1514 Silver.com

The Official Website of 1514 Silver Avenue SW, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Menu Close

Category: Huning Castle (page 2 of 3)

sale of the century

albuquerque, New mexico

October 24 – 25, 2014

Friday, saturday

Distinctions blur between an advertised “Estate Sale”, “Estate Auction”, and “Garage Sale” (“Tag Sale”, for those from the east).  It’s often more about form, than stuff.

the estate auction

We’ve all seen the ads for Estate Auctions that offer Picassos, jewelry, guns, cars, European furniture, cut crystal, art, pianos, oriental rugs, lead glass lamps, signed sports memorabilia, billiard tables, and mid-century modern collectible pieces –  maybe even a Van Gogh or two.  These “auctions” are usually held in a vacant 5,000 square foot house (“mansion”), that it just so happens is also for sale.

Of course these “sales” have nothing to do with the possessions of the owners who dwell (dwelled) there.  All the stuff is trucked in, the cars are trucked in, everything is carefully setup and staged.  The event is like Hollywood viral.  It appeals to Hollywood tastes and Hollywood values and the Hollywood illusion that you can get it all if you just have enough money.  One of these “auctions” is one too many – they are not, “the real deal.”

the garage sale

The typical Garage Sale is a typical affair.  Worn clothes, worn tools, worn or worn out goods that were bought as mistakes to begin with mark the typical wares and discards of the national penchant of consumerism.  Only economic need keeps most garage sale stuff from being donated to a thrift store; that, and the thrift of recycling or repurposing stuff from someone that doesn’t need it to someone that does, with the thrill of, “money changing hands” as the process.  Been there, done that.  Who hasn’t?

the estate sale

The Estate Sale is supposed to be different.  The theory is someone actually died and left an estate, not just real estate.  The reality is that (like estate auctions) much of the stuff is trucked in, it is the flotsam and jetsam and detritus of earlier estate sales where less than everything was sold, and the company selling the stuff is not inclined to give anything away, ever.

Peggy

Peggy Cavett-Walden was just “Peggy” to her friends.  She lived in the Huning Castle neighborhood.  She lived in her house at 1605 Park Avenue, a two-story house on a double lot.  She was from Austin originally, she was an architect.  She was also an artist, a teacher, a writer, a researcher, a story-teller, a traveler, a conversationalist, and most importantly perhaps, a philanthropist.

She inherited a 12 foot tall four-poster bed once used in the family home in New Orleans.  It required a house with at least a 14 foot bedroom ceiling.  She designed and had built a semi-attached “Cassita” on her double lot just to accom0date this bed.  That was Peggy.  That was just one, “Peggy story.”

About the same time as she built her “bed house”, she also built a storage room (not a “shed”) for her Snow Babies collection and a few other collections she had.  She had maybe 1,000 Snow Babies, all different, most in the original boxes.

Peggy was never a mother, never had children.  She did quarter and entertain hundreds of exchange students during her life.  They were her children perhaps, perhaps they were more like just friends.  Peggy wrote lots of letters.

Peggy’s collections

Peggy was not just a consumer, she was a collector.  Peggy didn’t buy just one or two of something, she bought one or two dozen.  Peggy loved to cook and to entertain and to show off her collections.  If a decorative plate or platter was good enough for her favorite guest, it was good enough for every guest, so she did not buy one piece or one place-setting, she would buy a whole set.

Every party was different, every dinner party, every buffet.  Every time a new collection would emerge and be put on display.  Peggy would talk, everyone else most likely would listen.

Christmas was a favorite theme of Peggy.  She also loved Easter, the bunnies and all, mostly.  She also loved China; the country, the porcelaine, the plates – everything China.  She collected Kimonos.

Her wooden jumping jacks ornament collection was world class.  She had maybe 1,000 of them, all different, maybe less, maybe more.  She collected Chinese roof tiles, the collectible ones with the animal motifs.  She had a stuffed animal cat, not a real one.  It lived in the living room and always looked real, always curled up near her over-stuffed divan.

the sale of the century

Not all “garage sales” or estate sales in the Huning Castle neighborhood are as grand or as interesting as the sale at Peggy’s.  When Peggy died she left her stuff, her collections, to the financial benefit of the Albuquerque Community Foundation.  Just about Everything.

An estate sale company was retained, it took ten people two weeks just to price all the stuff.  Eight or ten hour days, and that was just for the Estate Sale “Act 1“.  A picture is worth a thousand words, it is said.  A thousand pictures of the sale items would leave anyone speechless.  Act 1 is over now, the marked prices were fair, sometimes a real deal.  Hundreds walked away with a, “piece of Peggy,” a piece of her life, a garage sale find.  Sometimes some new stuff (new to you) can make life better, and can help the community too.  Maybe two-thirds of the Act 1 merchandise wasn’t sold.  Part will be there for Act 2, part was given away to other charities.   Peggy wanted it this way, and the neighborhood and Albuquerque are richer for it.

location, location, location

It is about 400 feet from 1514 Silver SW to “Peggy’s house” at 1605 Park Avenue SW.  It is about 3,000 feet (2/3 of a mile) from 1514 Silver SW to the Albuquerque Community Foundation office at 624 Tijeras Avenue NW.

  • To return to HOME, click on 1514 SILVER.COM at the top of this page.
    To explore other MENU options, click on MENU, to the left, and select an option.

better call saul, or not

“Better see Saul,” has a better ring to it, but no ring, no phone.  Today’s world seems more about staying connected by cellphones than by actual face time, as in face-to-face, real-life & real-time, communications.

Better Call Saul is the spin-off of the Breaking Bad series, and like Breaking Bad, much of the new series is being filmed in the Huning Castle neighborhood.  Two or three houses just west of Forest Park is the site of most filming.  The film trucks and film food trucks fill the park byways and sometimes it’s hard to get by them.  Call a lawyer if you’re inconvenienced, but maybe not Saul.

So, Saul (the fictional character, the lawyer) lives in the Huning Castle neighborhood.  Actually, a number of real lawyers live here in Huning Castle.  Some of the lawyers are a bit like Saul, rich, or trying to get rich, and are a bit shady.  Most Huning Castle neighborhood lawyers, however, are nice, or at least a lot nicer.  “Nice” lawyers can get the job done, too.  The idea that you need a “Bad” lawyer is just another Hollywood myth.

So, “Breaking the Bad” Hollywood myth has recently gone viral.  An Albuquerque law firm, Revo + Smith,  has bought a few billboards around this great town that put out the truth to the Hollywood lie.  The simple truth is, “Do NOT call SAUL,” (capitalization may vary).

The lawyers I talk to in the Huning Castle neighborhood, I talk to in person.  I talk to lawyers in the parks, I “just say Hi,” as I pass them on the streets.  I don’t seek free legal advice.  I probably don’t need any.  That’s Saul’s world, and Saul is basically fiction.

So, I send my best to the lawyers and law firm @  Revo + Smith .  Big type gets peoples’ attention.  Or, as Terrence Revo and Roger Smith say:

We want to distance ourselves from the “Sauls” of the world.

Like many lawyers, what they say is half right.  I’m sure that there are many good Sauls in the world, maybe some may even live in Huning Castle, the neighborhood, or would like to move to the Huning Castle neighborhood.  But, the good Sauls are probably not lawyers.  And IF they are lawyers, they should sue Saul, sue the Breaking Bad firm, sue for all the unintended “Bad” publicity, “Saul v. Saul,” it has a nice ring.

duke city marathon

albuquerque, New mexico

October 19, 2014

sunday
2014 Duke City 10k walk

2014 Duke City 10k walk

The Duke City Marathon is the oldest marathon in the state of New Mexico.  The course enters the Huning Castle neighborhood at the west end of Kit Carson Park and moves west down Kit Carson Avenue to Laguna Boulevard.

The marathon route then goes north on Laguna to Central Avenue (Route 66) where the route moves east as it follows Central to Third Street downtown.  At Third Street the route turns left (to the north) and the Finish Line next to the Albuquerque Civic Plaza.   A map for the 31st annual Duke City Marathon can be found by clicking here.

