| 1 | County Notices of Decision, Notice of Appeal, and Appeal ApplicationThe procedural foundation of this appeal — the Zoning Administrator's Notice of Decision (March 18 and April 14, 2026, ZA2026-0024) approving the conditional use, together with the Notice of Appeal and Appeal Application (Case No. ZBA2026-0001) by which the Appeal Coalition first challenged that approval before the County Planning Commission (CPC) sitting as the Board of Adjustment. Establishes the underlying decision, the appeal chain, and the Appeal Coalition's standing and timeliness. | Included | View → |
| 2 | County Planning Commission (CPC) Notice of Decision (July 1, 2026 hearing) — Findings & Conditions of approvalThe decision being appealed to the Board of County Commissioners — the County Planning Commission (CPC)'s July 1, 2026 decision denying the Appeal Coalition's appeal and thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional-use approval, with its Findings and Conditions. This is the document containing Finding 1 (characterizing the use as merely “a church and incidental facilities”), Finding 14 (finding the site within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan), and Finding 11 / Condition 9 (deferring the required Traffic Impact Study to the building-permit phase) — the specific findings the brief challenges as unsupported by substantial evidence and legally erroneous under Section 24. | Included | View → |
| 3 | County Planning Commission (CPC) Hearing Agenda (July 1, 2026) — Public agendaThe public agenda for the July 1, 2026 CPC hearing — documents that the matter was scheduled, noticed, and heard on that date, and frames the order of business in which the Appeal Coalition's timely continuance motions were filed but never ruled upon (see Exhibits 7, 8, 9). | Included | View → |
| 4 | Staff Report — BA2026-0001 / ZA2026-0024 (July 1, 2026 County Planning Commission (CPC) staff report; deferred from June 3, 2026)The County staff report that recommended denying the Appeal Coalition's appeal (thereby upholding the conditional-use approval) — the document the CPC relied on. Per the brief, it is part of a record in which no document — not the application, the staff report, the site plan notes, or the Notice of Decision — ever states the proposed building's height in feet, and it recommended deferring the Traffic Impact Analysis to the building-permit stage rather than requiring it at the conditional-use permit approval stage, the legal error at the center of this appeal. | Included | View → |
| 5 | Original site plan (45,300 SF footprint, 235 parking spaces; dated 1/14/2026)The originally noticed plan — original Sheet A-100, dated January 14, 2026 and stamped by Scott C. Anderson (Attachment 10, Packet Pg. 1084), depicting a 45,300-SF building footprint with 235 parking spaces provided against 205 required (154 for the place of worship + 51 for the school). This is the school-inclusive project the public received notice of and prepared to respond to — before it was changed verbally at the July 1 hearing with no re-notice (see Exhibits 6, 23, 24). | Included | View → |
| 6 | Applicant's revised site plan — sheets C-100 (4/6/2026), S-100 (4/6/2026), A-100 (1/14/2026) & A-200 (9/11/2025), all dated months before the July 1, 2026 hearing (reduced to 43,288 SF footprint); these were NOT “New Site Plans”- On June 30, 2026 — the afternoon before the hearing — the Applicant submitted supplemental materials, including a revised site plan, which was presented at the end of closing arguments and entered into the record verbally.
- No actual “New Site Plan” was ever submitted; the Applicant re-labeled the same original plan, which still depicts the school/daycare it purported to remove.
- The the Appeal Coalition and public had no advance notice and no meaningful opportunity to review, analyze, or respond to the revised submission.
- The County’s own administrative policy (Peggau email, Jun 30, 2026) held the public and the Appeal Coalition to a noon deadline eight days before the hearing (June 23, 2026), after which comments were not automatically entered into the record — an asymmetric standard applied only to one side.
- Per the brief, this sequence constitutes an appealable procedural due-process violation, because the Appeal Coalition and the public were denied fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to review and respond to the actual plan on which the Board based its decision — an independent ground for reversal or remand.
- At the hearing, the Applicant was given speaking time to present the day-before revised site plan at the end of closing arguments — but the Appeal Coalition and public were given no opportunity to respond to it (per the brief’s Statement of Facts).
