you you good evening everyone and this is our first land use planning and zoning committee meeting via zoom so I hereby call this meeting to order all committee members are present this evening the zoom except for councillor Harris who has not yet arrived 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 when we appreciate your patience as this is the first council committee meeting to be conducted this way and I am the guinea pig members of the public will be able to speak to the committee if they have signed up for public comment per the rules published on Friday with tonight's agenda 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 and remember all people who had to sign up for the meeting tonight by 2:00 p.m. today / previously published rules so now we will now move on to agenda items first and foremost we will agenda item o 78 we're going to move that to the beginning and the sponsor has asked that that item be deferred until the August pull ups meeting so members I make a motion per the sponsor to defer until August lup's meeting Toofer o 78 that I have a motion in a second all in favor please raise your hand and say yes yes yes that motion passed on a 4-0 vote we will now move on to agenda item a six will the zoom moderator please move in all members of the public who signed up to speak for this item and this will take just a little while and love you me me remind you all that there will be one warning of inappropriate language or conversation not pertinent to the topic is discussed there will be one warning if there is another violation you you will be muted and be taken out of the call all right so we have one person signed up and that is Dean Smith I think probably we need for the new councilman to move the item so counselor yes yes thank you madam president I move a due pass for a recommendation do pass for a second there's a motion in a second therefore we will now go to Hustler's do you have any questions for staff before we get started if not we'll go to public comment in this matter is there anyone signed up to speak on this bill Dean Smith let me give you a rundown Dean of the rules on this public comment ground rules comments are to be addressed to the committee members only please keep your comments germane to the agenda item you are speaking on and any disruptive conduct or non-germane commentary will result in removal from the zoom meeting there will be a two-minute time limit the timer will start once you begin speaking Deneb bell will ring at the two minutes indicating your time is up counselors are there any questions or comments before we get going okay Dean you're on mr. Smith would you like to begin your public comment good afternoon I just want to say that the public library supports this motion and the main library is an important building in library design the architect and the directors good afternoon am i there mr. Smith if you could turn off your TV or where you're viewing the meeting or at least just mute it while you provide a comment please thank you [Music] design in the seventies the architect the director visited multiple sites it's critical in the urban renewal of the City of Albuquerque plans from the 1970s and of course it's critical in the fact that it's a significant building by George Pearl my comments here mr. Smith and councillor Benton yeah I apologize and councillors that probably should have given the intro on this this is one of the signature buildings are probably the real signature building by George Pearl who passed away just a very short time ago year two ago and he was really one of the deans of the architectural profession in Albuquerque and this really was I think the the building that he's known for and it's it's a wonderful building in the sense that it's a very modern building it's even in the style that some people would call brutalist which doesn't mean it's brutal design it means it's a that word comes from the word concrete and French and my period there were you know some yeah harsh looking buildings I must say but but I've always considered this to be pretty friendly building filled with nooks of places to read and good light and a robust design but not unfriendly design so it's been long recognized in that sense and so I think it's very important being into landmark it's not just the way that one looks from the outside but as I said talking about nooks and crannies and so forth and reading alcoves it really inspired me as an architect who specially designed myself in many ways so and it was state of the art at the time it's still a very well functioning library for its age and mr. pearl put a lot into it I don't remember who the library director was at the time but obviously did a lot of research about how it library needed to work and it's a wonderful building and it's a landmark none found that everyone knows and I think this is a very well deserved designation Thank You counselor Benton sir bettin would you like to move this item since it's yours yes I think I did I don't know did we get a second I think counsel burying a second all right any comments counselors or questions and no more speakers okay in that case there's been a motion in a second on o6 all those in favor say yes yes yes madam chair we we need to take a roll call vote for these items so city staff here will begin the call for those votes now yes counselor go yes counselor Gibson yes counselor Jones yes that passes on a 4-0 thank you thanks everyone and congratulations counselor bench and I think this is a very very good move to do this for this librarian for the city and everyone that's listening or trying to pay attention I apologize this is my first as the chair of something like this and it's a little bit confusing so I will get it so now we are moving to agenda item B which is our 28th I'm going to ask the Xoom operator moderator to please move in all members of the public who have signed up to speak for this item and I just learned there are no speakers on this item so councillor Benton would you like to introduce ed speak to our 28 yes thank you madam chair and Shanna Schultz is here I think well let's see who's going to speak to it from the administration Carey Barker's perhaps or Petra are you I'm sorry Petra but just quickly a little bit of history on the bike boulevard it was first introduced by councillor Michael Cadogan back think sometime now 2009 and Mike East always joke and said you know I did that just so I could get an easier across the Montagna bridge and been anyway Oh be mad that I said that but but anyway it was a great is and remains a great concept and has been a pretty good success and under councilor Garduno the segment east of Yale was completely updated with modern standards which they have changed quite a bit in those eleven years or nine ten years in his case he you know they they updated it and made it a much better functioning street and we kind of took a look at that for the rest of the route which goes west of Yale and goes down through buting Highland neighborhood through downtown and through the rain olds neighborhood and through the downtown neighborhood and West alt down over to the to the Bosque a trail so it's an important connection and consultant siddig met each other but I'll let have to take it from there madam chair councillors thank you so this by adopting this fire resolution we will you will be making the recommendations identified in this reports city policy and and adding them to the tip the Transportation Improvement Program the report adds a number of different recommendations they range in intensity from lease intensity and cost of painting striping signage to more costly and in and involved recommendations in terms of the crossing of i-25 and the railroad tracks the those two crossings are really key to getting the silver bike Boulevard to be a true east-west route and on the east side of town and so the plan makes some recommendations for going underneath I 25 and going over the railroad tracks and so by by adopting this this plan it would be an opportunity for council bentham so you find additional funding sources to pay for this madam chair yes counselor Gibson her counselor mr. Benton sorry so yeah the important part of this are two keys that there was never a complete connection of the two segments of the bike Boulevard east and west of i-25 and and the railroad tracks or the railroad tracks in i-25 as you can imagine have long stood as kind of a real challenge in terms of the connectivity of the trail so this this plan I think one of the most important things about this plan is it solves that problem it does create a protected either protected lanes or a nice calm Street which most of silver is but when you when you reach the railroad tracks of course you don't get across and silver the same thing for 25 so this does provide a two-way cycle track on the railroad overpass the room on that overpass at led a lot of extra room where a two-way bike facility can go onto that overpass and then similarly are sort of similarly uphill at i-25 there's enough with the underpass to to accommodate a two-way bike track so those are that's how it can accent and it it bakes me through a really beautiful neighborhood and historic neighborhood and yuning Island and then back up two other beautiful historic neighborhoods so it's a great really good plan I really commend the DMD for working with us and also the State Highway Department District three for their help with it because they have jurisdiction over the frontage roads they're at 25 and the north come and said I'm verbs which are so we really appreciate it was really good multi-jurisdictional work so your counselor are there any other questions from counselors we do have Isaac Padilla and Pat Montoya from administration if we have any questions counselors and also we will welcome counselor Harris to the meeting so being no further questions counselor Benton would you like to close would you support all in favor of a due pass we will do a roll call and please respond counselor Benton yes counselor board a go yes counselor Gibson yes counselor Jones yes counselor Harris yes that passes on a 5-0 vote Thank You counselors that passes and we'll move on next item was number C with I was 78 and we have that has been deferred by the sponsor until August meeting next on the agenda is item D our 27 and we'll ask the zoo moderator to please please move all members of the public who signed up to speak for this item madam chair point of order yes Kelsey Benton we have to do we have to vote on that deferral but madam chair and councillor Benton for the sake of the record that was one vote that we didn't do roll call style and if it wouldn't be too much time I think we should go back and do that roll call just to be safe will do and Thank You councillor Benton staff so let's do a roll call vote on the deferral of a 78 councillor Benton yes councillor Buteyko madam chair point of order don't we need a motion to defer in order to vote on it I think we do so I would move that we defer it so I can and I vote yes Gibson yes Hauser Jones yes councillor Harris yes vote thank you everyone and we did have a vote on that unfortunately we did it without a roll call in the beginning we did have a motion to defer so moving on now we will go to we will go to the public comments on our 27 which is establishing the order of Community Planning area assessments for 2020 for 2020 through 2024 and I believe that we did we would do pass on that yes so we're gonna call the speakers and do you want to do the rules again yes so again the rules for public comment tonight is that comments or to be addressed at the committee members only comments must be germane to the agenda item that you're speaking on and any disruptive conduct conduct or non-germane commentary will result in removal we have two people signed up to speak Peggy Neff miss Neff if you'd like to unmute your microphone you'll have two minutes to speak starting whenever you begin to I mean okay yes miss Neff we can hear you hi good afternoon counselors thanks for doing this thank you incredibly privileged uh my name is Peggy Neff I am NOT representing less the Cueva Neighborhood Association Weslaco Ava Neighborhood Association really no longer exists as a vibrant community it's basically a click on next door our folks have been this exhausted weed you know the whole thing about our sector plan not being incorporated into as as you know the history anyway I would like to speak to 2027 in regard to the dual mapping that is in the I do that does not follow city council districts I've spoken with councillor Davison with councillors besides assistants on this end with councillor winter and with district 4 and with my community I don't think that the youth of a separate set of maps helps the development of neighborhoods and I think neighborhoods are really important I sincerely oppose the use of an alternative mapping system as it doesn't match up with city council districts in regard to representational tasks I've tried to address it many times I've not had any feedback from the ONC or from planning about why and how these were established outside of the parameters of the city council districts social discontent comes when the public feels that they are not represented let me say that again social discontent comes when the public feels that they are not represented by using a second set of maps for representational tasks the City Planning Department confuses confounds and establishes great potential for misperceptions wrongful interpretations and false neighborhood goals it duplicates in a perplexing way one of the most important tasks in front of us to secure feedback from communities both from established neighborhood associations and from those that are yet to form its guarantees have you cut me off am I and councillor Benton would like to ask a question councillor Benton you're you're muted a question for staff this order and this concept of the community planning areas and even the mat for the community planning areas it's actually been city policy since 2017 am I correct madam chair and councillor Benton yes and even slightly before then the community planning area assessment map was adapted from a map that existed in the comprehensive plan prior to 2017 the beauties were slightly adjusted to a better align with current census tracts but this is not necessarily a new concept to the 2017 comprehensive plan much like the center's the corridors concept was not new to the 2017 comprehensive plan so this is an existing idea that we are finally actually get some small area planning and and get city staff with their boots on the ground in our communities madam chair but am i right miss Schultz that the aside from minor adjustments this it's more than a concept it's part of the comprehensive plan which is city policy madam chair mr. Benton yes this map was adopted with the comprehensive plan and what we're discussing tonight is not the boundaries of those areas or whether the order in which the city will spend several months at a time doing planning work in those communities it would take an amendment to the comprehensive plan to change that map at this point madam chair councillors excuse me we have a hand up and that would be councillor Gibson and councillor Borrego did you want to speak after that would you raise your hand please so I won't forget you thank you that's it Gibson thank you madam chair and actually if we have one more speaker I can wait until the the public comment area is over I have a question for staff as well Thank You councillor Gibson if you'll put your hand back up all will talk to you when that happens councillor Drago I would also wait until the speaker the next speaker speaks and then I'd like to ask the question thank you so would you call the next speaker please yes Mr Dan Regan you are our next speaker please feel free to unmute your microphone and turn on your camera if you wish and your two minutes will begin when you start talking just making a just as the stillness in lust members I appreciate the opportunity to speak there is a clear perception of the v4c neighborhoods that the CTA evaluation results concluded that North Palakurthi is in better shape than many other areas and therefore can wait until the end of the fourth year to have its needs addressed however the major purpose of this entire CPA assessment process has been to understand which aspects of Zoning Reid ideal changes need attention so that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are met from his owning development perspective north Albuquerque is far from a settled or steady state reality interest in commercial properties big and still are along Del Norte Alameda Montgomery Wyoming and Eubank and if it takes four years to get any focus on the zoning needs in this area and this council keeps using ido streamlining as a steamroller flattening the interest and input from residents down to a compressed quarter-inch you will hurt a vital part of this city an example of the streamlining us steamrolling can be seen in the projects that would dump nas for stories of ninety-three tiny apartments on 2.8 acres in the middle of a single family homes and think that this is in line with what the comprehensive plan had in mind i don't know how to resolve this unless the council would be willing to make a conscious note and have a prescribed quarterly check-in with the coalition's in the CPAs that are in the third and fourth years out and report the results at the check-ins i hope i came across with my voice and thank you for your attention Thank You mr. you're myself I couldn't hear myself Thank You mr. Regan thank you for your comments now we'll go back to questions from the councillors council again it's in your first thank you madam chair so um actually I have a couple of questions you can cut me off after one or two if you want no wait in line again but first of all I just want to make clear that that the order