,
Tesuque Valley Community Association Board Meeting Minutes
February 27, 2023
The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m. at the Tesuque Elementary School. Present were
Directors Lynn Pickard, Cam Duncan, Kathleen Jimenez, Bruce MacAllister, Cathie Sullivan,
and Jeanne Boyles. Lynn announced that she had proxies for Jake Clemens, Annie Laurie
Coogan, and Jerry Barron. (She also has a standing proxy for Richard Renaldo, but she forgot.)
Also present were community members Carol Sorenson, Rachel White, Kevin Daniels, Hannah
Burnes, Bruce Stewart, Mike Beasley, Jamie Gagan, Bruce Scott, Keith Obermeyer, and his
daugher.
Minutes and Treasurer’s Report – The minutes of the December 5, 2022, meeting were
approved. Jeanne reported that there is $4,037.55 in the bank of which $2,143.21 is allocated for
legal fees. Jeanne will get together with Lynn before the end of April to learn how to file the
required IRS postcard and file it for the tax year 2022. There was a discussion of whether we
should send out a notice for people to pay their dues. It was pointed out that that was requested in
the December meeting announcement and that several people paid their dues at that time.
Perhaps more people would pay if the dues request was not combined with other notices.
Because the treasury has sufficient funds for our purposes at this time, it was decided not to sent
a notice of dues now.
New Community Developments – Planning Committee, Code Enforcement, Development,
Other -
Lynn reported on a meeting she attended on January 18 with TVCA reps Jeanne, Margo Cutler,
and David Dougherty and County reps Robert Griego (Planning), Penny Ellis-Green (Land Use
Administrator), Robert Hollingsworth (Code Enforcement), Jose Larranaga (Permitting Case
Manager), Brett Clavio (Transportation), and possibly others. The status of Santa Fe Institute and
the Road Study will be discussed below.
With regard to planning, the new Community Plan was adopted, and County staff are working on
revising the Tesuque Overlay to the Sustainable Land Development Code to conform to it.
Problem areas include whether the Planning Committee’s use of “edge of pavement” to
determine setback was possible and whether a percentage definition or description of opaque and
see-through was better. Both Penny and Robert H. preferred the description, and although Lynn
agreed, she later pointed out to them that other fence guidelines in the SLDC used percentages.
The Overlay is still in the stage of drafting, and Robert G. had told Lynn that the draft would be
submitted to a subcommittee of Bruce MacAllister, Margo, Randy Buckley, and her before
taking it to the Planning Committee as a whole and then to the community as a whole prior to
presentation to the Board of County Commissioners.
,
Several TVCA members had attended a meeting with County staff in November during which
County staff presented a better protocol for notifying community organizations (of which TVCA
is one) as well as neighbors about development proposals. When asked when these protocols
would be finalized, Robert G. answered “soon.”
TVCA members questioned whether Tesuque Village Market was permitted to enclose its patio
and transform its front parking lot into an outdoor patio, thereby lessening available parking and
appearing to permit parking in places that block the view of Tesuque Village Road when one is
trying to turn onto it from Arroyo Griego. Some aspects of this issue are addressed in the Road
Study.
Other code enforcement issues were discussed, particularly whether the work without a permit
on 1345 Bishops Lodge Road was being addressed. Robert H. answered that it was and that the
owner was cited into magistrate court. (In connection with this matter, Lynn pointed out that
there was a dispute as to how to construe the allowable dwelling units per acre in the SDLC.
Some were of the view that the Code allowed one unit and accessory on a legal lot of record
regardless of its size; others were of the view that you divided the acreage by the allowable units
and that was the number of units allowed plus one accessory. Lynn said that we could not resolve
the issue so we would not discuss it further.) TVCA members questioned whether there were
permits for the work being done on 1 and 2 Little Tesuque Creek and whether there was a person
living in an unpermitted place on Singer Road. David was going to follow up on this. We have
not heard from Robert H. on any of these code enforcement issues.
Firewise – Rachel had researched the availability of federal funds for fire mitigation on
properties in Tesuque and passed around an application for seeking these funds (attached). The
process is not simple, but is doable. The person responsible indicated that money is not currently
available, but will be in the possibly near future on a first come/first served basis, and therefore
recommends that people apply soon. Rachel also reported that the Santa Fe Institute was
responsible for much of Tesuque’s qualifying work to remain in the Firewise project. Rachel
agreed to put together some content for the website Firewise section that would include the
application for funding as well as educational information on fire mitigation on residential
properties. Cathie pointed out that such activities were being considered more important than
thinning or other mitigation strategies in the forests far from habitations.
Road Traffic Study and Historical Marker – Lynn reported that she and others who
participated in the Road Traffic Study had received the final draft of it. She had written to Brett
last week asking him what were the next anticipated steps and whether the study could be placed
on the County website. Brett wrote back that he would have an answer “tomorrow,” but she has
not heard from him since. The study contains many recommendations on traffic calming and
other safety measures, and are grouped into near term, intermediate term, and long term projects.
Lynn sent a copy of the study to Jerry to be uploaded to our website.
,
Lynn forgot to mention the status of the historical marker (or maybe she did, but forgot that she
did). In any event, the application was submitted, but the governmental position that takes care of
these matters is currently empty. The person whom Lynn has been corresponding reports that the
committee that deals with these applications will meet at the end of February or in March, and
she will report back to Lynn.
Santa Fe Institute – Lynn reported that Jose reported to the January 18 meeting that all required
approvals had been made insofar as water, septic, etc., were concerned, but he had not yet
prepared the formal final approval and signature. Penny told him to get it done. Neither Bruce,
nor Margo, nor Lynn, nor any of the neighbors who had contacted the County about this matter
have heard from the County and therefore our five day time limit to appeal has not yet started.
Nor has Karl Sommer, with whom Lynn and Margo have been talking about TVCA’s objections
to the SFI proposal, heard anything. A letter that Lynn wrote the County on behalf of TVCA
asking for SFI to agree to conditions was sent out to TVCA members on October 30 and it is
attached to these minutes. A message from Karl Sommer to Jose Larranaga on February 16 is
also attached. We have not heard anything since but are still hopeful that SFI might agree to the
conditions in the October letter.
TVCA Administration –
Website update – Lynn reported on the positive status of the website and said that she
needed to go over it to make sure all documents were there and correct, particularly matters of
TVCA history and how to become a member, and to make sure that the website was easy to
navigate. In this connection, people generally liked Christi’s suggested revisions, but were
sensitive to the demands on Jerry’s time. Lynn will review all this material and get with Jerry to
complete work on the website, after which Jerry will do whatever needs to be done to get it high
up on the list of search results. The group agreed that links to businesses should not be allowed
(although our BBQ sponsors can be thanked in words on the site), there should not be a members
only section, all contact information should go to Bruce, there should not be any reference to
connecting with us on social media, and no one else wanted an email address on the site. Bruce
will get together with Jerry at some point to configure the site to allow outgoing communications
so that he does not have to use the difficult-to-use gmail program for sending bulk messages.
BBQ – Cam reported his commitment to make it happen again this year, and it will be
discussed at the next meeting.
Next meetings – The next board and general membership meeting will be on May 22 at
5:30 at Jeanne’s, weather permtting. Jeanne asked for eight or so people to arrive at 4:45 to help
her set up. Bruce, Mike, Rachel, Cam, Lynn, Carol Sorenson, Kevin Daniels, Hannah Burnes,
and Bruce Stewart volunteered. It will be a social event as well as a meeting, and people will be
encouraged to bring finger food and what they want to drink.
,
Following the May meeting and BBQ, there will be a board meeting on October 2 and a
combined board and general membership meeting on December 4.
Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 6:32. Below is the text of the letter referenced above: TVCA Tesuque Valley Community Association
44 Big Tesuque Cyn, Santa Fe, NM 87574
October 27, 2022
In reference to Application for Development Permit 22-3040 - Santa Fe Institute
Dear Santa Fe County Land Use Administrator:
We write to express our continued opposition to approval of the 4000 square foot lecture
hall, the application for which is still before you. This letter responds to Santa Fe Institute’s notes
of the recent neighborhood meeting and reiterates our concerns expressed in 2018 and last
month.
The TVCA is very much opposed to the application. Most concerning is that this is just
another case of expansion beyond existing use that will be detrimental to the Traditional Historic
Community of Tesuque, inconsistent with the recently adopted Community plan, and very
detrimental to the immediate neighbors.
While the notes of the meeting are technically accurate, they leave the impression that all
questions were answered and concerns resolved, when quite the contrary is true. The notes do
not accurately portray the community’s reaction to the information shared. We also do not
believe that the permitting process, as required by the SLDC has been fully complied with. We
are particularly concerned that we were not notified of the prior approval and thus were deprived
of any opportunity to take appropriate action in 2019. If this application is approved without
satisfying the Community Organization and neighbors, we do wish to take appropriate action this
time, as Ryan Olivas indicated we could in his September 7 email to Christi Clancy. In order to
do so, we need adequate notification of the decision. Therefore, please notify us of your decision.
Apart from the meeting hosted by JenkinsGavin, SFI has communicated to us its regret
for not adequately engaging with us in the past, as well as its desire to be a good neighbor going
forward. We wish to communicate the same thing to SFI, i.e., we don’t want to be a
neighborhood that answers “no” to anything new proposed in our community and we wish to
cooperate in SFI’s aspirations in making the Miller campus a quiet, contemplative place for its
activities.
Therefore, we ask that any approval granted by the County be conditioned on the
following, and if the County does not wish to include these “conditions,” that SFI privately
provide us with a binding agreement that includes:
1. Bridge noise remediation prior to approval of any additional development
2. Specific limitations as to numbers of events (perhaps ten) permissible on an
annual basis with an explanation that an event equals one session of up to eight
hours
3. Specific limitation as to timing of events — with only daytime events permissible
or perhaps one or two extending until 10 pm per year
4. Limitation of number of participants at events to 78 people (or a similar number
consistent with what was presented as being contemplated)
5. Prohibition of any increase in parking beyond 14 new spaces and prohibition of
any additional impermeable surfaces beyond what is shown in the plan for the
area currently approved as a “school”
6. Any additional amendments, updates or modifications must require a public
meeting similar to the last meeting
7. Agreement that this development plan includes a moratorium on any further site
development, including the lots where SFI currently claims to have no intention
of additional construction, and that any future development on those lots will be
residential only
8. Agreement to shield immediate neighbors from the school by replacement or
construction of fencing
9. Full compliance with all SLDC and other requirements as to design, sound
control, outdoor lighting, septic load, and any other requirements of the County or
State agencies whose regulations apply to this property
10. Agreement that if the property is transferred out of SFI’s ownership, that the
property will revert to residential only
In essence, if SFI is representing that it has no plans for expansion and wants to cooperate
with its neighbors in providing a quiet place for its activities, we wish to hold it to those
representations. In turn, we contemplate doing our part to cooperate too.
Sincerely,
Lynn Pickard, co-chair
Tesuque Valley Community Association
Copy to: JenkinsGavin Inc. and David Krakauer