Good evening, everyone.

I'd like to call this one second.

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

Is that better?

Okay, I'd like to call this fifth meeting of the 27th council will come to order.

All councillors are present this evening.

Councilor Lewis should be here shortly.

Um next we have a moment of silence, um, followed by the pledge.

If you can join us in English and in Spanish.

Thank you.

Um Vice President Champine.

Thank you, Madam President.

Civic policy parking passes are provided for members of the public.

You can obtain parking passes from council staff at the table near the chamber entrances.

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 pro platforms.

Gov TV on Comcast Channel 16 and the Gov TV website, YouTube and Zoob Webinar.

The live streams can be accessed from most smartphones, tablets, or computers.

Also, this meeting is in closed caption, 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 Count 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 the regular 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.

In regard to the quorum in the chambers, we want tonight's meeting tonight's proceedings to be as civil, civil, and respectful as possible.

Please do not make any personal attacks, and please do not applause or snap or any other outbursts during the meeting.

The president will provide one warning to anyone causing a disruption upon the second or continuous 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 city council chambers will be effective for the remainder of the meeting.

If continued disruptions occur, the president may recess the meeting until order is restored, and if necessary, may clear the chambers of persons participating in that disturbance.

The meeting will go a lot smoother if we are respectful of one another.

Madam President.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Vice President.

Due to the number of individuals who have signed up to provide public comment this evening, the allotted speaking time per individual will be reduced to one minute.

This adjustment is necessary to ensure that all registered speakers are provided an opportunity to address this body within the scheduled meeting time.

A timer will be utilized to make maintain fairness and consistency.

Speakers will be asked to conclude the remarks promptly once the one-minute limit has been reached.

It is at the discretion of the council president to determine the time limit for public comment with the maximum of two minutes.

Dependent on the number of public comment sign-ups.

If more than 50 individuals sign up to speak, the time limit per speaker will likely be less than two minutes.

Yes.

So there's a motion in the second to um to allow for the two-minute maximum time.

So there's a motion and a second.

You've got that, Michelle.

So all if any discussion on the motion.

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Um say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed, no.

No.

So that's 4-4.

So then that motion fails.

Thank you.

Um so we are back on item number four, and this is um Vice President Champagne.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh yes, administration question and answer period.

Uh counselors wishing to ask any questions have the opportunity to do so.

Uh limit the to ensure that all counselors have the opportunity to participate.

We ask that the question be limited to one director uh until all those counselors have a chance to ask the question after 5 p.m.

The questions may be directed to the administration at that time.

Uh counselor, is there any questions for the administration?

Councilor Grab.

Councilor Crow?

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President.

I have a question for Director Turner with DMD.

Hi, Director.

Thanks for being here today.

You look nice.

Um, I wanted to find out what is the schedule for streets uh maintenance for the street sweepers for the main streets.

What is the schedule?

Um, Madam President, Counselor Grout.

Um, we try to sweep every street in the city approximately two times a year.

Um, but some streets are swept that have a higher need, they're swept more frequently.

We also sweep for special events, such as um you know the twinkle light parade.

So we don't have a like every Monday we sweep San Mateo, you know, five times.

We don't have it like that.

We're um we try to cover the city, we sweep in zones um on the east and the west side, but again, we don't have a like you can expect the streets in your neighborhood to be swept November 1st.

We don't have that.

I understand.

Do you um can you tell me like when are they?

You said mentioned something about zones.

Are they out?

Were were they out today?

Well, it was a little bit windy, so that might have not been a good day, but are they out weekly?

Do we see them out weekly?

Um, Madam President, Counselor Grout, our sweepers are out daily.

They are so they're out every working day.

Okay, all right.

Um all right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Counselor Grout.

Councilor Bach has a follow-up question for the director.

Do you mind if he steps in on go ahead?

Okay, right.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Madam President, Director, and Director Turner.

Um, just to follow up on that, you know, we're we're having the um 100-year anniversary, and we're starting to get a lot of the tourists.

And I'm wondering if perhaps in our areas where we're gonna have a whole lot more people visiting if we couldn't set up uh a consistent scheduling of street cleaning, sidewalk cleanings.

Um, I know that's you know, we've got a giant city to take care of, no question.

And you know, we're doing a lot to promote Route 66, and you know, I I can say for certain downtown is luckily it rained the other day, so it got a little bit cleaned up, but uh that that shouldn't be why it gets cleaned up consistently uh Madam President, Counselor Baca.

Um I would clear I would define the Route 66 centennial as very much a special event, and so I I should have highlighted that we have increased sweeping on all 18 miles of uh of Route 66, given that we are in the centennial year, and then on downtown.

Um we have in the past, um, particularly when there's events going on, we do sweep on Fridays before, and then we'll give special attention the following week if we know there were tens of thousands of people attending a concert, for example.

So we do respond when we get requests like that.

Right.

Thank thank you.

It's but just I mean, I we had the snow event, we got ice on the road.

We probably went three weeks before the rain, four weeks, whatever it was.

It didn't get clean within that time period.

And um, I actually got a lot of calls on the and not to say our guys aren't doing their our people aren't doing a good job.

I know they're they're out there doing the work, but um, especially in an area where we know there's gonna be more people, more traffic, uh a little more consistency because you can definitely see that it's not being cleaned and and they may also be overwhelmed.

I I recognize that as well.

I think our block by block is definitely overwhelmed with what's happening out there.

So thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President.

My question is for parking.

I don't know if anyone from parking is here, but we've I've been receiving an immense amount of emails from my constituents about our new parking sticks, um, specifically around Monte Vista Elementary School.

So I just have some questions about how did we work with APS to decide where to put them around schools?

Because the feedback that I'm getting is that it's impeding where parents are parking to pick up in the pickup line.

And so I just wanted to ask that.

And I sent it to all of the emails I received to your department earlier today.

Counselor President, uh Councilor Rogers, I will find out what conversations were had with APS and determining what was placed near the schools, and we'll get that back to your office immediately.

Thank you.

And then a couple just follow-up questions just so I can respond to my constituents.

Are those around the schools already turned on?

Like they're actively giving tickets right now.

Council President, Councilor Rogers, there is a 30-day grace period for uh citation.

So that we're we're in the 30-day grace period.

I will give you the date when we actually go into enforcement when citations will be issued, and we'll get that information over to your office immediately.

Thank you.

And just for the public, one of the big questions was how much time do they have?

And what are they going to be set to?

Uh Council President, Councilor Rogers, as I understand it, it's about 90 seconds.

90 seconds.

Yeah, I think it would be very important for us to be looking at our schools and making sure parents.

I mean, I unfortunately have an eight-year-old.

I'm not unfortunate, I have a one-three year old.

Who I hope is not watching right now.

Oh we got a light in the mood today.

I'm glad to reply.

But um I have a wonderful eight-year-old who unfortunately I have to sit in the parent pickup lines um for quite some time, actually 30 minutes or more.

And so I would be getting tickets left and right if I had to, you know.

So I just want us to be thoughtful about APS, um, where we're putting those and where the parents have to line up for to pick up their kids.

Counselor, Council President, Councillor Rogers, we'll get that information over to your office really quickly.

Thank you, and I sent you all the emails.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Counselor Bacham.

Thank you, Councilor Champagne.

Uh Dr.

Single, so last council asked about an update on the noise cameras.

Uh Director Leach did reach out to me to try and set up a meeting.

Um, unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a time legislative session at all.

Um, but I would like to get a report, even if I can't set a time, you can definitely send me an email update.

Madam President, Councillor Bacca.

Um, I saw a memo this morning.

I didn't get an opportunity to read all of it today.

Um, multiple departments participated in ensuring that they provided that.

So we'll be able to, I just want to uh make sure I read through it and we'll be able to provide that to you in writing as well as probably have a follow-up meeting because I think there's value in that meeting.

Absolutely recognizing that maybe Thursday some worlds uh will open up again.

Counselor Teas.

Oh man.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Madam President, I have a question for planning director Alan Varela.

Good evening, uh Council President and uh Councilor Teus.

So it's uh it's first time I've spoken with you.

It's nice to meet you.

And nice to meet you too, thank you.

I appreciate it.

I have a question regarding the planning departments.

How do you currently monitor um and enforce violations on any local, state, or federal regulation or law from the business license requirement?

And uh council president and counselor, we had a grace period, which uh just expired now in January on the business licenses.

We shifted from business registrations to licenses July 1st of last year.

Uh we have not had any uh scenarios come up as of yet where somebody has been deemed to have been found in violation of a local state or federal ordinance that would implicate uh uh action against their business license.

So we have not have anything come up as of yet.

Uh, when something were to come up, we would then follow our normal civil process, which we would provide notice to them.

We would give them opportunity to be heard and to explain their side, and then uh proceed most likely to a hearing in front of an independent hearing officer through administrative process, like we do with our other civil enforcement matters.

Okay, thank you.

Madam President, last question.

Do you have any documented SOPs on that process developed?

And uh I am sure that we do have a documented SOP on how we enforce the business licensing process, yes.

Okay, Madam President, thank you.

Um, can you send me a copy?

And uh Madam President and Councilor, yes, I'll make sure that uh that'd be Deputy Jeremy Kaiser, his is division oversees business licenses that they send you the SOP.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Director V.

Thank you, Madam President.

Councilor Grove.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President.

For you, yes, I have a question about um who enforces handicap parkage parking signage in business parking lots.

And uh Councilor Grout, that would most likely be the parking division, it would not be the uh the code enforcement division.

Okay.

So then I need to speak to somebody in the parking division.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Hi there.

Um, who oversees who enforces handicap parking signage in business parking lots?

Council President, Councilor Grout, uh parking enforcement enforces parking.

Um, are businesses required to have verse vertical signs on a post as well as painted spaces.

Uh councillor president, counselor grout.

I would have to check the ADA compliance requirement.

So each each, as far as I know, is each parking requirement is different depending on the spaces as to what is going to be expected for that.

Okay.

So what we can do is we can find out what those expectations are contingent on the specific application.

So if you can give me more, if we can exchange more information on that, I can get you the answer as to whether a vertical handicap sign is required or if it's required painted in the actual space because uh it's contingent on I think the application.

Okay.

So some can have just the painted spaces, some can have a vertical sign also.

I I don't you don't know.

Okay.

And then who would a citizen call to report improper signage?

Uh we would encourage all citizens to call 311 and we would be happy to walk them through and get them the answers they need.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Councillors, we have 14 minutes.

Any other questions for administration?

Madam President, there are none.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President.

We are now on to proclamations and presentation presentations.

Counselor Peoplecorn.

Thank you, Madam President.

So we just recently um unanimously updated our traffic code to um better protect vulnerable road users.

Part of that package of bills was a requirement for the administration to work on a comprehensive education and outreach campaign, and they are doing it really well.

And so um Director Turner, I believe, is here today to give us a presentation on how that um that outreach program is developing, and I think they actually had some filming that happened last week, so she'll tell us about that as well.

This is the one uh Madam President, counselors, counselor people corn, thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my second traffic safety educational campaign update.

Just to briefly highlight some key points so everyone's reminded of what the traffic changes did.

Drivers shall stop for everyone using marked or unmarked crosswalks.

Vulnerable road users also have responsibilities on the road to cross safely.

And the rules also provided clear rules for Hawk signals.

So I am often asked what is a hock signal and what do I do?

Part of our campaign will include the document you see before you.

The purpose of a hawk signal is to allow vulnerable road users to cross high traffic roads safely, and it has rules for VRUs, which is stop, push the button, wait, and then cross when given the opportunity.

And for drivers, you should always look for vulnerable road users in crosswalks.

But if you see a yellow flashing light, slow down, a solid yellow light, prepare to stop, a solid red stop, and then flashing red um stop and proceed when the crosswalk is clear.

As Counselor February mentioned, we've worked with our consultants on filming two campaign videos, which were just filmed in the last couple of weeks.

We've worked on drafts of one-pagers and billboards.

We've worked with city departments on free messaging opportunities, participated in and scheduled more community outreach, and we've also commented on before the state legislature legislature on state law changes to require vulnerable road user driver education past the Senate, past a House Committee, and right now I'm very excited that it's pending its third reading before the House.

So that's been very successful.

And then I just wanted to show some stills.

This is a sneak peek of some of the things that we filmed over the last couple of weeks, highlighting vulnerable road users crossing safely and drivers stopping and making eye contact with them.

Then here's the end of one of our videos.

And then next steps will be launching our videos next month at a red carpet event.

We'll invite all of you to attend.

We'll be rolling out a website devoted to the campaign.

We're finalizing billboards and roll out, and then we're finalizing our one pager, and we'll be attaching it with our speed camera citations.

We'll be putting digital messages on city owned assets and then developing a webinar.

And with that, I stand for questions.

Sorry, are there any questions?

No.

Well, thank you so much.

Appreciate the presentation.

Thank you.

So now we are on to Councilor Rogers, a presentation from Jody Esquivel, director of the Albuquerque Community Safety.

Yes, thank you, Madam President.

I'd like to call Jody Escaval, our director of ACS, Megan Assoon, our associate director, and Jackson Beck, senior program associate, both with redefining public safety initiative, who will provide an update on their work with ACS.

I'm really honored to have them.

They're here doing a site visit with ACS, and they help us with a lot of research around changing the scale, the landscape of public safety.

And so I'm really honored to have them here with us today.

And Jody will uh if she wants to start off with the introductions.

Council President, Counselors.

Um, as always, it's an honor to come and speak with you and the community about the um Albuquerque Community Safety Department and an amazing opportunity to be able to highlight our partnership with the Vera Institute.

I won't take much time, so they're the experts to kind of share they're doing a site visit here, so they'll be here for the week.

Um, but thankful for the space to come and speak with you all and um hopefully uh give a little insight on kind of a national level for for the department.

Thank you, Jodi.

And thank you, Madam President and Council members.

Thanks, Jody and the ACS team for hosting us this week.

We're thankful for the opportunity to speak in front of you all about the growing nationwide investment in community-based safety strategies, and in particular, our partnership with ACS as they work to deliver public safety services that meet the needs of the people of Albuquerque.

Before we get started, I want to take a moment to introduce ourselves.

As Jody said, the Vera Institute of Justice is a 65-year-old national policy and research organization.

Our team, Vera's Redefining Public Safety Initiative, focuses on building and sustaining community-centered solutions to public safety.

We act as a pro bono resource to government and community leaders.

We collaborate with jurisdictions across the country to develop and expand public safety anchor institutions like Albuquerque's Community Safety Department.

As for me, my name is Megan Assoon.

I'm the associate director of the RPS Initiative, where I lead our team's technical assistance.

I'm joined by my colleagues Jackson Beck and Frank Wunshul.

If you want to give a wave to the room.

Historic investments in community-based safety strategies have contributed to an unprecedented decline in crime.

Just recently, in New York City's mayoral race, winner Zoran Mamdani promised to set up a community safety department, much like yours in Albuquerque.

Albuquerque is in fact setting the standard on structural change required for effective public safety.

We celebrate this progress, and we also know there's more work to be do to be done.

Two key community-based public safety strategies that are driving national progress are alternative response and violence prevention and intervention.

What makes Albuquerque unique and a model for the nation as a whole is that these approaches are housed in a single cabinet level department.

Cities across the country are looking to you all as an example of how to manage alternative response and violence intervention under one roof, demonstrating a comprehensive approach to public safety that reduces over reliance on law enforcement.

Alternative response is a practical way to modernize how cities handle 911 calls across the country.

Should I pause for this?

If it's okay if she finishes, I think you have just a couple more slides.

Yeah, we just got a few more slides.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Across the country, cities are deploying trained civilian-led teams to respond to nonviolent situations involving health or social needs.

ACS's success has inspired many other cities to follow suit, including Richmond, California, for example.

They're now launching an alternative response program and have looked to ACS as a model for how to implement it effectively.

The second approach is violence prevention and intervention.

When cities invest in targeted violence intervention services, the returns are not only substantial economic savings, but more importantly, human lives saved.

And here in Albuquerque, ACS's violence intervention program has a 92.3 success rate of participants avoiding further involvement in violent crime.

Our partnership with ACS began in 2023 with a clear goal.

As ACS expands its services, Vera is helping the department strengthen internal systems so it can grow to reach its community, operate even more efficiently, and sustain its services.

Our work with ACS focuses on understanding how their programs operate, how services are delivered, and how their approach compares with similar initiatives across the country.

We have been reviewing the information ACS collects and learning from staff about how they document and communicate about their work.

This helps us understand their current processes and identify opportunities to further highlight their impact.

Investments in departments like ACS are not abstract.

Honestly, they translate into measurable outcomes with calls answered, people housed, youth engaged, crises prevented, and lives saved.

And Albuquerque is not only part of the trend, it's helping set it.

Thank you for this opportunity to present.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So we are now on to the journal.

Um I move approval of the February 2nd journal.

Second.

There's a motion and a second by Councillor Grout.

All those in favor, say yes and raise your hand.

And if you can keep your hand up until we're able to, the staff's able to get the that's passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Um we are now on to, I mean, I move approval of the February 9th journal.

There's a motion second by Councilor Rogers.

Any questions?

All those in favor, say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Yes.

Opposed, say motion.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um we are now on to communications and introductions.

Is there um are there any changes to the letter of introduction?

I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of pulling EC 2617 out of finance and government committee and placing it on the March 2nd 2026 Council Agenda for Action.

EC17 is the mayor's recommendation of an on-call architectural services for aviation department.

There's a motion and a second.

All those in favor, say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Yes.

Opposed, same motion.

That motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

I move the letter of um appropriate.

I move approval for the letter of introduction.

There's a motion second by Councillor Grout.

All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Um that motion passes unanimously.

We are now on to reports of committees.

Councilor Bassan.

Madam President, the land use planning and zoning committee met on Wednesday, February 11th, 2026, and reports out the following items in the matter of EC26 and EC35 that they be confirmed.

I make a motion to accept the committee reports.

There's a motion by Councilor Bassan, a second by Councillor Grout.

Any questions?

Seeing none, um, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say yes.

Opposed, say motion.

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh we are now on to deferrals and withdrawals.

Uh, counselors, are there any diff deferrals or withdrawals at this time?

Seeing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda.

Are there any changes to the consent agenda?

Seeing none for the individuals on tonight's consent agenda who are being appointed to serve on a board or commission.

Thank you for your willingness to serve.

I move approval of the consent agenda.

There's a motion by Vice President Champagne.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh, we are now on to an announcements.

Councilor Bassan.

Madam President, there will be an intergovernmental legislative relations committee meeting on Thursday, February 19th at 3 p.m., and it will be held via video Zoom video conference.

Council Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

There will be a local government coordinating commission meeting on Thursday, February 19th tomorrow at 5 p.m.

in the Brunaleo County Building, Ken Sanchez Commission Chambers, and this is a hybrid meeting.

Thank you.

Now we are on to financial instruments.

There are none.

And we're gonna move the agenda around under final actions, letter C.

Councilor Rogers, 01.

Thank you, Madam President, and I appreciate you moving it up on the agenda for us.

I really do.

As we gather during Black History Month, we were reminded that history is not just something we study, it is something we live, shape, and pass forward.

This week we mourn the passing of Reverend Jesse Jackson, a civil rights leader whose voice echoed across generations with a simple but transformative affirmation.

I am somebody.

Those words were not just a chant, they were a declaration of dignity, a demand of for recognition, and a refusal to be invisible.

I am somebody.

In this chamber tonight, I stand as the first African American woman ever elected to City Council, and I carry those words with me.

