Land Use, Planning and Zoning Committee - Regular Meeting

I don't think I've actually been in the committee room for an actual committee.

Thank you. It is now five o'clock. Good evening, everyone. It's June 10th, 2026. I call this meeting to order. It's the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee of the City Council. All councilors are present this evening, some of us on Zoom and some in the committee room downtown. Members of the public have the opportunity to address the committee if they have signed up for public comment per the rules published on the agenda. and on our website on Friday. We're going to call for the speakers when we get to the individual agenda item you signed up for. The public comment ground rules are that comments are to be addressed to the committee members only. Each participant will have two minutes to present and any disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting. We will move on to our first agenda item, A, Councillor Grout by request 039.

Thank you, Madam Chair. 039 is amending the Integrated Development Ordinance to Revise Regulations for Cannabis and Nicotine Retail Uses in Table 4-2-1, Allowable Uses and Section 14-16-4-3. I move that you pass. Second.

There's a motion and a second by Councillor Champagne. We do have some people signed up to speak, but first I would like us to do the amendment. There is one that I know of that's in your iPads.

and if you want to go ahead and move that sure madam chair i would like to move amendment number uh a letter a which is amendment number one and this is um just i think it's just a technical amendment it's my understanding that the lines when it was prepared the line items were just a little bit off so i would like to move um amendment a in your ipads

There is a motion and a second from Councilor Champagne. Councilors, any discussion or comments?

Yes, Councilor Rogers. Councilor Rogers? Sure. This is just a very big amendment. So can Matt or someone from our team run through this? This is four pages of amendments. So I just want to make sure. Ms. Benzel?

Thank you, Madam Chair, Councillor Rogers. This amendment is clearly clerical corrections. When we went through the whole bill, there were a lot of renumbering of the subsections. So most of those amendments is just renumbering of the subsections.

And Chair, Councilor Rogers, the reason it is so large is that this is because of all the different renumbering, we had to treat it almost like a substitution. And so if you look at the actual amendment, it says replace exhibit one with the amended exhibit one. And then in the explanation kind of lists out what those changes actually are. But rather than doing so much amendment formatting, we just simply switched it.

To replace the entire exhibit. So the amendment is to replace the exhibit, but nothing in the actual ordinance.

Other than renumbering subsections.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? With that, there's been a motion and a second. Mr. Clerk, I think it's Mr. Chavez tonight. Or is it Mr. Salas who's there? I can't see.

me at an estimate. Councilor champagne? Yes. Also people points?

Yes.

Also grow?

Yes.

Rogers? Yes.

Yes. Oh, sorry. I got ahead of myself.

passes.

Thank you. All right. So are there any other amendments that we don't know of? Or do does anybody else have other amendments? All right, seeing none then, we can go to public comment. Mr. Salas?

That'll be me, Madam Chair. I'll call out. We have one speaker that's coming online right now. The only one I can see online. We'll go to Jeff Apodaca. Jeff Apodaca. Can you guys hear me now? Yes, we can hear you, sir.

Thank you, Council People, Councilwoman. Anyway, it's Jeff Apodaca. Thank you so much for your time. I just wanted to let everybody know that I appreciate this time. I want everybody to know that we're working with state legislators, both between the hemp, the smoke shops, and the cannabis industry to create a bill at the state level to address a lot of these concerns. So I just wanted to bring that to your guys' attention. I know there's some of our our partners there tonight and like to visit with you guys to discuss. So we're not stepping on each other's toes or we're not wasting people's efforts or work that we're very aware of your guys' concerns and the industry's addressing it itself at the state level. And I hope maybe we can table this until we all can meet, get together and work together on all our needs at the state level that everybody's handling this versus city by city or county by county. If there's any questions, I'll take any questions, but that's it for me. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That is the only speaker that has signed up that I'm seeing online at this time.

And just to clarify, we don't have anybody in the committee room, right? I know that this was, we changed it to an online Zoom meeting only, but I just want to double check.

That is correct.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Well, we are back on the bill as amended. Counselor Grout, do you want to open? Sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This ordinance changes some of the regulations for smoke shops and cannabis retail establishments. And I would like Mr. And I am sponsoring this by request. I'd like Mr. Cox to ask him to walk us through this bill.

Chair, counselors, out of respect, I might send that over to Deepa. She has been the assigned staff on this.

Thank you. Ms. Bonsall?

