Northwest Quadrant Documents, City of Santa Fe

NORTHWEST QUADRANT REPORT
CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Land Use Department Cover Memorandum 2
Exhibit 1: Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 5

• Case #M 2009-05: Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment. 8
• Case #ZA 2009-02: Northwest Quadrant Rezoning 9
• Case #M 2009-06: Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance 11
• Case #M 2009-08: Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance 11
Exhibit 2: Updated Memoranda 14

• Wastewater Management Memorandum from Stan Holland, 9/16/09 14
• Archeological Review Memorandum from Marissa Barrett, 9/21/09 16
• SHPO Letter date 17
Exhibit 3: General Plan Amendment Resolution 19

A: Fold-Out Maps between pages 22 and 24
• Current General Plan Future Land Use Map
• Proposed Future Land Use Map
• Proposed Master Plan
Exhibit 4: Rezoning Bill 28
Exhibit 5: Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments for Meeting of 6/18/09 34
Conditions of Approval Summary Table 54
Staff Memoranda:
• Solid Waste: Randall Marco 57
• Stormwater Management: Jim Salazar 58
• Fire Department: Barbara Salas 62
• Wastewater Management: Stan Holland 63
• Traffic Engineering: John Romero 78
• Water: Brian Snyder 80
• Water: Antonio Trujillo 81
• Trails: Bob Siqueiros 82
• Parks: Fabian Chavez 83
• Technical Review: Charlie Gonzales 84
• Technical Review: Risana Zaxus 87
• Technical Review: Wendy BlackwelL 89
Escarpment 89
Resolution 2006-14 Escarpment 92
Remapping Project Memorandum to City Council, 12/5/08 Draft 95
• The Tano Road Association SubmittaL 98
• La Nueva Casa Solana Neighborhood Association SubmittaL 120
• Bill No. 2009-37-Changes to PRC 130
• Kathy McCormick Memorandum with Pro Forma to Finance Committee, 5/22/09 137
Exhibit 6: Applicant's Statement on Planning Commission's Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law on General Plan Amendment and Rezoning 158
Exhibit 7: Applicant's Statement of Appeal of PC decision re Escarpment Variance.....161
Exhibit 8: Applicant's Statement of Appeal of PC decision re Terrain Management

Variance 166
Exhibit 9: Updated Pro Forma, 6/15/09 173
Exhibit 10: City Council Committee and Planning Commission Minutes 198
Finance Committee Minutes 198
June 1,2009 198
March 2, 2009 224
September 15,2008 228
August 18, 2008 229
October 16,2006 233
Public Works Committee Minutes 234
June 8, 2009 234
February 23, 2009 270
October 27, 2008 273
September 8, 2008 279
January 7, 2008 285
August 22, 2007 288
November 27,2006 291
September 25, 2006 295
Planning Commission Minutes 296
June 18, 2009 296
December 4,2008 553
June 12, 2008 600
Attachment: Current Submittal from La Nueva Casa Solana Neighborhood Assn., 9/16/09
Exhibit 11: Applicant's Submittal Packet for PC Meeting of 6/18/09, including Power Point
Presentation - under separate cover and not paginated
• Master Plan and Design Standards - Light Blue Spiral Bound Book
• Master Plan - Hard Copy of CD in Pale Green Notebook
• Public Process Volume 1 - Pale Orange Spiral Bound Book
• Public Process Volume I-A: Public Process/Homework Group - Purple
Spiral Bound Book
• Traffic Impact Analysis, February 5, 2009 - Grey Spiral Bound Book
• Financial Pro Forma - Green Stapled Document
• Master Plan and Design Standards as Submitted to Planning Commission
for Meeting of June 18, 2009 - Pale Green Notebook
Table of Contents - Northwest Quadrant - City Council: September 30, 2009 Page 20f2
~fi~©ff'~1t&1~~~fi@@
DATE:
e
Sept. 21 for September 30, 2009 City Council Meeting
0
TO: City Council
VIA:
~~-
alen Buller, City Manager ~
Greg Smith, Acting Director, Land Use Departme~
FROM: Tamara Baer, Manager, Current Planning Divisio
Case # M 2009-05. Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment. The City of Santa Fe
Housing and Community Development Department requests approval of a General Plan future
land use map amendment to revise the designations of 540± acres to include approximately 122
acres in a mix of Very Low Density Residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre), Low Density
Residential (3-7 dwelling units per acre), Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per
acre), High Density Residential (12-29 dwelling units per acre), Neighborhood Center, and
Transitional Mixed Use; and approximately 418 acres of Parks and Open Space. The property is
located south ofNM 599 and west of St. Francis Drive.
Case # ZA 2009-02. Northwest Quadrant Rezoning. The City of Santa Fe Housing and
Community Development Department requests rezoning of 540± acres from R-l (Residential, 1
dwelling unit per acre) to PRC (Planned Residential Community). The Northwest Quadrant
Master Plan adopted as a part of this rezoning includes supplemental Design Standards that vary
from the Chapter 14 Land Development Code. The property is located south of NM 599 and
west of St. Francis Drive.
Case #A 2009-06. Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance Appeal. The City of Santa
Fe Housing and Community Development Department appeals to the Governing Body of the
City of Santa Fe the Planning Commission decision denying Case #M 2009-06, variance request
from Section 14-5.6 to allow 15,000 square feet of the alignment of Ridgetop Road to encroach
on the ridgetop subdistrict to provide sufficient distance from an existing PNM switching
station. The location of the requested variance is along the proposed Ridgetop Road alignment
between Camino de los Montoyas and NM 599.
Case #A 2009-07. Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance Appeal. The City
of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department appeals to the Governing Body
of the City of Santa Fe the Planning Commission decision denying Case #M 2009-08, variance
request from Section 14-8.2 to allow disturbance of 28,000 square feet of 30 percent slopes on
two sites in order to preserve open space areas and to allow structures to be built on the
disturbed 30 percent slopes. The locations of the requested variance are within the proposed
neighborhood center areas north of the ridge and northeast of the PNM switching station.
SSOO1.PM5 - 7/95
2
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan covers 540 acres of ridgeline and foothills concentrating
development on 122 acres, while setting aside the remaining 418 acres for a mixture of open
space and developed parks. The proposed mix of land uses is arranged in a linear series of five
mixed-use clusters along Ridgetop Road separated by protected drainages, open space and trails.
The proposed development includes up to 773 residential and live/work units, 40,000 square feet
of neighborhood commercial center, up to 70,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial uses, a
fire station, and a potential adult education facility. The major design ideas and elements behind
the Northwest Quadrant development include: affordable housing (minimum of 30% affordable,
maximum of 30% market, balance of 40% workforce), open space preservation, sustainable
development, quality public amenities, non-motorized transportation connections, and
integration of mixed-use development forms.
The Planning Commission on 6/18/09 recommended denial of Case #M 2009-05 (Northwest

Quadrant General Plan Amendment) and Case #ZA 2009-02 (Northwest Quadrant Rezoning), and
denied Case #M 2009-06 (Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance) and Case #M 2009-08
(Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance).
See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Exhibit 1, immediately following this cover
memorandum.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the General Plan Amendment since:
• it is not consistent with existing land use conditions, in that there is insufficient vehicular
access for a project of the proposed size;
• it is not consistent with certain other elements of the Plan in that it does not provide
greater street connectivity or local linkages;
• the NM 599 Study currently underway should be completed and the Project's traffic
impact analysis updated before a vehicular access plan is approved for the Project; and
• the proposed changes in land use will have a negative effect on surrounding properties.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the Rezoning since:

• the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Plan;
• the change in zoning is not justified at this time given the lack of sufficient and safe
street connections and recommends waiting until economic conditions will support the
Proj ect' s construction;
• the limited roadway connectivity is a serious and overriding negative factor, with the
alternative, connection through existing neighborhoods, likely to result in safety risks to
those neighborhoods, an additional equally negative factor as well was the limited
roadway access for emergency vehicles that may also increase the risk to the Project and
abutting areas in the event of fire or other public hazard; and
• the financial pro forma indicates that the Project is infeasible due to the combination of
the Project's housing product mix, infrastructure cost, sensitivity to the current housing
market and general economic conditions.
The Planning Commission denied the request for the Escarpment Variances and the Terrain
Management Variance since:
• the application did not meet the necessary criteria to justify either variance.
Northwest Quadrant - City Council: September 30, 2009 Page 20f3

3
The Planning Commission recommends to the Governing Body on General Plan Amendment
and Rezoning applications, and has final authority in granting or denying Variance requests.
Therefore the applications to the Governing Body are for the following: (1) Amendments to the
General Plan and Future Land Use Map designating new land uses to support the Northwest
Quadrant Master Plan; (2) Rezoning of the property to PRC (Planned Residential Community)
to be developed according to the land uses in the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan, including
design standards that supersede identified portions of the Land Use Development Code as
allowed under the PRC zoning district; (3) Appeal of the Planning Commission decision
denying the variance request from Section 14-5.6 to allow 15,000 square feet of the alignment of
Ridgetop Road to encroach on the ridgetop subdistrict to provide sufficient distance from an
existing PNM switching station; and (4) Appeal of the Planning Commission decision denying
the variance request from Section 14-8.2 to allow disturbance of28,000 square feet of30 percent
slopes on two sites in order to preserve open space areas and to allow structures to be built on
the disturbed 30 percent slopes.
The application also requests that the Northwest Quadrant be excluded from future changes or
expansions of the Escarpment Ordinance.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Planning Commission Findings of Fact Approved August 21,2009 as Item #09-0791:
Case #M 2009-05: Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment
Case #ZA 2009-02: Northwest Quadrant Rezoning
Case #M 2009-06: Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance
Case #M 2009-08: Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance
Exhibit 2: Updated Memoranda:

Wastewater Management Memorandum from Stan Holland, Dated 9/16/09
Archaeological Review Memorandum from Marissa Barrett, Dated 9/21/09
State Historic Preservation Office Letter, Dated 4/20/09
Exhibit 3: General Plan Amendment Resolution
Exhibit 4: Rezoning Bill
Exhibit 5: Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments for Meeting of 6/18/09
Exhibit 6: Applicant's Statement of Appeal of General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
Exhibit 7: Applicant's Appeal of PC decision re Escarpment Variance
Exhibit 8: Applicant's Appeal of PC decision re Terrain Management Variance
Exhibit 9: Updated Pro Forma, 6/15/09
Exhibit 10: City Council Committee and Planning Commission Minutes:

Finance Committee
Public Works Committee
Planning Commission
Exhibit 11: Applicant's Submittal Packet for Planning Commission Meeting of 6/18/09
Northwest Quadrant - City Council: September 30, 2009 Page 30'3

4
CitY of Santa Fe
Planning Commission
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Case #M 2009-05 - Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment

Case #ZA 2009-02 - Northwest Quadrant Rezoning
Case #M 2009-06 - Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance
Case #M 2009-08 - Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance
Applicant - The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department
THIS MATTER came before the Planning Commission (Commission) for hearing on June
18,2009 upon the application (Application) of The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community
Development Department (Applicant) for the City of Santa Fe, the owner of the property
(property) commonly known as the Northwest Quadrant (NWQ).
The Property is comprised of approximately 540 acres of land located approximately 2 miles
northwest of the Plaza. Approximately 15 acres of the Property is currently owned by the Santa
Fe Public Schools (Schools), but will be sold to the City for incorporation in the development
proposed for the Property; another 25-acre parcel owned by the Schools will continue in Schools
ownership. The Property is bounded on the north by NM 599 and vacant City-owned property
including the La Tierra trail system across NM 599. On the west, the Property is bounded by
Camino de Los Montoyas and Paseo de Vistas, landfill, and the Buckman Road Recycling and
Transfer Station. The south is bounded by the Casa Solana residential neighborhood (zone R-5,
Single Family Residential- 5 dwelling units/acre), smaller residential parcels of varying
densities to the east of Camino de Las Crucitas, the Casa Lorna residential complex, and The
Lodge hotel (zoned C-2, General Commercial) at Calle Mejia. The east is bounded by the
Reserve and Las Estrellas (zoned PRC, Planned Residential Community) residential
developments, and a small section of multi-family residential and commercial properties at Calle
Mejia. The Property is currently undeveloped, except for the Frank S. Ortiz Park (the Dog Park),
informal social trails and various access lanes and utilities, including a PNM substation. The
Property is generally defined by a ridge that runs along its southeast boundary, with drainages
running perpendicular from and along the base of the ridge. Several drainages along the
northwest side of the ridge are included in the FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain, including the
Arroyo de Los Frijoles on the north side of the Property, flowing southwest along NM 599; the
Arroyo de Las Trampas flowing west from the PNM substation across Camino de Lost
Montoyas; and Arroyo Torreon, flowing southwest from the Dog Park. Instances of 30+%
slopes occur along the drainages and along the southeast face of the ridge. Vegetation includes
pinon, juniper, native grasses and cacti.
The Property is currently zoned R-l (Residential- 1 dwelling unit/acre). Sections of the
Property are in the Escarpment Overlay District, including areas in the ridgetop subdistrict and in
the foothills subdistrict. The current Future Land Use Map designations for the Property include
ExhibitL 5
Page 2 of9
a mix of Very Low Density Residential (1-3 dwelling units/acre), Low Density Residential (3-7
dwelling units/acre) and Parks and Open Space around the Dog Park in the southwestern portion
of the Property.
The Applicant proposes to develop approximately 122 acres of the Property in a linear series of
five mixed-use clusters along Ridgetop Road, with the clusters separated by protected drainage,
open space and trails. The remaining approximately 418 acres is proposed to be set aside for a
mixture of open space and developed parks. The proposed development (Project) includes up to
773 residential and live/work units, 40,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial center, up to
70,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial uses, a fire station, and a potential adult education
facility. The Project as conceived includes affordable housing (minimum 30% affordable,
maximum of 30% market rate, with the 40% balance workforce), open space preservation,
sustainable development, quality public amenities, non-motorized transportation connection, and
integration of mixed-use development forms.
The Applicant seeks (1) to amend the General Plan and Future Land Use Map to permit new land
use designations to support the NWQ Master Plan; (2) rezoning of various tracts within the
Property to PRC to permit development in accordance with the NWQ Master Plan land uses,
including design standards that supersede certain provisions of the City'S Land Use Development
Code (Code) as permitted under a PRC zoning district; (3) a variance from Code Escarpment
Overlay District requirements to permit construction of 15,000 square feet of the alignment of
Ridgetop Road to encroach into the ridgetop subdistrict; and (4) a variance from Code Terrain
Management requirements to allow disturbance of a total of 28,000 square feet of 30+% slopes
on two non-contiguous sites in order to preserve open space and to allow structures to be built on
the disturbed slopes.
After conducting a public hearing and having heard from staff, the Applicant, and all other
interested persons, the Commission hereby FINDS, as follows:
FIJ\fDINGS OF FACT
General
1. The Commission heard testimony from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public
interested in the matter.
2. Code Sections 14-3.2(C) sets out certain procedures for amendments to the General Plan,
including, without limitation, a public hearing by the Commission and recommendation to
the Governing Body, with notice and conduct of the public hearing pursuant to Code
Sections 14-3.1 (H) and (I) [Section 14-3.2(C)(4).
3. Code Sections 14-3.5(B)(1) through (3) set out certain requirements to be followed prior to
the Commission's recommendations to the Governing Body on a proposed rezoning,
including:
Page 2 of9
6
Page 3 of9
(a) A pre-application conference [Section 14-3.5(B)(1)];

(b) Compliance with Code Section 14-3.l(F) ENN requirements [Section 14-3.5(A)(2)];
(c) Compliance with Code Section 14-3.I(H) and (I) notice and public hearing requirements
[Section 14-3.5(A)(3)].
6. A pre-application conference under Section 14-3.1(E)( 1) was held in the form of several
Applicant meetings with City Land Use Development (LUD) staff, the most recent on
January 23, 2009; communication between the Applicant and LUD staff regarding the
Application has continued on a regular basis since then.
7. Code Section 14-3.1 (F) requires an ENN for proposed rezonings [Section 14-
3.1 (F)(2)(a)(iii)] and establishes procedures for the ENN, including:
(a) At least one ENN meeting [Section 14-3. 1(F)(3)(b)(i)]; and
(b) Notice requirements for the ENN meeting [Section 14-3. 1(F)(3)(b)].
8. Code Section 14-3.16(A) provides that the Planning Commission has the authority to grant
variance requests on matters properly before the Commission under the Code;
9. Code Section 14-5.6(K)(1) provides that where extraordinary hardship may result from strict
application with the escarpment regulations, the Planning Commission may vary the
regulations so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured; provided
that such variances do not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the
regulations.
10. Code Section 14-5.6(K)(2) provides that in granting variances or modifications, the Planning
Commission may require such conditions as will, in its judgment, assure substantially the
objectives ofthe standards or requirements that are being varied or modified.
11. Code Section 14-8.2(B)(3) provides that variances to Terrain Management regulations shall
be pursuant to Code Section 14-3.7(F) and Code Section 14-3.7(F)(3) provides that the
Commission may grant variances to the requirements ofthe Terrain Management regulations.
12. Code Section 14-3.7(F) provides that (i) where the Commission finds that extraordinary
hardship may result from strict compliance with [the Terrain Management] regulations, the
Commission may vary the regulations so that substantial justice may be done and the public
interest secured, provided that the variation does not have the effect of nullifying the intent
and purpose of such regulations; and (ii) in granting a variance the Commission may require
such conditions as will, in its judgment, assure substantially the objectives of the standards or
requirements varied.
13. Code Section 14-3.16(A) provides that for all City bodies the procedure for granting a
variance shall conform to the requirements of Code Section 14-3.16.
14. Code Section 14-3.16(B)(3) requires compliance with Code Section 14-3.I(H) and (I) notice
and public hearing requirements.
15. Code Section 14-3. 1(F)(2)(a)(ix) requires an ENN for variances.
16. An Early Neighborhood Notification (ENN) meeting was held on August 28,2007.
17. In accordance with the notice requirements of Code Section 14-3.l(F)(3)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii):
(a) ENN notification letters (ENN Letters) were sent via first class mail fifteen (15) days
prior to the ENN meeting to all property owners and physical addresses in the
Page 3 of9
7
Page 4 of9
Neighborhood and to all neighborhood associations registered with the City that were
within 200 feet of the Property; and
(b) E-mail notification of the ENN meeting was sent to all neighborhood associations
registered with the City that were within 200 feet of the Property on the same day that the
ENN Letters were mailed;
(c) A sign indicating the proposed rezoning, the area affected, and the time, date, and place
of the ENl'J" meeting was posted in the public right-of-way, near the intersection of major
street, fifteen (15) days prior to the ENN meeting.
18. The ENN meeting was attended by the Applicant, City staff, and approximately 275 other
attendees and the discussion followed the guidelines set out in Code Section l4-5.3.1(F)(5).
19. Commission staff provided the Commission with a report (Staff Report) evaluating the
factors relevant to the Application. Because this is a City project, staff made no
recommendations regarding the proposed General Plan amendment, rezoning, and variances,
but provided conditions (the Conditions) in the Staff Report that should be applied should the
Commission approve the Application.
The General Plan and Future Land Use Map Amendment
20. Code Section 14-3.2(B)(2)(b) requires the City's zoning map to conform to the General Plan
(Plan), and provides for amendment of the Plan when a change in land use classification is
proposed for a parcel shown on the Plan's land use map.
21. The Commission is authorized under Code Section 14-2(C)(8)(a) to review and make
recommendations to the Governing Body regarding proposed amendments to the Plan.
22. The Commission has considered the criteria established by Code Section l4-3.2(D)(1) and
finds, subject to the Conditions, the following facts:
(a) Consistency with growth projections for the City using a data base maintained and
updated on an annual basis by the City, with economic development goals as set forth in
a comprehensive economic development plan for the City, and with existing land use
conditions, such as access and availability ofinfrastructure [Section 14-3.2(D)(l)(a)].
While the proposed amendment is generally consistent with the economic development
goals set forth in the 2007 "Housing Needs Assessment Study", which indicates a deficit
of 6,500 affordable housing units to house the local workforce, and with the Angelou
Economics report "Cultivating Santa Fe's Future Economy, it is not consistent with
existing land use conditions, in that there is insufficient vehicular access for a project of
the proposed size. A resolution entitled "Regional Planning Authority, SFMPO
Transportation Policy Board, City of Santa Fe/Santa Fe County, New Mexico, Resolution
No. 2006-1, A Resolution Creating a Citizens Task Force for the NM 599 Corridor Safety
Study" (Resolution 2006-1), requires that the recommendations of the NM 599 Corridor
Safety Study (the 599 Study) are to be incorporated into the NWQ Master Plan. The 599
Study is not yet complete and may have a significant impact on traffic planning for the
Project and development in its vicinity, and should be completed and the Project's traffic
Page 4 of9
8
Page 5 of9
impact analysis updated before a Master Plan addressing vehicular access is approved for
the Project.
(b) Consistency with other parts ofthe Plan [Section 14-3.2(D)(1)(b)).
While the proposed amendment is generally consistent with certain growth management
and other policies of the Plan and with the Plan's general and long-range themes in that it
(i) provides for a variety of housing types, concentrating population at greater densities in
development areas with centrally located neighborhood centers to encourage pedestrian-
scale development, reduce auto dependence; (ii) provides for a system of dedicated
bicycle and hiking trails connecting to existing neighborhood trails; and (iii) provides for
compliance with applicable affordable housing requirements, it is not consistent with
certain other elements of the Plan in that it does not provide greater street connectivity or
local linkages.
(c) Provision for a determination ofland utilization within a area larger than a single
property and ofgeneral applicability [Section 14-3.2(D)(1)(c)).
The proposed amendment provides for a determination of land utilization within an area
larger than a single property in that the Property includes more than one parcel and is
approximately 540 acres in size.
(d) Compliance with the extraterritorial zoning ordinances and extraterritorial plan [Section
14-3.2(D)(1)(d)).
The Project is within the City limits and this provision is therefore inapplicable.
(e) Contribution to a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development ofthe municipality
which will, in accordance with existing andfuture needs, best promote health, safety,
morals, order, convenience, prosperity or the general welfare as well as efficiency and
economy in the process ofdevelopment [Section 14-3.2(D)(1)(e)).
The proposed amendment will not best promote public health and safety in that it does
not provide sufficient connectivity to other areas of the City, may increase the risk to the
Project and abutting areas in the event of fire or other public hazard as a result of limited
roadway access for emergency vehicles, and has the potential to increase existing traffic
hazards at access points to NM 599. In addition, the 599 Study currently underway may
have a significant impact on traffic planning for the Project and development in its
vicinity, and should be completed and the Project's traffic impact analysis updated before
a vehicular access plan is approved for the Project.
23. The Commission has considered the criteria established by Code Section 14-3.2(D)(2) and
finds that the proposed changes in land use will have a negative effect on surrounding
properties.
The Rezoning
24. Under Code Section 14-3.5(A)(l )(d) any individual may propose a rezoning (amendment to
the zoning map).
25. Code Section 14-3.5(A)(2)(b) requires all proposed rezonings to be reviewed to determine if
they are consistent with the Plan.
Page 5 of9
9
Page 6 of9
26. Code Sections 14-2.3(C)(8)(c) and 14-3.5(B)(4) provide for the Commission's review of
proposed rezonings and recommendations to the Governing Body regarding them.
27. Code Sections 14-3.5(A)(2) and(3) and 14-3.5(C) establish the criteria to be applied by the
Commission in its review of proposed rezonings.
28. The Commission has considered the required criteria established by Code Sections 14-
3.5(A)(2) and (3) and 14-3.5(C), and finds, subject to the Conditions, the following facts:
(a) Whether the proposed rezoning creates a uniform zoning classificationfor the entire
Property and whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan [Section
14-3.5(A)(2) and (3)).
The proposed rezoning establishes cohesive zoning classifications for the Property, but in
accordance with the Commission's findings in paragraph 22 above, is not consistent with
the Plan.
(b) The need andjustificationfor the change [Section 14-3.5(C)(1)J;
The change in zoning meets the need for geographically distributed affordable housing
throughout the City as articulated in the Plan. However, the change is not justified at this
time given the lack of sufficient and safe street connections, and given the Applicant's
stated intentions that it would not recommend pursuing development of the Project now,
but would recommend waiting until economic conditions will support the Project's
construction. During that time, changes in access to NM 599 and completion of required
safety studies may affect circulation within the Project and adequate connectivity. As a
result, it cannot be said that the change is both needed and justified for this Property at
this time.
(c) The effect ofthe change, ifany, on properties in the area proposedfor rezoning and on
surrounding properties [Section 14-3.5(C)(2)};
The proposed development of the Property will have a major impact on this area of the
City. Certain aspects of the proposed development will have a positive effect, including
the addition of affordable housing in an area of the City that generally has not seen the
large-scale development of affordable housing, especially workforce/step-up housing, the
preservation of large amounts of open space, and the endorsement of sustainability.
However, the limited roadway connectivity proposed for a project of this size is a serious
and overriding negative factor, with the alternative, connection through existing
neighborhoods, likely to result in safety risks to those neighborhoods, an additional
equally negative factor was well as the limited roadway access for emergency vehicles
that may also increase the risk to the Project and abutting areas in the event of fire or
other public hazard.
(d) Whether the area proposedfor rezoning and the proposed use for the area is consistent
with the City's policies regarding the amount, rate, and geographic direction ofthe
City's growth [Section 14-3.5(C)(3)}.
The area proposed for rezoning and the proposed uses for the area are consistent with the
City's policies regarding the amount, rate, and geographic direction of the City's growth.
(e) The ability ofexisting infrastructure to support development in the area as rezoned
[Section 14-3.5(C)(4)};
Page 60f9
10
Applicant - The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community-Development Department
Page 7 of9
The existing roadway infrastructure proposed for use by the Project is unable to suppost
the development. In accordance with Condition 17 in the Staff Report, the existing
public sewer system will require approximately $350,000 of improvement to
accommodate the Project when fully built out. In addition, the developer of the Project
will be required to contribute a fair share toward the costs of bridge widening
(reconstruction), signalization, and restriping at the NM 599/Ridgetop interchange.
(f) If the proposed rezoning creates a needfor the expansion ofpublic utilities [Section 14-
3.5(C)(5)).
In accordance with Condition 1'7 in the Staff Report, the existing public sewer system
will require approximately $350,000 of improvement to accommodate the Project when
fully built out.
29. The Commission has considered additional criteria established under New Mexico case law
and finds that the facts found by the Commission under paragraph 28 above do not
demonstrate a sound basis and justification for the proposed rezoning, that the proposed
rezoning is not sufficiently consistent with the General Plan, and that there is no change in
conditions that justifies the proposed rezoning. In addition, the Master Plan for the Project
does not provide for sufficient and safe access, requires approval of conceptual variances as
noted below, relies upon a financial pro forma that indicates that the Project is infeasible due
to the combination of the Project's housing product mix, infrastructure cost, sensitivity to the
current housing market and general economic conditions.
The Variances
30. Code Section 14-2.3(B) authorizes the Commission to hear variances as provided in the
Code.
31. The Applicant has requested (i) a variance from Code Escarpment Overlay District
requirements to permit construction of a portion of Ridgetop Road in the Ridgetop
Subdistrict of the Escarpment Overlay Distric; and (ii) a variance from Code Terrain
Management requirements to permit development of 30+% slopes to allow cohesive
development of the NWQ neighborhood center. The same criteria apply to both variances
37. The Commission has considered the criteria established by Code Sections 14-3.16 and finds,
subject to the Conditions, the following facts:
(a) Where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardship may result from strict
compliance with these regulations, it may vary the regulations so that substantial justice
may be done and the public interest secured; provided that such variation shall not have
the effect ofnullifying the intent and purpose ofthe regulations.
Escarpment Variance. While the Applicant has stated that a literal interpretation of this
requirement could deprive the future master developer of the ability to complete a major
roadway connection in a logical and efficient way, this does not constitute extraordinary
hardship. There was no showing that the roadway connection could not be made in other
ways without requiring a variance. Approving a variance under these circumstances,
Page 70f9
11
Page 8 of9
particularly on the scale requested, would have the effect of nullifying the intent and
purpose ofthe Escarpment regulations as set forth in Code Section 14-5.6(A).
Terrain Management Variance. The requested variance is conceptual in nature, that is,
there is no submittal showing the slope and topography of the area proposed for
development of 30+% slopes, and so there can be no showing of extraordinary hardship,
since it is possible that there are other locations available for development of the
neighborhood center that would not require the disturbance and utilization of 30% slopes.
Approving a variance under these circumstances, particularly on the scale requested,
would have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the Terrain Management
regulations as set forth in Code Section 14-8.2(A).
(b) In granting variances or modifications, the Planning Commission may require such
conditions as will, in its judgment, assure substantially the objectives ofthe standards or
requirements so varied
Since the Commission has not found the extraordinary hardship required to grant either
variance, this criterion is not applicable. In addition, given the conceptual nature of the
variances requested, the Commission could not reasonably impose such conditions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under the circumstances and given the evidence and testimony submitted during the hearing, the
Commission CONCLUDES as follows:
General
1. The proposed General Plan amendment, rezoning, and variances were properly and
sufficiently noticed via mail, publication, and posting of signs in accordance with Code
requirements.
2. The ENN meeting complied with the requirements established under the Code.
The General Plan and Future Land Use Map Amendment
3. The Commission has the power and authority at law and under the Code to review the
proposed amendment to the General Plan and to make recommendations to the Governing
Body regarding such amendment.
4. The proposed General Plan amendment was properly and sufficiently noticed via mail,
publication, and posting of signs in accordance with Code requirements.
5. The proposed General Plan amendment does not meet all of the required criteria established
by Code Section 14-3.2(D)(1) and should not be approved by the Council.
Page 8 of9
12
Page 9 of9
The Rezoning
6. The Applicant has the right under the Code to propose the rezoning of the Property.
7. The Commission has the power and authority at law and under the Code to review the
proposed rezoning of the Property and to make recommendations regarding the proposed
rezoning to the Governing Body based upon that review.
8. The proposed rezoning was properly and sufficiently noticed via mail, publication, and
posting of signs in accordance with Code requirements.
9. The proposed rezoning is not necessary andjustified under the required criteria established
by Code Sections 14-3.5(A)(2) and (3) and 14-3.5(C) and at law, and should not be approved
by the Council.
The Variances
10. The Applicant has not met the criteria for a variance from Code Section 14-5.6(K)(1) to
permit the construction of a portion of Ridgetop Road in the Ridgetop Subdistrict.
11. The Applicant has not met the criteria for a variance from Code Section l4-3.7(F) to permit
development on 30+% slopes to allow cohesive development of the NWQ neighborhood
center.
12. The Commission denies the foregoing variances.
D ON THE 1fJ
f\-% OF AUGUST 2009 BY THE PLANNING
F HE CITY OF SANTA FE
FILED:
8-21-03
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
jfjlt~l~
Kelley~~an
Assistant ity Attorney
Page 9 of9
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 CITY OF SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
2 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-_
10 A RESOLUTION
11 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR
12 THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT PARCELS COMPRISING 542.421 ACRES
13 MORE OR LESS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF NM 599 AND WEST OF
14 SAINT FRANCIS DRIVE AND LYING WITHIN TOWNSHIP 17N, RANGE 9E,
15 SECTIONS 11, 14, 15,22 AND 23, NEW MEXICO PRIME MERIDIAN, SANTA
16 FE COUNTY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO (NORTHWEST QUADRANT
17 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. M 2009-05).
18
19 WHEREAS, the City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development
20 Department has submitted an application to amend the General Plan Future
21 Land Use Map designations for the Northwest Quadrant property to include
22 approximately 121.30 acres in a mix of Very Low Density Residential (1-3
23 dwelling units per acre), Low Density Residential (3-7 dwelling units per acre),
24 Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre), High Density
25 Residential (12-29 dwelling units per acre), Neighborhood Center, and
1 19
Exhibit -3.-
1 Transitional Mixed Use; and approximately 421.12 acres of Parks and Open
2 Space as more fully described in the Master Plan Maps [EXHIBIT A] attached
3 hereto and incorporated by reference; and
4 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3-19-9 NMSA 1978, the General Plan
5 may be amended, extended or supplemented; and
6 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the general plan
7 amendment criteria set forth in Section 14-3.2(0) SFCC 1987 have been met.
8 WHEREAS, the General Plan amendment action with respect to the
9 subject property affected by this Resolution is subject to conditions of approval
10 applicable to this General Plan Amendment and any future Development Plan for
11 the property. The conditions are outlined in the attached table [EXHIBIT B]
12 summarizing the City of Santa Fe Development Review Team technical
13 memoranda.
14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY
15 OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE that the General Plan Future Land Use Map
16 designations for the Northwest Quadrant parcels are amended as shown in the
17 Master Plan Maps [EXHIBIT A] attached hereto.
18 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _ day of _
19 2009.
20
21
22 DAVID COSS, MAYOR
23
24
25
2 20
1 ATTEST:
4 YOLANDA Y. VIGIL, CITY CLERK
6 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
9 FRANK ATZ, CITY ATTORNEY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3 21
Santa Fe CIty Limits
'\
\
LEGEND
_ MasIerPlan Project Boundary
Master Plan Land Use City of Santa Fe Future Land Use
Sanla Fe Public Schools Property _ Naighb<uhood Cen4ar _ Regiooal Comman:lel
City of Santa Fe Information
ExJsllng Street _ Transl1looal toIxed Use __ Co,mu",lly
c:=:::J Open Space (Publ1c + Private) Proposed Urben Asea Boundary
Property Lines 0Ii0e Cornmart:lal c::=::J
c==:::J High Density ResldenUaI.,...",... Part<s and Plazas Roads Inr Tralilc CalmIng
CUy of Sanla Fe Boundary _Inslilu lional
c==J Medium Denslty Residential 1-12_ ~ High Density ResldenUaI ..... OJ_
Commuler Rail Runnar
_CSUS
c::=::J Low Danslty Residential,· 7""'... c:.:=J Medium Density Resldenllah••, ......
Roads Proposed
c==J ~CNE I
VerylowDensltyResidentIaI,., .._ c::=::J Roads for ImpRl'l8fl18fll
Modefate Density Reslden~al 7 ....... L--.-J ReOR
c:=:::J Opon Sp.... (Public. + po••lo) I ] Low o.onsl~· R..ldenllal.· 7 .".,.,
• Relief ROIIIa Ovar I Undef1lass locallons
1'U1. _ . . VItO
c::=::J P.",. and Plallls c==J Very low Density Residential •. , """.
• Proposed :r.len:har.ge locatlcn.
... Roods 10 be DIsconnecl8d
NOR THW EST MAS TER

CURRENT GENERAL PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE
QUA DRA NT P LA N
Design Workshop ' Suby Bowden + Assoc. . Bohannon Huslon
22
. .
Santa Fe Coun
Santa Fe Oty Um ts
, I
I
!
! I
I
I'
I ,
.J
~ LEGEND
~. _ Mastel Plan Project Bound8Iy Master PllIIland Use City of Santa Fe FubJ'eland Use
- , SanIa Fe Public Schools Propeny _ NeigIi>ortIood Center _ RegionaiCommerciel
c::::::::J C\>en Space (NJlic+ Private)
-:-- Existing SIleet _ Transitional Mixed Use _ ComlllllnilyCommerciai
_ Oflice c::::::::J Palb and Plazas
C1" Full«e Road Conndon
~ Hgh DensityResidenliel ",.. ... _ 1",,~UIionaI
Proposed Roads
::r- Property Lines
CUy of Santa Fe Boundary
[===:J Medium Densily ResidenIial7·12lOi .
c::::::::J Low Oensily Residential,· 7lOi...
k:.;-.c"ii.I High Densily Residenliel t2-2t .....
c=::::J Medium Density ResidenIial7·"_
_caus
::.......-,.... CNEI
[-- '1 VeryLowDensiIyResidenlial1-3"'" c==::::J ModeIaIe Oensily ResidenliaI7....'... C J RCOR
c::::::::J Open Space (Pul>lic. Prmle) C _.1 LO'IIDensilylw.idenliah.7_ _va.O
c::::::::J PW and Plazas c::::::::J Very Low Density Residot1liall.'_
NORTHWESTIMASTER PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE

Design Worl<shop . Suby Bowden + Assoc .. Bohonnon Huston
n.rl
u- • • _ _ ~
~
23
~\
3'- - Master Plan Project Boundary - Major SlreolSyslem Area Cala.dalions
, Sanla F. Plt>Iic SdlooJs Propelly - -. Fuwre Fload Coonections ~ AnIp
~
If- --
Existing Skeel
0rlIivIge
Propelly Lines
@
(j>ert999_AenI
Proposed Trailhead
Proposed Major Trois
_ ~
""" ...... _
lUI
1.1.
..
n
..
U! 40,000'"
~ 10 Hq>ognIphy lQI Prqlosed Fir. Station
- ___ . _~ Buikings
100 V_ Flood PIlin
o 1'2 Mile Welking Ra<ius
............ I 500 V_FloodPlain + i.JlndmeIll Slructure

~ ~ RiqjoIop Sltxisb:l
... CIITIJ FooIhilIs Sub<islrict

'>.
•
~ NORTHWESTIMASTER PROPOSED MASTER PlAN
~ QUADRANT P LAN
~ Doslgn Workshop . Suby Bowden + Assoc. . Bohannan Huston ..-. n....n
_ _ _.-aXOJ ~
W
-.,./
24
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan - Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT B
General Plan Amendment (Case #M 2009-05)
Rezoning (Case #ZA 2009-02)
Condition Department Staff

1 Residential will most likely be automated pick up - signage should be post6ed as to no parking on day of service Solid Waste Randall Marco
2 Commercial should have enclosures to city specifications Solid Waste Randall Marco
3 A Master Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the City of Santa Fe for its approval. The plan will be Stormwater Jim Salazar
submitted prior to approval of any Development Plan or subdivision application and prior to the approval for the
construction of infrastructure. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the project shall conform to the EPA's
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and City of Santa Fe Terrain and
Stormwater Management and Stormwater Illicit Discharge Control ordinances. The Master Stormwater Management
Plan shall be designed in conformance with applicable City of Santa Fe Stormwater policies and shall treat
stormwater runoff "as a valuable natural resource in Santa Fe, a community that is prone to drought, by
encouraging water collection and infiltration on site". Policy guidance shall be taken from documents including the
General Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, Terrain and Stormwater Management Regulations and all other
applicable, adopted City of Santa Fe Stormwater Management and Water Conservation policy documents. At a
minimum the Plan will identify practices to treat, store and infiltrate runoff onsite before it can affect water bodies
downstream. Additionally, the plan will include innovative site designs that reduce imperviousness and smaller-scale
low impact development practices dispersed throughout the site, in order to achieve flow reductions, reduce erosion
and sedimentation, reduce stormwater pollutants, improve water quality and mitigate increased maintenance and
repair requirements to public stormwater infrastructure.
4 As the project builds-out, the Master Developer shall require all developers, builders, contractors, homeowner's Stormwater Jim Salazar
associations, and all stakeholders, to conform to these city policies in their design philosophies and development and
maintenance programs and the Master Stormwater Management Plan shall provide guidance.
5 Prior to filing the Master Plan and approval of the Master Stormwater Management Plan, Chapter Six (6) Landscape Stormwater Jim Salazar
Architecture of the Design Standards shall be revised as per the attached March 16,2009 memo from Jim L.
Salazar to Lee Depetrio. This chapter also includes specific information on grading and drainage as well as habitat
enhancement in order to implement EPA's Best Management Practices.
6 Further, prior to any disturbance or grading of terrain, an appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Stormwater Jim Salazar
shall be prepared and approved by city staff and a Notice of Intent (NO!) for coverage under the Construction General
Permit (CGP) shall be filed with the EPA.
7 Shall provide two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Fire Barbara Salas
8 Shall ensure access road has a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet or 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of any Fire Barbara Salas
building or portion of building more than 30 feet in height.
9 Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provision in Fire Barbara Salas
accordance with Table DI03.4.
Conditions of Approval - recommended by staff to June 18, 2009 Planning Commission Resolution # 2009- Page 1 of 3 25
10 The installation of a security gate across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved. Where a gate is installed, Fire Barbara Salas
they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gate and the emergency operation shall be
maintained operational at all times.
11 Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus weighing Fire Barbara Salas
at least 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities.
12 On page 55 of the Master Plan submittal (submitted on CD) under the title Homeowner's Association (HOA) - the Wastewater Stan Holland
second bullet point will need to be modified. At the time of Development submittal and review, language will need Management
to be developed to provide ownership of the lift station by the City of Santa Fe, and supplemented with an agreement
that requires the HOA to pay for all costs associated with maintenance, operation, repair and replacement of the sewer
lift station(s) and appurtenances.
13 A sample sewer lift station maintenance agreement, to be used as a general template, is included with this document Wastewater Stan Holland
and shall be incorporated into the agreement between the City of Santa Fe and the NWQ Homeowners Association at Management
the time of Development submittal and review. These documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office.
14 A sample Home Owners Association By-Laws and Covenants Agreement, to be used as a general template outlining Wastewater Stan Holland
how the HOA shall delegate responsibility for the sewer lift station within the HOA and with the City of Santa Fe is Management
included with this document and shall be incorporated into the HOA documents at the tome of Development submittal
and review. These documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office.
15 All sewer plans including the design of the sewer lift station(s) and the sewer collection system consisting of but not Wastewater Stan Holland
limited to all public gravity, low pressure and force main sewer lines shall be reviewed and approved by the Management
Wastewater Division at the time of Development submittal and review.
16 The individual sewer grinder pumps, appurtenances and service lines are the responsibility of the individual property Wastewater Stan Holland
owners for maintenance, operation, repair and replacement. Management
17 Comments related to the NWQ Development connecting to the existing City public sewer system: Wastewater Stan Holland
a. The Wastewater Division has cleaned, televised and evaluated the existing City public sewer lines that will convey Management
the flows from the proposed NWQ sewer lift station connecting at Camino Crucitas. The existing City public sewer
system will convey the calculated increased sewage flows from the NWQ proposed sewer lift station at full build-out
if a portion of the existing City public sewer system serving the NWQ is improved. The phasing of the NWQ Project
will incrementally increase the sewage flows and allow for the determination of which phase of the development will
require the improvements prior to connecting to the existing City public sewer system. The calculated flows of the
NWQ are based on a full build out of 758 residential units and 50,000sf of commercial space that includes the
proposed fire station. It is estimated the cost of improvements to the existing public sewer system, utilizing pipe
bursting technology, is $350,000 (Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) based upon a current City contract for this
type of work. The work would consist of increasing the existing sewer pipe size from 8" to 12" and improvement to
the manholes within Rio Vista Street and Solana Drive.
b. The entire cost for any required improvements to the existing City public sewer system to serve the increased
sewage discharge from the NWQ Development shall be a requirement for approval for each phase of the NWQ
Development at the time of Development Review and Approval. The Wastewater Division is investigating other
remedial improvement alternatives that may cost less than estimated in item (a.) above but does not have the required
field data to evaluate at this time.

18 Three access scenarios were presented to the Public Works Committee (PWC) on March 23, 2009 for review and Public Works John Romero
recommendation to the City Council: Dept/ Traffic
• One Access Point: Ridgetop Road Eng.
• Two Access Points: Ridgetop and Camino de los Montoyas (no left outs)
• Two Access Points: Ridgetop and Camino de los Montoyas (full access)
The PWC postponed action on the proposed traffic plan, asking that staff come back to the committee with additional
information. A revised traffic plan is set to go before the PWC on June 8, 2009. An amendment to this memo will be
provided after this meeting to reflect the PWC's recommendations. The Housing and Community Development
Department (HCDD) is currently proposing to move forward with just the "One Access Point: Ridgetop" scenario.
Following is a review of the most recent traffic analysis submitted on May 28, 2009, which only looks at the "One
Access Point: Ridgetop" scenario, and the Master Plan dated February 2009. The comments below should be
considered as Conditions of Approval to be addressed prior to subsequent submittals:
1. The proposed Master Plan identifies 773 proposed dwelling units where as the TIA identifies 758 dwelling units.
Revisions to either document shall be made to ensure consistency.
19 2. The proposed Master Plan identifies a projected 40,000 square feet of commercial (not including live/work units) Public Works John Romero
whereas the TIA identifies 35,000 square feet of commercial (not including Live/Work units). Revisions to either Dept/Traffic
document shall be made to ensure consistency. Eng.
20 3. The traffic analysis assumes land use restrictions for the proposed live/work units which will require zoning Public Works John Romero
restrictions. These zoning restrictions will have to be structured in order to ensure the live/work units will function as Dept/Traffic
shown in the traffic analysis. Proposed zoning restrictions will have to be reviewed by the Planning and Land Use Eng.
Department.
21 4. The traffic analysis states that this access scenario is a viable option with improvements to the NM599/Ridgetop Public Works John Romero
interchange including bridge widening (reconstruction), signalization, and re-striping. The Santa Fe Estates Dept/Traffic
development is set to fund a good portion of the signalization improvements. The PWD recommends a condition of Eng.
approval for the master plan stating that the North West Quadrant project will be required to provide fair share
monetary contributions towards the above state improvements. The amount of contribution shall be based on a cost
estimate reviewed and approved by the City's PWD and the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT).
22 5. A PM analysis of the proposed access scenario shall be provided. Public Works John Romero
Dept/Traffic
Eng.
23 6. A revised TIA shall be generated which effectively consolidates all information, generating a complete analysis Public Works John Romero
pertaining to the approved development plan and access scenario. Dept/Traffic
Eng.
24 7. Any improvements performed on NM 599 or any of its intersections will have to receive ultimate approval from Public Works John Romero
theNMDOT. Dept/ Traffic Eng
2 BILL NO. 2009-.1' I

3
10 AN ORDINANCE
11 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE;
12 CHANGING THE CLASSIFICATION FROM R-1 (RESIDENTIAL, 1 DWELLING UNIT
13 PER ACRE) TO PRC (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY); AND PROVIDING
14 AN EFFECTIVE DATE WITH RESPECT TO A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND
15 COMPRISING 542.421 ACRES MORE OR LESS LOCATED SOUTH OF NM 599 AND
16 WEST OF SAINT FRANCIS DRIVE AND LYING WITHIN TOWNSHIP 17N, RANGE
17 9E, SECTIONS 11, 14, 15,22 AND 23, NEW MEXICO PRIME MERIDIAN, SANTA FE
18 COUNTY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO (NOR'rHWEST QUADRANT REZONING - CASE
19 # M 2009-02).
20
21 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE:
22 Section 1. The following real property (the "Property") located within the
23 municipal boundaries of the city of Santa Fe is restricted to and classified as PRe.
24 A parcel of land comprising 542.421 acres more or less located within Township
25 17N, Range 9E, Sections 11,14,15,22 and 23, New Mexico Prime Meridian, Santa Fe
1
28
Exhibit --1-
1 County, State Of New Mexico as more fully described in [EXHIBIT A] attached hereto
2 and incorporated by reference.
3 Section 2. The official zoning map of the City of Santa Fe adopted by Ordinance
4 No. 2001-27 is amended to conform to the changes of zoning classifications for the
5 property set forth in Section 1 of this Ordinance.
6 Section 3. The rezoning action with respect to the subject property affected by
7 this Ordinance is subject to conditions of approval applicable to this rezoning and any
8 future Development Plan for the property. The conditions are outlined in the attached
9 table [EXHIBIT B] summarizing the City of Santa Fe Development Review Team
10 technical memoranda.
11 Section 4. The rezoning action with respect to the Property affected by this
12 Ordinance is subject to the time restrictions set forth in Section 14-3.5(0)(1) SFCC 1987
13 (Two-year Review/Rescission).
14 Section 5. This Ordinance shall be published one time by the title and general
15 summary and shall become effective five days after such pUblication.
16
17
18
19 ATZ, CITY ATTORNEY
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
29
30
·.. c~
~~
~~;i H
~:
fO'
!;~ ..
."
~g
d~
'II
!'eQ ~E
'i!i~~
!~;
~!
-'i
!~
;!l!
I;~·
g i!Ei H·.8~
!:;1
_'1~
e i;f H:
sini . ~!'~ .,
~
-i~!~ ~.~ i'
I ~~m... IX'
i
~ !!; ~. ~~
-~ -;~ ~:.

6 Further, prior to any disturbance or grading ofterrain, an appropriate Stormwater f>ollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Stormwater Jim Salazar
shall be prepared and approved by city staff and a Notice of Intent (N0l) for coverage under the Construction General
Conditions of Approval - recommended by staff to June 18, 2009 Planning Commission Bill # 2009- Page 1 of 3 31
.. - _..... - .... --- -
NWQ are based on a full build out of758 residential units and 50,000sf of commercial space that includes the
Conditions of Approval - recommended by staff to June 18, 2009 Planning Commission Bill # 2009- Page 2 of 3 32

18 Three access scenarios were presented to the Public Works Committee (PWC) on March 23,2009 for review and Public Works John Romero
Following is a review of the most recent traffic analysis submitted on May 28, 2009, which only looks at the "One
Department.
Dept/Traffic
Eng.
Eng.
theNMDOT. Dept! Traffic Eng
Conditions of Approval - recommended by staff to June 18, 2009 Planning Commission Bill # 2009- Page 3 of 3
33
CClfi~@if~MJ,'~~~@@
DATE:
e
June 10 for June 18, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting
0
TO: City of Santa Fe Planning Commission
VIA: John B. Hiatt, Director, Land Use Departmen~

Tamara Baer, Manager, Current Planning Divisio<
FROM: Lucas Cruse, EIT, AICP, Senior Planner, Current Planning Division J-,.!fC
Housing and Community Development Department requests approval of a General Plan future land
use map amendment to revise the designations of 540± acres to include approximately 122 acres in a
mix of Very Low Density Residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre), Low Density Residential (3-7
dwelling units per acre), Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre), High Density
Residential (12-29 dwelling units per acre), Neighborhood Center, and Transitional Mixed Use; and
approximately 418 acres of Parks and Open Space. The property is located south ofNM 599 and west
of S1. Francis Drive.
dwelling unit per acre) to PRC (planned Residential Community). The Northwest Quadrant Master
Plan adopted as a part of this rezoning includes supplemental Design Standards that vary from the
Chapter 14 Land Development Code. The property is located south ofNM 599 and west of S1. Francis
Drive.
Case #M 2009-06. Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance. The City of Santa Fe Housing
and Community Development Department requests an escarpment variance to allow 15,000 square feet
of the alignment of Ridgetop Road to encroach on the ridgetop subdistrict to provide sufficient
distance from an existing PNM switching station. The location of the requested variance is along the
proposed Ridgetop Road alignment between Camino de los Montoyas and NM 599.
Case #M 2009-08. Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance. The City of Santa Fe
Housing and Community Development Department requests a terrain management variance to allow
disturbance of 28,000 square feet of 30 percent slopes on two sites in order to preserve open space
areas and to allow structures to be built on the disturbed 30 percent slopes. The locations of the
requested variance are within the neighborhood center areas north of the ridge and northeast of the
PNM switching station.
Exhibit 5 ss001.PM5 - 7195

34
I. NORTHWEST QUADRANT APPLICATIONS OVERVIEW
Although grouped in a single staffreport, each ofthe foregoing is an independent application and
must be reviewed and acted upon as such.
No specific development will occur as a result ofthese applications. It is anticipated that Development
Plans and Subdivision Plats for individual parcels will come back to the Planning Commission for
review and approval. If the City retains ownership ofthe Northwest Quadrant properties, Building
Permits and Inspections will be issued through the Construction Industries Division ofthe State of
New Mexico.
A. Property Description
These applications relate to an approximately 540-acre area located approximately 2 miles northwest
of the Plaza. The 540 acres are owned primarily by the City of Santa Fe with these exceptions: one 25-
acre parcel is owned by Santa Fe Public Schools and one I5-acre parcel is owned by Santa Fe Public
Schools and is in the process of being sold to the City for inclusion in this proposed development. The
property is bounded on the north by NM-599 and vacant city-owned property including the La Tierra
trail system across NM-599. The west is bounded by Camino de Los Montoyas and Paseo de Vistas,
landfill, and the Buckman Road Recycling and Transfer Station. The south is bounded by the Casa
Solana residential development (zoned R-5, Single Family Residential at 5 du/acre), smaller residential
parcels of varying densities to the east of Camino de Las Crucitas, the Casa Lorna residential complex,
and The Lodge hotel (zoned C-2, General Commercial) at Calle Mejia. The east is bounded by the
Reserve and Las Estrellas (also zoned PRC) residential developments, and a small section of multi-
family residential and commercial properties at Calle Mejia.
The Property is currently undeveloped, except for the Frank S. Ortiz Park (the "dog park"), informal
social trails, and various access lanes and utilities including a PNM substation. There is a one-acre
private residential parcel at the far southwestern comer of the property that is completely surrounded
by but not included as a part of these applications. The Property is generally defined by a ridge that
runs along the southeast boundary of the property with drainages that run perpendicular from and
along the base of the ridge. Several drainages along the northwest side of the ridge are included in the
FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain including: Arroyo de Los Frijoles on the north side of the property
flowing southwest along NM-599, Arroyo de Las Trampas flowing west from the PNM substation
across Camino de Los Montoyas and out of the property, and Arroyo Torreon flowing southwest from
the dog park. Instances of 30%+ slopes occur along the drainages and along the southeast face of the
ridge. Vegetation includes pinon,juniper, native grasses and cacti. [See application packet for maps
and further property description.]
The property is currently zoned R-I (Residential, one dwelling per acre) and is also covered in sections
by escarpment ridgetop and escarpment foothills overlay zoning districts. The current Future Land
Use Map designations for the property include a mix of Very Low Density Residential (1-3 dwellings
per acre), Low Density Residential (3-7 dwellings per acre), and Parks and Open Space around the
Dog Park in the southwestern portion of the property. [See Application packet for multiple color
maps.]
Northwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 20'20

35
B. Application Requests Summary
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan covers 540 acres ofridgeline and foothills concentrating
development on 122 acres, while setting aside the remaining 418 acres for a mixture of open space and
developed parks. The proposed mix of land uses is arranged in a linear series of five mixed-use
clusters along Ridgetop Road separated by protected drainages, open space and trails. The proposed
development includes up to 773 residential and live/work units, 40,000 square feet of neighborhood
commercial center, up to 70,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial uses, a fire station, and a
potential adult education facility. The major design ideas and elements behind the Northwest Quadrant
development include: affordable housing (minimum of30% affordable, maximum of30% market,
balance or 40% workforce), open space preservation, sustainable development, quality public
amenities, non-motorized transportation connections, and integration of mixed-use development forms.
The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department is requesting with this
Application: (1) an amendment to the General Plan and Future Land Use Map designating new land
uses to support the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan; (2) rezoning of the property to PRC (Planned
Residential Community) to be developed according to the land uses in the Northwest Quadrant Master
Plan, including design standards that supersede identified portions of the Land Use Development Code
as allowed under the PRC zoning district; (3) a Variance from the applicable Escarpment requirements
of the Land Use Development Code to permit construction of a portion of Ridgetop Road; and (4) a
Variance from the applicable Terrain Management requirements of the Land Use Development Code
to allow cohesive development of the Northwest Quadrant Neighborhood Center.
The application also requests Planning Commission consideration of a waiver of future applicability of
remapping of the Escarpment Overlay on the grounds of limited revenue stream and limited buildable
areas. [see memorandum from Wendy Blackwell, Technical Review Division Director, June 9, 2009,
in EXHIBIT B]
This report includes a separate section for each of the above applications with recommended
conditions of approval for each application included in EXHIBITS A & B with the original
Development Review Team comments memoranda. Reference is made throughout the report to the
Application, originally submitted to the Land Use Department on February 9, 2009, modified in
response to changing project conditions and staff requests for additional information, and culminating
in the June 8, 2009 version submitted with this report. Assorted background information and public
comments are appended to this report in the Application packet and EXHIBIT C.
C. Application History
Prior to the February 2009 submission of this Application, the Northwest Quadrant has been the
subject of numerous planning initiatives, public forums, and resolutions dating back to 1967 [see
application packet for complete history and details]. The current planning effort began in early 2005
as outlined in the series of City Council Resolutions included in the Applicant's packet, particularly
Resolution 2004-92 [see Supporting Documents on the submitted CD].
The Public Involvement process featured five pubic forums, a "Homework Group" of regular attendees
over the course of seven meetings from March 2007 to May 2008, and an Early Neighborhood
Notification (El'JN) meeting held for the Application on August 28,2007, with an estimated 275
attendees. 40 attendees made public comments and an additional 20 attendees left written comments.
Generally, comments toward the overall goals, principles, and design were positive, but key
Northwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 30(20

36
controversial issues included the following: traffic connections, infrastructure fmance, schools, water,
and the dog park. [See CD in Application packet for ENN notes and notice materials.]
Numerous additional committee meetings and public hearings have been held on the Northwest
Quadrant as outlined on pages 5 and 6 of the Application and documented on the Application CD.
II. ISSUES
The size and complexity ofthe Project warranted and received extensive coordination by the Land Use
Department with various City Departments, and this report integrates the information developed as a
result of those discussions. Overall, Land Use Department staff has determined that the requested
future land use designations and Master Plan incorporated as part of the Planned Residential
Community zoning are consistent with the record of City-initiated planning efforts for the Northwest
Quadrant, and are in compliance with numerous objectives of the General Plan. However, a number of
outstanding issues remain as the project moves forward:
A. Financial Pro Forma
The City Finance Committee approved the Northwest Quadrant pro forma at its June 1,2009 meeting.
The City Public Works Committee then held a public hearing on June 8, 2009 resulting in a vote to
deny acceptance of the proposed pro fomia as it does not include the full anticipated infrastructure
costs, including the cost to reconstruct the Ridgetop Road and NM 599 interchange bridge and the
impact on affordability of using homeowner fees to fund prospective lease and Public Improvement
District (PID) payments. [see memo from Kathy McCormick dated May 22, 2009 detailing the pro
forma in EXHIBIT C and memorandum from John Romero dated June 2,2009 detailing the roadway
infrastructure requirements in EXHIBIT A] In addition to identified roadway improvements,
Wastewater Management Division staff have identified an estimate of$350,000 in needed sewer
improvements to serve the increased sewage discharge from the Northwest Quadrant that is not
included in the pro forma. [see memo from Stan Holland dated June 5, 2009 detailing the sewer
infrastructure requirements in EXHIBIT A]
B. Traffic access
The roadway access scenario analyzed in the current TIA and put forward for Planning Commission
consideration proposes that the entire Northwest Quadrant development be accessed by the Ridgetop
Road interchange with NM 599, with emergency access only from Camino de Los Montoyas, and
provides no connection to Calle Mejia. Previous iterations of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TlA)
identified five potential access scenarios with varying degrees of connectivity to Casa Solana and
developments to the south. The roadway connections studied but ultimately dropped from
consideration include: full access to Camino de Los Montoyas, limited access to Camino de Los
Montoyas, and a connection to Calle Mejia.
Extensive public input has been received by the City regarding the Northwest Quadrant traffic access
scenarios, particularly from the Casa Solana and Tano Road neighborhood associations. [See
submittals from the neighborhood associations in EXHIBIT C.] The Casa Solana neighborhood is
particularly concerned with the Northwest Quadrant development contributing increased traffic on the
streets of their neighborhood and has requested creation of a cuI de sac of Camino de Las Crucitas at

37
the edge of Casa Solana, which would close direct access between Casa Solana and NM 599, but allow
the Northwest Quadrant to have access to Camino de Los Montoyas, Buckman Road, and Paseo de
Vistas. This proposal from Casa Solana was presented as recently as the June 8, 2009 Public Works
Committee meeting.
The Tano Road Association is particularly interested in increasing roadway connectivity in the
Northwest Quadrant and requests consideration of the results from the corridor studies for NM 599 and
St. Francis Drive currently Wlderway by the New Mexico Department of Transportation. While the
current estimate from NMDOT for completion of draft corridor study results for NM 599 is late 2009,
with final results to follow in 2010, the long-term vision for NM 599 is to replace all at-grade
intersections with interchanges. The right-of-way reserved for the future Camino de Los Montoyas
interchange with NM 599 is located to the east of the existing intersection alignment, and closer to the
neighborhood center land uses of the proposed Northwest Quadrant development. The location ofthe
future interchange would require opening of the proposed cuI de sacs at Camino De Los Montoyas in
order to maintain direct access from Casa Solana to NM 599.
The Fire Department prefers full access between the Northwest Quadrant development and Camino de
Los Montoyas to provide more than a single point of access. However, the Fire Department is satisfied
with the proposed access scenario that includes cuI de sacs and emergency access gates.
[Memorandum from Barbara Salas dated April 21, 2009 detailing Fire Department comments in
EXHIBIT A.]
The Northwest Quadrant traffic access scenarios were heard at a public hearing of the City Public
Works Committee hearing on March 23, 2009. At that meeting, the committee decided to table
making a formal recommendation on the various traffic access scenarios to a later Public Works
Committee meeting. The City Public Works Committee then held a public hearing on June 8, 2009 to
review the pro forma and the proposed traffic access scenario. The result of that meeting was a vote to
deny acceptance of the proposed pro forma and traffic access scenario.
With regard to the City's General Plan, the following Guiding Policies can be fOWld in relation to
Streets and the issue of connectivity:
6-I-G-3 Provide for a closely spaced network ofnarrower streets as opposed to fewer wider
streets.
The Plan also attempts to provide greater street connectivity in some existing urban areas to
provide local linkages and lessen dependence on wide streets.
6-I-G-5 Ensure that new development is more "connected" to its surroundings with an
increased number ofaccess points andpedestrian and bicycle connections to a neighborhood
network.
C. Reliance of the Master Plan on adoption of the Variances
The alignment of Ridgetop Road and the amoWlt of developable neighborhood center areas in the
submitted Master Plan are dependent on approval of the requested Escarpment and Terrain
Management variances. Denial of either of the variances would require a reconfigured roadway
network, land use mix, and corresponding pro forma.

38
D. Reliance of the Master Plan on proposed Planned Residential Community (PRC) zoning district
reVISIon
On March 19, 2009, the Planning Commission approved a requested change to the Planned Residential
Community (PRC) zoning district to allow PRC Master Plans to include Mixed Use in the list of
permitted land uses in addition to Shopping Center (SC-1) commercial land uses and the full range of
residential densities. A draft of the revised code is in [EXHIBIT C]. The revised PRC zoning district
ordinance is currently scheduled to be heard by the Public Works Committee on June 22, 2009, and
will then be considered for adoption by the full Governing Body. The ordinance to revise the section
of SFCC 1987 will need adoption by City Council prior to hearing the requested Northwest Quadrant
rezoning and associated Master Plan.
E. Northwest Quadrant trails development
The Trails Development Division of the City's Public Works Department is working on a trails
prioritization study for the entire Northwest Quadrant including the portion under consideration with
these applications. The preliminary Action Plan for that study includes creation of a Northwest
Quadrant Trails Master Plan, signage, increased trail connectivity, property access control including
fencing, and trash clean up. [See memoranda from Bob Siquieros and Fabian Chavez in EXHIBIT A.]

39
Ill. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPROVAL CRITERIA
Case # M 2009-05. Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment.
The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests approval of a
General Plan future land use map amendment to revise the designations of 540± acres to include
approximately 122 acres in a mix of Very Low Density Residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre), Low
Density Residential (3-7 dwelling units per acre), Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per
Transitional Mixed Use; and approximately 418 acres of Parks and Open Space. The property is
located south ofNM 599 and west of St. Francis Drive.
Land Use Department staff has determined that the requested future land use designations and Master
Plan are consistent with the record of City-initiated planning efforts for the Northwest Quadrant and
are in compliance with numerous objectives of the General Plan [see Application packet for criteria
response and expanded project history]. Staff recommends that the conditions outlined in [EXHIBIT
A] be applied to the General Plan Amendment if approved by the Planning Commission.
Some of the conditions of approval will not specifically apply until the time of Development Plan
approval, and are included at this point to guide the development of individual parcels. No specific
development will occur as a result of these applications.
Chapter 14 Criteria
Section 14-3.2 of the Land Development Code establishes various procedural requirements and approval
criteria for general plan amendments. These criteria are outlined below with responses from the Applicant
and Land Use Department staff comment where necessary.
A. Section 14-3.2 (D) (1) Criteria for All Amendments to the General Plan
1. Consistency with growth projections for the City using a data base maintained and updated on an
annual basis by the City, with economic development goals as set forth in a comprehensive
economic development plan for the City, and with existing land use conditions, such as access and
availability ofinfrastructure;
Applicant: The Northwest Quadrant property is an infill development located within the City's
Urban Area Boundary two miles from the downtown plaza and three miles away from a majority
of services, and public and private employment centers. The project proposes a mixed-use, mixed
income community with a range of housing densities and commercial and institutional uses.
Proposed uses are compatible with adjacent land uses using existing infrastructure.
The 2007 "Housing Needs Assessment Study" indicated a current deficit of 6,500 affordable
housing units to house the local workforce. The income levels for this workforce are primarily in
the 100-150% AMI and 50-80% AMI ranges. The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan calls for 773
new homes, approximately 530 of the new homes will be priced to meet the income levels (less
than 150% AMI) to house this local workforce close to downtown and major public and private
employment centers.

40
More than five years ago, Angelou Economics submitted the report "Cultivating Santa Fe's Future
Economy", which has been the basis for implementing the Economic Development Department's
economic strategies. In order to achieve a long-term sustainable and focused economic growth, the
City of Santa Fe is working towards building a diverse, innovative economy with high-wage,
high-impact jobs that provide opportunity and prosperity for the City's residents, businesses and
entrepreneurs. This strategy will provide opportunities for more of Santa Fe's population to live
and work in the community. Economic development activities are focused on the following
targeted industries: technology; knowledge based enterprise; GREEN, including renewable
energy, water conservation and waste reduction technologies; arts + culture; and media. The
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan calls for a mixed-use community with commercial uses in its
neighborhood center that can house some of these targeted industries such as: think tanks,
educational facilities, artisans, fine artists, software design, research and development, and
consulting.
2. Consistency with other parts ofthe General Plan;
Applicant: The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan is consistent with other parts of the General
Plan, in particular the themes and guiding policies of:
Chapter 2 - Heritage Resources
Chapter 3 - Land Use
Chapter 4 - Growth Management
Chapter 5 - City Character and Urban Development
Chapter 6 - Transportation
Chapter 7 - Infrastructure and Public Services
Chapter 8 - Natural Resource Management and Conservation
Chapter 9 - Community Services and Development
STAFF: Impossible to determine consistency as claimed without citing specific policy.
3. Provision for a determination of land utilization within an area larger than a single property
and of general applicability. Generally the area should be at least a section of the City and
should be larger than a single block or its equivalent;
Applicant: The land area of the Northwest Quadrant Master plan is approximately 540 acres. Of
the total area, ca. 122 acres is proposed for development and the remaining ca. 418 acres is
designated as open space (parks, open space, ROW, etc.).
4. Compliance with the extraterritorial zoning ordinances and extraterritorial plan;
Applicant: The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan area is within the City limits and the Urban Area
Boundary.
5. Contribution to a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the municipality which

will, in accordance with existing and future needs, best promote health, safety, morals, order,
convenience, prosperity or the general welfare as well as efficiency and economy in the process of
development.
Applicant: The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan derives its structure from a fundamental and
sensitive understanding of the site's land systems, a clear understanding of evolving demographic
and land use trends in the Santa Fe region, and an extensive public process with public input and
Norlhwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 80(20

41
review. The Master Plan proposes a mixed-use development of five neighborhoods on a portion of
the developable land area with the remaining area designated as open space. Each neighborhood
has convenient access to a centrally located neighborhood park as well as a community park along
the ridge that extends more than 6000 feet in length. A fme-grained network of streets and trails
will allow vehicular and great pedestrian connectivity and provide ample opportunities for passive
recreation. The plan recommends a bus route and strategically placed stops in denser mixed-use
areas of the plan to promote alternative transportation and reduce car trips. The master plan allows
a mix of uses to encourage residents to work and obtain neighborhood services from within the
area to limit the use of cars.
Views of the Northwest Quadrant development from the City will be limited to the 20 homes
slated for the south side of the ridge facing the City and will follow the escarpment ordinance.
Along NM 599, the master plan follows the recommended view corridor along NM599 of295 feet
to provide a scenic setback. As regulated by the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan and Design
Standards, the development will be designed to provide a quality image from all vantage points
looking toward the property.
B. Section 14-3.2 (D) (2) Additional Criteria for Amendments to Land Use Policies:
In addition to complying with the general criteria set forth above, amendments to the land use policies
section of the General Plan shall be made only if evidence is shown for the following:
1. The growth and economic projections contained within the plan are erroneous or have
changed; or
2. No reasonable locations have been provided for certain land uses for which there is a
demonstrated need; or
3. Conditions affecting the location or land area requirements of the proposed land use have
changed, for example, the cost ofland space requirements, consumer acceptance, market, and
building technology; and
4. The effect of the proposed change in land use will not have a negative impact on the
surrounding property. The proposed change in land use must be related to the character ofthe
surrounding area or a provision must be made to separate the proposed change in use from
adjacent property by a setback, landscaping or other means.
STAFF: These criteria were not specifically addressed in the application. [See City Council
Resolutions on the Application CD for justifications and desired outcomes of the present Master Plan
effort.]
Norlhwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 9 of 20

42
Land Use Analysis
Below is an analysis ofland use allocations for the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. The 10,000
square foot fire station is included in the Mixed Use commercial numbers for Phase 1. The column
labeled "sf' refers to commercial square footage.
LAND USE SUMMARY
Residential Very Low Density 17.74 20 1.13
Open Space 372.50

==~54~2~.5~0====7:;:;;7~3.===00=:===;:12===O;=.0~0~0

43
The development of the Northwest Quadrant is planned to occur over three phases with build-out
expected to take from 10-14 years.
Phase I Total 69.54 195.00 16,725 2.80
Phase 2 - residential & Neighborhood Center commercial uses in middle of project

acres units sf du/acre
Mixed Use 0 0
Phase II Total 34.83 275.00 53,625 7.90
Phase 3 - residential & mixed-use closest to Camino de Los Montoyas

··tfj~i~~W(~~.~~~gO~Flf~.':[;(i~~,·p~~1~~i.·D.j1i~~'~;1;;~i'~ii~;lj~;i~~~!~~~'ilf;ir~ ,ll;!;:!';!' ·j·;rtiOj;'·j··;:~lj·2Qi~PQ\·i;~;r1
Mixed Use 8.98 75
6.20 0.81
Phase III Total 49.13 303.00 49,650 6.17
Grand Total 121.30 773.00 120,000
Tabulation
developed area gross (minus roads/parks) 121.30 22% % total PRC area
open space + parks 421.20 78% % total PRC area
Mixed Use (NC + TMU) 27.09 5% % total PRC area

22% % developed area
Mixed Use Units (NC + TMU) 173 units (30% or 52 units comn
SC-1 area (DU x 3.6 residents x 35sf/res) 2.24

44
IV. REZONING APPROVAL CRITERIA
Case # ZA 2009-02. Northwest Quadrant Rezoning.
The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests rezoning of 540±
acres from R-l (Residential, 1 dwelling unit per acre) to PRC (Planned Residential Community). The
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan adopted as a part of this rezoning includes supplemental Design
Standards that vary from the Chapter 14 Land Development Code. The property is located south of
NM 599 and west of St. Francis Drive.
Land Use Department staff has determined that the requested zoning and related Design Specifications
detailed in the Master Plan are consistent with the record of City-initiated planning efforts for the
Northwest Quadrant and are in compliance with numerous objectives of the General Plan [see
Application packet for criteria responses and expanded project history]. Staff recommends that the
conditions outlined in [EXHIBIT A] be applied to the Rezoning if approved by the Planning
Commission.
approva, and are included at this point to guide the development of individual parcels. Again, no
specific development will occur as a result of these applications.
A. Chapter 14 - Santa Fe City Code
Chapter 14 of the City Code of the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico Article 14-3.5 (A) (2) and (C)
articulate six criteria to determine approval of a rezoning request. These criteria are outlined below with
responses from the Applicant and Land Use Department staff comment where necessary.
1. Pursuant to Article 14-3.5 (C): The need andjustificationfor the change
Applicant: The master plan is based on an urban structure which affirms Santa Fe's traditional
development patterns and is designed to address the themes and policies outlined in the General
Plan, Chapter 3, Land Use. Throughout the master plan, themes and guiding policies regarding
affordable housing, quality of life, transportation alternatives, economic diversity, sustainable
growth, urban form, community-oriented development and mixed use/transitional easily flow.
Further, the overall project is designed to meet Guiding Principles 2-G-2 and 3-G-3 as outlined in
the General Plan. Both of these principles encourage mixed use districts as well as infill
development at densities that support the construction of affordable housing and designated mix of
land uses that provide an adequate balance of service retail and employment opportunities.
In addition to adherence to the General Plan, the master plan combines the goals outlined in prior
resolutions passed over many years incorporated into a Planned Residential Community District
(PRC). These resolutions effectively changed both the General Plan and the Land Use Map to its
current status. Each resolution reiterated the city's commitment to "actively participate in the
creation of affordable housing" which is the overarching goal of this project as initiated and
directed by the City. In order to achieve these goals, the underlying zoning needs to be changed.
2. Pursuant to Article 14-3.5 (C): The effect of the change, if any, on the property and on
surrounding properties

45
Applicant: The effect on the property is very positive. First, over 400 acres are being preserved as
open space leaving ca. 122 acres to be developed. Secondly, as designed, the project employs
smart growth approaches and technologies from its inception to its completion. Third, given the
projects close proximity (2 miles) to the plaza, services, and major city, state and county
employment centers will reduce vehicle miles traveled throughout Santa Fe and is conducive to
introducing alternative modes of transportation because of its proximity to services. Fourth, there
is a continuing economic and social stratification in the City. The project is ideally located to
address the housing demand found among families with children, young couples, singles and
seniors in a way that both respects the land and cultural resources and begins to mitigate the
impacts found in an economically stratified community. Furthermore, its location provides
affordably priced housing in closer proximity to major employment and retail centers. The effects
on the surrounding properties including property values, traffic impact and noise are demonstrated
to be minimal in comparison to other areas in Santa Fe.
3. Pursuant to Article 14-3.5 (C): Consistency with the City's policies regarding the provision of
urban land sufficient to meet the amount, rate and geographic location ofthe growth ofthe city
Applicant: The proposed rezoning of the ca. 540 acres is consistent with the land use policies
outlined in Chapter 3 of the General Plan and meets the city's policies for creating affordable
housing as well as the city's guidance to the staff in the creation of this project.
STAFF: See City Council Resolutions on Applicant CD.
4. Pursuant to Article 14-3.5 (C): The ability ofthe exiting infrastructure such as the streets system,
sewer and water lines, and public facilities such as fire stations and parks to accommodate the
impacts of the proposed development. If such impacts cannot be accommodated, the City may
require the developer to participate wholly or in part in the cost ofconstruction ofoff-site facilities
in conformance with the City's off-sitefacilities regulation;
Applicant: The design team has already met with city staff in the various public works divisions,
public utilities divisions and believes that the infrastructure is in place to support the development
of this project. The plan includes land for a future fire station on the property that is needed for this
area and will serve Santa Fe Estates, Zocalo and Casa Solana as well as downtown. Water rights
have also been dedicated by the city for both the affordable and step-up housing. Lastly, the team
has met with the head of the parks department to review exactly which parks would be maintained
by the city and which ones would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. In general, the
team has been told that the city systems, which would provide services to the NWQ, can
accommodate the impacts of the proposed development.
STAFF: Please see condition 17 regarding required improvements to the public sewer system resulting
from development in the Northwest Quadrant. [See memoranda in EXHIBIT A for details of water
rights and public sewer design conditions]
5. Pursuant to Article 14-3.5 (C): If the proposed rezoning creates a needfor an additional major
public utility expansion. If such a need is determined then the developer may be asked to
contribute a proportionalfair share ofthe cost ofthe expansion.
Applicant: The proposed re-zoning does not create a need for an additional major public utility
expansion.

46
B. Additional Rezoning Criteria
Pursuant to Miller v. City ofAlbuquerque, 89 N.M. 503, 554 P.2d 665 (1976) and Davis v. City of
Albuquerque, 98 N.M. 319,648 P.2d 777 (1982) additional mandatory criteria has been established by
New Mexico case law.
1. Applicant's burden ofproof Since the community and neighbors have an interest in stability of
land use and zoning, the applicant must provide a soundjustification for the change. The burden
ofproofis on the applicant to show why the change should be made, not on the City to show why
the change should not be made.
2. Consistency with adoptedplans.
3. Existing zoning is inappropriate: The applicant must demonstrate that the existing zoning is
inappropriate because:
1. There was an error when the existing zone map pattern was created
2. Changed neighborhood or community conditions justify the change
3. A different use category is more advantageous to the community, as articulated in the
comprehensive plan or other city master plan, even though (1) or (2) above do not apply.
effort.]

47
V. ESCARPMENT VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
Case #M 2009-06. Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance.
The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests an escarpment
variance to allow 15,000 square feet of the alignment of Ridgetop Road to encroach on the ridgetop
subdistrict to provide sufficient distance from an existing PNM switching station. The location of the
requested variance is along the proposed Ridgetop Road alignment between Camino de los Montoyas
andNM 599.
areas. [See memorandum and attachments from Wendy Blackwell, Technical Review Division
Director in EXHIBIT B for a discussion of the Escarpment remapping process and applicability.]
The Planning Commission must base their decision regarding the Escarpment Variance on the
Applicant responses to the criteria below and staff conditions. [See memoranda from Charlie Gonzales
and Wendy Blackwell in EXHIBIT B.] Variances of this nature are generally processed at the
Development Plan phase with completed engineering plans. However, the applicant is requesting
conceptual approval at this stage to allow the proposed Master Plan land use mix and roadway
configuration to proceed. The primary justification for the variance is to provide connectivity between
developable areas and avoid impacting the existing PNM station and the drainageways and
archaeological sites located north of the station.
Chapter 14 Criteria for Variances in PUD, PRC, and PRRC Districts:
14-2.3 (C)(3) Variances as Part ofSubdivision or Development Plan Review

The Planning Commission is the principal City administrative board reviewing and granting or
denying requests for variances from zoning regulations in all areas except the Historic Districts and
Archaeological Review Districts, provided that the request is also part ofa development plan or
subdivision request requiring the Planning Commission's review. When deciding such variances the
Planning Commission shall use the criteria for deciding variances as setforth in §14-3.16, except
variances in PUD, PRC, and PRRC districts shall be evaluated based upon their appropriateness in
relation to the overall development and its purposes and their impact upon surrounding properties.
Applicant: The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan calls for a ca. 6,000 feet long linear park along
the ridgeline that traverses northwest within the northern 366 acres of the Master Plan area.
This open space area, the 'Linear Park', will have pedestrian and bicycle trails to connect to
Santa Fe Estate Trails and to other trails in the larger northwest quadrant area. The major
roadway that traverses the site and provides an important connection from Ridgetop Road to
Camino de los Montoyas is located dominantly north of the ridge outside of the ridgetop
subdistrict. The one location where it encroaches on the ridgetop subdistrict is in the location of
the PNM substation. We are requesting a variance to build the road within the ridgetop
subdistrict in this area only.
This request reflects the minimum encroachment possible to the ridgetop subdistrict given the
site constraints and project goals. The alignment of the roadway within the right of way
boundary has been adjusted to minimize the impact to the ridgetop. Granting this variance will

48
make it possible to build this road through the entire development thus connecting the project's
east and west entry points.
Chapter 14 Criteria for Variances to the Requirements of &14-5.6 Escarpment Overlay Regulations
14-5.6 (K)(I) Where the Planning Commissionjinds that extraordinary hardship may resultfrom
strict compliance with these regulations, it may vary the regulations so that substantialjustice may
be done and the public interest secured; provided that such variation shall not have the effect of
nullifying the intent andpurpose ofthese regulations.
Applicant: A literal interpretation of this ordinance would deprive the future master developer
of the ability to complete a major roadway connection in a logical and efficient way.
The topography, slopes and drainageways north of the PNM switching station, along with
locations of existing archaeological sites create a special condition that leads to the proposed
road alignment south of the station. An existing 30 foot wide access easement that has been
bladed and is devoid of vegetation currently exists in the approximate location of the proposed
road alignment. Using the general area of this easement would result in less visual disturbance
than if an alternate alignment north of the PNM site were proposed.
This variance request is a special condition dictated by property lines, topography,

drainageways, and connectivity needs. The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan places the
remainder of the ridgetop subdistrict in an open space preserve and/or community park with
pedestrian and bike trails that will not be privileged with the rights granted by this variance.
Substantial justice will be done in granting this variance by enabling an orderly and efficient
road alignment to provide multiple points of access to the development and between the
neighborhoods.
14-5.6 (K)(2) In granting variances or modifications, the Planning Commission may require such
requirements so varied or modified.
Applicant: Granting this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
Chapter 14 - 5.6 and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to
public welfare. Additional benning and/or planting can be installed adjacent to the
encroachment on the ridgetop subdistrict to minimize the visibility of the roadway and vehicles
and protect the viewshed. In addition, the road profile ofthe proposed alignment results in
more gentle, safer grades than would be possible given the alternate northern alignment, which
would cut across more difficult terrain.
STAFF: The criteria responses above refer to an earlier proposed access scenario. The currently
proposed roadway network has no connections to Camino de Los Montoyas on the west. The single
proposed roadway access point for the project is via Ridgetop Road from the east.

49
VI. TERRAIN MANAGEMENT VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
Case #M 2009-08. Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance.
The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests a terrain
management variance to allow disturbance of 28,000 square feet of 30 percent slopes on two sites in
order to preserve open space areas and to allow structures to be built on the disturbed 30 percent
slopes. The locations of the requested variance are within the neighborhood center areas north of the
ridge and northeast of the PNM switching station.
The Planning Commission must base their decision regarding the Terrain Management Variance on the
Applicant responses to the criteria below and staff comments. [See memorandum from Risana
Zaxus in EXHIBIT B.] Variances of this nature are generally processed at the Development Plan
phase with completed engineering plans. However, the applicant is requesting conceptual approval at
this stage to allow the proposed Master Plan land use mix and configuration to proceed. The primary
justification for the variance is to preserve the surrounding majority of the property as open space by
concentrating development in the two Neighborhood Centers that will be created with this Master Plan.

Planning Commission shall use the criteria for deciding variances as setforth in § 14-3.16, except
Applicant: This request is an outcome of a concerted effort to balance development with the
preservation of archaeological sites, views across open space areas from the NM599 highway
corridor to the ridge and Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and community desires for open space.
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan was generated from a land-based analysis that looked at
locating development on shallower slopes (primarily slopes less than 20%) while preserving
major drainageways, respecting the 295 ft. wide highway corridor setback, and avoiding as
many significant archaeological sites as possible. The developable area in the master plan as
proposed preserves 50% of the archaeological sites documented on the property and preserves
ca. 70% of the land area in open space and parks.
The public process identified goals to preserve open space and create distinct 'neighborhoods'
separated by open spaces areas. These neighborhoods are clustered neighborhoods with
radiating densities: higher densities are located in the center areas and lower densities on the
fringes. The neighborhood center area is envisioned as a dense, mixed-use, 'Main Street'
corridor that links the neighborhoods together and provides a center for the community. While
the master plan could have located more area of development beyond what has been proposed,
this would have resulted in more piecemeal development, less contiguous open space for public
use, and the disturbance of more archaeological sites.
Northwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 17 of 20

50
Development in the proposed areas within the Neighborhood Center area are centrally located
within the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan property and will not adversely impact surrounding
properties.
Chapter 14 Criteria for Variances to the Requirements of &14-8.2(G) Terrain Management Regulations
14-3.7 (F)(3) The Planning Commission may grant variances to the requirements ofthe terrain
management regulations as setforth in §14-8.2, which refers back to the following criteria:
14-3.7 (F)(1) Where the Planning Commissionjinds that extraordinary hardship may result/rom
be done and the public interest secured; provided that such variation shall not have the effect 0/
nullifying the intent andpurpose o/these regulations.
Applicant: The strict application of the regulation preventing disturbance of areas greater than
1,000 square feet on slopes greater than 30% would result in a hardship to the development of
the project by restricting developable parcels within the neighborhood center area to
discontinuous areas with smaller, oddly shaped lots. In addition, strict application of the
regulation would prohibit the construction of the main street that connects the neighborhood
center area to the remainder of the development. Reducing this developable area for both
infrastructure and building structures will result in a hardship for the master developer, making
the higher density development called for in the plan more difficult on the oddly shaped lots
and restricting the developer's ability to build the structures and roads necessary to make the
project financially viable.
Granting this variance in the area of the Neighborhood Center will not absolve the developer of
hislher responsibility to adhere to the terrain management ordinance in other areas of the
development. The site analysis indicates there are some areas along roadways and at the fringes
of the development that, at development plan, might impact 30% or greater slopes. For these
areas, the developer will follow conventional regulations for design and engineering and obtain
the necessary variances at development plan approval.
In order to create a cohesive and viable mixed-use Neighborhood Center to serve the residents
of the Northwest Quadrant, substantial justice will be provided in granting this variance to
concentrate disturbance of slopes and building on these slopes only within the two parcels that
comprise the Neighborhood Center. By focusing the Neighborhood Center in this area,
advantageous impacts on surrounding properties would include a larger area of open space
(over 70% of the Master Plan area) preserved for public recreation, scenic character,
stormwater management, and wildlife habitat.
The public process for the project asked for input from the Homework Group (a group of 45
dedicated individuals who gave direction to the design team on the project) to identify where
the 'Center' should be located. The centrally located 'Neighborhood Center' as identified on
the Master Plan map is a direct outcome of that process. In order to maintain the viability of the
neighborhood center as a mixed-use center with neighborhood services, the disturbances to
over 30% slopes to build infrastructure and buildings are requested in this area. The public
interest will be secured by concentrating disturbances in this area only so that a larger area of
open space is available for preservation and use.

51
14-3.7 (F)(2) In granting variances or modifications, the Planning Commission may require such
Applicant: In disturbing the over 30% slopes and regrading areas 1 + 2, the developer at
development plan approval will provide a detailed soil analysis, recommendations on the
stability of native slopes and/or recommendations on stabilizing steeper slopes, and other
information as required. As in the remainder of the development, care will be taken to ensure
that where drainageways are disturbed, a stormwater management strategy is thoughtfully
conceived and carefully implemented. In Area 2, the developer will work to retain portions of
the existing drainageway, stabilize slopes, minimize erosion, and maximize stormwater
management and infiltration on-site.
The master plan calls for an integrated stormwater management approach to maximize on-site
stormwater harvesting, infiltration, and reuse and minimize erosion and sedimentation from
excess stormwater discharged into existing arroyos. In addition, the plan calls for the
revegetation of arroyo corridors to curb erosion and provide wildlife habitat. The team believes
that with a proper integrated stormwater management strategy on site, further erosion of the
delicate ecosystems in the arroyo corridors on site can be minimized.

52
VTI. ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A: General Plan Amendment & Rezoning - Development Review Team Memoranda:
1. DRT Conditions Swnmary Table
2. Traffic conditions memorandum, John Romero, June 2, 2009
3. Fire Department memorandum, Barbara Salas, April 21, 2009
4. Wastewater Management Division memorandum, Stan Holland, June 5,2009
a) Example - Aldea lift station maintenanace agreement
b) Example - Aldea lift station HOA declaration excerpt
5. Stormwater Management Division memorandum, Jim Salazar, March 23, 2009
a) Additional memorandum from Jim Salazar, March 16, 2009
6. Water Division memorandum, Bryan Snyder, May 22, 2009
a) Additional Water Division memorandum, Antonio Trujillo, March 23, 2009
7. Trails Development Division memorandum, Bob Siqueiros, March 9,2009
8. Parks, Open Space, Watershed Division email, Fabian Chavez III, June 9, 2009
9. Solid Waste Division form, Randall Marco, February 12,2009
EXHIBIT B: Variances - Development Review Team memoranda

1. Escarpment Variance - conditions memorandum, Charlie Gonzales, March 17, 2009
2. Request for waiver from future Escarpment map - comments memorandum and attachments,
Wendy Blackwell, June 9, 2009
3. Terrain Management Variance - conditions memorandum, Risana Zaxus, June 9, 2009
EXHIBIT C: Additional Materials

1. Tano Road Association comments - submitted December 16, 2008 and updated on March 16,
2009.
2. Casa Solana neighborhood comments - submitted March 23, 2009
3. Revised PRC zoning classification: amending ordinance approved by Planning Commission on
March 19, 2009
4. Northwest Quadrant pro forma memorandum, Kathy McCormick, May 22, 2009
Northwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 200{20

53
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan - Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT A

shall be prepared and approved by city staff and a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the Construction General
accordance with Table D103.4.
Conditions of Approval - recommended by staff to June 18, 2009 Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 54
-- - - --- --
Conditions of Approval- recommended by staff to June 18, 2009 Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 55

18 Three access scenarios were presented to the Public Works Committee (PWC) on March 23, 2009 for review and Public Works John Romero
Following is a review of the most recent traffic analysis submitted on May 28,2009, which only looks at the "One
Department.
Dept/Traffic
Eng.
Eng.
theNMDOT. Dept/ Traffic
Eng. Div/Traffic
Eng.
Conditions of Approval- recommended by staff to June 18, 2009 Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 56
,
Cltyof8antaFe
NewMexico
..
i
Case # M 2009-05. Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment. Lee DePietro, agent for the City of Santa Fe
Housing and Community Development Department, requests approval of a General Plan future land use map amendment
to change the designations of 540± acres. The property is located south of NM 599, west of the Santa Fe Estates
development, and north and west of the Casa Solana neighborhood. (Lucas Cruse, case manager)
Case # ZA 2009-02. Northwest Quadrant Rezoning. Lee DePietro, agent for the City of Santa Fe Housing and
Community Development Department, requests rezoning of 540± acres from R-l (Residential, I dwelling unit per acre) to
PRC (Planned Residential Community). The property is located south of NM 599, west of the Santa Fe Estates
Case #M 2009-06. Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance. Lee DePietro, agent for the City of Santa Fe Housing
and Community Development Department, requests an escarpment variance to allow the alignment of Ridgetop Road to
encroach on the ridgetop subdistrict to provide sufficient distance from an existing PNM switching station. The location
of the requested variance is along the proposed Ridgetop Road alignment between Camino de Los Montoyas and NM 599.
(Lucas Cruse, case manager)
Name: Lee DePietro Agent! Owner # 955-6662 FAX 955-6655

Housing and Community Dev.Dept.
Submittal date February 9,2009 Email lrndepietro@santafenm.gov
Request additional submittals Planning Commission date April 2, 2009
February 19, 2009
DRT final Comments by March 9, 2009
o PDR Case File/Case Manager (see below) o Water Division Engineer (Antonio Trujillo x 4266)
o Fire Inspector(s) (Barbara Salas x 3126) D Subdivision Engineer (RB Zaxus x 6641)
o Tramc Division Engineer (John Romero x 6638)
~
ffice of Affordable Housing (Ted Swisher x6574)
o Waste Water Division Engineer (Stan Holland x 4637) Solid Waste Div. Engineer (Randal Marco x 2228)
o PW/ Engineering Division (Chris Ortega x 6626) Trails & Open Space (Bob Siqueiros x 6977)
o Landscaping (Charlie Gonzales x 6955)
/~:[.~Mt6tid:.f·
.')
COMMENTS' .
(. e-:~t.U ~U 7. (
Case Manager: Lucas Cruse x6583

Tamara Baer x 6580 tbaer@santafenm.gov
Wendy M. Blackwell x 6127 wmblackweJJ@santafenm.gov Daniel A. Esquibel x 6587 daesguibel@santafenm.gov
Charlie D. Gonzales x 6955 cdgonzales@santafenm.gov Patrick Nicholson x 6888 pdnicholson@santafenm.gov
Lucas Cruse x 6583 lacruse@santafenm.gov Greg T. Smith x 6957 gtsmith@santafenm.gov
Donna J. Wynant x 6325 djwynant@santafenm.gov RB Zaxus x 6641 rbzaxus-onaxis@santafenm.gov
57
(QJft'&~ @if ~m1'&~ 1]'@5>lliJ"@v ~~@©
memo
DATE: March 23, 2009
TO: Lucas A. Cruse,
FROM: Jim L. Salazar, Stormwater Management Division Director
RE: Case #ZA 2009-02. Northwest Quadrant Rezoning.
Based on review of the submitted documents, including Master Plan documents and Design Standards
and following communications with the applicant, please attach the following condition of approval:
Stormwater Management
A Master Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the City of Santa Fe for its approval. The
plan will be submitted prior to approval of any Development Plan or subdivision application and prior to
the approval for the construction of infrastructure. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the project
shall conform to the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and
City of Santa Fe Terrain and Stormwater Management and Stormwater Illicit Discharge Control
ordinances. The Master Stormwater Management Plan shall be designed in conformance with
applicable City of Santa Fe Stormwater policies and shall treat stormwater runoff "as a valuable natural
resource in Santa Fe, a community that is prone to drought, by encouraging water col/ection and
infiltration on site". Policy guidance shall be taken from documents including the General Plan,
Stormwater Management Plan, Terrain and Stormwater Management Regulations and all other
applicable, adopted City of Santa Fe Stormwater Management and Water Conservation policy
documents. At a minimum the Plan will identify practices to treat, store and infiltrate runoff onsite before it
can affect water bodies downstream. Additionally, the plan will include innovative site designs that
reduce imperviousness and smaller-scale low impact development practices dispersed throughout the
site, in order to achieve flow reductions, reduce erosion and sedimentation, reduce stormwater pollutants,
improve water quality and mitigate increased maintenance and repair requirements to pUblic stormwater
infrastructure.
As the project builds-out, the Master Developer shall require all developers, builders, contractors,
homeowner's associations, and all stakeholders, to conform to these city policies in their design
philosophies and development and maintenance programs and the Master Stormwater Management Plan
shall provide guidance.
Prior to filing the Master Plan and approval of the Master Stormwater Management Plan, Chapter Six (6)
Landscape Architecture of the Design Standards shall be revised as per the attached March 16, 2009
memo from Jim L. Salazar to Lee Depetrio. This chapter also includes specific information on grading
and drainage as well as habitat enhancement in order to implement EPA's Best Management Practices.
Further, prior to any disturbance or grading of terrain, an appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (8WPPP) shall be prepared and approved by city staff and a Notice of Intent (NOr) for coverage
under the Construction General Permit (CGP) shall be filed with the EPA.
58
City of Santa Fe Memo
TO: Lee Depietro, HCDD Project Manager
RE: Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Design Standards
The following revisions to Chapter 6: Landscape Architecture are needed to reflect current city
policy regarding the treatment of stormwater.
Page 108
In the first column, insert a new bullet containing a principle:
• The use of harvested stormwater runoff in both passive and active systems, as a principle
means of irrigation is strongly encouraged;
In the second column, line 14, before the sentence that begins with Where necessary, insert:
When possible, passive rainwater harvesting techniques will be utilized to provide a means for
stormwater infiltration and primary irrigation.
Page 109
In the second column, under Zone 1 - Oasis Zone: Insert language stating Active rainwater
harvesting techniques should be the primary source of irrigation water. Passive rainwater
harvesting techniques are encouraged where landscaping is a minimum of ten feet from structure
foundations.
In the second column, under Zone 2 - Transition Zone: Insert language containing the same
language as listed above.
In the second column, under Zone 3 - Xeric Zone: Insert language stating Passive rainwater
harvesting should be the primary source of irrigation water.
Page 110
In the first column, in Water Conservation Definitions: Restate stormwater definition so that it
reads Stormwater refers to water which results from storm runoff and snowmelt. It can result in
flooding and the transfer of water pollutants. It should be mitigated through collection and control
while being treated as a sustainable, valuable natural resource. Collection and control processes
should include rainwater harvesting for irrigation and infiltration through the use of Low Impact
Development techniques.
59
Page 111
In the second column, second bullet, after the word installation insert: Rain gardens and other
methods of passive water harvesting techniques are encouraged as a primary source of irrigation
for landscaped areas in the public rights-of-way.
Page 112
In the first column, fifth bullet, after the.word properties, insert: except in common areas, public
rights-of-way and other similar situations as approved by the City.
In the second column, insert the following bullets:
• Rain gardens shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from structure foundations.
• Low Impact Development stormwater techniques shall be utilized as is practicable to
mimic natural hydraulics.
Page 116
Insert a bullet:
• Rain gardens are encouraged for on-lot landscapes.
Page 120
In the first column, under Standards, insert a fifth bullet:
• Provide stormwater management techniques that will reduce runoff. Runoff shall be
passively harvested in Open Space where possible.
Page 121
In the second column, ninth bullet under Standards, after the word pavers, insert: Permeable
pavers and porous pavements are encouraged in Large Parks and Open Space where paving is
required.
Add a bullet:
• Rain gardens and other passive and active rainwater harvesting techniques are
encouraged in Large Parks and Open Space.
Page 123
Add a bullet:
encouraged in Neighborhood Parks.
Page 124
Add a bullet:
encouraged in Pocket Parks.
60
Page 127
In the second column, under Standards, insert a bullet:
• The use of tree boxes, rain gardens and other Low Impact Development techniques is
encouraged for irrigation and stormwater infiltration.
Page 128
In column two, second bullet, after the word pavers, insert: and porous pavements, after the word
zones, insert parking lots, and . ...
The Stormwater Management condition write~up that was emailed to me on March 11, 2009 is
acceptable.
Please call me at X2132 if you would like to discuss this. Thank you.
61
DATE: April 21, 2009
TO: Lee DePietro, Housing Special Projects Manager

Claudia Meyer Horn, AlA, ASLA, LEED AP
FROM: ~t;.~
arbara Salas, Firm-shal
SUBJECT: Northwest Quadrant Access
The City of Santa Fe Fire Department would prefer that the Northwest Quadrant had full
access to the development; Option E. This option would make it safest for all members
of the community and allow for both emergency access and open evacuation in the event
of a catastrophic episode. Time is the key in all emergency situations. The potential is
high for impairments to a restricted access by means of vehicle congestion, condition of
terrain, climatic conditions and other factors that could limit access.
If Option E is not chosen our requirements would be as follows:
Shall provide two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.
Shall ensure access road has a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet or 26 feet
in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet
in height.
Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with
width and turnaround provision in accordance with Table DI03.4.
The installation of a security gate across a fire apparatus access road shall be
approved. Where a gate is installed, they shall have an approved means of
emergency operation. The security gate and the emergency operation shall be
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds and shall be
surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities.
62
CRy• •
MEMO
Wastewater Management Division
:NewMexico
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
E-MAIL DELIVERY
Date: June 5, 2009
To: Lucas Cruse, Senior Planner
From: Stan Holland, PE

Subject: Case #M 2009-05 and 06 and ZA 2009-06 Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) General Plan
Amendment, Rezoning and Escarpment Variance
The Wastewater Management Division has reviewed the information that has been submitted for
Master Plan Submittal and requires the Applicant to address the following comments:
1. On page 55 of the Master Plan submittal (submitted on CD) under the title Homeowner's
Association (HOA) - the second bullet point will need to be modified. At the time of
Development submittal and review, language will need to be developed to provide
ownership of the lift station by the City of Santa Fe, and supplemented with an agreement
that requires the HOA to pay for all costs associated with maintenance, operation, repair
and replacement of the sewer lift station(s) and appurtenances.
2. A sample sewer lift station maintenance agreement, to be used as a general template, is
included with this document and shall be incorporated into the agreement between the City
of Santa Fe and the NWQ Homeowners Association at the time of Development submittal
3. A sample Home Owners Association By-Laws and Covenants Agreement, to be used as a
general template outlining how the HOA shall delegate responsibility for the sewer lift
station within the BOA and with the City of Santa Fe is included with this document and
shall be incorporated into the HOA documents at the tome of Development submittal and
review. These documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office.
4. All sewer plans including the design of the sewer lift station(s) and the sewer collection
system consisting of but not limited to all public gravity, low pressure and force main
sewer lines shall be reviewed and approved by the Wastewater Division at the time of
Development submittal and review.
5. The individual sewer grinder pumps, appurtenances and service lines are the responsibility
of the individual property owners for maintenance, operation, repair and replacement.
M:\LUD- Staff Case Management\Case_Management\Cruse_Lucas\NorthwestQuadrant\DRT Responses\20090605-NWQ-

HollandMemo.doc 63
6. Comments related to the NWQ Development connecting to the existing City public sewer
system:
a The Wastewater Division has cleaned, televised and evaluated the existing City
public sewer lines that will convey the flows from the proposed NWQ sewer lift
station connecting at Camino Crucitas. The existing City public sewer system will
convey the calculated increased sewage flows from the NWQ proposed sewer lift
station at full build-out if a portion of the existing City publiC sewer system serving
the NWQ is improved. The phasing of the NWQ Project will incrementally
increase the sewage flows and allow for the determination of which phase of the
development will require the improvements prior to connecting to the existing City
public sewer system. The calculated flows of the NWQ are based on a full build
out of758 residential units and 50,000sf of commercial space that includes the
proposed fire station. It is estimated the cost of improvements to the existing
public sewer system, utilizing pipe bursting technology, is $350,000 (Three
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) based upon a current City contract for this type of
work. The work would consist of increasing the existing sewer pipe size from 8"
to 12" and improvement to the manholes within Rio Vista Street and Solana Drive.
b. The entire cost for any required improvements to the existing City public sewer
system to serve the increased sewage discharge from the NWQ Development shall
be a requirement for approval for each phase of the NWQ Development at the time
of Development Review and Approval. The Wastewater Division is investigating
other remedial improvement alternatives that may cost less than estimated in item
(a.) above but does not have the required field data to evaluate at this time.
Please contact me at 955-4637 if you have any questions.
Attachments: Sample City-HOA Sewer Lift Station Maintenance Agreement

Sample HOA Covenant Agreement for Sewer Lift Station
cc: File
Lee Depietro
M:\LUD- Staff Case Managemenl\Case_Management\Cruse_Lucas\NorthwestQuadrant\DRT Responses\20090605-NWQ-

HoliandMemo.doc 64
72 BOARD MEETINGS.
B. Board's Responsibility. Except as specifically provided in this Arti,Qle Q(

elsewhere in this Neighborhood DeClaration. the Board has been delegatedthe'p'()WSfi ,
and shall have the authority to acton behalf of the Neighborhood Associatibn,~M"fO:
make aU decisions necess~1Y'fQr the operatior1of the Neighborhood Assodatiof\ the
enforcement of this Neighborhood Declaration and the care of the NeighbQmi:)od
Commons.
b. Quorum. Voting at a Board meeting requires the presence of a majority of

the directors, either in person, by telephone conference or, if allowed by law, by proxy.
If permitted by law, any action required to be taken by vole of the Board m~y be taken
in the absence of a meeting (or in the absence of a quorum at a meeting) by obtaining
the unanimous, written approval of the Board.
7.3 RECORD KeEPING.
The Board shall keep correct and complete minutes of all meetings and
proceedings, oath of the Board and of the Neighborhood Association. The minutes
shall be available for inspection by any Member.
ARTICLE 8: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BUDGET

To fulfil! Its obligation to maintain the Neighborhood Commons and the Common
Roads, the Board is responsible for the fiscal management of the NeIghborhood
Association,
8.1 FISCAL YEAR.
The fiscal year of the Neighborhood Association shall begin January 1 of each
year and end an December 31 of that year, unless the Board selects a different fisoal
year.
8.2 BUDGET ITEMS.
The budget shall estimate total expenses to be incurred by the Neighborhood

Association in carrying out its responsibilities. These expenses shall include, without
limitation, the cost of wages, materials, insurance premiums, services, supplies and
other expenses for the rendering of all services reqUired by this Neighborhood
Declaration or properly approved in accordance with this Neighborhood Declaration.
The budget may also include reasonable amounts, as determined by the Board, for
working capital for the Neighborhood Association and for reserves. If the
Neighborhood Commons are taxed separately from the Lots, the Neighborhood
Association shall include such taxes as part of the bUdget. Fees for professional
management of the Neighborhood Association, accounting services, legal counsel and
other professiona1 services may also be included in the budget
Page 21
Ak}ea de San/a Fe Amended, Restated and Suppfemen/al Neighborhood Declaration
65
8.3 GENERAL RESERVES.
The Neighborhood Association may build up and maintain reserves forwarKing

capital, contIngencies and replacement, which shall be included in the budget and
coUected as part of the annual General Assessment. Extraordinary expenses rlQt
originally included in the annual budget that may be com's necessary during the: year
shall be charged first against such reserves. Except in the event of an emE;lrgenCy,
reserves accumulated for one purpose may not be expended for any other purpOSE),
unless approved by Owners representing a majority of votes in the Neighborhood
Association. If the reserves are inadequate for any reason, including nonpa,ytrn~nf of
any Member's Assessment, the Board may at any time levy a Special Assessment in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9.4. If there is an excess of reservesaHhe
end of the fiscal year and the Board so determines, the excess may be returl1e<J on ~
prorata basis to all Members who are current in payment of all Assessments due the
Neighborhood Association, or may be used to reduce the following years
Assessments, at the Board's discretion.
8.4 COUNTY ESCROW FUND.
a. Streets, Drainage Structures. The Neighborhood Association shaH

establish and maintain a permanent County Escrow Fund, from whiCh the
Neighborhood Association may authorize expenditure to cover the cost of
correction, repair or replacement of the Common Roads and of any drainage
detention and conveyance structure, whether located in the Commons or on any
Lot. The County Escrow Fund shall be used for no other purpose; If the
Neighborhood ,<1,ssociation fails after notice from Santa Fe County to make
necessary repairs to the Common Roads or to any drainage detention or
conveyance structure, then Santa Fe County shall be entitled to use the County
Escrow Fund to make such repairs as further provided in this Neighborhood
Declaration.
b. Account. The County Escrow Fund shall be held at a bank [()cateq

in, or with a branch in, Santa Fe County, New Mexico. The Neighborhood
Association shall maintain a balance in the County Escrow Fund of at least ten
thousand doliars ($10,000).
c, Certific8tLQ-O. Twice annually, on the dates required by the Land

Use Administrator, the Neighborhood Association shall certify to the Land USe
Administrator thai the County Escrow Fund has been maintained with the
prescribed funding, The certification shall include copies of bank statements
and shail be submitted with the inspection report provided in Section 4.3 of this
Neighborhood Declaration.
d_ Use by CouGt\~. The Land Use Administrator shall have the

authority and power to sign checks to draw funds from the County Escrow Fund
if the remediation p'an in the inspection report is not instituted within thirty (30)
days of the date the report IS submitted and is not completed thirty (30) days
thereafter. The Land Use Administrator shall give written notice to the
Page 22
AIdea de Santa Fe Amended, r;:estated and Supplemental Neighborhood Declaration
66
2233327
Neighborhood Association and to the Board no less than three (3) bUSii1essdays
prior to exercising this power. The Land Use Administrator shall use the~hds
to contrad for services needed to complete the remediation plan.
6. Emergency Assessments. The Neighborhood Association sh~1I

promptly replenish the County Escrow Fund to the prescribed amount. Shol,lld
there be insufficient funds in the County Escrow Fund to correct the conditiOn, or
should the Neighborhood Association fail to promptly replace the funds to
the
prescribed level, the County Land Use Administrator shall have the power to act
on behalf of the Board to create an emergency Assessment as provided in
Section 9.4(b). The Land Use Administrator shall also have additional authQtity
and power to enforce the emergency Assessment as provided in this
Neighborhood Declaration, The amount of the emergency Assessment may
include the reasonable cost to remedy said conditions.
f. Amendment. The provisions in this Section 8.4 shall not be

modified without permission of the Land Use Administrator. If any modificati,oh is
made to other portions of this Neighborhood Declaration which affect the Land
Use Administrator's authority and power to collect and enforce emergency
Assessments, said modifications shall not be effective without the written
consent of the Land Use Administrator. ff at any time Santa Fe County waives
the requirement for an County Escrow Fund, the Board shall not be required to
comply with this section.
8.5 MAINTENANCE OF LIfT STATIONS.
a. The Neigilborhood Association shall be responsible to pay for all

costs of maintaining and repairing the main lift station constructed as part of
Phase lA, as shown on the Plat, and the small lift station planned for Phase 16,
as shown on the Master Development Plan.
b. If the Neighborhood Association fails for any reason, to reimburse

the City of Santa Fe as proVided in this Section 8.5, then each Lot Owner shall
become individually liable to the City of Santa Fe for that Lot's proportionate
share of the outstanding obiigation. S8id proportionate share shaH be
determined by dividing the outstanding obligation amount by the number of
platted Lots,
c. Should any Lot Owner fail to pay an emergency Assessment

declared by the City of Santa Fe pursuant to Section 8.5(e)(v}(c), or should any
Lot Owner farl to directly reimburse the City of Santa Fe pursuant to Section
8.5(b), the City of Santa Fe shall be entitled to terminate water service to that
Lot. The City of Santa Fe must give at least ninety (90) days written notice prior
to such termination.
d. ElectriCity. gas, telephone and alarm services relating to the lift

stations shall be billed directly to the Neighborhood Association and such bills
shall be paId promptly and routinely.
Page 23
A/dee de Santa F~ Amended, Restated and SlJpplemEifitaf Neighborhood Declaration
67
2233J213
6. The City of Santa Fe shall own both fift stations and all sewer
mainlines. The sewer service lines shall be the responsibility of each Lot
Owner, which they serve. The City of Santa Fe Wastewater Management
Division will perform maintenance and repairs to said lines and to the lift
stations. The City of Santa Fe will absorb the cost of maintenance and repair to
the said lines from normal revenue received through monthly billing· Of its
customers. The City will be promptly reimbursed for repair:;; and maintenahceto
the lift stations by the Neighborhood Association as follows:
(i) in January of each year, the Neigtlborhood Associatiao shari

pay ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to the City of Santa Fe as advance payment
for the anticipated annual cost of a vactor truck and operator for each lift station
in operation. As the actua I cost of the vactor truck and operator become known.
the City of Santa Fe Wastewater Management Division will instruct the
Neighborhood Association, in writing, to increase or to decrease the next annual
January paymen.t so that the City of Santa Fe will be adequately reimbursed for
these costs.
(Ii) When a lift station pump replacement becomes advisable, in

the discretion of the City of Santa Fe Wastewater Management Division, the
Neighborhood I\ssociation shall promptly reimburse the cost to the City of Santa
Fe.
(iii) The Neighborhood Association shaH pay for connection to a

gravity systern if one becomes available in Frijoles Arroyo and, at the Sole
Discretion of the City of Santa Fe Wastewater Management Division, such a
connection becomes advisabie.
(Iv) No idter than six (6) months after the main lift station is
placed into op~;ration, the Neighborhood Association shall establish and
maintain a permanent City Escrow Fund in the amount of ten thousand dollars
($10,000), from which the Neighborhood Association shall authorize expenditure
to reimburse the City of Santa Fe for maintenance and repair to the main lift
station. Within six (6) months after the small lift station in Phase IB is placed
into operation, the amount in the City Escrow Fund shall be increased to twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000),
(v) The City Escrow Fund shall be used for no other purpose. ff
the Neighborhood Association falls, after notice from the City of Santa fe. to
reimburse the City for said maintenance and repairs l then the City of Santa Fe
shail be entitled to use the City Escrow Fund to reimburse itself as provided
below:
a) The City Escrow Fund shall be held at a bank located

in, or VJith a branch in, Santa Fe County, New Mexico. In January of each
year, the Neighborhood Association shall certify to the Director of the
Wastewater Management Division that the City Escrow Fund has been
maintained with the prescribed funding. The certification shall include
Page 24
AldeiJ de Santa Fe Amende,), Restated 2nd Supplemental Neigbbomood Declaration
68
2'2333t~l
copies of bank statements and shall be submitted to the City of Santa F~'
Wastewater Management Division.
b) The City of Santa Fe shall have the authority and

power to sign checks to draw funds from the City Escrow Fund if the
Neighborhood Association does not reimburse the City within thirty .(~O)
days of written notification of the amount of reimbursement required. 'Tha
City of Santa Fe shall give written notice to the Neighborhood AssociatiOQ
no less than three (3) business days prior to exercising this power.
c) The Neighborhood Association shall replenish the

City Escrow Fund to the prescribed amount. Should there be insufficient
funds in the City Escrow Fund to fully reimburse the City of Santa F~. Qr
should the Neighborhood Association fail to replace the funds to the
prescribed level, the City of Santa Fe shall have the power to act qn
behalf of the Board to create an Emergency Assessment as provide<1 .in
Section 9.4(b) of thiS Neighborhood Declaration. The City of Santa Fe
shall also have additional authority and power to enforce the Emergency
Assessment as provided in this Neighborhood Declaration. The amount
of Emergency Assessment may include the cost to fully reimburse the City
of Santa Fe and to replenish the account to the prescribed level. In'
addition to the authority noted above, the City of Santa Fe shall have the
authority to place a lien against individual Owners in the proportionate
amount of the outstanding obligation. Said proportionate share shall be
determined by dividing the outstanding obligation amount by the number
of platted lots
d) The provisions in Section 8.5 shall not be modified

withou~ permission of the City of Santa Fe. If any modification is made to
other portions of this Neighborhood Declaration which affect tha City of
Santa Fes authority an.d power to collect and to enforce Emergency
consent of the City. If at any time, the City of Santa Fe waives the
requirement for a City Escrow Fund, the Neighborhood Association shaH
not be required to comply with Section 8.5(e)(iv).
(vi) The Village Center Association shall be responsible for a

percentage, as established in the Village Center Declaration, of the cost of
maintenance, repair and operation of the main sewer lift station located on Lot
238 utilized by the Village Center. Such percentage shall be paid by the \lUlage
Center Associatlon in ifistailments as determined by the Neighborhood
Association
8.6 PREPARATION AND A.PPROIJ.t..L OF ANNUAL BUDGET.
8. fnitial BudaeL The Founder shall determine the initia. budget for
the fiscal year beginning ,January 1, 2003.
Page 25
Alcfefrd& Santa Fe Amended, F?estared and Suppfemental Neighborhood Declaration
69
b. Subseouent Years. Each year thereafter, at least thirty (30) days
before the end of the fiscal year, the Board shall, by majority vole, adopt a
budget for the coming year and set the annual General Assessments at a level
sufficient to meet the budget. At least two (2) weeks before the fiscal y~a,:r to
which the budget appHes, the Board shall send to each Member a copy. oUlls.
bUdget in reasonably itemized form, which shall include the amount of General
Assessments payable by each Member.
c. Approval. if General Assessments are to be increased to greater

than fifteen percent (15%) of the previous year's General Assessment, which
was not a year in which General Assessments were guaranteed by the Founder,
and petitions signed by Owners representing at least ten percent (10%) of votes
in the Neighborhood ,A,ssociatlon request review within thirty (30) days after the
budget is delivered to Members, the Board shall call a Community Meeting to
present the bUdget and to answer any questions. After presentation, the budget
shall be deemed approved unless the percentage required to transact business
is present and the budget is rejected by a majority of the Members present. If
the bUdget is rejected, the Board shall approve a new budget within ten (10j
days and send a copy to each Member.
8.7 EFFECT OF FAILUB..f;..JO PREPARE. OR ADOPT BUDGET.
The Board's failure or delay in preparing or adopting the annual budget for any
fiscal year shail not waIve or release a Member's obligation to pay General
Assessments whenever the amount of such Assessments is finally determined. In the
absence of an annual Neighborhood Association budget each Member shall continUe
to pay the Assessrner~l at tht~ rate established for the previous fiscal period until notified
otherwise.
8.8 CAPITAL IME£LQYfM!=NI~.
Any substantial capita! improvement to the Neighborhood Commons approved

by the Board must bE, ratified by Owners representing a majority of votes in the
Neighborhood Association. if the substantial capital improvement is approved by the
Members, the Board shall determine whether it shall be paid from General
Assessments or by Special Assessment. A capital improvement shall be considered
substantial if the cost to the Neighborhood Association of the improvement is more than
six percent (6%) of Hie Neigllborhood Association's annual budget, or if, when added to
other capital improvements for the fiscal year. totals more than ten percent (10%) of the
Neighborhood Association's annual budget. However, any repair or replacement of
existing improvements shall not be considered a capital improvement. Approval of the
Architectural Review Committee is required for all capital improvements. This
paragraph shall not lirnit the right of the Founder to make improvements to the
Commons at Founder's expense
8.9 COMMUNITY GENTER.
The Community Center bditdtng to be located on Lot 90 within the VHlage Center
Page 26
Aidea de Santa Fe Amendod. J?E:s!ated 8n(f Supplemental Neig.l7borhood Declaration
70
22'333al
shall be owned by the Neighborhood Association, subject to a mortgage. The
assessment(s) against each lot upon whicrl a Residential Unit may be constructed may
include a payment of principal and interest to service the mortgage on the Comm:urtify
Center building, which will fiat exceed fifteen dollars ($15.00) per month per Residentlal
Unit that may be constructed Founder waives its right to amend such lattef
assessment portion limitation. The Neighborhood Association shall make t1ie
Community Center building available fer reasonable, appropriate use at fair market
value rent. Such uses include use by the Village Center Association for its l11eetlngs
and by the Founder for the purpose of promoting the sales of Lots within Aldea de
Santa Fe.
8.10 COMPOUND EXPENSES.
a, Capital Improvements. Any Compound may, by Members

representing two-thirds (2/3) of the Assessment interests within that Compound
and approval of the Board, vote to assess themselves for capital improvem~nts
to the Compound's common areas that will primarily benefit that Compound.
b. Ad.-9itional Services. Any Compound may, by vote of Members

representing a majority vote of the assessment interests within that Compound
and approval of the Board, vote to assess themselves for maintenance or
services in addition to those norma.lly provided by the Neighborhood
Association.
c. Necessarv Maintenance. If a Compound with private common

areas fails to rnaintaln those areas, the cost of maintenance may be assessed tb
the Owners a~, proViciE~d by Section 10.9(0).
d l'\s§_?S~Dl§,Dt_Leyy: Any Assessment so approved shall be

assessed to ali Cvm,:n, within that Compound as an Individual lot Assessment.
8.11 ACCOUNTS.
Reserves shall be j<ept separate from other Neighborhood Association funds,

either in a single account for all reserves or separated by purpose. All other sums
collected by the Board with respect to ,A.ssessments and charges of all types may be
commingled in a single fund.
ARTICLE 9: COVENANTS FOR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS

The cost of fu!fdiing the Neighborhood Association's financial obligations is
divided among the Members by rneans of Assessments. To assure the Neighborhood
Association of a reliable source of funds and to protect those Members who contribute
their share, Assessrnerts are mandatory and are secured both by a lien on the Lot and
the Member's personal obligation
Page 27
Afdea de Santa Fe Amended, F(esra{ec and SUf:plemenlal Neighborhood Declaration
71
AGREElVIENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF LIFT STATIONS
IN ALDEA DE SA1~TA FE
lf
This Agreement is entered into this 13 f..- of S.d-un 6« > 2000, by and between the City
of Santa Fe, a municipal corporation, and Aldea, LLC, a New Mexico limited liability company.
RECITALS
A. In December, 1998, the Santa Fe City Council voted unanimously to extend its utility
service area boundary to inciude the Frijoles Village site; and
B. In December, 1999. Frijoles Village Ltd. Co. received unanimous approval of its Final
Plat from the S?J1ta Fe Board of County Commissioners; and
C. In June, 2000, Frijoles Village Ltd. Co. changed its name to "Aldea, LLC," and the name
of Frijoles Village to "Aldea de. Santa Fe;" and
D. The City Wastewater Management Division has approved of the design and engineering
of the wastewater conveyance systems submitted by Aldea, LLC for Aldea de Santa Fe;
and
E. Aldea, LLC shaH record the plat for Phase lA of Aldea de Santa Fe and shall create the
Aldea de Santa Fe Homeowners Association within 30 days after the plat is recorded.
F. All OVmcrs of units within the Aldea de Santa Fe are members of the Homeowners
Association and sn,l1J be subject to thc provisions of this Agreement.
AGREEMENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed between t.he palties:
t. Immediately upon recording of the plat for Phase IA of Aldea de Santa Fe and the creation of
the Aldea de Santa Fe Homeowners Association (hereafter "Association"), Aldea, LLC shall
cause the Association to adopt and to ratify tbis Agreement. Aldea, LLC shall deliver the
resolution ratifying this Agreement with this Agreement signed by the president of the
Association to the Director of the City Wastewater Management Division.
2. Aldea, LLC shall include the covenants attached to the Agreement as Exhibit A in the Aldea
de Santa Fe Neighborhood Declaration of Charter, Easements, Covenants and Restrictions as
Section 8.5.
3. The financial aJTangements regarding maintenance of the lift stations are as follows:
(a) The Association shall be liable for all costs of maintaining and repairing the main
lift station constructed as parr of Phase lA, and the small lift station planned for Phase IB.
72
(b) If the Association fails [or any reason, to reimburse the City as provided in
Exhibit A (Section 8.5 of the Aldea de Santa Fe Neighborhood Declaration of Charter,
Easements, Covenants and Restrictions) then each lot owner shall become individually liable to
the City for that lot's proportionate share of the outstanding obligation. Said proportionate share
shall be determined by dividing the outstanding obligation amount by the nwnber of platted lots.
(c) Should any lot owner fail to pay an Emergency Assessment declared by the City
Manager pursuant to Section 8.5(e)(iv), or should any lot OV/Iler fail to directly reimburse the
City pursuant to Section 8.5(b), the City shall be entitled to terminate water service to that lot.
The City must give at least 90 days written notice prior to such termination.
(d) The City of Sanla Fe shall own both lift stations and all sewer mainlines. The
sewer service lines shall be the responsibility of each individual lot owner which it serves. The
City Wastewater Management Division will perform maintenance and repairs to said lines and to
the lift stations. The City of Santa Fe will pay for maintenance and repair to the said lines from
normal revenue received through monthly billing of its customers. The City will be promptly
reimbursed by the Homeowners Association for repairs and maintenance to the lift stations as
follows:
(i) In January of each year, the Association shall pay $10,000 to the City of Santa Fe
as advance payment [or the anticipated annual cost of a vactor tnlck and operator for each
lift station in operation. As the actual cost of the "actor truck and operator become
known, the \Vastewater Management Division will instruct.the Association, in writing, to
increase or to decrease the next anrlUal January payment so that the City will be
adequately reimbursed for these costs.
(ii) When a lift station pump replacement becomes advisable, in the sole discretion of
the City Wastewater Managcrnenl Di vision, the Association shall promptLy reimburse the
cost to the City \-vithin 30 days of notification of the cost.
(iii) The Associalion shaH pay for connection to a gravity system if the one becomes
available in FrUoles Arroyo and, in the sole discretion of the City Wastewater
Management Division, such a connection becomes advisable.
(iv) No later tban six months a.fier the main lift station is placed into operation. the
Association shall establish and maintain a permanent escrow fund in the amount of
$10,000, from which the Association shall authori;~e expenditure to reimburse the City of
Santa Fe for maintenance <lncl repair to the main lift station. Within six months after the
smalL lift station in Phase IB is placed into operation, the amount in the escrow fund shall
be increased to $20,000.
(v) The escrow fund shall be used for no other purpose. Ifthe Association fails. after
notice from the Cily of Santa Fe, to reimburse the City for said maintenance and repairs,
then the City of Santa Fe shall be entitled to use the escrow fund to reimburse itself as
provided below;
Page 2
73
<1) The escrow fund shall be held at a bank where the City holds it accounts
in Santa Fc, New Mexico. In hnua..J' and July of each year, the Association shall
certify to the Director of the Wastewater Management Division that the escrow
fund has been maintained with the prescribed funding. The certification shall
include copies of bank statements and shall be submitted to the Wastewater
Management Division.
b) The City Manager shall have the authority and power to sign checks to
draw funds from the escrow fund if the Association does not reimburse the City
within 30 days of written notification by certified mail, return receipt requested,
of the amount of reimbursement required. The City Manager shall give written
notice to the Association no less than three working days prior to exercising this
power.
c) The Associ2.tion shall replenish the escrow fund to the prescribed amount.
Should there be insufficient funds in the escrow fund to fully reimburse the City,
or should the Association fail to replace the funds to the prescnoed level, the City
Manager shall have the power to act on behalf of the Board to create an
Emergency Assessment as provided in Exhibit A, §8.5(e)(iv). The City Manager
shall also have 3dditional authority and power to enforce the Emergency
Assessment as provided in Exhibit A, §8.5(e)(iv). The amount of Emergency
Assessment may include the cost to fully reimburse the City and to replenish the
account to the prescribed level. In addition to the authority noted above. City
shall have the authority to place a lien against individual homeowners in the
proportionate amount of the outstanding obligation. Said proportionate share shall
be detennined by dividLng the outstanding obligation amount by the number of
platted iots.
d) The provisions III this Exhibit A, Sections 8.5 and 9.4(b) shall not be
modified WitllOLlt permission of the City Manager. If any modification is made to
other poniol1s or this Deciaration which affect the City Manager's authority and
power to collect and to enforce Emergency Assessments, said modifications shall
not be ctfective without the written consent of the City Manager. If at any time,
the City Council waives the requirement for an escrow ii.md, the Association shaH
not be required to comply with Section 8.5(e)(iii).
4. This Agreement shall remain in fui! force and effect until terminated by the mutual written
consent of the City of Santa Fe and the Association.
5. This Agreement shalt be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State of New' Mexico.
6. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and any changes hereto shall not
be binding unless made in wnting and signed by both parties.
Page 3
74
CITY OF SANTA FE:
L - - ELG ~~ ~AYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED TO AS TO FORM:
CITY OF SANTA FE: ALDEA, LLC:
{ ./J .. (/i /'" . . ; y/ /

-~~
/.
~ :I ~//l/[,'L~_ _
PETER A. DWYER, ClTY A1TORNEY ARTHUR FIELDS,
AUTHORlZED AGENT
ADOPTED AND RATn~IED BY THE

ALDEA DE SANTA FE HOMEO'v\TNTRS ASSOClA TION:
Page 4
75
EXmBIT A
(a) The Association shaH be liable for all costs of maintaining and repairing the main
lift station constl1lcted as pm1 of Phase lA, and the small lift station planned for Phase lB.
(b) If the Association fails for any reason, to reimburse the City as provided in this
Section 8.5, then each lot owner shalJ become individually liable to the City for that lot's
proportionate share of the outstanding obligation. Said proportionate share shall be determined
by dividing the outstanding obligation amount by the number ofplatted lots.
Manager pursuant to Section 8.5(e)(iii), or should any lot owner fail to directly reimburse the
City pursuant to Section 8.5(b), the City shall be entitled to tenninate water service to that lot
The City must give at least 90 days '..vritten notice prior to such termination.
Cd) Electricity, gas, telephone and alaml shall be billed directly to the Homeowners
Association and such bills shall be paid promptly and routinely.
(e) The Cily of Santa r'e shall own both lift stations and all sewer mainlines, The
sewer service lines shaH be the responsibility of each lot owner which it serves. The City
Wastewater Management Division will perform maintenance and repairs to said lines and to the
lift stations. Tbe City of Santa Fe will absorb the cost of maintenance and repair to the said lines
from nonna! revenue received tllrougb monthly billing of its customers. The City will be
promptly reimbursed for repairs Hnd maintenance to [11e Iift stations by the Homeowners
Association as Ldlows:
(i) In January of each year, the Association shall pay $10,000 to the City of Santa Fe
as advance payment for the anticipated arillual cost of a vactor truck and operator for each
lift station in operation. As the actual cost of the vactQr truck and operator become
known, (he Wastewater rVlanagement Division will instruct the Association, in writing, to
increase or to decrease [he next annual January payment so that the City will be
adequateiy reimbursed for these costs.
(ii) When;> lift station pump replacement becomes advisable, in the discretion of the
City Wastewater Management Division, the Association shall promptly reimburse the
cost to the City
(iii) The A.ssociation shall pay for connection to a gravity system if one, becomes
available in Frijoles /\noyo ,uld, in the sole discretion of the City Wastewater
(iv) No later than six months after the main lift station is placed into operation, the
Associatioll shall establish and maiocain a permanent escrow fund in the amount of
$10,000, from which the Association shall authorize expenditure to reimburse the City of
page 1
76
Santa Fe for maintenance and repair to the main lift station. Within six months after the
small lift station in Phase IE is placed into operation, the amount in the escrow fund shall
be increased to $20.000.
(v) The escrow fund shall be used tor no other purpose. If the Association fails* after
notice from the City of Santa Fe, to reimburse the City for said maintenance and repairs,
then the City of Santa Fe shall be entitled to use the escrow fund to reimburse itself as
provided below:
a) The escrow fund shall be held at a bank located in, or with a branch in,
Santa Fe County, New Mexico. In January of each year, the Association shall
fund has been maintained with the prescribed funding. The certification shall
wfanagernent Division,
draw funds from tbe escrow fund if the Association does not reimburse the City
within 30 days of written notification of tne amount of reimbursement required.
The City Manager shall give written notice to the Association no less tban three
\vorking days prior to exercising this power,
c) The Association shall replenish the escrow fund to the prescribed amount.
Should there be insufficient funds in the escrow fund to fully reimburse the City.
or should the Association fail to replace the funds to the prescribed level, the City
tv1anagcr shall bave the power to act on behalf or the Board to create an
Emergency Assessment as provided in Section 9.4(b) of this Declaration. The
City Manager shall also have additional authority and power to enforce the
Emergency As~essment as provided in this Declaration, The amount of
Emergency Assessment moy include the cos! to fuJly reimburse the City and to
replenish the account to the prescribed leveL [n addition to the authority noted
above, the City shall have the authority to place a lien against individual
homeowners in the proportionate amount of the outstanding obligation. Said
proponionate share shall be determined by dividing the outstanding obligation
amount by the number of plaIted lots,
en The provisiofl in this SectIOn 8.5 and 9A(b) shall not be modified without
permission of the City ManageI', If any modification is made to other portions of
this Declaration which affect the City Manager's authority and power to collect
and to enforce Emergency Assessments, said modifications shall not be effective
wirhout the written consent of the City Manager. ff at any time, the City Council
waives the requiremenl [or an escrow fund, the Association shall not be required
to comply with Section g,5(e)(iii).
page 2
77
DATE: June 2,2009
TO: Lucas Cruse, Planning and Land Use Department
FROM: John Romero, Public Works DptlEngineering Div/Traffic EngineeringSect~
SUBJECT: Case #t\l~2009-05, Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment

Case #ZA-2009-02, Northwest Quadrant Rezoning
ISSUE
Request for approval of a General Plan future land use map amendment to revise the
designation of 540:.1: acres to include approximately 122 acres in a mix of Very Low
Density Residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre), Low Density Residential (3-7 dwelling
units per acres), Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre), High Density
Residential (12-29 dwelling lmits per acre), Neighborhood Center, and Transitional Mixed
Usei and approximately 418 acres of Parks and Open Space. Request for rezoning of said
540± acres from R-l (Residential, 1 dwelling unit per acre) to PRC (Planned Residential
Community). The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan adopted as a part ofthis rezoning
includes supplemental Design Standards that vary from the Chapter 14 Land Development
Code. The property is located south ofNM 599 and west of St. Francis Drive.
RECOMMENDEO ACTION:
Three access scenarios were presented to the Public Works Committee (PWC) on March
23,2009 for review and recommendation to the City Council:
• One Access Point: Ridgetop Road
The PWC postponed action on the proposed traffic plan, asking that staff come back to the
committee with additional information. A revised traffic plan is set to go before the PWC
on June 8,2009, An amendment (0 this rnemo will be provided after this meeting to reflect
the PWC's recommendations.
The Housing and Community Development Department (HCDD) is currently proposing to

move forward witbjust the "One Access Point: Ridgetop" scenario. Following is a review
ofthe most recent traffic analysis submitted on May 28, 2009, which only looks at the
"One Access Point: Ridgetop" scenario, and the Master Plan dated February 2009. The
comments below shoulJ he considered as Conditions of Approval to be addressed prior to
subsequent submittals:
~ . _ ,_ _~_ _,",''l1l, Biili_M'''IIIlIII''
$SOQ1.PM5- 1195
78
1. The proposed Master Plan identifies 773 proposed dwelling units where as the'tI./\ .
identifies 758 dwelling units. Revisions to either document shall be made to ensure
consistency.
2. The proposed Master Plan idt'11tifies a projected 40tOOOsquare feet of commercial
(not including li'velwQrk units) where as the TIA identifies 35,000 square feet()f
commercial (not including UveIW'ork units). Revisions to either document shall
be made to ensnre consistency. .
3. The traffic analysis assumes land use restrictions for the proposed live/work units
which will require zoning restrictions. These zoning restrictions will have to be .
structured in order to ensure the live/work units will function as shown in the
traffic analysis. Proposed zoning restrictions will have to be reviewed by the
Planning and Land Use Department.
4. The traffic analysis states Ihat this access scenario is a viable option with
improvements to the NM599/Ridgetop interchange including bridge widening
(reconstruction), signalization, and re-striping. The Santa Fe Estates development
is set to fund a good portion of the signalization improvements. The PWD
recommends a condition of approval for the master plan stating that the North West
Quadrant project will be required to provide fair share monetary contributions
towards the above stared improvements. The amount of contribution shall be based.
on a cost estimate review~d and approved by the City's PWD and the New Mexico .
Department of TransportatIOn (NMDOT).
5. A PM analysis of the proposed access scenario shall be provided.
6. A revised TIA shaH be generated which effectively consolidates all infonnation,
gent-'fating a complete anal ysis pertaini.ng to the approved development plan and
access scenario
7. Any improvements pcrfonned on NM 599 or any ofits intersections will have to
receive ultimate approval from the NMDOT.
If you have any question:; or need any more information, feel free to contact me at 955·", .",
6638. Thank you.
M:\Engincering\Tmffi, Engi:,~,:ni1:; ';"ct;c)niO: -TI A:;i20(J(,',NW QUlldranl'f!A\PC-NWQ 06·02-09.doc
Pllge2·of2
79
MEMORANDUM

Planning Department
From: Brian Snyder, Acting Director B "-"::>
Water Division
Date: May 22,2009
Re: Northwest Quadrant - History: Proposed Water Budget
DRTReview
On June 18,2008 Kathy McCormick presented a request for resolution designating water
rights for the city's Northwest Quadrant Project to the Public Utilities Commission. This
was approved as presented.
On August 12,2008 the proposed water budget was submitted to the Water Division with
a request for review and approval.
On September 8, 2008 a presentation of the proposed water budget was made to the
Public Works Committee on behalf of the water department. Below is a summary of
the estimated demands and requirements included in the budget:
Non-residential (restaurants, commercial, office) 31.60 afy

Landscape (linear parks, streetscape, urban park) 6.70 afy
Residential 167.21 afy
Plus 10% line loss 20.55 afy
Total Site Water Budget: 226.06 afy
Further, staff recommended the NWQ master developer be required to install

stOlTIlWater capture and reuse, greywater capture and reuse and ultra-low flow
plumbing and appliances in the development. The proposed water budget was
approved as presented and all of these recommendations were included in the
NWQ Master Plan submission.
Resolution No. 2008-89 designating water rights for the project were passed by the City
Council on October 6, 2008. This resolution designated up to 118.14 acre feet per year
of the 131.9 feet per year city owned water right in the Buckman well field offset water
right portfolio to the project. Specifically, this water is to be used for public amenities,
housing meeting the Santa Fe Homes Program requirements and Step-Up Housing for
moderate income homebuyers.
Each phase will also require a water budget that is phase specific. It should be noted that
gray water re-use and storm water capture are not used as off-sets in the water budgets.
80
TO: Lucas Cruse, Land Use Planner Senior, Land Use Department
FROM: Antonio Trujillo, Water Division Engineer
SUBJECT: Northwest Quadrant Master Plan
I have reviewed the subject case. The conceptual water plan submitted accounts for the pressure
zone changes and is acceptable in concept. The preliminary water budget submitted is
acceptable. As the project evolves, the plan may need to be refined.
cc: Electronic Master Plan Project File
81
Date: March 9, 2009
Via: Leroy Pacheco, Trails Development Section superviso~

From:
Re: NWQ Trails "Action Plan" - Wilson & CO.
ITEM & ISSUE:
The purpose of this memo is to provide a brief summary of the above referenced Trails
Project. The City Public Works Department contracted Wilson And Co. to perform an in
house trails inventory of past, current and future activities related to trails taking place in
the entire NWQ.
Many stakeholders interviews were conducted (30 individuals), including city and county
staff, community organizations (i.e., SF Conservation Trust Steward Coord.), trail users
and surrounding property owners. This project has resulted in an "Action Plan" for the
entire quadrant (2600 acres)
The "Action Plan" includes the following (5) priorities

1. Trails Master Plan (Future development of a TMP is not yet assigned,
however it will need to coordinate with the City's Master Plan for the NWQ.
2. Signage
3. Connectivity
4. Access Control
5. Trash Clean up
On February 26,2009 the Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee held a "public hearing,
the findings along with the priorities were presented. Minutes of the meeting will be
available in the city clerk's office on March l ih.
If you have any questions or comments please call or write 955-6977.
ss001.PMS - 7/95 82
Voice Mail Message ( 6583 ) ( 1 minute 12 seconds) Page lot,
CRUSE, LUCAS A.
From: CHAVEZ, FABIAN V

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:08 AM
To: CRUSE, LUCAS A.
SUbject: RE: Voice Mail Message (6583 ) ( 1 minute 12 seconds)
Lucas
I have briefly reviewed the NWQ Trails Priority Plan as prepared by Wilson. I also visit the site from time
to time regarding maintenance issues; so here is how I presently see it from a parks/trails and maintenance
perspective.
• Development of short and long range plans are somewhat restricted until the City makes a decison on
what development if any, will occur in the section south of 599. Development will of course affect
connectivity, pressure from contiguous development, trail alignment, traffic access and parking,
security, and long range conservation efforts
• In my opinion, there may be too many trail and connector trails currently existing and planned. a few
ofthe existing trails may have to be realigned as they evolved in without concern for topograpy
resulting in moderate to severe damage from use and erosion.
• A comprehensive signage program should be initiated sooner than later. Education of current public
users may go a long way towards protection and security in this area. At the present time many users
are uncertain as to allowed access and land use in the entire NWQ.
• Identification of and planning for removal of accumulated trash sites should be initiated. this effort is
too extensive for existing city resources within the public works department. This cleanup effort
should be outsourced and charged to parks bond funding.
• An increase in a police presence will be required just as soon as the entire area is fenced, access points
identified and signage in place. An organization of park volunteer rangers who are intersted and
trained in stewardship and monitoring should be considered in an effort to increase security from a
visual sense in this vast area. A system or protocol for reporting to and working with the Police and
law enforcement could go a long way in leveraging citizen volunteers in an effort to protect and
develop a sense of saftey for users.
• Some consideration for additional off road parking, some shade structure for small gatherings,
organizational use and educational opportunities shoudl be considered along with an adequate
bathroom facility. These ammenities could be part of a longe range plan for later funding as current
users do not currently expect these ammentities. Increased pressure from development density,
tourism and educational opportunities may require a higher degree of planning and development for
state and national park type features within an Urban/wildland interface.
• To accomodate for and prevent further degradation to the land I highly recommend planning for
existing legal and illegal off road use for BMX and motorinzed users.
Fabian
-----Original Message-----
From: CRUSE, LUCAS A.
Sent: Mon 6/8/2009 4:56 PM
To: CHAVEZ, FABIAN V
Cc:
Subject: Voice Mail Message (6583) ( 1 minute 12 seconds)
«Avaya Unified Messenger»
This voice message was created by Avaya Modular Messaging. To listen to this voice message, save the attached
06/10/2009 83
@1q©if~~~~~~
DATE: March 17) 2009

e 0
TO: Lucas Cruse, Land Use Senior Planner
Current Planning Division
cc: R.B. Zaxus, P.E., CFM, City Engineer

Technical Review Division. Us
FROM: Charlie Gonzales, CFM, Technical Review Coordinator vJ(Q to!
Technical Review Division
RE: Escarpment Comments for case #M 2009-06

Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance
Staff reviewed a 27-sheet "Master Plan" dated February 9,2009, as 22-page "Master Plan
Application.," dated February, 2009, and a 3-page "Variance Request to the Escarpment
Overlay District" .
General Background
The applicant is requesting a variance to Article 14-5.6 (0) (1) of the Escarpment
Overlay District Ordinance, to allow the alignment ofRidgetop Road to be constructed
within the Ridgetop Subdistrict of the Escarpment Overlay District. The majority ofthe
proposed road is out of the Ridgetop Subdistrict, however, a portion of the road fronting
the PNM station is proposed to be in the Ridgetop.
According to the applicant, 15,000 square feet of the road is proposed to be located
within the Ridgetop Subdistrict, including an intersection of a new road which runs north
and south. The proposed square footage is not based on a grading plan prepared by a
professional engineer. The applicant is requesting the variance to construct a portion of
the in the road in the ridgetop, provide sufficient distance from an existing PNM
switching station and to obtain the right to build the South Ridgetop Road extension
which will eventually connect with Camino De Las Montoyas. The PNM switching
station is not located in the Escarpment Overlay District.
The Escarpment code states that "for all lots subdivided or resubdivided after February
26, 1992, development in the Ridgetop Subdistrict of the Escarpment Overlay District,
other than driveway access and utilities, is prohibited". Although it is unclear what
Case #M2009-06, Escarpment Review for Escarpment Variance Page 10f3
EXHIBIT "B 84
review process will be required, it is most likely that the current property will be re-
pLatted to respond to the Master Developer and/or City project requirements. Staff
comments are based on the assumption that all ofthe property within the Northwest
Quadrant will be subdivided or resubdivided and therefore, the regulations for post
February 26, 1992 projects will apply.
It is important to note that currently, a remap ofthe Escarpment Overlay District is

underway. It is anticipated that a draft of the remap will be presented to the community
late this summer. Then the remap will move through the Planning Commission, City
Council Committees and City Council by the end of the calendar year. The remap project
will likely have a significant impact on the escarpment overlay district mapping in the
area of the Northwest Quadrant. The applicant was made aware that the map changes
would apply when the development plan and building permits are submitted.
Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends that the project proceed forward with the following conditions of approval:
1. In order to substantiate the slope information in the Request for Variance to

the Escarpment Overlay District packet, a slope analysis map, certified by a
New Mexico licensed surveyor must be submitted.
2. The location of the Escarpment Overlay District must be shown on the survey
plats sheets (S 1-0 1, S 1-02, S 1-03 and S 1-04). Distinguish between the
Foothills Subdistrict and the Ridgetop Subdistrict. The surveyor can do a
revision to the existing boundary survey plat which would include a revision
statement, the mapping and a note that identifies reference to the official
Escarpment Overlay District digital map.
3. Label existing and proposed road names on all affected maps.
4. Show compliance with the Ecological Resource Overlay Protection District

regulation as per SFCC 14-5.9. Generally, development within the District is
limited to trails, passive recreation, restoration, safety-related arroyo crossings
and. park maintenance facilities. Compliance with this code section should be
shown on a separate sheet in order to clarify the detail ofthe criteria being
met. However, because it is an overlay zoning District, it also must be shown
on the plat. As above, the surveyor can do a revision to the existing boundary
survey plat which would include a revision statement, the mapping and a note
that identifies the detail on a separate sheet of the submittal.
Staff recommends that the following boundaries be included in the District for
the Northwest Quadrant Project, as per 14-5.9(B);
a. The areas shown on the General Plan Future Land Use Map designated as
"Open Space;"
Case #M2009-06, Escarpment Review for Escarpment Variance Page 20f3
85
b. Areas within one percent chance event floodplain~
c. Other important natural drainage areas and wildlife habitat~
d. Critical "Required" setbacks in the adopted Highway Corridor Plan based
on noise study determining the 65 Leq elBA noise contour projected for
the year 2020
5. Ifthe final design and the associated grading encroaches into the Ridgetop
Subdistrict more than the requested 15,000 square feet, the applicant will
return to tile Planning Commission for another variance.
Staff is not clear that this proposed variance request is the minimum
encroachment necessary because final construction plans and the associated
grading plans were not submitted. Alternative road alignments were not
submitted to City staff for analysis. Staffwould need to analyze the alternative
road alignments that were based on a certified slope analysis or avoidance of
mapped areas for historical/archeological resources before determining if the
proposed road alignment was the best option.
6. Additional variances to the escarpment regulations may be necessary for the

linear park. Approval criteria response #1 indicates a proposed 6,000 feet long
linear park along the ridgeline with pedestrian and bicycle trails connecting to
other trails. Staff has not received any detailed information on this trail
alignment in order to determine if additional variances may be required.
7. At the time of Development Plan approval, all provisions of Article 14-5.6

(Escarpment Overlay District) must be adhered to, including but not limited to:
a. Development and Permit Approval~ Required Submittals [14-5.6(C)].

b. Location ofStructures~ Buildable Site [14-5.6(0)].
c. Subdivision or Resubdivision ofLand; Multi-Family Dwellings [14- 5.6(E).
d. Landscaping; [14-5.6(G)].
e. Terrain Management; [14-5.6(H)].
f. Utilities: [14-5.6(1)].
g. Driveways/Access Alignments; [14-5.6(1)].
Case #M2009-06, Escarpment Review for Escarpment Variance Page30f3
86
(OJfi~@1f~~~~~
DATE: June 9,2009

e 0
TO: Lucas Cruse, EIT, AICP, Case Manager
FROM: Risana "RB" Zaxus, M.S., PE, CFM ~=~-=-------

City Engineer for Land Use Department
RE: Cases # M 2009-05, # ZA 2009-02, # M 2009-06 & # M 2009-08

Northwest Quadrant GPA, Rezoning, Escarpment Variance,
and Terrain Management Variance
I reviewed additional information dated June 8, 2009 and submitted for this project
regarding the Terrain Management variance. The material consisted of three pages
describing the variance and outlining the approval criteria, and three pages of plan
views showing the two areas on the site where slopes of more than 30% are proposed
to be disturbed.
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct roads, driveways, utilities, and

buildings in slopes of more than 30%.
There is insufficient information to completely analyze the request. Regarding the

submitted information:
*The slope maps are not certified by a professional engineer or surveyor as required by
Code.
*Proposed roads are shown.
*Proposed building locations are not shown.
*Nothing is shown regarding proposed buildings, if any, on areas with slopes between
20% and 30%.
*Proposed grading for roads and structures is not shown.
*Floodplains and tributaries are not shown.
Code Requirements
A. Article 14-8.2(D)(1)(b)(iii) allows disturbance of natural slopes greater than 30% in

isolated occurrences such as arroyo crossings and other sloped areas where the
disturbance shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total. This applies solely to the
construction of roads, driveways, and utility placement and is not intended to permit
other development, such as buildings, on natural slopes exceeding 30%.
SSOOl.PM5 - 7/95
87
Case # M 2009-05, # ZA 2009-02, # M 2009-06, # M 2009-08 Engineering Review
Page 2 6/9/2009
B. Article 14-8.2(F)(2)(b)(ii) requires that no more than 50% of the building footprint
area shall have a natural slope of 20% or greater.
C. Article 14-8.2(F)(2)(b)(iv) states that no structure may be built on a natural slope of

over 30%.
Comments
1. It is difficult to fully evaluate the terrain management variance request without a

certified slope analysis and particularly without a grading plan and information regarding
the location of future building placement. Without this information, the requested
variances are conceptual in nature rather than specific.
2. Code requirements A and C (above) are specific in completely disallowing

construction of buildings in areas of slope exceeding 30%.
3. The area of over 30% slope disturbance (28,000 SF) far exceeds the allowed 1000
SF.
4. It appears that only slopes over 30% have been identified for the variance.
Additional variances may be required for building sites in accordance with Code
requirement B above, since building sites on slopes between 20% and 30% have not
been identified.
A complete analysis and recommendation will be provided at the time of Development

Plan or Subdivision Plat submittal.
88
DATE: June 9, 2009
FROM: Wendy Blackwell

Technical Review Division Director
RE: Cases M 2009-05, ZA 2009-02, M 2009-06 and M 2009-08

Northwest Quadrant GPA, Rezoning, Escarpment Variance and Terrain
Management Variance
This Memo is in response to the applicants' request to utilize the existing Escarpment
Overlay District Ordinance and Map for the life of the project, from inception to
completion. Additional submittal information from the applicant, dated June 8, 2009,
explains the request.
Background on the Mapping and Ordinance Revisions

The Escarpment Overlay District is an overlay zoning map. Modifications to a zoning
must be approved by the City Council.
Resolution 2006-114 directed staff to digitally remap the foothills and ridgetop
subdistricts to more accurately define the Escarpment Overlay District. The resolution is
attached to this Memo for reference.
With input from the Escarpment Working Group and direction from the Land Use
Subcommittee of the Public Works and Land Use Committee, staff is working to create a
draft map to bring to the community for input. Staff will bring the draft maps and
changes to the Intent/Purpose of the ordinance to the community for input in late
summer. Then, after integrating the input with direction from the Land Use
Subcommittee, the final draft would he brought through the formal public hearing
process in the fall. It is anticipated that approval on the new version of the Escarpment
Overlay District map and associated ordinance changes may be given by the end of the
calendar year.
89
In the meanwhile, the Land Use Department staff have been conducting development
review and building permit review based on the current ordinance and the current
mappmg.
The only substantive ordinance revisions being considered at this time involve the
Intent/Purpose of the ordinance. The Working Group has recommended that changes to
the Intent/Purpose clarify that the focus of the ordinance is visual impact and keeping the
ridgelines free of disturbance. The Working Group Recommendations are attached to this
Memo for reference.
Development and Permit Approval

SFCC 14-5.6(C) explains what is required for approval of any subdivision, resubdivision,
planned unit development, cluster development, multiple family dwellings, or any other
type of development within the Escarpment OverlayDistrict. Under normal
circumstances, in order for staff to review a project for compliance, items 'a' through Of'
below would be submitted. SFCC 14-5.6(C)(4) states
No grading permit or building permit shall be issued unless the grading permit or
building permit application is accompanied by a plan, which may incorporate by
reference approvedplans previously submitted to the City in connection with any
subdivision, resubdivision, planned unit development, cluster, or other development
approval, and which sets forth or incorporates by reference the following
information:
(a) The location on the lot ofthe Escarpment Overlay District, the ridgetop
subdistrict, the foothills subdistrict and the viewline;
(b) The location ofall buildable sites located within the Escarpment Overlay
District in compliance with paragraphs (D) and (E) below;
(c) A site plan, floor plan and exterior building elevations for development on the
lot to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (F) below;
(d) A landscaping plan for development on the lot to demonstrate compliance with
paragraph (G) below;
(e) Natural topography, storm drainage, grading, and erosion control plans for
development on the lot to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (H) below;
and
(f) The location on and adjacent to the lot ofall streets, drives, easements, utility
lines, and such other information as is necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable paragraphs setforth in §14-5.6.
Effective Date of Escarpment Changes

In September 2006, when the City Council adopted changes to the ordinance, specific
language was adopted to address projects that were already under consideration. SFCC
14-5.6(L) states
Amendments to the Escarpment Overlay District as setforth in Ordinance No. 2006-

55 adopted September 13, 2006 shall become effective immediately and apply to
building permits applications submitted after such date. However, if the design ofthe
90
structure has been preapproved by the Land Use Departmentfor compliance with the
Escarpment Overlay District requirements and an application for the design ofthe
structure has been submittedfor approval to a City board or commission prior to
adoption ofsaid Ordinance, a building permit may be approved in compliance with
the Escarpment Overlay District requirements in effect prior to said Ordinance.
As the staff continues to get input from the Escarpment Working Group and the
community along with the direction of the Land Use Subcommittee, it is expected that
"effective date" language would also need to be adopted to apply to projects already
approved. Because some lots with an approved Development Plan under the current rules,
may not be able to meet the map or ordinance changes, circumstances may dictate a
flexible transition code or policy.
Clarification on Escarpment Ordinance

Page 30 of the application states "The current ordinance does so by imposing limitations
on construction on slopes greater than twenty (20%) percent."
The Escarpment Overlay District ordinance does not address slope disturbance. The slope
disturbance regulations are found in the Terrain Management section of Chapter 14.
SFCC 14-8.0 addresses the terrain management rules that would apply to steep slopes in
any location throughout the City.
Attachments
• Exhibit A; Resolution 2006-114, Remap the District
• Exhibit B; Working Group Recommendations
91
.
_•... _.-.-._ .•.•. __ .. :...•.:_-...,:,..-'-----,.....--.,,:----._ ...
~
2 RESOLUTION NO. 2006 - 114
9
10 A RESOLUTION
11 REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2006-92 AND ADOPTING A NEW RESOLUTION
12 DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE THE REMAPPING OF THE ESCARPMENT
13 OVERLAY DISTRICT.
14
15 WHEREAS, on August 9,2006, the governing body adopted Resolution No. 2006-92
16 directing staff to initiate the remapping of the escarpment overlay district; however, this action
17 was premature as related amendments to the Escarpment Overlay District Ordinance had not yet
18 been adopted and thus Resolution No. 2006-92 should be repealed; and
19 WHEREAS, on September 13, 2006, the governing body adopted Ordinance No.
20 2006- 55 amending the Escarpment Overlay District Ordinance; and
21 WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2006-55 refers to administrative procedures approved by the
22 governing body; and
23 WHEREAS, the Escarpment Overlay Ordinance and its procedures references the
24 Escarpment Overlay Map in order to ascertain certain related boundaries; and
25 WHEREAS, An Escarpment Overlay Map defines the locations of certain regulatory
92
1 components including the Ridgetop and Foothills Sub-districts; and
2 WHEREAS, the current Escarpment Overlay Map was last updated in March 1992 prior
3 to GIS mapping tools and is in need of updating in order to reflect greater digital precision.
4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF TIlE
5 CITY OF SANTA FE tbat:
6 Section 1. Resolution No. 2006-92 is repealed.
7 Section 2. There is a need and desire to more accurately define the Escarpment
8 Overlay District by remapping its boundaries. The city manager is hereby directed to allocate
9 funds not to exceed $45,000 for the purpose ofdigitally remapping the escarpment overlay
10 boundaries and their sub-districts and other regulatory components referenced by Ordinance
11 2006-55. This shall also include educational material for public distribution regarding the
12 escarpment regulations. Once the funds have been allocated, the Infonnation, Technologies and
13 Telecommunications (IT!) Division is hereby directed to conduct the mapping study according to
14 procurement requirements in order to develop an updated Escarpment Overlay Map within seven
15 months ofthe date ofthe passage ofthis resolution provided funds are available.
16 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13 th day of September, 2006.
17
18
19
21
"!. "'.'
22 AITESr;'·\ ( ,; ,'" -'. /'

j. l': ;'
23
24 ! .
25
93
... "' -'--"'- .,~ .. -. '.. ~ ".: :_ '.
2
3
7
8
.. .
~
9 ~~.
10
~:I 1
12
J3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 jp/shared drivcJ2006 reslescarp map redo res
94
Escarpment Overlay District Re-mapping Project
Recommendation to Council
12/5/08 draft
The Escarpment Overlay District Re-mapping Working Group was comprised of seventeen
members that had involvement in the Escarpment Ordinance in it's early stages (1980's and
1990's) and current staff. The list of members is attached. This Working Group was tasked with
providing recommendations to improve the mapping of the Escarpment Overlay District. The
results of five meetings include several recommended actions. These recommendations are to re-
write the entire ordinance, create an interim Working Map, and modify the visual analysis
administrative procedures. One recommendation for immediate Council action is to adopt new
wording for the Intent portion of the ordinance.
Ordinance Revisions
As part of the full re-mapping effort, the entire ordinance should be re-written in a more concise
and clear manner. The Working Group recommends, that at a minimum, the Intent section of the
ordinance be modified to provide more clear guidance for the community, the Planning
Commission and the staff. The primary intent of the ordinance, as agreed upon by the Working
Group, is to prohibit any development that may interrupt the ridgeline and the views beyond on
ridgetop areas (this includes, but is not limited to the addition of structures or trees). A second
intent is to prohibit development in the ridgetop subdistrict, other than driveway access and
utility alignments, for lots created after February 26, 1992. The third intent is to restrict
development in the foothills subdistrict of the Escarpment Overlay District. Attached is
recommended replacement text for the Intent section of the ordinance.
There are several underlying assumptions about the Escarpment Overlay District that may be
reconsidered in a full ordinance re-write. For example, a more efficient way to accomplish the
desired visual result may come from having only one overlay zone and not two separate sub-
districts. This concept alone will generate much input from the community. This extremely
complex ordinance would need to be re-written using a meaningful and extensive public
involvement process. The re-write would most efficiently be accomplished by hiring a
consultant, as staff would not be able to accomplish the task in a timely manner.
Working Map
The Working Group recommends creating a "Working Map" for the Escarpment Overlay
District based on digital terrain mapping and 3D modeling. The map would be based on the
result of visual analysis software that would be written specifically to respond to the City's
unique physiographic pattern. The program will be written to incorporate topography, slope and
aspect, in addition to the visibility from the specific roadways listed above.
The overlay zone for the Working Map would be based on what areas are visible from gateways
to the City and from the City's arterials. Examples of gateways could be 285 north of the City,
599, Bishop's Lodge Road and 125. The arterials would be based on the most recent version of
the NMDOT functional road classification study.
Working Group Recommendations Page 1 of3 12/5/08
95
The more detailed definition of the gateways would be determined at the time that the full
ordinance is re-written. Additional examples of a potential view gates that could also be
considered at the time that the full ordinance is re-written would be the Plaza, views from parks
and views from trails.
A contractor would be hired to produce the Working Map and to create software to analyze
individual proposed projects. Staffwould be trained on how to use the software to analyze the
visual impacts of proposed development. The Working Group strongly recommended having
better computer analysis tolls available for staff immediately in order to begin to provide more
reliable analysis. Funding for the majority of the Working Map and analysis software was made
available in Resolution 2006-114. Additional funding may be required, depending on the specific
Scope of Work for developing the visual analysis software.
Visual Assessment Administrative Procedures

Once the Working Map is created and visual analysis software is developed, staff would revise
"Attachment A" to Resolution 2006-114, the Visual Assessment Administrative Procedures. This
would assure that the new software is incorporated into the visual analysis process.
Recommended Council Actions

• Authorize funding to be made available to re-write the Escarpment Ordinance, as
described above.
• Approve the revised Intent section of the Escarpment Overlay District ordinance.
• Provide informal approval to move forward with the Working Map and Visual Analysis
Software.
96
Jeanne Price will have toformat this text in the proper way so that Council can vote on it.
14-5.6(A) Escarpment Overlay District Intent

(1) The Escarpment Overlay District is established in order to preserve tbe ridgetop and
footbills areas as visual assets of the natural environment for the benefit of the community.
(a) Prohibit any development that may interrupt the ridgeline and the views
beyond on ridgetop areas to the extent possible as allowed by law. This
includes, but is not limited to the addition of structures or non-native
vegetation.
(b) Prohibit development in the ridgetop subdistrict of the Escarpment Overlay
District, other than driveway access and utility alignments, for lots created
after February 26, 1992, as provided hereinafter;
(c) Restrict development in the foothills subdistrict of the Escarpment Overlay
District.
(2) In order to further the purposes underlying the creation of the Escarpment Overlay
District, this section regulates:
(a) the permissible color, architectural style, size, and height of structures;
(b) the permissible artificial exterior lighting for structures, streets and drives;
(c) the permissible locations for placement of all utilities and driveway access;
(d) requirements for landscaping, grading, and revegetation; and
(e) other matters as are appropriate to preserve the visual assets of the natural
environment of the Escarpment Overlay District.
(3) The intent of the Escarpment Overlay District is based on the following concepts:
(a) Development is highly visible on or about the ridgetop areas for great
distances and detracts from the overall beauty of the natural environment and
adversely impacts the aesthetics of the mountain ridgetops and foothill vistas
as seen from the City;
(b) Land within the Escarpment Overlay District is environmentally sensitive due
to the presence of steep slopes, erosion problems, drainage problems and other
environmental attributes;
(c) Preservation of the City's aesthetic beauty and natural environment is essential
to protect the general welfare of the people of the City and to protect the
cultural and historic setting of the City;
Working Group Recommendations Page 3 of3 1215108

97
THE TANO ROAD ASSOCIATION
Post Office Box 31967 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87594-1967
16 March, 2009
To: The Planning Commission, City of Santa Fe
From: Ellen Collins, Tano Road Association
Since we submitted TRA's NWQ Position Statement in mid-December of 2008, we have

been informed that a second Traffic Impact Analysis for the NWQ, dated February, 2009,
has been prepared for the City by Louis Berger Inc.
This TIA will not be available to the public until 18 March, 2009. We will be comparing
this new study to the May, 2008, Berger TIA, and plan to comment on our findings during
TRA's public speaking time at the 2 April Planning Commission meeting.
Thank you for your attention to the information we have submitted.
EXHIBITL
98
POST OFFICE BOX 31967 SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87594-1967
December 15,2008
Matthew O'Reilly, Chairman

City of Santa Fe Planning Commission
200 Lincoln Avenue
P.O Box 909
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
Dear Chairman O'Reilly:
The Tano Road Association (TRA) comprises a large geographic area, bounded on the east by US 84/285,
on the west by Fin del Sendero, on the north by the Santa Fe Opera and on the south by NM 599. This
geographic area is known as the Tano Road Residential Neighborhood (TRRN), and represents over 400
households. (Attachment A) The means of access and egress to the TRRN is particularly limited. The
entire geographic area is served by only four access points, two ofwhich are very circuitous. As a result,
TRRN residents must rely upon Ridgetop Road and Camino de los Montoyas to access the services and
resources of Santa Fe.
Continuing residential and commercial growth within Santa Fe Estates and along Ridgetop Road is
seriously testing the safety and effectiveness of the existing traffic infrastructure. After years of tireless
effort by the TRA, Camino de los Montoyas is only recently improved and paved from Tano Road to NM
599, but still presents an inbound and outbound traffic safety hazard at the NM 599 at-grade crossing.
TRA has also been working diligently with emergency response agencies and the Santa Fe County Fire
Department to develop safe and effective fire evacuation plans for the TRRN corridor. Identifying a
measured and balanced means of egress for each of the residential sections of our neighborhood is a
challenging process.
The recent master planning and development review process for the Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) has
revealed residential and commercial proposals which will result in significantly increased traffic loads on
the existing infrastructure. These expanding traffic conditions were not contemplated when the original
infrastructures were designed, or later approved by the City of Santa Fe Planning Commission.
(Attachment B)
For example, there are various traffic flow proposals currently being considered which would reduce the
impact ofNWQ residential and commercial traffic on the adjacent 53-year old Casa Solana residential
neighborhood. These proposals would serve Casa Solana by restricting the north/south flow of traffic on
Camino de los Montoyas, south ofNM 599. (Attachment D) Such restrictions would in turn shift the
greater burden ofNWQ traffic onto the Santa Fe Estates neighborhood, Ridgetop Road and the
RidgetoplNM 599 interchange.
The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has considered the compounding impact of existing and
approved residential and commercial developments on the Ridgetop RoadINM 599 interchange and the
1
99
Camino de los Montoyas/NM 599 intersection. The New Mexico Department of Transportation (NM
DOl), under Secretary Rhonda Faught, recognized the MPO's concerns and undertook a regional traffic
study between the Tesuque interchange and the intersection ofNM 599 at 1-25. The MPO approved a
resolution which included specific language stating that the conclusions of the MPO traffic study must be
incorporated into traffic management mitigation for the NWQ.
Given the foregoing considerations of the master plan for the NWQ, it is the position of the Tano Road
Association, as representative of the Tano Road Residential Neighborhood, that:
1. The existing traffic infrastructure of Ridgetop Road and Camino de los Montoyas is inadequate to
safely accommodate the residential and commercial traffic impact from the proposed development of the
NWQ.
2. The Planning Commission defer action on the General Plan amendment for the NWQ in accordance
with Section 5 of the April 18, 2006, resolution of the Santa Fe MPO Transportation Policy Board and
The Regional Planning Authority of the City of Santa Fe/County of Santa Fe, and that the MPO complete
a thorough regional traffic analysis and a "master plan" approach to the long-range management of traffic
in this corridor prior to any amendment to the General Plan for the NWQ. (Attachment C)
3. We support full connectivity in the current and future traffic infrastructure within and around the NWQ.
4. We support traffic mitigation solutions which will safely and effectively increase the flow of traffic
within, to and from the NWQ, including additional access points for the NWQ at NM599.
5. We support the conclusions of the September 23,2003, Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by
Leedshill-HerkenhoffConsulting Group [now known as ASCG Inc. of New Mexico], a copy of which
was presented to the NWQ project manager during the Early Neighborhood Notification meeting of
October 5, 2004.
6. We challenge the assumptions of the 2008 Louis Berger TIA relating to Level of Service (LOS) criteria
as inaccurate and incomplete. (Attachment B-Technical Analysis)
7. We challenge the conclusions of the 2008 Louis Berger TIA which fail to address and update the
findings and conclusions ofprevious area traffic studies. (Attachment B-Technical Analysis)
Since the completion and recommendations of the MPO traffic analysis will have a material impact on the
size, scope, scale and use of development in the entire Northwest Quadrant area, and may affect any
amendment to the General Plan, we urge the Planning Commission to defer action on the General Plan
amendment for the Northwest Quadrant until the Metropolitan Planning Organization completes a long-
range, regional traffic analysis.
R~W~(
Sylvia Dulaney, President
505-982-4792
Sylvia@jimdulaney.com
2
100
101
-<
~
~
-....
r;
~l
u
~
~ ...~
/ ,

Attachment B
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Traffic safety and management is a regional situation which affects the public safety of residents,
commuters and travelers in our area; a regional matter which demands a broad-based, long range traffic
management plan.
None of the studies has effectively reconciled the original intention ofNM 599, as a by-pass highway
for the movement of nuclear waste, with the safe integration of local traffic and the need for
neighborhood connectivity.
The 2008 Berger TIA study deals only with the immediate issues related to the development of the NWQ
and within the proposed NWQ master plan. The Berger TIA evaluated only the initial phase of the NWQ
development, not the projected build-out of the entire surrounding residential and commercial areas.
It is apparent that the many traffic impact studies prepared for the northwest sector have been piecemeal,
narrow in focus and in many cases, have offered conclusions which have been based on flawed
assumptions.
~ The Berger TIA has not analytically tested the earlier TLGG assumptions with statistical data
now available. This omission by the Berger TIA only underscores the myopic scope of the
Berger TIA and fails to recognize the cumulative impact of nearby, neighboring developments.
~ Our analysis concludes that due to the unimproved condition of Fin del Sendero, the dangerous at-
grade crossing at Camino de los MontoyaslNM 599, the lack of direct access for Tano Road on to US
84/285 and traffic coming from the east across the Tano RoadJUS 84/285 overpass bridge, the logical
access point for residents in the northwest sector will be biased towards Ridgetop Road. l
~ The 2003 ASCG analysis forecasted the traffic level at 24,840 cars per day, both directions, at
the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange2 compared to the Berger TIA which forecasts 11,000 cars per
day, both directions. Berger measures the traffic count between Camino de los Montoyas and
Ridgetop Road interchanges while the earlier forecast by ASCG is actually measured at the
Ridgetop Road and NM599 interchange. 3 Such a wide discrepancy in the daily traffic counts
would suggest an error in calculation or dissimilar data reference points since, in general, traffic
counts along NM599 have significantly increased since 2003. A reevaluation based upon
comparable data points reflecting current conditions is essential.
1 Page6, Section m.B, 2,a (ii); Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artic Slope Consulting Group,
September 24, 2003.
2 Page 4; Trip Generation Data, C.R. Walbridge Associates, Consultant to Santa Fe Estates, Submitted to the Planning
Commission, August 29, 1996.
3 'Page 2; Traffic Impact Analysis of the Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May, 2008, The Louis Berger Group,
Santa Fe, New Mexico.
1
102
Tano Road Association-Executive Summary
» The 2003 ASCG TIA calculates the merge distance at 1000 feet while the Berger TIA
calculates a merge distance of 1500 feet at the southbound merge ofNM 84/285 and NM 599. It
is essential that the merge distance discrepancy between the Berger TIA and the ASCG TIA
calculation be resolved in order to arrive at an effective mitigation. (Attachment E)
» Considering the combined collateral impact of the additional neighborhoods and development, we
conclude a LOS F for the Ridgetop Road queuing lanes and on-ramps. The lane-queuing capacity for
both the eastbound and westbound on-ramps was determined inadequate in the 2003 ASCG TIA
which, at that time, did not include the collateral impact of the 95,000 square feet of additional
commercial space in Santa Fe Estates, the build out of Santa Fe Estates III, Zocolo III and the NWQ.
» No mitigation provision has been incorporated for the 95,000 square feet of additional
commercial area adjacent to the Thornburg Office Complex and Ridgetop Road.
» The
4
traffic capacity of 1670 vph for Ridgetop Road exceeds the two-lane rated capacity of 1600
vph and the 1996 analysis of Ridgetop Road used flawed assumptions based upon the
two-lane highway module for open highway conditions, disregarding the fact that Ridgetop Road is a
local or collector road. 5 A recalculation of Ridgetop Road capacity as a collector road is required.
» The TLGG assumes a residential density of one dwelling per five acres6 while many of these 5-
acre parcels have now been split into 2.5 acre sites. The new residential subdivisions in the area
represent a higher density with one dwelling per 2.5 acres, as well as clustered housing. The area
evaluated as Tano Road is a small portion of the actual Tano Road Residential Neighborhood.
(Attachment A) The Berger TIA has not analytically tested the earlier TLGG assumptions with
statistical data now available The growth rates assumptions by both the Berger TIA and the TLGG
TIA are inaccurate and need to be recalculated using the defined TRRN area and current statistical
data.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Notwithstanding the impact of the resolution of discrepancies in data calculations, assumptions and
omissions, the TRA concludes that the following mitigations to the traffic and road infrastructure in this
area are necessary prior to the development ofthe NWQ and must be incorporated in to the NWQ master
plan:
o Increase the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange overpass bridge to 4 lanes.

8 Add flow-timed signalization at the entrance/exit ramps intersections with Ridgetop Road.
• Widen the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange access ramps to 2 lanes.
4 Page 7, Section IILB, 2, c (i); Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artie Slope Consulting Group,
September 24,2003.
s%id; page 4, Section lILA, 2, c, (i).
6 Ibid; page V-18.
2
103
e Widen Ridgetop Road to 4 lanes.

• Reduce the weave merge-factor hazard at US 84/285 south and NM 599 south [to FHWA
standard], and implement a frontage road option beyond the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange for
access to Camino de los Montoyas.
o Construct a grade-separated, 4-lane overpass bridge with 2-lane access ramps at the Camino de
los MontoyaslNM 599 intersection.
RESOLUTION
3
104
Attachment B
Technical Analysis of Traffic Management Conditions for the Northwest Quadrant

December, 2008
STATEMENT OF CONDITIONS
The growth occurring in the northwest sector of Santa Fe city and county is real and significant. The
difficulty at the planning level is that growth has been incremental, sometimes involving smaller
development plans which individually may not significantly impact existing capacities. However, the
cwnulative effect of these various new developments, when added to the existing residential development,
is very significant.
Completed, continuing and projected developments in the Northwest sector include:
Santa Fe Estates Commercial Area 211,000 square feet
Projected Northwest Quadrant Commercial Area 228,000 square feet

(Including at least 70,000 square feet of proposed
work/live commercial space.)
Total Commercial Area in Proximity 439,000 square feet
Santa Fe Estates Phase II 743 residential units
Santa Fe Estates (build-out Phase III) 725 residential units (est.)
Zocalo Phase I and II 164 residential units
Zocalo Phase III (nearing completion) 85 residential units (est.)
Monte Sereno Subdivision 268 residences
Projected Northwest Quadrant Phases I, II and III 2,816 residential units

(including the 770 residential units in Phase I)
Total Residences within the TRRN area: 400 residences

(Includes the following subdivisions)
--San Acacia Subdivision 12 residences
--Sundance Estates Subdivision 60 residences
--Sundance Ridge Subdivision 16-20 residences
--Heartstone Subdivision 24 residences
--Canterbury Farms Subdivision 21 residences
I
105
Tano Road Association Technical Analysis-2008
CONDITIONS OF CURRENT ACCESS
How do residents within the northwest sector who commute to and from the area have access to the major
arteries and thoroughfares of Santa Fe?
:> Tano Road is now cut off from direct access to US 84/285.
:> Access to US 84/285 via Camino Monte Sereno is a restricted residential means of entering NM 599
for residents of Monte Sereno.
:> Although Camino de los Montoyas has been improved to a paved two-lane road, the at-grade crossing
at NM 599 is dangerous. There are no southbound or northbound entry lanes to enter while approaching
y
traffic is traveling at 55 MPH. At present, there is no provision or fundin to provide for a bridge
overpass and ramps at the Camino de los MontoyaslNM 599 intersection. 2 The Berger TIA recognizes
that it is not clear when or if this intersection will be converted to a grade separated interchange. 3
On August 29, 1996, Cliff Walbridge, a consultant for Santa Fe Estates, stated his assumption
to the Planning Commission that 50% of the off-site traffic distribution would use Camino de
los Montoyas to connect to NM 599 as a result of an at-grade crossing. The 2003 Tierra
LopezGarcia Group TIA (TLGG) accepted this assumption without validation or verification. 4
:> The western Fin del Sendero connection is lengthy, circuitous, and the road is unimproved with no
shoulders, significant washboard effect and erosion. Fin el Sendero carries little or no traffic to connect to
NM 599, and is not a credible off-site means of distribution. The 2003 TLGG traffic study makes no
estimate for the off-site distribution of this road and offers no substantiation for their position. 5 Similarly,
the Berger TIA gave no consideration for the Fin del Sendero condition.
:> There has been no westbound traffic impact analysis for vehicles traveling over the Tano Road! US
84/285 overpass bridge to connect to NM 599, using either Ridgetop Road or Camino de los Montoyas.
Since this access represents the shortest, most direct route to NM 599 for local area traffic and residents
on the'eastside of US 84/285, this omission by TLGG is significant. Again, the Berger TIA did not
consider any impact resulting from the Tano Road/US84/285 overpass bridge.
I Introduction, page 1-2; Traffic Impact Analysis for Santa Fe Estates Preliminary Plat and Development Plan, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, May 2003, Tierra LopezGarcia Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
2 Page 40; Traffic Impact Analysis of the Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May, 2008, The Louis Berger Group,
Santa Fe, New Mexico
3 Ibid.
.( Page 4; Trip Generation Data, C.R Walbridge Associates, Consultant to Santa Fe Estates, Submitted to the Planning
~ Page 6, Section III.B, 2,a (ii); Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artie Slope Consulting Group,
September 24,2003.
2
106
" \
ACCESS CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis concludes that due to the unimproved condition of Fin del Sendero, the dangerous at-grade
crossing at Camino de los MontoyaslNM 599, the lack of direct access for Tano Road on to US 84/285
and traffic coming from the east across the Tano RoadlUS 84/285 overpass bridge, the logical access
point for residents in the northwest sector will be biased towards Ridgetop Road. 6
STATEMENT OF MITIGATION
Consistent among the numerous traffic studies prepared over the years for the RidgetoplNM 599 and
Camino de los MontoyaslNM 599 corridor is the conclusion that mitigation to the surrounding traffic
infrastructure will be required. The specific areas for mitigation are also generally agreed upon.
Differences arise as to what the necessary mitigation measures are, and when they should be
implemented. These are important differences, and the welfare of present and future residents living in
the northwest sector is at risk until these issues are addressed and resolved.
Our collective concerns as current residents and commuters in the NM 599 corridor have led us to
conclude that the following mitigations to the traffic and road infrastructure in this area are necessary
prior to the development of the NWQ and must be incorporated in to the NWQ master plan:

e Widen Ridgetop Road to 4 lanes.
standard], and implement a frontage road option beyond the Ridgetop/NM 599 interchange for
oConstruct a 4-lane overpass bridge with 2-lane access ramps at the Camino de los
MontoyaslNM 599 intersection.
6Page 6, Section IILB, 2,a (ii); Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artic Slope Consulting Group,
September 24, 2003.
3
107
THE TRAFFIC STUDIES
A number of professional traffic studies concerning the Ridgetop/NM 599 interchange have been
undertaken over the years, specifically:
~ The Leedshill-Herkenhoff Consulting Group TIA of 1995 for Santa Fe Estates.
~The Tierra LopezGarcia Group (TLGG) TIA's of May and July, 2003, prepared for Santa Fe
Estates and the Thornburg Office Complex.
~The Leedshill-HerkenhoffConsulting Group TIA of 2003, prepared for the TRA, which
includes a review of previous studies, assumptions and conclusions. (Leedshill-Herkenhoff are
now known as ASCG Inc. ofNew Mexico.)
~ The Louis Berger Group TIA ofMay, 2008, prepared for the City of Santa Fe and the
Northwest Quadrant Housing Development.
~ Additional smaller, non-comprehensive traffic studies have been done for BT Homes and
Chapman Homes projects in Santa Fe Estates, as well as the TRRN subdivisions of San Acacia,
Heartstone, Canterbury Farms, Sundance Estates and Sundance Ridge.
Our review of these TIAs, using outside professional third-party engineers, shows that much of the
cumulative data of these studies has not been updated, and that previous conclusions and
recommendations have been ignored. The evidence of such omissions and incomplete information
indicates that appropriate solutions to area traffic management are likely to be flawed or inadequate. In
all, there are many more questions raised than answers provided, which further underscores the
fragmented nature of the several narrowly focused traffic studies.
While the City of Santa Fe Traffic Engineering Division reviews all individual development plans, the
consolidated growth conditions have not been fully analyzed to consider the cumulative impact of traffic
and safety to the residents and commuters of this northwest corridor.
For example, the 2008 Berger study deals only with the immediate issues related to the development of
the NWQ and within the proposed NWQ master plan. Berger evaluated only the initial phase of the
NWQ development, not the projected build-out of the entire surrounding residential and commercial
areas. The two 2003 reports by TLGG focus exclusively upon the Phase II build-out of Santa Fe Estates,
without addressing the compounding impact of the new Monte Sereno development, or the mitigations
necessary to address the impact of the Thornburg Office Complex and the additional 95,000 square feet of
adjacent neighborhood commercial space.
There is no recognition ofthe cumulative effects of these neighboring developments upon each other.
This piecemeal, incremental approach fails to recognize the long range requirements of coordinated traffic
management solutions. Today, the impending traffic build up, traffic jams and traffic safety issues are
simply being pushed further down on the agenda, awaiting some future occurrence which will force a
resolution to safety deficiencies. Each new development places new traffic concerns on nearby
qevelopments whose original traffic analysis did not address the impact of new neighboring projects.
4
108
THE BERGER GROUP TIA, May, 2008
The most recent traffic study, the Berger TIA, must be considered inaccurate, incomplete and
inconclusive in any comprehensive or regional context:
A. Inaccurate, because Berger relies heavily on the flawed 2003 TLGG studies for area
background information and analysis. 7
B. Incomplete, because Berger treats the proposed NWQ neighborhood as residential, and does not
address the traffic impact of the substantial 70,000 square-foot plus "live/work" commercial nature
of the NWQ master plan. Nor does Berger thoroughly consider the queuing and stacking conditions
likely to arise as traffic from the south approaches the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange.
C. Inconclusive, because Berger frequently withholds specific mitigation recommendations for St.
Francis Drive and the Camino de los MontoyaslNM 599 intersection, pending the completion of
two regional transportation studies which will address traffic conditions in these areas.
THE TIERRA LOPEZGARCIA GROUP TlAs, May & July, 2003
A review, analysis and summary of the TLGG studies of May and July, 2003, for Santa Fe Estates and the
Thornburg Office Complex, was prepared by the Arctic Slope Consulting Group (ASCG), formerly
Leedshill-Herkenhoff, at the request of the TRA. ASCG noted that the 2003 TLGG studies assumed that
various concerns raised by the 1995 Leedshill TIA relating to the TRRN traffic infrastructure had been
successfully mitigated. This is not the case.
For example, in 1995, there was a concern that there would be "no Camino de los Montoyas
interchange with the Relief Route [NM 599], and no connection to the west end ofTano Road."
TLGG responded that the condition had been mitigated, that "an at-grade intersection has been
constructed at the intersection of Camino de los Montoyas and NM 599. In addition, there is a
connection from Tano Road to Fin del Sendero to Camino La Tierra. ,,9
Another concern in 1995 was that "Tano Road is completely cut off from US 84.285." TLGG
responded that this condition had been mitigated, that "Tano Road has been cut off from US
84/285, however, construction of US 84/285 includes a frontage road system and an overpass,
which will tie Tano Road to Circle Drive and Camino Encantado, as well as the west frontage
road. ,,10
However, in either instance the Berger TIA has not analytically tested the earlier TLGG
assumptions with statistical data now available. This omission by the Berger TIA only
underscores the myopic scope of the Berger TIA and fails to recognize the cumulative impact of
nearby, neighboring developments.
7 Pages 13, 15-20,22,23; Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May, 2008, The Louis
Berger Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico
8 Pages 16, 17,21,24-26,31,39,40,42; Traffic Impact Analysis of the Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May,
2008, The Louis Berger Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
9 Introduction, page I-I; Traffic Impact Analysis for Santa Fe Estates Preliminary Plat and Development Plan, Santa Fe, New
10 Ibid; Introduction, page 1-2.
5
109
TLGG based the TRRN area growth predictions on incorrect information. For example, the TLGG
assumed a 3% growth rate to the year 2010 11 , and calculated the amount of vacant land for future
development in the Tano Road area to be within a boundary from Santa Fe Estates to Camino de los
Montoyas. 12 In fact, the area of future TRRN residential development extends west to Fin del Sendero,
and currently includes the new subdivisions of San Acacia, Sundance Estates, Heartstone, Canterbury
Farms and Sundance Ridge, with hundreds of remaining acres available for development. (Attachment A)
The TLGG assumes a residential density of one dwelling per five acres. 13 Many of the early Tano Road
residences were built on 5-acre parcels. However, a significant number of these 5-acre parcels have now
been split into 2.5 acre sites. The new residential subdivisions in the area represent a higher density with
one dwelling per 2.5 acres, as well as clustered housing. The 3% growth rate is a significant
understatement of actual TRRN development activity.
Again, the Berger TIA has not analytically tested the earlier TLGG assumptions with statistical
data now available. This omission by the Berger TIA only underscores the myopic scope of the-
RIDGETOP ROAD AND THE SANTA FE ESTATES COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Ridgetop Road is inadequate to safely handle the projected traffic loads.
o The traffic capacity of 1670 vph for Ridgetop Road exceeds the two-lane rated capacity of 1600 vph 14
and the 1996 analysis of Ridgetop Road used flawed assumptions based upon the two-lane highway
module for open highway conditions, disregarding the fact that Ridgetop Road is a local or collector
road. 15
8 The development of the commercial Village Center in Santa Fe Estates will further compound the
conditions on Ridgetop Road and at the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange. The developing Santa Fe Estates
commercial area has increased in size from ~ 16,000 square feet, as originally approved for an SC-l
shopping area, to a recently approved 211,000 square feet. This commercial area now includes the
102,000 square-foot Thornburg Office Complex, with a 422-vehicle parking lot, which will add an
additional "rush hour" element to Ridgetop Road. An additional 400 vehicle parking capacity will be
required for the additional 95,000 square feet of shopping area subsequently approved.
• The large neighborhood commercial area will necessarily fragment the local roadway infrastructure
immediately adjacent to and leading from the site of the Village Center with significant traffic
management and safety issues at beginning and end of day time periods. There will conceivably be over
400 vehicles arriving and leaving at approximately the same time, resulting in significant queuing at the
11 Page V-IS; Traffic Impact Analysis for Santa Fe Estates Preliminary Plat and Development Plan, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
May 2003, Tierra LopezGarcia Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
12 Ibid; page V-17.
13 Ibid; page V-IS.
14 Page 7, Section IILB, 2, c (i); Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artic Slope Consulting Group,
September 24,2003.
1~ Ibid; page 4, Section I1I.A, 2, c, (i).
6
110
RidgetoplNM 599 interchange,16 as well as Ridgetop Road and Avenida Rincon near the entrances to the
office building parking lot.
A center island and a left-hand turn lane have been added in the immediate area of the parking
lot entrances. These improvements will not mitigate conditions on Ridgetop Road north and
south of the parking lot entrance, or the potential queuing conditions anticipated at the Ridgetop
bridge and ramps.
No mitigation provision has been incorporated for the 95,000 square feet of additional
Based on the 2003 ASCG analysis, the forecasted traffic level is 24,840 cars per day, both directions, at
the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange. I? This traffic level is based on 1996 data, and the later 2003 TLGG
studies did not refute or otherwise amend this earlier forecast by Santa Fe Estates. It is our view that the
24,840 ADT reflects an understatement of the situation
~ Note: in contrast, the Berger TIA forecasts 11,000 cars per day, both directions, however the
point of measurement differs from the 2003 ASCG analysis. Berger measures the traffic count
between Camino de los Montoyas and Ridgetop Road interchanges while the earlier forecast by
ASCG is actually measured at the Ridgetop Road and NM599 interchange. 18
~ Such a wide discrepancy in the daily traffic counts would suggest an error in calculation or
dissimilar data reference points since, in general, traffic counts along NM599 have significantly
increased since 2003.
~ A reevaluation based upon comparable data points reflecting current conditions is essential.
The 2003 TLGG traffic studies did not offer any mitigation for the eventual conditions on Ridgetop Road
resulting from the impact of the Village Center commercial area of Santa Fe Estates. TLGG's only
19
comment was that n •••• The problem will be at the driveways and intersections..." along Ridgetop Road.
Indeed, it is the intersections of Ridgetop Road and the On/Off ramps from NM599 that present the most
serious traffic hazards from lane stacking.
The 2008 Berger study refers to the 2003 TLGG report saying "it was determined that the Ridgetop Road
interchange area would need to have improvements made at the ramp intersections.' The improvements
that were proposed included: re-stripe both of the off-ramps to provide a right turn lane for the eastbound
to southbound and west bound to northbound movements, re-stripe the bridge to provide a left turn lane to
16Ibid; page II, Section IV.C., Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artie Slope Consulting Group,
September 24, 2003.
17 Page 4; Trip Generation Data, C.R Walbridge Associates, Consultant to Santa Fe Estates, Submitted to the Planning
III Executive Summary; Traffic Impact Analysis for Santa Fe Estates Preliminary Plat and Development Plan, Santa Fe, New
7 111
both the eastbound and westbound ramps, and signalize the eastbound off-ramps and the westbound off-
ramp intersections with Ridgetop Road. ,,20 -
Even with these minimal mitigations proposed by both Berger and TLGG, the lane-queuing capacity for
both the eastbound and westbound on-ramps was determined inadequate in the 2003 ASCG TIA which, at
that time, did not include the collateral impact of the 95,000 square feet of additional commercial space in
Santa Fe Estates, the build out of Santa Fe Estates III, Zocolo III and the NWQ.
~ Considering the combined collateral impact of these additional neighborhoods and

development, we conclude a LOS F for the Ridgetop Road queuing lanes and on-ramps.
A 1995 memorandum discussed the allocation of right-of-way already mapped for the Camino de los
Montoyas grade-separated interchange, which at that time was projected for completion in 2005, well
before the anticipated build-out of Santa Fe Estates. Currently, completion of the Camino de los
Montoyas grade-separated interchange is not anticipated in the near future?l
~ A grade-separated interchange at Camino de los Montoyas would allow for traffic originating
from the NWQ to be more evenly dispersed and result in traffic volume relief for Ridgetop Road. We
conclude that the impact of this option we must be analytically reviewed.
THE NM 599 WEAVE-MERGE HAZARD
Concerns have repeatedly been raised regarding the weave movement for the US 84/285 northbound ramp
to the RidgetoplNM 599 westbound off-ramp. The Berger TIA considers the current merging distance of
1500 feet to the Ridgetop Road exit to be an unsafe condition?2 A weave analysis per the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) ChaEter 24 resulted in LOS F because there were only two lanes in the weave
section and no auxiliary lane. 3 [Attachment E]
~ The 2003 ASCG TIA calculates the merge distance at 1000 feet which presents an even
greater merge hazard than what the Berger TIA considers.
~ It is essential that the merge distance discrepancy between the Berger TIA and the ASCG TIA
calculation be resolved in order to arrive at an effective mitigation.
The TLGG estimate of 1475 feet of automobiles queuing at the south ramp to Ridgetop Road24 will create
a hazardous condition, even with traffic signalization, as a result of the weave-merge movement on NM
599. The deceleration lane and shortened storage capacity for the southbound Ridgetop Road off-ramp
21 Introduction, page 1-2; Traffic Impact Analysis for Santa Fe Estates Preliminary Plat and Development Plan, Santa Fe, New
22 Pages 5, 37; Traffic Impact Analysis of the Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May, 2008, The Louis Berger
Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
23 Page 10, Section IV. A, B; Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artic Slope Consulting Group,
September 24,2003.
~4 Page IX-3; Traffic Impact Analysis for Santa Fe Estates Preliminary Plat and Development Plan, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
8
112
will result in a queuing of cars that will extend into the NM599 merge lane for the Ridgetop Road off-
ramp.zs .
A deceleration lane length of 350 feet, and a decision-site distance of 330 feet would allow for only 500
feet of storage at the exit ramp. When considered with the projected required queuing length of 1475 feet,
cars would extend into the NM 599 merge lane. 26 Vehicles will be accelerating to make the merge
immediately before the Ridgetop Road exit ramp, then less than 1500 feet later, decelerating for the
Ridgetop Road exit.
The TLGG studies made no analysis or other evaluation ofthe weaving factor. The Berger TIA refers to
concerns about the NM 599 weave, notes the diminishing LOS ratings, but does not offer any mitigation
or improvement recommendations.2 7
CONCLUSION
assumptions. None of the studies has effectively reconciled the original intention ofNM 599, as a by-
pass highway for the movement of nuclear waste, with the safe integration of local traffic and the need for
The solution to one condition will necessarily impact the solutions to other conditions, and will
correspondingly impact the entire road infrastructure which supports the northwest sector traffic corridor.
We are dealing with a regional situation which affects the public safety of residents, commuters and
travelers in our area; a regional matter which demands a broad-based, long range traffic management
plan.
RESOLUTION
2S Page 7, Section m.B, 2, c (i); Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artic Slope Consulting Group,
September 24,2003.
26 Page 5, Section ill.A, I, a, b, c, d; Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artic Slope Consulting
Group, September 24, 2003.Ibid; page II, Section IV. A, B.
2.7 Page 13; Traffic Impact Analysis of the Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May, 2008, The Louis Berger Group,
9
113
ATTACHMENT C
1 REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
2 SFMPO TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD
3 CITY OF SANTA FE I SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
4 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-1
5 A RESOLUTION
6 CREATING A CITIZENS TASK FORCE FOR THE NM 599 CORRIDOR SAFETY STUDY.
8 WHEREAS, At the meeting of March 21,2006, the Santa Fe MPO Transportation
9 Policy Board directed MPO staffto prepare a resolution creating a citizens task force to provide
10 public input for the NM 599 corridor study concerning safety issues and future transportation
11 improvements along NM 599; and,
12 WHEREAS, The safety of residents and travelers along NM599 is compromised at
13 several access points over the length of the facility including merging distance between ramps for
14 Ridgetop Road and US 84/285 and at non-signalization intersections at Camino de los Montoyas,
15 CR70, and CR62 ; and,
16 WHEREAS, Due to the high public investment cost, future interchanges at existing at-
17 grade intersections (signalized and non-signalized) or at other future access points along NM 599,
18 as well as any roadway connections via over- or underpasses, need to include public input during
19 the evaluation and prioritization processes; and,
20 WHEREAS, The Santa Fe MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2005-2030 as well as
21 the Transportation Improvement Program 2006-2011 include a corridor safety study to assess and
22 prioritize access improvements along the entire length of NM 599; and
23 WHEREAS, The Santa Fe MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2005-2030 has a
24 stated goal that the MPO should encourage the coordination of land use and transportation
25 planning with the transportation system directing land development decisions; and,
1
114
1 WHEREAS, The Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization (SFMPO) should strive
2 to develop a road network that minimizes the impacts of non-residential motor vehicle traffic
3 through neighborhoods, and,
4 WHEREAS, The New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) is initiating a
5 corridor study on NM599 between its termini at NM 14 and US84/285, in collaboration with the
6 SFMPO and the Transportation Coordinating Committee, to develop recommendations for safety
7 improvements and project funding priorities; and
8 WHEREAS, The NMDOT encourages citizen input as part of the corridor study process
9 and the SFMPO Public Involvement Process specifies guidelines for public input in area studies
10 and corridor plans.
11
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SANTA FE MPO
13 TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD AND THE REGIONAL PLANNING
14 AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE / COUNTY OF SANTA FE THAT:
15 Section 1. A Citizens Task Force ("Task Force") is established to work with the
16 NMDOT and the MPO Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) on the NM599 Corridor
17 Study ("Safety Study").
18 Section 2. MEMBERSlllP: The Task Force shall consist of one representative
19 nominated from each Neighborhood (or Homeowners) Association located adjacent to or near
20 NM 599 that are directly affected by identified access points along the roadway.
21 Section 3. MEETINGS: Representatives are required to attend monthly meetings
22 preceding each TCC meeting. Briefings will be presented by NMDOT staff and consultants
23 followed by discussion. Meeting summaries will be incorporated into the record of TCC
24 meetings. Meetings will continue until final recommendations of the Safety Study are adopted
25 by the Santa Fe MPO Transportation Policy Board (TPB).
115
, ,
1 Section 4. The recommendations of the Safety Study are presented to the MPO
2 Transportation Policy Board for adoption.
3 Section 5. The recommendations of the Safety Study are incorporated into the
4 Northwest Quadrant Master Plan.
5 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 2006.
8 DAVID COSS, CHAIRPERSON
10 ATTEST:
11
12
13 TINA Y. DOMINGUEZ, ACTING CITY CLERK
14
15
16 JACK SULLIVAN, VICE CHAIRPERSON
17
18 ATTEST:
19
20
21 VALERIE ESPINOZA, COUNTY CLERK
22
24
25
3
116
1 STEVE ROSS, COUNTY ATTORNEY
2
4
5
6 ANNE LOVELY, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Jp/cmassignlmisc commIMPO bikeways task force res
4
117
118
I
--, (
I
<\jl
l'
0)
)
I
.;
.::
\ (l;
'.\ ('"
J
r ".
r.
~I
\
ro
I
ro
ro~I
(f)
, .~ ~I
!
\ , , . ...l
OJ I
(
I
aU!lll8l e d
!
f
j
etl >
13.1 [ /;!;, /" . C'
4= "'-.j
,, I or, - .
" ~1(\ltlP·~iaMf)
i
III
I
l
,/
/
..
,.ro /
V'·
(
I
I .
,("
I )
I
• J
(
",'. // jl
.~
.-/ )
,-.
I
J (
(j)r ~ "/ ...•
~. . 'U. .~. -. / .t'
119
Re: Northwest Quadrant Master Plan
Proposed Traffie Solution
Dear Planning Commission Member:
Casa Solana would like to propose a WIN-WIN solution to the tIaffic dilemma m:ated by
well over 8,000 cars a day generated by the Northwest Quadrant at build-out.
We propose creating a cul-de-sac at the northwest end of Camino de las Crocitas above
the dog parle (see fonowing map). Camino de los Montoyas could then be connected to
both Pasco de Vista and BucIanao Road by paving a small spur.
.-.
This would allow traffic to flow from the Northwest Quadrant down Pkseo de Vista
turning left on: either Rincon de Torreon, North EI Rancho Road or Calle Nopal onto
West Alameda. Each ofthese roads is on average 7/10 of a mile long and the closest is
1110 ofa mile from the Buckman - Pasco de Vista interchange. As you may already
know, the majority ofRinoon de Torreon is owned by the city and is vacant. The Paseo
de Vista - Torreon connection for the Northwest Quadrant would provide connectiytty to
downtown. . ..~
We feel this gives the best flexibility for traffic options, while protecting existing
neighborhoods.
The neighborhoods of Casa Solana and Calle Mejia combined total almost 6,000 people.
We hope you will give thoughtful and creative consideration to the traffic issues affectin&
us. Our quality of life is being sacrificed (or the comfort and connectivity of the
Northwest Quadrant ..
We welcome our new neighbors but not their traffic.
lbank you for your consideration.
.'-: _.
l.
"<::-/'6->="Ii,nf)"
cbaelGold ~de~
~ (~/~-~~ CeciliaKeougb
J-. .; I t·
lanet MafSb8ii
President Vice President Secretary Treasurer
LA NUEVA CASA SOLANA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIAnON
120
NORntWES' ~~r ~~ P1t4N
_ MAiN A-r~~f<\ItL Rc.JAp)
_ _ SECON~YINTER\O(~ RaA;o 5
_ _ &OVO'lE..i7 RoAoS
IlL, It'( cJt\..\ tJ E!> LAN~
121
·er 14, 2008
MY VIEW
City's poor planning will kill neighborhood

. By Nicole de Jurenev
I,we living in Casa Solana. It's a mix

What kind of planning is it to run sewer lines
uphillinto our 53-year-old sewer system? The
on their 25 acres in 1:J;l.e Nox:th~~d
rant They are not going tobui,ld any
a1Iordabl~ housillg'as;required by ~ ,
I , of old and new: varied ages, races and

. religions; affordable ho~ing; ~part
ments; rich and poor and stylish and
funky. I don't recall a house being sold over
$500,000. In other words, we're a genuine
same sewer system, that is being repaired on a
weekly basis.
What kind of plaIlnirig is it
rilarketinthe $350,000 range? The city

,there
are more thanlOO \1Iis9ld houses 0)1 the-
mistakeDly be1ievesit will be easito,sell

an additiona1250houses even1hough
when
Santa Fe neighborhood This is justthe ~ will have difficulty With higher

sort ofneighborhood that is being pro- Mgretraffic is;anticipated from com- sewer system? The same sewer system,. down payniemsan;dlIlll}'be ;ootevep.
posed for the Northwest Q!Jadrant How mercial areas and "destination" locations that is being repaired on Ii weekly basis. being al:Jle.to:obtain a D.lol'tg3ge,
exciting to have more wonderful neigh- within the Northwest Q!J.adrant The What kind ofplanning is it to give the ,What kind of pIanmng is this?
bors. But, wait The Northwest Qyadrant fIgure of10,000 <;ars a day is one-halfof water rights for aftOrdablehousing for the , Wesh'ould insist that the city.buUd, '
, as proposed Win be built to the detriment the traffic on St Francis Drive between entire city to the Northwest Qyadrant? proper iilfuiStmctuie: J;'Oads,sewersand
ofCasa Solana. It will destroy our fun-lov- Alamo Drive and Camino de las Cruci- What are the 13,000 houses being built .' ~ools for dIe Northwest QIa<;lrant
ing and peaceful neighborhood. !'as. St. Francis is a total of six lanes, and on the south side oftown going to do for Help us protect Casa Solana by insisting
The frrst thing is the roads. The pro- little CanJmo de las Crucitas is only two water? . on acul-d~catthe no~t end.of
posal would make Camino de las Cfl.1.- constricted lanes. And most importantly, what about Camino de laS Crucitas so, that itdoes '
citas a funnel from the m new houses What kind ofplanning is this, espe- planning for schools? The citY is bor- not becOme a funnel for 10,000 cars a ",
to St. Francis Drive and West Alameda ,cially from Mayor David Coss who grew ,. rowing $84O,OOOto pay for 15 acres th~ day. " o '
Six thousand cars a day would stream up in Casa Solana and. Counselor Matt school district oWns in the Nt>r1:hweSt 'The Northwest: Q9adrant is trying to .
through our neighborhood, in addi- Ortiz whose wife grew up here? What QIadrant. The City is giving the School . Confiscate the rigb.ts that Casa Solana
tion to the 4,000 cars already rushing about Gonzales Elementary school? Can District 10'acres on Buclanan ROOd has enjoyedlotthe last 53 years. Do not.
through. Nobody is telling us how muCh West Alameda bear moretraffic when the The school district is not going to build let them get.aWaywit# it
additional traffic will be generated from kids are being dropped off and picked up? a school for the m new houses, even
"cut-throughs" from existing neighbor- Is this planning to protect our children? though Gonzales Elementary School is NrroledeJttTenev is the vice president
hoods such as, Santa Fe Estates, Zocalo What kind ofplanning is it to ron full Instead, the school district is going ,. of La Nueva CC¢Q Solaria Neighborhood
and the Thornburg Campus. sewer lines, uphill into our 53-year-old to build l1lulti-million dollar spec houSeS ASsociatiOn. '
on
ro.~~_£.~~
~~co·~~~
~
>,
w
E~~OD-
~Q)~~Eo~Q)
."
c~
c~_C~-_~U'lO-~ro,Q~
Q)
~~~
I
_~~.~
UQ)OQ)~ b
U'l
B~~~~
~ ~-w
......
"" ....
"" ...
:> ....
~,~~~Q)5~
Dc aJQ)OU'l
~·~8§·~~.~~:~~~~~~.~~.~~~i~
Q)Cl.. t::"'O .... Vl·
~Q)~fr~D~~~U1~O~~E~~§Q)~wQ)~~·_Q)~~c~
Q) cQ)w.D:::l+-"c .... c .........u
~~~5~~.~~~S.~~~
:::I:::I~o' - U 1 : . J - U ..... ~--
..... tD~roQ):Q)~ .... ~. I -
=%
'" ...
.... '"
=
U'lOO
.D_~Q)m~c~~-·. __ ~u UOzEEU'l~~u~~E:::Ic·5~ ~.-.~"'O.~~~~;E~~$~ e>
~ C (]) ~ VI .~ ~ ~
Q.i) -
c ~ -g § ~ ~ ~ etJ ~ § ~ ::::
,2: n.., ~ -= --' Q) ~ I't! ro c: ~ ~ c:: ~ g l.-. ,~ ~ ~
E.t: ,;
'3 ~ ~ g ~ Pf, ':5 ~"O ~ ~ 0 g :: ~
.~ OJ) on c: ... Q) "0 :i:
Q) =t -~
~ c:.~ 0 j5 ,- ('IJ ai ~ -£ 2 ~ .....
.s ~
V' .e
,~ § u ~;t - ~ s: . . "5
~~Q)E~Q),~ .... o~o/~Q)g~~~~Q)~~
~ m ~ . VJ ai U ~ U OJ ~ o.o.~ ~. ~ .?:o.o :5 c::
.~VJ·-.~~~o·~
in .... ro II) ~ • a. II) ::l U Q.l C c: ~
~~.Q~~c::~~~~~Q)~Q)
~ U ~"c ~ ::a t: ~ - VJ ~ ;: c:: :.;: "5 "Vi ....-, Q) ..g i5 32 t:j ~ "~.c. ~ "S U -0 ,~ ·,u -0 II) 8 . ~ :s" ('IJ
.g :.= ~ .. -0
u~~;c::CJ~Q)§~Q»~m~cr~~Q)~£~~~·~~Q)x~o~~~ .e5~E~u~oQ)~~~i~
C::Q)o.Q)OVJ-ro~... o.-::lQ) ._> Q)~ o.>c::
.- c:: _ ~ -0 ~ ~ ~ ~ t'O Q) VJ 0 a." .... -g -~ ;: ~ - 0.0 -5i ~ a. ~ 11) - a.. Q)
.=
~ ~3 -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ £ 5 E 3. ~ ('IJ gJ, 8 ~ '0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ .S: ~ ~ >. ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ ~
-E -_ ..
=
II)D~Q)Q)'>::l
$ 8 ~ ~ .2 ~
1I)~,vO~~('IJ
.s
~ +oJ Q) E ~.!:!! N
Q) -0 ~':II)
i ;:
.c.-.c.IQ)- .... ~~·-o;£-._~c::~c::~~~~.-~roE~Q~~ .... ~Eo~~8c::oro~EQ)oc::
- o.~ . ~ . Vi . I- § +oJ U 0.. ~ ~ ~ :2 ~ Q)::: .2 ... CD ro -=
""t:l 0Cl .... Q) ~ _ ~ ~ ~::: ~·u .:: 0 ~ a..Q .a
c::VJ~~.§o~ ~~~~.2~~·3~~~~Q)~B.... Q)§Q)~~.~ ~~~u~§~c::G~.~.§~
~ ,~ ;: u ~ E -, U "'0 VJ II) bO a. c:: .0 ~ Q) lJ ~ E 0 ro .E -£ .c ~ m u ~ :t .0 ro ~ c:: U 0.. ~ 0 .0 ::0: c::
122
MY VIEW
Northwest Quadrant
'deals' arouse suspicion
By Rick Martinez . in the Northwest Q!Jadrant, 'with only'10 years to
buildit. Is it in the school districfs.masterplan to
U
',nder the terms of a new plan, the City of build a schQbI in the Northwest Q!Iadrant when
Santa Fe will pay $840,000 to purchase We have 13,000 homes in the pipeline to be con-,
15 acres-ofland in the Northwest Q!lad- ,structed on the south side oftown?
, ',' ,rant, a proposed ~dr.oom cOmmunity, In another "done de4d:' our cityleaders set aside
from the Santa Fe Schools District, and the city all our afiQrdable water rights fOr theNorthwest
set aside a 10-acre site offBuckm3n Road for a Q!ladrant. All this time I thought our water ~ a
future schooL public asset and not a developer asset. Maybe now
The city also will allow cOnstluction ofIS high- , is the tinle to ask what the next thing is that our
end, market~ratehomes with some ofthe best city leaders will ask the community to give up for
views ofthe city on 25 acres in the NorthWest its pet project. This bedroom co~unitywill con-
Q!ladrant ~ with no affordable-housing require- tain 720 new hornes with only one way in and one
mentS imposed on this site. Thus,there wilIbe Way out Onto the N.M 5991285corrjpor, and with
no roOm (or teachers or anyone who meets the no real downtown co~n.
affordable-housing criteria. , 'So raise our water rates and vote for the trans-
Now ask why the school district is pushing fer tax to help pay for the gold star our city lead-
to set aside 30-plus acres in Las SoIeIa$ for the ers will get for this project.
pUrpose of construction ofan elementary schooL
Yet the city is only offering 10 acres fCilr. a school Santa Fean Rick
. ,
Martinez./is a neighborhood activist.
Please get your facts straJght .

I admit to not having;ah.th~,; , ..
. . [lane's INorid,' Jan. 'Z: "Howdy,
Neighbor"]: At the Neighborhood information about theconfrQ~ersy '.
over a new affor9ablechousing
Law Center conference" aCasa
Solana homeowner questioned,' I
I development in fue northw~;sfpilrt What's the rush?
City Councilor Patti Bushee,' 11
of town [Zane's World, Jan.?:. P1aQning CoIDIDissioner S~e Linden is cor-
"Howdy, Neighbor';]. Sutit strikes
"Why was OnE! neighborhood in . rect to question why the'citywould want to pay
me that any new;ilevelopmenf '
her district, the historic down-I the Santa Fe Public SChools nistrict$840,OOO,·
is, at this time, i'ria~propriate.
town, getting preservation rights plus give the school district 1Q.~cres near
With air t~e housing stock on the
while another, historically con-
market (evenbetweert$100,OOO
Buckman Road, in eXchange for IS ~cres in the
easa
tributing Solana, having its
and $300,000), there should. be"
Northwest,Q!Jach'ant. This .amounts to $168,000
rights trampled?" The Northwest per acre as the cost of acquiSition for a net of
an effort to purch~se, update and .
Quadrant is an admirable, nec-
divide (as needed) e1(ist,ng hous- five acres. This is not a'bad profit for a sale of
essary andtotaUy worthwhile land that the city originally gave to the. district
ing, to make it available to thQse
devefopment. The problem is
with lower ff'tcomes, Cleariy,- I'm I do not understand the cash~pped,city's'
infrastructure. None is being
not talking about subprime typ~s rush to purchase the land If and'when the
planned. Casa Solana's roads ,and
of financing, but, rather, a creative entire parcel. including'the school district's
sewer system are being. co-opted
, by the 773 houses planne,d in the
combination of greenr(lbuilding IS acres, has been sold and a market price has
NWQ, without our consent Little
employment, volunteer opportuni- been established, the city and the school district
ties and grant money. This would could prorate the,proCeeds. .
.two-Iane Camino de Las Crucitas
not only avoid the stereotypical Michael Gold
wOuld become a funnel for over
low-income corridor effect, but 'Santa Fe '
10,000 cars and trucks a day,
would reinvigorate the economy
splitting the neighborhood in half,
and existing neighborhoods.
: '.much likeSt. Franci~ Driiledid .
a
. when it was built. Our::; is neigh- 12 .).
CJ
l( Z&"'(
JANE COOK :
SANTA FE
. borhood of apartments,' duplexes,
affordable housmg and ~tep-up
housing. We are diverse in terms protect from the increased traf-
of ages, races and. religions, and Your sense of fie th~t would be generated by
are mostly working-class folks. entitlement is deeply offensive.to As a 'resident of Casa Solana, the hundreds of new homes to
Unfortunately, too many of us us. Did you mention that we think· I am deeply offended by Zane be built by the city as part of its
are eligible for food stamps and Councilor Patti Bushee is doing a Fischer's comment that my neigh.,.. proposed North~ Quadrant
recently there have been some wonderful job? bors and I an~ suffering from wh~i development. I certainly support
home foreclosures. lane, please he described as ;'Rbckwellian increased affordable housing, but
NICOLE DE JURENEV
get the facts straight abOut Casa delusions of stickball and neigh- . the city must not ignore our legiti-
VICE PRESIDENT
Solana and the NWQ. You need LA NUEVA CASA SOUHA borhood strolls." Mr. Fischer mate concerns in the same way
,tQ accurately report on the meet~ _ NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS obviously knows little about Casa that Mr. Fischer has.
ings you attend. SANTA FE Solana,especially those quali- ALICE TEMPU
ties that we hope to preserve and SANTA FE
123
Date: March 16,2009 3:04:16 PM MDT
To: <Ieslieveva@earthlink.net>
SUbject: FW: Infrastructure first
Message from Mayor Coss
--Original Message-----
From: COSS, RON D.
Sent: Monday, March 16; 2009 2:45 PM
To: SANDOVAL,MARGED
Subject RE: infrastructure first
Dear Ms. McNamara;

Thanks for your email on the Northwest Quadrant The City is currently
studying the traffic impact and mitigation measures for the project. We
will work to make sure traffic issues are addressed and Casa Solana is
protected before this project goes forward
Sincerely,
MayorCoss
----Original Message---
From: SANDOVAL, MARGE D
Sent Monday, March 16,200911:31 AM
To: COSS, RON D.; MCCORMICK, KAmy A
Subject: FW: infrastructure first
----Original Message----
From: Leslie McNamara [!Jlailto~k_~i~Y~Yc:l:®-eartWink.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 15,20093:29 PM
To:MAYOR
Cc: BUSHEE,PAITI J.; CALVERT, CHRIS
Subject: infrastructure first
F>earMayor Coss, Patti and Chris)
As a 23 year resident of Casa Solana, I oppose the Northwest Quadrant

traffic which will impact, devalue and threaten our neighborhood All
that very fine NWQ planning without responsible and necessary
infrastructure is PREMATORE. In meeting after meeting, no one. .
explains why the connecting roads are not preceding the development.
Why?
While there have been legitimate safety objections to closing Camino

de las Crucitas, I propose a temporary automatic gate which would be
accessible to police, firetrucks, medical deliveries and even
existing residents. This technology exists and probably is
affordable. Perhaps that is rt'discriminatory," but is it not also
discriminatory to destroy an existing affordable neighborhood in
order to build the new one?
We are counting on you to protect our neighborhood, please. It is not

the development we oppose; it is the traffic. Thank yo~ Leslie
McNamara 122 Alamo Dr. SFNM
124
Cecilia Keou9..
h _
From: Cecilia Keough [ckeough@newmexico.com]

sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:08AM
To: mayor@santafenm.gov; pjbushee@santafenm.gov; ccalvert@santafenm.gov;
rdwurzburger@santafenm.gov; r2romero@santafenm.gov; mlguelmchavez@msn.com;
cadominguez@santafenm.gov; meortiz@santafenm.gov; rstrujillo@santafenm.gov
Subject: CASA SOLANA TRAFFIC ISSUE: LETTER FROM TAMARA LICHTENSTEIN
I called and spoke to the case staffer, Lucas Cruse today, in

response to the newspaper ad in today's paper. I asked about traffic
issues, and he said that staff is still preparing their report on
that. So I asked about the applicant's traffic study, the applicant in
this case being the city itself. Those figures are apparently .
available, but here's the thing: if both the submittal and the
response are by the same entity, the city, given the conflict of
interest, how can any report on the submittals, or the submittals
themselves, be taken seriously by the public?
I don't live in the Cas a Solana area, by the way--I'm in Agua Fria
Village, where the traffic impacts of big developments (which exist
out our way due to provision of city water and sewer) have been a sore
point for a long time. Currently it seems that development proposals
that can boast of any kind of "affordable" housing (according to
debatable and narrow terms--they don't tend to include family
transfers and preservation of housing, only building new stuff) get
the green light with a blind eye to the negative impacts on existing
neighborhoods.
Traffic issues are about quality of life, health, safety and welfare.
We have been alarmed by how many folks in our area have asthma, which
certainly isn't helped by, and may even be triggered by, the
pollutants coming out of all those tailpipes going past our windows.
Traffic makes it unpleasant to walk along the road, with fumes, noise,
and the dirt and rocks thrown up by truck tires. Headlights at night
are invasive--this is one reason why you see walls creeping up higher
along busy roads, to keep out not only noise but headlights. Traffic
makes it unsafe for children to simply cross the street, dividing
neighborhoods like fast-moving rivers.
As one of the loveliest westside neighborhoods, Casa Solana deserves

protection from the city's profit-driven plan to exploit the northwest
quadrant. Damaging one neighborhood to build another benefits the
builders, not the community as a whole; the profits are short-term,
the damages long-term.
I cannot attend the meeting, but please feel free to forward or bring
my comments as a concerned member of the community.
Tamara Lichtenstein
125
0·4 THE NEW MEXICAN Sunday. Dece:
MY VIEW
Traffic II I welcome !his new develop-

Casa Solana sell-out
Once built, the NorthWest Q!Jadiant will
ment, but I, do not want to be
threatens the sacrificial neighborhood laid
waste by endless traffic. With
have more than 700 homes and some, com-
mercialenterprises. The planners describe this
new neighborhood as benefiting the broader
m homes being built, this new
charm ,neighborhood will be much
larger than Casa Solana.
We want to protect our kids,
coIiununity with green space, green buil4ing
and affotdable housing. It sounds great. .
UnfortunatelY' it is being designed without
of Casa cats and dogs from cars speed-

ing through our streets. Allen
I Stamm built roads to accorn-
proper roadand"sewer infrastructure. As a
Casa,SoI3na resident, I am concemoothat the
Northwest QUandrant is being planned with-
Solana 1 modate our neighborhood

back ~ 1956. Mayor David Coss
1and CIty planners should take
out consideration for the effect it will have on
our neighborhoo<i .
Instead of creating d.ireetaccess to St Fran-
,.a cue from a well-remembered l;:is Drive or Guadalupe 'street, the traffic will
By Cecilia Keough
I and well-loved developer. funnel down through our two-lane, residential
or the past two yP.ars, the lOur narrow little residential streets. Same with the sewerage. It all runs .
F city of Santa Fe has been

pursuing a development
project known as the
Northwest Q!ladrant TItis is a
540-acre parcel of land across
I streets were never meant to be
I throughways.
Ie.et=~c....~.
i .. '". ",'
downhill Let's insi$t ~t the Northwest Q!tan.-'
drant be built with the infrastructure to tie it
directly to, the city. If that is done,'it haS the
potential to benefit the entire city. H the plans .
proceed as currently designed. Casa Solana
the stra't from our beloved will be destroyed. Let's not saCrifice one won-
derful neighborhood for another. .
dog park above Casa Solana.
The city ha'i owned thisJand Janet Marshall
for a long fule, and instead uf Santa Fe
leaving h a.;: open space as was
originally promised in the Mas-
ter Plan, they are pWpOsing a
development that will include
773 homes at build out MYVI£W
My neighborhood, Casa
Solana, lies in the perilous
path of the many cars that NW Quadrant developme~t
will ~pew forth from this new
development. I counted cars threatens old neighborhood
with my neighbor one morn-
ing and we counted almost
600 during rush houi. That is
' . By A.1t "'ontgomery . las Crucitas to prevent more than
10,000 cars from driving daily
Y
right no\\', before the North- he historic Casa Solana through our very Darrow streets.
west Quadrant is developed! . neighborhood is·abuzz But what about the other
Consider for a moment that with residents exchang- concerns? Should the city bor-
each of the homes proposed in ing e-mails, letters and phone row $840;000 to buy Santa. Fe
the Northwest Quadrant will calls, informing each other of Public Schools 15 acres in the
have one to four occupants the city's lateSt actions.on the Northwest Q!.1adrant? How will
living there. These people will proposed Northwest Q!.1adrant the city sell almost 800 houses
make on average six to eight development in this depressed real-estate
trips a day by car. Do the math. We're united in our efforts market? Why is the Northwest
Six car trips a day will bring - not to block affordable hous- Q!.Iadrant taking the affordable-
more than 4,000 cal.; through ing iIi the Northwest Q!.1adrant housing water rights for the
our sweet little neighborhood. - but to oppose the tiaffic that entire city? Can the 53-year-old
Eight car trips a day will bring would flow tlll-ough our neigh- Casa Solana sewer system han-
more than 6,000 cars. This is in borhood from the development dle another 800 houses?
addition to the current traffic. We've packed city meetings Casa Solana is one ofthe safest,
That's a lot of cars. for the past several months to most diverse neighborhoods in
My neighbors and I have voice this and other concerns. Santa Fe. Many ofus are living in
attended meeting after meeting Yet ll'.ajor questions remain the homes we were born in. We
to implore city officials to not - about traffic, fmancing, the don't want our neighborhood's
destroy our 53-year-old historic reaI-estate market and wate~ and charm and safety jeopardized by
neighborhood. We are being sewer services. . poor infrastructure planning.
totally ignored and usurped by The answer to the a:lifi.c prob-
the comfort and convenience of , !em is simple; build ~ cul-de-sac at AX Montgomery live"
the Northwest Qpa.:irant inhab- the northwest end of Camino de in Cosa Solana.
itants. '
126
•
NW QUALMS -,
city, then we' are going to have to
While I would agree t/laftt:ie intenseiy challlmge ourselves to . Save Casa Solana
effectS of the Northwest Quadrant live much inoresimply aild with
~Iopment adjac~.nt to casa. ' greater regard to the steYfclrdship The C3sa solana residents·Dave·repeat-
SolarnlYiOU!d be disagreeable to :of this land. This is not iust an edly tried to l# Mayor-David ~3nd the.
·these r~idents, ,I a~~., .g. ,~=m, jlenVironmentalist at~itude; it will city of Santa Fe to hearbur deq> Co~
I ClI~ thlOk t~notlOf) ofWfier:i! be a matter of survl'Jablilty once Over the proposed d~opmentof~e
anQ.boW,webotli providello':JSing jwe run filII speed past peak points NorthWest Q9adrant After a nUmber of
to{olir ctt.iieits. a,nd Iive:in~ttiis. in our existing imported resourc- meetings, it's clear tliat our voiceS have' ,
· place tM!ars co~tlnu~,-~~,al.len~lng es. I acknowledge that overcoming fallen'oIi deaf ears.. . .
irispectiolJ. Not on1y-q(}·~~.need bureaucratic momentum takes .The 'prevailing tl!eory as to the d~ .
to find away tc? all?W fOratford- . tenacity on the part of design- of the Anasaz:i is tltat the population p\¢-
ability, 'but we alsO n~ ~dwell ers and political will froin all of stripPed the ,cultures' resourCes.~ we
· in a manner that-!lannon.~ . us, but true housing innovation doomed to make the~emistake?
with exiSting cycl~Jha time. of would be the kind of development '. We ~ tlie city not to put the s.train
dWindling resources~,upon which that necessarily puts our design
ofmore than 700 new homes on OUJ: sewer
we have volonteer~~:~r future decisions squarely on the kind of
and water syst:eIns and on our rOadS.,We
generations to subskh~ our.con- f life we can reasonably sustain,
sumptive lifesty~es, we absolutely I right here from imrTi'~diately local
want CaIilino de las crucitas cl0se4 oft:
have to r~me. the .nature I resources.
becOmiDg a CuI de sac and not the cOndUit
of tl'!e 'W~Y, We live In. th IS place. 1 to.the new developmentthrougll OUJ: pre-
DAFYD RAWLINGS
·'Thus, we canoot,jemand·that a l SANTA FE cious neighborhood. '.
neW neighborl100q bend to our I If the Northwest.Q!1adrant had its own
needs' withQu~-allof.iJ? agreeing to t .aCcess roads, sewer and water systems;vie
reduceoUr~.rOr instance, , . would welcome the addltlon of this much-
rn
if~ are so veri:w6'rried Casa ' Please letrile report the facts needed affordable housing. .
SOlana that traffte'from the NWQ about the traffic from the If that doesn't happen, the city will liter-
isgoil)gto~i!l1inish OJjfquality of . Northwest Quadrant into Casa,
ally niID our neighborhood
life, Why are we'11Qt~q4~oning Salima' [lime's Wor.ld,- Jan. 7:
bOth the current tTaffidhat ':Hriw-to Di;iI~:J.:,Jhe ~Les__ .
already elEistr-'ollrliety ~wn and atEFtroriithe City of Santa, fe's .
all the·cut-thrQUg1rtrafffc-and. , ; May 2008 tratticreporlCu!'rentiy
. . taklrigm~ur'es to 'reduce this '. there'·are 4,220 vehicle$ per ...
. eovlrontnentallo(ld? . " ~ on Caml~ Las-CruClfas;', •.
Zane 'Wrote that'theNWQ is •-:-8~099vehlcl~ per 'are
day esti"·
."the city's last significant oppor- : ,: m;ited.frPm the NWQ. l]:lis-<i~
':nbtcount ~omrnercial;nve;woik,·.'
tunity to ensure that additional
:' tlJ~ School 'diStrict bU1~o(: .
affordable,IJ9usingis built on the
"cut-through traffiQ,-Six~fane St-
nOl'ttl side: 'i ,:, disagree. I tend
· fiilncis ~,- 'Qflve~nd
tollirnkof allowing granny fiatS,
seCol1lHloor apartment additions
-,Cami~~dEi,;- ' -, les' Create new access
·21,88E>: ..'
to:eici$'firig ho~~, ii1filldevetop~ saDta Fe is taking a major step forward,
tWo-lane
ment, t;hangingZI)Oi)igl'o allow
handleli;3f~: in S9lving the critical problem of pI'9vid- '
housing over commercial in exist~ per day? We d6'.. , . . nl),. ing affordable housing,with itsinnowtiVe .'
ing commercial zones, arid (dilre matter what'Zane FlsCher~ys; Northwest ~diant project, Which will .
'I say it?} taller buJldings, to name
other Possible options. Density is
Casa Solana wants tm! C1tyto~. make m new affordable houses available.
, make the north end of Garnino ... Bravo! But the Northwest Q!Ja,drantproject
n6t sometbing to be afraid of and. · de LilSCrucitas into a cul'<le-sac may create another probl~thatshould
done correctly, wit~out aliowing to protect our neighborhood. Call have been anticipated dUrlngtb,e lengthy ,
the automobile to dictate design, me Zane, so ~ can dialogue with
planning process: greatly, and perhaps dan-"
j,trestfits In, coinciqentaUy, a equal inkltime about the other
gerously, ~ed tIaffic on camino de'·
.~i1utifiil and stilJ4Utktional facts you are dispUting.
las Crucitas. Camino de la$ Crucitas cuts
cjtySCape', It's ftiiin1,'we t/llnk of NICOLE DE JURENEV
VICE PRESIDENT
through that wonderful; affordable and·.'
grec»Waiking <;ities' in older-built
e'ill/ii;anmeilts arourid the world: LA NUEVA CASA SOLANA diver:sifi¢dCasa Solana community and also
E:tirOpe,japail,.M~ico's old colo-_ NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IeamtDthe~tful dog park so loved
nfal,towns, tonarnE!,c;I few, but we
SANTA FE by Santa f{fs dog owners. Increased traffic
dQn't seem til create the same might &:strtiy.~4ttegrityofCasa Solana
conditions here to facilitate the
SalneoP.PortunitieS.
.- ~,,:lbild inrQ,Spllct' and put itiicliildreil.:and the dog; in dangeJ:
City~~dreoonsiderU$ing "
We cannot alloW short-term , ~borhciod.dfCasaSoIana does CaminodeJ$.' -, as themainaecess
profirand igllorance of tong-terOl , '_je'traffic. TheCity Council ~totiie~6"; ~trmsure,.·
planetary health to be predomi- te anew-residential the city cOuld,; . . , table solutfun~ .
nant <friversofdevelOpmenl. 'citfIail~rinthe North- this problem@ '. p the commUJli4 '
Another c~ment from Zane's but it& ~ nmSt'not ties'ofSantaFe'" .dcohesive. -
column that I don't 100 'percent . ~n.w'" . .' SoIana: The city Should , Paul Parysld
agree with is: "'t's [the NWQJ _ • '~,' fthweSt erld ofCamino-.delaS· Santa Fe
also the citY's most likely currerit 'Cfucitas a ~-d~C;aDdextCndGua<W~
chance to focus assets and energy -.upeSttctet north by the ~ This may be
on a triJ/y progressive, genuinely
.~b\ttit is.an oppo~ty f<u.:'the
green (mostly) and honestly inno-'
'.cityJQ.~ a deYcloPDle,Qt While resPect-
vative housing effort." If Santa
ing an old neighborhood .' .,
Fe really wants to be a green . . MiChael Rodrfguez
Santa Fe
127
Page 1 of
::ecilia Keough
From: Guy Best [guybest@comcast.net]

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:02 PM
fo: cadominguez@santafenm.gov; mayor@santafenm.gov; miguelmchavez@msn.com; pjbushee@santafenm.gov;
ccalvert@santafenm.gov; rdwurzburger@santafenm.gov; rstrujillo@santafenm.gov; r2romero@santafenm.gov;
meortiZ@santafenm.gov
~c: ckeough@newmexico.com
iubject: Northwest Quadrant Master Plan
!ar Mayor and City Council members,
r husband, daughter and I lived very happily on Camino de las Crucitas for 12 years in the 1990s, just when
s Campanas and all the Tierras were being built. The traffic that roared up and down our street finally drove
out - to the county. We didn't want to go. we have many dear friends in the Casa Solana neighborhood,
:I consider it the best example of true Santa Fe. We could lean over the back fence and visit with our
ghbors. We watched out for one another and for one another's children. Our kids walked down the street to
nzales Elementary.
fas perfect - except for the traffic that traveled down what was never meant to be a thoroughfare. We tried tc
>due the noise by replacing our windows. We tried to slow the traffic by asking the city to install speed
nps, which it did, but the bumps never deterred all the pickups and other contractor vehicles from taking the
)rt cut down Camino las Crucitas. We thought the By-pass would help, but, again, everyone likes the short
.once, Santa Fe ought to live up to its obligations to its citizens and taxpayers and build the proper
astructure to handle the traffic that will be generated from housing in the Northwest Quadrant and divert it
n the historic Casa Solana neighborhood. That increased traffic will literally destroy a beautiful
~hborhood of people, many of whom cannot afford, as we did, to move out to the boondocks.
can't vote in city elections anymore, but we support our former neighbors and their right to a peaceful
le. If the Planning Commission approves the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan, we fervently hope the City
IOcil will overrule such a mistake.
~rely,
. and Jan Best

~orth Sparrow Lane
ta Fe 87506
-9478
128
2009
to ~ fv\/tYoR.. ef)S$ I c.,n!e.ci-urJettoRS
Santa Fe holds it's neighborhoods in high regard. Each has a name and at least
a story, if not a long history. We are a community of conservationists in the best
sense of the word. We all want to conserve the special character of this unique·
city.
As a resident of Casa Solana, I want my neighborhood conserved. Our

community is threatened by the potential influx of traffic from the NWQ
development. The Design Group and some others are stressing the need for
connectivity to the city. The problem with the current plan is that our small,
residential streets, Camino de las Crucitas and Alamo Drive, are the only viable
connections currently available. Recently, during the 7-9 AM rush hour period,
two of my neighbors counted 600 cars at the roundabout. Just think what that
number will be when the 800 homes and commercial enterprises are established.
The point is that there is already too much traffic on Crucitas. Our neighborhood
has worked to mitigate this by fighting for speed humps. We now know that they
don't work.
Since the public meetings began two years ago, our concern has been voiced
over and over again. And from the beginning, it has been ignored or dismissed.
The NWQ should have a direct connection to St. Francis. This should have been
part of the plan from the beginning. The current plan is flawed and must be
revised to protect Casa Solana. We do not want a thoroughfare running through
the middle of our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Janet Marshall
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Danner [mailto:dannerreport@cybermesa.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:33 PM
To: mayor@santafenm.gov; miguelmchavez@msn.comi
cadominguez@santafenm.govi pjbushee@santafenm.gov
Cc: ccalvert@santafenm.govi meortiz@santafenm.govi
rdwurzburger@santafenm.govi rstrujillo@santafenm.gov;
r2romero@santafenm.gov
Subject: PLEASE PROTECT CASA SOLANA!
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Councilors~
I want to impress upon you how strongly I feel about the traffic that will
funnel down Camino de las Crucitas from the Northwest Quadrant. I
don't want it!
Keep Sereno Drive SERENE!! Keep Casa Solana the nice, quiet, safe
neighborhood
it is.
Please help us protect Casa Solana.

