Tierro Bello Update

 

Dear Neighbors,

 

On May 14, the Board of County Commissioners will consider developer Joe Miller’s proposal to create the 73 lot Tierra Bello subdivision. Mr. Miller’s proposal was approved last month by the Country Development and Review Committee (CDRC), following a recommendation by its in-house staff. The CDRC is authorized to consider only whether the proposed subdivision meets County code requirements, whether all applications and paperwork have been submitted properly, and so forth. Larger issues -- the impact on surrounding neighborhoods, community support or opposition, and whether the project serves the larger public good -- are the purview of the County Commissioners.

 

If you are concerned about this development, then I urge you to show up at the meeting to make your views known, either by commenting during the public hearings session, or by supporting those who do make comments. The Commissioners are elected officials, and listening to their constituents is an important part of their responsibilities. Here’s the info:

 

Date: Tuesday May 14

Time: public hearings will start no earlier than 5pm, Tierra Bello may not come up until 6pm or so.

Place: County Administration Building, 102 Grant Avenue

Agenda: http://www.santafecountynm.gov/documents/agendas/agendas/BCCAgenda5-14-2013.pdf

               

 

The Water Availability Issue

As many of you know, I have been collecting comments about Tierra Bello from the community of surrounding subdivisions for the past several months. Opposition to Tierra Bello appears to be unanimous among those who do not have a financial stake in it. Virtually every resident who has spoken to me has serious concerns about this development.The one concern which stands out, however, is over the future availability of water. Mr. Miller has a “will serve” permit from the Eldorado Area Water and Sanitation District (EAWSD), which is a contractual obligation of EAWSD to sell him water. Whether it was prudent for EAWSD to issue a permit to him (and other developers) is thus water over the dam, so to speak.

 

EAWSD offers assurances that the Eldorado water system has the capacity to serve Tierro Bello, as well as to meet other community water needs. However, in the opinion of experts, EAWSD has not demonstrated that ample water will be there in the future to meet those needs. EAWSD obtains nearly all of its water from ground water -- aquifers hundreds of feet underground -- and nobody really knows how reliable that source will be in the future. At a recent public meeting, I heard the County hydrologist, Ms. Karen Torres, caution that communities should use surface water (reservoirs, snowpack runoff, rivers) as their primary sources, if possible, and avoid using ground water. She mentioned that the Eldorado ground water probably dates from Paleozoic times, with a replenishment rate of thousands or even millions of years. In other words, in her opinion and that of other scientists, the deep ground water on which we now all depend is potentially a non-renewable resource, and once it is gone it is gone. Not everybody shares this view, however, and other assessments are more optimistic. From what I can tell, however, nobody really knows, because there just isn’t enough data about the status of the aquifers. What is known, however, is that the stakes are very high, and prudence suggests that caution and a conservative approach to water management is highly desirable.

 

I plan to make a brief presentation to the County Commissioners. In it, I will make the following recommendations:

 

1. The County should impose a temporary moratorium on large developments until the future availability of both ground and surface water, including the risks and uncertainties and the long term impact of the current drought, is better understood.

 

2. The County should recommend that EAWSD commission a scientific study of the aquifers upon which all Eldorado residents depend. Currently, the only legitimate scientific estimate of the aquifer capacity is a six-year-old consultant’s report, whose predictions of future water availability have been criticized as unduly optimistic.

 

Regards,

Jim Garland

President, Spur Ranch Road Association

 

 

Tierra Bello Approved by the CDRC

Dear Neighbors,

The 7-member County Development Review Committee (CDRC) this afternoon approved the Tierra Bello Subdivision proposal by a vote of 6:1.  There was no public discussion of the development, but the report I sent you earlier was distributed to the committee members, who recessed their meeting for a few minutes to read it carefully.

 

In my opinion, the vote did not indicate strong support by the CDRC for Tierra Bello, but rather the belief that the committee had no legal basis on which to oppose the project. The CDRC staff had already reviewed the Tierra Bello proposal and had recommended passage, on the grounds that it did not violate any county code requirements.The issue of water availability was off the table, since the Eldorado Water and Santitation District had already issued a legally binding water permit to the developer. Thus, confronted with a staff recommendation and unable to consider the global issue of water availability, the committee members, in my opinion, had little choice but to approve the project.