Not just for myself, but for every child watching, every elder who fought to be heard, and every community that has ever wondered if their voice mattered here.

I belong, we belong.

Representation is not symbolic, it's structural.

It shapes who is seen, who is heard, and who policies are designed to protect.

That is why this bill matters.

This legislation is more than policy language, is about affirming that every resident of Albuquerque is somebody, that every neighborhood counts, that equity is not an abstract idea, it is a commitment we make in the decisions we take.

Black History Month reminds us that progress has never been accidental.

It has always required courage, the courage to speak, to stand, and to build systems that reflect our shared humanity.

Tonight we honor that legacy not with words alone, but with action.

Because I am somebody.

You are somebody.

And together we will ensure that in this city, everybody belongs.

So I move 0 2611, and I urge your support.

Second.

There's a motion and a second by Vice President Champagne.

And so we're going to move on to floor amendment A.

Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

I have one amendment.

Community members brought to our attention that two partner organizations were not named in the introduction introduced version.

And so I want to correct that.

So on page three, line 17, we want to insert the following 13, NAACP Albuquerque branch.

And number 14, Albuquerque Public Schools, African American Equity and Engagement Coordinator.

And this is just to correct the writer that this body will be a little different than most of our boards and commission, where we will have permanent positions of all of the uh powerful orgs that really have carried this work forward.

And so I urge your support on this amendment.

Second, thank you.

So there's a motion and a second on floor amendment A that was by um Councillor Fiborn and all those any discussion seeing none, all those in favor of floor amendment um number one now.

Please raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

That motion passes unanimously.

Back on the bill, Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

I know we have some public speakers, and we do have to do a motion to defer, so I'm I would have to change my motion just because of the timing for the filing.

Um so but I know we do have some public commenters.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

We'll go on, we'll now move on to um public comment.

And I just want to say that if anyone signed up for general public comment to speak on on this, and you didn't sign up for the bill specific, we'll be more than happy to accommodate you.

So if you can call the first speaker.

Thank you, Madam President.

Our first speaker is Danielle Kervin, followed by Lisa Christofferson Lisa Christofferson, followed by Tad Numinsky.

Counselors, my name is Lisa Christofferson.

I am the great great granddaughter of a Gahanian that was stolen and sold into slavery.

And so for Black History Month, thank you very, very much.

We are somebody, and we need to be seen.

And part of that is our public comment.

Thank you for keeping QA with city administrators.

I learned much about how our city works.

It makes us partners.

Right now, to be honest, I feel like it's you and us.

Maybe we can gain back some trust, but it's gonna be the votes.

Because right now, I mean, we had a good last year.

We disagreed, but we got things done and we work things out.

Right now, it looks like five of you are in some kind of collusion against the people.

And so could you please either demonstrate that you fake care or at least start to care?

Because truly, I'm honestly telling you, I do not believe you all do anything but screw us.

Tad Numitsky, followed by Jaden Walker on Zoom.

Um, before you um go on to speak, Mr.

Neminsky.

If your comments can be germane to the bill, I think that's important.

Mr.

Neminsky.

Okay.

Thank you.

Everybody or somebody and glorified one and another colour of race.

That is racism.

Uh yes, be called I have accent.

Yes.

I went right here in this chamber to lot.

Sanchez, through the Jones, etc.

etc.

So anyway, everybody or somebody, yes, uh, takes one to know who can hear and live for almost 70 years already in this country.

Thank you.

Jaden Walker on Zoom.

Jaden, if you could please accept promotion to panelists.

There we go.

Okay, go ahead, Jaden.

Thank you.

Please proceed, Jaden.

We cannot hear you if you're speaking, Jaden.

Maybe some technical difficulties.

Okay.

Um just if he's able to get on, we'll let him speak later.

So back to you for your motion or uh Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move that we this bill be deferred till our March 2nd meeting.

Sorry.

There's a motion in the second by Vice President Champagne for a deferral to March 2nd.

Any questions or comments on that?

Seeing none, um, all those in favor, please say yes and raise your hand.

Yes, yes.

Oppose a motion that passes unanimously.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Um, we are back.

Under um item 11 appeals.

Uh this is ACO5, Maria Gonzalez, agent appeals the zoning hearing examiner's decision to deny variance of 30 inches to allow a 66-inch projecting wall sign at the property located at 3715 Silver Avenue Southeast, Zone MX M, VA 20250170.

Mr.

Um Victor Hall will explain the appeal.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, counselors.

The issue in this matter is whether a variance should be approved at uh the on the east wall uh of 3715 Silver Avenue to permit a projection sign that would extend 57.5 out uh inches out from the facade of that wall.

Um the uh current IDO templates uh limit projection signs to only 30 inches in review of this matter, the zoning hearing examiner denied variance application because the applicants failed to meet their evident evidentiary burden of proof for this variance.

Uh the uh uh applicants uh appealed to the uh land use hearing officer who recommended uh in his proposed findings that the city council deny the appeal and uphold denial of variance by the zoning hearing examiner.

Uh applying the IDO, specifically section uh 64E3.

An applicant bears the burden of proving sound justification for a required a requested action based on substantial evidence.

Um to have approval of a variance, you must meet five factors, notably that the special circumstances exist that are not self-imposed and do not apply generally to other property in the same zone district and vicinity.

Um in that instance, special circumstances would have to create an extraordinary hardship in the form of substantial and unjustified limitation on the reasonable use or economic return on the property or practical difficulties that would restrict from strict compliance with minimum standards.

There are four other elements as well that must be met, including uh that the variance would not be materially contrary to public saf safety, health, or welfare, it would not cause significant material adverse impacts on surrounding properties or infrastructure improvements in the vicinity, it would not undermine the intent and purpose of the IDO, and it's minimally minimally necessary to avoid extraordinary hardship or practical difficulties.

In this instance, the zoning curing examiner and then the uh land use hearing officer found that none of these elements were met by the applicants.

Instead, the applicants focused their application on how the variants would purportedly benefit the church and the community.

They also argued that the refurbishment of the sign was from a previous location and that it would be cost effective to do so to fix this sign in a way that would be maximally visible.

Um the zoning hearing examiner found that these rationales justifying the variants were insuffort insufficient under the IDO standard for granting a variance, uh cost effectiveness nor the purported benefit to the church or community are sufficient justifications to meet the five factors required for granting a variance.

The uh land use hearing officer agreed.

Uh in review of the record, the Luho concluded that the appeal should be denied and the zoning hearing examiner's decision should be upheld.

This is an accept or reject.

We won't be hearing from the parties tonight.

I stand for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the counselors?

Counselors, do you have a motion?

Any counselor have a motion on AC 2505.

Counselor February.

Madam President, I'll move to accept the Louhill recommendations and findings.

Second.

There's a motion and a second on AC 2505.

Are there any questions?

Counselor Lewis.

Madam President, I I believe we have to exhaust that that motion, but I would um I think in this case, and just you know, reviewing the the record here.

Um I think this would be one where you know I want to hear the arguments, and I think uh you know, I'd recommend that we uh we reject the Louis recommendation by that meaning it's just gonna come back to us for a full hearing, and I think in a I'd like to hear the arguments.

I think for it to come back to us in a uh a full uh appeal hearing uh would would best honor, I think, um this appeal.

So we have a motion and a second currently on the floor to accept the um rec the Luho recommendations.

So um Counselor Bassant.

Madam President, uh I have a question for Mr.

Hall.

If this were if we were to accept the Luha recommendation and findings and seeing that through the documents that we read and were provided to us, is it possible for the applicant to then go back and file a different appeal and be able to provide more information than they did, or is the only opportunity for furthering the appeal whether it comes back to the full council?

Counselor President, uh Counselor Bassan, uh the applicant would absolutely be able to resubmit an application and provide information that would fit amongst those five factors that are required for a variant.

So it would not be foreclosed by a decision to accept the LUHO's proposed findings today.

Thank you, Councilor Bassan, Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just have a question.

Um, this is in my district, so I just wanted to talk about the appeal was brought on by like who in the is it the neighborhoods that said or surrounding that they don't want the big sign, or is it just our internal processes said they didn't meet the requirement, the five requirements of the IDO?

Councilor President, Councillors uh Rogers uh for a variance to be granted, this has to be a heard by a zoning hearing examiner.

So the comments that were brought by the public surrounding the side of the proposed variants were considered, but the denial rested on the failure of the applicants to provide the requisite information that they need to uh to meet those five elements for a uh variance.

Thank you, madam president.

And so just in my briefing with you, it was just that the applicant did not adequately communicate how they met the five requirements for the IDO per the um zoning hearing examiner.

Council president, council Rogers.

That's that is correct.

Thank you, Madam President.

And then do we know how many people spoke in opposition from the neighborhood?

Uh council president, council Rogers.

I believe the information is in the record proper.

Uh I'm not sure off the top of my head how many spoke uh or how many lodged uh a comment about this particular variance, but I think that information is considered is is in the record proper.

Thank you, madam president.

And then I think the last question is is I know that looking at the map, this is one block off of central.

Right.

If they were on central, would this would they still need the same variance?

Uh councilor uh um council president, counselor rogers.

Uh the uh the requirement for a projection sign is on all areas of an all overlay zones.

That same requirement for the size that uh uh limit of 30 inches off the facade is applicable everywhere.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So it seems as though it doesn't matter really where we go, but the quickest way would it be is for us to reject it and then we can make a decision on the pill, or how long does it would it take them to to go through the entire process again?

Uh council president, it would um uh just for clarification, it would be first to accept the Luho's uh proposed conclusions to bring this matter to a close, and then the applicants would have to appeal, would have to resubmit.

Um I'm not sure of how long a time frame would take that would depend on uh that that kind of uh process for reaching out to the uh surrounding area again, and if they're if they're still requesting that type of variance.

So if we um so if we ex accept it though, um I mean if we reject it, it may be a shorter time frame because it would just be at the next meeting, correct?

And they can have any answer either way.

Uh council president, counselor is it depends um on the outcome of the full hearing before the council um and um you know whether the applicant wanted to pursue a different type of application, for example, um, when that may not require a variance, that could be um a process that they go down as well, like a different type of sign versus the projecting sign off of the side of a building might might have a a clearer path forward for them that might be faster.

Okay, so currently the motion on the floor is a uh motion to accept the Luho recommendations and findings, correct?

Um I'm sorry, Counselor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, you know, uh these these these hearings, especially before the Luho, I think are pretty mechanical, you know, um, and we've set it up like that.

Um, but you know, I think in some cases, and and I I think in this one, um, you know, these applicants uh you know deserve just to present their case so with a full hearing, you know, before the council, and so that's what I'd recommend.

I don't know if I could make it can I make a motion at the same time that the motions on the floor we just need to exhaust that for okay.

I'll make that motion if it if it if this fails.

So there's a motion on the second to accept the Luho recommendations.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say yes.

Oppose same motion, same sign?

No.

So that um so we'll reject so we'll have a full hearing the next goal round.

Counselor Lewis.

Uh so we'll make that motion, Madam President.

Uh move to reject the Luho recommendation.

Sorry, there's a motion in a second to um reject the uh Luho recommendations.

All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.

Yes, yes.

Opposed a motion that's uh five four okay.

Did you capture all that?

Yeah, okay.

We are now on general public comments.

So um members of the public can provide live public comments to the council in person or virtually if they have signed up for public comment per the instructions published on the agenda and our um on our website Friday.

Here are the public comment rules.

Each participant has one minute to present.

Comments are to be addressed to the counselors only through the council president.

Any disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting.

And there will be a one-minute time limit, and the bell will ring to indicate when your time is up.

We have some added information in here, so I'm going to read this out to the community.

It's council services has received several written comments related to a quasi-judicial matter, NAEVA and Wascona, um W S C O N A versus the City of Albuquerque and Mesa Film Studio D 2020 C V 2025-04659.

Pursuant to our rules of procedure, Article 1, Section 8 C.

General public comment shall not be permitted on quasi-judicial matters.

Please do not include in your comments anything related to the Mesa Film Studio case or any other quasi-judicial matter, including AC 2505.

The Luho case appeal appeal on tonight's agenda.

Failure to comply with this rule may result in your comment being cut off.

So please take this time now to edit your comments.

So now we are actually before we go on to our first um public speaker.

Um counselor Baca is going to take a uh personal privilege.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um be very quick.

I have two teenage boys at Albuquerque High School, and they both said if Skyline comes back to city council to please give him a shout out.

So thank you.

Yeah, I'm sorry, um, counselor.

Some of the counselors didn't hear what you said.

We'll get we'll get a second time, second point of rule.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, Skyline, our local hero, is here in the off in the audience tonight, and both my sons saw him the last time he came in, and they asked me to give him a shout out next time he he came to council.

Okay, thank you.

So now Mr.

Cornelius, would you please call the name of the first speaker?

Thank you, Madam President.

Our first speaker is Bianca and Sinias, followed by Sarah Kelly, followed by Molly Blumhofer.

Good evening.

My name is Bianca and Cas.

Tonight takes me back to 2017 when some of us here were here for the uh passing of the IDO, the integrated development ordinance.

We were here representing the Historic Neighborhoods Alliance, comprised of the United South Broadway Corporation, Santa Barbara Martinez Town Neighborhood Association, San Jose, and many more of the historic communities.

We were here to share data showing how the city committed an act of racism in the planning and zoning in communities of color and native indigenous communities through the development of the IDO.

We filed HA filed a Title IX complaint with HUD as well as filed a lawsuit against the City of Albuquerque.

Since 2018, based on racism.

Since 2018, the IDO has been amended 650 times.

The U.S.

Constitution has been amended, I believe, 33 times.

The IDO is a mess and has created a mess.

Our concerns is the HA is the change in zoning, which changed the uses allowed, will trigger the removal of a 3% cap, which according to the Bernalio County Assessors website, removes the 3% cap as it opens up homes to reassessment negatively impacting communities of color and native indigenous communities.

Thank you so much.

Sarah Kelly, followed by Molly Blumhofer, followed by Jackie Davis.

On the 30th of December at the Alvarado Transportation Center, I watched a youngish man board the rapid ride and be slowly casually pursued by two security offers officers, pardon, who then jerked him off the bus, threw him on the concrete, and when the man stood or young man that sort of stood that's and did nothing.

He was amazed in the face.

One of the security officers claimed that the young man had spit in his face.

Officers of the law that need to beat reasonableness that pardon necessity, that's an imminence in order to perform act in order to conduct uses of force.

Security, that's we have no idea what security needs to do.

We have no idea how they're vetted.

That's we need security oversight.

Public private private partnership is dangerous.

Molly Blumhofer, followed by Jackie Davis, followed by Jordan McConnell.

Good evening, Council President, Counselors, and Council Staff.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you.

My name is Molly Bloomhofer.

I am here to oppose plans for the Maverick gas station located that would be located at the Madam President.

I apologize for the interruption.

This is commentary on a quasi-judicial matter.

Oh, I apologize.

Thank you.

Jackie Davis, followed by Jordan McConnell, followed by Brian Donbrowski.

Good evening, Madam President and Counselors.

I need to start by saying that I'm in strong support of the amendments you'll later hear to the IDO.

But I wanted to take this time to express my appreciation for those working tirelessly to make our roadways safer for vulnerable road users.

I want to say thank you to you for unanimously voting to bring our traffic code into the 21st century.

I want to say thank you to the folks at DMD for working hard every day to modernize infrastructure and implement the crosswalk education program.

I also wanted to specifically thank counselors Rogers and Beeblecorn for their tireless advocacy and support for safer streets.

We've seen significant progress this year that has resulted in fewer pedestrian fatalities.

I encourage you, Madam President, and counselors to keep this progress going.

Zero fatalities on our roadways by 2040 is only possible with everyone's continued commitment to making our streets safer.

Thank you.

Jordan McConnell, followed by Brian Dombrowski, followed by Shannon Molina Cordova.

Good evening.

Later tonight you'll consider some modest amendments to the IDO that would allow homes like townhomes and duplexes again, make casitas easier and legalize small neighborhood bodegas.

These proposals did not appear overnight.

During our IDO process, thousands of residents participated.

The planning department gathered years of public input and expert testimony to shape these recommendations.

That work deserves real consideration.

At LUPS, I heard concerns from counselors that they've gotten emails from people who said they didn't know this was happening.

First of all, they did.

More importantly, during budget season, you rely heavily on staff expertise and long-term input.

Why is that standard different here after years of engagement?

I don't see these angry people at budget hearings.

Why is there such a double standard?

Ignoring the process that you, the council have created, and the thousands of voices behind it risks breaking civic and public trust.

Many people are already feeling unheard.

Tonight's your chance to show that their participation mattered.

I'm lucky to be able to speak here tonight.

Most people can't.

Be brave, make better choices, and vote to approve the IDO amendments as passed by the EPC.

Madam President, I'm seeing Shannon Molina Cordova in Zoom.

So I uh Shannon will come to you when we get to our Zoom portion.

Up next is Brian Donbrowski, followed by Adrian Anzaldua, followed by Lisa Christofferson.

President Penna and Council members, tonight I am urging you to work to restore the pro-affordability amendments to the IDO that council received as recommended by the EPC.

The zoning codes and development patterns we built with 30, 40, and 50 years ago worked for the people then, but the system is so rigid and inflexible it is not able to meet the demands, the demands and needs of the people today.

Albuquerque is a working class city, but its zoning code has left no room for workforce housing, and our population is feeling that squeeze.

We've got rising rents and home prices that folks making the area median income can no longer afford.

Homelessness is increasing.

We are displacing our seniors on fixed income.

We're pushing young adults elsewhere to start their families, and we're telling businesses there's no housing here for your workforce.

And our zoning has not stopped it.

Locking everything behind glass has not stopped entropy.

So the little change I'm asking for is just let houses touch.

A townhouse is a single family home.

It just touches the ones next to it.

A duplex is a single family home that touches along one wall.

These types of housing still have a front yard for children to play in, a backyard to grow a garden, and it still houses a single family.

They are not radical.

Adrian Ann Zaldua, followed by Lisa Christofferson, followed by Tyler Richter.

Lisa Christofferson, followed by Tyler Richter, followed by Jane Beckley.

My apologies, uh Chair.

I didn't understand that last time I was making public comment on just that one ordinance.

I thought it was general public time, so I apologize.

So the significant power imbalance that we have or that we're feeling or I'm feeling, maybe I'll speak for myself with landlords.

I work with a lot of young people who are in college and they're trying to get their own homes and trying to get their families started, and there's housing instability, and we're not doing histrionics.

Like you're a realtor.

Where can young people who make $2,000 a month work?

Where can they afford to live in this city?

I mean, honestly, we're just asking for affordable rent.

You all can help us with that.

You had an opportunity, um, and we somehow didn't get there.

We're asking now, please reconsider all of these bills that give us afford protections as renters, as landlords, as people who own property.

We're asking for protection.

You all can do that for us.

Help us.

Tyler Richter, followed by Jane Beckley, followed by Lewis Sutherland.

Good evening.

Today is February 18th, 2026, and begins the centennial year of the Route 66, the mother road.

On September 30th, 2022, Councillor Pena led a ribbon cutting ceremony.

Photos were taken, speeches were made, yet nearly three and a half years later, we enter the centennial year without an operational facility.

Exactly one year ago today, Council President Pena announced again in her district that the public and the Route 66 Visitor Center was opening for business across the nation from Chicago to Tulsa.

Cities are capitalizing on this once in a century milestone.

