[0:00] Body meeting to order.
[0:01] Councilor Tyler will lead us in
[0:03] the pledge. I pledge allegiance
[0:05] to the flag of the United
[0:07] States of America and to the
[0:09] Republic for which it stands.
[0:12] One nation under GOD,
[0:13] indivisible, with liberty and
[0:15] justice for all. Please remain
[0:19] standing. I'd like to take a
[0:21] moment to recognize the brave
[0:23] men and women from our law
[0:26] enforcement folks that are
[0:27] always out there protecting us,
[0:28] and are always putting their
[0:30] lives on the line. I also want
[0:32] to take a minute on the eve of
[0:35] the nine over 11 catastrophe,
[0:36] to thank and to try to remember
[0:38] all of the folks who lost their
[0:39] lives, including the brave
[0:41] firefighters who went into the
[0:48] nine over 11 towers. Thank you.
[0:56] You MAY be seated. All right.
[1:00] Take. Please. Silence all
[1:01] electronic devices while
[1:02] attending the governing body
[1:04] meeting. For the record, I will
[1:05] announce the names of the
[1:06] governing body members. When I
[1:08] say your name, please
[1:09] acknowledge your presence by
[1:11] saying present Councilor Dobson,
[1:13] present Council PRESIDENT,
[1:15] Councilor Tyler, present
[1:16] councilor man. Present,
[1:18] councilor, present and
[1:21] councilor. List present
[1:22] proclamations and awards of
[1:23] merit. We do not have any this
[1:26] evening. Public forum. Each
[1:27] comment will be limited to two
[1:29] minutes and no more than two
[1:30] hours in total will be allotted
[1:32] to the public forum. Comments.
[1:33] At any meeting, each speaker
[1:35] must state their name and
[1:36] address or Rio Rancho District.
[1:39] For the record, and I know
[1:41] we've got one, two, three.
[1:44] Looks like six people signed up.
[1:46] We're going to follow strict
[1:47] decorum during this public
[1:49] forum. What that means is we
[1:51] will not tolerate clapping,
[1:54] whistling, or any sort of other
[1:57] booing, sign waving or anything.
[1:59] If we can't, if we can't abide
[2:01] by that quorum, we will ask you
[2:06] to leave the chambers. First up,
[2:16] Grace Dukes. MISS Dukes.
[2:17] Mayor,
[2:19] my name is Grace Dukes, and I'm
[2:21] an Albuquerque resident. So
[2:24] what's going on here? A small
[2:28] town of almost 115,000 people.
[2:29] Which is the second largest
[2:31] city in the state, which is
[2:33] even more captured by
[2:34] bureaucracy than the city of
[2:37] Albuquerque. What? The logic
[2:39] isn't carrying in my head. As
[2:41] soon as the slightest level of
[2:44] scrutiny comes upon this body,
[2:46] it folds under the pressure.
[2:48] Good job. What a good way to
[2:51] run the second largest city in
[2:53] the state. It's like you took
[2:55] the Tarrant County, Texas,
[2:56] commissioners and cloned them
[2:59] and put them in a city council.
[3:00] Paul. MR. Mayor, you are the
[3:02] central figure in this Tarrant
[3:04] County clone for continuing to
[3:07] violate people's rights. They
[3:08] close polling places. Hurt you
[3:10] gavel when applause is given to
[3:12] opinions you you don't like
[3:14] because of decorum. This is not
[3:16] a mature way to run a city, and
[3:18] it is deeply unserious. I truly
[3:21] feel bad for the people of Rio
[3:22] Rancho for having to be
[3:23] burdened with this incompetent.
[3:26] Of a city council, mayor in
[3:27] government. I hope that they
[3:28] realize what they got
[3:30] themselves into and that they
[3:33] recall you, Paul, and replace
[3:35] you with the real mayor. Not a
[3:36] make believe mayor with the
[3:38] gavel you like to throw down.
[3:40] When people clap. Also, just so
[3:41] you know, none of us voted to
[3:43] have our Fourth Amendment
[3:46] rights violated for these flock.
[3:49] A lpr surveillance cameras, and
[3:52] we want them gone. Thank you.
[3:54] Thank you, MISS Dukes. Next up,
[4:06] Joaquin Montoya.
[4:06] Good evening,
[4:08] mayor and council members. My
[4:10] name is Joaquin Montoya. I'm
[4:12] speaking on behalf of New
[4:14] Mexico. While I am not a
[4:15] resident of Rio Rancho, I
[4:16] conduct business here and have
[4:18] family members here, so my
[4:21] concerns remain the same. You
[4:22] have described mass
[4:24] surveillance as an emotional
[4:26] issue. We've heard from both
[4:28] sides. So let me present
[4:29] something that is not emotional
[4:31] at all. It's a math block,
[4:34] markets its cameras at more
[4:36] than 93% accurate. But in
[4:39] Roseville County, California,
[4:40] police ran their own analysis
[4:45] of 1400 cameras and 71% of them
[4:47] came out wrong. That's seven
[4:48] out of ten alerts flagged.
[4:50] Innocent people, innocent
[4:52] people's vehicles as stolen or
[4:54] connected to a felony. Any
[4:56] local precedent check. Espanol
[4:57] in New Mexico, a 12 year old
[4:59] was placed in handcuffs after a
[5:01] flock camera misread a two for
[5:04] a seven. Later. A month later,
[5:06] a 17 year old in a different
[5:08] incident was held at gunpoint
[5:09] on his way home from school.
[5:11] The same technology, same error
[5:13] in Aurora, Colorado. A mom, a
[5:16] mom and children were forced to
[5:19] face lay down, forced to face
[5:22] late, lay down, face on the hot
[5:24] pavement. Sorry because flock
[5:25] cameras matched a Colorado
[5:27] plate to a stolen Montana
[5:30] motorcycle. Aurora paid 1.9
[5:32] million to settle that case in
[5:34] Ventura County. Fox owned
[5:36] systems secretly enabled a
[5:38] nationwide data sharing setting
[5:40] that is. Sheriff's office
[5:42] turned off without the agency's
[5:45] knowledge, resulting in 34,000
[5:47] unauthorized searches of local
[5:49] plate data, including 299
[5:52] searches explicitly citing
[5:53] immigration enforcement, a
[5:55] class action lawsuit followed.
[5:57] Based off of unpublished data,
[5:58] 20 billion plate reads per
[6:01] month. Nationally, there are
[6:04] 93% accuracy, which is a 7%
[6:07] error that equates to 1.4
[6:10] billion misreads. Most didn't
[6:13] result in stops, but some do.
[6:15] Every. Every stop is a lawsuit
[6:17] waiting to happen. Rio Rancho
[6:19] prides itself as a responsible
[6:22] and fiscal governance. This
[6:23] technology demonstrated
[6:26] financial liability, accuracy,
[6:28] failures, data sharing failures
[6:29] all documented, not theoretical.
[6:30] MISTER Montoya, are you about
[6:33] done? Your two minutes are up.
[6:36] Thank you. Next up, Ronald, and
[6:37] I'm probably going to say this
[6:42] wrong. Birkeland, I.
[6:43] Council.
[6:45] It's glad. I'm glad to be back.
[6:47] I just want to say. Anything I
[6:49] ever say to you guys is not
[6:50] meant to be a personal attack,
[6:52] as I have a great deal of
[6:53] respect for what you're doing
[6:55] because you don't have to do it
[6:56] right. With that being said, I
[6:58] will say that I think it's
[7:00] ironic that we have the Pledge
[7:02] of Allegiance in in the docket
[7:04] here. While we continue to
[7:05] violate the Fourth Amendment
[7:07] rights of everybody in the room
[7:12] and in Rio Rancho. I do know,
[7:16] sir, that you're in a unique
[7:17] position to where the flock
[7:19] cameras probably worked and
[7:21] very well before you took the
[7:23] seat here. And they probably
[7:25] are a very good tool in
[7:26] combating crime. However,
[7:29] that's not really a fair trade
[7:31] off for the violation of
[7:33] everybody's rights, and I hope
[7:34] that you guys can consider that
[7:37] deeply when you go home tonight.
[7:38] I do know that our police
[7:40] department is fantastic. I was
[7:42] given a good conversation by a
[7:45] captain here who is in in
[7:46] charge of the, I guess the
[7:49] traffic in Rio Rancho. And he
[7:50] seems to be very confident.
[7:54] They have a good like hold on
[7:56] the on the police officers and
[7:58] any discrepancies they might
[8:00] violate, I guess, within the
[8:03] city. But still, that doesn't
[8:04] mean we should violate
[8:06] everybody's rights. Plain and
[8:08] simple. You know, I hold the
[8:09] background of everything that
[8:11] you guys have done in your
[8:12] careers just a little bit.