Lisa Danner
129
2 BILL NO. 2009-37
3 INTRODUCED BY:
5 Councilor Wurzburger
10 AN ORDINANCE
11 AMENDING SECTION 14-4.3(1) SFCC 1987 REGARDING THE PURPOSE AND
12 REQUIREMENTS OF PRC PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DISTRICTS.
13
14 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE:
15 Section 1. Section 14-4.3(1)(1) SFCC 1987 (being Ord. No. 2001-38, §2) is
16 amended to read:
17 ( I) Purpose and Intent
18 It is the purpose of the planned residential community district to provide
19 for the comprehensive and coordinated planning of large-scale residential
20 developments that takes into account a phasing of development that will
21 take place over a long period oftime. This district pennits and
22 encourages both single-family residences in conventionally platted
23 subdivisions and clustered residential developments based on a design
24 concept that applies innovative site-planning techniques. The district also
25 permits and encourages neighborhood commercial uses and mixed-use
1
130
1 development in order to provide limited services and economic
2 opportunities for the immediate area.
4 amended to read:
5 (3) Responsibility of Applicant
6 It is the responsibility ofthe applicant to prove that the development is
7 planned and designed to achieve the following goals:
8 (a) Compliance with the City General Plan in effect at the time the
9 master plan is approved by the Governing Body of the City;
10 (b) A mixture of residential densities intended to achieve a balanced
11 community for families of all ages, sizes and income levels;
12 (c) Provision for community services, including commercial
13 services;
14 (d) Provision for mixed-use development (optional);
15 [WJW The comprehensive and compatible arrangement of all land uses

16 with respect to each other and the community as a whole;
17 [~Jill A comprehensive and integrated traffic circulation system; and
18 [f!)JW The provision of adequate and well-designed recreational
19 facilities and areas of open space.
20 Section 3. Section 14-4.3(1)(6) SFCC 1987 (being Ord. No. 2001-38, §2 as
21 amended) is amended to read:
22 (6) Master Plan; Standards; Requirements
23 (a) The number of dwelling units or area of commercial use or
24 mixed-use development as approved by the Governing Body of
25 the City drawn as set forth in paragraph (5) above shall appear in
2
131
1 the plan. The number of dwelling units and area of commercial
2 use or mixed-use development, if any, as approved by the
3 Governing Body of the City and drawn on the master plan shall
4 constitute the maximum number of dwelling units, unless an
5 increase in the number of dwelling units is agreed to in carrying
6 out the Santa Fe Homes Program as set forth in § 14-8.11, or area
7 of commercial use or mixed-use development permitted for each
8 tract.
9 (b) A mylar print of the master plan shall be placed on record in
10 Land Use Department.
11 (c) If land is dedicated to the City as a City park at the time of
12 rezoning, such that it satisfies the park dedication requirements
13 for the entire master plan as set forth in the land subdivision
14 regulations, Article 14-9, ofthis chapter, then park dedication
15 shall not be required upon the subdivision of individual tracts.
16 (d) Development of the site shall conform to the approved phasing
17 schedule.
20 (7) Application and Review of Development on Individual Tracts;
21 Administrative Procedure
22 Subsequent to the zoning of a land parcel to planned residential
23 community district status by the Governing Body of the City, the
24 authority to review and approve development proposals on individual
25 tracts resides with the Planning Commission as provided by law and
3
132
ordinance. The subdivision of the entire tract into smaller tracts by
2 preliminary subdivision plat shall occur prior to the approval of final
3 development plans for any individual tract. Ifthe Planning Commission
4 does not act on a request for development within 90 days after the initial
5 review by the Planning Commission, the applicant may request review of
6 the proposed development by the Governing Body. An increase in the
7 number of dwelling units or area of commercial use for any tract above
8 that approved by the Governing Body ofthe City requires a
9 recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the
10 Governing Body of the City, unless an increase in the number of
11 dwelling units is agreed to in carrying out the requirements of the Santa
12 Fe Homes Program, set forth in §] 4-8.11. The following regulations
13 apply to the respective development of individual tracts:
14 (a) The development of tracts proposed for single-family detached
15 dwellings on conventionally platted lots shall conform to the
16 requirements for single-family structures in residential R-l
17 through R-6 districts and the Santa Fe Homes Program, set forth
18 in §14-8.11 and §26-1. The provisions of the land subdivision
19 regulations shall apply to detached, single-family residences on
20 conventionally platted lots;
21 (b) The development of tracts proposed for multiple-family
22 structures shall conform to the provisions for multiple-family
23 structures in RM districts, the Santa Fe Homes Program, set forth
24 in §14-8.11 and §26-1. In the course of reviewing the
25 preliminary development plan, the Planning Commission may
4
133
1 require changes in the preliminary plan as a condition of
2 Planning Commission approval. The applicant shall prepare a
3 final development plan to be followed in construction operations.
4 The final development plan shall be submitted to the Planning
5 Commission for approval, together with final drafts for the
6 homeowners' association, to include articles of incorporation,
7 bylaws, covenants, and restrictions. The final development plan,
8 or successive stages thereof, as approved becomes the final plat
9 and the basis for issuance of zoning and building permits and for
10 acceptance of public dedications. The applicant shall comply
11 with all the requirements as set forth in §14-5.7(1)(4).
12 (c) The development of tracts designated for single-family attached
13 structures shall conform to the provisions set forth for the R-7,
14 R-8 and R-9 residential districts in Article 14-7, the Santa Fe
15 Homes Program set forth in §14-8.l1 and §26-1. The Planning
16 Commission may grant variances from those provisions as set
17 forth in §14-2.3(C)(3).
18 (d) In addition to complying with the regulations set forth in the
19 shopping center district, SC, §14-4.3(K), the following
20 requirements apply:
21 (i) Neighborhood commercial uses may be permitted in the
22 planned residential community district. Where
23 neighborhood commercial uses are approved as part of
24 the master plan, the maximum ground area for such
25 neighborhood commercial uses shall be calculated by
5
134
1 multiplying the number of residents by 35 square feet.
2 The number of residents per household shall be set at
3 three and six-tenths for owner-occupied dwellings and
4 three and seven-tenths for renter-occupied dwellings, or
5 as estimated by the United States Bureau of the Census;
6 (ii) A preliminary development plan drawn at a minimum
7 scale of 50 feet to the inch with topography at contour
8 intervals of 2 feet indicating existing drainage. This plan
9 shall show with appropriate dimensions, an arrangement
10 of buildings; off-street parking and loading facilities;
11 internal automotive and pedestrian circulation; ingress
12 and egress from adjoining streets, service areas and
13 facilities; drainage system; landscaping fences and walls;
14 the size and location, orientation and type of all signs
15 proposed; proposed lighting of the premises; and relation
16 to all property within 200 feet of the tract. If it is
17 proposed to develop the shopping center in stages, the
18 stages and times of development shall be indicated; and
19 (iii) The applicant shall prepare a final development plan to
20 be followed in construction operations and submit it to
21 the Planning Commission for approval. No building
22 permit shall be issued until the Planning Commission
23 approves the final development plan or the successive
24 stages thereof. The applicant shall comply with all
25 requirements set forth in §14-5.7(1)(4), procedures for
6
135
final development plan approval.
2 (e) The development for tracts designated mixed-use shall not
3 exceed 35% of the Planned Residential Community and shall
4 conform to the provisions set forth for the Mixed-Use districts in
5 Article 14-7. The Planning Commission may grant variances
6 from those provisions as set forth in §14-2.3(C)(3l. Development
7 approval shall follow the process set forth in paragraphs (d)(i)
8 and (d)(ii) above.
9 Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
11
12
13 F
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Jpfca/jpmbf2009 billsIPlanned Residential Community
7
136
TO: Mathew Ortiz, Chair of Finance Committee
Members, Finance Committee ,
FROM:-- Kathy McCormick, Director of HCD ~
DATE: May 22,2009
RE: NWQ Financial Information
CC: MayorCoss
City Council Members
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this memo is to provide background information and a description of the
financial information related to the Northwest Quadrant.
As envisioned, the NWQ will be a legacy project for the City of Santa Fe. It has been
designed to address multiple community goals that will be an asset to the city for the
next 20 to 50 years. This development allows for a mix of uses, including residential,
live/work and neighborhood commercial. This mix of uses will enhance the lifestyle
of the residents upon completion and well into the future. Throughout the project the
latest technologies for green building will be used. Connectivity within the site and to
greater Santa Fe will be provided through a network of trails. The project builds on the
"best of Santa Fe", by devoting over 75% of the development to open space and
allowing for the mix of uses that have become a hallmark of Santa Fe's downtown area.
It is located within three miles of the major employment centers of the area. Over time,
public transportation systems will improve, technologies associated with green building
and wastewater treatment will change. What will be constant is the need for families to
have a place to call home in an environment that is livable and contributes to the overall
quality of life of the area.
Based on the latest financial feasibility analysis, the NWQ is achievable. To accomplish
this development'; a combination of forming a Public Improvement District (PID), a Tax
Increment District (TID) and access to funding from State, Federal and Foundations
would be needed. In addition, the affordability mix will need to be modified. The initial
approach was to set aside 37% as affordable under the SFHP; 33% as step up housing
and the balance at market. Today, expressing the affordability requirements in ranges is
advised. Providing at least 30% affordable under SFHP and 33% as step-up units is
recommended. These recommendations are explained in greater detail later in this
document.
SSOO1P65 - 7,95
137
BACKGROUND:
History
The City of Santa Fe will not be the developer for the NWQ. This means that the
purpose(s) of completing the financial feasibility was to understand the conditions under
which the Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) would work financially, to understand how to
negotiate with any master developers who might respond to a Request for Proposal to
develop this project and to test a variety of cost and sales assumptions. The process
used to develop the Financial Feasibility analysis is described below.
Initial Financial Feasibility
The initial financial feasibility for the NWQ was done throughout the design process.
The financial feasibility was an important component of understanding the conditions
under which the project could be developed. It also provided some insights into how a
master developer might evaluate this project. Design Workshop completed the initial
feasibility analysis. They conducted a series of Key Informant interviews with local
builders/developers to understand building costs and to test pricing points for the project.
Infrastructure pricing was provided by Bohannan Huston Engineering, who is the
engineering firm that is part of the design team.
The series of financial pro-formas prepared by Design Workshop provided a snapshot in

time of revenues/expenses for this project, but did not take into consideration how a
master developer would perform value engineering for the development or how they
would phase the project to accommodate market conditions.
Design Workshop completed three different feasibility studies that focused on

understanding the following:
1. The overall financial feasibility of the project, considering the constraints on

pricing and requirements for green bUilding and amenities;
2. The possibility of a for-profit developer interest in responding to an RFP. This
test evaluated the rate of return that would be needed to attract a for-profit
developer;
3. The option of selling the land to the master developer versus a land lease;
4. Options for participation by the School District;
5. The cash flow for the project over time. A ten-year build out was assumed.
The initial work completed by Design Workshop revealed the following:
1. The project was financially feasible, although the net income was very low.
Because of this, additional grants from state, federal and foundation sources
would be needed to ensure the overall feasibility of the project.
2. A non-profit developer would be the best candidate to take on the Master
Developer role. This is because the project would not generate the 11 % rate
of return that is typically found in private developments. A development fee of
5% from workforce and market unit sales revenues was in all scenarios tested.
3. Selling the land for $5 million was preferable to leasing the land because of
marketability.
2
138
4. Buying the 15 acres owned by the SFPS would be preferable to having the
district remain as partners in the project. The analysis showed that the district
would need to remain in the project for at least seven years before receiving any
income.
5. The project could sell 40 homes for $1 million dollars each.
6. Additional funding would not be needed to achieve a break even over time;
however, favorable financing for infrastructure would be needed. Staff worked
with the NMFA about the possibility of infrastructure loans that would have
repayment deferred for three-years to allow for sufficient homes sales to pay the
bonds issued to cover this debt.
7. Grant funding from Foundations, State and Federal sources would be needed to
support the project. (see attached).
Attached are copies of the financial feasibility summaries prepared by Design Workshop
that evaluated these approaches.
Current Financial Feasibility Analysis
Staff became concerned with the changing housing market conditions and the potential
impact on the NWQ as proposed. In addition, staff wanted to verify that all of the cost
components of the proposed development had been captured. To that end,
a contract with Michael Halsey was executed in March, 2009 to perform another series
of financial analysis for this development. Michael is a local economist who is very
familiar with market conditions and development costs. His charge was to ensure that
all costs were included in the pro-forma and to test additional assumptions with regard to
project. This included providing an understanding of:
1. How the project would perform under current market conditions;

2. The impact of shifting the affordability requirements imposed on this project;
3. Updating costs and revenues;
4. Testing a land lease versus a sale model; and,
5. Identifying gaps and options for closing these gaps.
The analysis completed by Mr. Halsey found that the NWQ, as proposed, was very
sensitive to market conditions because of the pricing requirements placed on the project.
For example, it was noted that the ability of this development to have 40 million dollar
homes was not feasible given the cost to construct and the abundance of homes on the
market at this price point. Furthermore, construction costs have gone down, making the
step-up homes a better value for the development in terms of the cost to construct
versus the sales pricing. Lastly, additional costs, such as GRT were added to the
equation. Overall, the analysis completed by Mr. Halsey demonstrated that the
development would be better served by having the affordability requirements expressed
in ranges. This is because of the sensitivity of this project to changing market
conditions.
The initial analysis completed by Mr. Halsey was based on setting aside 37% of the units
under the Santa Fe Homes Program (SFHP), 33% as step-up housing and 30% as
market rate. In talking with Rancho Viejo, Mr. Halsey found that construction costs could
be as low as $65 per square foot for an affordable product type. For the revised
analysis, he used an $80 per square foot cost; for step-up a $95 per square foot cost
3
139
was used and market rate homes used a $120 per square foot cost. Sales prices were
correlated to MlS sales for the past year and then adjusted to account for a north side
location, green building and new product. ' The net result was that if the NWQ were built
it would lose $27M. This loss includes financing costs and a developer rate of return of
11%.
The next step in the analysis was to test three different housing affordability mixes for
the project. For example:
1. 'What would be the effect of setting aside 33% under SFHP; 37% as step-up
housing and 30% as market rate? The project would have a gap of $18. 8M.
2. What would be the effect of setting aside 30% of the homes to be sold under the
SFHP and 40% as step-up with the balance at market? The project would have
a gap of $18.5.
3. What would be the effect of setting aside 37% under SFHP; 35% as step-up
As a result of the analysis, financial gaps were identified and options for closing the gap
were evaluated. These included:
a. Public Improvement District (PID) - Under this option, bonds would be

issued to pay for the infrastructure improvements. A Public Improvement
District (PID) would be formed and a monthly payment assessed from the
home owners would be used to pay the debt. This monthly payment
assessment for debt service would be folded into a Homeowners
Association fee. The amount to be paid by homeowners would range
from a low of $39 per month to a high of $98. Added to the currently
proposed HOA, the monthly fee would range from $80 to $199.
b. Tax Increment Financing (T1F) - This approach uses any GRT that will be
raised from the construction and sale development properties to retire the
principal and interest of public bonds. Current projections indicate that by
only using taxes generated by construction and sale development
properties, this project will generate roughly $20 million in GRT.
A portion of this GRT could be dedicated to service the debt associated
with a TIF.
c. Combination T1FIPID - An analysis was completed on doing a combined
TIF/PID. This was done to keep the price of the PID as low as possible
and to provide as much revenue to the City as possible through the
payment of GRT. The analysis provided for roughly $5M in TIF and
$8.5M to be repaid through a PID. The final mix, if acceptable to the
Council, will be agreed upon with the Master Developer.
d. Accessing State, Federal and Foundation Grants - The project will be a
good candidate for these funding sources because of the public purposes
that are being addressed in the project. At least $550,000 in grants will
be needed, depending on the Scenario that is used.
Based on the work completed by Mr. Halsey, the following has been concluded:
1. As proposed, the NWQ is rich with public purpose. It has over 75% of the land
set aside in open space, will offer an extensive trail network, utilize the best in
140
green building techniques and technologies and provide for a mix of unit types
and pricing points that will result in a mixed income development that will be
attractive to many potential buyers, particularty younger buyers and others
seeking to live in a modestly priced community close to downtown.
2. The location of the project is good, as it is near services including shopping,

employment and schools. Access will be relatively good and the project will be
attractive to buyers who are seeking to live in a green community, with abundant
open space in an area that is close to downtown. Entry level and step up buyers
are the proper target markets and the mix of incomes and uses should be
attractive.
3. The project will be sensitive to changing market conditions. The project will
have three primary phases, with smaller building phases completed within the
larger phasing plan. The City should require the Master Developer to complete
a market analysis at each of the primary phases to fUlly evaluate the market
conditions at that time. Affordability requirements should be established at that
time, with a minimum requirement of 30% set aside as SFHP units and a
minimum of 33% set aside as step-up housing. Market rate units should not
exceed 33% of the project at any future point in time. If the project were under
construction today it would be challenged to sell high end homes (above
$750,000) as this is the one area that currently has over supply in the market.
This situation is best addressed through the phasing of the project and careful
monitoring of market conditions, since not all high end homes need to be built at
one time.
4. A land lease is a viable option for the project. Land leases have been commonly
used in New Mexico. Use of a land lease will present a marketing challenge;
however, this can be overcome with good marketing materials, explanations and
a simple land lease. Taking the cost of the land out of the equation helps the
pro-forma as well as provides an on-going income stream to the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund. One scenario testing the land lease model found that the
total annual payment of $303,285 could be possible; over a 30 year term this
would equate to $9 million dollars. This income stream does not include any
potential lease rate resets at time of sale - it includes only a 5% simple interest
payment.
5. The affordability mix should be considered in ranges. For example, as currently

proposed, a requirement that 37% of the units to be set aside as affordable
under the SFHP may be onerous. Of all the unit types proposed for this project,
the "step-up" housing is the most beneficial economically because of the cost to
construct versus sales revenues. Furthermore, the current market will not
support a lot of high end housing. The pro~forma will need to be revisited over
time to ensure that the mix of sales prices projected can support the costs
required to construct the proposed mix of product types. Mr. Halsey evaluated
the following affordability mixes:
5
141
a. 37% of the units under Santa Fe Homes, 33% as· step-up housing and
30% market This is the original approach;
b. 30% set aside under Santa Fe Homes, 40% step-up housing and 30%
market rate;
c. 37% under Santa Fe Homes, 35% step-up housing and 28% market rate;
and
d. 33% set aside under Santa Fe Homes; 37% step-up housing and 30%
market rate.
The best mix at this point is (b). This mix estabJishes a floor of 30% for the
SFHP units. For step-up homes, the recommended floor is 33% and the
ceiling for market rate homes could not exceed 33%. These floors would be
included in any agreement with a Master Developer. The final mix would be
determined based on a combination of market conditions and construction
and related development costs.
6. The project will need some form of financing for infrastructure. Staff has been
working with the New Mexico Finance Authority (NMFA) to fully vet the
options. These options are realistic and the NMFA is interested in working
with the City on structuring a bond issue that will be mutually beneficial.
Some of these proposed financing mechanisms have already been explained
on page 4.
7. The project will be a good candidate for State and Federal Grants as well as
potential foundation grants (see attached for listing of potential grants). At
lease $550,000 in grants will be needed, depending on the Scenario that is
used.
TIMING AND DEVELOPER SELECTION PROCESS
The results of the financial analysis provide some insights with regard to timing for this
development. According to Mr. Halsey, the Santa Fe Market is showing signs of
improvement. The days on market are reducing, there are fewer reductions in sale
prices and the supply and demand is moving into balance. The one exception is high
end homes, for which Mr. Halsey estimates there is a four to five years supply. Timing
is working in favor of this project, as it is being introduced during a downturn. Ideally, the
project will begin development as the market begins to upswing.
The selection of a Master Developer is expected to take at least one year. The
developer selection process will involve the following:
1. Identifying potential Master Developers and presenting the project to them. The
NWQ is a complicated project and it will be important to present information to
them prior to issuing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). The information they
receive through this process will be the same information that has been
presented to the Council.
2. Preparing and issuing an RFQ. This type of RFQ will need to be available for at
least four weeks and will need another four weeks for review and consideration.
3. Prepare a short list of potential Master Developers based on the RFQ. These
developers-will respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP). The RFP will require
the developer to explain their approach to the project, how to address the
142
affordability mix, marketing, formation of a Homeowners Association, financing
approaches, staffing requirements, phasing schedule and proposed pricing,
approaches to the green bUilding and infrastructure requirements as well as the
proposed agreements. This will take at least eight (8) weeks with another eight
(8) weeks set aside for review.
4. Once a master developer has been selected, agreements will be prepared and
all Committee and Council approvals will be obtained. It is anticipated that this
will require more than one review by the various committees and Council.
It will be at least two years before any construction work could be initiated at the
NWQ. This is attributed to the time needed for the developer selection process,
then the time required to obtain approvals through the development review .
process as well as the time needed to line-up financing needed for the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve the master plan as currently proposed. Begin the selection of a master
developer within six months. If approved today, it will take at least two years to
begin construction of this project. Staff recommends the developer selection
process begin in six months, as long as market conditions show continued
improvement. Information to be used to evaluate the timing will be when homes
prices at $300,000 to $450,000 show an average of 90 days on the market;
2. Provide ranges for the affordability requirements. A floor of 30% set aside under
Santa Fe Homes; a floor of 33% step up homes and a ceiling of 33% market rate
units. Require developer to provide a basis for the pricing mix they are proposing
at each phase. This should include an assessment of market conditions to
understand the rationale;
3. Allow for alternative financing options such as those identified in this memo to be
used to close the anticipated financing gap. These include using a PID and
requiring the developer to constantly research and apply for grants and favorable
loans to complete community amenities and underwrite costs of green building.
7
143
NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN
PRO FORMA SUMMARY 28.Deeember.2007

MASTER DEVELOPER MODEL
SCENARIO: C
REVENUES:
Affordable Units $39,792,000

Workforce Housing Units $80,337,070
Market Rate Units $159,730,000
Less: Commissions ($13,187,672)
Total Revenues--> $266,671,397
EXPENSES:
Land $5,840,000
General Contractor Overhead &Profit $19,293,292

Developer Fee $12,003,353
Architectural JEngineering $16,590,876
Other Soft Costs $12,414,961
Contingency (Soft Costs) $6,030,248
Subtotal, Soft Costs -> $66,332,731
Water Rights $5,962,500

Wet UtHities $5,058,108
Dry Utilities $1,275,340
Streets $4,897,300
Earthwork $11,701,162
Archaeological Costs $3,000,000
Other Infrastructure Costs $296,250
Contingency (Infrastructure) $3,219,066
Subtotal, Infrastructure -> $35,409,726
Home Landscaping Costs $2,043,900

Open Space Components $5,700,266
Hard Costs - Building Costs $149,779,025
Total Project Costs --> $265,105,648
PRO.IECT CASH FLOW (10 Years): $1,565,749
Santa Fe Public Schools - Share of Project Cash Flow $0
Master Developer - Net Project Cash Flow $1,565,749
SCHOOL DISTRICT SUMMARY
Land Sold by SFPS to 3rd Party $5,000,000

Land Sold by SFPS to Master Developer $840,000
Share of Project Cash Flow from NWQ Project $0
TOTAL PROCEEDS, SFPS $5,840,000

144
NORTH~STQUADRANT
.PROFORMA SUMMARY
SCENARIO: A
REVENUES:

Total Revenues ---> $267,356,069
EXPENSES:
Land $16,025,075
General Contractor Overhead & Profit $19,331,081

Architectural/Engineering $16,621,050
Subtotal, Soft Costs ---> $66,470,096

Wet Utilities $5,070,033
Streets $4,897,300
Subtotal, Infrastructure ---> $35,450,344

Total Project Costs -> $275,805,981
145
PROJECT CASH FLOW (10 Years): ($8,449,912)
Master Developer - Net Project Cash Flow ($8,449,912)
Land Sold by SFPS to 3rd Party $0

Land Sold by SFPS to Master Developer $0
Share of Net Cash Flow from NWQ Project $0
TOTAL PROCEEDS, SFPS $0
146
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
PROFORMA SUMMARY
SCENARIO: C
REVENUES:

Total Revenues --> $267,356,069
EXPENSES:
Land $5,840,000


Streets $4,897,300

Total Project Costs-> $265,620,906
147
PROJECT CASH FLOW (10 Years): $1,735,164

148
. NORTIlWESTQUADRANT
PROFORMA SUMMARY
SCENARIO: A
REVENUES:

EXPENSES:
Land $5,000,000

Architectural I Engineering $14,957,673

Streets $4,897,300

149
PROJECT CASH FLOW (10 Years): ($3,140,612)
Santa Fe Public Schools - Share of Project Cash Flow $Q

TOTAL PROCEEDS, SFPS $0
150
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
PROFORMA SUMMARY
MASTER ])EVELQPER MODEL
SCENARIO: B2
REVENUES:

Total Revenues ---> $267,356,069
EXPENSES:
Land $5,000,000


Streets $4,897,300

Total Project Costs ---> $264,780,906
151
PROJECf CASH FLOW (10 Years): $2,575,164
Santa Fe Public Schools - Share of Project Cash Flow $437,778

Share of Project Cash Flow from NWQ Project $437,778
152
AP..~~.N.P'.I.X _.
I. Funding Sources
FOUNDATION DIRECfORY
1. The Bank ofAmerica

Donar: Bank ofAmerica Corp; Bank of America., NA; FleetBoston Financial Foundation
Purpose and activities: The foundation supports organizations involved with housing. Special emphasis is
directed toward programs designed to address critical issues in local communities,
Community Development: The foundation supports programs designed to promote affordable housing,
workforce development, and neighborhood revitalization.
URL: http://www.bankofamerica.com
2. Daniels Fund
Donar: R. W. Daniels, Jr.; Bill Daniels
Purpose and activities: Giving for homelessness and self-sufficiency. The goal of the program is to ensure that
homeless individuals and families achieve and maintain self-sufficiency. Focus is on the following: 1) Emergency
Services; shelter, food and basic needs. 2) TransitionalHousing with Supportive Services; transitional housing;
employment programs, vocational training, child management, life skills training and employment
URL: http://www.danielsfund.org
3. The Ford Foundation

Donar: Henry Ford; Edsel Ford
Purpose and activities: The foundation's mission is to serve as a resource for innovative people and institutions
worldwide. Asset building and community development
Community and Resource Development: I)Environment and Development: help people and groups acquire,
protect, improve and manage land, water, forests, wildlife and other natural assets in ways that help reduce
poverty and injustice. 2) Community Development: seek to improve the quality of life and opportunities
for positive change in urban and rural communities. The foundation supports conununity-based institutions
that mobilize and leverage philanthropic capital, investment capital, social capital and natural resources in a
responsible and fair manner
Economic Development: 1) Development Finance and Economic Security: support organizations that help
businesses create employment opportunities and help low-income people acquire, develop and maintain savings,
investments, businesses, homes, land and other assets. 2) Work-force Development: support organizations
that help improve the ways low-income people develop marketable job skills and acquire and retain reliable
employment that provides livable wages.
URL: http://www.fordfound.org
4. The Frost Foundation, Ltd

Donar: Vrrginia C. Frost
Purpose and activities: Focus Social services and humanitarian needs including homelessness; environment-
consideration given to programs in action to conserve and prolect the environment for the well-being and safety of
plants, animals and human beings.
URL: http://www.frostfoundorg
5. The Garfield Foundation

Type of grantmaker: Independent foundation
Purpose and activities: Grantmaking priorities include sustainable production and consumption, biodiversity
conservation, mercury source reduction and conununity revitalization.
Application information: Contributes only to pre-selected organizations
URL: http://www.garfieldfoundation.org
NORTHWESTIM A S T E R
153
•
•
It
It
6. The F. B. Heron Foundation
Purpose and activities: The foundation focuses its grantmaking and mission-related investing on five wealth:..
creation strategies for low-income families and communities. These five areas are: 1) access to capital; 2)
It\ quality and affordable child care; 3) comprehensive community development; 4) home ownership
•• Access to capital: The foundation supports and invests in community development financial institutions
(CDFI's)that serve low-income communities. CDFl's seeking the foundations support must have as their core
••
work financintg home ownership. The foundation also funds practitioner associations that promulgate best
practices. especially those helping CDFI's to track the social impact oftheir investments.
Comprehensive Community Development: The foundation funds comprehensive community development
••
organizations built around a strong core of the wealth-creation strategies on which the foundation focuses - i.e.
access to capital, enterprise development, home ownership and quality and affordable child care. In addition,
associatio~ that assist community development organizations engaged in relevant wealth-ereation strategies to
•• build management and program capacity and to improve and demonstrate impact.
Home ownership: The foundation will consider support for organizations working to increase home ownership
in low and moderate-income urban and rural communities. The foundation is interested in organizations that
t
t
• develop and/or finance new or rehabilitated owner-occupied home, including self-help housing, that assist people
with low-interest mortgage; or that provide pre- and post-mortgage counseling to first -time home buyers.
URL: http://www.heronfdn.org
7. W. K. Kellogg Foundation
t Donar: W.K. Kellogg; W.K. Kellogg Foundation Trust; Carrie Staines Kellogg Trust
t Purpose and activities: supports children, families and communities as they strengthen and create conditions
that propel vulnerable children to achieve success as individuals and as contributors to the larger community and
t society.
t URL: http://www.wkkf.org
t 8. McCune Charitable Foundation

t Donar: Perrine Dixon McCune: Marshall L. McCune
t Purpose and activities: The mission of the foundation is to memorialize its benefactors through grants which
••
enrich the cultural life. health, education, environment, and spiritual life of the citizens of New Mexico. Primary
areas of interest include the arts. education, youth, health, social services and environment
Fields of interest: Community/economic development; homelessnesslshelter. development
•• URL - http://www.nmmccune.org
9. Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
••• Donar: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

Purpose and activities: To support efforts that promote a just, equitable sustainable society with the primary
focus on civil society. the environment, the area ofFlint, MI and poverty. The foundation makes grants for a
variety ofpurposes within these program areas including improving the outcomes for children, youth and families
at risk of persistent poverty; education and neighborhood and economic development.
~ URL: http://www.nottorg
~
~ 10. Phelps Dodge Foundation
Donar: Phelps Dodge Corp
•• Purpose and activities: The foundation supports organizations involved with education, environment, children
and youth, family services, community development and economically disadvantaged people
Community Development - training and development: The foundation supports programs designed to provide
• relevant stills and training to enhance the public workforce. Bring disadvantaged citizens into the economic
• mainstream
URL: http://www.phelpsdodge.comlConununity-environmentlcommunityrelationslcharitablegiving
•
• a-51
• APPENDIX
•
~
[ •. --------------- 154
AP..r.~.N.P..l~ : _ ,
11. Tile PMI Foundation

Donar: PMI Mortgage Insurance Co
Purpose and adivities: Special emphasis is directed toward programs designed to create housing opportunities;
and revitalize neighborhoods in communities.
Civic and community: The foundation supports housing and economic development organizations
URL: http://WW\v.pmifoundation.org
12. Tile Stocker Foundation

Donar: Beth K.. Stocker
Purpose and activities: Emphasis on short-term youth development programs; social service agencies offering.
solutions to specffic problems such as homelessness.
Community: Supports community revitalization efforts that promote sustainable practices and partnerships.
Special preference is shown to organizations that possess a can-do attitude.
URL: http://www.stockerfoundation.org
13. Vaterstetten Foundation

Fields of Interest: Community/economic development; Foundations (community)
AppUcation infonnation: Contributes only to pre-selected organizations
14. Surdna Foundation, Inc

Donar: John E. Andrus
Purpose and activities: Community Revitalization, which takes a comprehensive and holistic approach to
restoring communities in America·
Community Revitalization: The program seeks to transform environments and enhance the quality of life in
urban p laces, increase their ability to attract and retain a diversity of residents and employers, and insure that
urban policies and development promote social equity.
. Environment: Fostering a population ofenvironmentally informed, responsible, activist citizens; and respecting
community and grassroots persectives.
155
·
• APPENDIX
- - _ - -._ ..
_ _ -'-- _..- - - _._. _.._-- _.- -. -_ ----_ . _------_._-_. --_._-----.-.- .
_.----_.-.---.-----.-..
•• SUSTAINABLE FUNDING SOURCES FOR GREEN DEVELOPMENT
t
t
• I. Source: Arbor Day Foundation, and Forest Guardians. and the National Park Service and National Forest
Service for Tree Planting Pro~
2. Source: Enterprise Community Partners bas a program in Los Angeles through Ed Norton, in which affordable
t
••
homes can apply for free (or reduced costs) photovoltaics provided by a Los Angeles Photovoltaic company.
3. Source: Advice from Homework Group: Investigate Monte Sagrado (in Taos) and Oshara (in SFe) for H2O
mining technologies for landscape irrigation that cost less than traditional waste H2O infrastructure/operation
•• and maintenance•...reuse oflandscaping H2O twice.... Utility runs water reclamation and is responsible for
communities' water.
•
4. Source: Jan 07 Legislature passed new legislation, which is supposed to fund communities for Arts and
Culture Districts. and Open Space tax breaks. Suby was told this by the NM Economic Development
Department. ...but would need to produce further research for the actual legislation.
t
5. Source: Biologist Will Barnes and the Santa Fe Girl's School. 3 year Project to restore the Santa Fe River...
t
••
they voluntarily have provided over 500 hours of work along the river for river habitat restoration, similar
work could occur along the arroyos throughout the NWQ.
6. Source: www.cooltowninvestments.com: a $150 million fund to help developers create projects that are well
•• designed city projects for the "creative class", over 1.100 projects described on the website. And a new www.
cooltownbeta.com to help develop customers before projects are constructed.
J
t
• 7. Source: Park Volunteer Program as established at Rail Yard Park with Parks Director Fabian Chavez
8. Source: City of Santa Fe Incentive programs
9. Source: Real estate transfer tax - for affordable units, green standards required
••
10. Source: Enterprise Community Partners and Others Loan Pool for Vertical Construction Costs - 1% to 5%
with set ofstandards - green required
11. Source: Los Alamos National Bank, Description: Sustainable Banking, Commercial Projects. $50 million
•• in special financing to fund Land Development and Construction Projects that incorporate sustainable
development strategies such as effective energy management, water conservation and pollution prevention.
••
12. Source: Enterprise Community Partners, Description: Green Communities: In partnership with the Natural
Resource Defense Council in creating 400 million in funds for smart growth, energy and water resource
management and sustainable building technologies. Grants are awarded up to $50,000. Grant money for
•• "green charrettes" available up to $5,000. Financing Tools available.

13. Source: Eco Media, Description: EcoZone: Eco Media brings together city and state governments with
corporate partners to address environmental projects. The EcoZone program's public-private partnership
••t supports ongoing and new environmental projects - at no additional 60st to taxpayers. Past projects have
included: storm drain catch basin filtering, hybrid and alternative fuel vehicle for municipal fleets, solar
paneling on city facilities, greening industrial lots into green space. Funding also can be directed to public
education and outreach programs.
t •t 14. Source: Fundinggreenbuildings.com / The McAdams Group, Description: Service offers a Funding Green
Building Tool Kit, which includes: Access to five on-line seminars that include: Federal and State Tax
Credits. Funding magnets, Agencies, Presentation tools, Recognition tools, Securing Donations and Revenue
Sources for green buildings. Tool Kit includes access to documents and monthly attendance to "Funding
~
•• Fridays" teleconferences. Cost: $495/person
• a ·53
.----------------------------------A-PP-E-N-DIX
•a 156
AP'.~J;.N.P.l.~ _ _
15. Source: Bridgemer: Funding and Investing in Green Buildings, Description: This Investment Group invests
in real estate projects that utilize green building technologies. Sources of capital are available to provide debt
and equity finance for green buildings.
16. Source: The Kresge Foundation, Description: The Kresge Foundation encourages nonprofit OIganizations
to consider building green. They offer education resources and workshops and special grants to help
nonprofits during the planning phase. Grant guidelines in this program encourage environmentally focused
organizations to innovate, creating new models ofsustainable design. Planning grants are available in
amounts from $25,000 to $100,000.
17. Source: The National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), Description: The NASEO is the only
nonprofit organization that represents the Governor-designated energy officials from each state and territory.
The organization was created to improve the effectiveness and quality ofstate energy programs and policies,
provide policy input and analysis, share successes among the states, and be a repository of infonnation on
energy issues of concern to the states and their citizens.
18. Source: Tax. Incentives Assistance Project (TIAP), Description: The Tax. Incentives Assistance Project
(TIAP), sponsored by a coalition of public interest nonprofit groups, government agencies, and other
organizations in the energy efficiency field, is designed to give consumers and businesses information they
need to make use of the federal income tax incentives for energy efficient products and technologies passed
by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
19. Source: Smart Communities Network (Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development - funding),
Description: Site lists current funds available for green building projects. Examples include: Alcan
Sustainability Prize, Bank ofAmerica Neighborhood Excellence Initiative, EPA funds, DOE grants. See
website for current listings.
20. Source: Suggestions for making the provision of affordable housing at NWQ by private developers feasible:
21. Source: Implementation ofa Real Estate Transfer Tax to fund affordable housing:. Description: Funds from
such a tax would fund affordable housing programs throughout the city. This setup would allow the burden
of providing affordable housing to be spread evenly across all homebuyers, rather than baving the buyers of
market rate housing in a given development shoulder all of the burden. A current proposal before the state
calls for a 1% transfer tax, but it only applies to homes priced above $5OOK
22. Source: Implementation of a Charitable Contribution Tax Credit for Affordable Housing. Description:
This provision would allow developers to offset taxes on capital gains or real estate operations in other
developments by deducting charitable contributions made toward affordable housing programs at NWQ or
other areas within Santa Fe. For example, a developer who has significant real estate profits and tax liability
stemming from projects elsewhere in SF (or in Denver or Dallas or wherever) would be able to reduce his tax
~liability by making a charitable contribution to the City of Santa Fe to fund affordable housing initiatives.
157
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
APPEAL
PLANNING COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Overview
The Current "Future Land Use Map" designated for the property reflects the changes
enacted by the City Council passage of Resolution 2004-91 (which amended the future
land use plan of the City of Santa Fe General Plan to include very low density residential,
low density residential, parks and transitional/mixed use). This change was omitted from
the staff report received by the Planning Commission.
The proposed General Plan Amendment (Case #M-2009-05) is requested in order to

comply with all thirteen historic resolutions passed in support of the proposed Northwest
Quadrant Master Plan. In tum, the project has been developed in accordance with these
resolutions along with the City's growth projections, its economic development goals and
with existing land use conditions. A major goal of the project is to provide affordable
homes, especially housing for the workforce, throughout the project in order for the city
and its employers to retain their valuable workforce. Further, the project is intent on
fostering balanced travel choices, particularly walking, biking and transit use, through its
urban design, complementary land use mixes, and layout and design of a multimodal
transportation network.
We take exception to the Planning Commission statement that "the General Plan
Amendment request is not consistent with existing land use conditions, in that there is
insufficient vehicular access for a project of the proposed size."
The proposed project is consistent with Chapter 3 - Land Use especially in its support
and encouragement of Multi-Modal Transportation Alternatives that reduce automobile
dependence and dominance. Further, current code requirements support the vehicular
access points, including emergency access at Camino de los Montoyas, proposed in the
NWQ project.
It is important to note that four Traffic Impact Studies (TIAs) have been undertaken for
the project since July, 2007. The last study dated May, 2009 clearly demonstrates that
the vehicular access from Ridgetop Road is not only sufficient but requires minimal
mitigation.
More importantly, the proposed master plan is focused on transportation planning for the
future. As a result of this sustainable traffic approach, and in accordance with the City's
General Plan, Chapter 6 - Transportation and the City's Sustainable Santa Fe Plan, the
Exhibit ~
158
NWQAPPEAL PAGE TWO
proposed NWQ provides a strong policy foundation that stresses the following
transportation principles:
• Implement a comprehensive strategy to decrease reliance on the automobile;

• Allow a greater variety of compatible uses to reduce the number and length of
vehicle trips (i.e. mixed-use/live-work);
• Provide bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and routes;
• Adopt a policy of "transit first" and give transit priority for commuting;
• Recognize bicycling and walking as viable alternatives to motorized
transportation.
Part of the city's design review process included the fire department review of
vehicular access.. According to the department's write-up, two means of access
was desired but not required. The project has provided this: one vehicular access point at
Ridgetop Road and two emergency access point~ at Camino de los Montoyas. According
to the fire department, this plan meets all national, state and local fire code requirements.
Consequently, we believe the proposed plan will not negatively impact public health and
safety nor does it present an increased risk to the project and abutting areas in the event
of fire or other public hazard as erroneously indicated in the findings.
The proposed project connects to one vehicular access point at Ridgetop Road.
It has minimal impact on the existing neighborhoods of Las Estrellas and Zocalo and it
has no traffic impact on the neighborhoods of Casa Solana and Camino de los Montoyas
as there is no proposed connectivity to those neighborhoods.
With regards to Resolution No. 2006-1 creating a Citizen's Task Force for the NM 599
Corridor Safety Study and the comments in the findings regarding this resolution, we
respond as follows:
1. The citizen's task force was never established because the DOT found that the public
participation process could not be specific to one group.
2. All citizens, including the NWQ Design Team members, are allowed to attend any of
the NM 599 Corridor Safety Study meetings. In fact, the NWQ Design Team has
attended several ofthe NM 599 Corridor Safety Study meetings. Additionally, we have
kept abreast of the study via representatives from both Bohannan Huston, Inc. and the
MPO. Consequently, the current NWQ Master Plan shows right of way for a future
interchange just northeast of the current intersection of Camino de los Montoyas and NM
599 in accordance with the findings to date from the 599 Study.
3. The Current MPO Model that is being used in the 599 Corridor Safety Study already
includes 700-800 homes specifically proposed for the NWQ and 595 new businesses in
the area (I96-retail; 384-office services and I5-medical). While the residential units are
159
NWQAPPEAL PAGE THREE
specific to the NWQ project, the commercial space will be included in the MPO model
once the plan has been adopted.
4. Resolution # 2006-1 indicates that the recommendations of the NW 599 Corridor

Safety Study be incorporated into the NWQ Master Plan. However, this is a "chicken
and egg" issue. Per Bohannan Huston, Inc., in order for the full NWQ Master Plan to be
incorporated into the findings of the Safety Study, and vice versa, the plan must be
approved by Council. Only with Council approval can Bohannan Huston, Inc. add the
entire NWQ plan into its study and then produce its final findings. Per B&H, the city has
until late fall to do so.
With over 400 acres of open space and 10+ miles of trails and parks on which to hike,
bike and walk, which link to another 2,230 acres of regional open space, the project not
only encourages a healthy lifestyle, it supports a car-free living lifestyle which can be
fully achieved given the property's proximity to downtown and the commuting van
planned for commuters.
Lastly, one cannot dismiss the importance of the positive economic impact on the city
in proceeding with such a development. Projected net new public revenue is over $33
Million Dollars. Construction GRT is estimated at $9.6M and Property Tax is estimated
at $13.7M and New Household Spending is estimated at $1O.5M per year.
160
APPEALREnEWAPPLKATION
Appellant Name: City of Santa Fe and Santa Fe Public Schools

Appellant Address: 200 Lincoln Avenue, Santa Fe, NM 875011610 Alta Vista, Santa Fe, NM 87505
Project Name, Case or Building Permit Number: Northwest Quadrant - Case #M 2009-06
Project Address: South of 599, West of Santa Fe Estates and North of Casa Solana
Phone No.: Not applicable Cell No.: Not applicable
Fax No.: Not applicable E-mail Address: Not applicable
Agent(s) Name: City of Santa Fe/Housing & Community Development Department/Lee DePietro
Agent(s) Address: 120 S. Federal Place, Santa Fe, NM 87501
Phone Number: 955-6662 Cell Number:_ _---'9=3'-"'0-'-0"--'1-'4.=:.2 _
Fax No.: 955-6332 E-mail Address: lmdepietrouv,santafenm.gov
Appeal to Public Body Appeal of: Decision Date

[jI City Council o Administrative Decision 6/18/09
o Planning Commission (PC) ~ (PC) Decision
o Board of Adjustment (BOA) o (BOA) Decision
Appeal Cost $~1-"-00=.-,,-00",,,---- + $30 Per Poster = $-----'N'---"/'-'-A~ _
I, hereby, certify that the documents submitted for review and consideration by Citv Council
meeting of 9/30/09 have been prepared in accordance with the checklist and meet the
minimum standards outlined in Chapter 14 SFCC 1987. Failure to meet these standards may result
in rejection of my application. I also certify that I have met with a representative of the city's Zoning
staff a d verified the attached proposal in compliance with the city's zoning requirements.
Appe nt Signature Date

City of Santa Fe
..;;m~'f~ Q-30q L/-</h,,~ 1-3-() 7

Date
Appellant Signature te Signature of Agent
Santa Fe Public Schools
For Office Use Only Date Stamp
Staff Signature Date Received
ExhibitL
161
VERIFIED APPEAL PETITION
To the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission or Governing Body
We, City of Santa Fe and Santa Fe Public Schools , the undersigned,

first being sworn on our oath, depose and hereby submit to The Governing Body of the City of
Santa Fe, this petition, duly verified, setting forth the following: (Please attach additional sheet(s)
if necessary)
1. How such petition constitutes an appeal?
See Exhibit "A" attached
2. How such decision is illegal in whole or in part?
3. The specific ground(s) of the illegality.
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW MEXICO)

) SS.
COUNTY OF SANTA FE)
We, Citv of Santa Fe and the Santa Fe Public Schools , being

duly sworn, deposes and says: That he/she has read the foregoing appeal and knows the contents
thereof and that the same are true to his/her own knowledge.
PE~E~C~OF
""":\ -
SANTA FE
Subscribed and sworn to before me this -4~ day Of*-rtJ2-yF~"l 20 cPt' .
~IJ""'"
....~... ufHClAL SEAL
iI ~\ Ernestina Y. Dominguez £/ L-~
~ ~ NOTARYPUBUC t
r<OTARY PUBL
'I"~'O srATEOF~MEXlCO;
'y Cnrnmi5<ion FltOi...<· ,0 i =.l!::t: 2019-' 162
VERIFICATION

) SS.
COUNTY OF SANTA FE)
We, City of Santa Fe and the Santa Fe Public Schools , being

thereof and that the same are true to hislher own knowledge.
PETITIONERIS TA FE PUB SCHOOLS
Subscribed and sworn to before me tbis J dayof ¥~ 20-aL.
~#
163
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
CASE # M 2009-06
APPEAL
Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance
J. How such petition constitutes an appeal?

This is an appeal on the escarpment variance decision made by the Planning Commision
on June 18,2009. By its very definition: an appeal is a legal proceeding by which a case
is brought from a lower court to a higher court for rehearing. In this case, the Applicants
are appealing the decision made by the Planning Commission regarding its escarpment
variance to the City Council.

We believe this decision is illegal because the Applicants' variance request to the
escarpment overlay district is consistent with the 1999 General Plan which shows a
connection from Paseo de Vista to Camino de los Montoyas along the ridge connecting to
Ridgetop Road.
The request to grant a variance to the escarpment overlay district was the result of a
thorough planning study undertaken by Design Workshop in conjunction with Bohannan
Huston, Inc. While several roadway configurations were reviewed, the proposed roadway
was deemed the best because:
1) it maintains the required access to the existing PNM substation;

2) a fully bladed roadway (a access easement to the substation) already
exists in the area of proposed disturbance; and
3) it preserves hillsides;
Further, most of the remainder of the proposed Ridgtop road connection is located
outside of the ridgetop subdistrict. Only a small portion (9% ) encroaches on the
ridgetop subdistrict in the vicinity of the PNM substation. An alternative road
configuration would need to cross the arroyo below the substation and result in a larger
area of disturbance to existing slopes, conflict with archaeological sites, and disturb more
vegetation.
The variance request is also based on the need to provide road connectivity from
Ridgetop Road to Camino de los Montoyas. This connection is essential because it
provides emergency access vehicles a second means of ingress and egress to the property
and allows emergency vehicles to easily connect to the project's east and west entry
points.
164
NORTHWEST QUADRANT Page Two
CASE # M 2009-06
Lastly, strict compliance with the existing ordinance will cause extraordinary hardship
because redesigning a new roadway will mean additional archaeological impact and
mitigation expenses, coupled with additional infrastructure expense to deal with the more
difficult terrain in the northern area.
3. The specific grounds o{the illegality.

Denying this variance contradicts the general purpose and intent of Chapter 14-5.6. and
the 1999 General Plan. Further, an inability to connect a roadway from east to west
throughout the proposed development will result in disconnected neighborhoods and be
otherwise detrimental to public welfare which is also a violation of the City's
commitment to enhancing the quality of life and ensuring convenient community services
for residents as outlined in its 1999 General Plan.
165
APPEAL REVIEWAPPLICATION
Appellant Name: City of Santa Fe and Santa Fe Public Schools

Appellant Address: 200 Lincoln Avenue, Santa Fe, NM 875011610 Alta Vista, Santa Fe, NM 87505
Project Name, Case or Building Permit Number: Northwest Quadrant - Case #M 2009-08
Project Address: South of 599, West of Santa Fe Estates and North of Casa Solana
Phone No.: Not applicable Cell No.: Not applicable
Fax No.: Not applicable E-mail Address: Not applicable
Agent(s) Name: City of Santa Fe/Housing & Community Development Department/Lee DePietro
Agent(s) Address: 120 S. Federal Place, Santa Fe, NM 87501
Phone Number: 955-6662 Cell Number:_ _--"9:-=3:-=0---'-0"-'1'-. :4=2 _
Fax No.: 955-5332 E-mail Address: Imdepietro@santafenm.gov
Appeal to Public Body Appeal of: Decision Date

Igj City Council o Administrative Decision 6/18/09
o Planning Commission (PC) iii (PC) Decision
o Board of Adjustment (BOA) o (BOA) Decision
Appeal Cost $------"1--"-0-"-0'-".0--"-0 + $30 Per Poster = $~N'-"/'-.O-A""'----- _
I, hereby, certify that the documents submitted for review and consideration by City Council
meeting of 9/30/09 have been prepared in accordance with the checklist and meet the
minimum standards outlined in Chapter 14 SFCC 1987. Failure to meet these standards may result
in rejection of my application. I also certify that I have met with a representative ofthe city's Zoning
staffand verified the attached proposal in compliance with the city's zoning requirements.
jj~
Appellant Signature Date
City f Santa e
.J/ /' "':f----rl--t.-U..
Appellant Sig ature te Signature of Agent Date
For Office Use Only Date Stamp
Staff Signature Date Received
Exhibit B 166
VERIFIED APPEAL PETITION
To the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission or Governing Body
We, City of Santa Fe and Santa Fe Public Schools , the undersigned,

first being sworn on our oath, depose and hereby submit to The Governing Body of the City of
Santa Fe, this petition, duly verified, setting forth the following: (Please attach additional sheet(s)
if necessary)
3. The specific ground(s) of the illegality.
VERIFICATION

) SS.
COUNTY OF SANTA FE)

thereof and that the same are true to hislher own knowledge.
PEi~~I~SANTAFE
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of ~~~~ 2o oCf'
fi.'
~
~. '\,,- ....~..
. ,• • 0
"lIJ
uFFlClAL SEAL
Ernestina Y. Dominguez
NOTARYPUBUC
STATEOPNEW~CO
'v rnmmi~~ion hoi....· 0 I :."_
i
~.
ag I :;;y
f~~~~~~u~
NbTARY PUBIf (j 0
167
VERIFICATION

) SS.
COUNTY OF SANTA FE)

thereof and that the same are true to his/her own knowledge.
PETITIONERISANTA FE PUBL SCHOOLS
Subscribed aud sworu to before me this U day of ~2 20QL.
~I&
168
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
CASE # M 2009-08
APPEAL
Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance

This is an appeal to the terrain management variance decision made by the Planning
Commission on June 18, 2009. By its very definition: an appeal is a legal proceeding by
which a case is brought from a lower court to a higher court for rehearing. In this case,
the Applicants are appealing the decision made by the Planning Commission regarding its
terrain management variance to the City Council.
2. How such a decision is illegal in whole or in part?

We believe this decision is illegal because in the past, the Planning Commission,
following Code Section 14-2.3 B, heard and approved conceptual variances for Master
Planned Projects (see Santa Fe Estates and Tierra Contenta).
In this case, the request to grant a variance to the terrain management ordinance is the
result of a thorough planning and engineering analysis undertaken by Design Workshop
and Bohannan Huston Inc. Further, we are not asking for a variance for two contiguous
areas of 30% mountainous slopes. Rather, the proposed sloped areas are small, multiple
areas and the result of erosion at the headcuts of the arroyos due to public use of lands
that have resulted in limited vegetated cover and a lack of on-site infiltration. The total
amount of area impacted by this request is approximately 28,000 square feet, about the
area of the Santa Fe Plaza.
The terrain management variance request is based on the need to provide a reasonable
amount of contiguous land area for development of the neighborhood center, to protect
existing perimeter archaeological sites as well as to provide road access within the center.
As envisioned, this neighborhood center, in accordance with the definition of a Planned
Residential Community (PRC) is not only designed to develop community by fostering
public life, vitality and community spirit all in accordance with the General Plan (Section
1.7.11) but provides a mix of compatible uses that fulfill everyday retail and service
needs in the new neighborhood, thus affirming Santa Fe's traditional development pattern
(Section 1.7.12).
3. The specific grounds ofthe illegality.

Denying this variance contradicts the general purpose and intent of the General Plan,
Chapter 5 (Section 5.1.5). Further, the scale requested in the variance is 0.1 % of the total
NWQ site area and we take exception to the finding that such a "requested scale" would
have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the terrain management ordinance.
169
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
APPEAL
PLANNING COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Overview
The Current "Future Land Use Map" designated for the property reflects the changes
enacted by the City Council passage of Resolution 2004-91 (which amended the future
land use plan of the City of Santa Fe General Plan to include very low density residential,
low density residential, parks and transitional/mixed use). This change was omitted from
the staff report received by the Planning Commission.
The proposed General Plan Amendment (Case #M-2009-05) is requested in order to

comply with all thirteen historic resolutions passed in support of the proposed Northwest
Quadrant Master Plan. In turn, the project has been developed in accordance with these
resolutions along with the City's growth projections, its economic development goals and
with existing land use conditions. A major goal of the project is to provide affordable
homes, especially housing for the workforce, throughout the project in order for the city
and its employers to retain their valuable workforce. Further, the project is intent on
fostering balanced travel choices, particularly walking, biking and transit use, through its
urban design, complementary land use mixes, and layout and design of a multimodal
transportation network.
We take exception to the Planning Commission statement that "the General Plan
Amendment request is not consistent with existing land use conditions, in that there is
insufficient vehicular access for a project of the proposed size."
The proposed project is consistent with Chapter 3 - Land Use especially in its support
and encouragement of Multi-Modal Transportation Alternatives that reduce automobile
dependence and dominance. Further, current code requirements support the vehicular
access points, including emergency access at Camino de los Montoyas, proposed in the
NWQ project.
It is important to note that four Traffic Impact Studies (TIAs) have been undertaken for
the project since July, 2007. The last study dated May, 2009 clearly demonstrates that
the vehicular access from Ridgetop Road is not only sufficient but requires minimal
mitigation.
More importantly, the proposed master plan is focused on transportation planning for the
future. As a result of this sustainable traffic approach, and in accordance with the City's
General Plan, Chapter 6 - Transportation and the City's Sustainable Santa Fe Plan, the
170
NWQAPPEAL PAGE TWO
proposed NWQ provides a strong policy foundation that stresses the following
transportation principles:
• Implement a comprehensive strategy to decrease reliance on the automobile;

• Allow a greater variety of compatible uses to reduce the number and length of
vehicle trips (i.e. mixed-use/live-work);
• Provide bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and routes;
• Adopt a policy of "transit first" and give transit priority for commuting;
• Recognize bicycling and walking as viable alternatives to motorized
transportation.
Part of the city's design review process included the fire department review of
vehicular access.. According to the department's write-up, two means of access
was desired but not required. The project has provided this: one vehicular access point at
Ridgetop Road and two emergency access point~ at Camino de los Montoyas. According
to the fire department, this plan meets all national, state and local fire code requirements.
Consequently, we believe the proposed plan will not negatively impact public health and
safety nor does it present an increased risk to the project and abutting areas in the event
of fire or other public hazard as erroneously indicated in the findings.
The proposed project connects to one vehicular access point at Ridgetop Road.
It has minimal impact on the existing neighborhoods of Las Estrellas and Zocalo and it
has no traffic impact on the neighborhoods of Casa Solana and Camino de los Montoyas
as there is no proposed connectivity to those neighborhoods.
With regards to Resolution No. 2006-1 creating a Citizen's Task Force for the NM 599
Corridor Safety Study and the comments in the findings regarding this resolution, we
respond as follows:
1. The citizen's task force was never established because the DOT found that the public
participation process could not be specific to one group.
2. All citizens, including the NWQ Design Team members, are allowed to attend any of
the NM 599 Corridor Safety Study meetings. In fact, the NWQ Design Team has
attended several of the NM 599 Corridor Safety Study meetings. Additionally, we have
kept abreast of the study via representatives from both Bohannan Huston, Inc. and the
MPO. Consequently, the current NWQ Master Plan shows right of way for a future
interchange just northeast of the current intersection of Camino de los Montoyas and NM
599 in accordance with the findings to date from the 599 Study.
3. The Current MPO Model that is being used in the 599 Corridor Safety Study already
includes 700-800 homes specifically proposed for the NWQ and 595 new businesses in
the area (196-retail; 384-office services and 15-medical). While the residential units are
171
NWQAPPEAL PAGE THREE
specific to the NWQ project, the commercial space will be included in the MPO model
once the plan has been adopted.
4. Resolution # 2006-1 indicates that the recommendations of the NW 599 Corridor

Safety Study be incorporated into the NWQ Master Plan. However, this is a "chicken
and egg" issue. Per Bohannan Huston, Inc., in order for the full NWQ Master Plan to be
incorporated into the findings ofthe Safety Study, and vice versa, the plan must be
approved by Council. Only with Council approval can Bohannan Huston, Inc. add the
entire NWQ plan into its study and then produce its final findings. Per B&H, the city has
until late fall to do so.
With over 400 acres of open space and 10+ miles of trails and parks on which to hike,
bike and walk, which link to another 2,230 acres of regional open space, the project not
only encourages a healthy lifestyle, it supports a car-free living lifestyle which can be
fully achieved given the property's proximity to downtown and the commuting van
planned for commuters.
Lastly, one cannot dismiss the importance of the positive economic impact on the city
in proceeding with such a development. Projected net new public revenue is over $33
Million Dollars. Construction GRT is estimated at $9.6M and Property Tax is estimated
at $13.7M and New Household Spending is estimated at $10.5M per year.
172
@fi~<IDfr~'lt&~~~m~@@
memo
To: NWQ - File \. /----.L-
From: Lee M. DePietro I.u- /1'11~ -
Date: June 15,2009
Re: Changes to Business Futures Pro-fonna
On June 8, 2009 the 5/15/09 Pro-fonna for the Northwest Quadrant Project completed by
Business Futures, Ltd. was presented to the Public Works Committee. In the meeting, it
was detennined that three revenue/cost components were not included in the pro-fonna.
Staff was asked to correct this error and make all necessary changes to same.
Attached is the updated 6/15/09 Profonna from Business Futures, Ltd. The changes
made to the pro-fonna are the following:
1. Recently the City Council passed an ordinance increasing the sales pricing on all
affordable homes by $3,000.00. This change resulted in additional revenue of
$684,000 for 228 affordable homes.
2. Off-site roadwork estimated at $1.5M was added from the 2/09 Traffic Impact
Analysis; and
3. $350,000 was added to wet utilities to account for the possible wastewater line
work which may be required at sometime during the build-out of the project.
Lastly, all other infrastructure costs were confinned by Michael Halsey per Bohannan
Huston Engineering.
58001 Pb::' - 785
EXhibit~ 173
NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN - PROFORMA SUMMARY - MASTER DEVELOPER MODEL
Financial Projection Review
Prepared by
Business Futures, LTD.

mhalsey@interserv.com
505-983-7906
6/15/2009
174
Table of Contents
Introduction & General Assumptions Page - 1
Comparison to Prior Versions

D Development Budget Comparison - 11/2007 to 6/2009 Page - 2
Basic Projection Assumptions

D Residential Sales Prices Page - 3
D Affordable Units Revenue & Cost Page - 4
D Workforce Units Revenue & Cost Page - 5
D Market Rate Units Revenue & Cost Page - 6
D Projection Sales Pace Page - 7
D Infrastructure per Developed unit Page - 8
D Construction Hard Costs Page - 9
D Soft Cost Percentage Page - 10
Subdivision Cash Flow Analysis

D Projected SFNWQ Cash Flow Page - 11
D Possible SFNWQ GAP Financing Page - 12
D SFNWQ Projection Sensitivity Analysis Page - 13
Profit or Loss by Unit Type Analysis

D Unit Type Profit or Loss Graph Page - 14
D Unit Type Profit or Loss Summary Page - 15
Alternate Unit Mix Scenarios

D Unit Mix Scenarios Page - 16
D Scenario 1 Unit Type Profit or Loss Graph Page - 17
D Scenario 1 Unit Type Profit or Loss Summary Page - 18
175
Introduction & General Notes - 6/15/2009
. .
In November 2007 the Design Workshop was engaged to prepared a Financial Projection for the proposed development of the SFNWQ lands owned by the
City of Santa Fe. This property is comprised of roughy 540 acres. Residential and Commercial structures will be built on roughly 22% of the total area with the
remaining lands being improved into public or open space. 758 residential units are proposed on the property with aproximately 70% being either Affordable
Units or Workforce Units.
Business Futures was engage in early 2009 to review the November 2007 Financial Projections. This involved verifying and updating all projection assumptions
to be consistent with currentmarket condtions. All parties that provided information used within the projection as well as its author where contacted to update their
2007 cost and revenue estimates. In addition the Financial Projection was compared to various similar local Developments to test its reasonablenes. Finally,
Sensitivity Analysis was conducted on various critical projection asumptions to understand the impact of changes in projection assumptions on the overall
feasibility of the Development.
Below are the General Assumptions that were made in 2007 and continue to apply to this current Financial Projection update:
1 Both inflation and price increases are not accounted for in this financial model.
2 Financing costs are not accounted for in this financial model. For the purpose of the 2009 Financial Projection Review various sub-schedules based on the 2007 Projection have been
prepared. Two of these schedules consider the effect of financing costs. The "Soft Cost Percentage" calculation on page 10 tests the reasonableness of projected Soft Costs by adding
estimated construction financing costs to projected Soft Costs to determine if the percentage of total Soft Costs is consistent with other local development projects. On page 12 titled
"SFNWQ GAP Financing" the amount of publiclprivate supplemental financing required to offset the project's overall negative cash flow is solved for. The criteria for determining the
amount of financing required is the realization of an 11 % Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on the project's cash flow over the projected time frame for the completion of the project. Use of
the cash flow IRR to determine the amount of supplemental financing required implies that sufficient cash flow will be available to pay financing costs on any project debt and equity.
3 The model assumes that single family residential units are constructed and delivered to the market in the same calendar year (reflecting an average construction period of 180 days)
4 Assumes the City of Santa Fe or other funding sources provide for extension of primary utilities (water, etc.) to the edge of Tract 1
5 Assumes the City of SF or other funding sources provide for Offsite Street improvements.
6 Assumes the developer pays for all key arterials and neighborhood streets within Tract 1.
Introduction & General Notes - 6/15/2009 Page - 1
176
Dev Budget Camp - 6/15/2009

Comparison of November 2007 Projection with June 2009 Update
Nov-2007 Jun-2009
REVENUES Projection Projection Variance Variance Explanation
Affordable Units - 280 39,792,000 40,632,000 SFHP 2009 Affordabte Housing price increase of $3,000 per unit
Workforce Housing Units - 250 80,337,070 69,581,875
Market Rate Units - 228 159,730,000 148,723,040
Gross Residential Revenue: 279,859,070 258,936,915 (20,922,155) Price Reductions to Market Levels for Workforce & Market Rate Units
Less Closing Costs (estimated @ $2M) 0 2,000,029
Less Contingent Cost Reserve - 1% 0 2,589,369 Cost items not recognized in 11-2007 Projection
Less Commissions:
Affordable & Workforce - 3% 3,603,872 3,306,416
Market Rate - 6% 9,583,800 8,923,382
NM GRT 0 978,384 Cost item not recognized in 11-2007 Projection
Total Residential Commissions 13,187,672 13,208,183 20,510
Net Residential Revenue: 266,671,397 241,139,335 (25,532,063)
EXPENSES
School Land Purchase 840,000 840,000

City Land Purchase 5,000,000 5,000,000
Total Land Cost: 5,840,000 5,840,000 o
Hard Costs
Waler Rights 5,962,500 4,049,400 Cost reduction due to Water Use Agreement with City
Wet Utilities 5,058,108 6,019,027 Updated Cost per Bohannan Huston 4/2009 plus $350,000 per City
Dry Utilities 1,275,340 1,275,340 Updated Cost per Bohannan Huston 4/2009
Streets 4,953,550 5,775,018 Updated Cost per Bohannan Huston 4/2009
Offsite Bridge Improvements 0 1,500,000 Required by 2009 TIA
Earthwork 11,701,162 14,200,000 Updated Cost per Bohannan Huston 4/2009
Archaeological Costs 3,000,000 2,500,000 Fewer Archaeological Sites Impacted by Master Plan
Other Infrastructure Costs 240,000 240,000
Contingency (10% of Infrastructure less Water Rights) 3,219,066 3,555,879
NM GRT 0 3,129,173 Cost item not recognized in 11-2007 Projection
Total Infrastructure 46,715 35,409,726 55,731 42,243,837 6,834,110 Updated Infrastructure Estimates - Indusion NM GRT
per DU per DU
General Contractor Overhead & Profit 19,293,292 17,776,687 Cost Reduction due to Reduction in Hard Costs
Home Improvement Costs ($2700 per Unit) 2,043,900 2,046,600
Open Space Components 5,700,266 5,700,266
Hard Costs - Building Costs 136,162,750 124,671,750 Hard Cost per Sq Ft Reductions based on 2009 SunCor,Actual Costs
Building Hard Cost Contingency 13,616,275 6,233,588 10% contingency reduced 10 typical 5% level
NMGRT 0 12,514,311 Cost item not recognized in 11-2007 Projection
Total Bldg & Landscaping 176,816,483 168,943,201 (7,873,281) Hard cost adjustments - Indusion NM GRT
Soft Costs
Developer Fee Affordable Units (0% of Gross Revenue) o o
Developer Fee Workforce Units(5% of Gross Revenue) 4,016,853 3,479,094 Fee Reduction due to Sales Price Reduction
Developer Fee Market Units (5% of Gross Revenue) 7,986,500 7,436,152 Fee Reduction due to Sales Price Reduction
Architectural/Engineering 16,590,876 15,790,812
Other Soft Costs (Insur., marketing, legal, impact fees, etc.) 12,414,961 12,441,939
Contingency (10% of soft costs) 6,030,248 5,692,468
NM GRT o 3,587,237 Cost item not recognized in 11-2007 Projection
Total Soft Costs 47,039,439 48,427,702 1,388,263 Costs based on percentage of Hard Costs - Indusion NM GRT
Total Project Cost: 265,105,648 265,454,740 349,092
Project Cash now (10 years) 1,565,749 (24,315,405) (25,881,154) Reduced Revenue - Revised Cost Estimates - Inclusion NM GRT
Dev Budget Camp - 6/15/2009 Page - 2

177
Sales Prices - 6/15/2009
SFNWQ Financial Projection Sales Prices per Sq Ft
$450
~o -
g
u
$350
. . /
-
~
/'
./'
II) $300
; II' T - ,
::::l
C"
$250 ,-
,,<r.- ,;z;
- _ -
.........-
en
; $200 ~
II)
--= -. _ -.
A A __ ~
Q. $150 - - JIll' . - -
~ $100 =- -.
$50
$0
gJ~~~~~~~~~~
~
~ <o~ <o~ <o~ <o~ <o~ <o~ 0
~ ~
gJ
~
~"I.
~
~"I.
~
~"I.
~
~"I.
~
~"I.
~
~"I.
<o~ ~~ ~~ ~~ -<..~ -<..~ ~~ o~<J
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~
~*" +~ ~v
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -<..~
+~~
Unit Types
-+-Nov 2007 Projection -May 2009 Projection -'-MLS Sales 12-31-2008
NOTES
»Affordable Unit prices are established by City Ordinence 2005-30
»Workforce and Market Rate 2 BR Units are priced 20% to 25% above average MLS prices for resale property (WF 2 BR - $242 per sq ft--
MRKT 2BR - $268 per sq ft). It is assumed that these prices can be realized since the units are: close to downtown, new, and green
constructed.
»Larger Maket Rate Units and High End Condominiums are priced with decreasing premiums over MLS resale averages with the High End
Condominiums priced at the MLS average level.
Sales Prices - 6/15/2009 Page - 3
178
Affordable Unit Revenue & Cost - 6/15/2009
AFFORDABLE HOMES
Unit 2BR Affordable Unit 3BR Affordable Unit 4BR Affordable Unit PROJECT TOTAL
Square Footage 1,000 1,150 1,250
City of Santa Fe Mandated Sales Prices
Income Range 2 $100,000 $112,000 $125,000

Income Range 3 $129,000 $145,000 $161,000
Income Range 4 $158,000 $178,000 $197,000
City of Santa Fe Mandated Unit Breakdown (Affordable Units)
Income Range 2 23 47 23
Subtotal --> 70 140 70 280
Total Revenue Calculation
Income Range 2 $2,300,000 $5,264,000 $2,875,000

Income Range 3 $2,967,000 $6,815,000 $3,703,000
Income Range 4 $3,792,000 $8,188,000 $4,728,000
Totals --> $9,059,000 $20,267,000 $11,306,000 $40,632,000
Construction Costs
Construction unit cost ($/heated ft. sq.) $80 $80 $80
Total per Unit $80,000 $92,000 $100,000
Water Rights
..
Number of Units 280
Acre Feet / Unit Required 0.25
Cost Per Acre Foot $0
Total Cost, Water Rights $0
Affordable Unit Revenue & Cost - 6/15/2009 Page - 4
179
WF Unit Revenue & Cost - 6/15/2009
WORKFORCE HOUSING
Unit 2BR ModerateUnit 3BR Moderate Unit 4BR Moderate Unit PROJECT TOTAL
Sales Price I SF 242.00 247.50 246.40

Sales Prices $242,000 $284,625 $308,000
Unit Breakdown 83 83 84 250
Total Revenue Calculation $20,086,000 $23,623,875 $25,872,000 $69,581,875
Construction Costs
Construction unit cost ($/heated ft. sq.) $95 $95 $95
Total per Unit --> $95,000 $109,250 $118,750
Water Rights
Number of Units 250
Cost Per Acre Foot $50,000
Tatal Cost, Water Rights $3,125,000
62.5
48.14 «Available @ $10,000 per AFU
$481,400
$718,000
$1,199,400 «Water Settlement Cost
WF Unit Revenue & Cost - 6/15/2009 Page - 5
180
Mkt Unit Revenue & Cost - 6/15/2009
MARKET RATE HOMES
High End
Unit 2BR Market Unit 3BR Market Unit 4BR Market Unit Attached Condos PROJECT TOTAL
Square Footage 1,300 1,800 2,500 3,000
Sales Price SF 268.40 275.00 302.50 400.00

Total Sales Price $348,920 $495,000 $756,250 $1,200,000
Unit Breakdown 62 62 64 40 228
Total Revenue Calculation $21,633,040 $30,690,000 $48,400,000 $48,000,000 $148,723,040
Construction Costs
Square Footage 1,300 1,800 2,500 3,000
Construction unit cost ($/heated ft. sq.) $120 $120 $120 $250
Total per Unit --> $156,000 $216,000 $300,000 $750,000
Water Rights
Number of Units 228
Cost Per Acre Foot $50,000
Total Cost, Water Rights $2,850,000
Mkt Unit Revenue & Cost - 6/15/2009 Page - 6
181
Proj. Sales Pace - 6/15/2009
Projected Future SFNWQ Residential Unit Sales Pace
SFNWQ PRC Projected Annual Residential Unit Sales
~ 300
c
=' 250
'ii
.
~
:2 en
200
= ~ 150
D::l/l
'0 100
;
.Q 50
E
:I
Z 0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Annual Periods
o For Sale SF Residential Units • High End Condo Units
Tierra Contenta PRC Historical Sales Pace Comparison
Tierra Contenta PRC Annual Residential Unit Sales
~
300
c
...
='
'ii
c
250
200 -
",:,
-
-
.. .
"D en
'.. .9! 150 - -
D::l/l
'0
;
100
r 1 ----1
~
.Q
~
E 50
Z
:I
0 I I ,',:"
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Annual Periods
NOTES
»From 2000 through 2006 Tierra Contenta produced the majority of Affordable Housing Units in Santa Fe. The subdivision represented roughly
20% of the residential new construction sales implying that at its peak the demand for new residential construction in Santa Fe was between
800 to 1,000 units annually. The projected SFNWQ sales pace beginning in 2012 is roughly 10% of this total annual demand and less than
half of the pace that Tierra Contenta realized during the middle of this decade.
Proj. Sales Pace - 6/15/2009 Page - 7

182
Infrastructure per DU - 6/15/2009
Comparative Infrastructure Costs per Developed Unit
80,000,------· .. · .. ··--- . ----.--.---....-......- -..--... 1
70,000 I I I I
:'::
l:
::J 60,000 I I
"C
CIl
c-
o
~ 50,000 i-I------------------------I
CIl
C
...
CIl
~ 40,000 I I
III
o
U
CIl
....:;C.J 30,000 I I
.......::::I
~ 20,000 +------l
l:
10,000 I I
o I I I I I
Tierra Contenta 2000- Rancho Viejo 2009 SFNWQ Projection Oshara Village 2006 Santa Fe Estates 2000-
2008 Average 2008
Santa Fe Comparable Subdivision Developments
o Comparable Subdivisionns • SFNWQ 6-2009 Proj.
Infrastructure per DU - 6/15/2009 Page - 8
183
Const. Hard Costs - 6/15/2009
NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN· PROFORMA SUMMARY· MASTER DEVELOPER MODEL
SFNWQ Financial Projection Hard Cost per Sq Ft
gu.. $300
~
IV
~
l::r
$250 -
J:.
...- -..r
l/)
...CI> $200
...
C.
-
$150
-- -- -- -
Ul
o ~
...
~ .... .... .... ....
A A
Ul
r:::
o
$100
$50
- - - - - - -
o
"EIV
$0
J:
~ ~ # ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ gf~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~o
~~ gf~ gf~ gf~ gf~
~.. gf" ,.~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~,. A~ A~ ,," o~
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ,.~ ~ ~,. ~ ~ ~ ~'t"- ~'t"- ~.s.:. ~v
~ ~'
~~
~
~~
~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~of
,,*
~
Unit Types
~November 2007 Projection -June 2009 Projection
NOTES
»Interviews with Suncor, Inc. verified the reduction in construction hard cost for Affordable Units from $105 to $80 per square foot.
»Workforce Units are assumed to be 15% more costly to build than the Affordable Units (for this projection $95 per sq ft hard costs are used).
»Market Rate Units hard costs per square foot are reduced by a comparable percentage to the Affordable Unit reductions ($120 per sq ft is
used). Suncor, Inc. verified that it currently is able to produce Market Rate Units at this per square foot hard costs expense.
»High End condominiums are built at the elevated hard cost of $250 per square foot to ensure that the high levels of quality required by
buyers of this type of product can be maintained.
Const. Hard Costs - 6/15/2009 Page - 9
184
Soft Cost % - 6/15/2009
NWQ MASTER PLAN - PROFORMA SUMMARY - MASTER DEVELOPER MODEL
Development Budget Summary
Land Cost
Total Land Cost 5,840,000 2.1%
Hard Costs
Total Infrastructure 39,114,664
Total Bldg & Landscaping 156,428,890
Hard Cost GRT 15,643,484
Total Hard Costs 211,187,038 77.2%
50ft Costs
Total Soft Costs 44,840,465
Soft Cost GRT 3,587,237
Const. Interest 3% of total 7,965,000 , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "
Total 50ft Costs 56,392,702 20.6% «Usually Ranges from 15% to 25%
Total Project Costs 273,419,740
NOTES
»Construction Interest Costs are assumed to be incurred by the Master Developer as it uses construction
financing to pay for various project costs. Given the cycle of construction and sale of improvements within
the Development the construction loans will never be drawn to an amount representing more than half of the
Total Project costs. To estimate construction loan interest 3% of the Total Project cost is used. This takes into
account the level of loan balances the will be outstanding at any given time. For several projects Business
Futures has analyzed over the last decade this back of the napkin estimate has reliably predicted construction
interest costs.
»Since estimated Soft Costs represent 20.6% of the project total these cost appear to be in line with multiple
similar projects. This percentage is in the middle of the Soft Cost percentage range.
Soft Cost % - 6/15/2009 Page-10
185
Probable SFNWQ Cash Flow - 6/15/2009
NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN· PROFORMA SUMMARY - MASTER DEVELOPER MODEL
Probable Cash Flow - November 2007 Master Plan - June 2009 Financial Projection Update
Description 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Totals
Revenue
Affordable Unit Sales 0 0 3,915,000 3,915,000 3,915,000 4,270,000 4,785,000 4,785,000 4,785,000 5,042,000 5,220,000 40,632,000
Workfarce Unit Sales 0 0 7,511,625 7,511,625 7,511,625 7,511,625 7,511,625 7,511,625 7,819,625 8,346,250 8,346,250 69,581,875
Market Rate Unit Sales 0 0 10,357,270 11,201,190 11,201,190 11,201,190 11,201,190 23,201,190 23,201,190 23,201,190 23,957,440 148,723,040
Less Closing Costs (est. @ $2M) 0 0 (168,259) (174,777) (174,777) (177,519) (181,497) (274,185) (276,564) (282,617) (289,833) (2,000,029)
Less Contingent Cost Reserve - 1% 0 0 (217,839) (226,278) (226,278) (229,828) (234,978) (354,978) (358,058) (365,894) (375,237) (2,589,369)
Less Commisions 0 0 (1,041,374) (1,096,060) (1,096,060) (1,107,562) (1,124,248) (1,901,848) (1,911,827) (1,937,216) (1,991,989) (13,208,183)
Land
SFPS Land Purchase (840,000) (840,000)
City of SF Land Purchase (5,000,000) (5,000,000)
Hard Costs
Total Infrastructure Costs 0 (7,040,639) (7,040,639) (7,040,639) (7,040,639) (7,040,639) (7,040,639) 0 0 0 0 (42,243,837)
Total Bldg & Landscaping Costs 0 (2,058,447) (14,391,135) (14,861,583) (14,861,583) (15,092,530) (14,200,041) (22,883,553) (23,034,889) (23,532,023) (24,027,419) (168,943,201)
Soft Costs
Total Soft Costs 0 (1,020,437) (4,357,389) (4,511,910) (4,511,910) (4,534,177) (4,442,188) (6,129,155) (6,183,041) (6,298,400) (6,439,095) (48,427,702)
Net Cash Flow (5,840,000) (10,119,523) (5,432,740) (5,283,432) (5,283,432) (5,199,441) (3,725,776) 3,954,096 4,041,436 4,173,290 4,400,117 (24,315,405)
Cumulative Cash Flow (5,840,000) (15,959,523) (21,392,263) (26,675,696) (31,959,128) (37,158,569) (40,884,345) (36,930,248) (32,888,813) (28,715,523) (24,315,405)
Cash Flow Internal Rate of Return: #NUM!
NPV@ 10%: (22,780,367)
NPV@4%: (24,194,276)
NOTES
»An estimated $2,000,000 amount is deducted for Closing Costs such as, title insurance costs, legal closing costs, recording fees, marketing costs, etc. paid for by the seller. These costs mayor may not be incurred
based on the actual sales agreements negotiated between residential buyers and the master development entity selling the residential units.
»The 1% of Gross Sales factor attributed to the Contingent Cost Reserve is used in anticipation that during the build out of the Development regulatory changes may occur that will will escalated overall project costs.
»Since the Development cash flow projects that Revenues are significantly less than Costs the Internal Rate of Return cannot be calculated. Calculations of Net Present Value are prepared at 4% (pUblic finance rate) and
10% (market development rate) to assess the feasibility of the project cash flow. Since significant negative values result at both discount rates various GAP financing methods must be employed if the project is going to be
built.
Probable SFNWQ Cash Flow - 6/15/2009 Page - 11
186
SFNWQ Gap Financing - 6/15/2009
Probable Cash Flow - November 2007 Master Plan - June 2009 Financial Projection Update
POSSIBLE Gap Financing Options
Description 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Totals
Net Cash Flow (5,840,000) (10,119,523) (5,432,740) (5,283,432) (5,283,432) (5,199,441) (3,725,776) 3,954,096 4,041,436 4,173,290 4,400,117 (24,315,405)
. 1
City Land Leased 5,000,000 5,000,000
TIF City Portion of Const. GRI 5,416,623 5,416,623
Bond 1% PID Assesmen? 4,498,031 4,498,031 8,996,062

4
Foundation, State, Federal Grants 1,950,000 5,250,000 3,000,000 10,200,000
Cash Flow With Gap Financing (840,000) (204,869) 1,015,291 (33,432) (2,283,432) (5,199,441) (3,725,776) 3,954,096 4,041,436 4,173,290 4,400,117 5,297,280
Cumulative Cash Flow (840,000) (1,044,869) (29,578) (63,011) (2,346,443) (7,545,884) (11,271,660) (7,317,563) (3,276,128) 897,162 5,297,280
Cash Flow Internal Rate of Return: 11.1%
NPV@ 10% 252,102
NPV@4%: 2,465,850
NOTES
»GAP Financing is projected above to be sourced from, leasing rather than purchasing City Land, using Tax Increment Financing (TIF) based on Construction Gross Receipts Tax (GRT), creation of a Public Improvement
District (PID) to fund infrastructure, and various public & private development grants. The amount of GAP financing assumed produces a minimal 11 % Internal Rate of Retum which may be sufficient to attract a civic
minded or non-profit master developer to undertake the project. Additional details on the four types of GAP financing assumed appear below:
1- The value of the roughly 540 acres of City Land on which the Development will be built has been estimated herein at $5,000,000. In an effort to reduce up front capital investment in the project it is recommended that the
City lease this land to the Master Developer initially and subsequently to Home Buyers for a period of 99 years from project commencement. The level of land lease payments will be determined to be consistent with the
Development's mission to provide dose in Affordable Housing for City residents. A Development Home Owners Association (HOA) will be created to collect Land Lease payments from Home Owners and the Master
Developer. The HOA will be responsible to make Land Lease payments to the City.
2- The aggregate Gross Receipts Tax on all Infrastructure Costs, Hard Construction Cost, and Soft Development Cost during the projected ten year development period are roughly $20,000,000. These funds would not be
available if the project does not move forward and hence represent net new revenues to both the City and the Sate. Roughly 35% of this total will be paid to the City. It is assumed that only the City portion is pledged to
provide for debt service payments on a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bond. This Bond would be originated upon construction commencement to finance some of the early infrastructure costs. A pledge by the state or the
county of their portions of the construction GRT could result in potentially larger TIF Bond being originated. Additionally, if estimates of GRT receipts from the ultimate Home Owners living within the Development were
considered to be net new revenues further pledges by the City, State, and/or County could support additional TIF Bond funding for the project.
3- In order to fund some of the infrastructure costs it is assumed that a Public Improvement District (PI D) can be formed within the Development area. This PID would assess the Development residents 1% of the
assessed value of their property per year. Assessed values are assumed to be one third of the sales prices used within this projection. The PID proceeds would be pledged to service the debt on Bonds where the
principal amounts funded to the Developer would be used to pay for various Development infrastructure costs.
4- After the above three GAP financing mechanisms are employed there still exists a shortfall between revenues and expenses of $1 0,200,000 that must be funded to make the project feasible. It is assumed that various
Public and Private Grants can be sourced to fund this shortfall.
SFNWQ Gap Financing - 6/15/2009 Page - 12
187
SFNWQ Sensitivity - 6/15/2009
November 2007 Master Plan - June 2009 Financial Projection Update

Gap Financing Assumed to Exist
Sensitivity to Percentage Changes in Revenue and Cost Factors
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
~
<>
0
ci
... 4,000,000
@
>
a.. 3,000,000
z
~
0
u::: 2,000,000
..c
III
eu 1,000,000
0
Q)
:E
eu 0 I
.c i
0L- 85% 90% 95% . / / 100% "'"'-. 105% 110% 115% 120% 125%
a.. (1,000,000)
(2,000,000)
(3,000,000)
(4,000,000) ._._,",,__. o.··~_ . ._.. . ._._.__.. ,..

"~_",_ "'~
Percentage of Base Case
-WF Sales Price "'''''MRKT Sales Price AFF Hard Costs WF Hard Costs -MRKT Hard Costs -Infrastructure per DU
SFNWQ Sensitivity - 6/15/2009 Page - 13
188
Dev Unit P-L by Type Graph - 6/15/2009 ORIGINAL PRODUCT MIX
SFNWQ Financial Projection Developed Unit Profit (Loss) by Type
100,000 , 1
50,000 +-- _
-l /)
l/)
o
o I ~
-.....
...J
It::
o
S)0
D..
:::
c:
::J
"'C
Q)
c. (150,000) +- • I
o
Q)
>
~ (200,000) I • I
(250,000) I ., I
(300,000) II- - - - --'1
Unit Types
~NO GAP Financing -GAP Financing - NO Grants ---GAP Financing with Grants
Dev Unit P-L by Type Graph - 6/15/2009 Page - 14
189
Unit P-L by Type Smry - 6/15/2009 ORIGINAL PRODUCT MIX

Revenue & Expense Allocations by Product Type
Entire Project Totals
Total Closing Costs Contingent Infrastructure Building & Net with Number
Revenue & Commisions Cost reserve Land Cost Cost Landscaping Soft Costs Net Revenue GAP Financing GAP Financing of Units
Affordable-2 BR-IR2 2,300,000 (92,285) (23,000) (125,048) (817,830) (2,642,173) (358,520) (1,758,856) 898,538 (860,318) 23
Affordable-2 BR-IR3 2,967,000 (119,048) (29,670) (125,048) (817,830) (2,642,173) (366,444) (1,133,213) 898,538 (234,675) 23
Affordable-2 BR-IR4 3,792,000 (152,150) (37,920) (130,485) (853,388) (2,757,051) (390,645) (529,638) 937,605 407,967 24
Affordable-3 BR-IR2 5,264,000 (211,213) (52,640) (293,862) (1,921,900) (6,147,204) (824,359) (4,187,178) 1,836,143 (2,351,035) 47
Affordable-3 BR-IR3 6,815,000 (273,445) (68,150) (293,862) (1,921,900) (6,147,204) (842,785) (2,732,346) 1,836,143 (896,203) 47
Affordable-3 BR-IR4 8,188,000 (328,535) (81,880) (287,610) (1,881,009) (6,016,412) (842,887) (1,250,333) 1,797,076 546,743 46
Affordable-4 BR-IR2 2,875,000 (115,357) (28,750) (156,310) (1,022,287) (3,252,228) (434,702) (2,134,634) 898,538 (1,236,096) 23
Affordable-4 BR-IR3 3,703,000 (148,579) (37,030) (156,310) (1,022,287) (3,252,228) (444,539) (1,357,973) 898,538 (459,435) 23
Affordable-4 BR-IR4 4,728,000 (189,706) (47,280) (163,106) (1,066,735) (3,393,629) (474,131) (606,587) 937,605 331,018 24
Workforce-2 BR 20,086,000 (805,931) (200,860) (451,259) (3,396,082) (11,087,813) (4,120,359) 23,696 3,242,550 3,266,246 83
Workforce-3 BR 23,623,875 (947,884) (236,239) (518,948) (3,905,495) (12,641,666) (4,707,145) 666,499 3,242,550 3,909,049 83
Workforce-4 BR 25,872,000 (1,038,088) (258,720) (570,870) (4,296,249) (13,842,357) (5,119,511) 746,204 3,281,617 4,027,821 84
Market-2 BR 21,633,040 (1,568,915) (216,330) (438,211 ) (3,297,882) (13,117,392) (4,426,361) (1,432,051) 2,422,146 990,095 62
Market-3 BR 30,690,000 (2,225,762) (306,900) (606,753) (4,566,299) (17,953,158) (6,087,845) (1,056,716) 2,422,146 1,365,430 62
Market-4 BR 48,400,000 (3,510,162) (484,000) (869,897) (6,546,665) (25,520,753) (9,016,036) 2,452,487 2,500,279 4,952,767 64
Market-HE-CONDO 48,000,000 (3,481,152) (480,000) (652,423) (4,909,998) (38,529,760) (9,971,434) (10,024,767) 1,562,675 (8,462,093) 40
Project Totals 258,936,915 (15,208,211 ) (2,589,369) (5,840,000) (42,243,837) (168,943,201) (48,427,702) (24,315,405) 29,612,685 5,297,280 758
Totals by Dwelling Unit
Affordable-2 BR-IR2 100,000 (4,012) (1,000) (5,437) (35,558) (114,877) (15,588) (76,472) 39,067 (37,405)
Affordable-2 BR-IR3 129,000 (5,176) (1,290) (5,437) (35,558) (114,877) (15,932) (49,270) 39,067 (10,203)
Affordable-2 BR-IR4 158,000 (6,340) (1,580) (5,437) (35,558) (114,877) (16,277) (22,068) 39,067 16,999
Affordable-3 BR-IR2 112,000 (4,494) (1,120) (6,252) (40,891) (130,792) (17,540) (89,089) 39,067 (50,022)
Affordable-3 BR-IR3 145,000 (5,818) (1,450) (6,252) (40,891) (130,792) (17,932) (58,135) 39,067 (19,068)
Affordable-3 BR-IR4 178,000 (7,142) (1,780) (6,252) (40,891) (130,792) (18,324) (27,181) 39,067 11,886
Affordable-4 BR-IR2 125,000 (5,016) (1,250) (6,796) (44,447) (141,401) (18,900) (92,810) 39,067 (53,743)
Affordable-4 BR-IR3 161,000 (6,460) (1,610) (6,796) (44,447) (141,401) (19,328) (59,042) 39,067 (19,975)
Affordable-4 BR-IR4 197,000 (7,904) (1,970) (6,796) (44,447) (141,401) (19,755) (25,274) 39,067 13,792
Workforce-2 BR 242,000 (9,710) (2,420) (5,437) (40,917) (133,588) (49,643) 285 39,067 39,352
Workforce-3 BR 284,625 (11,420) (2,846) (6,252) (47,054) (152,309) (56,713) 8,030 39,067 47,097
Workforce-4 BR 308,000 (12,358) (3,080) (6,796) (51,146) (164,790) (60,947) 8,883 39,067 47,950
Market-2 BR 348,920 (25,305) (3,489) (7,068) (53,192) (211,571) (71,393) (23,098) 39,067 15,969
Market-3 BR 495,000 (35,899) (4,950) (9,786) (73,650) (289,567) (98,191) (17,044) 39,067 22,023
Market-4 BR 756,250 (54,846) (7,563) (13,592) (102,292) (398,762) (140,876) 38,320 39,067 77,387
Market-HE-CONDO 1,200,000 (87,029) (12,000) (16,311) (122,750) (963,244) (249,286) (250,619) 39,067 (211,552)
Unit P-L by Type Smry - 6/15/2009 Page - 15
190
Unit Mix Scenarios - 6/15/2009 REVISED PRODUCT MIX

Unit Mix Scenarios
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Original Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Number Number Number Number Mix Mix Mix
of Units of Units of Units of Units Change Change Change
Affordable-2 BR-IR2 23 19 17 23 0 (4) (6)

Affordable-2 BR-IR3 23 19 17 23 0 (4) (6)
Affordable-2 BR-IR4 24 19 17 24 0 (5) (7)
Affordable-3 BR-IR2 47 43 39 47 0 (4) (8)
Affordable-3 BR-IR3 47 43 40 47 0 (4) (7)
Affordable-3 BR-IR4 46 43 40 46 0 (3) (6)
Affordable-4 BR-IR2 23 22 19 23 0 (1) (4)
Affordable-4 BR-IR3 23 22 19 23 0 (1) (4)
Affordable-4 BR-IR4 24 22 20 24 0 (2) (4)
Workforce-2 BR 88 93 101 83 5 10 18
Workforce-3 BR 91 93 101 83 8 10 18
Workforce-4 BR 89 93 101 84 5 9 17
Market-2 BR 62 62 62 62 0 0 0
Market-3 BR 62 62 62 62 0 0 0
Market-4 BR 86 103 103 64 22 39 39
Market-HE-CONDO 0 0 0 40 (40) (40) (40)
Project Totals 758 758 758 758
Affordable 37% 33% 30% 37%

Workforce 35% 37% 40% 33%
Market 28% 30% 30% 30%
GAP Financing
City Leases Land 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
GRTTIF 4,730,979 4,891,908 4,923,670 5,416,623
PID 8,081,106 8,495,217 8,607,574 8,996,062
State & Federal Grants 5,975,000 2,550,000 1,100,000 10,200,000
Total GAP Financing 23,787,085 20,937,125 19,631,243 29,612,685
Unit Mix Scenarios - 6/15/2009 Page - 16
191
Dev Unit P-L by Type Graph - 6/15/2009 SCENARIO 1
80,000
60,000
-In
In
40,000
.3
--
~
20,000
0
'-
~ i!' gf-~"f)(~ ¥~ 8-4 .,q,~ ,q,~

:5 L.~<Q I iIt L.,b<<Q 7 j j ' .I: ~'
'0
Q)
Q.
o
~ (60,000)
Q)
C
(80,000)
(100,000)
(120,000)
Unit Types
-+-NO GAP Financing -GAP Financing - NO Grants """'*""'GAP Financing with Grants
192
Unit P-L by Type Smry - 6/15/2009 SCENARIO 1

Affordable-2 BR-IR2 2,300,000 (92,285) (23,000) (130,458) (853,217) (2,641,088) (356,968) (1,797,016) 721,772 (1,075,245) 23
Affordable-2 BR-IR3 2,967,000 (119,048) (29,670) (130,458) (853,217) (2,641,088) (364,892) (1,171,373) 721,772 (449,601) 23
Affordable-2 BR-IR4 3,792,000 (152,150) (37,920) (136,131) (890,313) (2,755,917) (389,026) (569,457) 753,153 183,696 24
Affordable-3 BR-IR2 5,264,000 (211,213) (52,640) (306,577) (2,005,060) (6,144,652) (820,712) (4,276,854) 1,474,925 (2,801,929) 47
Affordable-3 BR-IR3 6,815,000 (273,445) (68,150) (306,577) (2,005,060) (6,144,652) (839,138) (2,822,022) 1,474,925 (1,347,098) 47
Affordable-3 BR-IR4 8,188,000 (328,535) (81,880) (300,054) (1,962,399) (6,013,915) (839,318) (1,338,101) 1,443,543 105,442 46
Affordable-4 BR-IR2 2,875,000 (115,357) (28,750) (163,073) (1,066,521) (3,250,871) (432,763) (2,182,334) 721,772 (1,460,562) 23
Affordable-4 BR-IR3 3,703,000 (148,579) (37,030) (163,073) (1,066,521) (3,250,871) (442,599) (1,405,673) 721,772 (683,902) 23
Affordable-4 BR-IR4 4,728,000 (189,706) (47,280) (170,163) (1,112,892) (3,392,213) (472,107) (656,361) 753,153 96,792 24
Workforce-2 BR 21,296,000 (854,481) (212,960) (499,145) (3,765,603) (11,746,319) (4,389,818) (172,326) 2,761,561 2,589,236 88
Workforce-3 BR 25,900,875 (1,039,247) (259,009) (593,586) (4,478,072) (13,848,920) (5,186,110) 495,932 2,855,705 3,351,638 91
Workforce-4 BR 27,412,000 (1,099,879) (274,120) (631,022) (4,760,492) (14,654,380) (5,451,102) 541,005 2,792,943 3,333,948 89
Market-2 BR 21,633,040 (1,568,915) (216,330) (457,172) (3,448,950) (13,100,691 ) (4,409,433) (1,568,451) 1,945,645 377,195 62
Market-3 BR 30,690,000 (2,225,762) (306,900) (633,007) (4,775,469) (17,930,033) (6,064,407) (1,245,577) 1,945,645 700,068 62
Market-4 BR 65,037,500 (4,716,780) (650,375) (1,219,503) (9,200,052) (34,248,962) (12,070,144) 2,931,685 2,698,799 5,630,483 86
Market-HE-CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 232,601,415 (13,135,381) (2,326,014) (5,840,000) (42,243,837) (141,764,570) (42,528,538) (15,236,924) 23,787,085 8,550,161 758
Affordable-2 BR-I R2 100,000 (4,012) (1,000) (5,672) (37,096) (114,830) (15,520) (78,131) 31,381 (46,750)
Affordable-2 BR-IR3 129,000 (5,176) (1,290) (5,672) (37,096) (114,830) (15,865) (50,929) 31,381 (19,548)
Affordable-2 BR-IR4 158,000 (6,340) (1,580) (5,672) (37,096) (114,830) (16,209) (23,727) 31,381 7,654
Affordable-3 BR-IR2 112,000 (4,494) (1,120) (6,523) (42,661) (130,737) (17,462) (90,997) 31,381 (59,616)
Affordable-3 BR-IR3 145,000 (5,818) (1,450) (6,523) (42,661) (130,737) (17,854) (60,043) 31,381 (28,662)
Affordable-3 BR-IR4 178,000 (7,142) (1,780) (6,523) (42,661) (130,737) (18,246) (29,089) 31,381 2,292
Affordable-4 BR-IR2 125,000 (5,016) (1,250) (7,090) (46,370) (141,342) (18,816) (94,884) 31,381 (63,503)
Affordable-4 BR-IR3 161,000 (6,460) (1,610) (7,090) (46,370) (141,342) (19,243) (61,116) 31,381 (29,735)
Affordable-4 BR-IR4 197,000 (7,904) (1,970) (7,090) (46,370) (141,342) (19,671) (27,348) 31,381 4,033
Workforce-2 BR 242,000 (9,710) (2,420) (5,672) (42,791) (133,481) (49,884) (1,958) 31,381 29,423
Workforce-3 BR 284,625 (11,420) (2,846) (6,523) (49,210) (152,186) (56,990) 5,450 31,381 36,831
Workforce-4 BR 308,000 (12,358) (3,080) (7,090) (53,489) (164,656) (61,248) 6,079 31,381 37,460
Market-2 BR 348,920 (25,305) (3,489) (7,374) (55,628) (211,301) (71,120) (25,298) 31,381 6,084
Market-3 BR 495,000 (35,899) (4,950) (10,210) (77,024) (289,194) (97,813) (20,090) 31,381 11,291
Market-4 BR 756,250 (54,846) (7,563) (14,180) (106,977) (398,244) (140,351) 34,089 31,381 65,471
Market-HE-CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
193
80,000
60,000
-t il
til
40,000
--
0 20,000
.J
~
...
0
a..
0
<Q~ <Q~
:::
l:::: ~' ~'
~ ~ ~
'0
(l)
Q.
0
(l) (60,000)
>
(l)
C
(80,000)
(100,000)
(120,000)
Unit Types
-+-NO GAP Financing -GAP Financing - NO Grants ........GAP Financing with Grants
194
NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN - PROFORMA SUMMARY· MASTER DEVELOPER MODEL

Total Closing Costs Contingent Infrastructure BUilding & Net with Number
Affordable-2 BR-IR2 1,900,000 (76,236) (19,000) (105,300) (688,915) (2,179,112) (293,752) (1,462,315) 524,809 (937,506) 19
Affordable-2 BR-IR3 2,451,000 (98,344) (24,510) (105,300) (688,915) (2,179,112) (300,298) (945,480) 524,809 (420,670) 19
Affordable-2 BR-IR4 3,002,000 (120,452) (30,020) (105,300) (688,915) (2,179,112) (306,844) (428,644) 524,809 96,165 19
Affordable-3 BR-IR2 4,816,000 (193,237) (48,160) (274,057) (1,792,992) (5,614,721) (747,896) (3,855,064) 1,187,726 (2,667,338) 43
Affordable-3 BR-IR3 6,235,000 (250,173) (62,350) (274,057) (1,792,992) (5,614,721) (764,754) (2,524,048) 1,187,726 (1,336,322) 43
Affordable-3 BR-IR4 7,654,000 (307,109) (76,540) (274,057) (1,792,992) (5,614,721) (781,612) (1,193,031 ) 1,187,726 (5,305) 43
Affordable-4 BR-IR2 2,750,000 (110,341) (27,500) (152,408) (997,114) (3,105,625) (412,292) (2,055,279) 607,674 (1,447,606) 22
Affordable-4 BR-IR3 3,542,000 (142,119) (35,420) (152,408) (997,114) (3,105,625) (421,701) (1,312,387) 607,674 (704,713) 22
Affordable-4 BR-IR4 4,334,000 (173,897) (43,340) (152,408) (997,114) (3,105,625) (431,110) (569,494) 607,674 38,180 22
Workforce-2 BR 22,506,000 (903,031) (225,060) (515,416) (3,872,260) (12,400,725) (4,633,685) (44,177) 2,568,803 2,524,626 93
Workforce-3 BR 26,470,125 (1,062,087) (264,701) (592,729) (4,453,099) (14,138,190) (5,293,670) 665,648 2,568,803 3,234,451 93
Workforce-4 BR 28,644,000 (1,149,312) (286,440) (644,270) (4,840,325) (15,296,501) (5,689,099) 738,054 2,568,803 3,306,857 93
Market-2 BR 21,633,040 (1,568,915) (216,330) (446,694) (3,355,958) (13,089,222) (4,404,576) (1,448,655) 1,712,535 263,880 62
Market-3 BR 30,690,000 (2,225,762) (306,900) (618,500) (4,646,712) (17,913,891) (6,057,627) (1,079,390) 1,712,535 633,145 62
Market-4 BR 77,893,750 (5,649,166) (778,938) (1,427,094) (10,721,579) (40,981,420) (14,440,367) 3,895,186 2,845,018 6,740,204 103
Market-HE-CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 244,520,915 (14,030,181) (2,445,209) (5,840,000) (42,326,997) (146,518,322) (44,979,283) (11,619,077) 20,937,125 9,318,048 758
Affordable-2 BR-IR2 100,000 (4,012) (1,000) (5,542) (36,259) (114,690) (15,461 ) (76,964) 27,622 (49,342)
Affordable-2 BR-IR3 129,000 (5,176) (1,290) (5,542) (36,259) (114,690) (15,805) (49,762) 27,622 (22,141)
Affordable-2 BR-IR4 158,000 (6,340) (1,580) (5,542) (36,259) (114,690) (16,150) (22,560) 27,622 5,061
Affordable-3 BR-IR2 112,000 (4,494) (1,120) (6,373) (41,697) (130,575) (17,393) (89,653) 27,622 (62,031)
Affordable-3 BR-IR3 145,000 (5,818) (1,450) (6,373) (41,697) (130,575) (17,785) (58,699) 27,622 (31,077)
Affordable-3 BR-IR4 178,000 (7,142) (1,780) (6,373) (41,697) (130,575) (18,177) (27,745) 27,622 (123)
Affordable-4 BR-IR2 125,000 (5,016) (1,250) (6,928) (45,323) (141,165) (18,741) (93,422) 27,622 (65,800)
Affordable-4 BR-IR3 161,000 (6,460) (1,610) (6,928) (45,323) (141,165) (19,168) (59,654) 27,622 (32,032)
Affordable-4 BR-IR4 197,000 (7,904) (1,970) (6,928) (45,323) (141,165) (19,596) (25,886) 27,622 1,735
Workforce-2 BR 242,000 (9,710) (2,420) (5,542) (41,637) (133,341 ) (49,825) (475) 27,622 27,147
Workforce-3 BR 284,625 (11,420) (2,846) (6,373) (47,883) (152,024) (56,921) 7,158 27,622 34,779
Workforce-4 BR 308,000 (12,358) (3,080) (6,928) (52,047) (164,479) (61,173) 7,936 27,622 35,558
Market-2 BR 348,920 (25,305) (3,489) (7,205) (54,128) (211,116) (71,042) (23,365) 27,622 4,256
Market-3 BR 495,000 (35,899) (4,950) (9,976) (74,947) (288,934) (97,704) (17,410) 27,622 10,212
Market-4 BR 756,250 (54,846) (7,563) (13,855) (104,093) (397,878) (140,198) 37,817 27,622 65,439
Market-HE-CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
195
80,000 ~'-----------------------------------I'
60,000 + I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !
40,000 +--------------------------------------:
~
.3~ D- ,
--
l§
20,000 - ! - I - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 I ~
'-
D..
~
<Q~ .<Q~ <Q~ _~s:p
l:
::J ~
~.~ ~
~
•. "r
~~ f<JG
Ci
"C ~ I~
Q)
C. ~
o ~~
~ (60,000) -1-1 --1"''-------
Q)
C
(80,000) +-"'11"-----------'
(100,000) I I
(120,000) I ,
Unit Types
~'"'NO GAP Financing -GAP Financing - NO Grants ---GAP Financing with Grants
196

• . Entire Project Totals
Affordable-2 BR-IR2 1,700,000 (68,211) (17,000) (94,243) (616,755) (1,949,923) (263,154) (1,309,286) 440,279 (869,007) 17
Affordable-2 BR-IR3 2,193,000 (87,992) (21,930) (94,243) (616,755) (1,949,923) (269,010) (846,854) 440,279 (406,575) 17
Affordable-2 BR-IR4 2,686,000 (107,773) (26,860) (94,243) (616,755) (1,949,923) (274,867) (384,421 ) 440,279 55,857 17
Affordable-3 BR-IR2 4,368,000 (175,262) (43,680) (248,634) (1,627,146) (5,092,870) (679,164) (3,498,756) 1,010,051 (2,488,706) 39
Affordable-3 BR-IR3 5,800,000 (232,719) (58,000) (255,010) (1,668,867) (5,223,456) (712,261) (2,350,313) 1,035,950 (1,314,364) 40
Affordable-3 BR-IR4 7,120,000 (285,683) (71,200) (255,010) (1,668,867) (5,223,456) (727,942) (1,112,159) 1,035,950 (76,209) 40
Affordable-4 BR-IR2 2,375,000 (95,295) (23,750) (131,663) (861,643) (2,682,352) (356,512) (1,776,215) 492,076 (1,284,139) 19
Affordable-4 BR-IR3 3,059,000 (122,739) (30,590) (131,663) (861,643) (2,682,352) (364,638) (1,134,626) 492,076 (642,550) 19
Affordable-4 BR-IR4 3,940,000 (158,089) (39,400) (138,592) (906,993) (2,823,529) (392,383) (518,986) 517,975 (1,011) 20
Workforce-2 BR 24,442,000 (980,711) (244,420) (559,913) (4,196,492) (13,468,589) (5,034,199) (42,323) 2,615,773 2,573,449 101
Workforce-3 BR 28,747,125 (1,153,450) (287,471 ) (643,900) (4,825,966) (15,355,541) (5,751,215) 729,582 2,615,773 3,345,355 101
Workforce-4 BR 31,108,000 (1,248,177) (311,080) (699,891 ) (5,245,615) (16,613,509) (6,180,831) 808,897 2,615,773 3,424,669 101
Market-2 BR 21,633,040 (1,568,915) (216,330) (446,821) (3,348,884) (13,089,952) (4,406,070) (1,443,932) 1,605,722 161,790 62
Market-3 BR 30,690,000 (2,225,762) (306,900) (618,676) (4,636,916) (17,914,678) (6,059,648) (1,072,579) 1,605,722 533,143 62
Market-4 BR 77,893,750 (5,649,166) (778,938) (1,427,500) (10,698,977) (40,982,860) (14,444,951) 3,911,358 2,667,570 6,578,928 103
Market-HE-CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 247,754,915 (14,159,942) (2,477,549) (5,840,000) (42,398,277) (147,002,915) (45,916,844) (10,040,612) 19,631,243 9,590,631 758
Affordable-2 BR-IR2 100,000 (4,012) (1,000) (5,544) (36,280) (114,701) (15,480) (77,017) 25,899 (51,118)
Affordable-2 BR-IR3 129,000 (5,176) (1,290) (5,544) (36,280) (114,701) (15,824) (49,815) 25,899 (23,916)
Affordable-2 BR-IR4 158,000 (6,340) (1,580) (5,544) (36,280) (114,701) (16,169) (22,613) 25,899 3,286
Affordable-3 BR-IR2 112,000 (4,494) (1,120) (6,375) (41,722) (130,586) (17,414) (89,712) 25,899 (63,813)
Affordable-3 BR-IR3 145,000 (5,818) (1,450) (6,375) (41,722) (130,586) (17,807) (58,758) 25,899 (32,859)
Affordable-3 BR-IR4 178,000 (7,142) (1,780) (6,375) (41,722) (130,586) (18,199) (27,804) 25,899 (1,905)
Affordable-4 BR-IR2 125,000 (5,016) (1,250) (6,930) (45,350) (141,176) (18,764) (93,485) 25,899 (67,586)
Affordable-4 BR-IR3 161,000 (6,460) (1,610) (6,930) (45,350) (141,176) (19,191) (59,717) 25,899 (33,818)
Affordable-4 BR-IR4 197,000 (7,904) (1,970) (6,930) (45,350) (141,176) (19,619) (25,949) 25,899 (51)
Workforce-2 BR 242,000 (9,710) (2,420) (5,544) (41,549) (133,352) (49,844) (419) 25,899 25,480
Workforce-3 BR 284,625 (11,420) (2,846) (6,375) (47,782) (152,035) (56,943) 7,224 25,899 33,122
Workforce-4 BR 308,000 (12,358) (3,080) (6,930) (51,937) (164,490) (61,196) 8,009 25,899 33,908
Market-2 BR 348,920 (25,305) (3,489) (7,207) (54,014) (211,128) (71,066) (23,289) 25,899 2,610
Market-3 BR 495,000 (35,899) (4,950) (9,979) (74,789) (288,946) (97,736) (17,300) 25,899 8,599
Market-4 BR 756,250 (54,846) (7,563) (13,859) (103,874) (397,892) (140,242) 37,974 25,899 63,873
Market-HE-CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
197
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE 20-25 SFCC ,
INTENANCE AND INSTALLATION OF ALARM DEVICES AND SYSTEMS A EATING
A WARTICLE 20-5 SFCC 1987, REGARDING ALARM SYSTEMS, FA LARM
REDU . ON AND MAKING SUCH OTHER CHANGES AS ARE NE ARY (COUNCILORS
CALVERT D DOMINGUEZ). (MELISSA BYERS AND LYDI CE) Committee Review:
Public Safety mlttee (Approved) May 19, 2009; City siness &Quality of Life
(Approved) May 20, 9; Public Works Committee proved) May 26, 2009; City Council
(Request to PUblish) Jun 0.2009; City Coun· ublic Hearing) July 8.2009. Fiscal
Impact - Yes.
MOTION: Councilor Dom'

amended.
motion was approved unanimously on a voice vote,
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR DISCUSSION

__***_***** *********_***__***1***1**1 *1._1*11_**
DISCUSSION
PUBLIC HEARING
19. REVIEW AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF NORTHWEST QUADRANT PRO-FORMA

(KATHY McCORMICK)
Acopy of the text of the power point presentation, "Northwest Quadrant - Update of 11/07
Financial Pro-forma and Proposed Alternatives,· prepared by Business Futures Ltd., dated June 2009. is
incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit "2."
Kathy McCormick said this evening there will be a fijll review of the financial information which
would inform part of the decision for the Northwest Quadrant [NWQ]. She said it is important to staff to
have an iterative process, continuing to review all of the potential costs and revenue for the NWQ. She
said the work initially was done by Design Workshop testing many assumptions, including is it better to
have a non-profit or for-profit developer, sell the land or have a land lease, and such. She said in all of the
options it appeared the project would break even. As the economy began to change, staff became
increasingly concerned and retained Michael Halsey from Business Futures, Ltd., who was highly
recommended by many of the developers. Staff wanted one last look at the pro forma for the NWQ. She
said Mr. Halsey will walk the Committee through the information, noting a gap has been identified and
options have been identified to close the gap.
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES: June 1, 2009 PageS
198
Ms. McCormick said it was always anticipated that this development would be built by a master
developer, who would potentially negotiate any kinds of concessions or what they are facing in financing.
She'said all developers have said there are different ways to cut costs, but unless they can really "dig into"
the pro forma there's no way to know, so this is the best estimate of cost at this time.
Councilor Bushee asked if the pro forma is available to members of the public, noting there is
nothing on the website for the NWQ.
Chair Ortiz asked if the text of this presentation in the packet.
Ms. McConnick said no, but it will be on the website by tomorrow.
Mr. Halsey presented infonnation via power point. A copy of the text of this presentation, is
incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit "2." Please see Exhibit "2" for the text of this
presentation.
Councilor Dominguez said Mr. Halsey said, in looking at the infrastructure and the graph, there
were infrastructure costs associated with Santa Fe Estates which are special, and asked what those costs
are.
Mr. Halsey said the master developer of Santa Fe Estates had a process of having builders come
in and build most of the spine to lot infrastructure. He said Santa Fe Estates set very rigid standards for
the appearance of the infrastructure.
Councilor Dominguez said then most of it was esthetic. Mr. Halsey said this is correct.
Councilor Calvert said he was having trouble following the presentation, and would like to get the
presentation in color. He said at one point Mr. Halsey mentioned adeficit of $27 million and then $18, and
asked the reason for the differences.
Mr. Halsey said the $27 million includes doing 40 high end condos which will lose $200,000 each
to the project, so it is a bad product program
Councilor Calvert asked if something would take the place of the condos, and if so, would that be
more single family type homes.
Mr. Halsey said they looked at the mix of the homes and at the profitability, and tried to develop
scenarios which loaded more on the profitable end of the project. They increased workforce housing to the
extent it would be profitable and increased three-bedroom, high end units or market rate units.
Councilor Calvert said then we didn't decrease the number of units, the mix was changed, and Mr.
Halsey said this is correct.
FINANCE COMMITIEE MINUTES: June 1, 2009 Page 6
199
Councilor Calvert said the rebound of the market will impact costs and costs will catch up, and
asked how long the reduced building cost scenario will stay in place.
Mr. Halsey said he never would have expected costs to come down. He said in 2007, Isaac Pino
of SunCorps gave an estimate of $105 sq. ft. He spoke with Mr. Pino a month ago, and Mr. Pino told hime
they were able to do a group build, which builds multiple units at the same time rapidly, at $65 sq. ft., which
is a40% reduction in costs. He said Mr. Pino said they are consistently able to do the one off units at $85
sq. ft., and this is the number he used for the affordable units.
Councilor Calvert said this reflects current conditions, and Mr. Halsey said it does.
Mr. Halsey said he then asked Mr. Pino if he thinks this will tum around and start to go up in the
next two years. He told him, because the trades are repricing themselves, the cost will stay down, and
they will keep it at the lower level, even as we start to see increased demand in the market.
Councilor Calvert said Mr. Halsey said he wants to see certain indicators before he would start the
project, and asked if start means putting it out to bid, or the start of construction.
Mr. Halsey said because the City is soliciting a master developer, it will be necessary to go through
an RFP process which will take about a year. He said, before issuing an RFP, the City needs to closely
monitor the statistics about the market and try to identify the point where it clearly has "bottomed out" and
has started to climb upward. Mr. Halsey said he doesn't think the mar1<et is ever going to be as heated as
it was in 2006, and doesn't believe we will ever see the kind of "screwy" financing which allowed people to
qualify for 110% mortgages with subprime interest rates and no ability to make loan payments.
Councilor Calvert asked if the reduction of building costs would hold true throughout the ten year
period to full buildout.
Mr. Halsey said he has to speak to the relationship in this particular financial projection of cost to
revenues, and no inflation is assumed. If inflation becomes prevalent, you will see a symmetric increase in
the selling cost as well as construction. Given that,there would be increases in cost at an innationary level
which would be offset completely by the increases in {inaudible].
Councilor Calvert said we saw asymmetrical costs when the cost of gasoline was $4 which
translated throughout the supply chain, and we might see that again which would argue against "supply
and demand" marching hand in hand.
Mr. Halsey said SunCorps was finding was that there are people in the trades without work who
were willing to undercut the existing subcontractors, and they used low bidders. He said he just doesn't
see those people wor1<ing at the reduced price points raising their prices to the point they are too high
again.
Responding to Councilor Calvert, Mr. Halsey said the 1% contingency is for unknown things that
will happen in the future and it's a contingency on the total sales revenue for the project. He said he is
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES: June 1, 2009 Page?
200
trying to hedge against legislative changes such as the increase of affordability to 30%, or the requirement
to bring water rights for development.
Councilor Calvert said his concern is that some of the things which would be needed to close the
gap will work against what we're hoping in terms of affordability.
Mr. Halsey said Lee DePietro has looked at that closely and determined that the amounts which
will be borne by the residences are reasonable in terms of maintaining the affordability of the product, both
from the affordable housing component and the market rate component.
Responding to Councilor Calvert, Mr. Halsey said Ms. McCormick talks about the actual ranges in
her Memorandum on page 5.
Councilor Bushee asked if the project he analyzed contained commercial. Mr. Halsey said no.
Councilor Bushee asked if the project will be analyzing commercial as well.
Ms. McCormick said the master plan calls for some commercial space, but staff was looking to see
if the economics work, based solely on residential, and this is what they've done since the beginning of the
project.
Councilor Bushee said if commercial is to be included, you need to start including some of the off-
site infrastructure, such as roads, which we've been discussing which would be required by commercial,
and asked if that shouldn't be in the analysis.
Ms. McCormick said no. Since commercial would most typically be built by the owner of the
property who will be incurring the expense and leasing it, that cost isn't included, commenting it is not a
revenue or expense to the project.
Councilor Bushee asked if all of costs for the improvements to #599 and other off-site
infrastructure road improvements which would be required for commercial would be passed on to the
developer.
Ms. McCormick said this is correct, and then commercial will pay its pro rata share of the costs for
those improvements, just as the residential units would. She said the information on commercial is
prepared for the presentation before the Public Works Committee on Monday.
Councilor Bushee said there was no mention in previous analysis that there would be a
commercial developer willing to take on $12 million in outside infrastructure. Ms. McCormick said staff will
be presenting an option which doesn't have a $12 million impact to the project.
Responding to Councilor Bushee, Ms. McCormick said the commercial is shrinking to 70,000 sq. ft.
of non-residenUal planned for the site. She said all of this information went out in the Public Works packet
today.
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES: June 1, 2009 Page 8
201
Responding to Councilor Calvert, Ms. McCormick said the commercial is being reduced by about
50%. She said originally there was 70,000 sq. ft. of commercial in the neighborhood center and 125,000
sq. ft. allocated as part of live/work.
Ms. DePietro said mixed use has been reduced to a total of 70,000 sq. ft., about 50%, noting they
applied land uses to them as well, and neighborhood center has been reduced to 40,000 sq. ft., which is a
little less than 50%.
Councilor Calvert said this isn't the original project we envisioned in terms of mixed use, saying it is
becoming more and more a residential development.
Ms. McCormick said they were asked to do the worst case scenario in terms of the traffic analysis,
which is where they started, when there was 125,000 sq, ft. of non-residential use in the live/work
component which staff never anticipated to be that high. So, the traffic generation analysis was done on
this basis. Staff was always concerned about whether we needed 70,000 sq. ft. of commercial space for a
neighborhood center.
Councilor Calvert thought the mixes came out of the master planning and the talks with the
neighborhood. Ms. McCormick said the uses came from that planning, but they had always described it as
being an organic portion of the project which would allow it go from some kind of residential to some kind
of non-residential use over time.
Chair Ortiz said this discussion is on the pro forma, and the appropriate time to talk about tra'lfic
impacts would be at Public Works, and asked Councilor Calvert to ask that question instead of continuing a
debate on the traffic impacts.
Councilor Calvert said he didn't ask about traffic impacts. He said the bottom line for the pro forma
is that you are reducing the commercial so you don't have to make those improvements, so they will then
make sense on the pro forma for whoever does the commercial part of the development.
Councilor Bushee said there will be plenty of questions at Public Works which are related to the
pro forma around commercial and others,
Councilor Bushee asked the source of the calculation of the developer fees. Mr. Halsey said in the
2007 pro forma, the developer fee is a percentage of cost. Councilor Bushee asked the industry standard
for a developer fee. Mr. Halsey said for a non-profit development you possibly could get away with 5%, but
it is higher for market rate.
Councilor Bushee said the old pro forma says .4% in profit, and Mr. Halsey said this pro forma
uses the same assumption as the old pro forma. He asked Councilor Bushee if she is sure that is the
percentage across market rate units as well as the affordable units. Councilor Bushee said this is from a
2007 analysis which says .4% profit.
202
Mr. Halsey said the profit levels that are imputed in the projections, which create the expense side
of the equation, are remaining unchanged 'from what was done in November 2007, so there is basically no
profit.
Councilor Bushee expressed concern about land leases, noting they are fairly hefty at the
Railyard. She said one of the issues in affordable housing is to avoid association fees and other fees
D
which can really "tack on costs to affordable users. She asked those projected costs to the consumer.
Ms. McCormick said Ms. DePietro has done an analysis of what the land lease would be if an HOA
were included, noting this isn't in the packet. They did a back check on that because of concern about the
land leases. She said the cost for an affordable unit would be $80 monthly up to $200 monthly for the
market rate unit, for additional costs for the PID and HOA. She agrees there are affordable buyers living in
very high end projects in town who have been priced out because of the increase in the HOA. However,
because this has a strong emphasis on entry level and step-up homes, staff doesn't anticipate that
happening and can be written into the document.
Councilor Bushee asked if the land lease options go hand in hand with the lower gap assumption
of 30% affordability. Chair Ortiz said no, this is combining two different things. Councilor Bushee wants to
know the recommended options, and if we go to 30% does that mean we don't have to offer the land lease
option.
Ms. McCormick said the intent of testing the different options is to understand what happens when
you change the affordability mix, and what Mr. Halsey was asked to do. Staff wanted to know what
happens when there is 30% affordable under Santa Fe homes, but you increase the number of step-up
homes market.
Responding to Councilor Bushee, Ms. McCormick said all of the options would be needed for 30%
affordability, including land lease. What is recommended here is that at each phase of the project which is
in the Memo, that the master developer be required to do a market assessment and we would fix the range
of affordability. She said it is clear that we need afloor, and this project is sensitive to shifts in the market.
Councilor Bushee said she understands the situation, but we aren't going to demand what we
demand of the private sector, in terms of affordability. Ms. McConnick said staff always looks at step-up
and entry level housing together, noting that the step-up starts at $200,000 and goes liP to $350,000.
Councilor Bushee said from the start, this project sounded too good to be true - green, water
efficient, $140,000 per unit, without any of the "tack on" cost to the consumer. She asked if this is still
going forward to the Planning Commission on June 18, 2009, and Ms. Price said yes.
Councilor Bushee said this project is looking less viable than the College of Santa Fe at this point,
and it will be interesting to see where the dialogue continues.
Public Hearing
203
Nlchole De Jurnev, Vice-President, Casa Solana NeIghborhood Association. She said the
Association has been watching this project with great interest. It seems Mr. Halsey has given us nice
guesstimates, but nobody can predict what is going to happen in this economy. We don't know how long it
will take to move up. She said, after the bUdget meeUng, when you don't have any money, it strikes her as
odd that the City would be interested in takillg on a project that could be in the hole by $18 million. She
said the City is cutting fire essential medical services, and now you want to build a development that
nobody knows whether or not will work. She is shocked as ataxpayer because she will be the one the City
comes back to for more money, or a bail out, or there will just be sticks sitting on the lot unfinished. She is
D
concerned about the judgment you are using with our tax dollars. She said ·we would like more input
about how you are going to be spending our money. In particular, Casa Solana is very upset that the City
is not putUng in the infrastructure and roads they believe are necessary. She said the Association finds
this totally irresponsible and believe that the project should be shut down.
Rick Martinez, 725 Macia Road, said we are creating a bedroom community here. We aren't
building the right road connections which are needed for the project, which is to get it to town and make it
more viable. He asked why we are creating a bedroom community. He believes the costs will increase,
and this doesn't seem to him to be a viable project. He said the contractors doing the work on Zafarano
are all bused in from Albuquerque and are the ones giving the lower prices. The Santa Fe people aren't
working here, it is the people from Albuquerque. He said everyone working on the River Trail came in from
Albuquerque. He wants to be sure any project we do is done with the "rea/local" people. This project
doesn't make financial sense. He asked where the condos came from, noting there was never a mention
of condos, it was only live/work and residential homes. He said commercial is viable for this project. He
said the City should take this project off the gas and put it on the back burner.
The Public Hearing was Closed
MorION: Councilor Wurzburger moved, seconded by Councilor Dominguez, to accept this report as
additional background for our deliberations.
DISCUSS/ON: Councilor Wurzburger thanked staff and Mr. Halsey for bringing out new variables. She
hopes that we would recognize that what has been said here is not that it does or it doesn't work, but
we've had a further elaboration under what conditions it might work, which is always what is true with
respect to development. She said people against the project have inferred that all of the costs are being
paid by the City. Councilor Wurzburger understands the options are being presented and the whole
purpose of the analysis was to see the conditions under which this might work, so the risk which may be
taken by a separate developer could be clarified., noting we will have to do more work.
Councilor Calvert understands that this is background information. However, it has to do with timing. He
asked, if we accept this information at this point in time, then will we update this before we proceed, so that
the assumptions, "ups and downs and pluses and minuses," are sufficiently accurate to move forward-
when we get some indication that the market is turning around.
Chair Ortiz asked Councilor Calvert if his question is rhetorical or if he is asking about a particular point.
204
Councilor Calvert said he is asking whether we should amend this before moving forward, because some
of the assumptions and a lot of information is now based on the presumption that we won't put it out to bid
until we get an indication that the market has either bottomed out or is starting to go up. He doesn't know
how much time will elapse before the City will proceed, and if we are basing it on some of this information.
Councilor Wurzt>urger said she would argue that we do not need to continue to do financial feasibility
studies on this project which are based on afuture projection that we don't know. She believes we need to
take the advice that we have received in this report and that these are the conditions under which we
would need to proceed to issue an RFP. She said this is up to the market. The true test of whether this
project is viable can be determined only once we issue and RFP, and if no one responds, "it's adone
deal." She is arguing that we've done enough background and we don't need to wait for a year and do our
own projects. We have something which provides sufficient information to move forward with respecting to
deciding the timeline, and move forward in terms of process.
Councilor Calvert clarified that he was suggesting to update the information on this report, and not to do
another study..
Chair Ortiz said he is interested in seeing some of the information to which some of the Councilors have
privy to at Public Works. He said that Committee has been getting information about a proposal which
none of us have seen and will need to vote on. He wants everybody to be on the same page and see the
same information. He looks forward to the Planning Commission review and when this comes before the
full City Council so we can weigh this project. He said he takes exception to some of the conditions, and
believes we need to seize opportunities, not delay them. He said the pro forma speaks for itself. He
agrees that we can't build this project absent market conditions, and without market conditions this project
will not be built, and without a bidder the project won't be built. He said this is disappointing to him to see
that the market crashed and we didn't move more quiCkly, because we were responding in a public
dialogue with the members of the community who are most concerned with this project, and we lost an
available avenue of time to take advantage of market conditions in the mid-2000's.
Chair Ortiz said he realizes, after seeing this report, that this project will not be accomplished until the
market conditions dictate it, noting he supports the motion with reservations.
Councilor Calvert said if we had moved at the pace suggested by Councilor Ortiz, we might have started
building in the middle of a down market and we would be in a worse situation that we are now.
Chair Ortiz said this project predates Councilor Calvert's term on this Council, noting he believes we would
be in the middle of phase 2 of the development.
VOTE: The motion was approved on a voice vote, with Councilors Dominguez and Wurzburger voting in
favor of the motion, and Councilor Calvert voting against the motion.
Councilor Bushee said Public Works Committee has no special information. It is only the master
plan which should be on the website.
205
Northwest Quadrant
Update of 11/07 Financial Pro-forma

and
Proposed Alternatives
Business Futures, Ltd

June, 2009
206
Northwest Quadrant
OBJECTIVES OF THE ANALYSIS
·To perform a complete financial and market

analysis of the November, 2007 Pro-forma for
the proposed Northwest Quadrant project;
-To update expense and revenue projections to

current market conditions; and
-To conduct financial testing and present

alternatives as needed.
Business Futures, Ltd

June, 2009
207
Northwest Quadrant
REQUIRED FINANCIAL PROJECTION COMPONENTS
-Realistic Residential Unit Sales Pace;

-Appropriate Recognition of Infrastructure Cost Timing
based on overall project phasing;
.Recognition of Residential Unit construction costs
consistent with Units Sales Timing;
-Soft Costs incurred consistent with Construction and
SaJes Timing;
-Selling Costs incurred concurrent with recognition of
Sales Revenue;
·Positive Cash on Cash yield (measured with Internal
Rate of Return) after GAP Financing is used.
208
Northwest Quadrant
Results of Expense Analysis
From 11/2007 Pro-forma Updated 5/2009
Total Land costs: No change

Total Infrastructure: 4,636,310
Total Building & Landscaping (8,093,061)
Total Soft costs: 1,138,723
Total Expense change: (2,318,027)
209
·Northwest Quadrant
Results of Revenue Analysis
From 11/2007 Pro-Forma Updated 5/2009
Affordable Units: No Change

Workforce Units: (10,755,195)
Market Units: (11,006,960)
Net Revenue Change: (21,762,155)
Additional Costs
Closing Costs: 1,982,690 .
Contingency 1 0/0 : 2,580,969
NM GRT 976,368
Total Revenue Change: (26,319,108)
210
Northwest Quadrant
Summary of Analysis
From 5/2009 Pro-forma Update
Total Revenue: 240,352,289

Total Expenses: 262,787,621
Net Income: ( 22,435/332)
Net Income
(with financing &
rate of return): ( 27/480,008)
211
Northwest Quadrant
Changes in Infrastructure Costs
From 11/2007 Pro-forma Updated ~/2009
Category Cost
Archaeology ( 500,000)
Earthwork: 2,498,838
NM GRT 2,966,373
Streets: 821,468
Water Rights: (1,913,100)
Wet Utilities: 610,919
Contingency: 151,813
Net Change: 4,636,31.0
212
Northwest Quadrant
Comparative Infrastructure Costs per Developed Unit
80,000 ..,--- -----~-_.- -.',. __ _ _. _ .__ w. _ _ ._._ _ • • _ _ . _ . _•• ' • • ' . _ . , ' , . " " , __ .• _ . , _ , , _ .
.
.
.
.
.
·
~
"
"
,
_
"
,
~
'
_
.
'
,
~
70,000 + 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
§ 60,000 11- - - - - - - - -
-0
CII
-===- 1
Q.
o L ---,
~ 50,000 I
dI
o
...
CII
=- 40,000 + 1 - -
III
o
U
CII
5 30,000 -+1--
.-
o
2
..-
E 20,000+-_
:E
'10.000 I i
° +1-..---'
Tierra Contenta 2000- Rancho Viejo 2009 SFNWO Projection Oshara Village 2006 Santa Fe Estates 2000e
2008 Average 2008
Silnta Fe Comparable Subdivision Devetopmems
g Comparable Subdivisionns • SFNVVO 5-2009 Proj.
213
Northwest Quadrant
Changes in Building & Landscaping Costs
Category Cost
General Contractor ( 1,720,105)

Overhead & Profit
NM GRT 12,498,031
Hard Costs/Bldg Costs (11,491,000)
Building Cost Contingency ( 7,382,687)
Net Change: ( 8,093,061)

214
Northwest Quadrant
Revenue Changes by Square Foot
From 11/2007 Pro-forma Updated 5/2009
Unit Type 11/07 Revised Change

Pro-forma Pro-forma +/ -
Workforce 2br 286.00 242.00 ( 44.00)
Workforce 3br 279.00 247.50 ( 31.50)
Workforce 4br 286.00 246.40 ( 39.60)
Market 2br 350.00 268.40 ( 81.60)

Market 3br 325.00 275.00 ( 50.00)
Market 4br 300.00 302.50 2.50
High End Condos 400.00 400.00 No change
215
Northwest Quadrant
-
$450
$400
g .;-
$350
-................/
Ao.
u.
e«l ./
$300 -
-
--.
...~ v
L .",,/'
~ $250
~ ... .~
...-
~ $200 .- -.
QJ
C,$150
(I)
u
';:
a.
..
$100
S50
-
- -
fII:
.~ ••.......
~~
.
11III"
-
..;Y~
-
SO ,
~ ~ # ~ ~ # ~ ~ # ~ <Q~ <0"<- <o~ <o~ <"¢~ f::;P

<Q
~ ~
~ <Q
# ~ ~
<Q <Q
¥ <Q
~ <b~ <Q
~ ~« ..~ «~ ~> ~~ ,,~ "'). o~
'"-$:+ ~#
<Q
f<~ f<~ f<~ f<~ x~ f<~ f<»< x> f<.to ~ ~ ~~ ~v
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,~
!<-.f;
~
Unit Types
-to-Nov 2007 Projection -Ma~1 2009 Projection ......MLS Sales 12<11-2008
216
Northwest Quadrant
Revenue Changes by Unit Type
From 11/2007 Pro-forma
. Unit Type 11/07 Revised Change

Workforce 2br 286,000 242,000 ( 44,000)
Workforce 3br 320,850 284,625 ( 36,225)
Workforce 4br 357,500 308,000 ( 49,500)
Market 2br 455,000 348,920 (106,080)

Market 3br 585,000 495,000 ( 90,000)
Market 4br 750,000 756,250 6,250
High End Condos 1,200,000 1,200,000 No change
217
Northwest Quadrant
. .
Unit Mix Analysis - Original Mix

SFNWQ Financial Projection Developed Unit Profit {Loss} by Type
100,000 T'--------------------------------------,'
50,000 J ___
'iil
lJ)
a~ I ~ i I i~ ( I t~#,' I "..."'At I ~I, I
o
d s;>0
.t::
t:
::l
"0
~ (150,000) I " I
o
0.;
c3> (200,000) I I'l----i
(250,000) ·f ~l
(300,000) i I
Unit Types
'.........NO GAP Financing -GAP Financing· NO Grants .....GAP financing wi1h Grants
218
Northwest Quadrant
Proposed New Unit Mix Scenarios
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

A 37% 33% 30%
W 35% 37% 40%
M 28% 30% 30%
Gap: $21,679,408 $18,857/441 $18,454,123
A=affordable; W=workforce; M=market