Here in Albuquerque, home to the longest continuous stretch of urban route of urban stretch of Route 66.

Our 14 million dollar Route 66 visitor center sits dark.

The gates are locked, weeds grow in the parking lot.

I drove by just last week.

This is not a surprise.

This is an execution failure.

And this is and this is bigger than one building.

The city cannot open and operate a single completed facility tied to a date known for decades.

How can residents trust housing production in this city?

Jane Beckley, followed by Lewis Sutherland, followed by Ian Gates.

Madam President.

I thought I signed up to speak on the next item, which is the West Mesa CTA, and on 0262.

So I really don't have public comment now.

I can speak on something in this time, or if you're willing, I'll wait till those are called.

Um well it's up to you, but is she signed up on the other items as well?

No.

So we can add your name to the other items if you prefer.

If you want to say those comments here, you could as well.

Just go ahead now.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

That way you don't have to wait.

All right.

So I oppose EC549, the West Mesa CPA report as it is currently written.

The basis for my opposition is unchanged.

It includes action items, most importantly, item 14, which were never part of any public comment or discussion.

This is based on my personal participation in public events, review of posted comments on the mural boards, focus groups, open houses, and repeated communication with long-range planning staff.

The report now includes materials clearly never referenced in any meeting, which had been appended to the original report.

I can assure you that Alex Horowitz never participated in the CPA assessment process.

Your vote on this is a message to your constituents.

Either the CPA process represents a commitment to public engagement, and its report will faithfully represent the time, ideas, and work of residents, or participation is a waste of their time because the report will be written to reflect political and special interests rather than theirs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So did you want to remove your name from the other item, or you want your name to be on there because I think we misspoke.

He mentioned that it wasn't, but it actually is.

You are signed up on that item.

Um I mean I did want to comment on 0262.

Okay.

Should I do that now also?

Or no, you're fine.

You're you're signed up on there.

Okay, so thank you so much.

Mr.

Cornelius.

Thank you, Madam President.

Lewis Sutherland, followed by Ian Gates, followed by Thomas Aveta.

Uh Madame President, uh Council members.

My name is Louise Sutherland, and I'm a homeowner in District 7.

Uh, when I purchased my home in 2008, I had no expectation my neighborhood would stay the same.

It was clear it had already changed from the time it was built in the mid-50s.

Homeowners had already modified their homes to evolve with their wants and needs.

On my street alone, there are four garage conversions, roofs changed from flat to pitched, and additions built onto the front and backs of homes.

Zoning reforms as proposed by the EPC maintain the 26-foot height limit for townhomes, duplexes, and attached ADUs in the vast majority of residential zoning.

Therefore, these are not dramatic changes over what people are already doing.

Please support the reforms as recommended by the EPC to let Albuquerque adapt to its wants and needs.

Thank you for your time.

Ian Gates, followed by Thomas Abeta, followed by Alfhea Atherton.

Thomas Sabeta, followed by Althea Atherton, followed by Dennis Curtis.

Last meeting, Pinya, you threatened to sue me for libel after I called you Albuquerque's most bribed politician.

So I thought I'd bring some evidence to prove that.

Could I get the overhead, please?

Overhead.

There we go.

Thank you.

So here's what your material looks like here.

This is some uh bad material printed against your opponent.

Uh uh Treaties at Garcia.

Now, on the very back it says that you did not endorse this or approve this.

That's very convenient because the ABQ for all spent thousands of dollars to print this kind of bad uh uh material against your opponent.

Now, what I think is absolutely insidious, where the Citizens United goes too far, is this is a picture of my dear friend Teresa Garcia, the night she survived domestic violence.

But ABQ for all spent thousands of dollars to spread that photo during your campaign.

You could not even be bothered to condemn it because you just wanted to win an election.

This is not freedom of speech.

This is thousands of dollars of free campaign material for you, and we're gonna look at more of that material tonight.

Alphea Atherton, followed by Dennis Curtis, followed by Keith Allen.

Madam President, how do you say I love you to a city in 60 seconds?

When U.S.

Representative Ayana Presley says policy is my love language, spare the niceties and flowers, no minutia this minute for tonight's civic duty done, because as Counselor Rogers said, representation is structural.

How do I say I love you before I say I've that I call home when I've got what, 41 seconds left?

It's too short, at least according to four of you.

Because I think we could use a minute on every amendment from LUPS on.

And sure, we can constantly call you and inundate you with endless emails, but this time, 30 seconds, is also for talking to each other.

Because as zoning nerds have been running a marathon talking about these changes since July.

When any counselor can rose an amendment, I'm doing all that work since July.

So there's no time, 19 seconds.

I better cut ahead when representation is structural.

When a good public comment has changed my mind and my heart, is there time?

11 seconds for civic duty done.

Because when words can only scratch the surface in 60 seconds, I said it in a poem, Albuquerque, I love you.

Restore the two minutes for civic duty done.

Done.

First warning this evening.

Dennis Curtis, followed by Keith Allen, followed by William Indelicato.

Madam President, thank you for letting me speak here.

This is concerning O 262, the uh integrated development ordinance proposed changes.

Bottom line, we need to keep R1 zoning, R1 zoning.

We need single family dwelling zones in this city protected.

There's a reason that we enjoy Albuquerque, single-family housing neighborhoods.

They're quieter, they're homier, they're a place to raise our children and our grandchildren.

This is the American dream.

People work for 30, 40 years for an R1 zoning place.

We want to keep those requirements.

The ordinance will change the R1 zoning to RT with no consideration for that neighborhood.

There is not consistent, there is not consistent with our current way of life.

R1 zoning is created for a purpose that's single family housing.

Over 60% of Albuquerque enjoys incredible blessings of single family housing.

Please do not let these proposals go through.

Thank you.

Keith Allen, followed by William Indalarcato, followed by James Shanley.

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Keith Allen, and I am the owner of Sopapier Productions, an Albuquerque-based film production company.

Back in August, my wife and I spent weeks completing a proposal for an RFP for taking over operation of the Chemo Theater.

We discovered through the process that this was an incredible opportunity to have a multi-million dollar economic impact on downtown Albuquerque.

After four months, we were told the city has decided to cancel the RFP.

We were not given a reason and tried to reach out to Councillor Baca, his policy analyst, director of arts and culture, Shell Sanchez, Deputy Director Diego Lucero, twice each to get no response.

In an interview with KRQE, Councillor Bacca discussed new rules regarding vacant properties downtown and said himself that he'd like to see upwards of twelve events at the chemo a month, a milestone that the chemo hasn't reached in years.

In his own words, this is holding the city to the same standard.

We are also accountable.

So we're looking for answers.

Why was the RFP canceled?

Why was the public not given notice?

What can we do to refill one of, if not the most iconic venues in all of Albuquerque?

Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Please reach out to us at Sopapia Productions.

Thank you.

Councilor Baca.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh Ms.

Sir, we uh we actually do have a meeting scheduled with uh Dr.

Sanchez and Dr.

Single to discuss this issue, so and we'll reach out to you for scheduling.

William Andelicato, followed by James Shanley, followed by Brian Brandy Thompson.

Good evening, Madam President, City Councillors.

I want to get my voice concerning the proposed ID IDO amendments tonight.

I'm a military member, and as I've been moved around this country, I'm often placed in the middle of community stories.

I wasn't here when the IDO was first passed, and the impact of that original IDO meant when I moved into Albuquerque, it was extremely challenging to find a home for my family.

There are many empty uh homes in single family neighborhoods that are unable to be transformed to the useful duplexes and townhomes.

They instead sit empty because small builders can't build the homes people want.

The proposed IDEO changes will welcome new homeowners, such as military members like myself.

Reforming our zoning code would allow those with different housing needs or fewer financial resources to get a home place to call home.

My children will have the benefit of seeing a number of communities as we move.

Is Albuquerque saying they should come back?

And for the children growing up in Albuquerque, is Albuquerque saying they have a future if they stay.

My faith has led me to advocate for those who have less.

Thank you.

James Shanley, followed by Brandy Thompson, followed by Marcelin Costner.

Madam President, Counselors.

We really need the community to believe in this model.

That is a statement of a senior city official in August of 2024 in a news broadcast about the uh conversion of the San Mateo Inn to as the youth gateway center.

Uh as of today, that center is still under renovation with a total budget that has ballooned to 14 million dollars and a projected opening date sometime in the hopefully not too distant future when it will house 40 youth.

In May of last year, or actually in June of last year, Bernalio County approved acquisition of a closed comfort inn at Forth and I-25 for renovation and conversion for family housing.

Less than six months later, they opened that facility and are providing housing to f transitional housing for 76 families.

Something is amiss here.

We all know time is money, but in the context of the unhoused time is also a matter of life and death.

I urge this council to apply rigor not only to budgets of the city, but also to schedules.

Thank you.

Brandy Thompson, followed by Marcelin Cossener, followed by Let's Otvo.

Madam President, Councillors, my name is Brandy.

I'm an emergency room and flight nurse in Albuquerque, and I'm one of the founders of Strong Towns Albuquerque, and I want to give a little background to our group.

In my work, I see the downstream effects of your policy decisions.

I see people injured on streets designed for speed rather than safety.

I see isolation, instability, and too many people without shelter.

Life is hard for too many neighbors.

Strong Towns Albuquerque was began out of that exhaustion and the belief that Albuquerque can do better.

What started as inviting three neighbors to a brewery turned into 73 people on our first meeting.

Many of them are here tonight in this room.

No donors, no paid staff, just community.

We are a big tent.

We don't agree on everything, but we agree that Albuquerque should be affordable, safe, and built for people.

We believe in community fairness and responsibility.

We believe in taking care of each other, and that everyone deserves dignity.

The zoning changes before you tonight are a necessary step toward that future and toward getting our community's needs met.

Strong Towns Albuquerque is here because we love this city and want to share our voice.

Thank you.

Marcelyn Costner, followed by Let's Otva, followed by Brick Jonesy.

Private equity will take everything.

Our land, housing, utilities, and water.

They will use all we have for consolidated profits.

And what will you do?

So far it seems Albuquerque will be one of many victims on a quest for quick profit.

Your unwillingness to fight for us is clear.

You've shown your cards.

If you did, we wouldn't be here every single meeting, begging to be seen and heard.

We are screaming in the streets for help, and you spit in our face.

What real options do we have?

We should really think what happens next.

We are up against historic economic pressures and people are suffering.

Yet you have the audacity to sit on your hands.

We see the four of you that care, and we appreciate you.

We can't wait on five of you to find your decency.

The incrementalism here will kill us.

It will kill people.

It will kill us.

Do something now.

Do something.

Let's Otto, followed by Brick Jonasine, followed by Tabrin back.

I prepared a two-minute speech and a one-minute speech because I wasn't sure about what we were gonna have for time today.

So for the record, I'll put both the one minute and the two minute speech for anybody on YouTube that has the ability to just pause and read my comments.

And and while I'm at it, maybe in the years' time that you've had to figure out how, if you're gonna limit people to one minute now, that you might want to open up the comment section within your YouTube community so that you might hear from other people that can't make it here.

So I'll just sum up in saying that the time for quiet reconsideration is over.

I demand a public audit of all officers who, to my knowledge, have not signed their oath of office as required by the New Mexico Constitution and the United States Constitution.

They simply follow their policy, which states that they will take an oath, but they're not regarding their policy that says that they will follow all New Mexico and federal laws in doing so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Followed by Tad Naminski.

I've never timed it, uh, but I'm pretty sure I can even wipe my ass in one minute.

60 seconds, that's all I get.

Damn.

Uh here's one.

Remember this guy.

That's the nutshaker that works in your family advocacy center around children.

Let's not forget him.

You don't like accountability.

That's the truth of it.

Here's uh here's the oath.

Here's the oath.

This is the thing with those officers back there.

That one, that guy right there, they're supposed to sign.

We're told they're the they're not doing it.

Right.

I want to point something out.

Trespasses.

You cannot cross into jurisdiction that you do not control.

When your officers go into a state office to trespass someone from a state office, the public defender's office.

Guess what?

They're crossing jurisdictional boundary.

They fucked up, they fucked up real good.

Um, I want to point something else out for the people.

This is Black History Month.

I love what our colored or African American brothers have done for us.

I appreciate what you've done.

But when you call me Whitey, thank you.

When you call me Whitey, your time is up.

You're a sorry motherfucking racist piece of shit.

Your time is up.

No, you call me white.

Okay.

Okay.

So this is the thing about public comment.

People get to come here and say whatever, you know, whatever they want.

So uh thank you.

Uh, even though we don't always agree with everything everyone says, this is um public comment is is provided for that reason.

So um, Mr.

Garrett, would you call the next speaker?

Thank you, Madam President.

Tabrine back, followed by Tad Nimetsky, followed by Eleanor Walter on Zoom.

Okay, I can't believe I have to speak after that.

Thank you, Madam President and City Council for this opportunity.

I'm gonna need your overhead in a second.

Thank you so much.

I am here today to talk to you about the banners that are for neighborhood recognition that have been hung along central in honor of the centennial.

Um, I am specifically going to be talking about the area of central between.

Thank you, I-25 and University Boulevard, a stretch of one mile in which three neighborhoods have been misrepresented.

First, oh wrongs.

First, for my neighborhood, the Sycamore neighborhood, our banner reads Sica Moore.

What is Sica Moore?

Now, is that a new species of cicada?

Or is Sycamore a commentary on the mental health of Central?

I live just up the street from Central, and yeah, it's the latter.

Then we come to Silver Hill.

Sweet Silver Hill.

Oh, wait, there's no banner for them.

Instead of their banner, we have banners for University Heights and you guessed it, Sica Moore.

I want all the neighborhoods to be recognized.

Those neighborhoods that are on or connect to Central have struggled for so long.

And this is our opportunity to actually bring positive light to Central Avenue and to make it more inviting.

And we need proper recognition.

I started calling the mayor's office the second week of January, and I understand that my marvelous city councilor, Nicole Rogers, has reached out to the Centennial Committee only to get pushback.

I am here asking that all city counselors assist in making this happen.

And just in case, Sycamore would look lovely vertical, and it creates a visual metaphor for trees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you so much, Tabrine, for coming in and echoing.

We did reach out to Arts and Culture.

They have given us an idea of what it would cost to fix them, and I'm hopeful with administration's help, we can get those fixed ASAP.

Can I also just add that I understand that there are four other districts that either cross or connect to Central Avenue?

And I suspect that given that in a one-mile stretch we've had three neighborhoods misrepresented that the neighborhoods and city councilors should double and maybe even triple check.

I know I walked that section of Central three times to see what was going on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tad Newmanski, followed by Eleanor Walther, followed by Peggy Neff.

Thank you.

Well, for one month, we had no hot water in the Los Altos swimming pool.

How you like it, that in the shower.

Now let me start from the top.

If it's too hot in the kitchen, get out.

You don't have to be here.

You want it.

Take a time and listen, it does something for every oak in community.

I have right here list.

And that will resolve.

For example, agenda.

Really think.

Yeah.

Available only Mondays.

Time to speak.

I started I can say a n about more than 10 points.

We see in district court.

Eleanor Walther, followed by Peggy Neff, followed by Joe Calkins.

Madam President and Counselors.

I began commenting on the 2025 IDO amendments during the pre-EPC briefings and continued through the EPC hearings and the LUPS meetings.

Yet public comments are not consistently carried forward from one hearing to the next.

At the LUPS meeting alone, 23 amendments were introduced.

The public does not see these amendments in advance, and we do not know how many will maybe presented tonight.

The planning department does not summarize public comments for decision makers, which means counselors must sort through a large volume of material on their own.

It is unclear how thoroughly that can be done.

With the limited time allowed tonight, there's no meaningful way for me to fully present my concerns for those reasons.

I respectably urge it do not pass.

Peggy Neff, Madam President, has dropped out.

I'll look for her and call her again.

Um next we have Joe Calkins, followed by Brian Earnhardt, Earhart, excuse me.

Madam President, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Please proceed.

Okay.

Madam President, City Council members, thank you for hearing me tonight.

My name is Jill Calkins.

I live uh half a block north of health care for the homeless.

And I'm speaking again about the homeless camping situation.

Tonight I want to focus on how much these people are moved around to create the image of public safety.

This is really unfair to them as well as to the residents and businesses that have them moved to them every night.

I've seen these people moved up a block, down a block, around a block, over and over and over again.

They have no way that they can just pitch a camp and stay there.

Uh this is very frustrating for them.

It's very discouraging for them.

They already have to fight against the honest of being homeless and all of the other difficulties of being homeless.

Why not, while you're working on the safe spaces proposals?

Why not just give them a place they can camp where they won't be moved away from and where they won't affect the health and well-being of the local residences as businesses.

Um it could be as simple as taking some of the space you already have for the rail yards.

Uh I'm sorry, for the uh rail trail that you won't be developing for years.

Just fence it off and let them stay there.

Uh maybe make four or five zones so that you can move them from one zone to another in order to clean up the place they've been camping.

And give them a little bit of a break.

And give me a break too, because really this ruins my entire life having them camping too close.

Burning fires, raising my allergies, uh, making so much noise I can't sleep without worrying these tickets.

Thank you very much.

Brian Earhart, followed by Shannon, Molina, Cordova.

Uh thank you, Council President and members of the city council.

My name is Brian Earhart.

I'm a homeowner, homeowner in District 9, and I'm speaking today about unnecessary and costly parking minimums.

I grew up here in Albuquerque and can name a number of places around town, a large number of places around town with huge parking lots that I've never ever seen to be full of cars in the multiple multiple decades I've lived here.

Parking is something that is easy to take for granted, but each individual parking spot can cost uh more than thousands of dollars, costs that are then passed on to residents of housing or consumers of businesses.

Eliminating costly parking minimums does not force the removal of needed parking, rather, it removes a costly and burdensome regulation and allows residents and businesses to figure out how much parking makes sense for their individual situations.

While I believe that parking minimums can and should be eliminated entirely, I do want to note that the proposed changes to the IDO take up an important step in that direction.

Proposed changes to the IDO include reductions in costly parking minimums, and these proposed changes were approved by both the Environmental Planning Commission and the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee.

Therefore, I urge the council to pass the proposed IDO amendments as recommended by the EPC, which is the same.

Thank you, sir.

Your time is up.

Thank you so much.

Shannon Molina Cordova.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Hi.

I'm reaching out to you for the fourth time regarding some pressing issues that I believe require your immediate attention.

Firstly, I would like to express my ongoing concerns about the disciplinary board for attorneys.

I believe there are significant issues that warrant a thorough investigation.

It is crucial that we ensure our transparency and accountability within our local governance.

Additionally, I would like to address the use of the camera lights that issue tickets.

I firmly believe that this practice is unconstitutional as it does not provide individuals with a fair opportunity to consent contest the violations.

That is lack of due process.

This lack of due process is troubling and needs to be rectified.

Miss Pena, I am seeking for your assistance.

Um looking into these matters and initiating these investigations.

Your support would be instrumental in addressing these concerns and ensuring our community is treated fairly unjustly.

Thank you.

Madam President, I could not find Peggy Neff, Andre Maas, or Crystal Garcia.

So that does conclude general public comment.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Vice President Champagne.

Thank you, Madam President.

Just kind of a curious of the last public comment, and I go to our attorney.

Is there due process in a civil matter?

Madam President, Councillor Champagne, yes.

And specifically the um the speed camera tickets do include a um provision for contesting, appealing, disputing um that a notification.

