Happy weekend all.

I wanted to post some updates based on the past few days, but first and foremost again ask you to continue sharing this petition and also please do your best to deliver a statement and attend the upcoming meeting;  Nov 21 @ 6:00pm. (Town Hall of Edgewood Commission Chambers, 171-A State Rd. 344, Edgewood, NM 87015)

After some additional communications between community members and the Edgewood town clerk, as well as multiple confirmations by EMPAC, please note the following about written statements:

1. If you are a property owner that received a notice from Edgewood and your opposition letter is mailed, it must be notarized and received no later than Nov 18. (NOTARIZED)
   
2. If you did not receive a notice from Edgewood and your opposition letter is mailed, it must be received no later than Nov 18. (Notarization Not Required)
3. If your letter is hand delivered to the Clerk or P&Z Office, it must be received no later than Nov 18. (Notarization rules as per #1 & #2 apply)
   
4. If you hand deliver your letter at the Nov 21 P&Z meeting (allowed) AND if you plan to make a statement, you will be sworn in and therefore your letter does not need to be notarized.  However, it is very possible that anyone who did not receive a notice from Edgewood will not be allowed to speak and your letter may be disallowed if not notarized  (i.e. we recommend getting your letter notarized if possible).
5. Email your letter to the Edgewood Town Clerk clerk@edgewood-nm.gov demonstrating harm by Nov 18, notary not required. Ask for a REPLY email stating that it will be included in the public record.

Yes, this is all confusing - and one could argue that it is so intentionally. The bottom line recommendation is that you should do your best to get your statement notarized and delivered/mailed ahead of time, unless you know for sure you will be allowed to make a statement in person (affected direct property owner/legal entity). 

EMPAC has graciously drafted their letter and provided it ahead of time as well - please review it and consider approaching your statement similarly; focused on how you will be harmed by this project (use these words to establish standing). This is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. 

Here are some key resources to help you both understand the situation and draft your statement:

1. Key messaging and draft letter from EMPAC, here <--- READ THIS.
2. Updated situation overview, here
3. Process & Proceedings: here
4. 1999 Subdivision Ordinance, 1999-R: PDF
5. 2019 Subdivision Ordinance Codes: PDF
6. September 28-29, 2021 Edgewood Planning & Zoning Meeting minutes: PDF
7. September 28-29, 2021 Edgewood Planning & Zoning Meeting video: Facebook
8. Master Plan slide deck from September 28 hearing: PDF
9. NM Office of the State Engineer: Website 
10. Estancia Basin Water Plan, OSE, 2016: PDF
11. Phillip Rust, BernCo hydrogeologist,: Site w/ Interview on EM Water Management

I also want to point out a few key facts that might be useful in your conversation, statements, etc.

• The original Campbell Ranch Master Plan (CRMP) states that average annual precipitation is 20.5 inches and the watershed size is 81,900 acres. Thus, annual watershed contribution is 45.6 billion gallons. 
  • This is demonstrably false, especially with the removal of "Village 1" from the plan. This 20.5 number is for Sandia Park, which is geographically further from the site and toward the peak, where - of course - there would be more precipitation. On average, locations of better approximation are San Antonito (-2.44" yoy trend, 16.2" avg), San Pedro Creek (-3.08" yoy, 14.6" avg), and Sandia Knolls (-2.91" yoy, 16.07" avg). So we're decreasing yoy (11 of last 15 years have -5% yoy rate or greater) and their initial estimate was at least 21% elevated. 
    
