Loading...
10-13-1993 j 1 2 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 3 MEETING 4 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1993 5 The following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, October 13, 1993, 6 at 7:30 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City council ChambE.rs, 200 North Church St. , Las Cruces, New Mexico. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray B. Luchini , Chairman (Dona Ana County) 8 Nelson Clayshulte (Town of Mesilla) Edward Southworth (Town of Mesilla) 9 Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) Herculano Ferralez (City of Las Cruces) 10 Tommy Tomlin (City of Las Cruces) John Haltom (City of Las Cruces) 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Miyagishima (Dona Ana County) 12 ' STAFF PRESENT: Michael Parks, Acting MPO Officer 13 David Carpenter, City Planning Tim Russ, Transit Department 14 Minerva Sanchez, Recording Secretary 15 CALL TO ORDER 16 Mr. Luchini called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. There was a quorum present. 17 REVIEW OF MINUTES 18 Mr. Luchini said, the first order of business is Review of the Minutes. Has 19 1 everyone had a chance to look over the Minutes? :are there any additions or deletions? 20 Mr. Haltom said, I think that those persons who are absent are required by 21 the Open Meetings Act to be listed. Those members of the Committee who are absent are supposed to be listed as being absent. 22 Mr. Luchini said, they have in the past. 23 Mr. Haltom said, is this the entire compliment? Is this the entire 24 representation that serves on this committee that' s listed? 25 Mr. Southworth said, yes. 26 Mr. Luchini said, yes. 27 Mr. Haltom said, do we have only two members from the County? 28 Mr. Luchini said, yes. 29 Mr. Haltom said, okay, that takes care of my concern. 30 Mr. Tomlin said, I move we accept the Minute:. Mr. Ferralez seconded. There was no further discussion, and Mr. Luchini said, all those in favor of 31 the motion signify by saying aye. Any opposed. The motion passed 32 unanimously. -1- LAS CRUCES ME-110`4-OLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 1' 1 NEW BUSINESS 2 Mr. Luchini said, under New Business we have the Picacho Hills Alternative 3 Access Study: Amendment of the Major Thoroughfare Plan, Resolution 93-010. 4 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, what we have before you tonight is an amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan; specifically the 5 i Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study. As directed by the Unified Work Plan of this years list of things to do, staff was directed to analyze 6 future alignments and access in the Picacho Hills area. This study came as a result, for the most part, from the developers. They asked that they have 7 the opportunity to present a master plan for PicE.cho Hills. This plan has been subsequently reviewed and approved at the ETZ level . As I get further 8 into the presentation, I will explain what the ETZ has reviewed and what they have considered and what they have put forward in addition to what came 9 forward in our analysis. When we looked at the proposal the developers submitted, we took all of their ideas and began to do an analysis on them in 10 standard fashion. The Federal Highway Administration has outlined methods and procedures for doing these types of studies and how to calculate the 11 ( future traffic in the area. Right now there exists 296 dwelling units in Picacho Hills Country Club that are accessed by only one road, and that is 12 Picacho Hills Drive. One of the primary concerns that staff has had is alternative access for public safety reasons. What we did, if you' ll look 13 at the overhead, we have a copy of an sample area that we analyzed in your 1 packet. The sample area encompasses all of Picacho Hills. It's bounded on 141 the east by Shalem Colony Trail ; on the south by US 70; and on the west by a section line common to BLM land and private land; and on the north, it is 15 bounded by a section line just south of Picacho Peak. This study area is what we used to analyze future population, Enure growth. Within the 16process used to analyze future traffic we ha.' to account for what was existing and what is proposed future development. The only thing we had to 17 go on was ETZ zoning. We analyzed what full build out would be at the current ETZ zoning levels. Once we figured that out, we had to then 18 determine what percentages of land uses occur on those lands. What we did was take a sample of what existed out there anc extrapolated that out for 19 the entire area. As you can see, the sample arell encompasses the southern , portion of Picacho Hills as it exists along with tie developments just North 20 '', of US 70. This sample area was extrapolated out ;o that we could calculate what full build out would be for the future. This is a process used by 21IFHWA. It is called an itemitive process whereby w-n take all the vacant land and apply the land use percentages of the sample area to it. Each time we 22 ' do that we get a decreasing amount of vacant land. We keep doing this until all of the land is developed or extrapolated out, and then we can begin to 23 , calculate what the trips will be. Staff went through this process and then equated the future land use to traffic generation. The traffic generation, 24 basically is the most difficult part, as it is in any kind of these studies, we used standard trip generation rates on a national level and applied them 25 ' here based on averaged standards from across the country. Those rates were then equated to trips per day. How many vehi .les would be on the road? 26 Those vehicle would use the alignments that are set up in the master plan. We went through the process and what you see as part of the resolution is 27 the result of the roadways necessary to accommodate the full build out. It is here I would like to stress that we're not petting a time frame on this 28 other than it is within a 30 year time frame as o.ar Major Thoroughfare Plan , exists now. These roads, however, will be goierned by development. As 29 , development occurs, these roads will become neces3ary. Right now we're not advocating that they be constructed in any short term, but that they at 30 '! least be considered for long term growth. This is what I would like to expand upon--what the ETZ has determined and applied. They looked at 31 internal circulation of Picacho Hills. Their area plan consists of 32 alignments that you see in the resolution tonight. There are a few -2- 1 l� LAS CRUCES MFPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POCTOBER 13, 1993 I' 1 exceptions. A roadway that would connect Picacho Hills to Shalem Colony 2Trail is simply shown as an arrow or stub out. It's not defined as to what exactly that would become. They looked at simply options to drop alignments 3 south to US 70 in the form of arrows, coming southward, as you can see j there; and arrows to the east and to the north, as well . Now, the dashed 4 line to the north indicates a study corridor area that would be necessary in the event that the privately owned land to the north (5,000 acres) ever 5 becomes developed. There' s a single landowner that owns all of the land to the north and west of this development, and if that ever becomes developed, 6 we would like to have study corridor to say we need to do more planning in this area. Basically, this is what ETZ approved. What is being recommended 7 tonight in this resolution is essentially the saff e thing. Staff would like to stress that the preferred for alternative access would be the collector 8 that would drop down from the southwestern portion of Picacho Hills to connect with US 70. This would extend west of the water slide and connect 9 with US 70. Again, these roadways would only be connected in the event that the development required it, and if the roads are over capacity and they 10 ' need alternative access. The master plan states that at the time the 400th dwelling unit is built, that either an alternative access be created or 11 Picacho Hills Drive be widened to four lanes. That is a part of their approved master plan. So what is before you tonight is to amend the Major 12I Thoroughfare Plan to reflect these alignments and I know there is considerable public concern about this issue, and I ' ll be happy to answer 13 any questions. 14 Mr. Luchini said, are there any questions from the Committee for Mr. Parks? 15 Mr. Haltom said, we have copies of options indicating a proposal to tie in to Shalem Colony Trail . Where did that come from end what does that have to 16do with the additional access to Picacho Hills? 17 Mr. Parks said, what we originally proposed to the TAC in July was that a , collector be, in fact, extended to Shalem Colony Trail . Right now Shalem 18 jColony Trail exists in the Major Thoroughfare Plan as a proposed Minor Arterial . The TAC felt concern over this and concern that if we were to 19 connect Picacho Hills and Shalem Colony Trail , we would be dumping a lot of , cars onto Shalem Colony which doesn't exist in an approved condition. 20 Mr. Haltom said, and that would be harmful to both of them. 21 Mr. Parks said, exactly. Staff concurs with this. 22 Mr. Haltom said, I asked because I saw these other options. 23 Mr. Parks said, what the TAC recomended was to separate the two issues-- 24 ' Picacho Hills separated from Shalem Colony Trail . Reserve Shalem Colony Trail for further study in the future. The TAC was concerned for the 25 development activities occurring right now in Picacho Hills and they wanted those to be able to proceed. At the close of this issue, I would like to 26 present to this Committee what TAC actually decided and what we need direction from this Committee on concerning Shalem Colony Trail . 27 Mr. Luchini said, I know we have people in the audience who are concerned 28 about what' s going on, so we' ll give them a few minutes to present their , case. 29 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, I 'm sure that there's quite a few folks 30 that would like to have some say. I would say that three minutes per person would be adequate and ask that they don't repeat what' s already been 31 ' discussed. 32 -3- LAS CRUCES MET 'OLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 i 1 Mr. Southworth said, could we get them to speak at the microphone for the 2 , record. 3 Mr. Ivan S. Taylor said, we own property designated in this area with this blue strip. In fact this blue strip goes right through the middle of our 4 property. We have never, never been contacted in connection with this. I understand that for several years there have been procedures by registered 5 letter advising people of what' s being considered, and I wondered whether there's been a breakdown in this type of communication; whether procedures 6have been followed; or whether they' re not supposed to be followed. We were concerned that everyone around us has been notified. We have been 7 ' called on the phone and told there' s a road going right through your farm. I 'd like to get a little clarification. 8 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Taylor, we are bound by our policies to notify everyone 9 with 300 feet of that line. At this time, I don't know exactly where your , property is. 10 Mr.. Taylor said, it' s right in the middle of this line. 11 Mr. Parks said, we're checking right now. We mailed out 150 certified 12 letters of property owners of record. All I can say is that if you are in the swath of land, you should have been notified. There was a letter 13 "returned to sender" because your tax records do not show an address. 14 Mr. Taylor said, oh, come on. The tax records get to our address. We get all of the tax bills. 15 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Taylor, I stand corrected. There is a letter we did 16 attempt to send, but our computer records do not have your address. 17 Mr. Taylor said, well , what's the matter with your ^ecords? 18 Mr. Luchini said, I think there' s some confusion there because that's out in the County and this is the City. 19 Mr. Taylor said, all of these people are out in the County also. I have 20 ( half a dozen neighbors here who all received letters. 21 ' Mr. Parks said, we have it as Taylor, Ivan Scott and Virginia Ann, Trustee, Fairacres, NM 88033. 22 Mrs. Taylor said, why didn't they put the box numbe-. 23 Mr. Parks said, I can't say why the post office didn't put the box number 24 down. 25 Mr. Taylor said, we've received these before. 26 ' Mr. Tomlin said, with this same address. 27 � Mr. Taylor said, no. We've received it at the post office address. 1 28 ; Mr. Parks said, all I can say is that sometimes they do slip through the 1cracks. Our data base are as updated as we can make them. 29 'I IMr. Taylor said, we've received them before. 30 Mr. Parks said, we're very sorry for that. 31 ' 32 -4- LAS CRUCES ME 'OLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 1 Mr. Taylor said, people call and say, there' s a road going through your 2 property. 3 Mr. Parks said, perhaps we can get your address so that this doesn't happen in the future. 41 1 Mr. Taylor said, everybody in the State of New Mexico has our address, and 51 you've had it before, because we are adjacent to Picacho Hills and on various number of occasions we've had opportunity to discuss developments 6 ' and problems with Picacho Hills. I can't understand how something like that could happen. 7 Mr. Luchini said, it can happen. We're all human and we make mistakes. 8 Mr. Taylor said, it doesn't with the Tax Assessor. 9 ' Mr. Luchini said, this is only a study. Nothing is probably going to happen 10 for 25 to 30 years, and I don't think any of us will be around. 11 iMr. Taylor said, I know, but I did think it was important that I bring it 12 up. Mr. Luchini said, okay. We' ll make sure to take care of that. 13 Mr. Jack Kelley said, I have a question. Why this collector here is the 14 main collector. Why is this the main road that they' re outlining. It doesn't go through. Everybody that' s going to use this one is going to have 15go around one way or the other, and there's also a 30 foot right-of-way that they're after that's going to go right through here (indicating map) . I 16 talked to Mr. Parks a little bit ago. The proposal is for 30 feet of our land, but this land here they' ll try to get from, BLM. My question is, if 17 this is such an important road, why doesn't it connect? Why not this one out here? It doesn't bother anybody' s personal property at this time. 18 Leave this one as the major; leave this one in 30 or 40 years when it gets the other 1000 houses out here built. Then there may be a need for this one 19 and the option is there. But, I would say that this one here should be the major. 20 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, to address that, in fact, the one all the way 21 to the west is the Major Arterial . The one that would come down by your property as you indicated, is a Collector road. It is a lesser of a road. 22 ' It's not going to be a huge four lane divided highway. It would be most , like Triviz or Walnut as far as size. The reason why it doesn't go through 23 is that it is just a Collector. Collectors are not designed to go cross- country or through a region; Arterials are. That' s why we put the Arterial 24 ' on the edge of the developed land so that we then plan for a route to : connect large portions of the city or the region. 25 Mr. Kelley said, I 've got one other thing to add. Option C (three, 26 ' whatever) , I think there' s another option that wouldn't impact anybody, any of the existing owners there right now, if you' ll bear with me a moment. 27 Picacho Hills Drive is going to go to four lanes; these are going to affect people and property right now. These are going to be built (referring to 28 ' map) , why not take these four lanes all the way around and connect it into here. Take these two and run them out to the existing road that's on the 29 ' bench up there. These are coming through these arroyos and it' s going to be , very expense to build them out. At this time, it would not impact anybody 30 ; living out here. I would like to put that in a proposal . Basically, it ! would do away with going through this gentlemen' s farm and having to condemn 31 '� his land as public domain; even impacting these people down through here, ;; the waterslide, and properties out there. This would give them all the 32 -5- if LAS CRUCES MET OLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION �,fCTOBER 13, 1993 1 i access they need. They'd have one, two, three, with the possibility of four accesses. 2 Mr. Parks said, staff looked a little bit at what you're talking about, and 3 coming around to the east of Picacho Hills, however the major portion of population lives to the west of there. The existing access of Picacho Hills 4 Drive would be used rather than that Major Arterial that would come around to the east. People would not go up out of Picacho Hills, go west and then 5 come back south to get to US 70 when they can just simply drive south to the main Picacho Hills road. The plan does allow for continuance of the 6 east/west roadways up to the road on the escarpment. You can see the arrows there (referring to map) . There is that potential . The problem we have 7 with not allowing for any connector down to US 70 is that all of the population, if there was no connector, would have to go through Picacho 8 Hills Subdivision to get to US70. We want to funnel that traffic away from the residences onto the roads that can handle it and get them to US 70 as 9 ' quickly as possible. That way, US 70 is the appropriate avenue for them to come back into town. 10 Mr. Kelley said, okay, then we go right back to this. Why make this two 11 ' lane narrow gravel road, basically, major (minor) ; why not build this one? Build the four lanes out here. 12 Mr. Parks said, right now, nobody would use that road. There's no population 13 ' there. 14 Mr. Kelley said, why build this one? 15 Mr. Parks said, people would use it. If we paved that road, you would use that to come to US 70. 