The 26th Albuquerque City Council convened for its 41st meeting to address appeals, administration questions, and significant legislative items regarding traffic safety, housing dignity, and financial instruments. The session featured a strong public presence advocating for pedestrian safety following recent fatalities, detailed discussions on the Broken Windows program and AED procurement, and the unanimous passage of amendments designed to protect vulnerable road users and preserve the dignity of senior housing residents.
Appeal AC 2502 (Wall/Variance Permit): The City Council reviewed the appeal of Cynthia Hernandez regarding the denial of a 3-foot front wall variance at 3421 Abbey Court. The Land Use Hearing Officer recommended denying the appeal due to the applicant's failure to satisfy the "20% rule" (only 2 of 3 required neighboring properties existed). Councilor Pena questioned the consistency of enforcement regarding over-height fences in District Three.
Administration Q&A:
EC 519 & EC 520 (Tree Planting Grant): Councilors Champagne and Rogers questioned the use of city funds for regional tree planting if the grant is from the USDA Forest Service. The Sustainability Officer clarified that the trees will be planted entirely within Albuquerque to address urban heat islands, though the application included regional partners (Sandoval, Valencia, Torrance, Bernalillo) to strengthen the grant bid. The Justice 40 principles continue to guide the selection of planting locations despite federal changes.
O 98 (Traffic Code Updates): Councilor Febalcorn introduced updates to the traffic code and sidewalk ordinances.
R 196 (Education Campaign): Resolution establishing a public education campaign for the new traffic code.
R 201 (Juniper Flats Naming): Councilor Grout moved to preserve the name "Juniper Flats" for senior housing at 25 Hotel Circle Northeast to maintain dignity and avoid association with the "Gateway" shelter system. Administration and legal staff raised concerns regarding Separation of Powers and potential micromanagement of executive naming rights. Councilor Lewis argued against the separation of powers claim, viewing it as an overreach by the administration.
And then there's that. Good evening. It's November 5th, 2025, the 41st meeting of the 26th Council will come to order. All counselors will be present this evening with Counselor Sanchez joining via Zoom and Counselor Lewis coming up just a little bit later this evening. We're going to start with a moment of silence, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance in English and then in Spanish. One is justice. Civic Plaza parking passes are provided for members of the public. You can obtain a parking pass from council staff at the table near the chamber's entrance. Members of the public city staff and the media have the ability to view this meeting in person and on live streams through four different platforms. Gov TV on Comcast Channel 16, the Gov TV website, YouTube, and Zoom webinar. The live streams can be accessed from most smartphones, tablets, or computers. Also, this meeting is closed captioned, and you may enable the closed captioning services on your television or device at this time. The video recording of this and all past council meetings will remain available for viewing at any time on the city council's website. Council staff is available via telephone if members of the public need assistance finding the videos online. Please call 505-768-3100 for assistance during business hours Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The council will take a break at approximately 7 p.m. this evening if needed. With regard to decorum in the chambers, we want tonight's proceeding to be as civil and respectful as possible. Please do not make any personal attacks and please no applause, snapping, or other outbursts during the meeting. I will provide one warning to anyone causing a disruption. Upon the second or continued disruption, that individual will be asked to leave the chambers, and if necessary, security will be asked to escort that person out of the chambers. Such removal from the council chambers will be effective for the remainder of the meeting. And if continued disruptions occur, I may recess the meeting until order is restored and if necessary may clear the chambers of persons participating in the disturbance. This meeting will go a lot smoother if we are respectful of one another. Counselors, we're going to change the agenda around a little bit and begin with our appeal this evening. So we're going to move to item 11, appeals AC 2502. Cynthia Hernandez, applicant, appeals the zoning hearing examiner's decision to deny a permit, wall or fence major and a variance of three feet to the maximum three-foot wall height in the front yard for the property located at 3421 Abbey Court Northwest, zoned RT PR 2025 020042 MZP 2025 00003 and V8 2025 00015. Thank you, Madam President. Good evening, counselors. The zoning hearing examiner determined that the application should be denied because the applicant failed to satisfy what's called the 20% rule for front yard fences exceeding three feet in height. The 20% rule requires that 20% of the properties within 330 feet and on the same street as the property must also have front yard walls or fences that are taller than three feet in height. The applicant appealed the decision of the ZHE to deny the applications to the city council, who referred the appeal to the land use hearing officer. And the Luho recommends that the city council deny the appeal and uphold the ZHE's uh decision to deny the wall permit and variance. In reviewing the ZHE's application of the 20% rule, the LUHO found that because there were 15 total properties within 330 feet and on the same street as the property, the applicant must show three properties with taller walls. However, the evidence produced showed there were only two properties with taller walls. The appellant does not dispute the ZHE's conclusions or the evidence in the record that supported the decision to deny the application. Instead, the Luho found that in the appeal, the appellant essentially resubmitted the same evidence she submitted with her application to the ZAG and argued that the fence is necessary to protect the children that she cares for in her daycare business that she operates from the home. So the Luho concluded that the ZHE's finding that the appellant failed to satisfy the 20% rule is supported by substantial factual evidence and should be upheld. The Luho recommends that the appeal be denied and the ZHE's denial of the wall permit and variance requests be upheld. And this is the accept or reject stage, so you will not hear from the applicant appellant. Um but I'll do my best to answer any questions that you may have. Counselors, would anybody care to make a motion? Or do you have any questions? Madam Vice President. Um thank you, Madam President. Just a couple of questions. I know this is something that's come up with um some of the um recommendations for changes for um fence heights. This has been a proposed for the IDO. Um, you know, I I don't see the planning director here, but I guess maybe my question is is that how do we address there's tons in like in District Three that are over this height, right?