[8:13] Maybe not architecture, sir,
[8:16] but I've done a lot of things.
[8:18] And I know deep down inside
[8:20] it's not right. And it's got to
[8:22] change. I appreciate your time.
[8:24] I can't stay any longer. I have
[8:25] to go. I have other obligations.
[8:26] Thank you.
[8:28] Thank you. Next up,
[8:38] Casey Robinson.
[8:38] Good evening,
[8:40] MR. Mayor. And members of the
[8:43] governing body. I think it's no
[8:45] surprise we all know that
[8:46] politically, most of us don't
[8:50] agree with me and vice versa. I
[8:51] want to say this first, though,
[8:54] just so you know, put this out
[8:55] there. We know I'm a member of
[8:56] district two. I'm not involved
[8:58] with this organization. Not
[8:59] that I disagree with them, but
[9:00] I'm going to talk about some
[9:02] real world and how it affects
[9:05] us here in Rio Rancho and the
[9:07] things that we all care about.
[9:09] And maybe shock you with a
[9:11] quote we have on the far left,
[9:12] because I know most of you were
[9:14] kind of shocked when you heard
[9:15] that. I'm actually don't
[9:16] consider myself a Democrat
[9:18] because I find them too far to
[9:19] the right. There's a quote we
[9:21] use that says it's further left.
[9:23] You go, you get your guns back.
[9:25] So let me ask you, how many of
[9:26] you go to the gun range? Don't
[9:29] think flock sees that I'm a Jew
[9:31] whose family comes from from
[9:33] Eastern Europe. First thing
[9:34] they did was took our
[9:36] information and kept it on
[9:38] files. And it wasn't done by
[9:40] the Nazis. It was stuff that
[9:41] was done before the Nazis took
[9:43] power, and it was used when
[9:45] they were. Now, do I expect
[9:46] that to happen here in the us?
[9:48] No, but there's also been a lot
[9:49] of things that have happened
[9:51] here in the last 20 years that
[9:52] I've never expected to happen.
[9:54] And I think we have a great
[9:56] police force here is absolutely
[9:57] shocking for somebody of my
[9:58] political leaning to say, and I
[10:00] absolutely love our chief. That
[10:01] said, let's talk about what
[10:04] else can really happen. Go to a
[10:07] cancer treatment center. It
[10:08] gets found now, is the
[10:10] government going to use that?
[10:11] No, but this is a private
[10:14] company. We know how scrupulous
[10:16] lots of these large private
[10:18] companies truly are. And they
[10:19] tell me that they won't sell
[10:21] off their information or not
[10:22] care about putting money into
[10:23] data protection and a data
[10:24] breach. And your health
[10:25] insurance company finds out
[10:27] that finds certain information,
[10:29] or are you trying get different
[10:30] level of insurance? And next
[10:33] your rates go up. These are
[10:35] real things to pay attention to.
[10:37] There is a reason we have this,
[10:39] and we are talking about safety.
[10:41] And so I'll remind you with
[10:43] this little quote, those who
[10:45] would give up essential liberty
[10:47] to purchase a little temporary
[10:49] safety deserve neither liberty
[10:50] nor safety. And that was
[10:51] Benjamin Franklin.
[10:52] Thank you,
[10:53] MR. Robinson. Next up, Corinne
[11:10] Rios.
[11:11] Good evening. My name is
[11:13] Corinne Rios. I live here in
[11:14] Rio Rancho, and most of you
[11:16] know me already. I'm here
[11:18] tonight to ask one simple
[11:21] question. Where is our money?
[11:24] Every year, every JULY 1st
[11:26] since 2020, Rio Rancho water
[11:28] rates have increased. And every
[11:30] year the city failed to
[11:32] properly prorate bills that
[11:35] crossed that JULY 1st rate
[11:37] increase. The city has
[11:39] acknowledged the air. The city
[11:41] has acknowledged residents were
[11:43] overcharged and we were told we
[11:45] would get our money back. It
[11:47] has now been a year since I
[11:50] first alerted Steve Gallegos,
[11:52] the city manager knows the
[11:55] deputy city manager knows,
[11:57] mayor Weimer knows, and I'm
[11:59] hoping that the members of this
[12:02] governing body know. So I'm
[12:04] here asking, when will the
[12:05] residents of Rio Rancho get
[12:12] their money back?
[12:13] This is
[12:15] public forum for you to comment.
[12:17] We do not have a back and forth
[12:17] conversation.
[12:18] I know the rules,
[12:19] MR. Mayor, and I'm going to
[12:21] stand here for my full two
[12:23] minutes with the question, when
[12:42] will we get our money back?
[13:15] Thank you very much.
[13:15] Thank you,
[13:17] MISS Rios. Next up, Michael
[13:29] Farrell.
[13:30] I'm going to use my
[13:33] two minutes, guys. So, mayor,
[13:34] members of the governing body,
[13:37] thank you for this generous two
[13:39] minutes you've granted me to
[13:40] exercise my First Amendment
[13:43] right and to address my the
[13:45] government. Mayor Weimer likes
[13:48] to talk and tell us about this
[13:50] silent majority. Does anybody
[13:53] actually seen them at this
[13:54] point? I think a lot of us
[13:57] would really like to meet the
[13:59] Flockers. Here's what I find
[14:02] interesting. Just last DECEMBER,
[14:05] the city made Ipra reform a
[14:08] legislative priority. Just
[14:09] worried about privacy was a
[14:11] huge concern. We heard about
[14:12] body camera footage, people's
[14:15] homes, commercial data brokers,
[14:16] records being resold and
[14:18] personal information being
[14:19] misused. We heard all about
[14:22] that. You guys told us very
[14:24] touching. Concern for our
[14:26] privacy. But for the eight for
[14:28] probably the last 8 to 10 years,
[14:30] the city has been collecting
[14:32] license plates, recording where
[14:34] vehicles are seen, building
[14:36] searchable databases and
[14:38] expanding into Axon and Fuzes
[14:40] with hundreds of camera feeds
[14:43] and ai enabled streams. And
[14:45] suddenly privacy gets real
[14:48] quiet again, almost as quiet as
[14:49] that silent majority that you
[14:52] talk about when we ask for your
[14:54] information. Private sacred
[14:56] privacy, sacred. When you
[14:58] collect our information, it's
[15:01] public safety. How convenient.
[15:03] You can't have it both ways. I
[15:04] want to be clear. This isn't
[15:06] about anti-police. We know that
[15:08] this works in crime. We know
[15:10] that this this follows our
[15:12] travel. I was reminded today
[15:13] about how Albertsons takes all
[15:15] of your information. I don't
[15:16] care if they take my
[15:17] information. I'm not worried
[15:19] about them taking my money. I'm
[15:20] worried about knowing where I'm
[15:21] traveling, what we're doing.
[15:23] Like these other people said,
[15:24] it builds up. It's a dragnet.
[15:26] And when, when, when are we
[15:27] going to finally realize that
[15:29] that's what's being created
[15:32] here? It's an unwarranted
[15:35] dragnet. And Weimer, if that
[15:36] silent majority really supports
[15:38] all of this, bring them down
[15:39] here. We'd like to hear from
[15:41] them. We'd all love to finally
[15:45] meet the Flockers.
[15:47] Thank you.
[15:48] Do anybody else signed up for a
[15:50] public forum, MISS Davis?
[15:50] No,
[15:51] sir, we do not.
[15:52] All right. Then
[15:55] we will move on to comments by
[15:57] counselors. Do any comments by
[16:01] counselors? MR. Mayor,
[16:02] counselor Tyler.
[16:04] You had. I
[16:06] just want to commend the police
[16:07] department. We had unfortunate
[16:11] incidents over in my area where
[16:12] three businesses were
[16:15] burglarized and within 24 hours,
[16:17] 40 hours, I guess maybe what
[16:21] was it, 30, 24 hours? They were
[16:23] able to catch the offender who
[16:25] broke into all three businesses.
[16:27] So I want to commend them on a
[16:28] job well done. And thank you
[16:30] for using technology to solve
[16:31] that crime. I appreciate it,
[16:34] thank you.
[16:35] Thank you, MR.
[16:37] Taylor. Anything further from
[16:40] council? MR. Counselor? List?
[16:44] MR. Mayor, I just wanted to.
[16:46] Just put out there that I know
[16:47] that when we were here before,
[16:48] right at the start of the
[16:50] school, there was a lot of
[16:53] concerns in the zenith 528 area
[16:54] about congestion and traffic. I
[16:56] do believe that now that people
[16:57] are back in routine, I think
[16:59] some things have naturally
[17:00] calmed down. I also think that
[17:02] one of the educational entities
[17:03] has made some adjustments, and
[17:05] that has also helped. I just
[17:07] want to let everybody know that
[17:08] is concerned about that, that
[17:09] this is an ongoing process and
[17:11] that we are still working
[17:12] towards a long term resolution.