16 Mr. Kelley said, I was told. . .my property is here. . .I was told I would have 17 no access to this road. That's going to put traffic on Quesenberry, most likely on Justin, and these roads can't handle that kind of traffic. People 18 are going to shortcut this. Why come all the way to US 70 here instead of here. 19 ' Mr. Parks said, the reason for placing it there is that we did not want to 20 '' run it right through the middle of that entire residential area. Talking about impacting people, that would impact people. We had to move it to the 21 , closest possible place where people could still use it but it would allow for future growth. If BLM ever trades the land, all of that is likely to be 22 subdivided and people would then use that Collector. You are there, already pre-existing, if a road comes in front of your .house, I think it is very 23 unlikely that you would not be allowed access. Otherwise, you'd have no way to get to and from your house. We'd go ahead and do that. 24 Mr. Kelley said, so this is basically (inaudible) . 25 Mr. Parks said, it is a Collector; Collector means 80 feet. There is 26 potential , if it' s needed, to widen it in the future. I can't say that it will always be a two lane road, but right now we're looking at a two lane 27 road. 28 Mr. Kelley said, one last comment. I can't understand why impact the people in these areas now. Why not move this out and then people who are buying 29 will know when they buy that this is happening. I 'm a newcomer to Las Cruces. I bought this property for the simple fact. that it was backed up to 30 the BLM. I talked to BLM and they said it was going to stay that way. That' s the reason I bought it. Thank you for hearing me out. 31 Ms. Anne Shugart said, I have a property that' s located right here. This is 32 -6- I� LAS CRUCES ME OLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION fW&ICTOBER 13, 1993 1 5 acres of land. We have had this for about 25 years. The reason we bought 2 it. was that there was nobody around us at that time. I have an idea that it would be more helpful to the people of Picacho Hills and perhaps the City of 3 Las Cruces in getting your vehicles back and forth if this did not go straight into Picacho (US 70) ; if it went rather out toward the 4 interchange. Somehow you could work it so it would be a major road. I see no reason to really get that much of a road. People probably would like to 5 get, not necessarily to Picacho, maybe they'd like to get over to the freeway. Many times I go up when I hit Picacho and go up to the freeway and 6 head back over to the other end of town. Perhaps there are other people here in Picacho Hills or perhaps when the City comes in from the airport or 7 something to service Picacho Hills, there would be more of a reason to have a more westerly road than this road that just goes straight across. 8 ' Mr. Luchini said, well , we can look at all of these suggestions. I don't 9 think we' re going to have any big decision tonight on this. We' re looking at a long time, and I probably won't be around that long. 10 Mr. Larry Garcia said, I 'd like to just bring something up and verify it. 111 It has to do with the Collector that we' re talking about. Is there any reason why they have to use the right-of-way of private property instead of 12i going into BLM land. The reason why I 'm concerned is that I own a water company, La Quinta, and I have an easement for a water tank right on the 13 proposed road. 14 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, whenever we start out planning these types of roads, we always graphically show it near an existing "line" so it does not 15 impact one more than the other. But, as time of development occurs, we go out and actually do a survey of the road. We look to see what we' re going 16to hit at that time. If there's a water tank there, we're certainly not : going to go through the water tank if we can deviate 20-30 feet around it. 17 ! We're not bound exactly to the section. We try to get away from those , properties. . . 18 ' ' Mr. Garcia said, but we don't know when that well will go in. It might be 19 i3O years down the line. It took me 6 months to talk George Quesenberry into letting me have that land, and then it took me a considerable amount of 20 expense to have it surveyed. So, I 'm a little concerned. 21 Mr. Luchini said, BLM owns that land on the other side of you, and a lot of times we have a hard time convincing BLM about getting some land out there. 22So, we have to make adjustments one way or the other. Again, it's in the future, and anything can happen between now and 25 years from now. 23 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Parks, the indications are that we' re going to take 24 land that is privately owned for this roadway. Is that what is proposed, or is' it proposed generally in that location with a probability that it will be 25 ' BLM land that will be acquired for all of the roadway. 26 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, Councilor Haltom, what is being proposed is not to take land at this time. If we can get right-of-way from BLM it costs 27 us nothing. It would be in the public's beat interest to not to take privately owned land, if we can get publicly owned land. So, if the 28 alignment as it is drawn looks like it affects privately owned properties, it's just the way we have to draw the map and put the line somewhere. If we 29 , put it down a section line, BLM likes that because it is easier to survey, ' everybody understands where the section line is, but to answer your 30 ' question, we do not intend to take private property if we can help it. 31 Mr. Haltom said, I suppose that people who own property there would say, why even consider it if there' s BLM land available. 32 -7- LAS CRUCES MET OLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OCTOBER 13, 1993 1' 1 Mr. Parks said, BLM has asked us to put the line on a section line, and so private property abuts the section line. Either way we draw the actual 2 line, people are going to get concerned. We realize that and hope to address that. 3 Mr. Haltom said, if the line can simply go down. . .the eastern part of the 4 line where the property is and the rest of it over in BLM, you'd still be along the section line. If this is 80 feet as compared with a 120 foot 5 roadway, for example, you'd need much more property from BLM. So, it seems to be that's just an 80 foot right-of-way, and there would be no reason in 6 the world, in terms of BLM's usual practice for not allowing you to put it entirely on BLM land. 7 Mr. Parks said, they've set precedents in the past. They do not generally 8 like to give 100 per cent of the right-of-way. They will in special cases if it is going to affect an actual building or water tank. They' ll work 9 with us, but if it is simply two vacant pieces of land, they do prefer it to go down and equally take property on both sides. 10 Mr. Haltom said, is there a road there now? 11 Mr. Parks said, no. 12 Mr. Haltom said, are some of these properties scattered out with no way to 13 get to them? 14Mr. Parks said, there' s not a road to US70, but it --omes off of Quesenberry. 15 Mr. Carpenter said, this line right here is Justin Lane and they come in off of Quesenberry. 16 Mr. Haltom said, what about those properties right in the middle? 17 Ms. Sharon Bowling said, we live on Bowling Lane. You turn off of Justin 18 right here and it comes around here. There is no access to the back. There is no road back there. I 'd just as soon not have a road back there. I live 19 in the country for a reason. 20 ', Mr. Tomlin said, how much of the road network was predicated on the BLM land being disposed of, in the study? 21 Mr. Parks said, it was considered as a potential in the future. We 22 iconsidered all of the BLM land being disposed of. However, it was calculated at the least dense rate that is available. In other words, we 23 divided it up into one lot every five acres, or one house every five acres. It did not attract very many trips, to be honest. It was the privately 24 owned land that surrounds the BLM that had the higher zoning and attracted more trips. 25 Mr. Tomlin said, I think Ms. Bowling' s comment about that she doesn't want a 20 ' road back there. A lot of people that bought land always felt secure that BLM was going to be there and it would always be held in private trust and 27 that it would never be developed. The policies from BLM that we've seen here in our area have changed dramatically over the years. They have 28 disposed of thousands of acres of land through land swaps with the idea now that it is surplus and that they will sell it to the highest bidder based on 29 appraisals and so on that they have to do. This is public policy and I think one of the things that people that are concerned about that need to 30 take those concerns to the people at the federal level . When you're talking about the potential for development of BLM lands to the west of Picacho 31 ' Hills, that decision will not be made here at this body, but at the federal 32 level . One of the things that we have to be concerned about, I think, is to -8- LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 I' 1 plan for that eventuality. That does not mean that as a public body that we necessarily support the privatization of that public land or disposal by 2 BLM. Another concern that I have as a City Councilor is the fact of the proximity of the airport to the area. One of the things that I don't think 3 mixes very well is residential development and airport activity. We have seen in El Paso and other communities where the airport has existed and 4 encroachment by residential development has been allowed to occur and then get in conflict with those two uses. I certainly think that one of the 5 things, and I 'm not sure if ETZ dealt with that issue or not but I 'm sure that they looked at it, is the proximity to the airport and how this 6 proposal would access it. I don't think, in the interest of the airport, that I would want to see the creation of a road network to promote 7 development but I think we need to be prepared if development does occur, how do we handle the traffic that is generated. We've had several issues 8 before this Board that have dealt with projected growth in certain areas, and one way that you can certainly nip the transportation question in the 9 bud is to somehow limit or curtail the growth in the area where it does require the expansion of the transportation network to handle additional 10 ' development. Especially as BLM land is concerne7, I think the question of the right of development in the private sector with land that' s held out in 11 that area is another issue that we have to deal with, and planning-wise that might have an affect on the sizes and so on, of the streets and the 12 locations. But I think that Mr. Parks' point about the general location is not easily understood. This one road that goes behind the Bowling property, 131 for example, on that section line, if it was' developed and sold to the private sector, you do have an option when that comes in for platting and 14 approval of moving the road to the west and not have it in that location, but move it as part of the development plan that would be submitted at that 15 time. It goes through several steps and if you look at the Major Thoroughfare Plan, east and west particularly, you' ll find a lot of roads 16 and this gentleman pointed out the large arroyo crossings and so on, and there are other topographical factors that will drastically change road 17 alignments. As Mr. Parks pointed out, we draw then on section lines because it is nice and neat, but the practical aspect of it is that it is not always 18 easy to build them on section lines. That' s a factor. I think the question of whether this area developes is speculative ii nature, and how dense it 19 ' will develop, and I think a lot of that depends on how involved the people , who live in the area and own property in tie area participate in the 20 process. 21 ' Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, it's obvious from what we've heard ! especially from Mr. Parks, that the existing route of Picacho Hills that 22 '! comes out to US 70 more than likely will be end up being a four lane road. ! I need to ask Mr. Parks a question with regard to BLM land. On the major 23 ; route, to the left, and also the Collector that makes a corner, is all of this land BLM land. 24 Mr. Parks said, the section of land approximately right here is BLM 25 property. If you' ll look at the colored map behind you, the white square inside the study area is BLM land. BLM land is section 19 and half of 26 section 18. 27 Mr. Ferralez said, next question is on the privately owned land which is 18 and 7, what portion of that is already developed? 28 Mr. Parks said, seven is not developed at this time. The existing Picacho 29 Hills Country Club area is all the land that is developed at this time. There are other subdivisions that have been approved or are on the drawing 30 ' board for this area (basically the orange portion) . That is the extent of the development in this area. All of these lands have options to develop. 31 32 -9- LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 I i 1 ! Mr. Ferralez said, okay, now, the major right-of-way that goes from north to 2 south, about where would it be? (Mr. Parks indicated it on the map) . Now, that would not affect development according to that map, right. 3 Mr. Parks said, that' s right. 4 Mr. Ferralez said, how about the collector to the north going east/west. 5 Mr. Parks said, that would not affect developed land except to where it 6 ' connects with the existing roadway. This would be the only area where it would come up and abutt to existing houses. 7i Mr. Ferralez said, okay, my proposal is this, and that's why I was asking 8 1 these questions about what the present ownership is, wouldn't it be logical to attempt to get a right-of-way on section 19 from BLM for say 100 feet 9 '; wide, and pending that 30 years from now that can be used by whoever is here at that time or in the County. This will be an indication that we're serious 10 in considering not affecting developed and then perhaps even our joining with the privately owned land maybe we could get right-of-way. The BLM land 11 not costing anything, would be a start in having enough right-of-way for north and south access. 12 Mr. Parks said, BLM has always been agreeable to allowing the County, the 13 City, the Town of Mesilla to have right-of-ways, but what they do require is that it be listed on a plan somewhere. Your action tonight would enable 14 staff to go forward through proper channels (through the City Manager or the County Commission) to obtain this for the County. 15 Mr. Ferralez said, this is what I 'm driving at that maybe we can start 16 things rolling at this time for the future by asking BLM can we have 120 feet. We can always turn it back if in 20 or :30 years from now it's not 17 needed or the plans change. But at least for starters, we have that land. Future developers of the privately owned land north, they may be smart 18 enough to say, let' s go ahead and make the right-of-way accessible at this time. It's not going to be built for the next 20 o- 30 years, but the right- 19 of-way is there. I suggest that we consider that as a formal guide to staff to start procedures through whatever channels to ac�iomplish that. 20 Mr. Luchini said, I 'm sure that we can do that and start working on it. 21 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't answer the question about the 22 Collector. I presume that the purpose of a Collector, in the short term, is 23 to provide secondary access from Picacho Hills, right? Mr. Parks said, that is part of the master plan; either that one or Picacho 24 ' Hills Drive. 25 ' Mr. Haltom said, the likelihood is that collector would be needed long before the Major Thoroughfare' s time frame. Is tha-v correct? 26 Mr. Parks said, if everything develops. 27 Mr. Haltom said, the assumption is that will develop. That's an assumption 28 that doesn't make the airport people happy becau,?e we changed the location of a major runway. It was supposed to be in once place, and it was going 29 over this area, so it was changed so that they ,lgouldn't have to fly over this area. The further south you go with this development, the closer you 30 get to the new location of the lengthened runway. I think that' s an important consideration. At the very least, we should not encourage by what 31 decision we make development in an area that will present problems for the 32 airport. -10- LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 I' 1 Mr. Parks said, Councilor Haltom, one way that you could do that is to simply take out the arrows to the east at this time. That way it gives no 2 indication that we' re going to go. We would like to remain with the same corridor area so that gives staff the opportunity to plan for that area in 3 the event that those developers came in. It might be okay to take the arrow off of there, but it would give us the leeway to do some planning. 4 ' Mr. Fred Johnson said, I 'm on Shalem Colony. When you people get ready to 5 discuss it in the future, I 've been through many ETZ Commission meetings concerning this area in the last few years. The ETZ Planners describe 6 Shalem Colony Trail , I assume they get their information from something you people put out, as a 50 foot right-of-way, with 32 feet of pavement. It is 7 a 30 foot disputed right-of-way, with 21 feet of pavement in the widest place. I have talked with people who should know, as far as your 8 designation of a Minor Arterial , for the future. Their estimate for the cost of building the road bed, paving it, moving fixed utilities that are on 9 the 4 and one-half feet that isn't paved on either side, and fifty cents on the dollar for buying the right-of-way from the property owners in that 8 10 ' miles, would one hundred million dollars. To me, that' s kind of ridiculous to designate that as a arterial of any kind when it' s unnecessary to begin 11 with. There are other alternatives. For instanr-e, one of the nicest ones that you people can do would be to look for the use of one or both of those 121 river levees from the people concerned, which can be done, I believe, at a fraction of the cost. Not only that, but there could be some lagoons, some 13 ' bike trails; there could be all kinds of things out there that would benefit the city and the county and the aesthetic appearance of this. Of course, we 14 on Shalem Colony Trail are not enthused about an arterial there in the future, any time. We know there' s never going to be any money. We get the 15 feeling that it's going to be like Dona Ana Road--there' s going to be a lot of traffic shuffled onto us and nothing to do with it, and no money to do 16 these improvements that you want. As far as the ETZ, back in the beginning we had neighborhood meetings, and we voted low density. We voted 3 to 5 17 acres, and they slapped 1 acre on us. We lope that we can get some rezoning. So, that' s just something to keep in mind when Shalem Colony 18 Trail comes in. It' s not near quite what it appears on your books. 