up since the post epc submittal um as it's a time sensitive matter given that the state legislature uh passed the new mexico cannabis regulation act this past spring uh this second uh canvas related amendment a4 cannabis distances this is a should be considered a kind of a tidy up amendment um this makes changes to the cannabis retail cultivation and manufacturing uses to bring the existing regulations in the ido in line with the recently passed new mexico cannabis regulation act again like the previous amendment this is a time sensitive amendment um that came up post epc application during the state legislature um the revisions in this uh you know in adopting the revisions last year to allow cannabis retail cultivation and manufacturing we we got uh we uh we needed to have some some regulations in the ido but now that the regulation the new mexico cannabis regulation act has passed um we just need to make sure that all the regulations line up amendment a5 um daytime gathering this is again a time sensitive concern that has come up since the epc application was submitted this amendment strikes all reference to references to the daytime gathering use this use as defined in the ido is is too broad and encompasses users that it really wasn't intended to cover if the the definition were to be narrowed we would run into concerns about potential discrimination against those considered a protected class under the fair housing act um and so this amendment proposes to strike the daytime gathering use from the ido amendment a6 geographic responsiveness this is a response to epc discussion and recommendations this amendment proposes to strike the geograph geographic responsiveness analysis the analysis required as part of this section would cons would require designers and developers to consider orienting their site and design towards views that may not be there in perpetuity this section is very much a policy call and policy oriented while the ido is a regulatory document and so muddy is the water of regulation and policy um this this isn't necessarily really the the right place for this geographic responsiveness um and there may be a better location than the ido um so this amendment will propose striking it from the ido but that doesn't um preclude the the consideration of it in in another location within the city's uh land use and planning documents amendment a7 light vehicle sales this amendment would allow vehicles to be displayed outdoors in the mxh zone regardless sorry unless in located in urban centers main streets and premium transit areas this amendment is in response to epc discussion the epc recommended that it be um that the activity centers and major transit areas also be included and this amendment would strike those two from that recommendation keeping the areas where outdoor display is prohibited to just mxh ucms pt areas sorry uc mspt areas zoned mxh amendment a8 um this amendment liquor retail and nicotine retail is also in response to um an item that was previously submitted to the epc the administration submitted this recommendation the epc did not support it however this recommendation is is here and would consider making nicotine retail a conditional use in all zones unless accessory to a general retail or a grocery store and this amendment would also make liquor retail a conditional use in all zones unless accessory to a grocery store amendment a9 this looks at the uh thresholds uh for the review body approval body sorry for major public open space zone map amendments um this amendment is again a time sensitive concern that came out post epc this amendment would make the epc the approving body for all zone map amendments to the non-residential po public open parks and open space b zone district that's non-residential parks and open space that are city owned zone map amendments to nrpob occur after purchase and the city council has a role in all purchases and so it's not necessary for those zone map amendments to come to the council for approval but but just uh to the planning commission um amendment a10 uh mixed use light drive through uh this again this amendment um is uh respond it was one that was previously submitted to the planning commission um this would amendment uh this amendment my tongue's all over the place today this amendment uh would take drive-throughs from a conditional accessory use to a permissive accessory use in the mxl zone district when the ideo was adopted the mxl zone district was the former c1 in the c1 zone district drive-throughs were permissive if it was a bank or other use but if it was a restaurant it was a conditional use and the ideo and the adoption had to choose between permissive or conditional and opted with conditional use and this amendment would would pick the other make it an a permissive accessory use the ido does not consider drive-throughs in association with the type of use it's just drive-throughs or accessory to something and doesn't differentiate between drive-throughs for restaurants or banks or pharmacies but just talks about drive-throughs in general uh amendment a11 this is a times a time sensitive concern that came up post epc submetal uh this amendment lists the zone districts in which non-commercial broadcasting antennas are allowed we realized um in going through some stuff in the ido that the ido has a height limitation for non-commercial broadcasting antennas and a definition but we fail to list what zone districts this use is allowed in and this this amendment would list those zone districts amendment a12 this is another time sensitive concern that came up post epc