[17:15] So thank you.
[17:15] Thank you.
[17:20] Counselor. Anything further?
[17:21] Hearing none, we'll move on to
[17:23] the consent calendar. MISS
[17:24] Davis, I noticed a scrivener's
[17:26] error in the work session
[17:27] minutes. Will you please update
[17:29] the minutes to reflect my name
[17:30] as Mayor Weimer instead of
[17:32] Councilor Weimer? I believe the
[17:33] rest of the.
[17:34] Yes, sir. And I
[17:36] will do my best. This meeting
[17:38] to address you properly as well.
[17:39] Yes, I understand this is
[17:40] something we're all still
[17:43] getting used to. So can I get a
[17:44] motion on the consent calendar?
[17:46] Make a motion on the consent
[17:46] calendar.
[17:47] Second, I have a
[17:51] motion and a second, MISS Davis.
[17:53] Thank you, counselor Lentine.
[17:55] Yes.
[17:57] Counselor. Culbreth. Yes,
[17:58] counselor. Dobson.
[17:59] Yes,
[18:00] counselor.
[18:01] List. Yes, counselor.
[18:04] Man. Yes. And counselor. Tyler.
[18:05] Yes. Thank you. The consent
[18:07] calendar is approved.
[18:07] Thank you,
[18:10] MISS Davis. Moving on to boards,
[18:11] commissions and committee
[18:12] reports. We have none this
[18:14] evening. So next up, public
[18:16] hearings. Anyone with a
[18:17] pecuniary interest on an item
[18:18] under public hearings and
[18:19] wishing to address the
[18:21] governing body shall register
[18:23] with the City clerk. Each
[18:24] comment is limited, will be
[18:27] limited to three minutes. This
[18:28] hearing will be handled in
[18:29] accordance with the Rules of
[18:31] Procedure. Section 3.4 and
[18:33] strict decorum will be
[18:36] maintained first. So the first
[18:38] item up De 23, which was
[18:42] postponed from JUNE 25th, 2026.
[18:46] The the. The JUNE 25th meeting
[18:47] is a site plan approval for
[18:49] Maverik gas station on the
[18:50] property, legally described as
[18:54] unit 17, block 131, lots 36
[18:56] through 40. Director Rincon.
[18:58] Good evening. Good evening, MR.
[18:59] Mayor and other members of the
[19:01] governing body. Director of
[19:03] Development Services. So item
[19:08] number eight is d 23, which as
[19:11] mayor just mentioned, was is a
[19:12] continuation of the public
[19:13] hearing that was duly noticed
[19:16] and started on the JUNE 25th,
[19:18] 2026 meeting. And this is a
[19:21] request for approval of a site
[19:24] plan for unit 17, block 31,
[19:26] lots 36 through 40 for a
[19:30] Maverick gas station. And so
[19:32] this site plan would encompass
[19:35] five lots and is would be
[19:37] located on the northwest corner
[19:39] of New Mexico. 528 and Obregon
[19:41] with access points off of
[19:45] Monterey. And so I'm going to
[19:49] briefly have up on the screen
[19:53] the the new site plan. So as I
[19:54] mentioned at the start of this
[19:55] presentation, this item was
[19:57] noticed and started at a public
[19:58] hearing on JUNE 25th. The
[20:01] governing body at that meeting
[20:02] requested that the applicant
[20:04] reach out to the New Mexico dot
[20:05] or Department of Transportation
[20:07] and to see about the
[20:08] feasibility of an access point
[20:11] off of New Mexico Highway 528.
[20:13] The updated site plan with a
[20:17] write in from nm 528 is the
[20:19] result of that request. And so.
[20:20] And I'll get back to the site
[20:22] plan a little bit further in my
[20:23] presentation as well. But I
[20:25] just wanted to highlight that,
[20:27] that the the applicant did come
[20:32] back with some updates. So the
[20:34] following that I have is my
[20:37] presentation from the meeting
[20:38] on the 25th. I'm going to go
[20:40] through it really quickly. I
[20:42] had 26 slides, just as a kind
[20:45] of just so that, you know, I'm
[20:46] going to go through them really
[20:48] fast though, but I have
[20:49] everything. So if there's any
[20:50] follow up questions, we can
[20:52] always come back to any of
[20:53] these slides and, and go into
[20:55] further detail as we're going.
[20:57] So the zoning for this is
[20:59] covered under ordinance number
[21:02] 34, enactment number 0734. And
[21:04] so it does talk about needing a
[21:06] site plan approved and reviewed
[21:08] by the governing body. It talks
[21:10] about what uses are permitted
[21:11] on the property, which points
[21:15] back to our c one uses our c
[21:16] one uses do have as a
[21:18] permissive use a gas station.
[21:20] So this is a use that would be
[21:22] allowed on the property. And so
[21:25] when we are talking about
[21:29] retail uses see that that was
[21:31] just a couple extra slides on
[21:35] retail uses. Liquor license is
[21:38] a separate process. So if this
[21:40] gas station in the future would
[21:42] decide to go forward with that,
[21:44] there would be additional
[21:46] regulations and public hearings
[21:47] that would need to be heard.
[21:49] There was a site plan approved
[21:53] back in 2007 that did show
[21:55] access points off of one access
[21:57] point off of Obregon. Other
[21:59] access points off of Monterey,
[22:01] and then an access point also
[22:04] off of New Mexico. 528 so again,
[22:07] from that original hearing date
[22:10] on the 25th, the applicant went
[22:12] back to dot to try to work
[22:14] forward or work towards getting
[22:18] an access point from nm 528
[22:20] here's another part of that
[22:24] site plan from 2007. So
[22:27] originally notifications went
[22:34] out at per chapter 150.03.
[22:37] When we postpone an item, we
[22:39] postpone to a date certain. So
[22:41] everybody that knew of and was
[22:44] noticed of the meeting in JUNE,
[22:45] if they were to look at the
[22:47] meeting minutes for that JUNE
[22:48] meeting would know that the
[22:49] item was postponed to tonight's
[22:51] meeting. So we don't really
[22:53] notice because we postpone to a
[22:56] date certain. And so these were
[22:58] the original notifications that
[22:59] went out. These were all part
[23:03] of the original presentation.
[23:06] And then what I have here is a
[23:08] screen shot of all of the items
[23:10] that we look at for site plans
[23:14] for special use zones. And then
[23:17] for proposed site plans, just
[23:18] kind of going through things
[23:20] that we look at. So we look at
[23:22] is there a scale and a north
[23:25] arrow? Are the lot boundaries
[23:27] listed out? Where are the
[23:29] existing right of ways and
[23:33] easements? Then we go over is
[23:35] there what is the existing
[23:36] utilities? What are the plans
[23:40] for utilities in the area?
[23:44] Parking setbacks again,
[23:47] circulation. And so the
[23:49] circulation changes with the
[23:50] updated plan because there will
[23:53] now be an additional access
[23:55] point. So on this specific
[23:56] image that we're looking at,
[23:58] that access would connect to
[24:01] that bottom right hand, like
[24:03] football shape that I have
[24:06] there. A couple other things
[24:07] that we look at would include
[24:12] landscape buffers, elevations.
[24:21] Building heights. We look at
[24:24] the preliminary drainage. We
[24:26] look at the characteristics of
[24:30] the surrounding properties.
[24:32] Again just a quick one from
[24:41] site plan from 2007. Okay. And.
[24:43] So I breezed through that. But
[24:45] again, we can get we can go
[24:47] back to any of those that
[24:48] there's any questions, but I
[24:49] just don't want to spend too
[24:51] much time on something I've
[24:52] already presented before. But
[24:54] again, I'm bringing back the
[24:56] new updated site plan that is
[24:58] showing that right in off of
[25:00] New Mexico. 528 so right now,
[25:03] there wouldn't be a right out
[25:05] back onto. 528 we can only go
[25:12] from 528 to the site itself.
[25:14] And so then I do have actually
[25:16] let me go back really quick. So
[25:18] the applicant did hold a
[25:20] community meeting last week and
[25:22] a couple of things that are in
[25:23] your agenda briefing memorandum
[25:26] that were added today in public
[25:27] comment, along with public
[25:29] comments from residents, were
[25:31] also some meeting notes. So
[25:33] some of the questions that they
[25:34] answered. So some of the
[25:35] questions themselves. And then
[25:37] the responses from the
[25:38] applicants. So those are added
[25:40] in. But the applicant can go
[25:41] into further detail. If there's
[25:43] questions about that public
[25:45] meeting. And with that I will
[25:46] stand for any questions. So
[25:49] staff did review. We do
[25:50] recommend approval and I have
[25:52] the conditions and findings of
[25:57] fact for d 23 up on the screen.
