6a-c)(3) Emails w. Comm. Wayne Johnson, 6.14.

15
From: Paul Lusk
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 8: 05 PM
To: Tito Madrid
Cc: Commission, Catherine VerEecke

To: Commissioner Wayne Johnson June 14, 2015

One Civic Plaza NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Dear Commissioner Johnson,

I agree with the first statement in your 'opinion letter' in the Albuquerque Journal this morning:
“A failure to plan is a plan to fail." However, many of the statements following this lead sentence,
I believe, do not support this common sense assertion. I would ask you not to dismiss this letter out of
hand, but rather, to consider the brief list of concerns that follow as it may guide your evaluation of the
facts and your decision at the Commission meeting June 16, 2015. I am not able to attend the BCC
hearings on the Santolina proposal due to home and health circumstances. Please consider this as my
submission to that hearing.

• Master planning can be good, but the outcome must be a GOOD master plan, which Santolina is not.
It is a 1950-style pattern of development that would just exacerbate the accumulated effects of disperse,
separated land uses, increased travel, air quality impacts, expanded water use, extreme soil /foundation
problems. (Please see: PL to BCC, 4/22/15, West Mesa Development + attach.).

• “Level A plan is but a first step on a journey, not the end of the line.”
Unfortunately, this would be a journey in the wrong direction. Development on the West Mesa is
possible, but it must fit the land, as well as the changing demographics, market preferences, changing
economic and climate conditions of the 21st century, (Please see: PL to BCC, 4/15/15).

• “Approval (…) would simply define where (uses) would be placed should market demand
meet projected growth.” However, in the MP there is NO plan for business attraction; it says it would
rely on “State and County initiatives”. Further, the, DTA ‘Fiscal Impact’ consultant states, at the beginning
of their report, that they did not independently assess the assumptions they were given (75,000 jobs, etc),
i.e., they just projected the impacts ‘if so’. The fact that the projected total of 75,000 jobs would be 7.5
times the peak employment at Sandia Labs, and 15 times the peak employment at Intel is unsupported
and quite unrealistic. (See: K. O’Donnell to CPC, 11/ 15,14).

• “Simply put, there could be almost 14,000 homes – each with its own well and septic system.”
This is a false comparison. The ‘Santolina area is in single ownership. The depth to water ranges from
500’ on the East escarpment to more than 1000’ on the Rio Puerco escarpment. The standing depth to
water at the (now) PNM Relay station is about 1000’; the yield in a 4” diameter casing (at the time of the
interview) was about 10 gpm (personal interview during development of the original A/BC Comprehensive
Plan). The idea that, somehow, “if not Santolina, individual 1-acre homeowners would drill multiple,
adjacent, deep, low-yielding wells to brackish, heavy-metal-laden water” is patently absurd. The
unspoken comparison and reference seems based on a veiled reference to the Pajarito Grant area just
south of the proposed Santolina development. The fact is that the Mesa-top area of the Pajarito Grant
(the Ejidos) was captured (under questionable legal circumstances) and subdivided in the 1930s by a Los
Angeles Realty firm – as oil speculation lots. This unfortunate pattern (a grid for property identification for
oil-speculation sales all over the world) has been the reason for its inappropriate development pattern. It
is NOT accurate to imply that this is a possible alternative pattern for the Santolina area (unless, of course,
if the premature approval would be based on the erroneous assertion of some proponents that it is
“either Santolina or piecemeal development and chaos”). The more likely sequence of events might be
that the Santolina proposal, if approved, would fail due to the issues identified here and in public
testimony – resulting in increasing litigation, declining marketability, and tax revenues NOT meeting
bonded indebtedness. (Please see: PL to BCC, 4/22/15, West Mesa Development + Attach.)

• “There are those who believe that the only kind of “good development” is in-fill development.”
And: “Thus far, opponents have not provided an alternative – they’ve just said no.“
First, we are not “the opponents”. We are the public: the people who pay the taxes, and the people
whom you, and each of the elected Commissioners, represent. We are NOT opposed to “new
development in Bernalillo County”, and we do NOT believe that ‘”in-fill development is the only kind of
good development”. Rather, we have submitted written, graphic and spoken testimony presenting
ecologically, socially and economically superior alternatives for appropriately-designed development on
the West Mesa to the staff, to the CPC and to the BCC since January 29, 2014. (Please READ: PL to
Catherine VerEecke, and to CPC, 1/29/14, edited and re-submitted 5/18/14; PL to CPC, 3/22/14, Viable
Alternatives; PL to CPC, 11/10/14, Options; PL to BCC, 4/15/15, Attachments; and PL to BCC, 4/22/15,
West Mesa Development.

• “… the question will be where water is consumed not if it will be consumed.”

This is not true. Water consumption in a dot-dot-dot exurban development, especially using a dendritic-
drainage-pattern subdivision (as shown in the Santolina MP) on bladed, unconsolidated fine Aeolian sand,
nearly non-existent humus and low gradient, would be far greater than in a typical R-1 housing
development (and in high-density 'Centers and Corridors' development) in the Adopted Development
Areas.

We support GOOD, ecologically sound development, especially in the environmentally challenging

conditions on the West Mesa. We do not support “Phoenix-style-exurban, separated-land-use, green-
lawn, every home-a-castle, drive to work, NON-‘villages’ on this high-desert, sand-dune covered portion
of the West Mesa. We ask that you please review the extensive material referenced above, and in public
testimony, and do not approve an incomplete submission of an un-needed, poorly located, and
potentially tax-base-consuming proposal.

Development on the West Mesa is possible, but only if it recognizes that to be truly ‘sustainable’, it must
adapt to the rapidly changing patterns of climate, available water resources, economic conditions and
social preferences of the 21st century.

Paul Lusk
2100 Lakeview Rd. SW
Albuquerque, NM 87105
From: Wayne Johnson <wjohnson@bernco.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 2:13 PM
To: Paul Lusk
Cc: Tito Madrid
Subject: Re: Santolina proposal
Mr. Lusk,

I appreciate your taking the time to respond, and for participating in the county’s proceedings. While I
value your opinion, I disagree with your conclusions particularly in a couple of areas.

For one you make the assumption that the public opinion is monolithic in this case and that other than
the developers, the public does not support this project. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just
because you are surrounded by those who oppose this project does not mean that the public does not
support it.

Second, you state that you are not against development and that you don’t believe that the only kind of
good development is in-fill development. However, you go on to state "[w]e do not support “Phoenix-
style-exurban, separated-land-use, green-lawn, every home-a-castle, drive to work, NON-‘villages’ on this
high-desert, sand-dune covered portion of the West Mesa.”

Webster’s defines “exurb” as:” a region or settlement that lies outside a city and usually beyond its
suburbs and that often is inhabited chiefly by well-to-do families.”

While Santolina is well up the hill, it’s hardly beyond Albuquerque’s suburb’s. If fully built out, you may be
able to call Santolina a suburb of Albuquerque - but you can make the same claim about the South Valley
or Paradise Hills. You might also consider that Santolina will be closer in terms of travel time to Downtown
Albuquerque, than my own home in the NE Heights of Albuquerque.

The question comes to mind… do you support “suburban” development? Albuquerque is currently a
suburban city. With the exception of Nob Hill and the Downtown area, most of Albuquerque is quarter
acre lots or larger with a whole bunch of single-family dwellings. I may be wrong here but after reading
your response, I suspect you are not a fan of how Greater Albuquerque - particularly the NE Heights and
Westside - developed and would prefer higher density, smaller footprint development in the urban core.
If so, you do not in fact support development other than “in-fill” development. I would ask if there’s any
development that you would support on the Santolina site?

Santolina comes down to a property rights issue. A landowner has proposed a land use that will bind
subsequent landowners and have the weight of law. While you may not like this policy or the fact that a
property owner wishes to develop their property, in the final analysis they have the right to do so
whether or not they cooperate in producing a Masterplan. For them, the property is an asset. If the
market demands the type of community they wish to build, it will be a success and they will make money.
If not, they will lose money.

Thanks again for responding. I really do appreciate it.

Best regards,
Wayne A. Johnson
Commissioner
Bernalillo County Commission District 5
One Civic Plaza NW, 10th Floor, Albuquerque, NM 87102
Email: wjohnson@bernco.gov
O: (505) 468-7212 C: (505) 238-9352
www.bernco.gov
------

From: Paul Lusk [mailto:plusk@unm.edu]

Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 4:48 PM
To: Wayne Johnson
Cc: Commission; Catherine VerEecke
Subject: Re: Santolina proposal

Commissioner Johnson,

Thank you for your reply. In the interest of brevity, and in view of your busy schedule, I would make just a
few comments to the statements in you letter below: (¶ # ref. is to your paragraph sequence)

¶ 2) I am not “surrounded by people who oppose this project”. I speak for myself as an Architect
and Planner with over 50 years of professional practice in Philadelphia, Boston and Albuquerque.

¶ 3 - 5) My reference to "Phoenix-style-exurban development" is to the work as shown in

the Santolina MP. It illustrates Phoenix-style development -- probably because Consensus' lead
planner, Jim Strozier, learned his trade in Phoenix and has applied this pattern in a number of
projects since he came here. The problem is not the words 'suburban or exurban' but, rather, the
land use pattern as shown.

¶ 6) Your reference to ".. not a fan (of how Greater Albuquerque.. developed) (and would prefer higher
density .. Etc.)” is pure projection, stunningly false and uncalled-for. My professional work has ranged
from single-family homes in remote and rural settings, to village, Pueblo, and high-density urban core
urban design and regional planning.

Your last sentence in this paragraph, ".. if there is any development that you would support on the
Santolina site?", though, is, to me, shocking. It means that you have not read the multiple documents (to
County staff, CPC and BCC) referenced in my 6/14/15 email to you -- and, apparently, those included in
the public record of this case, some sent directly to you.

I would ask you, please, to actually READ (as a minimum) before your Hearing tomorrow: PL to BCC,
4/15/15 (including all attachments), and PL to BCC, 4/22/15, particularly the illustrative
graphic attachment which identifies the very real problems with the Santolina proposal, as submitted, and
shows an example (NOT a design for the area) but that illustrates principles that can serve as a guide for
design and public review for ANY development on this very difficult and environmentally challenging site.

¶ 7) Regarding "property rights", I would submit that you represent all of the citizens of the Albuquerque
area, as well as the residents of your district -- this includes the interests of the developer, but not to the
exclusion of the others whom you represent. I would suggest, when you are not so pressed for time, that
you read: PL to Catherine VerEecke and CPC, 1/26/14, resubmitted 5/18/14.

Respectfully.
Paul Lusk