- The Board voted on evidence only one side was permitted to address.
| Included | Site Plan → Deadline Email → |
| 7 | Director Hamm Memorandum of Understanding (July 6–7, 2026)the Appeal Coalition's memorandum documenting Director Nicholas Hamm's verbal statements after the July 1 hearing, prepared after Hamm declined to answer the Appeal Coalition's formal written inquiry in writing and instead directed the Appeal Coalition to call him. Included because it anchors the brief's procedural due-process argument:- Unanswered continuance motions: the Appeal Coalition filed timely 60-day and 120-day continuance motions (to obtain experts, review traffic/safety, and get expert zoning and traffic advice — because nothing was on record to prove the burden). Neither motion was ruled upon on the record before, during, or after the hearing; the hearing proceeded as if they had never been filed — a procedural due-process violation.
- Refusal to answer in writing: After the hearing, the Appeal Coalition submitted a formal written inquiry asking how the Board had managed the continuance motions and what formal action had been taken. Rather than providing written answers, Director Hamm directed the Appeal Coalition to call him — informal handling of a formal procedural inquiry.
- Hamm's verbal admission (the MOU itself): The MOU documents Hamm's statements that the Board “does not have to acknowledge” the continuance requests it “did not elect to review” — an admission that the Board simply ignored pending procedural motions.
- Transparency / fairness problem: In a quasi-judicial setting, pending motions and procedural questions must be addressed openly and in writing. Routing formal inquiries to a phone call and ignoring written continuance motions undermines transparency and fairness and reinforces the due-process concern.
- Connects to the relief sought: The brief asks the Board of County Commissioners to rule on and uphold the continuance motions (relief 3), and to direct future Boards to issue written rulings on continuance motions and written responses to formal procedural inquiries, entered into the official case file (relief 4).
| Included | View → |
| 8 | Continuance letter to Planning — Continuance request & formal inquiry (July 6–7, 2026)the Appeal Coalition filed timely motions for a 60-day and 120-day continuance to allow time to obtain a project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis and expert review. Both motions were raised on record before the hearing commenced — neither was mentioned, voted on, or ruled upon. The hearing proceeded as if the motions had not been filed. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, proceeding to a full hearing and final vote without ruling on pending continuance motions denies the Appeal Coalition a fair hearing and constitutes a procedural due-process violation — an independent ground for reversal or remand. | Included | View → |
| 9 | Director Hamm response email (June 25, 2026)Director Hamm's June 25, 2026 written response to the Appeal Coalition's pre-hearing inquiry regarding the July 1, 2026 hearing (ZA2026-0024 / BA2026-0001), in which Hamm states that “the format of the hearing is at the discretion of the CPC” and “staff doesn’t make that determination,” offering only to “share your position on this point with the Chair.” Included because it documents that the Appeal Coalition raised his procedural concerns in writing before the hearing — yet every due-process violation the brief identifies followed anyway: the 60-day and 120-day continuance motions were never ruled upon (Exhibits 7, 8), the revised site plan was sprung on the Board after roughly 3.5 hours of testimony (Exhibits 6, 20), and the Appeal Coalition was told to take his seat and denied comment. Deflection to “CPC discretion” did not cure the defects the Appeal Coalition flagged in advance. | Included | View → |
| 10 | Balloon Fiesta letterIndependent June 25, 2026 letter from Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta, Inc. (AIBF, Packet Pg. 1820–1822) raising traffic, public-safety, and operational-compatibility concerns and expressly noting it was “unclear whether a comprehensive traffic impact study was conducted.” In lieu of the neutral, evidence-based analysis AIBF requested, Chairwoman Chavez asked the Applicant about Balloon Fiesta-time flexibility and the Applicant confirmed it would accommodate scheduling adjustments — no project-specific TIA was produced, no Balloon-season analysis was placed in the record, and no enforceable conditions were tied to AIBF’s eight specific requests before the vote. These are year-round concerns, not seasonal ones — the brief expressly notes the site sits in an area “routinely affected by balloon overflights and occasional balloon landings” and AIBF requested evaluation of building height and structural features for compatibility with “seasonal and year-round activities.” Coalition observations:- AIBF has already purchased a dedicated landing area directly northwest of the subject property to preserve safe landing corridors in the predominant flight path.