 

Interestingly, in the discussion among the committee members, it became clear that they fully understood that the County Commissioners, whom they advise, have the latitude to consider broad issues of water, neighborhood impact, etc., of the development, and are not at all obligated to support the CDRC recommendation. Despite the vote, I came away from the meeting heartened that these larger county development issues will very much be on the minds of the County Commissioners when they take up the Tierro Bello proposal at their May meeting. Thus, if you are concerned about water issues in the community (and I hope you are), it is very important to make your opinions known in the next few weeks. I'll send around a memo in the next couple of weeks with specific suggestions, but in the meantime I hope you will inform yourself on the issues.

Regards,

Jim Garland

Tierra Bello CDRC Vote Today

Dear Neighbors,

            Attached is the agenda for today's County Development Review Committee (CDRC) meeting, during which a vote will be taken on the Tierra Bello subdivision. Sorry for the late notice, but I've been out of town all week and just returned last night.

            As some of you may recall, the vote last month by the CDRC resulted in a 3-3 split vote. The tie-breaking 7th member did not attend the meeting, so the vote was postponed until this month when presumably the 7th member will be present.

            In response to my inquiry, Ms. Vicki Lucero, the County's Building and Development Services Manager, replied:

" The CDRC closed the public hearing at their last meeting, so they will not be taking any more public comment.  The one committee member who was not present at the last meeting has received a copy of the meeting minutes so that he is aware of the discussion that has already taken place.  Upon review of the minutes he will be able to vote on the project." (Note that the schedule has changed slightly so that Tierra Bello is now first on the agenda.)

            I replied to Ms. Lucero by protesting the CDRC chairperson's decision to close the meeting to public discussion: " I think members of the community are going to be pretty unhappy with no opportunity for further public comment. As everybody is aware, reading minutes of meetings is not an adequate substitute for hearing the actual discussion. Perhaps CDRC minutes are different, but usually minutes of meetings merely list the topics that were discussed, with at most a sentence or two of elaboration. Given the strong community feelings about this proposal, if a committee member who missed the discussion casts the deciding vote without being fully informed, it will seriously undermine the reputation for fairness of the CDRC in the eyes of the public."

            Please keep in mind that the CDRC does not have the final say on the Tierra Bello proposal. The CDRC, which has appointed members. advises the Board of County Comissioners, which has ultimate authority. The BCC recently tabled indefinitely the Spirit Wind Ranch development, another development by Mr. Joe Miller.

            While there probably will not be any public comment allowed on the Tierra Bello proposal, I  nevertheless believe it would be a good idea to have community members present for the vote, just to remind the CDRC of the broad community interest in this proposal. 

Thanks!

Jim Garland

               

 

Final Report: Community Negotiations with Tierro Bello

Dear Neighbors,

Attached please find two documents:

(1) My final report on negotiations with Mr. Joe Miller and his attorney, Mr. Ronald VanAmberg, over the restrictive covenants of the proposed Tierro Bello subdivision. Recall that Mr. Miller was asked to consult with community members about their possible concerns. My report is based on comments received by community members, and Mr. Miller's response to those comments.

(2) A copy of the latest (revised) restrictive covenants for Tierra Bello.

Unfortunately, I do not have a complete email distribution list for all the neighbors and subdivisions that would be affected by the Tierra Bello project. I would appreciate your forwarding this communication to any of your neighbors or acquaintances who might be interested in the project.

Sincerely,

Jim Garland

President, Spur Ranch Road Association

102 Spur Ranch Road

Attached Tierra Bello Covenants, revised 2/27/2013

 

Update: Tierra Bello Covenants - ver. 2/27/2013

Dear Neighbors,

Yesterday I received for review the attached revised covenants from Mr. Ron VanAmberg, attorney for developer Joe Miller. These are the covenants for the Tierra Bello 73-lot subdivision. I'd appreciate your reviewing this document for substance (don't bother with typos, editing changes, etc.,- I'll flag those) and sending me comments, so I may consolidate them and return them to the developer for review. After he's had a chance to look at them, I'll arrange a public meeting with him and his staff to negotiate items of continuing community concern. His development was tabled by the County Development and Review Committee (CDRC) at its meeting on Feb. 21, until March 21. Shortly thereafter, if recommended, the development will go to the County Commissioners for final approval or disapproval.  This email distribution is for all the people whom I have addresses for. I'd appreciate it if you'd forward the email to any neighbors in the subdiivisions along Avenida Compadres, since I don't have contact information for them.

