IDO Annual Update 2023 - Citywide Amendments - Pre-EPC Submittal

The Rock out crop is one of the most fascinating natural features on the mesa top. These rock hills are a remnant of Albuquerque's volcanic geological history. I have seen petroglyphs on some of them. They make a great asset for a community to use for trail locations or added attractions for a parcel of land. This definition better includes smaller outcrops in this description which are unique features and add value and character to the area.

I cannot, in the 7 minutes remaining in the interactive comment period, adequately express my concerns about this process. Other municipalities have also adopted new, revised uniform codes, and yet their amendment process has just a handful of amendments (I think Charlotte, NC's code had 4 last year). This process is broken, wrong, discriminatory, and disenfranchising. City Councilors are not architects (mostly) or urban planners. We have a Comprehensive Plan, we have a Long-Range Planning department doing great work thru the CPA process. Could we please just leave this to the professionals???!!!

I do not support this amendment, as this amendment increases the allowable front yard wall height which can negatively change the character of neighborhoods. The majority of neighborhoods want to maintain the character and openness of their community. This amendment was brought up last year which received strong opposition from the neighborhoods. Therefore this amendment should not be approved.

While there is probably good intent behind many of these proposed changes, most read as very self serving and don't relate to or benefit the majority of the homes or residents in the neighborhood. The housing market and real estate values are facing some tough days ahead, and the economy is somewhat fragile when it comes to consumer spending on things like home improvements, renovations, new development and redevelopment. It would be in the city's best interest, and the best interest of the homeowners in most neighborhoods to limit or eliminate changes to the current requirements which add to the expense and effort involved with maintaining and improving properties in our neighborhood and others. As it is, many of the restrictions or requirements are ignored, and little to no effort is made to enforce simple ordinances to preserve existing properties, so it's reasonable to ask how the city is prepared to enforce additional rules and restrictions or proposed changes. Like much of the country, Albuquerque has a housing supply issue and affordable housing issue on its hands, and if meaningful improvements are not made soon, the consequences for the greater community will be costly and long lasting. Rather than nitpicking apart the existing zoning codes, the city council should be focusing its resources on programs that incentivize the construction and development of modestly priced housing that is within reach for single professionals, young people, college grads, retirees, service members, teachers, police officers, and the lists goes on. The average home price is roughly $400k, and in order to qualify for a conventional mortgage, a buyer will need to have an $80k down payment saved, earn roughly $100k per year, and will need to afford a monthly payment of $2,750 at today's market rate. This means homeownership is out of reach for the average resident in our community, and that's a real problem with a really negative long-term impact on a community. Direct resources towards quality development. Reduce the barriers for builders who can bring more modestly priced homes into our market, whether that is something entirely new or an infill project or repurposing an existing property. Get rid of the city's impact fees, work with utility providers to lower new service delivery fees, reduce fees for building inspections and approval of plans. Get rid of or substantially reduce the gross receipts tax for modestly priced housing development. There is a lot that can be done to promote positive development in our community, rather than wasting time and stirring up arguments over how tall someone's courtyard wall is or attempting to regulate soil quality and use of native plants. The city council's job is to promote the best interest of the entire community, not propose ordinances and codes that are self serving, or really just intended to serve the interests of their close friends and family members within their neighborhood. With a population of about 600,000 in the CABQ and nearly 1,000,000 in the entire metro area, our city is too large to be heavily engaged in small town politics and an unsophisticated approach to leadership.

I oppose changing the present ordinance pertaining to the 3' height of front yard walls. I feel that it is vital to maintain the character and safety of our historic neighborhoods. A defensible space concept needs to be considered in the height of street walls.

Do not raise the allowable front-wall wall height in the SE Heights neighborhoods. It destroys the walkability of the area.

It is 9:30 am on Thursday Oct. 26th and I am trying to assess how many comments and replies are on the spreadsheet at this point. I am finding no way to do this...

Seems like another amendment that would benefit from a larger discussion. Not sure what motivates the 5 -10 minimum, seems it maybe should be tied to the area under development.

Would be good to have impact statement.

Street trees in this process need to be included in the mulching right?

I am strongly opposed to making 5 foot tall walls permissive in R-1 zones because it would cause significant damage to our neighborhoods. We won’t have family-friendly, inviting neighborhoods if the homes are walled-off from neighbors and visitors. This remains true even if the top 2 feet are “transparent;” because there will still be a 5 foot tall wall in the front yard.

If people are worried about a pet or young child getting out, they have their entire backyard, or they can go through a variance process to (possibly) build a taller wall in the front yard. Let’s retain 3 foot walls in front yards, and not destroy the family-friendly character of our neighborhoods.

Missed the invite for the Oct 11 and 12 trainings. Again, this type of amendment would only benefit with a wider distribution of information and more sincere engagement process.

Way bigger than a text/technical amendment.

Any new power lines need to be in the ground. Any new BESS needs to be on a slab that protects ground contamination.

What are the safety issues with BESS?
Most events had in common that the lithium ion batteries installed in the BESS where somehow driven to vent battery gas and transition to thermal runaway, which is a process that releases large amounts of energy. Thermal runaway is strongly associated with exothermic chemical reactions.

4-3 (E)(2)(d) STRIKE THE 'UNLESS..." PART. RISK

Make it a 660 ft buffer until later date when risks are properly accessed and mitigation options improved.

Another amendment that would only build up our community if it went through a wider citywide amendment process. Engage the public, use the opportunity to build the Albuquerque of the future.

Revise the annual IDO update process to restrict it to text/technical updates and revamp the citywide engagement process through CPA's (CAA's) whatever. Right now the administration has used a corrupted citywide process, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be challenged in court.

