Santa Fe County, NM CHAPTER 6 STUDIES, REPORTS AND ASSESSMENTS (SRAs)

§ 6.1 GENERALLY.

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 PREPARATION AND FEES.

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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR).

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 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES ASSESSMENT (APFA).

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 WATER SERVICE AVAILABILITY REPORT (WSAR).

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:

6.5.5.1 An evaluation of the water supply as described in Section 7.13.6.

6.5.5.2 If the proposed development will rely on groundwater, the WSAR shall also include but not be limited to, the following:

1. all applicable requirements of Section 7.13;

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:

1. Changes in the development project that will substantially increase water demand;

2. Changes in circumstances that substantially affect the ability to provide a sufficient water supply, and

3. Significant new information as it becomes known.

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 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT (TIA).

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:

1. Identifying where additional rights-of-way are needed to implement mitigation strategies;

2. Identifying suggested phasing of improvements where needed to maintain compliance with traffic service standards; and

3. Identifying the anticipated cost of recommended improvements.

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 FISCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (FIA).

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)