Historic Neighborhoods Alliance

1127 Walter NE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

(505) 270-7716

April 21, 2017

Albuquerque City Council

Isaac Benton, President, District 2

Ken Sanchez, District 1

Klarissa Pena, District 3

Brad Winter, District 4

Dan Lewis, District 5

Pat Davis, District 6

Diane Gibson, District 7

Trudy Jones, District 8

Don Harris, District 9

Environmental Planning Commission

Karen Hudson, Chair, Council District 8

Dan Serrano, Council District 1

Moises Gonzalez, Council District 2

Peter Nicholls, Council District 4

Derek Bohannan, Vice Chair, Council District 5

Maia Mullen, Council District 6

James Peck, Council District 7

Bill McCoy III, Council District 9

Re:Appeal/Protest of Findings issued by the City of Albuquerque Planning Department related to Project #1001620 16 EPC-40082- Amendment to Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulations Text

Dear Councilor Benton and Interested Parties:

This action is made necessary by the City of Albuquerque Planning Department issuing a written “Official Notification of Decision” dated April 7, 2017 to continue project 1001620/16EPC-40082, adoption of the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) with a mandated deadline for appeal, and a written “Official Notification of Decision” dated April 11, 2017 to continue project 1001620/16EPC-40082 with a mandated deadline for appeal. Both letter decisions contain substantive findings, making this action necessary.

The Historic Neighborhood Alliance appeals and protests the findings in the Official Notifications of Decision issued April 7, 2017 and April 11, 2017 based on the following:

Finding number 1, is premature and redundant. The application for the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) is still being considered by the EPC. The language of the application speaks for itself.
Finding number 2, is inaccurate. Council Bill No. R-14-46 (Enactment R-2014-022), which became effective on May 7, 2014, is misquoted in this finding. Section 1 of R-2014-022 is mis-quoted in this finding. For example, this finding omits important language such as “in coordination with Bernalillo County”, “where necessary”, “strengthens and incentivizes placemaking”, and “protects and enhances the region’s cultural and natural assets”. Section 2 is mis-quoted as well, for example “while consolidating and simplifying regulations for use by staff, land owners, residents, developers and the general public.” Other sections of R-2014-022 are simply omitted from Finding Number 2.
Finding number 3, is ineffective. The applicant failed to follow the requirements of Resolution 270-1980. (See attached) This procedural requirement which was not followed in the process renders ineffective R-16-108 and the revise ROA 1994 to refer to Areas of Consistency and Areas of Change (0-16-27) and update associated terms in annexation policies (R-16-109).
Finding number 4, is not supported by the evidence. There is lack of substantial evidenceto prove that the IDO modernizes the City’s development standards and processes, incorporates best practices, and integrates regulations from over 40 adopted Sector Development Plans in order to implement the updated Comp Plan. The IDO actually eliminates regulations from Sector Development Plans and degrades the community development standards and processes.
Finding number 5, is not applicable.
Finding number 6, is inaccurate. The HNA appeals this legal conclusion that this is a legislative matter which is not a function of the EPC.
Finding number 7, is inappropriate. All matters to be considered by the EPC were to be presented in the application. Future language to be added to the ROA1994 falls into the “what-if” prohibition of the Rules of Conduct of Business by the Environmental Planning Commission Section B(10). All of the proposal should have been included in the application.
Finding number 8, is illogical. Standard practice is to perform a Community Planning Area Assessment prior to any proposal for amendment. This finding follows the error of the previous finding which promotes a “what-if” analysis in violation of Rules of Conduct of Business by the Environmental Planning Commission Section B(10).
Finding number 9, is exaggeration. The City failed in their attempt to notify the public. There is evidence in the City record that no more than 1100 people were involved in public meetings. The “community outreach” was mostly to city staff, government employees, developers, business owners, and non-profits that would benefit directly. The public was poorly represented. The public outreach attempts were meager as shown by attachments to the staff report.
Finding number 10, is inaccurate. The City failed in their attempt to notify the public that a major zoning change was forthcoming. There is evidence in the City’s record and surveys that no more than 1100 people were involved in the community meetings. The majority of these people were staff, government, developers, business owner, and non-profits that would benefit directly. Communities of color were excluded from these processes. (See attachments)
Finding number 11, inflates the information the city provided in its staff report. The applicant for this complete re-zoning is the City of Albuquerque. As such, the applicantwas required to notify each property owner that would be affected. The City failed in their attempt to notify. The information releasedon this project is deliberately misleading and minimizes the seriousness of the impact. The City’s record and survey show that no more than 1100 people were involved in the community outreach. The majority of these people were staff, government, developers, business owners, and non-profits that would benefit directly. (See attachment).
Finding number 12, is overstated. Agency comments received by the City of Albuquerque are attached to the staff report. Of those, many stated no comment. Only 15 agencies responded. No evidence was provided regarding the City’s outreach effort to agencies.
Finding number 13, is generalized and misleading. Only 27 public comments were received. Many opposed the IDO. Staff is not “considering” these comments because they are proposing the IDO without regard for the comments.
Finding number 14 in the 4/7/17 letter begs the question of having more than one public meeting, as the EPC public meetings had been pre-arranged to take place on more than one date. Finding number 14in the 4/11/17 letter is misleading. The Citizens Academy was made of the majority staff, government employees, developers, business owners, and non-profits that would benefit directly. HNA would like there to be a continuance for more public testimony since many members of the public are at this moment still finding out that the City plans to redo the entire zoning code.
Finding number 15, restates some of the public opposition to the IDO. The overwhelming nature of the public testimony against the proposed IDO is minimized by this finding.
Finding number 16, is obvious given the size of the proposed IDO. The HNA would like there to be a continuance of the public testimony.
Finding number 17, is inaccurate. Due to the fact that the public are only finding out about the proposed IDO as this document is filed, vitiating the public input into the EPC consideration onlyserves the interest of the applicant and supporters of the IDOwhich include developers, business owners, and non-profits that would benefit directly.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS APPEAL / PROTEST:

The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan, the Rank 1 plan, has no boundaries.
The proposed IDO relegates all existing Community Areas surrounding downtown to be reclassified as Central ABQ neighborhoods. This places them into the same assessment area with each having varying needs that to be promptly addressed. Within a few months the named areas cannot be assessed, making the proposal arbitrary and unworkable. Therefore, HNA requests that sector plans are approved as part of this process. This will insure that the Metropolitan Redevelopment Areas which include sector plans as their planned areas are also addressed before the IDO is approved.
The EPC evaluation process of the IDO isin reality aquasi-judicial process affecting different areas differently, e.g., the areas of consistency which include certain neighborhoods vs. the areas of change which include other neighborhoods. The IDO adoption process pushed onto the EPC condones and encourages a violation of the due process rights of citizens in Albuquerque.
The Rules of Conduct of Business by the Environmental Planning Commission are unclear and ambiguous with respect to proceedings, appeals, findings and issuance of Official Notification of Decisions.
The Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) is ambiguous, confusing, containsexcessive cross-referencing and a rational person cannot understand the entire meaning of the document.
The IDOand staff report on which the findings are based does not address the health and safety of the city of Albuquerque and directly contradicts the intention of the legally binding law in the Zoning Code – specifically Section 14-16-1-3 Intent Section.
The City Planning Departmentdid not follow the City CharterArticle IX Environmental Protection which mandates that the Council (City Commission)in the interest of the public in generalshall protect and preserve environmental features such as water, air and other natural endowments, insure the proper use and development of land, and promote and maintain an aesthetic and humane urban environment. To effect these ends, the Council shall take whatever action is necessary and shall enact ordinances and shall establish appropriate Commissions, Boards, or Committees with jurisdiction, authority and staff sufficient to effectively administer city policy in this area. (Adopted at Special Election June 29, 1971)
The issuance of substantive findings is premature because the EPC has not concluded its deliberation on the application.
At the April 6, 2017 hearing the EPC Chair and members of the Commission made requests of the City of Albuquerque for additional information which was not included in the findings or the Official Notification of Decision dated April 7, 2017. (See attachment).
At the April 10, 2017, Councilor Benton testified in favor of the City of Albuquerque Planning Department IDO and indicated his bias and should recuse himself from the City Council decision.