[25:58] There's a couple of them.
[25:59] They're also included in your
[26:02] agenda briefing memorandum. And
[26:04] I will stand for any questions.
[26:06] Thank you. Director Cohen can I
[26:09] get a motion.
[26:10] Motion motion to
[26:12] approve d 23.
[26:13] Second, have a
[26:15] motion. And a second is the
[26:17] applicant here. And does the
[26:25] applicant wish to speak.
[26:25] Hello.
[26:27] Thank you for volunteering your
[26:29] time to hear our little case
[26:31] for our future gas station. And
[26:33] my name is Richard Pigott with
[26:34] Maverick. We're located at 185
[26:35] South State Street, Salt Lake
[26:37] City, Utah. I also have with me
[26:39] Brian Herron with Galloway
[26:40] Engineering. They were the ones
[26:42] that did our traffic study
[26:43] based on our neighborhood
[26:44] meeting. The biggest concerns,
[26:46] of course, is traffic accesses
[26:48] and things of that nature. So
[26:50] Brian with me as well, so that
[26:51] he could answer questions
[26:52] directly concerning traffic
[26:54] concerns. He's a little bit
[26:56] more educated in that field
[26:57] than I am, so I'm glad I
[26:59] brought him with me. So open to
[27:00] any questions you have about
[27:01] the neighborhood meeting. I can
[27:03] address those. If it's a
[27:04] traffic concern, I'll have
[27:05] Brian answer those questions
[27:07] for me.
[27:09] Okay. Hang tight. We
[27:10] MAY ask you for to come back up
[27:13] for more questions. All right.
[27:16] I have three people signed up
[27:19] to speak. So as I said prior to
[27:20] this, we will you'll have three
[27:22] minutes to speak. First up,
[27:36] Kristine Eisenberg.
[27:36] Good
[27:38] afternoon. My name is Christine
[27:39] Eisenberg. I'm part of the
[27:41] neighborhood association that
[27:43] is located in district six.
[27:45] That's a Chamisa Estates
[27:47] Neighborhood association. I
[27:49] don't know if you can see me
[27:51] over this. This podium. I'm
[27:54] kind of small, but I have a big
[27:55] voice. And one of the things
[27:57] that I noticed is that the
[27:58] zoning and development code
[28:00] requires that all persons that
[28:03] are affected by the build be
[28:04] notified. And while the six
[28:06] homes directly in front of the
[28:08] build have been notified, all
[28:10] of the remaining homes on
[28:12] Monterey were not. And the
[28:13] reason that they will be
[28:16] affected is. If you noticed on
[28:18] the site plan, the developer
[28:20] kept telling us there is no way
[28:23] for people to turn right out of
[28:25] Monterey, but in fact, they can
[28:27] turn right. So 850 cars are
[28:29] projected to go through that
[28:31] gas station and out through
[28:32] Monterey, and they have a
[28:34] choice of turning left or right.
[28:36] The reason it is dangerous to
[28:39] turn right is this neighborhood
[28:41] is very rural. We use it to
[28:44] walk on any evening, any
[28:45] morning. If you take the time
[28:47] to go out there, you'll see
[28:49] neighbors walking their dogs,
[28:50] children walking to school,
[28:52] children walking back from
[28:56] school. You will see people
[28:58] riding bikes, little dirt bikes,
[29:00] all kinds of different activity
[29:03] on the road and adding 850 cars
[29:06] to that will be a detriment to
[29:09] everybody's safety.
[29:10] Additionally, the developer
[29:12] told us that during the traffic
[29:13] study, there were four cars
[29:16] that they noted during a so
[29:18] many hour period, so that
[29:20] didn't sound true to us because
[29:21] we live there and we see the
[29:24] cars that come in and out. I've
[29:25] given you a traffic study that
[29:27] we did ourselves. I sat out
[29:29] there and tallied cars two
[29:31] different days. One day with
[29:33] school in session, one day
[29:34] without school in session. On
[29:36] the day that school was in
[29:40] session, we had 586 cars go
[29:42] down. Obregon. And then on the
[29:44] day that school wasn't in
[29:46] session, we had 219 cars go
[29:49] down. Obregon from 7:00 to 930
[29:52] each day. In order to prove
[29:54] that I really was out there, I
[29:56] have the time stamped pictures
[29:58] about every 15 or 20 minutes so
[30:00] that you can see I really was
[30:02] out there really with my little
[30:03] tally marks, and there's even a
[30:04] cute little picture of me
[30:06] sitting out there on the road.
[30:07] By the way, it's really
[30:09] dangerous out there, I noticed
[30:11] six different cars come and do
[30:12] u-turns on Obregon because they
[30:14] were going the wrong way. On
[30:18] 528, I saw people trying to
[30:20] pass the line, going out of
[30:22] Obregon. Let's say there's 20
[30:24] cars lined up. The 20th car
[30:25] decides, I'm not going to wait
[30:28] in line. They cut going,
[30:29] heading to the traffic lane
[30:31] that's coming in the opposite
[30:32] direction. You guys need to do
[30:33] something about that because
[30:37] that's not safe anyway. Also, I
[30:42] wanted to note that. I
[30:44] requested an Ipra to look at
[30:46] the amount of accidents between
[30:50] Kim and 528, and Obregon and
[30:52] 528, and there were 20
[30:54] accidents from JANUARY 1st to
[30:56] date. Some of them included
[30:57] several cars. Most of them were
[30:59] two car accidents. Thank you
[31:01] for listening. We want a safe
[31:04] neighborhood. We value our
[31:06] neighbors and our time that we
[31:07] spend outside recreating. And
[31:09] that's why we bought homes in
[31:10] that area. And we hope you
[31:12] consider that. Also, please
[31:14] consider that the developer was
[31:16] less than honest with us when
[31:19] we met with him. In our ability
[31:20] to try and fix all of this.
[31:21] Thank you.
[31:22] Next up, Thomas
[31:39] Krapyak. Good evening mayor.
[31:40] City Council members.
[31:41] City
[31:41] manager.
[31:43] My name is Thomas and
[31:44] I'm a retired lieutenant with
[31:45] the Albuquerque Fire Department.
[31:47] And I am very concerned about
[31:49] safety in this area. My main
[31:51] concern is resident safety and
[31:52] traffic safety. I'm asking you
[31:54] to deny this maverick maverick
[31:55] site plan, not simply place
[31:58] more conditions on it. Before
[31:59] Maverick was proposed, Rio
[32:00] Rancho police had already
[32:01] identified safety concerns on
[32:04] New Mexico. 528 and Obregon in
[32:06] 2024. The Police traffic
[32:08] division asked Nmdot to
[32:09] consider northbound and
[32:10] southbound turning lanes at
[32:12] this intersection, specifically
[32:14] to avoid crashes. Now, Maverick
[32:16] proposes a high traffic fuel
[32:17] station and a convenience store
[32:20] at that same intersection. New
[32:21] Mexico Department of
[32:22] Transportation has stated that
[32:24] it will not grant access to New
[32:26] Mexico. 528 at this location,
[32:30] so what does that traffic go?
[32:31] Maverick's own site drawings
[32:32] make that answer easy. The
[32:34] project's internal circulation
[32:35] connects directly to Monterey
[32:38] Road, a residential street,
[32:39] while also relying on Obregon
[32:41] for access. Monterey and
[32:42] Obregon already carry
[32:43] concentrated morning and
[32:44] afternoon traffic associated
[32:46] with Enchanted Hills Elementary
[32:47] School. Children also walk
[32:49] these streets to and from
[32:51] school, some with parents, some
[32:55] independently. This proposal
[32:57] will add customer vehicles,
[32:58] turning movements, delivery,
[32:59] traffic and commercial
[33:00] circulation through these same
[33:02] streets. Developers also
[33:04] acknowledged weaving concerns.
[33:05] Because Obregon Access is so
[33:07] close to New Mexico. 528 while
[33:09] proposing no dedicated right
[33:11] turn lane to this site, there
[33:12] is also an environmental
[33:13] concern already for record with
[33:15] the city clerk, an
[33:16] environmental engineer has
[33:17] submitted and written concerns
[33:18] about drainage toward the
[33:20] adjacent Arroyo de las Lomitas
[33:22] Negras and nearby residential
[33:25] ground walls that recommends
[33:26] evaluating the local water
[33:27] table before assuming those
[33:29] drinking water sources are
[33:31] protected. There is also
[33:32] environmental concern. Why
[33:33] should these questions be
[33:35] answered after approval instead
[33:36] of before it? When a project
[33:37] depends on an already
[33:39] concerning intersection cannot
[33:41] access New Mexico 528 directly
[33:43] shifts commercial traffic onto
[33:45] streets used by school children
[33:46] and creates acknowledged
[33:48] weaving concerns and leaves
[33:49] important drainage and
[33:50] groundwater questions
[33:52] unanswered. Approval is not the
[33:54] cause. The cautious decision
[33:55] here. Denial is, and we'd
[33:56] really appreciate if the
[33:58] council members would listen to
[33:59] their residents of this
[34:01] community. Thank you.
