2025 Update Pre-EPC Submittal Spreadsheet

Where is the exhibit? In the redline draft or is there a discrete document one can read?
Thank you

Aboslutely!

Lessening open space requirements reduces our city's climate resilience by exacerbating the heat island effect and increasing the likelihood of higher fatalities in heat and fire events that are becoming more frequent.

This effectively applies multiple bonuses and entitlements across large sections of the city, changes that are neither understood or recognized by the people who will be affected. Where is the Exhibit? This requires a visual for me to understand the impact.

Reasonable approach to a transition. The issue should be preservation of scale.

Support!

Support!

Support.

Support!

Synonyms for "negotiable" include arguable, moot, disputable, debatable and questionable. None of these seem to be reasonable terms for a zone district and its applicable provisions. This suggests that any applicable zoning provisions or requirements are fungible and decided arbitrarily.

There has been insufficient time for real public comment on this.

Even if someone is an IDO nerd, reading these is time consuming. I have attended 3 of the public meetings, with questions in each, and continue to need to reread them to try to figure out exactly what they mean.

Question, Mikaela!

I thought in our meeting on 8/12, the final date to pin comments was going to be 8/31/2025. We have another public information meeting on 8/25? How can you end the pinned comment period before someone may have their first chance to attend a public meeting on the IDO review?

The Neighborhood Edge should not be reduced. The Neighborhood Edge allows buildings within 100 ft. distance from a single family residence to be 30 ft high. After 100 ft. then a building can go much higher above 30 ft. high. The 100 ft. Neighborhood edge is not enough distance already. To reduce the neighborhood protection to 50 ft. is even worse. This will cause numerous conflicts in the Community and this amendment should not be approved.

I don't see many comments. Sad that our Planning Department thinks this is a working process.

It would be prudent to delay any changes to our zone code that hinge on current contended legislation. People who invest their entire life savings have a right to expectations of consistency. Why all this sneaky, underhanded, upzoning without identifying actual sources of these amendments, without naming the direct beneficiaries, without naming and informing those affected, without details such as clear maps and examples, without listing known unintended risks? Shame on you all.

Zone code changes are supposed to be few and far between. This onslaught (the IDO amendment process of substantially changing our city) responds to privileged persons' needs for capital building and wealth maintenance, opens opportunities for those with capital to burn and devalues current residents properties. THIS HAS TO STOP.

I thought the comment period for the spread sheet was August 30th, not August 22nd. Could you please extend to August 30th to allow more time to review and pin comments. I would really appreciate it.

Taking Airport, Fairgrounds, Stadium or Racetrack out of the Allowable Use tables that were supposed to facilitate zoning? It truly appears that you are using the IDO amendment process to provide spotzoning opportunities to fit in and legislate privileged rewrites for the current Admin's site plans.

So are we now allowing residential uses on NR-SU?

Right, the problem isn't a smaller home, its the height of the buildings that are allowed to stand just next door. RML in some of these tighter places reduces the neighborhood edge, so don't get rid of neighborhood edge while making smaller lots. Cannot do both.

Systemic racism creates and maintains unearned advantages for dominant racial and economic groups. At the same time disadvantages and barriers are created whey you up-zone without considerations. So as you take away the neighborhood edge, you devalue the single family home. THIS IS RACIST PLANNING.

I have direct experience with this during the first opt-in plan that ignored my petition to keep my sector plan rules and allowed a two story building next to my lot on Princeton. Plus, at the same time, at that time, the IDO amendments allowed encroachment into our shared space. So while my neighbor was able to gain, I lost. We have got to avoid this again. You are turning lots into Bulldozer Bait.

Just a general comment before tomorrow's deadline for commenting. 6 weeks. 10 people commenting (unless I'm missing something about how to review all the comments. My thanks to Peggy, Debbie, Carlos, Bryan, Jane, Westin, Dawn, blank, and Jordon--but don't you think we need a larger pool of respondents???

Would there be any way to extend the comment period and provide a little more PR? Thanks.

The history of how Planned Developments came to be in the IDO is a murky, very fractured, private investment strategy of the elite and planning insiders. It includes a terrible land grab at Sun North Estates that is currently under legal review. Where is the public access to the plans for PD's where is the public access to vacant and abandoned land in these PD's. Where is the history of purchases since PD zoning was imposed transparency between new owners and Planning insiders. Where is the analysis of beneficiaries and impacted? What exactly is this in regard to, it is terribly hard to understand. How can this be considered dialog and notification if it is not explained in clear language with maps and examples.