Okay, just wanted to be sure.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

I also just wanted to add that our this council, including Councillor Pena worked hard to make sure that there was a ways for folks to even volunteer and then not have to pay your speeding tickets.

We use utilize that for Juneteenth, and I've never seen so many volunteers because they didn't want to pay their automatic speed camera.

So we care about equity.

We know that there's ways that we can appeal.

And if you lose that appeal, go to the one Albuquerque volunteer website, click on automatic speed tickets, and sign up to volunteer at one of our events.

And um, so we do care about fees and find justice to make sure that we wrote that into our ordinance for that as well.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Counselor Rogers.

Um, so we are now on to approvals.

Um item A under approvals is EC549 Community Planning Area Assessment Report, West Mesa CPA.

I move uh receipt be noted.

So there's a motion and a second for receipt be noted by Counselor Rogers.

Um, I know we have some staff here, but I don't know if there's any um discussion related to the report.

Any questions?

Yeah, thank you.

So um with that, we're gonna just move on now to uh public comment, and I think we have a few people signed up to speak.

Mr.

Cornelius.

Thank you, madam president.

Lisa Christofferson, followed by Renee Horbet Horvath, followed by Joshua Butler on Zoom.

Renee Horve, followed by Joshua Butler on Zoom.

Good evening.

My name is Renee Horvath.

I live on the West Side at 5515 Palomino Drive.

And um, so since we're talking about the West Mesa uh community planning assessment, we did attend those meetings, a lot of the meetings.

Um and they did uh quote a lot of stuff in that report that we were concerned about because of our natural features like the petroglyphs, the Mesa, the Voski, the viewscape.

Fantastic.

So we like to see those things protected, but the one things that we are concerned about that I mentioned in my letter was number 13 and number 14, because we didn't really bring those issues up.

Uh number 14 in particular is talking about uh converting a single family to higher density.

Uh we didn't mention that at all.

That just came up.

So we have brought that to the attention that we didn't support EPC to bring it to you guys to decide on this.

And uh so and number 13 is another concern, and I recommended some revisions on that.

So thank you, thank you.

So does that conclude?

Oh no.

Um we're gonna go to Richard Schaefer, followed by Joshua Butler.

Joshua, can you please try to connect your audio?

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Uh I'm speaking on both the IDO amendments and the uh and the um CPA.

So more than 60% of Albuquerque's residents live in R1 zoned homes.

They invest in those homes because they liked the zoning, not in spite of the zone.

And they are your constituents.

Umly they like the living, they like like me.

They like living in R1 zones.

It's uh magical thinking to somehow believe the libertarian argument that breaking up R1 zones will somehow create affordable housing and or resolve homelessness.

It won't.

No one argued for uh breaking R1 sum.

Joshua Butler.

Good evening.

Um my name is Josh Bueller.

I'm the president of the Via Plottal Neighborhood Association.

We're located in the Northwest Mesa topic.

And I'm I'm speaking in opposition to portions of EC25549 and also O262.

Uh I'll speak to both of them at this time because they're along the same lines.

Um there are portions that seek to make changes to the resident of control R reporting stuff on proponents of these changes for R1 zoning.

They're seeking to remedy an underlying problem by advantageously addressing one of the housing symptoms, but not the overall problem.

Housing affordability is more complex than zoning.

And much of the affordability issues the city is facing stem from low household incomes.

What the city really needs, and I've talked about this in a couple of occasions, are more quality businesses that offer quality employment and improve household incomes.

As we attempt to attract and build these businesses, you know, home group in the Snyder.

The city to a degree has lost a bit of its shine.

And the reasons for this are varied and complex, and some of these reasons why we struggle to attract these high-quality businesses.

Uh may have to do with issues of education, health care crime.

Residential zoning is not on the list.

Your time has expired.

Thank you so much.

Can I speak on this second part since I'm and do it in two minutes?

Um, I'm so sorry, sir.

But you are signed up on the IDO as well.

Thank you.

That concludes comment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So uh are there is there any discussion?

So there is a motion and a second for um to accept the um receipt be noted of EC549.

All those in favor, say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed, no.

No.

So that motion passes eight to one with um Councilor Brasan dissenting.

So now we have um item B, EC21, appointment of associate chief administrative officer Carla Martinez to the position of Chief Financial Officer.

So I move confirmation.

There's a motion and a second for confirmation.

Is there any discussion?

Does anyone have any additional questions of Ms.

Martinez?

Seeing none.

Oh, we have people signed up to speak.

We're ready to get this done.

Thank you, Madam President.

We have Adam New to speak.

Okay.

Hi, I um I would like to provide comment on um the IDO regarding um triplexes.

Okay, sir.

Um, this is actually for the appointment of the um CFO.

I made a mistake.

I I meant I meant this.

So you want to speak on the IDO?

I'm sorry, we can add your name um when that comes up.

So um Mr.

Cornelius will add your name for the IDO.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

So I I I can to provide comments in this.

Yes, during that item.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

But there were people before me who who talked about the thing, so I'm a little confused.

Right.

It was in Germain.

I mean, they said that they were going to talk about both, they actually didn't, but um, yeah, so that yeah, it was jet, yeah.

And oh, you're talking about general public comment?

Uh about triplexes duplexes.

Yeah, that was for general public comment, but you can speak on the IDO.

Okay.

So all right, thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam President.

That would include probably EC2622, which is also signed as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So um Councilor Grout.

Thank you, Madam President.

I look forward to working with you, uh, Carla.

Um, I think it's going to be, or Miss Martinez, I should say.

Um, but I enjoyed uh you don't have to.

Um I did enjoy our visit, and I know that we're gonna have um it's gonna be a good year.

Um going into the budget session season.

I think it's gonna work it'll be good.

So I'm looking forward to working with you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any additional comments?

No.

So there is a motion and a second for confirmation of um Miss Carla Martinez.

All those in favor, please say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed, no.

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

So next we have EC22, and this is appointment of Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Matthew Whalen to the position of Chief Operations Officer.

I move confirmation.

There's a motion and a second by um Counselor Lewis.

And we have someone signed up to speak.

Madam President, that was the same gentleman.

Okay.

So I have them written down for 0262.

Okay, so then that would conclude public comment on that.

Are there any comments from any of the counselors?

Seeing none, um, there is a motion and a second for confirmation of Mr.

Matthew Whalen to the position of chief operations officer.

All those in favor, say yes and raise your hand.

Yes.

Opposed, no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations, Mr.

Waiden.

Um, so we are now on to final actions.

So we are um, I guess I will ask our counselors.

Do you want to just go ahead and take a break or do you want to get started?

Okay.

So we'll go ahead and we'll break for we'll return at 710.

Thank you.

Okay, everyone, we're back in session.

So I'm gonna move um the lat the final agenda item 010 um first, and then we'll go into the IDO.

And O ten is amending section 1466-4U5 of the integrated development ordinance to define the criteria for awarding appeal costs.

Mr.

Victor Hall.

Uh thank you, Council President.

Um, counselors.

Uh O 10 would amend Section uh 14664U5 of the IDO to clean up some of the existing criteria under which appeal costs are awarded in land use appeals.

Uh currently um the IDO states that the parties are responsible for their own costs, and it sets an appellate uh reasonable limit, a cost and fees limit of a thousand dollars and establishes a cost and fees uh exemption that may be granted to an appellant that demonstrates hardship, low income in a gentle status.

This bill would include four additional factors to balance reasonableness of costs and fees assessed, including whether the conduct of the parties during appeal was in bad faith or malicious, the objective reasonables of claims and defenses asserted by a party, uh, the extent to which an award of costs and fees would deter others from asserting good faith claims or defenses in similar appeals, the extent to which an award of costs or fees in the case would deter others from asserting meritless claims and defenses in future appeals and objective reasonableness of the parties and the diligence of the parties and or their attorneys during these proceedings.

Uh what this would do is provide more guidelines to the existing appeal framework by adding factors for the LUHO to apply in determining the reasonableness of costs and fees.

It also better supports LUHO decisions that might be challenged on an appeal basis for arbitrary capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law standards when assigning costs or fees.

Uh, these changes generally mirror established factors that are used in other administrative proceedings.

Thank you.

So I will move a due pass of 010.

Is there a second?

There's a second by thing, Councilor Puffett, did you say second?

Well, Councilor Um Grout.

So there's a motion and a second.

I think we have some people signed up to speak before we go to um the counselors.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thomas Abeta, followed by Alphea Atherton, followed by Tad Niminski.

Uh I'd like to remind this council if this doesn't pass for you, Pinya.

This will be the first time any of these five people between Basan, Grout, Champagne, and Lewis, all haven't voted for you because you guys work together to pass legislation like this, which you claim is just cleaning up city council law, but we really know what it's about, which is reducing transparency and the amount of uh and and increasing the amount of vulnerability that these small protest groups have.

Uh this is very clear.

You don't like that LUHO doesn't assign a thousand dollar fee very often.

They usually say, no, we don't know if you are under hardship.

What this bill does is increase the uh the barrier of hardship.

Now organizations that are currently looking uh at lawsuits like uh the uh the the Mesa studio project, uh those folks, like indigenous groups, uh they are not part of the things that would be seen as hardship.

So they're gonna get a thousand dollar fine.

You want to intimidate a spina, and I'm ashamed of you.

Althea Atherton, followed by Tad Numitsky.

May I have overhead, please?

Okay.

Um so right here.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Sorry, this is my first time using the overhead, I think.

Um so I want to just um demonstrate something that is a little bit concerning about the way that these uh fees are assessed.

So say here's your neighborhood association boundaries, right?

Those are historical, those are important, um, related to maybe the development, maybe how that neighborhood came to be.

Um, and those are like kind of more cultural.

Then you have your census tracts, right?

Those are assigned, and they never line up with our neighborhood associations.

And that's how our social vulnerability index is assessed.

So say you have a neighborhood that has more geographic area and it's considered to be a three.

I'm just gonna throw out a number, low social vulnerability, and then you have an area here that's maybe like a seven.

What if more people live in the seven than the live in the three?

Because if you're assessing by land area, you're not assessing by population.

And that's like one of the problems I see with the way that this bill was this um provision was constructed.

Um, and so I think it needs more time, and I think it needs more work.

Thank you.

Tad Namitzki.

That concludes comment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you so much.

So um are is there any comments from counselors?

Counselor Februar.

Thank you, Madam President.

Couple of questions.

Um I notice on page two line 31, we change the um process for this criteria um from the luho to the planning department, and I'm just wondering why we would make that change.

So, Councilor President, uh Council Feeblecorn, the reason why that change was made is because for the LUHO to consider it, it needs to be within the record for them to review under the previous standard created uh a tension where the Luho would have to consider matters that were outside the record by by having the planning department review the criteria and conduct administrators administratively to be included in the record that's transmitted to the LUHO, the Luho is then able to consider those factors in whether a cost or fees exemption may be granted.

Thank you, Madam President.

So um, what have we been doing since this bill passed?

Uh council uh president uh counselor feeble corn, um sorry, since this bill was been passed, is that is that the question?

Since this provision has been play in place.

Whoever wants to answer.

Uh Madam President, Councillor People Corn.

So we have not yet had an appeal that um triggers this this language, and so um the Luho has luckily not been tasked with um doing that review thus far.

Okay, thank you, Madam President.

And so the Luho is an independent um officer, right?

Um how were they hired?

Uh Madam President, Counselor People Corn, they are on a contract with the council services department.

Thank you, Madam President.

And the planning department is under the administration's um purview and report to the CAO.

Is that correct?

Uh Madam President, Councillor People Corn, that the that's correct.

So we're moving, um Madam President, we're moving the this review from an independent third party in council services to uh a member of the city staff.

Madam President, Counselor February, um that's correct with the the caveat that the LUHO would still review the information that is transmitted from the planning department in the appeal packet that we receive for all LUHO appeals, and the planning department is currently tasked with putting together that packet um in general now as well.

Thank you, Madam President.

And then um up earlier on that same page, line 21, we talk about how the um the luho is gonna have a finding um to on the extent to which an award of cost and fees in the case would deter others from asserting good faith claims or defenses in similar appeals.

Um I'm no attorney, but that sounds like I could make anything fit underneath there.

The extent to which this is gonna deter others from asserting good faith claims, what does that mean?

Madam President, Counselor February, um that that language I I read as in is an intent to um not award fees if it would deter others from bringing good faith claims.

So this is all part of the picture that the um Luho would examine for a particular fees um award.

So the Lou, thank you, Madam President.

So the LUHO is gonna determine the extent to which something would deter others, unnamed others in the future.

Um the next line is that they're also gonna determine the extent to which an award of cost and fees in the case would deter others from asserting meritless claims and defenses.

Um so that is all within the third party that is under city council to make these very interesting judgments on extent and deterrence of others, but then we move over to the planning department for the decision on the exemption on how um cost and fee exemptions would be handled.

Okay, thank you, Madam President.

Now we'll go on to Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President.

This you know, this this is you know amending, really, it's amending an ordinance that we passed uh you know pretty recently.

Um and that that ordinance is working.

Um specifically the uh the fine uh that is on here and that how it's specified was meant um uh for fairness um and to be able to treat everybody the same.

Um I think when we when we move it to be more subjective uh we with the intent of trying to be more fair with it, I think it actually makes it less fair.

Um and so uh so I I don't think it's a good amendment uh for several several reasons because I because of um you know I don't believe it's more fair.

I think it actually just adds a lot more subjectivism to it, puts a lot on the luho and others, whereas I think it's pretty clear right now on how the ordinance stands.

Uh and also just because um you know we we do have enough time that this ordinance has been in place to where we see positive results.

Um we see a clear reduction in frivolous appeals.

Um so there's clear data that shows that since this bill that bill passed.

Um but we also um you know I think it's too early to um be for that reason, but also for the reason of just the fact that uh you know we we need more time.

I think to to amend a bill like this at this time uh is just not the time to do it.

And so um, you know, I I uh you know, I I pose this bill.

I I mean um it's working.

The ordinance is working right now.

Counselor Bacca, thank you, Madam President.

Uh I you know to echo counselor Lewis.

Um we have been tracking in our office the the appeals and what's happening over the past several years.

Um big believer in data, needing you know, two years data minimum is what I would typically use in the real world before making any decisions.

I haven't had enough time to really digest this and see if it would matter or help.

Um I definitely haven't had enough time to speak with our counsel on that.

Um first time I'm seeing it is when I when I read it in the in the iPad.

Um and again, I I think our to Counselor Lewis, I think we're the process is working as intended, and we did do some amendments already to kind of protect uh communities and and folks with lower income.

And so I I want to see more data and see how that all plays out before we before we do that.

Um and I have seen within the areas where we have made changes where we are seeing more housing coming in.

Um that that's something that we desperately need here.

Thank you.

Counselor Teas.

Thank you, Madam President.

I have a question about the current process.

And so my understanding right now is that this amendment is to narrowly basically address potential bad faith appeals.

And what is going back to our earlier discussion of an appeal that we discussed earlier in council, we have a five-pronged approach in that process for appellants to file something, right?

What is the requirements that you're seeking that exist now for an appellant to file, and what are the processes that you plan to implement should this proceed?

Ms.

Cloda.

Uh Madam President, Councillor Pena, the IDO um uh Council Mateez, I apologize.

Colour Madam President Councillor Penya the IDO um uh counselor Teas I apologize um the IDO outlines the appeal standard um that an appellant whether that's an applicant who was denied a permit or um maybe a person who lives in the vicinity who is upset with an approval um has to meet um in addition to establishing standing but generally it's um that there was an error in the decision making body below that um needs to be corrected um and that it would change the outcome of the of the uh decision um this bill seeks to add additional criteria that the luho will review when an appeal comes before them um and a cost an appeal costs award might be implicated um and so it doesn't change the existing um process or framework in which um someone could be um liable for up to uh or a thousand dollars of fees um with a couple of exemptions built in it just adds in some additional criteria that the luho is instructed to review um when making that determination of whether someone should be um on the hook for up to a thousand dollars in in costs and fees um and these criteria are taken from um similar uh administrative appeal court contexts um and so that's where they that's where they stem from okay madam president does the luho have the ability to promulgate their own rules for this madam president counselor teas the luho's rules are uh contained in our council rules of procedure and so the lujo doesn't have the ability to make changes to those council can um and then the luho also has procedural uh requirements outlined in the IDO itself okay um madam president last question how are we currently deciding what constitute a frivolous appeal and what constitutes you know a legitimate appeal and is it I it seems arbitrary right now and it just sort of depends who's on luho at the time or Madam President Councilor Teas the um appeal cost language was added in very recently it was I think maybe a year ago now that it was amended into the IDO and we have had appeals since then however they have been um appeals of denials of permits not um you know like a neighbor appealing an approval of something which would fall into the category of potential for costs and fees and so we haven't run into an appeal yet where this language had to be utilized but it was um you know flagged as something that um could use some clarification and correction to make it uh more solid for the lujo and and that he could utilize given that he um he's restricted to the record in appeals or closed record appeals um he can't pull material from outside of whatever is sent to him by the planning department in the packet um so for example it would be difficult to pull up the social vulnerability index because he's not permitted to go to a website and pull something up and look up a map um it has to be in the actual PDF packet that is sent down and so that's the the aim of these these amendments is to address those issues.

Okay.

I know I that was my last question this is my last question I promise Madam President um what is the does the current process allow like supremacy clause I guess can we just use like current law for appeal procedure like there is a five prong you know test we have to prove to appeal would that apply here madam president counselor Teas I think the way that we have worded the IDO really puts the Luho in a difficult position because it says that he shall award costs in this case and so um I think that puts him in a bind of having conflicting directives to follow and so this would clean that up.

Okay thank you thank you thank you thank you so I counselor Lewis thank you and I appreciate our our counsel for explaining you know the bill I mean certainly not advocating for this amendment um you know I I I would expect that that wasn't what I just heard any kind of advocating for a change to this because I think we could make you know the same good solid case that what's set in place right now is is very clear and gives the Luho really good standards and gives clear direction and I think we've seen that you know you could you could make a case that uh um because it has not been you know applied specifically um that it is clear you know it's reduced uh you know the amount of you know fogginess I guess when it comes to you know those that are uh you know considering an appeal um where this might might apply and so uh what this you know amendment does or change would do is I I think it makes it cloudier I think it um uh just opens up more opportunities uh gives a lot more uh some more you know you know legal

Um, you could you could make a case that uh um because it has not been you know applied specifically, um, that it is clear, you know, it's reduced uh you know the amount of you know fogginess, I guess, when it comes to you know those that are uh you know considering an appeal um where this might might apply.

And so uh what this you know amendment does or change would do is I I think it makes it cloudier.

I think it um uh just opens up more opportunities, uh gives a lot more uh some more you know you know leeway um for some unclarity, you know.

Uh and so again, um you know it needs time.

I think I think the the current ordinance needs time.

Um I think it's already proven that it's it is clear and that's uh that's it's good it's good legislation.

Um and uh so but at the same time, I mean it's not the time to amend it.

Thank you, thank you, Councillor Lewis.

So I I mean I'm hearing everybody's concerns, so I I actually we can defer this bill.

This actually came from the Luho, so this is not necessarily my I mean I put my name on it, but this was a recommendation for some hiccups that the Luho actually had.

So I think maybe if we can give it more time so that Julia and you know, talking to uh Julia about their concerns, and seems like they had some legitimate um, you know, um uh loophole, I mean not loopholes, but some serious concerns about how to get some of this stuff done, and this came from the luho.

I think maybe more time to try to figure this out, or or people can vote it down, but I really think that the looholes concern about the way it is as is.