2014 Duke City Marathon runners at Kit Carson Park in the Huning Castle neighborhood

2014 Duke City Marathon runners at Kit Carson Park in the Huning Castle neighborhood

Both the 10k Run Course and Walk Course go through the Huning Castle neighborhood.  The Albuquerque Country Club property begins at Kit Carson Avenue where Kit Carson meets the southwestern end of Laguna Boulevard.  The marathon route makes a right turn from Kit Carson onto Laguna at this point.  Passing Escalante on the right, the marathon follows to the right of the Oval in front of the main country club building.

2014 Duke City Marathon as participants pass the Albuquerque Country Club in the Huning Castle neighborhood

2014 Duke City Marathon as participants pass the Albuquerque Country Club in the Huning Castle neighborhood

Laguna Boulevard - October 19, 2014

Laguna Boulevard – October 19, 2014

Laguna Boulevard in the Huning Castle neighborhood is a wide thoroughfare originally connecting Central Avenue to the MRGCD lake at Tingley Beach.  The lakes at Tingley are no longer used for swimming, but Laguna remains as a beautiful tree-lined street with a grass landscaped median strip that keeps opposing cars a civilized distance apart.  On marathon Sunday no cars are allowed on Laguna during the Duke City Marathon.

At 16th Street and Laguna is the “first house” in the Huning Castle neighborhood, the Hebenstreit House.  It is now owned by Sheila Garcia, of Albuquerque auto dealerships fame.  The Duke City Marathon passes this late 1920’s  “model home” as the course approaches Central.

Just west of the Hebenstreit House

Just west of the Hebenstreit House

Before Central Avenue in Albuquerque ever became known as “Route 66” it was named Railroad Avenue.  Later, streetcars plied this throughfare and connected the new Santa Fe Railroad “town” of Albuquerque with the “Old Town” of Alburquerque.  Halfway between the two community (city) centers the Huning Castle Addition Company offered ‘lots’ of raw land.  At the entrance to this new (in 1928) neighborhood volunteers of the Duke City Marathon offer Gatorade and bottled water to the runners and walkers partaking in the marathon run on this beautiful fall day.

Central and Laguna in Albuquerque, New Mexico

Central and Laguna in Albuquerque, New Mexico

Attention Passengers

Attention Passengers

At the corner of 14th Street and Central, on the south side of Central, is a ABQ Ride Albuquerque bus stop.  It is one of four bus stops (all on Central) that serve the Huning Castle neighborhood.  For eight (8) hours on marathon Sunday the Central Avenue buses do not run, as this informative sign might tell you, or anyone else that has a need to know.

location, location, location

It is 1,600 feet (.3 mile) from 1514 Silver SW to Kit Carson Park.  It is 1,400 feet (1/4 mile) from 1514 Silver SW to the Albuquerque Country Club Oval.  It is 1.2 miles (1,850 meters) “door to door” from 1514 Silver SW to the Start Line / Finish Line of the Duke City Marathon.

Domain & Attribution:
You may click on any of the above photographs to see an enlarged version.  All photographs in this post are by Donald Clayton, and are donated to the public domain provided that attribution credit is given and a link to this web page is made.

Please Note:
Two main traffic arteries between Downtown and points west, Central Avenue and Tingley Drive, are CLOSED during the Duke City Marathon.  Laguna Boulevard (which essentially connects these two arteries) is also CLOSED.  Traffic EAST of Laguna and WEST of Third Street (Downtown) must go east to Second Street in order to reach destinations elsewhere in Albuquerque during the eight hours of the Duke City Marathon.

  • To return to HOME, click on 1514 SILVER.COM at the top of this page.
    To explore other MENU options, click on MENU, to the left, and select an option. 

HCNA BOARD MEETING OCTOBER

huning castle neighborhood association (HCNA) October 2017, board meeting

HCNA Board Meeting
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Albuquerque Country Club (ACC) Board Room
7 pm

In attendance: Harvey Buchalter, Max Cowton, Monica Martinez, Jan Yates, Susan Feil, Len Romano, Debbie Allen, Steve Kotz, Michael Barndollar, Julie Lawrance

Guests: Sgt William Thomas, Patrol Officer Tyler Carman; APD
Joran Viers, Certified Arborist CABQ Parks & Rec

1.   Call to order. Open forum and Community input:

Call to order 7:05 .  Open forum and Community input.  No input.

2.   MOTION to approve minutes, September 6, 2017:

MOTION to approve minutes, September 6, 2017; carried.

3.   APD officer Nicholas Sanders and Crime Prevention Specialist Bailey Scanlon:

Report by APD officers William Thomas and Tyler Carman: “crime in our neighborhood is still very low compared to surrounding neighborhoods.”  Harvey suggested APD use police substation as a police presence in the neighborhood. Officers said they would relay this suggestion to higher authorities.

4.   Guest Dan Humbles, certified arborist with COA Solid Waste Management Department. MOTION to address safety concerns in regard to elm limbs overhanging Laguna median and Oxnard Park:

Guest Joran Viers, Arborist/ City of Albuquerque (COA) Parks and Recreation Department appeared in lieu of Dan Humbles. He stated that Oxnard Park is part of Parks and Recreation Department and not part of the medians, which are under the jurisdiction of the Solid Waste Department.

Concerns in regard to elm limbs overhanging Laguna median. Potential liability to the city. Health of trees indicated by past failures (lots of stubs on trees from pruned limbs). Dead branches are not what typically fall off of trees; usually it is live wood that falls. City can implement “managed decline” which involves carefully pruning trees as they decline. Advice of Mr. Viers: remove worst trees, watch the rest. Then replant all trees at once; wait 20 years and the yield might be a uniform canopy. Some good options in his opinion are: hybrid elms, oaks, hard rubber tree, cottonwood. But trees available are up to the contracted vendors. Recommends less density of trees (75% of what is there currently), in two rows, and staggered like they are now.

Department of Solid Waste maintains all COA medians because of available federal funds diverted from Clean Cities federal funds budget. Solid Waste Department can generate funds by raising garbage removal rates slightly, but not necessarily for trees.

Harvey feels number 1 issue is safety. Dave Hanson, neighborhood resident voiced support for a written tree-trimming plan. Harvey felt such a plan was not necessary, just let the city contractor do it.

MOTION to address safety concerns of low hanging limbs on elms on Laguna median and defer removal of dead elms and selection of replacement trees – and timetable for doing so – deferred. Motion carried.

5.   Harvest Fest (Sunday, October 29, 3 -5 pm, Forest Park). Additional planning and assignments:

Harvest Fest (Sunday, October 29, 3 -5 pm, Forest Park) Additional planning and assignments
Will have food truck – from Malaguenas live music, refreshments from Pop Fizz; all confirmed. Need games for kids; Monica, Max and Lauren will work on this.

6.   Treasurer’s report:

Balance as of 9/6/17 $17,873.29
Albuquerque Police Department (APD) Chiefs Over Time (COT) dollar donations available is $3,671.11.  HCNA Remaining non-COT balance is $14,202.18

7.   Membership report:

Membership remains basically the same at @ 130 residences (111 paid members in September).

8.   Long-range planning for Laguna Boulevard – formation of sub-committee:

Need subcommittee to keep an eye on grass maintenance, broken sprinklers, etc.  Len, Debbie and Susan all volunteered to be part of subcommittee.

9.   COT planning (October 11 – November 8, 2017).  Discussion of alternatives – Monica:

Monica suggested getting “Feet on the Street” by forming walking, dog walking, running groups; strategically timed for presence in neighborhood between the hours of 1:00 and 7:00 p.m., when many pedestrians are present.  Monica will be the contact.

Len wants to get businesses in Country Club Plaza to contribute to COT, but they never see a patrol car in the plaza.  Harvey will explore this.

10.   Report on recent work at CRP / ALF facility at 1711 Park Avenue SW:

Construction / deconstruction has begun at 1711 Park Avenue SW.

Construction began approximately one week ago on remodeling the residence into a Community Residential Program to house up to ten clients, and an additional upstairs apartment.  HCNA Board has gone on record twice to oppose the conditional R-1 Permissive Use project. The commercial building being built is the result of a City Permit to remodel a former residence which lies in an R-1 residential zone.

Guests Thomas J. Horan and Maryanne Campbell-Horan spoke recently with real estate development attorney John A. Meyers whose opinion it is that nobody could win if they tried to ask for a ruling on lawful property covenants in a New Mexico court.

