BY KEVIN HOLSAPPLE
Los Alamos

Dear Councilors,

Please enter this correspondence into Tuesday’s formal meeting record. I am writing to formally register my strong objection and questions to the process surrounding the DP Road Facilitated Land Use and Concept Planning Study and the LAC RV Park Feasibility Study (File No. 22331-26).

It appears that substantial County resources and staff time were expended on these studies without obtaining any prior public input or consultation regarding the foundational ideas themselves. Once again, major land use and expenditure projects emerged from internal County channels on a Friday afternoon for discussion the following Tuesday, without the benefit of upfront public discussion. Consequently, residents are left invited to make brief, three-minute public comments on formed concepts, with little to no expectation that their ideas for alternatives will be heard, substantive questions will be answered, or their genuine concerns will be addressed.

Furthermore, grouping a municipal public works discussion—specifically addressing operational yards and stockpiles on Parcel A-16—with an RV park feasibility study on a totally separate property, and attempting to wrap them in the narrative of somehow being related to affordable workforce housing, feels like an intentional misuse of County transparency mechanisms and a purposeful exercise in obfuscation. These are entirely distinct land use and fiscal policy issues with different community impacts. Conflating them obscures the true scope of the proposals rather than clarifying them.

Regarding whether there is a community benefit argument for making any land available for an RV park and whether the Council directed staff to spend the money on it, a competent study should have evaluated alternative locations rather than jumping to a single location. Here are questions I request the Council to answer on Tuesday (please do not ask the staff to answer for you or hide behind more staff obfuscations):

1. Did the Council ask for this feasibility study? If so, why?

2. What is the community benefit of spending resources on determining RV park feasibility? How much staff time and money has been spent?

3. Wouldn’t a competent feasibility study have evaluated and sought public input on alternative locations? A few examples come to mind immediately, including a portion of the property being put forth for Public Works use. There could also be opportunities in Overlook Park. Any legitimate feasibility study should have started with a public meeting to get public input on the need and alternatives. The public has been shut out once again.

5. There have been previous community requests in the context of the Open Space Plan to consider rezoning the forest along the entry to town and the Canyon Rim Trail to open space passive. I know this input was given again to the current comp plan update and was ignored again. I also shared this input during the golf course expansion discussion, and Council said it would consider rezoning as a separate matter (it never did). Why have the County and Council ignored and stonewalled these requests? Could this be a good time to have a public hearing to gather input about appropriate uses and zoning for this land, potentially leading to rezoning? I formally request that you do this, either in the context of the Comp Plan update or as a separate matter. If the community’s will is for commercial development of these lands, you will have evidence supporting the current mis-zoning.

The County can and must do better on early, transparent public engagement on capital projects and land use planning. I urge the Council to halt this rushed trajectory, separate these disparate proposals, and establish meaningful public dialogue before committing further resources.