of the CPAs does not preclude any other work that would be going on for example for example if one of the one of those areas in my district actually isn't in the the third group to be looked at and if there's something there was a need up there a pressing need that we wanted to look at have investigated change maybe we wouldn't have to wait until the the third visit by by planning in our planning staff so I just wanted to make that really really clear that doesn't stop the work planning working in all other areas of the city is just that they the deep dive is done during that time but there there is you know each each area is in some way shape or form unique and I think the area that mr. Regan is is talking about it's great part of the city I love it up there is unique in that it has much more undeveloped land certainly than district 7 does and so and I guess I'm wondering if planning our planning staff or the planning department frankly either one if they had considered vacant land in making the calculations which I also agree with councillor Benton very methodically and non politically which I really really appreciate that about our planning staff but the question I'm posing is if one of the criterion that was used to develop a you know a timeline had been undeveloped property with that have changed the order in which they appear now elsewhere Gibson would you like to ask that of one of our planning people we have several here would you like for them again sir yes I see Shannon is nodding her head so it is either one of them you know what either one of our planning staff would do Thank You counsel which of you would like to answer that Shannon yeah madam chair councillor Gibson I can answer that question before I dive into the answer to that question let me talk a little bit about how the Planning Department came to this order is kind of a backdrop for this conversation so they used data points that they called priority indicators that are what I would think of as objective data points to determine how soon an area should be looked at that that list of priority indicators is in your packet but I'll give you an example of a couple for example poverty rates so if a CPA area has a high percentage of population with income below the poverty line that is going to them up in the priority matrix access to transit services is another data point they considered so the percentage of households within a five-minute walk that's about a quarter mile of a bus stop CPAs that have low access to transit shot them up in the priority matrix index councillor Gibson your specific question in all this data that the Planning Department considered was vacant land one of them and it was not I think the closest data point that we might be able to get to that is they did consider the number of building permits that were approved in at over a 12-month period but that doesn't necessarily correlate to building permits on vacant land by any means so so the the direct answer to your question is no that is not one of the data points that the Planning Department considered so and if I may madam chair just a little bit of a follow up oh please counselor so thank you for that that's very enlightening so I guess my question was a little tiny bit different than that my question is if if you all had considered a vacant land under undeveloped property or property that hadn't been redeveloped for a long long time you know just dirt would that have changed the order that we're looking at now for the CPA madam chair councillor Gibson without running those numbers directly I I think it's hard to say but it would certainly it would certainly influence the order one way or another I mean any new criteria we add and assign a priority to could shift the data and so if there are other data points that the committee or the council is interested in looking at I think now is the time to have that conversation as we're as we're looking at the order that the data points now okay I just have one more and then I'm gonna stop okay yes so would more vacant land increase the urgency or would more vacant land decrease which would madam chair councillor Gibson I I think off the top of my head what I would say is an abundance of vacant land would indicate that there's potential development for that area and much like the number of building permits is a criteria that shot shot up the priority I think this would be along the same lines of if we're worried that areas with large swaths or large amounts of vacant land could be that could be developed I think that would increase the priority with with the one caveat that Mesa del Sol is a CPA and itself and most of Mesa del Sol probably eighty to ninety percent is vacant and so I I think you could have a bit of an outlier with that particular data points as as that one would would end up pretty high on the matrix as far as vacant land is concerned right so and one more time and I really this is really it so you did consider permits that that were drawn when you did this and do you recall where where this area in question fell in with as far as the building permits permits sure madam chair councillor Gibson I do not have the metadata behind these priority indicators in front of me however I would note that members of the Planning Department who ran these numbers are here and if any of them have that spreadsheet in front of them and could answer that question I would invite them to do that now it looks like miss Tara Reed has just turned on her camera so I suspect she might have an answer for you miss Reed would you like to speak with us on our zoom look meeting madam chair I will provide what information I can and I'm trying to get um the right document open so if you'll be patient with me for just one moment I would appreciate it of course this is the moment that my computer decides to be slow my father's I pulled up all the other documents except for this one prior to that question I'm good I'm glad I'm not the only one all right so just to clarify the question um Madame chair and councillor Gibson and you wanted to know where the north Albuquerque CPA fell in terms of building permits is that the question yes ma'am if you'd have that then would be great I do so the the north Albuquerque community planning area fell slightly above the average for the number of building permits for the period that we looked at which was a year I'm leading up to when we did the analysis and so it was about fourths just in terms of building permits after the West Mesa and Russell estimates that and South West Mesa and I would just note that um we looked at all building permits as a totality and so you see much higher numbers on the West Mesa Northwest Mesa largely because you see a lot more single-family so each development is one building permit as opposed to in other parts of the city where a commercial business permit or an apartment might come in as apartment complex might come in as one or fewer building permits so that definitely did was was a factor in looking at Albuquerque but it was not the highest of all of the CPAs thank you very much mr. Reed thank you a chair miss Thank You councillor Gibson and thank you miss Reed for that and next we have councillor Borrego I just want to ask councillor Gibson if she's done okay so I have a couple of questions with regard to and I'm glad councillor Gibson brought up the IP issue of vacant land because it got me to thinking about the west side and the three districts that are out here that are more kind of in a regional area and it makes me wonder you know if we looked at the planning areas more regionally and you have vacant land the conglomeration of vacant land that we have on the west side is quite a bit and there are and you know they're pretty closely related they're they're pretty close to each other so I'm just wondering how that would change sort of the you know the whole criteria that we're using the other thing that I that I was interested in knowing Shanna and I asked you this this morning is when were those building permits what years were those building permits taken from and I wondered if you had time to find that out madam chair councillor Borrego yes I did get that data from the Planning Department today the twelve month time period they considered was June 1st 2018 through May 31st of 2019 ok good so on this particular bill and just I just need some clarification Shanna so there's three things right there's the list of when the CPA should start or the order and then when they should start and that's being deferred also in this bill am I correct about that madam chair councillor Borrego yes so there there is an amendment proposed to this bill that will push back the time line that I would be happy to discuss with the committee now if it feels like the right time but what the bill states today is that as of June 2020 which is right now that's when the CPAs are supposed begin that was outlined in legislation when we adopted the comprehensive plan that that this this is when those assessments would start however counselors Jones and counselor Benton do have an amendment to this legislation tonight to push back the start of the CPAs due to the Cova 19 public health emergency it's it's physically impossible for the planning department to meet with communities right now because of the public health order and they while they did consider doing things like Zoop meetings and and phone calls communities that wasn't a very equitable choice when some of the communities especially first in the order might not have access to those tools so the resolution as it stands right now without the amendment contemplates a start date of June 2020 the the amendment that is on the floor tonight I suppose hasn't been moved yet so it's not technically on the floor will push those back to February of 2021 that's an that's about an eight month delay and in those eight months the planning department will do some capacity building with all of the CPAs in preparation for those to begin counselor Borrego I see you I see your lips moving but I can't hear you and you don't look muted not there you go so the Planning Department in the next eight months will be working on on what exactly madam chair counselor Borrego our friends from the planning department are here would they like to discuss the details of what the intention is over the next eight months during this capacity-building time it looks like mr. Fenmore thank you welcome his Rosewood Ward go right ahead good afternoon chair councilors what we're proposing to do in the next eight months is to work with neighborhoods with businesses with community organizations in each of the Community Planning areas to help them understand what the process is what the order is and begin to gather a sense of what issues are and priorities are in each area so that we can be doing research so that we can establish relationships with community organizations already working on those issues to do lots of online surveys that's not safe to meet with people yet to offer trainings on any kind of common topics that people need to understand a little bit better and generally just ask what do you need in your community so that when we come to do the deep dive as councillor Gibson described that four-month assessment period that you have some understanding of what the process is going to be what the issues are that we can address during that timeline and how that's going to translate into the assessment report that will outline recommendations and actions moving forward and Michaela how many communities will you be working in to gather this type of information madam chair councillor Borrego we will be working in all of the community planning areas to establish those relationships over those eight months probably beginning with the ones that are going to be the first up in the queue and then working our way into the order Hustler Borrego we can't hear you I'll subarray go and let it that's something we can't hear you I'm good thank you any more questions so Benton you have your hand raised thank you for your patience yes I just wanted to reiterate what counselor Gibson pointed out which is and I think miss rents Whitmore as well that that it's sort of like well the bad news is we've got a delay until February 21 but that's also the good news in the sense that the intention has always been to to get each community planning area rolling and but they're ready when when the time does come for their area to come up um and build capacity and kind of teach of those up for for for the process at the same time we should be very clear that any Community Planning area can start to identify issues that they have um some are very active already and they're already notifying and saying you know we've got a problem here and that's actually reflected in the other bill which contains amendments that that councillor Johnson dyerson support and those came in via the community via problems and jigna fine-tuning this is like a this is a new system it's not going to come out of chute and be perfect there's been criticism that they've been amendments well it's been intended to be amended on a regular basis and to be a living document that can be updated and we can identify where there agrees where it can be improved so any planning area has the opportunity to do that I think as counselors you know we all need to kind of help with that to getting the word out you know we we all have our own networks within our districts and of course we have the office neighbor coordination ticket I'll build that discussion but that's the intention is to have a robust discussion and again if there's something that it's at your agency it has to come forward ahead of or out of sequence and a specific issue that can always be done and you know simply identifying it as a community and talking to your City Council the council has the authority to bring forth amendments can ually and of course the planning department too but this system is indented to organize it and create an order they strongly believe that we should stick to that order I know that there's some interest in changing that and if councillors can have the right to bring those forward of course I think versus saying WOW you know mines near the end I think it's important to look at the criteria the criteria that we're used we're very much based on the age and the there's a correlation let me put it that way there's a correlation between the age of infrastructure in the numbers of of areas that are more poor and have been less attended to over the years as opposed to the ones that have been developed under most drug planning regime which you know we obviously it's pinning efforts over the years and improved in things like this decent sized boxing and some sort of order to that's very much reflected I think they did a pretty good job North I 25 is one of the planning areas north i-25 has relatively few residences maybe that's something that that that's within that North Area that maybe if they count this flop out within their own district been planning areas or to to discuss with counselors who's planning areas they overlap you know that's certainly doable but I think the planning department did a good job on another criteria you counselor getting the counseling Gibson you have another question yes thank you madam chair so I would propose that we changed the most in tune on rep non recommendation a passage to Council without recommendation I wonder if you might entertain that madam chair that's what Gibson we do have a committee amendment you would like to put forth before we get to that but we will certainly discuss that I'll come back to you as soon as that goes through sir Benton would you like to introduce the amendment I will jace the amendment but first left to get it about when the staff wants to help well sir Jones I would like to second counselor Gibson's recommendation so madam chair I understand that that I'm in a sequence after the amendments please read the amendment that's been drafted madam chair councillor Benton what this amendment does I talked briefly about it earlier it pushes the timeline back so it doesn't change the order of the CPAs and in which they occur but it does move the start date from June 2020 February 20 21 and subsequently pushes everything else out the same eight months that's all the amendment does Thank You Menifee understand that I just was hoping you could read it into the record oh yes it is pretty lengthy but I'm happy to do this so action item 1 says to revise the title as follows establishing the order of the community planning area assessments for strike-out 20 into 24 and input 20 21 to 20 25 and establishing a capacity building process for 20 20 action item 2 says to add the following whereas closets where as in spring of 2020 a public health emergency was declared in New Mexico that limited physical contact people and limited the size of gatherings of people and whereas this fundamentally changes how the community planning area GPA assessments will be conducted and whereas not all members of the public have access to you or are comfortable with online formats for engagement and information sharing and whereas the CPA assessment process is intended to be an open and inclusive public process and whereas the original proposed start date for the CPA assessment was June 2020 and whereas this start date is revised to February 2021 in order to maximize social distancing in this public health emergency and whereas the CPA assessment order shall be decided prior to the start of each 5-year cycle and then the third action item madam chair and counselor Benton provides the new order of the CPAs based on that 2021 through 2024 gates with of course the fifth year in that cycle being a full year dedicated to the update of the comprehensive plan and then lastly second lastly let me correct myself there's an addition to section the legislation that will now read the first cycle of CPA assessments