So um Julia, did you want to uh Ms.

Kuladan?

I'm so sorry.

Did you want to add anything to that?

Uh council president, um no, just to echo the sentiment that these um amendments were identified in collaboration with the Luho and our legal staff as um areas for improvement in the existing ordinance.

And so that's that's as you said, where these where these came from.

Um, but I'm happy to also sit with counselors individually to talk through the nuances of what this would what this would do to the existing provisions of the IDO.

Um thank you, Ms.

Kulodan.

So we have one more um person signed up to speak.

Um she had thought she signed up, but um found out it wasn't so okay.

Yeah, we've got you, Loretta.

Thank you, Madam President.

That was an oversight on my part.

I apologize.

Okay, Loretta Naranjo Lopez.

Good evening, uh Council President and Councillors.

My name is Loretta Naranjo Lopez, and I represent the historic neighborhood alliance, and I'm the president of the Santa Barbara Martinez Town Neighborhood Association Association.

The historic neighborhood alliance appreciates city council president Pena for her efforts to consider any individual appallant that demonstrates hardship, low income, or indigenous status, and any entity entity appellate with geographical boundary that includes more than 50 percent of its area within an area that has an overall score of 50 or greater on the city social vulnerability index.

However, the constituents see the constituency of the city councilors are no longer able to defend their land through a due process.

The language on this ordinance does not go far enough to stop the city of Albuquerque from stopping property owners and neighborhood associations to give input on certain land uses which will or can have serious impacts on their residential property and neighborhoods.

Appellants such as neighborhood associations should not be charged a fee when they are following the requirements of the IDO to protect the health safety and welfare of the residents that live in their neighborhood.

This is a developer ordinance to stop any input from the public and only allow land speculators to control the land in Albuquerque.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So with that, um, I guess I can so that you have an opportunity to talk to the rest of the council and maybe um relay some of the concerns from the LUHO.

Um, I would move uh deferral of O ten.

There's a motion and a second.

Oh two.

What's the date of the next meeting?

March 2nd.

To March 2nd.

Is there a second?

There was a second by Councillor Grout.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of the deferral to March 2nd, please raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Opposed same motion.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

So now we are back on two.

And this is Councillor People Corn.

Thank you, Madam President.

O2 is adopting citywide text amendments to the integrated development ordinance 1416 for the 2025 IDO biannual update.

I move it due to pass.

There's a motion and a second for O2.

We have several people signed up to speak.

I don't know if you want to open first, Councilor People Corn, or do you can we just go to public speakers?

Go to public speakers.

Okay, thank you so much.

Mr.

Cornelius, can you call the first speaker?

Thank you, Madam President.

We'll start with one second.

Madam President, you would have to read as a like reminder pursuant to the procedure.

Yes, sorry about that.

We had something added here.

So this is as a reminder, pursuant to the rules of procedure, Article 1, Section 8 C.

General public comment shall not be permitted on quasi-judicial matters.

Please do not include in your comment anything related to the Mesa Film Studio case or any other quasi-judicial matter, including AC 2505.

Failure to comply with this rule may result in your comment being cut off.

Please take this time now to edit your comments.

Mr.

Cornell.

Thank you, Madam President.

We'll start with Jane Beckley, followed by Stephen Holman, followed by Paul Ripley.

Madam President and Counselors.

Patty Wilson said the ideal review process is broken, arbitrary, and capricious, and a little bit insane.

I concur.

Tonight, council is poised to add examples of arbitrary and capricious decisions.

Among those are quote housing proposals, which claim to increase affordability and supply, where scholarly resources refute that argument.

Other arbitrary capricious designations are legislative zoning conversions and negotiable zone districts.

Like many who have spoken on this, I have commented since July of 2025.

The entirety of the amendments is beyond the possibility of commenting individually.

Therefore, I urge you do not pass.

Thank you so much.

Stephen Holman, followed by Paul Ripley, followed by Jackie Davis.

Madam President, City Council.

You have the tools to make this right with the community-based planning.

This may in no way mandates for any affordable housing whatsoever.

Councilor Feeblecorn showed up at the state hearing for Senate bills that would have undermined your zoning authority at the state level.

On top of that, that her intent in announcing her presence as a city councilor in support was to liberally to undermine the process of the IDO.

Who else was there?

Um well we had the NAOP New Mexico Home Builders Association, Partment Association in Mexico, all pro-developer groups.

And then I guess you also pressed uh support for SB 131 at the state senate.

That's strong towns.

Um they advocated also to usurp the IDO process.

So that said, um they also introduced House Bill 103 to mess with your taxes.

Um it will still reassess you by the way if you're rezoned because in our county a change of use is considered if you're getting rezoned.

Um on top of that, we have a thousand petition signatures that have been submitted across the city in opposition.

I ask, please listen to your constituents.

Don't allow people to usurp a legal process that is good.

Thank you.

Paul Ripley, followed by Jackie Davis, followed by Patricia Wilson.

Council President, it's Paul Ripley.

I'm a board member on the Onyotka Neighborhood Association, also a member of the Foothills Area Command Community Policing Council.

Very concerned about the upzoning aspect of the IDO.

It's a good idea, badly executed.

Wholesale change of R1 zones to RL, terrible idea.

I think it it needs a lot more discrimination about which neighborhoods are affected.

This is the whole city, it's not my neighborhood.

Um the major transit corridors are way too large for a zone change like this.

It takes up blocks of existing neighborhoods.

Um I hope that this amendment to 026 stays, and that the upzoning is not included in this IDO.

Thank you.

Jackie Davis, followed by Patricia Wilson, followed by Loretta Naranjo Lopez.

Good evening, Madam President.

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam President and Counselors.

I am here to urge your support to amend this back to the EPC's version in order to allow more housing choices.

States, both red and blue across the country, are adopting these changes to make their communities healthier, safer, and more affordable.

Montana passed a bill in 2023 that allowed duplexes in municipalities above a certain population in single family zones.

Arkansas passed a similar bill, Act 313 in 2023 that allowed attached accessory dwelling units, garage apartments, and limited parking regulations.

Colorado passed a similar bill to the Arkansas bill in 2025 to allow attached and detached accessory dwelling units.

These reforms transcend party lines and will give people the choice to choose the home that is best suited for them.

I urge your support in allowing more housing options.

Thank you.

Patricia Wilson, followed by Loretta Naranjo Lopez, followed by Jordan McConnell.

Madam President, Counselors, there's nothing I can say in 60 seconds that I've not already said, starting with the pre-EPC submittal spreadsheet last July.

I and others have submitted hundreds of letters and online comments.

The planning department slide, finding the balance shows, quote, protecting neighborhoods, special places and city open space on an equal footing with incentivizing high quality development in appropriate areas.

Why does it never feel balanced?

Once neighborhood protections are lost, you can never get them back.

None of the proposed amendments have criteria for affordable housing.

Bills still undecided at the state seek to eliminate regulations.

The lack of missing middle housing has more to do with professional liability risks than zoning regulations.

And how can over 715 changes in six years point to anything other than a broken process?

I urge a do not pass.

Thank you.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez, followed by Jordan McConnell, followed by Brian Dombraski.

Council President, Counselors.

HA requests this matter go back to the planning department to work with the property owners and you can and your constituents in order that their input is heard and implemented.

One of the original purposes of zoning was to keep incompatible uses separate from residential areas.

Studies have shown that allowing higher density housing in established single-family dwelling neighborhoods makes the area unaffordable and changes the character of the neighborhood.

Martinez Town Santa Barbara neighborhood was zoned heavy commercial.

We have almost every zone category categories that is in the IDO.

Our neighborhood is currently being gentrified, and the city still has no plans to help the historic neighborhoods from the gentrification.

The articles, the article on the attack of single-family zoning.

The article states why restrictions are necessary on building height and number of stories on not on why not allowing not allowing duplexes in townhouse in established residential zones, but in RT zone and MX zone.

We ask that you stop the discrimination and protect and preserve our historic neighborhoods.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Jordan McConnell, followed by Brian Dombrowski, followed by Luis Sutherland.

Good evening.

I want to name something that's been impossible to ignore on the debates over IDO amendments.

The people speaking in favor of these amendments are overwhelmingly younger than the people speaking against them, most of whom already own a home.

That's not a coincidence.

It's the generation that's trying to stay here, build a life in Albuquerque, asking all of you to make just the smallest amount of room for us.

And there are more of us than you think, and we're tired of hearing you say that you support affordability for everyone while watching you vote against every reform that would make that possible while claiming you work for us and want us to stay here.

These amendments, as proposed by the EPC, are incredibly mild.

They don't erase R1 neighborhoods, they don't force changes overnight.

They simply allow modest incremental housing options that used to exist in the city.

It's also hard to find R1 zoning sacred when it's so exclusionary.

Please don't tell us you believe in affordable homes for everyone if you're not willing to take even this tiny step forward.

Set ego aside, listen to the future of the city, standing in front of you tonight.

Vote yes on the amendments as recommended by the EPC, the experts that you chose to guide these decisions.

Thank you.

Brian Dombrowski, followed by Luis Sutherland, followed by Deborah Benton.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Brian Dombrowski.

I'm a homeowner in District 1.

Change allows our neighborhoods to mature.

Rigity and rigidity and control does not equal stability.

Just ask my neighbor who is no longer able to drive.

He's now entirely dependent on paying for a caregiver because he can't walk to get groceries or other essentials that lie outside of our neighborhood.

Or ask my neighbors who adult children are still living at home because their postgraduation wages can't even get them on the first rung of the housing ladder, renting in town.

Ask my neighbors who had to leave their community of 30 years because there was nothing they could do to downsize into.

There was a single story after they had back surgery.

Ask my friend who was trapped living with her abuser because she couldn't afford to live on her own.

These changes are in alignment with our comprehensive plan.

Housing is housing at the end of the day.

Why can't we support modest changes that will help restore sane market rate unit prices?

Not all of us have lived here for the last 30 years, but a lot of us here tonight want to live here for the next 30 years, and we need housing, and it should be affordable.

Brian Don Brows, oh, I'm sorry.

Louis Sutherland, followed by Deborah Benton, followed by Carlos Michelin.

Hello, Council President and Council members.

My name is Luis Sutherland.

I'm a homeowner in District 7.

I'm here to express my support for uh the zoning reforms recommended by the EPC, in particular the allowance of duplexes, townhomes, attached ADUs, the enditas, and the reclassifications along major transit corridors.

These are smart reforms that take advantage of upcoming and existing resources.

These reforms help support small local builders and reduce the potential for displacement.

If a location within Albuquerque becomes highly desirable, it is best to allow uh building options of variety.

If not, the well off will buy up and expand their homes and these desira desirable locations rather than having a mix of options.

Please support variety, please support freedom, and pass the reforms as recommended by the EPC.

Thank you for your time.

Deborah Benton, followed by Carlos Michelin, followed by Michelle Guidelines.

I ask that R1 zoning be retained with no amendments.

The idea that increasing housing density will automatically reduce rental and housing prices is a false premise.

The urban institute's March 2023, comprehensive study of 1,000 US cities over the time period of 2000 to 2019, found that no statistically significant evidence that additional lower cost units became available or moderated in cost following reforms.

Rather, the increase occurred predominantly for units at the higher end of rent distributions.

This was corroborated by a 2023 study from the Wharton School in Pennsylvania.

I have more research, but I'm out of time.

Thank you.

Carlos Michelin, followed by Michelle Gaidelas, followed by Michael Deban.

Good evening, Madam President and Counselors.

My name is Carlos Michelin, and I live in District 2.

I am here to urge you to restore the citywide provisions that were passed by the EPC unanimously.

Your EPC, experts that you assigned to look at this kind of issues.

And before that, um it went through professional city planning and public input since July, as several people have said.

Please pass everything on the EPC, yes.

Michelle Guidelis, followed by Michael Devin, followed by Brenda Marks.

Good evening.

My name is Michelle Gadellas from District 6.

I work one job, but I've worked two jobs in the past.

I don't have time to call and email repeatedly, but I have friends across multiple districts who feel the same, and we are all watching.

Albuquerque is growing, and we need housing options.

We need walkable neighborhoods and safe spaces for our unhoused neighbors.

Most of us are one bad year away from needing exactly what this ordinance would create.

As the saying goes, there but for the grace of God go I.

Something I used to hear from my mom all the time, who managed to pull herself up by her own bootstraps with a lot of help from a lot of different people.

Honestly, we me and my friends, we are all paying attention.

They're all in different areas of the city, and um we all vote.

Please support this the uh EPC approved amendments and get rid of the exclusionary zoning that has always been exclusionary since the beginning of the 20th century.

Thank you very much.

Michael Devin, followed by Brenda Marks, followed by Dennis Aragon.

Madam trying to see Michael Devin on Zoom, so I will transfer him over to my list.

We'll now go to Brenda Marks, followed by Dennis Aragon, followed by Adrian Anzaldua.

Madam President, members of the council.

Um I am Brenda Marks, I'm president of the Union Castle Neighborhood Association.

You all received a letter from us over the weekend, I believe, via email.

I hope you did.

If you didn't, I'm happy to give you one.

Um as I said in that letter, 069 overlay duplexes, town homes, and low-rise multifamily in our neighborhood.

Um we have produced nothing, but that doesn't mean that when housing, when money gets cheaper and products get cheaper, that it won't happen.

What concerns us is the zoning conversion language, if it's reinstated, you're gonna switch us from R1 to RT, and then there is nothing in that language that prevents a developer from switching RT to MXT immediately.

There's no stop.

It goes from one to the next, and that will put commercial zoning in our neighborhood, which will which will ruin our neighborhood.

So I urge you to vote no.

Dennis Aragon, followed by Adrian Anzaldua, followed by Benjamin Bean.

Good evening, council.

So I had to have attended the last two LUPS meetings, and at the last LUPS meeting, LUPS was discussing parking minimums.

Um, at the general consensus around parking minimums was why do we need to, why do we need to regulate?

Like, why should the city tell businesses how many parking parking spots to put why can't the business just decide?

Right?

We should we shouldn't micromanage businesses in that way, right?

And developers in that way.

But then I hear a contradiction because the same folks who agreed we shouldn't micromanage businesses regarding the parking spaces.

Now we're micromanaging property owners who may want to convert their homes into duplexes or small developers who may want to build uh starter homes and more affordable types of housing in their neighborhoods.

Just a reminder for just everyone a duplex, all a duplex is a house with two with two like housing units inside it, two front doors.

A town home is literally just a single family home with that shares of wall with another single family home.

I don't think this is that radical.

Thank you for speaking.

Adrian Anzaldua, followed by Benjamin Bean, followed by Tyler Richter.

Benjamin Bean, followed by Tyler Richter, followed by Andrew Kelleher.

Madam Chairman, counselors.

Uh tonight you choose prosperity or poverty.

That's your choice.

No doubt you've been receiving many impassioned emails from people who are scared or angry over what 0262 will do to their neighborhood.

I'm scared too.

I'm afraid of what will happen to our city without the changes to the IDO.

Unfortunately for us, our city will change whether we want it to or not.

If we keep going as we are now, our neighborhoods will crumble under the weight of time without enough people to help spread out the load.

Roads will get worse, houses will fall into disrepair as it becomes unaffordable to maintain them, and essential services will be cut.

I am also hopeful.

With these changes, we can grow our infill housing and businesses.

This will mean more people to spread out costs so that each person can afford their share of the maintenance of our roads and infrastructure.

It will mean more businesses to generate revenue and make our city thrive.

It will mean abundance for Albuquerque.

Thank you for representing Burcanos.

Tyler Richter, followed by Andrew Kelleher, followed by Rihannon Samuel.

Evening.

We just talked about the execution failure at the $14 million Route 66 visitor center.

Still isn't open.

Now let's talk about housing.

What are we in a housing shortage?

We are pricing out working families.

We are losing young professionals.

Housing supply is not philosophical.

It is math.

The EPC changes to the IDO restore traditional neighborhood building patterns.

They allow incremental density.

They let development do what government has proven it cannot deliver housing efficiency.

This is the contrast.

When government tries to manage and operate, we get locked gates and weeds and parking lots.

When we modernize zoning and allow the market to build, we get homes.

Execution matters.

If we are serious about affordability, stop stalling incremental housing.

Reform and pass the EPC supported changes.

Let the builders build, let the neighborhoods grow responsibly and deliver results.

Andrew Kelleher.

In particular, I wish to voice my support for the allowance of increased density, corner stores or tianditas, and the less onerous minimum parking requirements.

As counselors consider the amendment package, I would ask you to keep in mind the benefits of corner stores and increased density for older folks.

For the suburban elderly, a lack of walkability and absence of neighborhood shops means that they are dependent on their ability to drive to be social and purchase groceries.

For many elderly Albuquerque residents, driving becomes a frightening and dangerous prospect as they age.

I mean, many of us have maybe had to have that conversation with older parents or grandparents about stopping driving.

And they can then become isolated, right, in a city mandated low density sprawl.

I encourage you to pass the amendment package.

Thank you.

Rihanna and Samuel, followed by Phoebe Rowe, followed by Monique Hardy.

Good evening, Council.

Rihanna and Samuel with NAOP New Mexico.

NAOP has had a track record of advocating for the easing of restrictive zoning and unnecessary regulation.

We have also had a track record of supporting a range of housing options across our city because we recognize that Albuquerque is in a housing crisis.

Overall, we broadly support the IDO amendments before you, and we understand there's a few amendments before you this evening too to help add for duplexes, townhomes, all the things that would naturally increase density.

Again, something NAOP has been on the record for for a long time.

I will continue to assert though, if we want to really have an impact on housing, we need to work on density.

We need to work on height restrictions because what we're seeing on the developer side of things is that people and consumers are looking for walkable mixed-use in-fill environments.

And the more that we restrict and we have more micromanagement, the less that's going to happen.

So thank you for your consideration.

Phoebe Rowe, followed by Moni Cardi, followed by Raymond Taylor.

Madam President and Counselors, my name is Phoebe Rowe, and I am a resident of District 6.

I am here in strong support of the thoughtful and very moderate amendments proposed in the EPC's version of 0262.

I believe, and I think all of you do that access to housing and food are just basic human rights.

And tonight you do have the opportunity to act on that belief and make food and housing more accessible to neighbors across our beautiful city.

Families could more easily build casitas for their parents to age in place.

Entrepreneurs could open small grocery stores and food deserts, and real community wealth could be built in our neighborhoods.

I live in a wonderful community of neighbors in District 6, many of whom have to continue to rent because they cannot afford find affordable housing in the community that they love so much.

They want to invest in the community and build their families, and they don't have any options to do so.

So as many have said, this is not radical.

Please pass the full IDO amendments.

Thank you.

Monique Cardi, followed by Raymond Taylor, followed by Althea Atherton.

Good evening, Madam President and Council members.

My name is Moni Cardi, and I'm a resident of District 6.

I am here today to oppose 026-2.

I am deeply concerned about the situation in Albuquerque, which seems to be spiraling out of control, as council members have failed to listen to us.

Every week, residents attend these meetings to express their support or opposition to the policies and projects you advocate or oppose.

As you know, New Mexico is a beautiful state with sacred sites, purple mountains, pink sunsets, and your rich living culture.

Many people visit for its beauty, and we are proud to call it home.

The proposed changes that threaten sacred sites in ultra historic neighborhoods like Martinez Town will only make our city look like any other.

A feature the people of Albuquerque do not want.