- A large elevated structure in that flight path creates permanent vertical obstruction to overflights, landings, and retrieval operations.
- The site is a perfect elevated vantage point for morning balloon viewing, and nothing in the record — and no condition of approval — prevents the property from being opened to a high volume of spectators to watch the balloons each Fiesta morning.
- That foreseeable seasonal use would concentrate additional vehicle trips, parking demand, pedestrian activity, and emergency-access risk on an already congested rural corridor.
- None of this spectator load, and none of the year-round overflight/landing risk, was analyzed in the record.
That a sophisticated third-party stakeholder independently raised the same Section 24 defect the Appeal Coalition raised is powerful corroboration that the record lacked substantial evidence. | Included | View → |
| 11 | Official certified hearing transcript — July 1, 2026 CPC hearingCertified verbatim transcript of the July 1, 2026 County Planning Commission (CPC) hearing on this matter (BA2026-0001 / ZA2026-0024), prepared by Julian Serna, CCR (Certified Court Reporter). Transcript pages TR-1 through TR-255. Certified July 21, 2026. All transcript citations on this portal refer to TR page numbers. | Included | View → |
| 12 | Preliminary Trip Generation Assessment — From the recordPreliminary trip-generation assessment prepared by the Appeal Coalition (not Terry O. Brown) and placed on the record before the July 1, 2026 hearing — a screening-level analysis compiled solely from record-based inputs: the Applicant's own data, the record, and the 2020 Murphy Express Traffic Study (the only traffic study in the record, created and stamped by Terry O. Brown, P.E.).- What it shows: ITE-style screening on the Board-imposed 60,000-SF cap projects ~240–300 peak-hour trips, cross-checked against the Appeal Coalition's record-based weekly table (Exhibit 14: 2,164 weekly / 560 Friday).
- Threshold exceeded: Both analyses exceed the County's DPM Ch. 7 § 7-5(C)(2) 100-peak-hour-trip TIA threshold by multiples — confirming a formal, engineer-prepared TIA was required before conditional-use approval, and deferral could not retroactively supply the substantial evidence Section 24 requires.
- Whose duty it was: A traffic screening answers a threshold land-use question — whether the site's trip generation fits the location and the corridor's documented capacity. That question was the Applicant's to answer; it was mandatory and required little effort (the Appeal Coalition compiled this one from the Applicant's own data already in the record).
- County's failure: The Applicant provided none; the County did not hold the Applicant accountable and instead pushed the project through without the mandatory evidence — leaving the Appeal Coalition to supply, on the community's behalf, the very screening the County should have required. The County should not have put the Appeal Coalition in that position. The screening demonstrates that the proposed use does not fit this location and flags the need for a formal, project-specific TIA before — not after — approval, exactly the determination the County was obligated to make before authorizing the land use.
| Included | View → |
| 13 | ITE Trip Generation Manual — 11th Ed. (2021) cited in brief; the 2025 updated 12th Edition is now available and is the current standardBorrow a copy from the County or a source library, or purchase online — the 2025 updated 12th Edition is available | Cited | Purchase Online → |
| 14 | Trip Generation Analysis — 2,164 weekly trips / 560 Friday / 168 PM peakthe Appeal Coalition's record-based trip exhibit, prepared from the Applicant's own written attendance figures, weekly operating schedule, and facility descriptions in the record, applying published ITE occupancy rates by activity type.- What it shows: A conservative estimate of ~2,164 vehicle trips per week and 560 trips on a single Friday — before counting population transfer, regional draw, or Eid events.
- Corridor context: The only traffic study in the record (2020 Murphy Express, by Terry O. Brown, P.E.) projected 168 PM peak-hour trips (86 entering + 82 exiting) for one 12-pump gas station across the street, with documented Level of Service F on Alameda — confirming these volumes are material.
