Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

2025 Update: EPC Spreadsheet of Proposed Changes

Please leave comments for EPC to consider!

This spreadsheet includes changes submitted by Planning Staff for Environmental Planning Commission to review at a special hearing on October 28, 2025.

To be included in the staff report for EPC consideration, send comments by 9 am on Friday, October 10th.
To be included in the packet for EPC consideration, send comments by 9 am on Monday, October 20th.

Notes for your review:

Where the spreadsheet says "See Redline Exhibit," please review the EPC Redline Exhibit to see the changes to text.
Staff will review these changes at public meetings in October prior to the EPC hearing.
Download an Excel file of the spreadsheet here.

Learn more about the 2025 Update

Understand the Update Process

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

Comments

Add comment

Jill Yeagley Oct 11 2025 at 5:15PM on page 11

I am opposed to removing this requirement. It will lead to on street parking that will restrict traffic flow and cause safety issues. Many streets are not wide enough to accommodate on street parking.

Jill Yeagley Oct 11 2025 at 5:10PM on page 11

Maintain parking minimums unless there is a legitimate study that shows a high percentage of ABQ residents do not own a vehicle. To add multifamily dwellings throughout the city while simultaneously reducing parking minimums will reduce safety for pedestrians and drivers alike. The City does not presently have sufficient and reliable public transportation to make this proposal workable.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:57PM on page 33

Providing clarity for builders, staff and residents will reduce headaches, demands on city staff, need for appeals, and accidental violations. It also ensures our zoning maps are reflective of recent changes. This amendment makes sense and should be implemented.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:55PM on page 32

Great amendment. Smaller lot size allows for flexibility of building style, expands the number of buildable parcels citywide, enables more entry-level homes and small-scale infill, and moves toward ending arbitrary lot-size barriers. Thank you for including this!

Jill Yeagley Oct 11 2025 at 4:54PM on page 4

Townhouses should be required to meet the specific requirements of the neighborhood. Because townhouses always seem to be at least two stories high, they should not be allowed in an area (VPO 2, for example) that restricts the height of homes to one story.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:52PM on page 31

If this adds new setbacks, I do not support. This could potentially make infill harder, more expensive, and more limited. It also risks enforcing sprawl patterns and land inefficiency.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:47PM on page 23

NAs are not HOAs - they should not get to limit or control what private property owners do within the neighborhood (as long as the property owner is following the law). While some public input for large changes is reasonable, we should ensure this input is representative. Which currently, if you are involved with NAs in ABQ, they are not. I don't think NAs should get to appeal legally defined development. By making the zoning code simpler and clearer, you will make it easier for builders to follow the law and therefore reducing the need for neighborhood policing for code violations. The city should also work harder to enforce the codes it has.

Jill Yeagley Oct 11 2025 at 4:44PM on page 4

Suggestion

Duplexes should be required to maintain the same setbacks, height restrictions, and other specific requirements for the area in which they will be constructed.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:39PM on page 13

We should allow landowners to decide how much parking they want to provide. This is a great step in the right direction. Fully support.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:38PM on page 13

Yes please this is amazing. Please remove parking minimums. This will align ABQ with national best practices and allow. Parking wastes valuable land, and this will allow us to maximize our infrastructure and increase our tax base by using land that actually makes money instead of providing storage for cars, which makes little to no tax revenue for the city. We are already wildly overparked, which makes our city feel hostile. Great amendment.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:34PM on page 12

Yes! This is a great amendment. It reinforces fiscal sustainability by reducing excess infrastructure. It also encourages walkable, mixed-use development near major investments.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:33PM on page 11

Yes! This is a common sense change, and one more thing we can do to encourage casita construction. Thank you for having this amendment.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:31PM on page 11

Yes! Let land owners decide how much parking they want to provide. Please remove parking minimums.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:30PM on page 10

Yes please! Also helps us combat climate change and heat island effects.

Jill Yeagley Oct 11 2025 at 4:30PM on page 26

In a legal context, "abut" means to physically touch or border upon another property along a common boundary. I strongly object to city staff changing a legal definition that is used throughout the country. It’s obvious this,is being,proposed,to make,it easier for developers to do want they want.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:28PM on page 10

Good amendment, this makes smaller projects possible by not requiring a traffic study for everything. And by supporting the other amendments in the IDO that support multi-modal transport, not every project will create more car traffic.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:25PM on page 10

Great change, this amendment is gentle and reasonable. Allows for natural adaptability and makes sense. It also helps new projects pencil out in this time of inflation, allowing more housing and commercial development.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:23PM on page 10

This is great, by allowing flexibility for property owners. It encourages lot-by-lot reinvestment and for more home creation. Keep!