[34:01] Thank you,
[34:04] MR. Kubiak. Next up, Kim
[34:18] Gonzalez.
[34:19] Good evening.
[34:19] Mayor
[34:21] and council members. My name is
[34:23] Kim Gonzalez. I reside at 1201
[34:26] Monterey Road, a home that is
[34:27] directly across from the
[34:29] proposed Maverick Gas Station.
[34:31] I am here tonight to
[34:32] respectfully ask you to deny
[34:34] this site approval, because I
[34:35] believe its location creates
[34:37] serious traffic and safety
[34:39] concerns for our neighborhood.
[34:40] The gas station is being
[34:41] proposed at the major
[34:43] intersection of 528 and Obregon,
[34:45] which is already a busy road
[34:46] because of the elementary
[34:49] school that is half mile away.
[34:50] However, our concern is that
[34:52] the traffic will actually be
[34:55] going onto Monterey, a
[34:57] residential road. That
[34:58] distinction is extremely
[35:00] important because the developer
[35:02] is proposing to put a high
[35:03] volume commercial traffic
[35:05] generator next to that
[35:07] residential road, and he has
[35:08] indicated that it will likely
[35:12] send over 850 vehicles onto it
[35:14] every day. I don't believe we
[35:16] should dismiss that simply
[35:17] because the gas station is
[35:20] located at a major intersection.
[35:21] A tremendous amount of traffic
[35:22] will come into our neighborhood
[35:25] on Monterey, where people
[35:27] regularly walk, exercise, and
[35:28] enjoy our neighborhood because
[35:30] it is not a high traffic
[35:32] roadway. That is why the
[35:34] entrance exit location matters
[35:36] just as much as the location of
[35:38] the gas station itself. I
[35:39] respectfully ask the council to
[35:41] look at this from the
[35:42] perspective of the residents
[35:44] who actually live on Monterey
[35:47] Road. Personally, as I said,
[35:49] our house is at the corner of
[35:53] Monterey and Obregon with 850
[35:54] vehicles entering and exiting
[35:57] the gas station each day, we
[35:59] will need to find gaps in
[36:01] traffic to safely enter or
[36:04] leave our driveway. The the
[36:05] traffic stop sign at the corner
[36:07] will likely create a backup of
[36:09] vehicles waiting to get onto
[36:11] Obregon. Further blocking our
[36:13] driveway and making access to
[36:15] our home difficult and possibly
[36:17] dangerous. This is not just
[36:19] about traffic, it directly
[36:22] affects our ability to safely
[36:25] get in and out of our own home.
[36:28] So I ask you, if this was your
[36:30] family's home, would you
[36:33] consider this traffic increase
[36:35] acceptable? I believe the
[36:37] answer would be no. Thank you
[36:38] for your time.
[36:39] Thank you, MISS
[36:43] Gonzalez. MISS Davis, anyone
[36:45] else signed up to speak?
[36:45] No,
[36:46] sir. There is not.
[36:47] All right.
[36:49] Then we will close the public
[36:51] comment period of this item and
[36:55] move on to council comment,
[36:57] questions, comments. Concerns.
[37:00] MR. Mayor. Councilor. List.
[37:00] MR.
[37:02] Mayor. Okay, let me begin by
[37:03] first saying thank you so much
[37:06] to Maverick for following up
[37:08] and hearing our request and
[37:09] meeting with the community. I
[37:11] think that was an important
[37:13] step. I also want to say a
[37:16] thank you to Director Rincon
[37:17] and her team for continuing to
[37:19] follow through with this and to
[37:23] to bring it back to today. I'm
[37:25] not entirely sure where to
[37:26] start, other than I want
[37:28] everyone who sent in emails and
[37:29] comments. We hear you. We
[37:31] appreciate you, I hear you, I
[37:34] appreciate you, I think that we
[37:36] need to look at a couple of
[37:39] things, and I'm not sure if MR.
[37:40] Pickard can answer my question
[37:48] or not.
[37:49] I'll do my best.
[37:50] Okay.
[37:53] And please note, I get that you
[37:54] represent an entity, but I. But
[37:56] I do have some questions. Again,
[37:57] thank you for for meeting with
[37:58] the community that wasn't asked.
[38:00] And I do believe that some of
[38:02] the things that were initially
[38:03] brought were accommodations
[38:05] that Maverick was able to make,
[38:07] whether it was lighting or
[38:08] walls or the foliage or some of
[38:10] the things. So thank you for
[38:12] that. I do have a question,
[38:14] though. We met on JUNE 25th. Do
[38:16] you know when you guys then
[38:17] turned around and reached back
[38:19] out to the dot?
[38:20] I think it was.
[38:22] The next day is when we got the
[38:25] first rejection from Margaret.
[38:26] I could talk to have Brian
[38:28] address that a little bit more
[38:29] clear. But yeah, we reached out
[38:31] like the second. By the time i
[38:33] got home, I had an email
[38:34] rejection from them. By the
[38:36] time I landed. So and then we
[38:38] continued to push over the
[38:39] course of the last two months,
[38:41] I didn't get a blessing for
[38:44] that right turn pocket until
[38:45] probably about two weeks ago,
[38:47] three weeks ago. But again, I
[38:48] think Brian could answer that
[38:49] question a little bit more
[38:51] clearly. And I think it's in a
[38:52] memo that was also presented to
[38:54] you as a commissioner as well.
[38:54] Right.
[38:55] I just have some notes
[38:57] here that reflect that the real
[38:58] conversations MAY not have
[38:59] started until mid AUGUST. So
[39:01] there was a gap, and I was just
[39:03] curious as to why, but you're,
[39:06] you're you're good. So I, I
[39:07] have to be honest, I'm really
[39:08] frustrated with the Department
[39:09] of Transportation in this
[39:11] entire situation, because I do
[39:12] know that some of their
[39:14] feedback were no additional
[39:16] turn ins. Then it was you could
[39:17] have both a right in or right
[39:19] out. Then it was no, you can
[39:21] only have the right in. And
[39:23] part of their argument is that.
[39:25] 528 in this stretch right now
[39:28] is problematic, as in the
[39:30] overgrown intersection, the
[39:32] zenith intersection and the
[39:33] intersection. And so I'm super
[39:35] frustrated with the dot for not
[39:36] saying, hey, let's take 90 days,
[39:37] six months, and let's put a
[39:39] time out. And we're going to
[39:40] put a focused energy on this
[39:42] strip of 528 and we're going to
[39:44] do our job for the residents of
[39:45] Rio Rancho. So I'm extremely
[39:46] disappointed in the Department
[39:47] of Transportation because right
[39:49] now I think they are the
[39:50] stronghold for a lot of these
[39:51] complications. However, with
[39:53] that said, ultimately the only
[39:54] thing that was granted was a
[39:56] right in which forces 100% of
[39:58] those vehicles out onto
[40:00] Monterey, which is in no way,
[40:02] shape or form acceptable. This
[40:04] is a private road. This does
[40:06] feed into a small space. This
[40:10] is front doors that this is not
[40:12] made for an additional 850 cars
[40:15] a day. I am extremely concerned
[40:19] about safety. The safety issues
[40:21] in this area. If we can look at
[40:25] our special use permit section
[40:28] 154.4 3a3f. It does talk about
[40:30] something that is very specific
[40:31] for us sitting up here to look
[40:33] at, and it's the proposed
[40:35] ingress, the egress, parking
[40:36] and circulation. And
[40:37] unfortunately, I do not feel
[40:39] that in any way, shape or form
[40:40] this meets the safety needs of
[40:43] the neighborhood. I very much
[40:45] appreciate the residents that
[40:47] took the time to sit out and
[40:48] dodge cars and play Frogger to
[40:50] to get these data points for us.
[40:52] I do want to say, just from
[40:54] personal experience, that that
[40:56] 586 after a long weekend is
[40:58] probably a low number. A lot of
[41:00] people took extended vacations,
[41:01] so that number is probably
[41:03] higher than what, what, what
[41:04] would have really happened if
[41:06] you would have had it on a
[41:07] traditional five day week, on
[41:09] maybe a Tuesday or Thursday,
[41:14] just my $0.02. So I. I don't
[41:15] really have a lot more to say
[41:17] other than I'm just really
[41:18] sorry, but I, I don't think
[41:19] this makes the safety
[41:21] requirements for our, our
[41:22] community. And I, I apologize,
[41:23] it has nothing to do with
[41:25] Maverick. It has nothing to do
[41:27] with it being a gas station. I
[41:28] think that the dot did you a
[41:32] disservice. And with that, I
[41:37] will take a pause.
[41:40] No, we are.
[41:41] There's strict decorum being
[41:43] held here. We are not going to
[41:45] clap. We're not going to be.
[41:46] There's a reason for that. If
[41:48] we get people in this room that
[41:49] are opposed and in favor, and
[41:51] they start booing and clapping,
[41:52] we can have a fight in here.
[41:54] We're not going to have this.
[41:55] We're going to act like adults
[41:57] in this room. Thank you,
[41:58] Councilor Tyler.
[41:58] I would have
[42:02] to agree with Councilor List. I,
[42:05] I think that New Mexico. 528
[42:07] and that that section of New
[42:11] Mexico. 528 is some concerns
[42:14] for public safety as far as
[42:16] traffic in right turns, left
[42:17] turns, I don't care which way
[42:18] you're turning, it's a pain
[42:19] down there going to Corrales
[42:22] you're going to get hit. I
[42:26] think I share the same issues
[42:29] as she does with Nmdot. They're
[42:31] horrible. And I'll say that
[42:33] because it depends on which
[42:34] entity you are or where you're
[42:36] at, because I can go and put
[42:38] five stoplights in a row or six
[42:40] stoplights in a row, which are
[42:42] against nmdot regulations,
[42:43] depending on who I am. But I
[42:45] can't have one stoplight that
[42:47] saves people's lives off of 528
[42:49] up by the armory, or 550 up by
[42:51] the armory. We can't get a
[42:53] stoplight on 528 over where
[42:55] it's needed. We can't get write
[42:56] ins and write outs to get
[42:58] businesses to come in. It's not
[43:00] the fact that the city of Rio
[43:01] Rancho doesn't want to do
[43:02] business, and doesn't want to
[43:03] encourage business. It's the
[43:05] fact that we don't want to
[43:06] endanger the residents, and
[43:07] Nmdot doesn't get off their
[43:08] butts and come down here and
[43:10] help us solve problems. And
[43:12] maybe in six months that'll
[43:13] change. But at the end of the
[43:15] day, I think that we really
[43:17] need to take a step back and
[43:18] get nmdot to Councilor Liz
[43:20] Point to do their job and come
[43:21] down here and help us get these
[43:23] businesses in place. So I have
[43:24] some concerns as well as she
[43:27] does, as well as she does with
[43:29] the safety 800 cars on a
[43:30] residential road is that's a
[43:32] lot. I wouldn't want that
[43:33] trapped in front of my house.
[43:34] That's just me personally, but
[43:37] whatever I yield for MR. Mayor.
[43:38] Thank you, Councilor Tyler.
[43:39] MR.
[43:41] Mayor.
[43:44] Councilor.
[43:45] So I think
[43:47] five of the seven of us were
[43:48] here before. This is Champion
[43:51] car wash discussion just on on
[43:53] repeat. And it's going to be
[43:55] any time for this three mile
[43:56] stretch here starting at
[43:58] northern up to where it gets
[44:00] busy again around Enchanted
[44:03] Hills area that, you know, the
[44:04] East Side's developed. The West
[44:05] side's not. You have certain
[44:07] people that anytime it wouldn't
[44:10] matter what's going in on that
[44:12] west side. If it was a dental
[44:13] office that moved two cars
[44:14] through an hour, they'd be at
[44:17] this meeting. Or if it was a
[44:18] gas station, they'd be at this
[44:21] meeting. I think that it's
[44:22] unfair. We're all going to
[44:23] probably have the same general
[44:26] remarks and discussions about
[44:28] Nmdot. I think that you were
[44:29] able to champion wasn't able to
[44:31] get what you guys were able to
[44:33] get with that right turn in,
[44:35] which I think is a great that
[44:36] that, you know, you're able to
[44:39] get that carved out. I don't
[44:44] think it's fair to you guys to
[44:46] suffer because in Nmdot is
[44:49] being ridiculous, intransigent
[44:52] on this issue. Therefore, I do
[44:53] support the project. I think
[44:54] the stipulation that we had or
[44:57] what we said in the last
[44:58] meeting, and we were pretty
[44:59] much in agreement on it, was,
[45:01] we need you to go back to Nmdot,
[45:03] try to push back as much as you
[45:05] can. It's my understanding from
[45:06] conversations that that was
[45:08] done with the help of the city.
[45:10] And so I appreciate Amy and
[45:11] whoever else made some phone
[45:12] calls and kind of pushed to be
[45:14] able to get that right in.
[45:16] That's really important.
[45:19] However, we do. 528 is, is
[45:20] going to be strategically
[45:21] important for our whole city.
[45:23] We need both the east side of
[45:25] 528 and the west side of 528 to
[45:27] develop out. And I realize that
[45:29] every time anything, any type
[45:30] of development comes on the
[45:33] west side of. 528. This will be
[45:34] the discussion that's had.
[45:36] However, we definitely need to
[45:38] start pushing. And by the way,
[45:39] putting in businesses will get
[45:40] infrastructure done. These
[45:42] roads will need to get paved,
[45:43] it'll need to get safer, and
[45:44] it'll push some of that. Now,
[45:46] the truth is, is that there's a
[45:48] lot of people that live out
[45:49] there. They don't want it to
[45:51] get paved. They don't want, you
[45:52] know, and that that's a
[45:53] personal choice. That's fine.
[45:55] But I think that if if we're
[45:56] going to live this close to a
[45:58] major thoroughfare, we need to
[45:59] understand the overall gr for
[46:02] the city. So to, to be the
[46:04] antithesis of Councilor Tyler's
[46:06] point a little bit for, for the
[46:08] whole of the city, I understand
[46:09] for the unfortunate situation
[46:11] for, you know, 5 to 10 houses
[46:12] that are going to be affected
[46:14] right there. I don't think
[46:15] there's very many people. I'd
[46:17] be shocked if it's more than 5%
[46:18] that are going to come onto
[46:19] Monterey and turn right.
[46:21] There'd be no reason to. You're
[46:22] going to go left and you're
[46:24] going to take the quickest way
[46:26] to get back onto 528 to get to
[46:27] where you're going. So I don't
[46:29] think that, you know, you guys
[46:30] going back to Nmdot, you guys
[46:32] doing the outreach to the, to
[46:33] the, to the community, to the
[46:35] residents is what we asked for.
[46:36] And so if we're going to deny,
[46:38] again, I don't think we have
[46:39] much grounds to stand on based
[46:40] on our previous conversations
[46:42] in the last meeting. So
[46:43] therefore, I do support the
[46:44] project. And I do appreciate,
[46:46] Amy, you guys, you know, going
[46:47] back again and helping out and
[46:48] working with Maverick and
[46:50] working with the state, even
[46:51] though, you know, there's not
[46:52] much to work there with. I
[46:53] appreciate that. And, you know,
[46:55] thank you guys for bringing
[46:56] this back forward tonight.
[46:58] That's all I have. MR. Mayor.
[47:00] Thank you councilor. MR. Mayor,
[47:00] councilor Culbreth.
[47:02] Thank you.
[47:03] I think it's important to be
[47:05] clear that the ask was not
[47:08] merely to have a conversation
[47:10] with Nmdot, but the ask was to
[47:12] get a specific outcome, which
[47:14] was the right in and right out.
[47:17] And so while I appreciate the
[47:19] effort, it's unfortunate that
[47:21] an mdoti actually think it's
[47:22] more unfortunate that they
[47:25] granted a right in without a
[47:27] right out because my concern as
[47:30] a driver is that a right in is
[47:33] going to potentially drive more
[47:34] vehicles, because you're right
[47:36] there on 528 you see the right
[47:38] in I'll go right in there and
[47:40] then realize that I can't get
[47:42] out and I'll have to go out
[47:43] onto that residential road. So
[47:45] I think they actually did you a
[47:46] disservice by granting the
[47:47] right in, in the absence of the
[47:50] right out. And so we have to
[47:53] weigh everything in a 360 view.
[47:57] I think we are held not by the
[47:59] emotion of how we feel about
[48:01] the project. I actually have
[48:05] zero concern around the the
[48:07] health component. I'm not
[48:10] worried necessarily about the
[48:12] tanks. If there were a couple
[48:14] of different pieces to this
[48:16] project. I'm not concerned
[48:18] about the gas station. Right.