    • Ref, Ref, Ref
    • This means that rather than contributing 636 ac ft water which could serve ~2270 homes (0.28 ac ft per unit estimate), they could only support 1790 homes. Considering these calculations are for the entirely of all villages (4000 dwellings) this is less than half.
  • Additionally, the CRMP attests that studies in 1975 and 1980 (50 years ago) concluded the basin area "had not declined since the late 1950s" and no known "existing wells in the area have gone dry". 
    • First, these studies are nearly 50 years old and more recent analysis shows an active decline of 1-2 ft/yr. The Estancia basin (East and West) are closed. The middle rio grande basin is in provable decline and at risk. 
    • Second, the Subdivision Act (NMSA 1978, 47-7-11.2) was amended in 2013 to require proof of water availability prior to final approval of a subdivision plat. This consists of (1) NMOSE-issues permit  and (2) proof of water provider hook up along with affirmation from State Engineer of water requirements being met by said provider. Additionally, the act was amended to prohibit approval of a subdivision permit if the water source for the subdivision is domestic wells.
    • Ref (pg 19), Ref (Page 36, 4.1.1.13 Subdivision Act)
• The original CRMP does not address any wildlife or conservation related hurdles in detail. Specifically, there are confirmed Species of Concern from New Mexico Game & Fish (NMDGF) under the Wildlife Conservation Act (WCA), including the Spotted Bat (T), Yellow-billed Cuckoo (T), Aplomado Falcon (E), Peregrine Falcon (T), Gray Vireo (T), Ornate Box Turtle, Smooth Greensnake (V), Northern Leopard Frog (V), among others. The site is a Crucial Habitat (Level 2) as per NMDGF.
  • Ref , Ref, Ref, Ref, Ref
• The revised CRMP attempts to leverage previous Edgewood Subdivision Ordinance (1999-R), primarily due to the definition of a "minor subdivision". However, that ordinance has been amended (repeal & replace) no less than 4 times since then. The minor subdivision definition and process was removed in 2017, and all re-plats are subject to a 24-month freeze. CFCs strategy here is clear: use an outdated Ordinance to take advantage of the minor subdivision definition and also get an explicit exemption (variance) for the 24-month re-plat/sub-plat period so that they can move individual developers in and build quickly, rather than waiting as per ordinance.
  • 1999-R defined it's jurisdictional area as "3 miles from town/corporate boundaries". At the time, this likely would not have included the current CR property/sites.
  • All "variance" clauses state that "relief may not be granted if it is detrimental to the public good or impairs the intent and purpose of this [Ordinance/Document]"
  • According to scope of responsibility definition, all variances from the master plan must be reviewed and decision-ed by the governing body, not by planning & zoning committee. Given the asks in the CR amended proposal, the governing body should review and decision first, before P&Z. 
  • There is no known evidence or precedent that allow approval of a master plan to permit a developer to proceed under zoning regs applicable at time of approval instead of time of application/execution. Using the 1999-R ordinance is not supported by legal precedent. Vested rights only apply to projects actively in-progress, which CR has not been.
• On community perspectives, here are some raw stats:
  • 15+ nextdoor threads (with hundreds of replies in total) in the 30 days from Oct 10 - Nov 10.
  • Another 15+ threads in the last 5 days on the same topic.
  • change.org petition generated 1100+ signatures in 72 hours, and $2500 in donations. 
  • change.org petition has been "shared" (re-posted) 450 times, meaning nearly half of signers feel strongly enough about the issue to try and inform their social groups and community
  • change.org petition has been seen 3000 times (signer rate of nearly 40%) and 60 people have left comments on their reasoning and concerns
  • 500+ people are subscribed to EMPAC updates

What now?

Please prepare a statement and get it on the record. Focus on how you will be harmed.  Use the data above and from EMPAC to help strengthen your message.

Please plan to attend the Nov 21 meeting in-person if you are able.

Continue spreading the word socially - engage with your legislative representatives, media, and advocacy groups.

SHOW UP next Thursday. Even if you don't get to speak, a show of overwhelming force has significant value. You matter. Your voice matters. 5 people should not be swayed against the community they are tasked to represent and protect.

***

Edit: If you comment on this petition, I will be include that comment in the statement provided. By default I will not include your name, as the goal is simply to demonstrate the sheer volume of opposition to this proposal. If you want to be on record please generate a statement and have it submitted via the guidance at the top of this update and EMPAC's latest announcement.