submittal this amendment proposes bed limitations for an overnight shelter based on the underlying zone district overnight shelters are only allowed in the mxh nrc nrbplm and gm zone districts um however if uh overnight shelter is incidental to a religious facility and part of their mission um then they are allowed in in the zone district that the religious institution is allowed in and religious institutions are allowed in all zone districts so the bed limitations um talk about numbers for all zone districts and so if you are in a residential zone district the bed limitation would be 10 beds if you're in a mixed use or non-residential commercial zone district the limitation would be 30 beds and if you're in the non-residential business park light manufacturing or general manufacturing zone districts then the bed limitation will be a hundred beds amendment a13 um this is a response to epc discussion this amendment completes the edits and revisions from pnm on their electric generation use specific standards and procedures for those that were following the epc process there were several epc conditions proposed and in reviewing those those conditions and and putting them into the redline version uh we worked further with with pnm to make sure that we dotted our eyes and crossed our t's and and this amendment kind of does those eye dotting and t-crossing with with pnm uh amendment uh a14 post applications uh facilitated meeting this is for site plan administrative uh this again is a time sensitive concern that came out post epc this amendment proposes to strike low density residential development forms from the site plan administrative uh post-submittal facilitated meeting and then reduces the number of days in which a site plan administrative post-submittal facilitated meeting can be requested it reduces it from 15 days to 10 days this amendment is a an attempt at a compromise to make sure that the community still has an opportunity to request a site plan administrative post-submittal facilitated meeting while also making sure that the planning department is able to continue to do their work effectively amendment a15 this is a tech edits this is a response to epc discussion this amendment contains edits and clarifications to the text based on the recommendations of the epc uh if you think of the epc as a pond and you throw the stone in with each recommendation there's ripples and and so this is catching the ripples of those edits and clarification of the recommendations of the epc and this makes edits and clarifications to that that language amendment uh a16 bulls and fences this is again a time sensitive concern that came up post the epc submittal um this amendment limits the ceo's authority in granting total wars and fences to just those surrounding critical infrastructure this was the intent uh originally of the ceo authority when the idea was was going through the adoption process there was a condition uh recommending that that the zeo be able to allow taller walls for pnm and uh when it got translated into the ido during the adoption process it it was greater authority was granted and we're realizing that that wasn't really the the right fit and so this uh brings it back in line with that original epc recommendation to limit it to just critical infrastructure which is defined in the ido as um pnm gas lines um and i forgot what else but our utilities and then also adds the missing phrase residential from low density residential development amendments a17 this is a small mapped area requests this is again a response to discussion at epc this amendment proposes edits to the urban residential form in the form-based zone district in order to make development of small-scale info residential more residential in form and makes changes especially on small lots it makes changes to the language regarding building entrances ground floor clear height window percentages percentages on ground on upper floor levels sill height and window shape um and then the last amendment um and this is again the other small mapped area change um is a previous submission submittal to the epc this is a proposed change to the northwest mesa escarpment view protection overlay this amendment proposes to add a second height sub-area to the northwest mesa escarpment view protection overlay today there is the escarpment area and then there is a a single height sub area where heights are are limited and this would add a concentric ring basically around that existing height sub area and so uh within this this new height sub area height building heights would be limited to 30 feet it would require additional landscaping uh landscaping would move from 15 to 25 and would limit potentially incompatible uses in this area the changes proposed in here are looking to ensure a smooth transition from developed areas to the escarpment or vice versa from the escarpment out into areas of development um our scotland is a very sensitive area and this is looking to protect views and also to ensure that stormwater runoff is is limited that's the the reason for the additional um landscaping uh and to make sure that that storm water doesn't run into the escarpment which is a a major issue and and with that uh that is all of the amendments before us uh this this after afternoon so counselors um i am available for any any questions um thank you thank you miss morris uh councils are there any questions of miss morris i don't see any therefore let's uh move on to public comment if there aren't any questions from the counselors um and i guess i'll say first because you're not quite here in the in the