19 ' Mr. Newman said, Commissioner Luchini , if I may address this map. I 'm George Newman, an ETZ Commissioner for the west area. I also live on Shalem 20 ! Colony Trail . Michael Parks addressed the situation that we discussed, : which was the master plan of Picacho Hills. Picacho Hills is a subdivision 21 'i that is not known by any other name. None of the builders and/or the ; subdividers take any credit for a total integral unit. They're all mini- 22 subdividers within this master plan, and we wanted to know where they were headed because we had no idea. Everyone came coming to us with 200 acre 23 plots, 60 acre plots, 71 acre plots, and no one could tell us how many units there were planning on building overall at 100% buildout level . So, the ETZ 24Commissioners forced that agenda and asked them to please give us their maximum buildout. So what you see here presented in this master plan is 25 ' approximately 1270 dwelling units comprised of 1 acre site built homes, high density zero lot line condominiums, and numerous developments within that 26 development. To give you some historical data, what we looked at because we asked them about their density was this road and what it contained and how 27 did it handle their access because we look at health, safety and welfare, just as you do. But our concerns include fire acces; we have a wonderful 28 volunteer fire department, the Fairacres Volun'ceer Fire Department, but they' re innundated with requests. They also have to police accidents that 29 , happen out here all of the time. So we looked at it from the standpoint of, how do you access this development when it' s 1270 units master planned. I 30 ' always look at it this way, gentlemen: since I 'm a taxpayer, I don't necessarily like to see my personal taxes that I pay to the County going for 31 the aid and benefit fo a private development. So when we looked at this 32 development, we said, alright, after you build out to a certain level , what -11- LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 A' 1 does the MPO recommend here as the number of ADT that this road can handle? 2 I believe the MPO came back and said 600 units. I' think there's 280 or 297, some where in that neighborhood, units, and we said, and I even challenged 3 it personally, that the MPO used the national average based on a certain type of traffic study that determined how many trips daily were made in this 4 quarter on a national average. When we look at national averages, you have to also weigh retirement. A retiree is a very active person. They come and 5 ', go quite often, so if you're using a national average--I believe that was " 9.5 to determine this, I challenged it, coming from the Disney organization, 6 because we looked at a higher number. Retirees are involved a lot more. They go to pharmacists. They go to doctors. They do local things. They 7 just go all over. I don't necessarily agree on that 9.5 factor. Anyway, if you multiply the 9.5 factor times 600 SFD' s, I said, hmmm, but the 8 developers were willing to scale that down and go to a 400 SFD' s on this existing road. We said, okay, once you reach 400 dwelling units, regardless 9 of whether they're 1.7 densities or 5.0 densities, you must put in an alternative access. We argued the fact that ' Shalem Colony Trail could 10 handle that currently the way it is. Just because this was a Minor Arterial , connecting two Major Arterials, it was designated a Minor 11 Arterial . It' s an old farm road that went from Picacho to the North Valley. And just because this became a four lane with a full turnout, and a 12 Major Arterial and North Valley became a Major Arterial , poor Shalem Colony Trail , the old farm road became designated under the MPO' s guidelines, as a 13Minor Arterial . Okay, so we have to live with that. Some day you're looking at a Minor Arterial , but that is not reason why we said to look for 14 , an alternative access. Alternative access were given to, two options, to Picacho Hills Development. We said, once you, reach 400 units, you have 15 ; Option A, improve this road to handle more. Because we' re not going to give you the guidelines for mass development until ;,you make certain scheduled 16 ' improvements. That's what we looked at. Because why are we scrambling over here, they've only got 600 units, total , for the next 10 years. It took 17 them a long time to get to where they are, at 297, but now we said 400 which is another 103. It isn't to say that they can't do that, and under the 18 current circumstances the way that retirement is coming here, five years from now we' ll be looking at 400 buildouts. But, my question was, what's 19 the alternative access. This was not here when they came to us with the first plan. This was a development concept after they discussed it with the 20 ', ETZ. Now, don't forget that we were still looking at the internal mechanism to get a collector for health, safety and welfare, mainly fire and police. 21 ', There is a berm right here, and what this gentleman said has a lot of ; credence. There is a berm right here and since we're talking about an 22 ! internal collector, at this point in time, don't overlook the fact that the ' developer couldn't come back here and improve this to dump out on their 23 ' existing Highway 70 to handle all 600 units. We' re talking about circulation patterns. We're talking about making sure that the fire trucks 24 can get into this neighborhood. We' re talking about police. We' re talking about all of that. We' re not necessarily talking about whether we need to 25 burden the MPO with acquisition on BLM land or burden the MPO with making the decision, and it' s going to be a hard-fought decision, on improving 26Shalem Colony Trail . I will tell you it is a hard-fought decision because I was a very active member of the north loop corridor. And that, gentlemen, 27 you were all involved in, in essence, especially the City Council . When you look at this, please keep in mind that you ,might be talking 30 years 28 development. But as a project called Picacho Hills Subdivision, that is the master plan, not these 1270, as current ETZ official guidelines. They 29 cannot exceed 1270. If Mr. Burke wants to come in here with his 5,000 units, that's a whole other issue. I understand .that you have to be aware 30 of that long term plan. Again, you also have the Rio Grande Levee that goes north and south. The easements have already been dedicated. The trees have 31 already been taken out. We look for growth for this Valley and we don't see 32 the trees for our noses. They're gone, so why not approach the -12- 0 LAS CRUCES METrNOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 i' 1 International Boundary. They helped us out with a park here, so maybe 2 they' re interested in some dialogues that they could help us out to go north and south. None of the farmers live back here. The farmers front the roads 3 because those were the easiest accesses. So, there you are here, as Mr. Johnson said. But you also have another opportunity--the Picacho Drain 4 could also provide that north/south alternative. - EBID said, if you want to go north and south, we' ll look at the Picacho Drain. The drain is also back 5 here. It's to the rear of the farm developed property. So, I ask you, when you make decisions and you start looking at acquisition, or you start 6 looking at north loop corridor studies, or you start looking at the protection of the airport--and the airport was a major consideration for the 7 flyway--because we don't have subdividers like this in the City. This city needs this type of quality development. So whatever we can do, and we also 8 don't need to hamper them, we need to help them, but at the same time, the , developers can't expect the taxpayers to pay for their development. If they 91 do want to improve this, then why not have the property owners that are in here, and the County has a road improvement district so they can improve 10 this road if it has to go to six lanes. If this has to be developed, and they encroach on their golf course, what's the problem. It's a collector 11 fo-r their own purpose. And that's all that I ask you to consider. If there's any questions of me, I 'd be glad to answer them. 12 Mr. Parker Bell said, I have done a little bit of planning in my career as a 13 ' highway engineer, a chief of the Traffic Bureau in Santa Fe for a number of years. I do think that you folks need some short term duties instead of 14 ' these 30 year term duties that you're sitting here talking about because of things that some of the people have pointed out to you about money. What it 15 ', costs just to widen some of the Arterials that they have already looked at. I 'd like to address what was just brought up by Mr. Newman. That is, I want 16 to point out to you, that the existing road into Picacho Hills has got many defects in it. We won't mention the lawsuits that have been between the 17 ! County and the people who were supposed to maintain the road which have been resolved and now the County does maintain the road to some extent. We thank 18 ' them for that. I live in the area and I 'm very aware of the roadway. We have several curves in this road that were not properly designed. We have 19 further, up by Las Casitas area, a sharp hairpin curve that has limited sight distance, improper drainage, and has an accident history of at least 1 20 accident where a near head-on occurred, and we have a lot for sale on the inside of that curve by one of the developers the gentleman was mentioning. 21 , That needs to be addressed. I have sent a letter to the County Manager Brooks, and one of his employees responded this week. He doesn't know what 22 he can do. He says it' s too late because it's already been approved in this master plan that was mentioned a moment ago. I 'don't want kind of answer 23 I 'm going to get, but I ' ll just tell you that I 'm not going to go away. I 'm going to pursue this. I have no ax to grind. I 'm not a developer. I work 24 in the private sector, but I will tell you that this road needs some attention before it' s ever widened to six lanes. I 'd also tell Mr. 25 Ferralez, don't ask for 100 or 120 feet of right-of-way, for a Major Collector. That is not enough. You need to ask -For big quantities so that 26 you're not back later asking other people to contribute. I realize you just put that out as a starting point, but his type of corridor, I think your 27 planners tonight would agree, on 200 feet minimum. Because of what we see with utilities and those other problems. One; thing that was mentioned 28 'tonight, is we've used the Federal Highway Department guidelines, and I 'm familiar with those, but one thing we haven't talked about is, what is the 29 'origin and destination of most of the traffic that' s going to be out here. It doesn't want to go this way to the interstate or to the airport. It 30 'wants to go to the central business district. That' s why it makes a lot of sense. If you fly over parts of California, and I don't particularly like 31 California, and those are the people who are moving down here, and they're 32 -13- LAS CRUCES MET , LITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 i 1 the ones that are going to make this 600 buildout, and I welcome them if 2 they like the quality of life that we have out here, but I ' ll tell you that there are many fingers of California where there are many more people than 3 600 living in a valley and have only one arterial . But that one arterial is a good, four lane or six lane arterial . I ' ll also tell you that if this 4 road is just improved into an adequate right-of-way with proper drainage, shoulders, it can handle a lot more traffic than it's handling right now. 5 Right now, it' s a chipped seal surface of an old road bed that was built to poor standards, in fact, substandards, by the people who were the 6 , developers. I would just emphasize to you that ETZ and this Board should seek some professional advice. I know you have some professionals on your 71 staff, and I 'm not looking for work either, but look for some people to look at this that don't have an ax to grind or have anything to gain from this. 8 , This city has been beseiged by lack of good planning and corridor planning. I go back to the interstate system. A lot of you in the room might wonder 9 why I-10 cuts across the valley and why it never extended and touched I-25 near Del Rey or the K-Mart, and we had actually some what of an intersection 10 of those two. It was because of lack of understanding and lack of proper planning here at the local level . I can show you minute after minute where 11 ', the Highway Department was told to go away, and don't give us those numbers. Now we suffer from that. I also know that a corridor for an 12 ' alternate to US 70 was studied. Barton-Aschman, a reputable firm, brought ' forth some very good information, but no it was blown away too. Apparently 13 ' parts of it are being followed, such as expanding US7O but we're not talking about a new corridor because there are too many interests that do not want 14 to accept that. I say these things just to make one point, and that is that we need to take care of what we've got and plan that well . A lot of these 15 things maybe too much of an impact on areas that don't want that type of development, and besides that, I don't want to go to Las Cruces by going a 16 ' mi.le or a mile and a half out of my way. Therefore, that wouldn't serve me at all . With that I ' ll sit down. I think I 've said enough. 17 Mr. Luchini said, Mr. Bell , I just want to mention a couple of things. On 18 that development there, a few years back the road going into the development was scheduled to be a four lane road. The developers backed off the whole 19 thing and didn't do a good job. They've turned it over to the County now, and we're responsible for it now. It has been a headache. We went to court 20 over it and lost. They never developed the streets the way it was supposed to be done, so we're stuck with a high cost road and you're right, it needs 21 to be developed. I think it would serve a lot of traffic is it was developed to four lanes. I think that we've had enough discussion on this. 22 What is the pleasure of the board? 23 Mr. Tomlin said, Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns at this point in time is that we have a recommendation to this Board and to the ETZ. I don't know 24 how many of these points, we don't have a copy,of the minutes where they talked about this, and I don't know how many of the people that were here 25 tonight had an opportunity to address this issue at the ETZ meeting, but it would seem to me that it might be appropriate; I ' ll be glad to deal with the 26 issue if that' s the wishes of the MPO and the public, but looking at this and taking into account some of the comments here whether there needs to be 27 some modifications to the plan as presented. It would seem to be that a - couple of good points have been made here that staff might want to follow 28 through with. Yet, I would not want to make those decisions without having the ETZ respond to those and see if there' s any modifications that they 29 would like make before we do this. 30 Mr. Luchini said, I think you' re correct. Maybe we could table this and 31 bring it back at the next meeting, if that's the pleasure of the board. 32 Mr. Tomlin said, maybe someone that was at the ETZ, through the process, can -14- LAS CRUCES MEOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 1 give us feedback about the kinds of issues that were discussed. I know Mr. 2 Newman mentioned that a little bit. 3 Mr. Newman said, there's a couple of things that I really want to state. We pretty well put these developers through their paces and they know that. 4 There was a reason. We wanted to know what it was all about. There was quite a bit of dialogue. Unfortunately there was not, in my opinion, enough 5 dialogue with some of the public because we had the same thing with the 300 feet of this (get notified) , etc. I believe Ms. Sharpe can expand on what 6 I 'm saying. We did have a lot of discussion. We didn't really look at their development from the standpoint of outside of their development and what it 7 , met as far as the road networking. We are famous for saying, that is an MPO i function and so until the MPO comes back and tells us what they want, we 8 ' don't know what they want. I don't want to pass the buck. We need developers like this. They bring a good quality Df life. They bring a lot 9 of money into our area and provide a lot of jobs and pay taxes. I 'm just interested in making sure that all of the issues that you address (options) 10 are thoroughly thought of here before you really hand down a decision. I think you need to look at every alternative you possibly can. I 'm very 11 ' serious about a road improvement district. I mean private property owners ' are going to profit from expanding that road, and we know the County doesn't 12 ' have that kind of money. The development was really for the developer but at the same time, we have to be partners. If we slam dunk developers, then 13 we end up with gravel road standards and that doesn't do anything for us. I , don't know, maybe Ms. Sharpe wants to add something. 14 ! Ms. Sharpe said, I really don't know what I can add to what was said. My 15 ' personal feeling about the subdivision when it was brought to us, we saw ' various arrows and we were under the impression that any one of those arrows 16 were there for your consideration. The way I viewed the subdivision, I really did not feel that they should have an access to Shalem Colony Trail . 