Gap: financing and rate of return shown
219
Northwest Quad rant
Unit Mix Analysis - Scenario 2
80,000 ~'----------------------------::--I'
60,000 -I ffl I
_ 40,000
iii
en
o 20,000 I .tr= ~8 I---","--~
-
..J
i+:
o
ri:
.--
s;; ",.-
«:- _,,<:P
<?)
0
::;:l
"0
~~~ ~G
,~
~ "41' •
~
~
j
~
o (60,000) I / \ ~,. \ ...
(l)
o (BO,OOO) -j ... \: ,," \--/ I
(100,000) I 1
(120,000) I --l
Unit Types
""'-NO GAP Financing -GAP Financing - NO Grants -m-GAP Financing wllh Grants
220
Northwest Quadrant
Some Financing Solutions to Close Gap
City Leases Land
Public Improvement District (PID)
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
State, Federal and Foundation Grants
Tax Credits
221
Northwest Quadrant
Examples of Financing Solutions to Close Gap
Scenario 3 Scenario 3
Description Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Shortfall 18,454,123 18,454,123
City Leases Land 5,000,000 5,000,000

GRT TIF Bond Proceeds 4,870,313 4,000,000
PIO Bond Proceeds 8,583,810 7,454,123
Grants Provided a 2,000,000
Total GAP Financing 18,454,123 18,454,123
222
Northwest Quadrant
Economic Indicators for Proceeding with Project
1. Local and National Economic Indicators Improving (e.g. GDP,

Job Growth, Mortgage Rates, Unemployment, Consumer
Confidence, etc.);
2. Local Residential Sales and Inventory in Balance - Re-sa!es
from MLS - New Product not Listed from MetroStudy;
3. Local Residential Sales Dollar Volume and Counts Increasing;
4. Residential Sales Prices sufficient to cover Construction and
Development Costs;
5. Residential Sales Prices stable or increasing on a price per
square foot basis;
6. Availability of reasonably priced construction and mortgage
financing - currently Local Banks will not finance Speculative
construction
223
.**.***.**••**.***••••**.***••*••*.*.**••**********.****************.********.**.****.*.**.****••**.**************••*****
MOTION: Councilor Wurzburger moved, seconded by Councilor Chavez, to allow Chair Ortiz to pull item
#10 from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and to approve the agenda as amended.
VOTE: The motion was approved unanimously on a voice vote
•••***************************************.*********************************.**************.*****************************
10. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - MEETING

FACILITATION AND PROCESS MANAGEMENT FOR LONG RANGE PLANNING DIVISION;
JENKINSGAVIN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. (REED LIMING)
Chair Ortiz said these numbers are still not sitting with him, and he asked Ms. McCormick if it
would be possible to postpone this item to the next meeting so the contractor could be here and we could
have that discussion. He noted the numbers still seem high to him.
Ms. McCormick said she has no heartbum with that, and will be meeting with the contractor on
Wednesday to talk about the range of options since staff has heard this is of concern.
MOTION: Councilor Wurzburger moved, seconded by Councilor Chavez, to postpone this item to the next
meeting of the Committee on February 16, 2009.
VOTE: The motion was approved unanimously on a voice vote.
17. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY/LOAN

TERMS - MASTER PLAN FOR NORTHWEST QUADRANT; SANTA FE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
(KATHY McCORMICK).
Ms. McCormick said she spoke with Frank Katz.
Councilor Chavez said he questions spending $850,000 to buy this land at this time, when
departments are being asked to reduce the budget by 15%, and there is discussion of reducing the
salaries of the Goveming Body.
Councilor Ortiz said if there had been an amendment at Public Works to reduce the cost by
$850,000 he believes everyone would have been in favor of that, but that isn't his understanding of what
happened.
Councilor Calvert said there are lots of requests to use CIP funds, but he understands all of those
funds have been allocated. He asked how these funds become available. He noted we are looking at CIP
as a reserve to cover certain operational and maintenance items.
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES; March 2, 2009 Page 19
224
Mr, Millican said when the recommendations were made, the CJP Fund had a balance of $6 million
which hadn't been allocated. with a revenue slream from the Waler Division of $2 million. He said the $2
million acquisition loan repayment was removed by the Council in adopting the new water rates. He said
the $850,000 would encumber part of the remaining CIP fund balance, He said as we stress test these
funds in the nexl two monlhs, a significant decline in GRT withoul the acquisition loan repayment, will start
10 stress expendilures funded by the CIP. He said almosl $10,5 million of the tax revenue is for debt
service which can'l be decreased, and the decline in GRTs would have to be spread across a $5.6 million
expenditure base. He said we have to consider lhat lhese programs, such as the Southside Library and
subsidies to the GCCC, and the money was in the fund when staff made its recommendation. He said as
you considered the recommendation, staff thought the fund can afford this because there is a repayment
plan built in and a source of repayment. However, the CIP GRT has been targeted by many people which
was realistic when the decline mighl be only 2%, bul if we face amore serious decline, the landscape
changes,
Councilor Wurzburger said she appreciates the explanation. Nevertheless, she feels strongly we
need to move forward with this. She said we have to make choices for moving forward, noting we have
worked on this for six years, noting it was a crilical decision 10 move this forward as planned.
MOTION: Councilor Wurzburger moved, seconded by Councilor Dominguez, for purposes of discussion, to
approve this request, not with the stipulation of the 2013 delay, and move forward with the original action
of the Council.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Chavez we have a repayment plan if and when and after the first home is sold in
lhe Northwesl Quadrant. In the event lhal doesn't happen, or the projecl doesn't begin construction by
2013, lhe CIP GRT will be repaid from Affordable Housing Trusl Fund at $140,000 per year for six years.
Chair Ortiz said that seems to set priorities 10 get houses built so we can get the fund repaid.
Councilor Chavez said he differs because we could use that $850,000 to build where the growth is
occurring already. We could expand lhe program to continue 10 buy houses in neighborhoods. He said he
was unwilling to support this from the beginning and is not inclined to support it now, especially in light of
the economy and our requests of the departments. He won't support the motion.
Councilor Dominguez said the motion is to move forward with the original proposal and nol what came out
of the Public Work Committee. He said this could become very expensive if we don't move expedienlly
given lhe timeline presented, and he supports the program.
Councilor Calvert asked Ms. McCormick about MFrank's hearsay comments on the legality of this,"
Ms. McConnick said Mr. Katz said the City is under contract with the School DistriCl, which slipulates that
the City will purchase the property outlined, which was done lhrough a series of leUers between the City
and School Dislrict, the final letter being lhe one "the City said we accept these terms and condilions and
this is when we're going to pay you." She said the School Dislricl accepled this in a public forum and
direcled Superinlendent Bobbie Gulierrez to sign off on the submission of the master plan pursuant to the
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES: March 2, 2000 Page 20
225
series of letters as we indicated, which was we're going to bUy this land and you will sign off on the master
plan. She said Frank Katz's position is that this a legal contract.
Councilor Calvert said the bottom line is that we're legally bound to do this.
Ms. McCormick said yes, although we could always go back to the School District and say things change
and ask them to wor1c; on a payment plan. She spoke with Justin Snyder today, and they are very
concerned because they got a hit from the Legislature and are down $500,000 down in some of their
operating money. She said Mr.'Snyder is unsure how the Board would receive reopening the discussion.
Councilor Calvert said since we made this offer, a lot has happened. He is sure the School wants us to
adhere to the agreement, but it doesn't hurt to ask.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Councilor Wurzburger said she would accepl as friendly, an amendment that
prior to the Council meeting, staff is directed to get a feeling as to how the School might respond to our
request to negotiate the terms and amount. The amendment was friendly to the maker and second.
and there were no objections from the other members of the Committee.
In accepting lhe amendmenl as friendly, Councilor Dominguez said we need to be careful to ensure we
maintain a good level of good failh belween the School and lhe City, and il needs lo be done in thai
manner.
Councilor Chavez said there was initial interest in masler planning all of lhe Northwest Quadrant, bulthe
City didn't accepl our densily and zoning and wanl to do something different The Cily sUII is going to have
to set aside 10 acres for a school site. He said "we're nol off the hook yel," and lhere is a value on lhat 10
acres, yet knowing lhat the school has land in the area. He said $850,000 is nol going to help the
overcrowding of lhe schools in the soulhwest seclor and we need lo pay aUention lhere more than to lhe
Northwest Quadrant.
Chair Ortiz said he agrees with Councilor Chavez. He said, "The more we continue lo give either formal or
informal direction to have affordable housing only in lhe southwesl sector, or on the south side of town, lhe
more crowded the schools are going lo be on the south side of town, the southwest side of lawn. So, a
redistribution of some of those houses where working families can live lo put some of lhose kids, not jusl in
those schools that have enrollmenl capacity, bul also, quite honestly, have a beUer teacher-sludent ratio...
lhat is part of the plan we have in lhe Northwesl Quadrant" He said, given lhe declining revenues, by
consummating lhis action, we will be infusing our School Districl with needed revenue to cover ils shortfalls
now, which is affecting schools now, This money is going into lhe classrooms in the southwesl seclor and
this will be ablessing for lhe School Dislrict He said unlike paying for speed bumps or operalion and
mainlenance of the Southside Library, this is a loan. He said this money being fronted to lhe Dislricl to
purchase this equipment will be a loan against the sale of houses, and this fund will evenlually be repaid.
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES: March 2, 2009 Page 21
226
Chair Ortiz said if we continue to extend the deadlines and not build tne project, under these terms the
Affordable Housing Fund would be impacted, He said if we build these houses and the market recovers,
then the house sales will reimburse the cost of this purchase. He said this will come back and replenish
the fund, and this makes economic sense.
Councilor Chavez said the reality is that we are compensating for the school funding formula which is
inadequate. He said the PTAs and the Parent Teacher committees will still have to sell candy bars and do
flJndraising for the art, physical education and music teachers. This won't change with this $850,000. He
said he doesn't believe the number of houses to be built in the Northwest Quadrant are sufficient to
compensate for the economics of where affordable housing is built and accepted.
VOTE: The motion, as amended, was approved on avoice vote, with Councilors Calvert, Dominguez and
Wurzburger voting in favor of the motion and Councilor Chavez vOling against, and Councilor Ortiz noting
his support for the motion,
21. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING RULE 9.20 OF THE CI F

SANTA FE PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS SO THAT CITY EMPLOY WHO
E CANDIDATES FOR POLITICAL OFFICE MAY TAKE ANNUAL LEAVE ING A
PO TICAL CAMPAIGN (COUNCILOR DOMINGUEZ). (KRISTINE KUE . Committee
Revle . City Council (Scheduled) March 11, 2009. Fiscal Impact - o.
Councilor vert would like to know why this was done, and a
Councilors.
uncilors, as well as exempt employees and

such.
Councilor Calvert would like add "Boar" fter community college on page 3, line 13.
Ms. Kuebli said Item E is a State st te, so we'd have to refer back to the State statute.
Councilor Calvert asked if th
Ybe covered employe and in that circumstance, we would refer to the

Office of special counsel. S understands the Hatch Act uld apply to City employees with financIal
responsibility and fiscal 0 rsight of federal grants.
vert asked why we are adding provision B.
Ms. K Ii said there is only one section proposed to be changed I the Personnel Rules which is
the underlin language which says "or annual leave:
uncilor Calvert questions why we need this reference to the Hatch Act.
CE COMMITTEE MINUTES: March 2, 2009 Page 22
227
VOTE: The motion was approved unanimously on avoice vote.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION: Councilor Calvert moved, seconded by Councilor Wurzburger, to approve the following Consent
Agenda.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Wurzburger said she is concerned that there are many items where there is only
one person bidding, and she would like to see whal this Committee can do about this.
CONSENT AGENDA
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: (WITH NO FISCAL IMPACT)
9. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION URGING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO

CREATE AN ADEQUA'rELYFUNDED COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN (COUNCILOR CHAVEZ). (MARK TIBBETS) Committee Review:
Public Works Committee (Approved) September 8, 2008; City Council (Scheduled)
September 24, 2008.
*'10. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING WATER RIGHTS FOR THE
CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT PROJECT (COUNCILORS ORTIZ, WURZBURGER AND
DOMINGUEZ) Committee Review: Public Utllitl. Committee (Approved w/amendment) June
18, 2008; Public Works CommIttee (No Recommendation) September 8, 2008; City Council
(Scheduled) September 24, 2008.
11. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LONG RANGE WATER
SUPPLY PLAN (COUNCILORS WURZBURGER, CALVERT, ROMERO AND BUSHEE)
(CLAUDIA BORCHERT) Committee Review: Public Utilities (Approved wlamendment)
August 20, 2008; Sustainable Santa Fe Commission (Approved w/amendment) August 28,
2008; Water Conservation (Approved wJamendments) September 9, 2008; City Council
PROPOSED RESOLU'rIONS AND ORDINANCES: (WITH FISCAL IMPACT)
12. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PREPARE A MASTER PLAN FOR CITY FACILITIES AT THE
SILER ROAD PROPERTY AND THE DOWNTOWN CITY HALL AREA (MAYOR COSS,
COUNCILORS CHAVEZ, ROMERO AND TRU~"LLO AND CALVERT). (MARTIN VALDEZ)
Committee Review: Public Works Committee (Approved) September 8, 2008; City Council
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES: september 15. 2008 Page 2
228
CSLJncilor Dominguez said it says you built the schedule for the 2008-2009 hockey season. with games
scheduled for 46 weeks, and you will create an additional four teams. He said the program was i ce
'and this 'is adding more teams.
""
Mr. Ytuarte reiterated rograms were not entirely in place, and the Man IS just adding new
programs and expanding Ie s. He said the Manager estimated th mber of teams, players per team
and the fees which would be gene d as a way to project the h of these programs. He said
equipment is also needed to run these p rams, noting Jor repair/replacement is the Zamboni which
is needed to shave the ice for the games.
rofessionals, although 'ime will tell.·
Mr. Ytuarte reiterated that w the bUdget was developed, these program ere not in place, and the
Manager was fairly ne. he previous Manager had projected growth in these p rams due to the
Roadrunners bei at the Chavez Center which took a lot of ice time, so there wasn' fficient ice time for
the league expand or to create new programs. The current Manager now has had the . e to review
the ~ rams and has established these new programs.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
18. I)ISCUSSION OF NORTHWEST QUADRANT AND SANTA FE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AN

EXCEPTION TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT PURSUANT TO NMSA §10-15-1(H)(8). (LEE
DePIETRO AND KATHY McCORMICK)
MOTION: Councilor Calvert moved, seconded by Councilor Dominguez, to go into Executive Session for
the purpose of discussing the Northwest Quadrant and Santa Fe Public Schools, pursuant to NMSA §1Q-
15-1 (H)(8).
VOTE: The motion was approved on the following Roll Call vote:
For: Councilor Calvert, Councilor Dominguez.
Against: None
Abstain: Councilor Chavez
The resulting vote was less than a majority of members in attendance. Acting Chair
Wurzburger voted In favor of the motion and the motion was approved.
The Committee went into Executive Session at 5:45 p.m.
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES: August 18. 2008 Page 8
229
MOTION: At 6:11 p.m., Councilor Dominguez moved, seconded by Councilor Calvert, to come out of
Executive Session, stating that no votes were taken and the only matter discussed was the matter on the
agenda for discussion.
DISCUSSION
19. UPDATE ON NORTHWEST QUADRANT (LEE DePIETRO AND KATHY McCORMICK).
Acopy of "Northwest Quadrant Master Plan: Three Different Development Structures; is

Acopy of "Northwest Quadrant Master Plan: Pro Fonna Summary, Master Developer Model,· is
Ms. McConnick presented information from her Memorandum of August 12, 2008. which is in the
Committee packet, and from Exhibits "1" and "2."
Ms. McCormick said based on the information, staff will be recommending a nonprofit developer.
She has contacted several developers who are interested if they are guaranteed some amount of revenue,
and 5% woulcl be okay. She said she has received interest from national and local nonprofits and
developers. She said she will work with the City Council to issue an RFP.
Acting Chair Wurzburger said then staff is recommending the nonprofit model, the second model in
Exhibit "1."
Ms. McCormick said yes, and they are recommending the land be sold rather than doing a land
lease. She said the highest market units would accept a land lease. However, typically people want to
own the land.
20. DATE ON CARETAKER HOUSING IN CITY PARKS (LEE DePIETRO)

A. DNO. 08138/8 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROFE AL SERVICES
AG NT - SECURED LOAN FROM NEW MEXIC ORTGAGE FINANCE
AGENCY'S FUND AND GRANT FROM KFORCE PROGRAM;
ADVANTAGE ASPHA SEAL COAT ,LLC. (LEE DePIETRO)
Lee DePietro presented infonnation rding til tter. She said staff is working with Parks and
Police to identify parks for the pilot pr mas indicated in the p . She said when this was heard at
Public Works Committee. staff asked to look at substituting Herb Ma' Park for Armijo. She said
were strongly opposed to doing this at Amlijo Par . ~.
-----~
Page 9
230
~::~t::~:~EEN:PS~:J~l~=+=J __: E_O:~OO8
- ~-- Net Project~d Cash Flow___ ------E- 1,5§_5,749.00
___ land is SO'Fr$_5~:: _Grand Total: 32,862,3!l4:00
-.___ _ __--_ _=J ---+ I -

~
1----- .-- -E ~rOjected Cash Flow ------ r-

Developer Fee is 5% of Revenues (WF&MARKET) 112,003,353.00
I 20,859,041.00
~"
I---------=-E
_n
I -- j Land is SOI[:~~_$5S ---- __ I Grand-Tot~l: 32,862:39~L9Q.

I---- j------I --+--- +---- I
'PUBLIC-DEVELOPMENT MODEL (Non-Profit-Land L~asey==t===_ --- [ . ----.-

~__ ~-- L -[fuiQ~~rhead and Pr~fit --_L -- --------- 0.00
-- Net Projected Cash Flow-=C.. -r------- 11,859,04Tbo
~---
Land is leased for an average of $140per month --
___.._ __ ge-'!~.@_tes approximat.e.Iy $800,000 I.·n income annually --_-~
___ Income used to fun~ a land lease entity and a ===J
conservation trust for management of open space/trails
- - "-r IGrand Total: 23,862,394.00
231
NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN I
PRO FO-RMA SUMMARY

--- ------------------------_.-~,
- =F
- - _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ ----
July, 2008
-------'-----
_._ _ - - - - _ . SCENARIO: C
..
-----------t
------ - --
REVENUES:
---
--
Affordable Units
--
$39,792,000
-
Total Revenues ...> $266,671,397
---=±
--------------- i
- - - - ---------
EXPENSES: ----
,---.
Land
1----
$5,840,000
----,.- --
General Contractor Overhead & Profit
---.-_.. _ - '±f9'293'292
Developer
e---------------
Fee $12,003,353
~~~l~~~rall Engineering I $16,590,876
Other Soft Costs
_. ---_._---,' ..- - - - - - , - - - - - - - - ,
$12,414,961
---
Contingency (Soft Costs) i $6,030,248
_._ .... _ - - -
!
"--" ....•
Water Rights
-_._------
$5,962,500
Wet Utilities
-----
$5,058,108
Dry Utilities
,----'----._------
$1,275,340
Streets
-----~--,----
$4,897,300
~~t!?eolo9ical Costs
=t~3.000.000
------'----
Contingency [fnfrastructure) I $3,219,066
---------- -
I- ---------
l::I~me Lan_qscaping
Costs
-=I~ $2,043,900
9pen Space Components $5,700~~
1--------- -----
-----------
Total Project Costs ...> $265,105,648
I
----------------
PROJECT CASH FLOW (10 Years):
-----------_.
$1,565,749
------" , , -
S~nta Fe Public Schools· Share of Project Cash Flow $0

--
Master Developer· Net Project Cash Flow $1,565,749
~._----

-_._---------
Land Sold by SFPS to 3rd Party ~5.000.000
Share of Project Ca-sh Flow from NWQ Project---- I --. $0
,----------- .--.
TOTALPROCEEDS,SFPS $5,840,000
232
Offic~, as now, and may be looking something is more out on the freeway in terms 0 orting
center'liitd distribution center. This would leave a very large public buildin al1able.
Chair Heldmeyer said part of the

motion as this moves forw
Dominguez absent.
33. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PROCEED TO NEGOTIATE PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MASTER PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE
NORTHWEST QUADRANT (RFP #071101P); DESIGN WORKSHOP. (RON
QUARLES)
Chair Heldmeyer noted that Ron Quarles is not the appropriate staff person for this, and it
should be Kathy McCormick.
Councilor Ortiz said he continues to be impressed by the timeline prepared by Ron

Quarles for the hearing on the Northwest Quadrant, which he believes should be published as the
reference guide for all future timelines on the project
MOTION: Councilor Ortiz moved, seconded by Councilor Wurzburger, to approve this request. ,
DISCUSSION: Councilor Wurzburger said her concern in reading the proposal is that the
number of meetings was very extensive, and understood this was to be reduced to build on the
outreach already done.
Ms. McCormick said the request is permission to get into negotiations, and when the contract is
negotiated, they will clarify the exact number of public meetings.
Chair Heldmeyer noted this is the same group which worked on the Railyard Master Plan, and
she wants to be sure we learn from that experience and that all of the undefined and "unnailed
down" areas on the Railyard Plan don't exist in this master plan.
VOTE: The motion was passed on a voice vote, with Councilors Ortiz and Calvert voting for the
motion, none voting against, and Councilor Dominguez absent.
FINANCE COMMITfEE MINUTES: October 16, 2006 Page 12
233
4:·· APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
."-...
Counci Calvert moved to approve the Consent Agenda as
seconded the n and It passed by unanimous voice vo .
Councilor Rom moved to approve the mlnut May 26, 2009 as submitted. Councilor
Calvert SICO the moUon and it passed by unanimous
6. PUBLIC HEARING - NORTHWEST QUADRANT (NWQ) PROJECTS
• REQUEST FOR REVIEW, DIRECTION ANDJOR APPROVAL OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT

ANALYSIS
• REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NWQ PRo-FORMA (KATHY MCCORMICKILEE

DEPIETRO)
Acopy of a power point presentation to the Public Works Committee on the Northwest Quadrant,
dated June 8, 2009, is attached to these minutes as Exhibit 1.
Acopy of a power point presentation to the Finance Committee on the Northwest Quadrant, dated
June 1, 2009, is attached to these minutes as Exhibit 2.
Acopy of a map of the Northwest Quadrant is attached to these minutes as Exhibit 3.
Ms. McConnick made comments on the power pailt in Exhibit 1 to the Committee.
Mr. Michael Halsey, consultant, provided comments on the power point in Exhibit 2 and followed the
narrative beginning on page 20 of the Committee packet.
Chair Bushee asked Mr. Halsey to define TIF and PID and Mr. Halsey explained the terms. Chair
Bushee asked if these were future or existing taxes. Mr. Halsey clarified that in this case these would be
future taxes, only the City's portion, and if the project didn't go forward.
Chair Bushee asked why he recommended PID. Mr. Halsey explained that it was an advantageous
alternative.
Chair Bushee had asked staff to write a Memorandum and understood that it would be done. Ms.
McConnick said there was no melOO, but there was an analysis used as a back check. Chair Bushee
Public WorksJCIP &Land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 2
234
wanted that broken out with a monthly cost. $80 per month, and $199 was the maximum for market rate
units.
Councilor Calvert said it was on page 4 in the middle of the page, showing HOA fees and aggregate.
Councilor Calvert asked if he Mr. Halsey was saying the PIO would range and the HOA would vary
from $40 to $100. Ms. McCormick spoke about land leases. Mr. Halsey referred to two numbers on
page 4; the second $80 to $199 included a land lease. Councilor Calvert how much it would cost for a
land lease. Mr. Halsey said the Department had a schedule. but he didn't know.
Councilor Calvert thOUght the only difference was the HOA fee, but now understood the lease was
included. He found it hard to believe.
Mr. Halsey recommended looking for various factors improving in the economy before embarking on
the project. He recommended they hold off on the RFP until the enumerated things began to happen.
Councilor Calvert asked if they needed to see all 6, or just some. and everything under 1. Mr. Halsey
said they needed to have positive signs significantly outweighing the negative.
Chair Bushee said she heard him say to wait. The Council previously adopted a Resolution outlining
process. She believed the project was failing because it was not feasible from the 'get go.· The City
wanted to continue to do things saying they wouldn't cost. She asked if the pro forma demonstrated
financial feasibility.
Mr. Halsey demonstrated that without gap financing nwould never happen.
Ms. McCormick presented information on traffic impact analysis via power point. Please see Exhibit
"1· for specifics of this presenta~on.
Councilor Calvert referred to the statement about grading.... to widen the bridge. He didn't see this in
the pro forma, and asked if that cost would be shared with other developments. Ms. McCormick said the
numbers were not complete but all cost would be borne by this project. Mr. Halsey said the overstated
estimate by Bohannan-Huston would be put back in.
Chair Bushee reminded them the newly-reduced commercial aspect had a change in cost. Robert
Romero said the key factor would be when the bridge would be widened. It was a question of how mixed
use development would work.
Public Hearing
Chair Bushee gave everyone one minute to speak to the issue.
Nichole De Jumev, ARC Association, president, read her statement into the record. Then using
a map from the podium, she asked the Councilors to just pick what they wanted here that made sense as
Public WorksJCIP & land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 3
235
she described what was on the map, while someone else pointed to what she was talking about. She said
the homeowner's insurance didn't cover it, and the City had capped it at $100,000 in event of a sewer
backup. She said that Mr. Halsey said NWQ was unfeasible; couldn't get a loan, and there was a shortfall
of $28 million that would be covered by assessing homeowners, grants, reducing the amount of affordable
housing and leasing of land. A few weeks ago the City agreed to pay $56,000 per acre to the School,
now $9,000 per acre. She asked what was going on. She urged the Committee to stop this development
right now.
Karen Walker, 205 Delgado said this topic had been bandied about for years, and every time it didn't
make sense. The topography wasn't appropriate for the proposed use. Even in a good real estate maritet
it would make no sense. Councils hear that the public wanted this as open space. She was
recommending they forget the whole thing and leave as open space. Right now there was a glut in every
price range. If the City wanted it more affordable, then worit with them and put the effort into existing
homes in existing neighborhoods with sweat equity.
Frank Herdman, 1505 Villa Robles said he was a land use attorney and attended meeUngs. He was
cognizant of the City's expectation. He was personally enraged about how the City had gone ahead to
seek approval and it didn't comply with the ordinance. It didn't comply with ENN, and the adopted
Neighborhood Bill of Rights. He quoted from it. Only now one week before the traffic plan was going to
the Planning Commission were staff rolling out the proposed plan. Constituents were entitled to expect
compliance with the Resolution. As ataxpayer, the same Resolution indicated that detailed estimates
must conclusively demonstrate financial feasibility, but he hadn't heard that this evening.
Marilyn Bane, 622 %Canyon Road. Thanked Mr. Halsey for helping her have a better understanding
of the concerns. Her concern was process. There was no question as to whether this should proceed.
How was the City not going to proceed? She recommended that they put this aside, take it out of the
approval process, until such time as the economy improved and developers were standing in line to do
this. She urged them to not approve a plan that didn't worit and to start only when the City had a buyer.
Jane Takunaga, 264 Camino de II Sierra, agreed with the other speakers. She asked what the
rush was in this economy. She asked why City staff was spending so much time on this. Tierra Contenta
was in real trouble. There was a glut of affordable housing that the City wasn't getting to. Citizens,
nonprofits and everybody addressed Affordable Housing that way rather than rushing into ill-conceived
plans.
Steven Prince, 123 Camino de las Crucitas asked what the opticon gates were at the main entrance
to the development. He asked where traffic went when turning right. His biggest concern from the
alternative proposed by the neighborhood was that it would take flNay vita access to the interstate. The
solution was to not make Crucitas a cui de sac.
Robert Tate said the problem was scale. It was a well intentioned project but there was a problem
from the South.
Public WorksiCIP & land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 4
236
Joyce Roberts, 738 Camino Francisco, Secretary of the Santa Fe Estates Neighborhood said
putting all the traffic on Ridgetop would be an unsafe thing to do. There was increased traffic on 599, and
people wanting to go north already. This would be a disaster.
Ronald Miller, 813 Calle David, on the east side of the development, said he heard it was unfeasible.
Focusing traffic onto the Ridgetop intersection interfered with traffic on that side, including traffic from
Zocalo, and the absence of frontage roads, if interrupted with construction, was ill conceived and a bad
idea which should be killed.
Andy Maxincroix said the road from Crucitas became Buckman, 23 feet wide. He measured it today.
Perhaps as juries taken to crime scene, they should take people to the site. He had people honking at
him and glared because he had children with him. 23 feet was the size of a double garage with a
sidewalk. He asked if people could imagine traveling 30 mph through their garage.
Tom Coleman was stunned this program got this far. He said they should drive a stake into it.
Rick Martinez, 725 Macias Road, talked about the pro forma. Santa Fe's people need the work.
The City had given away water rights and now was going back to get the water rights. The Planning
Commission hearing shoulcl be canceled, or not heard in this room. Barriers come up and go down. The
Councilors who supported this weren't here and didn't care what would happen.
The Public Hearing was closed
Councilor Calvert said the pro forma spoke for itself. He hadn't seen a master plan and he couldn't
vote for the project. BUilding green meant it would have to comply with the residential building code. He
had yet to see the traffic master plan. He wanted to approve the pro forma because it said it wouldn't
work.
Councilor Romero said she was surprised at Finance. The pro forma indicated it was not feasible.
More importandy, the appropriateness tor the area was critical. The Council couldn't say it supported
neighborhoods and then look for ways to undermine them. She had heard NWa was the best infill project
ever. But it was really not infiH within the metro area. St. Miichael's was. TIeR'B Contenta wasn't in
trouble, but what they were saying was that the numbers didn't add up. The process began in 2004, and
good, bad or indifferent it did get a public process. They should look at what they did and use the
information to make the best decision. She was hoping tor the information needed to move forward.
Chair Bushee said this had become classic sprawl. The infrastructure was not there, in a terrain that
didn't work, and wouldn't deliver affordable housing. They set out the process in 2004 because ot concems
about the difficult terrain. The process was difficult to follow, the numbers continued to change, everything
was changing. She quoted the direction to staff to do a comprehensive planning process from the
resolution. There was one ENN at Gonzales. It was hot and nobody got answers. There was no
amendment requesting an amendment on traffic regarding Las Montoyas. There was misinfonnation
because the legend was wrong. Yet they were plowing forward, ignoring the neighborhood, saying it would
be like Osage. They addressed it by asking for a waiver from the escarpment district. Guarantees
Public WorkslCIP & Land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 5
237
wouldn't corne forward with exceptions and variances and financial issues. She said she was going to
bring forth an ordinance designating this as open space.
Councilor Calvert saki the pro fonna spoke for itself, but it was not complete because it needed to
include expenses, so it could not be approved. Chair Bushee said it was on the website for amonth.
Councilor Romero moved to deny this request. Councilor Calvert seconded the motion for purposes of
discussion and asked for afriendly amendment which Councilor Romero denied as friendly.
Councilor Calvert withdrew his second and Chair Bushee said she would second the motion.
In the discussion, Councilor Calvert said he would rather give direction to staff than to deny.
Councilor Romero and Chair Bushee agreed to accept that as friendly. The motion, as amended,
was approved unanimously on a voice vote.
CON$ENT
e", AGENDA USTING
7. CIP P JECT #4088 - FRANKLIN MILES PARK RESTROOM - PLUMBING
• REQUE OR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO.1 WITH SUB SU

CONTRACTI , INC. FOR A NEW WATER LINE EXTENSION IN TH
(MARY MAeDO LD)
8.
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL SUBMISSION 0 STATE GRANT APPLICATION FOR EAST

APRON RECONSTRUCl'ION AN ION ENGINEERING IN 'rHE AMOUNT OF
$72,500
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FO EAIR T MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE GRANT ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY WHE FFERED (JIM
9.
• REQUEST APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE P FESSIONAL SERVICES

NT (PSA) BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA FE AND M N.cORBIN &
~1ft'rES DATED JUNE 16, 2008 (JIM MONlMAN)
1 . REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTSIHOMES

ASSISTANCE FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $329,941.35 INCLUSIVE OF NMGRT AND F
TOTAL OF TWELVE MON'I'HS - JULY 1, 2009 THRU JUNE 30, 2010
Public WOIkslCIP & Land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 6
238
v-...
c
~
0----
~
i-0~
. ~ <::J
O'~-J
)1JC2- Public Works Committee - NWQ
o Purpose:
€l.~ To present the financial information;
and,
To present recommended traffic option.
Public Works Committee - June 8,

2009 1
239
Public Works Committee - NWQ
o As Proposed:
o City wi II not pay for fi na nci ng;
o Traffic will directed to Ridgetop and
historic access to Montoyas and
Crucitas will be maintained.

2009 2
240
Public Works Committee - NWQ
o Master Plan Balances:

~~. Enhancing Livability for Future
Residents;
Opportunities for dynamic community
in the future;
Maximizing open space;
Choice in mobility throughout the site;
Cost of construction, including
improvements; and,
Impacts to surrounding areas.

2009 3
241
Northwest Quadrant
Transportation
Staff recommends Access Scenario A

This Option Balances:
Livability for future families and employees
oLimits financial impacts to project
oExisting Road Networks Work
oConnectivity through roads and bike and ped
connections
oProvides emergency access
242
Northwest Quadrant
Transportation
758 Residential Units + 15 for SFPS

70% Open Space Set Aside
Bike and Pedestrian Connections
LivelWork Space limited to:
45,500 sq. ft Office (non-medical)
+24,500 sq. ft. Retail Specialty
TOTAL: 70,000 sq. ft Non-residential in LivelWork
40,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center

10,000 sq. ft Fire Station
243
Northwest Quadrant
Transportation - Evolution
o Feb. 2009 Factors o May 2009 Factors

o 775 Residential Units o 775 Residential
o 125,000 sf Live/Work o 70,000 sf Live/work
o 60,000 sf (:); 45,500 Office
Neighborhood Center 24,500 Specialty
o 10,000 sf Fire Station Retail
o 40,000 sf
Neighborhood
Commercial
o 10,000 sf Fire Station

2009 6
244
Northwest Quadrant
Transportation
Promote Use of Alternative Modes
oTIA will be required at each of three

primary phases;
oImprovements will be required/built if
traffic hits projected levels;
oPhysical road improvements are the same
as identified for Santa Fe Estates;
oNWQ Residential and Non-residential will
contribute fair share.
245
Northwest Quadrant
Transportation
Roadway Improvements - 2030
In cooperation with Santa Fe Estates:

o Add 4 right-turn lanes/North, South, East
and West bound directions;
o Add 2 left turn lanes/South and North
bound directions; and,
o Signalize and interconnect the ramp
intersections as they become warranted.
246
Northwest Quadrant
Transportation
2030 Full Build Out w/Background
Physical Roadway Improvements
All improvements from 2013 - signalization
and striping added plus:
Widen the bridge to provide four travel

lanes between the intersections.
All improvements would be implemented

based on future TIA's for each phase.
247
Northwest Quadrant
Transportation
Impact of 599 Corridor Study
Right of way purchased along 599 at

the development boundary for future
interchange
599 Corridor Study in process. Final

results in 2010. MPO make.s decision
on financing and prioritization of
projects.
248
Northwest Quadrant
Transportation
Some Additional Considerations
Futu re Phasi ng study
considerations:
.:.Impact of multi-modal options
and use;
.:.Operational hours of specialty
retail should be exact; and,
·:·Refinement of live/work traffic
generation impacts.
249
summary
o Scenario Option A Will:

~ Maintain Historic Access Down Montoyas and
Crucitas, without adding NWQ Traffic;
Requires least amount of funding to mitigate
potential impacts;
~~ Maintains close proximity to services including
shopping, employment and schools; and,
Encourage use of alternative modes through
trail network.

2009 12
250
c
U
Q..
OJ
rt
ro
-
d
v
....,.--
~)
0'.
'"""h
(~
~
o
,I
..,J
<
.,o
i
-n
o
3
0)
251
z
252
Northwest Quadrant
RE=QUIRED FINf\NC:ll.\.L. ()J C:"TIONCOMPONENT'S
RE)a
. ", II' -=>
III R, e:.\s 'I 1~ 1'1 t~i,-~
c-t-I'C'"",...... \.'0'1 c~ _F I U' P. I 'j't"". ,_I Ii (::\,- P~::.'i ce' 1•
;:73
! \.A_
-Appropriate Reco~Jnitl of Infra ctu C;ostTi i

based on overall proj€~ct i'·'iasing;
-Recognition of Residenti I lJnit const:ruction'tosts
consistent with Units Sales rning;
-Soft Costs incurred co istent with Construction an
Sales Timing;
.Selling Costs incurred neurrent with recomiHition
Sales Revenue;
.Positive Cash on Cash yie! (rnea ured ith Intern
Rate of Return) after Gl\P Financing is usedt
253
Northwest Quadrant
Results of Expense An{~lysis
From 11/2007 Pro . ., f() a U~)dated 51200~)
--_._-------.,-"" -. .._--".---_...•....,_ -._--,.--_._---_._..---.-._----,.---._.. .. ..
_~,-_ " " -..~, ...•_ , ..•.
Total Land costs; ch~Jr,gE~

'Total Infrastructure: 636 10 "
Total Building 8lL.an capinfj (8/'09·3,061.)

l-otal Soft costs: 1 J 3".'/8·"'" -7 J
'/-' , £-
t- -d
f 'o".C;11 'x
E'~ 'J- t.:::h P <~ re::"' (' l-\ "::l
f') c. i.,J\:':: "J I(~ ("
,;'1
"
• (', &:._,J":"
.~), r
,J )
0"
254
() ""P
-I
o
>""'+
ill
1IIlIe
;rJ::J
~
-
o o
(71rt,,,'lI tn
-J
1',,--
....
::::It
r;'
"-""
==F
~
•
-
~~
Q)
=~ ~'":J
CD
t-r
v ~ ;0
-
__._-J
"'b......::_
.... (l)
tr)
255
Northwest Quadrant
.__._~_~_ . . . . . . . ._,__.. . SLlrnmary

_. , .__._.. __.. Anal\lsJ's
of ~. ~.~ .. __ . . '
~ _~~""".~l_. ~~/'!....'":~'~_...,,,.-"'""_~~._ ..- _......_ _,..•.•~,. "' ..~~--,,.', ....- ..""',•• ,-~-.""
From 5 2009 Pro-forma lJ:pdatt~
Total Revenue: 1240,352,289

Total Expenses: 262,787,621
Net Income: ( 22,435,332)
Net Income
(with financing &
rate of retu rn ) : ( 27
256
Northwest Quadrant
t:hanges in Infrastru re ,",,,>"''',-,.:;;'•. ;.>
From 11/200l·,·f a U :5/

." •." •• "".__,"""",. '''~,'_''.~ '_ .. ~,,_~-,_,.,~~••,
,_".,.,,~', '~. ' _ '• ._ ,." ", ••-, .,,,v,",,~,, •. """,,~, ••..••. " '.•• ,~ .. "" <" . . . ,,'•. -"," ". _,_.. " ,.• ,•• ,"_ "•••••"-" ,
Category ,(~'r\
.,.d .~
Archaeolog )
Earthwork:
NfVl GRT Clt;i::,
\J'
W*J9 'fo.'. ../ ' ,~
';.:'
,,,
Streets: , :L
, C '1 '''I
Water Rig hts:: ( / ; l J.•:J j
"
J
Wet Utilities: 6 ,~ ,,_-lq
.. '
Contingency: '1
,' .J .;'.
'r~:* "~,~
I
'~'~
."J
r"Jl;:.. t·, (-.....

d ,,~ ~"" ~" ~.
1 1.;::1 ~1 '. t='-l.
. '\;1
....,)
·.~1
.' "",) ":.
257
,--,
j
J
,I
258
Northwest Quadrant
Changes in BuildiQg & Landscap,ihg Costs __,
Category Cost
General Contractor ( 1,720, 1:(} 5)

Overhead & Profit
NM GRT 14{4~Sf11~1
Hard CostslBldgCosts (11<.4E}<10d·tJ\
'. ..• . 1 ..\,;~•• :l
Building Cost Contingency ( .3:9iB..·;·6S.··.• 1').
..., / "'., ""'.
Net Change: ( ····~jf)~3'lq~J)
259
Northwest Quadrant
Revenue Changes by Squ~
From 11/2007 Pro-forma Upd~~,~~i:{;,i~.
Unit Type 11/07 Revised Chenge

Pro-forma Pro-forma +1 -
Workforce 2br 286.00 242.00 ( 44.00)
Workforce 3br 279.00 247.50 ( 31.50,
Workforce 4br 286.00 246.40 ( 39;;60)
Market 2br 350.00 268.40 ( 81.;60j

Market 3br 325.00 275.00 ( SO.p.Oj
Market 4br 300.00 302.50 2.50
High End Condos 400.00 400.00 No change
260
,~N'orthwest Quadrant
r--.....
'---~'-·· .... -"~·~-"-.-'"·~- .... --...------"'~-._ .. ·_·.,~-_.~ ._, '_~.~."'~"~, ~ ..__,_._ _._..__ ,~_,·,,,."~~'w~·.··. •• .• _"_c"'_~,, ..... ,_.,__ ""._,."""~
,.~".,· ... _ _...,_....~ .._ , ' - _ . _ "...,..,.",'-_.,.'"'... ,~----_.
~,.... ._ _""'_'........" __ "~ •• ~~ .... -,'-~~"'-,.~~ .~
__ --..,-----
~.iI.
~.
:::~ r-·'-~--~-·'·---'·:=~~~=·~=~. ·~==·~:~·_,·····
g $300 t-----·-------~
$300
$250
-- _ ~...•., --.----------- -
----...._----,,,,- --.....,_......-
.-._ -.-"- ' _-~.
----..-.---.-~ . " . "
__.•- . --., '. .
~._-_._--_._-~--
-•.••.
i........,.j!.- :
~ $200 . ' . - . _ - - - - - - _ . - . - - ....---.-----.•. --~ .... ~.-.. - ..-
<:J
I' .'
~ $-150 . . . . ,--_.._.
f $;~:' --p.------- __._.__. ._"__.. . . ._.., . ..... ~.
SO ·l-·---·-l---r----·-,.-·---., , 1" ~ ----r-------'r"""'~ ..... I l I ~-;---,.----,---r ......_-'
~ ~# ~
91"~ ~ ~~~ ~V;-
9!# # # cO
~y ~" ~'" ~'-:. '9f~ ~" ~~ ,)./t{; .!!;>,. ,'>- *-'0
~~
<Q
~~
«1
5t~
'C
x~
<?
t/" Qj (~ ~
~.)
.q;
:«p-.,.
~,
yS-
~ #- '~v.
"'\~ ~'(-+'
J.
~(..p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ","
if....
~Q?
Unit Types
No\{ 20eJ'{ Projection ......~<1ay 20mJ pnJjC1ctrcln~ ....~tiJtt:t~~~~I~~, ··tl?'~~~t,~':4;rJ:~1~
261
N,orthwest Quadrant
Revenue Changes by Un.itT.,pt
From 11/2007 Pro-forrn8'
Unit Type 11/07 Revised Gha'nge

Workforce 2br 286,000 242,000 ( 44,000)
Workforce 3br 320,850 284,625 (36,2.,~5)
Workforce 4br 357,500 308,000 ( 49/~OO)
Market 2br 455,000 348,920 (106,ID80)

Market 3br 585,000 495,000 ( 90,0(0)
Market 4br 750,000 756/250 <3250
,1
High End Condos 1,200,000 1,200,000 No cbjange
262
Northwest Quadrant
Unit Mix Analysis - Origin il/Mi)(
SFNWQ FInancial Projection Developed Unit Pr~fJt eWoss) by "typ.e
'I 00,000 -'--'~--'-'--'-'-"-'--'--'
&U:'IGO
-u(II>
d
,.... .,}
;;:: 1·:'
\ J..,
("0 ,oG+!J!- ..'1-
0:o 5<'"
l?' r;fr:
:-g
:::> pOD.oeOi' ,-.. -.-------.. ...-- . ,-,-... , ... "'"''''
v
W'
1'1.\. 11!30.0IJO' ·t·~,_··" ....··_·_,·_·.. ~ ..·· . ·· ......·· . ·
0'
"0
:>
~ 12.00,0001 .J..-._ ... ~...-_...,...... ..... . ...•.•
(250 ,00-0) .+- _ _~ ,_._._ -_ __ , _ .
(300.000) .1-.._ _.__•.__.•.••" ~." _ ..
Unit Types
,
I.. _,.. '"'_''' __ _._ _..__
r
Nr)':;F),P 1l1Ll:'tCJ'1':1
__
_C :.\l:' r Inc;;.n:Ir'j,O •. NO Grants . . . .G:A?
...__ _.._._._.__ ._ __.•_.__."•.-
(j;r,,,ri!:;
,. .. ., _..!
263
NOr·rthwest Quadrant
<Proposed New Unit Mix Sateaa,n
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scena.rio 3

A 37 % 33% 3tJ 6/o
W 35°/0 37 tJ/o 4~~!o
M 28 % 300/0 3tJ1%
Gap: $21,679,408 $18,857,441 $tS,4/54,123
A==affordable; W=workforce; M=market

Gap: financing and rate of return shown
264
No:rthwestQ'uadrant
Unit Mix Analysis - Scena
SFNWQ Financj(tl Projection Develope.cJ Unit Pr:ofl'l,)(t;~$S' by*y:pe
30,000 -,~ """""" .._-~....,-".,," .. ,,,,~-.~--_._' --"'-~'''7'''~' """,,"_~,,~,_.~,.~ .... ,;",.'_.·i..~~"""'_"-!"".4_',",,''''''_'''''~''~""~"""""~-""-"""'-
60,000
4O.0tilj
ii;
rn
o
...l
20.{JOO
.....
'5... 0
a..
.=.-
-
:J
"'0
!V
:Q.
<:>
g{6lJ.OGD} .j ..----,.
l1l
o (BfJ;QOO)
11-00,06'G) l,~ '-""'- "''''-''''._._''----'.''0''''--'''''-'''--'''--0'-·'·'''''·'·" ... ',--",_.~ -""'--,,;-_.,... ~--,,','-,,.._. ·'·"·'~-"I
{ll'!O.oaiJl·I~-,.----_o ..,." .'." ....."."",., ".,.,.",,-,
Unit Types
:~(:', Cr/\F' . . . .,~-)i\r~ ;'·:}n:"~'\"el·~f't'H~"I_ f;il,li'llii"IJ~I,'~'i\f;) C~Jants
265
Northwe·st Qua,drant
Same Financing Solutions to ClQs:&G~p
City Leases Land
Public 1mproveme n t 0 i stri,,~;t(~l~~'l
Tax Increment Financing (fiJi)
State/ Federal and Foundation Gro"fNts
Tax Credits
266
Northwest Quadrant
Examples of Financing Solutions to CI,Q'ssGap
Scenario 3 Scenario 3
Description Alternate 1 AI te fl1ste 2
Shortfall 18,454,123 18,454,123
City Leases Land 5,000,000 5000000

, . ,l
GRT TIF Bond Proceeds 4,870,313 4,00/(9,000
PID Bond Proceeds 8 583,810
1 7,45~/123
Grants Provided o :2 ,.
·oer,@;C)QO
", ,.,; '(
Total GAP Financing 18,454 1 123
267
Northwest ,Quadrant
Economic Indicators for Proceedin;9w~ roJect
1. Local and National Economic Indicators Impro'ving (e.g. GOP,

Job Growth, Mortgage Rates, Unempf,'lym;ff·trt,.;y:onsumer
Confidence, etc.); lei
2. Local Residential Sales and Inventor~iifi ·Ei~;I;a\~!~~'·~e-sales

from MLS - New Product not Listedfr~f'hM€~f~;~;tttt1V;
.
, " ,
3. Local Residentlal Sales Dollar Volume21nd c:OI.dPlJS Increasi ng;

4. Residential Sales Prices sufficient to cover Construction and
Development Costs;
5. Residential Sales Prices stable or increasing on a price per
square foot basis;
6. Availability of reasonably priced construction and mortgage
financing - currently Local Banks will not flnant:8 Speculative
construction
268
NOR-TItW€)T QLY\-t':>MNr ~1ER fLe4N
- f".\An·J Ar~n:::R\A-L 'R~
- - SecoN~YINTE;tQ\ORRoAP5
•••• &oPO'1E.'? 'RoADS
1 ·l ~nyowtJE!> LAN?
269
PUB SAFETY REGARDING RIGHTS OF USAGE AND REMOVING A 2 ACR CEl FROM
THE ORI EASE PREMISES lOCATED ON CAMINO ENTRADA ARD VIGil)
18. PURCHASE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY/lOAN TERMS

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE lOAN TERMS FOR ACQUISITION OF THE 15 ACRES
OWNED BY THE SANTA FE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT (KATHY
MCCORMICK)
Ms. McCormick recalled that the Council approved the purchase of 15 acres and staff was asked to
come back with the terms in case it didn't go forward. What was in the packet was staff's recommendation.
It currently stated that if the Master Plan was adopted and a developer was on board, it wOLild start about
2010 or 2011 although the economy had a lot to do with it. If there was no ground broken for five years, it
would be repaid every year for five years out of that fund.
Councilor Chavez concluded they were basically lending the sums and would close out the CIP at
$140,000. Otherwise it would go to the trust fund.
Ms. McCormick clarified they were paying the School District $840,000 for 15 acres and they were
asking the City to set aside ten acres for a school on Buckman. The reason the staff felt comfortable with it
was that it had a ten year horizon. The school would have to decide in ten years and if they didn't, the City
would not have to reserve it for a school and the schools could not be sold for something else. She said the
terms were satisfactory to the schools.
Councilor Chavez said it was not on his list of priorities since there were other pressing needs.
Councilor Chavez moved to deny the request to purchase the school district property and deny
the terms of the request. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilor Calvert asked if they had a choice here. He asked if there was a legal opinion on it.
Mr. Buller said he wouldn't speak as a lawyer but the Councilors had to be concerned about the good
faith issue since the letter the City sent to the school said the City would do it and had the funding to do it.
Councilor Chavez noted there had been good faith measures in the past. There were things that were
different about this but not everything agreed to had come to fruition. He had never supported it in the past.
Mr. Buller clarified that he was talking about political good faith and not legal issues.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee February 23,2009 Page 10
270
Chair Bushee said she would be" more comfortable with 2010 for beginning repayment. It now said
2013.
Councilor Romero moved to approve the request. Councilor Calvert seconded the motion.
Councilor Romero thought 2013 was a placeholder. The Master Plan had not been approved. She
asked Ms. McCormick to speak to it. Right now they don't have anything in place and this just targeted it
out there in the future. She reminded them the City did it with the water company.
Ms. McCormick felt this was a reasonable expectation about when the homes would start being sold
there. If the program didn't start by then, this would start a repayment back out of the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund.
Chair Bushee didn't think that was right.
Councilor Chavez thought they also needed to reevaluate point one. He didn't think any money had
gone back from the water company loan. It was getting too easy to do this. He thought it should be
rethought in light of the economy and markets.
Councilor Calvert said this was not something they could afford to do until three years. So they were
agreeing to do what they agreed to do.
Councilor Calvert moved as amend the motion to pursue an alternate approach to delay the
payment for three years. Councilor Romero agreed to it as a friendly amendment.
Councilor Chavez said they needed cash just as much or more than the City. The reason for keeping it
was to reduce the overpayment but this $140,000 was to reduce overcrowding in the schools in the
southwest sector but would not accomplish that. They didn't need the school in the northwest area but in
other places.
Chair Bushee asked if the motion was 2013.

Councilor Calvert agreed to 2013. His intent was not to use this approach but to begin making a
payment in 2013.
Chair Bushee asked for Councilor Calvert's motion to be a separate motion. Councilor Chavez
seconded the motion.
Councilor Romero asked Ms. McCormick if she would have to renegotiate with the schools.
Ms. McCormick agreed because the letter said it would be a lump sum payment to be paid by March
1st. It was signed and sent to them.
Councilor Romero said it based on the fact that they had economic hard times.
Councilor Calvert added that the City was going to borrow the money.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee February 23, 2009 Page 11
271
The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
19. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTIONS 14-8.11(G)(3). 14-8 ,

-8.16 AND 14-8.17 SFCC 1987 REGARDING ANNUAL WATER BUDGET WATER RIG
T SFER REQUIREMENTS AND WATER BANKING; CREATING A NEW SECTIQ 4-8.13
SFCC 987 REGARDING DEVELOPMENT WATER BUDGET REQUIREMENTS EWARTICLE
25-9 SF 1987 REGARDING THE CITY WATER BUDGET, A NEW ARTIC 25-10 SFCC 1987
REGARDI THE CITY WATER BANK, A NEW ARTICLE 25-11 SFCC 7 REGARDING THE
WATER RIG S TRANSFER PROGRAM. AND A NEW ARTICLE 2 SFCC 1987 REGARDING
THE WATER C SERVATION CREDIT PROGRAM; MAKING S HOTHER RELATED CHANGES
AS were NECESS Y (COUNCILORWURZBURGER) (FRA KATZ)
This item was postponed der consideration of the Age a.
20. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ORDINA EAMENDING SECTIONS 14-3.14 AND 14-5.2 (B)
SFCC IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH P CE RES FOR THE DEMOLITION OF LANDMARK
STRUCTURES AND TO REQUIRE MINI MMAINTENANCE OF LANDMARK STRUCTURES;
AND MAKING RELATED CHANGES U ILORS CALVERT, BUSHEE AND ROMERO)
(JEANNE PRICE)
Mr. Rasch explained the demol' on of landmarks had en left out of the ordinance so this was to
address that delinquency. It addr sed applications for demol . n and minimum maintenance to avoid
demolition by neglect. The Go rning Body would have final aut rity upon HORB recommendations.
Chair Bushee asked Ith respect to neglect, what would enable tli City to go in and address a
cemetery with high wee s.
Mr. Rasch expl ned that this was limited only to landmark historic structu s. He assumed weeds were
under the nuisanc law. He added that the City would first cite them as a violatio The citation would
require a hearin before the HORB and require the repair to be done.
Counci r Calvert moved to recommend approve of the amendment. Councilo omero

seconde he motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
Mr. Romero said regarding Camino Carlos Rael that the project would close the street. They were
waiting for the Siler bridge project right now. They got $3.6 million from DOT and were about $1.5 million
short. They were going through the RPA to secure the rest. He thought it would be done by the end of the
year. He said it was consistent with the Arterials & Roads Task Force and was on the Council's budget.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee February 23. 2009 Page 12
272
· Martinez noted that Espanola was looking at 14.5% inaease next year. There weIe others .
need~ The a huge difference in commercial from residential. They chose the rate s!rU;kn1fbeca
they felt with it at the time.
motion passed by majority voice vote with all voting in favor 8Xce
..........'IWU against
INFORMATIONAL AGENDA
9. UPDATE TO THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (lEE DEPIETRO)
Ms. McConnick provided a handout {attached as Exhibit 8]. She saki the TIA was not being released
to the public unbl John Romero has reviewed it After review he would post the infoonation on the website.
She explained there were three options for moving traffic from Montoyas to 599. The dilllCtion from the
Committee last time was to take off the commercial area and to focus on scenarios 0 and E with
preference on D. They were told to look at more intersections and had a list of them. They shared the
worst case scenario if they added commercial.
Ms. Claudia Holmes and Ms. Carmen Silva came forward.
Ms. Holmes said they updated the latest TIA and nanowed it to 3 scenarios and took out any
connections to Calle Mejia. There was 7,000 sq ft of commercial and about 30% of the mixed use (52
units) would possibly convert to commercial down the line. A lot of things would lead to the commercial
being built out. Good access, good market potential and synergy of anchors that would make it more
viable. This was a worst case scenario.
She shared the results of the 3 scenarios:
Scenario Awas only access to Ridgetop Road. If you were on Ridgetop Road at the iltersection
heading east on 599. They would need a right tum lane.there. There was no other change necessary
there. Just widen the intersection. She cfarified that it was actually full in full out and they would go out
Part of the study was to look at options. 0 limited access. It was mislabeled.
Public WorksIClP & Land Use Committee OCtober Xl, 2008 Page 12
273
.Ms. Silva said that in order to be able to compare what they had done previously and now add
commercial. They had to do it the same way. So they maintained 0 allowed full access in and only right
out It was needed for consistency of the scenarios. They also looked at if the access toward Casa
Solana was not allowed, how it would be handled. So they did two phases.
Ms. Holmes noted them were a number of improvements needed in D. Uke scenario A. the right tum
---·----..0"10 Ridgetop woUld need to be added. The recommendatiOn hem was to signalize me IntersectiOn m
2013 at implementation.
Mr. Romero cautioned that there was no commibnent from state to fund this so far.
Ms. Holmes described scenario E which had full access and the improvements· none needed at
Ridgetop Road but a signalized intersection would be needed at Montoyas.
Ms. Holmes said another question was to look at limiting traffic coming through Casa Solana so they
looked at three options (1-3). They redesigned for only a right out and left in to limit traffic from the south.
The pros and cons were that It was easy to implement adesign of Intersection but hard to enforce because
it would require barriers. It would need to be sbJdied for what it would look rlke. It would keep the historic
access there now but cut off the NWQ. The right in was detennined to be 53 cars and was in the evening.
That would have to come through a different routing.
Councilor Calvert asked how it woutd increase tf they restricted it
Ms. Silva clarified that the correct terminology was that they would be redirected to another route,
either 599 at Montoyas or through the Ridgetop intersection.
Ms. Holmes said the other two options were cutting away with aseries of cui de sacs. One was Ortiz
Dog Patt, the other at Montoyas.
Councilor Calvert noted that one could not get to dog park parking lot.
Ms. Holmes said there were l'M> parking lots. It would keep city and county traffic out of Casa Solana.
But it was not clear how traffic woufd flow and she didn't know the impacts to the network. They needed to
keep it full accessible for emergency vehicles. She sad the responders who liwd in Casa Solana would
have to have other routes. It would also affect the twenty·five acres the school system owned.
CounClbr Calvert said it would need transit access also.
Ms. Holmes said Option 3 would move the cui de sac further north along Montoyas so they would be
south of the ridge. So one could access the road for NWQ just north of the ridge.
Chair Bushee asked about going out of Solana to 599 under Option In.
Public WorksIClP & Land Use Commttlee OCtober 27, 2008 Page 13
274
. Ms. Holmes said they would have to use St. Francis or Agua Fria or the Transfer Station. With Option
3 they would have more options.
Chair Bushee explained this was not a public hearing but allowed some oommenls.
Ms. Nicole DeJurenev 201 Alamo Drive .VP of Alamo Assn. She said they Y«lU1d be thrilled with option
2 or 3. She said she sPQke WiU1 JOhn RORlero WhO had reservatiOns abOUt Jumping medians.
Chair Bushee asked her if folks would be okay with having to go to Sl FrtIlCis to get to 599.
Ms. DeJurenev agreed. She said cul-de-sacs made her heart sing because the integrity of their
neighborhood would be preserved.
Chair Bushee asked if #1 YIOOId be hard to enforce.
Mr. Romero agreed. There was a driveway just north of the intersection where they could tum around
He was not sure how they could construct the intersection there either.
Ms. McCormick said it would have to be extraordinary to make if impossible. To make it really difficult
to do anything except the right tum. Getting fire trucks from NWQ to Casa Solana was hard also.
Mr. Romero felt they Y«lU1d have to spend time working it oul
Ms. McCormick agreed they would need to study it. Councilor Calvert asked how they would make
sure it was mitigated and these three options were what they identified.
Chair Bushee fett #!2. left Montoyas as an island unto Itself.
Mr. Romero said they tried to refine this #1 and asked how it could be done while allowing emergency
vehldes.
Ms. Silva said it would allow existing traffic patterns 80 Solana could access 599 Ihrough MonIoyas.
She explained that it could be done although with some difficulties.
Mr. Romero said he would have to talk with the fire department about option #3.
Ms. McConnick agreed. She said they would discuss the resolution at the School District on
Wednesday and they were scheduled with the Planning Commission as astudy session on the 4th• Then
they would submit the Master Plan in the regular public process after the first of the year.
Chair Bushee explained that this was infonnational so they were done for now with it.
PubrlC WorkslCIP & Land Use Committee October 27, 2008 Page 14
275
EXH/SITS
''''5<?'''~'~U~_~S 10127/08
DRAFT
JUL 2007
TIA RESIDENTIAL 758 units
OPTIONS RESULTS Implementation Year 2030
Scenario A 1 access: Ridgetop Road - Ridgetop Road Interchange Improvements
Scenario B 3 accesses: Ridgetop Road, Camino de los Montoyas, and Calle Mejia
Scenario C 2 accesses: Ridgetop Road and Calle Mejia
Scenario 0 2 accesses: Ridgetop Road and Camino de los Montoyas (full-in-right-out)
INTERSECTIONS
/e Ridgetop Road I Westbound Ramps (North NM 599 Off-Ramp)
'" Ridgetop Road I Eastbound Ramps (South NM 599 Off-Ramp)
Camino de los Montoyas I NM 599
Alamo Drive I Calle Mejia
Alamo Drive I St. Francis Drive
MAY 2008 TIA RESIDENTIAL 758 units

Scenario A 1 access: Ridgetop Road - Ridgetop Road Interchange Improvements
Scenario B 3 accesses: Ridgetop Road, Camino de los Montoyas, and Calle Mejia
Scenario C 2 accesses: Ridgetop Road and Calle Mejia
Scenario 0 2 accesses: Ridgetop Road and Camino de los Montoyas (full-in-right-out)
Scenario E 2 accesses: Ridgetop Road and Camino de los Montoyas (full access)
INTERSECTIONS
Ridgetop Road I Westbound Ramps (North NM 599 Off-Ramp)
Ridgetop Road I Eastbound Ramps (South NM 599 Off-Ramp)
Camino de los Montoyas I NM 599
Alamo Drive I Camino de las Crucitas
Camino de los Montoyas I Buckman Road
Paseo de Vistas I Buckman Road
Alamo Drive I Calle Mejia
Camino de las Crucitas j St. Francis Drive
Camino de las Crucitas I Rio Vista
DRAFT RESIDENTIAL 706 units

OCT 2008 TIA COMMERCIAL 70,000 sf + 125,000 sf (30% mixed use units = 52 units x 2,400 sf/unit)
Scenario A 1 access: Ridgetop Road . Ridgetop Road Interchange Improvements
Scenario 0 2 accesses: Ridgetop Road and Camino de los Montoyas (full-in-right-out) - NM 599 I Camino de los Montoyas Improvements
Scenario E 2 accesses: Ridgetop Road and Camino de los Montoyas (full access)
NOTES
INTERSECTIONS - Mixed - Use Traffic Generation: Pending the publica-
• Ridgetop Road I Westbound Ramps (North NM 599 Off-Ramp) tion of a mixed-use traffic factor in 2009, traffic for
~. Ridgetop Road I Eastbound Ramps (South NM 599 Off-Ramp) the mixed-use areas was calculated as a specialty
" Camino de los Montoyas j NM 599 retail center (small strip shopping center with a vari-
Alamo Drive I Camino de las Crucitas ety of retail shops).
Paseo de Vistas I Buckman Road
Camino de los Montoyas I Buckman Road
Camino de las Crucitas I St. Francis Drive
Camino de las Crucitas j Rio Vista
NORTHWEST MASTER TIA HISTORY

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
QUADRANT P LAN OCT03[< /.7 2008
DeSign Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc. . Bohannan Huslon
276
OPTIONS· ROAD NETWORK
1 NM 599 RESTRICTED INTERSECTION FROM NWQ TO MONTOYAS (Scenario D)
PRO CON
Easy to implement. Easier for drivers to ignore and still turn right.
NORTHWEST Maintains historic access from Montoyas into town Will increase traffic into Gasa Solana; estimated to
QUADRANT using Grucitas or other roads in Gasa Solana. be 53 additional cars in the pm.
Provides direct access for emergency vehicles to Will need enforcement to discourage improper
Gasa Solana and surrounding areas. turns.
Provides multiple ingress and egress points to and
from the NWQ (Ridgetop, 599, Montoyas, Buck-
man, Paseo de Vistas and Grucitas.
Allows access to Buckman
2
t",,_
CUL·DE·SAC ON CRUCITAS EAST + SOUTH OF ORTIZ DOG PARK
PRO CON
Keeps NWQ and other city I county traffic out of It is unknown how traffic will flow from Paseo de
Gasa Solana. Vistas or Buckman to St. Francis.
Households north and west of the dog park would Design that would still allow for emergency vehicle
still have access to the Dog Park via Buckman or access is unknown.
Paseo de Vistas.
What is effect on emergency responders in the
area that have traditionally used Grucitas to Quickly
get to 599
KJ
•~..k'"
Residents in Santa Fe would have to access the
transfer station using altemative routes.
ii1&;1:.1
Affects access to the 25-acre school district prop-
erty from GructtaslMontoyas
CUL·DE·SAC ON MONTOYAS SOUTH OF RIDGE

3 PRO CON
Keeps NWQ traffic out of Gasa Solana Loss of access for emergency workers in Casa
Solana directly to 599 from Montoyas
Allows access to school district property from
Montoyas Design that would still allow for emergency vehicle
access is unknown.
Gasa Solana Residents could get to Buckman,
Traffic could still flow from Buckman to Crucitas
then 599 through Casa Solana.
Disrupts historic access from Los Montoyas south
to Casa Solana and Gonzales Elementary.
Increases traffic from NWQ to 599 and Ridgetop.
NORTHWEST MASTER ROAD NETWORK OPTIONS

QUADRANT P LAN PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc.. Bohannan Husfon J.)(~T03U::7
277
2008
SCENARIO· IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2013 RESIDENTIAL + COMMERCIAL
A 1 ACCESS: RIDGETOP ROAD
The Ridgetop Road Interchange access location is expected to operate at acceptable LOS in both the current and imple-
mentation years with some mitigation measures implemented.
Therefore, this alternative is considered a viable option for access to the Northwest Quadrant Development, with the fol-
lowing mitigation measures implemented:
Add an eastbound right-turn lane to the Eastbound Ridgetop Intersecfion, and a wesfbound tight-turn
lane to the Westbound Ridgetop Intersection.
Add a left turn lane on the bridge for the Southbound direction at the Eastbound Ridgetop Intersection
and for the Northbound direction at the Westbound Ridgetop Intersection.
Signalize and interconnect the ramp intersections as they become warranted,
Add a right turn lane for the Northbound direction at the Eastbound Ridgetop Intersection.
o 2 ACCESSES: RIDGETOP ROAD, MONTOYAS (R·OUT, L·IN)

mentation years with some mitigation measures implemented, and the Camino de los Montoyas & NM 599 intersection is
planned to be converted to a grade separated intersection in the future which would greatly enhance traffic operations at
this location, Therefore, this alternative is considered a viable option for access to the Northwest Quadrant Development,
with the following mitigation measures implemented:
Provide a westbound right-turn lane to the Westbound Ridgetop Interchange location.
Provide a stop confrolled T-intersection at the proposed access location with Camino de los Montoyas
operating freely and the proposed access road being stop controlled.
AI/ow tight-turns from northbound Camino de los Montoyas and left-turns from southbound Camino de los
Montoyas into the development but only right-turns out (northbound) of the development
Add a tight turn lane for the Northbound direction at the Eastbound Ridgetop Intersection.
Signalize the NM 599 and Camino de los Montoyas Intersection.
E 2 ACCESSES: RIDGETOP ROAD, MONTOYAS (FULL ACCESS)

mentation years with no mitigation measures required, This alternative is considered a viable option for access to the
Northwest Quadrant Development, with the following mitigation measures implemented:
Provide a stop controlled T-intersection at the proposed access location with Camino de los Montoyas
o full aCC~5$ inler~ec!ion
::.':) right Clul / lefl in Inh'H~ecllon
NORTHWEST MASTER TIA SUMMARY

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc, . Bohannan Huston OCTOBE ~ 27 2008
278
UEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ARMY AVIATION SUPPORT FACIUTY (AASF)
LEA D PROPERTY (JIM MONTIIAN)
Mr. Monbna a big rendition of the facitily and passed it aro . He explained the purpose of
the facility which was .store and maintain existing aircraft. No add" nal aircraft or personnel were
anticipated. It would an older bUilding that would be ated into an armory. Part of the project
included repairs of the access from Paseo Real to 'Iily and would have significant benefits.
The height was 51' at highest poin likely It not be visible to residents. He explained that
there would be no change to the lease. d at the land had already been leased to them for quite
sometime. ..~
.." ...,
After a brief discussion, Mr. bnan explained that'lhe..temporary structure was currently on the
parcel and this would rep with a permanent building. ~
Councilor 1110 moved to approve the request Councilor nded the motion .d It
pa8l8d nanlmous voice vote.
18. UPDATE ON TRANSPORTATION, WATER, SCHOOLS AND RELATED ISSUES FOR THE
PROPOSED NORTIMEST QUADRANT PROJECT (KATHY MCCORMICK)
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING WATER RIGHTS FOR THE
CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT PROJECT (COUNCILORS ORTiz, WURZBURGER AND
DOMINGUEZ) (KATHY MCCORMICK)
Ms. McCormick presented this update and said she would then do the water resolution.
She said they presented a letter to the school board with an offer. They sent a letter to the City
Manager requesting a 1~ay period to respond. That was where it was at present There was a lot of
attention being given to archaeology there so they met with Sheny SCheck and Suby Bowden and talked
about topography. The meeting went wei.
Councilor Romero asked what the deadline was:
Ms. McCannick said it was last Friday but they had asked before the deadUne.
Green Buildings.
Ms. McCormick said there were several pages to this section but she would cover only the highlgh1s.
She apologized that she had not had time to put anything in the packet.
Chair Bushee said they needed it in writing.
Ms. McConnick said all lots would have passive solar and all would be designed to have aetNe solar
installed. Solar would get cheaper so it would be an option. They would use all green materials and no
Public Wol1l;&fCIP & Land Use Committee september 8, 2008 Page 7
279
carpet would be installed. They would have passive water harvesting, utility use reduction and an
emphasis on less constnJction waste.
Ms. Bowden added that they would be silver rated.
Ms. McCormick said the quadrant would have 70% open space and 30% dewloped with bike trails.
They wanted to use -off the grid power" for one area. They would provide dYe education for residents
on how to use alternative energy, composllng, etc. as part of a package. She said she would send the
Councilors the two page table of contentsisLUTlmary. They were encouraging aIt types of transportation and
were evaluating the bus pass being part of home purchase price. They would indude that in the RFP for
Master Plan to developer.
Councilor Calvert asked if there would be covenants about the carpeting. Ms. McCormick agreed.
Councilor CMvez asked if the unites would be easy to retrofit later in a cost-effective way.
Ms. McCormick agreed. She said the grey water would be done at the beginning.
She said the Bike JPedesbian connections would be shown but they wouldn't make all the changes to
the Master Plan that was on the web sits because they were waiting for a response from schools and o1her
things. So we would hold off until the end for the final. The date for the final depended on resolution wi1h
the school district.
Councilor CMvez asked if the grey water system would be for the enh subdivision or a portion.
Ms. McCormldt said all single-family homes would be plumbed for it There would be acommunity
cistern for the rest. They would also have water harvesting off rooftops. The architecture would be simUar
to southside library.
Ms. Bowden said they were using botl passive and active water harvesting so there would be swales
and. downspouts with cisterns. It was up to the family to use them. Owners would receive a booklet that
would have achapter on each of them. They had a lot of green open spaces for water harvesting and city
irrigation systems. There was a lot of shaping of eiK:h property. They did lois of waste water collection and
using experts on it Because of 1he mixed use and residential, wet lands would be very dtllicun to maintain.
Anyone could throw something down the toilet that would ruin it.
Councilor Romero asked if they could work with the families. Ms. McCormick agreed.
Chair Bushee asked if they were stiU in line with the costs projected since they had added all SOftS of
things.
Ms. McCoonick said their projections indicated they could hold to the cost poims. The market could go
up or down. That was why they were doing an RFP for developers. The costs and performance and sales
PUblic Works/CIP & Land Use Committee september 8. 2008 Page 8
280
projections showed they could cover the costs. They talked with five local builders and would continue to
monitor !he numbers.
Councilor CMvez asked if people in the audience from that area could make public comment
Chair Bushee said they would hear about transportation next and 1I1en Ihe water issue.
Ms. Lee Depietro said they had a verbal approval for the analysis and would have It ready on October
4111 with the addendum to the traffic study by OCt 24.
Ms. McCormick handed out a map of the directional island on the Traffic Impact Analysis. It showed
that you could only tum right out to 599 as requested at the last meeting. Oct 4 was the dale for initial TIA
and second was on 24" that would suggest mitigation measures. Then they v.wld share it at the end of
the month (27" )
Councilor Calvert said he cfldn't see the left in only option.
Ms. Depietro said 1I1e restriction requested was for coming out of NWQ.
Councilor eatvert disagreed.
Consuela who wor1uKt for the consultant said the question of how we keep people from coming
through the development was moot because there was nothing to stop them. The TIA analyzed this as
being a right out but they could not prevent them from coming through on Camino las Montoyas. The TIA
did account for people coming north and tuming right
Councilor Calvert said the option discussed at the last meeting was right out and left in.
Consuela said the T1A was full in and right out.
After conferring on the summary Consuela acknowledged that the description did say left in and right
out but the only way to do that would be to cut off access from Buckman or some place further back. That
was not their understanding of what they should analyze. She said that v.wld ental much more than what
they anticipated and would mean a lot more in design issues.
Ms. McConnick agreed to follow up on it She asked if they WEllted to dose off Crucitas completely.
Councilor Calvert said no; they just wanted to prevent lhem from going down through casa Solana.
Ms. McCormick said she understood.
Mr. Romero didn't know how you could keep from having a right in.
Councilor Calvert said 1I1at was what they asked to have studied.
Public WorkslCIP & Land Use Committee september 8, 2008 Page 9
281
, Ms. McCormick agreed to discuss Rwith the design team.
Mr. Harwood talked about an addendum. He had been working vmh Ms. McConnick on some of the
waste water issues and provided a handout for the Committee. The plan was to use kteas to support this
proposal. The one In the packet was to dedicate the waler rights to the project to support the Affordable
Housing part and the work force part. The developer would pay back Ihe City for support of AfJoIdabIe
Housing projects. Any water rights not used Y«lU1d support Affordable Housing in general. It Y«lU1d be up to
$10,000 per unR, based on market conditions.
He briefly shared the calculations for Ihe water budget and showed how the water technology could
reduce the water budget by 10 to 20%. He briefly went through the rest of the handout He pointed out that
some of the techniques were very progressive and, if the City could commit to them, they Y«lUki become a
requlrement in tt\e RFP.
Councitor Calvert thought this obviously could change with any decision by the school board about
their participation. Ms. McCormick agreed.
Councilor Calvert asked if this $2.5 million Y«lUld be charged to the deveJopers.
Ms. McCannick explained that it was what the developers would pay for the land but it would come out
of work force and step up housing and be paid back to the City by the developer for more water
acquisition. It was in one of the revenue sections to buy the water over time.
Councilor calvert said this one-page memo should be an exhibit because it explains 1he whole thing.
[Attached as Exhibit A].
Councilor Chavez said the part about historical use at Buckman not having an identified purpose and
asked that an explanation of that be submitted in writing. Mr. Harwood agreed.
He said 1he history began when the rights were acquired from the northern Albuquerque area and
transferred to the Buckman field some 20 years ago. They continue to be used. It was afairly unique thing
for the Council. It was a unique portfolio and like what they asked developers to bring to the City for
growth. He listed the other rights. The City didn't typicaBy allocate 1hem out. This was an odd piece. It
was identified that this could be one of the rights that was undedicated and could be used. It was possible
that the Council could dedicate a portion to this project and a portion to Affordable Housing or to noIhi1g at
all. It was a unique way to do so.
Chair Bushee asked if this was on the Wednesday Council agenda.
Ms. McCormick said it would to PUC and Finance and then to Council on OCt. 6.
Public Comment
Public WorkslCIP & Land Use Committee 8eptember 8. 2008 Pege 10
282
Ms. Nicole Djjoumey said this design would mean that all the evening traffic would corne up Crucitas.
an
There were almost 4,000 in Casa Solana and of them would like to be respected. The City was doilg all
these giveaways to NWQ but they were not respected who were already part of the community. She said
they could not run all those cars through her neighbor's streets: Please respect us. We were all races and
income levels and ages. We request your respect:
She pointed out that on the original Master Plan for the City, it showed Crucltas closed off. This was
what they would like. Over and over again she repeated that they did not want the traffic running through
there.
Mr. Brian Harris, 221 Las Mananitas, noted that he was not opposed to the NWQ but there was alot
more to be done. People die there trying to cross the street. The traffic was not aetePtabie.
Regarding sewage, they were talking about pumping human waste uphill. That was not sustainable.
The infrastrudure issues were huge. He asked that the Council suspend any action until there were
answers. Meanwhile all the costs went to existing residents.
Mr. Rick Martinez said water was a public resource to the community. It was unfair to not have a
public hearing. Everything had been changed; the traffic had changed since the ENN meetings. The public
meetings were all they had. If they had a Citizen's Advisory Committee they would know what the pro
fonna was. But it was a one-way from this project and not sustainable. It would not do anything good for
the affordable community. A highWay was not aconnection.
Ms. Yolanda Wallings, 916 Rio Vista said she had attended aN the homework sessions. She lived
behind Gonzales. The school was converting to K-8 and at the ENN meeting she brought up NWQ and
Principal Michael Lee gave the numbers they needed. Gonzales was about 20-30 short of capacity now 90
she didn't know how they could handfe NWQ students. Mr. Lee was worried because Gonzales could not
handle the NWQ. It was not possible.
There were no further speakers from the public.
Ms. McCormick said she was looking for direction on the water resolution now.
Councilor calvert moved to forward It without recommendation but Include the amendme....
mentioned tonight Councilor Trujillo seconded the motion and it paued by majority vola vote
with all voting In favor except Councilor ChAvez who voted against
Councilor Chflvez said there were too many questions, especially with 1he school board.
Chair Bushee asked that it come back after the school infonnation was recommended.
Ms. McConnick thanked the Committee.
Public WorksIClP & Land Use Committee september 8, 2008 Page 11
283
,
EXHIBIT A
PWC 09108/08
To: Public Works Committee
Re: NW Quadrant Water Issues
Presented at the September 8,2008 meeting of the Public Works Committee meeting.
Staff and consultants have been working with the Engineering Section of the Sangre de Cristo Water
Division on the site water budget for the NW Quadrant development.
The main reason for preparing a site water budget at this point in the process is to identify the new water
resources that will be needed to supply this project, which in turn is used to determine the number of water
rights that are necessary for the project. The resolution on the agenda this evening suggests that 131.9 afy
of existing, City owned, but un-dedicated water rights be allocated to this project to support the progressive
affordable housing priorities and other green construction initiatives.
The following summary provides the estimated water demand under 'standard' Water Division calculations:
Non-Residential (restaurants, commercial, office) 31.60 afy

Landscape (linear parks, streetscape, urban park) 6.70afy
Residential
Smallest lot size (556 units) 111.20 afy
Middle lot size (201 units) 50.25afy
Largest lot size (18 units) 5.76afy
Subtotal (775 units) 167.21 afy
Total 205.51 afy

Site Water Budget (including 10% Line Loss) 226.06 afy
Staff recommends that the NW Quad Master Developer be required to install stormwater capture and reuse,
greywater capture and reuse and ultra-low flow plumbing and appliances in the development to lower the
site water budget for the project. The non-residential budget may be reduced by 10-20% if such mandates
are included in the Master Developer RFP.
Staff also recommends that the 280 units of Affordable Housing be designed and constructed to have a .18
afy/unit average site water budget, and that the City allocate 55.44 afy (50.40 afy + 10% Line Loss) of
existing, City-owned but un-dedicated water rights for this portion of the site water budget.
Staff also recommends that the 250 units of Workforce Housing be designed and constructed to have a .18
afy/unit average site water budget, and that the City allocate 49.50 afy (45.00 sfy + 10% Line Loss) of
existing, City-owned but un-dedicated water rights for this portion of the site water budget, and that the
Master Developer be required to reimburse the City $10,000 per unit for those water rights ($2.5M).
Staff finally recommends that approximately 13.20 afy (12.00 afy + 10% Line Loss) be allocated to the
public amenities (landscaping, parks, public or educational facilities) using the highest and best water
technology and practices.
These three amounts total 118.14 afy.
The NW Quad Master Developer will be responsible for the acquisition, transfer and permitting (under the
Water Right Transfer Ordinance or otherapplicable ordinance) for the balance of any water needed,
including for reduced site water budgets that are approved by the Engineering Section, if the requested
varia.nce is approved (allowing the City, as Master Plan applicant, to move the water right obligation to the
Nlaster Developer).
Harwood Consulting, PC: pwc I NW Quad Water Presentation: 2008 09 08

284
· ~nother woman explained the home improvement program. She said they focused on a "whole house
approach.· So when someone called about heating problems, they went and looked at the whole hom
find ene efficiency and water conservation. They saw over 50% at under 150% AMI levels. Sh
described th ss involved that includes a whole house inspection. They do the improve ts through
licensed contrac
She said they got bids each home project and did either deferred loans or rtgage type loans and
then inspected the work the con IS did. When repairing roofs, we add i alian, etc. She described
the tax credit process and how they its. They worked closely with
PNM on thermostats, etc.
Chair Bushee thanked them for their presenta' s.
Ms. McCormick said they were looking for a
Councilor Calvert moved to appro e agreement with tIi nta Fe Community Housing
the motion and it passed b nanimous voice vote.
Councilor Ortiz mov 0 approve the agreement with Homewise. Cou lIor Dominguez
seconded the motion CI it passed by unanimous voice vote.
thanked them for the information and asked that it be on a more regula asis.
rmick agreed. She said they were putting together a format for a quarter1y progress
13. VERBAL UPDATE TO THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT PROJECT

• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DESIGN
WORKSHOP, INC. FOR SERVICES ON THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT PRO..IECT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $93,937.31 INCLUSIVE OF NMGRT (KATHY MCCORMICK)
Chair Bushee said there were many questions around infrastructure. She asked what the City got from
the last contract.
Ms. McCormick shared some of the background on the project. She explained that this was an
amendment to the current contract. She said the traffic study couldn't be done for the Master Plan. As a
result, they needed an additional three meetings because they got behind schedule. After they lost Ron
Quarles in February and leaned on Claudia Hom, the Project Manager, who provided some of the
administrative support services. They began working with the Santa Fe school district on their school site
and the financial impact of the schools. At request of Public Works staff, they entered into an agreement
with Louis Berger to do further traffic analysis.
Mr. Romero said they were asking them to look at what impacts the traffic from development would
have on Highway 599 and Camino de los Montoyas. The last one was not complete. He explained when
Public Wor1<slCIP & Land Use Committee January 7, 2007 PageQ
285
they met with them, there was more infonnation that they needed. So staff asked them to do more analysis
en the impacts.
Ms. McConnick said they knew there would be more traffic analysis needed so they were not surplised.
When you look at Montoyas and 599, there had never been traffic counts on some streets.
Chair Bushee asked for the scope of services.
Ms. McConnick said she had it but did not have it here.
Chair Bushee asked what the scope was.
Ms. McConnick clarified that they were doing an easement at Guadalupe and Calle Mejia but not a
connection. That could only be done with other studies. They had talked numerous times that it was only an
easement at this time. She pointed out the map that was in the packet and pointed out the easement. It
would be from the City and have it as part of the Master Plan.
Chair Bushee asked if Council would approve that. Ms. McConnick agreed.
Ms. Hom added that the connection was not only a potential future roadway but also pedestrian and
bike connection so it was an important connection to hold.
Chair Bushee asked where this connection came from.
Mr. Romero explained that when the design team developed the Master Plan, one of the ideas was to
provide connectivity in several ways. One of them was to tie into Mejia and possibly St. Francis at the
bottom. They have a lot of problems with it. St. Francis was a DOT road and it would require an analysis at
the level DOT required and would take $200,000 and several years of work which he did not recommend.
Calle Mejia was the same thing. It would need an overpass and \Wuld be very expensive and they didn't
know the DOT would even approve it.
Ms. McConnick said they were not asking to approve that, just to preserve the potential future
connection.
Mr. Romero said this easement could be needed in the future but all those connections would be very
expensive.
Councilor Calvert said there was really only one access, at Ridgetop and asked if they were just going
to analyze that intersection.
Mr. Romero said there were a couple of options. One was Montoyas.
Councilor Calvert asked if that meant Montoyas to Crucitas.
Mr. Romero said he knew that was not popular but they were looking at all the options and what the
Public WorkslCIP & Land Use Committee January 7, 2007 Page 10
286
impact would be.
Councilor Calvert said if Ridgetop was the only access, would the conclusion of the traffic study be that
it could not handle all this traffic and Northwest Quadrant would have to be scaled back.
Mr. Romero said that was possible but he didn't think it would be at its capacity.
Chair Bushee asked when it would be forthcoming.
Ms. McConnick said it would be nine weeks, as soon as they could get the contract signed. They had a
scope and were awaiting final signature. She said she provided all the home work at previous meetings and
all of it would be reflected in the design guidelines.
Chair Bushee asked what would happen with all the sewer.
Ms. McConnick said they looked at all the options and detennined they would have a catchment and
grey water system but there would be a lift station for wastewater.
Ms. Hom said it would connect in at Camino de las Montoyas and go down Crucitas.
Chair Bushee asked if on-site treatment was not possible.
Ms. Hom said the amount of land required made it unfeasible.
Chair Bushee said the request was a lot of money.
Ms. McConnick said there was an extraordinary amount of work including negotiations with the school
and there had been changes in the course of the project.
Councilor Ortiz said the reality was that this should have been done a year ago but if it had, it would
have been a mistake. The Home Workers provided aservice to this project. This would be a watennark or
bench work for the nation. Staff bailed out so they were forced to tum to the consultants. The reasons on
this justified the delay and the extra expense. It would be ajewel of a project when it comes out. There
were many who wanted it to fail but he didn't want it to fail. He wanted this project to be done. This project
was worth going over and above. This amendment was worth it.
Councilor Ortiz moved for approval of the request. Councilor Dominguez seconded the motion.
Ms. Nancy Broadhead, a resident on Calle Mejia, said one of her concerns was that no one from Calle
Mejia was invited to participate and the last eight meetings were without a quorum. She felt they ignored
them. She said they were told they coukllisten but not participate.
She said the website was fine. It was diminished now but had the infonnation.
Councilor Ortiz clarified that this was the award so they could come up with a proposal and would have
Public WorkslCIP & Land Use Committee January 7, 2007 Page 11
287
uncilor calvert moved to approve the Agenda as amended with i .. 8
being nsidered before item" 6 and item #20 and #21 being pulled the
agenda a scheduled for the next meeting. Councilor Domingu~sec::ondedthe
motion and' ssed by unanimous voice votB. Councilor Truf was not present
for the votB.
Councilor Calvert moved to a

Councilor Dominguez seconded the
vote. Councilor Trujillo was not Dl"e.Ben
5. APPROVAL OF MINU
COMMITTEE MEETI
Councilor nguez moved to approve the August 6, 7 Public Works

Committee' as submitted. Councilor Calvert second e motion and it
passed b nanimous voice vote. Councilor Trujillo was not pntseqJt for the vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
8. UPDATE TO THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT PROJECT (KATHY MCCORMICK)
Ms. McConnick presented the update and requested that the Committee allow her to
excuse herself afterward so that she could attend the Northwest Quadrant meeting
being held elsewhere. She said she had done two updates and did not bring them to
distribute tonight.
Ms. McConnick provided several handouts. The first one was Newsletter 1 (Feb
2007). It showed the master plan process, which Ms. McConnick went through. She
said when they finished the needs assessment; they would bring it back.
Councilor Trujillo arrived at this time.
Her second handout was the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. She said it was a
series of maps and explained that the representatives from Casa Solana requested no
traffic through Casa Solana.
She explained that the 4th map was the General Plan map. She said they had
worked with the MPO on a connection from 599 but stopped pursuing it because of the
expense ($25m) and that there was no planned development across 599 in the
foreseeable future.
Public WorksfCIP & Land Use Committee August 22, 2007 Page 2
288
Mr. Romero explained that what was being proposed was just one entrance into the
Northwest Quadrant The other connections would provide more access but to do so
would require millions in road improvements. He said they would have the emergency
only access but residents must access by Ridgetop Road. He said a second access
would require bridges and retaining walls and they did not think the cost was worth
looking at now.
Chair Bushee asked about Paseo de VIStas plans and the Loop Road for Casa
Solana.
Mr. Romero said they looked at actual traffic numbers and determined that Siler was
needed more than Paseo. Based on that study, the solutions that made more sense
were connections from 599 into town.
Ms. McCormick said the 3m handout was the Homework Group Chart. She said the
improvements to Ridgetop Road were being planned and would have some cost
sharing.
Mr. Romero said they were not proposing any improvements on Mejia.
Ms. McCormick said they wanted to show it as a potential and the backup now
would be down to the park and ride.
Councilor Calvert asked if the trail would come down to Calle Mejia.
Ms. McCormick agreed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Nicole, Vice President of the Casa Solana Association said they were already full of
traffic and could not tolerate more traffic. She said their neighborhood was one with
children and they were worried about pollution and danger and wanted to be protected.
She said they didn't want to be split in half or have traffIC allover. It was dangerous.
Rick Martinez said he was present to speak for families who wanted this project.
Right now they were sending everyone down 599 and it becoming dangerous. They
needed to do this safely, not cheaply. If it was to go forward, they should do the
interchange and take the pressure off all those families during rush hour. They needed
to go for the money and do it right. They needed to get the roads in place and not put
these families in jeopardy.
Bruce Geiss, homeowner and agent for Santa Fe Estates, said he had great respect
for Mr. Romero and Kathy McCormick and their opinions. You would never hear him say
NIMBY at Ridgetop Road. But after being involved for 3 months, it looked like Ridgetop
Road would be the major ingress.
Public WorkslClP & Land Use Committee August 22, 2007 Page 3
289
He noted that when the Master Plan was done there, the interchange there had
always been the needed improvement and he was shocked to hear that it wouldn't be
done.
He asked that the Louis Berger Report be shared with the traffic engineer in these
projects. He said he read it and worked with John Nitzel in 2003 and had to come up
with about a million dollars to figure out how to do that interchange. There was no
mention of those improvements.
He said if it works, okay, but if it was not a true report and it should be trued up. He
thought this project could be a great project. DOT, like many agencies suffers from lack
of funds. They should not allow a proposal to come in that limited the access. He
wanted to hear from this group that the Ridgetop Road would be adequately studied for
it. He added that connectivity was the standard today. They needed to integrate these
neighborhoods together.
Chair Bushee explained that this hearing was just to make sure that progress was
being made. When they had this back, they would have another public hearing.
6. \flEQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION

. (A)(6)(a) SFCC 1987; CREATING A NEW SECTION 14-6.2(CK12);
SE lON 14-6.3(C)(1); AMENDING TABLE 14-8.6-1 SFCC 1987;
SUCH THER CHANGES AS were NECESSARY; REGARDIN E SHORT
TERM TAL OF DWELLING UNITS IN RESIDENTIAL RlCTS
(COUNCIl.; WURZBURGER) (JEANNE PRICE)
Chair Bushee agreed to g. the public two nutes each.
Ms. Price explained that this wa by Councilor Wurzburger. The City

Attomey has answered a lot of the q ·ons that were raised by the Finance
Committee and there were two a put in the packet. She said the first
addressed the situation of mo an 3 s. The other was the density limit. She
said she would be happy to swer questions~
Mayor Coss gave

'--
responses and said it was~uncilorWurzburger and
Councilor Heldme who got it started. He felt it was tlm.,e, to address it.
He point out that this was a city issue and an economi . ue for the City for good
or for ba nd it did affect neighborhoods. It has taken an exciti tum. What they had
now w Idn't work and was not being enforced. So Councilor Wu rger started it off.
It ha 0 be regulated and someone has to pay for the regulation to r. They needed
so e more work on it for it to happen. He thought they were working in right
Public WorkslClP & Land Use Committee August 22, 2007 Page 4
290
~air Bushee asked about fiscal impact and the constitutionality of
mero said they would do that too.
Chair Bu ee asked where it would go next.
Mr. Romero
Chair Bushee sai . needed the full financial i
Mr. Romero said once ey had the repo hey would include financial impact.
ent by adding a new paragraph three,
Mr. Romero explained thi was a pilot proj . He said it would not cost the City
anything to do all this rese h. He was not sure hey could do it in a week but they
could within 60 days.
Councilor Calvert t ught this company could answ those questions. He asked if
they had done it in A uquerque parks or just Santa Fe s ools.
Mr. Chavez sa' it was just Santa Fe schools.
Councilor C Ivert said they also needed to know how well the nits would survive.
Ms. Lyn Cropp, 1084 Avenida Linda, who said regarding Las A uias Park that
she strong supported setting up the cameras in the park. She said sh called Mr.
Martinez Imost every week and staff has been working hard. There were lot of
people' there late at night. But despite neighbors' surveillance graffiti hap ned. She
said t repairs were costly but more than that, it was detrimental to enjoyme of the
park
She commented that in Albuquerque they posted the hours of the park and the turn
n the cameras after hours.
MOTION: Councilor Ortiz moved to approve the request as amended. Councilor

Trujillo seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
18. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -
Public WorksiCIP & Land Use Committee November 27,2006 Page 12
291
MASTER PLAN OF CITY OWNED LAND IN THE NOR·rHWEST QUADRANT (RFP
#07/10/P) WITH DESIGN WORKSHOP IN THE AMOUNT OF $299,897 (KATHY
MCCORMICK)
Ms. McCormick explained the agreement was with Design 'Workshop for the
Northwest Quadrant. She said they issued 12 RFPs to national firms and got one
response. Design Workshop was a local firm. This team was supplemented with SUby
Bowden and Bohannan Huston. She said they would build on prior work and on the
public process.
She said they anticipated the Master Plan by early August at a cost of slightly less
than $300,000.
Rick Martinez said he just didn't think it was time for the NW Quadrant right now. He
thought they needed to have more public meetings before they spend money on a
Master Plan. The highway corridor did not even have Paseo de Vistas on their radar.
The public didn't know what kind of road to put in there. The ARC showed there were
135 important archaeological sites and the Pueblo had not even been introduced to it.
He didn't think the City should be doing the survey on this site. He did think it would be
a good site for the rodeo.
He also looked at Valdez Park and saw it was turning into a retail park but was
inte~ded as an industrial park and was not even a quarter full.
He noted the last public meeting was in March and said they should have the pUblic
meetings now.
MOTION: Councilor Ortiz moved for approval. Councilor Trujillo seconded.
Chair Bushee asked what were they getting: How many meetings; would they get a
phasing for the Master Plan. She said more details were needed.
Ms. McCormick said the budget went from $345,000 to $300,000 and they figured it
out with Design Workshop. She said Greg Witherspoon took all the prior work and
reviewed it and came back to tell them where it could be scaled back. She said Santa
Fe Engineering did that work. She said they looked at roads, archaeology, initial site
studies, soils, vegetation, and part of what they did initially was what led them to ask
that the southern part be used as open space.
She said there were 3 public meetings that largely surfaced neighbors' concerns,
road alignments, how to handle water, schools, etc. She said those comments were
available to the team. She said they now wanted to re-engage the public with the project
team. She said they would show preliminary sketches and get reactions with four public
meetings. Internal staff team to show where trail alignments would be done. It included
a regular check in with the Council.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee November 27,2006 Page 13
292
Chair Bushee asked if they would have more than just ads in the paper, including
some outreach to neighborhoods.
Ms. McCormick said it would involve stakeholders, getting involved with local
employers and more. She added that they have made commitments to not take a road
through Casa Solana and by prOViding a buffer in the southern part.
Chair Bushee said regarding Paseo de Vistas, that there was a lack of infrastructure.
She asked how that would get fleshed out and have a plan to address those issues.
Ms. McCormick said that was what the rest of the Master Plan process would do.
Chair Bushee asked if those concerns would get addressed.
Ms. McCormick said yes.
Chair Bushee asked about the financial feasibility.
Ms. McCormick said that would be included.
Chair Bushee asked if they would address the housing mix.
Ms. McCormick said yes.
She said the challenge was in sustainable housing which implied a density, but how
much and in what areas. She said they would all be put on the table.
Ms. McCormick apologized that she didn't have the phasing plan with her, but said
they had a clear set of deliverables.
Chair Bushee said they needed reports throughout this process.
Ms. McCormick said they would do monthly reports to the Committee; a written
memo every month to say where they were and what problems they have solved and
after end of year, they would have a full schedule of meetings.
Councilor Ortiz said one of the reasons they find themselves here with a different
consultant was the time line. He noted they have put elements in the plan like the whole
southern section and he was persuaded by public comments and staff but
acknowledged that Rick Martinez did raise a valid agenda. He said they were stripping
out $400,000 from that and he needed to reconsider how to get that traffic in and out of
that neighborhood. He thought maybe Public Works needed to 'find other monies.
Chair Bushee said it should be on the legislative list.
Public WorkslCIP & Land Use Committee November 27,2006 Page 14
293
Councilor Ortiz said it was one thing to talk about it on paper and another to actually
see it. He said the prior Master Plan failed because it did not actually describe it in
detail. He said his hope was that the new Master Plan would provide that detail. He felt
they were going to try to make it a model of sustainability and green and they preserve
the southern part as open space. He felt those elements warranted the extra time.
Councilor Calvert noted that the Guadalupe project has been framed as absolutely
essential for the success of this venture. He asked who was going to pay for it. He didn't
see this project paying for it so they were going to need some help.
Mr. Romero said the study was done 5 years ago to extend Paseo de Vistas to
GuadalUpe and after the study, it was determined that it would make more sense to
extend Siler as a transverse and not parallel route to NM 599, so it got mushed into
Siler. He added that the DOT was doing two studies. He said they were hoping there
would be federal funds available for those.
Councilor Calvert said he participated in the Paseo de Vistas study and this
Guadalupe part was essential to the project. But what if they didn't get enough federal
or state help. He asked if they had a contingency plan.
Ms. McCormick said they were hoping for those funds but they were not resting on
their laurels for them and were looking at all possible sources for infrastructure funds.
Councilor Dominguez asked if there were potentially four public meetings.
Chair Bushee said yes.
Councilor Dominguez asked if they would do more if needed.
Ms. McCormick said they would if needed.
She said they would do more than just an ad suck as post cards and/or radio
announcements and they might use those flashing signs also.
Councilor Dominguez asked if the contractor would pay for that.
Ms. McCormick said they would pay for some of it.
The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
20. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO

PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VII SFCC 1987 IN ORDER
TO RESCIND ALL REFERENCES AND USES OF ·rHE UNIVERSAL BUILDING
CODE AND ASSOCIATED CODES AND TO ADOPT THE INTERNATIONAL
Public Wor1(s/CIP & Land Use Committee November 27,2006 Page 15
294
Chie . a estimated that a million dollars was there for all service
and the fire portion robably $450,000.
Councilor Trujillo moved to IPIlH'O'Ji1tIe-J4~olution. Councilor Calvert seconded the motion and
it passed by unanimo e vote.
7. UPDATE ON THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT (KATHY MCCORMICK)
Kathy McCormick reported on the project and said they hoped to provide one every 6 weeks because
they were seeing activity again. She handed out an information sheet and highlighted the activities. She
said they issued an RFP on design to 14 different groups and received only one proposal: Suby Bowden's
proposal. She said they were pleased with it and planned to bring it to Public Works for approval.
Chair Bushee said she would just like more choices.
Ms. McCormick said it was a good proposal and quite realistic. Afirm in Colorado would have
proposed at about the same amount but they declined because of their workload. She felt they shopped it
out to lots of groups.
Chair Bushee thought it would be better because this was to be a model and should have more than
one perspective.
Ms. McCormick agreed to talk with the companies who did not submit to find out why.
Ms. McCormick reported that they initiated a staff team with every department represented. The
purpose was to help the team understand everything going on in the NW quadrant and engage in creative
problem solving and it had been successful
She also reported on finding a young man who was working on green codes to find what worked and
what didn't. She hoped to have the results of his work in late November, including sample codes and
reference materials.
Regarding the Santa Fe Public School District, who wanted to propose that the District hire a
consultant to help them with the Northwest Quadrant in evaluating real estate and felt the City, should help
provide some funding. After a brief discussion, she said the City Manager would be meeting with the
School Board to discuss it further.
Ms. McCormick also reported that she and Mr. Rosenthal had been searching to find funds for this
process when it goes through development and he found the Turner Foundation that provides funding for
infrastructure and they were pursuing it.
Public Works/CIP & Land Use Committee September 25, 2006 Page 12
295
2. Case tiM 2009-05. Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment. The City of
Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests approval of
a General Plan future land use map amendment to revise the designations of 54Oi:
acres to include approximately 122 acres in a mix of Very Low Density Residential
(1-3 dwelling units per acre), Low Density Residential (3-7 dwelling units per acre),
Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre), High Density
Residential (12-29 dwelling units per acre), Neighborhood Center, and Transitional
Mixed Use; and approximately 418 acres of Parks and Open Space. The property
is located south of NM 599 and west of St Francis Drive. (Lucas Cruse, case
manager) (POSTPONED FROM APRIL 2, 2009 AND MAY 21,2009)
Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were combined for purposes of staff report, public hearing and Planning
Commission review, but shall be voted upon separately.
3. Case #2A 2009=02. Northwest Quadrant Rezoning. The City of Santa Fe Housing
and Community Development Department requests rezoning of 540t acres from
R-1 (Residential, 1 dwelling unit per acre) to PRC (Planned Residential
Community). The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan adopted as a part of this
rezoning includes supplemental Design Standards that vary from the Chapter 14
Land Development Code. The property is located south of NM 599 and west of Sl
Francis Drive. (Lucas CRise, case manager) (POSTPONED FROM APRIL 2, 2009
AND MAY 21,2009)
Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were combined for purposes of staff report, pUblic hearing and Planning
4. Case #M 2009-06. Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance. The City of Santa

Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests an escarpment
variance to allow 15,000:1: square feet of the alignment of Ridgetop Road to
encroach on the ridgetop subdistrict to provide sufficient distance from an
existing PNM switching station. The location of the requested variance is along
the proposed Ridgetop Road alignment between Camino De Los Montoyas and
NM 599. (Lucas Cruse, case manager) (POSTPONED FROM APRIL 2, 2009 AND
MAY 21,2009)
5. Case #M 2009-08. Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance. The City

of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests a terrain
management variance to allow disturbance of 28,000 square feet of 30 percent
slopes on two sites In order to preserve open space areas and to allow structures
to be built on the disturbed 30 percent s/op!§ pre"'iele eeAligueYs laAei areas fer
cle¥elepmeAt. The locations of the requested variance are within the
neighborhood center area! north of the ridge and northeast of the PNM SWitching
station. (Lucas Cruse, case manager) (POSTPONED FROM APRIL 2, 2009 AND
MAY 21, 2009)
City of Santa Fe 5
Planning Commission Minutes: June 18, 2009
296
Memorandum prepared June 10, 2009 for June 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting by
Lucas Cruse, Senior Planner, is incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit K2:
Master Plan and application are incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit K2(A). n
Comments dated June 18,2009 from Jim Salazar, Stormwater Management Diredor, are
incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit "2(B). D
Finance Committee Meeting minutes from June 1, 2009 are incorporated herewith to these
minutes as Exhibit "2(C). n
Public WorkslCIP and Land Use Committee meeting minutes from June 8,2009 are
incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit "2(0). n
Letter of Concern from Nancie Brodhead dated June 18,2009 is incorporated herewith to these
minutes as Exhibit "2(E)."
Six Myths about the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan dated June 18, 2009 is incorporated
herewith to these minutes as Exhibit "2(F)."
Road connedions proposed by the neighbors are incorporated herewith to these minutes as
Exhibit "2(G)."
Tamara Baer presented the staff report included in Exhibit "2.·
Conditions of approval are included in Exhibit 82."
Public Hearina
Kathy McCormick, Director of Housing and Community Development introduced her team
that has been working on this plan for ten years. She presented a PowerPoint presentation with
information included in Exhibit K2(A): She explained that this is a mixed use, mixed unit, mixed
pricing point development. The 500 acre projed will include 400 acres of open space. This
development will include the holes in the housing gap with step up and workforce options. The
intent is to keep people in Santa Fe because they will have options for housing that are
affordable with an organic quality. One of the questions they asked was can the land be used
for multiple purposes that benefit the community and have a commibnent to conservation and
stewardship. They asked what kind of development can be done with homes and commercial
space and still preserve the landscape and its rich archeological history. What is the market for
smaller sustainable homes with an emphasis on affordability? They considered public input,
topography, financing, archeology and sustainability. The area will be accessible to support car
free living with well conneded trails and transit in an area that is close to the plaza. This will be
a sustainable community through sites, water conservation, energy conservation and
generation, green building materials and net zero model subcommunity. The intent is to get a
development dedicated to public purpose, a new model for urban form that protects the
landscape with 400+ acres of open space for Santa Feans. Through the open space there can
be a restoration of wildlife and native plants with an awareness through stewardship programs
for conservation and ARC easements. On the site analysis, the considerations were dedicated
open space, highway corridor setback, ridgeline, escarpment on the south side, drainage ways,
FEMA flood zones, archaeological sites, and a developable area.
City of Santa Fe 6
Planning Commission Minutes: June 18. 2009
297
Claudia Horn, Design Workshop, was sworn. She reviewed a location map explaining the
history of the parcels being an eal1y pueblo Indian settlement and Spanish land grant. She
reviewed a future land use map for the area included in Exhibit a2(A).·
Suby Bowden, 333 Montezuma Avenue, was sworn. She thanked the community for all
their input on this plan. She reviewed features of the site. She said in studying the project they
looked at every aspect and opinion. This is not the typical subdivision. She gave an overview
of the master plan. There is 70% open space including preservation of the dog parX. They will
develop east of Montoyas. There will be protection of the escarpment facing downtown. The
south side looks to downtown and the north side will have the access to Ridgetop. There will
be mixed use, mixed income housing with a focus on green building. The architectural styles
are tenitorial and pueblo in traditional and contemporary materials. She spoke about the
escarpment and sustainable issues for the development.
Lynn DePietrlo, Housing Special Project Manager, reviewed the conservation measures.
Transportation is a major consideration. She wanted to make sure that everyone understood
the City of Santa Fe is not the developer. There has been a suggestion to develop this as a TID
or PIC so the developer can make this financially viable by using these tools. The financial
projections were made to current market conditions. She showed a comparison of revenue
from 2007 to 2009. She reviewed the traffic improvements to be done in 2013 and possibly
2030 including four lanes of traffic.
Ms. Hom reviewed the variances requested. The escarpment Ordinance Variance; the ridgetop
road alignment allows for road connectivity, minimizes disturbance to existing vegetation and
terrain and preserves open space areas. She showed the existing ridgetop, the road would
overlap the existing easement as much as possible. She reviewed the areas with over 30%
slopes in the escarpment and showed the area of disturbance.
The Commission took a ten minute recess at this time.
All those that wished to speak were sworn in mass at one time.
Nicole Dejurenev, President Casa Solana, 201 Alamo DriVe, was sworn. She noted that
they are consultants with their own panel of experts including legal, planning, land use, sewer,
financial and real estate broker and developer broker. She felt the resulting traffic from the
proposal would create a funnel of lraffic down a small narrow street. She reviewed the map
included in Exhibit "2(G). n The neighborhood feels the map represented an equitable solution
and alternative to the issues raised with the traffic going through their neighborhood. The traffic
would be funneled down Buckman or Paseo de Vistas and then down Torreon onto West
Alameda. Torreon was designed to handle traffic and is owned by the City for a good portion.
The homes on Cruzitas are 20 feet from the road. Their proposal is to dead end Cruzitas just
above the dog park which enables the dog owners to use their usual route.
The next issue Ms. Dejurenev discussed was the sewer. Pumping sewer uphill through a sewer
line that is 50 years old and meant for 800 homes is a problem. The house connections are
made of reinforced paper products so that could blow open easily. The sewer already serves
1600 homes rather than the 800 it was planned for. The sewer is being repaired weekly as it is
and the basic homeowner policies do not cover it. The City only covers $100,000 per incident.
She then questioned the variances issue. The City Council rejected minor variances on La
Triada so she does not see how they can grant these major variances. City Code requires the
developer to hold an ENN to explain these. The Northwest Quadrant is unfeasible in this
City of Santa Fe 7
298
current economic climate according to many experts including Michael Halsey. The proposal to
bridge the $20 million gap includes homeowner incentives, federal grants, reducing affordable
housing from 37% to 30% and this translates to just over 200 affordable homes. She reviewed
the deal with the school district which should have resulted in $30,240,000 not $5 million based
on recent sales figures. This is not an affordable housing development, but a developer
giveaway.
Chris Fischer, 20 Tano Vida, TallO Road Neighborhood Association, was sworn. He said
their association objects to any amendment to the general plan until the 599 Corridor Traffic
Study is completed. This is based on issues that the current assumptions are inaccurate and
incomplete. In their view, they are treating the traffic as if it were a self contained entity. What
occurs on the interchange is a shortcoming of traffic studies which are prepared. It may be
convenient and the endorsing scenario is the least cost approach. The shortcomings of
scenario A are obvious and drastic and it forces traffic into a single entrance access. Ridgetop
Road was never designed to be an interchange. This is access for a local neighborhood, not a
regional interchange. He said restriping Ridgetop Road was suggested and this was already
evaluated in 2005 by private consultants and they considered this possibility, but eventually
rejected it. Signalization warrants are specific calculations and probably not going to happen
until 2030. The condition that exists is that the stacking cue is deficient on Ridgetop Road
creating a traffic hazard. None of the scenarios address the merge. Ridgetop Road does not
meet NMHA standards. The real problem is the distance is 2000 feet, so they meet oncoming
traffic. The exit is not long enough and the storage lane cue is going to put traffic out onto
oncoming traffic from 599. He noted that to put all the new traffic and then to combine this with
the existing conditions is an accident waiting to happen. The realities of the contributing
population clusters around Tano Road were not considered. There are 400 property owners
and families in Tano Road with one access. Camino de las Montoyas is deficient and Ridgetop
is used more because it is safer. Thornburg Mortgage will be moving up to this area. This
combines to become a complicated regional traffic safety challenge that requires actions and
solutions now. This issue cannot be resolved as part of a localized master plan review. This
affeds those living all up and down 599 as there are also dangerous at grade crossings. None
of the scenarios address the stacking issues, the merge hazard or the non-contiguous
population. The bottom line is they need more access points even just for emergency access
services. He thanked Commissioner VlQil for her concern and help with the traffIC issues. A
task force has been fonned to meet the needs and concerns of traffic management and safety
along 599. He said it would be more cost efficient to wait until the 599 traffic studies have been
completed and the plan needs to be integrated with those study results.
Valerie, 887 Camino, representing santa Fe Estates Neighborhood Association, was

sworn. She was concerned that the other half of the Northwest Quadrant will also be
developed. The land designation has changed and there is no reason to believe that the other
portion may not also. The neighborhood would like to see it returned to open space. The
neighborhood wants the traffic plan reconsidered. The plan does not share the burden of traffic
created and it is not fair that one neighborhood should take the full impact. There needs to be
multiple access roads in addition to Ridgetop Road. The Northwest Quadrant needs to use a
land trust to guarantee the open space remains as such.
Marilyn Bane, Old Santa Fe Association, was sworn. She said at the Board meeting on
Monday they took a vote comprised of 17 members on the Board from all walks of life. Not one
member lives in this area of the proposed development. They are merely concerned with the
growth and development of Santa Fe. The Association asked her to urge the Commission to
please not recommend the master plan for the following reason that the City is not technically
City of santa Fe 8
299
the developer, but the City is bringing the development forward because there is no other
developer that will touch this plan. She said it is not feasible to make more than a 5% return on
investment. They are appalled that the affordable housing portion has been reduced. This plan
should have been looked at in such an in-depth way that it would not be proposed the way it is.
She said if the City feels the plan is viable then it should be put on the shelf until developers will
come forth and actively get involved in doing this. If the City approves a developer they will
want parts of this plan changed. There is no reason to believe that the plan can be workable.
After all the care that staff and Council went through during the budget process to go through
and do this when so many other variables come in does not do service to this project. This is
not an acceptable plan and the Board is asking the Commission to not approve the proposal.
Debbie Jaramillo, 148 Bob Street, was sworn. She commented that she was at one of the
very first meetings on this project and chose not to participate in any more hearings because
she believed it would give her a better picture when the project was proposed. She does not
believe this project is about development and design. This is an issue of politics at its worst.
She understands the Commission"s charge is to look at chapter 14 and they are not the political
body that needs to hear what she has to say. This is nothing more than a political battle with a
few benefiting at the expense of many. This project has been pushed much too fast because
somebody has the will without ad~sing any of the true concerns. The bottom line is that staff
made a presentation saying that this was a land grant given to the citizens. Every time this
project was shut down it was because there were enough people that considered this
community land. She suggested 1his be put to the people to vote on what happens to this land.
She reminded everyone that they are not a home rule city, so they do not have to have things
shoved down their throat. They also have the power of initiative. In her opinion, nine people
should not be allowed to make this decision. There is only one Councilor not supporting this
and for once she agrees with Councilor Bushee. She asked the Commissioners to think about
the values of the past.
Pat Simons, 423 Alamo Drive, was sworn. The $18 million stated is not a worst case
scenario. The history of construction is cost overruns. There is a $40,000 grant that will be
provided with the down payment, although there are hundreds that cannot sell their homes right
now. This could solve the affordable housing issue now. The presentation is fraudulent
showing the coyote. The entire presentation proves that the city is not interested in affordable
housing. People do not want to wait 15 years to be able to have a home to raise their family in.
Brian Hanington, 222 Las Manzanitas, was sworn. He has concerns about traffic impact and
water availability. The residents of Casa Solana are being accused of bigotry and that is not
true. He asked them to kill the project and put that aside. There is a brand new ghost campus
in the middle of town and a hazardous, toxic waste dump in the middle of town. The low income
housing on West Alameda is empty. There are many holes in the center of town that need to be
filled and could be done so easily. At the intersection of St. Francis and Las Cruzitas, there is a
bridge that needs to be improved. There is no talk about how the existing infrastructure will
increase. He asked them to not assume proponents to this fear the poor.
Marty Cohen, 774 Camino Francisco, was sworn. She has been consistently amazed that a
project of this magnitude would only have one access road. The improvements in 2013 will be
needed no matter what and this proposal will only worsen the situation. This is already a
dangerous situation from 599 to 285.
Hank Hughes, 4 Victorio Peak, New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessn. .s, was sworn.
He favored the project for a number of reasons. They will need many different options to end
City of santa Fe 9
300
homelessness. It is true there are many houses for sale, but this will not be the case forever.
The economy will not stay in recession forever. He can tell thought was given to preserving
open space and making this a nice livable area. He thought it was more desirable to mix the
housing in and not keep it on the south side of town.
(Inaudible) 3 Montecito, was sworn. This would impad everyone in the area. She agreed
with everything said. She hoped the Commission does not approve the variance especially the
30% grade. With only 1% of the land being in something sustainable they are not doing the
green thing.
Roxanne Night, 404 Graham Avenue, was sworn. She moved to Casa Solana 25 years ago.
She agreed with everything said and would like to add a historical fador. They were fortunate
enough to get the City to agree to put a painted aosswalk behind Gonzales, although they tried
to get a sidewalk in for the kids going to school and the City was not willing to do this. They
have people in danger walking to the dog park. The City does not have her resped or trust
because they will not take care of the infrastrudure needed. She hoped the Commission
considers this and not move forward until there is the financing.
Keith Sol, 218 Conejo Drive, was sworn. He feels safe enough in the Casa Solana
neighborhood to allow his child to ride bikes and walk to school along with others. There is a
good mix of elder1y and young. It is a delicate balance and he wants to make sure the
neighborhood stays good. These ideals have not been applied to the adjacent neighborhoods
or the Northwest Quadrant. He feels the City has been dismissive about traffic concerns in the
neighborhood. He hoped this project is not approved. He did not think this was the best use for
city land. He asked that no access be granted to Caminos de las Montoyas. He understood the
variances have to go through the ENN process and believed the City has to follow that.
Joyce Roberts, 738 Camino Francisco, was swom. She supported the words regarding the
access. She commented that the merge going north on 599 is also very dangerous.
Steven Prinz, 123 Camino de las Cruzltas, was sworn. He was surprised to find this on the
agenda as two weeks ago the pro forma budget was rejected with the traffIC plan. There
appears to be no support from the city government. This is not the first time that development
was proposed in the area. In the 1970's the development was shelved and the land set aside
for open space. Only in the City Different has he heard that the way to preserve environment is
through development. If the developer has a shortfall then the public financing will be an issue.
He asked the Commission to reject this once and for all so this project cannot rise again.
Ronald Miller, 813 Calle David, was swom. He agreed with the traffic concerns. He
commented on the variance proposals. He said if given the same consideration as the case
heard ear1ier, they would reject the variances on this project very quickly. He said the Fire
Station North of 599 was proposed and it appears to be a bait and switch.
Garcia, ft Montoyas, was sworn. He said in the four years that he has been coming to these
meetings; nobody from the City has come to visit them to check on this. He questioned who
would take care of the traffic and Casa Solana is not the only area concemed. He said nobody
seems to want this as the people who supposedly support this are not present. He asked where
the councilors are that support this projed besides Councilor Dominguez. He did not
understand how the Commission could vote for this when the majority of people present
opposed the projed.
City of Santa Fe 10
301
Robert Hake, Calle Sombra, was sworn. He commended those that prepared the project.
The fatal flaw is how the traffic will come down. There are problems with scale and timing. He
agreed they need to look closely at how the traffic can be changed. The variances and what
they are asking to do to Casa Sol~a should be considered with alternatives studied.
Campbell, 1117 North Luna Circle, Casa Solana, was sworn. She attended a lot of similar
meetings for 599 and again Casa Solana was defending their neighbortlood. The people from
Tano Road were pitted against them and now they are pitting neighborhoods against
neighborhoods over the same issue. She said the traffic should have been addressed when the
599 exits were designed. She said additional roads are the only solution. If they cannot come
up with funding for these roads as part of the project then they should not proceed.
Ed Rosenthal, 479 Airport Road, was sworn. He said he is the Director of Enterprise
Community Partners organization that has focused nationally in providing support of affordable
housing. His company invested over $100 million into housing in the New Mexico area. He
sees the need for step up housing and wol1cforce housing. No project is as ambitious as this is
in providing affordable housing.
Janet Stoker, 1118 North Luna Circle, was sworn. She was a citizen volunteer in the late
70's. She was Chairman of the policy board that adopted the escarpment ordinance. She
served as a participant on the northwest sector planning committee. This was planned to be a
diverse community, but they hit a major snag as the ground waters would be aggravated by
development and would go down the hill creating very hazardous leachates. She said they
were disturbed but the recommendations were that it was best to leave this as open space. She
believed the conclusions are probably substantially true at this time.
Michael Rodriguez, 123 Solano Drive, was sworn. He believed this project should probably
die right now if it possibly can. He said they should step back and decide what the best use of
public land is. Public land should not be for the use of some but all. There is no longer forever
public land. This is an opportunity for all of Santa Fe. He added that the City should stay out of
developer business. There is always some large percentage that does not want this. He asked
for those opposed to raise their h~ds.
Yolanda Rowen, 915, Casa Solana, was sworn. This meeting was postponed twice so there
was plenty of time to meet with the neighbors. The ENN meeting was not informative. There
are many questions that have still not been answered and now they only have two minutes to
speak. Nobody has talked about the schools. Gonzales cannot handle more students as they
have gone to pre-k through 8. The city is the applicant and has no idea who the developer will
be. She asked if any other developer came with this plan if they would approve four variances.
She has never heard anyone opposed to affordable housing, so some of the media stories are
not accurate. They have a large mix of housing in her neighbortlood and it works well.
Howard Turner, 13 calle Dorothea, was sworn. He supported the other speakers suggesting
using this as open land especially putting it in a trust.
Rick Martinez, 725 Mesilla Road, was sworn. He said the water rights have been set aside
for this, but now the city is going back to buy more water. When they did the deal with the
schools, the school got a good deal. He added that they can move the affordable homes
throughout the property and if they sectioned off the affordable homes, the Commission would
deny anyone else. He said there is no guarantee what will be placed on this property. The
City of Santa Fe 11
302
variances were shown wrthout any designs. He added that the City has not approved any traffic
plan and there is really no downtown connection.
Welch, 123 Camino de las Cruzitas, was sworn. She agreed with everything said.
Melinda Weller, 15 Malaqua Road. was sworn. She said they do not want to have Camino de
las Montoyas shut down. Her solution was to cut off the entrance and aeate a new entrance to
the dog park. She pointed out that this is a major egress for workers from Albuquerque. People
go from the left lane into the right lane to prevent traffic. The affordable housing is not
affordable in her opinion. She thought the lower part of Torreon could be developed as
affordable housing, but this is too much. She agreed there are serious ecological problems.
Amy Bowen, 106 Graham Avenue, was sworn. She loved the project and thought rt was
beautiful, but it seems crazy to be where it is. She lives close to Casa Solana and it appears
they are creating this beautiful place that is Casa Solana and then they will break up an area
that is already there. She thought the idea was beautiful, but just did not see how this could
happen in that area. One of the reasons they made a dog park is because the water was too
expensive to irrigate the area.
Trujillo, Camino de las Montoya., was sworn. He said what they need is more arteries and
access into town. This was closed and tom up once before and rt cost more to re-open.
Stephen Garren, 2657 Camino, was sworn. There are issues against the project. He works
wrth 20-45 year old people. He said if they can set aside affordable and step up housing that is
a huge benefit to the community. Families are trying to be employed and stay in the area. He
encouraged the Commission to look at that component and find ways to sofve the problems.
Nancy Faye, 728 Mesilla Road. was sworn. She thanked everyone for their hard work and
the four years spent on this plan. She thanked them for continuing the legacy of no restraint to
funding. She thanked them for putting private debt as part of the tax burden. She thanked them
for belieVing in ghosts and building a ghost subdivision with ghost funding. She thanked them
for offering to improve the land degraded by hikers. She thanked them for the three story
buildings and small, green homes mentioned. She thanked them for including the e_ling dog
park as part of the open space. She urged the Commission to vote against this unsustainable
plan.
Gala Becktel, 1813 Condor Road, was sworn. She supported this master plan. This is a new
urban form needed to avoid sprawl. For too long they have been restrained by the 1950's
planning. This has led to more low density sprawl, increasing traffIC, unhealthy lifestyles and an
unhealthy city. They need affordable housing on the north side. She said they have to share
the burden of affordable housing. Infill is not supported by the immediate neighbors. This ptan
is not perfect, but it deserves a chance to succeed.
Becky, 7674 Buckman Road, was sworn. She agreed that people have done a lot of work on
a beautiful plan and the infrastructure needs to be worked on. She hoped this would be denied.
Bruce Geiss, 2011 Botulph Road, was sworn. He was asked to speak as the neighboring
developer in the Northwest Quadrant. Affordable housing is a tough issue. There is not an
easy solution to any of the affordable housing issues. It aU costs money and is all financially and
socially challenged. He asked for patience on this project as it has the workforce element that
has been missing. This is a 70% affordable project. The concept is important. He has
City of Santa Fe 12
303
tremendous support for the team. He knows the planners behind this could not be more
thoughtful or passionate about affordable housing and planning. He said it is not easy to say
the plan will not work. He supports affordable housing on the north side and he supported the
plan although it is financially chalfenged beyond what is shown. He commented that they need
to find a way to solve this with other programs. His ultimate support is conditional on a logical,
rational plan on connectivity that does not rely solely on Ridgetop Road and to the standards
just as would be required for a private developer. He noted that plan A was never the preferred
way to connect to the City.
Faith Garfield, 200 Alamo Drive, was sworn. She felt strongly that this should not be
approved for all the reasons stated. She would like to see the City, Planning Commission and
citizens find a new paradigm for affordable housing. She wished they took all the money that
has gone into consulting, planning and all these costs and used that to subsidize some of the
homes for sale to avoid sprawl and encourage housing.
Steven Prinz, previously sworn, did not think this debate is about affordable housing, but
using land where the infrastructure exists.
Ms. McCormick responded to the sewer. Wastewater staff cleaned the roots and ran a camera
through and said there would be improvements made and that the lines could handle this. She
agreed that the project is not financially feasible without aid and they do not believe that a
developer that is looking to make a huge return on investment will take on this project. The
developer or developers will be selected through city review and procurement processes. She
anticipated that this could take wei over a year. The land value was based on the buildable
land when the City negotiated with the school district. The affordable housing has not been
reduced. The project is developed with public purpose which is unprecedented anywhere in the
country; the flux is what should be step up and what should be affordable housing. They have
identified a gap and believe the developer might require using a bond or other source of
revenue, but the city would not issue that.
Cannen Silva, 360 East DeVarg_, traffic engineer consultant, was sworn. She said with
regards to the development surrounding the northwest quadrant not being included in the
analysis, she clarified that this was based on the study on the MPO model which takes into
account the entire city and the planned development. She was aware of the weaving along 599
and this was included in the report. The analysis is based on not only the current traffic
condition, but the proposed conditions. The cue analysis on Ridgetop Road came to the
conclusion that the bridge be widened so there was an additional cue provided.
Ms. McCormick pointed out that aU variances were noticed and read into the record at the
meeting in August.
Nicole Dejurnev, previously sworn, stated that variances were not brought forth at the ENN.
She said if they think the sewer is so terrific then the City needs a bond to cover the
homeowners. She did not think $350,000 for a step up house is considered affordable. The
land is undervalued and not all the information is accurate.
Ms. Rowen, previously sworn, said this is why she says the public input needs to be better. It
is not sufficient to say that the sewage will be okay. She wanted to know where else this
standard is being applied and is \MJrking.
City of Santa Fe 13
304
Mr. Harris, previously sworn, said the wastewater is an issue. He said it is not the purpose of
the Planning Commission to be concerned with the mental health of the citizens.
Mr. Simons, previously sworn, was still concerned with the sewage issues.
Mr. Rodriguez said they need to find creative ways to finance affordab4e housing. He said if
they cannot do this right they should not do it.
Ronald Miller was concerned with the placement of the road.
Marilyn Bane referred to the report from Michael Halsey.
The public testimony portion of the pUblic hearing was closed.
Questions and comments from tile Commission
Commissioner Armijo understood 1his does not include the full infrastructure cost and impact on
affordability. He did not think these were all the costs anticipated.
Ms. McCormick reported that the financial analysis was done prior to the Finance Committee
meeting. Public Works acknowledged the need for widening the bridge, so they are now
putting that into the feasibility. The pro forma has several areas that show what the cost woukt
be to homeowners associations.
Commissioner Armijo asked Ms. Blackwell if there is a waiver of escarpment regulations and
wanted an explanation.
Ms. Blackwell said there is a memo addressing this; exhibit B from Char1ie Gonzales and also
herself. She added that the new escarpment map update is now being worked on. She said
they do not know what the new policies will be although they are being looked at.
Commissioner Armijo asked if the variance in the escarpment is for the alignment of the road.
Ms. Blackwell stated that the specifIC variance for escarpment is due to a PNM substation
requiring the road to take a certain route. She stated that they support the concept, but do not
have the detail they would normally have with certified slope and tope. There is a variance to
the heights which is actually a conceptual design further on.
Commissioner Armijo commented that the intent of the ordinance was to stay off the ridgetop
and minor variances have been rejected, so this seems out of the ordinary. The terrain
management will have up to three story buildings on the slopes.
Ms. Blackwell explained that they do not have the certified slope and tope that meets the City
code requirement and based on the general information it is djfficult to detennine if the
variances being requested meet the hardship aitena as there is not enough detail. Regarding
the issue of the slope disturbance and other areas that say the code says they cannot put
structures on; these areas are for utilities and access only. The request is to generally grade the
areas and at a later time they will show a more specific design.
Commissioner Armijo said this seems like an open variance. He asked what the demographics
are on the affordable units.
City of Santa Fe 14
305
Ms. McConnick explained that 30-37% entry level homes for up to %100 of the AMI equates to
200-250 homes. Some of the city's own funding can go up to 1200Al which is also available city
wide. Entry level homes will match the homes program being 600 to 1250 square feel
Commissioner Armijo commented that there was a letter from Bobbie Gutierrez stating that the
city has waived the affordable housing requirement for the 25 acre parcel. He was not sure if
that is keeping with the intent of the ordinance.
Commissioner Gonzales said it is his belief that affordable housing belongs in all neighborhoods
and he thanked staff for working so hard on this project. He appreciated the desire for
affordable housing on the north side of town. He said it is their duty and obligation to judge
according to Chapter 14 including when the applicant is the city staff. He said how can they ask
developers to abide by the code and then grant major variances to the city. Given that this area
is the last piece of land in the original Santa Fe grant, he questioned how they can respect the
grantor. In his opinion that is not done by granting variances. He said some of this
development will be viewed from the downtown and he asked who likes to see Zocalo. This
includes over 770 new homes with a 48,0000 square foot commercial center and 70,000 square
feet of mixed use with one single point of access. This Planning Commission has demanded
mUltiple access points for far smaller developments of ten homes. He did not agree with some
of the plans to finance this project. The application has innovative urban design and
conservation measures which are measures left out of Tierra Contenta. This plan falls short of
his expectations and he believed they could do a better job with the plan.
Commissioner Lindell said she keeps reminding herself to tum a blind eye to the fact that the
city is the applicant This is a large project and master plan. She referred to the resolution.
There is a sizable gap that needs to be filled to make this financially feasible. She asked how
the TID would work and how the homeowner would be affected.
Ms. McConnick explained that a TID is a tax improvement district. The GRT is paid at the time
of sale and realtors pay when they sell. She said they could take a portion to issue a bond.
The City Council would have direct using the money for the GRT and how that could be used. It
is different than general GRT or a property tax. There are other options out there that may be
looked at in the future.
Commissioner Lindell referred to the conclUsion section and asked if this is from Halsey or staff
inferred this from the study.
Ms. McCormick stated that these are staff conclusions.
Commissioner Lindell asked if the MPO is undertaking a regional traffic study.