- Threshold exceeded: The record-based numbers already exceed the County's DPM Ch. 7 § 7-5(C)(2) 100-peak-hour-trip TIA threshold several times over.
- Not a substitute for a TIA: This is a transparent, layperson calculation — not a project-specific TIA — demonstrating that the mandatory screening the County should have required would have flagged this use for a formal TIA before approval.
- Independently corroborated: By the separate ITE-based estimate the brief attributes to Terry O. Brown, P.E. (the Murphy Report engineer, relayed by the Appeal Coalition) — 410 morning / 1,300 afternoon trips for the 43,000-SF mosque — which likewise dwarfs the 100-peak-hour threshold.
| Included | View → |
| 15 | Trip-generation charts — Underlying calculationsUnderlying calculation worksheets for the Trip Generation Analysis in Exhibit 14 — showing the ITE Land Use Codes and occupancy rates applied to each activity (worship: ITE LUC 560 at 2.5 persons/vehicle; youth-program drop-offs: ITE LUC 520 at 1.15 persons/vehicle; recreation: ITE LUC 492 at 1.5 persons/vehicle) and the specific attendance figures and schedule inputs drawn from the record. Provided so that reviewers can verify each step of the calculation and reproduce the 2,164 weekly / 560 Friday estimates against the Applicant’s own submissions, without relying on any speculative or “worst-case” assumptions. | Included | View → |
| 16 | 1993 North Valley Area Plan — Corridor transportation policies & Special Use Permit subareaAdopted 1993 North Valley Area Plan, still in effect and covering the 2nd Street NW corridor and regional area (referenced in the record at Packet Pg. 35 and Packet Pg. 1053). Placed on the record to show that the County’s own long-adopted planning judgment already treats this corridor as traffic-sensitive:- Directs the County to “limit access to Second Street, Alameda Boulevard, and Montaño Road” from adjacent properties except where alternative access is unavailable or infeasible.
- Directs retention of existing residential zoning along these arterials precisely because of documented traffic and corridor-capacity concerns.
- Identifies Second Street as a potential high-capacity transportation corridor and references an ongoing “Second Street North Transportation Corridor Study” from I-40 to Roy Road.
- Subarea data show Second Street already carries a disproportionate share of heavy commercial and traffic-generating uses — 32 of 146 acres authorized only by Special Use Permit, not by right.
Together, these adopted policies demonstrate the County has recognized this corridor as requiring heightened, case-specific scrutiny of traffic-generating uses since 1993 — reinforcing that a project-specific TIA for the proposed High-Volume Use Complex was not just good practice, but consistent with the corridor-sensitive treatment the County’s own adopted area plan has required for decades. | Included | View → |
| 17 | Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Appeal Form — Form used to appeal the July 1 County Planning Commission (CPC) decision to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)The form used to appeal the CPC's July 1, 2026 decision to the Board of County Commissioners — the filing that confers BCC jurisdiction over this appeal (County Commission Record No. ZCOA2026-0013) and sets the scope of the Board's de novo review of the conditional-use approval. | Included | View → |
| 18 | Elvira Lopez appeal-procedure memo — Deadline/submission guidanceEmail chain from the Appeal Coalition to Planning Clerk Karina Peggau (July 6, 2026, cc'ing Commissioner Elvira Lopez, Director Nicholas Hamm, and others), attaching and relying on Elvira Lopez's June 18, 2026 message establishing the County's own deadline framework. Included because it anchors the brief's “day-before site-plan revision was procedurally improper” argument:- County's own deadline standard: Per Lopez's June 18 message, material had to be incorporated into the staff report by June 16, 2026, and additional comments/information from all parties were due by June 23 at noon — the procedural standard the County itself set, which the Applicant's June 30 revised site plan missed by a week.
- Revised plan never on the record in usable form: the Appeal Coalition searched the BERNCO website and agenda packet and could not find the revised site plan, then formally asked whether it was on the record, when it was posted or submitted to the Appeal Coalition, and where the updated engineered drawings were — corroborating the brief's due-process argument that the public had no meaningful opportunity to review the actual plan voted on.