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill, as Councillor Grout mentioned, this bill revises the allowable use specific standards for nicotine and cannabis retail. It changes nicotine retail from being a primary accessory to a conditional accessory in MXL districts. Apart from that, it also amends some of the buffer distances that are there from existing businesses. This increases the buffer distance from existing businesses from 1,000 feet to 1 1320 feet, which is a quarter mile distance. It also prohibits nicotine and cannabis retail in proximity to other nicotine and cannabis retail and increases the buffer distance to 660 feet. A correction reflecting the standard city block distance. It also changes the buffer distance from schools and daycare facilities from 300 to 330 feet. Apart from that, some new specific changes that are there, amendments that are made for the nicotine retail is that it prohibits nicotine retail in main street corridors. It prohibits having accessory drive up or drive through facilities to these nicotine retail shops. I would also want to say that this only is effective to full smoke shops and full retail nicotine shops and does not affect smaller shops that are there behind the counter in gas stations or grocery stores. So this only affects full-blown smoke shops that sell tobacco products or hookahs or bonds or are full-blown smoke shops. And then some of the dry dwelling live book and drive up drive through facility amendments that you're seeing are corresponding to the amendments that are made in the use specific standards for nicotine and cannabis retail. And if I'm missing something, Mr. Cox can add on.

Thank you for that explanation. I thought it was pretty thorough. Um, I don't have anything more to maybe the administration wants to weigh in.

Okay. We can, let me go to, uh, counselor feeble corn and then we will go to the admin chair.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that there was folks from the, uh, admin to speak. So I'll go after them. Okay.

Who is here? Let me pull up the... Do we have anyone from the admin here? I see Ms. Keefe is on. But... Brenda Martinez is raising her hand to probably be promoted, maybe?

My understanding was Mayor's conference room was going to be online. I'm not sure who was going to be there. But I don't see them either.

Yeah, I had heard they were going to be in the conference room as well, but... I don't have any messages from them. Yes.

I have promoted Brenda Martinez.

Okay.

And also on another note, Madam Chair, we did have one public speaker just show up in the room. So if we want to go to this person, we can do that as well.

Madam Chair. Yeah. Good. There you all are. It was Brenda Martinez that's the council, the room, the committee room.

Madam Chair, we apologize. We didn't realize we were signed in as one of our assistants, not as the mayor's conference room.

That's okay. I hope you were able to hear everything until now and we didn't leave you out. So I see nods, so we should be okay. If it's all right, I would like to go to the, since we did public comment, I would like to go back to the speaker that just showed up and allow them their two minutes to speak on this bill.

Very good, Madam Chair. We have Alan Gonsharov to speak.

you do um yeah i missed the beginning i was downstairs waiting for so much to come in so i apologize for being late and i know there are other people looking to come here who want to speak um i hope that's not taking up part of my two minutes um go ahead and start your two minutes now and hopefully everything hopefully we had four people signed up to speak so you're the second and if two more pop in we'll make sure to do what we can to listen to them okay um The problem that we're talking about, the free market is taking care of it. Just in the ordinary, that we're trying to stop clustering. And what's happening is more smoke shops and dispensaries are closing because of this problem. And the free market is taking care of it. We don't really need more ordinances, more rules, more regulations. If you would go and do a survey and look at how many dispensaries have closed, how many grows have closed in the last year, and how many dispensaries and grows have opened, you'd be surprised that this is not a problem. It's already been taken care of by free market. And that's how we should be operating. We're Americans. We live in a free market. We shouldn't have to have rules and regulations about everything. I don't know where you came up with the 1,065 feet. It's just a number that somebody pulled out of the air. Did you do any studies on this? What effects in neighborhoods that have a lot of vacancies looking to fill their real estate, looking to fill their stores, what's happening to those places that that you can't do two avenues over because it's a thousand feet and that's a thousand feet in a circle. So you could be on fourth street and you can't do it on fifth street. You know, it wasn't a very well thought out solution to a problem that doesn't exist. And I hope I did it in two minutes. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll still be not seeing anybody, any of the other speakers online. So that concludes comment. Thank you.

Sir, do you know, are the other people you said you were letting them in? Are they coming from in person downstairs? Yes. Yes.

I told him it was on the ninth floor.

Isaac just went to go double check for us. Okay, thank you for doing that. I know that we had originally said we would be in person, but with one agenda item, it was published as just Zoom when the agenda came out, but I definitely want to make sure that if people pop in that we hear from them. In the meantime, we will go to the administration and hear some of your thoughts and concerns and comments, please.

Madam Chair, we have a Director Varela and people from the planning department here to stand for any questions.

Yes. This is Director Varela. Thank you for your time. We appreciate it very much. We feel that this legislation is very important to help provide some distance between these type of businesses and to allow other businesses to go and enter neighborhoods. This all ties into the overall perspective of what we bill would be in the best interest of the city. And there are, of course, reasons for the distances that we came up with.

None of those tires were pulled out of the air.

Those are all standard measurements.

Thank you. Counselors, any additional questions? Counselor Feeblecorn.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Quite a few, so I'm just going to jump right in. I guess my first one is for Director Varela, because you just said that the distance separations in this bill are in the best interest of the city. And I'm just wondering if we can learn a little more about why this would be in the best interest of the city.

And the reason that we feel that way is because that's the position that the administration has taken. We feel that there should be a reasonable distance between those type of businesses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there other businesses, perhaps I can ask Ms. Bonsall, are there other businesses that have distance separations in our IDO or anywhere else?

Ms. Bonsall, do you have a comment on that?

I'm not too sure about that.

Okay. I bet Mr. Cox or Ms. Rens-Whitmore.

Chair, counselors, I believe Ms. Rins-Whitmore will have a greater idea than I do, but we do have some separations in regards to nicotine sales as they stand right now, close to, I believe, schools or something else as well. But yeah, I'll pass it over.

Sure. The other businesses that have distance separations are adult retail, adult entertainment, bail bonds, small loan businesses, cannabis retail, group homes, methadone clinics, syringe exchanges, nicotine retail already has a thousand foot distance separation, overnight shelter, and pawn shops.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's very helpful. Are those all, Ms. Rins-Whitmore, are those all distances between themselves or are they distances between other types of businesses?

The ones that I mentioned are distances between themselves.

Do we have another example of a distance between another type of business, not a school? I understand that there are some school separations. But are there other examples of where we say, for example, you know, fast food joint can't be very close to a retail store. Is there any other two types of businesses that we're making separate? I don't know of any. Okay. And so can somebody explain why we would use these two businesses to be the two that we start this new separation requirement between two different business types?

And many chair, as stated before, the position of the administration that we feel that is good policy for the city and in the best interest of the city.

I don't think that really answered my question, Madam Chair, but OK. Can someone walk us through? I mean, I will just go back to say I don't think that because the mayor said so is the reason that we should be putting all kinds of restrictions and requirements on any particular business type. But back to perhaps Ms. Binzal, in this bill before us, what are the changes to the cannabis stores? I've got a lot of questions today. I think I have a handle on it, but I'd love for you to walk through specifically what is changing for cannabis retail. Ms. Bansal.

Thank you. Yes. Madam Chair, thank you. Councillor Fitilkon. For cannabis retail, the use-specific changes are amended. It increases the buffer in any direction from existing cannabis retail from 660 feet to 1320 feet. It prohibits cannabis retail in any direction from a lot containing primary nicotine retail within 660 feet. And it changes its prohibition from schools and daycares from 300 feet to 330 feet. This is in reflection, I think, for an average city block size.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So for cannabis, we are only changing their distance requirements. We are making the distance requirements between two cannabis stores slightly more. We're increasing the distance from schools, which again, I don't have any problem with. And then we're introducing a new concept, which is that they can't be near a nicotine store.

Yes.

And those nicotine stores also include cigar shops. Is that correct?

As per my information, yes.

Okay. So thank you, Ms. Banzal. That's really helpful. I just don't quite understand why we would say that a cannabis store can't be near a cigar shop. Those two don't seem related to me at all. So that's interesting. So the bill before us is really only for primary use stores. So small local owned nicotine shops, cigar shops, and cannabis stores, but it doesn't affect any large scale businesses that sell nicotine. Is that correct?

It affects all those shops which are 100% nicotine or cannabis stores. More than 50% will also be considered as primary use. It just does not affect any store which has less than 50% of their gross floor area which is being used as nicotine or cannabis retail.