Mr. John Romero explained that the MPO is involved. The DOT is doing three studies with the
intent of identifying needs and prioritizing transportation funding, when completed this will be
presented to the MPO so it can be included in their 20 year plan. The purpose is to maintain the
intent of 599 as a relief route by upgrading the interchanges and looking at signals to meet the
goal.
Commissioner Lindell referred to resolution 2006-1, the last section states that the
recommendations of the safety study are incorporated into the Northwest Quadrant master plan.
She said if the plan is not completed then it can't be incorporated. She asked how they know
the traffic plan is viable.
City of santa Fe 15
306
Mr. Romero commented that the corridor study is not intended to say what the appropriate land
use is.
Commissioner LindeU found a typo that says the housing needs assessment was in 1997, not
2007. Ms. McCormick agreed to correct this.
Commissioner Lindell did not understand why it states no specific development will occur as a
result of these applications.
Ms. Baer clarified that they are not approving a specific application as those would come back
from the developers.
Commissioner Lindell asked what the process or precedent is for granting conceptual variances.
Ms. Baer stated that this came up in the master plan for Tierra Contenta. Now, they are more
precise. Conceptual roads were shown and when specific developments happened it was
deemed that it was approved as a conceptual plan to cross the 30°", slopes.
Commissioner Lindell expressed great concern with granting a conceptual variance.
Ms. Baer stated that tf they appro'le this it does not come back except in a specific subdivision
plat the area of the variance would be depicted.
Commissioner Lindell had never participated in a conceptual variance before. She referred to
resolution 2008-89 and the step up fee based on market value of acquisition of water rights up
to $10,000. She asked Ms. McConnick to address this.
Ms. McCormick stated that this is induded in the base home price. She said they knew they
needed to do something to make this attractive.
Commissioner Lindell asked how this affects the price.
Ms. McCormick said this just makes sure that the water is there for the step up houses. She
anticipated that there will be some changes to the escarpment and terrain management
ordinance so the intent is that this project can be grandfathered in which is the reason they have
made a conceptual request for something that has not been designed completely.
Commissioner Lindell stated that the General Plan and Future Land Use maps show Las
Cruzitas as a road to be connected. She asked for clarification on what this means.
Ms. Bowden stated that she was on the Planning Commission during the writing of the general
plan. Casa Solana requested to have their neighborhood cut off to the north. When the
General Plan was approved this connection did not exist, but it came later in 2004 and was then
approved by a later Planning Commission. It was discouraged by the Fire Chief because if a
fire occurs and goes uphill the houses at the top need a way to get out. This has been a long
standing debate.
Commissioner Lindell still questioned why this is on the future land use map.
City of Santa Fe 16
307
Ms. Bowden said it has been shown since 2004 when they added the triangle designating the
connection.
Commissioner Lindell asked if this was considered through the design process.
Ms. Bowden said this was presented as part of many discussions and the homework group as
well as the ENN. Not connecting traffic to Montoyas would be a decision the City would need
to make.
Commissioner Lindell asked to see the area where there will be four story buildings.
Ms. Bowden referred to the design standards on page 65. There were two sites selected where
a very small tower would project up.
Commissioner Salazar asked what the process would be if a builder wanted to do something
else.
Ms. Baer explained that they would have to come back through the process to the Planning
Commission and City Council for amendment to the master plan.
Commissioner Salazar stated that it looks like there is a significant backfill in the Arroyo de Las
Trampas. He asked if this is considered a no fill zone.
Ms. Blackwell pointed out that there are no detailed grading plans so she cannot respond in
detail. The FEMA map flood plains are on some of the arroyos. It is hard to comment without
the specifics.
Commissioner Salazar asked how many people are waiting for affordable homes.
Ms. McCormick said roughly 200 are actually qualified. She reviewed the homes that will be
coming on line.
Commissioner Salazar asked if it has become tougher to get qualified.
Ms. McCormick stated that the training ensures that credit scores are high, so it is not too hard
for most people. Debt ratios have been higher which can be a problem.
Commissioner Salazar questioned if there are other local governments that have taken on a
project of this size.
Ms. McCormick referred to a project in Denver with 350 homes and mixed income that has
worked well. This project is sold out. There is risk in everything. She added that they do not
recommend going out immediately for an RFP. She said there are very few projects that have
this much affordable housing. She used Tierra Contenta and the Galisteo Basin as examples.
Commissioner Salazar asked if the developer would have to bring water rights along with the
TID.
Ms. McCormick replied that the water is for the market rate homes and the TID is just a
suggestion to close the gap.
City of santa Fe 17
308
Commissioner Salazar asked what building standard they will use.
Ms. McCormick said it will be Silver. They will use green building and can choose the passive
solar option.
Commissioner Salazar understood that this should be self sustaining.
Ms. McCormick explained that the commercial space is sized to run on 750 homes supporting it.
Commissioner Salazar asked what acre feet of water they are proposing to use.
Ms. McCormick commented that TIerra Contenta is .15 so they believe they can be at .18 or
lower.
Commissioner Salazar asked rf there is a potential to open las Cruzitas.
Ms. McCormick said this could take the traffic off of Ridgetop. She reminded them that there is
a long view and a shorter view.
Commissioner Salazar recalled the stack up at 550 onto 1-25 in Rio Rancho when he lived there
and wondered rf this will occur.
Mr. Romero said the study is based off of projeded traffic and shows that will not be a problem.
He compared this to 550; the reason that area backed up was that there was one right tum lane
for those that needed to get to Corrales, Rio Rancho and Bemalillo. The numbers used
included all the existing homes and no stacking problem was identified.
Commissioner Bordegaray commented that she takes this project seriously. It is their
responsibility as commissioners to review this projed based on the law and land use
regulations. They do decide based on the facts but also on their values as wetl. She viewed
this case as mind boggling in scope, but it is an opportunity. Because this case involves
community land it is hard to be unled as this is not the highest use of the land. It is the job of
eleded officials to make decisions as a whole. The community needs housing that is affordable
in all the areas and it is like pulling teeth to do it. She said she has listened and believes that
this is a different kind of project.. She falls in the category of step up housing and is unable to
step up, but she feels as a planner a professional responsibility to support step up housing.
Planners create the long view and '''no'' is not always the answer, but they have to shape this
appropriately. She did not think this plan should go through as currently proposed. She had
serious concerns with the connectivity. She commended staff for the coordination and long
range planning. The Commission is not the end of the line. City Council will make the policy
decision. She said this needs to be about the city as a whole and not where she would prefer to
see the open space. She wanted to see further discussion and planning done on this project.
She asked rf Commissioner Vigil actually formed a task force.
Ellen Holmes, Tano Road Association. said they were part of the original investigation of this
resolution and it is to form a citizen's task force to work with the MPO when they receive all the
studies. There are representatives from 599 to 285.
Chair O'Reilly asked rf the PRC zoning requires accompaniment of a master plan and rf so rf the
master plan expires.
City of santa Fe 18
309
Ms. Saer stated that the PRC zoning does require a master plan, but typically this is part of
another application so the rezoning would govern. The rezoning can expire and can be brought
back for reconsideration.
Chair O'Reilly stated that in the coonty master plans expire in five years.
Ms. Saer reported nothing like thai. There is a vague use and it is not a stand alone document
as is required with some other action.
Chair O'Reilly agreed that this project cannot go through as it is designed without adequate
connections. There would have to be at least two connection points. There are many
assumptions he noted that he had a real problem with. He also wanted to see a new paradigm
on how they deal with affordable housing and he was not sure if building more is the answer.
He wondered if this is the best way to spend $30 million when very recently they have been
presented with the opportunity for infill which is the College of Santa Fe which has no terrain
problems, has excellent access, and could provide affordable housing. This area is the dead
center of town with existing utilities and amenities. He did not favor this property becoming
open space, but he thought it should be kept as open space until it can be properly developed.
Commissioner Annijo believed the citizens should decide. He did not like that the city on the
tract traded with the schools removed themselves from the ordinance. He said they would not
allow any other developer to have some of these variances.
Commissioner AnnlJo moved on Case #M-2009-o6 that they not approve the escarpment
variance. Commissioner Gonzales seconded the motion which passed by a 3 to 2 voice
vote. Those Commissioners voting for: AnniJo, Gonzales and Lindell. Those
Commissioners voting against: Bordegaray and Salazar.
Commissioner Annijo moved to deny Case .-2009-8 Terrain Management Variance,

Commissioner Gonzales seconded the motion which passed by majority voice vote of 4
to 1. Commissioner Bordegara, voted against the motion.
Commissioner Gonzales moved to recommend denial of Case "'-2009-05 General Plan
Amendment to the City Council, Commissioner Armijo seconded the motion.
Commissioner Salazar wanted to support the project. He thinks this could be a good project if
they had more time and he did not understand the rush. He did not know if this would take all
the money for the infrastructure, but it is hard to approve with this much of a deficit. He
appreciated the work staff did and they did a good job with working with what they had. One
access point into this development cannot be safe. He suggested postponing.
Chair O'Reilly agreed that staff did an outstanding job with what they were given. He wanted to
support a project like this also.
The motion passed by majority yoice vote of 4 to 1 with Commissioner Bordegaray

voting against the motion.
Commissioner Gonzales moved to recommend denial of Case #M-2009-o2 to the City

Council, Commissioner Lindell seconded the motion which passed by unanimous voice
vote of 5 to O.
City of Santa Fe 19
310
~1W@ff'~'(t;®'~~m~@@
DATE:
e
June 10 for June 18,2009 Planning Commission Meeting
0
TO: City of Santa Fe Planning Commission
VIA: John B. Hiatt, Director, Land Use Departmen~

Tamara Baer, Manager, Current Planning DivisiO<
FROM: Lucas Cruse, EIT, AICP, Senior Planner, Current Planning Division /-I1C
Housing and Community Development Department requests approval of a General Plan future land
use map amendment to revise the designations of 540± acres to include approximately 122 acres in a
mix of Very Low Density Residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre), Low Density Residential (3-7
dwelling units per acre), Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre), High Density
Residential (12-29 dwelling units per acre), Neighborhood Center, and Transitional Mixed Use; and
approximately 418 acres of Parks and Open Space. The property is located south ofNM 599 and west
of St. Francis Drive.
dwelling unit per acre) to PRC (planned Residential Community). The Northwest Quadrant Master
Plan adopted as a part of this rezoning includes supplemental Design Standards that vary from the
Chapter 14 Land Development Code. The property is located south ofNM 599 and west ofSt. Francis
Drive.
Case #M 2009-06. Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance. The City of Santa Fe Housing
and Community Development Department requests an escarpment variance to allow 15,000 square feet
of the alignment of Ridgetop Road to encroach on the ridgetop subdistrict to provide sufficient
distance from an existing PNM switching station. The location of the requested variance is along the
proposed Ridgetop Road alignment between Camino de los Montoyas and NM 599.
Case #M 2009-08. Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance. The City of Santa Fe
Housing and Community Development Department requests a terrain management variance to allow
disturbance of 28,000 square feet of 30 percent slopes on two sites in order to preserve open space
areas and to allow structures to be built on the disturbed 30 percent slopes. The locations of the
requested variance are within the neighborhood center areas north of the ridge and northeast of the
PNM switching station.
311
I. NORTHWEST QUADRANT APPLICATIONS OVERVIEW
Although grouped in a single staffreport, each ofthe foregoing is an independent application and
must be reviewed and acted upon as such.
No specific development will occur as a result ofthese applications. It is anticipated that Development
Plans and Subdivision Platsfor individual parcels will come back to the Planning Commissionfor
review and approval. Ifthe City retains ownership ofthe Northwest Quadrant properties, Building
Permits and Inspections will be issued through the Construction Industries Division ofthe State of
New Mexico.
A. Property Description
These applications relate to an approximately 540-acre area located approximately 2 miles northwest
of the Plaza. The 540 acres are owned primarily by the City of Santa Fe with these exceptions: one 25-
acre parcel is owned by Santa Fe Public Schools and one l5-acre parcel is owned by Santa Fe Public
Schools and is in the process ofbeing sold to the City for inclusion in this proposed development. The
property is bounded on the north by NM-599 and vacant city-owned property including the LiTierra
trail system across NM-599. The west is bounded by Camino de Los Montoyas and Paseo de Vistas,
landfill, and the Buckman Road Recycling and Transfer Station. The south is bounded by the Casa
Solana residential development (zoned R-5, "Single Family Residential at 5 du/acre), smaller residential
parcels of varying densities to the east of Camino de Las Crucitas, the Casa Lorna residential complex,
and The Lodge hotel (zoned C-2, General Commercial) at Calle Mejia. The east is bounded by the
Reserve and Las Estrellas (also zoned PRC) residential developments, and a small section ofmulti-
family residential and commercial properties at Calle Mejia.
The Property is currently undeveloped, except for the Frank S. Ortiz Park (the "dog park"), informal
social trails, and various access lanes imd utilities including a PNM substation. There is a one-acre
private residential parcel at the far southwestern corner ofthe property that is completely surrounded
by but not included as a part ofthese applications. The Property is generally dermed by a ridge that
runs along the southeast boundary of the property with drainages that run perpendicular from and
along the base ofthe ridge. Several drainages along the northwest side of the ridge are included in the
FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain including: Arroyo de Los Frijoles on the north side of the property
flowing southwest along NM-599, Arroyo de Las Trampas flowing west from the PNM substation
across Camino de Los Montoyas and out of the property, and Arroyo Torreon flowing southwest from
the dog park. Instances of 30%+ slopes occur along the drainages and along the southeast face of the
ridge. Vegetation includes pinon, juniper, native grasses and cacti. [See application packet for maps
and further property description.]
The property is currently zonedR-l (Residential, one dwelling per acre) and is also covered in sections
by escarpment ridgetop and escarpment foothills overlay zoning districts. The current Future Land
Use Map designations for the property include a mix of Very Low Density Residential (1-3 dwellings
per acre), Low Density Residential (3-7 dwellings per acre), and Parks and Open Space around the
Dog Park in the southwestern portion of the property. [See Application packet for multiple color
maps.]

312
B. Application Requests Summary
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan covers 540 acres of ridgeline and foothills concentrating
development on 122 acres, while setting aside the remaining 418 acres for a mixture of open space and
developed parks. The proposed mix of land uses is arranged in a linear series of five mixed-use
clusters along Ridgetop Road separated by protected drainages, open space and trails. The proposed
development includes up to 773 residential and live/work units, 40,000 square feet of neighborhood
commercial center, up to 70,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial uses, a fire station, and a
potential adult education facility. The major design ideas and elements behind the Northwest Quadrant
development include: affordable housing (minimum of30% affordable, maximum of30% market,
balance or 4()O/<J workforce), open space preservation, sustainable development, quality public
amenities, non-motorized transportation connections, and integration of mixed-use development forms.
The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department is requesting with ·this
Application: (1) an amendment to the General Plan arid Future Land Use Map designating new land
uses to support the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan; (2) rezoning of the property to PRC (planned
Residential Community) to be developed according to the land uses in the Northwest Quadrant Master
Plan, including design standards that supersede identified portions of the Land Use Development Code
as allowed under the PRC zoning district; (3) a Variance from the applicable Escarpment requirements
of the Land Use Development Code to permit construction of a portion of Ridgetop Road; and (4) a
Variance from the applicable Terrain Management requirements of the Land Use Development Code
to allow cohesive development of the Northwest Quadrant Neighborhood Center.
J
remapping of the Escarpment Overlay on the grounds of iimited revenue stream and limited buildable
! areas. [see memorandum from Wendy Blackwell, Technical Review Division Director, June 9, 2009,
inEXHillITB]
This report includes a separate section for each of the above applications with recommended
conditions of approval for each application included in EXHIBITS A & B with the original
Development Review Team comments memoranda. Reference is made throughout the report to the
Application, originally submitted to the Land Use Department on February 9, 2009, modified in
response to changing project conditions and staff requests for additional information, and culminating
in the June 8, 2009 version submitted with this report. Assorted background information and public
comments are appended to this report in the Application packet and EXHIBIT C.
C. Application History
Prior to the February 2009 submission of this Application, the Northwest Quadrant has been the
subject of numerous planning initiatives, public forums, and resolutions dating back to 1967 [see
application packet for complete history and details]. The current planning effort began in early 2005
as outlined in the series of City Council Resolutions included in the Applicant's packet, particularly
Resolution 2004-92 [see Supporting Documents on the submitted CD].
The Public Involvement process featured five pubic forums, a "Homework Group" of regular attendees
over the course of seven meetings from March 2007 to May 2008, and an Early Neighborhood
Notification (ENN) meeting held for the Application on August 28,2007, with an estimated 275
attendees. 40 attendees made public comments and an additional 20 attendees left written comments.
Generally, comments toward the overall goals, principles, and design were positive, but key

313
controversial issues included the following: traffic connections, infrastructure fmance, schools, water,
and the dog park. [See CD in Application packet for ENN notes and notice materials.]
Numerous additional committee meetings and public hearings have been held on the Northwest
Quadrant as outlined on pages 5 and 6 of the Application and documented on the Application CD.
II. ISSUES
The size and complexity of the Project warranted and received extensive coordination by the Land Use
Department with various City Departments, and this report integrates the information developed as a
result of those discussions. Overall, Land Use Department staff has determined that the requested
future land use designations and Master Plan incorporated as part of the Planned Residential
Community zoning are consistent with the record of City-initiated planning efforts for the Northwest
Quadrant, and are in compliance with numerous objectives ofthe General Plan. However, a number of
outstanding issues remain as the project moves forward:
A. Financial Pro Forma
The City Finance Committee approved the Northwest Quadrant pro forma at its June 1,2009 meeting.
The City Public Works Committee then held a public hearing on June 8, 2009 resulting in a vote to
deny acceptance of the proposed pro forma as it does not include the full anticipated infrastructure
costs, including the cost to reconstruct the Ridgetop Road and NM 599 interchange bridge and the
impact on affordability of using homeowner fees to fund prospective lease and Public Improvement
District (Pill) payments. [see memo from Kathy McCormick dated May 22, 2009 detailing the pro
forma in EXillBIT C and memorandum from John Romero dated June 2, 2009 detailing the roadway
infrastructure requirements in EXHIBIT A] In addition to identified roadway improvements,
Wastewater Management Division staff have identified an estimate of$350,000 in needed sewer
improvements to serve the increased sewage discharge from the Northwest Quadrant that is not
included in the pro forma. [see memo from Stan Holland dated June 5, 2009 detailing the sewer
infrastructure requirements in EXHIBIT A] .
B. Traffic access
The roadway access scenario analyzed in the current TIA and put forward for Planning Commission
consideration proposes that the entire Northwest Quadrant development be accessed by the Ridgetop
Road interchange with NM 599, with emergency access only from Camino de Los Montoyas, and
provides no connection to Calle Mejia. Previous iterations of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
identified five potential access scenarios with varying degrees of connectiyity to Casa Solana and
developments to the south., The roadway connections studied but ultimately dropped from
consideration include: full access to Camino de Los Montoyas, limited access to Camino de Los
Montoyas, and a connection to Calle Mejia.
Extensive public input has been received by the City regarding the Northwest Quadrant traffic access
scenarios, particularly from the Casa Solana and Tano Road neighborhood associations. [See
submittals.from the neighborhood associations in EXHffiIT C.] The Casa Solana neighborhood is
particularly concerned with the Northwest Quadrant development contributing increased traffic on the
streets of their neighborhood and has requested creation of a cul de sac of Camino de Las Crucitas at
Norlhwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 4 of 20 314

the edge of Casa Solana, which would close direct access between Casa Solana and NM 599, but allow
the Northwest Quadrant to have access to Camino de Los Montoyas, Buckman Road, and Paseo de
Vistas. This proposal from Casa Solana was presented as recently as the June 8, 2009 Public Works
Committee meeting.
The Tano Road Association is particularly interested in increasing roadway connectivity in the
Northwest Quadrant and requests consideration of the results from the corridor studies for NM 599 and
St. Francis Drive currently underway by the New Mexico Department of Transportation. While the
current estimate from NMDOT for completion of draft corridor study results for NM 599 is late 2009,
with final results to follow in 2010, the long-term vision for NM 599 is to replace all at-grade
intersections with interchanges. The right-of-way reserved for the future Camino de Los Montoyas
interchange with NM 599 is located to the east of the existing intersection alignment, and closer to the
neighborhood center land uses of the proposed Northwest Quadrant development. The location of the
future interchange would require opening of the proposed cul de sacs at Camino De Los Montoyas in
order to maintain direct access from Casa Solana to NM 599.
The Fire Department prefers full access between the Northwest Quadrant development and Camino de
Los Montoyas to provide more than a single point of access. However, the Fire Department is satisfied
with the proposed access scenario that includes cul de sacs and emergency access gates.
[Memorandum from Barbara Salas dated April 21, 2009 detailing Fire Department comments in
EXHIBIT A.] .
The Northwest Quadrant traffic access scenarios were heard at a public hearing of the City Public
Works Committee hearing on March 23, 2009. At that meeting, the committee decided to table
, \ making a formal recommendation on the various traffic access scenarios to a later Public Works
Committee meeting. The City Public Works Committee then held a public hearing on June 8, 2009 to
review the pro forma and the proposed traffic access scenario. The result of that meeting was a vote to
deny acceptance of the proposed pro forma and traffic access scenario.
With regard to the City's General Plan, the following Guiding Policies can be found in relation to
Streets and the issue of connectivity:
6-1-G-3 Provide for a closely spaced network ofnarrower streets as opposed to fewer wider
streets.
The Plan also attempts to provide greater street connectivity in some existing urban areas to
provide local linkages and lessen dependence on wide streets. .
6-1-G-5 Ensure that new development is more "connected" to its surroundings with an
increased number ofaccess points andpedestrian and bicycle connections to a neighborhood
network.
C. Reliance of the Master Plan on adoption of the Variances
The alignment of Ridgetop Road and the amount of developable neighborhood center areas in the
submitted. Master Plan are dependent on approval of the requested Escarpment and Terrain
Management variances. Denial of either of the variances would require a reconfigured roadway
network, land use mix, and corresponding pro forma

315
D. Reliance of the Master Plan on proposed Planned Residential Community (PRC) zoning district
reVISIOn
On March 19,2009, the Planning Commission approved a requested change to the Planned Residential
Community (PRC) zoning district to allow PRC Master Plans to include Mixed Use in the list of
pennitted land uses in addition to Shopping Center (SC-1) commercial land uses and the full range of
residential densities. A draft of the revised code is in [EXHIBIT C]. The revised PRC zoning district
ordinance is currently scheduled to be heard by the Public Works Committee on June 22, 2009, and
will then be considered for adoption by the full Governing Body. The ordinance to revise the section
of SFCC 1987 will need adoption by City Council prior to hearing the requested Northwest Quadrant
rezoning and associated Master Plan.
E. Northwest Quadrant trails development
The Trails Development Division of the City's Public Works Department is working on a trails
prioritization study for the entire Northwest Quadrant including the portion under consideration with
these applications. The preliminary Action Plan for that study includes creation of a Northwest
Quadrant Trails Master Plan, signage, increased trail connectivity, property access control including
fencing, and trash clean up. [See memoranda from Bob Siquieros and Fabian Chavez in EXHIBIT A.]

316
III. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPROVAL CRITERIA
Case # M 2009-05. Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment.
The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests approval of a
General Plan future land use map amendment to revise the designations of 540± acres to include
approximately 122 acres in a mix of Very Low Density Residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre), Low
Density Residential (3-7 dwelling units per acre), Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per
Transitional Mixed. Use; and approximately 418 acres of Parks and Open Space. The property is
located. south ofNM 599 and west ofSt. Francis Drive.
Land Use Department staff has determined that the requested future land use designations and Master
Plan are consistent with the record of City-initiated planning efforts for the Northwest Quadrant and
are in compliance with numerous objectives of the General Plan [see Application packet for criteria
response and expanded project history]. Staff recommends that the conditions outlined. in [EXHIBIT
A] be applied to the General Plan Amendment if approved by the Planning Commission.
approval, and are included at this point to guide the development of individual parcels. No specific
development will occur as a result of these applications.
Chapter 14 Criteria
Section 14-3.2 of the Land Development Code establishes various procedural requirements and approval
Criteria for general plan amendments. These criteria are outlined below with responses from the Applicant
and Land Use Department staff comment where necessary.
A. Section 14-3.2 (D) (1) Criteria for All Amendments to the General Plan
1. Consistency with growth projections for the City using a data base maintained and updated on an
annual basis by the City, with economic development goals as set fOrth in a comprehensive
economic development plan for the City, and with existing land use conditions, such as access and
availability ofinfrastructure;
Applicant: The Northwest Quadrant property is an infill development located within the City's
Urban Area Boundary two miles from the downtown plaza and three miles away from a majority
of services, and public and private employment centers. The project proposes a mixed-use, mixed
income community with a range of housing densities and commercial and institutional uses.
Proposed uses are compatible with adjacent land uses using existing infrastructure.
The 2007 "Housing Needs Assessment Study" indicated a current deficit of 6,500 affordable
housing units to house the local workforce. The income levels for this workforce are primarily in
the 100-150% AMI and 50-80% AMI ranges. The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan calls for 773
new homes, approximately 530 of the new homes will be priced to meet the income levels (less
than 150% AMI) to house this local workforce close to downtown and major public and private
employment centers.
Northwest Quadrant- Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 70(20

317
Economy", which has been the basis for implementing the Economic Development Department's
economic strategies. In order to achieve a long-term sustainable and focused economic growth, the
City of Santa Fe is working towards building a diverse, innovative economy with high-wage,
high-impact jobs that provide opportunity and prosperity for the City's residents, businesses and
entrepreneurs. This strategy will provide opportunities for more of Santa Fe's population to live
and work in the community. Economic development activities are focused on the following
targeted industries: technology; knowledge based enterprise; GREEN, including renewable
energy, water conservation and waste reduction technologies; arts + culture; and media The
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan calls for a mixed-use community with commercial uses in its
neighborhood center that can house some of these targeted industries such as: think: tanks,
educational facilities, artisans, fine artists, software design, research and development, and
consulting. . '
2. Consistency with other parts ofthe General Plan;
Applicant: The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan is consistent with other parts of the General
Plan, in particular the themes and guiding policies of:
Chapter 4 - Growth Management
Chapter 7 - Infrastructure and Public Services
STAFF: Impossible to determine consistency as claimed without citing specific policy.
3. Provision for a determination ofland utilization within an area larger than a single property
and ofgeneral applicability. Generally the area should be at least a section of the City and
should be larger than a single block or its equivalent;
Applicant: The land area of the Northwest Quadrant Master plan is approximately 540 acres. Of
the total area, ca. 122 acres is proposed for development and the remaining ca 418 acres is
designated as open space (parks, open space, ROW, etc.).
Applicant: The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan area is within the City limits and the Urban Area
Boundary.
5. Contribution to a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development ofthe municipality which

will, in accordance with existing and future needs, best promote health, safety, morals, order,
convenience, prosperity or the general welfare as wellas efficiency and economy in the process of
development.
Applicant: The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan derives its structure from a fundamental and
sensitive understanding of the site's land systems, a clear understanding of evolving demographic
and land use trends in the Santa Fe region, and an extensive public process with public input and
NoTthwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 8 of 20

318
review. The Master Plan proposes a mixed-use development of five neighborhoods on a portion of
the developable land area with the remaining area designated as open space. Each neighborhood
has convenient access to a centrally located neighborhood park as well as a community park along
the ridge that extends more than 6000 feet in length. A fine-grained network of streets and trails
will allow vehicular and great pedestrian connectivity and provide ample opportunities for passive
recreation. The plan recoinmends a bus route and strategically placed stops in denser mixed-use
areas of the plan to promote alternative transportation and reduce car trips. The master plan allows
a mix of uses to encourage residents to work and obtain neighborhood services from within the
Views of the Northwest Quadrant development from the City will be limited to the 20 homes
slated for the south side of the ridge facing the City and will follow the escarpment ordinance.
Along NM 599, the master plan follows the recommended view corridor along NM599 of295 feet
to provide a scenic setback. As regulated by the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan and Design
Standards, the development will be designed to provide a quality image from all vantage points
looking toward the property~
B. Section 14-3.2 (D) (2) Additional Criteria for Amendments to Land Use Policies:
In addition to complying with the general criteria set forth above, amendments to the land use policies
section ofthe General Plan shall be made only if evidence is shown for the following:
1. The growth and economic projections contained within the plan are erroneous or have
changed; or
2. No reasonable locations have been provided for certain land uses for which there is a
demonstrated need; or
3. Conditions affecting the location or land area requirements of the proposed land use have
changed, for example, the cost of land space requirements, consumer acceptance, market, and
building technology; and
4. The effect of the proposed change in land. use will not have a negative impact on the
surrounding property. The proposed change in land use must be related to the character ofthe
surrounding area or a provision must be made to separate the proposed change in use from
adjacent property by a setback, landscaping or other means.
effort.]
Northwest Quadrant - Planning Commission:· June 18, 2009 Page 9 of 20 319

Land Use Analysis
Below is an analysis of land use allocations for the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. The 10,000
square foot fire station is included in the Mixed Use commercial numbers for Phase 1. The column
labeled "sf' refers to commercial square footage.
LAND USE SUMMARY
acres units sf dU/acre

.Nelgtiborh'6odC~nter . .1'4.01 : ·83 ·40,000, 5.92
Mixed Use 13.08 90 80,000 6.88
·Resideritial High Densi·ty . 7:70 . 115· 14.94
Residential Medium Density 23.41 237 10.12
Residential. Low, Density.· ...• . ·45.36' 228 '!;i'.03
Parks . ' 48.70 ..
Open Space 372.50
542.50 773.00 120,000
NOfthwest Quadrnnt - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 100(20 320
The development of the Northwest Quadrant is planned to occur over three phases with build-out
expected to take from 10-14 years.
Phase 1 - residential and mixed-use closest to Ridgetop Road/NM-599 interchange

~ units sf du/acre
Neighborhood Center . ···.0:00 0
Mixed Use 4.10 15 16,725 3.66
Residential High Density 0.00 0
.Residential (ow Density. . .. 20.85 93 ·4.46
Parks' . ... 26jjO
Phase I Total 69.54 195.00 16,725 2.80
Phase 2 - residential & Neighborhood Center commercial uses in middle of project

~ units . sf du/acre
.Neighbomood
- - Center
.. . ·10:54 83 .. 20,000. 7.87.
Mixed Use 0 0 33,625
R·esidential High DensitY .. 4.00'.' 62 . 15.50
Residential Low De~sity '11.09 60 5.41
Residential Very Low Density 0.00 0
Parks - 2.50 '.'
Phase II Total 34.83 275.00 53.625 7.90
Phase 3 - residential & mixed-use closest to Camino de Los Montoyas

·Neighborhood Center- .-.3.47"- 0 . 20,000 0:00
Mixed Use 8.98 75 29.650 8.35
Residenti~1 High Density 3.70 ~~ 14.32
Residential Low-Density .. 13.42' 75 ·5:59
-ParkS .... .. -' . ····3:70 .'.
Phase III Total 49.13 303.00 49.650 6.17
Grand Total 121.30 773.00 120,000
Tabulation
developed area gross (minus roads/parks) 121.30 22% % total PRC area
open space + parks 421.20 78% % total PRC area
Mixed Use (NC + TMU) 27.09 5% % total PRC area

22% % developed area
Mixed Use Units (NC + TMU) 173 units (30% or 52 units comn
SC-1 area (DU x 3.6 residents x 35sf/res) 2.24
Northwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 11 0(20 321
IV. REZONING APPROVAL CRITERIA
Case # ZA 2009-02. Northwest Quadrant Rezoning.
The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests rezoning of 540±
acres from R-l (Residential, 1 dwelling unit per acre) to PRC (planned Residential Community). The
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan adopted as a part of this rezoning includes supplemental Design
Standards that vary from the Chapter 14 Land Development Code. The property is located south of
NM 599 and west of St. Francis Drive.
Land Use Department staffhas determined that the requested zoning and related Design Specifications
detailed in the Master Plan are consistent with the record of City-initiated planning efforts for the
Northwest Quadrant and are in compliance with numerous objectives of the General Plan [see
Application packet for criteria responses and expanded project history]. Staff recommends that the
conditions outlined in [EXHIBIT A] be applied to the Rezoning if approved by the Planning
Commission.
approva, and are included at this point to guide the development of individual parcels. Again, no
specific development will occur as a result of these applications.
A. Chapter 14 - Santa Fe City Code
Chapter 14 of the City Code of the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico Article 14-3.5 (A) (2) and (C)
articulate six criteria to determine approval of a rezoning request. These criteria are outlined below with
responses from the Applicant and Land Use Department staff comment where necessary.
1. Pursuant to Article 14-3.5 (C): The need andjustification for the change
Applicant: The master plan is based on an urban structure which affirms Santa Fe's traditional
development patterns and is designed to address the themes and policies outlined in the General
Plan, Chapter 3, Land Use. Throughout the master plan, themes and guiding policies regarding
affordable housing, quality of life, transportation alternatives, economic diversity, sustainable
growth, urban form, community-oriented development and mixed use/transitional easily flow.
Further, the overall project is designed to meet Guiding Principles 2-G-2 and 3-0-3 as outlined in
the General Plan. Both of these principles encourage mixed use districts as well as infill
development at densities that support the construction ofaffordable housing and designated mix of
land uses that provide an adequate balance of service retail and employment opportunities.
resolutions passed over many years incorporated into a Planned Residential Community District
(pRC). These resolutions effectively changed both the General Plan and the Land Use Map to its
current status. Each resolution reiterated the city's commitment to "actively participate in the
creation of affordable housing" which is the overarching goal of this project as initiated and
directed by the City. In order to achieve these goals, the underlying zoning needs to be changed
2. Pursuant to Article 14-3.5 (C): The effect of the change, if any, on the property and on
surroundingproperties
Northwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 120'20 322
Applicant: The effect on the property is very positive. First, over 400 acres are being preserved as
open space leaving ca. 122 acres to be developed. Secondly, as designed, the project employs
smart growth approaches and technologies from its inception to its completion. 1bird, given the
projects close proximity (2 miles) to the plaza, services, and major city, state and county
employment centers will reduce vehicle miles traveled throughout Santa Fe and is conducive to
introducing alternative modes of transportation because of its proximity to services. Fourth, there
is a continuing economic and social stratification in the City. The project is ideally located to
address the housing demand found among families with children, young couples, singles and
seniors in a way that both respects the land and cultural resources and begins to niitigate the
impacts found in an economically stratified community. Furthennore, its location provides
affordably priced housing in closer proximity to major employment and retail centers. The effects
on the surrounding properties including property values, traffic impact and noise are demonstrated
to be minimal in comparison to other areas in Santa Fe.
3. Pursuant to Article 14-3.5 (C): Consistency with the City's policies regarding the provision of
urban land sufficient to meet the amount, rate and geographic location ofthe growth ofthe city
Applicant: The proposed rezoning of the ca. 540 acres is consistent with the land use policies
outlined in Chapter 3 of the General Plan and meets the city's policies for creating affordable
housing as well as the city's guidance to the staff in the creation ofthis project.
STAFF: See City Council Resolutions on Applicant CD.
4. Pursuant to Article 14-3.5 (C): The ability ofthe exiting infrastructure such as the streets system,
sewer and water lines, and public facilities such as fire stations and parks to accommodate the
impacts of the proposed development. If such impacts cannot be accommodated, the City may
require t~e developer to participate wholly or in part in the cost ofconstruction ofoff-sitefacilities
in conformance with the City's off-site facilities regulation;
Applicant: The design team has already met with city staff in the various public works divisions,
public utilities divisions and believes that the infraStructure is in place to support the development
of this project. The plan includes land for a future fire station on the property that is needed for this
area and will serve Santa Fe Estates, Zocalo and Casa Solana as well as downtown. Water rights
have also been dedicated by the city for both the affordable and step-up housing. Lastly, the team
has met with the head ofthe parks department to review exactly which parks would be maintained
by the city and which ones would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. In general, the
team has been told that the city systems. which would provide services to the NWQ. can
accommodate the impacts ofthe proposed development.
from development in the Northwest Quadrant. [See memoranda in EXIDBIT A for details of water
rights and public sewer design conditions] .
5. Pursuant to Article 14-3.5 (C): If the proposed rezoning creates a needfor an additional major
public utility expansion. If such a need is determined then the developer may be asked to
contribute a proportionalfair share ofthe cost ofthe expansion.
Applicant: The proposed re-zoning does not create a need for an additional major public utility
expansion.

323
B. Additional Rezoning Criteria
Pursuantto Miller v. City ofAlbuquerque, 89 N.M. 503, 554 P.2d 665 (1976) and Davis v. City of
Albuquerque, 98 N.M. 319, 648 P.2d 777 (1982) additional mandatory criteria has been established by
New Mexico case law.
1. Applicant's burden ofproof: Since the community and neighbors have an interest in stability of
land use and zoning, the applicant must provide a soundjustification for the change. The burden
ofproofis on the applicant to show why the change should be made, not on the City to show why
the change should not be made.
2. Consistency with adoptedplans.
3. Existing zoning is inappropriate: The applicant must demonstrate that the existing zoning is
inappropriate because:
1. There was an error when the existing zone map pattern was created
2. Changed neighborhood or community conditions justify the change
3. A dif.terent use category is more advantageous to the community, as articulated in. the
comprehensive plan or other city master plan, even though (1) or (2) above do not apply.
effort]
Norlhwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 140(20 324
V. ESCARPMENT VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
Case #M 2009-06. Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance.
The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests an escarpment
variance to allow 15,000 square feet of the alignment of Ridgetop Road to encroach on the ridgetop
subdistrict to provide sufficient distance from an existing PNM switching station. The location of the
requested variance is along the proposed Ridgetop Road alignment between Camino de los Montoyas
andNM599.
areas. [See memorandum and attachments from Wendy Blackwell, Technical Review Division
Director in EXHmIT B for a discussion of the Escarpment remapping process and applicability.]
The Planning Commission must base their decision regarding the Escarpment Variance on the
Applicant responses to the criteria below and staff conditions. [See memoranda from Charlie Gonzales
and Wendy Blackwell in EXHffiIT B.] Variances of this nature are generally processed at the
Development Plan phase with completed engineering plans. However, the applicant is requesting
conceptual approval at this stage to allow the proposed Master Plan land use mix and roadway
configuration to proceed. The primary justification for the variance is to provide connectivity between
developable areas and avoid impacting the existing PNM station and the drainageways and
archaeological sites located north of the station.

Planning Commission shall use the criteriafor deciding variances as setforth in §14-3.16,except
variances in PUD, PRC, and PRRC districts shaO be evaluated based upon their appropriateness in
Applicant: The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan calls for a ca 6,000 feet long linear park along
the ridgeline that traverses northwest within the northern 366 acres of the Master Plan area.
This open space area, the 'Linear Park', will have pedestrian and bicycle trails to connect to
Santa Fe Estate Trails and to other trails in the larger northwest quadrant area The major
roadway that traverses the site and provides an important connection from Ridgetop Road to
Camino de los Montoyas is located dominantly north of the ridge outside of the ridgetop
subdistrict. The one location where it encroaches on the ridgetop subdistrict is in the location of
the PNM substation. Weare requesting a variance to build the road within the ridgetop
subdistrict in this area only.
This request reflects the minimum encroachment possible to the ridgetop subdistrict given the
site constraints and project goals. The alignment of the roadway within the right of way
boundary has been adjusted to minimize the impact to the ridgetop. Granting this variance will

325
make it possible to build this road through the entire development thus connecting the project's
east and west entry points.
Chapter 14 Criteria for Variances to the Requirements of §14-5.6 Escarpment Overlay Regulations
14-5.6 (K)(1) Where the Planning Commissionfmds that extraordinary hardship may resultfrom
nullifying the intent and purpose ofthese regulations.
Applicant: A literal interpretation of this ordinance would deprive the future master developer
of the ability to complete a major roadway connection in a logical and efficient way.
The topography, slopes and drainageways north of the PNM switching station, along with
locations of existing archaeological sites create a special condition that leads to the proposed
road alignment south ofthe station. An existing 30 foot wide access easement that has been
bladed and is devoid of vegetation currently exists in the approximate location of the proposed
road alignment. Using the general area of this easement woUld result in less visual distUrbance
than if an alternate alignment north of the PNM site were proposed.
This variance request is a special condition dictated by property lines, topography,

drainageways, and connectivity needs. The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan places the
remainder of the ridgetop subdistrict in an open space preserve and/or community park with
pedestrian and bike trails that will not be privileged with the rights granted by this variance.
Substantial justice will be done in granting this variance by enabling an orderly and efficient
road alignment to provide multiple points of access to the development and between the
neighborhoods.
14-5.6 (K)(2) In granting variances or modifications, the Planning Commission may require such
Applicant: Granting this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
Chapter 14 - 5.6 and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to
public welfare. Additional berming and/or planting can be installed adjacent to the
encroachment on the ridgetop subdistrict to minimize the visibility of the roadway and vehicles
and protect the viewshed. In addition, the road profile of the proposed alignment results in
more gentle, safer grades than would be possible given the alternate northern alignment, which
STAFF: The criteria responses above refer to an. earlier proposed access scenario. The currently
proposed roadway network has no connections to Camino de Los Montoyas on the west. The single
proposed roadway access point for the project is via Ridgetop Road from the east.
Norlhwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 16 of 20 326

VI. TERRAIN MANAGEMENT VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
Case #M 2009-08. Northwest Quadrant Terrain Management Variance.
The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department requests a terrain
management variance to allow disturbance of 28,000 square feet of 30 percent slopes on two sites in
order to preserve open space areas and to allow structures to be built on the disturbed 30 percent
slopes. The locations of the requested variance are within the neighborhood center areas north of the
ridge and northeast ofthe PNM switching station.
The Planning Commission must base their decision regarding the Terrain Management Variance on the
Applicant responses to the criteria below and staff comments. [See memorandum from Risana
Zaxus in EXHIBIT B.] Variances of this nature are generally processed at the Development Plan
phase with completed engineering plans. However, the applicant is requesting conceptual approval at
this stage to allow the proposed Master Plan land use mix and configuration to proceed. The primary
justification for the variance is to preserve the surrounding majority ofthe property as open space by
concentrating development in the two Neighborhood Centers that will be created with this Master Plan.

denying requestsfor variancesfrom zoning regulations in all areas except the Historic Districts and
Planning Commission shall use the criteriafordeciding variances as setforth in §14-3.16, except
relation to the overall development and its purposes and their impact upon su"ounding properties.
Applicant: This request is an outcome of a concerted effort to balance development with the
preservation of archaeological sites, views across open space areas from the NM599 highway
corridor to the ridge and Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and community desires for open space.
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan was generated from a land-based analysis that looked at
locating development on shallower slopes (primarily slopes less than 20%) while preserving
major drainageways, respecting the 295 ft. wide highway corridor setback, and avoiding as
many significant archaeological sites as possible. The developable area in the master plan as
proposed preserves 50% ofthe archaeological sites documented on the property and preserves
ca. 70% ofthe land area in open space and parks.
The public process identified goals to preserve open space and create distinct 'neighborhoods'
separated by open spaces areas. These neighborhoods are clustered neighborhoods with
radiating densities: higher densities are located in the center areas and lower densities on the
fringes. The neighborhood center area is envisioned as a dense, mixed-use, 'Main Street'
corridor that links the neighborhoods together and provides a center for the community. While
the master plan could have located more area of development beyond what has been proposed,
this would have resulted in more piecemeal development, less contiguous open space for public
use, and the disturbance of more archaeological sites.
Northwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 170'20 327
Development in the proposed areas within the Neighborhood Center area are centrally located
within the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan property and will not adversely impact surrounding
/-~"',
properties. ,i
Chapter 14 Criteria for Variances to the Requirements of § 14-8.2(G) Terrain Management Regulations
14-3.7 (F)(3) The Planning Commission may grantyariances to the requirements ofthe terrain
management regulations as setforth in §14-8.2, which refers back to the following criteria:
14-3.7 (F)(1) Where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardship may resultfrom
strict compliance with these regulations, it may vary the regulqJions so that substantial justice may
nullifying the intent andpurpose ofthese regulations.
Applicant: The strict application of the regulation preventing disturbance of areas greater than
1,000 square feet on slopes greater than 30% would result in a hardship to the development of
the project by restricting developable parcels within the neighborhood center area to
discontinuous areas with smaller, oddly shaped lots. In addition, strict application of the
regulation would prohibit the construction of the main street that connects the neighborhood
center area to the remainder ofthe development Reducing this developable area for both
infrastructure and building structures will result in a hardship for the master developer, making
the higher density development called for in the plan more difficult on the oddly shaped lots
and restricting the developer's ability to build the structures and roads necessary to make the
project financially v i a b l e . :
Granting this variance in the area of the Neighborhood Center will not absolve the developer of
hislher responsibility to adhere to the terrain management ordinance in other areas ofthe
development. The site analysis indicates there are some areas along roadways and at the fringes
ofthe development that, at development plan, might impact 30% or greater slopes. For these
areas, the developer will follow conventional regulations for design and engineering and obtain
the necessary variances at development plan approval.
In order to create a cohesive arid viable mixed-use Neighborhood Center to serve the residents
ofthe Northwest Quadrant, substantial justice will be provided in granting this variance to
concentrate disturbance of slopes and building on these slopes only within the two parcels that
comprise the Neighborhood Center. By focusing the Neighborhood Center in this area,
advantageous impacts on surrounding properties would include a larger area of open space
(over 70% ofthe Master Plan area) preserved for public recreation, scenic character,
stormwater management, and wildlife habitat.
The public process for the project asked for input from the Homework Group (a group of 45
dedicated individuals who gave direction to the design team on the project) to identify where
the 'Center' should be located. The centrally located 'Neighborhood Center' as identified on
the Master Plan map is a direct outcome of that process. In order to maintain the viability ofthe
neighborhood center as a mixed-use center with neighborhood services, the disturbances to
over 30% slopes to build infrastructure and buildings are requested in this area. The public
interest will be secured by concentrating disturbances in this area only so that a larger area of
open space is available for preservation and use.
Norlhwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 180(20 328
14-3.7 (F)(2) In granting variances or modifications, the Planning Commission may require such
Applicant: In disturbing the over 30% slopes and regrading areas 1 + 2, the developer at
development plan approval will provide a detailed soil analysis, recommendations on the
stability of native slopes and/or recommendations on stabilizing steeper slopes, and other
infonnation as required. As in the remainder of the development, care will be taken to ensure
that where drainageways are disturbed, a stormwater management strategy is thoughtfully
conceived and carefully implemented. In Area 2, the developer will work to retain portions of
the existing drainageway, stabilize slopes, minimize erosion, and maximize stormwater
management and infiltration on-site.
The master plan calls for an integrated stormwater management approach to maximize on-site
stormwater harvesting, infiltration, and reuse and minimize erosion and sedimentation from
excess stormwater discharged into existing arroyos. In addition, the plan calls for the
revegetation of arroyo corridors to curb erosion and provide wildlife habitat. The team believes
that with a proper integrated stonnwater management strategy on site, further erosion of the
delicate ecosystems in the arroyo corridors on site can be minimized.
)
;

329
VII. A'ITACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A: General Plan Amendment & Rezoning - Development Review Team Memoranda: <
~)',
".
1. DRT Conditions Summary Table

2. Traffic conditions memorandum, John Romero, June 2, 2009
3. Fire Department memorandum, Barbara Salas, April 21, 2009
4. Wastewater Management Division memorandum, Stan Holland, June 5,2009
a) Example - Aldea lift station maintenanace agreement
b) Example - Aldea lift station HOA declaration excerpt
5. Stormwater Management Division memorandum, Jim Salazar, March 23, 2009
a) Additional memorandum from Jim Salazar, March 16, 2009
6. Water Division memorandum, Bryan Snyder, May 22, 2009
a) Additional Water Division memorandum, Antonio Trujillo, March 23,2009
7. Trails Development Division memorandum, Bob Siqueiros, March 9,2009
8. Parks, Open Space, Watershed Division email, Fabian Chavez III, June 9, 2009
9. Solid Waste Division form, Randall Marco, February 12,2009
EXHIBIT B: Variances - Development Review Team memoranda

1. EscarpmentVariance-conditions memorandum, Charlie Gonzales, March 17,2009
2. Request for waiver from future Escarpment map - comments memorandum and attachments,
Wendy Blackwell, June 9, 2009
3. Terrain Management Variance - conditions memorandum, Risana Zaxus, June 9, 2009
EXHIBIT C: Additional Materials

1. Tano Road Association comments - submitted December 16,2008 and updated on March 16,
2009.
2. Casa Solana neighborhood comments - submitted March 23, 2009
3. Revised PRC zoning classification: amending ordinance approved by Planning Commission on
March 19, 2009
4. Northwest Quadrant pro forma memorandum, Kathy McCormick, May 22, 2009
Norlhwest Quadrant - Planning Commission: June 18, 2009 Page 20 of 20

330
General Plan Amend, .' (Case #M 2009-05)
Rezoning (CaS'e#ZA 2009-02)

I Residential will most likely be automated pick up - signage should be post6ed as to no parking on day of service Solid Waste Randall Marco
4 As the project builds-out, the Master Developer shaH require all developers, builders, contractors, homeowner's Stormwater Jim Salazar
S Prior to filing the Master Plan and approval of the Master Stormwater Management Plan, Chapter Six (6) Landscape Stormwater Jim Salazar
Architecture ofthe Design Standards shall be revised as per the attached March 16,2009 memo from Jim L.
shall be prepared and approved by city staff and a Notice of Intent (NO!) for coverage under the Construction General
I
J:>
9 Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of ISO feet shall be provided with width and turnaroUnd provision in
Fire Barbara Salas
Conditions of Approval- recommended by staff to June 18, 2009 Planning Commission Page 1 of 2
331
... - _... -. ---- .. --- -
11 Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fIre apparatus weighing Fire Barbara Salas
12 On page 55 ofthe Master Plan submittal (submitted on CD) under the title Homeowner's Association (HOA) - the Wastewater Stan Holland
to be developed to provide ownership ofthe lift station by the City of Santa Fe, and supplemented with an agreement
that requires the HOA to pay for all costs associated with maintenance, operation, repair and replacement ofthe sewer
included with this document and shall be incorporated into the HOA documents at the tome ofDevelopment submittal
15 All sewer plans including the design ofthe sewer lift station(s) and the sewer collection system consisting of but not Wastewater stall Holland
Wastewater Division at the time ofDevelopment submittal and review.
a. The Wastewater Division has cleaned, televised and evaluated the existing City public sewer lines that will convey .Management
if a portion ofthe existing City public sewer system serving the NWQ is improved. The phasing ofthe NWQ Project
will incrementally increase the sewage flows and allow for the determination of which phase ofthe development will
require the improvements prior to connecting to the existing City public sewer system. The calculated flows ofthe
proposed fIre station. It is estimated the cost of improvements to the existing public sewer system, utilizing pipe
type ofwork. The work would consist of increasing the existing sewer pipe size from 8" to 12" and improvement to
sewage discharge from the NWO Development shall be a requirement for approyal for each phase.ofthe NWQ
Condit. "~- .......-. of Approval- recommended by staff to June 18, 2009 Planning C\.~I:,1iss(on Page 2 of2 ...1')."
. .;;
\""" .'
332
( @ft~<IDi~~~~~m~@@·
o
DATE: June 2, ::!.009
TO: Lucas Cruse, Planning and Land Use Department
FROM: John Romero, Public Works Dpt/Engineering Divffraffic Engineering Sect~
SUBJECT: Case #1\'1-2009-05, Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment

Case #ZA-2009-02, Northwest Quadrant Rezoning
ISSUE
Request tor approval of a GeneraL Plan future land use map amendment to revise the
designation of 540± acres to include approximately 122 acres in a mix of Very Low
Density Residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre), Low Density Residential (3-7 dwelling
units per acres), Medium Densil}' Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre), High Density
Residential (12-29 dwelling units per acre), Neighborhood Center, and Transitional Mixed
Use; and approximately 418 acres of Parks and Open Space. Request for rezoning of said .
540± acres from R-l (Residential, 1 dwelling unit per acre) to PRe (Planned Residential
Community). The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan adopted as a part ofthis rezoning
includes supplemental Design Standards that vary from the Chapter 14 Land Development
Code. The propelty is located south ofNM 599 and west ofSt. Francis Drive.
The PWC postponed action on the proposed traffic plan, asking that staff come back to the
committee with additional infonnation. A revised traffic plan is set to go before t4e PWC
on June 8, 2009. An amendment to this memo will be provided after this meeting to reflect
the PWC's recommendations.
The Housing and Community Development Department (HCDD) is currently proposing to

move forward with just the "One Access Point: Ridgetop" scenario. Following is a review
of the most recent lra-nic ::malysis submitted on May 28,2009, which only looks at the
"One Access Point: Ridgetop" scenario, and the Master Plan dated February 2009,. The
comments below should he considered as Conditions of Approval to be addressed prior to
subsequent submiuals:
333
·F"'")
. /
1. The proposed ;V{;}ster Plan identifies 773 proposed dwelling units where as theTIA·
identifies 75~ dwelling \illiiS. Rc\"isions to either document shan be made to ensure
consiskncy.
2. The proposed \l:tster Plan identifies a projected 40,000 square feet of commercial
(nor including 1i\"C/work units) where as the TIA identities 35,000 square fee~ of
commercial in.)t including Live/Work units). Revisions to either documerit shaH
be made to ensure consi~tel\cy.
3. The traffic analysis assulIles land use restrictions tor the proposed live/work units
which \-vill require zoning rcslIictions. These zoning restrietions·willhave to b~
structured in ord~r to ensure the live/work units will function as shown in the
trame analysis. Proposed zoning restrictions will have to be reviewed by the
Planning unci I.and Use Department.
4. The traLlic i.llJalysis stales Ihm this access scenario is a viable option with
impron:J11~nlS to the i\\1599!Ridgelop interchange including bridge widening·
(rcconstlllction), signalization, and re-striping. The Santa Fe Estates development
is set to fund a good porrion of the signalization improvements. The PWD
recommends a condition or approval for the master plan stating that the North West
Quadrant pl"<'jcCl will be required 10 provide fair share monetary contributions
towards the nbove stated improvements. The amount of contribution shall be b~ed
on a cosr estimate reviewed <lnd approved by the City's PWD and the New Mexico: .
DepartmclIl of"Transponatiol1 (NMDOT).
5. A ·PM analysis of the proposed ·access scenario shall be provided.
6. A rcvi~cd TL\ shull be g.enerated which effectively consolidates all infonnation,
generating a complete .. L1Hi j ysis pertaining to the approved development plan and
access scenario.
7. Any improvel1lents performed on NM 599 or any of its intersections will have to··
receive ultimate approval ii-om the NMDOT.
If you have allY lj\.lcstiI) n:) or need ;.iny more lnformation~ teel free to contact me at 955-·', ~. ': 0·.
6638. Thank you.
M:\Engincering\Tr.allic El\gill~"1 h:: r",clion\O (-TIr\:.;i:!Ofl("NW Qwu!r.ml\TIA\I'C-NWQ 06-02·09.doc
Page2of2
334
DATE: April 21, 2009
TO: Lee DePietro, Housing Special Projects Manager

Claudia Meyer Horn, AlA, ASLA, LEED AP
FROM: ~~~
arbarasalas, Fir arshal
SUBJECf: Northwest Quadrant Access
The City of Santa Fe Fire Department would prefer that the Northwest Quadrant had full
access to the development; Option E. This option would make it safest for all members
of the community and allow for both emergency access and open evacuation in the event
of a catastrophic episode. Time is the key in all emergency situations. The potential is
high for impainnents to a restricted access by means of vehicle congestion, condition of
terrain, climatic conditions and other factors that could limit access.
If Option E is not chosen our requirements would be as follows:
Shall provide two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.
Shall ensUre access road has a minimum unobstructed width of20 feet or 26 feet
in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet
in height.
Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with
width and turnaround provision in accordance with Table DI03.4.
The installation of a security gate across a fire apparatus access road shall be
approved. Where a gate is installed, they shall have an approved means of
emergency operation. The security gate and the emergency operation shall be
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds and shall be
surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities.
335
MEMO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
E-MAIL DELIVERY
Date: June 5, 2009
From: Stan Holland, PE

Subject: Case #M 2009-05 and 06 and ZA 2009-06 Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) General Plan
Amendment, Rezoning and Escarpment Variance
The Wastewater Management Division has reviewed the information that has been submitted for
Master Plan Submittal and requires the Applicant to address the following comments: \!
1. On page 55 ofthe Master Plan submittal (submitted on CD) under the title Homeowner's
Association (ROA) - the second bullet point will need to be modified. At the time of
Development submittal and review, language will need to be developed to provide
ownership of the lift station by the City of Santa Fe, and supplemented with an agreement
that requires the HOA to pay for all costs associated with maintenance, operation, repair
and replacement oftlle sewer lift station(s) and appurtenances.
2. A sample sewer lift station maintenance agreement, to be used as a general template, is
included with this document and shall be incorporated into the agreement between the City
of Santa Fe and the NWQ Homeowners Association at the time ofDevelopment submittal
3. A sample Home Owners Association By-Laws and Covenants Agreement, to be used as a
general template outlining how the HOA shall delegate responsibility for the sewer lift
station within the HOA and with the City of Santa Fe is included with this document and
shall be incorporated into the HOA documents at the tome of Development submittal and
review. These documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office.
4. All sewer plans including the design of the sewer lift station(s) and the sewer collection
system consisting of but not limited to all public_gravity, low pressure and force main
sewer lines shall be reviewed and approved by the Wastewater Division at the time of
Development submittal and review.
5. The individual sewer grinder pumps, appurtenances and service lines are-the responsibility
of the individual property owners for maintenance, operation, repair and replacement.
M:\WD- Staff Case Management\Case_Management\Cruse_lucas\NorthwestQuadrant\DRT Responses\20090605-NWQ- 336

HollandMemo.doc
6. Comments related to the NWQ Development connecting to the existing City public sewer
system:
a. The Wastewater Division has cleaned, televised and evaluated the existing City
public sewer lines that will convey the flows from the proposed NWQ sewer lift
station connecting at Camino Crucitas. The existing City public sewer system will
convey the calculated increased sewage flows from the NWQ proposed sewer lift
station at full build-out if a portion of the existing City public sewer system serving
the NWQ is improved. The phasing of the NWQ Project will incrementally
increase the sewage flows and allow for the determination of which phase of the
development will require the improvements prior to connecting to the existing City
public sewer system. The calculated flows of the NWQ are based on a full build
out of758 residential units and 50,000sf of commercial space that includes the
proposed fire station. It is estimated the cost of improvements to the existing
public sewer system, utilizing pipe bursting technology, is $350,000 (Three
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) based upon a current City contract for this type of
work. The work would consist of increasing the existing sewer pipe size from 8"
to 12" and improvement to the manholes within Rio Vista Street and Solana Drive.
b. The entire cost for any required improvements to the existing City public sewer
system to serve the increased sewage discharge from the NWQ Development shall
be a requirement for approval for each phase of the NWQ Development at the time
of Development Review and Approval. The Wastewater Division is investigating
other remedial inlprovement alternatives that may cost less than estimated in item
(a.) above but does not have the required field data to evaluate at this time.
Please contact me at 955-4637 if you have any questions.
Attachments: Sample City-ROA Sewer Lift Station Maintenance Agreement

Sample ROA Covenant Agreement for Sewer Lift Station
cc: File
Lee Depietro
M:\l..UD- Staff case Management\Case_Management\Cruse_Lucas\NorthwestQuadrant\DRT Responses\2OO90605-NWQ-

HollandMemo.doc
337
2233325
7.2 BOARD MEETINGS.
a. Board's Responsibility. Except as specifically provided in this Arti~le or

elsewhere in this Neighborhood Declaration, the Board has been delegated the power.
and shall have the aUlhority to act on behalf of the Neighborhood Association ~nd to
make all decisions necessary for the operation of the Neighborhood Association, the
enforcement of this Neighborhood Declaration and the care of the NeighbOrh90d
Commons.
b. Quorum. Voting at a Board meeting requires the presence of a majority of

the directors, either in person, by telephone conference or, if allowed by law, by ·proxy.
If permitted by law, any action required to be taken by vote of the Board may be taken
in the absence of a meeting (or in the absence of a quorum at a meeting) by obtaining
the unanimous, written approval of the Board. '
7.3 RECORD KEEPING.
The Board shaH keep correct and complete minutes of all meetings and
proceedings, both of the Board and of the Neighborhood Association. The m.in~tes
shall be available for inspection by any Member.
ARTICLE 8: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BUDGET
To fulfill its obligation to maintain the Neighborhood Commons and the Common
Roads, the Board is responsible for the fiscal management of the Neighborhood
Association.
8.1 FISCAL YEAR.
The fiscal year of the Neighborhood Association shall begin January 1 of each,
a
year and end on December 31 of that year, unless the Board selects different fiscal
year.
8.2 BUDGET ITEMS.
The budget shall estimate total expenses to be incurred by the Neighborhood

Association in carrying out its responsibilities. These expenses'shall include, without
limitation, the cost of wages, materials, insurance premiums, services, sLlpplies' and
other expenses for the rendering of all services reqUired by this NeighborhOQd
Declaration or properly approved in accordance with this Neighborhood Declaration.
The budget may also inClude reasonable amounts, as determined by the Board, for
working capital for the Neighborhood Association and for reserves. ,'If the
Neighborhood Commons are taxed separately from the Lots, the Neighborhood
Association shall include such taxes as part of the budget. Fees for professional
management of the Neighborhood Association, accounting services, legal counsel and
other professional services may also be included in the budget.
Page 21
Afdea de Santa Fe Amended. Restated and Supplemental Neighborhood Dec1aralion
338
8.3 GENERAL RESERVI=S. 2233326
The Neighborhood Association may build up and maintain reserves for working
capital, contingencies and replacement, which shall be included in the budget and
collected as part of the annual General Assessment. Extraordinary expenses not
originalfy included in the annual budget Lhat may becom-e necessary during the year
shall be charged first against such reserves. Except in the event of an emergency,
reserves accumulated for one purpose may not be expended for any other purpose
unless approved by Owners representing a majority of votes in the Neighborhood
Association. If the reserves are inadequate for any reason, including nonpayment of
.any Member's Assessment, the Board may at any time levy a Special Assessment·in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9.4. If there is an excess of reserves :aUhe
end of the fiscal year and the Board so determines, the excess may be returned on ~.
prorata basis to all Members Who are current in payment of all Assessments due the
Neighborhood Association, or may be used to reduce the following years
Assessments, at the Board's discretion.
8.4 COUNTY ESCROW FUND.
a. Streets, Drainage Structures. The Neighborhood Association shall

establish and maintain a permanent County Escrow Fund, from which the
Neighborhood Association may authorize expenditure to cover the cost of
correction, repair or replacement of the Common Roads and of any drainage
detention and conveyance structure, whether located in the Commons· or on any
Lot. The County Escrow Fund shall be used for no other purpose. If the
Neighborhood Association fails after notice from Santa Fe County to make
necessary repairs to the Common Roads or to any drainage detention or
conveyance structure, then Santa Fe County shall be entitled to use the County
Escrow Fund to make such repairs as further provided in this Neighborhood
Declaration.
b. Account. The County Escrow Fund shall be held at a bank .Iocatep

in, or with a branch in, Santa Fe County. New Mexico. The Neighborhood
Association shall maintain a balance in the County Escrow Fund of at least ten
thousand dollars ($10,000).
c. Certification. Twice annually. on the dates required by the Land

Use Administrator, the Neighborhood Association shall certify to the Land Use
Administrator that the County Escrow Fund has been maintained with the·
prescribed funding. The certification shall include copies of bank statements
and shall be submitted with the inspection report provided in Section 4.3 of this
Neighborhood Declaration.
d_ Use bv Countv. The Land Use Administrator shall have the

authority and power to sign checks to draw funds from the County Escrow Fund
if the remediation plan in the inspection report is not instituted within thirty (3D)
days of the date the report is submilted and is not completed thirty (30) days
thereafter. The Land Use Administrator shall give written notice to the
Page 22
AkJea de Santa Fe Amended, Restated and Supplemental Neighborhood Declaration
339
2233327
Neighborhood Association and to the Board no less than three (3) business days
prior to exercising this power. The Land Use Administrator shall use the funds
to contract for services needed to complete the remediation plan.
e. Emergency Assessments. The Neighborhood Association shan

promptly replenish the County Escrow 'Fund to the prescribed amount. Should
there be insufficient funds in the County Escrow Funo to correct the condition, or
should the Neighborhood Association fail to promptly replace the funds to the
prescribed level, the County Land Use Administrator shall have. the power to act
on behalf of the Board to create an emergency Assessment as provided in
Section 9.4(b). The Land Use Administrator shall also have additional authority
and power lo enforce the emergency Assessment as provided in this
Neighborhood Declaration. The amount' of the emergency Ass'essment may
include the reasonable cost to remedy said conditions.
f. Amendment. The provisions in this Section 8.4 shall not be

modified without permission of the Land Use Administrator. If any modification is
made to other portions of this Neighborhood Declaration which affect lhe'Land
Use Administrator's authority and power to collect and enforce emergency
consent of the Land Use Administrator. If at any time Santa Fe County waive~
the requirement for 8:1 County Escrow Fund, the Board shall not be required to
comply with this section.
8.5 MAINTENANCE OF LIFT STATIONS..
a. The Neighborhocd Association shall be responsible ·to pay for all

costs of maintaining and repairing the main lift station constructed as part of
Phase lA, as shown on the Plat, and the small lift station planned for Phase 18;
as shown on the Masler Development Plan.
b. If the Neighborhood Association fails for any reason, to reimburse

the City of Sania Fe as provided in this Section 8.5, then each Lot Owner shall
become individt1al:y Hable to the City of Santa Fe for that Lot's proportion!3te
share of the outstanding obligation. - Said proportionate share shaJI be
determined by diViding the outstanding obligation amount by the number of
platted Lots.
c. Should any Lot Owner fail to pay an emergency Assessment

declared by the City of Santa Fe pursuant to Section 8.5(e)(v)(c), or should any
Lot Owner faii to directly reimburse the City of Santa Fe pursuant to .Section
8.5{b), the City of Santa Fe shall be entitled to terminate water service -to that
Lot. The City o~ Santa Fe must give at least ninety (90) days written notice prior
to such termination.
d. Eiectriciiy, gas, telephone and alarm services relating to the lift

stations shall be billed directly to the Neighborhood Association and such bills
shari be paid promptly and routinely.
Page 23
A/dea de Semta Fe Amended. F{eslaled and Supplemenlal Neighborhood Declaration
340
2233328
e. The City o~ Santa Fe shall own both lift stations and all sewer
mainlines. Th(~ se.....er service lines shall be the responsibility of each Lot
Owner, which ~hey serve. The City of Santa Fe Wastewater Management
Division will perform maintenance and repairs to said lines and to the lift
stations. The City of Santa Fe will absorb the cost of maintenance and repair to
the said lines flom normal revenue received through monthly billing· of its
customers. The City will be promptly reimbursed for repairs and maintenance to
the lift stations by the Neighborhood Association as follows:
(1) in January of each year, the Neighborhood Association shall

pay ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to the City of Santa Fe as advance payment
for the anticipated annual cost of a vactor truck and operator for eacb lift station
in operation. As the actual cost of the vactor truck and operator become known.
the City of Santa Fe Wastewater Management Division will instruct the
Neighborhood Association, in writing, to increase or to decrease the next annual
January payment so that tile City of Santa Fe will be adequately reimbursed for
these costs.
(li) When a lift station pump replacement becomes advisable, in

the discretion of the City of Santa Fe Wastewater Management Division, the
Neighborhood Association shall promptly reimburse the cost to the City of Santa
Fe.
(iii) The Neighborhood Association shall pay for connection to a

gravity sys:ern if one becomes available in Frijoles Arroyo and, at the Sole.
Discretion of the City of Santa Fe Wastewater Management Division,5uch a
connection becomes advisable.
(iv) No later than six (6) months after the main lift station is.
placed into operation, the Neighborhood Association shall establishan<~
maintain a permanent City Escrow Fund in the amount of ten thousand doll.ars
($10.000), frorr: which the Neighborhood Association shall authorize expenditure
to reimburse the City of Santa Fe for maintenance and repair to the main lif~
station. Within six {6} months after the small lift station in Phase IB is .placed
into operation, the amount in the City Escrow Fund shall be increased to twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000).
(v) The City Escrow Fund shall be used for no other purpo~e. If
the Neighborhood Association fails. after notice from the City of Santa Fe, to
reimburse the City for said maintenance and repairs, then the City of Santa Fe
shall be entitled to use the City Escrow Fund to reimburse itself as provided
below:
a) The City Escrow Fund shall be held at a bank located

in. or with a branch in, Santa Fe County. New Mexico. In January of each
year, the Neighborhood Association shall certify to the Director of the
Wastewaier Management Division that the City Escrow Fund has. been
maintained w1th the prescribed funding. The certification shall include
Page 24
AJdea de Santa Fe Amended. Restated <md Supp!emental Neighborhood Declaration
341
223332'9
copies of ban;< statements and shall be submitted to the City of Santa Fe
Wastewater Management Division.
;J) The City of Santa Fe shall have the authority and

power to sign checl-s to draw funds from the City. Escrow Fund if the
Neighborhood Association does not reimburse the City within thirty (30)
days of written notification of the amount of reimbursement required. The
City of Santa Fe shall give written notice to the Neighborhood Association
no less than three (3) business days prior to exercising this power.
c) The Neighborhood Association shall replenish the

City Escrow Fund to the prescribed amount. Should there be insufficiE3nt
funds in the City eScrow Fund to fully reimburse the City of Santa Fe, or
should the Neighborhood Association fail to replace the funds to the
prescribec level. the City of Santa Fe shall have tlie power to acton
behalf of the Board to -create an Emergency Assessment as provided:.in
Section 9.4(b) of this Neighborhood Declaration. The City of Santa Fe'
shall also have additionai authority and power to enforce the Emergency
Assessment as provided in this Neighborhood Declaration_ The amount
of Emergency Assessment may include the cost to fully reimburse the City
of Santa Fe and to replenish the account to the prescribed level. In_
addition to the authority noted above, the City of Santa Fe shall have the
authority to place a lien against individual Owners in the proportionate
amount of the outstanding obligation. Said proportionate share shall be
determined by dividing the outstanding obligation amount by the number
of platted Lots_
d) The provisions in Section 8.5 shall not be modified

without permission of tile City of Santa Fe. If any modification is made to
other portions of this Neighborhood Declaration which affect the' City of
Sa:1ta Fe's authority and power to collect and to enforce Emergency
consent of Hie City. If at any time, the City of Santa Fe waives the
requiremer.t for a City Escrow Fund, the Neighborhood Association shall
not be required to comply with Section 8.5(e)(iv).
(vi) The Village Cenler Association shall be responsible for a

percentage, as established in the Village Center Declaration, of the -,cost ,of
maintenance, repair and operation of the main sewer lift station located on Lot
238 utilized by the Vi!!age Center. Such percentage- shall be paid- by the Village'
Center Association in installments as determined by the Neighbprhood
Association.
8.6 PREPARATION AND APPROV..;L OF ANNUAL BUDGET.
8. Initial Budget. The Founder shall determine the initial bUdget for
the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2003.
Page 25
AJdea de Santa Fe Amended, Restated and Supplemental Neighborhood Dedaration
342
2233330
b. SL:osecuem Years. Each year thereafter, at least thirty (30) days
before the end of t~e fiscal year, the Board shall, by majority vote, adopt a
budget for the coming year and set the annual General Assessments at a level
sufficient to m~et the budget. At least two (2) weeks before the fiscal year to
w~ich the budget applies, the Board shall send to each Member a copy of the
budget in reasonablj itemized form, which shall include the amount of General"
Assessments payable by each Member.
c. ,t..oprov3i. If General Assessments are to be increased to greater

than fifteen percent (15%) of the previous year's General Assessment, which
was not a year in which General Assessments were guaranteed by the Founder,
and petitions signed by Owners representing at least ten percent (10%) of votes
in the Neighborhood :'\.sscciatlon request review within thirty (30) days after tne
budget is deiivered to Members, the Board shall call a Community Meeting to
present the bUdget and to answer any questions. After presentation, the budget
shall be deemed approved unless the percentage required to transact business
is present and trl6 budget is rejected by a majority of the Members present. If
the budget is rejected, the Board shall approve a new budget within ten (10)
days and send a copy to each Member.
8.7 EFFECT OF FAILU~E TO PfSEPARE OR ADOPT BUDGET.
The Board's ranure 0;' delay in preparing or adopting th~ annual budget for any
fiscal year shali not waive or release a Member's obligation to pay General
Assessments whenever the amount of such Assessments is finally determined. In the
absence of an annual Neighborhood Association budget each Member shall continue
to pay the Assessment at t~le rate established for the previous fiscal period until notified
otherwise.
8.8 CAPITAL IMPRO\~.ME~T~~.
Any substantial capital improvement to the Neighborhood Commons approved

by the Board must bE: ratified by Owners representing a majority of votes in the
Neighborhood Associatio:l. If triO substantial capital improvement is approved by the'
Members, the Board shail determine whether it shall be paid from General
Assessments or by Special Assessment. A capital improvement shall be considered
substantial if the cost to the Ne:ghborhood Association of the improvement is more than
six percent (6%) of the Neig;lborhood Association's annual budget, or if, when added. to
other capital improvements fer the fiscal year, totals more than ten percent (10%) ofth~
Neighborhood Assodatior.'s ann:.Jal budget. However, any repair or replacement of
existing improvements shall not be considered a capital improvement. Approval of the
Architectural Review Committee is reqUired for all capital improvements. This
paragraph shall not limit lhe r:ght of the Founder to make improvements to the
Commons at Founder's exoense.
8.9 COMMUNITY CENTER.
The Commun;ty Center buHding to be located on Lot 90 within the Village Center
Page 26
AJdea de Santa Fe Amendec. !~&sl;?tad Ena' Supplemental Neighborhood Declaration
343
22333"31
shall be owned by the Neighborhood Association, subject to a mortgage. The
assessment(s) againsieacli Lot upon which a Residential Unit may be constructed may
include a payment of principal and interest to service the mortgage on the Community
Center building, which will not exceed fifteen dollars ($15.00) per month per Residential
Unit that may be constructed. Founder waives its right to amend such latter
assessment portion limitatlon. The Neighborhood Association shall make the
Community Center build!ng available for reasonable l appropriate use at fair market
value rent. Such uses include use by the Village Center Association for its meetings
and by the Founder for the purpose of promoting the sales of Lots within A1dea de
Santa Fe.
'8.10 COMPOUND EXPENSES.
a. Capital Improvements. Any Compound may, by Members

representing two-thirds (2i3) of the Assessment interests within that Compound
and approval of the 8ca:d, vote to assess themselves for capital improvements
to the Compour.d's common areas that will primarily benefit that Compound.
b. A<.1ditiorlai Services. Any Compound may, by vote of Members

representing a majority vcte of the assessment interests within that Cpmpound
and approval of the Board, vote to assess themselves for maintenance or
services in addition to those _normally provided by the Neighborhood
Association.
c. Nec.essary Maintenance. If a Compound with private common

areas fails to maintain those areas, the cost of maintenance may be assessed to
the Owners as providr~d by Section 10.9(d).
d. As§_essQ1GJ:t _~_ Any Assessment so approved shall be

assessed to ali Own3'-s within that Compound as an Individual Lot Assessment.
8.11 ACCOUNTS.
Reserves shall be kepi separate from other Neighb9rhood Association funds,

either in a single account for all reserves or separated by purpose. All other 'sums
collected by the Board with respect to Assessments and charges of all types may be·
commingled in a si!1gle fund.
ARTlCLE 9: COVENANTS FOR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS

The cost of fulfilling the Neighborhood Association's financial -obligations' is
divided among the Memoers by means of Assessments. TO assure the Neighborhood
Association of a reliable source of funds and to protect those Members who ·contribute
their share, Assessme:;ts ara mandatory and are secured both by a lien on the Lot and
the Merr.ber's personal obEgation.
Page 27
Aldea de Santa Fe Amended. Rf:slctpc' and -5upplemeniaf Neighborhood Declaration
344
AGREEI\'lENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF LIFT STATIONS
IN ALDEA DE SA1~TA FE
This Agreement is entered into this 13~of ~m bw ,2000. by and between the City_
of Santa Fe, a municipal corporation, and Aldea, LLC, a New Mexico limited liability company.
RECITALS
A. In December, 1998, the Santa Fe City Council voted unanimously to extend its utility
service area boundary to include the Frijoles Village site; and
B. In December, 1999, Frijoles Village Ltd. Co. received unanimolls approval of its Final
Plat from the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners; and
C. In June, 2000, Frijoles Village Ltd. Co. changed its name to "Aldea, LLC," and. the name
of Frijoles Village to "Aldea de Santa Fe;" and
D. The City Wastewater Management Division has approved of the design and engineering
of the wastewater conveyance systems submitted by Aldea, LLC for Aldea de Santa Fe;
and
E. Aldea, LLCshaH record the plat for Phase lA of Aldea de Santa Fe and shall create the
Aldea de Santa Fe Homeowners Association within 30 days ·after tbe plat is recorded.
) F. All o\'mers of ullits within the Aldea de Santa Fe are members of the Homeowners
Association and shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement.
AGREEMENTS
NOW, TIIEREFORE, it is mutu<ll1y agreed between the parties:
1. Immediately upon recording of the plat [or Phase IA of Aldea de Santa Fe and the creation of
the Aldea de Santa Fe Homeowners Association (hereafter "Association"), Aldea. LLe shall
cause the Association to adopt and to ratify this Agreement. Aldea, LLC shall deliver the
resolution ratifying this Agreement with this Agreement signed by the president of the
Association to the Director of the City Wastewater Management Division.
2. A1dea, LLC shall include the covenants attached to the Agreement as ExhibIt A in the Aldea
de Santa Fe Neighborhood Declaration of Charter, Easements. Covenants and Restrictions as
Section 8.5.
3. The financial arrangements regarding maintenance ofthe lift stations are as follows:
(a) The Association shall be liable for all costs of maintaining and repairing the main
lift station constructed as part of Phase lA, and the small lift station planned for Phase lB.
345
)
(b) If the Association fails for a.'1y reason. to reimburse the City as provided in ,./
Exhibit A (Section S.5 of the Aldea de Santa Fe Neighborhood Declaration of Charter.

Easements, Covenants and Restrictions) then each lot owner shall become individually liable to
the City for that lot's proportionate share of the outstanding obligation. Said proportionate share
shall be determined by dividing the outstanding obligation amount by the number of platted lots.
Manager pursuant to Section 8.5{e)(iv), or should any lot 6".'mer fail to directly reimburse the
City pursuant to Section 8.5Cb), the City shall be entitled to terminate water service to that lot.
Cd) The City .of Santa Fe shall own both lift stations and all sewer mainlines. The
sewer seIVice lines shall be the responsibility of each individual lot owner which it serves. The
City Wastewater Management Division will perform maintenance and repaiI;S to said lines and to
the liJl stations. The City of Santa Fe will pay for maintenance and repair to the said lines from
normal revenue received through monthly billing of its customers. The City will be promptly
reimbursed by the Homeowners Association for repaiI;S and maintenance to the lift stations as
follows:
(i) In January of each year. the Association shall pay $10,000 to the Cjty of Santa Fe
as advance payment [or the anticipated annual cost of a vactor truck and ·operator for each
lift station in operation. A.s the actual cost of the ~actor tnlck and operator become
known. the Wastewater Management Division will instruct.the Association. in writing. to
increase or to decrease the next arnlUal January paYment so that the City will be
adequately reimbursed for these costs.
(ii) When a lift starion pump replacement becomes advisable, in the sole discretion of
the City Wastewater Management Division, the Association shall promptly reimburse. the
cost to the City within 30 days ofl1otipcation ofthe cosL
(iii) The Association shall pay for connection to a gravity system if the one becomes
available in Frijoles Arroyo and, in the sole discretion of the City Wastewater
Management Division. such a cOImectloll becomes advisable.
(iv) No later tban six months after the main lift station is placed into operation. the
Association shall establish and maintain a pennanent escrow fund in the amount of
$10,000, from which the Association shall authorize expenditure to reimburse the City of
Santa Fe fOJ: maintenance and repair to fhe main lift station. Within six months after the
smalJ lift station in Phase ill is placed into operation. the amount in the escrow ftmd shall
(v) The escrow fund shall be used for no other purpose. If the Association fails. after
notice from the City of Santa Fe, to reimburse the City for said maintenance and repairs.
then the City of Santa Fe shaH be entitled to use the escrow fund to reimburse itselfas
provided below;
Page 2
346
2.) The escrow fund sh~lll be held at a bank where the City holds it accounts
in S,mta Fe, New Mexico. In january and July of each year, the Association shall
fund has been maintainc;>A! with the prescribed funding. The certification shall
b) The City Manager shall have the authority and power to sign chel;:ks to
within 30 days of \vottcn notification by certified mail, return receipt requested.
of the al1101mt of reimbursement required. The City Manager shall give written
notice to the Association no Icss than three working days prior to exercising this
power.
c) The Association shall replenish the escrow fund to the prescribed amount
Should there be insufficient funds in the escrow fund to fully reimburse the City.
or should the Association fail to replace the funds to the prescn'bed level, the City
Manager shaH have the power to acl on behalf of the Board to create' an
Emergency Assessment as provided in Exhibit A, §8.5(e)(iv). The City Manager
shall also have additional anthority and power to enforce the Emergency
Assessment as provided in Exhibit A. §8.5(e)(iv). The amount of Emergency
Assessment may include the cost to. fully reimburse the City and to replenish the
account to the prescribed level. In addition to the authority noted above, City
shall have the authority to place a lien" against individual hOIIieowners in the
) proportionate a.--nount of the outstanding obligation. Said proportionate share shall
be detemlined by dividing the ontstanding obligation amount by" the number of
platted lots.
d) The provisions 1I1 this Exhibit A, Sections 8.5 and 9.4(0) shall not be
modified WiU10lLl penllission of the City Manager. If any modifiCation is made to
other poniolls of this Deciaration which affect the City Manager's authority and
power to collect and to enforce Emergency Assessments, said modifications shall
not be effective without (he written consent of the City Manager. If at any time,
,the City Council waives tbe requirement for an escrow fund, the Association shall
not be required to comply with Section 8.5(e)(iii).
4. This Agreement shall remain in fuil force and effect until terminated by the mutual written
consent of the City of Santa Fe and the Association.
5. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the Stale ofNew Mexico.
6. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and any changes hereto shall not
be binding unless made in writing and signed by both parties.
Page 3
347
CITY OF SANTA FE:
~~do
L~~ELG AYOR
ATTEST;
APPROVED TO AS TO FORM:
CITY OF SANTA FE: .<\LDEA, LLC.:
~1lC:Y~i.t'
PETER A. D\\'YER: CITY Ol~'\IEY
~~
ARTHUR FlELDS,
AUTHORIZED AGENT
ADOPTED M'D RAT[FIED BY THE

. :~OMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION:
~dd > President
on this Z"7..-aayof ;</t>I~ £L-:, 2000.
Page 4
348
EXHIBIT A
8.5 Maintenance of Lift Slations.
(a) TIle Association shall be liable for all costs of maintaining and repairing the main
lift station conslmcted as part of Phase lA, and the small lift station planned for Phase lB.
(b) ff the Association fails for any reason, to reimburse the City as provided in this
Section 8.5, then each lot owner shall become individually liable to the City for that lot's
proportionate share of the outstanding obligation. Said proportionate share shall be determined
by dividing the outstanding obligation amount by the number ofplatted lots. - -
Manager pursuant to Section 8.5(e)(iii), or should any lot owner fail to directly reimburse the
City pursuant to Section 8.5(b). the City shall be entitled to tenninate water service to that lot.
(d) -Electricity, gas, telephone and alarm shall be billed directly to the Homeowners
Association and such bills shaH be paid promptly and routinely.
(e) The Cit)' of Santa Fe shall OVv-ll both lift stations and aU sewer mainlines. The
sewer service lines shall be the responsibility of each lot owner-which it sel~es. The City
Wastewater Management Division will perform maintenance and repairs [0 said lines and to the
lift stations. T1)e City of Santa Fe wil J absorb the cost of maintenance and repair to the said lines
from nonnal revenue received through monthly billing of its customers. The City will be
promptly reimbursed for repairs and maintenance to me Lift stations by the Homeowners
Association as fol!ow~:
(i) 10 Jalluary of each year, the Association shall pay $10,000 to the City of Santa Fe
as advance payment for the anticipated annual cost of a vactar tlUck and operator for each
lift station in operation. As the actual cost of the vactor truck and operator become
known, the Wastewater Management- Division will instruct the Association. in writing. to
increase or to decrease the next annual January payment so that the City will be
adequateiy reimbursed for these costs.
(ii) When 2 Iif! station pump replacement becomes advisable, in the discretion of the
City Waslewmer Management Division, the Association shall promptly reimburse the
cost to the City
(iii) The Association shall pay for connection to a gravity system if one, becomes
available in frijoles Arroyo and, in the sole discretion of the City Wastewater
(iv) No later than six months after the main Ii 11 station is placed irito operation, the
Association shall establish and m"aincain a permanent escrow fund in the amount of
$10,000, trom which the Association shaH authorize expenditure to reimburse the City -of
page 1
349
Santa Fe for maintenance and repair to the main lift station. Within six months after the
small Ii r. station in Phase lB is placed into operation, the amount in the escrow fund shall
/"'l
(v) The escrow fund shall be used for no other purpose. If the Association fails, after
notice from the City of Santa Fe, to reimburse the City for said maintenance and repairs,
then the CitY of Santa Fe shall be entitled to use the escrow fund to reimburse itself as
provided below:
a) The escrO\.... fund shall be held at a bank located in, or with a branch in)
Sanla Fe County, New Mexico. In January of each year, the Association shall
certify to the Director of the Wastewater Management Division- that the escrow
fund has been maintained with the prescribed funding. Tne certification shall
within 30 days of \-\'fittcn nOTification of the amount of reimbursement required.
The City Manager shall give written notice to the Association no-less than three
working days prior to exercising this power.
c) The Association shall replenish the escrow fund to the prescribed amount.
Should there be insufficient funds in the escrow fund to fully reimburse the City,
or should the Association fail to replace the funds to the prescribed level, the City
Manager shall have the power to act 01'1 behalf of the Board to create an
Emergency Assessment as provided in Section 9.4(b) of this Declaration. The
City Manager shall also. have additional authority and power to enforce the
Emergency Assessment as provided in this Declaration.· The amount of
Emergency Assessment may include the cost to fully reimburse the City and to
replenish the aCCOunt to the prescribed level. In addition to the authority noted
above, the City -shall have the authority to place a lien against individual
homeowners in the proportionate amount of the outstanding obligation. Said
proportionate share shall be determined by dividing the outstanding obligation
amount by the number of platted lots.
d) The pro,:,ision in this Section 8.5 and 9.4(b) shall not be modified without
pennission of the City Manager. If any modification is made to other portions of
this Declaration which affect the City Manager's authority and power to collect
and to enforce Emergency Assessments, said modifications shall not be. effective
withoUL the written consent of the City Manager. ff at any time, the
City Council
waives the requirement tor an escrow fund. the Association shall not be required
to comply with Section 8.5(e)(jii).
page 2
350
(CJfL~~ @ff ~~~ J]'@9~@'\W J.R1IT~@@
memo
TO: Lucas A. Cruse,
RE: Case #ZA 2009-02. Northwest Quadrant Rezoning.
Based on review of the submitted documents, including Master Plan documents and Design Standarqs
and following communications with the applicant, please attach the following condition of approval:
Storrnwater Management
A Master Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the City of Santa Fe for its approval. The
plan will be submitted prior to approval of any Development Plan or subdivision application and prior to
the approval for the construction of infrastructure. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the project
shall conform to the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and
City of Santa Fe Terrain and Stormwater Management and Storrnwater Illicit Discharge Control
ordinances. The Master Stormwater Management Plan shall be designed in conformance with
applicable City of Santa Fe Stormwater policies and shall treat stormwater runoff "as a valuable natural
resource in Santa Fe, a community that is prone to drought, by encouraging water collection and
Infiltration on site". Policy guidance shall be taken from documents including the General Plan,
Stormwater Management Plan, Terrain and Stormwater Management Regulations and all other
applicable, adopted City of Santa Fe Stormwater Management and Water Conservation policy
documents. At a minimum the Plan will identify practices to treat, store and infiltrate runoff onsite before it
can affect water bodies downstream. Additionally, the plan will include innovative site designs that
reduce imperviousness and smaller-scale low impact development practices dispersed throughout the
site, in order to achieve flow reductions, reduce erosion and sedimentation, reduce stormwater pollutants,
improve water quality and mitigate increased maintenance and repair requirements to pUblic stormwater
infrastructure.
As the project builds-out, the Master Developer shall require all developers, builders, contractors,
homeowner's associations, and all stakeholders, to conform to these city policies in their design
philosophies and development and maintenance programs and the Master Storrnwater Management Plan
shall provide gUidance.
Prior to filing the Master Plan and approval of the Master Stormwater Management Plan, Chapter Six (6)
Landscape Architecture of the Design Standards shall be revised as per the attached March 16,2009
memo from Jim L. Salazar to Lee Depetrio. This chapter also includes specific information on grading
and drainage as well as habitat enhancement in order to implement EPA's Best Management Practices.
Further, prior to any disturbance or grading of terrain, an appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by city staff and a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage
under the Construction General Permit (CGP) shall be filed with the EPA.
351
City of Santa Fe Memo
TO: lee Depietro, HCDD Project Manager
FROM: Jim l. Salazar, Stormwater Management Division Director
RE: Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Design Standards
The following revisions to Chapter 6: landscape Architecture are needed to reflect current city
policy regarding the treatment of stormwater.
Page 108
In the first column, insert a new bullet containing a principle:
• The use of harvestedstormwater runoff in both passive and active systems, as a principle
means of irrigation is strongly encouraged;
In the second column, line 14, before the sentence that begins with Where necessary, insert:
When possible. passive rainwater harvesting techniques will be utilized to provide a means for
stonnwater infiltration and primary irrigation.
Page 109
In the second column, under Zone 1 - Oasis Zone: Insert language stating Active rainwater
harvesting techniques should be the primary source of irrigation water. Passive rainwater
harvesting techniques are encouraged where landscaping is a minimum of ten feet from structure
foundations.
In the second column, under Zone 2 - Transition Zone: Insert language containing the same
language as listed above.
In the second column, under Zone 3 - Xeric Zone: Insert language stating Passive rainwater
harvesting should be the primary source of irrigation water.
Page 110
In the first column, in Water Conservation Definitions: Restate storrnwater definition so that it
reads Stonnwater refers to water which results from stonn runoff and snowmelt. It can result in
flooding and the transfer of water pollutants. It should be mitigated through col/ection and control
while being treated as a sustainable. valuable natural resource. Collection and control processes
should include rainwater harvesting for irrigation and infiltration through the use of Low Impact
Development techniques.
352
Page 111
In the second column, second bullet, after the word installation insert: Rain gardens and other
methods of passive water harvesting techniques are encouraged as a primary source of irrigation
for landscaped areas in the public rights-of-way.
Page 112
In the first column, fifth bullet, after the 'word properties, insert: except in common areas, pUblic
rights-of-way and other similar situations as approved by the City.
In the second column, insert the following bullets:
• Rain gardens shall be set back a minimum often feet from structure foundations.
• Low Impact Development stormwater techniques shall be utilized as is practicable to
mimic natural hydraulics.
Page 116
Insert a bullet:
• Rain gardens are encouraged for on-lot landscapes.
Page 120
In the first column, under Standards, insert a fifth bullet:
• Provide stormwater management techniques that will reduce runoff. Runoff shall be
passively harvested in Open Space where possible.
Page 121
In the second column, ninth bullet under Standards, after the word pavers, insert: Permeable
pavers and porous pavements are encouraged in Large Parks and Open Space where paving is
required.
Add a bullet:
encouraged in Large Parks and OpenSpace.
Page 123
Add a bullet:
encouraged in Neighborhood Parks.
Page 124
Add a bullet:
encouraged in Pocket Parks.
353
Page 127
In the second column, under Standards, insert a bullet:
• The use of tree boxes, rain gardens and other Low Impact Development techniques is
encouraged for irrigation and stormwater infiltration.
Page 128
In column two, second bullet, after the word pavers, insert: and porous pavements, after the word
zones, insert parking lots, and . ...
The Stormwater Management condition write-up that was emailed to me on March 11, 2009 is
acceptable.
Please call me at X2132 if you would like to discuss this. Thank you.
354
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- -
MEMORANDUM
To: Lucas Cruse, Senior Planner \

Phinning Department
From: Brian Snyder, Acting Director B k.?
Water Division
Date: May 22, 2009
Re: Northwest Quadrant - History: Proposed Water Budget
DRTReview
On June 18, 2008 Kathy McCormick presented a request for resolution designating water
rights for the city's Northwest Quadrant Project to the Public Utilities Commission. This
was approved as presented.
On August 12,2008 the proposed water budget was submitted to the Water Division wi1h
a request for review and approva1.
On September 8, 2008 a presentation ofthe proposed water budget was made to the
Public Works Committee on behalf of the water department. Below is a summary of
)
/ the estimated demands and requirements included in the budget:
Non-residential (restaurants, conunercial, office) 31.60 afy

Residential 167.21 afy
Plus 10% line loss 20.55 afy
Total Site Water Budget: 226.06 afy
Further, staffrecommended the NWQ master developer be required to install

stoffilwater capture and reuse, greywater capture and reuse and ultra-low flow
plumbing and appliances in the development. The proposed water budget was
approved as presented and all of these recommendations were included in the
NWQ Master Plan submission.
Resolution No. 2008-89 designating water rights for the project were passed by 1he City
Council on October 6, 2008. This resolution designated up to 118.14 acre feet per year
of the 131.9 feet per year city owned water right in the Buckman well field offset water
right portfolio to the project. Specifically, this water is to be used for public amenities,
housing meeting the Santa Fe Homes Program requirements and Step-Up Housing for
moderate income homebuyers.
Each phase will also require a water budget that is phase specific. It should be noted that
gray water re-use and stonn water capture are not used as off-sets in the water budgets.
355
I
TO: Lucas Cruse, Land Use Planner Senior, Land Use Department
FROM: Antonio Trujillo, Water Division Engineer
SUBJECT: Northwest Quadrant Master Plan
I have reviewed the subject case. The conceptual water plan submitted accounts for the pressure
zone changes and is acceptable in concept. The preliminary water budget submitted is
acceptable. As the project evolves, the plan may need to be refined.
cc: Electronic Master Plan Project File

)
356
~1t~~~~~~
e 0
Date: March 9, 2009
Via: Leroy Pacheco, Trails Development Section superViso~

From:
Re: NWQ Trails "Action Plan" - Wilson & CO.
ITEM & ISSUE:
The purpose of this memo is to provide a brief summary of the above referenced Trails
Project. The City Public Works Departnient contracted Wilson And Co. to perfonn an in
) house trails inventory of past, current and future activities related to trails taking place in
the entire NWQ.
Many stakeholders interviews were conducted (30 individuals), including city and county
staff, community organizations (i.e., SF Conservation Trust Steward Coord.), trail users
and surrounding property owners. This project has resulted in an "Action Plan" for the
entire quadrant (2600 acres)
The "Action Plan" includes the following (5) priorities

1. Trails Master Plan (Future development of a TMP is not yet assigned,
however it will need to coordinate with the City's Master Plan ror the NWQ.
2. Signage
3. Connectivity
4. Access Control
5. Trash Clean up
On February 26,2009 the Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee held a "public hearing,
the findings along with the priorities were presented. Minutes of the meeting will be
available in the city clerk's office on March. 12th •
If you have any questions or comments please. can or write 955-6977.
SSOOt.PM5-7195
357
Voice Mail Message (6583) ( 1 minute 12 seconds) Page 1 of1
CRUSE, LUCAS A.
From: CHAVEZ, FABIAN V

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:08 AM
To: CRUSE, LUCAS A.
SUbject: RE: Voice Mail Message (6583) (1 minute 12 seconds)
Lucas
I have briefly reviewed the NWQ Trails Priority Plan as prepared by Wilson. I also visit the site from time
to time regarding maintenance issues; so here is how I presently see it from a parks/trails and maintenance
perspective.
• Development of short and long range plans are somewhat restricted until the City makes a decison on
what development if any, will occur in the section south of 599. Development will of course affect
connectivity, pressure from contiguous development, trail alignment, traffic access and parking,
security, and long range conservation efforts
• In my opinion, there may be too many trail and connector trails currently existing and planned. a few
of the existing trails may have to be realigned as they evolved in without concern for topograpy
resulting in moderate to severe damage from use and erosion.
• A comprehensive signage program should be initiated sooner than later. Education of current public
users may go a long way towards protection and security in this area. At the present time many users
are uncertain as to allowed access and land use in the entire NWQ.
• Identification of and planning for removal of accumulated trash sites should be initiated. this effort is
too extensive for existing city resources within the public works department. This cleanup effort
should be outsourced and charged to parks bond funding.
• An increase in a police presence will be required just as soon as the entire area is fenced, access points
identified and signage in place. An organization of park volunteer rangers who are intersted and
trained in stewardship and monitoring should be considered in an effort to increase security from a
visual sense in this vast area. A system or protocol for reporting to and working with the Police and
law enforcement could go a long way in leveraging citizen volunteers in an effort to protect and
develop a sense of saftey for users.
• Some consideration for additional off road parking, some shade structure for small gatherings,
organizational use and educational opportunities shoudl be considered along with an adequate
bathroom facility. These ammenities could be part ofa longe range plan for later funding as current
users do not currently expect these ammentities. Increased pressure from development density,
tourism and educational opportunities may require a higher degree of planning and development for
state. and national park type features within an Urban/wildland interface.
• To accomodate for and prevent further degradation to the land I highly recommend planning for
existing legal and illegal off road use for BMX and motorinzed users.
Fabian
--Original Message--
From: CRUSE, LUCAS A.
Sent: Mon 6/812009 4:56 PM
To: CRAVEZ, FABIAN V
Cc:
Subject: Voice Mail Message (6583) ( 1 minute 12 seconds)
«Avaya Unified Messenger»
This voice message was created by Avaya Modular Messaging. To listen to this voice message, save the attached
06/10/2009
358
..i ~
Case # M 2009-05. Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment. Lee DePietro, agent for the City of Santa Fe
Housing and Community Development Department, requests approval of a General Plan future land use map amendment
to change the designations of 540± acres. The property is located south of NM 599, west of the Santa Fe Estates
Case # ZA 2009-02. Northwest Quadrant Rezoning. Lee DePietro, agent for the City of Santa Fe Housing and
Community Development Department, requests rezoning of 540± acres from R-l (Residential, 1 dwelling unit per acre) to
PRC (planned Residential Community). The property is located south of NM 599, west of the Santa Fe Estates
development, and north and west ofthe Casa Solana neighborhood. (Lucas Cruse, case manager)
Case #M 2009-06. Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance. Lee DePietro, agent for the City of Santa Fe Housing
and Community Development Department, requests an escarpment variance to allow the alignment of Ridgetop Road to
encroach on the ridgetop subdistrict to provide sufficient distance from an existing PNM switching station. The location
of the requested variance is along the proposed Ridgetop Road alignment between Camino de Los Montoyas and NM 599.
(Lucas Cruse, case manager) -
Name: Lee DePietro Agent! Owner # 955-6662 FAX 955-6655

Housing and Community Dev.Dept.
Submittal date February 9, 2009 Email Imdepietro@Santafenm.gov
Request additional submittals Planning Commission date April 2, 2009
}February 19, 2009
DRT final Comments by March 9, 2009
:::J PDR Case File/Case Manager (see below) o Water Division Engineer (Antonio Trujillo x 4266)
=:J Fire Inspector(s) (Barbara Salas x 3126) o Subdivision Engineer (RB Zaxus x 6641)
:J Traffic Division Engineer (John Romero x 6638)
~
ffice of Affordable Housing (fed Swisher x6574)
:J Waste Water Division Engineer (Stan Holland x 4637) Solid Waste Div. Engineer (Randal Marco x 2228)
:J PW/ Engineering Division (Chris Ortega x 6626) Trails & Open Space (Bob Siqueiros x 6977)
:::J Landscaping (Charlie Gonzales x 6955)
COMMENTS· .
" .
:"~M~tt"a-f-'
l e/.'/t- U (J :1_ ( '-La
Case Manager: Lucas Cruse x6583

Tamara Baer x 6580 tbaer@santafenm.gov
Wendy M. Blackwell x 6127 wmblackwell@Santafenm.gov Daniel A. Esquibel x 6587 daesquibel@santafenm.gov
Charlie D. Gonzales x 6955 cdgonzales@santafenm.gov Patrick Nicholson x 6888 pdnicholson@santafenm.gov
.,Lucas Cruse x 6583 lacruse@santafenm.gov Greg T. Smith x 6957 gtsmith@santafenm.gov
. Donna J. Wynant x 6325 djwynant@santafenm.gov RB Zaxus x 6641 rbzaxus-onaxis@Santafenm.gov
359
/'1""\J
~fi'lW<IDff'~~~~~~@@
r~'
/

e 0
TO: Lucas Cruse. Land Use Senior Planner
Current Planning Division
cc: RB. Zaxus. P.E.. CFM, City Engineer

Technical Review Division. (fr
FROM: Charlie Gonzales. CFM, Technical Revi~w CoordinatorvJ~VI
Technical Review Division
U: Escarpment Comments for case #M 2009-06

Northwest Quadrant Escarpment Variance '
Staff reviewed a 27-sheet "Master Plann dated February 9. 2009. as 22-page '~aster Plan
Application,n dated February, 2009, and a 3-page <'Variance Request to the Escarpment
Overlay District".
General Background
The applicant is requesting a variance to Article 14-5.6 (0) (1) ofthe Escarpment
Overlay District Ordinance. to allow the alignment ofRidgetop Road to be constructed
within the Ridgetop Subdistrict ofthe Escarpment Overlay District. The majority ofthe
proposed road is out ofthe Ridgetop Subdistrict, however. a portion ofthe road fronting
the PNM station is proposed to be in the Ridgetop.
According to the applicant, 15.000 square feet ofthe road is proposed to be located
within the Ridgetop Subdistrict, including an intersection of a new road which runs north
and south. The proposed square footage is not based on a grading plan prepared by a
professional engineer. The applicant is requesting the variance to construct a portion of
the in the road in the ridgetop. provide sufficient distance from an existing PNM
switching station and to obtain the right to build the. South Ridgetop Road extension
which win eventuany connect with Camino De Las Montoyas. The PNM switching
station is not located in the Escarpment Overlay District.
The Escarpment code states that "for all lots subdivided or resubdivided after February
26. 1992, development in the Ridgetop Subdistrict of the Escarpment Overlay District,
other than driveway access and utilities. is prohibited". Although it is unclear what
Case #M2009-06. Escarpment RevifnVfor Escarpment Variance Page 10f3
EXHIBIT 1) 360
review process will be required, it is most likely that the current property will be re-
platted to respond to the Master Developer and/or City project requirements. Staff
comments are based on the assumption that all of the property within the Northwest
Quadrant will be subdivided or resubdivided and therefore, the regulations for post
February 26, 1992 projects will apply.
It is important to note that currently, a remap of the Escarpment Overlay District is

underway. It is anticipated that a draft of the remap will be presented to the community
late this summer. Then the remap will move through the Planning Commission, City
Council Committees and City Council by the end ofthe calendar year. The remap project
will likely have a significant impact on the escarpment overlay district mapping in the
area ofthe Northwest Quadrant. The applicant was made aware that the map changes
would apply when the development plan and building permits are submitted.
Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends that the project proceed forward with the following conditions of approW1:
1. In order to substantiate the slope infonnation in the Request for Variance t~

the Escarpment Overlay District packet, a slope analysis map, certified by a
New Mexico licensed surveyor must be submitted.
2. The location ofthe Escarpment Overlay District must be shown on the survey
plats sheets (S1-01, S1-02.S1-03 and S1-04). Distinguish between the
Foothills Subdistrict and the Ridgetop Subdistrict. The surveyor can do a
revision to the existing boundary survey plat which would include a revision
statement, the mapping and a note that identifies reference to the official
Escarpment Overlay District digital map.
3. ~bel existing and proposed road names on all affected maps.
4. Show compliance with the Ecological Resource Overlay Protection District

regulation as per SFCC 14-5.9. Generally, development within the District is
limited to trails, passive recreation, restoration, safety-related arroyo crossings
and park maintenance facilities. Compliance with this code section should be
shown on a separate sheet in order to clarify the detail ofthe criteria being
met. However, because it is an overlay zoning District, it also must be shown
on the plat. As above, the surveyor can do a revision to the existing boundary
survey plat which would include a revision statement, the mapping and a note
that identifies the detail on a separate sheet ofthe submittal.
Staff recommends that the following boundaries be included in the District for
the Northwest Quadrant Project, as per 14-5.9(B);
a. The areas shown on the General Plan Future Land Use Map designated as
"Open Space;"
Case #M2009-tJ6, Est:IJrpment Reviewlor Escarpnrent Variance Page 2013
361
b. Areas within one percent chance event floodplain;
c. Other important natural drainage areas and wildlife habitat;
d. Critical "Required" setbacks in the adopted Highway Corndor Plan based
on noise study determining the 65 Leq dBA noise contour projected for
the year 2020
5. Ifthe final design and the associated grading encroaches into the Ridgetop
Subdistrict more than the requested 15,000 square feet, the applicant will
return to the Planning Commission for another variance.
Staff is not clear that this proposed variance request is the minimum
encroachment necessary because final construction plans and the associated
grading plans were not submitted. Alternative road alignments were not
submitted to City statTfor analysis. Staffwould need to analyze the alternative
road alignments that were based on a certified slope analysis or avoidance of
mapped areas for historical/archeological resources before detennining ifthe
proposed road alignment was the best option.
6. Additional variances to the escarpment regulations may be necessary for the

linear park. Approval criteria resPOnse #1 indicates a proposed 6,000 feet long
linear park along the ridgeline with pedestrian and bicycle trails connecting to
other trails. Staff has not received any detailed information on this trail
alignment in order to determine if additional variances may be required.
7. At the time ofDevelopment Plan approval, all provisions of Article 14-5.6

(Escarpment Overlay District) must be adhered to, including but not limited to:
a. Development and Permit Approval; Required Submittals [14-5.6(C)].

b. Location of Structures; Buildable Site [14-5.6(D)].
c. Subdivision or Resubdivision ofLand; Multi-Family Dwellings [14- 5.6(E).
d. Landscaping; [14-5.6(G)].
e. Terrain Management; [14-5.6(H)].
f. Utilities: [14-5.6(1)].
g. Driveways/Access Alignments; [14-5.6(1)].
Case #M2009-06. Escarpment Reviewfor Escarpment Variance Page30f3
362
DATE: June 9, 2009
FROM: Wendy Blackwell

Technical Review Division Director
RE: Cases M 2009-05, ZA 2009-02, M 2009-06 and M 2009-08

Northwest Quadrant OPA, Rezoning, Escarpment Variance and Terrain
Management Variance
This Memo is in response to the applicants' request to utilize the existing Escarpment
Overlay District Ordinance and Map for the life of the project, from inception to
completion. Additional submittal information from the applicant, dated June 8, 2009,
explains the request.
Background on the Mapping and Ordinance Revisions

The Escarpment Overlay District is an overlay zoning map. Modifications to a zoning
must be approved by the City Council.
Resolution 2006-114 directed staff to digitally remap the foothills and ridgetop
subdistricts to more accurately define the Escarpment Overlay District. The resolution is
attached to this Memo for reference.
With input from the Escarpment Working Group and direction from the Land Use
Subcommittee of the Public Works and Land Use Committee, stafIis working to create a
draft map to bring to the community for input. Staff will bring the draft maps and
changes to the Intent/Purpose of the ordinance to the community for input in late
summer. Then, after integrating the input with direction from the Land Use
Subcommittee, the final draft would be brought through the formal public hearing
process in the fall. It is anticipated that approval on the new version ofthe Escarpment
Overlay District map and associated ordinance changes may be given by the end of the
calendar year.
363
In the meanwhile, the Land Use Department staffhave been conducting development
review and building permit review based on the current ordinance and the current
mapping.
The only substantive ordinance revisions being considered at this time involve the
IntentJPurpose of the ordinance. The Working Group has recommended that changes to
the IntentJPurpose clarify that the focus of the ordinance is visual impact and keeping the
ridgelines free of disturbance. The Working Group Recommendations are attached to this
Memo for reference.
Development and Permit Approval

SFCC 14-5.6(C) explains what is required for approval of any subdivision, resubdivision,
planned unit development, cluster development, multiple family dwellings, or any other
type of development within the Escarpment Overlay·District. Under normal
circumstances, in order for staffto review a project for compliance, items 'a' through 'f
below would be submitted. SFCC 14-5.6(C)(4) states
No grading permit or building permit shall be issued unless the grading permit or
buildingpermit application is accompanied by a plan, which may incorporate by
reference approvedplans previously submitted to the City in connection with any
subdivision, resubdivision, planned unit development, cluster, or other development
approval, and which sets forth or incorporates by reference the following
information:
(a) The location on the lot ofthe Escarpment Overlay District. the ridgetop
subdistrict, the foothills subdistrict and the viewline;
(b) The location ofall buildable sites. located within the Escarpment Overlay
District in compliance with paragraphs (D) and (E) below;
(c) A site plan, floor plan and exterior building elevations for development on the
lot to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (F) below;
(d) A landscaping plan for development on the lot to demonstrate compliance with
paragraph (G) below;
(e) Natural topography, storm drainage, grading, and erosion control plans for
development on the lot to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (H) below;
and
(f) The location on and adjacent to the lot ofall streets, drives, easements, utility
lines, and such other information as is necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable paragraphs setforth in §14-5. 6.
Effective Date of Escarpment Changes .

