A Compilation of Concerns*
As a general concept, we support annexation of state land if accompanied by a good master plan and thoughtful zoning. In this particular case, we support annexation of the Vistas at Presidio area as soon as legally permissible.
We recommend zoning the newly annexed land H (for holding) until the current master plan has been thoroughly explained to stakeholders and the public, and needed changes incorporated into the plan. At a set date in the future, councilors can decide on the final master plan.
Public forums where individual citizens try to pry out details of the master plan and brief comments are made by whomever can gain the microphone—with no possibility or expectation that the final product will change—don’t constitute true public participation or government accountability.
Master planning for an area this large requires sustained participation by stakeholders such as the public schools, regional water entities, open space and arroyo protection advocates, and local residents. This is the process that will be followed in the regional master plan currently being developed by the county and city, and is the process followed by countless developments of this size across the country.
Water Issues
• Who will provide the water and what are the legal issues around who can provide water to this area? Who pays for the water?
• All the water is already allocated even if adjudication is not finished. Currently, 90% goes to irrigated agriculture and 7% to utilities?
• According to what we heard at the City Council meeting, the City will be relying more and more on surface water that is currently used for irrigated agriculture. Are we trading food security for water security?
• City has a 40 year Water Plan. What is it? And how does it fit in with what others have to say about water issues in this area?
• How soon will the master drainage plan be available?
• What kind of water conservation design standards/water economies will be included in this plan (low-water toilets, only non-potable water for watering, recycling gray water for watering, etc.)?
• How does the water reclamation plant fit in?
• Will we have a plant to process surface water to make it potable like El Paso? What kind of cooperative agreements do we have with El Paso Water? (We are their upstream neighbors.)
• Larger water issues? Demise of our aquifers? What’s the time line if we don’t act now?
Environmental Issues
Arroyos/Trails/Open Space/Recreation/Sport Facilities
• Connectivity is key, especially arroyo trail connectivity
• The Vision for an Open Space and Trail Plan supports the preservation of major arroyos throughout Dona Ana County to protect natural drainage systems, which, in turn, protect water quality and provide cost-effective flood control in addition to providing wildlife and human movement corridors. Such planning complements urban growth planning and attracts investment. Has the master plan met these goals?
• Shouldn't an Environmental Analysis be conducted as part of the State Trust Land disposal process? Don't we want this to happen prior to master planning and zoning to establish appropriate easements?
• Protection of natural resources is a CLC Strategic Plan Goal. We encourage a review of the Strategic Plan—Natural Resources. Can we establish an Open Space Authority now?
• Preservation of watersheds includes planning sensitivity to drainage basin and retention/detention dams.
• Current lease on arroyos is 400 +/- acres. Is that enough?
• What happens after 2015 when the CLC and DAC drainage and hiking lease expires?
• Does the plan take into consideration the 100-year flood plain and preservation of vegetation at flood plain borders?
• Additional local studies on Arroyo Planning have been prepared and submitted to CLC which note additional considerations when planning watershed protection to insure maximum drainage safety and provision of wildlife and human corridors.
• How much open space? Only 2% exclusive of the arroyos? As much as 30% (as in Mesa del Sol) is possible?
Schools
• The master plan for the annexation area doesn’t include enough sites for schools (for example: only 2 elementary schools for a minimum of 26,000 homes).
• The Las Cruces Public Schools Acting Superintendent estimates that projected homes in annexation area will require 1 high school, 3 middle schools, and 9 elementary schools, far less than established in developer’s master plan.
• If land is not assigned to schools now, as part of the master plan and zoning process, the school district will be forced to buy back additional sites from land that is zoned residential, at enormously higher prices.
• Assurances by the developer that this can be taken care of later are welcome but not legally binding: this developer may not win the bid when the state land is released, may sell the property to others, etc. Set asides for schools and other public facilities must be in the master plan before council approval.
• This is state land and doesn’t yet belong to any individual. Adequate public land should be set aside for local schools and not released to private developers without adequate provision for their needs.
Transportation
• Planning ahead of major thoroughfares before the development is a major feat and must be accomplished with careful planning.
• Impact on existing traffic/highways/interstates. How much extra traffic is expected? What will the cost of handling this traffic be to CLC?
• Planning for public transit systems?
• Plans for Porter Road and Northrise Drive show them crossing the Alameda Dam and Arroyo (section 25). Possible to work with the BLM on this area, with its large arroyo, to make it open space? Roads could bypass this area in some way?
• Is there an overall plan to connect all forms of transportation both within the project and to the surrounding areas?
Housing/Subdivisions/Planned Growth
• A self-contained, master-planned community with its own mix of housing and commercial areas, along with plans for roads, schools, and other facilities is a major accomplishment that requires very careful planning by both the City and the County.
• Why is the developer doing the master planning and not the City?
• Why is the developer in charge of the order of development in this project, the size and design of the New Urbanism/Smart Growth section, the eligibility for workforce housing, and so on?
• As huge as this development is, it’s only one master planned development. What about all the other development going on around the City? Where is the comprehensive, regional master plan for all the development?
• When will a determination be made of the final eastern boundary for development?
• How “green” are the design standards?
• How will dust from the Jobe Concrete facility (BLM Land) affect homes in their area?
• Is 5% enough workforce housing?
• How many subdivisions will be cul-de-sac with only one, traffic-clogging entrance?
• What about direct routes to school for school children?
• What about direct routes for children to walk to one another’s homes?
The Process
• How is the public going to be able to communicate with the council? On this project? In the future?
• Can the annexation be approved, but the master plan and zoning changes held for further discussion?
• Only 30 days for deliberation? Minus the 5 days the City Council needs to publish, only 25 days?
• What is the contract between the developer and the state land office?
• Were any other developers given the opportunity to submit master plans?
• How much of the land can be released? At what rate? One section per year? (Depends on the market?)
Dona Ana County Quality Growth Alliance
Steve Fischmann
stephen.fischmann@gmail.com
*Information in this document is a compilation of concerns expressed either at the City Council meeting on Monday (4/16/2007) or in other venues.