Councilor Rogers,

The details that Gary Eyster has shared from this bill are completely unacceptable.

The extremely short time limit to obtain signatures of neighbors for appeals is virtually impossible to meet in reality.

The potential for legal fees incurred by neighborhoods financially disincentivizes people from participating in the development of their own neighborhood. It is a punitive measure that favors developers over the people who live there.

The complete negation of building height limits is of particular concern for historic neighborhoods and should be handled in a sensitive manner.

I oppose this bill which would likely have a large, lasting impact on my community.

Sincerely,

Tandi Hufnagel

Hermosa Dr NE

On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 12:00 PM <neighbors_nobhill-nm-request@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

Send Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list submissions to
neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
neighbors_nobhill-nm-request@mailman.swcp.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
neighbors_nobhill-nm-owner@mailman.swcp.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Neighbors_nobhill-nm digest..."
Today's Topics:

1. My Concerns around City Council Bill O 24-69 (Gary Eyster)
2. Re: Neighbors] Nob Hill Public Safety (bluet-78504@mypacks.net)
3. Re: My Concerns around City Council Bill O 24-69 (Mark Cleveland)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gary Eyster <meyster1@me.com>
To: "'Rogers, Nichole L.'" <nrogers@cabq.gov>, <district6@cabq.gov>, "'Kirksey, Ziarra'" <zkirksey@cabq.gov>
Cc: <meyster1@me.com>, "'neighbors'" <neighbors@nobhill-nm.com>, Patricia Willson <patty@willsonstudio.com>
Bcc:
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2025 15:32:51 -0700
Subject: [Neighbors] My Concerns around City Council Bill O 24-69

Dear Councilor Rogers,

This bill has only been around for a short time. I understand its sponsors want a vote on it Monday night, January 6.

I am attaching a statement of opposition by the Intercoalition Council of Neighborhood Associations for ready reference.

There has not been time for our neighborhood association to consider this in a deliberative fashion and develop a formal statement so I am writing you in a personal capacity.

I hope you will act to slow down the process so the community and Council can deliberate and properly consider its monumental impacts, both intended and unintended, on the urban form of our community.

There are 4 provisions that cause me serious concern:

1.     6-4-(U) (5) If neighborhoods appeal a Planning decision (like a zoning amendment or Zoning Hearing Officer decision) and lose they will be responsible for the applicant's additional costs, including legal costs.

2.     6-4(U) (2) (a) Standing to appeal will require signatures of a majority of property owners within 660 ft. This is incredibly onerous particularly because decisions must be appealed within 15 days.

3.     Table 4-2; Dwelling, Multifamily will become permissive on R-1 lots within 1,320 ft. of MS-PT areas. (Central Ave. in Nob Hill is a Main Street area). The IDO defines that term as a building, multiple buildings, or a portion of a building located on a single lot, containing 3 or more dwelling units.

4.     Building Height Limits will be abolished within 1,320 ft. of MS-PT areas.

Sharing your respect for community and community voices I appreciate anything you can do to slow this down for proper consideration.

Kind regards, Gary

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: bluet-78504@mypacks.net
To: neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2025 04:44:43 +0000
Subject: Re: [Neighbors] Neighbors] Nob Hill Public Safety
Daniel,

Thanks for reaching out.

My question for the Commander is: Could we get a "Bait Parcel" program going that is modeled after the Bait Car/Bait Bike Program?

Thanks,

JS

<-----Original Message-----
<From: <neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com>
<Sent: Jan 4, 2025 12:00 PM
<To: <neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com>
<Subject: Neighbors_nobhill-nm Digest, Vol 155, Issue 1
<

<Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:07:12 -0700
>From: Daniel Carlos
>To: Nob Hill Neighbor List Serve
<Subject: [Neighbors] Nob Hill Public Safety
<Message-ID:
<Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

<Good evening Neighbors. I am meeting with the APD Commander for our Nob Hill area this coming Monday.

<I wanted to reach out to our community and see if there are any questions you would like asked. Please let me know and I will do my best to get as <many answered as possible.

<Hope you all had a great Holiday!

<Best,
<Daniel Carlos
<NHNA Chair- Public Safety Committee

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Cleveland <abqcleve@comcast.net>
To: Gary Eyster <meyster1@me.com>
Cc: "Nichole L. Rogers" <nrogers@cabq.gov>, district6@cabq.gov, Ziarra Kirksey <zkirksey@cabq.gov>, neighbors <neighbors@nobhill-nm.com>, Patricia Willson <patty@willsonstudio.com>, meyster1@me.com
Bcc:
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 09:10:57 -0700
Subject: Re: [Neighbors] My Concerns around City Council Bill O 24-69

Very interesting. I find section 6-4-(U) (5) especially concerning. That's how British jurisprudence works. The United States correctly rejected that as it discourages challenging egregious acts of the rich and powerful. I find that section un-American and therefore unacceptable.

Best regards,

Mark Cleveland

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 5, 2025, at 8:04 AM, Gary Eyster via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

Dear Councilor Rogers,

This bill has only been around for a short time. I understand its sponsors want a vote on it Monday night, January 6.

I am attaching a statement of opposition by the Intercoalition Council of Neighborhood Associations for ready reference.

There has not been time for our neighborhood association to consider this in a deliberative fashion and develop a formal statement so I am writing you in a personal capacity.

I hope you will act to slow down the process so the community and Council can deliberate and properly consider its monumental impacts, both intended and unintended, on the urban form of our community.

There are 4 provisions that cause me serious concern:

1.     6-4-(U) (5) If neighborhoods appeal a Planning decision (like a zoning amendment or Zoning Hearing Officer decision) and lose they will be responsible for the applicant's additional costs, including legal costs.

2.     6-4(U) (2) (a) Standing to appeal will require signatures of a majority of property owners within 660 ft. This is incredibly onerous particularly because decisions must be appealed within 15 days.

3.     Table 4-2; Dwelling, Multifamily will become permissive on R-1 lots within 1,320 ft. of MS-PT areas. (Central Ave. in Nob Hill is a Main Street area). The IDO defines that term as a building, multiple buildings, or a portion of a building located on a single lot, containing 3 or more dwelling units.

4.     Building Height Limits will be abolished within 1,320 ft. of MS-PT areas.

Sharing your respect for community and community voices I appreciate anything you can do to slow this down for proper consideration.

Kind regards, Gary

<2025_01_03 ICC LTR O-69Final.pdf>
_______________________________________________
Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
Neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
This Message Sent To: abqcleve@comcast.net

_______________________________________________
Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
Neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm