Be informed! The proposed alignment of Springfield Road will affect us all; call your council member for his greenspace IQ

By María Eugenia Guerraa

Correspondence and documents, including Laredo City Council minutes from October 2001 and the May 2002 sworn affidavit of former City Planner Marina Sukup, provide a clear narrative for how the proposed Springfield Avenue alignment became the potentially dangerous, curved proposition that stands to destroy old growth mesquite trees and one of the most beautiful spots on Manadas Creek.

It is a narrative that enters into history that the City of Laredo puts the wishes and profitability of developers before environmental and quality of life issues.

At times in that narrative the argument for the straight shot alignment of Springfield versus the dangerous curved one first proposed in 1992 appears to be a 15-year-old land war between developer G. G. Salinas and landowners Bebe and June Leyendecker. That feud, heartbreaking as it has been for the Leyendeckers, is but the sidebar to the larger story of how the City has allowed developers like Salinas to move forward with development without provisions for drainage infrastructure or on-site rain water runoff detention, provisions that would have kept adjacent properties from flooding.

Despite the testimony of experts that the proposed extension of Springfield will have dangerous curves, will violate the City's Green Space Preservation Ordinance, and will worsen the flooding problems that already exist in the area, members of the Laredo City Council and City staff and management are set on mirroring the same poor judgment exercised by the 1992 City Council for that indirect route.

Having recently become aware of the specifics of this proposed street alignment, many Laredoans -- more than the handful of environmentalists who usually stand up for green spaces and natural wildlife habitat -- are troubled by the thought of a dangerous winding road that will destroy an oasis of green space and trees that approach a hundred years in age. They also believe that this action by the City of Laredo is clearly not in their best interest.

The City Council minutes of October 1, 2001 indicate that cost was the primary reason for choosing this three-curve alignment rather than a straight, direct road away from Manadas Creek. According to city manager Larry Dovalina in those minutes, another alignment was discussed that “would go up the middle of the properties and would force the City into condemnation for two different property owners.” Referring to the Leyendecker and Salinas properties, he said that staff felt it would be more costly for the City to follow the alternate alignment.

Dovalina, referring to the Leyendecker property, said that there was a drainage creek that bisects the property that almost fits the alignment as it comes across the land. This justification for choosing the alignment through the Leyendecker property and the creek actually aligns perfectly in fact with many of the City of Laredo 's pro-development policy makers who believe, as developers do, that some creeks are useless land and an impediment to profitable development. This attitude toward creeks is the major reason it took three years to adopt the Green Space Preservation Ordinance.

Since cost was the primary reason given for choosing the alignment along the creek through the Leyendecker property, it would seem that cost analyses would have been in order before initiating condemnation proceedings on any property. According to minutes of that October 1, 2001 City Council meeting, Dovalina informed Council that he would make a comprehensive report at the next council meeting with the six proposals and a cost estimate for each proposal.

The report did not materialize in the published minutes of the subsequent Council meeting of October 15, 2001, nor was it presented at the October 22 meeting when the Council voted 7-0 to authorize the City Attorney to use condemnation proceedings, if necessary, to acquire the Leyendecker property. Although the report may exist, at this writing no such a report made it into the minutes.

Verbal and written testimony by highly qualified experts indicates that factors other than cost should have been taken into account to decide on the alignment for the Springfield Avenue extension. Other considerations should have included the probable effects of that alignment on the area's environmental sensitivity, the historic flooding problems experienced by area residents, and traffic safety. In addition, efforts should have been made to balance the costs and benefits to all property owners affected by the construction of this street. A search of Council minutes and other available records have produced no evidence that Council seriously took into account any other important factors.

Marina Sukup's sworn affidavit

In a May 2002 sworn affidavit, Marina Sukup, the former City director of Planning and Development, pointed to the historic flooding problems of the area. According to Sukup, who was certified by the Texas Floodplain Management Association, flooding affected several residential properties on Candlewood Road as well as Mary Help of Christians School. She said, “G. G. Salinas' development proposals for the Hilltop tract made no provision for either drainage infrastructure or on-site detention.” Regarding the Dominion Del Mar Subdivision, Sukup said, “There appears to be inadequate provision for drainage on either the south or the east of Dominion Del Mar, and the roadway alignment north of the Leyendecker property is designed to exact the maximum amount of damage to the Leyendecker property for the benefit of the Salinas developments.” Sukup also said that the proposed curved alignment would result “in roadway curvature radii of less than 500 feet with less than the required 125 feet distance on the reverse curve. Springfield Road would miss the Leyendecker house by 100 feet under this scenario.” Sukup said the alignment effectively aimed the road directly at the Leyendecker home. (Marina Sukup's affidavit is posted to www.rgisc.org.)

Correspondence from the City of Laredo Engineering Department documents problems with Dominion Del Mar Subdivision's stormwater management.

A July 31, 2001 letter from City Engineer Rogelio Rivera to Eduardo Gutierrez at G. G. Salinas Engineering Company made reference to the channeled branch of Manadas Creek that runs along the CP&L easement between the Candlewood homes and the Leyendecker property. Rivera wrote, “Our department does not have any designs on file on the channel that will be built on the CP&L easement and the impacts it will have downstream. We also need information on how the post-development flow will be managed for this project. We recommend that you take action to resolve these problems and install the aforementioned BMPs (Best Management Practices) before property damages occur downstream of this project. Note that Units 4 & 6 of this subdivision will not be approved until these issues are resolved.”

Michael Lucci, P.E., of Hill Country Engineering in San Antonio, wrote the Leyendeckers a seven-page letter in September 2001 that detailed the impact of the Dominion Del Mar Subdivision on their property. He observed, “I believe the development of the Dominion Del Mar Subdivision is largely responsible for the excessive erosion, sedimentation, and flooding you are presently experiencing along your south property line, as well as along the drainage path through the center of your tract.” The impact described by Lucci applies as well to the Candlewood homes located adjacent to the south property line of the Leyendecker property. (Lucci's letter is posted to www.rgisc.org.)

Correspondence dated May 28, 2002 from Ivan Santoyo of City's Environmental Services Department to Alfredo T. Guerra at the G. G. Salinas Engineering Company asked the company to construct facilities to control storm water runoff from the Dominion Del Mar Subdivision. “After long and careful review of your proposal and our city ordinances, and through extended deliberation between the environmental services and engineering departments, we have concluded that there exists no other alternative but to request from your company the modification of your conceptual master drainage plan to include the installation of a detention pond,” Santoyo wrote. “This pond should hold the excess post-development runoff water from the Dominion Del Mar Subdivision Units which drain to the east side of the Leyendecker property. In order for us to approve this unit, the pond must be designed to meet city ordinance specifications,” he concluded. As of press time, no such detention facility exists.

George Altgelt, General Counsel for the Rio Grande International Study Center (RGISC), sent a letter to Council member Gene Belmares on April 2, 2005 asking him to work with the Candlewood homeowners in resolving the historic flooding problems that have worsened with the development of the Dominion Del Mar Subdivision. Copies of the letter were sent to Mayor Elizabeth Flores and other members of the Council. Belmares never answered the letter from RGISC, but Mayor Flores responded by saying that she would forward it to the City Manager.

In recent rains, gravity prevails,

supports drainage issues

On July 20, 2005 Hurricane Emily's 2.1 inch rainfall corroborated every contention that drainage is an issue at the site of the proposed roadway. RGISC executive director Dr. Jim Earhart osbserved, “I photographed flooding along the branch of Manadas Creek that runs through the Leyendecker property with particular emphasis on the area designated for the proposed street right-of-way.”

Earhart continued, “The Leyendecker stock tank was filled to capacity and water from the spillway spread southward into a wide sheet flow across the grass and tree covered meadow. The flow widened to 300 feet or more and then branched into two major broad streams, one flowed into the playground area east of the City water tanks, and then joined the southern branch that is channeled along the CP&L easement.

“The other broad stream of water flowed westward toward the Leyendecker fence that deflected it southward toward and through a narrow water gap near the south end of the fence. After flowing through the gap, the water turned back northward toward the pavement, widened to approximately 200 feet, and spilled over the curb and onto the pavement where it flowed westward toward a storm drain on the north side of Springfield Avenue,” he said.

“Much environmental alteration has been done in the area, making it difficult to determine for sure what the natural condition was before development. However, whether natural or diverted by human activity, a segment of Springfield Avenue near the Leyendecker fence is clearly in a steam flow -- in other words, it is a paved intermittent creek,” Earhart concluded.

Sukup & Lucci's

concerns for public safety

In summing the sworn affidavit of May 17, 2002, Sukup said, “In my professional opinion, the roadway alignment which I reviewed is manifestly unsafe for a road of this type, an opinion of which City Engineering and Mr. Salinas were advised.” In a June 24, 2000 e-mail to Mayor Flores, Sukup said, “The alignment of the Springfield extension (on City property and a very bad alignment at that, since it is neither safe nor in accord with the comprehensive plan) appears deliberately designed to antagonize the Leyendeckers.” (Sukup's e-mail to Mayor Flores is posted to www.rgisc.org.)

Another of engineer Lucci's letters to the Leyendeckers details safety concerns about the Springfield Avenue extension. He said, “In reviewing the impact from the City's originally proposed alignment through your property, it has become apparent that the horizontal curvature of both existing pieces of Springfield to be joined together through your property is severely inadequate and thus unsafe.” Furthermore he said, “I believe that the centerline curvature standard is something that should not be compromised in proper road design. Inadequate curvature means inadequate sight distance. It is imperative that drivers have adequate sight distance to react to hazards, cars have ample time to merge into traffic, etc.” Lucci said that the centerline curvatures in three areas of the proposed street extension are well below “any minimum standard design value I can find in any Federal or State guidance, and especially in Laredo's own Subdivision Ordinance.”

Lucci said that following a meeting with the City on November 7, 2000, he was under the assumption “that the City was going to review a number of alternative routings considering all pertinent information such as construction costs, land acquisitions, and the equality of sharing the impact of the new roadway with adjacent land owners. After waiting nearly eight months for the City to complete their review, I was extremely disappointed to learn from you that the City was proceeding with this project without consulting either of us.” Furthermore, Lucci said, “It appears that the City is going to proceed with their original alignment, regardless of the possibility that other feasible alignments may exist.”

City will violate its own

Green Space Preservation Ordinance

RGISC developed a PowerPoint presentation that demonstrates clearly why the proposed Springfield Avenue extension will violate the Green Space Preservation Ordinance passed by City Council on May 3, 2004. A letter, requesting that the presentation be placed on a Council Agenda, was sent to Council member Belmares last February; however, an invitation to appear before the Council was never extended. The RGISC production, entitled “Proposed Extension of Springfield Avenue, Recommendation by the Rio Grande International Study Center,” has been presented to numerous groups throughout the city. The general response from people who hear and see it is one of disbelief and dismay that their City would consider a project that undermines this popular quality of life ordinance.

According to RGISC executive director Dr. Earhart, “Over 200 citizens, many of them registered voters, have signed a petition expressing their support for rerouting the proposed Springfield Avenue extension and converting the city owned right-of-way into a public greenway that would offer hiking/biking trails and park space for the community. The list of petition signers is growing. The petitions are now in the custody of RGISC, and will be presented to Council member Belmares at a future date.”

Sukup: City ignoring

safety considerations

Many Laredoans may remember Marina Sukup, who served as Director of Planning & Development and Transportation Director for the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the City of Laredo from July 1992 until May 1996. Sukup, who was licensed to practice law at the time she was in Laredo, was responsible for current and long range planning, including transportation planning, zoning administration, and enforcement of subdivision regulations and development of the Capital Improvement Program.

Sukup became acquainted with the Leyendecker property in 1992 when she and staff met with June Leyendecker. In the May 2002 affidavit, Sukup said, “Mrs. June Leyendecker met with the staff concerning promises ostensibly made by the developer of the Salinas Key Subdivision that a screening wall would be constructed as part of that development.”

Sukup continued, “Mrs. Leyendecker subsequently appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on several occasions to register complaints about the lack of a promised screening wall adjacent to her property, noting continued problems with trespassing and trash disposal. No provision was made for storm water run-off in the Salinas Key Subdivision.”

In that affidavit Sukup stated, “Gerardo Salinas, developer of Salinas Key (a subdivision located between the Leyendecker property and International Blvd.), expressed increasing irritation on several occasions concerning Mrs. Leyendecker's statements. These comments were made to myself and Planning and Development staff members following Planning and Zoning and Council discussions.

“Following one council meeting, Mr. Salinas said that he intended to ‘take care of June' because of her statements and the pictures she had distributed showing accumulations of trash and broken fences adjacent to Salinas Key. Mr. Salinas made other similar statements at a meeting with a number of city staff members from several departments, including Keith Selman of the Department of Planning and Development. Mr. Salinas' statements left the strong impression that he planned a campaign to antagonize the Leyendeckers for their public statements and that he would go to great lengths to carry it out,” said Sukup.

The proposed curved alignment of Springfield Avenue to connect with International Blvd. raises troubling questions about the relationship of City staff and council members with developers and their disdain for environmental issues. Some of those relationships raise the spectre that one landowner wields an extraordinary amount of influence in determining the proposed Springfield Avenue extension.

According to Sukup, “Certainly the actions of the city (including the failure to act) would suggest that there was collaboration by city officials in depriving the Leyendeckers of their constitutionally protected rights.

“The city was not without notice of the concerns, but chose to disregard her (Mrs. Leyendecker) complaints, presumably to advance the interests of the developer. The original plan would have required an alignment on developer property. This alignment also dealt with several drainage problems, which in the case of the Leyendecker property, are compounded by the CP&L easement.”

Concerning these drainage problems, why did the developer fail to take measures to control the excess stormwater runoff generated by the Dominion Del Mar Subdivision after being specifically instructed to do so by the City Engineering and Environmental Services Departments?

In reference to the proposed alignment, Sukup said, “It is not clear to me why any city official would have chosen such a course of action given the safety considerations and requirements for adequate infrastructure. The issues I have noted were discussed in painstaking detail with the developer when I was still with the city and there cannot be any claim that ‘I didn't know' on their part.”

In her e-mail to Mayor Flores, Sukup said, “I am sure that this is NOT what you wanted to hear. I do understand that between changes in staff and the governing body, changes in policy may result. Changes in the Thoroughfare Plan, however, require both notice and hearing and should be undertaken in a public forum. If this has been the case, any change would still require establishment of a safe alignment of the roadway.”

The way the Springfield Avenue issue has been and is being addressed is troubling for the future of Laredo if you consider that its citizens have become collateral damage in a declared landowner war that raises an issue of governmental complicity.

The current City administration was not in office when this issue was first initiated. Many of the original players, who created the debacle, are gone, but the current administration has inherited the problem. Members of the City Council who did not create and are not a part of the problem would do well to distance themselves from the actions of their predecessors or from those who are knowingly involved.

We ask the members of this City Council to become informed and face this issue squarely, to work diligently to bring this conflict to an end. City government should not knuckle under to rogue landowners or developers. It should work conscientiously to promote the kind of development that is fair and reasonable and meets the needs and desires of the Laredo's good citizens.

If council member Belmares does not have a green space IQ or an environmental conscience, then let's pose it to him and to the entire City Council this way: there are more than a handful of voters who have made note of your unwillingness to do the right thing.