We support more affordable housing and efforts to beautify our city, but we deserve a real voice in decisions that affect our neighborhoods.

I urge you to stop listening to those who try to influence you with money and instead listen to the people who elected you.

Thank you.

Raymond Taylor, followed by Althea Atherton, followed by Brittany Means.

Good evening, President, Counselors.

My name is Ray Taylor, and I live in District 2.

I've spoken before about learning not to fear zoning updates, and about an eighth-generation New Mexican who saw no path to owning her own home here.

Those conversations clarified what this is really about.

Historically, affordability was closer to three times income.

Here in Albuquerque, we are between six and eight times median income.

That gap is not about personal responsibility, it's about policy.

Housing scarcity decides who gets to stay.

The pro housing elements of O262 as passed by the EPC, restore a greater variety of housing types and allow neighborhoods, scale local shops again.

The housing shortage will not solve itself and delay only deepens the inequity.

Stand by the work you commissioned.

Keep the pro-housing provisions as passed by the EPC.

Thank you.

Alpha Atherton, followed by Brittany Means, followed by Denise Willie.

Hi, Madam President.

I urge you to pass the IDO updates as it passed EPC, especially on bodegas and duplexes.

As for the Main Street amendment from LEPS, while I applaud the parts about restricting auto-centric businesses, I think including adult businesses denies the history of Route 66 and will have a lot of unintended consequences.

If you're not sure what those definitions are, look at page 562 and page 612, it spells it out.

So when you have a medical issue with pelvic floor dysfunction, or if you've had surgery on your pelvic floor, like bottom surgery, your TT or doctor may send you to get a set of what's called dilators, and you can't really buy those at Walgreens.

They send you to the sex shop for that.

And we want people to be spending that money in Albuquerque on Route 66.

And what about sex ed?

I teach a life-saving medical information uh-based class through the lens of pleasure.

I don't want to have to update my curriculum based on a zoning code about walkability.

Thank you.

Brittany Means, followed by Denise Willie, followed by Thomas Obeta.

Good evening.

My name is Brittany Means and I live in District 6, and I'm here to support the ideal amendments recommended by the PEC or EPC to expand housing choices and improve affordability in Albuquerque.

As much as I love the idea of walking down the street from my house for groceries and entertainment in a walkable neighborhood, I'm here to support this ordinance primarily because of its amendments and the um because of the potential it has for reducing homelessness.

Other large cities like Houston, Minneapolis have used similar zoning laws to improve housing affordable affordability, expand shelter access, and decrease encampments not through inhumane sweeps or criminalization or stealing the belongings of our most vulnerable neighbors, but through providing resources.

A study from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development showed that restrictive land use regulations increase homelessness by 9 to 12 percent, and then an increasing housing supply elasticity by just one standard deviation decreases homelessness by about 10%.

Every time some common sense measure comes up that could help the people in this city, certain members of this council, Hem and Haw about made-up concerns that are so far removed from our actual material conditions that it's almost laughable.

Please support this.

Denise Willie, followed by Thomas Abeta, followed by Joseph Greenwood.

Great, thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair and community members.

My name is Denise Willie, a community member of Albuquerque.

I live in District One.

I am here to oppose the amendment.

Having lived in Albuquerque for two years, I must ask myself what brought me back.

My family enjoys the culture, the family the many trails and the urban aesthetics.

But I also care about protecting sacred sites and preserving neighborhoods.

Providing affordable housing and economic security for Albuquerque residents.

You can develop with sound judgment and in compliance with applicable land use regulations.

The City Council disregards for its constituents' comments, reflects pure, poor decision making and treats us as if we didn't matter.

Keep in mind the people who live here as well as yourselves.

Don't decide for us.

We should decide together.

Thank you.

Thomas Abeta, followed by Joseph Greenwood, followed by Elizabeth Parsons.

This is uh quite the legislation, uh Tammy that you've put up.

Uh unfortunately, whether or not your fellow city councilors support it, as you know, has nothing to do with anything we say here tonight.

Uh, and that is because, as I keep repeating, you are bribed, Clarissa Pena.

Uh, in fact, let me continue making that argument of why the way you vote is determined by folks like NAOP, who we've heard, uh, GAR, uh, the apartment associations.

If I could have the overhead, please.

Overhead.

Oh, I see it.

I don't.

Uh so this here says who is putting out your campaign material paid by the Albuquerque Coalition for Transformation, a national association for realtors fund.

Uh, one of those big donors that says right down here, the Greater Albuquerque Association for Realtors.

GAR, they're funding your campaign.

Here is another good one.

This is one that says what you're gonna do.

More construction.

Here's a chance to vote on that.

Why?

Because GAR is gonna tell you what to do.

Here's another piece of it, all the same stuff.

Here you go, all the way at the bottom here.

It says, Who pays for you?

Gar, they fund your campaign.

I couldn't find one for you, Lewis, uh, but this one's also a view.

Says of the same thing down here, paid for paid for by the National Association by the National Coalition uh for realtors.

You all are bought by realtors, they want more real estate, and you're giving them exactly what they want.

Whether or not this is good legislation or bad legislation has nothing to do with the way you vote, Pinya, because you're bribed, and you're gonna vote however they tell you to Joseph Greenwood, followed by Elizabeth Parsons, followed by Adam New.

Madam President, counselors, I'm a resident of District 2.

As a roadrunner food bank employee of eight years now, something I'm immensely proud of is the workforce solutions program that we have to help low-income people take their next steps.

In the years that I've supervised these interns, I found that housing insecurity is pervasive amongst them.

Given that many of them do not have automobiles, proximity to the workplace is of utmost importance.

Roadrunner Food Bank is located at I-25 in Jefferson in an area of light manufacturing and business park zoning.

In the adjacent North Valley area in the areas to the east across the highway.

One is hard pressed to find a rental that is less than a thousand dollars per month.

This is untenable for these interns that I work with.

Allowing multifamily and mixed zoning in every part of our city would put us on the path to giving everyone, especially the most economically vulnerable amongst us the chance to live near where they work.

I ask you to please bring back the EPC amendments.

I appreciate it.

Sorry?

Elizabeth Parsons, followed by Adam New, followed by William Intelligatle.

Okay.

Good evening, Madam President and Counselors.

My name is Liz Parsons, and I'm here to speak in support of the full IDO amendment package.

I work as a community health nurse here in Albuquerque, and I view this ordinance as a matter of public health.

Homelessness in Albuquerque doubled from 2023 to 2024.

Doubled.

That is a wildly unsustainable growth in individuals who cannot afford a place to live.

Simply put, housing demand severely exceeds supply.

The EPC amendments to the IDO would increase supply and it would do so in gentle ways that don't encroach on land, don't ruin neighborhoods, and use existing infrastructure.

Homelessness is a housing problem.

The data shows it.

If we want a city that is a prosperous place where our neighbors have a safe and dignified space to be, then we need to support these changes.

If we want increased food access and local economic development, then we need to support these changes.

Please support the EPC amendments to the IDO and support access to housing, food, and a healthy community for our neighbors.

Thank you.

Adam New, followed by William and Delicato, followed by James Shanley.

I'm sure by now that you've heard both sides of the IDO change.

Sorry, I can't do that.

Could I get the headroom please?

I I think there are ways to have both sides like um.

I'm sorry, I can't, I've never done this before.

No, you can keep going.

Madam President, I request that he is allowed extra time to the first time.

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

We're already turning off the timer.

So I remember that.

Council Chair, may I read for him?

What do you want?

Is it okay if I read what he has?

Um I I think you've got this.

I'll I'll read.

I, along with others, have some thoughts, concerns, and feedback regarding um the change to IDO amendments.

The original I am not to increase housing supply by long duplexes and triplexes in single Fleming zone areas.

However, I think there are ways that balance both the issues with part with um with parking, character protection, also still allow duple duplexes.

Um one thing is you know, um, you have um I suggest doing an owner obviously requirement, allow duplexes only if one unit is owner occupied, and um allowing a second unit, but also restricting investor-owned rental duplexes, effectively reducing speculation, encouraging long-term residences.

Um another thing I would like to add on is um also protecting neighborhoods by um requiring duplexes to um resemble single family homes or capping the height and um setbacks on on these duplexes while retaining neighborhood character.

So there are ways to balance both you know the need for housing, but also acknowledging character.

Um you can see in the overhead if you want to bring it down.

I have a list.

I don't have enough time to say everything, but um so if you guys want to take a picture of me, there are ways to call me both sides of you know the issue.

Um I I urge to reconsider you know, um thank you.

Adam Adam, Adam, if you want to leave your notes with you and then we can get copies and get them to the counselors, that would be awesome.

I have like 12 copies, so um here.

Thank you so much for your comments with all the dialogue that's gone on this evening to hear somebody it's a breath of fresh air to hear somebody talk about compromise and working together.

So thank you so much.

I think you've been the best public speaker tonight.

So um uh Mr.

Cornelius.

Thank you, Madam President.

William in Delicato, followed by James Shanley, followed by Sebastian Fierro.

Good evening.

If you say you want increased housing supply, you need to pass the original IDO charges.

If you say you are concerned about affordability, allowing density citywide reduces the cost for new construction.

If you want economic development, all this taken together signals to builders and businesses that Albuquerque is worth investing in.

If you were concerned about local businesses, zoning reforms allow local builders to create jobs rather than large developers to dictate our economic future.

If you are concerned about your neighborhoods changing, preventing change results in stagnation while new families can bring life and laughter.

If you are afraid of new housing types being disruptive, townhomes, casitas, and college courts integrate within the neighborhood, they don't take over.

If you care about the fabric of your community, neighborhood stores build walkability, improve the fabric and community of neighborhoods.

If you care about being a good neighbor, we are called to be hospitable neighbors and advocate for the public welfare.

For those who have been shown generosity, our only response can be love and hospitality.

For those who call themselves faith-based, we must make every effort to remove these barriers and build capacity for the leaves of your citizens.

I implore you, act out of love for your neighbor and welcome the outsider.

James Shanley, followed by Sebastian Fierro, followed by Renee Horvath.

Madam President, counselors, I certainly do not end the any of you having to parse so many absolute assertions of facts that are in direct contradiction with each other.

But I think we can all agree there are certain facts in this city.

One is we have thousands of people who are unhoused.

Their issue is not housing availability, it's affordability.

We also know the fact that we have a 20% commercial property vacancy rate.

It's really hard to contrast that with a viable business plan for a corner bodega or tiandita that's going to depend on just walkable customers.

There is a real need for practicality and also for compromise.

If we want densified housing that is affordable, right now it has to be developed on the corridors because they're screaming for that opportunity, and that's where the land values are, not in the value, present value of single family homes.

Rather than dictate change, let's let's find conditional opportunities that are not unduly obstructive for neighborhoods to collaborate and agree on options to develop for a better future for Albuquerque.

Thank you.

Sebastian Fiero, followed by Renee Horveth, followed by Amy Skorheim.

Good evening, Madam President and City Councilors.

My name is Sebastian Fierro, and I live in District 8.

Specifically on a Ubankin Juantabo.

From my apartment, I'm a quick walk away from a wonderful park, a grocery store, and other small businesses.

And I've even biked up to Barricane and Arroyo on occasion.

So I've really come to enjoy this neighborhood, but it's unlikely that I'll be able to afford to buy a home there due to the lack of the housing supply and just the general unaffordability.

I might even have to go, let's say, to the West Mesa, somewhere really car dependent to be able to afford a home of my own and lose the perks that I've come to enjoy with the neighborhood I live in now.

So that's why I wholeheartedly support that you restore the pro homes amendments to Albuquerque's IDO as recommended by the EPC.

Allowing more more housing types in these neighborhoods will help young people like myself establish themselves when it when it has already becomes increasingly difficult for us to even get a foot in the door of the housing market.

Please consider young workers, students, and young families in your decision.

Thank you very much.

Renee Horvath, followed by Amy Scorheim, followed by Grace Dukes.

Good evening again.

That wasn't long ago.

And we had it to increase the density.

And so we and the taller buildings, we they're making taller buildings, less parking, less usable open space around that.

So we already did that.

What I'm seeing at we're building tons of apartments on the west side, and none of them are affordable.

Even though you increase the density.

Now you're looking at the R1 zoning and you want to change that, thinking it's going to solve the affordability issue.

Well, it isn't.

It's going to make things worse because you increase the density, it's still going to be rentals, and you're still going to be at the mercy of the rent.

If they decide to up your rent, you gotta pay for it.

You want to maintain R1 zoning because you own the home and you and you can afford it.

None of the cities that tried this, it has failed.

Increasing the density has not solved our problems.

And so we need to re-examine how we do IDO amendments because there's still a lot that needs to be dealt with.

Thank you.

Amy Skorheim, followed by Grace Dukes, followed by Nicole Lopez.

Hello, Council President and uh Council members.

My name is Amy Skorheim.

I live in District 6.

Uh, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of the IDO pro homes amendments as recommended by the EPC.

I love Albuquerque, but I see its problems, particularly a lack of access to affordable housing.

I strongly believe these amendments will help uh by creating more neighborhood-based housing.

They mandate unused parking lots and prohibit small scale neighborhood businesses.

These mandates are unnecessary and they're not part of Albuquerque history.

We began with the freedom to be able to intermix residences and businesses.

That's why older areas like Old Town and Knob Hill are walkable and fun to visit and fun to live in.

That's why it's there such in demand.

I want my mother to be able to walk to a bodega in her neighborhood.

I want young people to be able to find affordable places to live.

I urge you to support the IDO amendments as recommended by the EPC.

Thank you.

Grace Dukes, followed by Nicole Lopez, followed by Joe Cardillo.

Thank you.

Madam President, members of the council.

My name is Grace Stukes.

I'm a renter in District 4.

I'm a student at UNM.

I'm in support of the amendments to the integrated development code.

It is important that we prioritize affordability among all else.

As a student, as someone who rents, I understand that maybe some things have higher prices than they should be.

One thing is housing.

It is very hard to find affordable housing in Albuquerque.

I had to move 20 minutes away from UNM to find affordable off-campus housing.

And my apartment's pricing is managed by AI, RealPage.

You can go on their website.

There is a map of all of the all of the apartment complexes in Albuquerque that use real page, including Casa Celrio on UNM campus.

So I ask that you approve the amendments to the IDO and you go further and ban real page from managing Albuquerque apartment prices.

Thank you.

Nicole Lopez, followed by Joe Cardillo, followed by Isabella Oviedo.

Good evening.

I'm a native New Mexican.

My family has been here for generations.

But I spent the last four years finally getting out of New Mexico and seeing what else exists in the U.S.

I lived in Atlanta for two years and Miami for another two years.

And I was able to see how living in a different place with a full spectrum of housing really contributes to the vibrancy of a city.

Atlanta is a perfect example.

Its vibrancy didn't happen by accident.

It was built through a diversity of housing types that fed into unique neighborhoods, supported local businesses, and created a sense of movement and possibility.

Their butt line connects the city in a way that invites people to live, walk, and gather.

That kind of vibrancy is not created by restricting development, it's created by allowing it.

I also work in an industry focused on bringing companies and founders to Albuquerque, and I can tell you it's a difficult sell.

Not because people don't love our culture or landscape, but because the larger ecosystem hasn't been built to support a transient professional population.

Many people come to the city for three, five, ten years, and they want multiple housing options, including condos, neighborhoods with cafes, museums, walkable corridors.

Thank you.

Joe Cardillo, followed by Isabella Oviedo, followed by Adam Bassett.

Good evening, Council President, Councillors.

I guess I'd find myself reflecting on a lot of the comments that I've heard, not just in this meeting, but also the last couple.

I think the fact that I think we can all recognize that the costs are going up for folks in a lot of areas, and I think a little bit about, you know, when I go to Smith's, the bag of groceries that I fill up used to be $35.

It's $55, $60.

And you know, that moment you look over at the person next to you and you're like, oh, you're putting something away too.

Um I think that's happening to a lot of us in a lot of ways, and those decisions are getting made on our utility bills and you know, our groceries and our rent, and we're having to make a lot of hard choices.

Um, you know, a zoning code is just a tool.

It's not it's not going to fix everything.

I think everybody here pretty much knows that.

It's just a tool that we can use to make things a little bit easier, um, and I would argue a little bit easier for folks who are the backbone of the city who are working hard and trying to make life better for themselves and their neighbors.

And I guess I would also just say, you know, I actually live a couple of blocks from Quirky Books.

I I know every counselor here is familiar with that scenario in case.

I'm sure a lot of folks here are, but quirky books is uh kind of a hard place to represent some of the challenges and struggles folks have.

And you know, I pick up needles on the regular.

I look after a lot of my neighbors who are elderly, um, you know, housed, unhoused, maybe living in a tough situation.

And I think these these kinds of changes that we're seeing and what EPC put forward is pretty sensible and meaningful reforms, and so I would just encourage this council to really give it a good look and consider bringing bringing that back and passing that in full for all of our families.

So thank you so much.

I appreciate you.

Isabella Oviedo, followed by Adam Bassett, followed by Raj Bhakta.

Hello, my name is Isa Oviedo, and I'm a second year student in environmental science at UNM.

I'm here today to speak in support of a full package of IDO amendments as recommended by the EPC.

As a society, we are facing many struggles, including economic instability, global climate change, and reduced social connection.

The changes to the IDO are necessary first steps in confronting these issues.

Denser neighborhoods with mixed uses provide incubators for local businesses and reduce the money wasted by driving to school, work, and errands.

They reduce development pressure on the beautiful natural landscapes that surround us and make it easier to connect with our neighbors while we do daily errands.

The types of mixed use neighborhoods that the IDO amendments would make legal are a great first step toward the solutions we need to face our current and future issues because of their role in adapting our cities to the world we are living in today.

I fully support the amendments as recommended by the EPC.

Thank you.

Adam Bassett, followed by Raj Vakta, followed by Eric Nelius.

Tonight I wish to address this council about the real effects of O26 2 if given final approval.

While I personally believe that housing affordability is a major issue in our city that should be addressed, this proposal will be devastating to some of our most vulnerable residents.

Under this proposal, the vast majority of homes in the city of Albuquerque would fall under the under the exclusion of property tax valuation cap.

And subsequently, the following year, the home market their home valuation for property tax purposes will be taxed at market value.

This will be devastating for anyone who purchased the home prior to 2020.

Using data derived from the greater Albuquerque Association of Realtors and by using this year's millage rates, it is estimated that from the pre-mentioned group that the average person's property taxes will rise by 29.11%.

29%.

If this proposal passes, the goal of housing affordability will not be accomplished.

The only thing that will happen is the existing property owners will be forced out of their home due to the financial conditions directly caused by this council.

I strongly urge every member to protect the residents of the city and not pass proposal.

Thank you.

Raj Bakta, followed by Eric Melius, followed by Steve Miller.

Good evening.

My name is Raj Bakta, and I'm a resident of District 9.

As a resident who cares about our city's future, I support the full IDO package as recommended by the EPC.

The updates outlined in the IDO package allow for increased walkability in our neighborhoods and greater urban mobility for all citizens of our city.

Additionally, reducing or removing parking minimums promotes better land use, particularly in car dependent areas like District 9.

This package allows for incremental housing growth and create safer streets in the process.

These changes build stronger neighborhoods that better serve the needs of their residents.

Please consider supporting the IDO changes recommended by the EPC that restore development rights for homeowners and promote fiscally responsible urban planning in our city.

Thank you.

Eric Nelius, followed by Steve Miller, followed by Benjamin Erickson.