In September 2006, when the City C~uncil adopted changes to the ordinance, specific
language was adopted to address projects that were already under consideration. SFCC
14-5.6(L) states
Amendments to the Escarpment Overlay District as setforth in Ordinance No. 2006-

55 adopted September 13, 2006 shall become effective immediately and apply to
buildingpermits applications submitted after such date. However, if the design ofthe
364
structure has been preapproved by the Land Use Departmentfor compliance with the
Escarpment Overlay District requirements and an application for the design ofthe
structure has been submittedfor approval to a City board or commission prior to
adoption ofsaid Ordinance, a buildingpermit may be approved in compliance with
the Escarpment Overlay District requirements in effict prior to said Ordinance.
As the staff continues to get input from the Escarpment Working Group and the
community along with the direction of the"Land Use Subcommittee, it is expected that
"effective date" language would also need to be adopted to apply to projects already
approved. Because some lots with an approved Development Plan under the current rules,
may not be able to meet the map or ordinance changes, circumstances may dictate a
flexible transition code or policy.
Clarification on Esearnment Ordinance

Page 30 of the application states "The current ordinance does so by imposing limitations
on construction on slopes greater than twenty (20%) percent."
The Escarpment Overlay District ordinance does not address slope disturbance. The slope
disturbance regulations are found in the Terrain Management section of Chapter 14.
SFCC 14-8.0 addresses the terrain management rules that would apply to steep slopes in
any location throughout the City. .
Attachments
• Exhibit A; Resolution 2006-114, Remap.the District
• Exhibit B; Working Group Recommendations
365
.· .:.......•
~~
2 RESOLUTION NO. 2006 - 114
3
4
6
7 '.
8 ' .. ~
9
10 A RESOLUTION
11 REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2006-92 AND ADOPTING A NEW RESOLUTION
12 DIRECI1NG STAFF TO INITIATE THE REMAPPING OF THE ESCARPMENT
13 OVERLAY DISTRICT.
14
:.
, -
15 WHEREAS, on August 9, 2006, the governing body adopted Resolution No. 2006-92
16 directmg staffto initiate the remapping ofthe escarpment overlay district; however, this action
17 was premature as related amendments to the EscaIpment Overlay District Ordinance had not yet
18 been adopted and thus Resolution No. 2006-92 should be'repealed; and - >
.......
....":"
-. '
19 WHEREAS, on Septem15er 13, 2006, the governing body adopted Ordinance No. ~:'::
20 2006- 55 amending the Escarpment Overlay District Ordinance; and
21 WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2006-55 refers to administrative procedures approved by the
22 governing body; and
23 WHEREAS, the Escarpment Overlay Qrdinance and its procedures references the
24 Escarpment Overlay Map in order to ascertain certain related boundaries; and
25 WHEREAS, An Escarpment Overlay Map dermes the locations ofcertain regulatory
366
_______ ._•• :. o~.:_:..: .• •.__ :..._:::....·_·.o . .~ o. 0 .0.0 :.
1 components including the Ridgetop and Foothills Sub-districts; and
2 WHEREAS, the current Escarpment Overlay Map was last updated in March 1992 prior
3 to GIS mapping tooIs and is in need of updating in order to reflect greater digital precision.
4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE
5 CITY OF SANTA FE that:
6 Section 1. Resolution No. 2006-92 is repealed.
7 Section 2. There is a need and desire to more accurately define the Escarpment
....~
8 Overlay District by remapping its boundaries. The city manager is hereby directed to allocate . ..
~::.;.
~
9 funds not to exceed $45,000 for the purpose ofdigitally remapping the escarpment overlay
10 boundaries and their sub-districts and other regulatory components referenced by Ordinance
11 2006-55. This shall also include educational material for public distribution regarding the ;
!.
°
; .
12 escarpment regulations. Once the funds have been allocated, the Infonnation, Technologies and
13 Telecommunications (lTI) Division is hereby directed to conduct the mapping study according to
14 procurement requirements in order to develop an updated Escarpment Overlay Map within seven
15 months of the date ofthe passage ofthis resolution provided funds are available.
16 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 2006. :..
17
18
19
21
22
23 .
, 0
24 ;
i o.
I
25 :.
367
· -... .. -'.
"_ ',- ...._:_~.~------_.. -- .:...-:;.-~ .... "."~ .. ":_--- ....
/~
, I
I
1 APPROVED AS TO FORM: r .'.
9
10
:211
.12
.:13
.14
.-15
~ "
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25 jplshared driv~OO6 reslescarp map redo res
368
Escarpment Overlay District Re-mapping Project
Recommendation to Council
1215/08 draft
The Escarpment Overlay District Re-mapping Working Group was comprised of seventeen
members that had involvement in the Escarpment Ordinance in it's early stages (1980's and
1990's) and current staff. The list of members is attached. This Working Group was tasked with
providing recommendations to improve the mapping of the Escarpment Overlay District. The
results of five meetings include several recommended actions. These recommendations are to re-
write the entire ordinance, create an interim Working Map, and modify the visual analysis
administrative procedures. One recommendation for immediate Council action is to adopt new
wording for the Intent portion of the ordinance.
Ordinance Revisions
As part of the full re-mapping effort, the entire ordinance should be re-written in a more concise
and clear manner. The Working Group recommends, that at a minimum, the Intent section ofthe
ordinance be modified to provide more clear guidance for the community, the Planning
Commission and the staff. The primary intent of the ordinance, as agreed upon by the Working
Group, is to prohibit any development that may interrupt the ridgeline and the views beyond on
ridgetop areas (this includes, but is not limited to the addition of structures or trees). A second
intent is to prohibit development in the ridgetop subdistrict, other than driveway access and
utility alignments, for lots created after February 26, 1992. The third intent is to restrict
development in the foothills subdistrict of the Escarpment Overlay District. Attached is
recommended replacement text for the Intent section of the ordinance.
There are several underlying assumptions about the Escarpment Overlay District that may be
reconsidered in a full ordinance re-write. For example, a more efficient way to accomplish the
desired visual result may come from having only one overlay zone and not two separate sub-
districts. This concept alone will generate much input from the community. This extremely
complex ordinance would need to be re-written using a meaningful and extensive public
involvement process. The re-write would most efficiently be accomplished by hiring a
consultant, as staffwould not be able to accomplish the task in a timely manner.
Working Map
The Working Group recommends creating a "Working Map" for the Escarpment Overlay
District based on digital terrain mapping and 3D modeling. The map would be based on the
result of visual analysis software that would be written specifically to respond to the City's
unique physiographic pattern. The program will be written to incorporate topography, slope and
aspect, in addition to the visibility from the specific roadways listed above.
The overlay zone for the Working Map would be based on what areas are visible from gateways
to the City and from the City's arterials. Examples of gateways could be 285 north of the City,
599, Bishop's Lodge Road and 125. The arterials would be based on the most recent version of
the NMDOT functional road classification study.
Working Group Recommendations Pagelof3 12/5/08

369
The more detailed definition of the gateways would be determined at the time that the full
ordinance is re-written. Additional examples of a potential view gates that could also be
considered at the time that the full ordinance is re-written would be the Plaza, views from parks
and views from trails.
A contractor would be hired to produce the Working Map and to create software to analyze
individual proposed projects. Staffwould be trained on how to use the software to analyze the
visual impacts ofproposed development. The Working Group strongly recommended having
better computer analysis tolls available for staff immediately in order to begin to provide more
reliable analysis. Funding for the majority of the Working Map and analysis software was made
available in Resolution 2006-114. Additional funding may be required, depending on the specific
Scope of Work for developing the visual analysis software.
Visual Assessment Administrative Procedures

Once the Working Map is created and visual analysis software is developed, staff would revise
"Attachment A" to Resolution 2006-114, the Visual Assessment Administrative Procedures. This
would assure that the new software is incorporated into the visual analysis process.
Recommended Council Actions

• Authorize funding to be made available to re-write the Escarpment Ordinance, as
described above. . .
• Approve the revised Intent section of the Escarpment Overlay District ordinance.
• Provide informal approval to move forward with the Working Map and Visual Analysis
)
Software. I
\
!

370
Jeanne Price will have to format this text in the proper way so that Council can vote on it.
14-5.6(A) Escarpment Overlay District Intent

(1) The Escarpment Overlay District is established in order to preserve the ridgetop and
foothills areas as visual assets ofthe natural environment for the benefit oftbe community.
(a) Prohibit any development that may interrupt the ridgeline and the views
beyond on ridgetop areas to the extent possible as allowed by law. This
includes, but is not limited to the addition of structures or non-native
vegetation.
(b) Prohibit development in the ridgetop subdistrict of the Escarpment Overlay
District, other than driveway access and utility alignments, for lots created
after February 26, 1992, as provided hereinafter;
(c) Restrict development in the foothills subdistrict of the Escarpment Overlay
District.
(2) In order to further the purposes underlying the creation of the Escarpment Overlay
" District, this section regulates:
(a) the permissible color, architectural style, size, and height of structures;
(b) the permissible artificial exterior lighting for structures, streets and drives;
(c) the permissiblelocations for placement of all utilities and driveway access;
(d) requirements for landscaping, grading, and revegetation; and
(e) other matters as are appropriate to preserve the visual assets of the natural
environment of the Escarpment Overlay District.
(3) The intent ofthe Escarpment Overlay District is based on the following concepts:
(a) Development is highly visible on or about the" ridgetop areas for great
distances and detracts from the overall beauty of the natural environment and
adversely impacts the aesthetics ofthe mountain ridgetops and foothill vistas
as seen from the City;
(b) Land within the Escarpment Overlay District is environmentally sensitive due
to the presence of steep slopes, erosion problems, drainage problems and other
environmental attributes; .
(c) Preservation ofthe City's aesthetic beauty and natural environment is essential
to protect the general welfare ofthe people ofthe City and to protect the
cultural and historic setting ofthe City;
Working Group Recommendations Page30f3 11/5/08

371
DATE: June 9, 2009
FROM: Risana "RB" Zaxus, M.S., PE, CFM $:s~=:::==;.=---------

City Engineer for Land Use Department
RE: Cases # M 2009-05, # ZA 2009-02, # M 2009-06 & # M 2009-08

Northwest Quadrant GPA, Rezoning, Escarpment Variance,
and Terrain Management Variance
I reviewed additional information dated June 8, 2009 and submitted for this project
regarding the Terrain Management variance. The material consisted of three pages
describing the variance and outlining the approval criteria, and three pages of plan
views showing the two areas on the site where slopes of more than 30% are proposed
to be disturbed.
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct roads, driveways, utilities, and

buildings in slopes of more than 30%.
There is insufficient information to completely analyze the request. Regarding the

submitted information:
*The slope maps are not cel1ified by a professional engineer or surveyor as required by
Code. .
*Proposed roads are shown.
.*Proposed building locations are not shown.
*Nothing is shown regarding proposed buildings, if any, on areas with slopes between
20% and 30%.
*Proposed grading for roads and structures is not shown..
*Floodplains and tributaries are not shown.
Code Requirements
A. Article 14-8.2(D)(1)(b)(iii) allows disturbance of natural slopes greater than 30% in

isolated occurrences such as arroyo crossings and other sloped areas where the
disturbance shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total. This applies solely to the
construction of roads, driveways, and utility placement anq is not intended to permit
other development, such as buildings, on natural slopes exceeding 30%.
ss001.PM5 -7/95 372

Case # M 2009-05, # ZA 2009-02, # M 2009-06, # M 2009-08 Engineering Review
Page 2 6/9/2009
B. Article 14-8.2(F)(2)(b)(ii) requires that no more than 50% of the building footprint
area shall have a natural slope of 20% or greater.
C. Article 14-8.2(F)(2)(b)(iv) states that no structure may be built on a natural slope of

over 30%.
Comments
1. It is difficult to fully evaluate the terrain management variance request without a

certified slope analysis and particularly without a grading plan and information regarding
the location of future building placement. Without this information, the requested
variances are conceptual in nature rather than specific.
2. Code requirements A and C (above) are specific in completely disallowing

construction of buildings in areas of slope exceeding 30%.
3. The area of over 30% slope disturbance (28,000 SF) far exceeds the allowed 1000
SF.
4. It appears that only slopes over 30% have been identified for the variance.
Additional variances may be required for building sites in accordance with Code
requirement B above, since building sites on slopes between 20% and 30% have not
been identified.
A complete analysis and recommendation will be provided at the time of Development

Plan or Subdivision Plat submittal.
373
Post Office Box 31967 Santa Fe. New Mexico 87594-1967
16 March, 2009
To: The Planning Commission, City of Santa Fe
From: Ellen Collins, Tano Road Association
Since we submitted TRA's NWQ Position Statement in mid-December of 2008, we have

been informed that a second Traffic Impact Analysis for the NWQ, dated February, 2009,
has been prepared for the City by Louis Berger Inc.
This TlA will not be available to the public until 18 March, 2009. We will be comparing
this new study to the May, 2008, Berger TIA, and plan to comment on our findings during
TRA's pUblic speaking time at the 2 April Planning Commission meeting.
Thank you for your attention to the information we have submitted.
i
!
EXHIBITL··
374
POST OFACE BOX 31967 SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87594-1967
December 15,2008
Matthew O'Reilly, Chairman

City of Santa Fe Planning Commission
200 Lincoln Avenue
P.OBox909
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
Dear Chainnan O'Reilly:
The Tano Road Association (IRA) comprises a large geographic area, bounded on the east by US 84/285,
on the west by Fin del Sendero, on the north by the Santa Fe Opera and on the south by NM 599. This
geographic area is known as the Tano Road Residential Neighborhood (fRRN), and represents over 400
households. (Attachment A) The means of access and egress to the TRRN is particularly limited. The
entire geographic area is served by only four access points, two ofwhich are very circuitous. As a result,
TRRN residents must rely upon Ridgetop Road and Camino de los Montoyas to access the services and
resources of Santa Fe.
')
} Continuing residential and commercial growth within Santa Fe Estates and along Ridgetop Road is
seriously testing the safety and effectiveness of the existing traffic infrastructure. After years of tireless
effort by the TRA, Camino de los Montoyas is only recently improved and paved from Tano Road to NM
599, but still presents an inbound and outbound traffic safety hazard at the NM 599 at-grade crossing.
TRA has also been working diligently with emergency response agencies and the Santa Fe County Fire
Department to develop safe and effective fire evacuation plans for the TRRN corridor. Identifying a
measured and balanced means of egress for each of the residential sections of our neighborhood is a
challenging process.
The recent master planning and development review process for the Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) has
revealed residential and commercial proposals which will result in significantly increased traffic loads on
the existing infrastructure. These expanding traffic conditions were not contemplated when the original
infrastructures were designed, or later approved by the City of Santa Fe Planning Commission.
(Attachment B)
For example, there are various traffic flow proposals currently being considered which would reduce the
impact ofNWQ residential and commercial traffic on the adjacent 53-year old Casa Solana residential
neighborhood. These proposals would serve Casa Solana by restricting the north/south flow of traffic on
Camino de los Montoyas, south ofNM 599. (Attachment D) Such restrictions would in turn shift the
greater burden ofNWQ traffic onto the Santa Fe Estates neighborhood, Ridgetop Road and the
RidgetoplNM 599 interchange.
The Metropolitan Planning Organlzation (MPO) has considered the compounding impact of existing and
approved residential and commercial developments on the Ridgetop RoadINM 599 interchange and the
1
375
Camino de los MontoyaslNM 599 intersection. The New Mexico Department of Transportation (NM
DOl), under Secretary Rhonda Faught, recognized the MPO's concerns and undertook a regional traffic
study between the Tesuque interchange and the intersection ofNM 599 at 1-25. The MPO approved a""'"
resolution which included specific language stating that the conclusions of the MPO traffic study must be J
incorporated into traffic management mitigation for the NWQ.
Given the foregoing considerations of the master plan for the NWQ, it is the position of the Tano Road
Association, as representative of the Tano Road Residential Neighborhood, that:
1. The existing traffic infrastructure of Ridgetop Road and Camino de los Montoyas is inadequate to
safely accommodate the residential and commercial traffic impact from the proposed development ofthe
NWQ.
2. The Planning Commission defer action on the General Plan amendment for the NWQ in accordance
with Section 5 of the April 18, 2006, resolution ofthe Santa Fe MPO Transportation Policy Board and
The Regional Planning Authority ofthe City of Santa Fe/County ofSanta Fe, and that the MPO complete
a thorough regional traffic analysis and a "master plan" approach to the long-range management of traffic
in this corridor prior to any amendment to the General Plan for the NWQ. (Attachment C)
3. We support full connectivity in the current and future traffic infrastructure within and around the NWQ.
4. We support traffic mitigation solutions which will safely and effectively increase the flow oftraffic
within, to and from the NWQ, including additional access points for the NWQ at NM599.
5. We support the conclusions ofthe September 23,2003, Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by
Leedshill-HerkenhoffConsulting Group [now known as ASCG Inc. ofNew Mexico], a copy ofwhich
was presented to the NWQ project manager during the Early Neighborhood Notification meeting of
October 5, 2004.
6. We challenge the assumptions ofthe 2008 Louis Berger TIA relating to Level of Service (LOS) criteria
as inaccurate and incomplete. (Attachment B-Technical Analysis)
7. We challenge the conclusions of the 2008 Louis Berger TIA which fail to address and update the
findings and conclusions ofprevious area traffic studies. (Attachment B-Technical Analysis)
Since the completion and recommendations ofthe MPO traffic analysis will have a material impact on the
Sylvia Dulaney, President

505-982-4792
Sylvia@jimdulaney.com
2
376
----. -
;~ - -....
·t ."~ ...--..-
y ..,,;\.
J)d~~''J~
.~--~ ....... ~~- -"----' ---",-,,~,--,""",!!,,(,.>,
~
j'
(-
'"",r--
-
--~;';, tI"'ci~'i •
""" .
.v<Jflfi.-" D", C, .
---
'-, ..".,-.~~ - I~·,fo D
l
377
Attachment B
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Traffic safety and management is a regional situation which affects the public safety of residents,
commuters and travelers in our area; a regional matter which demands a broad-based, long range traffic
management plan. .
None of the studies has effectively reconciled the original intention ofNM 599, as a by-pass highway
for the movement ofnuclear waste, with the safe integration of local traffic and the need for
The 2008 Berger TIA study deals only with the immediate issues related to the development ofthe NWQ
and within the proposed NWQ master plan. The Berger TIA evaluated only the initial phase of the NWQ
development, not the projected build-out of the entire surrounding residential and commercial areas.
')swnptions.
I
~ The. Berger TIA has not analytically tested the earlier TLGG asswnptions with statistical data
now available. This omission by the Berger TIA only underscores the myopic scope of the
Berger TIA and fails to recognize the cumulative impact ofnearby, neighboring developments.
~., Our analysis concludes that due to the unimproved condition of Fin del Sendero, the dangerous at-
grade crossing at cainino de los MontoyaslNM 599, the lack of direct access for Tano Road on to US
84/285 and traffic coming from the east across the Tano RoadlUS 84/285 overpass bridge, the logical
access point for residents in the northwest sector will be biased towards Ridgetop Road. 1
~ The 2003 ASCG analysis forecasted the traffic level at 24,840 cars per day, both directions, at
the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange2 compared to the Berger TIA which forecasts 11,000 cars per
day, both directions. Berger measures the traffic count between Camino de los Montoyas and
Ridgetop Road interchanges while the earlier forecast by ASCG is actually measured at the
Ridgetop Road and NM599 interchange. 3 Such a wide discrepancy in the daily traffic counts
would suggest an error in calculation or dissimilar data reference points since, in general, traffic
counts along NM599 have significantly increased since 2003. A reevaluation based upon
comparable data points reflecting current conditions is essential.
I Page 6, Section IILB, 2,a (il); Technical Review or"Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artic Slope Consulting Group,
~tember 24, 2003. .
'i
l~age 4; Trip Generation Data, C.R Walbridge Associates, Consultant to Santa Fe Estates, Submitted to the Planning
Commission, Augost29, 1996.
3.Page 2; Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May, 2008, The Louis Berger Group,
1 378
~ The 2003 ASCG TIA calculates the merge distance at 1000 feet while the Berger TIA
calculates a merge distance of 1500 feet at the southbound merge ofNM 84/285 and NM 599. It
is essential that the merge distance discrepancy between the Berger TIA and the ASCG TIA
calculation be resolved in order to arrive at an effective mitigation. (Attachment E)
~ Considering the combined collateral impact ofthe additional neighborhoods and development, we
conclude a LOS F for the Ridgetop Road queuing lanes and on-ramps. The lane-queuing capacity for
both the eastbound and westbound on-ramps was determined inadequate in the 2003 ASCG TIA
which, at that time, did not include the collateral impact ofthe 95,000 square feet of additional
commercial space in Santa Fe Estates, the build out of Santa Fe Estates ill, Zocolo In and the NWQ.
~ No mitigation provision has been incorporated for the 95,000 square feet of additional
» The
4
traffic capacity of 1670 vph for Ridgetop Road exceeds the two-lane rated capacity of 1600
vph and the 1996 analysis of Ridgetop Road used flawed assumptions based upon the
two-lane highway module for open highway conditions, disregarding the fact that Ridgetop Road is a
local or collector road. S A recalculation of Ridgetop Road capacity as a collector road is required.
» The TLGG assumes a residential density of one dwelling per five acres6 while many ofthese 5-
acre parcels have now been split into 2.5 acre sites. The new residential subdivisions in the area
represent a higher density with one dwelling per 2.5 acres, as well as clustered housing. The area
evaluated as Tano Road is a small portion ofthe actual Tano Road Residential Neighborhood.
(Attachment A) The Berger TIA has not analytically tested the earlier TLGG assumptions with
statistical data now available The growth rates assumptions by both the Berger TIA and the TLGG
TIA are inaccurate and need to be recalculated using the defined TRRN area and current statistical
data.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Notwithstanding the impact of the resolution of discrepancies in data calculations, assumptions and
omissions, the TRA concludes that the following mitigations to the traffic and road iriftastructure in this
area are necessary prior to the development ofthe NWQ and must be incorporated in to the NWQ master
plan:

• Widen the Ridgetop/NM 599 interchange access ramps to 2 lanes.
"~I
4 Page 7, Section ill.B, 2, c (i); Technical Review ofTraffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artie Slope Consulting Group, "
September 24,2003.
5·Ibid; page 4, Section IlIA, 2, c, (i).
6 Ibid; page V-18.
2 379
8 Widen Ridgetop Road to 4 lanes.
e Reduce the weave merge-factor hazard at US 84/285 south and NM 599 south [to FHWA
o Construct a grade-separated, 4-lane overpass bridge with 2-lane access ramps at the Camino de
los MontoyaslNM 599 intersection.
RESOLmION
Since the completion and recommendations ofthe MPO traffic analysis will have a material imp~ct on the
3 380
POST OFFICE BOX 31967 SANTA FE. NEW MEXICO 87594-1967
Attachment B
Technical Analysis of Traffic Management Conditions for the Northwest Quadrant

Deceulber, 2008
STATEMENT OF CONDITIONS
The growth occurring in the northwest sector of Santa Fe city and county is real and significant. The
difficulty at the planning level is that growth has been incremental, sometimes involving smaller
development plans which individually may not significantly impact existing capacities. However, the
cumulative effect of these various new developments, when added to the existing residential development,
is very significant.
Completed, continuing and projected developments in the Northwest sector include:
Santa Fe Estates Commercial Area 211,000 square feet
Projected Northwest Quadrant Commercial Area 228,000 square feet

(Including at least 70,000 square feet of proposed
workJ1ive commercial space.)
Total Commercial Area in Proximity 439,000 square feet
Santa Fe Estates Phase II 743 residential units
Santa Fe Estates (build-out Phase III) 725 residential units (est.)
Zocalo Phase I and II 164 residential units
Zoca1o Phase ill (nearing completion) 85 residential units (est.)
Monte Sereno Subdivision 268 residences
Projected Northwest Quadrant Phases -I, II and III 2,816 residential units
(including the 770 residential units in Phase I)
Total Residences within the TRRN area: 400 residences

(Includes the following subdivisions)
-San Acacia Subdivision 12 residences
-Sundance Estates Subdivision 60 residences
--Sundance Ridge Subdivision 16-20 residences
-Heartstone Subdivision 24 residences
. -Canterbury Farms Subdivision 21 residences
I 381
CONDITIONS OF CURRENT ACCESS
How do residents within the northwest sector who commute to and from the area have access to the major
arteries and thoroughfares of Santa Fe?
:> Tano Road is now cut off from direct access to US 84/285.
:> Access to US 84/285 via Camino Monte Sereno is a restricted residential means of entering NM 599
for residents of Monte Sereno.
:> Although Camino de los Montoyas has been improved to a paved two-lane road, the at-grade crossing
at NM 599 is dangerous. There are no southbound or northbound entry lanes to enter while approaching
traffic is traveling at 55 MPH. At present, there is no provision or fundin? to provide for a bridge
overpass and ramps at the Camino de los MontoyaslNM 599 intersection. 2 The Berger TIA recognizes
that it is not clear when or if this intersection will be converted to a grade separated interchange.3
On August 29, 1996, Cliff Walbridge. a consultant for Santa Fe Estates, stated his assumption
to the Planning Commission that 50% of the off-site traffic distribution would use Camino de
los Montoyas to connect to NM 599 as a result ofan at-grade crossing. The 2003 Tierra
LopezGarcia Group TIA (TLGG) accepted this assumption without validation or verification.4
:> The western Fin del Sendero connection is lengthy. circuitous. and the road is unimproved with no
shoulders, significant washboard effect and erosion. Fin el Sendero carries little or no traffic to connect to
NM 599, and is not a credible off-site means of distribution. The 2003 TLGG traffic study makes no
estimate for the off-site distribution ofthis road and offers no substantiation for their position. s Similarly,
the Berger TIA gave no consideration for the Fin del Sendero condition.
:> There has been no westbound traffic impact analysis for vehicles traveling over the Tano Road! US
84/285 overpass bridge to connect to NM 599, using either Ridgetop Road or Camino de los Montoyas.
Since this access represents the shortest, most direct route to NM 599 for local area traffic and residents
on the'eastside of US 841285, this omission by TLGG is significant. Again, the Berger TIA did not
consider any impact resulting from the Tano RoadlUS841285 overpass bridge.
Mexico. May 2003. Tierra LopezGarcia Group, Santa Fe. New Mexico.
Santa Fe. New Mexico
1Ibid.
.4 pitge 4; Trip Generation Data. C.R Walbridge Associates. Consultant to Santa Fe Estates, Submitted to the Planning
~ Page 6, Section m.B. 2.a (ii); Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artie Slope Consulting Group,
September 24,2003.
2 382
ACCESS CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis concludes that due to the unimproved condition of Fin del Sendero, the dangerous at-grade
crossing at Camino de los MontoyaslNM 599, the lack ofdirect access for Tano Road on to US 84/285
and traffic coming from the east across the Tano RoadJUS 84/285 overpass bridge, the logical access
point for residents in the northwest sector will be biased towards Ridgetop Road. 6
STATE~NTOFMnnGATION
Consistent among the numerous traffic studies prepared over the years for the RidgetoplNM 599 and
Camino de los MontoyaslNM 599 corridor is the conclusion that mitigation to the surrounding traffic
infrastructure will be required. The specific areas for mitigation are also generally agreed upon.,
Differences arise as to what the necessary mitigation measures are, and when they should be
implemented. These are important differences, and the welfare ofpresent and future residents living in
the northwest sector is at risk until these issues are addressed and resolved.
Our collective concerns as current residents and commuters in the NM 599 corridor have led us to
conclude that the following mitigations to the traffic and road infrastructure in this area are necessary
prior to the development ofthe NWQ and must be incorporated in to the NWQ master plan:

.8 Add flow-timed signalization at the entrance/exit ramps intersections with Ridgetop Road.
o Widen Ridgetop Road to 4 lanes.

o Construct a 4-lane overpass bridge with 2-lane access ramps at the Camino de los
MontoyasINM 599 intersection.
6Page 6, Section ill.B, 2,a (ii); Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artie Slope Consulting Group,
September 24,2003.
3 383
THE TRAFFIC STUDIES

A number ofprofessional traffic studies concerning the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange have been
undertaken over the years, specifically:
~ The Leedshill-Herkenhoff Consulting Group TIA of 1995 for Santa Fe Estates.
~The Tierra LopezGarcia Group (TLGG) TIA's of May and July, 2003, prepared for Santa Fe
Estates and the Thornburg Office Complex.
~The Leedshill-Herkenhoff Consulting Group TIA of 2003, prepared for the TRA, which
includes a review of previous studies, assumptions and conclusions. (Leedshill-Herkenhoff are
now known as ASCG Inc. ofNew Mexico.)
~ The Louis Berger Group TIA of May, 2008, prepared for the City of Santa Fe and the ,
Northwest Quadrant Housing Development.
~Additional smaller, non-comprehensive traffic studies have been done for BT Homes and
Chapman Homes projects in Santa Fe Estates, as well as the TRRN subdivisions of San Acacia,
Heartstone, Canterbury Farms, Sundance Estates and Sundance Ridge.
"pur review ofthese TIAs, using outside professional third-party engineers, shows that much ofthe
.cumulative data ofthese studies has not been updated, and that previous conclusions and
recommendations have been ignored. The evidence of such omissions and incomplete infonnation
indicates that appropriate solutions to area traffic management are likely to be flawed or inadequate. In
all, there are many more questions raised than answers provided, which further underscores the
fragmented nature ofthe several narrowly focused traffic studies.
While the City of Santa Fe Traffic Engineering Division reviews all individual development plans, the
consolidated growth conditions have not been fully analyzed to consider the cumulative impact of traffic
and safety to the residents and commuters of this northwest corridor.
For example, the 2008 Berger study deals only with the immediate issues related to the development of
the NWQ and within the proposed NWQ master plan. Berger evaluated only the initial phase of the
NWQ development, not the projected build-out of the entire surrounding residential and commercial
areas. The two 2003 reports by TLGG focus exclusively upon the Phase II build-out of Santa Fe Estates,
without addressing the compounding impact of the new Monte Sereno development, or the mitigations
necessary to address the impact of the 'Thornburg Office Complex and the additional 95,000 square feet of
adjacent neighborhood commercial space.
There is no recognition of the cumulative effects of these neighboring developments upon each other.
This piecemeal, incremental approach fails to recognize the long range requirements of coordinated traffic
management solutions. Today, the impending traffic build up, traffic jams and traffic safety issues are
)imply being pushed further down on the agenda, awaiting some future oCCWTence which will force a
resolution to safety deficiencies. Each new development places new traffic concerns on nearby
4evelopments whose original traffic analysis did not address the impact of new neighboring projects.
4
384
THE BERGER GROUP nA, May, 2008
The most recent traffic study, the Berger TIA, must be considered inaccurate, incomplete and
inconclusive in any comprehensive or regional context:
A. Inaccurate, because Berger relies heavily on the flawed 2003 TLGG studies for area
background information and analysis. 7
B. Incomplete, because Berger treats the proposed NWQ neighborhood as residential, and does not
address the traffic impact of the substantial 70,000 square-foot plus "live/work" commercial nature
of the NWQ master plan. Nor does Berger thoroughly consider the queuing and stacking conditions
likely to arise as traffic from the south approaches the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange.
C. Inconclusive, because Berger frequently withholds specific mitigation recommendations for St.
Francis Drive and the Camino de los MontoyaslNM 599 intersection, pending the comfletion of
two regional transportation studies which will address traffic conditions in these areas.
THE TIERRA LOPEZGARCIA GROUP TIAs, May & July, 2003
A review, analysis and summary of the TLGG studies of May and July, 2003, for Santa Fe Estates and the
Thornburg Office Complex, was prepared by the Arctic Slope Consulting Group (ASCG), formerly
Leedshill-Herkenhoff, at the request of the TRA. ASCG noted that the 2003 TLGG studies assumed that
various concerns raised by the 1995 Leedshill TIA relating to the TRRN traffic infrastructure had been
successfully mitigated. This is not the case. )
For example, in 1995, there was a concern that there would be "no Camino de los Montoyas
interchange with the Relief Route [NM 599], and no connection to the west end of Tano Road."
TLGG responded that the condition had been mitigated, that "an at-grade intersection has been
constructed at the intersection of Camino de los Montoyas and NM 599. In addition, there is a
connection from Tano Road to Fin del Sendero to Camino La Tierra.,,9
Another concern in 1995 was that "Tano Road is completely cut offfrom US 84285." TLGG
responded that this condition had been mitigated, that "Tano Road has been cut off from US
84/285, however, construction of US 84/285 includes a frontage road system and an overpass,
which will tie Tano Road to CirCle Drive and Camino Encantado, as well as the west frontage
road."10
However, in either instance the Berger TIA has not analytically tested the earlier TLGG
assumptions with statistical data now available. This omission by the Berger TIA only
underscores the myopic scope ofthe Berger TIA and fails to recognize the cumulative impact of
nearby, neighboring developments.
7 Pages 13, 15-20, 22, 23; Traffic Impact Analysis of the Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May, 2008, The Louis
~ger Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico
B Pages 16, 17,21,24-26,31,39,40,42; Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May,
2008, The Louis Berger Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
9 Introduction. page I-I; Traffic Impact Analysis for Santa Fe Estates Prelimirnuy Plat and Development Plan, Santa Fe, New
10 Ibid; Introduction. page 1-2.
5 385
TLGG based the TRRN area growth predictions on incorrect information. For example, the TLGG
assumed a 3% growth rate to the year 2010 II, and calculated the amount of vacant land for future
development in the Tano Road area to be within a boundary from Santa Fe Estates to Camino de los
Montoyas. I2 In fact, the area of future TRRN residential development extends west to Fin del Sendero,
and currently includes the new subdivisions ofSan Acacia, Sundance Estates, Heartstone, Canterbury
Farms and Sundance Ridge, with hundreds of remaining acres available for development. (Attachment A)
The TLGG assumes a residential density of one dwelling per five acres. 13 Many ofthe early Tano Road
residences were built on 5-acre parcels. However, a significant number of these 5-acre parcels have now
been split into 2.5 acre sites. The new residential subdivisions in the area represent a higher density with
one dwelling per 2.5 acres, as well as clustered housing. The 3% growth rate is a significant
Wlderstatement of actual TRRN development activity.
Again, the Berger TIA has not analytically tested the earlier TLGG assumptions with statistical
data now available. 1bis omission by the Berger TIA only underscores the myopic scope of the-
RIDGETOP ROAD AND THE SANTA FE ESTATES COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
. -.~dgetop Road is inadequate to safely handle the projected traffic loads.

I
/
o The traffic capacity of 1670 vph for Ridgetop Road exceeds the two-lane rated capacity of 1600 vph
l4
and the 1996 analysis ofRidgetop Road used flawed assumptions based upon the two-lane highway
module for open highway conditions, disregarding the fact that Ridgetop Road is a local or collector
road. IS
8 The development of the commercial Village Center in Santa Fe Estates will further compound the
conditions on Ridgetop Road and at the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange. The developing Santa Fe Estates
commercial area has increased in size from 116,000 square feet, as originally approved for an SC-1
shopping area, to a recently approved 211,060 square feet. This commercial area now includes the
102,000 square-foot Thornburg Office Complex, with a 422-v~hicle parking lot, which will add an
additional "rush hour" element to Ridgetop Road. An additional 400 vehicle parking capacity will be
required for the additional 95,000 square feet of shopping area subsequently approved.
• The large neighborhood commercial area will necessarily fragment the local roadway infrastructure
immedi~tely adjacent to and leading from the site ofthe Village Center with significant traffic
management and safety issues at beginning and end of day time periods. There will conceivably be over
400 vehicles arriving and leaving at approximately the same time, resulting in significant queuing at the
II Page V-IS; Traffic Impact Analysis for Santa Fe Estates PrelimiwuyPlat and Development Plan, Santa Fe. New Mexico.
May 2003. Tierra LopezGarcia Group. Santa Fe, New Mexico. .
~Ibid; page V-17•
. ,a Ibid; page V-IS.
14 Page 7, Section m.B, 2, c (i); Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates. Artie Slope Consulting Group.
September 24. 2003.
1~ Ibid; page 4, Section m.A, 2, c, (i).
6 386
,~"','\
,
RidgetoplNM 599 interchange,16 as well as Ridgetop Ro~ and Avenida Rincon near the entrances to the
office building parking lot.
A center island and a left-hand tum lane have been added in the immediate area of the parking
lot entrances. These improvements will not mitigate conditions on Ridgetop Road north and
south of the parking lot entrance, or the potential queuing conditions anticipated at the Ridgetop
bridge and ramps.
No mitigation provision has been incorporated for the 95,000 square feet of additional
Based on the 2003 ASCG analysis, ·the forecasted traffic level is 24,840 cars per day, both directions, at
the RidgetoplNM 599 interchange. 17 This traffic level is based on 1996 data, and the later 2003 TLGG
studies did not refute or otherwise amend this earlier forecast by Santa Fe Estates. It is our view that the
24,840 ADT reflects an understatement ofthe situation
~ Note: in contrast, the Berger TIA forecasts 11,000 cars per day, both directions, however the
point of measurement differs from the 2003 ASCG analysis. Berger measures the traffic count
between Camino de los Montoyas and Ridgetop ,Road interchanges while the earlier forecast by
ASCG is actually measured at the Ridgetop Road and NM599 interchange. IS
~ Such a wide discrepancy in the daily traffic counts would suggest an error in calculation or
dissimilar data reference points since, in general, traffic counts along NM599 have significantly
increased since 2003.
~ A reevaluation based upon comparable data points reflecting current conditions is essential.
The 2003 TLGG traffic studies did not offer any mitigation for the eventual conditions on Ridgetop Road
resulting from the impact of the Village Center commercial area of Santa Fe Estates. TLGG's only
comment was that"....The problem will be at the driveways and intersections..." along Ridgetop Road.) 9
Indeed, it is the intersections ofRidgetop Road and the OnIOff ramps from NM599 that present the most
serious traffic hazards from lane stacking.
The 2008 Berger study refers to the 2003 TLGG report saying "it was determined that the Ridgetop Road
interchange area would need to have improvements made at the ramp intersections. The improvements
that were proposed included: re-stripe both of the off-ramps to provide a right tum lane for the eastbound
to southbound and west bound to northbound movements, re-stripe the bridge to provide a left tum lane to
I~id; page 11, Section IV.C., Technical Review of Traffic Impact AnaJysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artic Slope Consulting Group,
September 24, 2003.
17 Page 4; Trip Generation Data, C.R. Walbridge Associates, Consultant to Santa Fe Estates, Submitted to the Planning
Commission, August 29, 1996. )
18 Page 2; Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May, 2008, The Louis Berger Group,
19 Executive Summary; Traffic Impact Analysis for Santa Fe Estates Preliminary Plat and Development Plan, Santa Fe, New
7 387
both the eastbound and westbound ramps, and signalize the eastbound off-ramps and the westbound off-
ramp intersections with Ridgetop Road. ,,20 .
Even with these minimal mitigations proposed by both Berger and TLGG, the lane-queuing capacity for
both the eastbound and westbound on-ramps was detennined inadequate in the 2003 ASCG TIA which, at
that time, did not include the collaternl impact of the 95,000 square feet of additional commercial space in
Santa Fe Estates, the build out of Santa Fe Estates III, Zocolo III and the NWQ.
~ Considering the combined collateral impact of these additional neighborhoods and

development, we conclude a LOS F for the Ridgetop Road queuing lanes and on-ramps.
A 1995 memorandum discussed the allocation of right-of-way already mapped for the Camino de los
Montoyas grade-separated interchange, which at that time was projected for completion in 2005, well
before the anticipated build-out of Santa Fe Estates. Currently, completion of the Camino de los
Montoyas grade-separated interchange is not anticipated in the near future. 21 •
~ A grade-separated interchange at Camino de los Montoyas would allow for traffic originating
from the NWQ to be more evenly dispersed and result in traffic volume relief for Ridgetop Road. We
conclude that the impact ofthis option we must be analytically reviewed.
THE NM 599 WEAVE-MERGE HAZARD
'Concerns have repeatedly been raised regarding the weave movement for the US 84/285 northbound ramp
to the RidgetoplNM 599 westbound off-ramp. The Berger TIA considers the current merging distance of
1500 feet to the Ridgetop Road exit to be an unsafe condition.22 A weave analysis per the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) ChaEter 24 resulted in LOS F because there were only two lanes in the weave
section and no auxiliary lane. [Attachment E]
~ The 2003 ASCG TIA calculates the merge distance at 1000 feet which presents an even
greater merge hazarq than what the Berger TIA considers.
~ It is essential that the merge distance discrepancy between the Berger TIA and the ASCG TIA
calculation be resolved in order to arrive at an effective mitigation.
The TLGG estimate of 1475 feet of automobiles queuing at the south ramp to Ridgetop Road24 will create
a hazardous condition, even with traffic signalization, as a result of the weave-merge movement on NM
599. The deceleration lane and shortened storage capacity for the southbound Ridgetop Road off-ramp
:xl Page 13; Traffic Impact Analysis of the Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe. May, 2008. The Louis Berger Group.
Mexico, May 2003, Tierra LopezGarcia Group, Sant3 Fe, New Mexico.
22 Pages S, 37; Traffic Impact Analysis of the Northwest Quadrant for the City ofSanta Fe, May, 2008, The Louis Berger
)roup, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
-13 Page 10, Section IV. A, B; Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artic Slope Consulting Group,
September 24, 2003.
~ Page IX-3; Traffic Impact Analysis fur Santa Fe Estates Preliminary Plat and Development Plan, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
8 388
will result in a queuing of cars that will extend into the NM599 merge lane for the Ridgetop Road off-
ramp.2S . .
A deceleration lane length of 350 f~ and a decision-site distance of330 feet would allow for only 500
feet of storage at the exit ramp. When considered with the projected required queuing length of 1475 feet,
26
cars would extend into the NM 599 merge lane. Vehicles will be accelerating to make the merge
immediately before the Ridgetop Road exit ramp, then less than 1500 feet later, decelerating for the
Ridgetop Road exit
The TLGG studies made no analysis or other evaluation of the weaving factor. The Berger TIA refers to
concerns about the NM 599 weave, notes the diminishing LOS ratings, but does not offer any mitigation
or improvement recommendations.27
CONCLUSION
assumptions. None ofthe studies has effectively reconciled the original intention ofNM 599, as a by-
pass highway for the movement ofnuclear waste, with the safe integration of local traffic and the need for
The solution to one condition will necessarily impact the solutions to other conditions, and will
correspondingly impact the entire road infrastructure which supports the northwest sector traffic corridor.
We are dealing with a regional situation which affects the public safety of residents, commuters and
travelers in our area; a regional matter which demands a broad-based, long range traffic management
plan.
. RESOLUTION
Since the completion and recommendations ofthe MPO traffic analysis will have a material impact on the
amendment for "the Northwest Quadrant until the Metropolitan Planning Organization completes a long-
2S Page 7, SectionID.B, 2, c (i); Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artie Slope Consulting Group,
September 24, 2003.
26 Page 5, Section lILA, I, a, b, c, d; Technical Review of Traffic Impact Analysis, Santa Fe Estates, Artie Slope Consulting
Group, September 24, 2003.Ibid; page II. Section IV. A. B.
17 Page 13; Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe Northwest Quadrant for the City of Santa Fe, May, 2008. The Louis Berger Group.
• Santa Fe, New Mexico.
9 389
.
ATTACHMENT C
1 REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

-
2 SFMPO TRANSPORTATION POllCY BOARD
3 COY OF SANTA FE I SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
5 A RESOLUTION
6 CREATING A CITIZENS TASK FORCE FOR THE NM 599 CORRIDOR SAFETY STUDY.
8 WHEREAS, At the meeting ofMarch. 21,2006, the Santa Fe MPO Transportation
9 Policy Board directed MPO staff to prepare a resolution creating a citizens task force to provide;
10 public input for the NM 599 corridor study concerning safety issues and future transportation
11 improvements along NM 599; and,
12 WHEREAS, The safety of residents and travelers along NM599 is compromised at
13 several access points over the length ofthe facility including merging distance between ramps for
14 Ridgetop Road and US 84f285 and at non-signalization intersections at Camino de los Montoyas,
15 CR70, and CR62 ; and,
16 WHEREAS, Due to the high public investment cost, future interchanges at existing at-
17 grade intersections (signalized and non-signalized) or at other future access points along NM 599,
18 as well as any roadway connections via over- or underpasses, need to include public input during
19 the evaluation and prioriti:mtion processes; and,
20 WHEREAS, The Santa Fe MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2005-2030 as well as
21 the Transportation Improvement Program 2006-2011 include a corridor safety study to assess and
22 prioritize access improvements atong the entire length of NM 599; and
23 WHEREAS, The Santa Fe MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2005-2030 has a
24 stated goal that the MPO should encourage the coordination of land use and transportation
25 planning with the transportation system directing land development decisions; and,
1
390
1 WHEREAS, The Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization (SFMPO) should strive
2 to develop a road network that minimizes the impacts of non-residential motor vehicle traffic
3 through neighborhoods, and,
4 WHEREAS, The New Mexico Deparbnent of Transportation (NMDOl) is initiating a
5 corridor study on NM599 between its termini at NM 14 and US84/285, in collaboration with the
6 SFMPO and the Transportation Coordinating Committee, to develop recommendations for safety
7 improvements and project funding priorities; and
8 WHEREAS, The NMDOT encourages citizen input as part ofthe corridor study process
9 and the SFMPO Public Involvement Process specifies guidelines for public input in area studies,
10 and corridor plans.
11
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SANTA FE MPO
13 TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD AND THE REGIONALPLANNJNG
14 AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE I COUNTY OF SANTA FE THAT:
15 Section 1. A Citizens Task Force ("Task Force") is established to work with the
16 NMDOT and the MPO Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) on the NMS99 Corridor
17 Study ("Safety Study").
18 Section 2. MEMBERSHlP: The Task Force shall consist ofone representative
19 nominated from each Neighborhood (or Homeowners) Association located adjacent to or near
20 NM 599 that are directly affected by identified access points along the roadway.
21 Section 3. MEETINGS: Representatives are required to attend monthly meetings
22 preceding each TCC meeting. Briefmgs will be presented by NMDOT staffand consultants
23 followed by discussion. Meeting summaries will be incorporated into the record ofTCC
24 meetings. Meetings will continue until final recommendations ofthe Safety Study are adopted
25 by the Santa Fe MPO Transportation Policy Board (fPB).
2
391
1 Section 4. The recommendations of the Safety Study are presented to the MPO
2 Transportation Policy Board for adoption.
3 Section 5. The recommendations of the Safety Study are incorporated into the
4 Northwest Quadrant Master Plan.
S PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 2006.
8 DAVID COSS, CHAIRPERSON
10 ATTEST:
11
12
13 TINA Y. DOMINGUEZ, ACTING CITY CLERK
14
15
16 JACK SULLIVAN, VICE CHAIRPERSON
17
18 ATfEST:
19
20
21 VALERIE ESPINOZA, COUNTY CLERK
22
24
25
3
392
1 STEVE ROSS, COUNTY ATTORNEY
,.<"""!
4
5
6 ANNE LOVELY, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Jp/cmassignlmisc commIMPO bikeways task force res
4
393
~e
, ~ ATTACHMENT'J)
...
..,....\
'erena
~o
.0 Tano Cr-72 C1'-72

~
~
+-I
a,t:
~lO·'i\e~
,l!:A,,- '
..,;;..,#",'JJ '5..
Cf}
,-
~1::
>.
,0 ~
. Cr-72f .-C/."
c '[.'8110
-
,..
"'W
G
~
'.;:;
C
-0...
G
(i)
'"1,
de
CJ em Montoyas
l1')
RidoJoP;
to
1
Calle Celestial '-
U
\-weC 'ViSia Sa nd \8
c- WitdfloWBt
fil1l'
, :rlio
~r,
$ •
"wer le::rr~
Lorna Entrada
Muf·a.le,s
15
~
o Santa
2:
laza Nuev2 o
e
Qj
,...
('C
~~hr~d(lr' 394
j
/
395
Re: Northwest Quadrant Master Pbm
Proposed Traffic Solution
Dear Planmng Commission Member:
Casa Solana would like to propose a WIN-WIN solution to the traffic dilemma created OJ
well over 8,000 c.ars a day generated by the Northwest Qu.ad:nmt at build-out
We propose creating a cul--de-sac at the northwest end of Camino de las Crucitas above
the dog park (see following map). Camino de los Montoyas could then be wnnected to
both Paseo de Vista and Buckman Road by paving a small spur.
.,
This would allow traffic to flow from the Northwest Qu.ad:nmt down Pliseo de Vista
turning left on;,either Rincon de Torreon. North EI Rancho Road or Calle Nopal onto
West Ahuneda; Each of these roads is on average 7/10 ofa mile long and the closest is
7/10 of a mile from the Buckman - Paseo de Vista inten:hange. As you may already
know. the majority ofRi.ncon de Torreon is owned by the city and is '\f8C8l1t. The Pasoo
de Vista - Torreon connection for the Northwest Quadrant would provide oonnecti~ty to
oo~w~. '
We feel this gives thte best flexibility for traffic options, while protecting existing
I neighborhoods.
./
The neighborhoods ofCasa Solana and Calle Mejia combined total almost 6.000 people.
We hope you will give thoughtful and creative consideration to the traffic issues affecting
us. Our quality of life is being sacrificed for the comfort and connectivity ofthe
Nortbwest Quadrant.
We weloome our new neighbors but not their traffic.
Thank you tor yoW" consideration.
!('!""'~'-L,v ~:{" <' t,-{,~--·w ,,-j<~ ! P,"'. I
CecitiaKeou@lt llnet MaNban

SecretaJ:y Treasurer
LA NUEVA CASA SOl,ANA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
396
.... "",
[ ]
3fti'.l q4- ff2

t:.'s V'}'feS
"""',-'-..-----"-.-. .,..,,.... "'"
.
397
\,,-.../ M'i __..N .:/
City's poor planning will kill.neighhorbood

, By Nicole de Jurenev
hwe living in Casa Solana. It's a mix,

What kind of planning is it to run·sewer lines·
uphill.'into Qur '53-year-old sewer system? The
-' on 'their 2S acres in ~e No~westQ3.tad-
rant They ate not gpiDg tobuUd any
afforda1?l~ hous!:cg'as ~quired by la~_ ,
I ofold and new: varied ages, races.and

, religions;'affordable housing; apart-
ments; rich and poor arid stylish. and
funky. I don't recall a house being sold over
$500,000. In other words, were agenuine '
'
,sam.e sewer system,that is 'being 'repaired ,9" a, '
w~ekly basis.
What kind-of p1aIl$g is it '\$en,there
are more;than'lOO urisQld houSeS otl'the·
'IDarket,iD.,the_$35Q,OQO J:arige? The city ,
mistakeDly bclievesit will be easY,to,sell
an additiona125Q:houses ev~·though
Santa Fe neighborhood'This-is just the , , b~, will~,difflcU1ty w.jth.hi~~
sort ofneighborhood that is being pro- " '.MQre traffic is;anticipated from GOm~ sewer system? The sani.e seW~ system " dow;p. paym~ts ,an;d'~ potevep.,
po~ed for the Northwest ~ How metcial areas ana ,"d~on"locations that,is bdng re~ed on'a w~y basi&-, being,able,to:ab~ an;.6~~
exciting to have more worider:(Ul neigl:J.- within tM N9rthwest ~ The- What kinli of-p!.annini is it to,giye ,the ..' What kihd.ofP1anD.ing is this?
bal'5. But, wait. The Northwest Q!1adranl: figl,U'e oflO,OOO ~ a day is one-halfof water rights for a1fordable:housing for the ' We'sh:'Ould insist ~~ t,he city..bulld. '
, as proposed Win be built to the detriment the traffic on St. Francis Drive between entire city to the NorthweSt Q!iadrant? ,', proper:infrastni~roads,:sew:ers arid
of Casa Solana. It will destroy our fun-Iov- ' Alamo Drive and caniino de las Crud- What are the 13,000 houses,being built, . ~chools' for·tp.e NQrthwest Q!1adrant.
ing and peaceful neighborhooci taB. St. Francis is a toW ofsix 1aD.es, and ' on the,south side oftoWo'gOiDg-to ~o ,for , Help-us protect Ca$a So~ by ~isting
The flrSt thing is the roads. The pro- little caJirlno de las Crootas is ,only two water? ' . ,:I ' on a'cu1-d~C'-at the northwest end of
posal would make Camino de las C~ constricted lanes. ~d most nnportandy, what abq~t Camino de tas Cruclta:s so'~~ it'ci~ :..
citas a funnel from the m new houses' What kind ofplanning is this, espe- -. ,planning for schools? The -citY is bor- not b~me a, funne1for le,OOO,cars a
to St. Francis Drive and West Alameda. '. cially ~M3.yOf David Coss who grew .rowing$840,OO()topayforlS-acresth~" ' ~ ' " " ,,', ' " , , .'
Six thousand-cars a day would stream ,up in Qisa Solana and Counselor ¥att ' school district oWns in the NOr1:hweSt '. Th~ Northwest Q3;admnt is trylng-to'
through our neighborhood, in addi- 0J;tiz whose wife grew up here? What Qu!.dmnt. The City is giving the ~chool 'CoDfiscat~ ~e rigtlts,thatCasa Solana
tion to the 4,000 cars already rushing , about Gom,alesElementary schoo1l-Can District 10'acres on Buc1anan ~3.d. - . has enj~'Vor"the ~ 5? years. Do not.
through. Nobody is telling us how muCh West.Alamedil. bear more.traffic when the The school district- is not goiDg to build . let them get.aWay'wit;h it. '
additional traffic will_be genemte4-from, ldds are being dropped pff and picked up? a school for the m new,houses, even' "--_.-.-----~
"cut-tbroughs" from existing neighbor- , 1.........;...... to Proteet our_
Is, this,P-......uo children? though Gonzales Elementary School is " NICOle deJiieneY is 'the vice president
hoods such as, Santa Fe Estates; ZOcalo ' . What kind ofElanning is it to-rUn full Instead, the school distri<:j: ~ go~ " of La 1ftieYa ~a Solaria Neighborhpod
and the Thornburg Campus. ' sewer lines, uphill into our 53-year-old to build multi-million dollar spec,hOuseS ' - ,A,SsociatiofL
V)~ ~ -0 ~ ~ t! ~ -~"O ~ -o:=J, .......

"" ....
=z:...
Q) Q)
:~'~5~~~ ~6~~~ ~~s~~s~~~§~~~.~~ ~~gQ)'5 ~ ~~~ji >0:<

gal .~c '0~ 0.....
Qj ~ '5 s: .~ .§ 8 § :6 ai 'iii .~ : ro -~.~ ~ 11 g ~ ~.:: -g ~ ~ ~ 'E ~ ~:5 ~ ~ .~ ~ ! .s.~ ~ g- "'<
:;)
c ls'::, ::. ~ c ai ~ al .= c ,: ~ ;x 4 'C'"' 1il ~ o..s 'tD ~:.l~. al ';?! .... -oj ,--'"
0 .1/) ,...:. lJ.. 0. aD t
~!~~~i~~~~£~~u~ff~!EEI/)I~~~~E~~~~ I/)-£~£~~'!~E~~I~ ...
~
~ c ~ .:.:: U) '.!Q ~ -! t: ~ -g ~ ~ ~ ~. ~:: ~ § ~ :: s:: ~ .: '5 :=t g § ~ pt3. :E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g :: ..; oS ~ :6
Q) -:. V>
c.o - :> roo >'Il -- Q) co co ~ I I- V1 0 "- ...... • - c ... ",.Q C ~ .- .... a.. c o.c 0 ._ rtI r:::: .J::. ::l Q)'~
II)
c~~~~~~~~to.c~ c~c.u~~Q~-~aD ~~~~ ~ ro-~~o. ~~~~~u
.- ~ u - " • - :>0 .... 0 ~ ro > . :sJ ~ ~ .Q c u ~ ~ aD ,- C ~ - ~ ~ c ~.... :sJ • 1iJ::. u ~ eel/)
m'8 ~ ~ iii ~:E ~ .l2 ~ ! "i ~ _5 .::2 ~ .lo!, ~ 5 := ~:S IQ tl' ~ ,g ~ 8:e "5 ,g ~ ;;; '@- § ~ ~,~ ~ == ~ =: ~
~ .1/) ~ ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~:ffi ~ '0 .s ~ ~ g .~ ~ .~ .! ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ] '§ ~ ~_ ~ ~ §! ~ ~ ~] ~
g ] g
'- ~ "0"01: a3;c aJ co 5:'" -g . 3t '0: 04~ ~ 5.. >'t) ... a... a3 -! . 8! ~ ~.;.s ~ .... E ~.~ ~
0 c .,3 '0' ~ ~ -= ~ 0 :2 c ~ ~ ~ -
Q) II) (1) Q)
~ ~3 :5 .1/) - ...' ~ .. .... it:5 c E 5. E ro ~ 8 ~ l::l ~ I/) ai ~ ~ ~ ~ :
!'Oi!~~~~!~.s!iiiirliJ:6~~f~~J~~~~~~i~!E§~:581j!~~~[~
- .~. ~ ElSe I- e ~ ~ E.Q ~ ~ - E 8. co u ro ~ ro c ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E u ~ ~ u - E .-
ai l::l 'i U .J::. E -,ro ~::..=
.....-
0 ,-
U "0 "!
i:i'..2
~
ro ~ '5 III
V1
~ r:7
~= c E-0 co
Q. C:.Q
5!
c .... ~ !... cro :.:.~
... .J::. u .J::. 'i '0 cro ....lil c u !S. ....ai ':5(.) ~ -~ ._ '1c:;1
.Q
Q) 0
.Q .... ;
398
MY VIEW
Northwest Quadrant
'deals' arouse suspicion
·. By Rick Martinez . , in.theNorthwest·Q!1adrant.'with 0ll1y10 years to
build it. Is it in the s~ool districfs.master plan to
"nder the.-i:eIms of a new plan, t:l.u~ city of . build a scho:ol in the Northwest Q!Jadr.int when
U . .sailta Fe. will pay $840.000 to purchase

·IS acres-ofland in the Northwest Q!Jad-
. ..' ·rant:. a propoSecl.b~ot'n·cOmmunity, .
from the Sm.tta Fe S<;:hools District,'andt:Q.e city
s~t aside a io-acre site offI,luck:man Road fQr a
we have 13.000 homes in the pipeline to be con-,
· structed on the south side oftown?
. In, another "done'de3l; oW: citY.leadexs set aside
all 0\11" afiO.rdable w.tter rights for fue-Nort:hwest:
~ All this time I ~tourwater~ a
future school . public asset and not: a developer asset:. Maybe now
The city also will allow construction ofIS high- · is the time to ask. what the- next thing is that our
end, ma"rket"'i'ate homes with some ofthe \)e$t . city leaders will ~ the community to give up for .
views of th~ city on 25 acres in the NorthWest its pet project. ~ bCdroo~co~·willcon-
. Q!Jadrant - with no
affordable-housing require- bin 720 new homes with only one way in and one
mentS. imposed on this site. .Thus,-t:hete wiUbe Way out Onto
t:h~ NoM S99/28S.COniflOI; and with
no room (or ~ or ~")IOne who mee~ the no real downtownco~n. .
affoCdable-housing crlteda. ' .. . . 'So raise our water rates and vote for the trans-
Now ask why the school di$trict is pushing · fer tax to h~ pay for the gpid ~ our city 1e3d-
to set aside 3G-plus acres in Las Soleras for the . '. ers ~ ~t for this project. . .
pUrpose of construction of an eJementary schoo).
"X"et.~c.ity is onhr offering 10 a~ fQr,a sdt~l .SanttiFean~M~isarWghboriwoo~
'OUR .HOUSE
:' Please ~t your fa~ts straight·
" [lane's WPrid: Jan.']; ~Howdy,
. . ;' .-
"'iO!III~
.
I admit to ~ot ·~iritt~ll,{h~J.·
. ' .' /
.': . ,'.
. ' .
Nelghbor"]: At the 'Neighborhood information a~' the..coiUt.<fI1e~ .....

over a'new airOf~able:-tlousirlg: . :',c .
Law Center conference,.a-Casa I development·in.ttte north*ilS(~rt ~
.
What's the rush?
Solana homeowner Questi.oned.. ' 'j of town llape;~:Wbrrd •. Jan. '1:'
City Councilor Patti BushOO, .... .P~.Co~~S~~deniscoi
· "Why was one 'neighbortiood' in "HOwdy; Neighb,o,nl; Bufit strike$'
me that any tieW,ij~v.elopnieni"· .
rect to ~tion why t:be.~.ty-Woul.d want to pay . :
· her district, the historic ~ 1 is, at this time, r~~propriate.
the santa Fe Public SChools District '$840,000,. ,
town, getting prese!"3tion rights '. j pl~give the school ~ctlQ.~:n~ ,
With alt t~e housing stock on the
while another. historically con- I
market (even'betweeA '$H~O,OOO
Buckman Road, in eXchange for IS ~cres in the
· tributing Casa Solana, having its ! Northwest,Q!JadranL This.amotinis to $i68,OOO
rights bamplect?" The Northwest ~ and $300,000), there should: be"
ali effort to purch~, update and '.: : Per acre ~ the ~of~nfora net Qf .
QUadrant is an admirable, nec-
divide.las needei:l) ~ist!flg h6us- . _ : j five acres. ThiS is ~t a-bad profit for a sale of .!
essary Clnd 'totaUy worth~i1e land that the city' originally g:av~ to the,~ct. !
devefopmenl The P':o~lem is . lng, to make it all3ilable:to thQse :'!
with, lower ii1com~. CleariYi.I'm· i . I do n~ understa¢ the cash-stIappe(lcity's' !
infrastructure. None is being , i
planned. Casa Solana's roads and i not: t1lking about subpriroo !:Y~
of fi,",ancing. bUt, rather, a tiecitive , .
I rush to purchase t:lie land Ifand'when the
entire parcel, inclu.dingthe school district's
_j
I
seWer system 'are' being. co-opted ! combination of green r~building 15 acres, lias been sold and a·Jiwket price has 1
· by tile 773 houses planned in the 1
empioymel"!l; voiunteer opportuni-' been ~lished,the City and the school district !
· NwQ, without Our consent. Little i ties and grant money.'This would could prorate the.prOceeds. _ : .
two-lane Camino de Las Crucitas ;
not only 'avoid the stereotypical Michael Gold
;,rould Mcome a funnel fa"r-ovei
loW-income corridor effect, but , :Santa Fe .
10,000 cars and· trucks a day; .
would rei~vigorat~ the economy
splitting UJe neighOOrhood in haff,
: :much like- Sl Franci~"DriVe'did and eX.ist!ng neighb.orhoods. .
~ When it was built. Ou~iS ~ neigh~
- borhoi>d Of apartments:duplexes,
9r2i{~' ': .. ":.' J~~~~:;~ "'.:':
affordallie houslng and ~tep-up
housing. We are. di~ in terms protect from the increased traf-
ofages; races and. religions, and YoUrsense of . . . fic thc!t would be generated by
'are mostly ~rking-ciass folks: entitlement is deeply offensive,to As a resident.of Casa So/ana;. the hundreds of new homes to
UnfOrtunately. too many of.us" us. ~j~ you mention lhat we .think., I am deeply offended:by'lane be built by the city as. part of its
are eligible for food stamps and CouncilOr Patti BUshee. is domg a Fischer's comment that: my ne~: proP.OSed Nort.hWflSt Quadrant
. recently there have been Sd:!11e , wonderful job? . . .' bors and. I ar&suffering fr~m wha.t developnient. J certainly sUPP/'
home foreclosures. ~ne!. piease . he described as "RoCkwell ian '.' increased affordable' housing, .
NICOLE DE' JUREHEv:
get the facts straight abOut Casa delusions of stickball a'nd neigh- . the city must not"ig~r~ our legili' .
VI!:{PRESIDENt
Solana and the NWU; You need lA NUEVA C4SA $QuriA' borhood strolls. n Mr. fischer mate concerns in the same way
:tQ accurately 'report on the meeh _ NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS obviously knows little about Casa· . that Mr. Fischer has.
ings you attend. . SAHTA f( Solana, 'especially those Qualf- .. ALICE TEMPLE
ties that we hope to preserve al"!d . SANTA Ff'
399
=~m: "SANOOVAl, MARGE 0" <!T1dsando'@l@ci.santa-fe.nm.u§.::>
late: March 16, 2009 3:04:16 PM MDT
ro: <Ieslieveva@earthlink.net>
;ubject: FW: infrastructure first
~~sage from Mayor Coss
-Original Message---
~rom: COSS, RON D.
ient: Monday, March 16.2009 2:45 PM
fo: SANDOVAL, MARGE D
)ubject: RE: infrastructure first
)ear Ms. McNamara;

lbanks for your email on the Northwest Quadrant The City is currently
rtudying the traffic impact and mitigation measures for the project We
Nill work to make sure traffic issues are addressed and Casa Solana is
;xotected before this project goes forward
iincerely.
\ofayor Coss
-Original Message--
!rom: SANDOVAL, MARGE D
)ent: Monday, March 16,2009 11:31 AM·
ro: COSS, RON D.; MCCORMICK, KAlHY A.
~ubject: FW: infrastructure first
yi
}Original Message--
"rom: Leslie McNamara [mailto:lesliev~y~earthlink..net]
;ent Sunday, March 15,2009 3:29 PM
[o:MAYOR
:;c: BUSHEE,PATIl J.; CALVERT, CHRIS
;ubject: infrastnicture first
~Miiyor Coss, Patti and- Chris,
\.s a 23 year resident of Casa Solana, I oppose the Northwest Quadrant

raffic which will impact, devalue and threaten our neighborhood All
bat very fine NWQ planning without responsible and necessary
nfrastrocture is PREMATURB. In meeting after meeting, no on~_ .
xplains why the connecting roads are not preceding the development
Vhy?
Vbile there have been legitimate safety objections to closing Camino

e las Crucitas, I propose a temponuy automatic gate which would be
ccessible to police. firetrucks. medical deliveries and even
xisting residents. This technology exists and probably is
ffordable. Perhaps that-is '"discriminatory," but is it not also
iscriminatory to destroy an existing affordable neighborhood in
.-f~ to build the new one?
{e. are counting on you to protect our neighborh~please. It is not

le development we oppose; it is the traffic. Thank: you, Leslie
IcNamara 122 Alamo Dr. SFNM
400
:ecilia Keoug..;,h _
=rom: Cecilia Keough [ckeough@newmexico.com]

ient: Thursday. March 19, 2009 7:08AM
ro: mayor@santafenm.gov; pjbushee@santafenm.gov; ccalvert@santafenm.gov;
rdwurzburger@santafenm.gov; r2romero@santafenm.gov; mlguelmchavez@msn.com;
cadominguez@santafenm.gov; meortiz@santafenm.gov; rs~illo@santafenm.gov
iubject: CASA SOLANA TRAFFIC ISSUE: LETTER FROM TAMARA LICHTENSTEIN
[ called and spoke to the case staffer, Lucas Cruse today, in

~esponse to the newspaper ad in today's paper. I asked about traffic
lssues, and he said that staff is still preparing their report on
:hat. So I asked about the applicant's tra~~ic study, the appli~ant in
:his case being the city itself. Those figures are apparently
lvailable, but here's the thing: if both the submittal and the
~esponse are by the same entity, the city, given the conflict of
lnterest, how can any report on the submittals, or the submittals
:hemselves, be taken seriously by the public?
I don't live in the Casa Solana area, by the way--I'm in Agua Fria
Tillage, where the traffic impacts of big developments (which exist
)ut our way due to provision of city water and sewer) have been a sore
)oint for a long time. Currently it seems that development proposals
:hat can boast of any kind of "affordable" housing (acco~ding to
iebatable and narrow terms--they don't tend to include family
:ransfers and preservation of housing, only building new stuff) get
~e green light with a blind eye to the negative impacts on existing
leighborhoods.
Traffic issues are about quality of life, health, safety and welfare.
Ie have been alarmed by how many folks in our area have asthma, which
;ertainly isn't helped by, and may even be triggered by, the
)ollutants coming out of all those tailpipes going past our windows.
~raffic makes it unpleasant to walk along the road, with fumesJ noise,
lnd the dirt and rocks thrown up by truck tires. Headlights at night
lre invasive--this is one reason why you see walls creeping up higher
llong busy roads, to keep out not only noise but headlights. Traffic
lakes it unsafe for children to simply cross the street, dividing
leighborhoods like fast-moving rivers.
As one of the loveliest westside neighborhoods, Casa Solana deserves
.rotection from the city's profit-driven plan to exploit the northwest
~adrant. Damaging one neighborhood to build another benefits the
luilders, not the community as a whole; the profits are short-term,
:he damages long-term.
I cannot attend the meeting, but please feel free to forward or bring
~ comments as a concerned member of the community.
Tamara Lichtenstein
1
401
0·4 THE NE\:'{ MEXICAN SU:lday. Dece,
MYVIEW .
Traffic I welcpme !:his new develop-

Casa Solana sell-out
Once built, the NoI1:hWest Q!Jadi'ant will
ment, but I. do not want to be
threatens the sacrificial neighborhood laid
~e by endless traffic. With
have more than 700.·homes and some. com-
mercial enterprises. The planners describe this
J!ew neighborhood 3$ i)enefiting the broader
m homes being built, this new
charm neighborhood will be much
larger than Casa Solana.
We want to protect our kids,
coriun~tywith·green space, green building
and affofdable housing. rt"sounds great. .
Unfortunately,: it is bei.rig deSigned without
of Casa .fcats and dogs from cars speed-

ing through our streets. Allen
j"Stamm built roads to accom-
proper road.anc!.-;gewer iJifrastrueture. As a
Casa 's"obna resii:lent, I am concerned·that the
Nortliwest Q~!irantis ~g pIanited with-
Solana I
modate our neighborhood
back in 1956. Mayor David Coss
out consideration for the effect it·will have on
our neighborhood·· '..
By ~ecilia Keough
I
and city planners should take
.a cue from a well-remembered
Instea4 of ~ direCt'~q:eSsto St. F~~
.c;is.Drive or GWdaJ.~peStreet, the tIaffic will
fwmel down through our two-Jane, residential -
or the past two years, the lI
and well-loved developer.
Our narrow little residential streets. Same with the sewera,ge. It all runs .
F city of Santa Fe has been

pursuing a development
project known as the
Northwest Q!Jadrant 'This is a
540-acre parcel ofJand across
streets were never meant to be
th.roughways.
'doWnhill Le~s insist ~t the Northwest Q!lan--
drant be built With the infrastrUcture to tie it
direCtly to, the city. If that is done,"it baS the -
potential to benefit the ~e city. If the plans .
proceed as currently designed, Casa Solana
the stra..'t fiom our beloved .
will be destroyed. Let's not sacrlfice one won-
derful neighborhOod'for anothet. - - .
dog park above Casa Solana
The city has owned this.land Janet Marsmll
for a long ti.~e, and instead of Santa Fe
leaving it: a£ open space as.was
" originally promised in the Mas-
) ter Plan, they are propOsing a
development that will include
713 homes at build out My'VE£W
My neighborhood. Casa
Solana, lies in the perilous
path of the many cai-$ that NW Quadrant deve~opme~t
will ~pew forth from this new
development I counted cars threatens old neighborhood'
witf. my neighbor one morn-
ing and we countedahnost . ,By A.1e. IWontgo.m.err . las Crucitas to prevent more than
600 during rush hour. "That is 10,000 can; from driving daily .'
right no\v, before the North- , The histo~c ea"sa Solak ~gh our very- Darrow streets.
west Q!.tadrant is developed! , ~ihood is-abuzz BUt What about the other
Consider for a moment that .' wiUt reside$ exchang- concerns? Should the city bor-
each of the hOknes proposed in ing e-mails, letters and. phone , row $840,000 to buy santa.~ .
the Northwest Q1Jadrant will \! calls, infonning each other of acres
Public 'schools 15' in the
have one to four occupants .l
I the city's· lateSt actions,on the Northwest Q!Ja~t?How will
, t
living there. These people will , i propoSed Northwest Q!Jadrant the city seJl almost 800 houses
make on average six to eight ~~ developm~, . in this depressed. real-estate
trips a day by car. Do the math. : I Were united in our efforts market? Why is the Northwest
Six car trips a day will bring ~ not to block affordable hous- Q!Jadrant ~ the affordable-
more than 4,000 cal'> tluuugh ing iii the Northwest Q!Jadrimt housing water rights. for the
our sweet little neighborhood - but to o~ the tIaffic that entire city? Can the 53-year-old
Eight car.trips a day will bring would flow through our neigh- Casa Solana sewer system han-
more than 6,000 cars. This is in ; 1 borhood from the development dle another 800 houses?
addition to the L"urrent traffic. ~I . We've packed city meetings Casa Solana is one of the safest,
That's a'lot of cars.
~y neighbors and I have
i.': '( for the past several months to
voice this and other concerns.
most diverse neighborhoods in
Santa Fe. Many of us are living in
attended meeting after meeting Yet II".ajor questions remain the homes we were born in. We
~~
to implore city officials to not i 1 - about traffic. financing, the don't want our neighborhood's
destroy our 53-year-old historic :1 real~temarket and wat~ and charm and safety jeopardize4 by
neighborhood. We are being jI sewer services. . poor itlfnlstructure planning.
totally ignored and usurped by The answer to the ~::illk prob-
the comfort and convenience of ~!:
. . lem is simple; build :! cul-de-sac at AX Montgomery lives
the Northwest ~C!jrant inhab- the northwest end ofCamino de in Casa Solaita.
itants. .
402
city, then we'are going tohave to
While'l would agree tfta{-_t~' intensely chalienge ourselveS to -
effectS Qf the Northwest liuadrant live niuch more_simply and with
Save Casa Solana r _ -.
~~Ioptnent adjace_ot to ~ , gr~ater regard to the ste~ardship The casa Solana residents-have-repeat-
SOlana would be disagreeabl~-to lof this land_ This is not !ust an ,ed1y mea. to -~ MayOrDavid ~and the. ,.,'..7 .....,
,th'ese' 'reSid~nts', ~ amQng.the.m"i', ~ environmentaI-1St at!ltU - d,~; -tI WI'II city of Sal?-ta J1e to hear Our deql eoncerps .
r C!I$O thin1c th_e:riotioti'~(Yi~iere be a matter of survlvabl!lty once over die proposed d~opment cif~~
an<t-ooW-we'boffi prO',lide ~~ing we run f<.lll speed p,i5t peak points NorthWest Q!Iadrant After a number of '
for-'our «<i!izens and ~ive;,ill-llii~.,. in our existing imported resourc- i:n;eetings,.ifs. clear that our voiCeS,have-_ : ,
'place'Mars I;Oiltin~~;_~~al.I~~lng. es. I ad;nowledge that overcoming -fallen-on deaff3l'S.:'- - - , '
iri~pej:tioQ. Not onIy,¥~.-n¢ed bureaucratic momentum takes The-p~ fueory as'tO ~.~~'. '
to find ~y t? al~ !~::aff~ - tenacity on the part of design-
a of the Anasazi is tPat the pop¢ationput- "
ability, -b~ we alsO ti.~. ~--dwell ers arll:l political will from all of .striPped. the ,cult11fes' resources.· ¥e we _
._ in a manner that,ft':lrlJl~l~ .- -us. but true housing innovation doomed to make the.saJl1e IDi.sfuke1 -- -
with ~fIg cYC~)h-~ time. of. WoUld be the kind of development -' We ~~citYDottoPutthe~
dWindling resourc~!,upon which th-at necessarily puts our design
-ofmore"tban 700 new hom~ on our sew~
we have volunteer~:,~?r future decisions squarely on the kif!d of
, and water systenjs' and Qn our roadS..Vk _" -,_
gen~tions to subsldllJ! our_~on'llife we can reasonably sustain, - -_ ~delas ~t:aS close<} o~ -
sumptWe lifestyles, we absolutely .right here from immooiately local
have to r~~m!he the nature resources. ' becoiniDg a CuI de sac and -notthe cOndUit, '.'
.Of tlie W<rf. ~1iVe ~~:~is place. DAFYD RAWLINGS to.the new developmentt:hmugb. our pre-
, , "ffi!JS, ~e canl)\lt {j~~nd~that a 1 SANTA FE - dow neighbothood. , - ..
neW nelgh~ beAd ~~ our, _
-needs' witbQ~~I(Qf -~~ agreeing to
I Ifth~ NorthweSt,Q!Jadrnnt had its own
, ,- -aCcess roads. sewer. and water' syst~ns.'-We
redilte'~~;~f6r il)Stance. !
.
, would Welcome the addltion ofihis much-
If,we a,re:so ve;Y.WOirilk! in~. I PI~ -let rile repo,t the facts 'needed affordable hOusing. •
SOlana that trafflc-,troffi the NWa about the traffic from, the If that doesn't happen, the citywill )iter-
-is'goi~g-t~-i1i!'1irtish,?!:If'quality of . 'N~est Quadrant into Casa,
ally .niiD. our ncighborhood.
life~ Whii are we'~qt;q~tioning SOlana'[z3ne'S WorJd: J~. 7.: _" ::, ' CaroleDarr
_ -bOth'the current ~ffit.:lhat - ~f!iwi~to Dralp'~~~]"The figur.!5-, , .,·Santa-PC
alreOOy eltistr-OU'r':.J~ ~ and ::awf;oriiihe City,of ~n:ta,F~s -.
all ttie:cut-throUglj'.trafffe-and, , j~ay,,~QOa traffic..repOrt:_CUri'entiy'-
-·taklrig.fn~fi$ to 'reduce this -, there'are' 4.220 VE!hicl~ pet' ":_
- enY.fJ.'Op,fuentiil tocid? " - ,. ~ Ori,e~I~~ l.as-cruCit3s~~·'~
.. .l~ne wrote.that:the-NWa is ~.o99've~lcles per-daiaie ~:. ;-
."tlie' ci\y'$ _last signifiCant opPor- - --mated from the NWa. This--d9.llS .:
_tunlty to ensure,that,additional
.:_..•- ~--~ht ,""","";rt'"ial:-.(lW~~fl<
.,~. .. f;..
"""'I~,!.-"" ._' .
.~. ~
' .-
~ ,~School d~ct b41ld;ol.1t'Qt: .... -.-
af(ordabh!.,fl9using -is bl,liit On the
n~~ sid~: ~'t d~e,e. I tend- ,
.cOt-tJ:Jrough traffic..-·Sjj(~l;ine ~"i '
.lI}:ltlm15,of'aUoWing granoy flafs.
.. Franc~,._ :" -, -" "R~w-~
'.camino 00.. Iis'"
~,ili:\iJ~ a~t a<:klitions -' 21880:. ,.:" ,
to:~iig h§'tl~, :i~fili-deveIOP:
ment;*/jangj"f1g'~~gto a"~.
-~~,~
housing over commerc-ial in exist~
~ cOin~rcial m~, arid (d!lte
':: -::;:~~~~~ " ,."r{}.
matter wtiatZane f"iSChet,$;";':
:Fsay it1)' ,-aller bqildings, to name' Cas3 Solana'wairts ~ CIty-tii,::,'~' :
-Other ,pOssible options., DensitY..is - make the.norl!J end of ea!iiin(l .~ _.__
-,ilOt something to ,be. afraid of and, 'de LaS'Crucilas into a cul'<le-sac
donE! q)rrOCt!y, witfJout"allowing to protect our ~ighborhood. Call-
"the automotiile to dictate deSign, me zane, so we can dialogue with
~ resulfS,;"n. coi~id.eQ~lIy, a '_ equal inkltime about the other
~atifUl, ~~ stllt~~on~1 .- facts yOu are dispiJting.
~~,It's ~ijN1;"We.'tfIink of, NICOLE DE JURENtV
,~:Walkfng <;itles: II) oJder-built' VICE PRESIDENT
.etlytr;9rimei1t~"arou(id the wOrld: LA NUEVA CASA SOUNA
~pe;"-Ji!pan,_Mexi~o:s Old colo-. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIA11011
~i3HoWtls,:tiiqarn.e.<;I few; I?ut we - SANTA FE
tkiiI~t seem to.-et~te t,he- same
.c,~~dit~ here to ~d!itate the .
sami'opp¢unitieS ,- ,
.We:canA9t alloW~ short-term
prof-aand jgnoicince of long-term
plariefaly health' to be' predomi~ -
nant Efti>lers Of:~eJOprnenl
, Another coininent from Zane's
~Iuirin:that "Clon;t loO-percent '
agree with is: "It's [the NWQJ • \.
also the clWs "mOst likely current
Chance to-focus'~ aniLertergy
on a trt.!ly ~essive, genuinely
green (f!lostly) and honestly inno-'
vat~ nousing effort... If Santa
Fe really_ wants to be a green
403
Page lof
ilia Keough
Guy Best [guybest@comcast.net]

Monday, March 16. 20094:02 PM
cadominguez@santafenm.gov; mayor@santafenm.gov; miguelmchavez@msn.com; pjbushee@santafenm.gov;
ccalvert@santafenm.gov; rdwurzburger@santafenm.gov; rstrujillo@santafenm.gov; r2romero@santafenm.gov;
meortiz@santafenm.gov
ckeough@newmexico.com
eel: Northwest Quadrant Master Plan
Mayor and City Council members,
Isband, daughter and I lived very happily on Camino de las Crucitas for 12 years in the 1990s, just when
ampanas and all the Tierras were being built The traffic that roared-up and down our street finally drove
: - to the county. We didn't want to go. We have many dear friends in the Casa Solana neighborhood,
)nsider it the best example of true Santa Fe. We could lean over the back fence and visit with our
)ors. We watched out for one another and for one another's children. Our kids walked down the street to
~Ies Elementary. -
perfect - except for the traffic that traveled down what was never meant to be a thoroughfare. We tried tc
e the noise by replacing our windows. We tried to slow the traffic by asking the city to install speed
S, which it.did, but the bumps never deterred all the pickUps and other contractor vehicles from taking the
:ut down Camino las Crucitas. We thought the By-pass would help, but, again, everyone likes the short
b. Santa Fe ought to live up to its obligations to its citizens and taxpayers and build the proper
ructure to handle the traffic that will be generated from housing in the Northwest Quadrant and divert it
1e historic Casa Solana neighborhood. That increased traffic will literally destroy a beautiful
)orhood of people, many of whom cannot afford, as we did, to move out to the boondocks.
In't vote in city elections anymore, but we support our former neighbors and their right to a peaceful
If the Planning Commission approves the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan, we fervently hope the City -
~I will overrule such a mistake.
'ely,
nd Jan Best
rth Sparrow Lane
Fe 87506
J78
404
lCl~ tMYo~ W$$ ,en!e.c:ivrJClLDRS
Santa Fe holds it's neighborhoods in high regard. Each has a name and at least
a story, if not a long history. We are a community of conservationists in the best
sense of the word. We all want to conse.rve the special character of this unique
city.
As a resident of Casa Solana, I want my neighborhood conserved. Our

community is threatened by the potential influx of traffic from the NWQ
development. The Design Group and some others are stressing the need for
connectivity to the city. The problem with the current plan is that our small,
. residential streets, Camino de las Crucitas and Alamo Drive, are the only viable
connections currently available. Recently, during the 7-9 AM rush hour period,
two of my neighbors counted 600 cars at the roundabout. Just think what that
number will be when the 800 homes and commercial enterprises are established.
The point is that there is already too much traffic on Crucitas. Our neighborhood
has worked to mitigate this by fighting for speed humps. We now know that they
don't work.
Since the public meetings began two years ago, our concern has been voiced
over and over again. And from the beginning, it has been ignored or dismissed.
The NWQ should have a direct connection to St. Francis. This should have been
part of the plan from the beginning. The current plan is flawed and must-be
revised to protect Casa Solana. We do not want a thoroughfare running through
the middle of our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Janet Marshall
----Original Message-----
rom: Lisa Danner [mailto:dannerreport@cybermesa.com]
ant: Monday, March 16., 2009 7:33 PM
0: mayor@santafenm.gov; miguelmchavez@msn.com;
adominguez@santafenm.gov; pjbushee@santafenm.gov
c: ccalvert@santafenm.gov; meortiz@santafenm.gov;
dwurzburger@santafenm.gov; rstrujillo@santafenm.govi
2romero@santafenm.gov
ubject: PLEASE PROTECT CASA SOLANA!
ear Mr. Mayor and City Councilors~
want to impress upon you how strongly I feel about the traffic that will
unnel down Camino de las Crucitas from the Northwest Quadrant. I
on't want it!
eep Sereno Drive SERENE!! Keep Casa Solana the nice, quiet, safe
eighborhood
tis.
lease help us protect Cas a Solana.
isa Danne'r
405
2 BILL NO. 2009-_ _
3 INTRODUCED BY:
l O A N ORDINANCE
11 AMENDING SECTION 14-4.3(1) SFCC 1987 REGARDING THE PURPOSE AND
12 REQUIREMENTS OF PRC PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DISTRICTS.
d3
)
14 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF TIlE CITY OF SANTA FE:
16 amended to read:
17 (1) Purpose and Intent
18 It is the purpose of the planned residential community district to provide
19 for the comprehensive and coordinated planning of large-scale residential
20 developments that takes into account a phasing of development that will
21 take place over a long period of time. This district permits and
22 encourages both single-family residences in conventionally platted
23 subdivisions and clustered residential developments based on a design
24 concept that applies innovative site-planning techniques. The district also
,25 permits and encourages neighborhood commercial uses and mixed-use
406
1 development in order to provide limited services and economic
2 opportunities for the immediate area.
4 amended to read:
5 (3) Responsibility of Applicant
6 It is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that the development is
7 planned and designed to achieve the following goals:
8 (a) Compliance with the City General Plan in effect at the time the
9 master plan is approved by the Governing Body of the City;
10 (b) A mixture of residential densities intended to achieve a balanced
11 community for families of all ages, sizes and income levels;
12 (c) Provision for community services, including commercial
13 services;
14 (d) Provision for mixed-use development (optional);
15 [€d)]W The comprehensive and compatible arrangement of all land uses
16 with respect to· each other and the community as a whole;
17 [~]ill A comprehensive and integrated traffic circulation system; and
18 [OOl(g} The provision of adequate and well~esigned recreational
19 facilities and areas of open space.
22 (6) Master Plan; Standards; Requirements
23 (a) The number of dwelling units or area of commercial use or
24 mixed-use development as approved by the Governing Body of
25 the City drawn as set forth in paragraph (5) above shaH appear in
407
1 the plan. The number of dwelling units and area of commercial
2 use or mixed-use development, if any, as approved by the
3 Governing Body of the City and drawn on the master plan shall
4 constitute the maximum number of dwelling units, unless an
5 increase in the number of dwelling units is agreed to in carrying
6 out the Santa Fe Homes Program as set forth in §14-8.11, or area
7 of commercial use or mixed-use development permitted for each
8 tract.
9 (b) A mylar print of the master plan shaH be placed on record in
10 Land Use Department.
11 (c) If land is dedicated to the City as a City park at the time of

. .
12 rezoning, such that it satisfies the park dedication requirements
)13 for the entire master plan as set forth in the land subdivision
14 regulations, Article 14-9, of this chapter, then park dedication
15 shall not be required upon the subdivision of individual tracts.
16 (d) Development of the site shall conform tothe approved phasing
17 schedule.
20 (7) Application and Review of Development on Individual Tracts;
21 Administrative Procedure
22 Subsequent to the zoning of a land parcel to planned residential
23 community district status by the Governing Body ofthe City, the
24 authority to review and approve development proposals on individual
,25
I tracts resides with the Planning Commission as provided by law and
408
1 ordinance. The subdivision ofthe entire tract into smaller tracts by "'~~)
2 preliminary subdivision plat shall occur prior to the approval of final
3 development plans for any individual tract. If the Planning Commission
4 does not act on a request for development within 90 days after the initial
5 review by the Planning Commission, the applicant may request review of
6 the proposed development by the Governing Body. An increase in the
7 number of dwelling units or area of commercial use for any tract above
8 that approved by the Governing Body of the City requires a
9 recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the
10 Governing Body of the City, unless an increase in the number of
11 dwelling units is agreed to in carrying out the requirements of the Santa
12 Fe Homes Program, set forth in §14-8.11. The following regulations
13 apply to the respective development of individual tracts: )

14 (a) The development of tracts proposed for single-family detached
15 dwellings on conventionally platted lots shall conform to the
16 requirements for single-family structures in residential R-I
17 through R-6 districts and the Santa Fe Homes Program, set forth
18 in §14-8.11 and §26-1. The provisions of the land subdivision
19 regulations shall apply to detached, single-family residences on
20 conventionally platted lots;
21 (b) The development of tracts proposed for multiple-family
22 structures shall conform to the provisions for multiple-family
23 structures in RM districts, the Santa Fe Homes Program, set forth
24 in §14-8.11 and §26-1. In the course of reviewing the
25 preliminary development plan, the Planning Commission may

)
409
1 require changes in the preliminary plan as a condition of
2 Planning Commission approval. The applicant shall prepare a
3 final development plan to be followed in construction operations.
4 The final development plan shall be submitted to the Planning
5 Commission for approval, together with final drafts for the
6 homeowners' association, to include articles of incorporation,
7 bylaws, covenants, and restrictions. The final development plan,
8 or successive stages thereof, as approved becomes the final plat
9 and the basis for issuance of zoning and building permits and for
10 acceptance of public dedications. The applicant shall comply
11 with all the requirements as set forth in §14-5.7(1)(4).
12 (c) The development of tracts designated for single-family attached
\13 structures shall conform to the provisions set forth for the R-7,
14 R-8 and R-9 residential districts in Article 14-7, the Santa Fe
15 Homes Program set forth in §14-8.11 and §26-1. The :Planning
16 Commission may grant variances from those provisions as set
17 forth in §14-2.3(C)(3).
18 (d) In addition to complying with the regulations set forth in the
19 shopping center district, SC, § 14-4.3(K), the following
20 requirements apply:
21 (i) Neighborhood commercial uses may be permitted in the
22 planned residential community district. Where
23 neighborhood commercial uses are approved as part of
24 the master plan, the maximum ground area for such
25 neighborhood commercial uses shall be calculated by
410
_.'~~~-
1 multiplying the number of residents by 35 square feet. "J
2 The number of residents per household shall be set at
3 three and six-tenths for owner-occupied dwellings and
4 three and seven-tenths for renter-occupied dwellings, or
5 as estimated by the United States Bureau of the Census;
6 (ii) A preliminary development plan drawn at a minimum
7 scale of 50 feet to the inch with topography at contour
8 intervals of2 feet indicating existing drainage. This plan
9 shall show with appropriate dimensions, an arrangement
10 of buildings; off-street parking and loading facilities;
11 internal automotive and pedestrian circulation; ingress
12 and egress from adjoining streets, service areas and
13 facilities; drainage system; landscaping fences and walls;
14 the size and location, orientation and type of all signs
15 proposed; proposed lighting of the premises; and relation
16 to all property within 200 feet of the tract. If it is
17 proposed to develop the shopping center in stages, the
18 stages and times of development shall be indicated; and
19 (iii) The applicant shall prepare a final development plan to
20 be followed in construction operations and submit it to
21 the Planning Commission for approval. No bu~lding
22 permit shall be issued until the Planning Commission
23 approves the final development plan or the successive
24 stages thereof. The applicant shall comply with all
25 requirements set forth in §14-5.7(I)(4), procedures for

/
411
· .
1 final development plan approval.
2 (e) The development for tracts designated mixed-use shall not
3 exceed 35% of the Planned Residential Community and shall
4 conform to the provisions set forth for the Mixed-Use districts in
5 Article 14-7. The Planning Commission may grant variances
6 from those provisions as set forth in §14-2.3(C)(3). Development
7 approval shall follow the process set forth in paragraphs Cd)(i)
8 and Cd)(ii) above.
9 Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
11
12
,13 FRANK D. KATZ, CITY ATTORNEY
.I
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Jp/caljpmbl2009 bil1slPianned Residential Community
412
~@if'~1too.~~m~®<IDJ
memo
TO: Mathew Ortiz, Chair of Finance Committee
. Members, Finance Committee . .
FROM: - Kathy McCormick, Director of HCD ~
DATE: May 22, 2009
RE: NWQ Financial Information
CC: MayorCoss
City Council Members
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this memo is to provide background iilformation and a description of the
financial information related to the Northwest Quadrant.
As envisioned, the NWQ will be a legacy project for the City of Santa Fe. It has been .
designed. to address multiple community goals that will be .an asset to the city for the
next 20 to 50 years. This development allows for a mix of uses, including residential,
live/work and neighborhood commercial. This mix of uses will enhance the lifestyle'
of the residents upon completion and well into the future. Throughout the project the
latest technologies for green bUilding will be used. Connectivity within tlJe site and to
greater Santa Fe will be provided through a network of trails. The project builds on the
"best of Santa Fe", by devoting over 75% of the development to open space and
allowing for the mix of uses that have become a hallmark of Santa Fe's downtown area.
It is located within three miles of the major employment centers of the area. Over time,
public transportation systems will improve, technologies associated with green bUilding
and wastewater treatment will change. What will be constant is the need for families to
have a pla~e to call home in an environment that is livable and contributes to the .overall
quality of-life of the area.
Based on the lat~t financial feasibility analysis, the NWQ is achievable. To accomplish
this deyelopmenf; a combin~tion of forming a Public Improvement District (PID), a Tax
Increment District (TID) and access to funding from State, Federal and Foundations
would ,be needed. In addition, the affordability mix will need to be modified. The initial
approach was to set aside 37% ~s affordable under the SFHP; 33% as. step up housing
and the balance at market. TodaY"expressing the affordability requirements in ranges is
advised. Providing at least 30% affordable under SFHP and 33% as step-up units is
recommended. These recommendations are explained in greater detail later in this
document.
ss001.P65 - 7i!!5
413
"',.,
History
The City of Santa Fe will not be the developer for the NWQ. This means that the
purpose{s) of completing the financial feasibility was to understand the conditions under
which the Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) would work financially, to understand how to
negotiate with any master developers who might respond to a Request for Proposal to
develop this project and to test a variety of cost and sales assumptions. The process
used to develop the Financial Feasibility analysis is described below.
Initial Financial Feasibility
The initial financial feasibility for the NWQ was done throughout the design process.
The financial feasibility was an important component of understanding the conditions
under which the project could be developed. It also provided some insights into how a
master developer might evaluate this project. Design Workshop completed the initial
feasibility analysis. They conducted a series of Key Informant interviews with local
builders/developers to understand building costs and to test pricing points for the project.
Infrastructure pricing was provided by Bohannan Huston Engineering, who is the
engineering firm that is part of the design team.
The series of financial pro-formas prepared by Design Workshop provided a snapshot in

time of revenues/expenses for this project, but did not take into consideration how a
master developer would perfonn value engineering for the development or how they
would phase the project to accommodate market conditions.
Design Workshop completed three different feasibility studies that focused on

understanding the following:
1. The overall financial feasibility of the project, considering the constraints on

pricing and requirements for green building and amenities;
2. The possibility of a for-profit developer interest in responding to an RFP. This
test evaluated the rate of return that would be needed to attract a for-profrt
developer; -
3. The option of selling the land to the master developer versus a land lease;
4. Options for participation by the School District;
5. The cash now for the project over time. A ten-year build out was assumed.
The initial work completed by Design Workshop revealed the following:
. - 1. The project was financially feasible, although the net income was very low.
Because of this, additional grants from state, federal-and foundation sources
would be needed to ensure the overall feasibility of the project.
2. A non-profit developer would be the best candidate to take on the Master -
Developer roie. This is because the project would not generate the 11 % rate
of return that is typically found in private developments. A development fee of
5% from workforce and market unit sales revenues was in all scenarios tested.
3. Selling the land for $5 million was preferable to leasing the land because of.
marketability.
2
414
4. Buying the 15 acres owned by the SFPS would.be preferable to having the
district remain as partners in the project. The analysis showed that the district
would need to remain in the project for at least seven years before receiving any
income.
5. The project could sell 40 homes for $1 million dollars each.
6. Additional funding would not be needed to achieve a break even over time;
however. favorable financing for infrastructure would be needed: Staff worked
with the NMFA about the possibility of infrastructure loans that would have
repayment deferred for three-years to allow for sufficient homes sales to pay the
bonds issued to cover ~his debt. .
7. ~rant funding from Foundations. State and Federal sources· would be needed to
support the project. (see attached).
Attached are copies of the financial feasibility summaries prepared by Design Workshop
·that evaluated these approaches..
Current Financial Feasibility Analysis
Staff became concerned with the changing housing market conditions and the potential
impact on the NWQ as proposed. In addition, staff wanted to verify that all of the cost
components of the proposed development had been captured. To that end,
a contract with Michael Halsey was executed in March, 2009 to perform another series
of financial analysis for this development. Michael is a local economist who is very
familiar with market conditions and development costs. His charge was to ensure that
all costs were included in the pro-forma and to test additional assumptions with regard to )
project. This included providing an understandi~ of:
1. How the project would perform under current market conditions;

2. The impact of shifting the affordability requirements imposed on this project;
3. Updating costs and revenues;
4. Testing a land lease versus a sale model; and.
5. Identifying gaps· and options for dosing these gaps.
The analysis completed by Mr. Halsey found that the NWQ. as proposed, was very
sensitive to market conditions because of the pricing requirements placed on the project.
For example. it was noted that the ability of this development to have 40 million dollar
homes was not feasible given the cost to construct and the abundance of homes on the
market at this price point. Furthermore. construction costs have gone down, making the
step-up homes a better value for the development in terms of the cost to construct
versus. the sales pricing. lastly. additional costs. such as GRT were added to the
equation. Overall, the an~lysis completed by Mr. Halsey demonstrated that the
Clevelopment would be better served by·having the affordability requirements expressed
in ranges. This is because of the sensitivity of this project to changing market
conditions.
The initial analysis completed by Mr. Halsey was based on setting aside 37% of the units
under the Santa Fe Homes Program (SFHP). 33% as step-up housing and 30% as
market rate. In talking with Rancho Viejo, Mr. Halsey found that construction costs could
be as lOw as $65 per square foot for an affordable product type. For the revised )
analysis, he used an $80 per square foot cost; for step-up a $95 per square foot cost
3
415
was used and market rate homes used a $120 per square foot cost. Sales prices were
correlated to MlS sales for the past year and then adjusted to account for a north side
location, green building and new product. -The net result was that if the NWQ were built
- it would lose $27M. This loss includes financing costs and a developer rate of return of
11%.
1he next step in the analysis was to test three different housing affordability mixes for
.the project. For example:
1. 'What would be the effect of setting aside 33% under SFHP; 37% as step-up
2. What would be the effect of setting aside 30% of the homes to be sold under the
SFHP and 40% as step-up with the balance at.market? The project would have
a gap of $18.5. .
3." What would be the effect of setting aside 37% under SFHP; 35% as step-up
As a result of the analysis, financial gaps were identified and options for closing the gap
were evaluated. These included:
a. Public Improvement District (PID) - Under this option, bonds would be
issued to pay for the infrastructure improvements. A Public Improvement
District (PID) would be formed and a monthly payment assessed from the
home owners would be used to pay the debt. This monthly payment
assessment for debt service would be folded into a Homeowners
\
:J Association fee. The amount to be paid by homeowners would range
from a low of $3~per month to a high of $.~8. Adde~ to. the ctjrrently
proposed HOA, the-monthl}ifee would range)rom $80 t<:>"$.199.
b. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) - This approach uses any GRT that will be
raised from the construction and sale development properties to' retire the
principal and interest of pUblic bonds. Current projections indicate that by
only using taxes generated by construction and sale development
properties, this project will generate roughly $20 million in GRT.
A portion of this GRT could be dedicated to service the debt associated
with a llF.
c. Combination T1FIPID - An .analysis was completed on doing a combined
TIF/PID. This was done to keep the price of the PID as low as possible
and to provide as much revenue to the City_ as possible through the
payment of GRT. The analysis providedJor roughly $5M in TIF and
$8:51\01 to be repaid through a PID. The final mix, if acceptable to the
Council, will be agreed upon with the Master Developer.
d. Accessing State, Federal and Foundation Grants - Th~ project will be a
good candidate for these funding sources because of the public purposes
that are being addressed in the project. At least $550,000 in grants will
be needed, depending on the Scenario that is used.
Based on the work completed by Mr. Halsey, the following has been conclude.d:
1. As proposed, the NWQ is rich with public purpose. It has over 75% of the land
set aside iii open space, will offer an extensive trail network, utilize the best in
4
416
green building techniques and technologies and provide fot a mix of unit types
and pricing points that will result in a mixed income development that will be
.attractive to many potential buyers, particularly younger buyers and others
seeking to live in a modestly priced community close to downtown.
2. The location of the project is good, as it is near services including shopping,

employment and schools. Access will be relatively good and the project will be
attractive to buyers who are seeking to live in a green community, with abundant
open space in an area that is close to downtown. Entry level and step up buyers
are the proper ·target markets and the mix of incomes and uses should be
attractive.
3. The project will be sensitive to changing market conditions. The project will
have three primary phases, with smaller building phases 'completed within the
larger phasing plan. The City should require the Master Developer to complete
a market analysis at each of the primary phases to fully evaluate the market
conditions at that time. Affordability requirements should be established at that
time, with a minimum requirement of 30% set aside as SFHP units and a
minimum of 33% set aside as step-up housing. Market rate units should not
exceed 33% of the project at any future point in time. If the project were under
construction today it would be challenged to sell high end homes (above
$750,000) as this is the one area that currently has over supply in the market.
This situation is best addressed thr~ugh the phasing of the project and careful
monitoring of market conditions, since not all high end homes need to be built at
one time.
4. A land lease is a viable option for the project. Land leases have been commonly
used in New Mexico. Use of a land lease will present a marketing challenge;
however, this can be overcome with good marketing materials, explanations and.
a simple land lease. Taking the cost of the land out of the equation helps the
pro-forma as well as provides an on-going income stream to the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund. One scenario testing the land lease model found that the
total annual payment of $303,285 could be possible; over a 30 year term this .
would equate to $9 million dollars. This income stream does not include any
potential lease rate resets at tim~ of sale - it includes only a 5% simple interest
payment.
5. The affordability mix should be considered in ranges. For example, as currently

proposed, a requirement that 37% of the units to be set aside as affordable
under the SFHP may be onerous. Of all the unit types proposed for this project,
the "step-up" housing is the most beneficial economically because of the cost to
construct versus sales revenues. Furthermore, the current r¥:Iarket will not
support a lot of high end housi~g. The pro-fonila will ne.ed to be revisit~d over
time to ensure that the mix of sales prices projected can support the costs
required to construct the proposed mix of product types. Mr. Halsey evaluated
the following affordability mixes:
5
417
a. 37% of the units"under Santa Fe Homes, 33% as step-up housing and
30% market This is the original approach;
b. 30% set aside under Santa Fe Homes, 40% step-up housing and 30%
market rate;
c. 37% under Santa Fe Homes, 35% step-up housing and 28% market rate;
and
d. 33% set aside under "Santa Fe Homes; 37% step.:.up housing and 30%
market rate.
The best mix at this pQint is (b). This mix estabJishes a floor of 30% for the
SFHP units. For step-up homes, the recommended floor is 33% and the
ceiling for market rate homes could not exceed 33%. These floors would be"
included in any agreement with a Master Developer. The final mix would be
determined based on a combination of market conditions and construction
and related development costs.
6. The project will need some form"ot-financing for infrastructure. Staff has been
working with the New Mexico Rnance Authority (NMFA) to fully vet the "
options. These options are realistic and the NMFA is interested in working
with the City on structuring a bond issue that will be mutually beneficial.
Some of these propo"sed financing mechanisms have already been explained
on page 4.
7. The project will be a good candidate for State and Federal Grants as well as
potential foundation grants (see attached for listing of potential grants). At
) lease $550,000 in grants will be needed, depending on the Scenario that is
used.
TIMING AND DEVELOPER SELECTION PROCESS
The results of the financial analysis provide some insights" with regard to timing" for this
development According to Mr. Halsey," the Santa Fe" Market is showing signs of
improvement. The days on market are reducing, there are fewer reductions in sale
prices and the supply and demand is moving into balance. The one exception is high
end homes, for which Mr. Halsey estimates there i.s a four to five years supply. Timing
is working in favor of this project, as it is being introduced during a downturn. Ideally, the
project will begin development as the market begins to upswing.
The selection of a Master Developer is expected to take at least one year. The
developer selection process will involve the following:
1. Identifying potential Master Developers and presenting the project to them. The
NWQ is-a complicated project and it will be. important to present information to
them prior to issuing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). The information they .
receive through this process will be the· same information that has been
presented to the Council. .
2. Preparing and issuing an RFQ. This type of RFQ will need to be available for at
least four weeks and will need another four weeks for review and consideration.
3. Prepare a short list of potential Master Developers based on the RFQ. These
developers.will respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP). The RFP will require
the developer to explain their approach to the project, how to address the
6
418
affordability mix, marketing, fonnation of a Homeowners Association, financing
approaches, staffing requirements, phasing schedule and proposed pricing,
approaches to the green building and infrastructure requirements as well as the
proposed agreements. This will take at least eight (8) weeks with another eight
(8) weeks set aside for review.
4. Once a master developer has been selected, agreements will be prepared and
all Committee and Council approvals will be obtained. It is anticipated that this
will require more than one review by the various committees and Council.
It will be at least two years before any construction work could be initiated at the
NWQ. This is attributed to the time needed for the developer selection process,
then the time"required to obtain approvals through the development review .
process as well as tl1e time needed to line-up financing needed for the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve the master plan as currently proposed. Begin the selection of a master
developer within six months. If approved today, it will take at least two years to
begin construction of this project. Staff recommends the developer selection
process begin in six months, as long as market conditions show continued
improvement. Information to be used to evaluate the timing will be when homes
prices at $300,000 to $450,000 show an average of 90 days on the market;
2. Provicle ranges for the affordability requirements. A floor of 30% set aside under
Santa Fe Homes; a floor of 33% step up homes and a ceiling of 33% market rate
units. Require developer to provide a basis for the pricing mix they are proposing
at each phase. This should include an assessment of market conditions to
understand the rationale;
3. Allow for alternative financing options such as those identified in this memo to be
used to close the anticipated financing gap. These include using a PID and
requiring the developer to cOnstantly research and apply for grants and favorable
loans to complete "community amenities and underwrite costs of green building.
419
PRO FORMA SUMMARY 28.0ecember.2007

SCENARIO: C
REVENUES:

less: Commissions ($13,187,672)
. EXPENSES:
..
land $5,840,000

Other Soft Costs $12;414,961

Wet Utifities $5,058,108
Dry uttlities $1,275,340
·Streets $4,897,300
·Earthwork $11,701,162
Subtotal, Infrastructure -> $35,409,726
Home landscaping Costs $2,043,900

PROJECT CASH flOW (10 Years): $1,565,749
.;oand Sold by SFPS to 3rd Party $5.000,000

Share of Project Cash Row from NWQ Project $0

420
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
PROFORMA SUMMARY
SCENARIO: A
REVENUES:

Less: Commissions . ($13,217>817)
EXPENSES:
Land $16,025,075

Developer Fee $12>030,344
Architectural! Engineering $16,621,050

Streets $4,897,300
Other Infrastructure Costs $296>250
. Contingency (Infrastructure) $3>222,759
Subtotal, Infrastructure --> $35,450>344
Home Landscaping Costs $2,052>000

.Total Project Costs-> $275,805,981
421
J..
?ROJEcr CASH FLOW (10 Years): (S8,449,912)
Santa Fe Public Schools - Share of Project Cash Flow SO
Master Developer - N~t Project Cash Flow (S8,449,912)
SCHOOL DISTRIcr SUMMARY

TOTAL PROCEEDS, SFPS SO
422
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
PROFORMA SUMMARY
SCENARIO: C
REVENUES:

Less: Commissions ($13,2p,817)
EXPENSES:
Land $5,840,000

Architectural! Engineering - $16,621,050
Contingency (Soft Costs) $6,042~736

.. -
Streets $4,897,300
Archaeological Costs $3,000,000 ~.
Other In:frastructure Costs $296,250

Subtotal, Infrastructure --> $35,450,344

Total Project Costs --> $265,620,906
423
" "
t
.lROJECT CASH FLOW (10 Years): $1,735,164
Santa Fe Public Schools ;.. Share of Project Cash Flow "$0
SCHOOL DISTRIcr SUMMARY
Land Sold by SFPS to 3rd Party $5~OOO,000

Share of Projed Cash Flow from NWQ ProjeCt $0
424
: NORTHWEST QUADRANT ~
J
' :.. .. J'_.
•.
1: .. --_.~
PROFORMA SUMMARY
SCENARIO: A
REVENUES:

Workforce Housing Units .$69,987,105
Total Revenues -> $235,119,891
EXPENSES:
Land $5,000,000

Architectural! Engineering $14,957,673
Subtotal, Soft Costs --> $59,329,443

Streets $4,897,300

425
·.
...
;' \
. .lROJECf CASH FLOW (10 Years): ($3,140,612)
Santa Fe Public ~chools - Share of Project Cash Flow $Q
Land Sold by SFPS.to 3rd Party $0

Land Sold by SFPS to Master Developer .. .. $0
TOTAL PROCEEDS, SFPS SO
426
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
PROFORMA SUMMARY
MASTER l)EVELOPER MODEL
SCENARIO: B2
REVENUES:

Less: Commissions ($13,2,17,817) .
EXPENSES:
Land $5,000,000
General Contractor Overhead & Profit .$19,331,081

Architectural! Engineering $16,621,050 )

Streets $4,897,300
·Earthwork $11,701,162
Other fufrastructure Costs $296,250
Subtotal, Infrastructure-> $35,450,344

427
..... -
..
-
PROJECf CASH FLOW (10 Years): $2,575,164
Santa Fe Public Schools - Share of Project Cash Flow $437,778
Mastet: Developer - Net Project Cash Flow $2,137,386

Land Sold by SFPS to Master Developer -- SO
Share of Project Cash- Flow from NWQ Project $437,778-
)
.'
428
l. Funding Sources
FOUNDATION DIREcroRY
()
1. The Bank orA m e r i c a . . .
of
Donar. Bank America Corp; Bank ofAmerica; NA; FleetBoston Financial Foundation
Purpose and activities:· The foundation supPorts organizations involved with hoUsing. Special emphasis is
directed toward programs designed to address critical issues in local communities;
Community Development: The foundation supports programs designed to promote affordable housing,
workforce development, and neigI..borhood revitalization. .
URL: http://www.bank.ofameriCa..~m
2. Daniels Fund
Donar: R. W. Daniels, Jr.; Bill Daniels
Purpose and activities: Giving for homelessness and self-sufficiency. The goal of the program i~ to ensure that
homeless individuals and families achieve and maintain self-sufficiency. Focus is on the following: I) Emergency
Services; shelter, food and basic needs. 2) Transitional Housing with Supportive Services; transitional housing;
employment programs, vocational training, child management, life skills training and employment
URL: http://www.danielsfund.org
3. The Ford Foundation

Donar. Henry Ford; Edsel Ford .
Purpose and activities: The foundation's mission is to serve as a resource for innovative people and institutions
worldwide. Asset building and community development
Community and Resource Development: I)Environment and Development: help people and groups acquire,
protect, improve and manage land, water, forests, wildlife and other natural assets in ways that help reduce
poverty and injustice. 2) Community Development seek to improve the quality of life and opportunities
for positive change in urban and rural communities. The foundation supports community-based institutions
that mobilize and leverage philanthropic capital, invesbnent capital, social capital and natural resources in a
. responsible and fair nianner
Economic Development: 1) Development Finance and Economic Security: support organizations that help
businesses create employment opportunities and help low-income people acquire, develop and maintain savings,
invesbnents, businesses, homes, land and other assets. 2) Work-force Development support organizations
that help improve the ways low-income people develop marketable job skills and acquire and retain reliable
employment that provides livable wages. .
URL: http://www.fordfound.org
4. .The Frost Foundation, Ltd

Donar: Vtrginia C. Frost
Purpose and activities: Focus Social services and humanitarian needs including hom~lessness; environment-
consideration given to programs in action to conserve and protect the environment for the well-being and safety of
plan~, animals and human beings.
URL: http://www.frostfound.org
5. The Garfield Foundation

Type of grantmaker. Independent foundation
Purpose and activities: Granbnaking priorities include sustainable production and consumption, biodiversity
conservation, mercury source reduction and community revitalization.
Application inrormation: Contributes ·only to pre-selected organizations
URL: http://www.garfieldfoundation.org
NORTHWESTIM AS T E R
429
6. The F. B. Heron Foundation
Purpose and activities: The foundation focuses its grantmaking and mission-related investing on five wealth:"
'-'-'" creation strategies for low-income families and communities. These five areas are: I) access to capital; 2)
quality and affordable child care; 3) comprehensive community development; 4) home ownefship
Access to apital: The foundation supports and invests in community d,evelopment financial institutions
(CDFI's)that serve low-income communities. CDFI's seeking the foundations support must have as their core
work. financintg home ownership. The foundation also funds practitioner associations that promulgate beSt
practices, especially those helping CDFl's to track the social impact of their. investments.
Comprehensive Community Deveiopment: The foundation funds comprehensive community development
organizations built around a strong core of the wealth-creation strategies on which the foundation focuses - i.e.
access to capital, enterprise development, home ownership and quality and affordable child care. In addition,
associatio~ that assist community development organizations engag~ in relevant wealth-creation strategies to .
build management and program capacity and·to improve and demonstrate impact.
Home ownership: The foundation win consider support for organizations working to increase home ownership
in low and moderate-income urban and nnal communities. The foundation ~ interested in organizations that
develop and/or finance new or rehabilitated owner-occupied home, including Self-help housing. that assist people
wi.th low-interest mortgage; or that provide pre- and post-mortgage counseling to first -time home buyers.
URL: http://www.heronfdn.org .
7. W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Donar: W.K. Kellogg; W.K.. Kellogg Foundation Trost; Carrie Staines Kellogg Trost
Purpose and activities: supports children, families and communities as they strengthen and create conditions
that propel vulnerable children to achieve success as individuals and as contributors to the laIger community and
society.
URL: http://www.wkkf.org
8. McCune Charitable Foundation

Donar: Perrine Dixon McCun~: Marshall L. McCune
Purpose aod activities: The mission of the foundation is to memorialize its benefactors through grants which
enrich the cultural life, health, education, environment, and spiritual life of the citizens of New Mexico. Primary
areas of interest include the arts, education, youth, health, social services and environment.
Fields of interest: Community/economic development; homelessness/shelter, deVelopment
URL- http://www.nmmccune.org
9. Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

Donar: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Purpose aod activities: To support efforts that promote a just, equitable sustainable society with the primary
focus on civil society, the envirownent, the area ofFlint, MI and poverty. The foundation makes grants for a
variety of purposes within these program. areas including improving the outcomes for children. youth and families
at risk of persistent poverty; education and neighborhood and economic development.
URL: http://www.ootlorg
10. Phelps Dodge Foundation

Donar: Phelps .Dodge Corp
Purpose aod activities: The foundation supports organizations involved with education. environment, children
and youth, family services, community development and economically disadvantaged people
Commullity DevelopmeRt - training and development: The foundation supports programs designed to provide
relevant stills and training to enhance the public workforce. Bring disadvantaged citizens into the economic
mainstream
URL: http1fwww.phelpsdodge.comlCommunity-environment/communityrelations/charitablegiving
a-51
APPENDIX
430
A. e.~ ~_ NP. .I_x.. . ._.._. .__._. ._. . .__._ _ __.._.._. _.. _ __.:_.. ..:__ __.. _._ - -..-. - _. __..- , :..__ .
11. The PMI Founclation

Dona..: PM! Mortgage Insurance Co .
Purpose and adivities: Special emphasis is directed toward programs designed to create housing opportunities;
and revitalize neighborhoods in communities. .
Civic and community: The foundation supports housing and economic development organizations
URL: http://WW\v.pmifoundation.org
12. The Stocke.. FOWIdation

Donar: Beth Ie. Stocker
Purpose and activities: Emphasis 011 short-term youth development programs; social service agencies offering
solutions to specific problems such as homelessness.
Community: Supports community revitalization efforts that promote sustainable p~tices and partnerships.
Special preference is shown to organizations that possess a can-do attitude.
URL: http://wwW.stockerfoundation.org
13. Vaterstetten Foundation

Fields oflnterest: Community/economic development; Foundations (community)
Application information: Contributes only to pre-selected organizations
14. Surdna Foundatien, Inc

Donar: John E. Andrus
Purpose and activities: CommunitY Revitalization, which takes a comprehensive and holistic approach to
restoring communities in America-
Community Revitalization: The program seeks to transform environments and enhance the quality of life in
urban plaCCl'!. increase their ability to attract and retain a diversity ofresidents and employers, and insure that
urban policies and development promote social equity. .
-Environment: Fostering a population ofenvironmentally informed. responsible, activist citizens; and respecting
community and gtaSSroots persectives.
)
/
NORTHWESTI~M...:....:A:.-:.......=S-:T......:.E::.......:R:..:.....- ~
Q·UADRANT P l A N 431
........AP..P..I;.NPJX-- --.---------.-.-.- _._._. ._._ __ _ _._.. .__._. ..__ _ .. .__ __.. . _.~. . ._'-.__.__ _..
SUSTAINABLE FUNDING SOURCES FOR GREEN DEVELOPMENT
1. Source: Arbor Day Foundation, and Forest Guardians, and the National Park: Service and National Forest
Service for Tree Planting Promams
2. Source: Enterprise Community Partners has a program in Los Angeles through Ed Norton, in which affordable
homes can apply for free (or reduced costs) photovoltaics provided by a Los Angeles Photovoltaic company.
3. Source: Advice from Homework Group: Investigate Monte Sagrado (in Taos) and Oshara (in SFe) for H2O
mining technologies for landscape irrigation that cost less than traditional w3.$te H2O infrastructure/operation
and maintenance, ...reuse of landscaping H2O twice.... Utility runs water reclamation and is responsible for
communities' water.
4. Source: Jan 01 Legislature passed new legislation, which is supposed to fund communities for Arts and
Culture Districts, and Open Space tax breaks. Suby was told this by the NM Economic Development
Department. ...but would n.eed to produce further research for the aetuallegislation.
5. Source: Biologist Will Barnes and the Santa Fe Girl's School, 3 year Project to restore the Santa Fe River•..
they voluntarily have provided over 500 hours of work along the river for river·habitat restoration, similar
work could occur along the arroyOs throughout the NWQ.
6. Source: www.cooltowninyestments.com: a $150 million fund to help developers create projects that are well
designed city projects for the "creative class", over 1,100 projects described on the website. And a new www.
cooltownbeta.com to help develop customers before projects are cQllStructed.
1. Source: Park Volunteer Program as established at Rail Yard Park with Parks Director Fabian Chavez
8. Source: City of Santa Fe Incentive programs
'.
\
) 9. Source: Real estate transfer tax - for affordable units, gr~ standards required
10. Source: Enterprise Community Partners and Others Loan Pool for Vertical Construction Costs - 1% t~ 5%
with set of standards - green required
11. Source: Los Alamos National Bank, Description: Sustainable Banking, Commercial Projects. $50 million
in special financing to fund Land Development and Construction Projects that incorporate sustainable
development strategies such as effective energy management, water conservation and pollution prevention.
12. Source: Enterprise Community Partners, Description: Green Communities: In partnership with the Natural
Resource Defense Council in creating 400 million in funds for smart growth, energy and water resource
management and sustainable building technologies. Grants are awarded up to $50,000. Grant money for
"green clWrettes" available up to $5,000. Financing Tools available.
13. Source: Eco Media, Description: EcoZone: Eco Media brings together city and state governments with
corporate partners to address environmental projects. The EcoZone program's public-private partnership
supports ongoing and new environmental projects - at no additional GOst to taxpayers. Past projects have
included: stQrm drain catch basin fil~, hybrid and alternative fuel vehicle for municipal fleets, solar
paneling on city facilities, greening industrial lots into· green space. Funding also can be directed to public .
education'and outreach programs.
14. Source: Fundinggreenbuildings.com / The McAdams Group, ~ption: Service offers a Funding Green
Building Tool Kit, which includes: Access to five on-line seminars that include: Fe4eral and State Tax
Credits, Funding magnets, Agencies, Presentation tools; Recognition tools, Securing DonationS and Revenue
Sources for green buildings. Tool Kit includes access to documents and monthly attendance to "Funding
Fridays" teleconferences. CoSt: $495/person
a-53
APPENDIX
432
AP.P.~. N. P.I.~ """ """ ,.., __.._ _.__ _.__.._.' _ , _ _._ .
15. Source: Bridgemer: Funding and Investing in Green Buildings, Description: This Investment Group invests
in real estate projects that utilize green building technologies. Sources of capital are available to provide debt
and equity finance for green buildings.
16. Source: The Kresge Foundation, Description: The Kresge Foundation encowages nonprofit organizations
to consider building green. They offer education resources and workshops and special grants to help
nonprofits during the planning phase. Giant guidelines in this program encourage environmentally focused
organizations to innovate, creating new models of sustainable design. Planning grants are available in
amounts from. $25,000 to $100,000.
17. Source: The National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), Description: The NASEO is the only
nonprofitorganization that represents the Governor-designated energy officials from each state and territory.
The organization was created to improve the effectiveness and quality of state energy programs and policies,
provide policy input and analysis, share successes among the states, and be a repository of information on
energy issues ofconcern to the states and their citizens.
18. Source: Tax Incentives Assistance Project (flAP), Description: The Tax Incentives Assistancefroject
(flAP), sponsored by a coalition of public interest nonprofit groups, government agencies, and other
organizations in the energy efficiency field, is designed to give consumers and businesses information they
need to make use of the federal income tax incentives for energy efficient products and technologies passed·
by. Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
19. Source: Smart Communities Network (Center ofExcellence for Sustainable Development - funding),
Description: Site lists current funds available for green building projects. Examples include: Alean
Sustainability Prize, Bank. ofAmerica Neighborhood Excellence Initiative, EPA funds, DOE grants. See \I
website for current listings.
20. Source: Suggestions for making the provision of affordable housing at NWQ by private developers feasible:
21. Source: Implementation ofa Real Estate Transfer Tax to fund affordable housing:. Description: Funds from
such a tax would fund affordable housing programs throughout the city. This setup would allow the burden
ofproviding affordable housing to be spread evenly across all homebuyers, rather than having the buyers of
market rate housing in a given development shoulder all of the burden. A current proposal before the state
calls for a 1% transfer tax, but it only applies to homes priced above $500K..
22. Source: Implementation ofa Charitable Contribution Tax Credit for Affordable Housing. Description:
This provision would allow developers to offset taxes on capital gains or real estate operations in other
developments by deducting charitable contributions made toward affordable housing programs at NWQ or
other areas within Santa Fe. For example, a developer who has significant real estate profits and tax liability
stemming from projects elsewhere in SF (or in Denver or Dallas or wherever) would be able to reduce his tax
~liabilityby making a charitable contribution to the City of Santa Fe to fund affordable housing initiatives.
)
NORTHWESTI....:-M....:.......:..A-=S--....:T:........;E~R _
QUADRANT P LAN
433
New Business #2 , 3,
4&5
NORTHWEST MAS T E R
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop . Suby Bowden + Assoc . Bohannon Huston
MASTER PLAN + DESIGN STANDARDS
434
lYfi/IJ/T v?A
06 08 2009 pJQ""lng commission !.ubmission
... .TA.B...L.~.Qfc:Q.NT~NT~ .
Master Plan + Design Standards
Chapter 1. Introduction
A. Summary C. Materials
B. History
D. Architectural Elements
C. Vision E. Architectural Details
D. Plan Preparation + Public Participation
E. Guiding Principles
Chapter 6. Landscape Architecture
A. Key Components + Objectives
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions B. Universal Standards
A. Site Context C. Open Space
B. Inventory Mapping D. Trail Network
E. Streetscapes
Chapter 3. Master Plan F. Materials + Site Furnishings
A. Master Plan
G. Plant list
B. Structuring Frameworks
Chapter 4. Neighborhood Form Chapter 7. Design Review Process

A. Neighborhood Character A. General Overview
B. Complete + Connected Neighborhoods B. Northwest Quadrant Submittal Requirements
C. Community Form C. City of Santa Fe Submittal Requirements
Chapter 5. Architecture Chapter 8. Construction Regulations

A. Sustainable Architecture
B. Architectural Form + Style Appendix
NORTHWEST QUADRANT CD PACKAGE

435
.. .TAJH.~ Q.f..<:::.Q.NT~.NT.~ .
Supporting Documents
Volume 1: Public Process

A. .. Feasibility Report
B... Pre-Planning Public Meetings
c... Planning Public Meetings
D Santa Fe Public Schools
E City Resolutions
Volume l-A: Public Process - Homework Group
Volume 2: Traffic Impact Analysis
Volume 2-A: Traffic Impact Analysis Review
Volume 3: Financial Pro Forma
Volume 4: Archaeological Report (not public)
Master Plan Ma ps
Planning Drawings Consultant Drawings

LO-OO Cover Sheet S1-01 Survey Information
LO-01 Key Map S1-02 Survey Information
I. 1-0 1 Site Analysis Plan S1-03 Survey Information
I. 1-02 Site Analysis Plan S1-04 Survey Information
1.1-03 Site Analysis Plan
1.2-01 Master Plan C-O 1 Existing Conditions - Conceptual Drainage Management Plan
1.2-02 Master Plan C-02 Existing Conditions - Conceptual Drainage Management Plan
1.2-03 Master Plan C-03 Proposed Conditions - Conceptual Drainage Management Plan
1.3-01 Circulation Plan C-04 Proposed Conditions - Conceptual Drainage Management Plan
l3-O2 Circulation Plan C-05 Terrain Management Plan
1.3-03 Circulation Plan C-06 Terrain Management Plan
1.4-01 Road Cross Sections C-07 Water Plan
1.4-02 Road Cross Sections C-08 Water Plan
1.5-01 Phasing Plan C-09 Sanitary Sewer Plan
C-10 Sanitary Sewer Plan
NORTHWEST QUADRANT CD PACKAGE

436
NORTHWEST MAS T E R
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop· Suby Bowden + Assoc .. Bohannan Huston
MASTER PLAN APPLICATION
For The City of Santa Fe . Prepared by DESIGNWORKSHOP . June 2009
437
8.June.2009
Table of Contents
Letter of Application
City of Santa Fe, Housing and Community Development Department
General Plan Amendment Application ,

Project Description
Project History
Request for General Plan Amendment
Current General Plan - Future Land Use Map
Proposed Land Use Map
Proposed Master Plan
Proposed Transportation Open Space + Trails Map
Re-Zoning Application 13
Project Description
Project History
Request for Re-Zoning from R-1 to PRC
Existing Aerial Map
Current Zoning Map
Proposed Zoning Map
Proposed NWQ Master Plan Dimensional Standards + Measurements
Variance Request - Escarpment Ordinance 21

Request for Variance to the Escarpment Ordinance
Proposed Road Layout Plan
Variance Request - Terrain Management Ordinance 24

Request for Variance to the Terrain Management Ordinance
Context Plan
Enlarged Plan - Area 1
Enlarged Plan - Area 2
Condition of Approval Request 30

Request Condition of Approval to Grandfather the Existing Escarpment Ordinance
Additional Information
Summary of changes to NWQ MP submission 9.February.2009 to include DRT comments
Summary of changes to NWQ submission 24.March.2009 to include DRT comments and TIA changes
Early Neighborhood Nomication Meeting - Meeting Notes (August 28, 2007)
Early Neighborhood Notnication Meeting - Property Owners wnhin 100 feet
NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN APPLICATION
8.JUNE2009 438
City of Santa Fe, Nevv Mexico 200 Lincoln Avenue, P.O. Box 909, Santa Fe, N.M. 87504-0909
David Coss/ Mayor Councilors:

Rebecca Wurzburger, Mayor Pro Tem, Dist. 2
Patti J. Bushee, Dist. 1
Chris Calvert, Dist. 1
Rosemary Romero, Dist. 2
Miguel M. Chavez, Dist. 3
Carmichael A. Dominguez, Dist. 3
Matthew E. Ortiz, Dist. 4
Ronald S. Trujillo, Dist. 4
February 9, 2009
Mr. Lucas A. Cruse, Planner

Planning Department
City of Santa Fe
120 Lincoln Avenue
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Re: Northwest Quadrant Master Plan
Dear Mr. Cruse:
Attached is our complete application for master plan review. Included in this submission
are the following documents:
1. Application for General Plan Amendment to update future land use designations;
2. Application for Rezoning;
3. Application for a Variance;
4. Request for a Condition of Approval; and
5. Master Plan including Design Standards.
Kindly commence the design review process and please do not hesitate to contact us with
any questions or concerns.
4iltt~=wJL'
Kathy McCormick
Director
KM/lmd
439
i::;:""': -:~-.- _~~;;:':I: ~;' i.."':-?-x.'~~\?;~:. ~.,~-::.-:,.~~-;;; f;:-1":~r;~j";;.Jt<;,2:?~~.'l~~::;~!;;;:':";~:T,:"'''.--:: ,i!":_;.:~~Ii/j·;i.:"--=:-<'i;'~:~· ':'~::i:9jgt~;:S:~:;:; ""~·:::?f:f;~;:.t- ,t;;::-::::.. ~.( :~~:~:.::::.. _<--...~- ,:7.. ~ :.';:.;:::i":~:- ;-':~li?-::'":;;-;:';;;_2}~~1
February 9, 2009
Mayor David Coss

I ~~~-
S.nt. F. PUblic Sc
City of Santa Fe
~
",;
~ 120 Lincoln Avenue
, Santa Fe, I\lM 87504
t)
f
~I'l ::~r~:::rv:~:::proposed Northwest Quadrant Master Plan
I~ This letter will serve as official notice of our approval of the proposed Northwest Quadrant
Master Plan which we understand is being submitted to the Planning Department on Monday,
February 9, 2009 for review.
r
t:(1 As proposed in written correspondence from the city dated November 13, 2008, the Santa Fe
fi,'~ Public Schools has agreed to the City's purchase of 15 acres commonly known as Parcel B in the
P
f amount of $840,000.00. With regards to the 25 acres 'commonly known as Parcel A, the Santa
f:. Fe Public Schools has agreed to the rezoning of this land from its current designation to a
~.:1..
Planned Residential Community District (PRe). Further, we understand the master plan shows
f
f the potential of up to fifteen homes being built on Parcel A.
•
I ~
Lastly, we understand the City of Santa Fe has waived its affordable housing requirement for
the 25 acres (Parcel A) due to the amount of affordable housing it will achieve on the purchased
15 acres (Parcel B).
I ~
~
,{r".
Sincerely,
I I~
~;
I~
Bobbie Gutierrez, Superintendent
bjg/ldm
~
~:'~
II ~ cc: Board of Education

~~t~o:~:.rc:perty Manager
,"
f
L...--l!lililGl~1Mi$1l~~Yllil~ __ t1l_UIl!flll~_J
F'
SZLWli5I"i'lII!ll5_t1'l!l
. ._ . ..
Educational Services Center 610 Alta Vista, Santa Fe, NM 87505 Telephone (505) 467-2000 www.sfps.info
Bobbie Gutierrez, Superintendent of Schools 440
Santa Fe General Plan Amendment Request
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The ca. 540 acre property is jointly owned by the City of Santa Fe (ca. 500 acres) and the Santa Fe Public
School District (ca. 40 acres) and is located in the northwest section of the City of Santa Fe within the City
limits. The property is located south of NM 599 and west of St. Francis Drive (NM 84/285). Within the project
boundary, the Escarpment Overlay District indicates an area of ridgetop subdistrict and foothills subdistrict.
The entire project boundary lies within the Mountainous and Difficult Terrain area.
As designed, the Northwest Quadrant is a unique mixed-use community that demonstrates respect for the
history of the land and creates a modem 21 st Century neighborhood. The Master Plan proposes a Planned
Residential Community with up to 773 residential and mixed-use units, including transitional housing; a
neighborhood center with 40,000 sf of commercial (as allowed under PRC zoning - 2.236 acres ground
area"); a mixed-use area of residential and commercial with up to 70,000 sf of mixed-use commercial
(maximum 24,500 sf specialty retail); a fire station; as well as the potential for an adult educational facility.
Conceptually, the project is laid out as a series of residential and mixed-use neighborhoods, separated by
an environmentally sensITive open space system, and interconnected by a fine grained network of
pedestrian friendly streets and trails. The mix of uses, compact development, and open space system
encourages walking and biking within the project and supports opportunities for interaction with neighbors.
" 14-4.3 (1)(7)(d)(i): PRC commercial area formula: no. housing units x 3.6 (residents per owner-occupied dwellings) x
35 square feet. NWQ calculation amounts to: 773 x 3.6 x 35 = 97, 398 square feet, or 2.236 acres
Major design elements include:
o Affordable Housing: 70% of the housing or approximately 530 homes are proposed as affordable
including 30%-37% committed to the Santa Fe Homes Program;
o Open Space Preservation: Over 400 acres dedicated to open space;
o Sustainable Community: Commitment to green and sustainable from project process, development
planning, site planning, building design, landscape design and material application and
approaches;
o Public Amenities: Front loading costs for a community park and major trails including infrastructure
and commercial build-out; and
o Mixed-Use: LivelWork mixed-use areas are permitted and encouraged to promote economic
development and foster alternative means of transportation.
Major developmenVmanagement elements include:
o Hiring a master developer to oversee the entire project in order to ensure the vision is achieved
o Assembling a design review committee made up of the master developer and local professionals
including city staff to oversee the build-out and ensure the vision is achieved (modeled on Tierra
Contenta);
o Establishing a Homeowner's Association for the entire project.
NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN APPLICATION

8.JlJNE2009 441
PROJECT HISTORY
Original History
1715 The Northwest Quadrant is the remaining land in the orjginal Santa Fe Grant (4 square leagues
or 36 square miles) that was made by the Spanish Administration (King Philip V) to the original
Spanish settlers. The grant was for common pasture land and water.
1824 Santa Fe became capital of the Mexican Terrttory after the Mexican War of Independence
1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between Mexico and U.S. made the New Mexico Territory apart of
the U.S.
1854 U.S. Congress enacted statutes implementing the property protection provisions of the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo with respect to land grants in New Mexico.
1891 The Court of Private Land Claims was established to adjudicate land claims in New Mexico.
Santa Fe Land Grant Patent was confirmed in the U.S. Land Claims Commission
1901 Santa Fe Patent was issued by the U.S. Government and required that the Santa Fe Grant, not
held by private owners, be the property of the municipality of Santa Fe.
1930-31 Quiet Title Suit conducted for the Dempsey Realty Company confirmed Northwest Quadrant as
city owned land.
1979 Santa Fe District Court confirmed about 65 acres of private claims.
Previous Planning History
1967 Neighborhood Analysis - was the first City Plan to recommend development of City-owned land
in the Northwest Quadrant. It stated "The City should investigate the feasibility of development
for City-owned land in this area... maintain the compact environmental character of Santa Fe and
balance the suburban sprawl to the southwest. ..the future Santa Fe may have little of its unique
historic quality unless its compact form of development is perpetuated"
1974 Santa Fe Area General Plan - Northwest Quadrant was discussed as follows: "Encourage
development of this land in the next twenty years as it is the nearest undeveloped section to the
center of the City and in the future will be bisected by the Buckman transmission water line and
major highways. When this land is developed, encourage the utilization of imaginative housing
types of a variety of densities, conservation of soil and water, and innovative siting in difficult
terrain."
1974 Under New Communities Development Act of 1970 Report submitted to Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) for Northwest Quadrant as "New Community in Santa Fe. Pre-
Application to develop a New Town in Town. " It was unfunded and dropped.
1976-78 Northwest Quadrant Planning Studies were funded through CDBG. Sketch Plan was prepared
in 1977 that showed commercial areas, residential developments, major roads and community
centers.
06/1977 Mayor Sam Pick's Real Estate Study Committee - Summary Report concluded for the Northwest
Quadrant: In the large context, a "New Community" might solve long range needs of Santa Fe in
alleviating land shortages, providing recreational space for both indoor and outdoor activity,
providing a framework for experimental design in energy efficient housing, creating new
business, commercial and industrial areas, perhaps enabling home industries or community
NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN APPLICATION 2

8.JUNE.2009 442
coops to function for neighborhood self-help and se~-sufficiency in ways that are not feasible in
the older community.
08/1977 City Council adopted "Resolution in Support of Goals for Redevelopment of a New Community
on City-Owned Land. "Goals: - Provide new opportunities for Santa Feans now unable to afford
adequate housing; - provide an economically diverse residential environment; - public
participation be encouraged; - provide a perpetual income to the City of Santa Fe for the benefit
of all its citizens; - a master plan be adopted which is consistent with sound environmental
practices; - be conducive to construction of functional, aesthetic and natural resource
conservation homes; - provide needed housing, job and recreational opportunities for the people
of Santa Fe.
10/1982 Northwest Quadrant Report. City Planning and Development Dept. Five major study areas: 1.
housing; 2. non-residential uses and economic activities; 3. site analysis, water resources and
infrastructure; 4. development, disposition and management; and 5. staging of development.
03/1983 Northwest Sector Plan -1983 (Northwest Sector Planning Committee).
06/1983 Resolution 1983-39 was passed stating that "city owned land should be treated as prime
resource in creating affordable housing opportunities."
12/1983 Plan 83 (General Plan) incorporated Northwest Sector Plan which included a sketch plan. The
plan provided for 4490 dwellings on 1830 acres of land with a potential population of 12,000
people.
03/1984 Northwest Quadrant Project Summary was compiled by Phase One Consulting. Consultants
were hired to compile all previous work on the Northwest Quadrant; prepare apublic information
packet; design program to idenmy public concerns and attitudes about Northwest Quadrant; and
determine if any additional investigations needed to be undertaken.
12/1985 Recommendation Report - Northwest Santa Fe Relief Route
12/1985 Resolution 1985-131 was passed to establish alignment for the Northwest Sector Relief Route
(Highway 599).
1986 First comprehensive inventory of City owned lands was completed by the Planning Department
for the purpose of finding sites for affordable housing.
1999 General Plan Designates the NW Quad as "Open Space."
01/2002 Community Services Department Staff report submitted to City Planning Policy Committee
concluding that infrastructure costs and other development factors would be too costly to
develop affordable housing in Northwest Quadrant
Current History
Resolutions
12/11/02 Resolution 2002-89 was passed to determine feasibility of developing portions of the NW Quad.
for affordable housing (response to recent amendment to the New Mexico Statutes allowing
ctties to provide land/infrastructure for the purpose of affordable housing)
07/30/03 Resolution 2003-61 was passed to initiate an RFP process for affordable housing in the NW
Quadrant, and to draft enabling legislation for the State House to consider in the 2004 legislative
session. The resolution pointed out the city's housing inequities and zoning barriers to
affordable housing.

8.JUNE.2009 443
07114/04 Resolution 2004-49 was passed to endorse the findings and commit to the policy directives of a
preliminary feasibility report prepared by the Enterprise Foundation that demonstrated the
development potential of a portion of land in the Northwest Quadrant for a mix of housing.
Directives included a timeline; general plan amendment and rezoning of the property; RFP
process to purchase and develop the land; commission design professionals to prepare a master
plan; conduct public hearing to consider rezoning and master plan; extend water services for the
development; exceed the requirements of HOP; place all revenue from sales into a dedicated
fund to support affordable housing.
12/08/04 Resolution 2004-91 was passed to adopt a general plan amendment to remove the open space
designation placed on a portion of the Northwest Quadrant (400+ acres of the 2,500 acres of city
owned land) to Residential- 1 to 3 units per acre, Residential - 3 to 7 units per acre, Parks, and
Mixed UsefTransitional.
12/08/04 Resolution 2004-92 was passed to develop a master planning process to develop no more than
280 acres of the approximately 2,500 acres of city-owned land in the northwest quadrant to
provide affordable housing opportunities. The following components were included at a
minimum for the process - an inclusive public participation process; iden@cation of how the
road network will need to be modnied; detailed construction estimates that conclusively
demonstrate financial feasibility; addressing of terrain limitations/escarpment development
policies; description of water availability for project; inclusion of adopted plans concerning trails,
open space and parks; and other issues that are iden@ed in the process.
2006 Resolution 2006-93 was adopted to amend Resolution 2004-92 to include in the master planning
project, the designation of the southern portion of the Northwest Quadrant as Permanent Open
Space.
2006 Resolution 2006-119 was passed to provide guidance for the development of the Northwest
Quadrant Affordable Housing Project Master Plan.
2006 Resolution 2006-129 was passed to acknowledge Santa Fe as the ancestral homeland of
Tesuque Pueblo.
10/3/08 Resolution 2008-89 was passed to allocate water rights to the affordable housing and step-up
housing for the Northwest Quadrant.
RFP Process
03/02/05 Issuance of RFP's for Master Planning Services for portion of NW Quad.
05/02/05 Receipt of RFP's for Master Planning Services for portion of NW Quad.
08/10/05 City Council approves contract for Master Planning Services with Santa Fe Engineering
Consultants, LLC
08/25/06 Issuance of RFP's for Master Planning Services for portion of NW Quad.
09/18/06 Receipt of RFP's for Master Planning Services for portion of NW Quad.
12/14/06 City Council approves contract for Master Planning Services with Design Workshop, Inc.

8.JUNE2009 444
Public Forums: Homework Group Meetings, ENN
06124/03 Pre-Planning Public Meeting - Preliminary Feasibility Report results (Enterprise Foundation)
08/05/04 Early Neighborhood Notification Meeting
10/05/04 Neighborhood Meeting - Voicing of neighborhood concerns
10/19/05 First Public Forum at Gonzales Elementary School-- Overview of Master Planning Process
01/17/06 Second Public Forum at Gonzales Elementaty School- Presentation of Affordable Housing
Issues and Water Issues
01/31/06 Third Public Forum at Gonzales Elementary School- Presentation of Traffic Issues preceded by
open house forum with the following stations: overview of project/area; "locate your home;"
housing types; roadway network; origins and destinations
02128/06 Planning Team Workshop - Review of project history, intent, and constraints; design discussion;
and alternative development
03110/07 Forth Public Forum at Genoveva Communitv Center - Reintroduction of project with new
planning team; overview of existing conditions maps; public comment and review
03/27/07 Homework Group Meeting #1 - Project Overview -Introduction of project to homework group
members, review of ground rules, identify project values
04/10/07 Homework Group Meeting #2 - Generate Master Plan Alternatives - Review additional
information; teams draw up alternative master plans and present them to the group
04124/07 Homework Group Meeting #3 - Revise Master Plan Alternatives - Review of master plan
alternatives generated by the design team based on homework group plans, generate preferred
alternative
05/08/07 Homework Group Meeting #4 - Review Draft Master Plan - Review master plan approval
process, overview of contents of design standards document, review of draft master plan
08/14/07 Homework Group Meeting #5 -Master Plan Consensus -Information update of more current
information, review of draft final master plan
08/22107 Homework Group Meeting #6 -Master Plan Consensus - Review of final master plan, discussion
and group consensus
08/28/07 ENN at Gonzales Elementary School- Presentation of master plan, answers to ENN questions,
public comment
OS/22108 Homework Group Meeting #7 -Master Plan Update -Information update of TIA results, pro
forma update, status of remaining issues, and final master plan presentation
06110/08 Fifth Public Forum at Santa Fe Complex - Final master plan presentation, public comment and
review
Public Meetings: City Council, SFPS Board of Education, Finance Committee, Public Works
Committee
07/27/06 City Council Study Session
09/25/06 Public Works / CIP Land Use Committee
10116/06 Finance Committee
04/19/07 SFPS Study Session

8.JUNE2009 445
09/27/06 Public Works / CIP Land Use Committee
08/02/07 SFPS School Board Meeting
08/20/07 Public Works Committee
10/30/07 CoSF / SFPS Joint Study Session
12/05/07 SFPS Study Session
06/12/08 Planning Commission Study Session -Information update
06/18/08 Public Utilities Committee Meeting - NWQ water allocation
07/07/08 Public Works Committee - Traffic Impact Analysis update
07114/08 CoSF / SFPS Joint Study Session
08/18/08 Finance Committee -Information update
09/08/08 Public Works Committee - NWQ water allocation
09/15/08 Finance Committee - NWQ water allocation
10/03/08 City Council Meeting - NWQ water allocation
10/27/08 Public Works Committee - Traffic Impact Analysis update
12/04/08 Planning Commission Study Session -Information update

8.JUNE.2009 446
REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The proposal is to revise the land use plan for the northern portion of the Northwest Quadrant area to
include the following mix of uses as per the proposed Master Plan: Residential High Density (12-29
du/acre), Residential Medium Density (7-12 du/acre), Residential Low Density (3-7 du/acre), Residential
Very Low Density (1-3 dulacre), Neighborhood Center, Transitional Mixed Use, Parks and Open Space.
Current General Plan land uses identified on the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan site include Residential
Low Density (3-7 du/acre), Residential Very Low Density (1-3 du/acre), Transitional Mixed Use, Parks and
Open Space. City Council Resolution 2006-93 changed the land use for the southern 174 acres of the
property from a mix of Residential Low Density (3-7 du/acre), Residential Very Low Density (1-3 du/acre),
Parks and Open Space to Parks and Open Space.
APPROVAL CRITERIA [SFCC 14-3.2 (0)]
1. Consistency with growth projections for the City using a data base maintained and updated on an annual
basis by the City, with economic development goals as set forth in a comprehensive economic development
plan for the City, and with existing land use conditions, such as access and availability of infrastructure;
The Northwest Quadrant property is an infill development located within the City's Urban Area Boundary two
miles from the downtown plaza and three miles away from a majority of services, and public and private
employment centers. The project proposes a mixed-use, mixed income community with a range of housing
densities and commercial and institutional uses. Proposed uses are compatible with adjacent land uses
using existing infrastructure.
The 2007 "Housing Needs Assessment StudY' indicated a current deficit of 6,500 affordable housing units to
house the local workforce. The income levels for this workforce are primarily in the 100-150% AMI and 50-
80% AMI ranges. The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan calls for 773 new homes, approximately 530 of the
new homes will be priced to meet the income levels (less than 150% AMI) to house this local workforce
close to downtown and major public and private employment centers.
EconomY', which has been the basis for implementing the Economic Development Department's economic
strategies. In order to achieve a long-teon sustainable and focused economic growth, the City of Santa Fe
is working towards building a diverse, innovative economy with high-wage, high-impact jobs that provide
opportunity and prosperity for the City's residents, businesses and entrepreneurs. This strategy will provide
opportunities for more of Santa Fe's population to live and work in the community. Economic development
activities are focused on the following targeted industries: technology; knowledge based enterprise;
GREEN, including renewable energy, water conservation and waste reduction technologies; arts + culture;
and media. The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan calls for a mixed-use community with commercial uses in
its neighborhood center that can house some of these targeted industries such as: think tanks, educational
facilities, artisans, fine artists, software design, research and development, and consulting.
2. Consistency with other parts of the General Plan;
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan is consistent with other parts of the General Plan, in particular the
themes and guiding policies of:

8.JUNE.2009 447
Chapter 4- Growth Management
Chapter 7- Infrastructure and Public Services
3. Provision for a determination of land utilization within an area larger than a single property and ofgeneral
applicability. General/y the area should be at least a section of the City and should be larger than a single
block or its equivalent;
The land area of the Northwest Quadrant Master plan is approximately 540 acres. Of the total area, ca. 122
acres is proposed for development and the remaining ca. 418 acres is designated as open space (parks,
open space, ROW, etc.).
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan area is within the City limits and the Urban Area Boundary.
5. Contribution to a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the municipality which will, in
accordance with existing and future needs, best promote health, safety, morals, order, convenience,
prosperity or the general welfare as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development.
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan derives its structure from a fundamental and sensitive understanding
of the site's land systems, a clear understanding of evolving demographic and land use trends in the Santa
Fe region, and an extensive public process wtth public input and review. The Master Plan proposes a
mixed-use development of five neighborhoods on a portion of the developable land area wtth the remaining
area designated as open space. Each neighborhood has convenient access to a centrally located
neighborhood park as well as a community park along the ridge that extends more than 6000 feet in length.
Afine-grained network of streets and trails will allow vehicular and great pedestrian connectivity and provide
ample opportunities for passive recreation. The plan recommends a bus route and strategically placed stops
in denser mixed-use areas of the plan to promote alternative transportation and reduce car trips. The master
plan allows a mix of uses to encourage residents to work and obtain neighborhood services from within the
Views of the Northwest Quadrant development from the City will be limited to the 20 homes slated for the
south side of the ridge facing the City and will follow the escarpment ordinance. Along NM 599, the master
plan follows the recommended view corridor along NM599 of 295 feet to provide a scenic setback. As
regulated by the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan and Design Standards, the development will be designed
to provide a quality image from all vantage points looking toward the property.

8.JUNE.2009 448
LEGEND
M3slerPlart""ajed~'
..........
snaf.e.PIlWl;SchooI:s~ _
Mastel Plan land Us.
.............. """"
---
City of Santa Fe future land Use
...... --""'""""
=_SOXOlP"""_
_ceos.......
City of Sanla fe Information
--
Plopos:ed~IvM~
_r~~Ure ~P"and~ ~IarT"~
"""""' ... """"

_ HrgtaDcndyRuDenbl>.J-It__
-"'~
CltyotSanlllfe6ol.w!ary
~o.nl):rdy&:sl.:lrnlal,4t
. ... H1ghDensoitr~It.a_
-""'"
~lDow~~I.l_ ~OerI$ly~~f.<l_ CIEl Ro.1d:sb"~~
C==:J 'oWyu-0emity~,.,__ Wod!nM Dens~~ ,.. - . . • Rf6flP4Alo--/~UlciItu'rs:
~OpM~(PutIkIf'rivBLtI ~ UlwOe<df~J·I_ _w.o Plopos:ed~~
........ """ c::::=.J VeIYl.oof~R~'.I_
•
... RWs 10 be Oisaxmded
NORTHWEST MASTER CURRENT GENERAL PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE

QUADRANT P LA I\J
449
IiOlfrlH \lOOUOljO'i! x=v. \I~.og,(qros doIj~JOM \l6K~O
N \I 1 dllNVlIOVnO
3sn ONVl 3~mn::l 03S0dO~d
_1'1~\I~-lhaA ~ u:t~~iJl'R<I c::::::::J
srro_OllA
l<X>l
-1'1~~""O"""'~
--'''J~~~-.JiIPOn
_ll·l~~~~
r::3iEJ
{'*"N ·~;uedsWltl
_f··I0l~tlJ~~lJ.Jilf.
·...,...,·1~.lt1$lR()~1
c=l
1:=:::1 .laf:lunOe'J.,..esjO~
--
'HI ...,-~
_1NI~¥tI~",,", _""U-I~~~
....... -
$pI!Ol:lPJSOCb.l.d
• ...".ONI~~'ItiJ(~
""""""
...,=
~~Ol'lfY
w:tqdptRSl\.lWd~ ~'-11103_ ~~~1
l~S~
c....... ·"""' ..... ,..,........,
asf) pue, aJflV1~ 9.:1 eJueS JO.w.:::> """''''''''''''''''-
P"'1
""0 ""Id
JOlS"W
~1"1flO'.PS:ltll"d'~ques
AJq:l.ooog~.I.d."Gd~
ON3831
450
LEGEND
_C<o<.
--
la1dUse
--~SIreetSr>1enI Alea Calculations
......
- - I.tderPbnPforea'ilolP:ilry
.
_ •• _. SallaF.NJlicSdllXlb~
-- -.",,,, --- Fubl!Road~ T~I.SedUx W>g1Jr>tl. ~lJICIkte o--ciII~""'"
".".'"
Cl*tmc.:..lllll'bn) Il HI ..__
Iiojl~~",~-
~""""'" @l "'.,.,.,T"'" ~~~~I~l_ ........ -~
-"'-"'" ........ Prq:iosed~,orTI<Ib

c:::::J l_o.miy~J.'_ ffII\c..r_'"
'"
-'IOIT~
....... flit
o
P!q:losedFi'tSblilo
112 .... - . . . . . =_....
~ Vf$'flOlfOens'trR~,.t_
tN*·-1
..... 00n0IrR-.....
~-~
...,.~flooOWW
"' ,.
'"
=--
~l00Ye.'-f'loodPWI ~ P•
r_--: 5OO'l'eatFbodPbrl + l..1nlIIIatk~
.-df'tl.m ,......""'- .111
a,-s,-'-'-.-I
0""'''''''''''' J1UI
m u
rn.::rn fooI\iIb~ <::> ~IiaJPM:cll("O'cl
JOIN $Q~
:':::::::..-=-:"'.:::=.c-:::.~_e- ...- .........-

~_..,
NORTHWEST MASTER PROPOSED MASTER PLAN

QUADRANT P LAN
De!olgo Wolbhop Svby Bowden + As~ Bohcnnon Hwon J1..f l _~
451
................
"
SANTA FE
ESTATES'
\'
\\ I
LEGEND
~P!MlPro;ect6ould;lry Reaeation I Open Space Areas IlIcycle System
SantaN!P\ticSdloolsPr~
Open~(P'\bk.f'm'iI(el _8ir:::plPaIl
&:~Slreel
.. poo.slR:I~ ~SMed~
---"'"
"- Traib -~~(¥dca:AotV
IOIT~ Pr~Trllhad
Pubic TransportaIion Sys1em
.~_.
1_
100Y_Fbod~
~r-Floodf'l<wl
P~MajorTllIib
",~ww·~"""rTf<Ji::l
--_ ••• ED$fII'lgRegtor.lllt-elWtn.
__ EmtW1g~~tp.wed)
---"" ....
o _"""'" ~&:sfbJlc
+ l.ardniIrtSlruct.n i"...~ ~T...".SlQp
NORTHWESTIMASTER TRANSPORTATION + OPEN SPACE FRAMEWORK

~~~~ ~~~!A=--;;P'---'--;-~---'"'-;-~---'H=:-~'-;-------------------'---'''--''--'-''-'--'-''-'---'-'-'---''-'------'---'----------;;n.n;;;;---= ::;-_'pll"':l_
452
Re-zoning Request from R-1 to PRC
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As designed, the Northwest Quadrant is a unique mixed-use community lhat demonstrates respect for the
history of the land and creates a modern 21 st Century neighborhood. The Master Plan proposes a Planned
Residential Community with up to 773 residential and mixed-use units, including transitional housing; a
neighborhood center with 40,000 sf of commercial (as allowed under PRC zoning - 2.236 acres ground
area*); a mixed-use area of residential and commercial with up to 70,000 sf of mixed-use commercial
(maximum 24,500 sf specialty retail); afire station; as well as the potential for an adult educational facility.
Conceptually, the project is laid out as a series of residential and mixed-use neighborhoods, separated by
an environmentally sensitive open space system, and interconnected by a fine grained network of
pedestrian friendly streets and trails. The mix of uses, compact development. and open space system
encourages walking and biking within the project and supports opportunities for interaction with neighbors.
Major design elements include:
o Affordable Housing: 70% of the housing or approximately 530 homes are proposed as affordable
including 30%-37% committed to the Santa Fe Homes Program;
o Open Space Preservation: Over 400 acres dedicated to open space;
o Sustainable Community: Commitment to green and sustainable from project process, development
planning, site planning, bUilding design, landscape design and material application and
approaches; and
o Public Amenities: Front loading costs for a community park and major trails including infrastructure
and commercial build-out.
o Mixed-Use: Live/Work mixed-use areas are permitted and encouraged to promote economic
development and foster alternative means of transportation.
Major developmenVmanagement elements include:
o Hiring a master developer to oversee the entire project in order to ensure the vision is achieved
o Assembling a design review committee made up of the master developer and local professionals
including city staff to oversee the build-out and ensure the vision is achieved (modeled on Tierra
Contenta);
o Establishing a Homeowner's Association for the entire project.
The 25 acre parcel owned by Santa Fe Public Schools (Parcel A) has been zoned for 15 market rate units
and is not subject to the Santa Fe Homes Ordinance affordability requirements due to the high level of
affordability achieved on the Santa Fe Public Schools 15 acre parcel (Parcel B).

8.JUNE.2009 453
PRO,IEeT HISTORY
The City of Santa Fe has owned the land commonly known as the Northwest Quadrant for several decades.
Originally, the land was completely zoned as Open Space. Over the years various resolutions have been
approved that amended the future land use of this property. The past resolutions include:
In 2003, Resolution 2003-61 directed staff to "garner and assemble the necessary expertise to formulate a
Request for Proposals concerning affordable hOlJsing in the northwest quadrant."
In 2004, Resolution 2004-49 was adopted to endorse the findings of a Preliminary Feasibility Report
commissioned on behalf of the city by the Enterprise Foundation to study the development potential of a
portion of this land.
In 2004, Resolution 2004-91 was adopted which Amended the Future Land use Diagram of the City of
Santa Fe's General Plan and changed the classification of an area of 400+- acres located south of the
Veteran's Memorial Highway, east of Camino de Los Montoyas and west of Santa Fe Estates from open
space to very low density residential (1-3 dwellings per acres, low density residential (3-7 dwellings per
acre, parks and mixed use/transitional (Case No. M2004-32, Northwest Quadrant General Plan
Amendment).
In 2004, Resolution 2004-92 was adopted concurrently with approval of the Northwest Quadrant General
Plan Amendment, prOViding further guidance on the public process the city would follow to develop a master
plan for implementation of the Northwest Quadrant Affordable Housing Project.
In 2006, Resolution 2006-93 was adopted to amend Resolution 2004-91 to include in the master planning
project, the designation of the southern portion of the Northwest Quadrant as Permanent Open Space.
In December of 2006, the City of Santa Fe commissioned Design Workshop, Inc. to provide a master plan to
develop the Northwest Quadrant with the vision of creating a model sustainable community with an
emphasis on both providing affordable housing above and beyond the City's existing Santa Fe Homes
Program and "greening" both the residential and commercial buildings.
REQUEST FOR RE·ZONING
We are requesting a rezoning from R-1 Very Low Density Residential to a Planned Residential Community
District (PRC). Land uses proposed for the project include a range of residential densities (High Density,
Medium Density, Low Density, Very Low Density), Neighborhood Center, and Transitional Mixed Use* in
order to enable the NWQ to develop as envisioned in the proposed master plan. Specifically, the request is
a rezoning of the total 540 acres (see map attached).
As part of lhe NWQ PRC, the Master Plan outlines a set of Design Standards that set the standards for the
development. In general, the NWQ Design Standards are more restrictive than Chapter 14. A table (see
attached matrix) outlines NWQ dimensional standards and measurements that vary from City Code
requested to be adopted as part of the NWQ Design Standards. Gray text indicates City Code to be applied
to the NWQ and black text indicates changes to City Code requested for adoption.
* As part of2009 updates to the Santa Fe City Land Development Code - Chapter 14, uses allowed in a PRC will be
amended to include mixed use. The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan anticipates the adoption of the code amendment
to allow mixed use within a PRC prior to final approval by City Council.

8.JUNE.2009 454
APPROVAL CRrrERIA [SFCC 14-3.5 (Cn
1. The need and justification for the change.
The master plan is based on an urban structure which affirms Santa Fe's traditional development patterns
and is designed to address the themes and policies outlined in the General Plan, Chapter 3, Land Use.
Throughout the master plan, themes and guiding policies regarding affordable housing, quality of life,
transportation alternatives, economic diversity, sustainable growth, urban form, community-oriented
development and mixed use/transitional easily flow. Further, the overall project is designed to meet Guiding
Principles 2-G-2 and 3-G-3 as outlined in the General Plan. Both of these principles encourage mixed use
districts as well as infill development at densities that support the construction of affordable housing and a
designated mix of land uses that provide an adequate balance of service retail and employment
opportunities.
resolutions passed over many years incorporated into a Planned Residential Community District (PRC).
These resolutions effectively changed both the General Plan and the Land Use Map to its current status.
Each resolution reiterated the city's commitment to "actively participate in the creation of affordable housing"
which is the overarching goal of this project as initiated and directed by the City. In order to achieve these
goals, the underlying zoning needs to be changed.
2. The effect of the change, if any, on the property and on surrounding properties.
The effect on the property is very positive. First, over 400 acres are being preserved as open space leaving
ca. 122 acres to be developed. Secondly, as designed, the project employs smart growth approaches and
technologies from its inception to its completion. Third, given the projects close proximity (2 miles) to the
plaza, services, and major city, state and county employment centers will reduce vehicle miles traveled
throughout Santa Fe and is conducive to introducing alternative modes of transportation because of its
proximity to services. Fourth, there is a continuing economic and social stratification in the City. The project
is ideally located to address the housing demand found among families with children, young couples,
singles and seniors in a way that both respects the land and cultural resources and begins to mitigate the
impacts found in an economically stratified community. Furthermore, its location provides affordably priced
housing in closer proximity to major employment and retail centers. The effects on the surrounding
properties including property values, traffic impact and noise are demonstrated to be minimal in comparison
to other areas in Santa Fe.
3. Whether the amount of land proposed for rezoning and proposed use for the land is consistent with the
city's policies regarding the provision of urban land sufficient to meet the amount, rate and geographic
location of the growth of the city.
The proposed rezoning of the ca. 540 acres is Consistent with the land use policies outlined in Chapter 3 of
the General Plan and meets the city's policies for creating affordable housing as well as the city's guidance
to the staff in the creation of this project.
4. The ability of the existing infrastructure such as the street systems, sewer and water lines and public
facilities such as fire stations and parks can accommodate the impacts of the proposed development.

8.JUNE.2009 455
The design team has already met with city staff in the various public works divisions, public utilities divisions
and believes that the infrastructure is in place to support the development of this project. The plan includes
land for a future fire station on the propertY that is needed for this area and will serve Santa Fe Estates,
Zocalo and Casa Solana as well as downtown. Water rights have also been dedicated by the city for both
the affordable and step-up housing. Lastly, the team has met with the head of the parks department to
review exactly which parks would be maintained by the city and which ones would be maintained by the
Homeowner's Association. In general, the team has been told that the city systems, which would provide
services to the NWQ, can accommodate the impacts of the proposed development.
S. If the proposed re-zoning creates a need for an additional major public utility expansion.
The proposed re-zoning does not create a need for an additional major public utility expansion.
NOR"rHWESr QUADRANr MAS"rER PLAN APPLICATION 16

B.JUNE.2009 456
LEGEND
- Master Plan Project Boundary
o PNM Subslallon
- • - Sanla Fe Public Schools Properly

o Reslden~al Parcel (1 Acre)
"""'......- ... _ . - . ( 1
""" ..... lOR>t.o<.O"oc__

.-/0GIJlh'- _,,_f.. __
__Ior_'''''''''......
1I0RTHWEST MASTER AERIAL MAP
~UADRANT P LAN
457
\ I
j
\
0_ ._._. I
---A
i
;-
,.
I
------~ .,'" .'=:
!
<>
...... -_.
'
I
i/
- .._--_.- ---
£GEND
....-...., - Bo.Mary c:::::::J Rl. (PUO) Sm91e-f.....1y ,.,.,. _ RMl0.(PUO"""'~.famly,..... C10l1ce .. Re£atedCorrmercial
Sa:Ita Fe . - - Sd-oals f\noerty c:::::::J R2.IOn. (PUO) S<'ge-f_ , ..... _ RMlO. (PUC) "'-'tipe-fmy ""'" _ C2Genernl CamI....
_ _ _ C4 LurrtedOfice + PetJ,
~S>-..I c:::::::J RJ. (PUO) S<'ge-famly ''''''''' RJ,l'.(puO)~anIy,,_
"""""'Yu-... ~ R.~aTilYI"-- _ RM2.IPUO)~anlya_

SC'. so. SC3 1'1""", 9l"""""c.n....
c:::::::J RS. (PUO) (Aq, R6 Snlle-Famly,, __ RACR.esldet!ial.Am+Craf\s PRe, PPRe _ Carm.riIy
~ R'.(I)s;,~e-f_,.,~ _ _ MHP "'=tIle Home Pert
c::=J RCS.ACRCSCar<>...... ' .....
ReB, ACRC8 CaTlIcwd S<ln=
NORTHWESTIMASTER EXISTING ZONING

..
458
rLJI G
--..n
.. / "
j-"-
i'
\,
\
i
---J--------\:K~~
I "
!
/
LEGEND
_ _ p,qedB"'-"""f
c:::=J RI, (Poo) Sove-famly ,..,~ _ RMl0.(PUOI_.farrOiy·_ ~C1Office ... RelatedCorrrneld3l
sao,. r. Nlic Sd>ools Propetty c:::=J R2, (OT], (PUO) SOVe-famly, ...... RMLO, IPUO) .......e-f.... v ""'"" _C2""""",eoom,.e.;
ExIstir!ISln!" c:::=J R3, (PUO) Slnge-famly""~ RM1. (PUO)l.tJtipie-famiy2llb'K: 0lt..mted0fl'ice + Retail
hUe Road Comecioo ~ R4Si'1g1e-famty4lb'.Iat RM2, (PuOI ....""e-faonly~.... . SCI,SC2,SC3"' """'I'P'<'!c",....
Proposedllo"'" c:::=J RS, (euo) lAC), R6 SOVe-F"""'v ........ RAe Re:s:idenUl Arls + Qafts ~ PSC, PPIlC , Coom.rlty
Property ...... ~ R7,~)_amlyl"'" WiP Mable Home p~
c::::::3 RC5,ACRC5~5~Kn
RC8.ACRC8~'ctA::nt
NO RTHWEST I~M~A~ST..:. . :E: . . :R. :. . :· P..:....:R---=O_P_O_SE---,D=Z---,O=N~IN~G

QUADRANT P LAN Jl..f l 459
~
()e,'gn WOIbhop . Sub)' Bowden + As= . Bohannon Huslon
Minimum Setback Minimum Distance
Minimu.m Lot .p·i;ce 2
, :R13 .uiteh1~hts ~ .«
FRONT: Equal 10 minimum yard re-
!3~tWeer;Buildin' sS;tt
No maximum lot roverage, except See setbacks in MU.
quirements in adjoining residential as may be needed 10 satisfy other
applicable to an MU district. if not separaled by a street. limitations applicable to an MU Also. see Chapler 14·7 2 (8) (8) lor
OlherNise nO selback. Dislricl. separalion or uses
Where the mixed use development SIDE. 30 feel from properly line
Also see Chapfer 14·7 2 (B) (8) for IS adjacent 10 reslden~al zoning. when abutting a residenlial district: Also see Chapler 14-7.2 (8) (8) for
open space all buildings and structures ,,~lhin 5 feel if not abutting residenlial fool print requirements ana residen-
No single commercial lenanl shall 70 feel of lhe adjoining residenlial Right of way may be counted as tial requirements
exceed 20.000 SF. properly line shall nol exceed 25 setback
(eet in height 8..E!IB.. 30 feel from property line
Bldgs of 25 fool heighl or less shall when abutting a residential dislrid,
not exceed a max of 12 dwelltng Also see Chapler 14·7.2 (B) (8) lor 10 feet when not abutting residen-
units per acre. slep back. tial Righl of way may be counted
as selback.
Bldgs of 35 foof heigh I or less shall
not exceed a max of 14 dwelling Also see Chapler 14-7.2 (8) (8)
units per acre NWQ recommends increased NWQ requesls variance of side- See MU setbads.
heighl allowances wilh a 45 fool yard setback abutting residential
Each unil shall have a 250SF open height max. (four stories) in Ihe districts, 10 enable common wall
space. 'Main Slreef neighborhood in one conditions.
mapped loca~oo.
NWQ recommends decreased
height allowances 10 two stories in
several rna ped locations.
5 acres (minimum district and lot 35 feel Shall be equivalent 10 the minimum No max lot coverage Shall be equivalent to lhe minimum
size). yard requirements in any adjoining yard requirements in any adjoining
zoning district. zoning district.
NWQ recommended decrease 10 NWQ recommended decreased NWQ requests variance of MU NWQ requests variance of MU
2.236 acres (maximum district and helghl allowances to ~ stones in sideyarli selback abulling residen- sideyard selback abutting residen-
lot size) based on 14-43 (1)(7)(d)(i) several mapped locations, lialdisbicts, to enaWe rommoowall tial districts,lo enable common wall
ca1aJlalkln, conditions. conditions.
A common landscaped open area No minimum, except as may be 35 feet (permHted where 2 or more EBill:1I: Equal 10 minimum yard re- No ma:ximum lot roverage, except See setbacks in MU.
with sealing shall be provided 'fIilh needed to satisfy other limilaUons stories are induded in one bu~d· quirements in adjoining residential as may be needed 10 satisfy other
a min sile olSOOSF per acre 01 de· applicable 10 an MU Dislricl ing), district, if not separated by a street. limitations applicable to an MU Also see Chapler 14-7.2 (8) (8) for
velopmel, open to the sky, suilably Otherwise no setback. District. separation of uses
lighted and designed to encourage Also see Chapler 14-7.2(B)(8) for Where the mixed use developmenl SIDE: 30 reel from property line
social interaction. open space is adjacent to residential lOning, when abulting a residential dislnd· Also see Chapler 14·7.2 (B) (8) for
all buildings and Slrudures ",tithin 5 {eel if nol abulling residential. footprint requirements and residen-
No single commercial tenant shall 70 feet of Ihe adjoining residential Right of way may be counted as tlat requirements
exceed 20,000 SF, properly line shall nOI exceed 25 seLback.
feet in heighl 8..E!IB.: 30 feel from properly line
Bldgs 0125 fool height or less shall when abutling a residential distrid,
not exceed a max of 12 dwelling Also see Chapler 14-7.2(B)(8) lor 10 feet when not abutting residen·
units per acre. step back. lial Right of way may be counted
as selback.
Bldgs of 35 fool heighI or less shall Also see Chapler 14·7 2 (8) (8).
nol exceed a max of 14 dwelling
units per acre. NWQ neoommends decreased NWQ requests variance of side- See MU setbads,
heighl allowances 10 24 leel (two yard setback, to enable common
Each unil shall have a 2SOSF open slories) in several mapped Ioca- wall conditions.
space. fions,
12 - 29 Singte Familv. 3000 SF minimum, 241eel See Chapler 14· 7, 1 (B) (5) (g) for Single· Familv or Mulli- Family None
2000 SF minimum it corrmon open seLbacks (less lhan 6 units): 40% lot rover-
space provided age; 70% if privale open space is
NWQ recommends increased provided.
Multi·Family: see Chapler 14·7.1 heighl.allowances with a 36 fool
(B)(5) (a and d) lor minimum 101 height max. (Ihree stories) in sev·
and open space. eral mapped Iocalions.
See Chapler 14-7,1 (8) (5) (b) !of Single Family: 3000 SF minimum, 24 feel See Chapter 14·7.1 (8) (5) (gl for Sioqle- Family or Mulli- Family None
calOJlation of allowable dwelling 2000 SF minimum if common open setbacks ~ lhan 6 unitsJ: 40"0 lot rover-
unils. space provided. age; 70% if private open space is
proVided.
M!!lli:EillnilY:
see Chapler 14-7,1
(B) (5) (a and d) lor minimum lot
and open space.
3-7 4000 SF minimum, no minimum if 24 feel Setbacks eslablished by a devel- 40% lol coverage; 55% if private 10 fee~ except where a provision is
common open space provided. opment plan, and approved by the open space is provided. made for a common building wall.
Units rnay be duslered as long as See 14-7.l (B) (2) (b). Planning Commission
density requirements are mel.
See Chapler 14·7,1(8) (2) (a)
1·3 Shigle Family- 4000 -SF minimum, 24 feet EBQtlI: 7 40% lot coverage; 50% ~ privale 10 (ee~ except where·a provision is
2000 SF minimum il common open SIDE: 5. 10 (or second siories. open space is provided. made for a Common building wall.
space provided. REAR: 15 (or 20% of average
deplh of 101; no less than 5 feel
Multi-Family: 4000 SF. single slories and 10 feel second
See Chapler 14·7.1 (B) (5) (a slories).
and dl for minimum lot and open NWQ neoommends den"'d build·
space ing envelopes to minimize dislur-
bance 10 0 en S ce area.
NO THWESTIMASTER DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS + MEASUREMENTS
Design VVorkshop , Suby Bowden + Assoc.. Bohannon Huston MARCH.2009
460
Variance Request to Escarpment Overlay District
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO THE ESCARPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
The design team is requesting a variance to escarpment overlay district regulation [§ 14-5.6 (A)(2)(a)] to
obtain the right to build a portion of the South Ridgetop Road extension within the ridgetop subdistrict area.
The proposed new road would extend the existing South Ridgetop Road from the northeast corner of the
site southwest and then west through the entire property, connecting to Camino de los Montoyas north of
the ridge.
This request is based on the need to provide road connectivity from Ridgetop Road to Camino de los
Montoyas with a logical alignment that occurs south of the existing PI\JM sWitching station and within a
portion of the ridgetop subdistrict area. The requested alignment is consistent with the 1999 General Plan
which shows a connection from Paseo de Vista to Camino de los Montoyas along the ridge connecting to
Ridgetop Road. The road network and street cross-section standards identified in the Northwest Quadrant
Master Plan and Design Standards document reflect the relaxed standards in this location that this variance
would allow.
Approximately 550 feet of the proposed road will encroach on the ridgetop subdistrict by a maximum of 47
feet in order to provide sufficient distance from the PNM switching station (see attached map). The resulting
area of disturbance within the ridgetop subdistrict area based on the schematic plan is approximately 15,000
square feet. Current illustrations are diagrammatic consistent with a master plan application and will be
further refined and resubmitted with the required engineering drawings at the time of development plan
application.
APPROVAL CRITERIA
Below we have outlined the rationale behind our request based on approval criteria:
1. Appropriateness in relation to the overall development and its purposes and their impact upon
surrounding properties. [§14-2.3(C)(3)]
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan calls for a ca. 6,000 feet long linear park along the ridgeline that
traverses northwest within the northern 366 acres of the Master Plan area. This open space area, the
'Linear Park', will have pedestrian and bicycle trails to connect to Santa Fe Estate Trails and to other trails in
the larger northwest quadrant area. The major roadway that traverses the site and provides an important
connection from Ridgetop Road to Camino de los Montoyas is located dominantly north of the ridge outside
of the ridgetop subdistrict. The one location where it encroaches on the ridgetop subdistrict is in the location
of the PNM substation. We are requesting a variance to build the road within the ridgetop subdistrict in this
area only.
This request reflects the minimum encroachment possible to the ridgetop subdistrict given the site
constraints and project goals. The alignment of the roadway within the right of way boundary has been
adjusted to minimize the impact to the ridgetop. Granting this variance will make it possible to build this road
through the entire development thus connecting the project's east and west entry points.

B.JUNE.2009 461
2. Where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardship may result from strict compliance with
these regulations, it may vary the regulations so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest
secured; provided that such variation shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these
regulations. [§14 -5.6 (K)(1)]
A literal interpretation of this ordinance would deprive the future master developer of the ability to complete
a major roadway connection in a logical and efficient way.
The topography, slopes and drainageways north of the PNM switching station, along with locations of
existing archaeological sites create a special condition that leads to the proposed road alignment south of
the station. An existing 30 foot wide access easement that has been bladed and is devoid of vegetation
currently exists in the approximate location of the proposed road alignment. Using the general area of this
easement would result in less visual disturbance than if an alternate alignment north of the PNM site were
proposed.
This variance request is a special condition dictated by property lines, topography, drainageways, and
connectivity needs. The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan places the remainder of the ridgetop subdistrict in
an open space preserve and/or community park with pedestrian and bike trails that will not be privileged
with the rights granted by this variance.
Substantial justice will be done in granting this variance by enabling an orderly and efficient road alignment
to provide multiple points of access to the development and between the neighborhoods.
3. In granting variances or modifications, the Planning Commission may require such conditions as will, in
its judgment, assure substantially the objectives of the standards or requirements that are being varied or
modified. [§ 14-5.6(K)(2)J
Granting this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Chapter 14 - 5.6 and will
not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to pUblic welfare. Additional berming and/or
planting can be installed adjacent to the encroachment on the ridgetop subdistrict to minimize the visibility of
the roadway and vehicles and protect the viewshed. In addition, the road profile of the proposed alignment
results in more gentle, safer grades than would be possible given the alternate northern alignment, which

8.JUNE.2009 462
y,
J .
--' ~\ /'
~./I-'-
NORTHWESTI MAS TE R ESCARPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT VARIANCE
.
~g~~~. ~y~W~ ~ss~ ~h~n: HUS~ l' = 100'-0'
rL.Il
0 25 50 100
~
MARCH2009
463
Variance Request to Terrain Management Ordinance
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO THE TERRAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
The design team is requesting a variance to the terrain management ordinance [§14-8.2 (0)(1 )(b)(iii), §14-
8.2 (F)(2)(b)(ii), §14-8.2 (F)(2)(b)(iv)] to obtain the right to build roads, driveways, utilities and buildings in
over 30% slopes in two areas within the Neighborhood Center area, thereby exceeding the limit of 1000
square feet of disturbance of over 30% slopes within an area of mountainous or difficult terrain. The two
areas are non-contiguous areas of 30% slopes that add up to approximately 28,000 square feet. These
steep slope areas are not large continuous slopes exceeding 30%, rather, they are smaller areas the result
of erosion at the headcuts of the arroyos due to limited vegetated cover and a lack of on site infiltration.
There are two locations where the variance is requested (see attached maps).
This request is based on the need to provide a reasonable amount of contiguous land area for development
of the neighborhood center (ca. 14 acres) as well as road access within the center and consequently
preserve larger contiguous land areas for open space and public use. Area 1 includes 34 pieces totaling ca.
10,500 square feet and is located north of the ridge east of the north/south electrical easement along one of
the drainageways that feeds into Arroyo de los Frijoles. Area 2 includes 12 pieces totaling ca. 17,500 square
feet and is located at the headwaters of Arroyo de las Trampas north and east of the PNM switching station.
A basic premise for the design of the Northwest Quadrant project was to respect existing drainage systems,
natural features, and cultural resources to the greatest extent possible while meeting the programmatic
needs and public desires for the project. In granting this variance a total of 4 .5% of the over 30% land area
within the Neighborhood Center would be disturbed. This area amounts to 0.1% of the total Northwest
Quadrant site area.
APPROVAL CRITERIA
Below we have outlined the rationale behind our request based on approval criteria:
1. Appropriateness in relation to the overall development and its purposes and their impact upon
surrounding properties. [§ 14-2.3(C)(3)]
This request is an outcome of a concerted effort to balance development with the preservation of
archaeological sites, views across open space areas from the NM599 highway corridor to the ridge and
Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and community desires for open space. The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan
was generated from a land-based analysis that looked at locating development on shallower slopes
(primarily slopes less than 20%) while preserving major drainageways, respecting the 295 ft. wide highway
corridor setback, and avoiding as many significant archaeological sites as possible. The developable area in
the master plan as proposed preserves 50% of the archaeological sites documented on the property and
preserves ca. 70% of the land area in open space and parks.
The public process identified goals to preserve open space and create distinct 'neighborhoods' separated by
open spaces areas. These neighborhoods are clustered neighborhoods with radiating densities: higher
densities are located in the center areas and lower densities on the fringes. The neighborhood center area
is envisioned as a dense, mixed-use, 'Main Street' corridor that links the neighborhoods together and

8.JUNE2009 464
provides a center for the community. While the master plan could have located more area of development
beyond what has been proposed, this would have resulted in more piecemeal development, less contiguous
open space for public use, and the disturbance of more archaeological sites.
Development in the proposed areas within the Neighborhood Center area are centrally located within the
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan property and will not adversely impact surrounding properties.
2. Where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardship may result from strict compliance with
these regulations, it may vary the regulations so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest
secured; provided that such variation shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these
regulations. {§14 - 3.7 (F)(1)]
The strict application of the regulation preventing disturbance of areas greater than 1,000 square feet on
slopes greater than 30% would result in a hardship to the development of the project by restricting
developable parcels within the neighborhood center area to discontinuous areas with smaller, oddly shaped
lots. In addition, strict application of the regulation would prohibit the construction of the main street that
connects the neighborhood center area to the remainder of the development. Reducing this developable
area for both infrastructure and building structures will result in a hardship for the master developer, making
the higher density development called for in the plan more difficult on the oddly shaped lots and restricting
the developer's ability to build the structures and roads necessary to make the project financially viable.
Granting this variance in the area of the Neighborhood Center will not absolve the developer of his/her
responsibility to adhere to the terrain management ordinance in other areas of the development. The site
analysis indicates there are some areas along roadways and at the fringes of the development that, at
development plan, might impact 30% or greater slopes. For these areas, the developer will follow
conventional regulations for design and engineering and obtain the necessary variances at development
plan approval.
In order to create a cohesive and viable mixed-use Neighborhood Center to serve the residents of the
Northwest Quadrant, substantial justice will be provided in granting this variance to concentrate disturbance
of slopes and building on these slopes only within the two parcels that comprise the Neighborhood Center.
By focusing the Neighborhood Center in this area, advantageous impacts on surrounding properties would
include a larger area of open space (over 70% of the Master Plan area) preserved for public recreation,
scenic character, storm water management, and wildlife habitat.
The public process for the project asked for input from the Homework Group (a group of 45 dedicated
individuals who gave direction to the design team on the project) to identify where the 'Center' should be
located. The centrally located 'Neighborhood Center' as identified on the Master Plan map is a direct
outcome of that process. In order to maintain the viability of the neighborhood center as a mixed-use center
with neighborhood services, the disturbances to over 30% slopes to build infrastructure and buildings are
requested in this area. The public interest will be secured by concentrating disturbances in this area only so
that a larger area of open space is available for preservation and use.

8.JUNE.2009 465
3. In granting variances or modifications, the Planning Commission may require such conditions as will, in
its judgment, assure substantially the objectives of the standards or requirements that are being varied or
modified. (§14-3.7(F)(2)]
In disturbing the over 30% slopes and regrading areas 1 + 2, the developer at development plan approval
will provide a detailed soil analysis, recommendations on the stability of native slopes and/or
recommendations on stabilizing steeper slopes, and other information as required. As in the remainder of
the development, care will be taken to ensure that where drainageways are disturbed, a stormwater
management strategy is thoughtfully conceived and carefully implemented. In Area 2, the developer will
work to retain portions of the existing drainageway, stabilize slopes, minimize erosion, and maximize
stormwater management and infiltration on-site.
The master plan calls for an integrated stormwater management approach to maximize on-site stormwater
harvesting, infiltration, and reuse and minimize erosion and sedimentation from excess stormwater
discharged into existing arroyos. In addition, the plan calls for the revegetation of arroyo corridors to curb
erosion and provide wildlife habitat. The team believes that with a proper integrated stormwater
management strategy on site, further erosion of the delicate ecosystems in the arroyo corridors on site can
be minimized.

8.JUNE.2009 466
NORTHWEST MASTER TERRAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE VARIANCE
QUADRA T P LAN
Design Workshop· Suby Bowden + Assoc . Bohannon Huston
CONTEXT PLAN rl,...rl
~
1" = 900'-0" 0 225 450 900 JUNE.2009
467
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc . Bohannan Huston
AREA 1 ENLARGED PLAN lui ~
1" = 100'-0· o 25 50 100 JUNE2009
468
! _ .... -- ....... - ---'" '~ ....
Source Data " I " _ .. ~~ .{~}. ;;;"
Topography ./',. -v .......r." .... lr~ ~'. ;.,.....-~.:

Thomas R Mann and Assooates, Augusl2OO5 (aena! photography) Based .-/ •~ ~'-o<:-'-", ~ :, <";
J / on field survey Information prOVIded by Dawson Surveys. Inc. ,.... .::-
, topographIC and plarwmetJicdala ('21l coniourlnletvals all" = ..'
- ~~~~~~~~~;:"~a::'n + Assodates meets or .,?- .~
..,.- ~=r.~is;;eering Consultants, LLC, 2006. 20% slOPe analysIS data

is based upon oontour intervals of 2 feet and 30% slope analysis data
is based upon ooitour intervals of 5 feet Topographic information
./ =~OJ~':rJsk):enda:=d~t~~e~u~~~~Sfi~~ti~~~ap
information and Thomas R. -MaM and Associates topographic and
p£animebic: data.

QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc . Bohannon Huston
AREA 2 ENLARGED PLAN r-l...JI ~
l' = 100'-0" 0 25 50 100 JUNE,2009
469
Request for Condition of Approval
Grandfathering the Existing Escarpment Ordinance and Ordinance Map
The City of Santa Fe's current Escarpment Ordinance, dating back to 1992 with amendments introduced in
2006, is designed to protect the hills to the north and Southeast of the City as well as Sangre de Cristo
Mountains. The current ordinance does so by imposing limitations on construction on slopes greater than
twenty (20%) percent.
As proposed, the Northwest Quadrant project is able to meet all of the requirements of the current
escarpment ordinance and map. However, the project is proposed in three phases with an estimated build-
out over ten (10) years. Consequently, should the escarpment ordinance and map be changed resulting in
greater restrictions on slopes or limiting future buildable lots, the impact on the entire project would be dire.
In fact, we believe that such an implementation would most likely affect the project's ability to meet many of
its public purpose requirements, specijically the affordable housing set aside. This is because any further
limitations to buildable areas will affect density and the density as proposed is needed to achieve the
affordable housing requirements and many of the sustainable features that can be attributed to smaller
homes and lot sizes. It is important to note that the design team carefully considered view corridors,
massing in areas to promote greater potential for community building, archeology and connectivity within the
site as well as to the greater Santa Fe community in this design.
Some of the specijic factors that were considered prior to requesting a freeze for this project to build to the
current escarpment requirements include:
1. Limited Revenue Stream

The proposed project is approximately seventy (70%) percent affordable of which 30%-33% of homes are
designated to be built to meet the affordable pricing requirement noted in the Santa Fe Homes Program;
sales prices ranging from $97,000 to $194,000. Another 30%-40% of homes are designated as step-up
housing that will be targeted to the workforce that earns 100% to 150% of the AMI and who could afford to
purchase homes with sales prices ranging from $286,000 to $357,500. The 1997 Housing Needs
Assessment found this is one of the areas of demand that is not being met in the current market in Santa
Fe.
These requirements affect the revenue stream of the project in order to meet the City's greater goals of not
only providing affordable housing in areas of the City where little can be produced but also acting to attract
and retain the 'ost middle workforce" that is moving away in search of living situations they can afford. (see
City of Santa Fe's General Plan, 9.1.3) Further, in order to achieve long-term sustainable and focused
economic growth, the City must work toward building a diverse, innovative economy with high-impact jobs.
The ability of these workers to live and work in Santa Fe greatly enhances the overall labor pool of available
workforce talent, as well as contributing to a high quality of life through community involvement and
engagement and support of local spending.
2. Limited Buildable Areas

The land that encompasses the Northwest Quadrant has a long history and is well known.
It is sacred to Native Americans and as such it should come as no surprise that archaeological sites have
been identnied on the proposed development site. Of the 366 acres in the northern section, only 160 acres
are developable and an additional 10 acres developable with restrictions at the proposed densities. These
findings, in addition to adhering to the escarpment ordinance and map, have challenged the design team's
ability to layout a project that respects the archeology, maximizes views and provides for visual connectivity

B.JUNE.2009 470
from the site to downtown Santa Fe. In addition, over 400 acres are set aside as open space and as
proposed, the NWQ will provide for bike and pedestrian paths within and without the plan to enhance
internal and external connectivity. All of these factors were taken into consideration and informed a
maximum of 753 homes in the primary building area north of the ridge. This results in an overall gross
density on the northern side of 7.4 dwelling units per acre. Furthermore, there are dramatic differences in
topography and geology within the Northwest Quadrant that is readily discernable on topographic maps and
aerial photographs. Overall the land is fairly steep and hilly. All of these factors have played a major role in
the design of this project including the maximum unit cap of 758 homes within the primary building area.
Within the area south of the ridge in the current escarpment ordinance and map, the master plan limITs
development to a total of 20 units with a gross density of 1.1 units per acre. The development on this side
will be constructed in accordance with the escarpment ordinance and terrain management regulations. The
overall project calls for a total of 773 units averaging to a gross density of 6.4 units per acre on developable
land.
Therefore, we ask that the Northwest Quadrant Project be granted a condition of approval which states that
the current escarpment ordinance and mapping will be applied to the entire proposed project from its
inception to its completion.

8.JUNE.2009 471
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan - updates from 02.09.2009 submission
NWQ Master Plan Application

General Plan Amendment Request, p. 1
revised project description to add cap on mixed use and % res/commercial in mixed use area
added mixed-use to the list of major design elements
ReZoning Request, p. 1
revised project description to add cap on mixed use and % res/commercial in mixed use area
added mixed-use to the list of major design elements
added language about code amendment: * As part of 2009 updates to Santa Fe City Land Development
Code - Chapter 14, uses allowed in a PRC will be amended to include mixed use. The Northwest Quadrant
Master Plan anticipates the adoption of the code amendment to allow mixed use prior to final approval by
City Council.
Added information about the design standards that will be adopted as part of the PRC
Included the table outlining the differences between city code and the NWQ design standards
Variance Request - Escarpment Ordinance

revised and reorganized text to address variance criteria as outlined for a PRC
provided color clarification on the illustrative map of the road layout
rounded up the disturbed area from 13,500 sfto 15,000 sf; the encroachment from 43 ft to 47 ft;
and the length of disturbance from 540 ft. to x ft.
Variance Request - Terrain Management

added entire section requesting variance to terrain management regulations to allow disturbance of
over 30% slopes in two areas within the Neighborhood Center zone.
NWQ Master Plan Maps

Cover Sheet
revised project description to include 70% res 30% commercial in mixed use area w/ cap of
125,000 sf mixed-use commercial.
Site Analysis Map Series L1

replaced slope analysis map with SF Engineering slope analysis map
added source data information for: topography, floodplain, base information, escarpment overlay
zones, boundary survey
Master Plan Map Selies L2

updated unit counts and unit/acre cales (previous cales did not add up to 773 units)
added information on commercial (40,000 sf in NC and 125,000 sf cap in mixed use areas) on
Land Use Summary
added trailheads to plans
added ndgetop subdistrict overlay to map
472
Phasing Plan L5-Q1
updated text describing phases based on Chapter 3 MP phasing text (including development and
infrastructure)
updated tables to reflect commercial sf
Boundary Survey Drawings S1 Series

added escarpment overlay zones on map as requested by Charlie Gonzales memo
Sanitary Sewer Plan Series C4

revised Happy Valley sewer from individual grinder pumps to small lift station that connects to
larger lift station
added projected volumes of flow as requested by Stan Holland
NWQ Master Plan and Design Standards

TOC
updated TOC to reflect most recent rendition of the design standards
added additional people to acknowledgements page
Chapter 2, p. 18: Site Analysis

added text indicating the MP area lies within Mountainous + Difficult Terrain and development is
subject to terrain management ordinance
clarified ridgetop subdistrict and foothills subdistrict zones
revised developable acreage to 268 acres to match chart on p. 30
Chapter 2, p. 26 Zoning + Neighborhood Context

added text indicating illegal all terrain vehicle and truck use damaging areas of the site
added text indicating that fences are being installed by the City to restrict unlawful vehicular access
to the site
Chapter 2, p. 30: Developable Land Summary

rounded numbers in Charts 2-1 and 2-2 to total 366 acres (for the north parcel)
Chapter 3, p. 33: Master Plan

revised commercial area from 70,000 sf to 40,000 sf
added cap on commercial sf in mixed use area to 125,000 sf
Chapter 3, P 34: Zoning + Land Use

clarified overlay zoning text
added overlay zone of mountainous + difficult terrain
added text on 70% residential to 30%commercial in mixed use area
deleted proposed land use table 3-1 and provided explanation for land use matrix on following
pages
Chapter 3: Zoning + Land Use

Added NWQ permitted land use matrix based on city Table 14-6 1-1
Chapter 3, p. 36: Affordable Housing

added sentence stating that SFPS is not required to meet affordability requirements on its 25 acre
parcel
Water Budget - changed the commercial square footage amount from 70,000 sf to 40,000 sf
473
Chapter 3, pp. 40-41: Community Framework
deleted Community Framework map on p. 41 and community zone diagram figure 3-3 on p. 40: it
no longer makes sense and overly complicated the plan given that we're getting more defined with
our land use and zoning (some of this information is reorganized and part of Chapter 4)
Chapter 3, p. 52: Utilities + Services framework

wastewater - revised commercial sf from 70,000 sf to 40,000 sf
wastewater - revised system from low pressure system in Happy Valley to 2nd smaller lift station
solid waste - added section to incorporate DRT comments by Solid Waste Division
Chapter 4
revised the majority of Chapter 4 to clarify the intent, standards and guidelines
added dimensional standards + measurements chart for each land use and zoning area to clarify
additional restrictions and variations from current City code
added a section on lot layouts and sustainability
Chapter 5
revised the chapter to clarify further the intent, standards, and guidelines for architecture
relocated land development text to Chapter 4
added a few more images to help clarify text
Chapter 6
included all of Jim Salazar's review comments on stormwater management
Chapter 7, p. 139
under disclaimer added a sentence reading: The processes outlined in this chapter for review and
approvals assumes that the City of Santa Fe has jurisdiction over the review and approvals
process.
Glossary
added additional terms to glossary to make it more complete
474
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan - updates from 02.09.2009 submission and 03.24.2009 updates
NWQ Master Plan Application

revised project description to change cap on mixed use from 125,000 to 70,000 sf with a maximum
of 24,500 sf (35%) of specialty retail
update AH percentages to allow greater flexibility for MD to adjust mix

add list of public meetings to include the PWC, FC and school board meetings missing from the list
revised project description to add cap on mixed use from 125,000 to 70,000 sf with a maximum of
24,500 sf (35%) of specialty retail
Variance Request - Terrain Management

revise request from 8,000 sf to 28,000 sf disturbance of 30%+ slopes to reflect accurate slope
analysis mapping of 30% slopes
include information on percentage of area variance is requested for relative to the development
area and total project area
update Area 1map and area quantification with certified topa and slope analysis data
update Area 2 map and area quan@cation with certified topo and slope analysis data
NWQ Master Plan Maps

Cover Sheet
revised project description to change mixed use area wI cap from 125,000 sf to 70,000 mixed-use
commercial with a maximum of 24,500 sf (35%) of specialty retail and update AH percentages to
allow greater flexibility for MD to adjust mix
Master Plan Map Series L1

added information on source data: slope analysis to identify the certified base data that the slope
analysis was generated from to qualify as a certified slope analysis map
Master Plan Map Series L2

changed information on commercial (from 125,000 sf to 70,000 sf cap in mixed use areas with
maximum of 24,500 sf specialty retail) on Land Use Summary
Phasing Plan L5-01

updated tables to reflect commercial sf change (from 125,000 sf to 70,000 sf cap in mixed use
areas with maximum of 24,500 sf specialty retail)
NWQ Master Plan and Design Standards

Chapter 1, p. 6: Public Meetings + Agendas
updated list of planning meetings to include missing SFPS, PWC, and FC meetings

revised cap on commercial sf in mixed use area from 125,000 sf to 70,000 sf with amaximum of
475
revised affordable housing percentage breakdown from AH 37% to AH 30%-37%; from Step-up
33% to Step-up 30%-40%; and from Market 30% to Market 30%-33%
deleted asterix indicating AH +/- 5% variance
Chapter 3, p. 34: Master Plan, Zoning + Land Use

revised cap on commercial sf in mixed use area from 125,000 sf to 70,000 sf with a maximum of
Chapter 3, p. 36-37: Zoning + Land Use

Revised NWQ permitted land use matrix to put restrictions on mixed use in the transitional mixed
use land use area

updated affordable housing percentages to reflect percentages listed on page 33
Chapter 3, p. 41: Master Plan, Financing

revised improvement districts applicable to the NWQ to delete SID and replace with PID
Chapter 3, p. 47: Public Space Framework, Cultural Resources - Archaeology

added text about management of Arch sites by a management stewardship program
Chapter 3, pp. 48-49: Transportation Framework

Updated text to reflect current TIA results/recommendations
Added new spread on pp. 50-51 to further explain traffic/circulationfrlA/alternative transportation
Chapter 3, pp. 55: Management Framework, HOA

Updated text to reflect Stan's recommendations 1, 2 + 3 on memo dated April 21, 2009 asking the
City to maintain ownership of the lift stations and the HOA responsible for maintenance, upkeep,
and repairs
Chapter 3, pp. 58, 59: Phasing Framework

Updated text in phase 2 to add trailhead construction at Calle Mejia to development text
Updated text in phase 3 to add trailhead construction at NM 599 to development text and revised
infrastructure text to change low pressure sewer system to gravity and second lift station in Happy
Valley
Updated Phasing diagrams to reflect revised caps on mixed use square footage from 125,000 to
70,000 sf
Chapter 4, p. 83: Open Space + Linear Park

add text on Open Space + Linear Park to neighborhood form
Chapter 5, p. 106: Architecture, Solar Applications

added text and image to include Wind applications to be considered for the NWQ
Chapter 6, p. 126: Landscape Architecture, Community Plaza

added text describing intent of plaza to be terraced down the hill
Chapter 6, p. 136: Landscape Architecture, Site Furnishings

updated product information on standard pedestrian light to match image in matrix
Chapter 7, p. 143: Design Review Process
476
added HOA to relationship diagram
removed text on city ordinance precedence where discrepancies occur
Chapter 8, p. 155: Construction Regulations, F. Temporary Fencing

revised fencing requirements to ask for chain link construction fencing around subdivisions and
very low density building envelopes and orange construction fencing around all other construction
sites
Appendix, Draft HOA TOC

add category of Sewer Lift Station Maintenance Agreement
Nwa Master Plan Supplemental Documents

Volume 1- Public Process
added missing meeting records for FC, PWC, and SFPS study sessions
Volume 3 - Pro Forma

add pro forma documents to volumes including 2009 Michael Halsey report and 2007 Design
Workshop pro formas
Volume 2 - TIA
added updated TlA with revised commercial sf
477
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan
Summary Public Meeting -Tuesday, August 28th, 2007
Meeting Attendance and Summary

Attendance at the meeting was excellent; with 232 people signing in and an estimated total of 275
attendees (The first public meeting held March 10,2007 had 72 sign-ins and an estimated total of
100 attendees). The Open House began around 5:45 pm and a formal presentation began around
6:30pm. Public comments followed until about 8:45pm. Generally comments toward the overall
goals, principles, and design were positive with the exception of the following key issues which
were very controversial: Traffic Connections, Infrastructure Finance, Schools, Water, and The Dog
Park (see detailed comments below). A suggestion box was left for attendees to deposit comments
which are also listed separately below.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Those making public comments were asked to state their name and neighborhood. 40 attendees,
made public comments. In most cases complete information was recorded.
Yolanda from Casa Solana -I want to thanks all the neighbors of Casa Solana who wrote notices
and went door to door. It is crucial to express our concerns and send in our comments because the
design team cannot read our minds.
Gloria (Planner and Real Estate Broker) from Via Alista Rd. -I think these are all great ideas but I
am concerned about traffic connections. The Guadalupe interchange would better connect the
project to downtown. Please design with the future in mind. If the money isn't in place it's not time
to do this development.
Nicole de Jurener (Real Estate Broker / Developer and Homework Group Member) from Calle de
las Crucitas - I think the design team did a good job on the whole however I don't want more traffic
coming through our community. You said the last homework group was split 50/50 about whether
or not to close offCrucitas but only 14 people attended the last homework group meeting. I
attended all 6. They are planning to build a great community and we want to welcome our
neighbors, but we cannot welcome them if 10,000 of them drive through our community. Our
neighborhood (Casa Solana) will be divided in half. I do not want to sacrifice our community for
another. I encourage everyone to go to the city council meeting [to voice your opinion}.
Chris Fisher from the Tano Rd. Association - The issue tonight is not affordable housing. I applaud
the design team in all their preparations, however the issue is infrastructure. You need to protect
the quality of live for all of us, including traffic safety, fire and police. Our association was
instrumental in developing Ridge Top Rd. The 2003 traffic study we used concluded that RidgeTop
Rd. could not handle the growth at that time, not including the Northwest Quadrant. You all need to
ask the design team to review the facts before planning.
Pat Simon from Alamo Dr. - I have lived in Casa Solana for 25 years. Casa Solana is always
fighting these things. I think your plan is cute. It's a nice plan. I get the feeling that you don't give a
damn about Alamo drive. Why don't you do the Guadalupe exchange? Why not do something that
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan

Public Meeting Summary
March 10, 2007 478
shows respect for those who live there. I want a guarantee that there will not be a sweetheart deal
in the middle of the night and that something happens that wasn't presented here.
Rick Martinez (Homework Group Member) - My concern is traffic. I want to see the Guadalupe
interchange not the Mejia connection. What is proposed is not a good connection to downtown.
You need funding for Guadalupe. You need to have the funding in place before developing. Let's
not do it on the cheap.
Jim Meyer - My interest is in affordable housing. I was to voice my opinion about the hailed
"minoritization" of Santa Fe politics. This is a city. I also have to deal with traffic. Casa Solana
started as post WWII affordable housing. Casa Solana is not the entire city. Many people will be
upset if Casa Solana stops this development.
Senator, John Grubesic - Road improvement projects are a wild animal at the state legislature. We
are looking at 20-year bonds on previous projects for $25 million in infrastructure costs. This
doesn't include maintenance costs. The funding might not be there for the Guadalupe interchange.
Mona Fischer from Calle Mejia - There are mostly renters living on Calle Mejia but we are no less
citizens of Santa Fe. The intersection at Alamo and 285 is dangerous. Additionally Mejia has a
steep slope and causes problems in the winter. The Alamo I Mejia intersection is already
dangerous and backed up. I am surprised that the City wouldn't fix this intersection before, but they
are willing to now.
Sally - Our dog park is wonderful just the way it is. It is constantly used, has been featured in
magazines, and is an attraction. It's an old landfill. We know you can't build on it. Trails for joggers
and bikers are not a good mix with dogs. We need our dog park. It's not for bikes and families, it's
a DOG park!
School Board Chairman, Frank Montano - Santa Fe Public Schools owns 35 acres of land in the
Master Plan. We asked for a school site, but unfortunately the school site has not been addressed.
We wanted to delay the ENN until an agreement was made with the City on this issue. We feel a
need for a school site in this Master Plan.
Jeana Vigil from Milagro Rd. (near Camino de las Montoyas) - If you close Camino de las Crucitas
we will be affected! We also have children that need to take buses to school. Closing Crucitas is
dangerous and inconvenient. It will be harder for emergency vehicles to respond to our area. Doing
this would make us a cul-de-sac, cutting us off from the city and community. We will be separated.
We need to look into the future and look at the city as a whole. Santa Fe is growing. These 700
homes cannot be supported by 1 road. Do not close Crucitas.
Ben Vigil from Milagro Rd. (near Camino de las Montoyas) - When I heard they were going to
close Montoyas I Crucitas I was upset. It cost more to reopen it because of fire safety. It is a bad
idea to close Montoyas. The people in this new community will bottleneck elsewhere with fewer
connections in and out of the site. We need more access. This needs to be studied further before
closing Crucitas.
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan 2
March 10,2007 479
Karen G. from Cielo Grande - I live near Calle Mejia and Alamo. I am a single mother and when I
moved in I could not afford a home in Casa Solana. My teenage daughter needed to get to school
downtown. I love living where I live and maybe I could live in this new community too. But why do
you want to put dense commercial on Mejia surrounding so much residential? What does
commercial land use have to do with affordable housing? Commercial will just feed more traffic
onto Mejia.
Faith Garfield from Alamo - Casa Solana is being assaulted. I realize how much planning has been
done and I appreciate the plan. But there are other neighborhoods which will be impacted too. The
issue is that the problem of the roads needs to be resolved before proceeding with the
development. You've got the cart before the horse.
William Vigil from Camino de las Crucitas - I have been a resident of Casa Solana for over 40
years. We have seen changes, some good, and some bad. I support the plan; however you guys
have got the cart before the horse. Casa Solana is vulnerable. The traffic calming effort was not the
answer to the increased traffic. People say "Yeah I'm for it!" because it doesn't affect them. This,
will triple the traffic down Camino de las Crucitas. Show me a traffic study explaining the impacts of
this connection.
Daryl R. - I have lived on Alamo for 10 years. The traffic is horrible. This plan sounds great and
affordable housing is important. But Casa Solana is a wonderful mixed community with families
and recreation. Alamo is insane and dangerous. The traffic calming does not work. The roads need
to be solved first. Casa Solana is one of the last missed and family oriented communities in Santa
Fe.
Paige Leslie Baird from Los Pinones - I am voicing a strong objection to the Calle Mejia
connection. The existing intersection at Alamo is dangerous and backed up. The Mejia connection
is not the answer. This is a good development but it is also a disservice to Calle Mejia and Casa
Solana. Having access onto 599 is the most responsible solution.
- This plan is a good plan but the inherent flaw is traffic circulation. Why put dense commercial in
this location. How will you improve a section of Calle Mejia that is so short? We already bottle neck
[at Alamo]. I cannot imagine Calle Mejia and Alamo with additional traffic.
Nancy Broadhead from Calle Mejia -I have asked to be kept informed through out this project. I
am concerned that the greenbelt of our city is being turned into residential development. We are
opposed to widening and connecting to Calle Mejia. We don't want the drainage problems and
visual desecration [of an interchange?]. Is it fair to spend $25 million on one road?
David Broadhead from Calle Mejia - Instead of spending $25 million I suggest that the City
donates the land as green space. If you do build mixed use put real restaurants up there, not little
coffee shops. Don't destroy an existing vibrant community for the sake of another.
- I think the money should be spent on the roads
Jason Reed - Our dog park gets a lot of use. We don't want to change it. Bikes and dogs don't
mix.
March 10,2007 480
Mike Dickman (former Casa Solana HOA president) from Cielo Vista - Calle Mejia from Alamo to
the Reserve is about 6/10ths of a mile long with 600 units equaling about 1,500 people. I am
concerned about our exclusion from the Homework Group. Only one member from our community
was on the Homework Group. The State is unlikely to fund the Guadalupe interchange. According
to the traffic engineer the connection to Mejia isn't necessary and if built would make Alamo fail. It
only takes between 2 and 3 minutes to drive from Ridge Top Rd. to Alamo [on 599 and 285].
Mike Geiger from Rio Vista - Calle de las Crucitas is already dangerous. We cannot even let our
children ride their bikes. A car on Crucitas hit my son because there is too much traffic. This is a
great plan, but to do it at the expense of another community is unacceptable.
Frances Parker (Santa Fe Estates Association) from Santa Fe Estates - All infrastructures needs
to be completed before homes are built. Ridge Top Rd. cannot handle all the traffic. This land was
once designated as open space. What is going to keep the City from building on green space in the
future? The poor attendance at homework group meetings was not due to disinterest rather people
were uninformed and had time conflicts or prior engagements.
Nancy B. from Buckman Road - I agree with almost the whole plan. I used to live in Casa Solana.
There has been an increase in traffic in the Calle Nopal area too. I oppose the road through Rincon
de Torreon.
Jim Blackwood from Cielo Vista - I have five pictures here. This one shows how close my back
yard is to Calle Mejia. The second shows how steep the hill is on Calle Mejia and when it snows
how bad the traffic is. This one is a Google map showing the traffic backed up at Mejia and Alamo
and how short the road is. This one shows that you cannot turn left onto Alamo to get onto St.
Francis. I will leave this in the suggestion box and would be glad to make it available to anyone
who would like to see it.
Lola Moonfrog from Calle Nopal-llive on a dirt road in the boondocks. The city is seeing
overpopulation, over use of water resources, global warming etc. I am grateful for the amount of
sustainability this group is trying to achieve but I am opposed to building near the escarpment. The
ridge top should stay part of nature. You don't need to manicure it. What systems will help with
cooling if there is rio A.C?
Erin Lujan - I moved from Casa Solana up near the dog park. Homework group members: if you
sat in my house you would see that Calle de las Crucitas needs to be cut off. The traffic is
frightening. The speed humps don't help because people jump them and they cause noise.
Melissa Williams - I really appreciate all the sustainable measure the design team has shown us,
but I think you can be even more progressive. Santa Fe is a world-renowned city and this project
could serve as a model. We could do something outside the box like Palo Soleri's Arcosanti. Don't
repeat existing sprawling patterns. Build up not out. Put more emphasis on building green. Take it
to a higher level. I want to see Casa Solana preserved. Maybe you could think of a way to HELP
Casa Solana.
Keith Gorges from Serino Dr. -I specifically moved to Casa Solana because I have a nine-year-old
son and I wanted to live in a family neighborhood. The mix in Casa Solana makes if a real
March 10,2007 481
neighborhood. I think this is a great plan but it is not an option to bring more traffic through Casa
Solana. You must find alternatives.
Gilberto Garcia from Camino de las Montoyas - you should not sacrifice one community for
another. Where will the people on Montoays go if you cut off Crucitas? I have asked for inclusion
on this project and to be part of the homework group and committees but we have not been
included. We are the lost child of this project. We have children too who take the bus to school.
Keith M. from Montano Ave. - Those of you who were participants in the Rail Yard project may
remember that the public process and participation was not reflected in the Master Plan. I believe
open space is paramount to places where people love to live and move to. This process must be
watched carefully.
Sandra from Camino de las Crucitas - I want Crucitas blocked off. Respect our neighborhood and
our quality of life. Preserve Casa Solana. I grew up on this street where I live now. The traffic is
bad and the speed humps just cause noise. Let 599 serve its purpose.
J. White from Calle Mejia - The slope on Calle Mejia is too steep. I will fight this connection. My
door is 34 feet from Alamo.
Larry Lujack from Camino Francisca - The guy who spoke about the Rail Yard brought up a good
point. Zocolo looked great when we saw it as a model but when it was built it wasn't the same.
These images look great but many times they don't build what they say they will. Watch what they
do.
Bill Friedman from Paseo Loma - I have lived here for 30 years and I have seen traffic degrading
our community. The speed bumps don't work. People just avoid them. The concept I see here is
great, but concept and reality differ. Much money has been spent on selling a good idea but you
need to focus on infrastructure. In the Air Force we had a saying: "Do not undertake vast projects
with half vast ideas,"
Corry McGillicus~y from Caminito Montano - What are your plans for the southern portion of the
site? Will it remain open space?
- Where will all these kids go to school? All the schools are overcrowded already.
SUGGESTION BOX
Slips were left for attendees to submit suggestions or comments. 20 attendees left written
suggestions that are summarized below.
Jason Reed - My suggestion is you find someplace else, your concepts are nice but your planning
lacks a lot.
Stephen & Denis Stout - Traffic patterns on Camino de Las Crucitas are currently unacceptable.
Traffic to Dog Park, Buckman transfer, 599 and Las Carnpanas all use COLC. Adding even 100
March 10, 2007 482
homes would make my street uninhabitable and ruin the nature of our neighborhood. Existing
traffic calming measures are not working. CDLC must be disconnected from this project.
Uday Joshi - Please complete an exhaustive traffic study for the traffic going through Casa Solana
and for traffic on Calle Mejia & Alto.
James Hackler - A lot of good thought has gone into this proposal. Congratulations. I think a direct
connection to Guadalupe should be the first thing in order to minimize the traffic impact in nearby
neighborhoods (Casa Solana and those on Calle Mejia, especially construction traffic. There are
other questions I have, but this is the most important. Yes the site should have a school site. Will
the financial institutions support self-help housing and houses close to streets - great ideas but it
won't with the financing of homes/businesses by financing institutions.
Sam Scott - Road connections to N. Guadalupe, 599, 285 must be made before construction to
protect residents, pets, and children in Casa Solana from enormous traffic increase. Please
preserve existing neighborhood. Re-route traffic. Maybe close Camino de Las Crucitas.
Geron Spray - Gonzales Elementary School cannot handle more students. Where are the kids in
the new neighborhood going to attend school? Also, what will happen to Rio Vista Street? Traffic
already moves too fast on that street.
Bessie Berman - What is developed open space? What is the time frame for Calle Mejia Road?
What is the time frame for Rincon de Torreon? And Paseo de La Vista re-construction? Main
comment - if you build it make access to and from 284.
Russell Miller - Show at Santa Fe Design Week
Miriam McCaffrey - Most important is that proper roads be developed for in and out of the new
development. Trafflc should be directed away from the Casa Solana neighborhood . There is
already too much traffic on Crucitas from other neighborhoods. This city has never respected the
integrity and existing neighborhoods.
Kim Mcintosh - Lay legal groundwork so next design considerations are not suggestions Le. Ridge
Top ordinance, public input for development, roads, schools, etc., affordability can be offset by
using state and federal funds.
Jane Tokunaga - Why are you dong this now? Water is still unaddressed. Comprehensive plan
and expense for traffic flow that does not disrupt and overwhelm existing neighborhoods is not
addressed and where are we getting the money? Preserve Dog Park and adjoining land as open
space. Do affordable housing this way: support qualified recipients with grants to buy; fix up
existing housing, revitalize existing neighborhoods that already have the infrastructure in place.
John Otter - Neighborhoods are best semi-independent with spaces/buffer between. The
transportation routes of one are best if they are within the neighborhood and do not go through
other neighborhoods, land use helps reduce traffic within & without. Traffic is best routed on
arterials for travel outside neighborhoods in a city this size not filtered through residential areas.

March 10, 2007 483
Deanna Einspahr - I hear a lot about encouraging, but not much about requiring things. This
disturbs me. You have to figure out the traffic; 4000 + cars per day on Crucitas, Mejia or 599 on-
ramp to 285 are all unacceptable options. Please shelve this proposal until a new Guadalupe
interchange is designed & constructed. The development as you describe it, sounds utopian.
What happens when this utopian vision proved too expensive? Does it then become Rio Rancho
north? How are the sacrifices to be made decided? Will it be a big disappointment again? The
community plans & the developers will take away.
Dale Tupa -I don't understand why we want this much growth, but am willing to listen to reasons.\
Debbie Jaramillo - I want this proposed development to be approved by ordinance with NO

LOOPHOLES to change community design like the city did with the Rail Yard after years of
community input.
Robin Finlayson - We do not need anymore houses! No water! No more traffic!
Lorry Schneider - Really worried about traffic!
Jeana Vigil - Our community is located on the upper part of Camino de Los Montoyas. This
discussion has a great impact on our area. We have gotten the road re-opened in the past and we
felt that closing this road on both ends will affect our area. There is no additional exits or entrances
that can accommodate any emergency purposes. We will also be placed in a dead end which
could affect bus (school transportation and emergency purposes). Please get with our community
prior to making any final decisions.
Russell Maroni & Beth Maroni - No use of Las Crucitas for traffic. Where do you get the water?
Sally Yost - Leave dog park totally alone! No new trails are needed & joggers and bikers don't mix
with dogs. Also dog park is loved by visitors.
Kendra Arnold - Keep or move the dog park. It is beneficial to the entire community and it is great
exercise for our McDonalds world. It gives dog lovers a change to meet and a place where dogs
may be off-leash - since it is the only place in town.
Jeanette & Jim Boyer - If you want to keep working people in Santa Fe - don't destroy an existing
neighborhood. Build a new access road to the NW Quadrant - don't make Camino de Las Crucitas
a highway!!
Lauren Whitehurst & Adam Rankin - Interested in learning more about this ambitiolJs & many
layered project. Concerned about traffic escalation through Casa Solana & specifically along
Camino de Las Crucitas.
Judy Harding - 599 &285 intersection is already dangerous to maneuver, especially if you want to
get off at Ridge Top Rd when going south on 599.
Melinda Weller - If no public access to existing roads (expect Ridge Top) is allowed to the
users/homeowners oflhis proposed development Casa Solana will be no more impacted than
when 599 became a reality. Further, having accepted federal & state funds for 599, the cavalier
March 10,2007 484
attempt to block Camino de Las Crucitas, Camino De Los Montoyas residents & truncating
Buckman is unacceptable. The only inconvenience should be borne by the future residents of this
proposed development not by the long time residents. By what authority has eminent domain been
granted?
Melissa Williams - Keep the dog park!
Brian Harris - Don't try and sell us, tell us how you mitigate costs & interpret on existing residents.
Corporations, want to maximize profit. The city should work to benefit all. Please block Camino de
Las Crucitas.
Linda Mewbray - Close Camino De Las Crucitas! Build a proper 285 interchange.
Tammy Baumgarther - Create a road connection just past the Radisson Hotel.
Anonymous - make it a dead end street. Have respect for our neighborhood and the people who
live in it. Let us have what we have left of quality of life. We already have too much traffic going\
through day & night. This new development may keep growing and growing. Let us preserve our
neighborhoods - don't tear it apart. A long time ago there was a Japanese prison camp there.
People's choices were taken away when they were captured in that prison camp. Please don't
take our choices away in this modern day also. This is a historic neighborhood! Please don't make
Camino de Las Crucitas more of a through street than it is already. I grew up on this street and I
still live here. I used to play ball & Frisbee in the street. That is now impossible. Vehicles speed
through this street (even with speed humps) in place. Traffic is extreme and very noisy. Vehicles
speed thru and jump speed bumps. When this happens, they land hard and shake & rattle the
homes. The stucco cracks before its time because of the vibration on this street. Even huge
trucks (semi-trucks and tractors) hauling junk pass thru here as if it was St. Francis Dr. Camino de
Las Crucitas is barely now striving to be a neighborhood! Please don't let it get worse! One of the
reasons that Highway 599 was made is to "bi-pass" traffic around Casa Solana & Camino de Las
Cructias. Why don't we let vehicles drive on 599 to go to the new development? Put it to the use it
was intended. Let it serve its purpose. Put it to use, I know it cost enough money. Let's use it!
Anonymous - Dangerous intersection - Alamo &Calle Mejia - many accidents. No room for left
from Mejia unto Alamo until light changes, traffic blocks access.
Anonymous - Block Alamo at 285 overpasses for peds at Alamo. Commercial at Mejia doesn't
make sense because De Vargas is under-utilized and closed.

March 10, 2007 485
MAILING LOG (Please print or type clearly)
UPC/Map# Physical Address Assessed Property Owner Property Owner Mailing Address Tenant/Occupant, if
known
1-053-100-380-231 774 Viento Circle 1229 LLC PO Box 2602, SF, NM 87504
1-052-099-359-222 229 Ephriam Street 229 Ephriam Street 1410 Agua Fria Street, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-515-420 1478 La Loma Vista Alsip, Catherine & John III PO Box 8, SF, NM 87504
1-053-100-116-061 410 Graham Avenue The Aquarius Foundation 410 Graham Avenue, SF, NM, 87501
1-053-100-097-086 413 Graham Avenue Banks, Charles & Kathleen S 413 Graham Avenue, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-373-200 222 Ephriam Street Barela, Maida 506-B Barela Lane, SF, NM 87505
1-052-099-373-207 Ephriam Street Barela, Maida & Robert 506-B Barela Lane, SF, NM 87505
1-052-099-390-228 221 1/2 Ephriam Street Barela, Robert 221 1/2 Ephriam Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-197-059 188 Michelle Lane Bauer, Eric 188 Michelle Lane, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-169-073 165 Michelle Drive Bealmear, Bradley 165 Michelle Drive, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-080-057 1301 Bartlet Court Bell, Claude D JR & Valerie 0 8849 McCraw Drive, Dallas, TX 75209
1-053-100-200-075 192 Michelle Lane Berman, Neil M & Susan B 420 Alamo Drive, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-362-169 211 Ephriam Street Blea, Rose A 211 Ephriam Street, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-356-162 211 Ephriam Street Blea, Catalina D 1570 Pacheco Street, SF, NM 87505
1-053-100-385-524 856 Calle David Bokman, William W 200 E Cordova Road, SF, NM 87505
1-053-100-112-340 1012 Calle Dorthia Bonner, Albert S JR & Peggy B 1012 Calle Dorthia, SF, NM 87507
1-053-100-394-448 867 Camino Francisca Boosalis, Dean J 467 Downing Street, Denver, CO 80218
1-053-100-107-044 406 Graham Avenue Bowen, Amy A 406 Graham Avenue, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-390-172 858 Viento Segund~ Drive Brown, Leif 0 858 Viento Segundo, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-106-417 866 Calle Francisca Bryant, Jeffery A & Doris B PO Box 996, Espanola, NM 87532
1-052-099-354-192 250 Ephriam Street Burrows, Dachelle Allison 250 Ephriam Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-022-327 225 VueIta Roble Butler, Kevin 0 PO Box 1171, Midland, TX 79701
1-053-100-190-059 184 Michelle Drive Cameron, Erika J 184 Michelle Drive, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-023-442 228 C Spruce Street Carter, Marion 2316 Calle Colibri, SF, NM 87505
1-053-099-003-440 228 D Spruce Street Carter, Marion 2316 Calle Colibri, SF, NM 87505
1-053-100-375-223 773 Viento Circle Castro, Alonso 773 Viento Circle, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-064-045 1300 Bartlet Court Chambery, Kathy Jane & Marilyn PO Box 741 Lewiston, NY 14092
1-052-099-345-161 City of Santa Fe - City Engineers PO Box 909, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-034-313 217 Vuelta Roble Cline, Verne L & Bonnie L 217 Vuelta Roble, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-087-501 1126 S Luna Circle Cohen Family Trust 1725 Homet Road, Pasadena, CA 91106
1-053-099-011-385 224 Spruce Street Coleman, Roger & Pamela Weisse 224 Spruce Street, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-497-299 Communico Inc. 1807 Second Street, Suite #11, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-092-511 1128 S Luna Circle Cook, Jean S & Marjorie L 1128 S Luna Circle, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-395-161 850 Viento Segundo Drive Dalvit, Diego A R 850 Viento Segundo Drive, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-100-037 404 Graham Avenue Dampf, Dennis B & Roxanna M 404 Graham Avenue, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-383-279 767 Viento Circle Davis, Michael & Joanne 10323 Wilde Lake Terrace, Columbia, MD 21044
1-053-099-503-306 Deitch, D Larry & Eric Schwart 226 Spruce Street, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-531-299 201 Sunny Slope Drive Dennison, Charles S & Carol K 201 Sunny Slope Drive, SF, NM 87501
486
1-053-100-109-303 1004 Calle Dorthia Dent, Betty Lou 1004 Calle Dorthia, SF, NM 87507
1-053-100-389-221 765 Viento Circle Desalvo, Erika Lechuga 1706 4th Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98109
1-052-099-365-236 Ephriam Street Deutsch, Ronald S & Gwendolyn 7606 Old Santa Fe Trail, SF, NM 87505
1-053-100-112-051 408 Graham Avenue Dority, Alexander D & Wendy PO Box 2131, SF, NM 87504
1-053-100-368-237 784 Viento Circle Dove, Gregory L 1905 N "D" Street, Midland, TX 79705
1-053-100-382-228 772 Viento Circle Dunn, Robert A Jr. 730 Descanso, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-011-355 218 Spruce Street Durr, Maida M & Joseph E 218 Spruce Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-087-491 1124 S Luna Circle Edwards, Edna G 1124 S Luna Circle, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-388-493 875 Camino Francisca Feyas, Joseph & Cara 114 Pine Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-059-441 1124 S Plata Circle Finney, James 1124 S Plata Circle, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-021-338 214 Spruce Street Foy, Bernard R & Dawn M 214 Spruce Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-120-086 414 Graham Avenue Gallagher, William C JR 414 Graham Avenue, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-419-283 Garcia-Salgado, Carlos & Sylvia 2855 Rufina Street, SF, NM 87507
1-053-099-026-331 212 Spruce Street Goldberg, David 212 Spruce Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-115-285 1000 Calle Dorthia Gonzales, Gregory G & Joyce A 1000 Calle Dorthia, SF, NM 87507
1-053-100-243-070 100 Rio Vista Place Greer Enterprises Inc PO Box 1627, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-369-226 Viento Circle Hanson, Dale L 9221 Elena Drive NE, Albuquerque, NM 87122
1-053-099-056-502 1458 La Loma Vista Harms, Lisa Watson 201 Chris Lane, McAllen, TX 75803
1-053-099-028-473 1470 La Loma Vista Harms, Michael 1712 Marigold Circle, McAllen, TX 78501
1-053-099-071-511 1454 La Loma Vista Hathaway, Paul & Eunice 230 Camino De Crucitas, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-411-239 150 Bob Street Heise, Greg 150 Bob Street, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-367-199 217 Ephriam Street Honeywell, Claudia A & Hauer 217 Ephriam, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-362-218 227 Ephriam Street Howard, David 120 Moore Street # A, SF, NM, 87501
1-053-100-070-084 1305 Bartlet Court James, Kent & Karen S 1305 Bartlet Court, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-419-209 148 Bob Street Jaramillo, Mike T & Deborah Y 148 Bob Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-009-374 222 Spruce Street Kalish, Fred 222 Spruce Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-165-065 161 Michelle Lane Kassube, James & Christine 161 Michelle Lane, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-010-324 227 Vuelta Roble Kueffer, William C 132 Sombrio Drive, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-529-313 229 Vuelta Roble Kueffer, William C 132 Sombrio Drive, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-411-239 825 Calle Mejia Los Pinones LLC 2900 Louisiana Boulevard NE, Albuquerque, NM 87110
1-053-100-110-396 862 Camino Francisca Lujack, Larry L & Judith V 862 Camino Francisca, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-090-021 400 Graham Avenue Lujan, Erin Hayes 400 Graham Avenue, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-103-373 858 Camino Francisca McCarthy, Robert M & Marjorie 858 Camino Francisca, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-129-377 854 Camino Francisca McCarthy, Katharine L 858 Camino Francisca, SF, NM 87506
1-053-100-057-057 1302 Bartlet Court McGirr, Marilyn V 1302 Bartlett Court, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-097-030 402 Graham Avenue Malone, Ronnie J & W Jane 5506 Vista Meadow Drive, Dallas, TX 75248
1-053-100-377-221 771 Viento Circle Martinez, Joseph M 4437 Autumn Leaf Lane, SF, NM 87507
1-053-100-392-176 860 Segundo Drive Mas, Alba E & Manuel Lopez 860 Viento Segundo #5, SF, NM 87507
1-052-099-356-202 248 Ephriam Street Mathy, Samuel A 248 Ephriam Street. SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-370-236 782 Viento Circle Maxey, Dana E & Dorothy F PO Box 20254, Sedona, AZ. 86341
1-053-100-200-073 412 Graham Avenue Mitchell, Monty & Lorrie K 412 Graham Avenue, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-375-125 786 N. St. Francis Drive Montoya, Richard P & Rita B 786 N St. Francis Drive;' SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-031-324 210 Spruce Street Morris, Thomas P 210 Spruce Street, SF, NM 87501
487
1-052-099-398-220 222 Ephriam Street Morrison, Lorenzo & Mary M 222 Ephriam Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-015-458 1474 La Loma Vista Pendregress, Richard & Karen PO Box 4283, Santa Fe, NM 87502
1-053-100-182-077 Michelle Court Pentastar SID PO Box 906, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-385-192 Pioneer Savings & Trust PO Box 130, Roswell, NM 88201
1-053-100-175-075 22 Michelle Lane Potter, Joan T 924112 Canyon Road, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-381-220 769 Viento Circle Price, Stephen L & Joan R 1609 Calle Canon, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
1-052-099-369-185 210 Ephriam Street Rael, Lennie Arthur 372 Ridgecrest Avenue, Los Alamos, NM 87544
1-052-099-366-176 208 Ephriam Street Rael, John T PO Box 8355, SF, NM 87504
1-053-099-009-366 220 Spruce Street Rodriguez, John J 220 Spruce Street, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-351-182 207 Ephriam Street Romero, Ruby 0 532 Kathryn Street, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-371-193 212 Ephriam Street Romero, Ruby 0 532 Kathryn Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-399-137 806 Calle Mejia Roybal, Gabriel David & Teresa 444 Saint Michaels Drive, Ste B, SF, NM 87505
1-052-099-502-289 232 Cibola Drive Samuels, Elizabeth & Deborah 232 Cibola Drive, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-368-458 870 Camino Francisca Santa Fe Estates PO Box 713, SF, NM 87504
1-053-100-076-070 1303 Bartlet Court Sayle, Roger & Delia 1303 Bartlet Avenue, SF, NM87501
1-053-100-054-068 1304 Bartlet Court Schultz, Martin C & Beatrice G 1304 Bartlet Court, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-121-354 1016 Calle Dorthia Schwemmer, Brian & Suzanne 1016 Calle Dorthia, SF, NM 87505
1-053-100-389-170 856 Viento Segundo Drive Scott, John M 856 Viento Segundo, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-090-068 407 Graham Avenue Skala, Eva 10 Double Arrow Road #B, SF, NM 87505
1-053-100-371-225 Viento Circle Shepperd, Jan M & Karen L Brook: 777 Viento Circle, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-210-083 196 Michelle Lane Simpson, Claire E 196 Michelle Lane, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-019-432 228 A Spruce Street Smith, Mitchel B PO Box 4282, SF, NM 87502
1-053-099-019-432 228 B Spruce Street Smith, Mitchel B PO Box 4282, SF, NM 87502
1-053-100-374-235 780 Viento Circle Specks, Gary L 780 Viento Circle, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-037-318 208 Spruce Street Stanke, Guy B & Susan 508 Calle de Leon, SF, NM 87505
1-053-1 00-213-061 200 Michelle Drive Stennis, William & Maria 200 Michelle Drive, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-457-304 167 Mesa Vista Street Strel, Donald 0 & Anne 304 Calle Oso, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-349-171 209 Ephriam Street Suarez, Carlos & Elizabeth 209 Ephriam Street, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-372-219 226 Ephriam Street Tapia, Cipriano 226 Ephriam Street, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-358-210 225 Ephriam Street Tapia, Elidoro & Frances P 225 Ephriam Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-377-234 778 Viento Circle Tomkins, Christopher David 778 Viento Circle, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-047-078 1307 Bartlet Court Trouw, Deborah J & Frans R 1307 Bartlet Court, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-047-090 1307 Bartlet Court Trouw, Frans R & Deborah 1307 Bartlet Court, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-111-321 1008 Calle Dorthia V J & Wanda Vint Trust 1008 Calle Dorthia, SF, NM 87501
1-052-099-393-223 224 Ephriam Street Valdez, Danl 224 Ephriam Street, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-391-219 763 Viento Circle Vetter, Mathew E 763 Viento Circle, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-392-163 852 Viento Segundo Drive Walker, Carrie A 852 Viento Segundo, SF, NM 87501
1-053-099-015-346 216 Spruce Street Weber, Charles L & Amy Robin 216 Spruce Street, SF, NM 87505
1-053-100-085-083 411 Graham Avenue White, William C 411 Graham Avenue, SF, NM 87501
1-053-100-194-078 190 Michelle Lane Wyman, Lucia 619 S Pitt, Alexandria, VA 22314
488
CITY OF SANTA FE
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
MASTER PLAN
June 8, 2009
Vicinity Map Sheet Index Signatures

-~.---
~~
~
\, ...,
ll~
~;
Planning Drawings:
00-<..
Mo"""'>'o
3_
....,."'''' .......
100.-,.....1'1...
=:E":.~
-----
-----
U-Gl
\.).q,
~
~
.......,
\,$.-0'
--
" ' _ ....
~-
-<>-"-
,.,...,._
----
----
-~.---
....
~.
Engineering Drawings:
SHII l'"lll'Ooo<rI;>Ooa
~\41 e~~
51-&3 ..-.,.......,.
__
Sl-Ol 1~3uw)'
~
~3
=~=:=:==::.:::
_ _ P1...
"-"'Coof_.·~':O,,""~
~ =:=~ ~.U4 _ _
e-01
<;.(It eo"".
CO_'*'.. w........
,,-,> ~
C.(If cooc._--"S-PI8ol
ColO eo..:._s..--ys-"'""
Project Description:
... .. .. _ ..
TIoo~lla..-."'Jo<I"",""n".n.~~_oIyJOll","
s.,..,.~_
_ _ ......... I......,.~
~ __
... _
_.oIl<U~\lII
......
_ _ .....,
.tI"~(""_~Th",-",
... _""._ _ .... fO'l!J"'-..·6 ...s....'."""'.-.. ''''

_.llIool_r._
....... M ~
.... ""• ..,,_
.- . . ... _ R.. _ ~ ~
~e--.Trwo. UOO __ tI_
O-O.,_ _
___
lW>~"-._~Peo.., .. ..-__
_-.'{"'TL""'l)o,.., .._ , ... ~ ~ .....
""_Ov-... lolo · · · · _ ......... """" .... _ ·
_.~_...-.....,.I<> d_......".
~_ _ ur"'_--,
....
...,w"'... _ lom ..' ....... _ _ __ __
0._
_ ~ .....::~g.1.
_ql nlt.jIC_OII.OOO __ _ .. •
_ - - . ...... ... .-.::O: --.r_ _
~OOOoJ
,.....-lO':_:rs_.....,.. ••_ ......... ...

"-,...,-..-.c~,.,._.,..~~ _
_!'<.JQOfI~...,
........ ....,~_~
_
::;:;::..-::::....... _ ........ ........__
~
_
,
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
-
~
,,_~'"J_"""O.~_ $o_ ...
SCALE: 1:2000 NORni
OWNER: PLANNER: CIVIL ENGINEER: ARCHITECT: SURVEYOR:

CiTY OF SANTA FE DESIGN WORKSHOP BOHANNAN HUSTON SUBY BOWDEN • ASSOCIATES LLC MORRIS SURVEYING ENGINEERING
Housing and Community Development 1390 Lawrence Street # 200 Courtyard One 333 Montezuma, Suite 200 1218 Parkway Drive
P.O. Box 909 Denver, Colorado 60204 7500 Jefferson Streel NE Santa Fe. New Mexico 87501 Santa Fe, NM 87507-7256
120 S. Federal Place, 3m Floor Tel: (50S) 983-1415 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109-4335 Tel: (505) 983-3755 Tel: (50S) 438-9100
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504~909 Facsimile: (50S) 983-6761 Tel: (505) 823-1000 Facsimile: (505) 690-1764 Facsimile: (505) 474-6723
Tel: (505) 955-6350 .',. Contact Claudia Hom Facsimile: (505) 798-7988 Contact: Suby Bowden Contact: Richard Morris
Facsimile: (505) 955-6655 Contact Glenn Broughton
Contact: Kathy McCormick
r;:xh brJ 2A-
489
.,.----- ~ '\.~~.
\'
\ t2;):::
~,) NORTHWEST MASTER
,.-
'I~
r~'
;l \
\_u' QUADRANT P LAN
// Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc.. Bohannan Huston
LEGEND
,v.:.~:_._.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
DRAM'>lAOEWA,Y
ROAO EXISTlNQ
/\ ~
ROAOF\JTU~
EXISTLNQ CONTOUR (MA.JOR.1QFT.)
/ \\ \
\ FEM4.-100 YR. FlOOO Pl.).IN
/
/ \
)/
"
I ,
/'
mm NEIGHBORHOOD CENll:R
/ ~
/ _
T"RANSlTlON.A.l"'OCEOUSE:
RES.HIGHDE"IOSITYI12-1901J1ACR£)
i
/ _ R£S.MEDIU"'DENSITYV·12DUlA.CflE)
~ Rl:S.toWOENSIN(J·10UlACRE)
{'''- ~ AES.VERY lOw OENSITY (I-J OUlA,CREI
c:::=::J PAAXll
c:::::J OI'ENSPA'"
\\
KEY MAP 8.JUNE.2009
rn lr1
~
fjOll'Ol
~
~_-
r-i..L. I '-__
\J1O~ •
.I_ CO"_
OE:S.IGNwnRK.' . SHOP I
~CMto.T_-...
..:.~ ..;.. _Ml.'
.. _ICQ._
LO-O 1
490
491
NORTHWEST MASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc.. Bohannan Huston
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTINCROAOS
--"'--"'-- RJVE.AoORAIN"GE-SW-'lE-WATER£OOE
-------- HIOHWAY699SET1l"CK(2~51
=========== U'T1UlYfA6E;"-lEN'T
~- - - - --- - - - - -. WATER. PRESSURE ZONE &OUNOARY (7150'. 7000')
- - - - -...-->- EXISTl~FENCE
~ - EXISTII'JQ CONTO\JR (WJOR.10FT.)

_ _ _- - - - £X.I$TINOCONTOUR(a.lI~R-2FT_1
~ FEW.· 100 YR. FlOOO Pl.AIN
I I to'.'... 8..1
FtlDG£TOP SU8DISTRICT
W/////cI FOOTHilLS SUBDISTRICT
SLOPE ANALYSIS
I I ~19-''lloSlOPE
I 'J 2O-2UiI'lioSLOPE
! ! ·)o'l'SlOP!
SOURCE DATA
Bo~51.N~
MGOriI SU~)'Ing £nglfl'~I'IG. F.bnwy XlO8
TCJPOQraplyy:
Thomq R MIlW'l ,f\d Auo,,",l". ",ug\.ltl200$ IUr\llll/'ll:llograpt'Jy~ 8'''d on htl IUM')' "Ig~ prvM.,.d by
--
O~I\SI1fY..,..lfIC..lopographlc:L"" pl8l1trnetncd.l.I12 'L0llIIllIUr ............ 61 \". 100'.(/" KM)~tI)' Thcmu
R.Ma..." ..... ~I.. ""'.l.Ot.""ed.~al~-.cur1CV
Arroyo de 10-. FI1jolU. ~ <lIlt. 1rlrroal and ;'nO"/O TOIT,," lOll ru' Iood pllll~ In!onN~cl\ r,om FEMA.:)5(lol9C
~.I'0404...-dCl'03,Ju!I417.2008.
eonteXlo..:
Cl\'yolSI~F.O.~,.pN.G'"/ormalicntywl_.FtIbtu.'V2001.lotTownlrtl17N.A.iltlg.SE.S~l\Ill.l
•. 15.
and2310(w.t1nglNln~"".
~nto..n101.Ulcta:
Clly 01 s.~ If. o.<t9l""'~ IIllonN\.btlS,."m•. F.bNalY 2C01.
Slope~:
S.... ta F. Eng""'~ eol'\tulWlll. u.c, :zoos. 20'J0 tlo9t 1t/I.'Yt:, dall I.e O... eIl upon oolllour r.l~ of 2 IMI II'd 30"/0
1<11'' '.
IIape • ....ry... oU.la Ie c.M~ upor. c.o"OUf of 5 reel Topographic lnforTnlllo" utQd 10 o.ner..... Io~ .",~I.e
mItlpl"ll mHtf or ,1OfI'C5l 1'I.llonoIlmap 1CQl"~ 'IIn~ •• 1'd I.e bated CIrI 0-.00 Suf\ooe)'l, lIlo,;. roeld.urvey
Infolrn.,lJclIl and ThoINl It MlIV'>'1'ld .... I\Oda.IQ. \.ollOOra~1c Ind p~rVrnttr\c: dlt..
~~-~-~_""c.,.,.""
KEY IMP
SITE ANALYSIS I.JUNf..'2000
m i"1 ~l.. I,....__

~!
JlOIIn!
DESIGNWORKSHO.
.~_ ......,.. . . _111
~";..,.:~
.. .~.,..~.-
I_e.-& _ _ .o--.CQ,I_.-..",,,._NI
L1-02
492
NORTHWEST MASTE R
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc.. Bohannon Huston
LEGEND
PROPeRTY BQUND4RV
EXLSTINGROAOS
- - " - - " - - RIVEA-OAAfNAGE-SWALE-WA1E,R EDGE
- - - - - - - - HIGl1W"V61111SET8ACK(2~)
;;::::;;::....::iiiEii:....::iiii:iiii;. . . .:iiiCi vnUTYEASEMENT

WAT'EA PRESSURE lONE BOUNOAAV (7\50'. 7000')
_ _ _0 _ __o_o___ EXIS"hIOFEl'ICE
~ EXLSTINOCONTOUR(MAJOR-10FT.)
-.--. -.-- E,XISTINQ CONTOUR (M!NOR-1 FT.1
B::S:B:B.BE FEMA. 100 YR FU)OO PlAIN
•• _",<."
W#M FOOTl<".... SU."''''''.c.
SLOPE ANALYSIS
I -~ Q.19.Q'll.$lOPE
I' I 2o-29.9r.SlOPE
= E ·30r.SLOF'E
SOURCE DATA
BOtJrIl1.ryS~
Mo;tl.SUl"WrIn9~ng.F"""ry:llXl9
Topogrllphy;
ThomN A... ...__ "nandAModalh.AV01,lat1Ol»(-.rWpllotogr.phyl. 8e.Itd on 1i.1l$""".yln~~~
o-ns..rv..,..'",,".Iqlog'~lctnd~"""*GlIe(2IlQlnlOIlfI,...,...
... II \". 1011.0- auN)iII:~~Tho"",.
R. "UM" A~l" IN.tII Ol'~ Mllonll fl\ap KClUrkY .tMdIrdI.
Floadplllln:
AmJyodela.l FtlJoIfI •. Arroyo6t laa Trtmpe.It\dAmlyo Tgraon l00y_ .ood~kl'Of"""tiotIll'CmFEMA)5C.sc
~~.04(WtndQol03.JlA"tl1.?006.
Contul 0-..:
CIl'f 01 Sent. F. G.Oll~tIIc lnforrT-.-lIOn S'yll,"". FIIbru.ry 2tl07. lor Town.h1p 17N. R"'g.llE, S,CUOrI. 11. 1', 1~.
• nd23for'_Il!\glNln~'t1.
~rolo,.wllI.yDlllrll;ta,
City or fUnte F'Oeog.. phtlln1orn'lllllon $yf;l'rn., F,br\.ltry2007.
SIOplAIlIIyM:
Slln~ po, EnQfn"ri~ coneultatltl. LLC, 2006. 20'llo 'lop, 'Nlry.11 dlll' I, baud upon CCIllourlllllWV" or2 r"LIoI'ld 30'llo
~, aney._ dllla I, ba..d ~ contour Inll,.,.... oT ~ fill T~pIM In'OITT\I~on UMd Lo lI',...rllla llope an.tytil
mapping m~ 00' llXOlltdll'latlOI'l&l Np &f;J;IJrat:t llandardl and I.r."* Dfl o.....ta'l Surw't1, I~ Ir,ld IUrwy
lnlormall(millnd~R.t.4,nn'ndAl~I . . ropOIlI1lPNc;.nd~o4cd.1lll1.
r----;r-r-....,-,=",_"",,,
-~
KEY MAP
SITE ANALYSIS S.JUNe.20D9
~rh[ll;g~~~~~~~¥.~! L1-03
493
NORTHWEST MASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc.. Bohannan Huslon
- ~EGEND
PRQPEATY BOUNDARY
- _... - - ... _ - DRAlNAGEWAY
-------- HIGI-M'AYSETS,l.CK
II
.1
======= UnLITYEA,SEMENT
ROADEXOSTlNG
ROADFUlUAi.
£.X1S~OfENCE
~ EXlSTINGCONTOUR(MA..IOR·1OFT.)
_____-- . - . - - - - £XJSnNG CONTOUR (MINOR-2 FT.)
~ FEM.... l00YR.FlOODP~1N
!";',;'\' :t.:,~\!,:t·.'·;:jq RIDGETOP SUBDISTRICT
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• MAJOR TRAILS
e TRAILHEAD. EXISTING' PROPOSEO
~ NEIGHBORHOOD CEN~R
~ T'R,ANSITlONAlI.4IXfD US!
_ RES.HIGHOENSIT'I'(\2·JIlDUIACRE)
RES. MEDIUM OENSITY (7, \2 OU/ACRE)
~ RES. LOW O£HSITV ().7 OU/ACR.EI
~ RE6.VERYLOWOENSlTY('-3OUJACREI
c::=:J P......
E3 OPEN$PACE
® FIRE $T"TlON
+ LAN"""""
LAND USE SUMMARY
UII'T$ COJ"lW£IlCiJrl..
J'iJlACI'U' ~
~
" '"
,.""
" ""
"
'"
"" .."" """
" ...
"'"u
u
u
,..
"
"" ..
~
.."" .""
.. ~ "
u
n ...,."
."
"
..,." "" ."
",".. ."
"
.."..
'0.0
.......• " .."""

'-'
~=~--==.:.::~_. __._------
"
nu ..... m.... ,,:~ ~,~~ ... o.
KEY MAP
MASTER PLAN
EE r1-n.1~~~~C:~~~~~~~J L2-01
If()ItTW ec:.u.I,"'_
494
NORTHWEST MASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
\ Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc .. Bohannan Huston
~, LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
DRAlNAGEWAY
HIGHWAY SE18"CK
-------- UTlUTY EASE~ENT
ROAOEXlSTlNO
Ro.o.oFUTURE
EXISTiNG FENCE
-----.---
--._--,.-----.
EXISTiNG CONTOUR (w..JQR.1OFT,j
E.XlST"NO COI-lTOUR (MINOR-2 FT.)
~
tv.. ! ,.i~ ::!~~;:,:~:.il
':;.
~EMA-tOO YR. flOOD
RDGETOP SUBDiSTRICT
f~
MAJOR mAlLS
@J TRAl..HEAO • EXISTING· PROPOSED
Em 1oIE!Gl-4BORHOOD CENlER
~ 'mANSITIONAlMIXEOU$E
_ R£S. HIGH DENSITY (12-29 OU/ACRE)
II:. RES. MEOtU... DENSITY (7·12 DUiACRE\
~ RES.LOWDE,NSITYIJ..7Du/"CRE)
~ RES. l/ERY LOW DENSITY (1-3 DU/ACRE)
r=::J
c=::J OPEN SP",CE.
® FlRESTAT10N
+ ","OMARK
LAND USE SUMMARY
.." ullin
.
~EJlCloll
· ,.,
'EP."-CJtE
",
"
., · .,
""
.. ·..
.,..• · ,..
" "
"
. ·.. ..
'"
»
"
u " u
: u
.. · ,.....
u
,.,
u
u
u :
u
»
" .., ".3
· ..
u »
u
".
~
..",
u
,....
'"u
·"" .,... "
- -; >- - - /' \ . "-Yl'IIff\awCf)GlT\'

,..
"
........
M
__ J TOrM. 111-' __ m"" U""""''" OO,lI~hl ....