Thank you for that clarification. So it seems to me that what we're saying is that we want to limit the number of small locally owned businesses, but we are not going to impact the grocery stores and the chevrons that also sell nicotine in our community. And so we're pushing people to purchase their nicotine from big corporate businesses rather than small businesses with this bill. Another thing, and Ms. Bonsall, I know you shared with me yesterday a map that has the city council districts delineated on the map. I'm wondering if you would mind sharing that with us here tonight. Because my concern for my fellow counselors is that if you look at the map and you look at where, there's very few places that a cannabis or a nicotine store would be allowed to locate if this bill passes. But I do note that the largest percentage of them are gonna be focusing in on districts one and districts four. Those are really the only two places left that will have a lot of availability for these kind of stores. And I'm just wondering if there's been any conversations with the counselors from districts one and district four, and if they are really interested in in having the last available space in their district for nicotine shops and cannabis shops. And I'm just asking the administration or anyone else, has that conversation been had?

Just confirming you guys can see my screen?

Yes, we can. Thank you. Mayor's conference room, Councilor Feeble-Cornett asked.

Yeah, Madam Chair, about this map, I don't think we've had any discussions with these councils. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It seems like something we would want to have a conversation about. I don't know that centering all nicotine and cannabis stores in industrial areas that really focus in on a couple of council districts is the answer here. but that's not my district. So I'm just raising that question. And thank you, Ms. Binzal, for that map yesterday. It was really helpful for me in my deliberations on the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Counselor. Any other questions or comments? Okay, Counselor Champagne. And then we'll go to the remaining public comment as well.

Oh, I apologize, guys. Just one question, actually. And Councilor Fiebel kind of touched base on it and said that, you know, we're in the answer was where we think this is the best for the city. Has there been a lot of complaints or irritation that would cause something? I mean, We do this with the administration's putting up a lot of speed cameras because of speeding in an area. So is there a certain area that we've got a lot of complaints that there are so many that would bring up the idea that we need to change the law? I guess this would be for the administration because it's by request.

Yes. The answer is yes, particularly in Areas where there are high concentrations of it. There is a correlation between crime rates and other very bad activities and the proliferation of smoke shops.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good question.

Councillor Rogers. Councillor Fubicorn, I will come back to you, but Councillor Rogers.

Thank you so much. I just had a question for either the administration or the sponsor. Did this go to the EPC before it came to us? Admin?

No, this is one of the ideal amendments that did not go to the EPC.

Okay, thank you. Council Feeblecorn. Thank you for coming back to me, Madam Chair. I got another question based on Director Varela's response. I heard that there's been a correlation, which for those of us that know anything about statistics, I just want to point out correlation does not equal cause. So there is that. That is a big flaw in this conversation. But is there actual data that you can provide that shows an increase in, I guess, crime rates or APD calls? specifically because there are a nicotine shop next to a cannabis shop somewhere? Is that data that you can provide before we hear this at full council?

We'll work with APD to get numbers prior to this being discussed at the full council.

Thank you. And so another question, if there's some kind of... issue around prime at say a nicotine or a cigar shop which i haven't seen any data to suggest that but if that exists why are we not using the existing laws that we have on the books to say that that is a nuisance property and deal with it on a one-on-one basis rather than saying there is a cigar shop that is a problem therefore all cigar shops are bad i thought that was the point of the nuisance legislation that I believe it was Councilor Besson spent a long time working on and getting correct. So I'm just curious if we've tried that or why we're going this next step for a blanket, basically prohibition.

Councilor, this is not a ban on all of the existing businesses by any means. Those have the right to stay where they're at. They can even sell to a new owner and the use can continue there. So I would disagree that this is some sort of a ban on the existing ones. The administration feels that there are already plenty of them right next to each other, and they're just simply saying that going forward, they should be spread out.

So, Madam Chair, can I get an answer on my why we're not using the nuisance ordinance to deal with any properties that are problematic in our community?

answered in the prior response I just provided. I'm sorry if the counselor doesn't feel that.

I'm sorry, you were muted for half of that. It was muted for quite a bit of that comment.

And committee chair and counselor, I feel that that question was already answered in the response I just gave, and I appreciate that the counselor may not feel the same way.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So have we used the nuisance ordinance at all against a cigar shop or nicotine shop.

And committee chair and counselor, yes, the code enforcement and APD and several other business, other regulatory departments have been involved in some of those issues.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you also send me that information? I'd like to know how many times the nuisance ordinance has been used and what the result of that was and at what locations.

And committee chair, we're happy to do that.

Thank you. And if you all can make sure to send it to the full committee, that would be helpful, please. All right. Before we go on to further discussion, let's go back to public comment. I did see a few people walked into the committee room. My apologies for the confusion, but those that are remaining who signed up to speak, we'll have two minutes. And Mr. Cornelius, if you can please call them.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeff Gonsharoff, followed by Ian Shaw.

