2025 Update: EPC Spreadsheet of Proposed Changes

Patricia Sep 19 2025 at 1:46PM on page 9

C-7 limits store to 3,000 s.f., Council amendment is 5,000 s.f.. Why the inconsistency?

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:53PM on page 33

The basis for activity centers are that people use them. If we want people near/around/in our activity centers, we should have people living in them. Great idea and change. Keep.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:52PM on page 33

Land-use and transportation are intrinsically linked. Matching our land-use and transportation acknowledges this relationship and makes for better, more well-connected cities and happier populations.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:46PM on page 13

Suggestion

Bike-parking is critical. I'd suggest adding additional language or changing something to require bike parking for improvements done on buildings in denser zones. Many areas, especially downtown, don't have adequate bike parking, nor are adding much.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:44PM on page 11

All the various removals/reductions of parking requirements are good. Keep the ones that reduce it the most.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:43PM on page 10

GSI is super critical and an amazing development in drainage. Glad to see city-wide adoption. Keep.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:43PM on page 10

Not all developments will impact traffic to such an extent that a full study will be needed. Smart change, keep.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:42PM on page 10

Similar to item 32, we need people in these activity centers and people need to get between those centers safely, quickly, and reliably. Keep.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:41PM on page 10

We can't have activity centers without people. We need transit to get people between these centers, and transit transports people. More people is more good. Keep.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:40PM on page 9

Stable housing and somewhere to sleep should be available to everyone. Keep.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:39PM on page 9

Its great we have a word for this kind of thing in New Mexico, why can't we build one currently?

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:38PM on page 9

Language-use aside, as its hardly relevant, this is a 10/10 change. I'd love to get a bag of chips from somewhere I don't have to drive to. Keep the best version of the M-2 and C-7 suggestions.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:37PM on page 8

It just makes sense that our least-useful and most land-intensive land-use designation, Single-family detached housing, be not allowed in areas of transition between the same thing and more intense commercial areas. If the transition contains the thing its transitioning from, what's the point? Keep.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:35PM on page 7

Suggestion

Item M-1, C-5, and C-6 are all great and address the core issues getting in the way of Safe Outdoor Spaces. Keep the best out of the three based on what makes it easiest to do.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:33PM on page 6

Allows for casitas that don't look like shacks. Good change, keep.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:32PM on page 6

Casitas are cool and the amendment is well-thought out in per-empting issues with conflicting definitions of duplex and attached casitas. Keep.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:31PM on page 5

Great change for health, gas stations ruin soil and groundwater near them.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:29PM on page 4

Duplexes allow people to age in place and build close-knit communities with their neighbors that share a wall. Increasing housing while keeping the same house footprint will inevitably help those looking for somewhere to live. Keep as is.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:27PM on page 3

Items 12, 13, and 14 are great changes for areas that it doesn't make sense to incentivize land-use that focuses on the personal automobile.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:26PM on page 3

Suggestion

Great addition, dorms are critical to affordable options and student housing options off-campus.

Mark Bailon Sep 18 2025 at 3:24PM on page 1

Suggestion

Banger across the board, great proposals, great changes. Keep em all.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:29PM on page 4

Suggestion

C-2 - No duplex in R-1 or R-1 A - This request needs to be discussed with all residential owners.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:27PM on page 6

Suggestion

C-4 - No changes. This recommendation needs to have buy in by all residential owners. Extensive discussion needs to happen in the neighborhoods.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:26PM on page 6

Suggestion

29 - No changes. Take it off. Residential owners need to understand this change and what entails. There is no buy in by residents. This is only for investors, developers and their friends.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:25PM on page 6

Suggestion

29 - the unit should not be taller than the single family dwelling. Take it off. These changes needs to be discussed extensively with R-1 residential owners and should have buy in by the residents.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:23PM on page 9

Suggestion

M-2 - No changes. Again the word is tienda or tiendita - shop or little shop. This is Albuquerque New Mexico. This drastic change to neighborhoods needs to addressed at every neighborhood with extensive discussion and neighborhood buy. There has been no discussion in my neighborhood regarding these changes.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:19PM on page 8