 

If you've been keeping up with earlier versions of the covenants, you'll find these greatly improved with respect to organization, structure,  languange, and overall clarity.  There are many provision in the covenants which are positive. In my quick reading, however, I've noticed a few items which are likely to be of community concern. Please note especially the following articles:

 

Article 2.4:  The definition of "manufactured housing" refers to a 36'x24' minimum heated area (864 sq. ft), but also a 1400 sq. ft. minimum footprint. It is unclear what this means (does the 1400 sq. ft. include a garage?)

 

Article 2.5, 6.1: The definition of "mobile home" is odd, because it refers only to movable or portable housing structures that do NOT meet national standards. The question is whether moveable structures which DO meet standards are included in the definition? If not, then that second type of mobile home would not be prohibited.

 

Articles 2.1, 8.1, 12.2 - These articles refer to leased residences and "lessees" (those who lease to others). To me, the covenants appear to permit an unrestricted number of rental units. The small square footage requirements (1400 sq feet) suggest the possibility that Mr. Miller wants the flexibility to construct low-income rental housing, rather than selling owner-occupied residences.

 

Article 6.12: This article stipulates that no "direct access" for owners or the general public is permtted into the connecting Tierra Colinas subdivision roads. The article does not specify how this restriction will be implemented  (e.g., gates, etc.), or who will pay for any costs. To my knowledge, the Tierra Colinas HOA has not yet weighed on this important matter.

 

Article 5.5:  This article defines the minimum 1400 sq. ft size (1800 sq. ft for a two-story house) as applying to "heated areas." This is a change from the previous versions, which stipulated only a 1200 sq. ft minimum (1600 sq., including the garage).. I doubt it is the intent, but technically if the builder heated a garage, it would reduce the  actual living area requirement to only about 1000 sq. ft.

 

Article 2.3, 8.1: The covenants mandate an "architectural committee" (AC) which has considerable powers. Mr. Miller and his associates/family comprise the AC for the first three years, but eventually the HOA board will appoint the AC. However, as mentioned in the following comment, there is no mandatory requirement that an HOA be formed.

 

Article 11.1, 14.1-14.3: These articles stipulate that, after six lots have been sold, those lot owners "may, at their option" form a homeowners association, and they assign responsibility to the HOA to maintain roads, common grounds, easements, etc. To me, an HOA should be mandatory, since without it there is no continuing mechanism for maintaining the subdivision's infrastructure.

 

Article 11.1, 12.2: Mr. Miller is specifically exempted from any HOA assessments or from being bound by any subsequent changes in the covenants, even if he owns most of the lots/ rental units. His exemption applies both to any annual or special assessment fees.  This is an unworkable provision, for several reasons. Suppose, for example, that after six lots have been sold, the owners form an HOA. Under the covenants the six owners "shall" be responsible for maintaining all interior roads in the subdivision, and yet Mr. Miller is exempted from paying any share of this cost. As a practical matter, the owners have a strong disincentive to form an HOA until nearly all the lots are sold. Of course, if Mr. Miller intends to own a large number of rental units, then that will never happen. Mr. Miller's intentions need to be clarified.

 

Article 14.1: The HOA, if one exists, shall assess owners (Mr. Miller exempted) for a "pro-rata" share of maintaining the  northern 0.61 mi segment of Avenida Compadres. There is no provision for maintaining the remaining 1.0 mi. segment of Compadres, nor of contributing any support for Spur Ranch Road.

 

I'll keep you informed when public meetings are scheduled, and look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions. Please respond by March 11 at the latest, so we will have time to coordinate our response. Thanks!

 

Regards,

Jim Garland

President, Spur Ranch Road Association

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tierra Bello Update

Dear Neighbors,

 

Sorry if this information duplicates other emails you've received, but I want to make sure everybody is aware of an upcoming County Development Review Committee (CDRC) meeting to consider final approval for the Tierra Bello subdivision planned by developer Joe Miller. The meeting is 4:00p.m. Thursday, Feb. 21 at the County Commission Chambers at the County Administration building, 102 Grant Street.

 

Mr. Miller has just released revised covenants for the property, which I've attached to this email. An important unresolved issue pertains to subdivision traffic along Spur Ranch Road and through the interior roads of the Tierra Colinas subdivision.

 

I hope many of you will be able to attend the meeting. If you have concerns about the covenants or the development generally, feel free to express them at the meeting, or email me so that I can represent your views.

 

Thanks very much.

 

Jim Garland

President, Spur Ranch Road Association

466-8833