Madam President and members of the council, my name is Eric Neelius.

I am environmental planning commissioner for District 9.

Of course, I'm in support of the EPC version.

First of all, our planners, I'm pointing to Michaela, they put in a whole bunch of hard, very, very hard work on this uh this IDO update.

And I think to do them justice, we as the city of Albuquerque and you as counselors should pass this uh pass the EPC.

But um I guess talking about LUPZ amendments, if you could change one single amendment, I'd recommend you change uh amendment A from hearing two uh upzoning along those major urban transit corridors.

Um so the majority of Albuquerque would not be affected if you upzoned just an eighth of a mile within Lomus, an eighth of a mile within Wantabo.

That's where we need density the most, and you add density there, that's where people can people can take public transit, so you're not competing with other cars on the road.

Uh thank you for your time.

Steve Miller, followed by Benjamin Erickson, followed by Eleanor Walter on Zoom.

Madam President and the council, we really appreciate your time here.

I'd like to say big thanks to the planners and to the EPC who spent so much time on this.

Um we're really struggling in this country.

We don't know exactly what the core of the issues are.

But economy is complex.

And one thing we know is that robust systems are much more resilient than simple ones.

Albuquerque's got a pretty simple way of living here, which consists primarily of single family housing or of large complexes, which people don't, people with homes don't like in their neighborhoods.

So by allowing for more that middle middle housing type around, we also allow for the uh burden of developing that to be spread across many more half homeowners, small developers, and not just the big demonized developers in this city, which uh which it's pretty hard to develop any of this.

Uh please support variety and please don't let our one stay sank uh sacred because it was born out of racism and classism.

Thanks.

Benjamin Erickson, followed by Eleanor Walther, followed by Aaron Thornton.

Good evening, counsel.

As an ICU nurse, I see the sickest burkenios on their worst days.

Uh the patients that reach my unit have faced every kind of systemic failure imaginable.

For so many of these individuals, I see so clearly how access to affordable housing and safe pedestrian access to neighborhood businesses could have protected these Burcanios far upstream of their visit to the ICU.

These visits are always life-changing and often deadly.

I support O262 because I want safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists and more access to affordable housing so our most vulnerable can have somewhere to sleep.

Thank you very much.

Eleanor Walthern, followed by Aaron Thornton, followed by Peggy Neff.

Okay, it's it's not letting me do my video, but you saw me before.

Umcelors and uh chairperson.

Our president Penn, yeah.

Oh, now I can start continuing.

Okay.

Um I want to talk about safe outdoor spaces.

Um talking of you want to talk about the most vulnerable.

They're the most vulnerable people in our community, are the people that would use these spaces, and to have required permanent plumbing on a temporary facility just drives up the cost.

I mean, you talk about wanting to lower costs for other things.

Why not for safe outdoor spaces?

And in terms of duplexes and triplexes, you can have them in R1 zones now, but they're not permissive.

You can do a zoning map amendment change.

You know, it's a process, it exists.

So the question is are you gonna give residents a say or not?

Thank you.

Erin Thornton, followed by Alan Smith.

Good evening, Madam President and counselors.

My name is Aaron Thornton.

I'm a homeowner in District 6.

I'm here asking that you demonstrate forward thinking leadership and support the package of amendments as passed by the APC.

I've heard many counselors say at this point, let's slow down, let's see what happened with the changes that we've already made.

We've had multiple years with legalized casitas, and we've only seen a handful built.

I know many folks who'd like to build them for their family and new neighbors, only to be blocked by how restrictive the rules are.

Additionally, we've had safe outdoor spaces legalized for years.

Again, only one has been built.

Many others want to build one to ease the suffering we see on the streets, but again, the original passage was too restrictive.

We've waited, we saw what happened, and now it's time to accept the amendments that address these changes.

Doing nothing and passing half measures, kicking the can down the road, and not improving on what we learned, isn't wisdom.

Seeing problems, trying new solutions, and iterating on them is.

I urge you to pass the EPC approval approved amendments.

Alan Smith, followed by Oliver Sale.

Thank you, counselors, for taking my comment.

I'm a resident of District 2.

Um, I wanted to show support for the um ideal amendments as they were passed by the EPC, which is in line with the comprehensive plan.

Um higher density mixed use uh middle housing development um as well as uh attached to bring hopefully bring in more young professionals to Albuquerque and promote uh sustainable economic development.

Um I also support the adding of the definition of a compost facility and uh hope that more of those facilities can come to Albuquerque.

Um, all in all of the more walkable and dense that um we can make neighborhoods here and um help reduce sprawled out single family homes that may not be easily accessible to commercial development.

Um that will just uh benefit the city as a whole.

Thank you.

Oliver Sale, followed by David Cidabaca.

Hi, my name is Ollie Sale, and I'm here to uh talk in support of the um original amendments to O26-2 as they support uh livability and inclusion across a lifetime.

Uh TND is in bodegas uh would be extremely beneficial to people like my sister, who is a young adult with Down syndrome.

Um she's very independent but unable to drive.

Um, and so being able to meet her uh needs on foot is not a uh luxury, but it is a basic uh essential.

And so when people say that Albuquerque isn't ready for uh neighborhood services, they're saying that Albuquerque is not ready for people like my sister.

And so I'm here to urge you to support the original uh 026-2 amendments and overturn amendments uh uh J and M specifically.

Thank you.

David Cidabaca, followed by Lila Blazing Star.

Good evening.

My name is David Sidabaca, born and raised in Albuquerque, currently living in District 4, and I'm in support of the original O26 IDO amendments.

I live in a manufactured home complex, and so does my grandmother and another in the Albuquerque Meadows.

It's clear that communities like ours are most vulnerable to private equity firms, as with what happened to her community.

This is some of the last remaining types of affordable housing left in the city, but this is only a testing ground for the exploitation of the captive owners that can't move easily in our scarce housing supply.

In my community, I also know kids and seniors who can't drive on their own, and some that walk and roll around their community.

Uh some uh and those that choose uh two like me.

The fact that we restrict closure businesses and mandate a larger amount of parking means that not only is development business overhead costs are higher, but destinations are like very spread out, making it less pleasant and feasible for people not driving, which only increases car traffic, which exasperates these issues.

This is unlike some of our older historic neighborhoods with groundfalled corner stores and different housing types.

Our current zoning practices not only ignore supply and demand with a consistently increasing cost of living but makes it less healthy for communities uh for everyone here.

Um if we we can't even change incrementally, then we should expect to decline city resources, more gentrification, and more stagnating road.

Thank you, sir.

Your time is more for your choice for our future good later.

Lila Blazing Star, followed by Michael Devon.

Madam President, counselors, my name is Lila.

I'm here speaking on behalf of the Near North Valley Neighborhood Association, of which I'm a board member, specifically concerning safe outdoor spaces.

The IDO should support the intent of SOS to allow organizations to provide on how this unhoused persons who might not be ready for the rigidity of a more formal shelter with safe, secure, and hygienic place to exist, a modest place of stability from which people can go to work, school, appointments, whatever else, and know that they will return to find belongings intact and can sleep.

We want to reiterate that our board supports most of the amendments to the SOS ordinance as written in the post-EPC red line, especially these, allowing permits for these spaces in compliance to be extended every two years indefinitely, removing the requirement for permanent plumbing, and removing the requirement for 24-7 on-site support.

We do think the ordinance still needs two key improvements.

Um requirement for on-call support 24-7 and potable drinking water requirement that does not exist in the current IDO, nor in any proposed amendment.

Thank you.

Michael Devin followed followed by Brandy Thompson.

Good evening, counselors.

My name is Michael Devin.

I'm a resident of District 6, and I completely agree with concerns about preserving our neighborhood character and unique heritage, which is why I stand in support of the EPC version of 026-2, allowing duplexes, town homes, and neighborhood bodegos.

When I look at Old Town, the Santa Clay Plaza and ancestral Pueblo dwellings, I see mixed-use communities with varied housing types and small shops side by side.

They're walkable, social, and resilient.

And to change a piece of ties.

That is the Max Coast uh development tradition, not concerned not passing the original version of 026.2 will destroy the ability to build neighborhoods like this throughout Albuquerque, but bring increased traffic, noise, and crime by forcing every errand into a car trip instead of a walk down the street.

Will it bring increased traffic, noise, and crime by forcing every errand into a car trip instead of a walk down the street?

Single use zoning isn't our heritage.

It's an experiment that's less than a century old.

And the EPC version of 026.2 isn't radical.

It's a positive step towards restoration, and I urge your support for it.

Thank you.

Brandy Thompson, followed by Lana Smittle.

Brandy, can you please accept promotion to panelists?

Brandy Thompson, followed by Lana Smittle.

You are muted, Brandy.

Okay, Brandy, we're gonna come back to you.

Lana Smiddle, followed by Brandy Thompson.

Oh, we have Brandy.

Go ahead, Brandy.

You're you're muted, and then Lana.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam President, Council.

Let's talk about something thrilling.

Municipal finance.

Right now, Albuquerque has about one billion dollars more in liabilities than income.

That's like putting groceries on a credit card and hoping the bill sorts itself out.

And we see it.

Our roads look like they lost a fight, our playgrounds only get fixed after we ask the state for help.

That's not because Albuquerque is failing, it's because we've built a city that costs more to maintain than it earns.

The proposed EPC version zoning changes aren't radical.

They're fiscally responsible.

They allow more homes and businesses on land where we've already paid for streets, pipes, and services, generating more tax revenue per acre without raising taxes.

You can't cut your way to prosperity, and you can't sprawl your way out of debt.

We want a city that can afford its roads, parks, and future, we need zoning that makes financial sense.

And these changes don't threaten Albuquerque's future, they help us pay for it.

Please approve the EPC version of the IDO amendments.

Thank you.

Lana Smittle, followed by Miles Conway.

We're having trouble hearing you, Lana.

I'm sorry, we cannot hear you, so we're gonna try to work this out, and we're gonna go to the next speaker.

We'll come back to you, Lana.

Miles Conway, followed by followed by Richard Schaeffer.

Can you hear me?

Can hear you, sir?

We can hear you.

Madam President, members of the council, thanks for uh hearing me.

My name is Miles Conney.

I'm the CEO of the New Mexico Home Builders Association.

We are with 1500 contractors, home builders here in New Mexico.

Um not just like big greedy developers.

We are the men and women who are working families who build the housing in New Mexico.

Um here at the International Builders Show, the National Association of Home Builders Governance Meetings where we are all glamorous to uh understand how we are going to address this housing affordability challenge.

Uh indeed, in in Washington, DC last week they passed uh the 6644, the housing for the 21st century act.

This is an effort to really address and stimulate housing production across New Mexico.

Um, we're all waiting for a bold idea and a bold body, whether it's the local, national, or local level to take the lead.

Um, we stand in strong support of this legislation.

If you agree that more housing needs to be built, and Albuquerque can take the lead and go the list uh to housing talk within the week of working with families in the Mexico and Albuquerque.

Thank you.

Richard Schaeffer, followed by Lana Smittle.

Sure.

Councillors, um housing should be housing.

Um it shouldn't be uh a form of investment speculation.

And uh I fear very much that this IDO amendments are a uh welfare for land speculators and developers.

Albuquerque's population is not growing according to the Census Bureau.

We've lost population the last few years.

So I'm not sure where the growth is going to come from.

The country actually is going probably going to lose population in the next few years.

There are already areas zoned for duplexes, apartments, and commercial uses, and there's incredible amount of vacancies in those areas.

Finally, view protections are and height limitations are there so that the views can be shared by a lot of people, not so that uh one person can have a view.

Thank you, sir.

Your time is up.

So obviously our against the amendment.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Go back uh go back to Lana Smittle, followed by Jacob Miranda.

Still unable to hear you, Lana, unfortunately.

Um I will try you again at the end, okay.

Thank you.

Jacob Miranda, followed by David Day.

Um good evening, counselors, and thank you for considering this update.

I just want to say it's incredible to see so many people speak up for a better, more livable Albuquerque.

And I also want to express my support for the original 2025 audio update as passed by the EPC.

Um Albuquerque is clearly squeezed for housing, especially for newcomers and young people like myself.

Um increase supply via added density and help ease our city shortage.

This isn't tearing apart single family neighborhoods, it's adding the ability to gradually develop middle density housing, which already exists and helps define the character of our city's most vibrant neighborhoods and areas as well, even further allowing corner stores and residential areas supports healthier lifestyles and better qualities of life, and improves access to food in general as well.

As um in addition to that, updated parking requirements and this update can further create vibrancy and popular areas of our city while supporting walkability and transit, helping Albuquerque connect grow.

I hope that you all will support the original APC version of this update.

Thank you.

David Day, followed by Brian Earhart.

David.

Please stand by.

Giving more options for housing types will allow more of our neighbors to choose something that makes sense for them.

The proposed IDO amendments do not remove all zoning definitions and building restrictions altogether.

Rather, the proposed changes provide more flexibility for what makes sense within existing neighborhoods.

Give those of us currently in R1 zoning who want to make reasonable changes on our own property the flexibility to do so, while preserving the option for those who do not want to make changes to their property the ability to do so.

I look forward to the future potential that these changes can enable increasing flexibility in housing, small businesses, and transportation options.

For these reasons, I strongly encourage you and support the proposed IDO amendments as recommended by the EPC.

Thank you.

Peggy Norton, followed by David Day.

Madam President and Councillors, I have submitted numerous letters on O262, discussing numerous issues.

I support the amendments added by LUPS.

All adjacent neighborhoods oppose the redesignation of middle in the North Valley.

I oppose the rezoning of the corridor with no public notification and support limiting some main street uses.

It is seven years old and allows numerous housing options.

It seems inappropriate for an EPC commissioner to state on YouTube that the government should not be telling us what we can and can't do on our own property.

His responsibility is to do exactly that.

Why would a city counselor support SB 131 giving zoning control to the state?

How does this give us confidence in this process?

And Wantabo is not major transit.

All major transit is in the lower income areas.

Nothing past Louisiana.

Thank you.

David Day, followed by Josh Price.

I'm sorry, sir, we're unable to hear you.

You may have had to choose a different mic within Zoom.

Sorry.

I'll come back to you once more, okay, sir.

Thanks.

Josh Price, followed by Ryan Swinney.

Thank you, uh, Madam President, and ladies and gentlemen of the council.

My name is Josh Price, as you know.

I am a property manager and a realtor.

Um I am not gonna take a position on this.

What I can tell you is that we need more housing of every kind.

And we've talked about this more times than ever.

Um what I do want to say is that realtors and property managers are adaptable and and we will adapt to anything that is decided today.

Um, we want more housing.

We we both believe in private property rights and the idea of the American dream.

Um, I am somebody who absolutely wants people to be in housing and have a comfortable place to live.

And we thank you very much for continuing this conversation and doing the work that you're doing in order to, you know, make Albuquerque better.

And if there's any way that we can help you, we absolutely will.

Thank you very much.

Ryan Swinney, followed by Brandon Cottle.

Madam President and Counselors, good evening.

My name is Ryan Swinney, as you just said.

Um, I'm the CEO for Greater Albuquerque Association of Realtors.

Housing affordability and availability remain amongst the most pressing challenges basing our community.

We believe one of the most meaningful levers local government can use to address these challenges is ensuring that zoning works for housing by removing unnecessary barriers rather than creating new ones.

Rigid or overly restrictive regulations don't just affect developers, they impact every person searching for an attainable home or every property owner seeking reasonable use of their land.

As you consider amendments to 026-2, we encourage careful evaluation of how each proposal affects housing supply, private property rights, homeownership opportunities, and predictability in land use.

Clear by right standards and flexibility in housing types, help create a more stable and accessible market while maintaining neighborhood quality.

We sincerely appreciate everybody on LUPS that have stayed that has helped out with this bill.

Thank you all.

Brandon Cottle, followed by Johanna Stein.

Hello, good evening, Madam President and Council.

Thank you for taking comment tonight.

I appreciate you listening to the members of our community.

I don't think anyone has argued in the past five months that we have enough housing in Albuquerque.

We do not.

As I go through my walks through the arroyos and the parks, I see that there are folks even up here who need housing.

Please consider how we do this.

I think there are many good ideas, including ideas that are not part of the package that could be considered later.

So I ask you to please do what you can to provide more housing for all Burcanias.

Thank you very much and have a good night.

Joanna Stein, followed by Meredith Paxton.

First of all, I wanted to say thank you to all the counselors and the folks in the city planning department and the EPC that were worked so hard on the proposed changes to this legislation.

People have been working hard on this for five plus years or more.

Um just to hopefully revert us back to some of the uh housing uh regulations that were in place in the 60s, 70s, and 80s in Albuquerque when much of the very diverse center of our city was developed.

Uh, these are not untried and tested uh methodologies for development.

We're just returning uh to a pastime uh where density was more of a focus.

And um I would urge you to use the EPC recommended uh amendments instead of some of the uh other uh further amendments that were approved uh later on by the uh loopfitz committee.

Um, and thank you again all for your time tonight.

Meredith Paxson, followed by Carlos Gamora.

Huh.

Um I represent Spruce Park Neighborhood Association, and we are the existing middle ground.

We have been praised for accommodating a substantial number of dwellings with higher densities than our historic single family homes, which are listed on national and state registers of cultural properties.

We wish to save some R1 homes.

We urge you to vote against O262, especially changing R1 to RT and further direct upzoning of homes and elimination of parking requirements.

Because we were directly across University Boulevard from the main UNM campus and are within the Central Avenue MSPT corridor.

We were especially vulnerable to conversion of our remaining single family homes to large apartment buildings.

Previous IDO changings, changes have removed limits on heights and numbers of units, leaving us open to constructions like 303 Princeton Southeast, which you should be looking at, I hope.

Allowing the 19 well allowed by the 1969 upzoning, it was limited only by parking requirements.

The problems that created were so serious that residents demanded and got downzoning in 1978.

Spruce Park isn't an important contributor to the city's cultural heritage, and we urgently need further protections from developments like this, not remaining weakening of the few remaining ones.

Thank you for listening.

Carlos Gamora, followed by Melinda Montoya.

Evening, counselors.

I am in support of EPC's O2.

As a property owner, I uh my preference might be to have a large property with a big shop uh space for chickens and a nice garden.

But O2 is not about preferences, it's about the role of government.

Should local government prevent housing and economic development options through bureaucratic red tape zoning.

Uh local market data says that homes on larger R1 lots cost 500 to 850,000 to develop new, whereas it's only 350 to 450 to develop new small homes and condos like those supported by O2.

Council shouldn't prohibit more affordable housing options or prohibit small business development.

I hope that individuals who want bigger single-family homes continue to have the full rights to do so, but individuals who want smaller, more affordable housing, should also have the equal and full right to do so without this council upholding mandates and prohibitions against them.

I believe government should allow more options for housing and economic development, and I think that we need more flexibility to do that in creative and entrepreneurial ways.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Melinda Montoya, followed by Merritt Towie.

Hello, good evening, Council President Pena and members of the council.

My name is Melinda Montoya, and I'm a constituent of District 7.

I'm here to speak in support of amending back to the original EPC version.

Last year I was here frequently to talk about safer roads after my daughter Kayla lost her life here in Albuquerque.

This EPC version of the IDU update directly relates to safer streets in transit-oriented development and mixed zoning.

They'll all need complete street updates to allow for walkable neighborhoods.

And the research is clear that with these IDO reforms paired with incremental developmental or development and safe multimodal street design, we can lead to a reduction in traffic related injuries and fatalities.