It has this facade of public process but while comments are heard, they are transposed, no report is made, no responses are provided. Questions go unanswered. Public is told basically that this is a done deal. There is no time for the decisions to be affected by the voting cycle - take this to the kids at UNM studying law.

The process matters, the engagement matters, the end result is community. Build it.

I think this is another example of an appropriate annual update for text/technical amendments.

No limit to how many can be housed in one shelter, no guideline reference?

Nope. Not a good idea next to my house, unless they are in treatment programs.

Bigger issue than a textual/technical update guys.

RISK RISK RISK

Giving to private group homes, boon for dealers, sanctioned distribution networks. lol

Need to restrict skilled nursing needs to be evaluated in a better forum than this. We had several group homes in the West La Cueva NA - adjacent to one another. If skilled nursing is needed that increases staff needs and increases parking needs. This cannot work if several are allowed next to each other and then then the neighborhood becomes more like a commercial area.

On top of parking, if skilled nursing is needed then one sees more ambulance and fire calls - then coupled with the parking - it becomes madness and destructive to neighborhoods.

Wrong place for this type of amendment. It is substantive change to our neighborhoods.

RISK

Data? Current applications that this affects? Is this a giving to private entities?

link

RISK

NOTIFICATIONS

Does striking this example from the list of examples restrict its use? I don't think so.

SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Where is the impact data? Who are the beneficiaries?

Where is the vacant and abandoned land bank as recommended by three task forces in the last decade.

This is a public health issue and using the ICC metric to separate substantive and text/technical amendments so to support the discussions of building a different process for substantive amendments, it would be considered a substantive amendment and be required to go through a better citywide amendment process.

Here's the key though, the upside if you will, if this amendment went across CPA's (CAA's) more of the public would start to call on their representatives and their administrations to build and maintain this public, much needed and very much supported land bank!

Please.

Is there a current project where this is not happening?

I agree with this, but it is substantive and really should be discussed and advised across the city (through CPA's) to put on display how councilors can help support communities! There is no need to have this done now, its a good amendment, as is the one above it and only strengthened by community participation.

Please again, hold a special meeting and build up our CPA system (it may be CAA, I can't keep track - either Community Planning Area's or Community Assessment Areas.) Either way, these processes will prove their worth if we use them in the fashion intended: for citywide amendments. We just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on two of these and their reports and suggestions are sitting on shelves. Shame, fraud, waste.

A public amendment!!!

Would be good to know which public though.

This seems to me to be something that got missed in the faulty translation processes. So, I would accept it as an appropriate Text/Technical amendment in an annual cycle.

link

RISK

Again, increasing the responsibility on NA's to distribute information about site plans in their areas, is not good form. This is a government role and responsibility that should be shared primarily with the developer. And this then makes someone responsible in court for the notification, you cannot hold a voluntary group, an NA, responsible in court for notifications. RISK.

Also, not all areas have NA's - so its discriminatory practice and should be backed with public access to submitted site plans in order to avoid legal complications of encouraging this type of notification processes that obscures the Gov's responsibility of notification from Gov and can be seen as a private giving to Developer as they are no longer appear as the primary responsible for notifications. RISK

Smoke and Mirrors

But don't we have to make the referral to an administrative decision a public process? Or there is a problem with notification statutes and unintended consequences based on the lack and what now appears as a taking of public engagement. RISK

And, add public access to these documents - that both the applicant and other developers have access to and that staff in the planning department have access to and that some NAIOP folks currently have access to........ PROTECT THE PUBLIC ACCESS.

This is further validating that NA's have the full gov/developer role and responsibility of communicating developments to community members. Provide electronic access to all public site plans as submitted. This will save the RISK that you are currently engaged in promoting.

I sincerely question the need for this. If the Annual Update process was restricted (the IDO is a restrictive legislation) to text and technical updates, and if substantive amendments went through a process of CPA concurrence, the need for any position to be filled would not require administrative appointments.

Ask yourselves, Why would a councilor delay an EPC appointment? Maybe because he or she has to find the person who will do their taking and private giving by turning a blind eye to this broken process?

Another unintended consequence of this poor process: the need to conspire.

link

CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEXT/TECHNICAL UPDATES AND SUBSTANTIVE UPDATES? PLEASE BUILD THE PROCESS FOR US PLEASE.

MAJOR NOTE:

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN APPROPRIATE IDO ANNUAL UPDATE TEXTUAL/TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

wow nelly.

Main streets and corridors maybe or in regard to a major plan subdivision, but not across the city. This is too much control really.

What properties is C. Fiebelkorn addressing? Is there something here that Winrock needs? Is there something here for the transit center or the redevelopment of Girard?

Support for green planning is better affected with subsidies and termed tax breaks. Stop using this process to legislate controls on developments in order for supporting the needs at one or two of the sites in one community.

Ask, where are the training materials for planning staff and the impact data on this substantive change to our character?

Private art controlled by the city? I'm confused.

I live in a historic ABQ neighborhood, and in the spirit of our neighborhood, which was designed with broad avenues and houses with a primary orientation toward the street, I oppose walls facing the street as they create unsafe spaces and undermine the historic design and nature of the neighborhood.

The present front yard wall height of 4 feet helps to preserve the historic nature of our neighborhood by preventing the large, tall compound-like walls found in other neighborhoods. The lower height also allows residents to observe what is happening on the street and sidewalks, adding to the safety of our neighborhood.

Higher walls increase isolation and are an eyesore and do nothing to strengthen community which improves safety.