- Favoritism toward the Applicant over the public and the Appeal Coalition: The County enforced its June 23 noon deadline against a critical commenter — tagging AIBF's letter as “Comments After Noon Deadline” (Packet Pg. 1820–1822) — while accepting the Applicant's June 30 revised site plan, which came a full week after that same deadline, and letting the hearing proceed on it with no re-notice. The County held the public to its deadlines but waived them for the Applicant — the same pattern the brief identifies throughout (verbal assurances and late filings accepted from the Applicant; the Appeal Coalition denied speaking time, denied access to the revised plan, and directed to a phone call instead of written answers).
- Preservation of the objection: The written inquiry (cc'ing Lopez, Hamm, and others) creates a record that the Appeal Coalition flagged the missing plan and the deadline violation, keeping the procedural / due-process issue alive for the Board of County Commissioners.
| Included | View → |
| 19 | Murphy Express Traffic Study (April 10, 2020, FINAL) — the only traffic study in the record (Packet Pg. 1407-1426); prepared and stamped by Terry O. Brown, P.E.The only traffic study in the record — the April 10, 2020 Murphy Express Traffic Study (Packet Pg. 1407–1426), prepared and stamped by Terry O. Brown, P.E. for a 12-pump gas station and convenience market on the lot directly across the street from the subject site.- Not a project-specific TIA for this use: A 2020 study of a gas station, not the proposed 60,000-SF mosque / High-Volume Use Complex. The Applicant submitted no current, project-specific traffic study, and the County produced none.
- The County inverted the burden: Section 24 places the burden on the Applicant to prove no undue traffic hazards before approval — not on the Appeal Coalition to disprove them after. The County required no TIA from the Applicant, then approved the CUP without one, forcing the Appeal Coalition to search the public record for the only existing corridor study himself and enter it into the record as supplemental material. The the Appeal Coalition should never have been put in that position. The Murphy study is not here because the County did its job; it is here because the County did not.
- Corridor already at Level of Service F: Even that modest gas-station load — 168 PM peak-hour trips (86 entering + 82 exiting, or 117 primary trips after a 30% pass-by adjustment, Packet Pg. 1416) — documented LOS F on the westbound Alameda through-movement at the Alameda / 4th Street signalized intersection under 2020 BUILD conditions (V/C 1.10, 76.8 seconds control delay, 1,348-foot 95th-percentile queue, Packet Pg. 1417), and LOS F at the Murphy Express Driveway “A” left-turn on Alameda Blvd. (64.1 seconds control delay, Packet Pg. 1409).
- Access already restricted: The corridor is so constrained that NMDOT required Driveway A on Alameda Blvd. and Bernalillo County Public Works required Driveway B on 2nd Street to be right-in / right-out only (Packet Pg. 1410) — even a gas station could not obtain full-access driveways.
- The Murphy engineer's own mosque estimate: Terry O. Brown, P.E. — the engineer who performed this corridor study — separately estimated the 43,000-SF mosque would generate 410 morning / 1,300 afternoon trips (Appeal Coalition, relaying T. Brown), dwarfing both the gas-station load that already produces LOS F and the County's 100-peak-hour TIA threshold.
- County traffic engineer's concession: County traffic engineer Julie Luna testified that Alameda “absolutely does have a congestion issue” and that “it is a regional problem,” and warned the Board that a TIA deferred to the building-permit stage might mitigate site traffic but “isn’t mitigating the regional issues” — confirming deferral cannot cure the Section 24 defect.
- No update since: The County has not assessed the failing regional and corridor infrastructure in any update since 2020, so the record contains no current baseline Level-of-Service data supporting a lawful Section 24 traffic finding for the proposed use.
| Included | View Report → |
| 20 | Site-plan access email correspondence — Appeal Coalition / Peggau (July 6–11, 2026)Email chain (July 6–11, 2026) between the Appeal Coalition and Bernalillo County Senior Planner Karina Peggau (cc'ing Director Hamm, Commissioner Lopez, and neighboring property owners), documenting the Appeal Coalition's post-hearing attempt to obtain the revised site plan the Board actually voted on — corroborating the brief's “day-before site-plan revision” due-process argument.- Revised plan was not on the record (July 6): the Appeal Coalition searched the BERNCO website “to no avail” — could not find the site-plan drawings or any documentation regarding the removal of the school/daycare, not in Attachment 12 nor in item q. (BA2026-0001 Additional Documents); “the file ends with the petition documents.”