shall begin in February 2021 and shall end in November 23 for planning staff shall focus on building capacity and developing awareness within the 12 community planning areas in 2020 in preparation for the CPA assessments to begin in February 2021 capacity building will occur online via tell phone and via mail and will commence in person when it is safe to do so and lastly the the final thing this amendment does is it replaces the exhibit attached to the legislation that outlines the order to support the provides date move the amendment I'm sure there's a motion in a second for amendment number one we'll do a roll call vote on that counselors counselor Benton yes counselor bodega I'm gonna vote yes but I have some clear direction that I would like to give the staff when this comes to full council regarding that extension Thank You councillor Borrego councillor Gibson yes councillor Jones yes councillor Harris yes that passes on a 5-0 vote Thank You counselors we have more action on this item okay so last on this item are 27 is to move a due pass a substitute as as amended madam chair I believe counselor gives to the entertain is I would move a do pass without recommendation on this is there a second second counselor here there's a second sorry yeah yes so there's a motion in a second of without recommendation on our 27 as amended and we'll take a roll call vote on that also councillor Benton yes counselor for can support a go oh yes councillor Gibson yes councillor Jones yes councillor Harris yes and that passes on a 5-0 vote Thank You counselors we are now moving on to our last item on the agenda I'm sure point of order I think council Bragg I wanted to give some recommendations on that and I wanted to say something about my very life Thank You councillor Benton thank you I didn't realize that was now I thought it would be when we voted on a counselor Rago yeah I would like to ask the staff to look at areas that have vacant land and to do an assessment with the criteria that you are have already established to see how that would change and I I could come forward to counsel with an amendment on that but I I think that it's important that we look at especially when the entire west side and then we have mr. del Sol and you know we have areas in north Albuquerque acres and I think that when we can we're not comparing apples to two or we are comparing apples to oranges because we have areas that are already developed in areas that are not developed so I think that we might need to have different lens to look at some of these areas so I would ask and I will bring in the forward regarding that to the City Council meeting Thank You councillor Borrego and now councillor Benton yes I just want to say you know I did support did no recommendation that gives councillors well going almost well the 29th so it gives a a good amount of time to look into this so as opposed to amending it on the 29th I just wanted to say that that we've waited for this list for a long long time it was finally sent down by the administration we know it existed for a while but it was just not being released and that's unfortunate because it has sort of push this but at the same time I think it's it's it's really important that staff get moving on these areas and it's really important that that we determine and certainly I think it's a valid question about open land and so forth but I want to point out that much of the Center City was developed with no zone and these are the places where we had the most contentious issues with regard to land use and most complex because of the patchwork of looming uses we can't turn back the clock to 1959 and think that we can rezone people's property against their will that's just not that's not you know additionally allowable essentially in the US Constitution so that's the that's one of the reasons I believe that the first of all that some of these areas have developed into areas of poverty that are very in close proximity to industrial uses and so forth you know that was an organic thing that occurred but it's been professional a lot of exhuming and then and then the inability of Zoning to to tackle those complex fine-grain conflicts within land uses so I think again I want to iive oted for to move forward with the no wreck but I'm going to strongly support sticking with where we are I think if we start trying to read this thing up in the air again we'd be talking about this the rest of the year I don't think that's in the city's interest if your counselor Benton sir burger I don't see your hand up are you trying to do you want to speak again yes and I and I totally agree with councillor Benton the question that I have is that we don't have criteria in this sort of list for vacant properties and I think that's you know not to say that we're going to slow anything down I'm fine with the list you know I'm not I'm not questioning that what I'm saying is that we cannot compare apples to oranges because there are areas that are built up and their density you know there's already the density already exists I'm not suggesting we rezone anything I'm just saying that there is a lens difference you know when you look at an area that is that has a high amount of vacant land as opposed to areas that are already developed and I think that we need to consider that in you know and I'm not saying let's start over because I certainly don't support that but I think that we need to have maybe another set of criteria for areas that are that could be developed with you know vacant properties so also burry no I think you're muted and we can't hear you are you wrapping up or did you just shut yourself off in rapper councillor Borrego you are muted that's our angle would you just nod your head do you have something else to say no I'm good thank you okay counselors our next item is oh nine opting a zone map amendment this is countless sponsored by councillor Benton would you like to introduce his counselor Benton and I must remind everyone that this anyone who speaks to this needs to be sworn in tell the truth under the penalty of perjury so councillor Benton if you would introduce the legislation thank you madam chair Oh 2010 is adopting text amendments for the integrated development ordinance for the annual update in 2019 and so this is what I was referring to previously that this is the annual update it's it's a number of amendments that have come in and staff to attend I believe this is oh nine I'm sorry fourth Street sorry this is a fourth Street who spoiled I'm used to having a piece of paper from the o29 for a due pass this is adopting a zone map amendment to establish a character production overlay zone in the in the I do for the North fourth quarter with building massing and scale development in the area and references to Street cross sections in the development process like councillor Pareto will move on and this is the one where we will have to have all of speakers be sworn in to tell the truth under penalty of perjury and Miss Schultz do you have anything more to say about this yeah madam chair I might ask to make a brief staff presentation before we move to public comment if that's okay are you okay with that what does the point of order doesn't yes everyone including a minute yes madam chair councillor Benton my next suggestion to the chair was gonna be to ask any staff member who may speak to this item to raise their right hand now and the chair can ask at least two councillor Denton and Michelle so everyone in staff who might be asked to speak with you swear to tell the truth under the penalty of perjury I do I do thank you great thank you madam chair so this is a proposal to adopt any character protection overlay in the integrated development ordinance while this does deal with the I do this is separ from the packet of amendments that you will be shortly considering this took a separate review and approval process due to the quasi judicial nature of the request so adopted this would create a new CP o for what we're calling the North fourth area the boundary for the CP o was adapted directly from the now rescinded North fourth rank three corridor plans so it's the it's the same map that was adopted in that plan about a decade ago what this CP o proposes to regulate is mostly building mass and scale there has been quite a bit of development along the corridor over the last several years that the community feels is not aligned with the existing character of the area and so what's in the CP o are regulations that will allow future development to stay within the existing area briefly about what those regulations are first maximum building height properties zoned MXM or higher so that's MX m MX H and all of the non-residential or n R zones will be limited to 55 feet with no height bonuses allowed so right now the I do does allow for height bonuses of either 12 or in some cases 24 feet if you do things like special thing you can get underground structured parking I'm sorry you can get a height bonus for that and if your development contains a workforce housing you get another 12 foot bonus that so those will not be allowed in the CP o area the other thing this dpo does that we took from the rank 3 plan the now rescinded rank 3 plan is that if more than 165 feet of frontage long force is being developed so we're thinking about a half a block so if you're developing half a block or more one third of that development so one third of that 165 or more feet will be limited to 45 feet in height the purpose of that regulation is to kind of break up the building a little bit and require some variation in the height if you're having a pretty large scale development occur there is also a fact that will be required so if the building goes over 30 feet which is about to freeze the building will have to step back six feet and I think that gets it the same concern about having up just a massive building along 4th Street so there's it wouldn't create such a what we call a wall sometimes or a canyon lastly this EPO will provide a reference to the development process manual the development process manual was just recently updated and signed and made effective by the CIO and in that development process manual there are roadway cross sections that will tell developers how the the roadway and the right-of-way needs to look when they're developing adjacent but the purpose of that is that that plan contemplated wider sidewalks room for on street parking and bike lanes in some areas and now that that's formally in the DPM the I do section regarding this area of the city will point that to ensure that those cross sections are realized council planning staff held a public meeting on this item on October 2nd of 2019 it was attended by about 50 community members community members are generally supportive of this request there were lots of good questions at that public meeting but people were generally excited to see something different on the corridor this also had two hearings before the EPC the first one was on December 12th of 2019 where the item was deferred so that we could work on the regulations a little bit more and when it was brought back on January 9th of 2020 the EPC recommended approval of the request with that will stand for any questions from members of the committee and if there are none we could move to public comments are there any questions from the committee that case we will move to public comment and each person will be sworn in before they're allowed to speak we you call the members of the speakers please yes the first speaker on the list is Miss Loretta Naranjo Lopez Miss naranja Lopez can you please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury I do great please proceed so my name is Loretta naranja Lopez and I'm the president of Santa Barbara Martinez town a bird Association I'm also a member of the stork neighbored alliance Albuquerque interfaith and Martinez Town work we're asking the City Council and the City of Albuquerque to cease and desist the perpetuation of systemic racism against communities of color in the city of albuquerque communities of color are disproportionately zone for toxin emitting industry or a zone for higher density compared to that of wealthier communities research has shown over and over that where you live determines your life expectancies it access to good education environmental and environmental health inequitable zoning is environment environmental racism leading to despair public health and environmental health concerns for the communities of color on the CPA we've requested at that time James that on the attended with Francine I think this the person's name to go back and ask that we have some teeth to this community plan area we don't want them to be coming to us and just putting together a document that isn't going to address our issues and we're saying we want our sector plans back we want the pre ideal public process back and um in 1959 it was a law that my house that was built in the 1800s as a residential single-family dwelling was to be zoned as residential and those are the rest of the homes here which happens to be the Martinez family the city owes the the bakas all of them are from the Martinez family they all have single-family dwellings which is predominantly in this area the city had under the law of obligation to protect us from any in competitor on home apes' your time is up these Co times is I'm fishing I'm finishing I'm just saying we're asking that you come back with the plan that addresses our issues and not place it on the Shelf and ignore us okay the next member of the public signed up to speak is Miss Peggy Neff miss enough for you here sure we can see and hear you now can you can you please raise your right hand for me do you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury I do great thank you please proceed I stand with neighborhoods I called around to several of them when I found that this is on the agenda today not having had the agenda sent out to neighborhoods you know anyway they're requesting a deferral on the ordinance I'm glad that the CPO is proposed and that neighborhoods were involved during the process of developing and believe me I was surprised to know this I sure you understand the irony of creating CPOs across the city after getting rid of all the sector plans I'm sure that's not escaped any of you I'm disappointed that the Planning Department was not able to bring Martinez town to the table I think it's important that you be able to bring all the neighborhoods into these type of things the thing before going any further with the CBO you might consider this polling activity that the capacity building process is going to put into place so that you use the CPI which is not really emergency thing that needs to be done right away use this CPOE as a way to poll and vote and use neighborhoods involvement in ratifying it I think also that the lines for crafting CPUs are going to be rewritten and redesigned I think that one of the things that the system should be able to do is to go through what sector plans issues that were lost and issues that were brought back in through the CPOs and what was lost in the end and make sure that everybody understands it's a simple checklist system that you could use I think that what we're doing here is very important and to delay the decision that lonely improve things community based design guidelines aside other issues across the are very important across the city clarity and collaboration on consolidation of labs on tight restrictions identity issues discussions of this can only help and improve things for neighborhoods you can't have a CEO that increases height restrictions it's fundamentally incorrect then to kind of hide that within the documents and not bring that forward as a planning organization to the neighborhood's I think you need now to hear the narrative just original explanation thank you ma'am okay next on the list is Peggy Norton Peggy are you here I see you but your microphone looks muted it is still muted but I see your lips moving Peggy can you hear us sorry Peggy your microphone is still muted hi Peggy are you able to hear us hey he nod your head if you can hear us Peggy are you are you able to unmute yourself if you move your mouse down to the bottom left part of your screen there should be a mute unmute button on the bottom left side Peggy we still can't hear you I'm sorry committee members might I recommend that we move on to discussion and if if ms Norton is able to unmute herself during the discussion then we can come back to public comments that's a great suggestion as I think we'll we'll move on miss Norton and we will see if you can come back on and get your speaker we will we'll come back to you after discussion thank you so counselor Benton would you like to speak to this and then is there any discussion from the members thank you madam chair just yeah just quickly I'm sorry that miss Norton cannot be heard I think she's the that's the area that is in question here with the CBO and we were I was made aware early on that that and this this was under the old sector plan by the way that some of these provisions that resulted in these buildings that they've been unsatisfied with we're not in the I do they were in the previous sector plan and that this the CBO actually corrects some of those concerns it's exactly the kind of process I think that any neighborhood can bring forth or to question and in fact many others have but but this does reflect that plan which was a relative a very modern plan actually and actually back in around 2009 I believe if I remember correctly there abouts 2009 or 2010 and it did have a lot of neighborhood involvement and just says with many of the other well sector plans ranked three plans it is I just suggest I don't know step might have Peggy's phone number I was looking for the and the the flaws that that were discussed along that corridor where the I do they were in the original the previous sector plan so