Mr. Horan stated his belief that property covenants were, “settled law,” citing Hill v. Community of Damien of Molokai.  The apparently absolute differences between that case and the 1711 Park Avenue situation appeared to be of no legal consequence in his opinion.

Lots of “No Trespassing” signs to keep people away from the right-of-way.

HCNA resident Donald Clayton has worked hard to make neighbors aware of what the COA is not doing or is doing wrong.  He stated that the proposed commercial Assisted Living Facility (ALF) project intended for 1711 Park Avenue SW is a clear violation of a Huning Castle Addition lawful property covenant.  He stated an interest in starting a Go Fund Me type site to raise necessary funds for a possible pro se action.

11.   Old business:

a.   cross-walk striping, ADA cutouts, request for traffic study – discussion tabled.
b.   Art Installation-scheduled for Spring ’18 – any change to schedule to begin work
has not been given to HCNA board.
c.   review of yard sale – approximately 8 residences participated.

12.   New business:

Intersection of Laguna and Central was closed October 12th. No date given by the COA about when thoroughfare will be reopened.

13.   Executive Session:

14.   Additional Open forum/community input:

(jel)

HCNA Board has held numerous discussions on the issue of the Assisted Living Facility (ALF) going in at 1711 Park Ave.

HCNA Board has gone on record as being opposed to this Assisted Living Facility; based on neighborhood input. Many residents oppose this facility. Some do not.

Assisted living facilities can be located as close as 1500 feet of each other and we have a neighborhood with a lot of large houses that might be desirable for such facilities. Allowing this particular ALF could set a precedent for more in the neighborhood. Neighborhood concerns about this include: ambulances at all hours of the night and an overabundance of street parking and delivery vehicles. It is possible that we could end up with as many as 3 or 4 such facilities in the neighborhood.

HCNA resident Donald Clayton has worked very hard to make city aware of what they are not doing or are doing wrong. He might be willing to file a pro se action (i.e., on his own and possibly with additional legal representation) regarding a HCA lawful property covenant that pertains to the proposed Assisted Living Facility at 1711 Park Avenue SW.  He  would appreciate a minimum of support from the HCNA neighborhood association.

It is the HCNA Board’s position that, while we oppose this facility, it would not be good use of neighborhood funds to obtain legal representation and try to fight this in court. We could potentially lose big and it would likely generate a lot of ill will with the City of Albuquerque which would not benefit our neighborhood.

The Board will leave this issue up to individuals in the neighborhood to fight as they see fit.

15.   Executive Session:

The second scheduled HCNA Board Executive Session to discuss the issue of 1711 Park Avenue property use as a CRP-10 / ALF was not necessary.

16.   Adjournment:

Board meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.

Walking the walk in the huning castle neighborhood

Walk Score is 71 out of 100 (71%).  “Most errands can be accomplished on foot.”

So what really is “walkability”?  Does one walk to work, to school?  Does one walk to a park, or walk to buy groceries?  Is the “errand” a toy store, a hardware store, or a Wal-Mart or Walgreen’s?  Is it more important to have a bank, or a car dealership, right near by; or maybe a golf course, or a museum, or a 200 year old church?

How far is it to the destination to make it walkable?   More importantly, what is the quality of the environment through which one walks?

The Huning Castle Neighborhood is probably one of the most walkable neighborhoods in America in terms of quality of the environment.  The neighborhood is a destination for walkers, for people who walk for exercise a mile or more from downtown offices, for people who walk their dogs, for people who walk with their friends or family  to restore their energy or to find an environment of greater peace, diversity and beauty.

You can walk to the zoo from the neighborhood (1/2 mile away), you can walk through the zoo, you can see trees, great areas of grass, animals.  To see the animals costs money.  To see the trees and wide boulevards and grass lawns of the Huning Castle neighborhood is free, and it’s even free to hear the zoo lions when they roar.

Very few use the sidewalks when they walk in Huning Castle.  They use the streets.  Few cars are ever parked on the streets of the neighborhood, except by guests and for parties.  Traffic is light.  No through trucks are allowed.  Fed-Ex trucks and UPS trucks are fairly common, the trucks employed by the “movies” (like Breaking Bad) are the biggest trucks one generally sees, and they are not so common.  What is common in the neighborhood are garages.  Yes, people do use their garages for their cars and not their storage.

One can usually walk a mile in 20 minutes.  It’s a ten minute walk from one side of the neighborhood to the other.  Within the neighborhood there are three municipal parks, two long landscaped median strips, incredible architecture and architectural diversity, historic buildings, historic sites and dwellings, a Little Theatre, a Country Club and golf course, and a lot of people who find it easy to just say “Hi”.

On the north side of the neighborhood is Central Avenue (famous historic Route 66) and the new “restaurant row”.  On the south side is Tingley Beach, a huge landscaped area of ponds and walkways and even a small scale tourist train that follows the Bosque which follows the river, the Rio Grande.

Because of the ancient bend in the river the migrating cranes regroup their groups over the neighborhood for a month or more, every spring and every fall; the Canadian snow geese generally just fly straight through over the neighborhood.  Either way, it’s very special.

So, is it all just too good to be true.  Visit the neighborhood.  Walk the streets.  View the houses.  Get your real estate agent to park their car and walk with you.  Maybe they too will find that some neighborhoods really are different, that it really is not just “square feet”, that it really is “Location, location, and location“, with attention always focused on design, design and design.

For gentle relief to life’s burdens, try walking here, in these shoes.

  • To return to HOME, click on 1514 SILVER.COM at the top of this page.
    To explore other MENU options, click on MENU, to the left, and select an option.

Walking the walk in the Huning Castle Neighborhood

Walk Score is 71 out of 100 (71%).  “Most errands can be accomplished on foot.”

So what really is “walkability”?  Does one walk to work, to school?  Does one walk to a park, or walk to buy groceries?  Is the “errand” a toy store, a hardware store, or a Wal-Mart or Walgreen’s?  Is it more important to have a bank, or a car dealership, right near by; or maybe a golf course, or a museum, or a 200 year old church?

How far is it to the destination to make it walkable?   More importantly, what is the quality of the environment through which one walks?

The Huning Castle Neighborhood is probably one of the most walkable neighborhoods in America in terms of quality of the environment.  The neighborhood is a destination for walkers, for people who walk for exercise a mile or more from downtown offices, for people who walk their dogs, for people who walk with their friends or family  to restore their energy or to find an environment of greater peace, diversity and beauty.

You can walk to the zoo from the neighborhood (1/2 mile away), you can walk through the zoo, you can see trees, great areas of grass, animals.  To see the animals costs money.  To see the trees and wide boulevards and grass lawns of the Huning Castle neighborhood is free, and it’s even free to hear the zoo lions when they roar.

Very few use the sidewalks when they walk in Huning Castle.  They use the streets.  Few cars are ever parked on the streets of the neighborhood, except by guests and for parties.  Traffic is light.  No through trucks are allowed.  Fed-Ex trucks and UPS trucks are fairly common, the trucks employed by the “movies” (like Breaking Bad) are the biggest trucks one generally sees, and they are not so common.  What is common in the neighborhood are garages.  Yes, people do use their garages for their cars and not their storage.

One can usually walk a mile in 20 minutes.  It’s a ten minute walk from one side of the neighborhood to the other.  Within the neighborhood there are three municipal parks, two long landscaped median strips, incredible architecture and architectural diversity, historic buildings, historic sites and dwellings, a Little Theatre, a Country Club and golf course, and a lot of people who find it easy to just say “Hi”.

On the north side of the neighborhood is Central Avenue (famous historic Route 66) and the new “restaurant row”.  On the south side is Tingley Beach, a huge landscaped area of ponds and walkways and even a small scale tourist train that follows the Bosque which follows the river, the Rio Grande.

Because of the ancient bend in the river the migrating cranes regroup their groups over the neighborhood for a month or more, every spring and every fall; the Canadian snow geese generally just fly straight through over the neighborhood.  Either way, it’s very special.

So, is it all just too good to be true.  Visit the neighborhood.  Walk the streets.  View the houses.  Get your real estate agent to park their car and walk with you.  Maybe they too will find that some neighborhoods really are different, that it really is not just “square feet”, that it really is “Location, location, and location“, with attention always focused on design, design and design.

