6.1.1
Purpose.
Studies, Reports, and Assessments (SRAs) facilitate the review of applications. The applicant shall prepare and submit the SRAs required by Table 4-1 in a form and format established in this chapter. SRAs shall be submitted at the time application is made. The pre-application TAC meeting required by Chapter 4 (see Section 4.4 and Table 4-1) provide an opportunity for the applicant and staff to discuss and clarify the details of the required SRAs.
6.1.2
Types.
Although SRAs are referred to collectively, they
are comprised of individual studies, reports and/or assessments that
may or may not be required for a particular project as set forth in
table 6-1 below. The different SRAs are as follows, with reference
to the applicable explanatory section of this chapter:
6.1.2.1
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
This report analyzes adverse effects and impacts on natural habitats and wildlife corridors; floodplains, floodways, stream corridors and wetlands; steep slopes and hillsides; air and water pollution; archeological, historical and cultural resources. See Section 6.3.
6.1.2.2
Adequate Public Facilities and Services Assessment (APFA).
This assessment indicates whether public facilities and services, taking into account the County’s Capital Improvement and Service Program, are adequate to serve the proposed development project. See Section 6.4.
6.1.2.3
Water Service Availability Report (WSAR).
This report determines the permanent availability of and impacts to groundwater and surface water resources. See Section 6.5.
6.1.2.4
Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA).
This assessment determines the effects of traffic created by the development upon County, state and local roads and highways. See Section 6.6.
6.1.2.5
Fiscal Impact Assessment (FIA).
This study describes the effects and impacts of the project upon County revenue and costs necessitated by additional public facilities and services generated by the development project and the feasibility for financing such facility and service costs. See Section 6.7.
6.1.3
Applicability.
Table 4-1 states generally whether SRAs
are required to be submitted with a particular application, but it
does not delineate which specific studies, reports and/or assessments
are required. This specificity is included in Table 6-1 below, where
the various document submittals are set forth by application type.
|
Table 6-1: Required Studies, Reports and Assessments (SRAs)
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Application Type
|
SRA Type
| ||||
|
TIA
|
APFA
|
WSAR
|
FIA
|
EIR
| |
|
Development Permit - nonresidential (up to 10k sf)***
|
yes*
|
no
|
no
|
no
|
no
|
|
Development Permit - nonresidential (between 10k sf and 25,000
sf)
|
yes*
|
yes
|
as needed**
|
no
|
no
|
|
Development Permit - nonresidential (over 25k sf)
|
yes*
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
Minor subdivision
|
yes*
|
yes
|
no
|
no
|
no
|
|
Major subdivision 24 or fewer lots
|
yes*
|
yes
|
as needed
|
as needed
|
as needed
|
|
Major subdivision more than 24 lots
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
Conditional Use Permit
|
yes*
|
as needed**
|
as needed**
|
as needed**
|
as needed**
|
|
Planned development
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
as needed**
|
|
Rezoning (zoning map amendment)
|
yes
|
no
|
yes
|
as needed**
|
as needed**
|
|
Development of Countywide Impact (DCI) Overlay or Conditional
Use Permit
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
*See NMDOT State Access Manual
|
|
**As part of the pre-application TAC meeting process (see Section 4.4), the Administrator will determine which SRAs are applicable based on the scope and impact of the proposed project.
|
6.1.4
Discretion of Administrator.
The Administrator shall
have the authority to exempt the applicant from a required SRA if
the Administrator reasonably determines either that the information
that would likely result from the study, report, or assessment is
either (a) already known and can be supplied by other means, or (b)
will have no reasonable bearing on the evaluation of the application.
6.1.5
Non-limitation.
Nothing in the SLDC shall abrogate the
County’s authority to require the applicant to prepare necessary
studies, analyses or reports required as a part of the development
approval process.
(Ordinance 2016-9 adopted 12/13/16)
6.2.1
Applicant prepared.
An applicant for development approval
shall prepare their own SRAs as required in this Chapter. The applicant
shall deposit, as determined in the Fee Schedule approved by the Board,
cash, a certified check, bank check or letter of credit, to cover
all of the County’s expenses in reviewing the SRA, including
engaging consultants.
6.2.2
Expert Review.
The County may hire outside experts to
review any of the submitted SRAs at the expense of the applicant in
accordance with the approved fee schedule.
6.2.3
Project Overview Documentation.
In addition to the technical
reports required under Table 6-1 and detailed below, every SRA submittal
shall include basic project information to facilitate in the evaluation
of the application. At a minimum, the project overview documentation
shall include the following:
6.2.3.1
an accurate map of the project site, depicting: existing topography;
public or private buildings, structures and land uses; irrigation
systems, including but not limited to acequias; public or private
utility lines and easements, under, on or above ground; public or
private roads; public or private water or oil and gas wells; known
mines; parks, trails, open space and recreational facilities; fire,
law enforcement, emergency response facilities; schools or other public
buildings, structures, uses or facilities; nonconforming building,
structures or uses; environmentally sensitive lands; archaeological,
cultural or historic resources; scenic vistas and eco-tourist sites;
agricultural and ranch lands; and all other requirements of the Administrator
as established at the Administrator’s pre-application meeting
with the applicant;
6.2.3.2
a detailed description of the development uses, activities and character
of the development proposed for the project site;
6.2.3.3
the approximate location of all neighboring development areas, subdivisions,
residential dwellings, neighborhoods, traditional communities, public
and private utility lines and facilities, public buildings, structures
or facilities, community centers, and other nonresidential facilities
and structures within one (1) mile of the site perimeter;
6.2.3.4
the approximate location, arrangement, size, of any buildings and
structures and parking facilities proposed for construction within
the development project;
6.2.3.5
the proposed traffic circulation plan, including the number of daily
and peak-hour trips to and from the site and the proposed traffic
routes to the nearest intersection with a state road or interstate;
6.2.3.6
the approximate location of all fire, law enforcement, and emergency
response service facilities and all roads and public facilities and
utilities shown on the capital improvement and services plan; floodways,
floodplains, wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive lands and
natural resources on the applicant’s property; location of historic,
cultural and archeological sites and artifacts; location of slopes
greater than 15% and 30%; wildlife and vegetation habitats and habitat
corridors within one (1) mile of the proposed project site perimeter;
6.2.3.7
a statement explaining how the proposed project complies with the
goals, objectives, policies and strategies of the SGMP and any area
or community plan covering, adjacent to, or within one (1) mile of
the proposed project site perimeter;
6.2.3.8
a statement or visual presentation of how the project will relate
to and be compatible with adjacent and neighboring areas, within a
one (1) mile radius of the project site perimeter;[.]
(Ordinance 2016-9 adopted 12/13/16)
6.3.1
EIR as Informational Document.
The EIR shall be prepared
as a separate document apart from any other document required to be
submitted by application of this Chapter. The EIR shall inform the
County, the public and the applicant of the significant environmental
effects and impacts of a project, identify possible ways to minimize
the significant adverse effects or impacts, and describe reasonable
alternatives to the project. The County shall consider the information
in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to
the County by the applicant or interested parties. While the information
in the EIR does not control the County’s ultimate discretion
on the project, the EIR shall propose mitigation of each significant
effect and impact identified in the EIR. No EIR or SRA prepared pursuant
to this Chapter that is available for public examination shall require
the disclosure of a trade secret, except where the preservation of
any trade secret involves a significant threat to health and safety.
No specific location of archaeological, historical or cultural sites
or sacred lands shall be released to the public, to the extent that
information is protected from release by law, but the EIR shall thoroughly
discuss all environmental issues relating to a proposed project and
affecting any such sites.
6.3.2
Contents of Report.
The EIR shall consist of a series
of elements which shall contain the information outlined in this Section.
Each required element shall be covered, and when these elements are
not separated into distinct sections, the document shall state where
in the document each element is discussed.
6.3.3
Summary.
The EIR shall contain a summary of the proposed
actions and their consequences. The language of the summary should
be as clear and simple as reasonably practical. The summary shall
identify:
6.3.3.1
Each significant adverse effect and impact with proposed mitigation
measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect or
impact;
6.3.3.2
Areas of potential controversy identified in the pre-application
TAC meeting; and
6.3.3.3
Issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and
whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.
6.3.4
Project Description.
The description of the project
shall contain the following information but shall not supply extensive
detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental
impact:
6.3.4.1
The precise location and boundaries of the proposed development project.
Such location and boundaries shall be shown on a detailed topographical
map. The location of the project shall also appear on a regional map;
6.3.4.2
A statement of the objectives sought by the proposed development
project. The statement of objectives should include the underlying
purpose of the project; and
6.3.4.3
A general description of the project’s technical, economic,
and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering
proposals if any and supporting public service facilities.
6.3.5
Environmental Setting.
The EIR shall include a description
of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project
as they exist at the time the environmental analysis is commenced,
from the County, area, community, regional, and state perspectives.
This environmental setting will constitute the baseline physical conditions
by which the County determines whether an adverse effect or impact
is significant. Knowledge of the County and the regional setting is
critical to the assessment of environmental impacts, and shall analyze
environmental, archaeological, cultural, historic, habitat and scenic
resources that are rare or unique to the County and region and would
be affected by the project. The EIR shall demonstrate that the significant
environmental effects and impacts of the proposed project were adequately
investigated and discussed and it shall permit the significant adverse
effects or impacts of the project to be considered in the full environmental
context. A geotechnical investigation and report shall be required.
6.3.6
Significant Environmental Effects.
The EIR shall identify
and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed
development project. In assessing the impact of a proposed project
on the environment, the EIR shall limit its examination to changes
in the existing physical conditions in the affected areas as they
exist at the time environmental analysis is commenced. Direct and
indirect significant effects and impacts of the project on the environment
shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration
to both the short-term and long-term effects and impacts. The discussion
shall include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved,
physical changes and alterations to soil conditions, water, environmentally
sensitive lands and ecological systems, changes induced in the human
use of the land, health and safety problems caused by physical changes,
and other aspects of the resource base such as historical, cultural
and archaeological resources, scenic vistas.
6.3.7
Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided.
The EIR shall describe significant adverse effects and impacts,
including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level
of insignificance. Where there are effects and impacts that cannot
be alleviated without an alternative design, their implications and
the reasons why the development project is being proposed shall be
described.
6.3.8
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.
Uses
of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases
of the development project may be irreversible since a large commitment
of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Primary
effects and impacts and, particularly, secondary effects and impacts
(such as highway improvements required to provide access to a previously
inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar
uses. Irreversible damage can result from environmental and other
accidents associated with the development project. Irretrievable commitments
of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption
is justified. Applicant shall comply with all federal and New Mexico
statutes and regulations regarding climate change.
6.3.9
Other Adverse Effects.
The EIR shall discuss other characteristics
of the project which may significantly affect the environment, either
individually or cumulatively. The EIR shall discuss the characteristics
of the project which may decrease the area’s suitability for
other uses, such as mixed use, industrial, residential, commercial,
historical, cultural, archaeological, environmental, public and nonprofit
facilities, eco-tourism or scenic uses.
6.3.10
Mitigation Measures.
6.3.10.1
The EIR shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR, which impacts include but are not limited
to: inefficient and unnecessary consumption of water and energy; degradation
of environmentally sensitive lands; sprawl; and noise, vibration,
excessive lighting, odors or other impacts.
6.3.10.2
Where several measures are available to mitigate an effect or impact,
each shall be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure
shall be identified. Formulation of mitigation measures shall be identified
at the first discretionary approval and under no circumstances deferred
until the ministerial development process. Measures shall specify
performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect
of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified
way.
6.3.10.3
Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation
measures, shall be discussed when relevant.
6.3.10.4
If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects
and impacts in addition to those that would be caused by the project
as proposed, the adverse effects and impacts of the mitigation measure
shall be discussed.
6.3.10.5
Mitigation measures described shall be fully enforceable through
conditions or a voluntary development agreement.
6.3.10.6
In some circumstances, documentation of a historical, cultural, or
archaeological resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs
or architectural drawings, as mitigation for any identified impacts
will not serve to mitigate the effects and impacts to a point where
clearly no significant effect or impact on the environment would occur.
All of the following shall be considered and discussed in the draft
EIR for a development project involving such a cultural, historic
or archaeological site:
1.
Preservation
in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to historic,
cultural or archaeological sites. Preservation in place maintains
the relationship between artifacts and the historical, cultural, and
archaeological context. Preservation shall also avoid conflict with
religious or cultural values of Indian communities associated with
the site;
2.
Preservation
in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, planning construction
to avoid all historical, cultural or archaeological sites; and incorporation
of sites within parks, green-space, or other open space;
3.
When
data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation,
a data recovery plan which makes provision for adequately recovering
the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical,
cultural, or archaeological resource, shall be prepared and adopted
prior to any excavation being undertaken. If an artifact must be removed
during project excavation or testing, storage of such artifact, under
proper supervision, may be an appropriate mitigation; and
4.
Data
recovery shall not be required for an historical, cultural or archaeological
resource if the appropriate entity determines that testing or studies
already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential
information from and about the archaeological or historical resource,
provided that the determination is documented in the draft EIR.
6.3.11
Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
6.3.11.1
Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
The EIR shall
describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to
the location, which would feasibly attain some of the basic objectives
of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
and adverse impacts or effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative
merits of the alternatives, even if those alternatives would impede
the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly.
6.3.11.2
Evaluation of alternatives.
The EIR shall include sufficient
information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation,
analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying
the major characteristics and significant or adverse environmental
effects and impacts of each alternative may be used to summarize the
comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant
or adverse effects or impacts in addition to those that would be caused
by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative
shall be discussed.
6.3.11.3
Selection of a range of reasonable alternatives.
The
EIR shall briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives
to be discussed. The EIR shall also identify any alternatives that
were considered but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping
process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the determination.
6.3.11.4
“No project” alternative.
The specified
alternative of “no project” shall be evaluated along with
its effects and impacts. The purpose of describing and analyzing a
“no project” alternative is to allow a comparison of any
adverse effects and impacts of the proposed project with effects and
impacts if the project were not accomplished. The “no project”
alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the
proposed project’s environmental effects or impacts may be significant
or adverse, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting
analysis which does establish that baseline.
1.
The
“no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions
at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would
be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the development
project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with
available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally
preferred alternative is the “no project” alternative,
the draft EIR shall also identify an environmentally preferred alternative
among the other alternatives.
2.
A
discussion of the “no project” alternative shall proceed
as follows: (i) The “no project” alternative is the circumstance
under which the development project does not proceed. Discussion shall
compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its
existing state against the environmental and adverse effects which
would occur if the project were to be approved; (ii) If disapproval
of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions
by others, such as the proposal of some other development project,
this “no project” consequence should be discussed. In
certain instances, the no project alternative means “no build”
so the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where
failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation
of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify
the practical result of the project’s non-approval.
6.3.11.5
Feasibility.
Among the factors that may be taken into
account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability,
economic use and value viability, availability of infrastructure,
jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a significant effect or impact
should consider the countywide context), and whether the applicant
can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to an alternative
site in the common ownership. No one of these factors establishes
a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.
6.3.11.6
Alternative locations.
The essential issue for analysis
is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be
avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another
location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen
any of the significant effects of the project should be included in
the EIR. The EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot
be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
6.3.12
Organizations and Persons Consulted.
The EIR shall identify
all federal, state, or local agencies, tribal governments, or other
organizations or entities, and any interested persons consulted in
preparing the draft.
6.3.13
Discussion of Cumulative Impacts.
The EIR shall discuss
cumulative effects of a project. A cumulative effect and impact is
created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in
the EIR together with other development projects causing related effects
and impacts. The discussion of cumulative effects and impacts shall
reflect the severity of the effects and impacts and their likelihood
of occurrence.
6.3.13.1
The discussion should focus on the cumulative effects and impacts
to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the
attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative
effect and impact. The following elements are necessary to an adequate
discussion of significant cumulative impacts:
1.
A
list of past, present, and probable future development projects producing
related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects
outside the control of the County (when determining whether to include
a related development project, factors to consider should include,
but are not limited to, the nature of each environmental resource
being examined, the location of the project and its type. Location
may be important, for example, when water quality impacts are at issue
or when an impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant
or mode of traffic);
2.
The
EIR shall define the geographic scope of the area affected by the
cumulative effect and impact and provide a reasonable explanation
for the geographic scope utilized;
3.
A
summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those
projects with the specific reference to additional information stating
where that information is available;
4.
A
reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects.
A draft EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating
or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative
effects or impacts; and
6.3.13.2
Approved land use documents, including the SGMP and any applicable
area, district or community plans, shall be used in cumulative impact
analysis. A pertinent discussion of cumulative effects and impacts,
contained in one or more previously certified final EIR development
projects may be incorporated by reference.
(Ordinance 2016-9 adopted 12/13/16)
6.4.1
Purpose and Implementation.
The Adequate Public Facilities
and Services Assessment (“APFA”) ties development approval
of an application for a project to the present availability of infrastructure
and public service capacity measured by levels of service (“LOS”)
adopted in Chapter 12. The provision of adequate public facilities
in a timely manner is a necessary precondition to development in order
to prevent sprawl, assure a positive fiscal impact for the County,
provide a high quality of life through infrastructure and services,
implement the goals, policies of the SGMP, and any applicable area
or community plan, and protect the public health, safety and general
welfare of the community.
6.4.2
Requirements.
The review of adequacy of public facilities
and services shall compare the capacity of public facilities and services
to the maximum projected demand that may result from the proposed
project based upon the maximum density in the project and relevant
affected areas. The APFA shall study the impacts of the proposed development
on all of the following:
6.4.2.1
Roads.
The APFA shall calculate the LOS for roads consistent
with Table 12-1. The impact of the proposed development shall be measured
by average daily trips and peak-hour trips based upon the Transportation
Research Board’s “Highway Capacity Manual 2000.”
The APFA shall describe the means by which the transportation capacity
of the system will be expanded without destroying historic and traditional
built environment. For purposes of the APFA, average daily traffic
assumes 10 trips per day per dwelling unit or building lot.
6.4.2.2
Fire, Law Enforcement, and Emergency Response Services.
For Law Enforcement (including emergency dispatch), and Fire and
Emergency Response, the APFA shall calculate the LOS consistent with
Table 12-1. In determining the impact of the proposed development
on fire, law enforcement, and emergency service LOS, the approving
agency shall primarily take into consideration the number and location
of available apparatus and fire, law enforcement, and emergency service
stations.
6.4.2.3
Water.
For water supply, if the County’s water utility, a water and sanitation district or a public water system provides potable water to a proposed development and has issued a letter indicating it is ready, willing and able to serve, no APFA is required for water. For a proposed development that does not propose the use of a public water system, the APFA shall demonstrate that the project will provide the LOS consistent with Table 12-1. The APFA shall analyze the availability of adequate potable water, and shall analyze all of the following information, as appropriate in accordance with Section 7.13:
1.
System
capacity and availability of water rights;
2.
Capacity
of the well field, or other source of raw water supply;
3.
Historical
average flow of potable water;
4.
Historical
peak flow of potable water;
5.
Number
of hook-ups and the estimated potable water demand per hook-up;
6.
Number
of hook-ups for which contractual commitments have been made; and
7.
Development
approval applications shall be analyzed with respect to the availability
of adequate potable water supply, and shall be evaluated according
to the following factors using the information provided in a WSAR:
a.
Whether a grey water reuse system will be provided and whether that
system is tied to a public or community sewer treatment facility;
b.
Whether rainwater capture and reuse system will be used;
c.
Whether existing hook-ups and hook-ups for which contractual commitments
have been made; and whether the estimated potable water demand per
hook-up is excessive; and
d.
Whether the WSAR provided substantial evidence that the project is
within the service area of the County, or public or private water
utility service area. If the ability of a provider to serve a proposed
development is contingent upon planned facility expansion in accordance
with a CIP, details regarding such planned improvements shall be submitted;
and
8.
Analysis
of water quality.
6.4.2.4
Sewer.
The APFA shall demonstrate that the project will
provide the LOS consistent with Table 12-1. The Applications shall
be analyzed with respect to the availability of adequate sanitary
sewer capacity, and shall be determined pursuant to the following
information:
1.
The
public or private sewer system capacity;
2.
Historical
average daily flow of treated sewage;
3.
Historical
peak flow of treated sewage;
4.
Number
of hook-ups and estimated sewer demand per hook-up;
5.
Number
of hook-ups for which contractual commitments have been made;
6.
The
availability of hook-up to the County or a PID public sewer system,
or to a public or private community sewer treatment plant that provides
tertiary sewage treatment; and
7.
If
the ability of a provider to serve a proposed development is contingent
upon planned facility expansion in accordance with a CIP, details
regarding such planned improvements shall be submitted.
6.4.2.5
Community Parks, Recreation Areas, and Trails.
All County
and community parks, recreation areas and trails shall be identified
in the CIP and the land and right-of-way of those sites shall be placed
on the Official Map. In determining compliance with the LOS standard
for County and community parks, recreation areas and trails, nearby
County or community parks, recreation areas or trails may be considered.
6.4.2.6
Existing Deficiencies.
Section 12.2.3.2 of the SLDC describes the ramifications of an existing failure of infrastructure and services to meet the LOS specified in the SLDC. Existing deficiencies that affect the proposed development project shall be identified and any proposed projects that will address the deficiency in the CIP shall be identified.
6.4.3
Future Available Capacity.
When a proposed development
project is approved, the public facilities that the project utilizes
shall be quantified and debited against available capacity for future
projects.
6.4.4
Mitigation.
The APFA may propose mitigation measures,
or a combination of measures, as described in this Section, as an
alternative to denial of the application. These measures shall be
included as a condition for approval of the application. Mitigation
measures may include:
6.4.4.1
Phasing of the project, so that no development approval is issued
before roads or other transportation facilities needed to achieve
the LOS standard are constructed;
6.4.4.2
Measures that allow the transportation network to function more efficiently
by adding additional capacity to the off-site road system, including,
but are not limited to: pavement widening or narrowing; turn lanes;
median islands, access controls, or traffic signalization; and
6.4.4.3
Transportation congestion management measures that allow the transportation
network to function more efficiently by adding sufficient capacity
to the off-site road system.
6.4.5
Approval of applications subject to discretionary action.
The discretionary development approval application may be approved
if adequate public facilities and services are available at the adopted
LOS, may be denied if adequate public facilities are not available,
and may be conditionally approved subject to phasing of development
until all public facilities are available for the year the CIP shows
that adequate public facilities for the entire proposed development
will be built at the adopted LOS. (See Table 4-1 for applications
subject to discretionary review.)
(Ordinance 2016-9 adopted 12/13/16)
6.5.1
A Water Service Availability Report is required to analyze the availability
of adequate potable water for a proposed project. WSARs may include
the use of groundwater supplies for water availability and additional
review factors such as more detailed analysis of the basin or basins
involved, the outcome of any adjudication of the resource, any State
Engineer, USGS or other agency reports or analysis on record on the
source and an analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater source
to meet the projected water demand from the proposed project.
6.5.2
Applications required to submit a WSAR shall be analyzed with respect
to the availability of adequate potable water.
6.5.3
The WSAR shall contain a detailed analysis of the following matters:
existing system capacity of the public water or wastewater supply
proposed for use; capacity of a well field (as applicable), stream,
spring, or other source of raw water supply (as applicable); historical
average use of potable water; and historical peak use of potable water;
the number of hook-ups and the estimated potable water demand per
hook-up; and the number of hook-ups for which contractual commitments
have been made or previous development orders have been approved.
Applications requiring use of the County system or a public water
or wastewater system, as described on Tables 7-17.1, 7-17.2, 7-18.1
and 7-18.2 and the accompanying text, need only supply the letter
from the relevant supplier agreeing to provide services.
6.5.4
The development order shall provide findings based on substantial
evidence that the project is within its designated service area and
that it has the capacity to serve the project as proposed. If the
ability of a public or private utility or service provider to serve
a proposed development is contingent upon planned facility expansion
in accordance with a CIP, details regarding such planned improvements
shall be submitted.
6.5.5
The WSAR shall include:
6.5.5.2
If the proposed development will rely on groundwater, the WSAR shall
also include but not be limited to, the following:
2.
a
copy of the latest Sanitary Survey from the New Mexico Environment
Department conducted pursuant to 20.7.10 NMAC (2013) (“Wastewater
and Water Supply Facilities”) or, if a new system is proposed,
a Preliminary Engineering Report consistent with the “Recommended
Standards for Water Facilities,” 2006, as amended;
3.
in
the case of a proposed final plat approval, a copy of the water permit
issued by the State Engineer;
4.
an
assessment of whether the water supplies available during normal,
single-dry and multiple-dry water years over the 99 year projection
will be sufficient to meet the projected water demand of the proposed
project, taking into account existing and projected future planned
use from the identified water supplies;
5.
an
assessment of the ability of the proposed system to meet annual and
peak demands; and
6.
identification
of, and request to, any public or private water utility, system or
company that has the capacity to supply water for the project for
an assessment from each. The governing body of the water supplier
shall approve the assessment at a regular or special meeting. The
water supplier shall provide the assessment not later than thirty
(30) days after receiving the request from the applicant or the Administrator.
6.5.5.3
The WSAR shall identify relevant, existing water supply entitlements,
water rights, or water service contracts, and describe the quantities
of water received in prior years. The identification shall be demonstrated
by the applicant providing information related to all of the following:
1.
written
contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply,
including proof of a service commitment from a water provider and
an opinion from OSE or an OSE permit to appropriate groundwater or
surface water under any one of several statutes except NMSA 1978,
§§ 72-12-1 and 72-12-1.1 if irrigation water rights that
are appurtenant to the land at issue have been severed;
2.
copies
of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water
supply that has been adopted by the public water system;
3.
federal,
state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure
associated with delivering the water supply;
4.
any
necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able
to convey or deliver the water supply; and
5.
lists
of all supply wells, production rates, and storage capacity of all
water sources.
6.5.5.4
If no water has been received in prior years under an existing entitlement,
right, or contract, the assessment shall identify other public water
systems, water companies, or water service contract holders that receive
a water supply or have existing entitlements, rights, or contracts,
to the same source of water.
6.5.5.5
Supplies to Remedy Insufficiency.
If the public water
system’s total projected water supplies available during a 99-year
projection are insufficient, then the applicant shall identify plans
to acquire additional supplies that may include, but are not limited
to:
1.
The
estimated total costs, and the proposed method of financing the costs,
associated with acquiring the additional water supplies for the development
project;
2.
All
federal, state, and local permits, approvals, or entitlements that
are anticipated to be required in order to acquire and develop the
additional water supplies; and
3.
The
estimated timeframes within which the public water system or water
company expects to be able to acquire additional water supplies.
6.5.5.6
Groundwater.
If a water supply for a proposed project
includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be
included in the water supply assessment:
1.
A
review of any information contained in a water management plan relevant
to the identified water supply for the proposed project;
2.
A
description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed
project will be supplied;
3.
For
those basins for which a court has adjudicated the rights to pump
groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court and
a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system
has the legal right to pump under the order or decree;
4.
For
basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the
State Engineer, pursuant to NMSA 1978, sections 47-6-11.2, 72-5-1,
72-5-23, 72-5-24, 72-12-3 and 72-12-7, has identified the basin or
basins as over-drafted or has projected that the basin will become
over-drafted if present management conditions continue, in the most
current information of the State Engineer that characterizes the condition
of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public
water system of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins
to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition;
5.
A
detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater
pumped by the public water system for the past five years from any
groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied.
The description and analysis shall be based on information that is
reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use
records;
6.
A
detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater
that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, from any
basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description
and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available,
including, but not limited to, historic use records; and
7.
An
analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins
from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected
water demand associated with the proposed project.
6.5.5.7
County’s Ability to Override Public Water Agency’s Determination.
An evaluation of water quality, quantity and potential pollution
of surface or underground water assessments shall be included in the
EIR and in the WSAR. The County shall determine, based on the entire
record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy
the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future
uses. If the County determines that water supplies will not be sufficient,
the County shall include that determination in its findings for the
WSAR.
6.5.5.8
Exceptions.
If the project has previously been the subject
of an assessment that complies with the requirements of this Section,
then no additional water supply assessment shall be required for subsequent
projects that were part of a larger development project for which
water supplies were found sufficient. Exceptions include:
6.5.5.9
Water Quality.
The applicant shall provide:
1.
a
water quality analysis of all aquifers to be used by the project;
2.
an
analysis of all contaminant pathways leading from the project site
to the aquifers, including saturated sandy units within the aquifers
and unsaturated or vadose zone map;
3.
an
unsaturated or vadose zone map; and
4.
an
analysis of baseline water quality relating to existing water wells.
(Ordinance 2016-9 adopted 12/13/16)
6.6.1
Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of the traffic impact
assessment (TIA) is to identify the impacts on capacity, adopted LOS
and safety, which are likely to be created by the proposed development
project. The information in the Traffic Impact Assessment will be
coordinated with the APFA and the EIR. The isolated and cumulative
adverse effects and impacts of the proposed project to the traffic
shed need to be understood in relation to the existing and future
required capacity of the local, County and State road system, and
to ensure that traffic capacity will be provided at established levels
of service so as not to hinder the passage of law enforcement, fire
and emergency response vehicles, construction vehicles to and from
the project site, degrade the quality of life, or contribute to hazardous
traffic conditions. The intent of this Section is to establish requirements
for the analysis and evaluation of adverse transportation effects
and impacts associated with proposed development projects in order
to provide the information necessary to allow the Board to assess
the transportation effects and impacts of site-generated traffic associated
with a proposed development project.
6.6.2
(Reserved).
6.6.3
General Requirements.
The TIA shall follow the NMDOT
State Access Manual requirements, which requires a general assessment
for smaller impact projects which generate little traffic, and a detailed
analysis for those projects that generate larger traffic volumes.
These larger impact projects will require a detailed traffic impact
assessment which shall identify the improvements needed to:
6.6.3.1
Ensure safe ingress to and egress from the site;
6.6.3.2
Maintain adequate road capacity on the local, County and State road
system to accommodate all traffic to and from the site generated by
the project;
6.6.3.3
Ensure safe and reasonable traffic operating conditions on roads
and at intersections through which traffic to and from the site passes;
6.6.3.4
Avoid creation of, or mitigate, unsafe and hazardous traffic conditions
from heavy weights of trucks traveling to and from the site;
6.6.3.5
Minimize the impact of nonresidential traffic on residential neighborhoods
in the County;
6.6.3.6
Protect the substantial public investment in the existing road system;
6.6.3.7
Provide a basis for approving, modifying, or denying an application
based upon the adequacy or deficiency of the local, County and State
road systems to handle the needs generated by the project;
6.6.3.8
If applicable, after identifying any deficiency in road capacity as required by Section 6.6.3.2 of the SLDC, determine, after taking into consideration improvements to be provided through development fees, improvements to be provided by the County through the mechanisms described in the CIP and through the mechanisms described in a voluntary development agreement or through an Improvement District how all infrastructure that is required will be provided;
6.6.3.9
Evaluate whether adequate traffic capacity exists or will be available
at the time a development order is granted for the application to
safely and conveniently accommodate the traffic generated by the project
on the local, County and State road system;
6.6.3.10
Evaluate traffic operations and impacts at site access points under
projected traffic loads;
6.6.3.11
Evaluate the impact of site-generated traffic on affected intersections
in the County;
6.6.3.12
Evaluate the impact of site-generated traffic on the safety, capacity
and quality of traffic flow on public and private roads within the
County;
6.6.3.13
Evaluate the impact of the proposed project on residential roads
from the traffic to and from the site;
6.6.3.14
Ensure that site access and other improvements needed to mitigate
the traffic impact of the development utilize County and State accepted
engineering design standards and access management criteria;
6.6.3.15
Ensure that the proposed road layout is consistent with the public
roadway design standards;
6.6.3.16
Ensure the proper design and spacing of site access points and identify
where limitations on access should be established;
6.6.3.17
Ensure that potential safety problems on all roads to be used within
the County have been properly evaluated and addressed; and
6.6.3.18
Ensure that internal circulation patterns will not interfere with
traffic flow on the existing County and State road system.
6.6.4
Traffic Service Standards.
The standards for traffic
service that shall be used to evaluate the findings of traffic impact
assessment are as follows:
6.6.4.1
Volume of traffic.
To address the proposed volume of
traffic, the traffic impact report shall use Table 12-1 to determine
the adopted LOS for the roads considered in the application for development.
For additional detail and reference, see Section 10.2.2.2 of the SGMP
which relates the six (6) levels of service to the Transportation
Research Board Highway Capacity Manual and the Geometric Design for
Highways and Streets (“Green Book”) (2011, as amended)
of AASHTO.
6.6.4.2
Level of service.
See Table 12-1 for adopted LOS. Where
the existing LOS is below these standards, the traffic impact report
shall identify those improvements or transportation demand management
techniques needed to maintain the existing LOS, and what additional
improvements would be needed to raise the LOS to the standards indicated
for the development project to be approved.
6.6.4.3
Number of access points.
The number of access points
provided shall be the minimum needed to provide adequate access capacity
for the site. Evidence of LOS C operations for individual local, County
and State road movements at access locations is a primary indication
of the need for additional access points. However, the spacing and
geometric design of all access points shall be consistent with the
access management criteria of the SLDC.
6.6.4.4
Residential road impact.
Average daily traffic impinging
on residential roads shall be within the ranges spelled out in the
transportation plan for the class of road involved.
6.6.4.5
Traffic flow and progression.
The location of new traffic
signals or proposed changes to cycle lengths or timing patterns of
existing signals to meet LOS standards shall not interfere with the
goal of achieving adequate traffic progression on major public roads
in the County.
6.6.4.6
Vehicle storage.
The capacity of storage bays and auxiliary
lanes for turning traffic shall be adequate to insure that turning
traffic will not interfere with through traffic flows on any public
road.
6.6.4.7
Internal circulation.
On-site vehicle circulation and
parking patterns shall be designed so as not to interfere with the
flow of traffic on any public road and shall accommodate all anticipated
types of site traffic.
6.6.4.8
Safety.
Access points and travel along all County and
State roads within the County shall be designed to provide for adequate
sight distance and appropriate facilities to accommodate acceleration
and deceleration of site traffic. Where traffic from the proposed
development project will impact any location with an incidence of
high accident frequency, the accident history should be evaluated
and a determination made as to whether the proposed site access or
increased traffic will mitigate or aggravate the situation. The applicant
shall be required to design the site access in order to mitigate any
impact on location safety.
6.6.5
Contents.
A traffic impact assessment shall contain
the following information:
6.6.5.1
Site Description.
Illustrations and narratives that
describe the characteristics of the site and adjacent land uses as
well as future development projects for all transportation to and
from the site to the nearest state road or interstate. A description
of potential uses and traffic generation to be evaluated shall be
provided. A description of the proposed development project, including
access and staging plans shall be provided.
6.6.5.2
Study Area.
The study area shall identify the roadway
segments, and all intersections of roads classified as subcollector
or larger and access points for all transportation routes from the
site to the nearest state road or interstate.
6.6.5.3
Existing Traffic Conditions.
A summary of the data utilized
in the study and an analysis of existing traffic conditions, including:
1.
Traffic
count and turning movement information, including the source of and
date when traffic count information was collected;
2.
Correction
factors that were used to convert collected traffic data into representative
design-hour traffic volumes;
3.
Roadway
characteristics, including the design configuration of existing or
proposed roadways, existing traffic-control measures (e.g., speed
limits and traffic signals), and existing driveways and turning movement
conflicts in the vicinity of the site; and
4.
Identification
of the existing LOS for roadways and intersections without project
development traffic, using methods documented in the Highway Capacity
Manual or comparable accepted methods of the latest International
Traffic Engineers (ITE) evaluation. LOS should be calculated for the
weekday peak hour and, in the case of uses generating high levels
of weekend traffic, the Saturday peak hour.
6.6.5.4
Horizon Year(s) and Background Traffic Growth.
The horizon
year(s) that were analyzed in the study, the background traffic growth
factors for each horizon year, and the method and assumptions used
to develop the background traffic growth. For each defined horizon
year specific time periods are to be analyzed. In the case of construction
and development operations, this time period shall be the weekday
peak hours. The impact of the project shall be analyzed for the year
after the project is completed and 20 years after the development
is completed.
6.6.5.5
Trip Generation, Reduction, and Distribution.
A summary
of the projected peak-hour and average daily trip generation for the
proposed project, illustrating the projected trip distribution of
trips to and from the site to the nearest state road or interstate,
and the basis of the trip generation, reduction, and distribution
factors used in the study. A summary of all vehicle types and vehicle
weights to be generated from the proposed development.
6.6.5.6
Traffic Assignment.
The projected design-hour traffic
volumes for roadway segments, intersections, or driveways in the study
area, with and without the proposed development, for the horizon year(s)
of the study.
6.6.5.7
Impact Analysis.
The impact of traffic volumes of the
projected horizon year(s) relative to each of the applicable traffic
service standards and identification of the methodology utilized to
evaluate the impact. The weekday peak-hour impact shall be evaluated
as well as the Saturday peak hour for those uses exhibiting high levels
of weekend traffic generation.
6.6.5.8
Mitigation/Alternatives.
In situations where the traffic
LOS standards are exceeded, the traffic impact assessment shall evaluate
each of the following alternatives for achieving the traffic service
standards by:
6.6.5.9
If the applicant fails to advance the improvements in accordance
with Chapter 12, the application for the development approval may
be denied for lack of adequate transportation system capacity, safety,
and design.
6.6.5.10
At a minimum, the applicant shall be required, at the time of development
approval, to pay for applicant’s roughly proportional share
of the cost for construction, operation and maintenance of all roads
in the CIP for transportation facilities for the area in which development
project is located. If such roughly proportional share is insufficient
to meet traffic adequacy, the applicant may, through a voluntary development
agreement, voluntarily advance the cost of additional roadway system
improvements and shall be reimbursed when and as additional development
projects are approved.
6.6.6
Traffic Impact Assessment Findings.
If the traffic consultant
finds that the proposed project will not meet applicable LOS, the
traffic consultant shall recommend one or more actions by the County
or the applicant, including but not limited to:
6.6.6.1
Reduce the size, scale or scope of the development to reduce traffic
generation;
6.6.6.2
Divide the project into phases and authorize only one phase at a
time until traffic capacity is adequate for the next phase of development;
6.6.6.3
Dedicate a right-of-way for road improvements;
6.6.6.4
Construct new roads;
6.6.6.5
Expand the capacity of existing roads;
6.6.6.6
Redesign ingress and egress to the project to reduce traffic conflicts;
6.6.6.7
Reduce background (existing) traffic;
6.6.6.8
Eliminate the potential for additional traffic generation from undeveloped
properties in the vicinity of the proposed development;
6.6.6.9
Integrate design components to reduce vehicular trip generation;
6.6.6.10
Implement traffic demand management strategies (e.g., carpool or
vanpool programs, and flex-time work hours), to reduce vehicular trip
generation; or
6.6.6.11
Recommend denial or conditional approval of the application for the
development project.
6.6.7
Expiration of TIA.
A TIA shall expire and be no longer
valid for purposes of this Section on a date which is three (3) years
after its creation. The Administrator may require an update or a revision
to the TIA before it expires if it is determined that there are significant
changes in traffic conditions since the creation of the TIA.
(Ordinance 2016-9 adopted 12/13/16)
6.7.1
Generally.
The fiscal impact assessment involves a study
of the fiscal implications of development in the County. Development
will be permitted only after a determination of the adequacy and financial
provision for public facilities and services including but not limited
to public works and operational costs for additional public works,
park, law enforcement, fire and emergency response service full-time
employees and technicians to construct, operate, service and maintain
roads, stormwater management systems, fire, law enforcement, emergency
response trails, parks, open space, scenic vista sites, environmentally
sensitive areas and historic, cultural and archeological artifacts
and sites.
6.7.1.1
The fiscal impact assessment shall project adopted levels of service
for law enforcement, fire and emergency response service to affected
areas of the County. The assessment shall estimate the threshold minimum
number of full-time paid public service workers necessary to provide
fire, law enforcement, emergency response service, road, drainage,
environmentally sensitive areas and historic, cultural and archaeological
artifacts and site[s] necessary for maintenance and operation of the
facilities and services.
6.7.1.2
The fiscal impact assessment shall estimate the public service costs
for new workers and worker families brought into a development project
area.
6.7.2
Determination of Costs and Revenues.
The fiscal and
economic effects of development shall be determined using nationally
accepted and longstanding fiscal and economic models. The fiscal and
economic models shall project what shall be needed in terms of public
operating and maintenance services and provision of capital facilities
and determine what funds will be available to pay for these facilities
and services.
6.7.2.1
Costs shall be determined using current budgets, both operating and
capital interviews with service providers to determine areas of deficient
capacity and service where additional expenditures will be necessary.
6.7.2.2
Revenues shall be determined using budgets and formulas for calculating
additional taxes, infrastructure and service fees, licenses, administrative
fees, grants and improvement district assessments.
6.7.2.3
The fiscal impact assessment shall assess the extent, a development
project fiscally and economically impacts the County.
(Ordinance 2016-9 adopted 12/13/16)