Well, maybe third time will be a charm for duplexes...

what is difference between this and item #41?

In general, I am in favor of letting the developer decide how many parking spaces they need to make their project profitable. Developers know that multi-family with insufficient parking is not successful.

need better CE--there's a tall chainlink fence with barbed wire just installed on Lomas (north side) east of San Mateo

Yes, please! We all need to become more cognizant of water retention.

what about corner lots? They would have both a "Front" and a "side" facade, each side facing streets.

50' is the width of many residential lots. I doubt most people can visualize what a 30' height on one side of their lot would look like...

how are Vacation of ROW requests currently handled?

this does not present another 'hurdle', as some have commented. As with Tribal Notification last year, it just clarifies who receives notification

according to which definition of 'abut'; the existing or revised?

There needs to be more public service outreach for people to understand the need for Dark Sky compliance--we have a great lighting ordinance, but neighbors are encouraged to leave lights on all night to deter crime--rather than using motion sensors.

so is minimum lot size 3,500 SF? If you have a 7,000 SF lot, can that be subdivided into two lots?

Agree.

While these black-background maps are elegant, and make the R-ML zoning stand out brilliantly, it would be nice to have the major streets identified. This makes it hard to communicate to neighbors exactly which streets would be affected!

I am assuming E-W streets are Montgomery and Lomas, and the N-S are Carlisle, San Mateo and Louisiana. Downtown and west of river is Central, north on Coors. Please identify these street names. thank you

I need some clarification on understanding this; example please?

After review of the sites in the MX-FB-UD area, I'm appalled to see again that the planning department (after years and years of being asked to provide proper data for amendments to our zone code) has not included proper mapping, full disclosure of beneficiaries, full disclosure of the source of the amendment, a clear understanding of risk and known unintended consequences. This is normal procedure in other communities, especially communities such as ours where resources (i.e. OPEN SPACE) are limited. And furthermore, this type of approach (the Planning Department being responsible for detailed planning data and maps) would serve to accomplish the IDO's stated goal of protecting our community. But Planning seems to prefer to approach things like this through closed doors and support private gains. Without an understanding of who the beneficiaries are and an estimate of how much open space (and Tree Canopy) we potentially loose per site that may or may not go to residential - how can the public even evaluate this let alone the EPC commissioners unless they are directly tied to the gains at individual sites.

The only site that I can quickly, in my rudimentary ways (not having privileged map or data access, to vacant and abandoned and marked for PDs, that many folks in planning, in the realty/corporate world and in development work in Albuquerque have) is the Wells Fargo site.

I can see that the water has not been maintained (here is an opportunity for a good ordinance - when properties are vacant and abandoned the city should provide water until so as not to loose the tree canopy, when sites are in transition, the owner should be responsible and if not then charged for the city to maintain the canopy) at the Wells Fargo site. When looking at open space one is immediately aware of parking lots, Wells Fargo parking lot is very large lot that could go to multi-storied multi-family in the next few years. Why would you want to give up open space requirements for this lot in the center of our downtown????

A better ordinance would be that open space dept evaluate the planning and the potential loss across this area now and make recommendations per site. Then discuss things at the next CPA for Dist 2. During transitions variances work and provide the public with the best opportunity to discuss outcomes. Giving carte blanche open space reductions like this are not good planning policies.
How in the world can we consider that the Wells Fargo parking lot and current landscaping could be replaced with a bench and a potted plant? How can we allow those set to gain millions in market rents to simply pay a fee to avoid providing and protecting open space in our urban center?

I further suggest we protect these urban spaces more, not less. Particularly the areas where trees are now flourishing between two lots, protect them. Where a cactus is growing in the middle of a parking lot, protect it. Insure that all courtyards are protected.

This ordinance is for gain of private investors. Leave our Open Space Requirements in place and work through variances or provide accurate maps and data of how this is now a real barrier to development plans. Its simply an economic gain for the bottom line of greedy developers.

Increase by how many units? This amendment is vague and could result in a project doubling in size (or more?) with no notification to adjacent property owners. Again, it's not about control--it's about communication/notification!

Perhaps this is the real reason the corridor designation for Menaul was proposed--as that was not about increased bus service.

Enough with the exceptions, apply the same rule citywide.

Historic in the front, conversions in the back. Mullet-style development sounds great!

Non-residential conversion is very important to revitalizing downtown and other centers of activity. Support!

My home was much more affordable than others listed in the surrounding neighborhood because it was on a smaller lot with smaller setback. Support this to allow more options and choices for future homeowners both looking to downsize or get started with their first home.