room yet but hello uh to those joining us to provide public comment here are the public public comment ground rules comments are to be addressed to the committee members only please keep your comments germaned to the topics on the agenda today any disruptive conduct or non-germane commentary will result in removal from the zoom webinar there will be a two-minute time limit the timer will start once you begin speaking then the zoom moderator mr moya will let you know when your time is up mr moya would you please call in the name of the first speaker and do we need to swear them in and he will also be swearing you in so thank you thank you thank you madam chair our first speaker is jim strozer mr if you don't mind raising your right hand do you swear to tell the truth i do thank you your two minutes will begin when you start speaking all right thank you very much uh counselors uh jim strozier principal with consensus planning i want to just real quickly try and go through a couple of comments on on a few of these proposed amendments and um and i'll start with uh amendment a2 and i'm not sure i wrote down the numbers of all the amendments but um this is regarding the rv park um designation and adding uh zones and that is the nrc and nrbp zone where that would become a permissive use and the uh mxm where it would be a conditional use and i just want to urge your support of that amendment i believe that counselor gibson has been working on this and i think it is a a great a great idea currently it's limited only to the nr su zone and i think this is an appropriate change i also wanted to mention with the coors vpo there were a number of changes that were proposed and and i think a lot of those changes were really geared towards clarifying the regulations as they relate to analyzing projects i have one issue with that and that is and this is an issue i've had with it from the beginning so it's not a new thing but now combined with the addition of buildings not being able to penetrate the ridgeline the use of the 45 degree angle that would be great if coors was a straight road but coors is not a straight road so there are places where coors veers to the east and where it veers back to the west and that 45 degree angle doesn't necessarily point you to what i think the view we're trying to protect which is the main face of the mountains and the sandia crest i think that ought to be changed from 45 degrees to a direct line between coors boulevard and the sandia crest which captures the face of the mountain i think it's easy to do and i think it would be very effective i also want to support amendment a5 daytime gathering spaces i think that is an uh an appropriate your your time is up all right thank you i tried to get through as many as i could i appreciate your time and happy to answer any questions if you have them um if i may counselor gibson do you have a question well actually i i do i actually have a request uh i'd like to hear the rest of mr strozer's comments i think he's he's uh trying to be efficient in his communication so i appreciate that but i would like to hear the rest of it if that would be okay thank you counselor gibson and mr strozier you better talk fast here you're going to get counselor gibson in trouble i will um i only had one more point and that was support for the removal of ace the the amendment a6 and i think that that would be better handled um as miss morris said in another part of the city process maybe the dpm or i'm not sure exactly how to best do it but i agree with the amendment a6 thank you thank you mr strozier our next speaker is russell britto please feel free turn your video on and meet yourself and i will need to swear you in so if you can please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth yes thank you your two minutes will begin when you start speaking thank you madam chair counselors good afternoon russell brito with public service company of new mexico first i want to thank council and planning staff very much for working with pnm on text amendments to this annual update that we feel will clarify the status of the electric facility plan and the processes that electric facilities go through under the integrated development ordinance a couple years ago when the ido was first adopted pnm worked with planning staff and council staff to make sure that electric facilities like substations are permissive uses in most zone categories of the ido except for sensitive use and parts in open space but because electric facilities are ubiquitous and they're commonplace they're allowed in all zone categories we've worked with planning and con council staff to ensure that the review processes reflect their permissivity because a lot of times it's a site plan with a perimeter wall and landscape i did want to point out to the committee that batcher through renewable sources and i wanted to ask consideration that battery storage as a primary use also be allowed to go through the administrative review process thank you very much and i'm available for any questions thank you mr brito are there any questions from the council thank you mr brito our next speaker is dan rich mr rich please uh feel free turn your video on and meet yourself i will need to swear you in so if you can please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth i do thank you your two minutes will begin when you start speaking okay um i'm glad to be here um i'm a developer and operator of a rv and boat storage facility located off i-40 and i'm very familiar with this sector i'm in support of councillor gibson's amendment regarding rv parks