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:21PM on page 10

Yes, fully support. These places are already designed for growth and density, and removing height limits allows for more people = more tax revenue in the area. No brainer. The infrastructure already exists - let's maximize it.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:17PM on page 9

Excellent amendment, keep. Homelessness is a problem that occurs to people in all neighborhoods, not just a few on the outskirts. Keeping people in their local communities helps them stay connected, kids in their networks, and helps the recovery process quicker. Also, huge shelters can be safety concerns and require more resources. This is a dignified answer to the homelessness crisis. Fully support.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:13PM on page 9

oh my god YES PLEASE. I want this in my neighborhood so bad. It's crazy that we have made this illegal. I do think the comments about trash pick-up, signage, etc are valid and should be clarified. But we should 500% allow little groceries to be in our neighborhoods. We will also support these tiendas by allowing for gentle density, to ensure a large enough customer base to make them economically viable. This is aligned with many of the other changes in the spreadsheet, and I think they need to be passed as a package, or we will just set up tiendas to fail.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:07PM on page 8

I support. This prevents downscaling in areas meant for urban housing, keeps corridors and transitions zones efficient and people-scaled, and encourages walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods (which are the neighborhoods that are in the most demand).

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:04PM on page 7

M-1, C-5 and C-6 all are great, I would keep which ever is easiest to implement. Safe outdoor spaces have been proven to be effective in other cities and provide a critical step in the process of finding stable housing. They also make the community safer for ALL residents, and are very common sense solutions (and also cost effective). Keep.

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 4:03PM on page 33

I love this! These updates clarify recent legislative changes, making the IDO clearer and easier for everyone to understand. It also makes perfect sense to upzone in our activity centers. These are the places designed for growth: close to jobs, shops, and transit, where more people should be able to live and participate in city life. Allowing a bit more density here supports walkability, economic vitality, and a vibrant, sustainable Albuquerque.

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 4:02PM on page 33

I love this! These updates simply clarify the changes already approved by recent legislation, making the IDO easier to understand and more transparent for everyone. Beyond that, this is exactly the kind of direction Albuquerque should be taking. Upzoning near major transit corridors is smart, sustainable, and aligns growth with the places best equipped to handle it. It encourages walkable, mixed-use development and helps make our transit investments more effective.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 4:01PM on page 7

Yes! I love a patio dinner! Thank you, this allows for more diversity of options for people and our community.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:59PM on page 6

This is a great amendment, allowing for more flexibility, freedom, and adaptability (especially on sloped lots). Also allows for space-efficient infill. These modest height differences provide gentle diversity in homes, and is reasonable. Keep.

in reply to Loretta Naranjo Lopez's comment

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:58PM on page 6

As a property owners, my neighbors should not get to decide what I do with my personal property. I should (within the law) be able to do what I want.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:56PM on page 6

This is great, it allows for more creativity and flexibility in casita design, possibly reducing the cost of construction and increasing the number in our community, which is important to provide the housing we need. It also gives property owners more freedom to do what they want on their land, which I support (within reason, of course, and this amendment is reasonable).

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:53PM on page 6

Yes! Let's allow homeowners to have flexibility in what they need, and to be able to use their property to support their living needs. This is also a super low-impact way to add to housing stock in the city and not change neighborhood character. Keep!

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 3:53PM on page 32

Strongly support. Smaller lots allow gentle infill that welcomes more people while keeping the charm and character of our neighborhoods. Many of Albuquerque’s most beautiful and walkable historic areas have that quality precisely because of their small lot sizes. Reducing minimums encourages flexibility, creativity, and human-scale design. The current standards are overly prescriptive and limit the organic, adaptable growth our city needs. We should eliminate minimum lot sizes altogether.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:50PM on page 5

This amendment should be removed. It adds complexity and uncertainty to project planning, undermines corridor and center redevelopment, and reinforces exclusionary patterns by limiting housing near existing housing. We need more flexibility in housing options, not limits. I oppose.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:47PM on page 4

Townhomes are great, and allow people to enter the housing market at a place they can afford. It supports young people to start to build equity and eventually move up the housing ladder as their lives change. Townhomes are also a great way to build community and provide gentle density without changing the character of the neighborhood.