- Uploaded only after the hearing (July 9): Peggau's reply confirms the revised plan was “now uploaded to MinuteTraq” — meaning it was not available to the public before or during the July 1 hearing, and was posted only after the Appeal Coalition's formal request, eight days after the vote.
- Still inaccessible (July 11): the Appeal Coalition's follow-up confirms he still could not retrieve it — “not available on this web site… no success… No updated site plans or information.”
- Projected at the hearing, never in the record: the Appeal Coalition notes the new site plan “was up on the screen during the discussion” — displayed to the Board at the hearing but never made part of the reviewable public record on which the vote was based.
- Denied the chance to address it: Per the brief, when the Appeal Coalition attempted to address the revision after the Applicant spoke, the Chair told him to take his seat and did not allow comment — no full hearing was held on the new site plans.
- Formal inquiry preserving the objection: The July 6 email (cc'ing Hamm and Lopez) formally demands confirmation of whether the plan is on the record, when it was posted or submitted to the Appeal Coalition, and the engineered drawings — preserving the due-process objection for the Board of County Commissioners, and requesting the undisclosed “site plans and comments… between Mr. Gould and the Applicant.”
| Included | View → |
| 21 | County GIS map — Rural land-use areaSee the Rural-zoned area map and boundary lines: no urban growth is designated anywhere near this area. A 60,000-SF gross-floor-area high-volume institutional use (~43,000 SF ground floor + ~15,000–17,000 SF second story) built to draw traffic from the greater Albuquerque metro and Sandoval County is inappropriate for this location and is the definition of encroachment into a failing small-town corridor and regional area. | Included | View → |
| 22 | City of Albuquerque jurisdiction map — the Town of Alameda is rural County land outside City limits and is not within Albuquerque's Urban Growth Area for encroachment of urban developmentMap confirming the Town of Alameda is rural, unincorporated Bernalillo County land lying outside the City of Albuquerque limits and outside its designated Urban Growth Area. Reinforces Exhibit 21 (County GIS Rural Area map) and Exhibit 25 (Rank I Comprehensive Plan Rural Area policy): a 60,000-SF high-volume institutional use drawing regional traffic is urban-scale encroachment into a rural County corridor the County's own plans protect from urbanization. | Included | View → |
| 23 | Applicant's written statement (updated for July 1, 2026 hearing; ~43,288 SF)The Applicant's own late-filed Written Statement (Additional Materials from Applicant, Packet Pg. 1798), placed on the record for the July 1 hearing. Included because it is the Applicant's own submission that:- Attendance figures driving trip generation: Supplies the attendance figures the brief relies on — 250 worshippers on a typical Friday and 615 for biannual Eid events (Packet Pg. 1798) — the numbers that drive the trip-generation analysis and exceed the County's DPM TIA threshold.
- Finding 1 mischaracterization (post-removal): Still describes the intended uses to include “educational programs, daycare, social events, and outreach activities” — i.e., the Applicant's own written statement references the school/daycare after the supposed removal, undercutting Finding 1's “church and incidental facilities” characterization.
- Footprint discrepancy / no 60,000-SF drawing: The revised Sheet S-100 (Packet Pg. 1121) reflects the four-foot northern-boundary reduction described in this Written Statement (Packet Pg. 1801) and shows a 43,288-SF first-floor footprint — no drawing in the record depicts the 60,000-SF envelope the County now says was agreed to.