For gentle relief to life’s burdens, try walking here, in these shoes.

  • To return to HOME, click on 1514 SILVER.COM at the top of this page.
    To explore other MENU options, click on MENU, to the left, and select an option.

Mi Casa es Su Casa

“Mi casa es su casa,” my house is your house.  OK, not really.  I’m not really ready to sell.  OK, I’m not really ready to rent either.  I like the neighborhood, the extended neighborhood, the city.  I love the state, New Mexico.  I love it that you can live here and not be political here.  The Roundhouse (in Santa Fe) seems so far away when the legislature is in session.

However, I might change my mind about selling.  The house would be, could be, a great place to rent.  I might even consider (at some point) a “house exchange” for a month or two – your house in Moscow or Stockholm or Hong Kong (or elsewhere) for my house in Albuquerque, right here.  Although I don’t think anyone could even begin to explore New Mexico, its cultures, its resources, and its scenic beauty in anything close to a year.  It might take a lifetime, or at least what might be left in time, in a lifetime.  Even just one day here is probably a good start.

I guess it is like those Viking River Cruise brochures I keep getting.  It’s called marketing.  The company knows you will never go on a cruise that you don’t know about.  The company knows that you need to know not only the price, but every last detail.  That’s why their passenger guests are so satisfied, they had time to think the decision over for months, maybe years.  They became informed.  Then it was easy to decide.

Viking charges from $500 to $1,400 per night, for room on a boat with a bath.  I know a boat can be ever so cool, but probably not $15,000 per month “cool” for a place to live while experiencing culture.  My house, is far more spacious, has decks, has indoor and outdoor eating areas, it even has trees that grow fresh and organic food.  And, the neighbors, and neighborhoods, are probably more interesting.  And, my house, were I to decide to sell it (or rent it), is so much cheaper (meaning far less expensive) than that room on a boat.

If I don’t sell my house, my information might entice you to, as Mr. Rogers said, “be my neighbor.”  New neighbors don’t just come from Albuquerque anymore.  That’s what is so cool and amazing about reaching out on the web.  An interested person can come from anywhere; from Boston, from New York, from Hong Kong that has such a high cost of living; from Seattle or Austin, from the cold weather in Santa Fe, from even Hawaii (to escape an expensive island in the middle of an ocean).  There are so many reasons a person might move.

“Won’t you please be my neighbor?”      – Mr. Rogers

The second great reason why “My house might be your house” is about the ideas.  Start with design.  Explore building methods and building materials.  Explore walls and wall design(s), plants and planting, interior design options, building options, the potential of lots, the juxtaposition of streets and parks and how they effect views.

You might, borrow by example.  You might see an idea or design that makes sense that you like.  You might want to design a kitchen that has “easy access” from the garage, or to a covered patio eating area, or has a spacious glass door refrigerator.   You might want pointers on how to design accessible roofs that are “luminaria ready”.  You might just want pictures of luminaria lighting.  So many ideas, so little time.

Make my day, make your day, make me an offer – but please wait until I am ready.

  • To return to HOME, click on 1514 SILVER.COM at the top of this page.
    To explore other MENU options, click on MENU, to the left, and select an option.

HUNING CASTLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BY-LAWS

AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS OF HUNING CASTLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION

ARTICLE I

Section 1.1
NAME:  The name of this corporation is the Huning Castle Neighborhood Association.

Section 1.2
ADDRESS:  The corporation may have offices at such places as the Board of Directors may from time to time appoint for such purposes as the corporation may require.

Section 1.3:
BOUNDARIES:  The exterior boundaries of the area covered by the Huning Castle Neighborhood Association are Central, the west side of 14th Street, Coal, Alcalde, Tingley, Laguna and San Pasquale together with the area known as the Albuquerque Country Club.

HCNA boundaries showing Huning Castle Addition boundaries.

ARTICLE II


Section 2.1
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Huning Castle Neighborhood Association shall be to preserve and enhance the neighborhood located adjacent to the downtown area in the Huning Castle Addition of the City of Albuquerque so that the quality of life in this area shall be in keeping with the social, environmental, culture and historic needs and interests of the residents.

ARTICLE III


Section 3.1
MEMBERSHIP: There shall be two types of memberships in the Huning Castle Neighborhood Association: regular and business.

Section 3.2
REGULAR MEMBERSHIP:  Any person who is a resident of or owns property within the boundaries of the Huning Castle Neighborhood Association shall be eligible to become a regular member.

Section 3.3
BUSINESS MEMBERSHIP:  Any person or legal entity who operates a place of business within the boundaries of the Huning Castle Neighborhood Association shall be eligible to become a business member.

Section 3.4
VOTING:  Voting privileges shall be one (1) vote per paid membership, subject to the additional provisions below. Voting by proxy shall not be permitted. There will be no quorum for vote of the membership and any person attending will have a right to vote as long as such person is a member of a household or business which is current with annual dues.

Section 3.5
DUES:  Dues shall be determined by the Board of Directors and shall be payable at the annual meeting, but the Association may accept late payment of dues in its discretion.

Section 3.6
MEETINGS:  Regular meetings of the general membership shall be held at such times as ordered by the Board of Directors. The association shall hold at least one meeting a year in May for which it will make a reasonable attempt to give written notice to every household and place of business within the association boundaries by mail, delivered handbills, or a number of prominently posted signs. No election shall be held at a meeting of the association unless the meeting is advertised as noted above. The regular meeting in May shall be known as the annual meeting.

Section 3.7
ANNUAL REPORT TO OFFICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES: An annual report must be submitted to the Office of Neighborhood Services, P.O. Box 1293, Albuquerque, 87103, within 60 days following the annual meeting of the association.

ARTICLE IV

Section 4.1
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:  The business and property of the corporation shall be managed and controlled by a Board of Directors which may exercise all the powers of the corporation and do all such lawful acts as are not prohibited by statute, by the Articles of Incorporation or by these By-laws.

Section 4.2
ELECTION: The Board of Directors shall be elected annually by a vote of the general membership present at the annual meeting of the corporation, to hold office until expiration of their term of office, except as hereinafter otherwise provided for filing vacancies.

Section 4.3
NUMBER:  The number of the Board of Directors shall be twelve (12) but such number may be increased or decreased by an amendment to the By-laws. One third of the Board changes each year. The term of office is three years and there is no limit to the number of consecutive terms served. The term of office of any officer shall be extended after the third year of any term until the election of officers at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Section 4.4
QUALIFICATION:  In order to qualify to become a member of the Board of Directors, all that is necessary is that a person be a resident within the boundaries of the Honing Castle Neighborhood Association for at least 12 months and a member of the Huning Castle Neighborhood Association current with all dues.

Section 4.5
RESIGNATION: Any director may resign at any time by giving written notice of such resignation to the Board of Directors.

Section 4.6
VACANCIES:  Any vacancy in the Board of Directors occurring during the year, including a vacancy created by an increase in the number of directors made by the Board of Directors, may be filled by the directors then serving by affirmative vote of the majority thereof. Any director so elected by the Board of Directors shall hold office until the next succeeding annual meeting of the members of the corporation, and if elected, will serve the remaining term of the position vacated.

Section 4.7
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BOARD: Within thirty days (30) of each annual election, the Board of Directors shall meet for the purpose of organization, the election of officers, and transaction of any other business.

Section 4.8
REGULAR MEETINGS:  Regular meetings of the Board of Directors are held on the second Wednesday of each month. The date and frequency of such regular meetings may be changed at the discretion of the Board of Directors.

Section 4.9
SPECIAL MEETINGS: Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by the President or Secretary on the written request of any member of the Board of Directors. In the discretion of the President, a vote may be taken by email on any issue before the Board unless an objection is raised to such procedure by at least three Directors.

Section 4.10
NOTICE Of MEETINGS: Notice of all directors meetings shall be given by mailing the same to directors at least three days prior to the meeting or by telephoning the same at least one day before the meeting, but such notice may be waived by any director.

Section 4.11
ATTENDANCE: Directors are expected to make all reasonable efforts to attend all regular and special Board meetings. A director’s unexcused absence from three consecutive meetings of the Board may be grounds for removal from the Board. This removal action shall be considered by the Board at the first regular meeting following the three consecutive absences.

Section 4.12
RESPONSIBILITIES:  Board members are responsible for rendering reasonable assistance in carrying out the goals and objectives of the Association as stated in the Articles of Incorporation and the By-laws. The assistance rendered shall be in terms of service as a Board of Directors officer, special representative or liaison, or a committee or sub-committee member.

Section 4.13
PRESIDENT:  At all meetings of the Board of Directors, the President or Vice President, or in their absence a chairman pm tern chosen by the directors present, shall preside.

Section 4.14
QUORUM:  At all meetings of the Board of Directors, six of the directors shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Unless otherwise provided herein, the Board of Directors may take action upon approval of the majority of the quorum. Voting by proxy shall be allowed upon written assignment of a director’s proxy to another present director, however proxies shall not be used to achieve a quorum.

Section4.15
COMPENSATION:  Directors shall not receive any compensation for their services as such.

Section4.16
INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS:  No director or officer of the corporation shall be liable to anyone for any action taken or refused to be taken by him as director or officer with respect to any matter within the scope of his official duties, except such action or neglect or failure to act as shall constitute gross misconduct in the performance of his duties as director or officer. Each director or officer of the corporation shall be indemnified by the corporation against all costs and expenses (including counsel fees) actually and necessarily incurred by or imposed upon him in connection with the defense of any action, suit or proceeding to which he shall be made a part by reason of his being or having been a trustee or officer of the corporation (whether or not he continues to be a director or officer at the time of incurring such cost or expense), except in relation to any matter as to which he shall be adjudged in such action, suit or proceeding, to have been liable for gross misconduct in the performance of his duties as such director or officer. In the event of the settlement of any such action, suit or proceedings prior to final judgment corporation shall also make reimbursements or payment of the costs, expenses and amounts paid or to be paid in settling of such action, suit or proceeding, when such settlement appears to be in the interest of the corporation in the opinion of a majority of the directors who are not involved or if they are involved, in the opinion of counsel for the corporation.

Section 4.17
POWERS:  All the corporate powers, except such as are otherwise provided in these By-laws, the Articles of Incorporation and the laws of the State of New Mexico, shall be and are hereby vested in and shall be exercised by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors may by general resolution, delegate to committees or to officers of the corporation, such powers as they may see fit
.

Section 4.18
REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS:  Any director may be removed from office by the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the Board of Directors attending any regular or special meeting called for that purpose, for conduct detrimental to the interest of the corporation, for lack of sympathy of its objectives, or for refusal to render reasonable assistance in carrying out its purposes. Any such member, officer, or director proposed to be removed shall be entitled to at least five (5) days notice in writing by mail of the meeting at which such removal is to be voted upon and shall be entitled to appear before and be heard at such meeting.

ARTICLE V

OFFICERS

Section 5.1
GENERAL: The officers of the corporation shall be the President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Secretary and such other officers as may from time to time be appointed by the directors. The officers of the corporation shall be elected from among their numbers by the directors at their first meeting following the annual meeting of the membership for terms of one year unless sooner removed by action of the directors as hereinafter provided.

Section 5.2
PRESIDENT: The President shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation. He shall preside at all meetings of the directors and shall be an ex-officio member of every standing or temporary committee of the corporation. He shall execute all contracts and other instruments of writing binding the corporation, and subject always to the direction of the directors, he shall exercise such authority and perform such duties as the directors may from time to time prescribe.

Section 5.3
VICE PRESIDENT: In the event of the death, absence, incapacity, inability or refusal to act of the President, the Vice President shall possess all the powers and perform all the duties of the President, and shall do and perform such other duties of the President, and shall do and perform such other duties as may from time to time be assigned to him by the Board of Directors.

Section 5.4
SECRETARY: The Secretary shall have charge of such books, documents, and papers as the Board of Directors may determine. He or she shall attend and keep the minutes of all the meetings of the Board of Directors and members of the corporation. He or she may sign with the President or Vice President in the name of and on behalf of the corporation, any contracts or agreements authorized by the Board of Directors, and when so authorized or ordered by the Board of Directors, he or she may affix the seal of corporation. He or she shall, in general, perform all the duties incident to the office of Secretary, subject to the control of the Board of Directors, and shall do and perform all other such duties as may be assigned to the Secretary by the Board of Directors.

Section 5.5
TREASURER: The Treasurer shall have the supervision and custody of all monies and securities of the corporation; and shall cause to be kept full and accurate accounts of the receipts and disbursements of the corporation and books belonging to it shall cause all monies and valuable effects to be deposited in the name and to the credit of the corporation and such accounts and in such depositories as may be designated by the Board of Directors; shall disburse and supervise the disbursement of the funds of the corporation in accordance with the authority of the Board of Directors, taking proper vouchers therefore; shall render to the President and Board of Directors at regular meetings of the Board of Directors or whenever the President or the Board of Directors require, a written detailed account of any transactions as Treasurer and of the financial condition of the corporation, including a statement of all its assets, liabilities and financial transactions, shall perform such other duties as the President or the Board of Directors directs and such other duties as usually pertain to the office of Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be relieved of any responsibility for any securities or monies or the disbursements thereof committed by the Board of Directors to the custody of any other person or corporation or the supervision of which is designated by the Board of Directors to any other officer, agent or employee, or for the performance of any other duties of the Treasurer delegated by the Board of Directors to any other officer, agent or employee of the corporation.

Section 5.6
CONSOLIDATION OF OFFICES: Any two or more offices may be held by the same person, except the offices of President and Treasurer. The Board of Directors may from time to time delegate some or all the functions, duties, powers and responsibilities of any officer from whom such responsibility has been transferred, shall thereafter be relieved of all liability for the proper performance of such functional duty or the proper exercise of such power of responsibility.

Section 5.7
VACANCIES: Vacancies occasioned by the death, resignation, incapacity or removal of officers of the corporation, shall be filled by a majority vote of the directors at the next regular or at a special meeting of the Board of Directors called for that purpose and such person or persons so chosen to fill such a vacancy or vacancies shall serve until the next annual election of officers.

Section 5.8
REMOVAL: Any officer elected or appointed by the directors or any employee of the corporation may be removed at any time by affirmative vote of the majority of all the directors of the corporation.

ARTICLE VI

Section 6.1
AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES: The Board of Directors may appoint, retain, and compensate such agents and representatives of the corporation with such powers and to perform such acts or duties on behalf of the corporation as the Board of Directors may see fit, so far as may be consistent with these By-laws, to the extent authorized or permitted by law.

ARTICLE VII

Section 7.1
COMMITTEES: The Directors of the corporation may create and designate one or more committees. Each committee shall include one or more directors of the corporation. Said committees may have and may exercise, as provided by the corporation, the powers or the directors in the management of the business and affairs of the corporation.

ARTICLE VIII


Section 8.1
STOCK: The corporation shall not have or issue shares of stock.

ARTICLE IX

Section 9.1
FISCAL YEAR AND AUDIT: The fiscal year of the corporation shall close on April 30 of each year. It shall be the option of the directors, prior to each annual meeting, to appoint a competent accountant to examine and audit all the books, records, checks, vouchers and accounts of the corporation. Such accountant shall make a written report to the directors, which report shall be submitted to the annual meeting. Such accountant may receive reasonable compensation from the corporation for such services if so determined by the Board of Directors.

ARTICLE X

Section 10.1
AMENDMENTS: The Board of Directors shall have the power to make, alter, amend and repeal the By-laws of the corporation by affirmative vote of a 2/3 majority of the board at a regular or special meeting of the board.

These amended and restated By-laws were adopted by the Board of Directors at a regular meeting of the Board on June 10, 2009.

Albuquerque IDO – Integrated Development Ordinance

September 29, 2017

Crystal Ortega
Clerk of the Council / Legislative Officer
Albuquerque City Council
1 Civic Plaza
Rm: 9087
Albuquerque, New Mexico

CC:
Mikaela Renz-Whitmore -IDO Project Manager
mrenz-whitmore@cabq.gov
Carol Toffaleti – Senior Planner / IDO
cgtoffaleti@cabq.gov
Russell D. Brito – Urban Design and Development Division
rbrito@cabq.gov
Petra Morris – Albuquerque City Council Planning Manager
pmorris@cabq.gov
Isaac Benton – District 2 Councilor, Council President
ibenton@cabq.gov

RE: IDO Public Comment & Update

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD

Ms. Ortega:

Hello Everyone –

On Wednesday (at 5:00 PM) I attended the Land Use, Planning & Zoning Committee meeting – Councilor Isaac Benton sitting as Chair – to hear a hearing involving a piece of legislation that Ike Benton has sponsored and in which Ike Benton, and three others, discussed, and I believe voted on, regarding recommendations for finalizing the draft revisions to the proposed Integrated Development Ordinance / IDO for consideration by the full Council in October.

I remind everyone that Ike Benton is a NM licensed architect and a building contractor who has an exceptional vested interest in both the legislation and in the proceedings, as is made perfectly clear on his Profile Page on the City of Albuquerque website cabq.gov

So what is IDO?

  • IDO is the Albuquerque Integrated Development Ordinance.
  • IDO is the “second half” of the A.R.T. project.
  • IDO is a total rewrite of the Albuquerque Comprehensive Zoning Code (and other codes and plans) that will, among other things, totally transform virtually the entire A.R.T. corridor.
  • IDO allows virtually all existing lots and properties along Central Avenue to be replaced with five-story, 65-foot-high structures. In fact, pursuant to IDO, this is the “preferred” use.
  • IDO allows virtually all of the existing Raynolds Neighborhood, starting at the alley between 15th Street in Huning Castle and 14th Street, to be rezoned to R-ML, a zoning designation that allows lots to be as narrow as 30 feet, and residential dwellings, including multi-family rental units, three (3) stories high. Parking garages will NOT be allowed to accommodate the areas’ cars. Full build-out in the Raynolds Neighborhood would result in at least a 500% increase in the Neighborhood population, and the creation of a three-story high wall along the entire east border of Huning Castle.
  • The purposed build-up and build-out inherent to IDO is to transform the entire Central Avenue Corridor into a high density, intensely populated, development where virtually everyone living along the corridor is totally, or substantially, dependent upon bus transportation for every act in their daily lives, including employment, shopping, and recreation.
  • IDO apparently makes absolutely no recommendations, or provisions, for the improvement of sidewalks, ADA accessibility, or walkability in general.

    Civilized sidewalk widths & setbacks.

  • IDO significantly expands the definition of Community Residential Programs (CRPs) by redefining them as Community Residential Facilities (CRFs). The new CRF designation apparently makes eight (8) guest resident bed & breakfasts and ‘airbnb’s’ permissive throughout the Huning Castle Neighborhood, as well as virtually all other ‘group home’ 8-person accommodations.

I believe that it is clear that IDO represents wrongful special interest legislation that has the potential to make a limited few very rich at the expense of the vast majority of Albuquerque homeowners and residents. It is clear that the primary beneficiaries are major developers, and the architects and engineers that design their projects and developments.

Also potentially benefiting are those in the real estate industry, surveyors, property speculators, and, at least initially, banks.

The hills, mountains, and valleys of the “wild west” are littered with the remanents and remains of this Boomtown / Ghost town reality and mentality. IDO is, I believe, nothing more than a Modern iteration of this type of consciousness.

The theory is that “everyone” will leave where they are now living, and flock (move from another state) to the new western Boomtown where there are jobs and growth based entirely on just ‘growth for growth’s sake’. It’s always seen as a ‘get rich quick’ scheme. IF the population comes, and IF riches are made, then when the opportunities are played out, the overbuilt place inevitably experiences a sudden crash, in which real estate values approach zero, and a new environment in which virtually everybody defaults on their loans and borrowings, and leaves town; too often in search of a new Boomtown, where the cycle repeats again.

Typically, those that ‘made a killing’ during the boom, relocate their residence to a mansion on a hill in some idyllic spot in an out-of-state location, not worrying about those ‘poor folks’ at the other end that ‘lost everything’. The entire process is known as “churn,” a concept that the largest developers and speculators understand well as a way to make the ‘big bucks’.

At the IDO Land Use, Planning & Zoning Committee meeting, during an allowed two-minute-per-speaker public comment, an Albuquerque Hispanic gentleman rose and stated, “I have lived in Albuquerque for 75 years. It’s a generally wonderful place, but all these outsiders keep wanting to come in and make Albuquerque into a place that looks like someplace elsewhere, some other city. They don’t respect Albuquerque for the place that it is, nor the people who live here.”

(Paraphrased from memory – a CD audio recording of the exact comment can be purchased from Council Services.)

Naomi Klein

IDO is sudden and cruel. It represents Shock Doctrine and Shock and Awe theory at its worst.

Instead of allowing town meetings, open and frank (and fair) interactive public discussion, input, and debate, the process is marked by generally unidentified “experts,” working with various out-of-state contractors, and local ‘big business’ development firms that have a huge financial stake in the outcome. Even the IDO wording is obscure and obtuse, and the IDO documents arrangement is hopelessly confusing, unless you are a “Planning Expert.” The lack of practical, hands-on construction experience by IDO staff is blatantly obvious in the approach and wording of the IDO document.

The entire 539 page IDO document appears to be mostly a cut-and-paste affair, with numerous less than meaningfully informative illustrative illustrations added.

We are in New Mexico, right?

Further, as the very first citizen meeting speaker pointed out, the entire IDO process is fundamentally racist and elitist. There is virtually no reach-out to Native American groups, pueblos, and peoples, and the entire IDO document is not even available in Spanish.

Since this letter is also addressed to Council Services, pursuant to public input procedures, I would add that my primary and principal appeal is that the IDO process is slowed down and reconsidered, that public town-hall meetings be held, that if one staff advocate is given a certain amount of time to speak, that ALL members of the public be given at least the same amount of individual time.

I believe that the IDO document should be written so that it is clear and self-evident, in a format and manner that it needs no “expert” interpretation or explanation.

[Note: Churn – 3 [ with obj. ] (of a broker) encourage frequent turnover of (investments) in order to generate commission.]

Sincerely,
Donald Clayton

email: cityofnikko@gmail.com

HCNA | city of albuquerque

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

HUNING CASTLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, a New Mexico Non-profit Corporation, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, a New Mexico Municipal Corporation, and Cauwels Construction & Development, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation, Respondents-Appellees.


No. 18439.

    Decided: July 24, 1998

Hessel E. Yntema, III, Oman, Gentry & Yntema, P.A., Albuquerque, for Appellant. Robert M. White, City Attorney, David Suffling, Assistant City Attorney, Albuquerque, Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, Albuquerque, for Appellee, City of Albuquerque. Arthur O. Beach, Thomas C. Bird, Keleher & McLeod, P.A., Albuquerque, for Appellee, Cauwels Construction & Development, Inc.OPINION

{1} Huning Castle Neighborhood Association (HCNA) appeals from a judgment of the district court affirming decisions by the Albuquerque City Council to rezone a narrow strip of property and approving a site development plan for a proposed apartment complex which would extend in part upon the rezoned parcel.   On appeal, HCNA raises two issues:  (1) whether sufficient evidence supports the City Council’s determination that a mistake had been made in omitting the parcel from a prior zoning decision, thereby justifying a change in the zone designation for the parcel;  and (2) whether the sector development plan applicable to the parcel and the surrounding property permits the apartment unit density figure approved by the City Council for the complex.   We affirm the judgment of the district court on both issues.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

{2} On March 29, 1996, Cauwels Construction and Development, Inc. (Cauwels) applied to the City of Albuquerque (City) for an amendment to the municipal zoning map, a corresponding amendment to the applicable sector development plan, and approval of a site development plan.   The site development plan proposed construction of a three-story apartment complex on a 2.644-acre site located near the Old Town area of Albuquerque, New Mexico.   The site consists of four contiguous properties described as Lots 1, 8, 9, and a portion of Lot 10, Block 1, Huning Castle Addition located on Central Avenue between Laguna Boulevard and Fifteenth Street.   The 20′ x 140′ (the Strip) portion of Lot 10 abuts the southern property lines of Lots 8 and 9.

{3} The Strip of Lot 10 has been historically owned in common with Lots 1, 8, and 9, and for many years those other lots have been zoned for commercial use.   The remainder of Lot 10 has a different owner and is under residential use.   Notwithstanding common ownership of the Strip with the adjacent lots for commercial use, the entire Lot 10, including the Strip, has historically been zoned residential. The City contends this was due to a mapping error and that otherwise the Strip would have been zoned commercially like the other lots commonly owned as a commercial unit.

{4} At the June 20, 1996, hearing before the City’s Environmental Protection Commission (EPC), Cauwels presented evidence that the EPC has followed a policy of zoning property to the property lines, referring to the lines separating property owners, and Cauwels argued that the failure of the City to include the Strip portion of Lot 10 in the 1981 rezoning was a mistake.   Cauwels also pointed out that setback requirements under the R-1 zone designation prevented any residential construction on the Strip and therefore if its request was not granted, the property would be rendered effectively unusable.   In contrast to the position of Cauwels, HCNA argued that the Strip was intentionally left as a buffer between residential use in the remainder of Lot 10 along with other houses in the neighborhood, and the planned commercial development on Lots 1, 8, and 9 to the north.   HCNA argues that placement of the Strip within the residential zone was not a mistake and that substantial evidence does not support a finding that it was a mistake.

{5} Both the EPC and the Land Use Planning and Zoning Commission approved Cauwels’ site development plan for construction of the apartment complex.   Approval was also given for rezoning of the Strip portion of the property belonging to the owners of the land sought to be developed.

{6} HCNA filed two separate appeals to the City Council, one regarding the EPC’s approvals of the Sector Development Plan amendment and zone map amendment and the other regarding the site development plan approval.   On August 14, 1996, a hearing was held before the City Council’s Land Use Planning and Zoning Commission on both appeals.   Following the hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council deny HCNA’s appeals.

{7} On August 19, 1996, the City Council voted to accept the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation to rule on both appeals without further hearing, and HCNA subsequently appealed the City Council’s rulings to the district court.   Following a hearing in the district court, the court denied the appeal;  HCNA has filed a timely appeal therefrom.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

{8} Zoning actions are quasi-judicial in nature and a reviewing court applies an administrative standard of review.   See West Old Town Neighborhood Ass’n v. City of Albuquerque, 1996-NMCA-107, ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 495, 927 P.2d 529;  see also Miles v. Board of County Comm’rs, 1998-NMCA-118, ¶ 9, — N.M. —-, 964 P.2d 169 (discussing distinction in zoning context between a legislative enactment and a fact-based adjudicative act).   Under this standard, we review the whole record, “looking at all the evidence, favorable and unfavorable, bearing on a decision” by the zoning body in order to ascertain if there is substantial evidence to support the result.   West Old Town Neighborhood Ass’n, 1996-NMCA-107, ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 495, 927 P.2d 529.   In this respect, “[a]n appellate court conducts the same review as the district court,” and the decision of the zoning body is disturbed only if the court is not satisfied that the action was authorized by law or if the zoning authority’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.   Siesta Hills Neighborhood Ass’n v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMCA-028, ¶ 6, 124 N.M. 670, 954 P.2d 102 (while conflicting evidence is not disregarded, the evidence is reviewed in a light favorable to the administrative body, and the reviewing court declines to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body).

Claim of Mistake

{9} HCNA contends that, in order for Cauwels to prevail on its request for rezoning, Cauwels had to prove that there was a mistake in the “initial” or “original” zoning of the Strip portion of Lot 10 and that proof of any subsequent failure by a zoning body to include a parcel of property in a rezoning action cannot legally constitute a zoning mistake.   Following up on this argument, HCNA asserts that, in New Mexico, “there is the presumption that the initial determination of the type of zoning for the property involved is the correct one[,]” Miller v. City of Albuquerque, 89 N.M. 503, 506, 554 P.2d 665, 668 (1976), and that “[a]bsent a showing that the original zoning was mistakenly listed as a different zone than that intended due to clerical error, oversight, or misapprehension of the facts, the original zoning is deemed to be correct.”  Davis v. City of Albuquerque, 98 N.M. 319, 321, 648 P.2d 777, 779 (1982).   Although we agree with HCNA’s analysis of the law, we disagree that the facts or evidence compel the result sought by it herein.

{10} In 1932 all of Lot 10, including the Strip in question here, was conveyed by the developer of the Huning Castle Addition to June Black.   In 1938 June Black conveyed the same strip back to the developer, whose principals were A.R. Hebenstreit and William Keleher.   In its report on the proposed apartment complex, the EPC noted that “[e]vidence has been provided that indicates that this strip of property has been owned in combination with [L] ots 8 and 9 (to the north) since 1938.”

{11} The record is silent as to when zoning was first established in the Huning Castle Addition area.   Apparently the zoning occurred some time subsequent to 1938.   The record does disclose that Lots 8 and 9 were zoned C-2 with the establishment of zoning and that the Strip portion of Lot 10 was not zoned C-2 with Lots 8 and 9, but R-1 with the rest of Lot 10.   In 1981 the City Council, responding by resolution to concerns that “the Huning Castle and Raynolds Addition area ․ was originally zoned inappropriately,” adopted the Huning Castle & Reynolds Addition Neighborhood Sector Development Plan (Sector Development Plan).   Pursuant to the Sector Development Plan, Lots 1, 8, and 9 were rezoned SU-2/CLD to allow “COMMERCIAL and/or LOW DENSITY APARTMENTS” uses.   The resulting zone map, however, indicates that the Strip portion of Lot 10 was not rezoned with adjoining Lots 8 and 9, but instead remained zoned as R-1 with Lot 10.

{12} Does the record here embody sufficient evidence to support the decision of the City Council and its determination that the failure to include the Strip of Lot 10 in the original rezoning decision was an oversight or a mistake?   We conclude that it does.   In our view, Davis and Miller, relied upon by HCNA, simply acknowledge that a zoning body may err when it assigns a particular zone designation to a particular piece of property or area through clerical error, oversight, or misapprehension of the facts, though the presumption is against such a mistake.   Clerical error, oversight, or misapprehension of the facts may, however, cause a zoning body to err and fail to assign a particular zone designation to a particular piece of property or area, as Cauwels has alleged was the case in 1981 when the City Council failed to rezone the Strip portion of Lot 10 SU-2/CLD when it rezoned Lots 8 and 9. Few would deny that an administrative body, just as any other entity, may at times act or fail to act upon a mistaken premise or oversight.   See Black’s Law Dictionary 1001 (6th ed.1990) (mistake is an “ unintentional ․ omission, or error”);  see also Reinbacher v. Conly, 141 A.2d 453, 456-58 (Del.Ch.1958) (where the zoning commission apparently failed to rezone the petitioner’s business property to its property lines, “ zoning authorities have power to correct their own errors”);  cf.  Lucero v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 112 N.M. 662, 666, 818 P.2d 863, 867 (Ct.App.1991) (judge’s failure to enter compensation order in accordance with ruling at hearing held “mistake” or “inadvertence”).   Although there is a presumption against a claim of omission or error in zoning action of a municipal body, the presumption is nonetheless rebuttable.   See Davis, 98 N.M. at 320, 648 P.2d at 778;  Miller, 89 N.M. at 506, 554 P.2d at 668.   See also Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Resolutions, Policies for Zone Map Change Applications § 1-1-2(B) (Resolution 270-1980, approved December 30, 1980) (“[B]urden is on the applicant to show why the [zoning] change should be made, not on the City to show why the change should not be made.”).

{13} HCNA also argues that, even if an applicant for rezoning is allowed to present evidence seeking to establish that a mistake in a rezoning subsequent to the original zoning of the parcel has occurred, the applicant must prove the alleged mistake by “ ‘strong’ ” or “ ‘compelling’ ” evidence.   In arguing that the standard should be a high one, HCNA, among other things, relies on authority from Maryland.   See, e.g., Bellanca v. County Comm’rs of Kent County, 86 Md.App. 219, 586 A.2d 62, 68 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1991) (county commissioners can approve application only if the evidence produced by appellants was not only compelling, but constituted “ ‘strong evidence’ that the classification was a mistake[.]” (citations omitted)).