17 It is just not equipped to handle that kind of V-affic and it doesn't need to handle it. I think it would be a miscarriage of justice if you impacted 18 that neighborhood. I do call it a neighborhood even though it is a collector. They just don't need that additional traffic. I 'm afraid this 19 is kind of like the tail wagging the dog if you approve that access through Shalem Colony Trail . You'd be encouraging development that I don't think 20 you're ready to deal with. And, I don't think we have the money to improve Shalem Colony Trail to accommodate that kind of development. I would very 21 happy if you all would like to bring your comments or direction to the ETZ, and we can re-look at this. We'd be very happy to do that. Thank you. 22 Mr. Tomlin said, I 'm looking at a map that Mr. Parks has. It's Picacho 23 Hills master plan that was approved. It seems to me, in looking at this, that some of the comments that were mentioned by the public (the road along 24 the embankment on the east side of the development that provides a loop for getting out of there) not indicating a fast hard route along the boundary 25 line and also to Shalem Colony Trail , I agree with Commissioner Sharpe at this point in time the dollar figures for improving Shalem Colony Trail is 26 very impractical . Things that can be done and done within the "budget" are very important factors. That loop of Picacho Hills Drive is do-able, and 27 'other turns may not be. I 'd also like to think of the idea that Mr. Parks mentioned about being able to stop the arrows that head toward the airport 28 and to keep that contained in that area. That addresses all of the concerns that the public has especially those people that live outside the area and 29 that would be impacted by how the road network is 'developed to serve in the Picacho Hills vicinity. I think that those modifications I would like to 30 see us come back with our resolution that would more accurately reflect this master plan as approved by the ETZ Commission than I would the one that we 31 ,+have before us this evening with the modifications `of the arrows to the west land maybe for the time being to the south and east. I don't know if that 32 addresses the concern, but staff would have to respond to that as part of the planning process. -15- LAS CRUCES METONOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 I 1 Mr. Ferralez said, I support what Councilman Tomlin just said, but in order 2 to make it a little bit more effective, I would like to propose that we give the following guidance. First of all , that when the time is felt that it is 3 needed that Picacho Hills Drive will be the first one (major access) to consider widening. Number two is that Shalem Colony Trail be eliminated. 4 Number three, that the route north from Picacho Hills Drive be the next to be considered in order to give a loop and get traffic as soon as possible to 5 Picacho Drive because as I recall the concern was for emergency calls and emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, and ambulances to get to the north 6 end of Picacho Hills as soon as possible. The fourth item that I would like to include in this would be what I first brought up which is the attempt to 7 acquire right-of-way, and I 'd be glad to make it 200 feet--the more the better, and dropping off the arrows to the west. Let's consider that as the 81 action that we will take tonight as the guide not only for staff but to the i ETZ Commission. 9i Mr. Parks said, Councilman Ferralez, the loop to the north, was that this one 10 here? 11 Mr. Ferralez said, no, it would be the east side. 12 : Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, I think there's a misunderstanding here , about this resolution calls for. The first thing is that it has nothing to 13 do with Shalem Colony Trail . It does not include making Shalem Colony Trail into anything bigger than it is now. The TAC deliberately set that aside as 14 , a separate issue that needs a lot more study. We haven't been able to get to that yet. The second point I 'd ' like to make is that this total plan was 15 ! developed in order to handle a 130,000 future trips per day. We're not talking about slight development for 400 or 600 homes in there, but several 16 ! thousand homes. That plan covers what is called the itteration in the study that we were given. That calls for over 130,000 trips a day. So, we're not 17 talking about the kind of thing that most people are envisioning here of slight growth in this area. We're talking about total growth of all of those 18 shaded areas plus the BLM land in that colored plan. So, a lot of what we're talking about could not happen until there's massive development and when 19 that happens, believe me, everybody in this room is going to look for a way to get out of those areas and onto some road that will take them somplace. 20 That would not occur until the full development occurred or very close to it, is the point. Mr. Parks, if I 've said something wrong here, please correct 21 me. 22 Mr. Parks said, no, sir. That's correct. 23 Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Chairman, the only reason that I honestly feel that this is important, is that if we give guidance to staff, that the 200 foot 24 right-of-way be initiated at this time it will :serve as an indication that future development, just as you indicated Mr. Southworth, and I can visualize 25 :that all of that area that is included in the Section 7 and half of Section 18; that will be eventually developed, and that's where those trips will be 26 coming from. 27 Mr. Southworth said, the point of that is that there will be a real purpose for that, at that time. The population will be living right around that 28 route. 29 Mr. Tomlin said, that's making the assumption that BLM makes that land available for development. And I think that having people participate in any 30 public hearing that BLM might have about declaring that land surplus and idisposing of it, maybe they can convince them not to. I think it's always a 31 question of do you plan for the worst case scenario or whether you keep that 32 ': in mind but not show the lines on the map because a lot of people will feel -16- LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OWCTOBER 13, 1993 i` 1 that if the lines are on the map then it means that it is going to happen. 2 As we've talked about the north bypass before, people are concerned that any transportation program or plan that deals with the north valley, is a phase 3 ! of the north loop thing, that' s been decided against, for whatever reason, several years ago. I think that' s the question. Do we extend the arrows and 4 does that mean that we're saying that' s the supporting of development, and a lot of people read those maps a lot of different ways. 5 Mr. Southworth said, I certainly understand what you' re saying after all 6 these years in this organization. The way this was laid out there were 3 stages, basically, that would be implemented and that third stage would not 7 be implemented until we got close to the total buildout. I know it's hard to get that point across to people when they just see a line on a map, but if we 8 don't put that there, and we ever do get to that total buildout, we' re going to be in deep trouble because we won't have anything. We've been there 9before where there isn't anything and we have to go in and take people's property because we didn't think ahead. So, I just totally agree with 10 Councilor Ferralez that we should think ahead and at least reserve those rights-of-way. 11 Mr. Luchini said, I think that's the purpose of this Committee--to look at 12 the future and make plans for the future instead of just going day-by-day. 13 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, what we're mixing together here is the immediate future and the needs for safety reasons for another access to 14 Picacho Hills and at the same time is a long range plan for a period when , none of the people here are likely to be alive. That's conveivable. I think 15 : that we do need to address the near term problem of a way to get out and into ! Picacho Hills and I think that suggestion of a route along the berm and 16 ; widening of the present Picacho Hills Drive would be a way to handle it, but ; that does not keep us from recognizing that in the long term, if that area is 17 ' developed, we're going to be caught in the situation where we've been caught !in a lot of places where we don't have a plan for what would happen in the 18 event that massive development takes place which is possible. In this case it is particularly true because so much of it is privately owned. 19 Mr. Luchini said, I think that staff understands what we have to do. I think 20 we can leave it up to the staff to come up with some recommendations. 21 Mr. Tomlin said, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it might not be appropriate to have staff do two different resolutions instead of just one. The first one 22should cover the near term while the second one would address the long term planning. We'd want to recognize where we are and' the fact that we can count 23 on certain development in private land. I think those are the assumptions that were made by the ETZ in adopting this plan. Recognizing the need to 24 address those issues that they've identified in a resolution and then also for a long range plan in dealing with Section 7 and 18, should they be 25 disposed of, we've got to have the land marked and a line drawn there that we 26 could do. They would be separate documents. 27 Mr. Luchini said, I 'm sure it can be done. 28 Mr. Newman said, not to take up more of your time, but when you talk about , the immediacy of this, I absolutely agree; when you talked about the long range plan, I totally agree. Just to keep you up to date, we are getting at the ETZ level , 3/4 acre development requests for the North Valley. We're 1close to maybe 1800 acres that have gone to 3/4 acre zoning. Be prepared for 30i the onslaught and the evenuality 30 years from now for the North Valley to be trickling in with 3/4 acre. That' s why I asked you and said openly, that 31 ! when you make the consideration for road expansion in the North Valley, I 32 ' just don't understand why we don't look at our beautiful Rio Grande. It -17- LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 I' 1 already has federal easements. It's already had trees taken out. Who needs 2 beautification and could be a perfect access for north and south. I 'd ask you to kind of keep working on that. Maybe government needs to work with 3 government. We don't have to buy land. It's already our government' s land. 4 Mr. Luchini said, those levees there at one time, they wanted the County to take them over and maintain them. They were willing to give them to us. I'm 5 sure that could still happen. We didn't take them because we didn't have the money to maintain them. They wouldn't give us the money that they're getting 6 to maintain them; they wanted to keep the money but give us the work. We refused to do it. They are available, I 'm sure. 7 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, instead of considering our resolution that has 8 been proposed, I 'd like to propose a motion. I move that we direct staff to bring us back two resolutions. One which includes the suggestion which has 9 been made here tonight which is that Picacho Hills Drive be designated as a Minor Arterial , and that the other route to the east of Picacho Hills loop be 10 ' included so as to provide additional access to the area now being contemplated being developed in the far term. Then a second resolution would 11 take care of the possiblility of massive development to the west and south of the present Picacho Hills. Mr. Ferralez seconded. 12 ) I Mr. Southworth said, one question I have about that motion is actually Mr. 13 ' Parks in his studies was doing it in three phases. And I believe that having an intermediate phase would be a good idea instead of looking at the total 14 buildout, looking at a half build out. Half build out would get to the point where it saturates, even the four lanes of access road. Mr. Southworth moved 15 to amend the motion to include an intermediate phase. Mr. Haltom seconded. 16 Mr. Ferralez said, this is going to take place over a period of years. It may be 10 years for the first one; 10 years for the second; and 10 years for 17 the last one. 18 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, I would direct the Committee's attention to Appendix D of the study. There are options 1, 2 and 3. What the TAC looked 19 , at, and staff as well , was the low, the moderate and the heavy development. ; Perhaps one of these options would better suit the public and the Committee's 20 iconcerns. The TAC looked at all of these options but they preferred the one ! for the highest build out. That's on the overhead now. This was the low 21 ! build out scenario. It addresses simply just that area. Likewise there was a moderate and a heavy build out. What was presented tonight was the TAC's 22 ! recommendation, but perhaps as the discussions are leaning, one of these other options would work and address those comments. 23 Mr. Tomlin said, I think part of the problem with that Mike is that you still 24 , have Shalem Colony and you still have the collector shown there. If we're going to do that, then I 'd like to have a map tha would reflect that. Even 25 though the build out, we've kind of agreed, that you might have alignment one if you modify it, because none of them reflect that plan. That's why I 26 suggested at least the two, but Mr. Southworth is suggesting three proposals, but they still need to be modified. I think we need to do some modification 27 before we send that back to staff to do those things. 28 Mr. Luchini said, I think on the motion it covers that. 29 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to make sure that our 30 'secretary has all of this. 31Mr. Ferralez said, call for the question, Mr. Chairman. ' 32 _18_ LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 1 Mr. Luchini said, all in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. The 2 motion passed unanimously. Mr. Luchini said, all in favor of the motion as amended, signify by saying aye. The motion carried unanimously. 3 Mr. Tomlin said, Mr. Chairman, did we make sure' that everyone signed in so 4 that we can be sure that they receive notification for the next time we discuss this. 5 Mr. Parks said, I can be contacted at the City Planning Department. Mr. 6 Carpenter can get you a phone number for the office. Mr. Chairman, if I might add something quickly before we move on. I need to bring before the 7 Committee the following issue concerning specifially, Shalem Colony Trail . When TAC looked at the entire area for road planning they separated Picacho 8 Hills and Shalem Colony Trail . They directed staff to develop scenarios for Shalem Colony Trail ' s improvement. What we need from this Committee is 9 direction to proceed on one of those options. We've developed three options. One of the options would be not to improve Shalem Colony at all , 10 and create an entirely new route through the middle of the land that separates Shalem Colony Trail and Picacho Hills Drive. That was one option. 11 The second option that the TAC asked us to look at would be to look at improving Shalem Colony Trail as it exists. Tnat would be to upgrade it. 12 It' s a poor surface road and there's some design problems. TAC asked us to get costs estimates to upgrade it there. That was option two. Incidentally, 13 this was all brought about by the existence of the collector. Option three looks at a totally revolutionary idea for this area. That would be to use 14 the Picacho Drain as future right-of-way. As the area develops, the drain will lose its functionality. We will not have farmers farming the land. 15 There will be no irrigated water on the properties, therefore you would not need to drain the fields. This option has potential . EBID has requested 16 that if we wish to pursue this, they would be .,illing to provide the cost estimates on this matter. However, we need direction from this body to 17 ;! approach their Policy Board so that we can begin L'he process of looking into this third option. The reason that this is a viable option is the fact that 18 ; the Drain currently has 120 feet of right-of-way. EBID is willing to let the County have it at zero cost. This right-of-way extends approximately 1.7 19 Imiles north of US 70 all the way to the Mesilla Dam. So, this could be an alternative whereby we would not have to obtain any future right-of-way, but 20 we would have to fill the drain in and allow for certain engineering and ! drainage considerations in order to make this work. EBID is willing to work 21 out those engineering and drainage considerations if we ask them to in an iofficial manner. What staff is asking for is simply direction from this 22 : Committee if this is something you would like for us to pursue. We'd be 23 happy to get the ball rolling, if that is your wish. Mr. Ferralez said, Mr. Parks, on this, EBID indicates that they would 24 ', abandon the lateral totally or would it be underground? 25Mr. Parks said, Councilor Ferralez, preliminarily this is just "off the cuff talk", but because the drain would not be needed to the degree that it is 26I now, they would recommend that we insert a 48" perforated pipe in the bottom of the drain. They already have the design in mind. As for the cost, that 27 would need to be worked out, of course. In order to get an official position, we need direction from the MPO. They would not give the deed to the 28 County but they would say, you can have it "forever" . We could also incorporate a storm drain under there. There' s a lot of different designs 29 that could be done. 30 Mr. Ferralez said, it seems to be a viable route because if we go and acquire right-of-way, somebody is going to have to pay for it. It will either be the 31 County or whoever. Also, if it takes care of drainage at the same time, it' s 32 killing two birds with one stone. -19- LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 I' 1 Mr. Parks said, it's simply a way to reduce the impact to existing roadways. 