[48:19] And that's actually not a
[48:21] concern that we are allowed to
[48:23] consider when we are
[48:26] considering this by our charter,
[48:28] what we are required to
[48:29] consider is what's brought
[48:31] before us when we're looking at
[48:33] the Soo district. And as
[48:34] Councilor Lewis pointed out,
[48:36] one of the things that we are
[48:39] to evaluate is the proposed
[48:41] ingress, egress, parking and
[48:42] circulation. And so
[48:44] unfortunately, I think for this
[48:45] project, it is not the use
[48:47] that's the issue. It's the
[48:49] ingress egress and the
[48:50] circulation that becomes an
[48:53] issue. And while it is not your
[48:57] fault that an ndot continues to
[48:58] fail, the citizens of Rio
[48:59] Rancho when it comes to New
[49:02] Mexico Highway 528, it is still
[49:04] our responsibility to take that
[49:05] into consideration. And so
[49:08] because of that, I find that
[49:11] this site plan still fails to
[49:14] meet the requirements. That
[49:15] would be necessary and
[49:18] satisfied for me to approve it.
[49:20] I would really actually like to
[49:22] approve this, but I think we
[49:23] find ourselves in a difficult
[49:25] situation, and I encourage the
[49:27] citizens of Rio Rancho to
[49:28] continue to voice your concerns
[49:31] about this and the issues that
[49:36] are in on 528. It is in our
[49:37] public record, so you can take
[49:40] a look at it on the the the
[49:42] components of the docket for
[49:46] today that in the memo, Nmdot
[49:49] identifies on 81426 that there
[49:51] is a concern and a need to
[49:53] review the 528 corridor, and
[49:55] that is fully necessary so that
[49:56] we can get the development that
[49:59] we need. And I think until we
[50:00] have that, we're going to be
[50:02] stuck in a very difficult
[50:03] situation. So thank you very
[50:04] much, MR. Mayor.
[50:04] Thank you,
[50:07] councilor Culbreath COUNCILMAN.
[50:11] MR. Mayor. I want to thank the
[50:13] three folks that that gave
[50:16] comment. They their comments
[50:17] were civil. They were well
[50:18] researched. They clearly put in
[50:21] a lot of time and effort to
[50:23] figure things out. And that's
[50:25] really useful. And so thank you
[50:27] for coming up and giving us
[50:28] that information so that we can
[50:31] make a decision here today. I
[50:32] do think, and I'll echo what
[50:34] has been shared today, that the
[50:35] Department of Transportation
[50:38] for the state has created a
[50:40] roadblock to economic
[50:41] development in our city. And
[50:44] that's not okay. And I hope
[50:45] that they hear that message
[50:48] tonight and that they can
[50:51] change things around. What
[50:53] we're supposed to do tonight is
[50:55] review and approve a site plan,
[50:56] right? We're not talking as has
[50:57] been shared already. We're not
[50:59] talking about whether a, a gas
[51:01] station is a good idea or not.
[51:02] I happen to think that it's a
[51:04] fantastic product. I think
[51:05] Maverick is a great product.
[51:07] I'd love to see a Maverick in
[51:10] Rio Rancho, but part of that
[51:11] review that we're supposed to
[51:14] do is determine ingress, egress,
[51:15] parking and circulation. And
[51:17] that's quite a broad review. I
[51:18] think that encompasses whether
[51:20] it whether the ingress and
[51:23] egress is reasonable. And in my
[51:24] mind, and I'm echoing again
[51:26] what's already been shared when
[51:27] you root, when you have when
[51:31] you root 100% of exit from a
[51:34] commercial development onto a
[51:37] residential road with front
[51:38] yard, front yards facing that
[51:40] road is just not reasonable.
[51:42] And I couldn't in good
[51:44] conscience vote in favor of it.
[51:46] If that was my home, it would
[51:49] be devastating to me. And so I
[51:52] think it's also it would be
[51:53] inconsistent with what we've
[51:55] done throughout the city. So
[51:56] anytime you have a road like
[51:58] this, that's that's essentially
[52:00] residential road, that's that
[52:02] commercial traffic is feeding
[52:04] onto the home. You're usually
[52:06] if there are residences on the
[52:07] other side of that road, it's
[52:09] usually a backyard or at least
[52:11] a side yard. And if and if
[52:13] those of you who are listening
[52:14] to, to my comment here can
[52:16] reflect on that, if you look
[52:17] around the city, that's you can
[52:18] say, that's that's right. You
[52:20] know, I can't I can't think of
[52:22] an example where we have front
[52:23] yards facing a road that's
[52:24] going to have this level of
[52:26] traffic, high volume traffic.
[52:28] And so that's where I stand. I
[52:29] hope that the Dot hears this
[52:31] message tonight and that there
[52:33] can be future discussions so
[52:35] that there can be a way to move
[52:37] forward on this project. But I
[52:40] yield. Thank you, COUNCILMAN.
[52:42] MR. Mayor, Councilor Dobson.
[52:43] So
[52:44] I have to echo everybody's
[52:45] concerns. So I'm not going to
[52:48] repeat them. But I just want to
[52:51] say that I really hope that we
[52:53] can find a way to work with you
[52:57] because I think we need a
[52:59] maverick here. And I want us to
[53:00] have a maverick here. I don't
[53:02] know that we can have a
[53:03] maverick at this location,
[53:05] because I'm also very concerned
[53:07] about I, I work in that area. I
[53:09] don't live there, but I take
[53:10] care of people that live there.
[53:12] And I know what it's like. And
[53:14] we don't want to put 500 cars
[53:16] on that road. I just can't do
[53:20] it. Thank you very much.
[53:20] Thank
[53:21] you, Councilor.
[53:22] Dobson,
[53:23] director, and I have a couple
[53:25] of clarification questions for.
[53:28] You.
[53:29] First, there was a
[53:31] discussion by MISS Eisenberg
[53:34] about notification. Can you
[53:35] describe the process and how
[53:37] it's determined who gets
[53:43] notified?
[53:44] MR. Mayor? Yes. So
[53:46] when we look at notifications,
[53:50] we use chapter 150.03. And so
[53:53] for site plans, the for
[53:54] notifications, we are required
[53:57] to notify adjacent properties.
[53:59] And when we are talking about
[54:02] adjacent properties, those are
[54:03] properties that are lying next
[54:05] to or bordering the subject
[54:06] property
[54:11] Site and so on. It's
[54:12] kind of hard to see on this map,
[54:15] but on the right hand side, the
[54:17] lots that are in the dark
[54:19] border are the lots that are
[54:21] the subject property. So the
[54:22] five lots that for the site
[54:26] plan and then the lots that are
[54:27] hatched around them are the
[54:30] lots that were notified. And
[54:33] again, those are by our code.
[54:35] The lots that are adjacent to
[54:38] the subject site.
[54:39] Thank you.
[54:40] And then can you bring up the
[54:44] site plan? MR. And I, this MAY
[54:46] be a subject that doesn't need
[54:49] to be discussed, but. MR.
[54:50] Mentioned something about
[54:51] there's not a dedicated right
[54:53] turn off of. 528 and I believe
[54:55] I saw one when I think it's
[54:57] shown there on the bottom of
[54:59] the screen. Is that accurate?
[55:03] So, MR. Mayor, yes. So from
[55:05] what the developer is going to
[55:06] build out, what they'll be
[55:08] required to build out would be
[55:10] a dedicated right turn lane
[55:12] from New Mexico. 528 onto
[55:14] Obregon. And then there would
[55:16] be additional turn lanes that
[55:18] they would need to build from
[55:21] Obregon back onto 528. And then
[55:23] with the updated site plan,
[55:24] there would be that additional
[55:26] right in off of 528. And I can,
[55:28] if you bear with me for a
[55:33] second. That would be this
[55:35] location here.
[55:36] So while we've
[55:40] got this up and looking at the
[55:44] right in only off of Obregon is,
[55:46] is the reason that that can't
[55:49] be a right in, right out due to
[55:50] the proximity of the
[55:52] intersection is. I just was
[55:53] curious if that ever got that
[55:56] question ever got asked.
[55:57] Yes,
[55:59] MR. Mayor. Yes. So it's the
[56:01] proximity to Monterey and then
[56:04] the proximity to 528.
[56:04] Okay.
[56:06] Thank you. That's all I have.
[56:08] Anything further from council?
[56:10] MR. Mayor, if I MAY, real fast.
[56:12] MR. City Manager.
[56:14] Elaborate on
[56:17] the. Currently on 528
[56:18] southbound. There is no right
[56:21] turn or deceleration lane to
[56:23] overgrown. Same thing on 528
[56:24] northbound. There's not a
[56:26] deceleration lane onto Corrales
[56:29] Road. The reference from Rio
[56:31] Rancho pd in their
[56:32] conversations because they
[56:33] participate in different safety
[56:35] reviews of the. The dot part of
[56:37] the different meetings. They
[56:39] have highlighted that from a
[56:40] law enforcement perspective.
[56:42] And I think our our engineering
[56:43] folks and development services
[56:44] and public works have also
[56:45] highlighted that that that is
[56:47] the an issue at that
[56:49] intersection is the lack of
[56:50] deceleration lanes to make
[56:54] right turns east or west.
