Stephen,

Yes, I was disappointed by this decision on many levels, but that City Council dismissed both appeals because we did not file in a timely manner was particularly egregious for two reasons.

First, the only reason the NHNA decided to file both appeals after the 15-day deadline was because Pat Davis led us to believe it was not a problem. He said that City Council had a long history of accepting Administrative decisions after the deadline because the rules for notifying the public and, thus, for when the time frame begins for the 15-day deadline are not clear. Moreover, he said that even if the LUHO made a recommendation to dismiss the appeal because it was not filed in a timely manner, it is only a recommendation and City Council does not have to agree.

Second, at the Copper appeal hearing, the opposing council requested that the appeal be dismissed because we did not file the appeal within the 15-day time frame. The LUHO stated that he did not like the way the City handled notifying the neighborhood of the decision and flatly refused to hear arguments related to the issue. Our attorney objected and made the Latches argument (that there was no inexcusable delay). The LUHO nodded in agreement, stated that he did not want to hear anymore, and moved on with the hearing.

You can imagine my surprise, when the LUHO issued his recommendation and found that "The NHNA sat on their hands, delaying filing an appeal [for] 35 days ..." and that "There are no facts, no testimony from any witnesses that would lend support to a finding that the delay was caused by excusable neglect." This was his response after he flatly refused to hear any evidence on the issue.

I was equally appalled by City Councilor Isaac Benton's motion to dismiss our appeal because "We don't want to set a precedent of hearing appeals after the deadline." This motion directly contradicted what Pat Davis told us and why we decided to file the appeals.

If I had known the outcome, I never would have suggested filing the appeals, let alone asked neighbors to contribute time and money to such a futile effort.

-Veronica

On Friday, March 23, 2018, 3:01:59 PM MDT, Stephen Mullens <mullens.stephen@gmail.com> wrote:

The bottom line is that this is a pro-development environment we’re in. Developers do not like restrictictions and limitations, they want to do whatever they want to do to grow their bottom line, and they all think they know what’s better for us than we do. And the city likes developers and those that work for and on behal of developers because it generates revenue. So we all better get use to this kind of bs stuff and be prepared to fight it because it’s only getting started.

Just make sure to file appeals on time so that, at the very least, we don’t allow the city an easy way out like what happened on the last two appeals.

Re the “minor change” for the height of the sign letters, what was the basis for allowing this property owner to ignore the letter size limitations that our comunity worked so hard to establish?

Stephen

On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Veronica Salinas via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
Juan Carlos:

In my response to Jim Strozier, I explained why this is not a valid reason. See below.

Jim,
You are either mistaken or you misrepresent the matter.
It doesn't matter what the Planning Director said in his approval letter, he cannot restrict a "minor change" to a specific parcel.
That is not only my interpretation. That is how the City Council's Land Use Hearing Officer (LUHO) interpreted Section 14-16-4-3(D)(2) at the Copper appeal hearing on January 22, 2018.
I'm surprised you don't remember. I remember it well because I had not read the provision this way and was stunned to hear the LUHO's interpretation of how a "minor change" cannot be restricted to a single property.
I believe it happened during an exchange between the LUHO and Planning Department Division Manager, Russell Brito. The LUHO pointed out that the language in Section 14-16-4-3(D)(2) authorizes the Planning Director to make a "minor change" to a Sector Plan not a single property. He further stated that a "minor change" cannot be restricted to a single property, even if the Planning Director explicitly states it in the approval letter, because the language simply doesn't allow for it. Russell Brito confirmed the LUHO's interpretation.
This exchange is on record and can be confirmed with the audio or written transcript of the appeal hearing.
A plain reading of Section 14-16-4-3(D)(2) below, confirms the LUHO is correct in his interpretation. There is no language anywhere in this section that authorizes the Planning Director to approve a "minor change" for a specific parcel or to restrict a change to a specific parcel once a "minor change" to a Sector Plan has been approved. Therefore, the "minor changes" approved for the Copper/Aliso and Carlisle properties necessarily apply to the entire Sector Plan.
Section 14-16-4-3(D)(2) of the Albuquerque Comprehensive Zoning Code states, "The Planning Director may approve minor changes to an approved Sector Development Plan or Landscaping Plan if it is consistent with the use and other written requirements approved by the Landscaping Commission or City Council, if the buildings are of the same general size, the vehicular circulation is similar in its effect on adjacent property and streets, and the approving official finds that neither the city or any person will be substantially aggrieved by the altered plan." (Emphasis is mine.)
-Veronica
On Friday, March 23, 2018, 2:31:03 PM MDT, Juan Carlos Holmes via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
It was explained to you twice, in the second reply to your initial e-mail, and again in Councillor Davis’ first reply to the thread. Just because you ignored the explanation doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, Ms. Salinas. While Messrs. Bawcum and Dixon’s worries that near-invariable grants of variances may undermine the standards in the first place strike me as legitimate issues to address, choosing to ignore the words of others simply because they’ve committed the egregious sin of disagreeing with you does no one any favors.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:15 PM Veronica Salinas via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
Dear neighbors:

Astute observers will note that while city officials state my interpretation is incorrect four times in three different e-mails, none say why my interpretation is incorrect.

Any guesses as to why city officials eagerly point to my error, but repeatedly fail to say why I am in error?

-Veronica
On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 2:35:38 PM MDT, Davis, Pat via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
Neighbors, I wanted to respond to the concerns shared on the Listserve this morning about the sign approval for The Carlisle.

It was mistakenly shared that this change would apply to other properties in the neighborhood. I asked our planning staff and attorneys to review that allegation. You can see their analysis below.

As always, if you have other questions about land-use you can always ask the staff in my office to provide some guidance. That’s what we are here for.

Pat Davis

-City Councilor
_____________________________
From: Foran, Sean M. <seanforan@cabq.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 2:00 PM
Subject: FW: [Neighbors] Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.
To: Davis, Pat <patdavis@cabq.gov>
Councilor Davis,

I asked Shanna to take a look at Veronica’s interpretation of the recent Administrative Amendments; she is incorrect in saying that the amendments apply to the entire Sector Plan.

Shanna’s response is below.

Thanks,
Sean

***

Hi Sean,

Veronica’s interpretation of Administrative Amendments (AA) is not correct – the allowed deviationsdo not apply to the entire sector plan. The Notice of Decision for the two recent AAs in the Nob Hill area (Copper/Aliso and Carlisle/Central) specifically state that the allowed deviations areproperty specific (see below). The same deviations allowed via these AAs would not be allowed on any other properties outside of the properties that made each request. This means, in the most recent example,only The Carlisle development will be able to utilize the additional sign height. I also reviewed the LUHO’s Notice of Decision for both cases and did not see him elude to the idea that the AAs would be applicable throughout the sector plan.

I’ve chatted with Council’s legal staff, who typically reviews and handles land use appeals, and he concurred with this position.

Shanna Schultz,MPA, MCRP
Policy Analyst - Planning
Albuquerque City Council
505.768.3185
smschultz@cabq.gov
======================================================= 
This message has been analyzed by Deep Discovery Email Inspector.
_______________________________________________
Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
Neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
_______________________________________________
Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
Neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
_______________________________________________
Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
Neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
_______________________________________________
Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
Neighbors_nobhill-nm@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm