Eastern Sandoval Citizens Association

Comments for Pipeline Project Extended to Weds., December 5

The Farmington BLM Field Office has extended to December 5 the period for public comments regarding their preparation of an EA (Environmental Assessment) on a proposed project for an interstate natural gas liquids pipeline, which would use existing pipelines running through Placitas, including the Placitas Open Space.  Comments can be submitted by mail to:

Lorraine Salas

BLM National Project Manager

1800 Marquess St.

Las Cruces, NM 88005

or by email to: lsalas@blm.gov

We must correct an error that appeared in a previous LPA announcement about this project.  We wrote there that the pipeline would carry “liquified natural gas”.  Instead the pipeline is proposed to carry “natural gas liquids”, which are substances like butane and propane.

Further information on this project can be found on the LPA website here.  Please check the site for updates as we learn more.  The BLM website page discussing this project is here.

Las Placitas Association (LPA) and ES-CA have just posted their joint comments on the Bureau of Land Management Draft Resource Management Plan (BLM DRMP) for the Rio Puerco area, including Placitas.  Please feel free to use all or parts of these comments for your submission to the BLM.  Comments must be submitted to the BLM no later than November 26.

The comments can be found on the LPA website here: http://lasplacitas.org/rio_puerco/comments.php.  These comments may be revised over the coming days, so please check this web page occasionally for revisions.

There are 2 different comments documents posted: 1) The full 18 page joint LPA/ES-CA Comment document, including detailed comments on all the major topics, 2) A shorter 3 page document consisting of abstracts/summaries from the full document.  Both of these can be useful in submitting your own comments.

A Workshop will be held this coming Saturday, November 17, at 2 PM at the Placitas Community Center on how to best submit comments to the BLM.  All are invited.  The  San Felipe and Santa Ana pueblos are also invited to give short presentations on their proposals to acquire Placitas Area BLM parcels for wildlife corridors.  Materials will be handed out at the Workshop to help in submitting comments.

The full DRMP text and maps can be found here: http://lasplacitas.org/rio_puerco/index.php.

Information on how to submit comments to the BLM can be found here: http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/fo/Rio_Puerco_Field_Office/rpfo_planning/rpfo_draft_rmp.html

BLM RMP Comment Deadline Extended through November 26th

by Sandy Johnson/President/Las Placitas Association

On October 9, 2012 board members from Las Placitas Association and Eastern Sandoval Citizens Association met with Jesse Juen, the State Director of the BLM and his assistant Aden Seidlitz in Santa Fe and secured a 45 day extension to the comment period for the BLM Resource Management Plan.  The purpose of the meeting was to convince the BLM that the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) in their Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the parcels in Placitas contained enough text and mapping flaws that Placitans could not accurately provide comments.

Maps presented in the plan have been superseded more than once due to errors found by LPA members studying it.  Boundaries for proposed new gravel mines were not always defined in the alternatives, and text in the plan did not match maps in the plan.  One alternative proposed by the BLM didn’t even have a description of the land use included at all, and page numbers between hard and electronic media differed.

With those kinds of errors, LPA and ES-CA was concerned that comments made by the citizens of Placitas could end up being ignored, or worse, members of the community could make little sense of the text and maps and not provide comments at all.

LPA and ES-CA continue to work on creating substantive comments to the BLM by the new comment period due date.  Using the correct maps on the LPA web site you can see where BLM proposed mining sites are, and if you’d like to hike out there you will find that the two pieces of the 800 acres proposed for mining are now staked and marked.

Another accomplishment at this meeting was to get both LPA and ES-CA on the list of officials and agencies to be contacted when specific BLM projects are planned in the Placitas area, prior to their environmental assessments so we can effectively participate in the process.  We are now going to be notified with the quarterly “Expression of Interest” letter assembled by the BLM that lists proposed mining operations for the area. Both organizations will post information as it is received about upcoming BLM activities in Placitas and if you wish to be notified you may register on the LPA and/or ES-CA to receive that information.

Please plan on submitting your comments by November 26 on the proposed use of the Placitas BLM.  Participation matters.  Both LPA and ES-CA will have sample comments on their respective web sites to help with the formulation of yours.  You can submit your comments via email to: NM_RPFO_Comments@blm.gov.  

The official BLM website is: www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/fo/Rio_Puerco_Field_Office/rpfo_planning/rpfo_draft_rmp.html

Visit the LPA Web Site for up to date information on the RMP: http://www.lasplacitas.org/rio_puerco/index.php

LPA and ES-CA were greatly aided in convincing the BLM to extend the comment period by our state and federal legislators. On the state level, State Senator John Sapien, State Representative Jim Smith and State Representative David Doyle have worked in concert with LPA and ES-CA.  Senator Sapien worked with Director Juen to achieve the initial extension.  State Representative David Doyle arranged the October 9 meeting, which included the Governor’s Deputy Chief of Staff Ryan Cangiolosi and State Energy and Minerals Secretary John Bemis.  Patricia Dominguez from Representative Martin Heinrich’s staff also provided help on the federal level.  We greatly appreciate the effort they all made on behalf of Placitas.

Oct. Letter to BLM Requesting Extension

The attached letter was sent by FedEx, on October 4, 2012, to Mike Pool, National BLM Director, and is from the Las Placitas Association (LPA) and the Eastern Sandoval Citizens Association (ES-CA). To date, the BLM has stonewalled on the previous 45 day request regardless of the numerous inconsistencies discovered in the current RPM draft.

LPA and ES-CA are working together to draft substantive comments; however, as of Wednesday October 3, it was still unclear what prescriptive uses were actually included in the Rio Puerco Regional Management Plan’s (RPM) four options for lands in Placitas. As of Sunday, October 7, for the lands within the Placitas Area, there is still not an accurate definition of potential uses available to the public. Publicly available maps and text do not agree, and it may be that Parcel A, the 3, 000 acre “Buffalo” shaped land at the north end of Placitas, may in fact be without a BLM recommended prescriptive use. This makes substantive comments all the more difficult and basically has created an “anything goes” scenario with only the BLM able to interpret final use. This could be a disadvantage to Placitas if comments are wildly varying and considered by the BLM not substantive.

With an accurate draft RMP, and adequate time for the public to understand potential uses, the lack of definition could actually be an advantage if Placitans can achieve some consensus on potential uses or non-uses. The uncertainties within the RMP draft document and BLM’s unwillingness to grant more time to protect the public process has made some of us suspicious of BLM’s intent.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) held a public meeting Monday, Sept. 17, regarding their draft Resource Management Plan (DRMP) for the Rio Puerco region.  Well over a hundred people from Placitas and elsewhere were in attendance.  The meeting was initially structured such that there would be a presentation by BLM personnel, primarily Tom Gow, Rio Puerco Field Office Manager, and Angel Martinez, Planning and Environmental Specialist, followed by a brief Question & Answer period, following which the attendees would talk individually to BLM “experts” in a “workshop” session.  But at the beginning of the Q&A period it became evident that the attendees wished the BLM to address specific concerns to everyone, so a lengthy interaction between the audience and BLM took place.  During the BLM presentation Martinez emphasized that to be effective submitted comments must be “substantive”.  They should either point out errors in the data that BLM used to arrive at their recommendations, or expose the omission of relevant data.

Over a month ago Las Placitas Association (LPA) had formerly requested a 45 day extension to the public comment period, scheduled to end on October 11.  This date was set due to the original EPA notice for the DRMP being published in the Federal Register on July 13, with October 11 being 90 days from then.  However the DRMP was dated August 1, and it seems reasonable to suppose that the 90 days be counted from then.  To further complicate this matter, the BLM Federal Register notice was published two weeks after the EPA notice.  But LPA only asked for a 45 day extension from October 11.  It is standard governmental procedure for reasonable requests like this to be granted.

However at the Sept. 17 meeting Tom Gow announced that there would only be a 15 day extension granted, to October 26.  Interestingly, the previous week at a similar BLM public meeting in Albuquerque Gow told the attendees that the 45 day extension would very probably be granted.  When he was challenged on the too brief 15 day extension at the Sept. 17 meeting, Gow said he would resubmit the request for the 45 day extension.

At the public meeting held by LPA and ES-CA (Eastern Sandoval Citizens Association) at the Placitas Elementary School on August 26, a promise was made that recommendations and guidelines for comments would be posted to the LPA website soon.  That this has not yet been done is due to LPA uncovering a number of major discrepancies in the DRMP, which make it difficult to know exactly what to comment on.  These mainly involve the “preferred alternative” in the DRMP regarding gravel mining on the “Buffalo Parcel”, which is our name for the approximately 3200 acre BLM parcel to the north of Placitas.

The main discrepancy is that the text for this “preferred alternative”, which appears on page 2-50 of the electronic version of the DRMP and page 2-51 of the print version – see below for more on this mysterious difference between the two versions – states that mineral extraction, including gravel, would be restricted to “Section 13, Township 13 North, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 13 North, Range 5 East”, which indicates two sections on the north edge of the Buffalo Parcel bordering the San Felipe Pueblo lands.  Yet the maps in the DRMP indicate that such mineral extraction would be allowed throughout the Buffalo Parcel, also on the 200 acre BLM parcel bordering Overlook, Cedar Creek and Ranchos de Placitas subdivisions, and on the Placitas Open Space managed by the Albuquerque Open Space.  This discrepancy was pointed out in a meeting between LPA directors and Mr. Martinez from BLM about 4 weeks prior to the Sept. 17 meeting, but at that meeting BLM still did not have an answer regarding which was right: the text or the map.

On Wednesday, Sept. 19, Martinez informed two LPA directors that the text is right and the maps are wrong, and that this correction would appear the next day on the BLM web site.  But as of this evening no such correction has appeared.  Also Martinez verbally informed LPA that only an extension to October 26 would be given.  However even that has not appeared on the BLM web site, where it still lists the last date for submission as October 11.  At present all we have is verbal promises from BLM officials regarding any of this.

But as we have discovered, things are even worse regarding the Buffalo Parcel.  Though the text indicates the two sections that would be open for gravel mining, BLM has provided no GIS data that would allow citizens to precisely locate the boundaries of those sections, walk them and inspect them.  This lack of location data is perhaps why this was not specified on the DRMP maps.  For this reason alone it is unreasonable to expect citizens to submit “substantive” comments at this time regarding BLM’s mining intentions.  If the agency itself is so confused about their “preferred alternative”, how are we citizens to respond at all effectively?

Then there is the recently discovered difference between the electronic and print versions of the DRMP.  What appears on 2-50 of one version appears on 2-51 of the other.  This leads to the question: Just how different are the two versions, and are the differences trivial or substantial?  Citizens should not be expected to play “Where’s Waldo”, that is, to be BLM’s proofreaders.  This raises concerns about whether the DRMP, though 4 years in the works, was rushed out the door prematurely.

LPA has also found upon discussion with BLM personnel that they did not take into adequate consideration the effect on property values and other social/economic factors of mining activities so close to residential properties.  Nor have they given due consideration to the environmental effect this would have on wildlife populations that use that area for habitat and migration.

What has made discussion of the Buffalo Parcel all the more interesting in recent weeks is that both the Santa Ana and San Felipe Pueblos have expressed strong interest in acquisition of that BLM parcel, largely to protect these wildlife habitats and migration paths.  This would predictably put the Buffalo Parcel to far different uses than if BLM were to continue to manage it.  So an important question that arises regarding public responses to the DRMP is what to comment as regards these possible acquisitions, which are not mentioned in the DRMP “preferred alternative”.

BLM RMP for Placitas Area – “Preferred Alternatives” are Mining & Land Transfer

(updated 8/14/2012 with announcement of August 26 Community Meeting)

(updated 7/27/2012 with new information and analysis, also a map — this also appears in the August Signpost)

BLM RMP Map, Placitas Area – Parcels A and B (Crest of Montezuma not marked) (click for map)

Update: There will be a Community Meeting on the Draft RMP, Sunday, August 26, between 2 and 4 PM, at the Placitas Elementary School in Placitas Village.  All are invited to attend.  The purpose will be to discuss what is in the Draft RMP, what the main issues are, when public meetings will be held, and how to most effectively submit responses and comments to the BLM.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has finally released the Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Rio Puerco Field Office.  This covers a large area in central New Mexico, including Sandoval County.  In particular there are 3 BLM parcels in the Placitas Area:

Parcel A – Approximately 3500 acres to the immediate north of Placitas, and bordering the San Felipe tribal lands on its north.

Parcel B – 200 acres within Placitas, bordering the Overlook, Cedar Creek and Ranchos de Placitas subdivisions.

Parcel C – Crest of Montezuma, on the east end of Placitas.

The map with this article shows parcels A and B in yellow, with the Placitas Open Space in blue.  The full draft RMP, along with maps, can be viewed on the Las Placitas Association web site, at http://lasplacitas.org/rio_puerco/index.php  The hard copy can also be viewed at the Placitas Community Library.

When finalized the RMP will determine how these lands will be managed for the next 20+ years.  Now that the draft RMP has been released, there is a 90 day public comment period ending on Oct. 11, 2012.  After that the BLM will finalize the RMP, based largely on the inputs it receives.  This will be our last opportunity to affect the outcome of the plan, so everyone concerned should attend meetings and submit comments to the BLM.  Comments that will be most effective are those that challenge data submitted with the draft RMP, and/or provide relevant data missing in that document.  They may be submitted electronically at:  NM_RPFO_Comments@blm.gov, or by mail to:  Bureau of Land Management, Attention:  Angel Martinez, 435 Montaño Road NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107.  For questions about the planning process, please contact Angel Martinez, Rio Puerco Field Office RMP Team Lead, at 505-761-8918.

BLM will hold a number of public meetings within the 90-day comment period.  The one for Sandoval County will be held on September 17, from 6 – 8 PM, at the Bernalillo High School Gym.  LPA (Las Placitas Association) is working with other community groups to organize a Community Meeting in Placitas before the BLM public meeting.  The purpose of this Community Meeting will be to provide information, to discuss the main issues, and to provide instruction on how to submit productive, substantive comments to the BLM.  The date of this Public Meeting is yet to be determined.  It will be published in the next Signpost, and also notification will be sent to members of LPA and other local community organizations.

The draft RMP contains 4 alternatives for each parcel of land.   Alternative A is a “No Action” alternative, which leaves things just as they are.  It is unlikely this will be adopted.  Alternative B emphasizes conservation uses, with the minimum of resource/economic development.  Alternative D emphasizes development, with the minimum of conservation uses.  Between Alternatives B and D is the “Preferred Alternative”, Alternative C, which attempts to balance conservation with development uses.  What ends up in the final RMP is often a mixture of Alternatives B, C and D.  Community input is crucial to determining the final outcome.  The following describes only the “Preferred Alternative” for the 3 Placitas parcels:

Parcel A (north of Placitas) – “Placitas would be managed as controlled surface use (CSU) for extraction of leasable fluid minerals, open to extraction of salable minerals and locatable mineral entry in Section 13, Township 13 North, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 13 North, Range 5 East.” (Section 2.2.10.4.4)  “Leasable fluid minerals” refers to oil and natural gas, along with other fluids.  If this became part of the final RMP, then all of Parcel A, also presumably B and C, would be open to extraction of oil and gas.  “Salable minerals” include sand and gravel, “locatable minerals” include gold, silver and uranium, among other minerals.  Sections 13 and 18 are two squares, partly yellow and partly orange on the map, located on the north edge of Parcel A, overlapping the San Felipe Pueblo.  Section 13 is the square that begins ½-mile to the north of the Placitas Open Space, while section 18 is the square immediately east of section 13.  Section 18 comes closer to some private lands, to the southeast, than any part of Section 13.  The Preferred Alternative opens only these two sections in the Placitas Area to the mining of gravel and other solid minerals.

Parcel B (200 acres) – “Land Ownership Adjustment” (Table 2.13) This means that this 200 acre parcel bordering Overlook, Cedar Creek and Ranchos de Placitas would be subject to transfer of ownership to other public or private entities.

Parcel C (Crest of Montezuma) – “May consider transferring management jurisdiction to another public land management agency.” (Table 2.13)  “Fluid minerals would be leased with a CSU (controlled surface use) stipulation.” (Table 2.29) “Motorized travel would be limited to existing roads and trails for permitted use.  Open to primitive non-motorized travel.” (Table 2.29)  The first of these statements refers to the possibility of transferring the Crest to the Forest Service, as per HR 491 sponsored by Representative Martin Heinrich, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a unanimous vote.  Presently we are awaiting the bill’s introduction in the U.S. Senate.  If it passes there, and the President signs the bill, then the Crest will transfer to the Forest Service.  However if this transfer does not occur then the BLM “Preferred Alternative” is to open the Crest to oil and gas extraction, but not to salable or locatable mineral extraction, also to allow motorized travel only along existing roads and trails.

Here are some of the issues of concern to residents in Placitas, Bernalillo and other surrounding communities:

Oil & Gas Extraction: Opening lands to oil and gas extraction can cause leaks into the aquifers.  This can occur even with mere exploration for oil and gas reserves.  The aquifers under the BLM lands service both Placitas and Bernalillo, among other areas.  The “Preferred Alternative” for the Crest of Montezuma allows for oil and gas extraction.  Preventing this is a strong reason to push for transfer of the Crest to the Forest Service.  The draft RMP indicates that there is one oil and gas lease near Placitas (section 3.11.3.1), and there have been other explorations.  So it is a real possibility that oil and gas exploration and possibly extraction would occur in the Placitas Area if it were allowed for in the RMP.

Gravel Mining: Only Sections 13 and 18 in Parcel A would be open for gravel mining under the “Preferred Alternative”.  Section 13 is a half mile or more from Placitas private lands, but parts of section 18 are closer to private lands.  The community may seek to eliminate such mining entirely in the BLM lands, or to limit it only to areas a sufficient distance from private lands.

Wild Horses: During the initial comment period for the RMP many residents of Placitas and elsewhere submitted comments requesting that Parcel A be turned into a Wild Horse Preserve, or otherwise protect the horse herds that roam through there.  The BLM ruled that these comments were “out of scope”, meaning that they could not be taken into account when formulating the RMP.  However section 2.4.2 of the draft RMP, titled “Wild Horse Preserve, Sanctuary, State Park, or Herd Management Area Alternative”, explicitly addresses this issue.  It rejects the existence of wild horses within the Rio Puerco Planning Area, including the Placitas Area.  It states that “the feral and unclaimed horses in the Planning Area are trespassing on BLM-administered lands, are not a part of the BLM’s inventory or management program as a result of the Wild Horse Act, and will not be considered as a part of the BLM’s resource management program in this RMP/EIS process.”  By including this section in the draft RMP, the BLM seems to be placing the issue of the Placitas horse herds within scope, and thus comments could appropriately be addressed towards this issue.

Transportation Management: The draft RMP does not address vehicle use in the BLM lands, such as off-road vehicles (ORVs), other than the mention about motorized traffic on the Crest of Montezuma land.  The BLM’s intention is to formulate a Transportation Management Plan only after the RMP is finalized.

One of the factors that the BLM must take into account when formulating their RMPs is Social and Economic  Concerns.  Clearly mining of any sort close to towns and communities such as Bernalillo and Placitas strongly raises these concerns, since such activity can affect health, quality of life, and property values.  Also, if resource development in the BLM lands curtails or prevents recreational activities there, then this affects social and economic conditions in the area.  This means that public comments could productively focus on the social and economic impacts of mining and other development activities in the “Preferred Alternative”.

A report on the June 25 Bernalillo Town Council Meeting on the Santa Rosa apartments proposal.  After much discussion the Council voted to table the application for further discussion.

Bernalillo Town Council Meeting – 6/25/2012

Public Hearing on Santa Rosa Apartments 

Issue: Developer Ron Bohannon has applied for approval of an amendment to the Master Plan for Santa Rosa, aka Sole Toscano.  This amendment would allow for one or more 200-unit apartment complexes. The 157 acre property is on the I-25 frontage road, adjoining the Lafarge gravel mine.

Outcome: The Council voted to table the application for further discussion.

Council Members Present: Marian Jaramillo, Ronnie Sisneros, Dale Prairie – Presiding: Mayor Jack Torres

History: The property was annexed to the Town of Bernalillo around 2005.  A Master Plan was approved for “Sole Toscano” by the Town Council in 2007.  It was also zoned “Special Use”.  There were amendments proposed in 2010, but as they were never approved by the Town Council they are not in effect.

The approved Master Plan was for a mixed “vertical” development (which allows business and residential in the same building), with single-family residential and commercial, with moderately high density and some open space.

New application: Has dropped “vertical” development.  Requests addition of apartment complexes.  Originally Bohannon had asked for approval for 2 such 200-unit complexes, on the south part of the property.  At present he is seeking approval only for 1 such complex, with the possibility of an additional complex later.  These are proposed to have 40% 1-bedroom, 40% 2-bedroom-2-bath, 20% 3-bedroom-2-bath units.  Each building would have about 14 units, and would be 2 or 3 stories high.  These would rent at market rates – that is, comparable to middle-range rents for apartments in Albuquerque.

Also Bohannon proposes that there be senior housing, about 100 units, only vaguely specified at present, estate lots (with $500,000 and up houses), and some commercial (12 acres).  Residential housing would be from 1200 to 3200 square feet (with estate homes possibly bigger).  According to Bohannon, some banks have expressed interest in locating there.  There would be about 40 acres of open space.  Bohannon also talked of parks, which he said that the homeowner association (HOA) would be responsible for maintaining.  (But, as Mayor Torres and Councilor Jaramillo pointed out, what if the HOA was never formed, or reneged on that responsibility?  Wouldn’t the town then be stuck with the bill to maintain the parks?)

Main points:

• Bohannon is part owner of the property, and has been active in Bernalillo in engineering and development.  He admits that he and his partners are presently trying to sell the property to Shoshoni Properties, out of Dallas and Louisiana.  His continuing role (if any) would be as engineer and consultant.  This immediately raises a problem, as the Council was quick to see, in that Bohannon’s group would not be the one to fulfill any promises he might now make.  Thus any zoning approval would presumably put strict conditions on the actual developers, whoever they may be, to comply with these promises.
• It is reasonable to suppose that this sale of the property is conditional on Bohannon getting approval for rezoning for the apartment complex(es), as that would be the major initial cash cow, and thus would be needed to recoup the infrastructure investment.  Bohannon admitted that the first phase of development would be the apartments, and maybe also some senior housing units.  He indicated that before the recession major builders such as D. R. Horton and Pulte had been interested in putting houses there, probably like those at the Santiago development near Walmart in Bernalillo.  Bohannon said that Horton might still be interested, since all lots at the Santiago development are fairly much committed.  But he did not stress this more typical residential development as a priority.
• Bohannon indicated that commercial enterprises, such as banks, had expressed interest before the recession, and might still be interested.  But he said that getting commercial development there was a “chicken-and-egg” problem, since commercial companies would only commit once they saw zoning in place that would make their enterprises profitable.  So if zoning approval was dependent on getting those commitments this would not happen.
• The water and sewage for this development would have to come from the town, and presumably require running pipes under the freeway.  The developer would be required to pay all or part of the initial cost of the infrastructure.  However as always happens, the town would eventually be required to maintain it.  At one point Bohannon had proposed that this be a “Public Improvement District” (PID), which requires a tax assessment of the affected property owners to pay for infrastructure.  Bohannon appeared to say that he is now backing off the PID proposal, but at another time during the meeting he appeared to want to discuss this at a workshop devoted to this rezoning request.
• Mayor Torres pointed out that property taxes only account for 5% of the town’s income.  So if the town’s investment in services and infrastructure was to pay off, the new development would have to generate substantial gross receipts taxes (GRT).  (Apartment rentals themselves do not generate GRT.)  So either commercial enterprises on the property would have to generate this GRT, or it would have to come from people who lived there patronizing existing Bernalillo businesses.  But as many who would live in housing east of the freeway would commute to work in Albuquerque and Santa Fe, they might very well do their main shopping there.
• Mayor Torres asked the Police Chief and Fire Chief (both present) what the impacts would be on their departments if the property were developed as now proposed.  Both chiefs said they could not be certain, as the plans were still vague.  The Police Chief said it might require adding one more personnel.  The Fire Chief said it might require a doubling of fulltime personnel.  Then there would be the problem of where to house the responders who would service the Santa Rosa property, since there could be problems if the responders were located west of I-25 (as they are at present) and had to travel across I-25 during congested traffic.  So there would be significant additional services required, at the town’s expense, for the proposed development.  Bohannon said that his group had considered a $50,000 per year contribution to the town to help defray these costs.  Torres said that the Police and Fire Chiefs would have to provide full reports before this could proceed further.
• Torres and Jaramillo pointed out that the property is presently zoned “Special Use” (SU), and that this has caused problems, as planning and zoning administrators have been able to make major development decisions without getting approval from the Town Council.  Torres and Jaramillo proposed that if this request goes forward the SU zoning be revoked, and each section of the property be separately zoned using existing town zoning designations, both residential and commercial.  These designations are already well defined, so this would prevent developers from gaming the system.  Bohannon expressed willingness to consider this.
• Regarding the traffic impact, Bohannon said he had talked to the NM Department of Transportation (NMDOT), and that they had indicated that this would work.  However he provided no details.  Councilor Sisneros asked if NMDOT had done a specific traffic study of the impact of this property.  Bohannon answered No, but said that NMDOT expected a doubling of population in next 30 years or so.  Bohannon said that NMDOT expected population growth of 600,000 in the area over the next 30 years, so that such improvements as the I-25 interchange at Exit 242 was planned to accommodate that growth.  But Ron Alfred later pointed out that the 600,000 increase figure is for the wide stretch of I-25 from about Algodones down to Belen, so was nonspecific for any particular growth in the Bernalillo/Placitas area, yet only that is relevant to the traffic impact of any new development here.  Torres said they would need to see a response to this proposal from NMDOT before proceeding further.
• Regarding additional water, Bohannon says his group has already purchased 54 acre feet water rights, and would probably need 45 acre feet more.  These would be transferred to the town if a development agreement were reached.  He is willing to work with the town planners to show that Bernalillo does have the capacity for the additional water and sewage.  Councilor Prairie asked if the present water tanks would be sufficient for this additional load.  Maria Rinaldi, Director of the town Planning and Zoning Department, reported that the water tanks are presently being rehabilitated, but the present rehab project has not taken into account additional connections to this proposed development.

Some other points:

• Public comments came from Steve Amiot of Bernalillo, and Shane Mahoney, Lynn Smith and Ron Alfred of Placitas.  None expressed support for the proposal, and all expressed concerns, such as about traffic congestion and construction disturbances.  Amiot raised the problem of commercial at this property competing with existing enterprises in Bernalillo.  Alfred pointed out that Lafarge will likely keep mining past 2015 (Bohannon had stated that they would be out by then).  Mahoney contradicted a statement made by Bohannon that there were no other residences within miles of the proposed development.  Mahoney himself lives less than a mile away.  Alfred also pointed out that the Bernalillo population east of the freeway would increase significantly if this were fully developed as proposed.
• Part of the proposal includes communication towers.  Bohannon said this could provide wi-fi, which could also benefit the town west of I-25.
• Bohannon said that there might be some “workforce” housing, with residences from 1200 to 1800 square feet.
• Torres stressed that they need more detailed maps, also details about building footprints, number of stories, etc.
• Bohannon had some “imaginative” ideas regarding the traffic impact.  He said that there would be good traffic flow through the I-25 interchange, and up to Hwy. 313 (Bernalillo’s main street).  Beyond that there would be a bottleneck, which would be the case anyway.  Bohannon says he has ideas how to remedy these problems.  (Doesn’t everybody!)
• Sisneros said that he doesn’t feel the real estate market is improving all that much.  There are still many foreclosures in Rio Rancho.  This concerns him as regards approving major new housing developments.
• Jaramillo said that the property is in a beautiful area.  She doesn’t like the idea of putting high density development there.  But she likes that Bohannon is willing to get rid of the SU zoning and replace it with individual zoning of the sections.  That would put definite limits on size, height, etc.
• Prairie asked about impact on schools.  Bohannon responded that he didn’t know.

The next step is probably a workshop.  Torres asked Town Attorney George Perez if the next hearing on the matter would be subject to public notice.  Perez said he wasn’t sure, and would check.