{14} In contrast to the standard of proof urged by HCNA, we think that the applicable standard of proof justifying the approval of an application for a zone map change or correcting a prior mistake, is a showing that there is a reasonable basis for doing so.   See Watson v. Town Council of Town of Bernalillo, 111 N.M. 374, 376, 805 P.2d 641, 643 (Ct.App.1991).   In Watson the Bernalillo Town Council approved an application for rezoning of the subject parcel to permit construction of a gypsum wallboard manufacturing plant, and on appeal this Court stated, “The decision of the Council will be upheld if there is sufficient relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”  Id. Applying the same standard here to the record before us, we conclude that the City Council reasonably approved Cauwels’ application for a zone map change and authorized an amendment to the Sector Development Plan based upon Cauwels’ showing of mistake.   Cauwels provided testimony that the City “always zoned lines through to the property lines” and that in this instance it failed to do so without any apparent reason to deviate from this practice.   Cauwels also asserted that it would be unreasonable for the City to purposely zone contiguous sections of an owner’s property differently where the result would be that one portion would be rendered unusable under its R-1 zone designation.   HCNA argues that Cauwels’ evidence of mistake is merely “conjecture” and that “allegations ․ that the zoning ‘must’ be or ‘must have been’ a mistake” is insufficient to prove a mistake.   Under this standard of review, however, we will not reverse a district court decision regarding its review of an administrative body’s determination unless it appears that the conclusion reached by that court cannot be sustained either by the evidence or reasonable permissible inferences arising therefrom.   See Las Cruces Prof’l Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces, 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 7, 123 N.M. 329, 940 P.2d 177.   Like the district court, under the circumstances presented here, we cannot say the action of the City Council in concluding that a mistake had occurred was unreasonable or was unsupported by the evidence.

{15} HCNA advances several additional arguments which we find to be without merit.   First, HCNA asserts that the common ownership of Lots 8, 9, and the Strip portion of Lot 10 is based on “undocumented assertions” by the City and Cauwels and that, therefore, the City Council’s approval of the zone change is not supported by substantial evidence.   We note, however, that at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 14, 1996, Mike Keleher, William Keleher’s son, testified that the Hebenstreit and Keleher families had been the only owners of the parcels on the site project since the time the area had first been platted.   Additionally, HCNA itself submitted a letter from 1977 opposing construction of a Lota Burger restaurant on Lots 8, 9, and the Strip portion of Lot 10, which stated that Mrs. Hebenstreit “had been paying taxes as well as cutting weeds in that parcel for 50 years or more.”   In light of this evidence and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, we think that the City Council acted reasonably in approving Cauwels’ application for a zone change and that the failure to zone the small parcel was an oversight.   On appeal from an administrative body’s determination, “[t]he question is not whether substantial evidence exists to support the opposite result, but rather whether such evidence supports the result reached .” Las Cruces Prof’l Fire Fighters, 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12, 123 N.M. 329, 940 P.2d 177.

{16} Secondly, HCNA argues that the fact that in 1977 the City denied a zone change request on the Strip from R-1 to C-2 constitutes evidence that the City did not make a zoning mistake.   However, HCNA presented no evidence that the 1977 application was rejected for failure of the applicant to show mistake.   Cauwels’ burden was not to rebut every piece of evidence presented by HCNA but simply to present sufficient evidence providing a reasonable justification for approving the proposed zone change.   Similarly, we think the City Council could reasonably reject HCNA’s undocumented claim that, in 1977, “the City and the neighborhood agreed at that time that all R-1 designations would be retained.”

{17} Lastly, HCNA asserts that evidence presented by it showing the existence of restrictive covenants in the neighborhood, which bind the property owners to single-family residential uses, supports its contention that the City was not mistaken in not rezoning the Strip in 1981.   HCNA concedes, however, that public zoning bodies are not bound by restrictive covenants.   See Singleterry v. City of Albuquerque, 96 N.M. 468, 472, 632 P.2d 345, 349 (1981).   The district court could properly determine that this evidence did not require reversal of the City Council’s decision.

The Sector Development Plan

{18} At the EPC hearing on June 20, 1996, in addition to the dispute concerning the alleged mistake in zoning of the Strip, HCNA also questioned whether the application of Cauwels would exceed the permissible density of apartment units at the proposed site under the Sector Development Plan. HCNA contended that the Sector Development Plan “does not address the question of dwelling units per acre” and argued that the only definition of “low density apartments” in the Albuquerque Zoning Code was in relation to the residential garden apartment zone, in which density levels are not to exceed 20 dwelling units per acre.   Cauwels, on the other hand, argued that the Sector Development Plan specifically allows uses that are permissive in R-2 zones, that, in R-2 zones, density levels of 30 apartments per acre are authorized, and that the proposed apartment complex has a density of approximately 27.6 units per acre.

{19} Following the hearing, the EPC issued its decision approving Cauwels’ application to amend the Sector Development Plan, and finding that:

1.  The request would rezone the northeastern 20 foot strip of Lot 10 from R-1 to SU-2/CLD.   This property is located within the Huning Castle and Raynolds Addition Neighborhood Sector Development Plan area.

2. The request is consistent with the Huning Castle and Raynolds Addition Neighborhood Sector Development Plan in that the requested SU-2/CLD zoning provides appropriate controls to minimize impacts from commercial and residential activities on the adjacent residential area.

3. The applicant has demonstrated justification consistent with the requirements of Resolution 270-1980 for a zone map amendment from R-1 to SU-2/CLD based on an error in mapping which did not reflect the ownership of this property which has been in place since 1938.  [Emphasis added.]

The decision letter also noted EPC’s approval of the related zone map amendment, based on the following findings:

1.  This request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan infill policies and with policies articulated in the Huning Castle and Raynolds Addition Neighborhood Sector Development Plan.

2. The applicant has demonstrated justification consistent with the requirements of Resolution 270-1980 for a zone map amendment from R-1 to SU-2/CLD based on an error in mapping which did not reflect the ownership of this property which has been in place since 1938.

Additionally, the decision approved Cauwels’ site development plan, stating:

FINDINGS-Site Development Plan:

1.  This is a request for Site Development Plan Approval for a 2.7 acre site for a proposed 73-unit apartment complex.

2. Off-site improvements required by the Traffic Engineer and by the Transit Department can be accomplished without disrupting the basic design of the site plan.

3. Modifications required by the Traffic Engineer to improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation can be accomplished without impacting the plans [sic] conformance to City policies.

4. The submitted site plan generally conforms to City standards and requirements.

CONDITIONS:

1.  Comments of the Transportation Division, Transit Department and the Environmental Health Department shall be met.

2. The landscape buffer on the south property line should be enhanced to minimize the impact of this development on adjacent residences by providing a 15 foot buffer area at minimum.

3. Pedestrian access shall be provided on Laguna Boulevard and 15th Street, and there shall be a sidewalk connecting the two pedestrian accesses.

4. Replat the property for consistency with the site plan.  [Emphasis added.]

{20} HCNA contends that the decision by the City Council to approve Cauwels’ site development plan is based upon an erroneous interpretation of the Sector Development Plan, in that it impermissibly permits a density of 27 apartment units per acre on the proposed site.   We disagree.   HCNA concedes that, under the SU-2/CLD zone designation, the Sector Development Plan allows “Uses permissive in the R-2 Zone of the Comprehensive City Zoning Code.” HCNA asserts, however, that the 30 dwelling units per acre density level authorized in an R-2 zone, see Albuquerque, N.M., Code of Ordinances ch. 14 § 14-16-2-11 (1995), is “medium density” and that, therefore, the Sector Development Plan does not contemplate R-2 zones for “low density” apartment uses.   Belying this assertion, however, is the fact that the legend of Map 6 of the Sector Development Plan, showing the “PROPOSED ZONING” for the area, specifically designates “R-2” as the proper zone for “LOW DENSITY APARTMENTS[.]”  Under these facts, we cannot say the City Council erred in interpreting the Sector Development Plan. See Hyde v. Taos Mun.-County Zoning Auth., 113 N.M. 29, 30, 822 P.2d 126, 127 (Ct.App.1991) (“This court, as well as the district court, must review the actions taken by the TMZA with deference to the interpretation it gives to its own ordinance.”).

CONCLUSION

{21} The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

{22} IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONNELLY, Judge.

BOSSON and WECHSLER, JJ., concur.