Every death represents systemic failure, and we can really address a major health determinant, which is infrastructure and systemic change to lead to a healthier, safer city.

So please support the EPC version.

Thank you for your time and thank you for your service.

And thank you.

Merritt Tully, followed by Oscar Simpson.

Council President Pena, Counselors, I'm Merritt Tully.

I represent Near North Valley Neighborhood Association.

We've sent a letter detailing our views, some pro, some con, quickly regarding groceries, restaurants, and small retail and residential zones.

We support this if the uses are made conditional.

Every neighborhood is different.

Some have food deserts and need groceries, others like ours don't.

In some areas you can't walk to shopping in ours, you can.

We don't need commercial uses replacing housing, and we don't need to undermine ongoing efforts to redevelop our existing commercial zones.

Expanding live work situations could serve to make homeownership and entrepreneurship more feasible, but please make these uses conditional.

It's a reasonable compromise recognizing differences between neighborhoods.

Regarding housing, please take a nuanced incremental approach.

Support duplexes, townhouses, ADUs, cottage developments, dormitories, vote down corridor upzoning.

It's not right, it's not fair, and it's counterproductive.

Thank you.

Oscar Simpson, followed by Lana Smittle.

Oscar, you are muted, sir.

Please unmute.

Thank you, City Council.

Oscar Simpson living in District 2.

I'm opposed to the revised additions of the EPC.

Or reinstating the original EPC.

What I have seen from the economics or what I've obtained from the economics and then evaluating the whole process.

It will only not this process will really not solve the affordability and our lack of housing.

So we need to, in my opinion, to go back and start over and really figure out what's gonna work.

We need to look at all the economics.

Certain zones can be redeveloped or rezoned, but on a citywide blank, uh citywide status.

This is not a workable solution.

Thank you bunch.

Excuse me, Lana Smittle, followed by David Day.

I'm sorry, Lana, we still are unable to hear you.

Um submit uh some comments in writing.

We just can't.

We can see you, but we can't hear you.

I apologize.

Let's try David Day, please.

David.

Hi, David.

Well, we still can't hear you.

I apologize.

It's weird technical issue.

I'm sorry.

Lana and David, I apologize.

Thank you.

Um Madam President, that seems to conclude uh comments.

Sorry for the technical difficulties.

Thank you.

And if the two speakers that um we couldn't hear, if you want to, as um Mr.

Cornelia stated, if you want to um email your comments in, um, we can actually even share them this evening um with the rest of the counselors on their iPads.

So thank you so much.

So that concludes public comment.

Yes, madam president.

Thank you.

Okay, so now um Councilor February, we're back on on your bill.

Uh I think we'll get started with the amendments unless you wanted to address anything.

Sure, thank you, Madam President.

And we'll do a quick opening.

I um I really wanted to just clarify a few things that I've heard um tonight that are incorrect.

First of all, um, I would love it if this bill was mine and I had written it.

I guarantee you that if I had written this bill, it would be more progressive and have a lot more in it.

Um, but I do want people to understand the process by which this bill comes forward.

It started months and months ago in the planning department.

They met with the public, they developed proposals, those proposals had public hearings.

Then the proposals went to the environmental planning commission.

The environmental planning commission has one representative for each person up here on the dais.

They are experts in this subject matter.

That is why we appoint them to do this work.

I certainly trust my appointee, and I trust all the other appointees in that environmental planning commission.

The environmental planning commission held a series of public meetings as well and took feedback and comments.

And I will tell you that what came out of the environmental planning commission was not all of mine.

Um I put in, just like everybody else had an opportunity to do, were not included.

I think they were wrong, but um, you know, at some point you have to trust the experts that what they sent out was in the best interest of Albuquerque, not in the best interest of property owners, but in the best interest of Albuquerque.

And I think that that is a very different thing.

So I think we heard over and over tonight by well over half that the city wants the changes that were in that version that came out of the environmental planning commission, and I agree.

We've heard in the past that there were lots of comments to the contrary that that um you know didn't didn't come to the council meeting, but they emailed us.

And that is true.

We have heard from folks on both sides, but the vast majority have been from people who were in support of the version that came out of the environmental planning commission.

I think that that is it says a lot.

Now we'll just quickly um point of personal privilege.

Uh say, you know, we've heard a lot of folks say um that they are in support, and then we did hear someone say, Oh, we've put in a um petition that has a thousand people signed it.

Um, it's very interesting to me that you would put in a petition and show the signatures, but not include what they were signing.

I've been an advocate for a very, very long time, and I have never submitted a signature list without information on what they were signing.

Let me tell you why that was not included.

It's just full of inconsistencies and flat outlies.

I'll start with the title.

Stop the exclusionary upzoning.

There's nothing exclusionary about adding duplexes, y'all.

Nothing.

Of Mayor Keller and Councillor Feeplecorn.

To my knowledge, Mayor Carroller did not attend any of the EPC meetings, and I certainly did not either.

I learned about what made it through the EPC from many advocates who were watching it when I was not there.

It goes on the very first sentence.

The idea was to change residential zoning to high density.

That is not the idea behind anything that came out of the EPC.

That is not true.

And if you are listening to, if you're using these kinds of sources as your source of information, you really should think about expanding where you're getting your news.

Next paragraph, want to put in high cost housing in neighborhoods.

That's not true.

Um they questioned the the questionably amending updates to the IDO.

This process was very public.

It has been available to the public from the very beginning to the very end.

Now, I did not choose to participate in the very beginning because I thought it was important that it go through that process.

But it did go through that process, and that was what came out.

So again, I am just gonna have to discount the thousand people that signed something that quite frankly, if I didn't know and I had read, I would have signed two because it's full of inaccuracy.

But if you count the people who actually emailed and called and showed up here to speak, I think you will see that the vast majority of Albuquerque residents have expressed support for this.

I do quickly also want to just thank all the people who showed up to speak, um, even those who have never spoken in public before.

I know how hard that is.

I I I mean, I'm a big mouth, I talk a lot, but I you know I remember the first time I talked in public, and it was horrifying, and I just appreciate that you all showed up and did that.

And I think it says a lot that this is the issue that you decided to show up for.

You all see the vital need in our city for change.

So with that, Madam President, I'd like to move to the amendments.

Thank you, Councilor People Corn.

So we are now on amendments.

Um, unless there's any other comments from counselors just out the gate, but I think I would like to go to the amendments first, and then we can have some comment from counselors.

Um we are now on floor amendment A, which will be for amendment number one.

This is counselors um Feeblecorn and Rogers.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'll move floor amendment number one.

This is um sponsored by myself and Council Rogers.

It is to repeal the LUPS amendment number 10 and reinstate the EPC recommended language from items M1, condition 9AI, and C5, condition nine, into exhibit one of 0262 as follows.

We will put that on the screen.

This is the reinstatement of the improvements to the safe outdoor spaces for the city of Albuquerque, and I will move a due pass.

There's a motion and a second for floor amendment number one for a due pass.

Um did you get the sponsors?

Okay.

Thank you, Madam President.

I will open by just going through what this does.

I think there's been like many things that we've heard, a lot of misinformation.

The first thing that this does, and it's vitally important, is that it takes away the necessary and required six-month break in a safe outdoor space.

It seems ridiculous to me, and I believe, with two exceptions, everyone who has emailed me also agrees that this is ridiculous.

It says you can have a safe outdoor space, you have to spend all the money to update a safe outdoor space.

And without this amendment, you can only have it open for two years.

Then you have to wait six more months of not having safe outdoor space before you can apply to have a safe outdoor space again.

That is very, very strange.

And quite frankly, this one thing is what is keeping most people from being able to provide safe outdoor spaces on their private property that they want to do this for.

Again, I spoke with a real estate professional today, asked how much it would cost to dig up a parking lot and plumb it, and the answer was um, you know, it could be $20,000, no problem.

Um, I don't see how we could put that kind of a of a financial risk on people who are just trying to help their unhoused neighbors.

That is shameful.

And so removing those requirements is the next thing it does.

It also sets forward some requirements for having someone who is available 24-7 to help if something happens at these safe outdoor spaces.

Um, very important, but also not, you know, there's no reason to over regulate these.

We are just saying that you have to have someone who's available if something happens.

It also says that you have to have supportive services and facilities, and it goes through what that means.

Now, I again agree that it is important that we have some services.

We cannot just put people in a lot and leave them there.

But this clarifies what exactly you have to offer to make it something that individuals who have property who want to have a safe outdoor space can actually do.

And so that is really important.

And that is the end of that amendment.

So again, this is really meant to make it slightly easier for private property owners who want to help their unhoused neighbors by providing a safe outdoor space.

It's important that we support their efforts because quite frankly, we aren't doing anything for those folks, and we really should be.

I know that one of the arguments will be that we have a lot of beds, and so I just want to quickly go through the number of beds we have for in overnight shelters, and this is from our recent update from the CAO.

Uh women's gateway 50, medical respir, medical sobering 50, first responders 50, gateway recovery 50, gateway family, 195, gateway west, 713.

And for those of you that can't add that fast, that is 1,123 beds.

Those are vital, and I support every single one of them.

But I believe the last pit count said we had 2,960 people who are unhoused in our community.

And so clearly we do not have enough enough places for them all to go, even if they were ready for that.

And I will say we have many people on our streets who are not ready to go into a shelter right now.

There are veterans with PTSD.

There are domestic violence victims that are really traumatized and cannot go somewhere where they would be locked in.

We do have to think through how we can support those members of our community as well.

And so that's all this amendment is trying to do.

It made it through the EPC.

Again, those are the experts that are telling us what is the best practices, and they are the experts.

So again, I just think this should be added back in to the bill before we move further with the bill tonight.

Thank you.

Um Councilor Baca.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'd like to request a couple of friendly amendments to the sponsors based on not just public comment, but uh my own you know, working with this.

So one would be on page, let's see, page three, I guess, section four three G9H number one for sites 20 or fewer, the eight to five.

I'd like to strike that so that everything is it's oh there's always 24 hour on call support as as counselor um feeble court said some of these folks really need a lot of help, and it's not eight to five.

Um so that would be one, and then on the next page, section four-three G9I number two, where it says at least three services, like to double that to six, simply because most of these work hand in hand with each other, and if you only do a couple, it's there's just so much more that needs to be done.

Madam President, we're happy with that amendment.

Thank you.

Just for clarification purposes, we do not have to make an amendment to that.

It's just it's just added to the um Councilor Feeble Corp's amendment.

Thank you.

Yeah, any other questions?

Um, Councillor Um Vice President uh Champine.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just need a uh one point of clarification that I'm confused about.

Um 43 G9E number six.

I think it's on page two.

Uh and it says one shower shall be provided for every 10 designated spaces, and then underneath it has A and B crossed out.

Is that supposed to be crossed out?

Madam President, yes.

So we are no longer requiring plumbed um services, so that could be like a shower um truck that is brought in.

We have one that we actually own in the international district where people can go take showers, but it's not a plumbed unit.

So that's what we're trying to allow here.

So when I read A, it says portable showers may be provided to meet this requirement, that's slashed out.

And then B says showers are not required to be plumbed within two years of the city of the city approval of a SAS outdoor spaces, that's slashed out.

So portable showers won't be provided to meet this requirement.

Madam Chair, it's no longer needed because we're not a we're not requiring the plumbed showers, and so portable um showers would be allowed anyway.

Okay this was written um back when we uh put this in originally that had the requirement for plumbing, and so we had said because it's so expensive to put in that plumbing, we had allowed short-term use of temporary showers, but now we're saying you can use a portable shower all the time.

Okay, thank you, madam president.

Any additional comments?

Um, I think then we'll go to close.

Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just want to point out one thing, Councillor People Corn, thank you for that amazing open and description.

But I do want to make sure people know that we did add based on public feedback, the major open public safe spaces that we have a buffer of a thousand three hundred and twenty feet adjacent to any open space.

So I just wanted to make sure to point that out because we heard a lot about that um from our community, and we did include that in this as well.

And uh with that, I urge your support.

Thank you so much.

So there was a motion and second for floor amendment number one.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say yes.

Yes.

Opposed, no.

No, no.

Motion fails on a 5-4.

Next, we're on floor amendment B.

Thank you, Madam President.

I will open on uh floor amendment B number two in your packets.

Um this amendment is to bring back the townhouse townhomes use as permissive in R1 citywide with an R1 district, zone districts, townhouses are capped at three units max, essentially making the use a triplex.

And so we have it on the screen as well.

And so basically this amendment oh I'm sorry, I jumped ahead.

My problem is I jumped ahead to the next one.

Sorry.

Let me rewind that.

Um so this amendment would make duplexes permissive in R1 zone districts.

So it's just bringing back the EPC, reinserting the EPC recommended language from item C2 as follows.

And so just adding, you know, taking out the D detach and making them permissible with an R1 zone district.

I urge your support.

Thank you, Counselor Rogers.

Um, is there there was a second on the motion?

I didn't okay.

There's a motion second by counselor feeblecorn, and I you lost me there for a second, but we've got back on track.

So floor amendment number two.

Um vice president Champagne.

No, ma'am, I don't.

Oh, you don't okay.

Any other comments, questions?

Um, counselor Rogers or Fablecorn to close.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um this is really the first part of the the housing requirements that we've heard from so many people that they want.

And I do want to make a few comments about this.

One commenter earlier today made the statement that R1 was created for a purpose.

And I want to say, yeah, it really was.

It was made, it was created for the purpose of keeping those people out of your neighborhood.

Um there is no other reason to think that you would not want a duplex next door to you.

I would love a duplex next door to me.

Um and so this is this doesn't change anybody's zone, this doesn't allow any kind of of uh you know further density, it just says that the house next door to you could possibly change into a duplex.

When I bought my house, it was built in the early 50s, somebody had already amended it to be what I assume was a duplex.

They had just cut the kitchen in half with the wall, and so there were two strangely shaped kitchens and then bedrooms and bathrooms and closets.

And um I don't find that offensive.

I find that really um great, that there would be the possibility of having two people in my home rather than one.

So I I do want to um say that I think one of the things that we've heard the most is that well, duplexes are conditional, you can just go to the planning department and get uh variants.

Um I think that that is incredibly unfair.

If you happen to live next to next door to me, I'm gonna be like, yeah, go for it.

I'll come with you to the hearing and try to help you get that.

But if you live next door to someone who doesn't want people who make less money living next to them, we are setting you up for a lot of pain, and that is really an unfair thing to do to people.

Um I would like to ask um Mr.

Cox, if I may, you know, what's the process if I want a conditional um conditional permission to make my home into a duplex?

Um President, Councilor Feblecorn.

Uh basically the conditional use application is one that is applied for to see if that use can be um more in line with the surrounding area, and so someone would submit a conditional use application to the planning department through ABQ plan, go through the different requirements and criteria that they have to fill out that letter and then go to uh the zoning hearing examiner for a public process.

Um at that point, uh it is open to the public.

Um and you are basically trying to justify why that use um is adequate for the site that you have applied for.

And at that point, if it gets approved, um there can be an appeal process, or if it's not appealed, then you have to adhere to the different conditions that are put on through the ZHE process for that um in this case a duplex.

Um I should also clarify the duplexes.

Um I think the the process that the commenters were talking about was a whole rezoning case, which is also uh you would have to change your R1 zone district to an RT zone district um to actually get duplexes on, and so there is uh an added step to that as well.

Um which at that point all R1 is also within an area of consistency, which we have policy that says um try not to rezone that.

Thank you, Madam President.

I see Miss Vince Whitmore coming up, so I'd like to see if she has something to add.

Uh President, counselors, I just wanted to clarify one thing, which is that currently you can't request a conditional use to get a duplex.

It's just not possible, it's just not allowed.

So you would have to go through a zone change process to have a duplex.

And Madam President, can you talk us through that process?

Sure.

Um, so rezoning requires an application cycle of about six weeks at uh at least.

Uh it starts with notification to property owners with 100 feet, um, a sign, um an email to the neighborhood association, then application to the city, um the that goes to the planet, the environmental planning commission that um are our experts, as you pointed out, and they're wonderful.

Um that hearing is scheduled for a month out, and so that hearing includes the opportunity for people to make public comment, and as you said, um property owners who are worried about that those people come and are highly motivated to come to those hearings and say they're they're not in support.

Um so it's it's a it's a much higher bar than the conditional use.

Thank you, Madam President.

That's a lot.

Um that's a lot for me to be able to just put the wall back up that was there when I bought my house.

Um and so you know, I tore the wall down because I had chosen um probably wrongly to uh dedicate my family life to rehabilitating senior special needs dogs, and I felt like I needed the extra space, but I can certainly see a point where I need to make more income, and I to get to be able to put that wall back up in my own home, I would have to do all those steps, and that it just seems incredibly unfair.

Again, we talk a lot about private pro private property rights, but I don't know that we mean it.

I don't know that we think that people actually have private property rights unless they're doing what we think is the right thing on them.

Um again, I do not find a duplex to be in any way, shape, or form scary.

I welcome more people in my neighborhood.

Um I think it's really interesting that uh you know I'm I'm agreeing with uh NAOP tonight on this issue, and I think that says a lot.

Um so I just think that uh one of the things that we heard from another commenter was that we we don't want to look like any other city.

Well, I think that if you go to any other city, if you go to the suburbs, what you see is a bunch of single family homes.

What I think is really great about Albuquerque is that if you drive around Albuquerque in any neighborhood, you see a lot of cool stuff.

You see triplexes and small four-plexes, you see some cottage development, because we were built before zoning codes.

We were built when we still had community, where we developed around a small plaza area where we really had the idea that you know your neighbors, that you that it organically appears, and then we changed that um with our zoning codes to say, but we don't want those people in our neighborhood.

So if there was one thing that was going to pass tonight, um I would hope that it would be duplexes.

This is a very gentle way of increasing housing stock and giving more families an actual home in our community.

Um so with that, I'll urge your support.

Was that your close okay?

Thank you.

So there was a motion and a second for floor amendment two.

All those in favor, say yes and raise your hand.

Opposed?

No.

No.

That motion fails on a 5-4.

We are now on floor amendment uh C, which will be labeled three now.

This is Councilor Feeblecorn and Rogers.

Madam President, I will move floor amendment number three, and that will repeal LUPS amendment number three and reinsert the EPC recommended language from item C3 as follows.

This is the one that would allow town homes.

I'll move that amendment.

Thank you.

There's a motion and a second on floor amendment number three, Councillor Feeblecorn.

Thank you, Madam President.

So again, lots of misinformation about this.

I'm gonna ask a couple of questions as my as my opening.

So I keep hearing that this amendment would allow five, six, seven units next door to me.

Um and so Mr.

Cox, would does this allow more than three units if you know it allows a duplex with an ADU.

Is that correct?

Um President and Counselor Feeblecorn.

So uh in regards to just town homes, if um where duplex is allowed on a single property, um, let's say the RT zone district, you can have a third uh unit tied to it, but as far as town homes go, which are all connected, um, they are limited to three units if adjacent to a single family zone district.

Um let's say the RT's own district, you can have a third uh unit tied to it, but as far as town homes go, which are all connected, um they are limited to three units if adjacent to a single family zone district.

Okay, so even if you have try if you have um town homes, you have three units.

If we would have passed the duplex, which we really should have, um you could have had three units.

This is not high density.

This is being sold, this is being um misrepresented to the community as high density.

Three units on a lot is not high density.

Um so um I will leave it at that.

So there are any other comments, questions?

Um, Counselor Teus.

Thank you, Madam President.