2 As Mr. Newman mentioned, the North Valley is getting inundated with requests for subdivisions. It is likely that the west side of the river will too, at 3 some point. So, in order to plan for that and in order to reduce existing impacts, this is an option to get it away from existing residences and we 4 don't have to obtain the right-of-way. It is already owned by a government. It just has a lot of benefits that we would like to pursue. We have to weigh 5 the cost of right-of-way versus the cost of putting in this pipe. That is one of the questions, and it may be more expensive to develop, but that is 6 something that we would like to look at. 7 Ms. Gloria Williams said, I own property on this ditch. This was put there to take away the water from the river and if you fill this in, this water is 8 going to be there and before that was put in, it was just swamp land. That's why this was put in. One hundred twenty feet is not enough for a roadway to 9 take a lot of traffic. It's barely off of Shalem Colony Trail and you're going to take a lot of farm land when you do because it is farm land through 10 there. It's not a good idea. Anybody could look at it with any sense and tell that. It's a short term thing. I wouldn't even consider it if I were 11 you. 12i Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we investigate this and find out what kind of drainage we will get if this is done because 13 it will provide drainage, and all we have to do, as I understand it, is this body needs to ask EBID to study this and tell us the answers to these 14 questions, the cost and the effectiveness of the drainage. 15 Mr. Luchini said, I think we need to do that even though Mr. Newman and the lady over here are probably right on it, but it doesn't cost us anything to 16 look into it. EBID can give us some answers, and I think we should pursue it. 17 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I like to see a response to the idea of a 18 ( thoroughfare along the Rio Grande. I haven't heard any response to it and if it's out of the question because of things we don't know about it, then we'd 19 like to know; but, if it can be done, it does seem to offer some Ipossibilities. 20 Mr. Luchini said, at one time we did have the opportunity to do it, but we 211 didn't have the money. 22 Mr. Haltom said, I feel a little awkward talking about an area that is outside the City and it' s outside of Mesilla and we need people who have 23 ' jurisdiction over that area to talk about this. It' s a situation in which we are not the County, and the County is represented by only one person here, 24 and we need a representative from that area who is better acquainted with 25 that area than we "city slickers" are. Mr. Luchini said, I can direct the staff to look into it. 26 Mr. Haltom said, we really need to have more participation from the County 27 because I feel awkward making decisions or being asked to make decisions without the right kind of input from the elected officials who ought to be 28 sitting here. 29 Mr. Luchini said, I ' ll direct our staff to look into it and see what they 30 come up with. Mr. Haltom seconded the motion by Mr. Southworth. Mr. Haltom moved to amend 31 the motion to include having staff investigate further the feasibility of a thoroughfare along the Rio Grande Levee system (both north and south) . Mr. 32 Southworth seconded. -20- LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 1' I Mr. Luchini said, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. 2 The amendment passed unanimously. The amended motion was also passed 3 unanimously. Mr. Luchini said, let' s proceed to the next order of business, Transit 4 Project Scheduling: Amendment to the 1993-94 Annual Element (AE) and 1994-95 through 1998-99 Transportation Improvement Resolution 93-011. Mr. Tomlin 5 moved for approval of Resolution 93-011. Mr. Ferralez seconded. 6 Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, I looked at this resolution and got totally confused by this thing. I went back to study what the change was 7 going to be and what I presume is going to be the new version of the AE and th'e TIP and how it differs from the old version of the AE and the TIP. What 8 I found was that it's the same. The same projects, and the same costs except for a few costs that increased, and I got totally confused as to why we're 9 doing this and what it accomplishes. 10 Mr. Haltom said, it has to do with the year it's going to be done. 11 Mr. Tomlin said, is it to do it annually, rather than semi-annually? 12 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, if I might just take a moment to try and clear up this complex issue. We have the local levels, the state and federal 13 levels of government operating under our AE. Right now there seems to be fairly decent coordination between the state and local levels. However, with 14 the federal , they require different procedures and timelines that we are now having to react to. Basically, the things that were produced or adopted last 15 year on the AE, will be in this year's federal budget cycle. What we had to do was move a few things up and reiterate a few things so that we could 16 ', then ask for them next year in the federal budget cycle. It is a very ( confusing procedure. We have the Transit Director here, and I 'm sure he 17 could illuminate some of this. Some of the cost factors have been re- evaluated on more current data. That is one reason why they were included. 18 ; Some of the things didn't change, but the costs may have. As I looked at the entire AE and TIP, I found that it appeared as though there was a reduction 19 of total cost of Transit Funding than an increase. I may be wrong because I : didn't take a calculator to it, but it involves using different funding 20 sources, the STP funds versus the Section 9 funds. Transit is making use of those. 21 Mr. Russ said, I ' ll try to help, but I 'm about as confused as Mr. Parks with 22 this. We've had a lot of discussions with the federal people and at the state level , and basically what had happened is the last time on the last AE, 23 we had approval for the purchase of a 35 foot bus for $190,000. That came around and City Council approved it, and everyone approved it down here. 24 That was forwarded on to the state. The state process is so slow that we had to pull the bus off of our grant application this year because the state 25 failed to act and put it on their state plan. They did not come through with that until the latter part of September, and in order for us to apply for 26 those monies on the grant this year, they had to have an answer by August 1. We have been told that the state is not going to change their timeline, and 27 so the feds told us that we are going to have to start asking a year in advance from the year when we're going to apply to them for the money. So, 28 it really backed everything up. By fluke, some of the capital money was approved for the bus yard repaving, and the state had messed up and put a lot 29 of money under a very wide scope, and so the feds allowed us to go ahead and 30 apply for that money because they couldn't pull it out of the clump of money that the state had been given. Anyhow. . .we've had so many mixed signals, and 31 it's been really hard communicating. The bottom line is that we're coming back and moving up some of the projects for the years that we intended to 32 apply for. -21- LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 I' i i I 1 Mr. Haltom said, you mean moving them forward. 2 Mr. Russ said, we're moving them forward for your consideration so that they will still meet the deadline that we had originally set for the federal 3 dollars. 4 Mr. Southworth said, I tried to figure out the answer to that same question and so I took the two lists we had and I went back and looked at the last AE 5 and TIP and they all came out to be the same projects in the same years. 6 Mr. Parks said, if you' ll look at page 6, we are deleting off the 1994-95 TIP, two paratransit vehicles and a parts room. Those have been moved 7 forward. You' ll notice item 11 on page 8 is a parts room, and then we have item 9 and 10, paratransit vehicles. On page 11, we have actually deleted an 8 entire project. I think it was carryover from previous years, and we have recognized that it's really not needed. We have deleted item 1, on page 11. 9 That is no longer a current project. 10 Mr. Southworth said, I think, and I may be wrong on this but, I believe those were the projects that we deleted when we went through the prioritization 11 process when we tried to come up with a list to send to the state. If you look at the 1994-95 list, the administrative vehicle was included in the 1994- 12 '1 95 TIP that we submitted several months ago. That' s what got me confused. I think I understand what you' re trying to accomplish, but I don't think this 13 is going to accomplish. 14 Mr. Parks said, the prioritization that we did a few months ago, should have only applied to the 1993-94 Annual Element. 15 Mr. Southworth said, no, we went through several years trying to get some of 16 these projects in, such as the Mesa Grande Overpass planning and the Lohman Avenue. We did a lot of soul searching then, and we crossed out a lot of 17 projects and moved other projects to other years. I think I understand what you're trying to do and I 'm all for that, but this resolution with these 18 attachments, I don't think is going to do it. 19 Mr. Parks said, at best, it will allow us to forward a document with everything in it to the state level . It will get included in the state's 20 ( documents. They are taking it on the assumption that if it is somewhere on here, then it can be approved for federal funding. Some of the problems that 21 ' we've had in the past is, "is that what we really meant in our ( prioritization, or our description" , etc. I apologize, but it is a confusing 22 . process. I don't know if we' ll see the last of it even with this. 2311 Mr. Southworth said, is it only the transit people at the state level that are having this problem, because it seemed like in the road system they 24 j seemed to be handling it. 25 Mr. Parks said, it seems so. 26 Mr. Russ said, yes, it seems the problems are with the transit projects. We're trying to fall into a timeframe that matches what we had proposed in 27 our five year plan, and so forth. We have not added anything in there, we're just trying to reshuffle and get the priorities under the timeframe that we 28need so that we can apply for the funds. 29 ' Mr. Southworth said, all I would like to suggest then, before you finally send this in, is that you look real hard at it and make sure that the dates 30 are right and so forth. 31 Mr. Parks said, that' s exactly what we want to do. We' re getting tired of 32 having to keep coming back every time a new rule comes up. I think a lot of -22- LAS CRUCES METOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CTOBER 13, 1993 I 1 problems are the new funding categories. People at the federal level are 2 just not familiar with it enough to be applying these new funding 8 principles. We' re all in the same boat, so to speak. Mr. Cadena said, so you have double checked to make sure that everything was 4 on the previous AE/TIP. 5 Mr. Parks said, I will get together with Mr. Russ and make sure that everything is as it should be. 6 Mr. Luchini said, alright, everyone in favor of the motion, signify by saying 7 aye. The motion passed unanimously. 8 Mr. Luchini said, okay, let' s go to the next one: Self-Certification of the MPO Planning and Public Involvement Process: A Federal Transit 9 Administration Requirement, Resolution 93-012. Mr. Southworth said, I move that we approve Resolution 93-012. Mr. Haltom seconded. 10 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, I 'd just like to quickly add that the Federal 11 Highway Administration says that we have to only self-certify once every three years. We did that last year. The Federal Transit Administration says 12 that we have to do it annually. So, we' re now doing it annually. 13 Mr. Luchini said, all in favor of Resolution 93-012 say aye. The motion passed unanimously. 14 Mr. Parks said, Mr. Chairman, we have only one other item. What staff has 15 done is, we've taken the liberty to put together a notebook containing all of the MPOs documents. We realize that we have an AE, a TIP, a Major 16 Thoroughfare Plan, and all kinds of regulations, S'o what we did was assemble all of these into a notebook that can be a reference for the members here. 17 , What we plan to do is if there are changes, we' ll pass out the changes at the meetings and instruct where they need to be inserted into the notebook. 18Hopefully, we can cut through a lot of confusion with different things. There is a traffic flow map also included, and an Annual Report. If you have 19 any comments for improving it, please let us know. 20 Mr. Luchini said, is there anything else. There was no further business and the meeting adjourned. 21 22 MINUTES SUBMITTED BY: 23 24 Minnie Sanchez, Secretary 25 City of Las Cruces Planning 26 '.' APPROVED BY: 27 28 '1 Ray B. Luchini , Chairman it Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization 29 I ;I 30 31 32 -23- LAS CRUCES MEOPOLITAN PLANNG ORGANIZATION MESILLA DORA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AGENDA rhe following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning :organization' s Policy Committee Meeting to be held on Wednesday, )ctober 13, 1993, at 7 :30 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council :�hambers, 200 North Church St . , Las Cruces, New Mexico. .Che City of Las Cruces will make every effort to provide reasonable Iccommodation (s) for people with disabilities who wish to attend a .public meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the neeting. Telephone 526-0000 or TDD number, 526-1222 . I . CALL TO ORDER II . REVIEW OF MINUTES III . NEW BUSINESS A. Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study: Amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan, Resolution 93-010 . B. Transit Project Scheduling: Amendment to the 1993-94 Annual Element (AE) and 1994-95 through 1998-99 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) , Resolution 93-011 . C. Self Certification of the MPO Planning and Public Involvement Process : A Federal Transit Administration Requirement, Resolution 93-012 . IV. OTHER/DISCUSSION A. Informational Notebooks for Policy Committee Members . V. ADJOURNMENT G PO DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 526-0620 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: October 13 , 1993 AGENDA ITEM: REVIEW OF MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: REview and Consideration of Minutes - Policy Committee Meeting on August 11, 1993 . SUPPORT INFORMATION: Pclicy Committee Meeting Minutes for August 11, 1993 . DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: Nc :-ie LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: October 13 , 1993 1 A( SNDA ITEM: P= nacho Hills Alternative Access Study: Amendment to the Major Tl ,:)roughfare Plan, Resolution 93-010 . A( TION REQUESTED: R( �view and Consideration of Resolution 93-010, amending the Major T] oroughfare Plan SIPPORT INFORMATION: 1 Resolution 93-010 2 Map of proposed amendments 3 Staff report : Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study, includes updated Transit analysis and Addendum on Shalem Colony Trail DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: A:! a result of development activity in Picacho Hills, local developers submitted a proposal for future roads in the land surrounding Picacho H. 11s Country Club. As directed by the Unified Work Program (UWP) staff a: alyzed and presented their proposal to the TAC. On July 1, 1993 the T1 .0 reviewed and approved what is presented in Resolution 93-010 . I: accordance with MPO policy, a public hearing was held to solicit p blic participation on September 16 , 1993 . The meeting was attended by a proximately eight (8) people . A notice was also published in the Sun N ws on Sunday, October 3 , 1993 and signs posted on Monday, October 4, 1 93 informing the public of the proposed amendment to the Major T .oroughfare Plan. O' 'TIONS : 1) Approve Resolution 93-010, amending the Major Thoroughfare Plan and providing direction to public and private sectors for future road alignments . 2) Modify Resolution 93-010, modify as per Policy Committee direction. 3) Deny Resolution 93-010 , the Major Thoroughfare Plan would not indicate any future roadway designations for Picacho Hills . Transportation Planning would only exist as a result of subdivision activity. LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RESOLUTION NO. 93-010 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDICATING FUTURE ROAD DESIGNATIONS RESULTING FROM THE PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STUDY. The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee is informed that: WHEREAS, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the Major Thoroughfare Plan on December 11, 1991. This document can be amended as directed by the MPO Policy Committee, and; WHEREAS, the FY 1993-94 Unified Work Program outlines a work project to analyze potential corridors in the Picacho Hills area with this resolution being the result of that work, and; WHEREAS, land owners, developers, and the public have participated and have had the opportunity to comment on this action. MPO Staff has reviewed the action and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee hereby resolves, determines, and orders as follows: 1. THAT the Major Thoroughfare Plan be amended as shown on the attached map. 2. THAT staff is directed to take appropriate and legal actions to implement this Resolution. DONE and APPROVED this 13th day of October , 1993 . A'T'TEST: Chairman Luchini _ VOTE: Chairman Luchini: M< ved By: Councillor Haltom: Councillor Ferralez: Councillor Tomlin: S(�conded By: Commissioner Miyagishima: Mayor Clayshulte: Trustee Southworth: A11PROVED AS TO FORM: Trustee Cadena: A torney Ift;� • 1 T r I MW COLLECTOR IC J� 'Cliff ; . • . IAJ I Vil►�� _ tl,_■ _ ��t �� ��� �� YAW IS PIP L 11 1 LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STUDY June 1993 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 GENERAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CURRENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DATA/SUPPORT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Current Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Current Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Current Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 DATA ANALYSIS/METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 TripGeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it Mode Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Trip Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 RESULTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 14 OTHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STUDY AREA MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TABLE 1: Picacho Hills Total Acres/Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations for amending the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization' s Major Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) in the Picacho Hills area. The Fiscal Year 1993 - 1994 Unified Work Program (UWP) requires that MPO staff begin to address transportation issues in the vicinity of the Picacho Hills Development and the surrounding areas (See map of study area, page 3) . Currently, the Picacho Hills Master Plan is pending acceptance and approval by the Extra-Territorial Zoning Commission. As a -review of this master plan and as prescribed by the UWP, MPO Staff has analyzed the area for the purpose of recommending future arterials and collectors for inclusion in the MTP. -1- PCACHO HILLS ALTBRNATIW ACCESS STUDY GENERAL BACKGROUND When originally developed, the Picacho Hills Development was not under ETZ regulations. Since that time, . the ETZ has become a reality and with it, a sketch plan or master plan of the area is now required. The developers have submitted a master plan that includes options for amending the MTP, which MPO Staff has reviewed. It lists most aspects of the development and includes plans for utilities, housing, commercial uses, and roads. Picacho Hills Drive is the only paved road for some 296 dwelling units into the Picacho Hills -Development according to the master plan. This area has a potential build-out of over 1506 dwelling units within the master plan area. With this number of dwelling units having only one shared access point, public safety dictates the need to plan for alternatives for Picacho Hills and surrounding lands. -2- PICAMO HILLS ALTMtNATIn ACCESS S= / MASTER PLAN �; �1,, 'tom •°�40 ♦ ' j / J c..r.. c ♦ • ;ice ��.