this actually does correct some of those and the discussion that ensued about these specific patients within the plan were some some were were are included in the list of amendments it would women be considering because Planning Department consider them to be good suggestions the ones that remain are what are in this this EPA now and and but I'll open it up for any questions from other councils so I'd mention if I may miss Neff gave us a written statement prior to the meeting we'd like to read that into the record still the week this morning miss Norton I'm sorry this morning if that would be all right let's read that if the committee agrees and then we can go on with comment would you read that yeah madam chair councillors we did receive public comment for the record from ms Norton at 2:25 today so I'm gonna go ahead and and read that in the record here is what she says we have been involved in this from the beginning it was developed in response to new developments along 4th Street north of i-40 particularly the building south of the Saint thérèse people were shocked that project like projects like this were allowed by the North's 4th corridor plan so we contacted Council Benton to seek action we were presented with interim guidelines for the entire corridor which resulted in the character protection overlay or GPO however some of the guidelines became integrated into the I do for Main Street corridors just this past weekend after viewings of research we realized there is an entire stretch of i-40 to Hudson Avenue near the elevated train that is not designated a Main Street corridor and is therefore exempt from the IDO guidelines also the CP o and interim guidelines actually increased the allowable heights in this stretch for 45 feet in the MXM zone to 55 feet the CP o stabilized heights for the Main Street corridor should have 55 feet buildings had the potential to be 89 feet high we therefore to support the intent of the CP o but want to continue discussion with Shanna Schultz to consider changes to the character protection overlay this new knowledge seems to represent action problems for neighborhoods no matter what we do and how much time is spent the final solutions do not represent our visions how could such disparate projects such as UNM Health Clinic and the final building and the building south of to research B products of the same North fourth corridor plan higher density by itself does not enhance neighborhoods human Schulz and let's imagine if I may Chancellor Gibson has her hand up and then we'll come back to you counselor gives him thank you madam chair actually the comments and ultimately a question I think might be best addressed by councillor Benton and reading through this ordinance and this in the analysis staff analysis on it it sounds as if you are addressing many of the concerns of the residents of the North Valley in that and that the neighborhoods along fourth and rather than advancing some specific goal construction goal or some other kind of goal so a is that correct and because now hearing the public comments it sounds as if their opinion is just the opposite so if if you wouldn't mind commenting on that councillor Benton thank you this councillor Gibson councillor Benton go ahead thank you madam chair y'all come in on that I mean I think two of the the first two speakers are not residents of the quarter but but I am concerned with what with what Peggy Norton just wrote and if that's a concern of the neighborhood then certainly we ought to defer this until that's been addressed I don't know if staff has had a chance to look into that but it sounds like excuse me that the this one segment since it's not a Main Street corridor does not receive equal protection under this the CEO if necessary if we needed to farol I would suggest that we keep this in the lux committee for now but I'll hear from but hear from staff and from the Planning Department on that Danah would you like to address that I would thank you madam chair and councillor Benton Ms Norton is correct that there if you I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen here and no I'm sorry to interrupt channa but a counselor I go I see you're hi and I'm gonna let Shanna finish and then I will come back to you councillors I'll be sharing my screen in just a moment you should see a map now is that correct so the this is this is the 4th Street corridor this is i-40 here and what miss Norton is referencing is this gap in between these two pink bubbles these two pink bubbles represent the Main Street corridor designations that were created during the visioning exercises with the public under the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan and there are about seven or eight blocks that don't have that Main Street designation and so I think two points that Miss Norton was trying to make is the Main Street designations and the I do do call for higher design requirements these eight or so blocks won't receive those if they're if the design requirements are specific to the Main Street corridors and not the CP o itself the second point that she wanted to make about height is that if you have MXM zoning which is all the crown zoning you see on the map and you're within this pink Main Street corridor you could potentially build to 89 feet those are the heights that I think the community wanted to get a little lower a little more under control however outside of those corridors the maximum height is 35 feet so while we're reducing Heights for most of the corridor you know from from Mountain Road all the way up to the city limits in this particular segment that doesn't have the main streets bonuses we would actually be increasing the building heights by 10 feet I'm going to stop sharing my screen and one comment I'd like to make councillor Benton is that the intention was to defer this item anyway we want to keep this item on track with the adoption of the I do amendments which will be deferred the 24th web serie and so I think we do have time within the next week's to work on how we can address that gap where the Main Street corridor designation doesn't exist right now council but you know we do I need to hear from councillor delay go next and then we'll come back to you councillor Borrego thank you madam chair I was just going to say that the original fourth Street plan was done in 2007 2008 and 2009 and it was actually done under my direction and I'm a little surprised at those bubbles because when we did the zoning for that area it included all of those areas so I think it would be in our best interest just to and the community's best interest to defer and to really look go back and look at the intent because those meetings were pretty intense and there was a lot of input from the community of what they wanted to see when those buildings were developed later on after 2010 I don't think that the vision of what was intended actually is what we saw and so I think it would be in our all of our best interests to defer take a good look and if we're truly looking at the CP o as you know using the sector plan the old sector plan as a guide I think that would be you know something that we should take the time to do and and just really kind of come up with the best solution that pop that for everyone involved I mean it might be too late because some of the properties have been developed but there's still a lot of vacant properties in there Thank You councillor Borrego and councillor Benton yes as was stated you know we've got some time to take a look at this and I'm hopeful that staff can work with you with the neighbourhood there and determine if there's something we need that a motion to defer did we were I I am moving to defer to the next last meeting second there's a motion defer to defer until the next council meeting would you take a roll call please councillor Benton yes and this will be a deferral to the next loves meeting 24 councillor Bodega and just for clarification councillor bent and that is a motion to defer with with some direction right yes councillor Gibson yes councillor Jones yes councillor Harris councillor Harris yes passes on a 5-0 vote few councilors and we just start going to do a really quick three-minute break here so everybody can stand up and stretch and do whatever we do in three minutes and we will be back so hold tight thank you you yes I never got to the zuni on my computer you you you you mr. bata can you please keep your mic on you until you've been called to speak thank you [Music] you for members of the public who are here to speak tonight if you could please turn off your video until it's your turn to speak that will help with the zoom clutter as the committee members are speaking on the item again when I call your name for public comment you can go ahead and turn on your camera and your microphone but until that time please leave both of those things off thanks thank you everyone for your patience we are ready to resume the meeting the next next and final item has multiple speakers but I'm going to let counselor Benton make a motion on the item which is Oh ten and then we will move on to public comment - we'll give you some of the the directions that go along with this counselor Benton would you like to move Oh ten I'm sure yes I'll move up ten but I haven't I need to get my drink box I'll move a recommendation of a do pass on Oh ten second okay so we have a large number of public commenters tonight so just an overview Ms Morris is going to give an overview of the proposed amendments although we will not be voting on them this evening we will have MS Morris discuss the proposed amendments and take questions from councillors and then we will defer this bill to our next loves meeting so we'll do that and then we'll go to public comment so miss Morris if you're ready to give us an overview we would appreciate that madam chair councillors I'm going to share my screen and bring up a PowerPoint so you guys will be able to see as I go through each of the amendments which amendment I am talking about so you should be able to see the PowerPoint are you able to see that yes okay yes we are I um just need to ah there we go right so packed so the first so sorry don't fly with Austin so the amendments before you tonight are divided into two packets the first packet packet a are all of the amendments that were submitted as memos as part of the EPC application last year in July and these amendments packet a the public hopefully are pretty familiar with as if you know about for a little while they have been reformatted to reflect the page numbers and section numbers in the exhibit that accompanies this bill exhibit one to oh ten the I do annual update is a red line version of the I do this incorporates all of the tech edits that the EPC voted on in January that was the fifth EPC hearing that the EPC held on the first annual update and so those are all incorporated into the red line version of the I do so the amendments that I'm gonna go through first and packet a respond to that red line they have in some cases incorporated just new page numbers and section numbers in other cases it's incorporated and new language that is part of the red line and in other cases it either is revised in contents in order to address that new language that came in through the red line packet B contains amendments that hit three categories in some cases they are amendments that were recommended by the EPC in their findings and conditions in the notice of decision in other cases packet the amendments in response to items that were raised for discussion at EPC but the EPC did not make any decisions or recommend sorry recommendations on in the notice of decision and the final category in packet B are items that are new as I go through packet B I will explain which of those three categories they fall into so packet a one of the first meant amendments up a1 this amendment is about barbed wire and razor wire this amendment makes changes to the barbed wire regulations and is intended to address safety concerns for commercial property owners this amendment adds an exemption for critical infrastructure and provides a definition of critical infrastructure which in in Albuquerque with regards to the I do would refer to electric water and gas service amendments a a2 is cannabis retail cultivation and manufacturing this amendment is in anticipation of state-level legislation on recreational cannabis use this amendment does not preempts the state decision on legalizing recreational cannabis it is just intended to be a to show that we are thinking ahead in anticipation of if that were to occur if recreational cannabis is not approved in New Mexico then the aspects of cannabis retail would not apply however the cannabis cultivation and cannabis infused products manufacturing would apply as they do apply to the cultivation and and products manufacturing for medical marijuana cannabis this amendment defines those three uses and then includes youth specific standards for each of those which includes separation distances and air filtration requirements amendments a3 civil remedies this establishes a civil remedy procedure for enforcement proceedings this is an alternative to criminal procedures it's not the first time we have this we actually have this in a couple of other city regulations including the uniform housing code Hart ordinance the noise ordinance and angels ordinance which is about dangerous dogs so a for this is a relatively unique amendment in that it has a companion amendments in the packets B so the a4 and B for our companions we have a cheat sheet table here to help you understand the ramifications of how the different votes apply and the outcomes associated with this but amendments a4 cluster development the intention of this amendment was to improve the standards within the ideal as they apply to cluster developments to encourage developments that created truly cluster and small node nodes all groupings of homes within a cluster developments so if you think of a large area you would have lots of little clusters within the area of homes surrounded by open space I will explain conservation development a little bit later when we come to that one a5 construction and contractor yard this amendment makes a construction contract to guard a permissive use in the NRC zone unless within 330 feet of a residential zone district this use was permissive in the old c3 zone in certain conditions and when it got translated over into the I do it came in as a conditional use and so we're the NRC zone is mats it's mostly in pretty industrial areas and so it seemed appropriate to make this a permissive use in line with the previous code language however we recognize there are locations when the Enna's see zone is close to a residential area and so in those situations it becomes a conditional use recognizing that sensitivity between residential uses and the construction contracting yard amendment a six contextual standards in the UC urban center Main Street M s and P T premium transit areas so the contextual standards has an allowance that you can reduce your lot size and this amendment would make that allowance go from seventy five percent to fifty percent of the average size of the surrounding Lots if you meet two conditions one your lot is over ten thousand square feet and two you are located within a quarter mile of an urban center Main Street or premium transit area the intention of this amendment is to provide greater flexibility on lot sizes when you're subdividing those larger Lots when you're in these areas that we have designated in the ideal as being where we want to see a little bit more density and that is within our urban centers Main streets and premium transits and as Shauna had mentioned I think on a on the previous item a quarter mile is about a five-minute walk so those within a five-minute walk of an own sense of Main Street or premium transit area a seven this uses the same urban center Main Street premium transit and with a similar approach it looks at some larger Lots so those that are ten thousand square feet and with this the cottage development minimum lot size is reduced from one acre to 10,000 square feet again if you're within that five minute walk a quarter mile of an urban center Main Street or premium transit area with this amendment it would not change the formula that underlies a cottage developments and so you would not get more units on there than you would do otherwise but it does open up the number of properties that could do a cottage development by reducing the minimum acreage threshold in which to apply so it makes it an option for more people than would be able to do right now but it does not change any density and it does not change the underlying formula amendments a 8 this one is a little bit more than just our urban centers main streets transit it also applies in the major transit and our activity center areas and the MX H zone in the I do today we have some design requirements for these areas as it applies to drive throughs the intention of the those design requirements was that we make sure that there are no pedestrian that drive throughs when they're in those more pedestrian active areas that there not be any conflicts between the pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles on the site however the way that the design standards were written it's actually resulted in creating conflicts within the design of the site and so the revisions in this amendments clarify those regulations and they provide a little bit more flexibility in the design to avoid creating conflicts between drivers and pedestrians that are on sites that are coming from areas where they've parked on site and want to go into the building to sit down and eat amendments a 9 this revises the thresholds for general retail small it increases it from 10,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet there's a ripple from that in that it then means that general retail medium