in non-residential zones and i'm glad this was reintroduced after the planning department removal recommendation which was inconsistent with actual circumstances and without basis there has been a sharp increase in rb travel and a high demand demand for rv stay locations the reasons are many fault but it is partially contributed to covid people wanting to avoid airports hotel rooms cruises but it's not just vacation travelers who are contributing to this increase we're talking about contract trades people traveling medical and digital nomads who are people who don't have a home they're professionals and they use the internet for their work and this is a very much growing sector rv parks are booked we hear this repeatedly because we have our thumb on the pulse being where we are and who we see on a daily basis people tell us they've called everywhere they have a sense of desperation many times they have to bypass albuquerque or stay in a commercial parking lot like walmart or somewhere else with the fear of being shooed off by police or security or property ownership and they may have to choose a place out of town or where they're uncomfortable staying with their families so this is a real problem in albuquerque we want people to come here and leave with a favorable impression and share that favorable impression with other people which will contribute to more tourism and more visitors the benefactors being local vendors restaurants many of whom i've been in touch with they've expressed um favorable support for this mobile service technicians like mobile mechanics 50 excuse me 50 of their business mobile rv mechanics is traveling thank you mr rich your time is up and i'm thank you mr rich your time is up thank you thank you thank you everybody thank you our next speaker is dr joe vias mr dr baez please uh feel free to turn your video on and if you can please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth absolutely thank you uh your two minutes will begin when you start speaking yeah i it's hard for me to start with this thing because first of all here we go again another mass dump of ideal amendments and that why a special looks hearing for this i'm not why not go through the epc process we always get preached to about process and i don't know where that is uh in terms of i'm really interested in this one because it was easier for me to interpret the a6 geographic responsiveness where did this come from uh the epc supported i think sabatini and parish were in support of the amendment before it was proposed as an as an amended amendment and so i don't know where i don't know where you guys are coming from uh to not even consider views and development consider just the word consider is leading the city in the wrong direction this this whole process has to stop until you define what the amendment process really is it can't be one or the other or sometimes you're not listening to the public and then petra says some of the amendments in the packet are same amendments that were introduced to the epc but did not get epc support which ones are those and uh so this amendment proposes to strike the proposed section 52 d2 in the red line of the ido however removing 52d2 from this amendment is ignoring every reference in the comprehensive plan about making the most of the exceptional landscapes and views presented by albuquerque's exceptional and unique geo geological opportunities this amendment is an affront to reasonable stakeholders whether they be from the development community neighborhood stakeholders and on these quick fixes are part of a trend to diminish the city of albuquerque into the future for all of us and i wish you'd listen to some of us sometimes look i appreciate your time but you've already moved it and seconded it i think we know where this is headed but it's wrong it really is wrong be careful about losing the faith of people while you're governing and the city council please do that thank you thank you dr valles our next speaker is peter calyptus uh mr clintus please uh feel free turn the video on and meet yourself and i will need to swear you in if you could please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth thank you your two minutes will begin when you start speaking good written comments that i'd like to include directly this meeting i'm commenting on a12 and a5 i recommend residential zoning is allowed for um if residential zoning is a lot of night shelters should be conditional with use of needed on-site support services mixed use in nrc zones should have possible separation of different mixed use zones uh exception is mxh conditional use could be permitted with a capacity of 30 as they are often needed near residential uh mh zones permissive use with a capacity of 30 overnight beds this would be reasonable capacity for the neighborhood to support and our zones if they're not within about 500 feet 30 beds permissive 100 conditional allowing for more shelters adult family shelters 100 person capacity in some zones provide greater facilities for family mxl and mlt are frequently next to or they actually have um housing so that's that would be the conditional facilities allowed to be 1500 feet apart if this is going to be permissive versus conditional technically you could have basically 20 houses apart you could have the zone as far as distance are these changes going to affect the current gateway center um and as because it would really help if it did uh in daytime gathering facilities it may be good but i'm wondering where things are going as far as like could someone open up a soup kitchen in a residential