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)