•r ?���I � if Ve . �. ��.. It • � M.�L.�.r.� as , A , • ' US 10 r 7 ee..«".. sal: /�� I/ ��•� PICACHO HILLS ��' ! i ;/r � ,,, •, LTERNATIVE ACCESS STUDY Jt� i 177 I � r• p 1 r � �� .�� �� fry � � .�• 4 J t MIS 1 PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STUDY CURRENT ISSUES Current conditions are such that Picacho Hills Drive is operating well within acceptable levels, as are Quesenberry Drive and Weinrich Road. US Highway 70 (West Picacho) has sufficient capacity and is not programmed for any improvement projects in the New Mexico State Highway ,and Transportation Department or Las Cruces MPO' s Five-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) . Shalem Colony Trail is listed in the MPO' s Annual Element/Transportation Improvement Program to be widened and its intersection with US 70 to be improved. The Major Thoroughfare Plan does not indicate any future alignments within this study area. On the study area' s parameter, only Shalem Colony Trail and US 70 are listed has having functional roadway classification higher than a local street, minor and major arterial status respectfully. -4- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STW DATA/SUPPORT INFORMATION The current acreage for each zoning and land use types are listed below, in addition to the current traffic volumes for the study area: Current Zoning Zone Minimum Lot Size Existing Total Acreage ER1 +. 5 Acres 204.33 ER3 1 Acre 694. 65 ER4 1/2 Acre 382 .91 ER4M 1/2 Acre 4 . 84 ER7 15 Dwelling Unit/Acre 41.72 Picacho Hill Master Plan Varies 847. 70 Federal Land (ER1 Standards) 5 Acres 865 .48 EI1 (Industrial) 8 Lots/Acre 10 .96 EI3 (Industrial) 8 Lots/Acre 4 .31 EC1 (Commercial) 5 Acre Minimum 10 .38 EC2 (Commercial) 8 Lots/Acre 9 .80 EC3 (Commercial) 8 Lots/Acre 26.25 EFP (Flood Plain) Overlay of ER7/ER4 Varies 88 .56 EV (Village) 1/3 Acre 49 .26 TOTAL: 3241. 15 Current Land Uses Land Use Types Acreacre Vacant 2856 .83 Residential 272 .32 Commercial 10 .26 Industrial 4.31 Quasi-public 31.06 Utilities & Right-of-Way 66 .37 TOTAL: 3241.15 Area -5- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STORY Current Traffic Volumes Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic US 70 Picacho Hills to 6999 Shalem Colony Trail US 70 Rio Grande Bridge to 10562 Shalem Colony Trail Shalem Colony Tr. North of US 70 2297 Picacho Hills Dr. North pf US 70 1600 Quesenberry West of US 70 712 Weinrich North of US 70 262 -6- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STUDY DATA ANALYSIS/METHODOLOGY MPO Staff used two different processes in combination to determine future land use and future traffic generation for the Picacho Hills area. The first process, the "Iterative" process was used to develop the future land use scenario simulating a full build-out scenario. The second process, future traffic generation, was performed using the results of the , iterative process and the traditional Four-Step method of traffic forecasting that was developed by the Federal Highway Administration. MPO Staff used the "Iterative" process to develop a scenario that would be representative of the Picacho Hills area at full build out or when the area is completely developed. The Iterative process uses a small sample area of developed land for the base information which is similar in land use types to the proposed development or study area. Also, the small sample area provided base percentages of each land use. Staff then multiplied each land use percentage to the total acres of vacant or developable land (thus, the first iteration) . The results of the first iteration are then added to the existing land uses, thus reducing the total amount of vacant land that can be developed. The land use percentages are again multiplied to the remaining vacant land (second iteration) . After each iteration, new land use totals are achieved and the amount of available vacant land is decreased. The iteration process is continued until the percentages of land use types are -7- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STUDY representative of full build out. The sample area used to develop the base land use types and percentages included all of Township 23 S. , Range 1 E. , Section 17 and the portion of Township 23 S . , Range 1 E. , Section 20 that was north of US 70 (West Picacho Ave. ) . The percentages below were derived from the sample azea and applied only to the vacant, but developable land in each Extra-Territorial Zone: LAND USE TYPE PERCENTAGE OF TYPE IN SAMPLE AREA Vacant 53 .5416 Residential 33 .99°6 Commercial . 70%- Industrial .46%- Quasi-Public .72%, Utilities/Right-of-Way 10 .59 These percentages were applied seven times to vacant lands by zone for the entire study area to obtain a full build-out scenario (Iteration #7) . The assumption being that existing land uses would not be re-developed and that vacant land would continue to develop in the same pattern that currently exists for the entire study area. Results from the iterative process are provided to indicate how land use percentages changed with each iteration (See Appendix B) . -8- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STORY TABLE 1 TOTAL ACRES/LAND USE TOTAL ACRES AFTER EACH ITERATION LAND USE TYPES 1 4 7 Vacant 1113 .91 170 .96 26 .24 Residential 1464 .94 2154 . 80 2260 . 68 Commercial 41. 19 55 .41 57. 60 Industrial 16. 68 26. 01 27.45 Quasi-Pub 146.96 161.57 163 . 81 Utilities/ROW 457.50 672 .44 705 .43 TOTALS 3241. 18 3241. 19 3241. 19 As the percentages were applied to the zones, it became apparent there would be a diminishing amount of vacant land left in each zone after each iteration. Therefore, with each successive iteration, the total acres of residential, public, quasi-public, commercial uses, and right-of-way were calculated. At the seventh iteration it was felt that the analysis had been carried to a reasonable extreme (only 26 acres of vacant/developable land remained) and was discontinued in order to analyze the resulting traffic created by the full build-out scenario. Since this report is to determine future traffic needs, traffic volumes were calculated after the 1st, 4th, and 7th iteration based upon current and cumulative land use totals . This allowed MPO Staff to see how traffic volumes changed with levels of -9- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STWY development. The traditional 4-step method as developed by FHWA for traffic forecasting was used: Step 1 - Trip Generation Trip Generation, the total number of trips generated from the entire study area, was calculated from land uses provided by the iterative process by zone for each iteration. The current development standards, or lot size, that are allowed in each zone were used to determine the number of available lots in each zone. This was done by dividing the total residential acres produced from the iterative process and divided by the minimum lot size (See Minimum Standard by Zone on page 5 of this report) . After the land use calculations were made, traffic generation was factored from the acreage of each land use type and existing dwelling units using both local and national figures. The locally derived figure of S trips per day for a single dwelling unit was applied to all lots used for residential land uses. This included mobile homes, site-built homes, and multi-family units (apartments) An averaged factor for commercial uses was derived from the size and type of commercial uses typically found in this area. The typical commercial uses that staff felt would develop in this area included convenience stores, gas stations, hardware stores, restaurants, and lumber yards. The trip generation rate from each of the commercial uses were averaged together to form a "generic" -10- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS S=Y commercial trip generation rate. These rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation Manual" , 5th Edition and applied to the acres of forecasted commercial land. The same method was also used for developing an industrial use trip generation rate. Quasi-Public, Utilities, and Right-of-Way were not used in this step because of the complexity of the variables required to determine their rate. The results of the trip generation process are shown by land use type and zone in Appendix C. Step 2 - Trip Distribution The assumed number of trips that were developed in Trip Generation would come and go from the study area to US 70 . The proposed alignment (s) used in the analysis were those taken from the Picacho Hills Master Plan. Step 3 - Mode Choice The transportation mode choice was determined to be 100k automobile. Roadrunner Transit Service analyzed the Study Area and determined that transit service would not be feasible for this area (see Appendix A) . Step 4 - Trip Assignment Trip assignment was determined using the assumption that each proposed alignment would service most of the developed areas -11- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATM ACCESS STMY nearest to that roadway alignment . This step also determined the point at which an additional alignment (s) should be implemented judging from capacity and the level of service (LOS) provided on each roadway. With future traffic forecasted and the mode limited to automobile (s) , the trip assignment step applies future traffic to each of the existing and/or proposed roadways. Trips were generated by the land use type with the density of the same being prescribed by the zone in which they are located. Trips by zone were assigned to existing roads until a capacity of 800 cars per lane per hour were achieve for the PM peak hour. (This is the planning limit for a roadway to maintain a level of service (LOS) .of "C" as required by the MPO. ) At that point, roadways were proposed until the amount of traffic on each roadway leaving the study area had less than 800 cars per lane per hour for their peak period (PM) . The roadways resulting out of the trip assignment process are shown in Appendix D. Options 1, 2 and 3 are the trip assignments based on Iterations 1, 4 and 7, respectively. -12- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STM OPTIONS If the area develops slowly within the 20 year time frame, Option #1 (Appendix D) indicates a low build-out estimate for the purposes of this analysis . Likewise, Option #2 serves as a moderate development scheme with Option #3 serving as a high or "full build- out" scenario. The implementation of the proposed roads is based upon the iterations #1, #4, & #7. The assumptions made during the analysis have a major bearing on its outcome. This report looks at how land will develop without respect of specific time frames. It also provides an -analysis of a low, moderate, and high rate of development in land use. Land uses that derived the options were themselves influenced by assumptions . Some of the assumptions in the report are that existing development patterns will persist and that the 865 acres of federal land will be developed using , ERI (5 acre min. ) development standards (this a major assumption) . Also, the number of trips generated from each residential, commercial, and industrial uses will remain constant in the future, and finally that the ETZ zoning and minimum lot size requirements will remain constant. Assumptions were also made concerning the service areas for the proposed alignments. It is recognized that changing any of these assumptions would change the outcome of this report. Also, that the ETZ, itself, and its, development requirements will -13- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STMY continue to evolve as will the area' s sewer and water utilities. The advantage for changing the assumptions would be to refine the analysis . The disadvantage would be the increased time and constraints required of property owners to subdivide or otherwise develop their land. RESULTS AND STAFF RECO DATION Accurate future traffic volumes are elusive. Nonetheless, they are necessary tools for effective planning and the efficient use of public funds. Under the full-build out scenario, without respect to a time frame, Qption 3 results with Picacho Hills Drive having 3852 vehicles in the peak hour. The collector connecting Shalem Colony Trail shows a peak hour volume of 4341. The collector connecting southward to US 70 has 1666 vehicles while the arterial in the center of Section 19 connected to US 70 shows 2048 peak hour vehicles. These peak hour volumes at first glance appear high, however, under full development there will be other local roads dispersing traffic among these higher functioning roadways. Therefore, current design standards of 4 and 5 lane arterials and collectors should be sufficient to handle these volumes . The following recommendations/options are made: 1) Under the existing road network, Picacho Hills Drive should be expanded to 4 lanes at the time the 670th lot is subdivided or 670th dwelling unit built, whichever comes first, in the event no alternate access is dedicated and implemented. (The Master -14- PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STWY Plan Report indicates a more conservative approach in that the developers will implement this after the 400th lot. ) 2) Option 3 is appropriate and the MTP should reflect planning for the full build-out scenario. Shalem Colony Trail' s intersection with US70 should be improved and its alignment widened north to the "Old Picacho" town site. (This is currently listed within the MPO' s AE/TIP. ) In addition, the extension of Picacho dills Drive to the west should be a minor arterial . The alignment along the master plan' s western edge should extend to US 70 as a major arterial and north as a study corridor area. The alignment at the northern edge of the master plan area shall be shown in the MTP as a collector. All future alignments other than those mentioned above and as shown within the proposed Picacho Hills Master Plan should be included in the Major Thoroughfare Plan as study corridor areas. (See "Option #311 , Appendix D) OTHER In addition, the capacity analysis of the study area is almost mute point when compared to the issue of safety. Picacho Hills Drive is the only paved access for some 1, 506 potential dwelling units. Watson Lane was extended because of similar concerns with only 240 dwelling units. Sundance Acres Subdivision southeast of NMSU was opposed, because it lacked an additional access point as well for some 400 dwelling units. The Picacho Hills Master Plan goes a long way toward establishing preferred future arterials and collectors. However, this is limited to the areas within the development. For those outside Picacho Hills, the TAC, Policy Committee, and public will need to decide those routes that connect Picacho Hills and the Study Area with the greater Las Cruces urbanized area. pg -15- APPENDIX A CITY OF LAS CRUCES ArFrC INTER-DEPARTMENTAL. MEMORANDUM TO i Mike Parks, Associate Planner FROM Dale Kemp, Transit Analyst i SUBJECT Transit Analysis for Picacho Hills Alternative FILE M93-048 Access ! " Access Study ! ' DATE 05/17/93 is Attached is the input of the transit analysis for the Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study. Please call me if you have any questions . DK:mhs Attachment pc : Tim Russ, Transit Director ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO PICACHO HILLS DEVELOPMENT STUDY INTRODUCTION A transit study was. conducted for Sections 08, 09, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 . The purpose of the study was to analyze alternative transportation to the study area. Transit service analyzed was Bus - Fixed Route, Paratransit and Rideshare (Vanpool/Car pool) . CURRENT TRANSIT SERVICES The City of Las Cruces Area Transit - RoadRUNNER provides fixed- route bus service and paratransit (Dial-a-Ride) service within the City of Las Cruces as shown on the attached route map. Rideshare provides servicd- to the surrounding area to include the study area. CURRENT TRANSIT SERVICE PROFILE According to information provided by RoadRUNNER Transit and information from New Mexico State University (NMSU) marketing studies, the following profile has been developed for the current use of transit services (Rideshare not included) . Ridership Survey Profile: Age: 16 - 21 30 .4% 22 - 30 25.5% Under 16 14 .3% 50 - Over 12 .3% All Others 17 .5% Family Income: Under $10, 000 47 .7% $10, 000 - $20, 000 26 .8% $20, 000 - $25, 000 7 .7% All Others 17 .8% Ridership Standard: The fixed-route service standard as developed using peer group analysis is 22 passengers per revenue hour. The current average ridership per revenue hour for RoadRUNNER is 26 . 