area and oh i'm concerned about that thank you thank you our next speaker is miss ward ms ward please feel free to turn your video back on uh mute yourself and i will need to spur you in so can you please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth uh to the best of my knowledge yes thank you your two minutes will begin when you start speaking sorry so community members were surprised to learn of this meeting in advance of the regular lup schedule to entertain additional amendments proposed for the ido citizens had gener had only a few days generally to review the additional material on top of their already busy lives that council counselors would rush through the many proposed changes to the ideo again would make a skeptic wonder if there is any sincere interest in a development scenario that promotes a healthy and beneficial quality of life for the people who pay their public salaries it is the obligation of elected officials to serve in the public interest not the interests of out-of-state developers their local agents in the private and public sectors and their local counterparts seeking to minimize or eliminate meaningful public input it is highly problematic when the public input is not transmitted faithfully from informed citizens to the counselors because council planning staff misinformed the counselors irrespective of intent i respectfully request that each city councillor perform his or her own true due diligence on the matters before the committee this will require adequate study time prior to voting on the scores of proposed changes public or private association with commercial real estate interests and builders creates the appearance of a bias in favor of those interests in quasi-judicial matters those counselors with associations such as these should recuse themselves from participating in any quasi-judicial matter several proposed amendments are problematic and should include meaningful public input beyond this afternoon some include um distractive statements that are irrelevant i believe there's one on the drive-throughs and increasing drive-throughs or allowing them them to be um i can't find it i'm sorry conditional or conditional expect there's a reference to the pandemic which is a red herring and making them more um available to neighborhoods when ironically in the pandemic we are seeing the traffic create problems created by your time is up thank you our next speaker uh just a moment please counselor benton do you have a question yes just i did want to respond um certainly agree uh about the concern about drive up windows but on the first point of the timing of this meeting i wanted to ask staff and or or the chair perhaps to clarify that the process that was the schedule that was laid out for hearing all of this has been in place for a long time and these amendments of course that counselors have every right to bring forward but we did not receive the uh the packet from the administration until uh considerably later in the what i think we had attended the schedule to be is that correct i'll ask staff that question madam chair counselor benson um that's correct uh we as had anticipated getting the amendments out about a week ahead and unfortunately uh timing wasn't on our side and so we didn't receive the packet quite in enough time to get the packet out a week ahead but we did get it out on on friday which um gives us gave the public some some time ahead of today's meeting just not as much as we would like and clearly the public would like just wanted to make that clear there's a lot of insinuation that there's a bunch of back room dealing going on here and i want to clearly state that i'm offended by the accusation and it is not happening thank you our next speaker is renee horvath miss horvath if you feel free turn your video on and meet yourself and i will need to swear you in you could please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth uh yes i do thank you your two minutes will begin when you start speaking okay thank you uh i am also uh when i learned about this loves meeting being this wednesday i was very surprised because there's a lot of amendments that we've had to review we spent hours we've spent days weeks years being involved in this process and this really does affect our community so when i saw an email from somebody in the community that the loop says this wednesday i was like oh my gosh i don't have time to write up uh comments for this or to review them and there's 18 new amendments and you know last fall we had meetings to go over these amendments before the epc hearing we haven't had that done here before the city council so you have 18 new amendments that were scrambling to understand some of these amendments and so we can make decent comments on them and so and also this one and half minutes two minutes comment on all these items is not really giving us enough time to really discuss the pros and cons of some of these amendments because i still have a lot of concern uh that i uh on some of the old amendments and now i've got to study the 18 new amendments and a lot of people are really feeling discouraged right now about this whole process they keep saying the process is broken and uh we don't have time to review this we don't understand them we need some help we need some help from our counselors to give us time to help us understand these amendments and uh i have like a dozen i'd like to comment on and discuss some of the pros and cons but i don't have time to do it right now because i only got two minutes and i just want to read you an email that i got just before