Council approves application to adjust Candelario Park boundary for Zia Road deceleration lane after heated neighborhood opposition

The Santa Fe governing body voted to authorize a city application to adjust the northern boundary of Candelario Park to allow construction of a traffic deceleration lane on Zia Road after staff said the lane was necessary to meet state access and safety standards.

Assistant City Attorney Rebecca Mina Kerman explained that both the developer’s traffic study and the city traffic engineer recommended an east‑ and westbound deceleration lane at the Galisteo/Zia intersection to meet New Mexico Department of Transportation access-management guidelines and reduce rear‑end and other crash risks. The lane as designed extends slightly into the park’s undeveloped northern edge; staff said the affected area is a small fraction of the park (roughly “less than 1%” as shown in staff graphics) and that the lot‑line adjustment is an administrative process that the land use director reviews.

City traffic engineer Leroy Pacheco — present at the meeting — told councilors the deceleration lanes remove turning traffic from through lanes and “are designed to New Mexico Department of Transportation State Access Management Manual deceleration lane standards.” He said the measure would reduce the risk of rear‑end collisions and improve multimodal safety near the Rail Runner station.

Several dozen nearby residents and the Candlelight Neighborhood Association objected in public comment, arguing the portion of parkland was dedicated to public use and should not be repurposed without a full, public vacating process. Speakers cited the park’s 1978 dedication plat and a 1984 New Mexico Supreme Court decision (Sprague v. City of Santa Fe) in urging the council to reject any step that would shorten the park boundary without full statutory procedure. "Once public land is paved over, we never get it back," said Tom Agard, who added, "This resolution sets a dangerous precedent."

Residents also urged the governing body to require alternatives to using parkland, to pursue traffic‑calming measures that would avoid permanent park encroachment, and to conduct a fuller public‑notice process. Attorneys and commenters questioned whether the appropriate legal mechanism is a plat vacation, a lot‑line adjustment, or another process; Assistant City Attorney Mina Kerman explained staff’s view that the proposal is not a vacating of right‑of‑way or a transfer of ownership and that the city will remain the landowner while the recorded park boundary is adjusted administratively.

Sponsor Councilor Jamie Cassett said the road alignment and deceleration lane were part of the traffic review during prior hearings for the Zia Station development but that the park boundary issue had not been explicitly presented to the governing body when the rezoning and development plan were approved. "This was a mistake," Councilor Cassett said, acknowledging neighborhood frustration, "and we're here to correct the process so there's clarity going forward." Councilor Pilar Faulkner, who served on the planning commission during the Zia Station review, said the commission had discussed safety and traffic at length and supported measures to reduce collisions.

Councilors debated the tradeoffs between preserving parkland and meeting engineering standards for a busy intersection near the Rail Runner station. Several councilors said safety concerns and the city traffic engineer’s professional judgment favored the deceleration lane; others emphasized the need to strengthen public notice and the city’s procedures for parklands. Councilor Michael Garcia said he was concerned about precedent and community process; Councilor Amanda Chavez and others pushed for a technical fix that would let the developer complete road work while staff clarified legal and procedural steps.

The council approved an amended resolution directing the city manager to designate an agent to apply for the administrative lot‑line adjustment and other steps needed to implement the traffic plan. Staff said that if the land‑use director prefers, the application may be referred to the planning commission for review; staff also committed to follow the code process for lot‑line adjustments and to return to the governing body if a formal resubdivision or vacating process were required. Opponents signaled they would continue to press for legal review and further public input.