2025 Update: EPC Spreadsheet of Proposed Changes

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:54AM on page 33

Support

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:54AM on page 33

Support

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:54AM on page 33

Support

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:53AM on page 25

Support

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:53AM on page 23

Support

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:53AM on page 22

Support

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:52AM on page 26

This change should not be approved. It adds unnecessary notification requirements for items that do not impact adjacent neighbors and the community.

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:52AM on page 24

This change should not be approved. Albuquerque already has an image problem with several old buildings that are falling apart due to lack of maintenance. The City should not make it more challenging to demolish an old building. Just because a building is old, does not mean it is historic. The State has processes and procedures in place to identify a building as historic already, the IDO does not need to counter this.

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:51AM on page 22

This provision should not be changed, or at the very least, increase the percentage to 75%. This could create undue burden on property owners not in favor of establishing a HPO/CPO for their neighborhood. The City has implemented HPO’s and CPO’s strategically around the City based on existing neighborhood characteristics. There is no need to allow every neighborhood to submit for a HPO/CPO designation by having 51% of property owners. This could move the City back to the sector plan structure, which the City has moved away from with the IDO. This change should not be approved.

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:51AM on page 13

All movements to reduce and remove minimum parking rules is a step in the right direction. Auto oriented cities around the country have been making these changes and reaping the benefit.

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:49AM on page 13

We are supportive of all changes within Item #36, #37, and #40, except for the provision reducing Parking Maximums for non-residential development within Centers & Corridors. The Parking Maximums for non-residential development is significantly low and could hamper potential investment along the City’s important corridors. The market should dictate the amount of parking needed, within reason, and the stated maximum should remain at 175% and this specific change should be reverted back to the original.

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:49AM on page 12

Parking Maximums are an unnecessary provision in the zoning code already and should not further reduced. Parking counts are tailored to the specific use and business operating on a property. Developers and property owners will not provide excess parking unless absolutely necessary. Parking fields require excess land and additional construction costs that would dissuade a property owner from providing and constructing extra parking. The code should focus on reducing parking minimums and not implementing parking maximums. This change should not be approved.

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:49AM on page 11

Important change please approve!

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:48AM on page 11

Support

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:48AM on page 11

Support

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:48AM on page 9

I support amendments that allow for more neighborhood based businesses. This is a great way for citizens to reinvest dollars where they live

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:48AM on page 10

This adds another layer of paperwork to an already burdensome entitlement and permitting process. Traffic Scoping Forms are required in accordance with the requirements in the DPM. The DPM requirements are enforced for a reason and the zoning code should not counteract these requirements in an effort to add more paperwork, time, and burden to the entitlement and permitting process. This change should not be approved.

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:47AM on page 8

This would create non-conforming uses across the City and would have a direct negative impact on property owners. Creating non-conforming uses is not a strong precedent to set. This would unknowingly hamstring property owners looking to maximize the value of their property through additions, renovations, and improvements. This change should not be approved.

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:46AM on page 5

Albuquerque is in a housing crisis and undergoing significant sprawl with residents having to live in the far reaches of the City to find affordably priced homes. There is not enough housing within key infill areas of our City. The City should be promoting infill development and growth, such as Titan’s property behind Natural Grocers at Wyoming and Montgomery. Not only does this provision directly conflict with the City’s goal to incentivize more housing for our residents, but it also directly conflicts with Section 9: Housing of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which generally states that the supply and density of housing should be increased. This change should not be approved.

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:44AM on page 2

a. Albuquerque has many older buildings, many of which are historic and should be preserved, and others that are just old and need to be demolished. This provision allows for unilateral discretion for the Planning Department to designate a property as historic, even if it’s not necessarily historic. The HPO’s are already in place to protect historic buildings in our key historic districts around Albuquerque. We do not need additional historic protections piecemealed around the City for small portions of certain sites. This just puts additional burden on property owners trying to revitalize their property and buildings. This change should not be approved.

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:44AM on page 4

Yes for home based business!

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:43AM on page 4

Love movement towards more gentle density housing options. If anything I would amend out the restrictions to make them permissible in more places. They are fundamentally compatible with sf houses

Sal Perdomo Oct 20 2025 at 8:43AM on page 1

Support

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:41AM on page 4

Strong support. Trends towards smallest household sizes means that smaller more economical options like town homes are needed

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:39AM on page 5

Strongly oppose arbitrary maximums on community friendly housing

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:38AM on page 7

I support all changes for empowering communities to help themselves and their neighbors. SOS is a next smallest step improvement to helping folks find safer places to sleep.