Good evening, everyone. Nice to see you all. I just wanted to say I do oppose this bill. I've been a small business owner here. I moved from New York 10 years ago, and these last specifically three years have been a nightmare for us to the point where we've stopped employing people here, and we're now thinking of moving. And we used to have thriving businesses where we're paying taxes, and laws like this is what shut us down. They stopped small businesses from coming in here. They stopped new entrepreneurs from coming into new towns. Because why, as a new entrepreneur, would I ever want to open up a smoke shop that can only be open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.? Especially if I'm around the downtown nightlife, I would probably want to stay open until 2 a.m., if not later, and be part of that economic gain. And, you know, I'm just tired. I don't even have a smoke shop. I'm just a distributor who manufactures and tries to help out these other small businesses as a small business. And I'm tired. I'm really, really tired. You all got to really start helping small businesses and stop hurting new entrepreneurship here because we're ready to leave. And it's, you know, I love New Mexico and I don't want to leave here, but. You're leaving us with very little choice. And that's all I have to say. Thank you so much.

Ian Shaw.

Hello, everybody. I don't have much more to add to what Jeff said. Other than it just feels very strange that we keep dealing with these issues and we're never hearing from the community like any reason why these amendments would be made to or new laws would be made because we've not run into anybody having these issues. We've just run into all of the businesses that we work with being hurt by these laws. So that's all I have to add. Thank you.

Madam Chair, that concludes comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Counselors, we're back on the bill as amended. Any additional comments or questions? Seeing none, I'm going to add my two cents, and then I will go back to Counselor Grout to close. I think that there's been some really good comments tonight. I think that there's been some good questions. I've struggled reading this. I mean... On one hand, I see why people or the admin might want to do this, and I see that crime can be an issue. But on the other hand, I am a strong proponent of small business and business in general. And while I do not go to any of these particular enterprises, It doesn't mean that they don't deserve to exist. So I struggle. I struggle with voting yes to this. And so I would prefer if the sponsor would be willing to change the motion to without recommendation so that maybe we can get answers to these questions. I also know that there was a request for immediate action and there's going to be an intention to finish this on Monday. I don't really feel comfortable saying just a blanket yes. but I think that it would be fine to vote. I would be willing to vote yes to a without recommendation. We can get some more information from the admin based off of these questions and be able to make a little bit more of an educated decision based off of, I think council people, corn, you asked some really good questions. And again, I don't want to hold up small business or any business, but I also want to make sure that we protect the city and prevent more crime and stop crime. But again, We need a little bit more information about that and what we're doing. So with that, that's kind of where I stand on my very wavering support one way or the other. Councilor Graf.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate all the questions and the comments too. I know that not all small businesses and not all of these smoke shops are problem properties, but there are some. And I don't have any problem with doing no recommendation so that we can get some more answers. I know that there's a reason why the administration feels strongly about this. And I share some of their concerns. I really do. I live it every day where my business is. And so... I am, but I'm open-minded too. So I would like to move it as a no recommendation, get some more answers to the questions, the very good questions that we've had. I'm also very happy to hear that the state is looking at making some changes because it sounds like there are some issues. And so this still needs some more discussion some more research and some more answers to the questions that we have. But I would like to move it as a recommendation or no recommendation for Monday.

Councilor Champagne is the second to the original motion. Do you agree with that?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Okay, so the emotion is now for without recommendation seconded by the Council of champagne as amended. I don't think there are going to be any additional comments or questions that was your clothes counselor route you feel good about that. Yes, ma'am okay. So then, with that, Mr solace.

Mr champagne. No. People. Yes. No.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay. So with that, we are not concluding this meeting and doing this all over again someday because we will still need to dispose of this bill one way or the other. So if there is another motion.

Madam chair, I move a do not pass.

There is a motion for a do not pass. Is there a second?

I can't.

There's a second from counselor Rogers. Any questions or comments before we proceed? Seeing none. Mr. Solace.

Yes. Yes. No. Rogers. Yes. I mean, yes, I guess now. Yes.

Passes 4-1. Okay. So that bill failed in committee, and I see that there is now no reason for immediate action. Councillor Feeblecorn?

Chair, can I just briefly ask if Mr. Obdaka would mind sharing via email with all of us, perhaps, the state legislation that he's working on? I would just be interested in seeing that.

I see that he still is an attendee, so I imagine he probably can hear that. And I look forward to receiving that information as well. Okay, so with that, there being no further business, this LUPS committee meeting is adjourned.