goes from 25,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet instead of 10,000 to 50,000 and it increases the grocery stores in the MXL zone from 15,000 square feet to begin a 30 up to to be 30,000 square feet this is an amendment intended to make sure that in the parts of town where we have existing retail developments most of those buildings are quite large and as they come in for new tenants many of those tenants that are the anchors for such developments they they like to do development that is in around 15 to 25,000 square feet and so that 10,000 square foot limitation was really pushing property owners to ask for more intense zoning so that they could get to general retail medium but they didn't necessarily need all the other uses that came with a mixed-use medium so by fixing the general retail threshold this would result in less unnecessary zone changes when somebody really just is looking to address the thresholds as an example Walgreens and CVS pharmacies usually range from about 15 to 20 thousand square feet a small old Navy is usually at about 25,000 square feet those are often popular anchor retail businesses amendment a 10 - this is a an amendment call to the maximum extent practicable so the I do contains this phrase in about 40 locations and this amendment revises or removes most instances of the phrase to the maximum extent practicable throughout the I do in 12 locations that phrase is retained however in the remaining 28 locations the language is either completely stricken or it is revised and new criteria are added or a new procedure is added the purpose of these changes is to make the I do a lot more predictable and to remove instances where the language has been too discretionary which has resulted in some unpredictability amendments a11 liquor retail in the mixed use medium zone at present in mixed use medium zone liqueur retail is a permissive use unless within 500 feet of a residential zone district this amendment in which case it's conditional this amendment would make all the curie tale within the mixed use medium zone a conditional use irregardless of whether they are in proximity to residential uses amendments 12 a 12 neighborhood edge parking lots the neighborhood edge provisions talk about what you can have on a regulated Lots which is a lot where the developments is occurring and in proximity to the protected lot and that's the the low-density residential developments on the adjacent property that's in with a certain low-density residential zoning so for example our one one aspect of the neighborhood edge is that it currently says parking areas must be separated 50 feet from the adjacent protected lot however 55 zero when you think about how a property is developed he usually has one of three items going on it's either got the building the parking or the landscaping and open space if the parking can't be within 50 feet of the protected law that leaves you with landscaping and buildings in some instances there may be a need for 50 feet of landscaping however in many instances what this will actually results in is that the building will be pushed from the front of the law close to the busy street and a and and back to the back of the lot and close to the low density residential and so by reducing the parking separation from 55 0 to 15 1 5 it encourages the building to be kept at the front of the lot away from the low density residential there is a required 15-foot landscape buffer anyway and so you would have a single-family house a 15 foot length a buffer then your parking and then your buildings stepping up in intensity as you go away from the the low-density residential amendment a13 requirements in the non-residential zones this amendment has two aspects to it the first aspect allows for walls in the front setback in the NRC and NRB P zones to be over three feet and for that portion that is over three feets in Heights there they must be 50% opaque so you have to be able to see through them but it does allow you to do a tool of building at the front this is important in both of those zone districts as in that front setback area there is often overnight parking of commercial vehicles and they need to be able to secure their vehicles overnight as they often have tools and what-have-you in them the second aspect of this amendments reduces the required outdoor seating area requirements for the transportation and industrial use categories as these often have very large buildings but with very modest numbers of employees the outdoor seating areas are based on square footage rather than the number of people in the building so you might end up with a huge outdoor seating area but only five people working a shift at a time amendment a 14 outdoor dining this removes the requirement or outdoor sidewalk dining to be enclosed at present the I do has some language the administration is not enforcing it right now that has some language that requires outdoor dining areas to be enclosed this amendment would take that requirement away and requires just a clear pathway the dimensions that are based on the category of roadway and for furniture equipment and other goods to be clear outside of operating hours good example of this is the ill vicino in Nob Hill they've got a couple chair tables and chairs and have a good six plus feet of sidewalk in front of them that is always clear for the public school through amendment a fifteen primary building printed jizz this Amendment allows for outdoor seating and gathering areas ie patios to count towards the required 50% building primary building frontage in the urban sense of Main Street premium transit areas within those areas 50% of the lot has to have a primary building frontage along it and by adding this your patio area can count as part of that building area especially popular as we currently doing a lot of outdoor dining amendment a 16 notification and facilitated meeting procedures this amendment will look a little bit different from what was submitted to the EPC as this is the sections related to this underwent some pretty significant changes in the red line version and so the amendment continues with the same intent as the original amendment was submitted to the EPC but it refers to the red line changes and the red line version of the I do so this amendment requires a notification form for all apps rez notices it means in a notification form for all applications and it allows anyone to request a facilitated meeting however there is a timeframe associated with in which you can request a facilitated meeting and it removes the ability to request a facilitated meeting for a policy decision as all policy decisions are approved by the City Council and involve multiple public hearings including at least one by the Planning Commission at least one that I knew some Planning and Zoning subcommittee of the council and then always at least one or the full council the requirement for the facilitated meeting and i we should note that the I do redline has made the pre-application meetings with neighborhood a facilitated meeting and so this request for in a host application facilitated music is for an additional facilitated meeting beyond that of the required pre-application meeting there those pre-application meetings remain on the books and with the red line version of the I do those pre application meetings are now going to be facilitated meetings amendments a 17 site lighting this limits all sources of lights with the exception of neon from a non-residential property to be limited to 300 foot Lambert's when measured from the property line and this amendment applies to both indoor and outdoor sources of light amendments a 18 this is a transit parking reduction this amendments revises the peak frequency from 15 minutes to 30 minutes to receive a 30 percent reduction in off street parking and adds back 10% reduction when located within a quarter mile of any transit service at present in the I do that 15-minute headways to get the 30 percent reduction generally overlaps with where we have the AR t AR t has a premium transit designation and so that already has a 50% reduction you can't you can't do both you don't get 50 and 30 and then 80 percent that's not the case you just get the 50 and so in order for there to be a true nuance between the premium transit areas that are getting the 50% reduction and those that get the 30% reduction we need to increase the peak frequency to capture more of the routes around town and so that's the proposed change to go from 15 to 30 minutes headways the 10% reduction the was a parking reduction that was in the prior zone code this applies to any transit service in the city doesn't matter the frequency and if you're located within a quarter miles that's that five minute walk of any transit service you'll get a 10% reduction in your parking so uncertain get B so these are the amendments that were published on Friday and as I go through these I will explain whether they are in response to an EPC condition or finding or an EPC discussion or our a new idea I idea so amendment b1 accessory dwelling units in the main streets of premium transit so this amendment is a new amendments and would make accessory dwelling units with a kitchen missive within a quarter mile of main main streets and premium transit areas the units are limited to 750 square feet and I mentioned this is a new one the new amendments come from a range of different sources some of them are from constituents others are issues that have come up during other processes that have been raised to accounts so that accounts about you know there are different councils on each of them i'm has wish to address in some way amendment b2 this is building heights this is an amendment that there was discussion at at the epc and I believe there's a condition associated with this one this adds three feets to the building heights for the RM l r MH m XL m x MMX agent and our C zones and to the UCM SP t bonus for MX h the height differences are on the screen the reason for requesting this is when the idea was adopted parapets there was a lot of discussion about heights in general and one aspect of the height discussion during the adoption process was whether or not parents parapets should be counted as part of the overall height and that was the decision of the full council that parents should be counted however a unintended consequence of that has been as buildings have developed since the idea has been adopted parapet Heights have been quite low and for the reason that when you have all the mechanical equipment between all the different floors you get pretty close to 35 if you're doing three storeys 35 feet with just the three different floors and all the mechanical equipment associated so by adding 3 feet you would be able to have a decent height purpose to screen all the mechanical equipment that ends up on the roofs of both most properties in Albuquerque as we we tend to build a lot of flat roof or sloping roof prophecies b3 this revises the definition for a common open space there was a tech edit during the EPC application that stated that wanted to clarify that the common open space definition as it applies to cluster developments would not include parks the intention of common open space is that it's the land that you are preserving on the site so it's things that you're not going to be doing grading to parks usually by definition are graded and and have human involvement in in the improvement of the area and so to include them in the open space definition would kind of go against the idea of the open space however the EPC chose to take a slightly different approach with this and chose to make parks part of the common open space definition and two counts towards up to 25% of the common open space in a cluster development this amendment would undo that change from the EPC and return the language as proposed in the tech edit which would to state which would state the parks are not part of the common open space definition so a packet amendment be for oh sorry in that previous one be three that is an amendment that's in response to an EPC tech edit action so the PC finding so amendment before this is another one that is in response to an EPC action the EPC added in the tech edits a new use called conservation developments this was added in response to the amendments on Cluster development and is basically custer development as is today which allows you to do cost of development where you have a regular subdivision in one section and clustered together and then all of the rest of the space saved for open space this doesn't really while it does preserve open space it doesn't meet the intention of the cluster development which is to create the small groupings and nodes of buildings and so this amendment strikes the conservation development idea throughout and as you can see this has got the same list of different ways of voting and the outcome of the two amendments I would say there the cluster developments amendments if you where you can see the different options bosie known both means that we end up with two identical uses which would be a little bit problematic voting in support of conservation development but not in support of cluster development word would keep the I do as is with no change to cluster developments voting YES on both amendments would results in revisions of class of development would not add the new conservation development and finally voting no on the conservation development YES on the cluster development would result in revising the cluster development and adding the new conservation development use so the intention of the EPC recommendation amendment be five density and multifamily development this is an item that was discussed at a PC but there was no recommendation made on this during the adoption of the I do process there was a lot of discussion about density and how intense a development can be the council during the adoption of the idea came to the conclusion that the existing parameters on a site in the form of height setbacks parking and usable open space and landscaping provide quite a few constraints on a prophecy and so those different parameters which vary depending on the zone district you're in are really what control they detect the density and intensity of the developments and so density was struck from the I do this amendment would bring that density back to the I do in certain unit developer districts it would limit density to 30 12 units per acre project site in the rml m xt and MXL zone districts if the lot is adjacent to a low density residential use that is zoned RA R 1 or R T and is not within an urban center activity center economic sense and Main Street premium transit or major transit area the intention of this amendment is to bring back density limitations in locations where it's appropriate and in a way that makes it more predictable for the community see to understand a lot of people find dwelling units per acre an easier way of understanding how intense something may or may not be rather than Heights and setbacks and parking and open space the 30 dwelling units per acre is in line with the multi-family density requirements that were in the zone code prior to the adoption of the IDO amendment be six existing accessory dwelling units this is a new amendment this amendment would make existing accessory dwelling units permissive if they are non-conforming and a built prior to May 12 May 17th 2018 so the adoption of the I do a sorry effective date of the I do and conditional if they're built prior to May 17th 2018 but cannot demonstrate that they are a non-conforming property b7 this is an amendment that responds to an existing EPC condition and this is this amendment correlates with the conversation that my colleague Shawna had with you guys on the previous item on the north character protection overlay this is the revisions to the facade articulation standards for the urban sense of Main Street Main Street and premium transit areas this creates a menu of options and provides far more flexibility and design and use of a property but continues to require a very high level of articulation and present for those areas there's a high amount of window requirements required but not as the main articulation requirements but not a lot of flexibility depending on your use and if for example you have a use where for example your ground floor uses offices you may want to have some windows but you may not want to have very big windows so that you know shopfront star windows you may want to have more like office windows and so this menu of options would allow you to do for example planters outside which would still get you plenty of articulation but more more flexibility in the design ground floor clear height this room this amendment reduces the ground floor clear heights from 12 or 13 feet depending on the section of the I do to 10 feet this applies in the form based zone and then the urban center Main Street in premium transit areas the ideal Red Line does have a revised definition of the ground floor clear height that's already on the books and I'm not part of this amendments there has been some confusion on how the ground floor clear height is measured so that red line edits that's already in there helps with that confusion and this amendment just goes one step further by lowering that clear height requirements to from 12 or 13 feet depending on the section to 10 feet and that was a epc amendment b9 I do text amendment criteria this is a new amendment and this revises the criteria by which an amendment text of the I do can be made the existing language some or oversteps the authority steps into the the discretion of the council in amending the text of the I do limiting them to citizen for example economic need and this simply says has to meet the Comprehensive Plan and the public health safety and general welfare needs amendment b10 regulations adjacent to major public open space this is another new