WHEREFORE, Appellants / Protestants request the following:

That Findings numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 17bestruck from the record of the EPC proceedings through April 10, 2017, as prematurely issued prior to deliberation by the Commission;
That Findings numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 17are unrelated to a request for a continuance;
That Finding number 16 be expanded to include that further public testimonyis warranted for proper EPC consideration of the application;
That Findings numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 17be reconsidered by the Commission based on the record of proceedings before the Commission;
That further continuances of EPC hearings on this application be supported by only necessary language, i.e., that further testimony / information is required and/or that more time is required by the Commission to consider the application;
That substantive findings not be prepared and submitted into the record until the Environmental Planning Commission has deliberated to its satisfaction and the Commission is prepared to make a recommendation in favor of the application or opposed to the application;
That the content of paragraphs18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27besubmitted to the EPC as proposed findings for its deliberation of the application.

Sincerely,

Bianca Encinias, El Chante Casa Del Cultura, HNA, Wells Park

Robert Nelson, HNA, Wells Park

Barbara Grothus, Downtown Resident

Loretta Naranjo Lopez, President, Martineztown Work Group

Diana Dorn Jones, United South Broadway Corp.

Richard Moore, Los Jardines Institute

Angela Vigil, Martineztown Work Group, Santa Barbara Martineztown Neighborhood Assoc, and Victory Hills

Esther Abeyta, San Jose Resident

Santa Barbara/Martineztown Neighborhood Association, Loretta Naranjo Lopez, Vice President

Loretta Naranjo Lopez, Martineztown Work Group, HNA

Elizabeth Stacy Vencill, Member of SENA and HBANA

Camille Varoz, North Valley Resident

Pat G. Martinez, North Valley Resident

Ian Mentken, HNA

Marie B. Marmash South Broadway

Nyira Gitana, Artist Adovacate

South Broadway Neighborhood Association, Frances Amijo, President

Ramie Vigil, Resident, Victory Hills and Martineztown Work Group

CC:

City Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry

Albuquerque City Councilor Trudy Jones

Albuquerque City Councilor Klarissa Peña

Albuquerque City Councilor Ken Sanchez

Albuquerque City Councilor Dan Lewis

Albuquerque City Councilor Brad Winter

Albuquerque City Councilor Diane Gibson

Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis

Bernalillo County Commissioner Debbie O’Malley, President, District 1

Bernalillo County Commissioner Steven Michael Quezada, Vice-President, District 2

Bernalillo County Commissioner Maggie Hart Stebbins, District 3

Bernalillo County Commissioner Lonnie Talbert, District 4

Bernalillo County Commissioner Wayne Johnson, District 5

U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich

U.S. Senator Tom Udall

U.S. Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham

N.M. Representative Gail Chasey

N.M. Representative Christine Trujillo

N.M. Representative Sheryl Williams Stapleton

N.M. Representative Javier Martinez

N.M. Representative Patricia Roybal Caballero

N.M. Representative Antonio Maestas

N.M. Representative Miguel Garcia

N.M. Senator Jacob Candelaria

N.M. Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino

N.M. Senator Michael Padilla

N.M. Senator Linda M. Lopez

Harold Bailey, Ph.D, NAACP

Joseph Scantlebury, W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Jessica Coloma, W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Arelis Diaz, W.K. Kellogg Foundation

La June Montgomery Tabron, W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Wendy Lewis, McCune Foundation

Henry Rael, McCune Foundation

William Smith, Santa Fe Community Foundation

Christa Coggins, Santa Fe Community Foundation

Xavier De Souza Brigss, Living Cities Board, Ford Foundation

Craig Howard, Living Cities Board, The John D. & Catherine MacArthur Foundation

Dr. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, Living Cities Board, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Patrick McCarthy, Living Cities Board, The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Tim Keller, N.M. State Auditor