this hearing i sent out a notice hey we got a hearing and i this is a response your two minutes are up did i read this madam chair i'd like to ask if she could go ahead and read that please go ahead miss horvath so this is a a neighborhood that's had to deal with some of the ideal changes and so his response when i sent out the notice that there's a meeting today he says renee i sold my home this week and larry also sold his home and has already moved my neighbors across the street are moving to dallas two more neighbors are looking to list their homes and they have they have already destroyed our great neighborhood i really don't think anything can be done until this ido and current administration including the counselors are removed from office the ido deprives residents of their rights so i just want you to kind of realize there's a frustration from the community over this process and someone reminded me that ms horvath thank you we allowed you to read that i think that's that that would be sufficient thank you very much thank you go ahead i'm chair councillor gibson okay uh i i think that we did talk early on when we were beginning the meeting about uh the schedule and moving forward uh how this is going to progress through lups and then to council so maybe uh i don't know if ms horvath may have missed that that first part that this is not the only lups meeting but we'll have another one on the 12th when they'll uh that when they'll be discussed is that correct that is correct thank you and and i since there seems to be um a bit of a misconception on um staff sitting on this i think it it should be noted that uh this went up to uh the 11th floor as is standard once it came out of epc and it sat we didn't get it back down for at least a month and a half so i mean there's it's not that the city council nor the epc is trying to drag their feet sometimes things just take longer so please we're trying to do the best we can with this so let's ask the next speaker to come forward our next speaker is peggy norton miss norton please feel free to turn your video back on and meet yourself and i will need us for you in if you could please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth i do thank you your two minutes will begin when you start speaking okay um i admit that i'm remiss and not knowing exactly what you are approving today if it's all the amendments that were proposed by the epc and approved by the epc on these 18 additional ones or if this is just the 18 additional ones petra presented miss please there seems to be such a misunderstanding here there will be another meeting this is the first hearing of these so we will not be approving anything we merely had to move and second in order to get the comment so that we can then move it on to the next meeting there will be no vote on approval this evening okay just to clear that up thank you okay but you are consider i mean this does have to do with all the ones the epc had and some new ones it means that we will look at everything that came before us that came down from the 11th floor okay okay um because i did uh go over them closely for the epc meeting and we submitted comments and i actually sent those pretty much same comments in uh today and so i just want to be brief um i that geographical orientation i do support that view protection also is more than just seeing the tip of the sandias there's a bosque there that i believe that west side view protection was intended to include we still do not support rv parks and campgrounds are concerned and are concerned about them being on 4th street where we already have about 12 or 14 used car lots um drive-throughs we don't want to see expanded um actually any of these that address covid impacts we do not support the pandemic is hopefully a short-term uh prop problem and uh to have long-term solutions uh we we don't support that as a reason for having these changes i am concerned about cottage development uh i i look at that as stekia hardiness it's a very nice co-housing development um but i don't know of any others to look at and see what the ramifications of cottage development in the ido are and the one last thing we support the drb having some discretionary impact and cannabis growing it's in an enclosed building i'd like to know that whether that a greenhouse is an enclosed building can it be opaque or it it should be stated that it has to be opaque because the lights can really impact the neighborhood thank you miss norton our next speaker is jane beckel miss becca please feel free turn your video on and meet yourself and if you can raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth i do thank you your two minutes will begin when you start speaking thank you thank you madam chair and counselors um i want to speak today in support of amendment a18 as it was described today i'm a longtime resident and homeowner in the area that's encompassed by the northwest mesa statement vpo it contains some of the most sensitive geologic and cultural features in this city the views from the escarpment and up to up the escarpment um are um are incredible both looking east to the mountains and the rio grande valley as well as the western horizon and the um volcanoes i believe the provisions in a18 support development which is of low density and low intensity consistent with the nature of this land as well as with the um existing development um there is a provision on the mesa top for high intensity high-intensity urban center so i think allowing the rest of the the mesa top to be developed with low intensity is really critical and finally as