amendment this removes the applicability of the regulations that apply when adjacent to major public open space to properties where a principal arterial or freeway is located between the prophecy and a major public open space so that the only regulations that apply are those within 330 feets so if you have a property that would read as adjacent to major public open space because the roadway doesn't count this would exempt you if that roadway is very large ie a principal arterial or freeway so in that situation the province you would only have to follow the regulations for those within 330 feets and so that's items like landscaping building coloring and materials and outdoor lighting I believe amendments B 11 this is another new amendment Pet Grooming this amendment makes other pet services emissive and the non-residential like manufacturing and non-residential general manufacturing zones this means that the other pet services use tracks with veterinary hospital they are two uses that are often located on properties together but they may not be under the same ownership and so it allows businesses that are supportive of each other to co-locate similar way of thinking about it will be having a site where there's a vets and then also a dog spa next door amendments b12 Raya setbacks in the urban center Main Street and premium transit this is also another new amendments this reduces the minimum rear setback where there is an alley or street from 15 feet to zero feet in an urban center Main Street or premium transit area in the mixed use zone districts so you have to have a couple characteristics you have to be in a mixed use zone you have to be in an urban sense of Main Street and premium transits and you have to have an alley or Street off your rear setback and in those situations you can go from a 15 foot setback to a 0 foot setback and most of our Urban's sends a Main Street in premium transit areas the Lots are quite small and so the ability to use as much of the loss as possible for the development of the site it helps to provide a more urban area and if you have an alley or a street at the back there you will have a built-in buffer of sixteen twenty or thirty feet depending on the size of that alley or street between you and the next property amendments b13 this is a new amendment this carries a design requirement from a sector from a character protection overlay citywide and this requires buildings on the ground floor and upper floors to be recessed in low-density residential and multi-family residential developments amendment b14 this is an amendment that there was discussion at at EPC but the EBC did not make a recommendation on this is this amendment is a request from the administration it addresses smoke shops this amendment creates a new defined use of nicotine retail it's the definition for nicotine retail comes from the Senate bill 131 the passed earlier this this year at this at the state that defines nicotine retail and then it identifies the zones where this use is permissible conditional and establishes some use specific standards for the use nicotine retail is proposed to be treated in a similar manner to liquor retail amendment B 15 solar protections in the rml zone this amendment is a one that was a discussion item at the EPC and this extends the solar protections from the arm to the rml zone and adds additional criteria for requesting a waiver or adjustments from the Zeo on the solar protections the soda protections at present apply to our AR 1rt zones the low-density residential zones and so this extends that protection to the rml zone there is only a nine foot difference between the low density residential zones which is 26 feet in height and the rml zone which is 35 feet the rml zones intended to be a low density multifamily zone and so it makes sense to carry over those solar protections the solar protection section also has a series of waiver and adjustment options and this amendment also expands what some of those waivers and adjustments are and includes that the property to the north is owned by the same owner as the one developing the subject site or right-of-way over certain over 35 feet in width to the north of the site meaning there's no one to be shadowed amendment B 1216 sorry Street side yard parking this is a new amendment this adds the street side yard to the section limiting off street parking in the front yard this means that the area that's for the off street parking and the front and street side can be combined amendments b-17 maximum setbacks in the urban sense of Main Street and premium transit area this is a amendment that there was some discussion at the sea level but no recommendations on it this amendment proposes to remove the requirement for a 15-foot maximum side setback on lost with more than two Street sides on the additional street side so if you have a property that has frontage on one Road and then side as a side frontage on two different streets on the two other sides so you basically got three street sizes confusing to the property the side setback would only apply on one of those side streets so you pull up pull your building up to one corner this is does not impact the downtown area as the requirements remain still in place in the form based zones categories as those are much smaller Lots and this is applicable in other areas where you do have quite large Lots amendment b18 variance criteria this amendment is a new amendments and it removes the phrase eminent domain from the variance criteria this language was added during the adoption of the I do and is proposed to be stricken and to take the variance criteria back to what it was under the old zone code amendment nineteen this is a new amendment this allows window ramps for vacant buildings in downtown urban census activity census Main Street and premium transit areas for up to six months the building must be vacant and it is only allowed to be out for six months amendment b20 this is a new technical edit spreadsheets this is items collected since July of last year the technical edit spreadsheet that was sent to the EPC kind of frozen time off to the EPC submittal and so these are the changes and clarifications and adjustments that were requested by neighbors developers and staff in the intervening year and and the technical edits spreadsheet includes some items that came up at EPC some items that were discussed by the EPC as well as some things that were new so the technical edits amendment kind of spreads all three of those those categories amendment b21 cumulative impacts this is a new amendment this amendment creates a new procedure to require a study and mitigation of certain uses and their potential for cumulative impacts on nearby residential developments the amendment as as drafted lists categories of uses within the I do if you meet the following three criteria you have a property that is within a certain distance of low-density residential and it has a use proposed that's within one of those crate categories and it's within 660 feet of another use that's within those categories you would have to do a cumulative impact study and the request would go to the Planning Commission for their review to assure to review whether or not those cumulative impacts have been addressed or not through the site plan proposal amendment B 22 this is an item that there was some discussion about massage parlors at the EPC this amendment adds a definition of the massage parlors and requires that they meet the state licensing standards and be 23 DRB criteria this amendments is also one that came up at EPC and also prior to that we have been working on making sure that the the role of the DRB is clear in the I do and this amendment removes the criteria that the vib consider if significant impacts have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable the idea is to reduce look areas where the DRB is making discretionary decisions and keeps the discretionary decisions within the Planning Commission and with that that is the last of my presentation slides so I will get rid of my screen I can work out how to do that Shana can you tell me how to unshare my screen yeah Petro if you just hit that same button at the bottom that you used okay it looks like Julian took care of it for you great thank you so with that council as I stand for questions Thank You Petra I appreciated that and councillors if you will get to raise hand if you have questions we'll run it through and see you see if we have any questions if not we will go to public comment councillor Gibson you have a question go forth yes thank you madam chair so the civil remedies that you mentioned that that is in several other legislation pieces of legislation that we passed and it it it seems to be a really good alternative rather than to go through Metro Court so and I'm wondering if that is if it would make sense maybe to have a standalone ordinance and just have all of these other things point to that as you know the one way of seeking out a resolution to someone who's you know Manang some kind of violation or something like that Thank You counsel I think mr. Melendez just joined in and we're going to ask him to answer that question Thank You councillor Gibson a very important question because you're correct it seems like the good counsel in the city has been moving more and more interest toward the civil remedies concept and I think that in order to implement it two prongs will be required and the first is as you noted a more comprehensive civil administrative system that the city does not completely have well established at this time and and I can tell you can report to you that City Council staff has been working with the city clerk's office to establish that system and I anticipate that we'll have something for the City Council to review as to how that civil administrative system will work probably by the end of the year if not sooner you know in the next couple of months but having said that it would still be appropriate within the idea to have a civil remedy section because within each ordinance we would still need to be able to give the enforcement folks the ability to make a civil citation or to to pursue a civil penalty so both of those things would need to happen in order for this system to be in place it would need to be in the I do and then we need to kind of shore up the general administrative system which will itself being a separate ordinance Thank You mr. Melendez any other questions Dane councillor Gibson councillor Borrego given that the legislature did not pass the cannabis bill this session do we really need to push that forward at this time madam chair councilor burrito I can speak to that that was discussed at the environmental Planning Commission if this was a little cart before the horse and the determination was cities should start thinking about recreational cannabis before it's legalized and not after and so I think the the logic behind this was even if it doesn't do much now if the state were to legalize within the next year or several years that our zoning framework would be in place and we wouldn't have to scramble to get something done at that time well you could say it up for any industry that's not approved right now we could say that for you know any other industry that's not legal so I just I'm not sure that this is the appropriate time for us to push that bill through and the other question I have and I want to get with you on this one is the EP C's recommendation on Cluster development if not cluster then conservation and that was really quite confusing to me so I really would like to sit down with you guys on that one and get a little bit more clarification Thank You councillor Borrego any other questions if not let's go to public comment on this matter and we will ask Miss Schultz you call the names and we'll how many speakers should we have madam chair this evening I believe we have around 22 speakers um I will call individual names when you heard when you hear your name called please go ahead and unmute your microphone and if you desire go ahead and turn on your camera as soon as you start speaking the two-minute timer will begin so first up is Alejandra Lyons thank you madam chair and members of the committee my name is Alejandra dia Lyons and I live in district 2 and today I would like to express my support for the cumulative impact amendment b21 supported by councillor van as the environmental justice organizer with the Southwest organizing project I see a lot of frontline communities like San Jose that are heavily impacted by industry and in order to offset this greater health disparity in our neighborhoods the City of Albuquerque needs to continue to protect its citizens by adopting amendments such as these so I actually studied Community Planning at the University of New Mexico and so I understand that our planning department not only has the responsibility to promote economic development but we also have to create safe and healthy communities across Albuquerque and I believe a lot of our historic neighbors have neighborhoods have carried the impact of heavy manufacturing and I believe amendments such as these would help impact some of our residents who you know really fill a lot of the brunt of this so today I ask you all to say yes to community health and to motion to amend the idea with this my organization swap has been working for over 40 years to protect communities of color and we hope that this collaboration with councillor Benton will continue and I also just want to note some of our staff sent in some written comments and I just thank you all for listening to the community today thank you okay the next public speaker is one reynosa hello can you guys hear me yes we can mr. Reno's say hello good to see you all wandering nossov also with Southwest organizing project this issue is around cumulative impacts is something that swapped and community members from San Jose have been fighting for for about eight years now we took many avenues from trying to pass state legislation to putting some policies in front of the Environment Department here at the city and we continue to try to find new avenues to protect community health I'm sure as you know and have seen statistics that show communities of color that are inundated with polluting industry are more susceptible to things like kovat 19 so this type of effort is connected directly to commit a protecting community health especially in times like this where communities who are inundated by polluting industry once again are filling the brunt impacts harsher than others I did see a lot of language and their amendments on packet be around density of developments and cluster developments this is similar in nature except that it mostly applies to polluting industry community like San Jose have a very high percentage of polluting industry when compared to other communities in Albuquerque and thus they have health statistics that show them bearing the brunt of having those concentrations so yeah I just would like to speak in speak in support of this I do agree that the land use and planning and zoning committee does have a responsibility not only to developers but also to communities in ensuring that their health comes first rather than polluting industry and developers thank you thank you the next public speaker is Loretta and Naranjo Lopez hiss naranja lopez are you still oh yes we can go ahead I can't get the video to open and I do want it open but let me see what is it the videos start my video okay here it is okay good evening city councilors my name is Loretta net envelope is and I'm the president of Santa Barbara Martinez Town Neighborhood Association and a member of the Stark neighbored Alliance Martinez town working group and also Albuquerque interfaith I I would like to state that the City of Albuquerque and the city councilors need to cease and desist the perpetuation of systemic racism against communities of color and I'm requesting that I would like to support my neighbors in San Jose with the cumulative language I appreciate that but I'd also like to see that there's height restrictions I'm against the extension of more height I think we need to lower them to respect and to continue the beauty of our city these Heights are too hot to look too high the floor area ratio needs to be included especially the sector pounds need to be brought back and historic overlay zone and I'm probably missing some other things that we have been discussing for quite some time that were never included in the ideal and so we'd like to have more discussion on this I mean there's so many things that are going on there it is impossible for us to go through all this but we have a lot of issues that we want to sit down and discuss and we would like to be heard and that they're implemented the CPA is not the place to do it since the city already is telling us they can't promise us anything so I'm asking that we not we should we not increase Heights we protect the neighborhoods and that's all I needed to say at this time all right that's good okay Stephen I lost my screen okay moving on to the next public speaker Peggy Ness it's never you still here mrs. NIF we can see you but we can't hear you huh okay we can hear you now go go ahead all right I just want to say Petra that was great thank you really well done being on this call really again is a privilege and I hope you recognize that there are other people that need to be involved in these discussions and that goes across the city but the appeal pending the DPM not fully ratified resolution nineteen eighty-two seventy Section E not addressed at all in any of these amendments fully aware of my right and my duty bound to the issue of deliberation for ordinances and policies I say please more discussions more clarity more time more publishing more community awareness on all of these amendments in particular I stand against a four a nine a 12 a 16 the packet B was just published on Friday