Suggestion

30 - Allow R-1 in MX-T. This impacts Martineztown since the City failed to follow the law and zoned the area heavy commercial which is detrimental to residents. Many of the homes are zoned MX-T. These are historical homes. Stop the discrimination to Martineztown Santa Barbara neighborhood. Provide another round of zoning conversion so residents can down zone to R-1 in Martineztown. An education process will need to happen for about a year.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:16PM on page 9

Suggestion

C-8 This impacts Martineztown Santa Barbara neighborhood and it should be conditional

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:16PM on page 9

Suggestion

C-7 - No bodegas in residential areas. The word should be tiendita(s) this is Albuquerque New Mexico. This recommendation should not be up for changes until all neighborhood residential areas resident have discussed at depth with their City Council.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:11PM on page 10

Suggestion

C-8 Keept the conditional requirements.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:09PM on page 10

Suggestion

33 - No changes. The density and heights are already high.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:08PM on page 10

Suggestion

32- The densities and building height are already high. No changes to the current language.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:04PM on page 26

Suggestion

M-3 - EPC should not have this power on small areas. The decision maker still has to be the people that are voted in by the community and not the EPC. Do not change language.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 1:02PM on page 26

Suggestion

72 - This definition changes the meaning of abut whether it is at a corner or. not. Keep existing definition.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 12:58PM on page 31

Suggestion

88 - Setbacks need to be required. At least 5 feet from all sides.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 12:57PM on page 31

89-90 - Not sure about this, please explain.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 12:52PM on page 32

Suggestion

91 - Please explain.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 12:51PM on page 32

Suggestion

92 - I do not understand R-1 Dimensional Standards. I disagree with the R-1 A to have duplex. It needs to be removed. The definition for R-1 is a single family dwelling. Duplex is allowed in the R-T.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 12:49PM on page 33

94 - I don't understand this section, please explain.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 12:48PM on page 33

Suggestion

ZC-3 The City of Albuquerque zoned Martineztown Santa Barbara illegally heavy commercial in a predominant historic residential area now some of the the homes are MX-T or MX-L or MX-M. During the conversion, for the first time the homes were finally defined as R-1 zoning. Now the City wants to change it back to commercial. Stop the discrimination. These homes zoned R-1 in the historic neighborhoods are necessary to support our institutions and to protect and preserve the residential area.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez Sep 18 2025 at 12:41PM on page 33

ZC-4 - I disagree with this zoning conversion. The historic neighborhoods want to preserve the R-1 as single family dwelling as defined. The neighborhoods need these homes to support our institutions such as Albuquerque High School and Longfellow. MX-L has uses that are detrimental to the neighborhood. The historic neighborhoods was to preserve the character.

Patricia Sep 18 2025 at 10:49AM on page 22

are there instances where one or a few property owners requested a new CPO/HPO zone?

Patricia Sep 18 2025 at 10:44AM on page 22

does deletion of 6-4(D)(1)(e) mean that property owner(s) in a proposed HPO zone can no longer submit an application to create an HPO? That you now have to have 51% of "property owners"? How does that work with out of state and/or corporate ownership of property?

Patricia Sep 18 2025 at 10:04AM on page 9

If I am reading this correctly, on an R-1 corner lot of 5,000 SF, you could have a building of 5,000 SF? How does that comply with required amount of open space on a residential lot?

Patricia Sep 18 2025 at 9:03AM on page 26

Both of Mayor's M-3 amendments further erode opportunities for public input by changing the "recommend" phase to "decide". Not in favor of this and subsequent item.

Patricia Sep 18 2025 at 8:58AM on page 33

I have submitted letter to Council and Planning noting the number of properties--currently R-1, Areas of Consistency--that are affected by this change, just west of 12th Street. There are hundreds of property owners involved--what kind of notification did they receive?

projectteam Sep 15 2025 at 3:01PM on page 1

Click anywhere to leave a comment for EPC to consider.
Have a question? Send an email to abctoz@cabq.gov.

Warning message

2025 Update: EPC Spreadsheet of Proposed Changes

Comments

Add comment