- Mon-Sun incidental recreation vs. “no cars except Friday” testimony: The approved project includes high-use recreation and ancillary facilities — gym, basketball court, indoor pool, library, commercial kitchen, cafeteria, and coffee shop — operated as “incidental” to worship and open throughout the week (daily prayers, evening programs, weekend youth Quran programs). Yet the Applicant testified categorically that “There is no cars… Just during the service, there is cars” and “There is no traffic. There is no traffic and any single day, except Friday” — a direct contradiction, since those Mon-Sun facilities are approved components of the use that generated no trip analysis in the record.
| Included | View → |
| 24 | Applicant's "Dear Neighbor" upgrade letter (postmarked April 6, 2026)The Applicant's own outreach letter to neighboring property owners, postmarked April 6, 2026 (same date as the stamped site plan, Sheet S-100, and the conceptual school drop-off/queuing exhibit, Sheet C-100). Included because it is the Applicant's own written representation to neighbors that:- Finding 1 mischaracterization: The Applicant itself told neighbors “our proposal includes a licensed daycare and K-12 school located entirely within the main building” — its own representation that the school/daycare were a core, licensed component, so Finding 1's framing of them as mere “incidental facilities” mischaracterizes the Applicant's own project description.
- Informal assurance ≠ substantial evidence (and stall count is not a traffic study): The letter assures neighbors that “all school and congregational traffic remains safely on-site” because the site has 235 spaces, claimed as “more than double the county requirement.” But 235 is not in fact double the requirement (154 for worship, 205 with the school) — so his own representation overstates the ratio, and his own submissions elsewhere are irreconcilable (one states 350–400 attendees / 150–200 vehicles; another calculates off 250 attendees / 202 spaces — a 40–60% swing never reconciled on the record). More importantly, counting stalls says nothing about the actual Section 24 question: how many trips the site generates and whether Alameda / 2nd Street — already at Level of Service F per the Murphy study — can absorb them. Using stall count as a proxy for “traffic is handled” is precisely the kind of unsubstantiated assurance that cannot substitute for a TIA, and no TIA was ever produced.
- Notice / due process: As the Applicant's own notice to neighbors, the letter documents that the public received notice of, and prepared to respond to, a school-inclusive project — which was then changed verbally at the July 1 hearing (after roughly 3.5 hours of testimony on the original noticed plan) with no re-notice, denying the public fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the actual project voted on.
- Mon-Sun incidental recreation vs. “no cars except Friday” testimony: The approved project includes high-use recreation and ancillary facilities — gym, basketball court, indoor pool, library, commercial kitchen, cafeteria, and coffee shop — operated as “incidental” to worship and open throughout the week (daily prayers, evening programs, weekend youth Quran programs). Yet the Applicant testified categorically that “There is no cars… Just during the service, there is cars” and “There is no traffic. There is no traffic and any single day, except Friday” — a direct contradiction, since those Mon-Sun facilities are approved components of the use that generated no trip analysis in the record.
| Included | View → |
| 25 | ABC Comprehensive Plan (Rank I) — Rural Area designation & policyThe staff report itself finds that “the site is within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan” (Finding 11, Packet Pg. 922), and the Rank I Comprehensive Plan’s Rural Area policy expressly favors “alternatives to urbanization” (Packet Pg. 508). A 60,000-SF high-volume institutional use built to draw congregants from the greater Albuquerque metro and Sandoval County is incompatible with the rural character the County’s own Rank I plan assigns to this corridor — the definition of encroachment the plan was written to prevent. | Included | View → |
| 26 | 20% Protest Petition (Rule 7 / Section 25) — neighboring owners within 100 and 500 ftFiled under Sections 18.G.6-8, 24.4.f(2), and 25.F-I of the County Zoning Code and NMSA § 3-21-6(C). If owners of at least 20% of the land within 100 feet have signed, the Board of County Commissioners must apply the extraordinary-majority (supermajority) standard on this appeal rather than a simple majority — the Appeal Coalition calculates the 20% Rule was met with over 65% of the qualifying acreage within the 100-foot buffer. Any approval reached without satisfying that standard must be reversed or remanded on this independent procedural ground. | Included | Cover Sheet → Signatures → Certification → Filed & Stamped Opposition Form → |