guys this is not good but B 2 B 3 B 4 B 5 b 9 b 16 b 18 the 19 B 20 be 23 all these things are important to have fully discussed at many levels and you haven't done it here people need to own their destinies not rent them the building Heights discussions is sincere and we had limitations and we had protections I think you've done a lot of good work with a lot of these amendments and I look forward to hearing how the capacity building process is going to add into the amendments and and I look forward to the next discussions but truly you need more time on many of these issues particularly in regard to cluster clusters if you're going to allow for multiple clusters you need to say it and you need to say if you're going to allow for one or two or a hundred you need to say it clearly this is a limiting document and it needs to be clear for all of us to understand where we are together and in planning issues the idea of cottage industries and re fabricating Lots for thirty-plus houses on one acre I don't know that I can see my money you miss enough your time is up thank you mister thank you for joining us this evening thank you thank you for having me okay the next public speaker is Sal Perdomo mister Perdomo are you here yes Samir can you hear me yes we can please proceed all right thank you good afternoon madam chair members of the committee I'd like to thank you and your staff for all the hard work and efforts put into the idea over the past few years this has been a heavy lift and your work is appreciated I'm here to speak on amendment b5 density and multi-family development I'm opposed to this amendment and believe it will be detrimental to Albuquerque first the I do deliberately did not include a density cap and it is intended to address density through setbacks high parking and usable open space in more form base code approach to zoning second the proposed caps an amendment be five or more restrictive in the previous zoning code it seems as if we are taking a step backwards lastly and most importantly many of the great quality multifamily projects developed in the city would not have gone forward if amendment b5 was in place I ask that the committee please reject amendment b5 which contradicts the intent of the idea and will have a negative impact on our city thank you again for your time and efforts it is much appreciated okay the next public speaker is Scott Goodman mr. Goodman are you here I do not see mr. Goodman on the call so we will move on to the next public speaker Josh Rogers mr. Rogers are you here yes I'm here great please proceed Thank You Madame chair and counselors and most of all thank you to the staff for your tireless efforts of bringing all these amendments and edits to this point it's been a monumental effort in responding to the neighborhoods and real estate professionals concerns over the last nine months I'm the director of multifamily development for Titan development and we've built six multifamily projects in Albuquerque since 2012 I'm here today to speak in opposition to amendment B as in Bravo 5 this goes against the intent of the idea limiting density by dwelling units per acre is an arcane way of limiting developments as the number of units is really a product of the size of the individual units setbacks building heights and parking requirements imposing this density cap will destroy opportunities to develop multifamily projects with smaller size units which are more affordably priced than larger units this will essentially mandate larger size units which have been priced which have to be priced more expensively the building's wound up being the exact same size with fewer units and less affordable and there will be no differences to the visual aspects of these projects lastly this amendments been proposed from a controversial project in a particular area the reactive nature of amendments being spawned from isolated controversial projects is a bad precedent for the IDL it's not right from one project that creates issues to then blanket the entire city with the regulations every project creates some level of controversies that are unique to that project but may not be relevant to similar projects in different locations I don't believe it's good policy to take controversial projects and then blanket the city with these reactions it hampers development opportunities throughout the city and as a step backwards for the goals of the city thank you so much thank you next speaker is Jim Strozier mr. Strozier are you here I am thank you madam chair and committee members my name is Jim Strasser principal with consensus Planning and I want to start by thanking both the planning and council staff for the amazing amount of work they have done on these edits and amendments I also want to thank the EPC for their thoughtful and deliberate consideration of these amendments and and I also want to thank you in the council for putting this process in motion and allowing us this opportunity to comment I want to talk about three of the proposed amendments and that's be first amendment b3 and my concern with this is just that in the idea there are a number of definitions about different aspects of parks and open space I would like to suggest that you'd be specific as to what park improvements for example swimming pools or sports fields that you don't want to allow within the common open space for instance the parks definition in the I do includes natural areas for passive open space which may cause confusion in the future since this amendment eliminates parks from being included within the common open space second I'd like to just with amendment b4 I'm not sure why we would want to eliminate a development option that preserves open space in a similar but different manner than cluster development the proposed conservation development style and I would urge you not to support this amendment and keep conservation subdivisions as a new option for development bottom line in my opinion the more options to conserve open space the better finally as you've heard from a couple of the previous speakers and I provided a letter specifically commenting on proposed amendment b5 and I would urge you to not support this amendment putting a density cap thank you I'm sorry we're holding this to a really tight line tonight we have so many Thank You mr. Starr sure we're good thank you very much the next speaker is Steven Abeyta mr. beta are you here yes I'm here great please proceed hello madam chair and fellow County got called city commissioners my name is Steven and Abeyta and I reside in San Jose neighborhood my neighborhood is completely different than other neighborhoods in our beautiful city because we have a lot of heavy industrial companies that are in our neighborhood this is caused our property values to remain stagnant and low we have missed out on wealth creation for five generations that all of you have enjoyed in your neighborhoods we have become experts in zoning and air quality issues we have become experts because we're always receiving notices of other industrial companies located in our neighborhood we're asking for an increase in the amount of pollutants they may observe admit we have been good at identifying pollutant scenarios like chlorobenzene co2 formaldehyde chlorine hazardous air pollutants particulate matter well the reason we're good at this because we get thousands of tons from each company every year emitted in our neighborhood do you have any of any petroleum storage facilities in your neighborhood do you have a numerous recycled asphalt plants outdoor painting facilities cement manufacturing cement processing rock crushing metal shredding chemical storage and all the other similar companies the answer is probably no because you do not live in San Jose I'm encouraging you to approve amendment b21 for cumulative impacts into the I do and we would definitely appreciate your support on this city council members thank you very much Thank You mr. bata the next speaker is mr. bata hello madam chair Miss Jones and Luke's concert committee members my name is Esther bata and I reside in San Jose I am here today to support adding an amendment to the ideal for climatic impacts when we address the department's and hearings about climate of impacts we get the same answer they are no ordinary impacts where we are in compliance with the law the reason for these callous remarks is there are no protection to the residents that live near many heavy industrial companies spilling pollutants loud noise day and night fall odors and all of the other issues that come from those heavy industrial companies we deal with on a daily basis when we oppose an air permit we are told if they land the zoning issue when we opposed a special use permit we are told is an air quality water quality or petroleum tank storage issue the bottom line is we do not have any protections that deal with the disproportion locations of many heavy industrial companies in our neighborhood of sample sale our neighborhood population for fizz's 1% of the city population yet we have 29% of the sees heavy industrial companies we need a climatic impact amendment added to the ideal the inactions of not providing a suitable laws to protect us from kinetic impacts is an environmental is environmental racism we urge for you to approve the b20 of climate impact amendment into the loops hearing and there are city contours vote and ratify the amendment to protect residents leaving your bike to multiple heavy industrial facilities in their neighborhood with a kinetic impact amendment to be added to the ideal thank you for your time thank you Miss abhi next on the list is Jackie Fishman mr. Fishman are you here I am thank you thanks for this opportunity to provide comments and thank you mostly to planning and city councils staff you've been great throughout this process as we all acknowledged in 2018 when the idea went into effect it wasn't a perfect document until we started having projects it was difficult to know the cumulative effect that some of the ideal regulations would have I participated in provided comments during the EPC hearings leading up to this point who thought we had a really good outcome I've been talking to council staff on other I do issues that I have come to that have come to light since EPC generally speaking since I do adoption in 2018 consensus planning has worked on more variances by far than ever before and sometimes we go a year without a variance now where we're at the zhe pretty much every month these have included variances two building heights glazing window depth setbacks delivery service window placement and corner lots and so on I've sometimes had multiple variances on a single project all approved by zhe which to me is a clear indication that some of the regulations aren't working as intended through this process it's come to light where some of the problems lie and and most of them have been addressed in packet B of I do amendments in addition to the amendments that came through EPC I want to express my strong support for amendments to building heights as expressed in amendment b2 I think that's a really good change the design Nannan second which adds Maura I was for meeting to intend to building articulation within the pedestrian realm while allowing for a reduction in the glazing requirement to 30% and a reduction in the visible depth from from the facade from 20 to 6 feet ground floor clear hi thank you miss Fishman I'm sorry but your time is up thank you thank you very much the next curr is Eric chance mr. chance are you here I am thank you madam chair thank you thank you madam chair members of the Kitimat committee my name is Eric chance I live in district 7 and I would like to speak in support of amendment b21 cumulative impacts I think that this excuse me I think that this amendment to the I do is long overdue it's a first step in remedying a long history of zoning decisions that have resulted in a disproportionate amount of industrial polluting industrial activities and communities of color it begins to begins to remedy things like exclusionary zoning redlining restrictive covenants that have forced communities like San Jose like Mountain View like greater Gardiner to bear the disproportionate burden of industry in this city so thank you very much appreciate your attention thank you the next public commenter is David Rhee I guess my name is David rate good evening councillors thank you for your work on the idea on the amendments I'm going to also comment on amendment b21 sponsored by councilor Benton I'm here as a UNM clinical law student speaking on behalf of the clinic's client Lois hardiness institutes and myself as a lifetime resident of Albuquerque I have not heard any person tonight speak out against b21 first I want to say it's refreshing to see cumulative impacts considered in the ordinance Albuquerque needs an ordinance on the books that addresses that address environmental justice I have some additional thoughts if one if I'm one point could be taken away from my time tonight and the draft itself there are bullet points for accumulative impact study form this form includes things like location and truck trips my client believes that a meaningful addition would be a bullet point for truck idling as an item that should be reported on in the proposed cumulative impact study form this is in line with the general purpose of the addendum and this is also will reduce emissions this burning diesel fuel in a place or you have trains also burning diesel fuel and many other particulates in the air and what by through trucks idling is just something that we could address right away this will also reduce noise vibrations as as our purposed by this impact study idling trucks are also a safety hazard they can be dangerous drivers can lose attention while they idle and there are children playing nearby accidents can happen I work for a civil plaintiff firm and I have a case where a young man was crushed by a tractor-trailer that accidentally got shifted into gear I also believe that meaningful enforcement means that we need a forcement provision a so-called teeth to this bill and I want to know who had just have some questions I guess who has the authority to enforce these requirements and how will they be enforced what is the source of that authority and what is their capacity to enforce and I also believe that a meaningful community involvement should be involved with no mystery your your time is up thank you very much and I see I see the councillor Benton has a question councillor grant it yes I I wanted to ask mr. riah about the idle the truck Eileen because I'm interested in that and it seems logical we know we've had some meetings with the railroad which has its own unique rights unfortunately apparently but but I think what you're saying about idling trucks and then in relation to rail traffic nearby is that that would be the denied link truck would be adding to the diesel type emissions of these current day vehicles over and above those idling trains or operating trains correct yes counselor that's exactly what we're saying I think that's an thank you I appreciate you for addressing me and with regard to to enforcement I don't know what staff wants to address that question I'd like to share an answer to that I think you know basically this part of the zoning code but but if statement please address how a Planning Department enforcement would interact with any other assistance if you're alright we're going to ask Miss Schultz to respond to that madam chair councillor Benton that cumulative impact statement that would be required to be filled out that would have all these metrics like idling trucks and and truck trips and the like would be considered by the environmental Planning Commission it would be part of the application that the developer would submit to the Planning Department so I believe it would be the Planning Department who would enforce on that cumulative impact statement if what the developer is actually doing on the property does not match what they committed to what they would be doing on the property I would welcome input from the Planning Department um on that just make sure I'm not miss speaking but that would be my interpretation it looks like director Williams and mr. Cho have both turned on their cameras so maybe what they can respond as well madam chair councillor Benton miss Schultz is correct I mean essentially it would would be the job of the code enforcement division based on conditions or standards that would be adopted by the Planning Commission to ensure that those are upheld that they're that they're being that the business is operating in accordance with whatever promises or rules were established as it relates to the operation you know in from from a planning standpoint I think certainly myself and other community planners trained educated community planners are in alignment with and agree with with the principles of of b21 but the manager and me does have some questions about staff capacity and how if if adopted the department would would vet these properly advised the decision-makers and then on the back end to your point earlier enforce or ensure that these sorts of things are being adhered to if mr. mime sheriff mr. Brito doesn't anything dad yeah point well-taken mr. director we know we have a lot of bailout areas throughout the city where we need more staff capacity and this is one that's historically been a complaint and council needs to take that on and we're hoping for better times more revenue and hurt people because mr. Reid brings up kind of the key issue is let's say somebody does commit to this and thank you Thank You mr. Reid next speaker the next public speaker is Marisol Archuleta miss Archuleta are you connected okay it looks like she is not on the zoom call so we want a speaker who is Jim China with mr. China with are you here I am here great please proceed oh I thank you madam chair Jones and counselors my name is Jim