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 3:47PM on page 31

Would this increase setback requirements? If so, please don't. Bringing buildings and activity closer to the street creates safer, more walkable, and more engaging neighborhoods. Deep setbacks separate people from the places they want to go and make streets feel empty and unsafe. Walkable cities depend on proximity and good street frontage.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:45PM on page 4

Duplexes are a great way to provide affordable housing and don't change the character of the neighborhood. They are part of our history and should be legal everywhere. they allow for economic development and for people to grow up the housing ladder as their lives change. This is a very common sense proposal, and should be supported.

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 3:42PM on page 29

great!

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:41PM on page 4

I lived in a cottage development in colorado previously, and it was amazing how the design alone encouraged community development and promoted affordability. All the kids playing together in the courtyard every night created an amazing safety-net and allowed families support and freedom. This is the type of flexibility that we need to offer our citizens, thank you for including this.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:38PM on page 4

As someone who is expecting a baby this winter, it is crazy to me that I have to leave my neighborhood for someone to care for my child while I am at work. This is a logical, family- and community-centered change. It also helps support the new law providing free childcare in the state- we need many more day care providers and this will help make that a reality if people can use their homes! Fully support this amendment.

in reply to Carlos Michelen's comment

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 3:35PM on page 23

the point of that rant is to say that we should go further on limiting standing and protecting property rights.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:34PM on page 3

Yes, thank you for considering this option. We should be allowing all types of housing and allow people to make the choice of what is best for them. This allows for flexibility. Also allows for creating cohesive community, which has numerous societal benefits. I fully support.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:30PM on page 1

Bike parking is easy, affordable, and can be a creative! It encourages biking and less cars. Please pass this amendment.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:29PM on page 1

Love this! We have overbuilt our city for parking, and we have paid for it through reduced tax income that could come if this land was used for something more productive. I want to live in a place that is walkable and transit friendly - we know businesses in these types of environments experience greater success. Thank you for including these maximums.

Brandi Thompson Oct 11 2025 at 3:26PM on page 1

Great idea! The societal changes we have seen with the implementation of technology and globalization has resulted in our city being way overbuilt with commercial buildings. The infrastructure is already there - let's make it easy to reuse this space so we can have thriving communities. I want to live in a place where other poeple live - not where an abandoned building is located. Allowing for this flexibility will help us redevelop easier. Great idea, easy lift!

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 3:19PM on page 23

Neighborhood associations have too much power under the IDO. They do not represent the entire neighborhood (not even close) since most people are not civically engaged in local neighborhood politics. The voices of renters, students, and young professionals, in particular is often not represented. This is an outdated and ineffective mechanism for public input that has been weaponized by the few and has contributed to our housing crisis and the suffering of thousand of people who are now homeless. More generally, the IDO should allow for more development, permissively, since currently nearly all development requires a variance. You do not get out of the housing crisis by having lot-by-lot fights.

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 3:05PM on page 22

We need to eliminate CPOs/HPOs. They effectively result in dozens of different zoning classifications with bespoke rules for every neighborhood. This is possibly the biggest issue with the IDO, making it confusing, hard to follow, and ultimately inhibiting needed growth and change.

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 2:58PM on page 13

Support. This is a good citywide step toward aligning parking requirements with real-world demand. Parking mandates are outdated and should be completely eliminated, but this is a good step. This helps lower costs, encourage infill, and make more productive use of land across Albuquerque.

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 2:51PM on page 13

This is so needed. Thank you! Removing parking minimums in major corridors and transit areas eliminates one of the biggest barriers to housing and small business development. It allows land to be used for homes, shops, and public spaces instead of asphalt, and helps make transit a truly viable option.

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 2:49PM on page 12

Great! This strikes the right balance by removing outdated minimums and adding reasonable caps. Activity centers are meant to be people-oriented, not car storage zones. Setting maximums ensures new projects contribute to walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods while avoiding overbuilt, empty parking lots.

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 2:42PM on page 11

Great step! Currently casitas, while allowed, have too many onerous requirements, with parking being one of them. This is a good change. Casitas are a simple, low-impact way to increase housing options and strengthen neighborhoods. We should be making them ridiculously easy to build.

Carlos Michelen Oct 11 2025 at 2:38PM on page 11

Yes, please! Parking minimums undermine walkability by forcing buildings to spread out just to accommodate underused parking lots. These mandates make housing more expensive and neighborhoods less connected. The city shouldn’t dictate parking supply through mandates. Property owners and the market are best positioned to determine what’s actually needed. I hope soon we can completely eliminate parking minimum mandates, but for now this is a good step toward a more walkable, livable city.

View all