Rio Rancho council rejects Cielo Bonito rezoning after debate over holdouts, traffic and missing master plan

The Rio Rancho Governing Body voted on Aug. 14 to deny an ordinance that would have rezoned roughly 53.942 acres in the Paseo Gateway West area from transitional zoning (TZ) to R‑3 mixed residential.

The proposal, submitted by the Cielo Bonito development team, would have allowed R‑3 uses on property north of Cielo Azul Elementary School. Amy Rincon, Rio Rancho director of development services, told the governing body the application covers 53.942 acres and that R‑3 permits single‑family detached, single‑family attached and multi‑family development “which would allow up to 26 units per acre with the approval of a conditional use permit.”

Council members raised repeated concerns about the applicant’s lack of a master plan, the number and location of “holdout” lots not controlled by the applicant, and how access and drainage would work if the conceptual layout were built as presented. Councilor Tyler said, “The one thing that always makes me nervous is conceptual plans,” and pressed the applicant and staff about how traffic would be routed and whether the conceptual plan could be implemented without acquiring additional lots.

The applicant representative, Nikosha Shuttlebauer, said the request aligns with the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan and that the project team had consolidated additional lots since earlier hearings, but acknowledged there remained multiple owners in the corridor. Shuttlebauer said the developer’s conceptual layout anticipated about 334 homes and that the project was proposed to proceed in phases as additional lots were acquired.

Staff described the conceptual plan as illustrative only and noted the master plan had been withdrawn earlier in the review process because the applicant lacked full ownership of the parcels needed to meet staff’s then‑preferred threshold for master plan approval. Rincon said the planning staff uses zone map amendment criteria and the specific area plan to evaluate the “larger fit” of a zoning request, and that the conceptual plan is not adopted and would not be enforceable without a master plan or subsequent approvals.

Several councilors said they were uncomfortable approving an R‑3 rezoning that could allow higher‑density uses in the future without a binding master plan. Councilor List said the presence of roads drawn through parcels not owned by the applicant was particularly problematic and made the conceptual plan unreliable as a basis for a zone change. Councilor Weimer, Councilor Culbreth, Councilor Dabson and Mayor Hall voted against the ordinance; the vote was recorded as 0 in favor, 6 opposed and O‑21 failed.

The council did not adopt the conceptual layout as presented and did not direct staff to return with changes at this meeting. The transcript records council discussion focused on ownership consolidation, master plan status and the need for traffic and drainage studies at later development stages.

Outcome and next steps: the ordinance failed and the property remains under its existing zoning; any future rezoning proposal would need to address council concerns about ownership, master planning and traffic engineering.