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:35AM on page 7

Reasonable update thank you!

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:33AM on page 6

Great change, will allow for more flexibility in building casitas!

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:29AM on page 6

Support! Casitas are an obvious step towards making housing where people want to live more attainable

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 8:27AM on page 6

Yes! Make more possibilities available for building casitas!

Kenny Myers Oct 20 2025 at 8:22AM on page 5

Opposed. This type of exclusionary zoning is antithetical to the creation of a successful city and makes it exponentially harder to provide creative development in an already challenging environment. Our mandate must be more and better housing.
Mixed density is a key aspect of successful communities and vital to the future of our city.

Jay Oct 20 2025 at 8:22AM on page 5

Proposed Revision:

I strongly oppose this proposed change to the IDO. It introduces unnecessary constraints and fails to consider several important zoning nuances.

Specifically, I question why M-XM zoning and other classifications that are intended to support higher densities are not included among the proposed exclusions. These areas are exactly where the City has encouraged more compact and sustainable development patterns. Excluding them from flexibility contradicts broader planning objectives.

For example, we have a project on the far Westside, located at Westside Blvd and Golf Course, zoned M-XM. The property backs up to the Black Arroyo, which is also zoned M-XM. Under the proposed change, our 144-unit build-for-rent project would not be allowed, despite being entirely consistent with surrounding development and policy goals. I do not believe this type of development is what the City intends to discourage.

This proposed amendment needs further refinement to avoid unintended consequences that would stifle responsible infill and mixed-use projects.

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 7:25AM on page 3

Composting is not only a responsible option to deal with food scraps it is a great way for communities to care for each other.

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 7:23AM on page 3

Support! In a time of decreased housing affordability and increased social isolation, permitting this kind of housing in more areas is a step in the right direction

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 7:19AM on page 1

Strong support! Let’s make it easier to leverage existing infrastructure to meet the needs of ABQ residents today.

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 7:18AM on page 1

Bike parking requires a fraction of the land use and can support many more patrons to businesses

Erin thornton Oct 20 2025 at 7:16AM on page 1

Support! Off street parking minimums should become a thing of the past. Removing these arbitrary minimums will promote folks to build only what is actually needed for a project, which is a step towards making ABQ more affordable

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 10:09PM on page 33

This is a great idea. Fully support.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 10:09PM on page 33

Support!!!

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 10:06PM on page 31

Oppose. Many lots have unusual configurations where setbacks are the difference between increasing housing options and doing nothing. We need fewer setbacks.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 10:02PM on page 23

Support. Allow a small increase to dwelling units to help support more housing.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 9:57PM on page 23

This is a very good change. NA's are too often captured by a small number of highly opinionated people who do not represent the neighborhood as a whole and stand in the way of beneficial developments.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 9:55PM on page 22

Agree with Carlos. CPOs render a lot of the best parts of the IDO useless in most of the areas where they could do the most good. We need to eliminate them entirely.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 9:50PM on page 11

Excellent change to unlock more casitas.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 9:50PM on page 11

Parking minimums were arbitrarily determined at some point in the 1960s and make no sense. Great to see them reduced, next let's get rid of them entirely.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 9:48PM on page 10

This is great, since the County has put a lot of thought into their GSI standards. Now we need to require GSI on more developments.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 9:47PM on page 10

Good change, support.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 9:43PM on page 10

Strongly support.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 9:34PM on page 6

Putting the large composting facility in Waste and Recycling, when small and medium are in Agriculture and Animal-Related, is inconsistent. This has the effect of making a large composting facility basically impossible to entitle in the city limits, since the allowable zone districts for this use completely overlap with the Railroad and Spur Small Area, therefore requiring a Cumulative Impact Study, Traffic Study, and multiple public hearings. These burdens and delays, and the exposure to NIMBYs, will make it basically impossible to introduce a large composting facility. Composting at scale is the most effective and impactful way to meet our environmental goals.

Westin Oct 19 2025 at 9:32PM on page 6

Support - make casitas easier. Current regulations make it very difficult to build one.

Warning message

2025 Update: EPC Spreadsheet of Proposed Changes

Comments

Commenting is closed for this document.