6a-c) (2) Submission to CPC, 9.22.

14
To: Joe Chavez, Chair and members 9/22/14
Bernalillo County Planning Commission,

From: Paul Lusk

former Principal Planner, County of Bernalillo and City of Albuquerque (combined), 1968-78
Emeritus Professor of Architecture and Planning, School of Arch. and Plng., UNM, 1976-2002

Planning/Review Process:

I am concerned that there does not seem to be a process whereby comments submitted by citizens
regarding the proposed Santolina Master Plan are responded to, acknowledged and/or incorporated
in the ongoing sequence of review and revision of this proposed development. Not just my own
comments, but detailed submissions by individuals and citizen groups, involving many hours of
research and data preparation regarding water (real water, not paper water), public health,
projected costs and revenues, environmental and fiscal impacts, etc. -- not just opinion letters, but
detailed substantive input. It is ‘put in the file’ but there is no evidence, at least shared with the
public, of subsequent action or directives by the CPC or the Planning Department to the
representatives or agents for this proposed development. The comments by other County
departments and Public Agencies are duly recorded and amply responded to, both by the
Department and in response by the agents for the developers. Citizen comments, however, may be
counted numerically but, it seems, given little weight in guiding this proposed development

The evidence for this is that the Santolina M.P. document, through four ‘revisions’ submitted by the
applicant (July, August, Sept. 4 and now Sept. 18, just 4 days before ‘final’ comments are due from the
Public) do not seem to acknowledge or incorporate many citizen comments made since January of
this year. Although a detailed listings of these omissions and failures-to-respond exceeds the time or
space available here to document them, I will identify below a few of these ‘non-responses’ in the
latest revisions (blue and green typeface) versions of and additions to this proposal.

No Net Expense: (Pp. 9, 118, etc.) The first paragraph on pg. 9 says (in green type, also on pg. 118):
”The ‘no net expense’ test can be satisfied if the County’s .. expenditures have been, or will be, offset
by revenues”, etc. The problem, though, is not with the arithmetic; the problem is with the
assumptions. Even the outside consultant for the County Economic Development Dept. says at the
top of their report (in BernCo, Agenda and Minutes) that they used the applicant’s assumptions; no
market analysis or any potential industrial capacity or attraction survey was reported by the
developer nor done by the consultant. That is to say, the numbers supplied to them (75,000 direct
jobs, 2 jobs per household, etc.), apparently had been generated by calculating the acreage of colored
areas on their proposed Land Use Plan, and then multiplying by a book-formula ‘jobs per developed
area, per industry type’. That is, the consultant confirmed the arithmetic; they did not perform an
independent analysis or address the assumptions.

Further, the agents for the applicant counted only the (estimated) County costs, NOT including
induced City costs, or State or Federal costs [See: Sept. 4 revision (in green type, pg. 99), “Developer
shall not be responsible for mitigating and/or constructing any roadway improvement located
outside of the boundaries of the Property, including without limitation, constructing or mitigating
any existing or future conditions and deficiencies related to Interstate 40 and Interstate 25 (including
on/off ramps and frontage roads) and any public or private City, County or State routes, highways or
freeways.” ]

This is in conflict with the requirement in the County Resolution (AR 158-90) adopting the Planned
Communities Criteria (PCC). It states in Policy II.B.2.d, "no net expense to the City" (not just the
County), (p.14). This also ignores the requirement in County Resolution AR 158-90 (Section 4, p.15–
16), "..phasing of planned communities through development agreements between the communities,
developers and the City as well as other appropriate units of local government should be established
.. to assure reasonable and equitable allocation of financial responsibility for capitalization, (etc)”.
The fact that the proposed development is in the County, and that the submission is under review
there, does not abrogate the requirement (as adopted in the PCC resolution) that any development
agreements that affect the City’s financial responsibility be reviewed and concurred in by
representatives of the City, (see P. Lusk to CPC, 7/21/14, pg. 1-2). (See also P.L. to CPC, 3/22/14, pg.
1).

Also on page 9 of the Sept. revision(s) to the proposed M.P. (added in green type), “…the assumption
that: (i) Santolina is not subject to County Impact Fees, or any other kind of fees, which are used to
fund capital expenditures..”, etc. is astonishing in it’s unmitigated chutzpa. Why would this entire
area be exempt from the development impact requirements from all other development in Bernalillo
County? This, combined with the statement (was on pg. 17, is now item 5 on pg. 21) that: “Property
tax rates shall recognize the use of the land as agricultural until such time as a Level C Plan … has
been approved and vertical development occurs on an individual final plated parcel or tract.” It goes
on to say: “The adoption of the Master Plan or subsequent Level B or C plan approvals shall not be
considered as a change in land use or agricultural status of the property for tax purposes.”

If the interpretation of “no net expense” does not include: 1) an independent economic analysis, 2) it
excludes any impact fees, and 3) would generate no new tax revenues until “vertical development
occurs on an individual final platted parcel or tract”, then, rather than the rosy projections and dollar
signs twinkling in the eyes of some in positions of power, there is an equal (or greater) chance that
this proposal would leave County taxpayers saddled with a very large, long-term debt and with only
the $3.66/per acre Grazing/Greenbelt tax yield that has been and still is the tax return on this
property.

Density: (Pg. 18, in Exhibits 4 & 5 on pg. 20, and multiple other locations.) For example, on pg. 18 of
the Sept. 4 revised text it states: “Once a master plan has been approved, density allowance is
increased to 3 du./ac. gross.” On pg. 47 it repeats this sentence and then states: “Based on the
Comprehensive Plan, the Master Plan is entitled to an overall number of allowable dwelling units of
38,045 units community-wide.” This assumption of entitlement is not true. The density allowed in
Planned Communities is controlled by the County Resolution (AR 158-90) adopting the PCC, and is
detailed in the guidelines within. (See also P. Lusk to CPC, 1/29/14, and 5/18/14 “Public and Private
Rights in Property, Zoning and the Creation of Value: General Case and Application to the proposed
Santolina Master Plan”)

County Resolution AR 158-90, Section 2, subsection B. (p.15) states ..“density ..(will be considered) ..
up to 3.0 dwellings per acre.” It also states under subsection D, “.. densities .. shall be set through
analysis of each planned Community master plan (p. 15). A density of 3.0 du/ac is not a given or a
‘right’; it must be justified by evidence. The Comprehensive Plan, Reserve Area, Policy b. (included in
the adopted PCC ordinance) requires ”A carrying capacity analysis of each planned community ..”.
The carrying capacity analysis, as required in the Comprehensive Plan (Reserve Area, Policy b) is also
included on page 55 of the PCC (see: P.L. to CPC, 7/21/14, pg. 2). No such analysis has been
presented.
Also, the use of the entire area for du/ac calculation (see: P.L. to CPC, 3/22/14, regarding net and
gross residential density) is wrong. The error in the text of the Comprehensive Plan wherein the
word ‘residential’ was (perhaps) inadvertently omitted allows misinterpretation, or opportunistic or
intentional exploitation of this error. This text omission, allowing industrial, commercial, public open
spaces, streets and arterials included in the calculation of ‘residential’ density, must be corrected.

Development on the West Mesa: As described in an earlier submission to the CPC, (P.Lusk to CPC,
7/21/14) some development on the top of the West Mesa is, and can be, appropriate. As shown on
the USGS 2000-scale, hand-colored map (given to Catherine VerEecke on January 14 of this year, for
submission to the CPC), the West Mesa is not a uniformly undevelopable area. That is: the large,
highly erodible, 10 to 15 ft. high, longitudinal east-west sand dunes don’t cover the entire area. As
shown on the USGS map, the 1 to 4 miles-long, Sahara-type, wave-formation dunes are concentrated
in the proposed ‘Santolina’ area (and extending about 4000 ft. north of I-40). They are also in a
somewhat smaller area that stretches west and north of the Volcanoes. Much of the remaining area
could be suitable for large-scale, metropolitan-area-serving-uses such as the existing Double Eagle II
airport, Shooting Range Park, and others.

In the ‘WALF Sector Plan (as amended Oct. 2012), the City did not approve any development above
the Atrisco Terrace Open Space. The physical basis for this is that much of that area above the
escarpment is NOT suitable for fine-grain, urban or suburban development. In the P. Lusk 2/27 (pg.
3) and 3/22 (pg. 4) submittals to the CPC, one potential alternative incorporating Plaza-centered,
land-form-fitting development, is suggested. Other large-scale, minimum-land-disturbing, entire-
metro-area-serving uses also may be appropriate.

I am sure that members of the Planning Commission are under considerable political pressure to
‘approve this development for its great economic benefit to the County’. In my view, the more likely
outcome would be a rapid resale of all of it, or sub-parcels of this land, at great economic advantage
to the applicants, and with the long-term risk of very little economic return to the taxpayers. If
approved and implemented, it also would result in a long-term reduction of available tax resources to
all established areas represented by the Bernalillo County Commissioners. This greatly increased
public cost burden would be significantly multiplied if this pattern of development were extended to
the thousands of acres north of I-40, (see the “String of Pearls” extension of the Santolina-type
development, P.L. to CPC, 7/21, pp.2-3). This proposal would be just the first of a series of such
developments north through Rio Rancho to U.S. 550.

There is ample developable capacity for many times the proposed Santolina population within the
adopted, already utility-served or committed Metropolitan Development Areas [see P.L. to CPC, 2/27
(pg. 2), in the 3/22 (pg. 1), and in 7/21 (pg. 3). Unfortunately, it appears to me that the Santolina
proposal is based more on greed than on need; it would perpetuate a long established pattern of
politically powerful land owners (or developers) proposing to build on more distant, often lower-
cost land with the goal of optimizing development profit and, when possible, to transfer much of the
burden of providing utility extensions and services to the public.

This is a pivotal moment in the history of the Albuquerque Metro area. Should we: 1) continue the
outward sprawl into new areas beyond the adopted Development Areas of the Comprehensive Plan,
or 2) optimize the efficiency of our physical and tax-based resources to maintain and enhance the
livability, viability and sustainability of the already utility-served/committed area within the Rio
Grande basin?

I would urge that unless or until an appropriate-scaled, ecologically sound and economically credible
alternative is presented, this proposal, as submitted, should not be approved.