Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Fe council denies appeal, upholds Planning Commission approval of 150‑room AC Marriott with NMDOT review condition
Summary
After a daylong public hearing full of technical testimony and dozens of speakers, the Santa Fe governing body voted to deny an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Titan Development’s four‑story, 150‑room AC Marriott at Serios Road, while adding a condition requiring written NMDOT confirmation of the project’s traffic analysis or a remand for a revised TIA.
The Santa Fe governing body voted to deny an appeal challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of a four‑story, 150‑room AC Marriott hotel proposed at 1101–1103 Serios Road, but added a condition requiring written confirmation from the New Mexico Department of Transportation that the project’s traffic impact analysis is acceptable. If NMDOT finds the study inadequate, the council directed that the matter return to the Planning Commission with a revised TIA to address the state’s comments.
The appeal, filed by the Old Santa Fe Association, argued that the administrative record lacked required traffic and water data and that state roadway coordination had been omitted. Appellants and technical witnesses argued the TIA omitted raw turning‑movement files, longer counts and a dated NMDOT access decision, and that those omissions meant the Planning Commission’s February 5, 2026 finding lacked “substantial evidence.”
Applicant representatives and city peer reviewers said the development plan met the city’s C2 zoning standards and that the study met Santa Fe’s TIA guidelines and had been peer reviewed by licensed traffic engineers; the applicant said it had revised its water budget after city billing staff provided data and that the project meets required water conditions.
Council members spent extended time questioning city staff, the developer’s traffic engineers and outside peer reviewers about whether the study should rely on 4‑hour peak counts, 24‑hour or 48‑hour counts, which TIA standards (city vs. NMDOT vs. FHWA) govern state routes, and how access permits and NMDOT coordination are documented. Several residents testified about traffic backups at the Serrios Road/St. Francis Drive intersection, safety concerns for cyclists and pedestrians, and potential shadowing and aesthetics adjacent to the New Mexico School for the Deaf.
In the final roll call on the motion to deny the appeal, the votes were: Casset, Fagali, Garcia and Barrett in favor; Bamante opposed; Castro abstained. Under city rules the abstention was counted with the majority and the motion carried. The council’s amendment requires the applicant to obtain written NMDOT confirmation that the traffic impact analysis is acceptable; if DOT does not so confirm, the council directed that the approval be remanded to the Planning Commission to prepare and consider a revised TIA that meets DOT guidance.
The council’s action leaves the Planning Commission findings intact unless the applicant fails to obtain the requested NMDOT confirmation; the condition creates a procedural checkpoint for state review of traffic impacts on the state highway corridor.
What happens next: the project remains approved for the moment, but the applicant will pursue the required state coordination. If NMDOT requests additional work, the plan will return to the Planning Commission for additional findings, and the governing body could be asked to revisit the matter.
Key documents and next steps noted by council staff include the Planning Commission packet, the TIA and associated peer‑review letters, the project’s required water‑budget approvals before final permits, and the NMDOT access review. The council also reiterated that the city’s general plan and land‑use code are under an update that will address long‑range standards for corridors like this one.
