I agree with Ciaran. The comment about "it will result in many properties losing Neighborhood Edge protection” makes no sense.

I also call to question: "it will result in many properties losing Neighborhood Edge protection.” The definition (in the IDO) of Neighborhood Edge is "Any distance required by a standard in § 14-16-5-9 (Neighborhood Edges) is measured from the nearest point on the nearest lot line of the Protected Lot to the nearest point on the Regulated lot that contains the feature being regulated.” The IDO specifically adds "Neighborhood Edges apply regardless of area-specific regulations associated with a Center or Corridor designation.” How does the IDO result in properties loosing Neighborhood Edge protection? How in the world do you conclude that "it will raise maximum height in most cases.”

The remainder of the response appears to be equally questionable.

I stand in favor of the proposed IDO. The arguments made below, by being so off base, have strengthened my support of it.

Thank you.

Michael McDonald.

On Jan 21, 2026, at 10:55 AM, Ciaran Lithgow via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

Good morning neighbors, 

Gary, I am not sure it's fair to claim that zoning changes will cause property taxes to rise. While zoning changes are technically allowed to be considered for tax reassessment under State law, Bernalillo County's actual practice for determining value and triggering reassessment is to monitor individual properties for building permits and sales. The City legislatively changed zoning for all properties back in 2018 when it adopted the new IDO, and we did not see sweeping tax increases then based on new zoning. I think the County only cares about use changes, not zoning changes. Additionally, residential properties are protected by a maximum 3% annual increase (unless you sell/redevelop). This goes for apartments and single-family homes alike. 

The map below shows the potentially impacted properties. (I am also including a screenshot of the Neighborhood Edges language in their proposed update.) Anything that is marked R-T is currently R-1; anything marked MX-T is currently R-T.  

My feelings on this are mixed... perhaps, rather than carte blanche rejecting this proposal, I would propose requesting that any property currently zoned in an R district not be upgraded anywhere above an R-T (which is the highest density protected under Neighborhood Edges). That would address the Neighborhood Edges concern while allowing more gentle density to grow in and around our commercial corridor. 

<image.png>
<image.png>

I am in favor of IDO 2-3(B)(1) (allowed duplex/triplex in R-1). I am also in favor of allowing small retail in R-1 zones. I doubt the small retail would change our neighborhood's character very much (we have Central Avenue right here! Who could compete with that?), but it could greatly benefit other neighborhoods that don't have access to walkable neighborhoods and grocery stores like we have the privilege of enjoying by allowing coffee shops, corner stores, or other small commercial neighborhood uses. 

RE: allowing R-ML in R-1 (which would become R-L) - this is not a new change. R-ML is allowed in R-1 within 1/4 mile of Main Street/Premium Transit Corridors under today's zoning code. The update seems to be a clarification rather than a major change (see redlined text below). I am fine with the EPC's proposed language and I am against the request to remove it.
<image.png>

Thank you!
Ciaran 


On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 4:42 PM meyster1--- via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

Friends and neighbors,

City Council is performing the 2025 Biennial Update of the Integrated Development Ordinance, Albuquerque's zoning code.  
Council's Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee (LUPZ) considered the Update on January 14. NHNA is developing a statement of position for the committee's next meeting Jan. 28. A draft appears below. We would value your comments before January 23 at 5 pm so we can firm it up. You may reply to sender or to all. When you do, please indicate if you are a resident or own property or a business in our boundaries. https://www.nobhill-nm.com/about-the-nhna/nob-hill-boundaries-2/
We will put our statement out here and tell you how you can reach LUPZ personally.
#VivaNobHill, Gary Eyster, member, NHNA Urban Planning Team
<image.png>

__________________
Chair and Councilors, 
This is the position of the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association on the IDO Update, O-26-2. 
1…IDO 2-3(B)(1) adding additional uses in the R-1 Single Family Zone District, namely duplexes and triplexes. Neighbors, please reply with your take on this. 
2…Section 4, Legislative Zoning Conversions: Convert R-1 to R-T, R-T to MX-T, and R-ML to MX-L in Major Transit Corridor Areas and Activity Centers. These areas are pictured at https://abq-zone.com/2025-update-proposed-legislative-zoning-conversions
CABQ has not provided direct notice to property owners, it will likely cause property taxes to rise, it will result in many properties losing Neighborhood Edge protection, and it will raise maximum height in most cases. We request that you remove Section 4 from the update. 
3…A change to 4-3(B)(8)(e) that Council made earlier this year says the R-ML use is prohibited in the R-1 and R-T zone districts except in or within ¼ mile of Main Street or Premium Transit areas north of Central Ave. and east of the Rio Grande. EPC recommended changing that to either north of Central Ave. or east of the Rio Grande. That means R-ML apartment cubes 30 ft. tall can be built on any R-1 property in the entire city east of the Rio Grande. 
We don’t want historic houses surrounding our historic houses demolished for 30-foot-high apartment cubes. Historic character isn’t just stucco and tile roofs. It includes the context of the community. There are plenty of vacant sites all over town where multi-family can be built. R-ML in the middle of neighborhoods is not gentle. We request that you remove 4-3(B)(8)(e) from the IDO. 
4…Table 4-2-1 Allowable Uses and Use-Specific Standards; The update proposes allowing General Retail, Small in residential zone districts including R-1; on corner lots abutting at least 1 collector or arterial street this would be permissive. On corner lots abutting at least 2 local streets this would require a conditional use permit. The use could not exceed 5,000 sq ft. 
Table 4-2-1 Allowable Uses and Use-Specific Standards; The update proposes allowing Grocery Store in residential zone districts including R-1. On corner lots abutting at least 1 collector or arterial street this would be permissive. Otherwise, it is prohibited. The use could not exceed 5,000 sq ft. 
These uses would be adjacent to residences. Individuals have expressed concerns around hours of business and other matters like solid waste disposal. We urge you address these in the use-specific standards.

_______________________________________________
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: ciaranlithgow@gmail.com


--
Ciaran Lithgow
(818) 398-1182
_______________________________________________
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: abqmichaelj@aol.com