86 Transit Studies: Prior transit studies that are available do not include the study area. However, there is a transit study being conducted at this time for the Dona Ana County south valley. The final report of the study has not been released. Study Area: The study area has two (2) separate areas that were studied. They are the Picacho Hills Development and the surrounding area (i.e. , Fairacres) . The following profile of the study area was developed from the following sources: ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO PICACHO HILLS DEVELOPMENT STUDY PAGE 2 1990 Census Data Picacho Hills Development Company Las Cruces Area Transit - RoadRUNNER Area Rideshare Coordinator Study area site visit Study Area Profile: Picacho Hills Development Housing: $150, 000 - $250, 000 Income: $60, 000 + 4 Fairacres & Surrounding Area Profile: Housing: $20, 000 - $150, 000 Income: $20, 627 - $60, 000 + Transportation System: Narrow streets; not designed for heavy-duty vehicles. Travel Patterns: Automobile (all households have full use of automobiles) . Request for Service: Picacho Hills Development: 3 request for service to get maid to and from worksite. Picacho Hills Country Club (50 employees) : No requests for service. Fairacres area: 5 requests for paratransit service. No Rideshare requests on file. Estimated Cost of Service (per hour) : Fixed Route, Bus - $25 . 96 Paratransit - $17 .33 Summary of Findings: Study area has not been included in transit planning activities; therefore, there is limited data available for transit service forecasting. The study area is not included in any present City of Las Cruces or Dona Ana County transit service agreements. Present transit studies show that the average transit rider uses the bus four to five times a week, is between the age of 22-30, and has an income of just over $10, 000. ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO PICACHO HILLS DEVELOPMENT STUDY PAGE 3 Whether or not the South Valley Transit Study will recommend expanded study to include this study area to provide transit service to all of Dona Ana County is not known. The social and value factors of the study area does not appear to be conducive to transit use. Rideshare (vanpool/car pool) is available at this time for the study area. Based on information available, it would not be feasible for fixed-route bus service and paratransit service to be provided to the study area. r`xt� CITY OF LAS CRUCES INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO Mike Parks, Associate Planner a FROM Dale Kemp, Transit Analyst SUBJECT FILE N0. s PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS, STUDY TDTA M93 0451, � DATE x 09/23/93 ?, P¥ Per ,your ,request, the full build out''data for alternative transportationis `attached DK:mlis` t Q � 4i+ J F X Y r.Y, PICACHO HILLS ALTERNATIVE ACCESS STUDY TRANSIT ELEMENT I . PURPOSE a The purpose of this report is to provide information for r alternative transportation at full build out. II . BACKGROUND The Transit Element Study completed in May 1993 determined that the study area would not be feasible for bus/paratransit service. Rideshare (vanpool/carpool) ,is �, : available. " III . FULL BUILD OUT ANALYSIS �, Ah A. Projected Population Density Per square mile: 1, 678 F t' 4 B. Projected-.Major Employment Concentration H� None. Area will be residential. C. Projected Socioeconomic "C'haracteristics � L 1 . Automobile Ownership/Automobile Availability • All households full use. 2 . Income Level : • High. 3 . Employed/Not Employed/Retired: • Employed or Retired. ` 4 . Age: • Mixed (Young/Old) . D. Typical Transit User • Has no available automobile. • Has lower than average income. E. Projected Transit Growth • Inner City Fixed Route Service. • Outer City Demand Response Feeder Service. • Rideshare (carpool/vanpool) . IV. SUMMARY • Full fixed route service not warranted. • Demand response feeder service available. • Rideshare (carpool/vanpool) use. APPENDIX B APPENDIX B EXISTING LAND USE TOTALS UT & ROW (2.0%) (1 .0%) - INDUST. (0.0%) - COMM : (0.4%) RESID. (8.4%) VACANT (88.1 %) i l"OTAL LAND USE AFTER 1 ITERATION UT & ROVE/ (14.4%) Q-PUBL. (4.9%) _ INDUST. (0.5%) VACANT (30.7%) COMM. (1 .5%) RESID. 47.9° i i LAl"'*M USE TOTALS AFTER 4 ITERATIONS UT & ROW (20.4%) VACANT (4.7%) Q-PlJBL. (5.3%) NDUST. (0.7%) � COMM. (1 .9%) RESID. (66.9%) I TOTAL LAND USE AFTER 7 ITERATIONS UT & ROW (21 .3%) VACANT (0.7%) Q-PUBL. (5.4%) INDiST. (0.8%) CC)MM. (2.0%) RESID. (69.9%) APPENDIX C APPENDIX C �,o�o�rroor >4oMorioo� },omm.e0ON >,oN0000N �,or,-i�ooN �Orid�rOOM IdOa00�N0001 '0 . . . . . ..1 1d00�00000� �O�OaDl�00N \O�Om000�0 '\OmHwoor \omovoOm '\OOr10000�-1 \O"*lame-;C; r m M" CO r m Hr m r m tom O r m M M r m HMH l0 3C a N m H a or- a M r-1 In 3C W GL %D Co YI r♦ N N N r �I N O N •$4 •$4 M m M H H ri H H N N H H N M ,94OMrlrloom .>10Mr4r00H 0r•Immoom >40N000ON >'OMrIriOOu1 w 1091nrir99M idN oCoroOCD �olnriri00r lAomo00om 400cDmoor a \OmNOOON \OOMOMOOH \0r*-w ot` \0rao000H \Oomoaow H er m rl ri M m COW Ill d0 m In In ri 10 m M M d0 m %0 M H o E3k a N CD 0 .a COW Ill 44 Qr N M %0 ft W 4k W M r rl H N W r4,w %0 $i N m ri Si $4 M r r♦ H H rl H H H N H H N M >40NWW00%0 ,9400NNOOM },OCoomOOr >4oN0000N0NONOOIn (doHcgmoor �ONNM0aM �OriC00000 � mm ,94 r O000o �OCOln000 \0rIr000CD \O COriNOON \OOrN000 1-0rI0000H \OOmU100�0 rl m rl r-1 N ri m ON M rl to M r rl rl m M M rl m O M 4r �k p, r 4 m O 41: 04 0 q a. %o ri o a ak W r o r r4 r E r m E � rq ErNE ri ri O i•� awoo0Na0 04W000N00 0414000No0 o.wooONoo LLwoo0Na0 cc HFa0omoo HH000m0 � aH�E+OoomoHH�Ooomoa HROOCi00 0N00 0,CONrl0,0 CC; cc 0 O0OO W Q N N Q N Q N IQj N \ M A M \ M \ M \ M W NNriOMOr r00MMtOrM CONmriNmN Om000U141� mMNrirrO C ' lllllln�04��ON00 a)rgVMNO"M MMNNMwvcn C4000100000OD CnCD00Mrllnrin r o01000010 rOwNerMtnrr r0Nvwc4 m mc-4 r OMOOOOd; rrrlm,OmOU1 4 N d� u a In r :k a m r o 3k�-1 �k r-1 in VI N M N M r1 l0 cc JW wvr-r- mr- r UMWOONM MO�U1t11�0�e-I 0010001f1d� OOt0000100 U]m4itInMmmw CAe wmorNM U "HariMrm mam000m 0 UId owwmmm E•EwOMr000coo �Cy�,7rlll"m"C14r er9mC4WC4 MmN woFOM0000" "OriOCDu mam O:k a N '0 ft C4 m r-v :w H q w %0 00 #J: 0 Ln c4 M N c a N M N M 4>f 1-1 VD J Z co mm mm Mr NNNNCDrM Nr,ma%oaH OmOoOln-v mOOD000Va% CnCOCONrlNMCO moommmoM mwrl v 0r.mm w000camw Cn00wir1C0m"v rlOHmaoova H0r-w"HNCOr rIOWm"rgHMN r100M0000� r-lS"N"C410 U) #k N r-4 �k a r N M" :k "0 "co 4k �k a M rl W N rl rl M H N M M N 1.0 v � ,7 ca U1�o00rImM �7MmCOV�rImtO �7cn 0�NNM10�0� ❑aEn .Ch000coco .7UlrilOvlOMr r NrMNMMV r wvmwo"" r NVWNMMN r omocoav r OOOOOmr1 41: w Iwo akD o rimm akD m t-co a ri N a Irl ri%D o N M a a Ul rNCD00mrM �7MM.-iO�4rl0 �7�riOriMrm Om000m 0 6"OMMlnrr wm . . . . . . cn . 99-v %DC-C4 4NN,W .0 wrimkomwN w "I m %ONMmN .0 amo000d� qw mco000aori U vk D ri M a o ak D Irl r w m 4k D rl co w co u::) 3k D N w Q a ri Naa' s rl to a'' Nm a4 $4 �OO�OOrrIlO �tOrerO�Mm gom000Coco m14C4rlfn.0t- ri mmHOHH" rl -0Nd�MvkOv rl lDMvriHInN ri OMOOOOv ri Ngo000d�r1 ak D o ko N o ak D In In r m :*:D N o v co #k D 4k O N ri 14 ri N aMN w 'i C4 M a a a Haa a Faa a E•Eaa a Haa a E; w A •m�(�1 w A ul w A •lnpp w A •cn H�"D'�7W ll 'r7.721 H DD�s H D�w HE:D a mau�m CCC(((JJJJJJ m w C�m 0uau>QUCYaw > gCAcn > a�U au"018w >WUH�0a 80 >,ONLntnOON >,ocor000ln >,otnMchoor >40000000 >,olnr000N �0rnNN00co IdOrI[�0000\ ON�OInOOd� Id000NOON �000111000d� 1-100t�M000 \00V-I000r4 \OOM0100M '\0000�000�0 \ONOOOOM t` to o to LO t` m "Go N rl W N H O l r. m t0 t0 r- m M M at a O N N at LL r t0 at a H,p ri t0 CL at W M M •ri . . . . . . •rl •rl -H E ri CD 0� E �N N w 1i $4 a a E F >,OtntnC400H >,ocor-000tn >,00%mr00 >,0000000 >10mr000%D (dOCDtn000.0 id0Hf-a0001 �otntntnOOt- OOONOON IdOlON0000� \001lnM000D \OOri000ri \OM000;( 0C; -,000w00t0 ro\ON010oorl 10 W N t` O dw m qw CD N v W H to O CO .0 M t0 t0 dW m N M p, m to to p, r to a at 04 .+M rI N at W CL M M E-4 ao E-4 WN N E E E >,O CDN M 0 0 M >,o Co t-oo otn >,0 er0N0 Ot, >10000000 >,o to Co 000 �OtOMInOOIn 0aHrt 0 0 0(h �OriO�001l1 �OOONOON �OLOL�OOOeN \OOtnri00t� \OOrl000rl \000010001 \000%D00W 1-10rI0000N H M t�CD to ri m v w N H W t, O r, ri W t0 %D ri to N N at (], .000 M at LL t`LO sN #a ri ri LL at W M M Ea M E- N N Ea E4 E-1 eN cc WWOOONOO 04W000N00 04W000N00 WWOOONOO WWOOONOO I-IEQr�+000(noo HEl000moo HE-4c)0omoo HE0N HE•+000mo0 co WC-�fxoCoorioo C,9( C- oC ico H�ocvoriOo Ca��C;- oC4 oo [[a+�oaoorioo V ASA N A N N V \ M \ M \ M \ M \ M 4 - W CDvcoCltnto(n oNaoc)HLnr r-I(nMCDNN00 OOOaoOOCD owtnorltnco f/lriotntO%aoNri t7)0tn00W0N U]NOrlolnt-l0 011000"Oo" ca CD m rn C)r-IN0 a 40 cli NMS zwr frOmWm at Or-i n�r-IOD fQOOOMOOM � OOri000N Z r�rrrlllll r7 ���ftllll rra77 rr��r��777 Ic rj W 1- Nm0r%Wri0 ONCooritntr tnorirotOCD 0000000OD MvInoritnOD . ENNd�tnvNri MOMOOWON MMNHOM"W V1000d oov EOMMOriNO v0o%Dc4riNtOM WOOL-t-OCDt-O vOH"0t--wOI� � 0001000" "� OOT-I000N - at a ri ri M t` at a r4 M to M at a rl to ri o at��i777777 M m =W a J ri r+ t` H N ri J at at ri = CDWr-40MM0 0Noo0H Lnr rromOor00 00OCO00CD Hr-i Lnoc)Hco O l/1 t0 CDN CDNfnH U10tnoOt00N 01[-t-0a%ty)r,t0 (0000"00,0 tQ/)NNMOriNO N CO� (� atN0ltnOHrit. �kr-10rI�OmWcq �k C0000Ln co fHOOOmOOM fHOOrI000N ri r- ri N ri V ra M �i 01NCOd!Nt�tn �7cn 0riM001Nr �70CDOriln01 `7O0CDcg0OM OL,L-OInNM t- OMNWMVM r% OCDtn0mot% r, 0H0t.0ri0 t` 000"00" r- OHWOOHO atDHNH HOW atD M 00.0 atD ri D UD rI a tc H Co a to ri N 0 a a a rlri01COM0111 6cn OriMOQ1N� 9ril�Orit11M01 9000 ma 0M �H%Drt OtnNM coO . . . Cl) . . . 'w ririHt-Nrito " OCDto0m0t- " OrIOt-OHO V OOOvoO" V OrIWOOrIO atDrwri Hwto atD M Oow =It D H p D ri a In r,Co a to ri N o a a a Mri001NtOeN OriM001NO �7or10rllnri0l �7000MOOM 6oOt,Otnom OIn . . . . . . . . . . . . . H MdGWMWHto H OCDtoOMOt` ri rlHwOOHO at D W m m to at D M 0010 ata ri at D at D ri a�N w a to H N OD a a a 3 0 3 3 3 3 WE+aa 04 aa IH E�aa H E+-JR U E-; DO: G4 A cn ppqq A Wpq W A -Eng W A Wpq W A W u~iDa� �HiIDa� HDa� H�DD�sHDD� 14MOR - aWzo�Pz - a awoPz°i�6 UUvA2o�Za �a vQwo�Za >auHa >rxuHol m >auHa v1 >auHa cn >xuHa >40000000 >1000Olnoln >10w0ON00M >rOwrlwOOM ow 10000000 R10100000�0OC1Mr100eN OO C 4Orr•ID � rlln 'O 'O eN[� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \000400004 \O1�00N001 \00040001!1 \OOw000ln r� m w w l` m M O M l- m H 0\ O r� m ow %D O M 4t 04 M M ak 04 r1 w c% 4t 04 H w tD Q, or- r M ri •rf -rl •rj -.i rl E E E E �� >10000000 >.0000lnoln >,oNwwoow >rOwrNoor- 00 0000000 . owr-WOON MrC0\00000'0 �O �dr00M � . . . . . . M \000400004 \Or-0ON001 11-.0%D01000ta \Orl\D0000% w m w w w m M O M w m out w w m w0 w wM ft 04 M M ft m H w in 04 ri w u1 4t 04 m%0 u1 N r1 r♦ ri S I $4 $4 r ao H H H H >10000000 >1000o1noln >10mmoNoorl >,omrlrloorI Nw 00000000 id0%D0000W doNin000in �Ow%Ow00in o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \000400004 \0n00N0oh \00\N000rI \(Dr-H000(A T-1 m w w rl m M o M r-I m 1.M rl rl m in w M w 0� m M M (t rl w 01i, 04 N M w In w w •ri •rl •rl E E E E n rA C 0404 F 04940000400 0494000N%D0 04940000400 0494000040a 1- H fA HAE-4000o%00 EAHEaG4000mrirw40 HQH�ooomr 000o HEArE�-40o0w0m00 �7HW. W.g( wrioO owo C; oC rooE 55No �> oW W N N N ILI 4 I���jjyy 00\0Ow00 0000000 mr-in0%00ri T01N%DN0%r� r� UW�+ooM000V WONOOw00 CJI rlwrlririMl% v]in0wwr�01N Q� mal r-Ias Q W }. 00%Do"00 0000(300 inwwo%ulwri inriwMl,ln[- ,J WoOMOoow fgOfVOOw00 U)wMrAOrIrIL- Unw[lMw%ONN Q w000U1oM000 wpOI�00N00 wO0M000M1- w0MNN00mch z a in N r, �7 H 0h rl :w a H r1 3k�-7 N14 w cc J H N rl r♦ J _. o0wow00 0000000 lnal-lnhhrl r.mwNwrll- O woOMoOow WoNOowoo f1 mmoo00[- f oHoNMwN OOin cq r- rq 0%ON f 111o�000N� f NONOOHq ►►►�����777777 ������llllll rrrrrr�llllll d 00010wOw Or-i00r10N �OM[�Int�lnln VINWr4NWN . . . t� OO�OONOO� t� ONOOw0�0 ll 0010ooww Or100awm rl OOO�OwOw mOrI00rION 9N�rwr�Oln r7Nw[.rINMN w cn w w . V oOkaoc4om w ONOOw0%D w wkDOOOU1w w H0000kom eta a N N ft::) w rlw w:o w w OOO�OwOw Or100o6NMWollt-N ON �7[�Il1MNMMln w w W w . . H 00WONOM H ONOOwOW rl r-M000Ow rl wU1000wQ1 eta ata N N :*aNw riw :ta M w 3 3 3 3 C4 04 0.0 C.n g- N C.,�2 R- in RN 9 1 M ON I N cn, i2o MHa m >0xuHotw # >xuHa cn >xuHa 0 APPENDIX D • ' i iun PROPOSED ALIGNMENT i 1 � ��U 1 gills �putf� �'��- ; t - w ■ PROPOSED ALIGNMENT �1 ;W •�� �r r—�r�♦��inttt► I� • � iia•H•a:.aala�� yr/,��r.�g1Wl •tom s Id u.tr � It f t OPTION 3 PROPOSED ALIGNMENT 7zo74Q;-7-4 / ♦� ` fie• ' Mv s .01 _ s . • Ll'IL T n -- o 1 Addendum: Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study PURPOSE The purpose of this addendum is to address the Technical Advisory Committee' s (TAC) concerns over the future development of Shalem Colony Trial . At the July 1, 1993 TAC meeting, Option 3 of the Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study was conditionally approved. The TAC conditionally accepted all of the original Option 3 except as it related to Shalem Colony Trail . Staff was then directed to develop roadway alternatives for a north/south arterial . This addendum proposes three options for that arterial . BACKGROUND Originally, the study indicated Shalem Colony Trail proposed as a major arterial . If upgraded, the existing road would require 80' of additional ROW (130' total) having a pavement cross-section of 551 . A collector (80' of ROW) was also proposed to be extended eastward to Shalem Colony Trail from Picacho Hills . The issue of concern was over the widening of Shalem Colony Trail . The "School Lateral" and power line are adjacent to the roadway for the first 1700' north of US 70 . Due to the concern over these utilities, the collector was left on all three options and attention was focused on Shalem Colony Trail . RESEARCH Staff obtained more detailed maps of the region outside of the original study area and contacted Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) engineers for information on the "School Lateral" . Three options were developed. Option One, as directed by the TAC would be to construct a totally new facility in the area between Picacho Hills Drive and Shalem Colony Trail . Option Two consists of the original proposal . With Option Three, suggested by EBID, using a portion of the Picacho Drain (outside the original study area) along with Shalem Colony Trial . (Please see attached maps . ) ii Option One: o Located half way between and parallel to Shalem Colony Trail and Picacho Hills Drive; o Extends approximately 8000' north of US 70; o Acquisition of 130' of ROW (approximately 20 acres of farmland, orchards, and possibly even one home) ; o Cost of ROW = $300, 000 ; o Cost of construction = $1, 080, 000; o Cost needed to upgrade Shalem Colony Trail to minor arterial status = $416, 000 (existing classification) ; o Tie into Shalem Colony Trail at the entrance of the "Old Picacho" town site; o Total known cost = $1, 796, 000 Option Two: o Existing Shalem Colony Trail would be upgraded to a major arterial; o Extends approximately 7100' north of US 70; o Acquisition of varying ROW (under 10 acres of land adjacent to road, some already obtained; o Cost of ROW = $150, 000; o Cost of construction = $416 , 000 o Cost to put lateral underground = $120, 000 ; 0 40' of additional ROW for the first 1700' granted from EBID; o EBID willing to participate in project; o Total known cost = $686, 000 Option Three: o The Picacho Drain, outside and to the east of the original study area; o Extends for 4700' north of US 70 to Shalem Colony Trail then 2700' to Old Picacho; o Acquisition of 120' owned by EBID, Cost = $0; o Acquisition of 4 acres of farm and other land adjacent to north part of Shalem Colony Trail; o Cost of ROW = $60, 000; o Cost of Construction = $756, 000 (road only) o Cost needed to upgrade Shalem Colony Trail to collector status = $416, 000 ; o Cost of 48" perforated pipe placed in the bottom of the drain and enough dirt to fill the drain for its entire length = $/unknown; o Regional connectivity, potential connection of "Old Picacho" directly with the Mesilla Dam; 0 Total known cost = $1, 232, 000 + (drain pipe & fill) 111 ANALYSIS Research indicates that Option One would not be economically or functionally feasible. It is the most expensive of the options, requiring the most additional ROW, does not meet the MPO' s spacing requirements for thoroughfare and has limited regional connectivity. The most favorable attribute is existing residences along Shalem Colony Trail will be bypassed; however, this is offset by the fact that they will still be impacted because Shalem Colony Trial, acting as a "short cut" to US 70 will continue to function as a collector requiring additional improvements . Option Two is more feasible than Option One, but has some drawbacks due to the impact of existing residences . Shalem Colony Trail would be upgraded to a major arterial . This would require the acquisition of varying amounts of ROW, a rock wall, two barns, and a couple of fences . Its attributes include being the least costly of the options, EBID willingness to participate in the project, the fact that the public already owns some of the ROW (from subdivision activity) , and that it does continue south of US70 for one half mile. Option Three suggested by EBID, may prove to be the most beneficial if proven feasible . The Picacho Drain is 120' wide and owned by EBID. EBID has stated that easements for its use may be obtained at no cost to the public . The fact that the drain continues South to Mesilla gives it good regional connectivity. The southern section of Shalem Colony Trail would only be upgraded to a collector thereby, reducing the impact to adjacent residences . And approximately 4 acres of land would be acquired for ROW under this option amounting to the least ROW cost of all options . Unfortunately, a cost estimate is unavailable for the fill dirt and 48" drain pipe needed to construct a thoroughfare . Research would be needed to determine the functionality of such an option. EBID engineers have agreed to assist in determining the benefits and costs of such a proposal, if an official request by the MPO Policy iv Committee to their policy board is forwarded. RECOMMENDATION To summarize, Option Two appears economically feasible whereas, Option Three, more functionally feasible. Additional research and analysis would be needed to determine which options would be the overall preferred alternative. Since EBID is requiring an official MPO request for further consideration of Option Three, staff recommends forwarding the Picacho Hills Alternative Access Study to the Policy Committee for direction. The Policy Committee may wish to pursue this alternative and direct staff to participate with EBID engineers in collecting appropriate data to determine future needs of Shalem Colony Trial . Once the research and analysis has been completed a report would be submitted to the TAC and ultimately the Policy Committee for review. It is further recommended that the portion of the plan accepted by the TAC at the July 1, 1993 meeting be forwarded to the Policy Committee for formal consideration. This would separate the transportation issues between the Picacho Hills Master Plan and Shalem Colony Trial . LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: October 13 , 1993 A(.rENDA ITEM: T::ansit Project Scheduling: Amendment to the 1993-94 Annual Element (AE) a :.d 1994-95 through 1998-99 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) , Resolution 93-011 . AC;:TION REQUESTED: Review and consideration of Resolution 93-011 . S1:;PPORT INFORMATION: 1 , Resolution 93-011 . 