[56:54] Thank
[56:56] you, MR. City Manager. Anything
[56:59] further from council.
[56:59] MR. Mayor?
[57:02] I just wanted to ask, I don't
[57:03] know if that makes a difference
[57:05] or not, but in any of my
[57:08] counterparts. But in the
[57:09] conversation back with the dot,
[57:10] they said that the current
[57:12] proposed development would not
[57:13] meet the required spacing of
[57:17] the 450 to 625 part parcel
[57:19] access, meaning it's not wide
[57:20] enough for them. That's their
[57:21] validation for not giving the
[57:23] right in right out. However, if
[57:25] you measure the space, we're
[57:27] actually in the 590 foot range.
[57:29] So so it's just someone making
[57:31] a decision. There's also the
[57:32] opportunity that I don't know
[57:33] if they're willing or not, but
[57:35] the the property owner could
[57:39] throw in another half acre and,
[57:40] and make those measurements. So
[57:42] it's very doable. It's clearly
[57:44] a decision on the part of the
[57:45] dot to not be workable. So I
[57:48] just I wanted to put that out
[57:52] there. My apologies to Maverick.
[57:54] You know, I tend to agree with
[57:55] a lot of the comments that have
[57:57] been said. And I think it's
[57:58] somewhat, if not very short
[58:00] sighted. We have a solution
[58:02] here that not only solves the
[58:04] problem with the Maverick, but
[58:05] several other lots that are
[58:08] along the frontage of 528, and
[58:09] we are going to lose that
[58:12] opportunity because again, you
[58:14] got the rest of the council has
[58:16] thrown the dot under the bus
[58:18] very, very effectively, so I
[58:20] won't be beating a dead horse.
[58:23] But it's very unfortunate that
[58:25] that simple change could have
[58:26] resulted in a different outcome
[58:28] here. Although we haven't taken
[58:30] a vote yet. That said, is there
[58:33] anything further from council?
[58:38] MISS Davis, call the roll.
[58:41] Councilor.
[58:43] Yes.
[58:43] Councilor
[58:48] Dobson, councilor Tyler. No.
[58:49] Councilor. Man.
[58:50] No.
[58:51] Councilor
[58:53] Culbreth. No. Councilor list.
[59:00] No. The d 23 fails.
[59:02] All right,
[59:04] moving on to the second reading
[59:06] of ordinances. We have none.
[59:08] First reading of ordinances. We
[59:10] also have none. Discussion and
[59:12] deliberation. We have no items
[59:15] there. So it's Europe. MR. City
[59:16] manager.
[59:17] MR. Mayor, members of
[59:18] the governing body. Good
[59:20] evening. I'd like to kind of go
[59:23] through a couple items this
[59:27] evening, if I MAY. First of all,
[59:29] tomorrow, SEPTEMBER 11th, nine
[59:30] over 11. It's hard to believe
[59:34] it's been 25 years. It's very
[59:35] you know, think about I
[59:36] appreciate the moment of
[59:39] reflection, mayor, for that
[59:40] tough day in America. Our
[59:43] history. For me, I was living
[59:44] halfway across the country. I'd
[59:46] been in my new, new location
[59:47] for about two weeks when it
[59:49] happened so far from family and
[59:51] friends. But visiting the nine
[59:53] over 11 memorial in New York
[59:54] City was a tremendous moment
[59:56] for me as well. Actually
[59:57] visited with one of our Rio
[59:58] Rancho, was retired
[59:59] firefighters, so it was a
[1:00:01] special moment for him as well.
[1:00:02] For us to go through that and
[1:00:04] just reflect on what it means
[1:00:06] for our country and, you know,
[1:00:07] personally, been very busy of
[1:00:09] late. And so hopefully I find
[1:00:11] some time to take a moment to
[1:00:14] reflect on. On nine over 11
[1:00:17] tomorrow and, and thoughts and
[1:00:18] thoughts for everyone who lost
[1:00:20] close family and friends in
[1:00:23] that process. A couple other
[1:00:26] things. This Saturday, pooch
[1:00:30] plunge at Heinz from it's from
[1:00:31] 10 to 2 and nestled in Pooch
[1:00:34] Plunge, we have our counselor
[1:00:36] governing body meet and greet
[1:00:38] from 11 to 1, so we look
[1:00:39] forward, look forward to seeing
[1:00:43] folks out at Heinz Park this
[1:00:44] weekend. I would like to kind
[1:00:46] of cover over, cover some other
[1:00:47] kind of business items, if I
[1:00:50] MAY. As we know, there is a
[1:00:52] election in the first Tuesday
[1:00:56] of NOVEMBER. It is a federal
[1:00:59] and state election. Hearing
[1:01:00] some feedback from the
[1:01:02] governing body, in particular,
[1:01:05] Councilor Tyler, we sent a
[1:01:07] proactive letter to the
[1:01:10] declared candidates about the
[1:01:12] city's sign ordinance for
[1:01:13] temporary signs in the right of
[1:01:15] way that was sent to the
[1:01:17] information listed on the New
[1:01:18] Mexico Secretary of State's
[1:01:20] website. So if there's any
[1:01:21] candidates out there listening
[1:01:24] or people supporting candidates,
[1:01:26] helping candidates, please look
[1:01:28] at the letter. We had one
[1:01:29] candidate say, yeah, I got your
[1:01:31] letter, and I threw it away.
[1:01:32] That was after we picked up
[1:01:34] several of their signs for not
[1:01:36] having the appropriate permit.
[1:01:40] So, or simply email
[1:01:41] planning@rr.Gov. In the
[1:01:42] planning department, the
[1:01:44] Planning Division will assist
[1:01:47] the campaign in the signage
[1:01:49] process. A lot of conversations
[1:01:52] around license plate readers.
[1:01:54] As we know at our recent work
[1:01:58] session in AUGUST, captain and
[1:02:00] members of the Rio Rancho
[1:02:01] Police Department provided a.
[1:02:04] An overview and an information
[1:02:07] session on on on license plate
[1:02:09] readers. Information from that
[1:02:10] presentation has been posted on
[1:02:11] a dedicated page on the city's
[1:02:14] website. You know, you can find
[1:02:16] it on our m.Gov or simply
[1:02:18] Google Rio Rancho license
[1:02:19] plates reader. You can find a
[1:02:21] lot of information. We put it
[1:02:23] out there on purpose to share
[1:02:25] it with the public so they can
[1:02:27] learn more about how the city
[1:02:28] of Rio Rancho is using the
[1:02:29] license plate reader programs.
[1:02:32] So again, encourage folks to to
[1:02:34] look at that as a resource. And,
[1:02:36] and it's there on the city's
[1:02:41] website also, I have here,
[1:02:42] Peter went upstairs and got
[1:02:44] some water bills for me. I
[1:02:45] thought it would be important
[1:02:47] in a timely to address
[1:02:48] something that was, that was
[1:02:52] said this evening, the city,
[1:02:54] you know, the the the water.
[1:02:56] Rate adjustments that came up,
[1:02:58] you know, a year ago, we've
[1:03:00] acknowledged it. And talked
[1:03:02] about the process to get it
[1:03:04] corrected. Unfortunately, given
[1:03:08] a rather old erp system wasn't
[1:03:11] an easy process in calculating
[1:03:12] those credits in our enterprise
[1:03:14] resource planning system, our
[1:03:17] erp, starting on AUGUST 11th,
[1:03:19] the city started to issue the
[1:03:22] credits for fy 26 and the
[1:03:24] billing cycle of SEPTEMBER. We
[1:03:27] will see fy 25 and fy 24, and
[1:03:31] then OCTOBER will be fy 23 and
[1:03:36] fy 22, NOVEMBER fy 21 and fy 20.
[1:03:39] There are messages in the bill
[1:03:40] explaining that. And the big
[1:03:42] bold blue. So folks are
[1:03:44] starting to see those. It's
[1:03:47] also worth noting that we did
[1:03:49] offer to individuals. When this
[1:03:51] was acknowledged in this. This
[1:03:52] error was detected and that
[1:03:55] came from citizen input that
[1:03:56] anyone wanted to request a
[1:03:57] credit at that time and not
[1:03:59] wait for us to go through that
[1:04:00] process. We calculate credits
[1:04:02] and issue those manually. We
[1:04:03] had a handful of residents, 5
[1:04:05] to 10 residents or so took us
[1:04:07] up on that. But the process is
[1:04:09] rolling out right now, and
[1:04:11] there is a message in the water
[1:04:13] bill up in the upper left hand
[1:04:15] corner. So with that, MR. Mayor,
[1:04:17] members of the governing body,
[1:04:18] have a good evening.
[1:04:19] Thank you.
[1:04:21] Thank you, MR. City Manager. We
[1:04:39] are adjourned.