China with I'm the managing director of CBRE a commercial real estate service provider here in town I'm appreciative of all the effort that's got into the meeting however I am opposed to the amendment b5 dealing with reinstituting density limits on multifamily properties as has been mentioned by some others earlier my concern with this amendment is that it will exacerbate the housing affordability problem that we have in Albuquerque and will make it more challenging to do infill development and promote more multifamily development on the outskirts of the city therefore I really don't think that this is in the public interest thank you for your time thank you mr. jereth the next public commenter is Peggy Norton um I know that Peggy Norton had technical difficulties earlier and she did send me an email asking if I could read her public comment that she said oh she's here you can hear you loud and clear so zoom again and that got me back to here so yeah I would like to make my own comments I appreciated I think that communication on the CP Oh is exactly what we could have hoped for I'm concerned about amendment a7 which provides for cottage development on a quarter acre there was a lot of discussion between the coalition members and planning and we came up with compromises for acreage and number of buildings and so due to our previous negotiations at this time we do not support this amendment um packet B it seemed like a lot of amendments being rushed in at the last minute for any residents or neighbors to know anything about I just got a call from one of our people about b21 David Wood from Greater Gardner we support me 21 because we ran into those problems with the transfer station that really didn't matter the air air emissions from one lot to a next slide to a next each individual lot was looked at the same and it didn't take into consideration all of the air quality or all idling trucks is of course very important on cannabis I didn't have time to under read those in detail but I know the ever rest greenhouses up on North Forest Street near Alameda have been very detrimental to that neighborhood and I hope that whatever you are addressing with the cannabis regulations maybe you've talked to some of the people up there it's Joe I don't know the status of it at this point but I know there was a lot of complaining about the light the smells light and smells mostly and one other thing okay and also impact could be increasing building heights it seems I'm sorry but your time is up thank you thank you I'm sure if I just could the yeah I realized that the two people I mean these would seem like we're just springing them but I'm there with her to several of them they've been constituents that brought them forth and ask questions of counselors specifically of course the big one that we've been hearing about as the cumulative impact then and that's we've been working on that for a long time there had to be a lot of legal research on that we're kind of stepping out within the within the zoning code to try to tackle this because we're we feel like we've been as described by mr. and mrs. Abeyta who would been great leaders and the folks from Swat who really worked hard on this issue we we all kind of scratch our heads with regard to some of the preemption problems that we have with regard to actual air quality and and things that are water and air quality groups we would hope we would be tackling but but it's been frustrating to me as a counselor over the years specifically with air quality and so we're really kind of stepping out there and I think we've done a lot of good work together with the community so I'm not familiar with all of these amendments myself there are different councillors who brought some of them forward I don't agree with all of them myself so I very much would like to hear from you others in the valley who went to weigh in and find specifically on different amendments and have any questions and encourage you to to speak to staff or to let me know thank you Thank You councillor Denton next speaker our next speaker is mr. joe romeiro mr. Romero are you here it looks like mr. Romero is not here so we will move on to mr. Dan Regan mr. Regan are you here I do see that mr. Regan is connected oh there he there he is I had to get stuff turned on chair and members I am representing district 4 coalition's and the net Heights neighborhood association the Planning Department found this massive project to be daunting the EPC and its fur literally threw up his hands and frustration the development industry at the EPC meeting said it couldn't cope with the onslaught and needed more time and resources imagine those poor folks the NASD HOAs and the coalition's looked at 545 pages of legalistic zoning regs and many despaired but everyone slog through tech edits and council amendments for the better part of a year and then in less than three business days from this meeting the council comes up with 23 brand-new previously unknown and unseen amendments and mr. Benton councillor Benton just admitted he wasn't aware of the real contents of some of them and expects them to be vetted at possibly a single lufs meeting according to what I was told by council staff and then possibly passed by full counsel all of the above is one of the best recipes of sad insanity and that's before you add in Coburg 19 and zoom meetings which are pretty far from real public meetings if the amendments in packet B are accepted and treated as equals to the tech edits and packets in packet a I submit that the council is guilty of malpractice and carrying out their responsibilities to our city no matter how good any of the amendments are there's no time to vet them per the conversation about how can these things in B 21 be enforced I think you're going to do a great disservice there's an odor to the packet B and it ain't perfume of any sort mr. Regan my apologies but your time is up thank you mr. Regan thank you okay the next public speaker is Don Hancock mr. Hancock are you connected I do see mr. Hancock in the room mr. Hancock are you prepared to speak yes I'm here yes we can see when they're recede yes I'm Don Hancock the secretary treasurer of the University Heights neighborhood association which is the Neighborhood Association south of the University of New Mexico we've been involved for many years with zoning issues we submitted a written comment I guess I I think I'm coming on now we submitted a written comment in support of amendment b15 related to solar access which we do support and urge its adoption I want to talk briefly though about our opposition to a 18 the transit parking reduction two points I want to make the I do has already in our area reduced the parking requirement by 33% and so in areas that we have a 33% reduction this amendment would add a 10% reduction to which we think is totally inappropriate and very detrimental to the neighborhood and in fact unnecessary as as well so we do oppose that we are continuing to work with staff on it we appreciate their work and we hope that will not be adopted because it is detrimental I would also point out this is area of consistency in our neighborhood that this major change would happen in and it's an area that there is in fact new multi-family development going on consistent with the existing idea so again we do not believe further parking relation is either needed or justified thank you very much thank you mr. Hancock councilor Mountain Care [Music] counselors give our councilor Griego if you would push your rate and thing I will I'm monitoring it and I would always call on you but I'd go ahead well I would just like to say hello to mr. Hancock I haven't seen him in about 20 years and also I don't have any comments in my inbox regarding any of these amendments so I'm just wondering if like if people who are commenting in have sent them would please send them to me thank you Thank You councillor madam chair I'd like to comment quickly that comments that our office received prior to about 3 p.m. did go into the iPads that was where comments sent directly to the clerk of the council so that's one location that you might be able to access them from and if you'd like we can forward other comments to you as well Thank You Shanna I just checked my hand box and I don't have any thank you okay the next public speaker is Jim libel mister Weibull are you connected I sure AM thank you very much madam chair councillors thank you for the time to this afternoon or this evening like to comment quickly on two of the amendments first eight with regard to the drive-throughs I'd like to speak in support of that anything that we can continue to do with the I do regarding reducing the conflict between the pedestrian and and drive-throughs while still continuing to modify our idea so that we can respond favorably to the needs of the market I in full supportive and I think the a8 does that we saw during the pandemic actually that and we're getting continuing signals through the retail commercial real estate industry that we drive-throughs are becoming even more important than they have been in the past secondly with regard to b5 I would like to speak against that one in terms of imposing density limits I think the ideal has a very nice set of design standards requiring building heights and setbacks and parking and landscaping to regular projects and protect areas around the project provide nice transitions and I think those should be left in standing removing artificially arbitrary density limits thank you very much thank you the next public commenter is Michael Voss mr. Voss are you connected yes good afternoon so this afternoon I'm going to speak on one amendment a ten and the revisions proposed to the maximum extent practicable language and the I do as modified since the epc earring many of these changes do seem acceptable and however I would like to point out some issues that I think that should be looked at and in terms of two groups first are a group that are changes to the sensitive lands section if you simply avoid the the sensitive features and requiring anything that cannot avoid them to be reviewed as a site plan EDC some development projects have no options based on location or other factors but having some limited impact on sensitive lands and need to be reviewed under maximum extent practicable lens so to speak by requiring the EPC review is one way to go about that so ultimately I think this is a City Council policy decision that I hope is given a very careful consideration the second group I think potentially compounds upon the first one and these are the changes to the review and decision criteria for master development plans and site plans including EPC applications by deleting the maximum extent practicable part of the criteria how is it decided what is considered significant and if it has been mitigated those impacts and how much is adequate mitigation does not seem like either a yes or no answer so it's ultimately on a spectrum and the decision makers need the ability to decide at some point on that spectrum proponents for a project will always they have mitigated the impact opponents for the project will always say that the impact has not been mitigated and without allowing that discretion seems like fodder for appeals and issues pushing projects out and delaying them so again I heard your careful consideration of that amendment and any unintended consequences it can have thank you thank you the next public speaker is Shannon Baca is Baca are you connected can you hear me oh I can see myself yes please proceed hi so my name is Shannon Baca hello to all the council members and the staff I live in district 4 directly across the street from Alameda Barstow development I am the only home there and then I am also a healthcare provider on 4th Street so I am very familiar with the monstrosity that is on 4th Street which I have to drive by quite often I actually why I am calling in is because I want to discuss b5 I also do not like b2 with the height restrictions but originally the I do had a limit of 20 and then it became nebulous back in 2010 I'm sorry 2018 and now it is suggested that it be a hundred and fifty percent of what it was previously and what I liked about what Shanna said was about the property on 4th Street was it's put in a wall right in the middle of the whole community and our community was supposed to be protected preserved neighborhoods that were compatible in form in scale to the immediate surrounding development consistent with the long-established resident develop patterns that I do not see anything on Alameda even you know from Wyoming maybe even Louisiana all the way up towards the mountain that has anything to do with that and the people who actually live where this property is going to be will lose their mountain views and they will lose their property value so it will divide the community okay thank you thank you Miss Banda thank you for hearing the bell i apprec-- thank you ma'am thank you our next public speaker is Renee Horvath miss Horvath are you connected miss Horvath are you still on the call miss Horvath I do see that you're in the zoom meeting room please unmute your microphone at this time can you hear me yes yes miss Horvath we can and I can't hear you Shanna you yeah I can hear you now can you hear me Andy can anybody hear me miss Horvath yes it sounds like you're listening to us via the YouTube feed which does have about a 15-second delay yes it sounds like you're listening to us via the YouTube okay okay I can see people yes okay well I just want to say that I've been very involved with going to the EBC on all these amendments miss Horvath we can't hear you your audio was working momentarily but now it's not now your microphone is muted go ahead and unmute it we cannot hear you your microphone is now unmuted can you try to say something we can't hear you at all miss Horvath we're gonna move to the last public speaker if you're able to fix your microphone issue after that time we can pull you back in to provide your public comment so for the time being we'll move on to the last public speaker that's gonna be Becky Davis miss Davis are you connected hey yes I am trying to be here the video portion is not in there now we've got video yeah okay I would like to have you removed to the maximum extent possible from all aspects of the I do including one of the later amendments either the regs and specifications the idea will work or they don't please don't weasel around the limitations in the idea or it loses effectiveness with this wording regarding amendment a 18 please retain parking breadth and depth we are a car culture and trying to force bus ridership by reducing parking spaces in developments brings hardship to those who least able to compete in the city old folks in the handicapped we are supposed to support diversity and opportunity further I am supporting b3 the common open space yes yes and the removal of conservation development before remove it so that we can concentrate on refining cluster development yeah so 18 bad really bad that's about all I had to say thank you thank you ma'am we appreciate that comments thank you miss Davis okay miss miss Horvath would you like to give it one more try I can see your lips moving and your microphones not muted we still cannot hear you we can hear her now we oh yes you're very quiet are you able to move a little closer to wherever your microphone is we can it's still it's still pretty quiet but we can hear you on the west side we have a lot of developments but we also have traffic issues overcrowded school issues open space preservation issues and the biggest asset we got our views so we that's the one thing that we pay attention to so when it comes to density you really get a lot of attention to density so that's why I kind of looked at the contextual standards and the cottage to kind of wonder why are we reducing the lot sizes for that because I'm not sure what we're getting and I thought that cottage development for an acre was more appropriate so I think we need to understand what a what are we trying to achieve here besides just increasing the density also I'm also concerned about the density that's being proposed because do you use breaker it's pretty high already and I know the other speakers some of them in the industry think it's too low but that's pretty high as far as foster development when it comes to open space issues I saw this as a great design tool but it hasn't been applied of appropriately and we have issues here on the west side especially around the petroglyph issues we need Plus that's a great design tool to cluster the Bell one side of the property and a buffer on the other because right now there are residents dealing with drainage and erosion control issues and and wildlife conflicts so since we have open space like the petroglyphs like the river Bosque and other areas that we're trying to preserve these are great design tools [Music] thank you miss Horvath your time is up thank you miss Horvath madam chair that does conclude our public commenters for this evening thank you Miss shelfs so councillors are there any other questions or comments seeing none I make a motion to adjourn and move I make a motion to defer than this until the next lops meeting [Music] councillor Benton yes councillor bodega yes councillor Gibson yes councillor Jones yes councillor Harris yes that passes on a 5-0 vote Thank You Cal first and seeing no further exist slips this lup's committee meeting I think is adjourned thank you all madam chair looks like miss Morris has her hand raised all right - miss Morris good afternoon I just wanted to make sure that just for the public that are on the call that the next lops meeting is june 24th at 5:00 p.m. we have a lot of people in the room and this is a good opportunity to let them know exactly when that is thank you Miss Morris I say I appreciate that reminder thank you very much good evening everyone thanks for joining us