2 . Memo from Dale Kemp to Mike Parks . D:".SCUSSION/OPTIONS: D':e to changes in Federal Transit Administration' s grant application p: ocedure, differences in local, state, and federal fiscal years, and conflicts between local, state, and federal TIPs, Roadrunner Transit is a king to modify the transit portion of the AE/TIP. Transit requires t. e schedule for all transit projects listed in the AE/TIP be moved up o::e year in order to accommodate FTA' s time line for grant applications . T'i:.e request will simply move all projects up one year. This is due to t:!.e fact that for any given year, Transit' s grant application to FTA c,,nnot be made until the transit projects are a part of the state' s TIP. Be=cause of the AE/TIP process at each level of government, the local pa:ocess must be one year in advance of the state and federal funding c-,rcles. N(> changes in priority or funding will be affected. O 'TIONS : 1) Approve Resolution 93-011, amending the FY 1993-94 AE and the FY 1994-95 through FY 1998-99 TIP to reflect a one (1) year advancement of all transit projects . 2) Deny Resolution 93-011 . The FY 1993-94 AE and the FY 1994-95 through FY 1998-99 TIP remain unchanged. LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RESOLUTION NO. 93-011 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993-94 ANNUAL ELEMENT (A8) AND THE 1994-95 THROUGH 1998-99 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) FOR TRANSIT PROJECT SCHEDULING. The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee is informed that: WHEREAS, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the FY 1993-94 AE and the FY 1994-95 through FY 1998-99 TIP on March 10, 1993. These documents can be amended as directed by the MPO Policy Committee, and; WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires all local transit projects to be included in the statewide TIP, and; WHEREAS, New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Planning and Research Bureau maintains a separate and concurrent AE/TIP process from the LCMPO, and; WHEREAS, due to the nature of federal and state deadlines, MPO planning activities must be adjusted to meet these deadlines, and; WHEREAS, it has been requested as solely a matter of procedure and in keeping with federal guidelines, to adjust the schedule of transit projects to satisfaction of FTA, and; WHEREAS, the proposed changes do not adjust priority and will decrease requested total funding requested. MPO Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee hereby resolves, determines, and orders as follows: 1. THAT page 8 of the FY 1993-94 Annual Element and pages 6, 11, 15, and 19 of the FY 1994-95 through FY 1998-99 Transportation Improvement Program be amended as shown in "italics" and "bold" type on the attached pages taken from each document. 2. THAT staff is directed to take appropriate and legal actions to implement this Resolution. DONS and APPROVED this 13th day of October , 1993. rl►TT88T: i Luchini VOTE: Chairman Luchini: Ave Moved By: Tomlin Councillor Haltom: Ave Councillor Ferralez: Ave Councillor Tomlin: Ave Seconded By: Ferralez Commissioner Miyagishima: Absent Mayor Clayshulte: Ave Trustee Southworth: Ave Trustee Cadens: Ave APPR D AS TO FORM: 04 t orney m rn M • u 00 ° N O w Cul H N A N [2-4 N q NN N N q D s z w ac N n7 N 13. 93 « : • o. O Q1 �i • a � o z +-� rn a H q m • a Ic cco o000 00 00 00 ah an •n an ah SO °a H m O -1n Al � N Nwaj \ti OH �a M+ PG U w w y • a a Hu w q y O q q w DDK u ° y to It q ~ p a a • a o H a 9 M 7 q • pp, Us y y � 4 Aww CC Y pp O p 9 ;' O A u u me w • • • ` Q uZ • y • • v1 a m g y t • y$HCC • C u IN m • a qqq 0 0 o u o O N Z m 4 a 4 S a no, taN a� q�q ti $ U •q qaM y m O z ft a° lam N a °° ` 8 lo 4 4 4 4 j a D • q H .Hi ti 1 �O a 1 � R e a � V 14 a u m ♦ .a u N A q N 8 8 L m 1 94 co a Y O Ln RI . I O rn a N m Y H y,� H O >, w i n o 4J a ►Tr o � w a a r r � F'm F. 1 ?� of a�° ww MM 100 co q o 0o p o0 00 00 00 .� .'e aN •n en an am YIN a H " ° m Fo 0 a O 4J 0 a N O O y 0 O F O H 00 n p0pNO 0 0: (a q U 8 M ti N W U ri n 04 M H -ri N Y �� M •1 q �� N m Y m � O • M 4 .+ w s Mc 9 y u u 9 >. • mn w° .mi ti u .�. u• 6 F OMi tL0 R M K u 4 d O •4 02 F 01 mm Y Yy N4 v 4.9 .°. m i S w u a � y 01•-• M Iq • Y L p N N y 0 Ym a D 4 °;F mO o o m 8 ". 8 a .; � N n � o N o � 0 8 • 6Fi C � � m A 1A Y.•i � N m�p QQ eay' (a M • G H • N m M a H � O m u m a � m w � u m i u 9 a > A A x �I t3) • " H 0 P4 a a o 4JN Lno ~ w M pAp�' 0( PI (l ma M W yy H N p 0 •� M wa m oO N Is- (d �. «Yp too t�Fq Oo O0O0 1111 0 a G a v U N. a Vl o uQu c °' u ° V H HrES�j Q�j u _ O tOi1l N W m K a m � a gag N w a u A 9 u A Y M •.xi L m R C mA M U 6 U •.1 A A N ci -X K M Vpp 4 A m y O m � u a mA 0 10 ad p a+ nX U Oa v m RF x •• p Y C y ay 'O f N y M � w � K 4 Sp K U CM A � U{ Uy - u 93 co 10 •.� m • ai F' �I ti F F m• U o a G .moi ea bA q V O ••M � D � al p .7 a F fO ti a� F m ,F� V uO a oFp�H ao p O p'Am 1.a 190 .+ eV n v w K y n n O 18A O 1 � Y u d u u pppQQQ€pp;11 � � V yl 'iQ • ... ~ A CAm 11 N IF.1 O to a w o u m N d N ♦ N Y ° A u A A 93 u O Y u i u N � Mm q Y yy M a Y i m r M •tea a 1, °' 0 0 10!110/1 04 H paj N y H O ° u M ° O y a Id •� O O 9 M A N U0 0 NpO N•0ayp0 00 y y n U H v � U � Y � w umi o o~• � tin w w ° ti m ti m u 7 .ut r a a a > 4 � pp1 � a1 W S m u u u • Y mu c g a s R :` � n a� O 1 Y 0% 4. 09 � ..41 N4tqq u u H i O u2 -0 V. H m X V 41� A 4 F O w u aMi C M� to O QI m r .♦ u ..>i Ca N ti t Fi Z Vs o si AO � O la °O .a ry r1 a .^ N .1 14 n O N O o►VII a u m o p� N 8I m H O p� n w ' a qh m � V 4 i0 Y � A b u w N g u n y � V Y k C N z 00 V R .i'il • .7I a n a i > a o 4J a 'Z H � al � � p�(aR p�$ �� C� tO. a Oy Q Mh 41'O� py NO (7j bC • w p O ca ppUO eO�lO 1p On N g4 (I - 1..► W m v � U n N Op Op N N G4 u i a R F 4 0.1 u 4 R rl W4 p, O 1 0 a L 01 a o•d m 61 o y O O a u Q {a m $ +4i • i7 e0 o N a m a go 8 0 MTY OF LAS CRUCES NTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO —p Mike Parks, Associate Planner FROM rale Kemp, Transit Analyst' SUBJECT kE/TIP Update FILE MDDTA-M93-050 DATE i Requ( st that the following capital project changes be made to the AE/TIP in order for Transit to get into the proper Federal Transit Administration (FTA; grant cycle . Each project included in the Project Budget submitted as part of our Sect: :Dn 9 Grant Application for capital, planning, and operating assistance must be not only approved in the local AE/TIP but also in the State TIP (STI] ) . The local AE/TIP is approved during March and then forwarded to the : :ate . The STIP is normally approved in September. The State then forwards the STIP for federal approval . The Section 9 Grant Application is subm: --ted by the end of June before the STIP approval in September. Ther( Eore, to meet ISTEA requirements, our projects must be in the STIP that is approved the previous September. The i =_quested capital project changes to the AE/TIP are : AE 9: -94 Bus 190, 000 STP or Section 9 80/20 Paratransit Vehicle (1) 50 , 000 Section 9 80/20 (Replacement) Paratransit Vehicles (3) 130, 000 STP 80/20 (Market Value) Parts Room 40, 000 Section 9 80/20 Shelters 20, 000 STP or Section 9 80/20 TIP ! 4-95 Admin. Vehicle 15, 000 Section 9 80/20 Supervisor Van 25, 000 Section 9 80/20 TIP ! ,F-96 Paratransit Van (1) 55, 000 STP or Section 9 80/20 TIP 15-97 30 ' Bus (2) 400, 000 STP or Section 9 80/20 Paratransit Van (1) 55, 000 STP or Section 9 80/20 TIP 17-98 30 ' Bus (2) 400, 000 STP or Section 9 80/20 Than) you. DK:m) s LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: October 13 , 1993 A rENDA ITEM: S,::lf Certification of the MPO Planning and Public Involvement Process : A Federal Transit Administration Requirement, Resolution 93-012 . A,::'TION REQUESTED: RR:.view and consideration of Resolution 93-012 . SI.TPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . Resolution 93-012 . 2 , Self-Certification Document D';SCUSSION/OPTIONS: Ater the implementation of the Intermodal Surface Transportation E 'ficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) the annual requirement to "Self-Certify" ti.e MPO' s planning process was curtailed to once every three years by FIWA; however, it has recently come to staff' s attention that the F ,deral Transit Administration (FTA) still requires the yearly Self- C xtification Procedure. The last Self-Certification for the LCMPO was of March 11, 1992 . F";'A will only accept Roadrunner Transit' s Section 9 grant application if ai. annual Self-Certification Document is attached. 0:'TIONS : 1) Approve Resolution 93-012 , certifying the planning process to be in accordance with 23 CFR 450 . 114 (c) and allowing the processing of Transit' s grant application through FTA. 2) Deny Resolution 93-012 . The current certification document will remain in effect and require updating in 1994 . Transit' s grant application will not be processed until a current certification document is transmitted to FTA. LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RESOLUTION NO. 93-012 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE LAS CRUCES URBAN AREA. The Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee is informed that: WHEREAS, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the Planning Process on March 11, 1992, and; WHEREAS, a result of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department and the Federal Highway Administration require certification once every three years, and; WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration is requiring certification annually, and; WHEREAS, MPO Staff has reviewed current planning procedures and finds them to be in compliance. MPO Staff has reviewed the planning process and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Committee hereby resolves, determines, and orders as follows: 1. THAT the Planning Process is in compliance with applicable State and Federal standards. 2. THAT this resolution with attached document be submitted to the State for review and consideration. 3. THAT staff is directed to take appropriate and legal actions to implement this Resolution. DONE and APPROVED this 13th day of October , 1993. ATTEST: Chairman Luchini _ VOTE: Chairman Luchini: Mc ,red By: Councillor Haltom: Councillor Ferralez: Councillor Tomlin: SEsconded By: Commissioner Miyagishima: Mayor Clayshulte: Trustee Southworth: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Trustee Cadena: Attorney CERTIFICATION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE LAS CRUCES URBAN AREA BY THE NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (STATE) AND LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION The federal regulations in Section 450 . 114 , Subpart A, of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations mandate that the State and MPO certify that the planning process is consistent with the requirements of 23 U. S.C. 134, and 40 U. S . C. 1607 . The requirements of this certification and the action (s) taken by the Las Cruces MPO to comply with those requirements are discussed in the following sections . Federal Regulations 3 CFR 450 . 114 (a) : Federal regulations under 23 CFR 450 . 114 (a) require the urban transportation planning process to include activities to support the development and implementation of a transportation plan and annual element/transportation improvement program (AE/TIP) . virtually all activities programmed in the Unified Planning Work Program contribute to these objectives . Federal Regulations 3 CFR 450 . 114 (c) : Federal regulations under 23 CFR 450 . 114 (c) is met through the conducting of the multimodal systems planning process by the staff of the City of Las Cruces under policy director of the local elected officials making up the Policy Committee in accordance with the Unified Work Program as approved annually by the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. Annually, the long range transportation plans for all modes are updated, a Transportation Improvement Program is prepared, and these are incorporated into an annual Transportation Program process through the governing bodies of all of the participating local governments . Title 49 USC Article 1607 Section 3 , Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as Amended and Section 134 of Title 23 US (Highways) : These requirements are development of transportation plans and programs which are formulated on the basis of transportation needs with due consideration of comprehensive long- range land-use plans, development objectives, an overall social, economic, environmental, system performance, and energy conservation. . . shall include an analysis of alternative transportation system management and investment strategies . . . shall Self-Certification Document Page 2 consider all modes . . . and shall be continuing, cooperative and comprehensive" . *Long range land use plans and overall development objectives are generally a responsibility of local governments . Area demographic forecasts are based on land use plans prepared by the local governments . *Social, economic and environmental effects of transportation improvements are considered as part of the regional transportation plan development and update process, and also in studies for individual projects . *Transportation systems management improvements are considered and recommended in the short and long range planning efforts . These improvements are directed toward existing problems in both highways/streets and transit and are designed to be cost effective strategies to improve traffic operations on existing facilities . *Transportation planning and the development of transportation plans has been done on a continuous basis in the Las Cruces area since 1984 . *Cooperation is maintained in the process through agency interaction, technical committee meetings and direct staff contact . Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI requires that programs supported by federal assistance do not discriminate . The MPO applies the equal opportunity requirements of the City of Las Cruces (as the MPO' s administrative agency) to all MPO related activities . Section 105 (f) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 This section requires that 10 percent of the funds we let out to contract be spent with disadvantaged businesses . In order to comply with this requirement, the MPO makes every attempt to ensure the DBEs have the opportunity to participate in all projects funded by the MPO. The City of Las Cruces has adopted DEE requirements which are utilized by the MPO for federally funded programs . 49 DSC Code 1612 : Section 16 of the UMT Act This section requires special efforts in planning and design of transit facilities to assure they are usable by elderly and handicapped persons . All efforts to plan and design transit services and facilities in the Las Cruces area take into account Self-Certification Document Page 3 the needs of these two population groups . The Transit Development Plan and all activities being undertaken to implement that Plan are directed towards meeting this goal . 49 CFR, Part 27 : The requirements under this section are that special efforts be made by recipients of FTA capital and operating assistance to provide services, including user subsidies, to handicapped persons . Las Cruces Area Transit will operate lift equipped demand response vans as well as kneeling buses, and handicapped passengers may ride for half-fare at all times . Additional Guidelines in the Federal Transportation Planning Regulations : 23 CFR 450 . 106 The MPO for the Las Cruces Urbanized Area has been so designated by the Governor with the concurrence of the local units of government . Principal local elected officials or their designees are voting members of the MPO Policy Committee . 23 CFR 450 . 108 The MPO, State, City of Las Cruces, Town of Mesilla, Dona Ana County, New Mexico State University, and the Las Cruces Area Transit System cooperatively develop the Unified Work Program (UWP) which is endorsed by the MPO. 23 CFR 450 . 110 A major update to the area transportation plan is ongoing. It includes transportation policies, strategies, new facilities, and facility improvements . All recommendations are formulated through the planning process according to 213 USC L34 and FTA Section 8 . An AE/TIP is prepared annually. It is a 6-year program with those transportation projects scheduled for initiation during the next year being listed in the Annual Element . 23 CFR 450 . 112 The State, the MPO, the transit operator and the participating local governments cooperatively determine their responsibilities for the area' s transportation planning. 23 CFR 450 . 204 The Las Cruces MPO annually prepares and endorses an AE/TIP Self-Certification Document Page 4 which: -Is consistent with the long range transportation plan; -Covers a period of 6 years; -Includes realistic estimates of the costs and revenues for program period; -Is submitted to the Governor, the FTA Administrator, and the Federal Highway Administrator through the State; -Provides the required information on all projects; -Contains an Annual Element for which the cost is reasonably consistent with the federal funding expected to be available and the cost of projects eligible for Section 9 funding does not exceed the funding available . Ray Luchini, Chairman Ron Forte, Director Policy Committee Highway Planning & Research LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN NM STATE HIGHWAY AND PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Resolution: 93-012 Date : Date : Andrew Martinez, Director Transportation Programs NM STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Date : LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: October 13 , 1993 A;7ENDA ITEM: Iiformational Notebooks for Policy Committee Members ACTION REQUESTED: N:7ne S":7PPORT INFORMATION: N :)ne D ;:SCUSSION/OPTIONS: Di.ring the meeting, Staff will hand out information notebooks containing vixious documents, reports, and maps common to the Las Cruces MPO. T :trough this effort it is hoped the Policy Committee members will find c :�nvenient access to the most frequently requested MPO information.