somebody who has seen the damage from erosion directly seeing the damage from the erosion of runoff over the escarpment i believe that the additional landscaping requirements while they may not be entirely adequate or sufficient are certainly relevant to that and thank you very much thank you ma'am you our next speaker is peggy now miss sniff please feel free to turn your video on and meet yourself and if you can raise your right hand i am raising my right hand you swear to tell the truth i do thank you your two minutes will begin when you start speaking good afternoon counselors with respect i'm exhausted at having to fight and argue write and rebel push and shove my way into having a place in the visioning exercises of my community these feelings are echoed in all of the meetings that have been part of these 2020 amendments my apologies if my suggestion that counselor benton and counselor jones recuse themselves on these ideo matters cause defense but really our public comments fall into what i call the neighborhood abyss and to watch my colleagues and my suggestions and concerns be ignored again and again this causes me offense anyway specifically regarding these 18 amendments that were put forward on friday you have my emails and i'll try to summarize here the arroyo definition community members and council do not have the same understanding for a common open space lands that would not otherwise be built upon in a normal cyclan without additional architectural needs due to their sensitive natures should not be included in common open space calculations this is kind of cheating more importantly this amendment uses language that is not yet in the ido i don't know how you can be able to listen to public discussions and yet refer to this as a fait accomplias to somehow allow this verbage that is hypothetical and the least and wrong in the accurate interpretation to be put in front of you campground in a2 and 810 campground are an rv park and mxl drive-throughs these would not be allowed under our sector plans the ido would not be able to should not be able to do this without communicating fully to the 600 000 residents of albuquerque both of these plans negatively affect residential properties and change the walkability nature of the city my link to the secret ido map that shows the residential areas stopped working last night so i can't provide specific details a6 geographic responsiveness i think this amendment striking positive changes for improved building characteristics is wrong i think we should be having more restrictions on building characteristics as our available land is almost gone we have the capacity to improve why not why deny the improvements a7 light vehicle sales as i said in my email respectfully paseo central carlisle san mateo coors boulevard and shopping centers along those routes do not need another vehicle retail lot nor do their nearby neighbors a12 overnight shelters i sent suggestions time is up thank you madam chair that concludes public comments thank you mr moya counselors are there any questions for the staff for the administration counselors counselor benton councillor benton you're muted sorry using my ipad at the office is a bad idea um on a6 the language that that's the amendment that i'm sponsoring um with regard to geographic responsiveness i wanted to ask the staff the language as it came from the i the epc is strictly a suggestion it requires a developer to provide an analysis or prepare an analysis of the views from the property yet i want to confirm this it does not require any staff review of that it's really just checking a box is it not madam chap um councillor benson um yes so the way that the geographic responsiveness is proposed um would require an applicant to submit an analysis but they're not required to actually address any of the views um it would be uh basically they would need a note on their site plan as as as it's worded that they either have or haven't considered the views um and it also if they did consider the views wouldn't really provide any protection going forward thank you uh miss morris and and this is the reason i have this forward i want everyone to understand i totally agree with the intent of of the language and and the idea that that every i think it would be crazy to build a development and not look at you know take the best advantage of the views and i'd be surprised if anybody in a commercial area would would ignore an asset of that sort but that's the reason it's out there that's the reason i did uh asked to sponsor this amendment to the amendment to the ido and i'm open-minded about it i want to hear from everybody about how this could really be effective and not just be an exercise that has no teeth whatsoever thank you thank you counselor benton counselor borrego do you have a question no madam chair i'd like to make a motion to defer um thank you are there any other questions of counselors if not i will second the motion to defer until the may 12th lups meeting do i have a second interest i just seconded it never mind you were the second i was just sitting there i made it one day today thank you all those in favor say yes yes you have to do a roll call roll call vote been a long time since i've done this like this sorry guys roll call counselor jones yes counselor benton yes counselor porego yes counselor gibson yes counselor pena sorry yes and that passes on a 5-0 vote thank you counselors i'm looking forward some more for some more uh discussion on these and maybe some tweaking and i will see you all on may 12th for the laps this meeting is adjourned thank you