,
~rl-J ,--i :.=:?':-..==-.:::-----------
lIVW~~~~-:
1 -
L __ j
,,---;
MASTER PLAN B.JIJNE2009
---, ; - :.: W[bn.L~~~!:9~~~J L2-02
495
NORTHWEST MASTE R
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc... Bohannan Huston
LEGEND
PRDPERTY 60Ur-()ARY
O~"Q£'oY"Y
HIGHW"" SE'T1V.CJ<
======= UTILITY EASEMENT
------
Ro.-.D EXISTING
-------
ROADFVT\JRE
iXlsnNGFENCE
EXISTlNO CONTOUR {w..,JOR.10f'T.1
EXISTING CONTOUR (MlNOR-2 FT J
~ F~l00YR.FlOODPlA'N
PRe I-=-"·i·y:t:,!,,di,.j RIOGCTOP SU8D~ICT
BOUNDARY ~.
f[1.)(~ /
••••••••••••••••• Iol.AJORTAAU
@ lRAll.ME.AO. £XISTlNO • PROPOSED
/y~~~
.
Rm NEIGHBORHOOD CEHlVt
,,'~---0 V .~~~. ~ ~ 1Jl.A)jsmOt<,A,LMD:£DUSE
''\
\~\
\---\~,~: ' _ RES.HJGHOE1'lSIT'r'(12-2iOU/ACRE)
~.'Z.. ."Ji';,/ I·
) "-J)~ ~/ ~
'_, \ / . : RES. MEDIUM OENSITY (7.12 OUJACRE:,
:J ~ RES.lOWO~ITY(3-TOU''''CREl
'-J /r--:,-< /'-......,. /"---~
,~'-i ~ '~'~::~ ::.t
~ RES.VERYl.OWOENStTY(I-3OVIACAE)
of: y c:z::J 'AAl<S
-,i:.~~t".~-:'}~~/)
...P;
&
, ;J--:~JJ......
K /;. /'(
i"L 7
. . ~f---- .' ') l ..,-.. ,
I:::J
®
OPEN SPAce
FIREsrAOON
,X;VT~ ~ rT-~~
'«\; :!~rJ
.i_"-., / I
/ ) r:':"-) + LANOw.,RK
LAND USE SUMMARY

!·ti
'''~,;'?~-_) -i ~-~~J .
o~.
-~~
:w: Ji FU F-+-II
PI"JIC,lq
f- -j "
·
»
M
'"
"" "
~;;?'0?\'-~ (:~jr-"i !
"
" · » '".,
.", ·,. .......

i--\ I " "" ""
j;;;""/./
.'. \...... l ,...... \
/~' 1
~'\-.. J
_!. " ,"
~
..- :X' \ . \ \......, \
!'>•.;/A i'o,/ -"...... ....-y.., ,., ,..-j ~
'.10~~A'</ \.'y ·r.." \......"._., i'-'\-' \ "..

", "K
.. ""
_-A....i '......-\".-./
,. _ \ ~/Y ,{ _.~.\-->~/ '.,--1- \ .\ .. 1:,--
. w. ,G'\. Y)(/'vy' /', \, ...
" »»
.",..
1..-)
... '"
.~II Y;:\ J~'{'Y; \ ~\\.Sj \a; ~\'\;(

u
·
»
. """ · "
,~\\ ",,~iYi '.-S~,,~ , ,~,-o CCY\ V'C:::, ".
......
~ lQ,Q
(// ' ' ' ' ' ' V -" hOI, ' / .' n U
. " "
·
,,~ \. ,0~~~\~" , ; /.l., \~
0
...
U ~
'(/), "
~\\
"
,~ i"~"~' ..
_~;,)_~-":-'\ -~/. \~ ~"",~ v-"'y~ \--~\
----''(/' %Y'./-!. .. , , / CY:I
, x M) ""
e- "
, ,c-,
k d
\ ' I . ' .",.
.'\ I ,.....---- -
..."
U
;,A. '
" u
\'--_.' \.. ..',,,'"
-,-,..J.\'
......-',
"/,,,1\
.. ' i /.Y"'
...--'-". \--.,J, \,.......-1...--.\ "
U
U
\ \//'.. - - ' y"--"'.' ' ' , , -" 7n.. ,-'_",

. ,.., \r h'.""I.Y",A' --~. \ ,.-.,.."..-'
\_..-.\ '.,....-~ ~. ~. .- ...--t" . '---,,-""'"
\ '.' \' v-"'\V\ ,,.........x- \
n \ , 'kt
'1'I-'_
\--. ,)",..,...-, v
Tt1l .. ~
y' .a)l;h' ...
V'i\'"
". )JC---''\ ,c/ -'\ ...-y.. :'="=:-E=::."-~-_·_--"'---
~\' ---,I,
~~~.:::':;:::. ';::),\,,:'f..~"
~;;--\ \~
KEY MAP
f' .. \ \-."",-\ \
yr, .' ,,--'\ \ \
\ ... ' ......... ..-;' .......--. ' 'C-' '.
MASTER PLAN
:08\--<:;
\ ',S;
::1--\,.... ;~.,...--\
.- 1.\.-..,....-. ;~~\.;""'--\"
\..---': ',__'. \ ' \,-,. I';"'I ':""
..............-./
\ \). .
/ '~
....--- rn r1-rl1.C.QESIGN.w'ORK.SHOPI
~
1l0000'IW' "'_llD·_.
~~_
~
'_ _
·'_-""'·I""o"DMvoI·_~·
·~"'I·_NWN'
L2-03
496
........
NORTHWEST MASTE R
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc, . Bohannan Huston
"
::;;'-'.~ .-;';:. ..~.:~/...~::'
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNOAAY
--"--"'-- DRAINAGEWAY
- - - - - - - - HIGHWAY iii'S BUFFER
========== UTLUTYEA.SEMENT
, I:>'
_ _ _ _ _- EXISTING CONTOUR (MAJOR.1OFT.)
_ " - _........ ..... EXISTING CONTOUR (MINOR·2 FT.)
j
~? ••.•- - . - - . - - - -•. - .•-
~~
EXISIINGFENCE
OPEN SPACE. (pUBUC & PRI\IAn:.)
I I
;'. It-I······
,: . ·.. ...
"ClAW
ROADEXlS~G
_ _ _ CClU.fCTORMDCEDWE
_. _ • _ SU8~CTOR
{J~'"''
- - - SU8COlLECTOR·RESIOEHTW...
I.
-'-'-'.'.'.'-'.'. URaANlAHE
-.- ••• ------ RURAl.l.NlE
TIWU
@ TRAl.HEAD (EXISTING' PROPOSED)
"'AJOR TRAlUI
SAN1AFE
ESTAt'ES ...INORlRAIL8
EXISTING llWLS
Il
If
EXIIJffiG QN-ROAO fIiCYCLE. PA lHS
1 8US RQUll; PROPOSED
:/I a TRANsrr STOP PROPOSED
CIRCULATION NETWORK •. A1t'IE20011
~o-n.!*~~.;~~~~!!:~ L3-01
L
497
//
NORTHWEST MASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + ksoc.. Bohannan Huslon
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARV
// - _..• _ _ ... _ - OAAlNAGEWAV
- - - - - - - - HlGHWAV6"8VFFER
============:: urt.JTYEMEMENl
--...----- EXlSnNO CONTOUR lMA.lOR-lOFT.j
_ . _ •. __•._ - .------.- EXlSnNG COHTOVR t""NQR.2 FT.j
---~---- EXI6TIl-IOFENC£
ffi~{;35~~@3 OPEN SPAce ~uc 6 PRIVATE)
I I PAAKS6 PLJ.ZAS
FlQ.U>.
1~7 _ _ _
ROADEXlSTlNO
COLUCTOR"'txEDUSC
_____ SUBCO\,.o.ECTOR
- - - SUB COUECTOR· A(810EHTlAl

- , •• _._ • • • • • • ' • • • I)R,.BAHWolE
------------ RURALl"t.H£
.~/
,.......
@ TRAltJ-/EAO (EX1S'l1NO" PRoPOSED)
MAJoq T'RALS
"4~OAl'AAlL.S
i,XLSTINGTRAlLS
E.XIST'\IIIO ON~OAO BICYCL.E PA~S
BU.
BUS ROUTE PROPOSED
o TR.A.NStT $TOP PROPOSED
"
!£~~~/
;----
CIRCULATION NETWORK lI.J!JNE.200i
" ..-
,~ ,--'-'---, W[bn L~~.;~;~~~~JL3-02
L
498
~/ NORTHWEST MASTER
/<;;:;;:;;;;/ QUADRANT P LAN
///.,-
v/·····
f- ....
Design Work.shop . Suby Bowden + Assoc.• Bohonnon Huston
Ij ;.....
/..:.:: LEGEND
(/
/ ....
j ....
- _...- -.•. _ -
--------
======-======
---,...-----
PROP£RTY BOUNOAAY
OR.U'lAGEWAY
HlGHWAY599BUFFER
UnUTYEASEMEN'T
EXIS'Tu.lOCQNTQUR(MAJ()R.1OFTJ
E)(LSnNO CONTOUR {MINOR-2 FT.)
I' --------- EX.I3l'HOFENCE
1: PRe
. ...,...
g;r~
I I
OPEN SPACE: (pUBUC to PRIVATE)
I' BOUNDARY
_ _ _
ROAOEXlS1WO
COUECTOR.J.llXEOUSE
:/ /
_
-
• _
-
-,-,_._,-'.'., •• -
•
-
_ SUB COLLECTOR
suaCOLLECTOR-RESlO£NTlAl
UR6AI'IIlANE
------------ RURAL-LANE
,........
@ TfWLHEAO (EXLSnNG + PROPOSED)
"'-JORT!W..S
MINOR TRAIlS
EXISTING TR,4JLS
EXISTING ON--ROAO BICYCLE PATHS
." BUS ROUTE PROF'OSEO
) o TRANSIT STOP PROPOSED
"
-"-1..-,_
I-i ~~
--I
~ - 'i
r'
,,.-/ ._.,- .. ,- -'
~
---~ ..
... -.-- .-'.~
- I .........
. ~
":"~)".'" ~~
• J' .... ... .;..~
-:_:~'--~~-::,c:~s~:.,·
_..... _... /'
... ~ -;
........ ' ......- .

.... . -'. . _.-
.--,,-I-
/' ~~~
~
.-'.' ..... ,-
--,.:::~/-
//:
""-, C~-'_~'
--::~:, ~ -:;:':.
-::~-~:~=:. . - - .~,~.~.>
......,
CIRCULATION NETWORK
-----
/'
8..J..JNE20CX1
/ .3?;~~~.---;~::.~~~~~~ :~~:-~:, ~~= ~. "r"

~ rtrl \~~~~~~#~¥.~..!L3-03
L
499
NORTHWESTIMASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc.. Bohannon Huston
"TQItY
Rli~II(T"",
.~ :..;.
'.'
1~~1 I I J~~~
rq +- rq J---;l:: ----J-
ow
rq + rq
~l ~!
1 ) S9,.\;LECTOR MIXED USE· PARKING BOTH SIDES G o ~~~AN LANE G
'-! !J
=t:: Bi'@~'~
Rli$lDlJffi,t,L
j,¥ ,q +- .::~ ,.q -tFt-·qt

;.; I
~~~, ~
'..::'~\ kl
H l~
® ?~~B-COLLECTOR-PARK1NG ONE SIDE G ® ~~~,?L LANE G
"'~llIlllNTI.I.l
lSTOIUlS
3 ) ?~~.COLLECTOR RESIDENTIAL-PARKING ONE SIDE G
ROAD CROSS SECTIONS .'UN'''"

~O:fl !~~~~~9.:-~~~J L4-01
500
NORTHWEST MASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop· Suby Bowden + Assoc.• Bohannan Huston
LEGEND
PROPERT'( 80UNDARY
OAAlNAGEW"Y
. / /•. ROi>D PROPOSEO

ROAD (UNPAVED)
i; TAAIL.S'r'STEM
~ NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
~ TRANSITIONAL ~lXEO USE

RES. HIGH OENSfTY It:l-:ltI DUJ~E)
RES, MEDIUM DENS flY (7. \2 DUfACRE)
~ RES.LQWO£NSIlY(3-70UlACAEj
~ Rf8.VERY'l<:}NreNSrTYll..,JOU'ACREJ
c:::J 'ARKS
® FIRESTA.nOO
@ TRAIL.HE.AD
Oev.lopm.nt OlvllopmWlt o ropm.l'lt

Ph... 1 01 the NarthwUI Ou.drefllirlctud.. !he I\Il: N.lghbGrflood alollg Rldg8\Op Ra.d.. Ptv.M 2.-c1a. tr.. CeliO''' Nelgtlbart'oood, tM 't.4~ Sir"" rrtuI(j.uu rotlghboo1lood ~nltr. ~. p J CoOlnCl1,tel QlI ClJrnmunity w11h the Qdcll~on of lIle NW Nelgl'boitlocd. H~P'f V."ay,
lr.ns''IIoNlIml:qdu. . .r. . .longltl.lldg•. t!'lllln-rparlc.rodrN,brIr.... The lrJllh..d'I C.le 1.4,.". The pu'~lItaCOtlIr.u.IOupar.dQ(llhed",.r-'fyolIlQldnglYPfl' lIWtrI"'Il.iOl'lll!T\b:tdlll.ltNftOt1hollh.rll!9•. andoontlnu"bulId-ouIol"' ...... nSlr..r
roeilthbGrOOod '- mtIdlwn 10 law <a"'!ly 1I00000lng \ffiOI. MIg~rhood Pit\( alb 0CIfU. One Wlddtnlll"oill'1.,.tld.l'lli*ln.IgIlbo~.: rd.r.eourodllVulo~r1.ofmilr..ckl .. 1Cl ~lgt\boltlOO<l(:fnl... area. A ~lltI,.cj WiI btl a<kl,d.~ In, treW l)"Iem by Nr.t 651/.
&ft.....~1\In ~ rnIud 1111 _.~, b,,"ld."~d I t ,lulu,. lr, lleiQn to 1.".....Ihl, p¥!01 (rut, )obi end pI'O\Iid. N1lgJ'1bQrtoood .,Mq, ~\II canlWllII'dWOlkn don proxlml'y.
S.n\llF •• Th"p.I>ol.. WiIlb'llll«ll,.. dotlo!Rldg.topRoed.I\dVol1he-v•• ~ Tt\ltpt\a:ll.'ri1COt1n«:tRldgoelQCIROlIdloCe"*'O*'lof.Jr.Iorltoy... T~~rylo .... d.rulfy'..:d8rJiallUroelt ..z:c.lnbodovtloP4ld.l-.nypl'l«:. . . .QCIt... 1t;
'''''I/'rocy aa:;:4I", ~d ll\al~cc.l(Ieamno &11<1. MOtIloyM. n.~OIiI*lllvouglld ..... I~~ IolhlM1l
Infnl'tlUC1'\In
Plfc.1 'X" ~!hI SOU!flw_~lItlOfh::lod II o-ed b)' &0l1l.I F, P\bkSchoolt end 1XIU4b4 The PIl... ~ o.v.!opmotnlltlolalild iJ\lr>W_.,p,...u,. loo... :l.1nd 3. PI"'~ ~g tnfr.. ~u.N
deYeIOlN'd ...ylilY'.lndep.lldenlC!1IIW-,~.,t>I!l'I.o......loclm-lllll(;&OMIlCICINMd v»l•• WWblllt.x.\84lOlI.CIlIl.1I'It lt'dlcfr1~lIlIonlyll«nilwlltlh.tdIP111'toUnIlorM. AI QI Pll.... 3 II IOUltd lI01(Nn W.to, Ptv.M\I,. Zoo. 3.
dnatyo!'lolc..mm.o.lcM~.
The ml•• ~-uM " ... lnPN.lt 300M t>!1h.tidg• ....uI.loQtIi;oI. Mallldl'l .....oonIOl:ht_.l
Infr tIU~u'. t>!O'I.t .....lonocalO'h:ldlolo.Momor..... Thla~m'Ml:lco."V\tctoolll'lloll'l'''*rlue
PIl 1w.... 1In..... ~ 1001. txlet~g~.'dblllbl.Gorl.."tamIIRldoeloPRc.d N.IIbl.IIQHM59$.
IlIdlooplnfOU9houtlhl1nllllphN•. NIUwt ph. . . . .fI<l_lopIlIdiM l:rwal"~
nn'IInglhrou;".".."'.,..,...,.OO(V'lI(I'1)1ht24· .... lIorl,.ft~dtl.o.
MonloVM·$i;lCW . . ,...._UCld.\.tlMWal.,.~MOmadtllo~""wf\.nNe PHASING SCHEDULE
~'''''''"~..... ofP'''H\lIloc.1*llOtl'lhPI'I..loI.lDof,201O''5I>ON
WIlII.".m.
The malrI sll'Oy_ M:r.9'lh'1'lOrl.h bovndiry.nd 11ft. 'lI~ol\wil be e:.;:".vuaad lrl

Php,1. Th.ll1~.~~"""thou~btI.IUdrorh"b\.ln60lJl.bl..Clr«llJpt1IT"4)IlhIl.lll9
YEAR
PHASE " D2
" " " " 07
" " " " 12
"
.
......... th~ M '1l.:$10 ........ PhMt 1 end POItJbIyPh.n2.f>tmptelw.;t\onlhouldbt
bflloNloolnlllal~l..nlldptl.:$.tr'o'!CI"lI'd ..tItr'IIl'dbUIlclOUl ..~oIl:htprojtc:t.
1
'" +1
2
_DOl .. ~. 3 1III
x·
-
I III
~-
._--_
::::=:..::.:... . .............
_ _ 10
.. ,:.._00... . - ...... _----

.. _ . _ _ 001-'.
...-
._
x. __ ......-...c:....."""'_ _
....: ~--..'JC:OO"_"",,''-''_'"''
__ I1.. _
"\.'_._"_"~lo<.wotJ __ ""---_._
., ""'"'_..... _ _ ..11;0'.'_
,,_....-,,-
..... '"'""I-.,",_e-_l_""'",_
-=_ __ -_._._---
o:--r-- -
""' ..
..., .._ _ _ ....... , _lO.J«ItJ _
---_ ...-_-
.ftO._.__ ._-.r- _._. _ _ .. --~
PHASING PLAN
EE n..rl.... rQ£§!~.~~9M§HQRI
1iI01I11'1 .. _:IDI._,C:O._ ......
~.~r
L5-0 1
~~ _w"._.1'I1
501
01
01
Ul
502
-=
I---
u
~I
I !~~
t~,"~""e:t
~. ~
.
r ~
503
~
~~ ....
/
~;-
!5:J:~
J1~
:;
:; I I:l
I:l ~
~ ~
~ I 6
!;
i
~
e
I ~§
• ~-<
:8~RiI
~I
I
It:
ri ~
I
~
~~~llilirl /
I
~Ii n'w
I
$
I
I
.I,
504
o
I
.-<
(f)
~
~
l.t-
~
f--
C)
~
z ~
h
i
~
505
NORTHWEST MASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc.• Bohannan Huston
!_-~:
LEGEND
;,f
-----11~----- EXiSTINGLNDEXCONTOUR
EXISTING INT'ER,l.,lEOIATE CONTOUR
;: -------
1';';';';';';';';';';';';';';'1
EXISTING DRAJNAGi BASINS
;::1
FE'" FLOOD PWN
;::l
;::l
:1 NOTE:
,Hf
f
'!
I
f
':.w
f
S0
·~r
NO OFF SITE DRAINAGE AJoW.YS18 WAS PERFORMeD "OR lHe
CONCEPllJAL DRA/NA.QE I.LA.NAOEl.IEHT P!..o'N, FLOW RATES
INDICATEO ON THE" ORAWING REPRESENT FLOWS GENERATED
WITHIN lHE" PROPOSED OEVELOPIro&EHT AREA.
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
/' £zfIl'ng CondlEli:l/l. Bult! n •• r.bIt
liIffcr 0 .......
---;c
,-
.,,-.
.
..,
AG.
$.76
11.14
17~
34.15
11..63
7l.&ot
67.40
A
40_0%
JO.()%
26-O'J1o
30.0%
3S.o%
75-0'1'
\5.0'4
~ndTI'..tnw"'P..-u"lJIg..
II
50.0%
S6.~
60.0%
M.o%
4S-Q04
\5.0%
65_Q1I.
C
10.0%
16.0%
lS.O'JIo
15D%
20.0%
10.0%
2O.oYt
0
0.1)%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0-0%
0-0%
0.0%
l00Y'eJS~ITI1E
""'Q71Oo)
j;!;i
11.1
ill
'iIT
,,6.1
'iii
'1ffi'
'i")iA
r.;., 212.11. 'iSi'i
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CONCEPTUAL
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN 9FEBRUA,R,Y.2009
EE r1.JI
:C-l~- -
I eg~.ti~Q!tS§!!QR
_.OO"_...-,.,........"
ll11OL-- . . . . . . . .
C-01
506
NORTHWEST MASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
LEGEND
EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR
~nNa INTERME.OlATE CONTOUR
-------- EXISTING DRAINAGE BASINS

P,I,I,l,),],),I,l,[,!,] I 1,IJ FEMAFL.OOO PlAIN
NOTE:
NO OFF SITE DRAINAGE ANALVBIS w!<S PERFORMED FOR THE
CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGe MANAGEMENT PLAN. FLOW RATES
INDICATED ON THE ORAWING REPRESENT FLOWS GENERATED
WITHIN THE PROPOSED OEVELOPMENT AAEA
"
.{J~~:::~~~f;··~!-i~~;f-
A?;::-?j"",,,-=~ ,,~
_ ' -./ /' I -.~i::
- '- "/ i':·:7
, •.•
g
f~
EXISTING CONDITIONS
if
~! CONCEPTUAL KEY MAP
j~ DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN OFEBRUARY,,,,
!~
~!
~~
rn n....r-l
~1~_ _
I Q§~.ti~9.E!~JiQ!: I
l_~"_J:ll.tIM¥w.eo..lClIW.~".~l
C-02
507
NORTHWEST MASTER
·O .. lll·OJll'rCl!.f.'IoO,I.....I.
l00TrAA·:I.oItoOU.. 'TOIUIl
LEGEND
VOt.U"EI':~
. -----7\S)-----
0I1~c::e C",f
Or1ftcoO~m EXlSTlNC3lNOEXCONTOUR
QUADRANT P LAN
EXl$TINC3INlVU1lEDIA,TE CONTOUR
o 0.00 00
3780 0.09 2.8 --""-- PROPOSED CONTOUR
8517 020 ".8
63491 143121 O;~I s;~
-------- PROPOSED OAAlt-WlE BABI~ Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc.• Bohannan Huston
~ DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
~Olllll· I.. \'!'Nl:W llIpllll.lTOllIIl MAl.'I'Il'
1 III
w« 8qs!l'rpr'1 "foopgrjz>
~
EI.~A,T10N
" i-I--- .- - ..
MUo
... VOLlHiIl VOl..UIIIlE

~"""
St. lqplkm
71h
7176
1176
133U
16110
".,2
1425001
30211
0
~==- ~~
0.00
0.33
0.6~
....
U
Ci~:-~~~ACi~~~=::=:_~~::(~~ta;W~~r~:=~1
P'ol. 1Iw d-"in
Ibt.-
~
Pt~
I*.,.1a too,.... 2~ ft_.-I. rw. e-..t~~l'lt ~
r t - .......
#W04.
~ of
1/1I Mmlltf6 ...
717'.•0 0."0 11.17

7111 ,.." d14i Ul
." ~~t::r;.t~~"~~';:.~;r~~ il'~U:~:"~~~ ..,~'=."'::~~Uw~ en
~ VOU!lIrlVOl--WlllCALCUUlTED
lll!~.L
"
..
o..GI •• """, ......,l'O
o 7179 0 0." 0.0
""
..
0.00 71711.15
•.• 0 57100.00 71' .", '" O. -.'
(I.SJ
'1
1.416
.25
1\61.00
1182.00
7181
7111.70
" 0.2.0
0.2.1 12..11
143U
"HEAD
1.65
~5UREO
3.2 711l.J.OO
FRON CE~ Of PPE
1162
""
'ONll4·1\lGYLIJl.:Ml'IClOfIIT0ItI!A.N.4l..YlIl
0"
"
.Cf'104·0IUnCt""""""-Y811 1 I I' I
100 Y(,UI. 14 ItOVII IJTQIUI
VO\.Ull~ f· ~~, '::~:': I
§~::@'.~/r,.ll I
....
°fl CI'
"
OVII_l""'l
0.00
.,.,.<lIK))W""
0.0 "'"
1161
.."
755
."
0 O.
.,
,,," =~~!5:~~~~a=m~~:~~li2=:~~:l~::EI~~~·.!B;~:~ •
..
... ~ 0 6 7152 10277 11785 0.4'
cm.~ll1lot1.loooib'l.nr..
9.83 125 11766 29618
'" ""
715-3....
0."
0"'47
,
15.17 Il(Ijtil.,..~"m.4da.lh •• Ql\~lId~or~t ~Oe"I_\ilOI e"'TIIIor_Lt .... ..
16.86 326
·!'E....O M~A~lJRED FR~ CE
.0000S·O~CI!~Y8IS
'OOlVJl·i:lHOVII,TOI\,lol
I
~
''''
I!l.INA,nON
'
,
13399
..u.u.
,I ,!
41411
VllI.UIIIE
0.95
VOI.UIOI!
,I ~:.o
I =
1h4,...1o••
•
Ih4~~1JL
oI~~-: ~.,..=~:: ~~i;nIAl~~==tlI~~~.~~~~~~~l:~~~~t,ogJ~=-~r'

....,j ... INrrCg;jl;l{lllllt~~ .....IPlIJL
g~~:~~o~L.\ I 0·~8 """"""

pt"...s
llI, ggn'lOi;o)l , . . . d:IdIo'll' h ... lotIl IIIIr ... tl'IoI 100 /"lI". H-I'IQJ' Ilor1n ,_, II: Iia """ ... !h, I>I\d~f6 o:nilllla\. lhr 'rn~_l~llr:rl
~!h~c.pLt.-\llM r.ul ... Ihr 1aI, p~ 01 thr llX1)r Nm r-L TlIII e-..lI.od Orm.Oll' "'-9_t P1cn 11 a.O!Illllf6 .. ~ ~/ 1111I1.
O~._l~ "!'l.... (Ill wn., S~"",,, t1• ....,on ". 13-399
o 000 714.15 7i""i7 "i5i\O
".40 0.25 7141.00 M 16922 NORTHWEST QUAORANT
II 126 71~.00 71".80 D'"'Qfl4d Cond/lIons BuJn Dd. T.tII.
'.19 2-25 1149.OQ ~
.~ MEA$URl:O FROM CENTER OF PPE
,01<0 I· OIlfflCENl.l..LYlI'
'0110"\I. YUIl,. J4ttOU"-.ro.... ""AI.'nra
I I I I'
....
'C. A
L'l'Id Trutm'l'Il P'!"CfI'lta<;lu
0 C 0
100 YurSlo;;r.-ev;,ii
Q(100)
oft
~
~
1ot~·J,I~OU"-'TQIUII
'"
,,.,...
4.80
40.0'4
25.0"4
3M%'
60.0%
100,.,
........
65.0%
10.0%
10.0%
30.0%
16.0%
16.0%
0,0%
35.0%
0.0%
75.0%
..
1U
15.2
41.8
. ~:~
0.'
B21~1 6.75
5.11Z ..,
25.0% 15.0%
20.0%
0.0%
10.0% ,..
'u
~
n85AI
7103 11188 8616

0.n4
fill 6.2
18.82
2.<17
60.0%
76.0%
18.0%
25.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2.0'.4
0.' ...
31.0
,... ..
12.10 10.0% 2'0.0'4 10.0%
...,""'"
0.'
• PER THE AHYlolO AHAL,.YS181liE I.WQMUIroIWAT'ER 1$.0% 10.0%
'.65 15.0" 0.'
SURFACE EL£VAnow. MAXlMUM STORAGE VOUJIolE.
ANO PEAK OISCHAAaE. .....
10.70 0" 20.0% '6<,,,,
..... ,.......
SilO" 27.0% 15.0% '01.0
12A1 10.0% 15.0% 25.0" 50.0'4 u..
5.07 0" 15.0" 80.0'4
'U
"... ..",,....'"
12.0:1 15.0% 25.0" SO." ."
U,
"... ,>0
0... 20.0% 3U
,,>2
..... 0'"'
• 0.0%
\00% 30.0"
1$.01/,
31.7
215.22 2.- " "" ...
..5.08
NOTE:
NO Off 8rrE D ~ ANALYSIS WAB PERFOAJ"lED FOR THE
COHCEPl\L4L OR"lJfllA,C3E tr.I.ANAGEMENT PlAN. flOW RAnS
INDICATEO ON n-tE DRAWING REPRESENT R.OWS GENERATED
Wl1l1lN 1l1E PROPOSED OEVaOPIrr.lENT MEA.
il
§
p PROPOSED CONDITIONS
H CONCEPTUAL
~! KEY MAP
1~ DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN e.F'E8RLJ,ARY.2OO1

j~
i~
.1
rn D:rl Ut~.~.;~;C?=~~~! C-03
508
NORTHWEST MASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
~OHP r·o"-!~1Cl! .u.LIoLY1l1.
l00'IVJI:·:1AIfOC}II:'TOIW
""",,Cool .,g
L---f-,..,-I-
Jl-r'j'AT101ol oUI.!A 'to!0.l/1II. 'WOUJllt C4l..CUl.ATUI
~
" iOn -I,~-I-'~~··
r •..
7UII
7139
75581
8861 8213
0
"
0.19 ..•..
7140 1 ,n85
." ",,%
I 1~~.:1 11768 288\6
un
n.2
P'ONOI·O!Q"CI!AH.l1-Y8lt1
lOQY!AA.l"HOUIl'TOItlI
, I'OIlD'·UOTlAll.:WPlQYA'TORlll~nll
'1 1
0,1$8
On1lc.CO(lI CM.C\,IL4UII
'rtl\~Olarn(1 ~
-;0;;-
::~I 821~1 ~~ ~
7092
70~_3
~~~rsl ~rs~:1 ~:;~ II

7094
7095 ....!1
lGii:40 .m UJe
7"096 0]6 1[9
jOl$l.!:I\lCI\'''-:M''jIllITOIUIi.......·
7076
. .
CAl,tuv.fRI
~
7071
,""
8867
0
8113 ""
O.U
15.6
00
0.0
7018
7078.67
7018 Inn
'"
288111
"
,.m
0.Ci8
1U7
n,
1--.. _~l\I"!...~ _JJ4!!'__ VOLU~ --~.!!.!!.!. ~~W--'
.
.~
-~
1.$.$:1
12.l0
27.07 ----
7016
70n
7018
071.•1
1
._-----
7
687
10277
IU88
• p~ Tit AHYMO ANALYSIS n-tE MAXlMVM W"TEI\
8113
881
SURFACE ElEVATION, J,(A)(Jl,lUM STORAGE VOLUt.4E,

AND PE.AJ(: 0ISCHARaE.
0
1]1115
0.00
0.1'
0..,
0.$27
0.86
0.0
IS.6
".&1
22.1
0,0
NOTE:
NO OFF SITE DRAINAGe ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED FOR Tl1E
CONCEPTUAl... DRA,lNAGE MAHAOEMI:HT Pl..AN. FlOW RATES
INDlCAreD ON Tl1E ORAINING REPRESENT FlOWe OENSV.reD
WnrllN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AA£A.
LEGEND
EXlSTlNG INDEX CONTOUR
EXl8TJNG INTER.IolEDIATf CONTOUR
- - n..- - PROPOSED CONTOUR
------ PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS
1~Q:;~9::~ F...... FLOOOPlAJN
~
~ ,
Ii
~
l .
i .
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
CONCEPTUAL KEY MAP
l~t~ DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN 'FEBRUARY>'"
/<
h
ft
EE rLII...
~ ~~_
[~~.t!':Y.9!!S~1iQR
\_~ ..
I C-04
"'*.·_,IXl,._·~"'·--.ml
509
NORTHWEST MASTE R
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc.• Bohannon Huston
//
f LEGEND
-----:L -----71~----- EXlSTINGINOEXCON'TOUR
// EXiSTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR
I
//
/1' --",,--
1',',',I,',',',',',',',',',I,lj
PROPOSED CONTOUR
FElo'A FLOOD PlAIN
//
Iv
'
§,
.1.:';,/
j/
//I
I.
I
I
I
T7~c-r /~
~\J
'\ /
CONCEPTUAL KEY MAP

TERRAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN i.FEBRlJ,AAY.2OQSI
EE ruI_ IQg~.~~Q]£§!!QR IC-05

IoIC«I'H ~l~_ ,_~,,""Ir;JD._.co.-"_l''',--..rt1
510
NORTHWEST MASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop· Suby Bowden + Assoc.. Bohannan Huston
LEGEND
- - - - - mo - - - - - EX1STIWQ INOEX CONTOUR
- - - - - - - - - - - ElCISTING IN1"ESUolEDlATE CONTOUR
--""-- PROPOSED CONTOUR
------ PROPOSeo ORAlNAG! BASINS
:
I
)
" '
~ :
~ : I.
,to I •~
f, "
il,
r;
~.
~
: '
CONCEPTUAL
TERRAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN
KEY'W'
"EaRWARY""
~
!.
at
h
Y.'
\
rn n..Jl I Q§.~.~~9!!§gQR I C-06

HOJrllt ~"'LI"'~" - ,_l.-.......... e.-,OO'~.~II.~'
511
,/ NeRTHWEST MASTER
------
~---'
-- QUADRANT P LAN
~1---_
//\ - - - -> \-~ /- teslgn Worksh.p . Suby Bowden + Assoc. • Bohannon Huston
/
/::::",y'(2:::L-=-, -"",,_
.-----: / / / -.... -'" '-.
//
/ / .
/ ~//
/ //, /
/ /'/ /, ~
"~ /~--- --;;/ /-)'/ II LEGEND
....
--
:;::/"
/
7'?
1/ ./ / $
*11 ------r· / ;;;""',,",,-.- ····-1 ~.:E::'
....
PROPOSEO PHABE I
WAT'ERUNE
PROPOSED WATER LINE

/- /
)' e.§I/ PRESSURE 80UNOAA,Y
i/
)'~
® PRESSURE REOUCING VALVE
EXISl!NO WATER UNE

/-/ SlZEM NOTED
//
~( /
#'71 /
<;Y'/
~~/
I:~""
;,:'1;
b'v ~
/ 4L?/~\ i~ -/f - fl]
11/ \ \\.. ./ .
#
"
/
I
4
.:/i I'
i~(;1
1/ \\\h, I,
"
'",,-ti
\.-,
.'
J/'''ll':f£--'~
.. ~~-~
...
;.::'~" ...,.,,~. I
.!"'!i::f.- ~ ~
..;-:z,_J.i:~ 2~
f-l:/
:;Ji(~ ......
~"","'o;. .....
~i""\\
.
1\,
r_{l' . . _~,\''''-: ..
, ':~ ~..;;;.
-:;:----;;;.':":!~i.t. «,."'~ ..., ':>\';,f~'J.r".i~."",
",j~'~-'\j r; KEY MAP
J.. _~,~~,. CONCEPTUAL WATER PLAN
r-I"~.=
" .!',! ;,'1 i.fE8RUARY ~
<;:-J.."
"'..._ 1/'
(
'-7"
.' ,~ r EE n...rl- I~~ri~<?!!§!!.@ I C-O7
HOKTrl :ew..,'~- lW~"""ll»._.g;r.,_._I.".--.ml
"
512
'-,
'-7
NeRTHWEST MASTE R
QUADRANT P LAN
le.sign Worlcshep . Suby Bowden + Assoc.. Bohannan Huston
LEGEND
n.. PROPOSED PHASE I
WATERliNE
r... PROPOSED W....TER LINE
---------------- P~8UREBOUNDAR'(
® PFWiBURE REDUCINQ V~VE
.----. w ' . _ - - _ . ~-:~~"e"?LINE
,,
~.::>
r/
P,
"'~I
---------
.. ~-;1-1
.... -:; ...
/ ......
(I
I
I
,
I
,
~
I
I I tJ~l'/
•
~ ,I I /
if!
~! :
",
1J~\(@y
-; .'
§ .
f/
,.
( . -<-'-.
\ Y I l CONCEPTUAL WATER PLAN
KEY MAP
II.FEBRUARY.200t
,.~l "'",- ~''''(I

, ..:"'_ :r;_.
.i - "Y.,j/ '--
..,
/- /.'
(-I \
\ \
1 \
~~
\ I
1 I
-----
r
EE nJI- IQ§.~~~C?!!i~!iQE
NOfn11 ....
:.e.-...I~-__.. I C-OB_~ _.~,CQ._. 1'.~1
513
NORTHWEST MASTE R
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop· Suby Bowden + Assoc.. Bohannon Huston
LEGEND
PROP08EO PHA8E 16ANrrARY SEWER UNE
- - - - .. - - - - PROP08EO PHASE I SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER UNE
PROPOSED LOW PRESSURf SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED M.t.N HOLf
.. DESION FlOWS PER COSF DEBION CRJTERIA,
CONCEPTUAL KEY MAP
SANITARY SEWER PLAN II.FEBRUARY.200t
EE r1..JI- I~~!i:Y.9!!~J.!~
NCIRT)i __
:c......1~- l.\I._'lI C-09
\.~" .Dwooor,oo._· _ _
514
NORTHWEST MASTER
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc, • Bohannan Huston
LEGEND
PROPOSED Pli'.SE I SANITAAY 81;W8t LINE
----1'<---- PROPOSED PHA.8E I SANITARY SEWERFORCE t.W~
PROPOSED 8ANITAAY 8EWER LINE
PROPOSED LOW PRfS6URE SANITARY 8EW£R.
PROPOSED w.N HOlf
DEStOH flOW! PER COSF DE61GN CR~RIA

"
,
I,
"
, ,
\ '
~ ~
~,' '.,',
li : .
lI..\ \1'
l,: \/ / \ \ CONCEPTUAL
r;th
~~ I
i-- SANITARY SEWER PLAN

< \
1 EE ruI I~~,~'KQ~~!!Q!:
'_.CQ._._,",16."""lI C-1 0
t.FE8RlJARY~
f~ i~L NOKTH ~l~_ _ ,*~k __
515
DATE: June 18, 2009
TO: Lucas Cruse, Land Use Planner Senior

Lee DePietro, Housing & Community Development
FROM: Jim L. Salazar, NPDES Stormwater Management Dir --......L.~
RE: Final Comments June 18, 2009 Planning Commission
The following cases have been reviewed for compliance with NPDES Stormwater Manelgement
Division requirements:
Case #M 2009-05. Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment.
Case #ZA 2009-02. Northwest Quadrant Rezoning.
We have completed our review of Chapter 6 of the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Design
Standards. All of our concerns helve been addressed and the revised standards now reflect
current city policy regarding NPDES stormwater treatments.
Approval of the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Design Standards, specifically, Chapter 6,
Landscape Architecture, is recommended by the NPDES Stormwater Management review.
Thank you.
516
Finance Committee Meeting
City Council Chambers
Agenda June 1, 2009
TO COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE 5:00 P.M. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLLCALL
\.'L_' dY
~r.?\!lu
\ f
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECEIVED BY

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MAY 14,2009 STUDY SESSION - FY 200912010 OPERATING BUDGET REVIEW
CONSENT AGENDA
6. BID OPENINGS:
A. BID NO. 09/28/B - CANYON ROAD POWER PLANT (WATER HISTORY MUSEUM)
- STEP II AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR; AIC
GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. (CHIP LILIENTHAL)
1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF BUDGET INCREASE - PROJECT FUND
B. BID NO. 09/2918 - WATER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

REHABILITATION PROJECT FOR WATER DIVISION; TLC PLUMBING AND
UTILITY (BRIAN SNYDER)
7. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - WATER

RATE EVALUATION SERVICES PROJECT (RFP #09/22/P); STEPWISE UTILITY
ADVISORS (BRIAN SNYDER AND MAYA MARTINEZ)
8. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO.1 (REVISED) - PUEBLOS DEL SOL
TRAIL SYSTEM AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS; ADVANTAGE ASPHALT AND SEAL
COATING, LLC (MARTIN VALDEZ)
9. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROCUREMENT UNDER STATE PRICE AGREEMENT-

2009 SUMMER PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM - CRACK SEALING; DISMUKE
CONSTRUCTION (DAVID CATANACH)
1O. SANTA FE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (JIM MONTMAN)
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - ARFF BUILDING

CONSTRUCTION; AIC GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
SS002 pmd -11102
517
J;"XhihJ ?c
June 1,2009
City Council Chambers
Page 2
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT - TERMINAL BUILDING OFFICE,

COUNTER AND FLOOR SPACE; AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC.
11. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS - 2009/2010

1% LODGERS' TAX: COMMUNITY ARTS PROMOTION PROGRAM; EIGHT (8) VARIOUS
VENDORS (DEBRA GARCIA Y GRIEGO)
12. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT - PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AT GCCC; TRAVERS
MECHANICAL SERVICES (LIZ ROYBAL)
13. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HUMAN

SERVICES PROVIDERS FOR FY 2009/2010 (TERRIE RODRIGUEZ)
14. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DESIGN AND

INSTALLATION PLAN FOR THE 400TH ANNIVERSARY BANNERS (COUNCILORS
TRUJILLO AND ROMERO) (JEANNE PRICE)
Committee Review:
Historic Design Review Board (Approved) May 12,2009
Public Works Committee (Approved) May 26, 2009
City Council (Scheduled) . June 10,2009
Fiscal Impact - No
15. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-1.16 SFCC

1987 ADJUSTING THE SANTA FE HOMES PROGRAM SALE PRICES FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENCY; AND MAKING SUCH OTHER CHANGES AS ARE NECESSARY
(COUNCILOR CALVERT) (TED SWISHER)
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE SANTA FE HOMES PROGRAM
(SFHP) TO ADJUST THE SANTA FE HOMES PROGRAM SALE PRICES FOR
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Committee Review:
City Council (Request to Publish) June 10, 2009
City Council (public Hearing) July 8.2009
Fiscal Impact - No
SS002 pmd-11102
518
June 1,2009
Agenda City Council Chambers
Page 3
16. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE NEW MEXICO

LITTER CONTROL AND BEAUTIFICATION ACT OF 1985 WHICH PROVIDES PUBLIC
FUNDS IN THE FORM OF GRANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING LOCAL LITTER
CONTROL AND BEAUTIFICAnON PROGRAMS (COUNCILOR TRUJILLO) (GILDA
MONTANO)
Committee Review:
City Council (Scheduled) June 10, 2009
Fiscal Impact - Yes
17. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF

THE SANTA FE RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING CODE, BEING EXHIBIT A OF
CHAPTER VII SFCC 1987; TO CLARIFY AND CORRECT TEXT; AND TO PROVIDE
EQUITABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFERENT HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING
EQUIPMENT THAT RESULT IN HIGHER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAN THE
EQUIVALENT CODE-MINIMUM EQUIPMENT (COUNCILOR CALVERT) (KATHERINE
MORTIMER)
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING CERTAIN ITEMS IN

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE SANTA FE RESIDENTIAL
GREEN BUILDING CODE TO CLARIFY AND CORRECT TEXT; AND TO PROVIDE
EQUITABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFERENT HEATING AND AIR
CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT THAT RESULT IN HIGHER GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS THAN THE EQUIVALENT CODE-MINIMUM EQUIPMENT
Committee Review:
City Council (Public Hearing) July 8, 2009
Fiscal Impact - Yes
18. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE 20-25 SFCC 1987
MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION OF ALARM DEVICES AND SYSTEMS AND
CREATING A NEW ARTICLE 20-5 SFCC ·1987 REGARDING ALARM SYSTEMS, FALSE
ALARM REDUCTION AND MAKING SUCH OTHER CHANGES AS ARE NECESSARY
(COUNCILORS CALVERT AND DOMINGUEZ) (MELISSA BYERS AND LYDIA LIOCE)
519
June 1,2009
Agenda City Council Chambers
Page 4
Committee Review:
Public Safety Committee (Approved) May 19,2009
City Business & Quality of Life (Approved) May 20, 2009
Public Works Committee (Approved) May 26,2009
City Council (public Hearing) July 8, 2009
Fiscal Impact - Yes
END OF CONSENTAGENDA
DISCUSSION
19. (pUBLIC HEARING) REVIEW AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF NORTHWEST
QUADRANT PRO-FORMA (KATHY MCCORMICK)
20. OTHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION
21. MATTERS FROM THE COMMITTEE
22. ADJOURN
Persons with disabilities in need of accommodations, contact the City Clerk's office at 955-6520 five (5) working days prior to meeting date.
SSOO2.pmd·l Ml2
520
SUMMARY OF ACTION
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, June 1,2009
ITEM ACTION PAGE
CAlL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Quorum 1
APPROVAL OF AGENDA Approved 1
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Approved [amended] 2
CONSENT CALENDAR USTING 2-4
CONSENT CALENDAR DISCUSSION
BID OPENINGS: BID NO. 091281B - CANYON ROAD

POWER PLANT (WATER HISTORY MUSEUM)-
STEP /I AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND
CONTRACTOR; AIC GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF
BUDGET INCREASE - PROJECT
FUND Approved 4
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE

REPEALING ARTICLE 20-25 SFCC 1987,
MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION OF ALARM
DEVICES AND SYSTEMS AND CREATING A NEW
ARTICLE 29-5 SFCC 1987, REGARDING ALARM
SYSTEMS, FALSE ALARM REDUCTION AND
MAKING SUCH OTHER CHANGES AS ARE
......................................................
NECESSARY Approved [amended] 5
END OF CONSENT CAlENDAR DISCUSSION

ItAIIUU IUIUU I II UIU. .I .. U
DISCUSSION
PUBLIC HEARING
REVIEW AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF

NORTHWEST QUADRANT PRO-FORMA Report accepted 5-12
OTHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION None 13
MATTERS FROM THE COMMITTEE Information/discussion 13
ADJOURNMENT 13
521
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SANTA FE
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Monday, June 1,2009
1. CALL TO ORDER
Ameeting of the City of Santa Fe Finance Committee was called to order by Chair Matthew E.
Ortiz, at approXimately 7:15 p.m., on Monday, June 1, 2009, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 200
Uncaln Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
2. ROLLCALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Councilor Matthew E. Ortiz, Chair
Councilor Christopher Calvert
Councilor Miguel Chavez
Councilor Carmichael A. Dominguez
Councilor Rebecca Wurzburger
OTHER COUNCILORS ATTENDING:

Councilor Patti J. Bushee
OTHERS ATIENDING:
David Millican, Finance Director
Yolanda Green, Finance Division
Melessia Helberg, Stenographer.
There was aquorum of the membership in attendance for the conducting of official business.
NOTE: All items in the Committee packets for all agenda items are incorporated herewith by
reference. The original Committee packet is on file in the Finance Department.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Councilor Calvert moved, seconded by CounciiorWurzburger, to approve the agenda, as

published.
VOTE: The mo60n was approved unanimously on avoice vote.
522
4. APPROVAl OF CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION: Councilor Wurzburger moved, seconded by Councilor Calvert, to approve the following Consent
Agenda as amended.
VOTE: The motion was approved unanimously on avoice vote.
****-**-.**********************************************************************************************************
CONSENT AGENDA
_U U.U U U UU *A ••••• A u ..'u .
6. BID OPENINGS:
A. [Removed for discussion by Councilor Dominguez]
B. BID NO. 09l291B - WATER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

REHABIUTATION PROJECT FOR WATER DIVISION; TLC PLUMBING AND u·nUTY.
(BRIAN SNYOER)
7. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - WATER RA'rE

EVALUATION SERVICES PROJECT (RFP #09/22IP); STEPWISE UTILITY ADVISORS. {BRIAN
SNYDER AND MAYA MARTINEZ.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO.1 (REVISED) - PUEBLOS DEL SOL
TRAIL SYSTEM AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS; ADVANTAGE ASPHALT AND SEAL COATING,
LLC. (MARTIN VALDEZ)
9. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROCUREMENT UNDER STATE PRICE AGREEMENT - 2009

SUMMER PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM - CRACK SEAUNG; DISMUKE
CONSTRUCTION. (DAVID CATANACH)
10. SANTA FE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (JIM MONTMAN):

A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO.1 - ARFF BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION; AIC GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT - 'rERMINAL BUILDING OFFICE,
COUNTER AND FLOOR SPACE; AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC.
11. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS - 200912010 1%

LODGERS'TAX; COMMUNITY ARTS PROMOTION PROGRAM; EIGHT (8) VARIOUS
.VENDORS. (DEBRA GARCIA Y GRIEGO)
523
12. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT - PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AT GCCC; TRAVERS
MECHANICAL SERVICES. (LIZ ROYBAL)
13. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HUMAN SERVICES
PROVIDERS FOR FY 200912010. (TERRIE RODRIGUEZ)
14. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DESIGN AND

INSTALLATION PLAN FOR THE 400TH ANNIVERSARY BANNERS (COUNCILORS TRU,IILLO
AND ROMERO). (JEANNE PRICE) Committee Review: Historic Design Review Board
(Approved) May 12, 2009; Public Works Committee (Approved) May 26, 2009; and City
Council (Scheduled) June 10, 2009. Fiscal Impact - No.
15. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-1.16 SFCC 1987.
ADJUSTING THE SANTA FE HOMES PROGRAM SALE PRICES FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY;
AND MAKING SUCH OTHER CHANGES AS ARE NECESSARY (COUNCILOR CALVERT).
(TED SWISHER)
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES FOR THE SANTA FE HOMES PROGRAM (SFHP) TO AD,IUST THE
SANTA FE HOMES PROGRAM SALE PRICES FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
Committee Review: Public Works Committee (Approved) May 26, 2009; City Council
(Request to Publish) June 10, 2009; and City Council (Public Hearing) July 8. 2009. Fiscal
Impact- No.
16. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE NEW MEXICO LInER
CONTROL AND BEAUTIFICATION ACT OF 1985. WHICH PROVIDES PUBLIC FUNDS IN THE
FORM OF GRANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING LOCAL LITTER CONTROL AND
BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAMS (COUNCILOR TRUJILLO). (GILDA MONTANO) Committee
Review: Public Works Committee (Approved) May 26, 2009; and City Council (Scheduled)
June 10,2009. Fiscal Impact- Yes.
17. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE

SANTA FE RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING CODE. BEING EXHIBIT A OF CHAPTER W
SFCC 1987; TO CLARIFY AND CORRECT TEXT; AND TO PROVIDE EQUITABLE
REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFERENT HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT THAT
.RESULT IN HIGHER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAN THE EQUivALENT CODE·
MINIMUM EQUIPMENT.
A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING CERTAIN ITEMS IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE ANTA FE RESIDENTIAL GREEN
BUILDING CODE TO CLARIFY AND CORRECT TEXT; AND TO PROVIDE EQUITABLE
REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFERENT HEA'I1NG AND AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT
THAT RESULT IN HIGHER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAN THE EQUIVALENT
CODE·MINIMUM EQUIPMENT. Committee Review: Public Works Committee
(ApprOVed) May 26. 2009; City Council (Request to Publish) June 10. 2009; City
Council (Public Heari~g) July 8. 2009. Fiscal Impact - Yes.
524
18. [Removed for discussion by Councilor Dominguez]
*******************....*************************....********************************..***..*********~**..****..*~*****
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
'.".'.'.11'.'1'1'.""""'.'1'1"".1'1"""'.'••1.'*"'1'111'11111111.'111"""'11."1111'••1111111'*'11'.111.'•••••
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 14, 2009 STUDY SESSION - FY 200912010 OPERATING

BUDGET REVIEW.
MOTION: Councilor Wurzburger moved, seconded by Councilor Dominguez, to approve the minutes of the
May 14. 2009 Study Session as presented .
VOTE: The motion was approved on a voice vote, with Councilors Calvert. Chavez and Wurzburger voUng
in favor, none voting against and Councilor Dominguez abstaining.
CONSENT CALENDAR DISCUSSION
6. BID OPENINGS
A. BID NO. 09128/8 - CANYON ROAD POWER PLANT (WATER HISTORY MUSEUM)-
S"rEP II AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR; AIC GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, INC. (CHIP LILIENTHAL)
1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF BUDGET INCREASE - PROJECT
FUND
Councilor Dominguez asked the source of funds to do this project, and asked if this is part of the
Parks Bond.
Mr. Ulienthal said $700,000 is from the Parks Fund, and $150,000 is from the 2008 CIP bond
issue.
MOTION: Councilor Dominguez moved. seconded by Councilor Wurzburger, to approve this request.
DiSCUSSION: Councilor Wurzburger received an inquiry about this, and asked if the City is applying for
federal stimulus funds or Historic Preservation funds in connection with this project.
Mr. Ulienthal said he is unaware of any applications, but he will speak with Vic Johnson about this and get
back to Councilor Wurzburger.
Councilor WUrzburger said the person got the impression we were supposed to be applying for a grant.
VOTE: 'rhe motion was approved unanimously on a voice vote.
525
18. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE 20-25 SFCC 1987,
MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION OF ALARM DEVICES AND SYSTEMS AND CREATING
A NEW ARTICLE 20-5 SFCC 1987, REGARDING ALARM SYSTEMS, FALSE ALARM
REDUCTION AND MAKING SUCH OTHER CHANGES AS ARE NECESSARY (COUNCILORS
CALVERT AND DOMINGUEZ). (MELISSA BYERS AND LYDIA LIOCE) Committee Review:
Public Safety Committee (ApprOVed) May 19, 2009; City Business & Quality of Life
(Approved) May 20, 2009; Public Works Committee (Approved) May 26, 2009; City Council
(Request to PUblish) June 10, 2009j City Council (Public Hearing) July 8, 2009. Fiscal
Impact - Yes.
A copy of an amendment to the bill proposed by Councilor Dominguez, is incorporated herewith to

these minutes as Exhibit "1,"
MOl'ION: Councilor Dominguez moved, seconded by Councilor Wurzburger, to approve this request, as
amended.
VOTE: The motion was approved unanimously on a voice vote,
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR DISCUSSION

UAuaUA,,*uuuauuuuaUAUIAtaUtaauaauuauu
DISCUSSION
PUBLIC HEARING
19. REVIEW AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF NORTHWEST QUADRANT PRO-FORMA

(KATHY McCORMICK)
Acopy of the text of the power point presentation, ·Northwest Quadrant - Update of 11/07
Financial Pro-forma and Proposed Alternatives,· prepared by Business Futures Ltd., dated June 2009, is
incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit "2:
Kathy McCormick said this evening there will be a full review of the financial information which
would inform part of the decision for the Northwest Quadrant [NWQ]. She said it is important to staff to
have an iterative process, continuing to review all of the potential costs and revenue for the NWQ. She
said the work initially was done by Design Workshop testing many assumptions, InclUding is it better to
have a non-profit or for-profit developer, sell the land or have a land lease, and such. She said in all of the
options it appeared the project would break even. As the economy began to change, staff became
increasingly concemedand retained Michael Halsey from Business Futures, Ltd.• who Was highly
recommended by many of the developers. Staff wanted one last look at the pro forma for the NWQ. She
said Mr. Halsey will walk the Committee through the information, noting agap has been identified and
options have been identified to close the gap.
ANANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES: June 1t 2009 PageS
526
Ms. McCormick said it was always anticipated that this development would be built by a master
developer, who would potentially negotiate any kinds of concessions or what they are facing in financing.
She said all developers have said there are different ways to cut costs, but unless they can really "dig into·
the pro forma there's no way to know, so this is the best estimate of cost at this time.
Councilor Bushee asked if the pro forma is available to members of the public, noting there is
nothing on the website for the NWQ.
Chair Ortiz asked if the text of this presentation in the packet.
Ms. McCormick said no, but it will be on the website by tomorrow.
Mr. Halsey presented information via power point. Acopy of the text of this presentation, is
incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit "2." Please see Exhibit "2" for the text of this
presentation.
Councilor Dominguez said Mr. Halsey said, in looking at the infrastructure and the graph, there
were infrastructure costs associated with Santa Fe Estates which are special, and asked what those costs
are.
Mr. Halsey said the master developer of Santa Fe Estates had a process of having builders come
in and build most of the spine to lot infrastructure. He said Santa Fe Estates set very rigid standards for
the appearance of the infrastructure.
Councilor Dominguez said then most of it was esthetic. Mr. Halsey said this is correct
Councilor Calvert said he was having trouble following the presentation, and would like to get the
presentation in color. He said at one point Mr. Halsey mentioned a deficit of $27 million and then $18, and
asked the reason for the differences.
Mr. Halsey said the $27 million includes doing 40 high end condos which will lose $200,000 each
to the project, so it is a bad product program
Councilor Calvert asked if something would take the place of the condos, and if so, would that be
more single family type homes.
Mr. Halsey said they looked at the mix ofthehomes and at the profitability, and tried to develop
scenarios which loaded more on the profitable end of the project. They increased workforce housing to the
extent it would be profitable and increased three-bedroom, high end units or market rate units.
Councilor Calvert said then we didn't decrease the number of units, the mix was changed, and Mr.
Halsey said this is correct. . .
527
Councilor Calvert said the rebound of the market will impact costs and costs will catch up, and
asked how long the reduced building cost scenario will stay in place.
Mr. Halsey said he never would have expected costs to come down. He said in 2007, Isaac Pino
of SunCorps gave an estimate of $105 sq. ft. He spoke with Mr. Pino a month ago, and Mr. Pino told him.
they were able to do a group build, which builds multiple units at the same time rapidly, at $65 sq. fl, which
is a 40% reduction in costs. He said Mr. Pino said they are consistently able to do the one off units at $85
sq. ft., and this is the number he used for the affordable units.
Councilor Calvert said this reflects current conditions, and Mr. Halsey said it does.
Mr. Halsey said he then asked Mr. Pino if he thinks this will tum around and start to go up in the
next two years. He told him, because the trades are repricing themselves, the cost will stay down, and
they will keep it at the lower level, even as we start to see increased demand in the market.
Councilor Calvert said Mr. Halsey said he wants to see certain indicators before he would start the
project, and asked if start means putting it out to bid, or the start of construction.
Mr. Halsey said because the City is soliciting a master developer, it will be necessary to go through
an RFP process which will take about a year. He said, before issuing an RFP, the City needs to closely
monitor the statistics about the market and iry to identify the point where it clearly has "bottomed out," and
has started to climb upward. Mr. Halsey said he doesn't think the market is ever going to be as heated as
it was in 2006, and doesn't believe we will ever see the kind of ·screwy" financing which allowed people to
qualify for 110% mortgages with subprime interest rates and no ability to make loan payments.
Councilor Calvert asked if the reduction ofbuilding costs would hold true throughout the ten year
period to full·buildout. .
Mr. Halsey said he has to speak to the relationship in this particular financial projection of cost to
revenues, and no inflation is assumed. If inflation becomes prevalent, you will see a symmetric increase in
the selling cost as well as construction. Given that. there would be increases in cost at an inflationary level
which would be offset completely by the increases in [inaudible].
Councilor Calvert said we saw asymmetrical costs when the cost of gasoline was $4 which
translated throughout the supply chain, and we might see that again which would argue against ·supply
and demand" marching hand in hand.
Mr. Halsey said SunCorps was finding was that there are people in the trades without work who
were willing to undercut the existing subcontractors, and they used low bidders. He said he just doesn't
see those people working at the reduced price points raising their prices to the point they are too high
again.
Responding to Councilor Calvert; Mr. Halsey said the 1% contingency is for unknown things that
will happen in the future and ifs acontingency on the total sales revenue for the project. He said he is
528
trying to hedge against legislative changes such as the increase of affordability to 30%, or the requirement
to bring water rights for development.
Councilor Calvert said his concern is that some of the things which would be needed to close the
gap will wor1< against what we're hoping in terms of affordabilily.
Mr. Halsey said Lee DePietro has looked at that closely and determined that the amounts which
will be borne by the residences are reasonable in terms of maintaining the affordability of the produc~ both
from the affordable housing component and the market rate component.
Responding to Councilor Calvert, Mr. Halsey said Ms. McCormick talks about the actual ranges in
her Memorandum on page 5.
Councilor Bushee asked if the project he analyzed contained commercial. Mr. Halsey said no.
Councilor Bushee asked if the project will be analyzing commercial as well.
Ms. McCormick said the master plan calls for some commercial space, but staff was looking to see
if the economics work, based solely on residential, and this is what they've done since the beginning of the
project.
Councilor Bushee said if commercial is to be included, you need to start including some of the off-
site infrastructure, such as roads, which we've been discussing which would be required by commercial,
and asked if that shouldn't be in the analysis.
Ms. McCormick said no. Since commercial would most typically be built by the owner of the
property who will be incurring the expense and leasing it, that cost isn't included, commenting it is not a
revenue or expense to the project.
Councilor Bushee asked if all of costs for the improvements to #599 and other off-site
infrastructure road improvements which would be required for commercial would be passed on to the
developer.
Ms. McCormick said this is correct, and then commercial will pay its pro rata share of the costs for
those improvements, just as the residential units would. She said the information on cominercial is
prepared for the presentation before the Public Works Committee on Monday.
Councilor Bushee said there was no mention in previous analysis that there would be a
commercial developer willing to take on $12 million in outside infrastructure. Ms. McCormick said staff will
be presenting an option which doesn't have a $12 million impact to the project.
Responding to Councilor Bushee, Ms. McComlick said the commercial is shrinking to 70,000 sq. ft.
of non-residential planned for the site. She said all of this information went out in the Public Works packet
today.
FINANCE COMMmEE MINUTES: June 1,2009 PageS
529
Responding to Councilor Calvert, Ms. McCormick said the commercial is being reduced by about
50%. She said originally there was 70,000 sq. ft. of commercial in the neighborhood center and 125,000
sq. ft. allocated as part of livetwork.
Ms. DePietro said mixed use has been reduced to atotal of 70,000 sq. ft., about 50%, noting they
applied land uses to them as well, and neighborhood center has been reduced to 40,000 sq. ft., which is a
little less than 50%.
Councilor Calvert said this isn't the original project we envisioned in terms of mixed use, saying it is
becoming more and more a residential development.
Ms. McConnick said they were asked to dothe worst case scenario in terms of the traffic analysis,
which is where they started, when there was 125,000 sq. ft. of non-residential use in the livelwork
component which staff never anticipated to be thal high. So, the traffic generation analysis was done on
this basis. Staff was always concerned about whether we needed 70,000 sq. ft. of commercial space for a
neighborhood center.
Councilor Calvert thought the mixes came out of the master planning and the talks with the
neighborhood. Ms. McCormick said the uses came from that planning, but they had always described it as
being an organic portion of the project which would allow it go from some kind of residential to some kind
of non-residential use over time.
Chair Ortiz said this discussion is on the pro forma, and the appropriate time to talk about traffic
impacts would be at Public Works, and asked Councilor Calvert to ask that question instead of continuing a
debate on the traffic impacts.
Councilor Calvert said he didn't ask about traffic impacts. He said the bottom line for the pro fonna
is that you are redUcing the commercial so you don't have to make those improvements, so they will then
make sense on the pro forma for whoever does the commercial part of the development.
Councilor Bushee said there will be plenty of questions at Public Works which are related to the
pro forma around commercial and others.
Councilor Bushee asked the source of the calculation of the developer fees. Mr. Halsey said in the
2007 pro forma; thedeveloper fee is a percentage of cost. Councilor Bushee asked the industry standard
.for a developer fee. Mr. Halsey said for a non-profit development you possibly could get away with 5%, but
it is higher for market rate.
Councilor Bushee said the old pro forma says .4% in profit, and Mr. Halsey said this pro forma
uses the same assumption as the old pro forma. He asked Councilor Bushee if she is sure that is the
percentage across market rate units as well as the affordable units. Councilor Bushee said this is from a
2007 analysis which says .4% profit.
530
Mr. Halsey said the profit levels that are imputed in the projections, which create the expense side
of the equation, are remaining unchanged from what was done in November 2007, so there is basically no
profit.
Councilor Bushee expressed concern about land leases, noting they are fairly hefty at the
Railyard.. She said one of the issues in affordable housing is to avoid association fees and other fees
which can really 'ack on" costs to affordable users. She asked those projected costs to the consumer.
Ms. McCormick said Ms. DePietro has done an analysis of what the land lease would be if an HOA
were included, noting this isn't in the packet. They did a back check on that because of concern about the
land leases. She said the cost for an affordable unit would be $80 monthly up to $200 monthly for the
market rate unit for additional costs for the PID and HOA. She agrees there are affordable bUyers living in
very high end projects In town who have been priced out because of the increase in the HOA. However,
because this has a strong emphasis on entry level and step-up homes, staff doesn't anticipate that
happening and can be written into the document.
Councilor Bushee asked if the land lease options go hand in hand with the lower gap assumption
of 30% affordability. Chair Ortiz said no, this is combining two different things. Councilor Bushee wants to
know the recommended options, and if we go to 30% does that mean we don't have to offer the land lease
option.
Ms. McCormick said the intent of testing the different options is to understand what happens when
you change the affordability mix. and what Mr. Halsey was asked to do. Staff wanted to know what
happens when there is 30% affordable under Santa Fe homes, but you increase the number of step-up
homes market.
Responding to Councilor Bushee, Ms. McCormick said all of the options would be needed for 30%
affordability, including land lease. What is recommended here is that at each phase of the project which is
in the Memo, that the master developer be required to do a market assessment and we would fix the range
of affordability. She said it Is clear that we need a floor, and this project is sensitive to shifts in the market.
Councilor Bushee said she understands the situation, but we aren't going to demand what we
demand of the private sector, in terms of affordability. Ms. McCormick said staff always looks at step-up
and entry level housing together, noting that the step-up starts at $200,000 and goes up to $350,000.
Councilor Bushee said from the start, this project sounded too good to be true - green, water
efficient $140,000 per unit, without any of the ·tack on" cost to the consumer.. She asked if this is still
going forward to the Planning Commission on June 16, 2009, and Ms. Price said yes.
Councilor Bushee said this project is looking less viable than the College of Santa Fe at this point.
and it Will be interesting to See where the dialogue continues.
Public Hearing
FINANCE COMMITIEE MINUTES: June 1,2009 Page 10
531
Nlchole De Jumev, Vice-President, Casa Solana Neighborhood Association. She said the
Association has been watching this project with great interest. It seems Mr. Halsey has given us nice
guesstimates, but nobody can predict what is going to happen in this economy. We don't know how long it
will take to move up. She said, after the bUdget meeting, when you don't have any money, it strikes her as
odd that the City would be interested in takil19 on a project that could be in the hole by $18 million. She
said the City is cutting fire essential medical services, and now you want to build a development that
nobody knows whether or not will work. She is shocked as a taxpayer because she will be the one the City
comes back to for more money, or a bail out, or there will just be sticks sitting on the lot unfinished. She is
D
concerned about the jUdgment you are using with our tax dollars. She said ·we would like more input
about how you are going to be spending our money. In particular, Casa Solana is very upset that the City
is not putting in the infrastructure and roads they believe are necessary. She said the Association finds
this totally irresponsible and believe that the project should be shut down.
Rick Martinez, 725 Macia Road, said we are creating a bedroom community here. We aren't
building the right road connections which are needed for the project, which is to get it to town and make it
more viable. He asked why we are creating a bedroom community. He believes the costs will increase,
and this doesn't seem to him to be a viable project. He said the contractors doing the work on Zafarano
are all bused in from Albuquerque and are the ones giving the lower prices. The Santa Fe people aren't
working here, it is the people from Albuquerque. He said everyone working on the River Trail came in from
Albuquerque. He wants to be sure any project we do is done with the "reallocal people. This project
D
doesn't make financial sense. He asked where the condos came from, noting there was never a mention
of condos, it was only livelwork and residential homes. He said commercial is viable for this project. He
said the City should take this project off the gas and put it on the back burner.
The Public Hearing was Closed
MOTION: Councilor Wurzburger moved. seconded by Councilor Dominguez, to accept this report as
additional background for our deliberations.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Wurzburger thanked staff and Mr. Halsey for bringing out new variables. She
hopes that we would recognize that what has been said here is not that it does or it doesn't work, but
we've had a further elaboration under what conditions it might work, which is always what is true with
respect to development She said people against the project have inferred that all of the costs are being
paid by the City. Councilor WUrzburger understands the options are being presented and the whole
purpose of the analysis was to see the conditions under which this might work, so the risk which may be
taken bya separate developer could be clarified., noting we will have to do more work.
Councilor Calvert understands that this is background information. However, it has to do with timing. He
asked, if we accept this information at lhispointin time, then will we update this before we proceed, so that
the assumptions, ·ups and downs and pluses and minuses," are sufficiently accurate to move forward-
When we get some indication that the market is turning around.
Chair Ortiz asked Councilor Calvert if his question is rhetorical or if he is asking about a particular point
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES: June 1, 2009 Paga11
532
Councilor Calvert said he is asking whether we should amend this before moving forward, because some
of the assumptions and alot of information is now based on the presumption that we won't put it out to bid
until we get an indication that the market has either bottomed out or is starting to go up. He doesn't know
how much time will elapse before the City will proceed. and if we are basing it on some of this information.
Councilor WUrzburger said she would argue that we do not need to continue to do financial feasibility
studies on this project which are based on a future projection that we don't know. She believes we need to
take the advice that we have received in this report and that these are the conditions under which we
would need to proceed to issue an RFP. She said this is up to the market. The true test of whether this
project is viable can be determined only once we issue and RFP, and if no one responds, airs a done
deal." She is arguing that we've done enough background and we don't need to wait for a year and do our
own projects. We have something which provides sufficient information to move forward with respecting to
deciding the timeline, and move forward in terms of process.
Councilor Calvert clarified that he was suggesting to update the information on this report, and not to do
another study..
Chair Ortiz said he is interested in seeing someof the information to which some of the Councilors have
privy to at Public Works. He said that Committee has been getting information about a proposal which
none of us have seen and will need to vote on. He wants everybody to be on the same page and see the
same information. He looks forward to the Planning Commission review and when this comes before the
full City Council so we can weigh this project. He said he takes exception to some of the conditions, and
believes we need to seize opportunities, notdelay them. He said the pro forma speaks for itself. He
agrees that we can't build this project absent market conditions. and without market conditions this project
will not be built, and without abidder the project won't be built. He said this is disappointing to him to see
thatthe market crashed and we didn't move more quiCkly, because we were responding in a public
dialogue with the members of the community who are most concerned with this project, and we lost an
available avenue of time to take advantage of market conditions in the mid-2000's.
Chair Ortiz said he realizes, after seeing this report, that this project will not be accomplished until the
market conditions dictate it, noting he supports the motion with reservations.
Councilor Calvert said if we had moved at the pace suggested by Councilor Ortiz, we might have started
building in the middle of adown market and we would be in a worse situation that we are now.
Chair Ortiz said this project predates Councilor Calvert's term on this Council, noting he believes we would
be in the middle of phase 2 of the development.
VOTE: The motion was approved on a voice vote, with Councilors Dominguez and Wurzburger voting in
favor of the motion, and Councilor Calvert voting against the motion.
Councilor Bushee said Public Works Committee has no special information. It is only themaster
plan which should be on the website.
ANANCE COMMITIEE MINUTES: June 1.2009 Page 12
533
20. OTHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION:
There was no other financial information.
21. MATTERS FROM THE COMMITIEE
Chair Ortiz said there is an ongoing dispute about how to fund the winter overllow shelter, and the
Interfaith community has come forward with asound, bona fide proposal, noting St. Elizabeth's provided
this service last year. He understands some community members have come together to mediate the
issues. He said Ms. Rodriguez has worked on this as well, butthere are still problems. He is unclear Ihat
the issue of the winter overllow shelter has been addressed in the budget. He said the City manager and
Finance Director need to make recommendations in this regard, including the process..
Ms. McCormick said Lee DePietro is working with Ms. Rodriguez and can assist in this effort.
Chair Ortiz wants an answer which is totally consistent with the proposal the City received from the
interfaith community without creating administrative problems vis a vis Santa Fe Shelter.
Mr. Millican said then the Chair wants a staff recommendation on the necessary funding level, and
in terms of providers. whether a single provider should be selected, or whether more than one should be
selected.
Councilor Calvert suggested choosing abudget figure, and then decide who will do this at alater
time.
Chair Ortiz said this is one recommendation, noting he believes there is clear consensus on the
amount to be spent, but the mechanism of how to get this fUnding to the right people needs to be
researched and recommended by staff.
Mr. Millican said he is unsure staff has clarity on the amounts to be included.
Chair Ortiz said. and the Committee concurred, the ballpark figure is $65,000.
Mr. Millican said there were a number of items listed in the failed moUon, and he will prepare alist
of those for the Governing Body.
22. ADJOURNMENT
There was no further business to come before the Committee. and having completed its Agenda,
the meeting was adjourned at 8:30pm.
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES: June 1,2009 Page 13
534
Matthew E. Ortiz, Chair
Reviewed by:
David N. Millican, Director

Department of Finance
FINANCE COMMITlEE MINUTES: June 1,2009 Page 14
535
'f CITY CLERK'S OFfiCE
DAlE ~/1L en ,1IMr.
:AgeJ"ld a SERVElJ dY~~·~"'·E~~;+:::
RECEIVED BYL..-::::;..:~~y----t~
PUBLIC WORKS/CIP & LAND USE COMMITTEE

MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2009
5:15 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLLCALL
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENf AGENDA
5. APPROVAL OF MlNUTES FROM MAY 26, 2009 PUBLIC WORKS COMMfITEE MEETINGS
PUBLIC BEARING
6. NORTHWEST QUADRANT (NWQ) PROJECTS
• REQUEST FOR REVIEW, DIRECTION AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACf
ANALYSIS
• REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NWQ PRO-FORMA (KATHY
MCCORMICKILEE DEPIETRO)
CONSENT AGENDA
7. CIP PROJECf #408B - FRANKLIN MILES PARK. RESTROOM - PLUMBING
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO.1 wrrn SUB SURFACE
CONTRACTING, INC. FOR NEW WATER LINE EXTENSION IN 11IE AMOUNT OF
$33,588.85 (MARY MACDONALD)
8. SANTA FE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBMISSION OF A STATE GRANT APPUCATION
FOR EAST APRON RECONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $72,500
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR THE AIRPORT MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE GRANT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEN OFFERED (JIM MONTMAN)
9. SANTA FE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA FE AND MOLZEN-
CORBIN & ASSOCIATES DATED JUNE 16,2008 (JIM MONTMAN)
SSOO2.PW5 • 1111I5
536
PUBLIC WORKS/ClP AND LAND USE
COMMlTIEE MEETING
MONDAY. JUNE 8,2009
PAGE 2
10. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTSIHOMEBUYER

ASSISTANCE FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $329,941.35 INCLUSIVE OF NMGRT AND FOR
A TOTALOF TWELVE MONTHS - JULY 1, 2009 TURU JUNE 30, 2010
• HOMEWISE - $187,457.43
• SANTA FE COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUST - $142,483.92 (fED SWISHER)
11. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT NO.2 WITH CRAVEZ SECURITY FOR SECURITY SERVICES AT THE
MUNICIPAL PARKING FACILITIES, SANTA FE COMMUNITY CONVENTION CENTER,
MUNICIPAL LffiRARIES AND MUNICIPAL COURT IN THE AMOUNT OF $597,159.79
(WALTER ROYBAL)
12. OLD PECOS TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - CORDOVA ROAD TO BERGER

STREET
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO APPLY FOR A
SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO AN EXISTING MUNICIPAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF SANTA FE FOR TIlE OLD PECOS TRAIL
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - CORDOVA ROAD TO BERGER STREET
(COUNCILORS ROMERO AND WURZBURGER) (JOHN ROMERO)
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TIlE MUNICIPAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM FUNDING
AGREEMENT SIX MONTH EXTENSION (JOHN ROMERO)
13. CIP PROJECT # 878B - RODEO ROAD MEDIAN l.ANDSCAPING PROJECT

• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE
NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR APPROPRIAnONS FROM
THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 IN TIlE AMOUNT
OF $150,000 (ERIC MARTINEZ)
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE RODEO ROAD
MEDIAN LANDSCAPING PROJECT FUNDED FROM THE AMERICAN RECOVERY
AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 200091HROUGH A COOPERATIVE PROJECT
AGREEMENT WITH TIlE NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(COUNCILOR TRUJILLO) (ERIC MARTINEZ)
DISCUSSION
14. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.1 WITH ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY
PARTNERS WHO Wll.L ADMINISTER AND SCHEDULE SIX TO EIGHT MEETINGS FOR
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ROUNDTABLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,950 INCLUSIVE
OF NMGRT (TED SWISHER)
IS. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUUON AOTIIORIZING ARTS AND CRAFTS

SHOWS TO BE HELD IN THE PLAZA SPACE BETWEEN CITY HALL AND TIlE SANTA
FE COMMUNITYCONVENTION CENTER; AND ESTABLISHING APPLICABLE POLICIES
(COUNCILOR CHAVEZ) (JEANNE PRICE) POSTPONED AT 05126109 PWC MEETING
16. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14-4.3(1) SFCC

1987 REGARDING TIIE PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS OF PRC PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DISTRICTS (COUNCILOR WURZBURGER) (JEANNE
PRICE)
. ..
537
PUBLIC WORKSICIP AND LAND USE
COMMITrEE MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2009
PAGE 3
17. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTIONS 14-8.13, 14-8.16

AND 14-8.17 SFCC 1987 REGARDING ANNUAL WATER BUDGET, WATER RIGHTS
TRANSFER REQUIREMENTS AND WATER BANKING; CREATING A NEW SECTION 14-
8.13 SFCC 1987 REGARDING DEVELOPMENT WATER BUOOET REQUIREMENtS; A
NEW ARTICLE 25-9 SFCC 1987 REGARDING THE CITY WATER BUDGET, A NEW
ARTICLE 25-10 SFCC 1987 REGARDING THE CITY WATER BANK, A NEW ARTICLE 25-
11 SFCC 1987 REGARDING TIlE WATER RIGHTS TRANSFER PROGRAM AND A NEW
ARTICLE 25-12 SFCC 1987 REGARDING THE WA'fER CONSERVATION CREDIT
PROGRAM; MAKING SUCH OTHER RELATED CHANGES AS ARE NECESSARY
(COUNCILOR WURZBURGER) (DALE LYONS)
18. MATTERS FROM STAFF
20. NEXT MEETING: JUNE 22, 2009
21. ADJOURN
Persons with. disabilities in need ofaccommodations, contact the City Clerk's office at 955-6520,
five (5) working days prior to meeting date
538
SUMMARY INDEX
PUBLIC WORK. CIP & LAND USE COMMmEE
June 8, 2009
ITEM ACTION TAKEN PAGE~)

2. ROLLCALL Quorum Present 1
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Approved as published 1
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Approved as amended 2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 26,2009 Approved as presented 2
6. PUBLIC HEARING - NWQ PROJECTS Public Discussion 2-6
CONSENT AGENDA USTING Listed 6-7
DISCUSSION AGENDA
14. Affordable Housing Roundtable Postponed 7
15. Arts & Crafts Shows Location Postponed 8
16. Planned Residential Community Districts Postponed 8
17. Annual Water Budget, Water Bank Postponed . 8
18. Matters from Staff None 8

19. Matters from the Committee None 8
20. Next Meeting set for June 22 2009 8
21 Adjournment Adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 9
539
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SANTA FE
PUBUC WORKs/CIP & LAND USE COMMITTEE
MONDAY, JUNE 8,2009
1. CALL TO ORDER
Aregular meeting of the Public WorksiCIP & land Use Committee was called to order on the above
date by Chair Patti Bushee at approximately 5:15 p.m. in City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 Uncoln,
Santa Fe, New Mexico
2. ROLLCALL
Ron Call indicated the presence of aQuorum as follows:
MEMBER PRESENT:
Councilor Patti Bushee, Chair
Councilor Christopher Calvert
Councilor Rosemary Romero
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Councilor Miguel Chavez
Councilor Ronald S. Tru~11o
OTHER COUNCILORS PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert Romero, Public Works Director
Ms. Bobbi Mossman, Public Works Staff
NOTE: All items in the Committee packet for all agenda items are incorporated herewith by
reference. The original Committee packet is on file in the Public Works Department.
Councilor Calvert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Councilor Romero seconded the
motiOn and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
PublicWorkslCIP & Land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 1
540
Councilor Calvert moved to approve the Consent Agenda as published. Councilor Romero
seconded the motion and It passed by unanimous voice vote.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 26, 2009, PUBLIC WORKS COMMnTEE MEETING
Councilor Romero moved to approve the minutes of May 26, 2009 as submitted. Councilor
Calvert seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - NORTHWEST QUADRANT (NWQ) PROJECTS
• REQUEST FOR REVIEW, DIRECTION ANDIOR APPROVAL OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT

ANAlYSIS
• REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NWQ PRo-FORMA (KATHY MCCORMICKILEE

DEPIETRO)
A copy of a power point presentation to the Public Works Committee on the Northwest Quadrant
dated June 8, 2009, is attached to these minutes as Exhibit 1.
A copy of a power point presentation to the Rnance Committee on the Northwest Quadrant, dated
June 1, 2009, is attached to these minutes as Exhibit 2.
A copy of.a map of the Northwest Quadrant is attached to these minutes as Exhibit 3.
Ms. McCormick made comments on lIle power point in Exhibit 1 to the Committee.
Mr. Michael Halsey, consultant, provided comments on the power point in Exhibit 2 and followed the
narrative beginning on page 20 of the Committee packet
Chair Bushee asked Mr. Halsey to define TIF and PlD and Mr. Halsey explained the terms. Chair
Bushee asked if these were future or existing taxes.. Mr. Halsey clarified that in this case these would be
future taxes, only the City's portion, and if the project didn't go forward.
Chair Bushee asked why he recommended PID. Mr. Halsey explained that it was an advantageous
alternative.
Chair Bushee had asked staff to write a Memorandum and understood that it would be done. Ms.
McCormick said there was no memo, but there was an analysis used as a back check. Chair Bushee
PubliC WorksIClP & Land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 2
541
wanted that broken out with a monthly cost. $80 per month, and $199 was the maximum for mamet rate
units.
Councilor Calvert said it was on page 4in the middle of the page, showing HOA fees and aggregate.
Councilor Calvert asked if he Mr. Halsey was saying the PIO would range and the HOA would vary
from $40 to $100. Ms. McCormick spoke about land leases. Mr. Halsey referred to two numbers on
page 4; the second $80 to $199 included a land lease. Councilor Calvert how much it would cost for a
land lease. Mr. Halsey said the Department had a schedule, but he didn't know.
Councilor Calvert thought the only difference was the HOA fee, but now understood the lease was
included. He found it hard to believe.
Mr. Halsey recommended looking for various factors improving in the economy before embarking on
the project He recommended they hold off on the RFP until the enumerated things began to happen.
Councilor Calvert asked if they needed to see all 6, or just some, and everything under 1. Mr. Halsey
said they needed to have positive signs significanUy outweighing the negative.
Chair Bushee said she heard him say to wait The Council previously adopted a Resolution ouUining
process. She believed the project was faiUng because it was not feasible from the 'get go: The City
wanted to continue to do things saying they wouldn't cost. She asked if the pro forma demonstrated
financial feasibUity.
Mr. Halsey demonstrated that without gap financing it would never happen.
Ms. McCormick presented information on traffic impact analysis via power point Please see Exhibit
-1- for specifics of this presentation.
Councilor Calvert referred to the statement about grading.... to widen the bridge. He didn't see this in
the pro fanna, and asked if that cost would be shared with other developments. Ms. McCormick said the
numbers were not complete but all cost would be borne by Ihis project. Mr. Halsey said the overstated
estimate by Bohannan-Huston would be put back in.
Cha~ Bushee reminded them the newly-reduced commercial aspect had a change in cost. Robert
Romero said the key factor would be when the bridge would be widened. It was aquestion of how mixed
use development would work.
Public Hearing
Chair Bushee gave everyone one minute to speak to the issue.
Nichoie De Jurnev, ARC Association, president, read her statement into the record. Then using
a map from the podium, she asked the Councilors to just pick what they wanted here that made sense as.
Public WorksIClP & Land Use Committee June 8. 2009 Page 3
542
she described what was on the map, while someone else pointed to what she was talking about She said
the homeowner's insurance didn't cover it, and the City had capped it at $100,000 in event of a sewer
backup. She said that Mr. Halsey said NWa was unfeasible; couldn't get a loan, and there was a shortfall
of $28 million that would be covered by assessing homeowners, grants, reducing the amount of affordable
housing and leasing of land. Afew weeks ago the City agreed to pay $56,000 per acre to the School,
now $9,000 per acre. She asked what was going on. She urged the Committee to stop this development
right now.
Karen Walker, 205 Delgado said this topic had been bandied about for years, and every time it didn't
make sense. The topography wasn't appropriate for the proposed use. Even in a good real estate market
it woUld make no sense. Councils hear that the public wanted this as open space. She was
recommending Ihey forget the whole thing and leave as open space. Right now there was a glut in every
price range. If the City wanted it more affordable, then work with them and put Ihe effort into existing
homes in existing neighborhoods with sweat equity.
Frank Herdman, 1505 Villa Robles said he was a land use attorney and attended meetings. He was
cognizant of the City's expectation. He was personally enraged about how the City had gone ahead to
seek approval and it didn't comply with the ordinance. It didn't comply with ENN, and the adopted
Neighborhood Bill of Rights. He quoted from it. Only now one week before the traffic plan was going to
the Planning Commission were staff rolHng out the proposed plan. Constituents were entitled to expect
compliance with the Resolution. As a taxpayer, the same Resolution indicated that detailed estimates
must conclusively demonstrate financial feasibility, but he hadn't heard that this evening.
Marilyn Bane, 622 ~anyonRoad. Thanked Mr. Halsey for helping her have a betterunderstanding
of the concerns. Her concern was process. There was no question as to whether this should proceed.
How was the City not going to proceed? She recommended that they put this aside, take it out of the
approval process, until such time as the economy improved and developers were standing in line to do
this. She urged them to not approve a plan that didn't WOf1( and to start only when the City had a buyer.
Jane Takunaga, 264 Camino de Ia Sierra, agreed with the other speakers. She asked what the
rush was in this economy. She asked why City staff was spending so much time on this. Tma Contenta
was in real trouble. There was a glut of affordable housing that the City wasn'tgetting to. Citizens.
nonprofits and everybody addressed Affordable Housing that way rather than rushing into UI-conceived
plans.
Steven Prince, 123 Camino de las Crucltas asked what the opticon gates were at the main entrance
to the development He asked where traffic went when turning right. His biggest concern from the
alternative proposed by the neighborhood was that it would takefNIay vital access to the interstate. The
solution was to not make Crucitas a cui de sac.
Robert Tate said the problem was scale. It was awell intentioned project but there was a problem
from the South.
Public WorksICIP & land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 4
543
Joyce Roberts, 738 Camino Francisco, Secretary of the Santa Fe Estates Neighborhood said
puffing aU the traffic on Ridgetop would be an unsafe thing to do. There was inaeased traffic on 599, and
people wanting to go north already. This would be adisaster.
Ronald Miller, 813 Calle David, on the east side of the development, said he heard it was unfeasible.
Focusing traffic onto the Ridgetop intersection interfered with traffic on Ulat side, including traffic from
ZocoIo, and the absence of frontage roads, if intenupted with construction, was ill conceived and a bad
idea which should be killed.
Andy Maxincroix said the road from Crucitas became Buckman. 23 feet wide. He measured it today.
Perhaps as juries taken to crime scene, they should take people to the site. He had peope honking at
him and glared because he had children with him. 23 feet was the size of adouble garage with a
sidewalk. He asked if peop/e could imagine travefing 30 mph through their garage.
Tom Coleman was stunned this program got this far. He said they should drive a stake into it
Rick Martinez, 725 Macias Road, talked about the pro tonna. Santa Fe's people need the work.
The City had given away water rights and now was going back to get the water rights. The Planning
Commission hearing should be canceled, or not heard in this room. Barriers come up and go down. The
Councilors who supported Ihis weren't here and didn't care what would happen.
The Public Hearing was closed
Councilor Calvert said the pro fonna spoke for itself. He hadn't seen a master plan and he couldn't
vote for the project Building green meant it would have to comply with the residential building code. He
had yet to see the traffic master plan. He wanted to approve the pro forma because it said it wouldn't
work.
Councilor Romero said she was surprised at Anance. The pro forma indicated it was not feasible.
More importanUy, the appropriateness for the area was critical. The Council couldn't say it supported
neighborhoods and then look for ways to undermine them. She had heard NWa was the best infill project
ever. But it was reany not infiU within the metro area. St Miichael's was. TI8R'3 Contenta wasn't in
trouble, but what they were saying was that the numbers didn't add up. The process began in 2004, and
good, bad or irKflfferent, it did get a public process. They should look at what they did and use the
information to make the best decision. She was hoping for the information needed to move forward.
Chair Bushee said this had become classic sprawl. The infrastructure was noUhere, ina terrain that
didn't work, and wouldn't denver affordable hoosing. They set out the process in 2004 because of concems
about the difficult tenain. The process was difficult to follow, the numbers continued to change, everything
was changing. She quoted the direction to staff to do acomprehensive planning process from the
resolution. There was one ENN at GOnzales. It was hot and nobody got answers. There was 110
amendment requesting an amendment on traffic regarding Las Monloyas. There was misinformation
because the legend was wrong. Yet they were plowing fprwaro, ignoring the neighborhood, saying it would
be like Osage. They addressed it by asldng for a waiver from the escarJ)IOOnt district. Guarantees
Public WorksiCIP & Land Use Committee June B, 2009 Page 5
544
wouldn't come forward with exceptions and variances and financial issues. She said she was going to
bring forth an ordinance designating this as open space.
Councilor Calvert said the pro fanna spoke for itself, but it was not complete because it needed to
include expenses, so it could not be approved. Chair Bushee said it was on the website for a month.
Counc~or Romero moved to deny this request. Councilor Calvert seconded the motion for purposes of
diSQJssion and asked for afriendly amendment which Councilor Romero denied as friendly.
Councilor Calvert withdrew his second and Chair Bushee said she would second the motion.
In the discussion, Councilor Calvert said he would rather give direction to staff than to deny.
Councilor Romero and Chair Bushee agnted to accept that as friendly. The motion, as amended,
was approved unanimously on avoice vote.
CONSENT AGENDA LISTING
7. CIP PROJECT #4088 - fRANKUN MILES PARK RESTROOM - PLUMBING
• REQUEST fOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO.1 WITH SUBSURFACE

CONTRACTING, INC. fOR A NEW WATER UNE EXTENSION IN THE AMOUNT Of $33,588.85
(MARY MACDONALD)
8. SANTA fE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
• REQUEST fOR APPROVAL Of SUBMISSION Of A STATE GRANT APPLICATION fOR EAST

APRON RECONSTRUCTION ANDCONsmtJCOON ENGINEERING IN THE AMOUNT Of
$72,500
• REQUEST fOR APPROVAL fOR THE AIRPORT MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE GRANT ON
BEHALf Of THE CITY WHEN OffERED (JIM MONTMAN)
9. SANTA fE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT (PsAlBETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA FE AND MOLZEN-CORBIN &
ASSOCIATES DATED JUNE 16, 2008 (JIM MONTMAN)
10. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAGREEMENTSIHOMEBUYER

ASSISTANCE FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $329.941.35 INCLUSIVE Of NMGRT AND fOR A
TOTAL OF TWELVE MONTHS-JULY 1, 2009THRU JUNE 30, 2010
Public WorksICIP & Land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 6
545
• HOMEWISE - $187,457.43
• SANTA FE COMMUNITY HOUSING 'rRUST - $142.483.92 (TED SWISHER)
11. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO.2

WITH CHAvez SECURITY FOR SECURITY.SERVICES AT THE MUNICIPAL PARKING
FACILmESJ SANTA FE COMMUNITY CONVENTlON CENTER, MUNICIPAL LIBRARIES AND
MUNICIPAL COURT IN THE AMOUNT OF $597,159.79 (WALTER ROYBAL)
12. OLD PECOS TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - CORDOVA ROAD TO BERGER STREET
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DIRECnNG STAFF TO APPLY FOR A SIX

MONTH EXTENSION TO AN EXISTING MUNICIPAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM FUNDING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
THE CITY OF SANTA FE FOR THE OLD PECOS TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT -
CORDOVA ROAD TO BERGER STREEr (COUNCILORS ROMERO AND WURZBURGER)
(JOHN ROMERO)
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE MUNICIPAL ARrERIAL PROGRAM FUNDING

AGREEMENT SIX MONTH EXrENSION (JOHN ROMERO)
13. CIP PROJECT #878B - RODEO ROAD MEDIAN LANDSCAPING PROJECT
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW

MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000
(ERIC MARtINEZ)
• REQUEST FOR APPROVAl OF A RESOlUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE RODEO ROAD

MEDIANlANDSCAPING PROJECT FUNDED FROM THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND
REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PORJECT AGREEMENT WITH
THE NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (COUNCILOR TRUJILLO) (ERIC
MARTINEZ) .
DISCUSSION
14. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.1 WITH·ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY

PARTNERSWHO WILL ADMINISTER AND SCHEDULE SIX TO EIGHT MEETINGS FOR THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ROUNDTABLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,950 INCLUSIVE OF NMGRT
(fED SWISHER)
Public WorkslClP & Land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 7
546
The Committee agreed that this item was incorrectly noticed and no action was taken,
15. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ARTS AND CRAFTS SHOWS TO
BE HELD IN THE PLAZA SPACE BElWEEN CITY HALL AND THE SANTA FE COMMUNITY
CONVENllON CENTER; AND ESTABLISHING APPLICABLE POLICIES (COUNCILOR CHAVEZ)
(JEANNE PRICE) POSTPONED AT 05126109 PWC IIEEnNG
Councilor Chavez was not present to speak to this request
16, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 144.3(1) SFCC 1987
REGARDING THE PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS OF PRCE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY DISTRICTS (COUNCILOR WURZBURGER) (JEANNE PRICE)
17. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTIONS 14-8.13, 14-8.16 AND
14-8.17 SFCC 1987 REGARD'NG ANNUAL WATER BUDGET, WATER RIGHTS TRANSFER
REQUIREMENTS AND WATER BANKING; CREA1'ING A NEW SECTION 14-8.13 SFCC 1987
REGARDING THE CITY WATER BUDGET, A NEW ARTICLE 25-9 SFCC 1987 REGARDING THE
CITY WA'rER BUDGET, A NEW ARTICLE 2>10 SFCC 1987 REGARDING THE CITY WATER
BANK, A NEW ARTICLE 25-11 SFCC 1987 REGARDING THE WATER RIGHTS TRANSFER
PROGRAM AND A NEW ARTICLE 25-12 SFCC 1987 REGARDING THE WATER CONSERVATION
CREDIT PROGRAM; MAKING SUCH OTHER RElATED CHANGES AS ARE NECESSARY
(COUNCILOR WURZBURGER) (DALE LYONS)
Councilor Calvert moved to postpone items 14-17 to the next Public Works Committee meeting.
Councilor Romero seconded the motion and It passed by unanimous voice vote.
18. MATTERS FROM STAFF
None,
None.
20. NEXT MEETING: JUNE 22, 2009
Public WorksIClP & Land Use COmmittee June 8, 2009 Page 8
547
21. ADJOURN
Having completed the agenda and with 00 further business to come before the Committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Approved by:
Patti J. Bushee, Chair

Submitted by:
~~/
Boaz. StenoQraPheiO--
Carl
Public WorksiCIP & land Use Committee June 8, 2009 Page 9
548
Page 1 of2
GURULE, GERALDINE A.
From: nbrodhead@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 20092:17 PM
To: GURULE, GERALDINE A.
Subject: Fwd: Request for cancellation: NWQ planning commission agenda, calendared for June 18, 2009
(for planning commission members folders 6/18/09) courtesy of gagurule....
To the members ofthe City Planning Commission:
Enclosed is a letter to Mayor Coss and the City Councilors that I would have addressed to each of you
had I had your names. I write from Warren, Connecticut. I hope you will each heed the wishes of the
many concerned citizens as described below, and vote against the Northwest Quardant and escarpment
Issues
until the project makes more practical sense.
With Kind Regards,
Nancie Brodhead
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: nbrodhead@comcast.net
To: "David Coss" <mayor@santafenm.gov>
Cc: "Christopher Calvert" <ccalvert@santafenm.gov>, "Carmichael Dominguez"
<cadominguez@santafenm.gov>, "Matthew Ortiz" <meortiz@santafenrn.gov>, "Rosemary Romero"
<r2romero@santafenm.gov>, "Rebecca Wurzburger" <rdwurzburger@santafenm.gov>, "Patti Bushee"
<pjbushee@santafenrn.gov>, "Miguel Chavez" <miguelmchavez@msn.com>, "Ron Trujillo"
<rstrujillo@santafenm.gov>, j grimm@santafenewmexican.com
Sent: Monday, June 15,2009 12:28:52 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Request for cancellation: NWQ planning commission agenda, calendared for June 18, 2009
Dear Mayor Coss,
There is a Karma associated with usurping green space at this time in history; in taking back land
granted to the city as open space, changing the zoning, and attempting to develop even a worthy project
in uneven land, on fragile escarpments, with no infrastructure, no commercial support, while creating
unsustainable expense, chaotic traffic solutions, and potential sewage nightmares, to surrounding
affordable and affordably-priced neighborhoods.
The Casa Solana, Calle Mejia, and Ridgetop Road Communities have spoken. They remain adamently
against the project as currently designed. The New Mexican Editorial Board has spoken, ("Put this
project on the back burner and turn off the gas"). The Public Works Committee has spoken, and after
inumerab1e requests to go back to the drawing board, last Monday, cast a unanimous final negative
vote.
We, the public are shocked that in an economy wherein city jobs are cut back, salaries and pensions are
threatened, services are cut,... $880,000 could be found to purchase land in the Quadrant (once given for
free to the Santa Fe School Board) by you and the city councilors, from unclear back pockets without
adequate public input.
06/18/2009 549
Page 2 of2
Relocate this worthy housing and community project.
Develop the Northwest Quadrant pedestrian and bicycle trails; connect them to the city network of trails;
and PRESERVE THIS TREASURED LAND deeded long ago to the city for use as open space,
as OPEN SPACE. The monies are in place from the Parks Bond issue. Save the Northwest Quadrant
Land for the perpetual enjoyment of all citizens of Santa Fe, AS THE ORIGINAL GRANT
INTENDED.
Redesign and relocate the NWQ housing and community project to an area that has appropriate
infrastructure and commercial support in place, that will cost much less and be more practical for all.
Perhaps even to the proposed to-be-redesigned St. Michael's area that has proper infrastructure and
commercial and educational support currently in place, as suggested and published in an Op Ed article in
the New Mexican by Rick Martinez March 28,2009.
The June 18th calendered agenda to approve this project may no longer even be legal after being voted
down by the Public Works Committee. It should be immediately cancelled. Any further promotion of
the NWQ housing and community project as it now stands by the city Councilors can only be deemed
self -aggrandizement and misuse of public trust, desires, and funds.
Please cancel the currently calendered NWQ planning commission agenda for June 18,2009.
Please put the insurmountable issues in perspective and re-zone the land in the NWQ back to
open space. All Santa Feans will thank you and each councilor, and You, and Each Member of the
City Council will go down in history as a preservationist-minded group of individuals who
reconsidered a too costly development project, (ideal as it may have seemed),
and preserved an extraordinary land grant for the betterment and enjoyment of ALL SANTA
FEANS and generations of Santa Feans to come.
Nancie Brodhead
(860 868-2996)
06/18/2009 550
Myth: The Northwest Quadrant is a 'sneaky land deal - a developer give-away.
Truth: No developer has been pre-selected for this project. The process of selection will take place sometime in the future, after
the approval of the Master Plan and when the economy has improved to an extent that the project will be financially feasible. At that
time, the City of Santa Fe will issue a public Request For Proposals and Qualifications (RFOIRFP) to select the most qualified Master
Developer to develop the Master Plan as outlined in the Master Plan and Design Standards. This public procurement will take place after
the Master Plan has been approved. The City can decide whether to lease or sell all or portions of the land to the Master Developer for
sale or lease to individual property owners. This type of public-private partnership was the same system used in developing the Railyard,
with tremendous public oversight.
Myth: Traffic from the Northwest Quadrant development will destroy al1 existing neighborhood.
Truth: The primary traffic access point to NM 599 and the rest of Santa Fe from the Northwest Quadrant development will be Ridgetop
Road. Traffic from this development will not pass through Camino de las Crucitas. The development will connect to Camino de los
Montoyas for emergency fire and police purposes, thereby protecting Casa Solana from additional traffic.
Myth: The project doesn't make sense from a financial perspective; it's financially infeasible.
Truth: The implementation of any project of this size and complexity at this moment, in an extremely depressed economic market,
would not be possible. However, this is a perfect time for the City to be Master Planning such a project, in order to be prepared for when
the market improves. The Master Plan represents thousands of hours of input and effort from individuals throughout the community.
Adopting of the plan would represent the outcome of all that work and the outcome which is a responsible, respectful, forward-thinking
plan and offers a thoughtfully conceived development for all Santa Feans to live, work and play. The project will be paid from the sale of
homes and additional financing as arranged by the Developer. The Master Developer will be responsible for financing the entirety of the
project.
Myth: The Northwest Quadrant development is all affordable housing and will become the new 'barrio'.
Truth: The Northwest Quadrant development will actually be a balanced mix of entry level housing, step-up (middle income) housing
and market housing. The entry level housing will meet the City's Santa Fe Homes Program ordinance and is available to individuals
earning up to 100% of AMI (Area Median Income); the step-up housing (priced at $242,000 - $310,000) is intended to meet market
demand for this type of home; and the market rate housing ranges from $350,000 to $760,000. There will be an equitable mix of housing
types and pricing ranges integrated throughout all areas of the development.
Myth: The sewer lines the Northwest Quadrant is connecting to are not big enough and the project will cause
sewer backups in adjacent neighborhoods.
Truth: The Northwest Quadrant solid waste will connect to existing lines in Casa Solana, that are large enough to carry the output of
the new development. The 8" diameter line has been cleared of tree roots (this clearing of roots is a regular maintenance procedure
throughout Santa Fe) and it has been detennined by the Wastewater Division to have adequate size capacity to carry the additional
waste from the NWQ development. There is a 4 block long area where the existing lines are on a low slope, carrying the existing
neighborhoods waste. The new Northwest Quadrant development will pay to build a proper slope ir.-to that area for both the existing and
new neighborhoods.
Myth: This is the last chance to have input on this project, it will be built tomorrow.
Truth: Before the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan is constructed, the public will have multiple opportunities for input. The 2009
approvals are for a Master Plan. In the future, the public will have input into the RFQ/RFP developer selection process, as well as input
into the future development plans that must be submitted (and adopted by the City Council?) prior to each phase of this project. In
addition, the Design Review Committee (NWQ-DRC) will be comprised of professionals and members of the community and will ensure
adherence to the vision of the project and the design standards.
NORTHWEST MASTER SIX MYTHS

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop . Suby Bowden + Assoc. - Bohannan Huston JUNE 18 2009
Exh;bJ 2f
551
552
b.ucas Cruse presented the staff report included in Exhibit "4."
Staff recommends approval sUbject to the following conditions:

1. Conditions Summary Table
2. Fire Department Marshall conditions
3. SC9.!.id Waste Division conditions
4. TeCf1nical Review Division - City Engineer memorandum
5. Technjcal Review Division - Landscape Review memorandum
\
Public Heari~
\
Bill Kleinschmidt~1600Rio Grande, Albuqeruqe, was swor. . He presented the
bUilding addition a~a"'the is an amended site plan to add a bement that is the same
footprint size. There "11 be no impacts to parking or othe ite elements due to this
addition.
The
Questions
ot impact parking.
Mr. Cruse explained that the original ,elopment plan included more than enough
parking so that this does not push th ~r the limit.
Commissioner Armijo asked the s are foohil.ge.
Mr. Cruse reviewed the square ootages of e~ddition.

\
Commissioner Armijo aske If this is office space. \ .

'\
Mr. Kleinschmidt replied es. '~
Commissioner Armijo sked if the generator would be 10Ud~

''\
Mr. Cruse stated t t it is only for emergency use.
Commissioner onzales asked how that generator would be powere
Mr. Kleinsc idt replied natural gas, although he is not sure how the fuel ill be
delivered They are still working on the design and what the equipment will . He
confirm ti that they would not use diesel.
Co missioner Lopez moved approval of Case #M-2008-41 with staff conditio s,

C mmissioner Hughes seconded the motion which passed by unanimous voic
ote.
G. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
1. Informational Study Session - Presentation and discussion of the

Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. (Director, Office of Affordable Housing,
Kathy McCormick, Housing Special Projects Manager, Lee DePietro, Master
City of Santa Fe 5
Planning Commission Minutes: December 4, 2008
553
Planner, Claudia Meyer-Horn, Design Workshop and Architect, Suby
Bowden, Suby Bowden & Associates)
Northwest Quadrant Study Session Memorandum dated November 19, 2008 is

Lessons Learned from Tierra Contenta dated December 4, 2008 is incorporated

herewith to these minutes as Exhibit "5(A)."
Proposed Variances for the Northwest Quadrant are incorporated herewith to these
minutes as Exhibit "5(B)."
Financing Mechanisms are incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit "5(C)."
Kathy McCormick, Director, introduced her team of Claudia Horn, Lee DePietro and
Suby Bowden. Ms. McCormick presented the staff report included in Exhibit "5." She
reviewed the lessons learned from Tierra Contenta included in Exhibit "5(A)."
Chair O'Reilly asked how the unit mix will be adjusted to pay for the infrastructure.
Ms. McCormick said they may defer payment for a couple of years with some financing
options. They are looking for lots of grants and loans. There will be a conservation
easement for 70% open space.
Chair O'Reilly asked if the city will be a joint owner.
Ms. McCormick said the intent is to select a master developer and step aside. She said
this would most likely be a non-profit organization, although there are some for profit
developers that have expressed interest. She said a foundation or city support will be
needed.
Chair O'Reilly said it sounds like they may be collecting information and handing it off to
the developer. He thought it might be easier to get funds if the City is a partner. He
hopes the City helps as much as possible.
Ms. McCormick wanted to be clear that cities do not make good developers, so it would
be better to work in partnership.
Chair O'Reilly asked about the commercial portion and if that came second.
Ms. McCormick explained that it could be an affordable lease space that the City
underwrites to allow these small businesses to expand. They have talked to Rancho
Viejo and Aldea to see how they handled this. She added that the RFP will come back
saying this is what we need upfront to meet the goals set out. She explained that the
lots will be sold to developers scattered and not by tracts.
Chair O'Reilly asked what the driving force is behind that idea.
Ms. McCormick explained that it is for a mix of look.
Chair O'Reilly thought that could be established through the design standards.
City of Santa Fe 6
554
Suby Bowden stated that they met with a group of developers including Rancho Viejo,
Bruce Thompson, Sage Contruction, Bruce Geiss, and others. In Tierra Contenta when
a developer takes a track it is in blocks. The intent is that it will appear the area has
grown over time. The developers said if the pads are ready they did not feel the cost
would be different.
Ms. Bowden discussed the proposed variances included in Exhibit "5(A)."
Commissioner Hughes asked what the net open space in acres is.
Ms. Horn replied 372 acres.
Ms. Bowden continued reviewing the variances.
Chair O'Reilly asked if it is their interpretation that you cannot cross arroyos. He said
that has only recently been interpreted that way. He suggested an alternate road
standard to avoid this variance.
Ms. Bowden continued reviewing the variances.
Chair O'Reilly asked if the building materials would have to be new standards.
Ms. Bowden explained that standards could be submitted and would need to be
addressed.
Ms. Baer reported that Yolanda Cortez said she is open to consider all sorts of building
materials. She said if they review the materials beforehand staff could pre-approve
different building techniques so they were ready to go when the building permits came in.
Commissioner Gonzales saw that sustainability is one of the goals. There is a cost
savings from faster approvals, so he asked who is working on the guidelines and if that
will create additional variances to the approval process.
Ms. Baer said there is nothing staff is working on currently.
Commissioner Gonzales asked if there is the possibility of more variances.
Ms. McCormick did not anticipate anything else. She noted that Yolanda Cortez and
Katherine Mortimer are working on how this can be moved along as quickly as possible.
Ms. Bowden agreed that is the most important item in cost.
Lee DePietro reviewed the list of water conservation measures that will be incorporated
into the HOA.
Chair O'Reilly commented that to date the city has not allowed grey water systems. He
said that is a significant cost to builders, so they may want to look closer to make sure it
is feasible.
Commissioner Lindell stated that compressed air is allowed but the evaporative coolers
are not allowed. She thought that was a trade off as compared to electricity. Many
City of Santa Fe 7
555
people in the affordable housing program do not have refrigerated air as it is too
expensive. She expressed concern with not allowing evaporative coolers.
Ms. DePietro knew there were considerable water savings and the energy cost was not
significant.
Commissioner Lindell pointed out that for that amount of money to put in refrigerated air
it is not a possibility for people. In her opinion, not allowing the other eliminates the
possibility of cooling for some people.
Commissioner Hughes agreed that there are some evaporative coolers that are good on
water use.
Ms. DePietro agreed to go back and look into this.
Commissioner Gonzales was concerned with the carbon footprint by the utility.
Commissioner Bordegaray agreed.
Claudia Horn reviewed the traffic analysis summary included in Exhibit "5."
Commissioner Bordegaray said this is an opportunity to be closer to downtown, but it will

not be. She was not pleased with the traffic connections.
Chair O'Reilly asked what the main problem is with Calle Mejia and Alamo.
Ms. Horn stated that the stacking during the morning hours is prohibitive.
Chair O'Reilly asked if there is no way to close Mejia.
Ms. Horn said they worked on various options and none were acceptable. She said it
seems it would work, but that was not deemed an option to pursue as part of the master
plan. Public Works liked option 1 or 3 due to the connectivity and they prefer option 1
as it keeps the full connectivity of all the streets.
Commissioner Hughes commented that there are lots of management things to mitigate
traffic such as only allowing bus access. He said requiring everyone to go to the
bypasses is not right for an affordable. The car drives much further than it needs to go.
Chair O'Reilly agreed as people always make a u-turn or jump the median to get where
they want to go. He said this plan needs to be reworked.
Commissioner Bordegaray questioned the estimate of 53 additional cars if they allow a

right in.
Commissioner Lindell did not understand 53 additional cars during a rush hour time
period and to avoid those 53 cars they are not allowing the intersection to be open.
People would have to go all the way around to 599 for 53 cars which seem illogical.
City of Santa Fe 8
556
Chair O'Reilly thought it was probably 53 additional cars in the peak hour because those
numbers are not enough for this kind of development.
Ms. McCormick reviewed the agreement with the school district included in Exhibit "5."
Commissioner Lindell asked if the 25 acres could be sold or developed.
Ms. McCormick replied yes.
Commissioner Lindell asked if they have to do affordable housing on their parcel.
Ms. McCormick said there is none required.
Commissioner Lindell said it appears they are purchasing 15 acres and giving away 10
acres. She said the acreage is very expensive.
Ms. McCormick said they worked on this for a year, the Council feels it is fair and the
School Board agrees.
Commissioner Lopez said they are doing the right thing and they do not want to bus the
children forever. She said finding the right school in an area where affordable homes
are is very important.
Commissioner Gonzales asked who is protecting the tax payers. He asked if the
agreement was made formally at the Council meeting and what other agreements have
been made.
Ms. McCormick said the only agreement made was with the school district because they
had to sign off on the master plan.
Commissioner Hughes pointed out that the open space can generate a lot of alternative
energy.
Ms. McCormick agreed and said they are always open and that is on the map.
Chair O'Reilly asked how many total residential units there are.
Ms. McCormick replied 478 units with an additional 15 units on the school district
property.
Chair O'Reilly questioned the mix and estimated based on the number of market units
proposing that they are talking about an average sale price of $630,000. He questioned
if this realistic based on the losses that will be incurred on the affordable units.
Ms. McCormick stated that this is based on 2007 'figures and they are trying to make
sure nothing is left out before they fully update.
Ms. DePietro said there are 188 units of 2-4 bedrooms of $455,000-740,000 and the
high end condos are roughly $1 million.
Chair O'Reilly asked if the recent council action paying $10,000 for water is included.
City of Santa Fe 9
557
Ms. DePietro said that is in the numbers.
Nicole DeJurenev, Alamo Drive, Vice President of the Neighborhood Association,

stated that there are currently 4000 cars a day coming through the neighborhood and
during the peak hours about 600 per hour with 750 houses in the neighborhood, so it is
highly unlikely that there will be only 53 more cars. In addition there is this added
commercial and destination use which is not estimated in the traffic survey. People are
outraged and they feel they are the same neighborhood as the northwest quadrant. If
they were richer they feel that the city would not be ripping their neighborhood apart.
She said they are being totally disrespected by the planners in the traffic solutions. She
said to save money running the traffic through the neighborhood is not correct. She
begged for traffic remediation. The neighbors do not want to feel that they are a
disposable neighborhood. The city needs to build proper roads to connect to downtown.
Bruce Geiss, managing agent for Santa Fe Estates, adjacent to the northwest
quadrant, said he is committed to affordable housing and knowledgeable of the
development costs in this area. The traffic engineer reviewed the study and the
solutions have been discussed and never been built due to the neighborhood opposition
and the cost. Now the project says the traffic will be on Ridgetop Road. The only
reason the connectivity is not being proposed is the cost. He said it is outside the ability
of this development to bear the cost of the connectivity and it is not a viable option
without significant measures outside the scope of the developer. The traffic impact
analysis should not make a recommendation on the cost. He recommended the traffic
engineers get together to make a joint report and the new TIA should include the
commercial development. Each phase should have a TIA update. This project
committed to participate in the fund to improve Ridgetop Road and he would like more
clarification. The Corridor studies being done and have said it is based on work being
done in the corridor studies. He added that it makes sense that the primary corridor
studies be completed so this is part of the study. In his opinion, the project is cost
challenged.
Michael Gold, 126 Pine Street, President, commented that with the purchase of the
acreage and the swap of $168,000 for the purchase of each acre is 50% more than the
going rate in that area. He does not see the rush with the hope of selling the land to the
developer to recover the cost. It seems the city should sell the property. The traffic
study was done in November and that is not a busy month. The 53 cars does not seem
correct. He does not want to see the neighborhood split like St. Francis Drive
Rick Martinez, 725 Mesilla Road, said the step up homes will not be affordable. He
commented that 13,000 homes are going in on the south side of town so there will be a
larger problem there then in the north with regards to schools. He is not sure why they
are underwriting this project.
Ms. DePietro corrected that the preliminary traffic study was done in July of 2007 and
then it was expanded to look at another five intersections presented to Public Works in
May 2008. They were then asked to expand looking at the mixed use and commercial
which was completed October 2008 and once that is reviewed and approved it will be
published.
H. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City of Santa Fe 10
558
City of Santa Fe, Nevv Mexico 200 Lincoln Avenue, P.O. Box 909, Santa Fe, N.M. 87504-0909
David Coss/ Mayor Councilors:
Rebecca Wurzburger, Mayor Pro Tem, Dist. 2
Patti J. Bushee, Dist. 1
RECEIVED DEC 1 Chris Calvert, Dist. 1
Rosemary Romero, Dist. 2
Miguel M. Chavez, Dist. 3
Carmichael A. Dominguez, Dist. 3
To: Planning Commission ~ Matthew E. Ortiz, Dist. 4
Ronald S. Trujillo, Dist. 4
From: Kathy McCormick, Director
Housing and Community Developm nt Department
Date: November 19,2008
Re: Northwest Quadrant Study Session
There are several purposes to be met in the study session on the Northwest Quadrant:
PURPOSE:
1. To provide the Commissioners with a thorough review of the work that has been
completed to date on the master plan;
2. To receive input from the Commissioners on emerging issues and potential
opportunities that would affect the final outcome of the master plan; and
3. To review the next steps in the master planning process.
BACKGROUND:
To date there have been approximately twenty-three meetings including four

neighborhood meetings, an ENN and three recent Public Works Committee presentations
in which the general public have been able to provide comments and input on the
proposed master plan.. In addition, non-profit housing organizations, including Tierra
Contenta, and selected, local private sector developers/builders have been interviewed to
provide input and comments on both the overall approach- including phasing of the
project- and the financial feasibility of the project.
All of the information obtained through the public process and the work with the
consultants has been incorporated for this study session. Previously, the team presented
background information on the development constraints present at the site due to the
topography and infrastructure requirements. In this session, the team will focus on the
accomplishments of securing water rights for the project, the agreement secured between
the City of Santa Fe and the SF Public Schools. review the updated traffic analysis and
requests from the Public Works Committee, provide a more in-depth look at the financial
feasibility, discuss the development options and approaches and the proposed
management structure for the project.
th
We look forward to a productive work session on December 4 .
559
PROPOSED NORTHWEST QUADRANT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2008
Table of Contents
Overall Project Goals and Principles Page 1
Housing Unit Mix Page 2
Proposed Boundary with Phasing Schedule Pages 3-4
Water Availability
Approved Water Budget Pages 5
City Council Resolution 2008-89 Pages 6-8
Proposed Conservation Measures Pages 9-10
Traffic Analysis
Louis Berger TIA Results May, 2008 Page 10
Louis Berger TIA Results October, 2008 Page 11
Road Network Options by PWC Request Page 12
Sustainability
Matrix: Environment Pages 13-23
Community
Economics
Art
Transportation
Trails, Bicycle, Public Transportation Page 24
System & Open Space
Financial Feasibility
Pro-forma Roll-up Page 25
Square Footage Costs Page 26
Development Scenarios Page 27
Management Structure/draft
Homeowner's Covenants Table of Contents Pages 28-31
Santa Fe School District Participation ~Page 32-33
560
.. .
PROJECT GOALS + PRINCIPLES:
The following are specific community desires and goals which have been identified through a public process.
It is anticipated that the Northwest Quadrant:
- Will continue to make Santa Fe different, artistic and affordable so the locals will be proud to use public lands
and return to living and playing downtown;
Has positive nature-based open space values, in balance with people-based development values (not solely
"real estate" based values) with long-range perspectives into the past and into the future, as a model
sustainable community;
Creates a beautifully designed neighborhood that is similar in form to Santa Fe's historic Canyon Road and
East side with a rich variety of economic, cultural and physical experiences;
Has a thoughtful and compatible relationship with existing adjacent neighborhoods and encourages both
contemporary and traditional buildings to live compatibly side-by-side;
Has a mix of people and housing types; a place that creates many opportunities for interaction, with single
family, townhouses, compounds and multi-family for first time young buyers to retirees, singles to small
families to co-housing, estate homes to rentals, large lots to small lots... with all of these types mixed
together in neighborhoods, for an overall gross density of 2.6 to 3 units per acre over the parcel's total
acreage including open space;
Has live-work possibilities, with some areas also having mixed-use, and some areas solely having residential
(with the ability to have home occupancy businesses following existing city laws);
Has a primary purpose of producing affordable and workforce housing on this site through a Master
Developer implementing a realistic financial proforma that also encourages market rate homes and
businesses;
- Has the Master Developer providing spine infrastructure and selecting multiple home builders to develop
37% of the homes as affordable housing, 33% of the homes at workforce rates, and 30% of the homes and
businesses at market rates;
- Has the City providing water rights for the 37% affordable units and the 33% workforce units, with the Master
Developer providing water rights for the market rate units and commercial uses;
- Protects the open space through a Land Trust.
- Learns from the public-private partnerships of Tierra Contenta and the Railyards, and encourages a
Management system that supports a Master Land Developer Team to front-load costs for infrastructure of
roads, utilities, pads and parks to assure acceleration of sales and sustainability of the community as a
whole.
NORTHWEST MASTE R GOALS + PRINCIPLES

QUADRANT P LAN HOMEWORK GROUP
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc. . Bohonnon Huslon
561
f
AVERAGE HOME PRICE
AUGUST 2006
-------------------------------------------
....w«
$360,000
0::: MARKET RATE
....w RANGE: $360,000 - TSO
~
0:::
«
:a:
-------------------------------------------
150%AMI
$271,000
STEP UPMARKET
RANGE: $200,000 - $360,000
0-
~
Housing Needs Assessment Update:
0- There is a growing gap in housing priced
....
W
UJ Studio 1 Bdrm
affordable for locals and in-commuters in
this step-up matlcel range.
2 Bdrm 3 Bdrm 4 Bdrm

--------------------------------~
100% AMI INCOME RANGE 4
$125,500
Housing Needs Assessment Update:
14% of Santa Fe residents in this income
range are looking for homes.
80% AMI
INCOME RANGE 3
HoUsing Need~Assessinent UPdate: $100,500

20% of Santa Fe rlisKienis in thisineome
range are lOoking for boines.
65% AMI
$74,500
50% AMI
TRANSHIONAt' HOUSING
. (d'units)
AIVI J Adjusted Median Income
NORTHWEST MASTER HOUSING MIX

QUADRANT P LAN PUBLIC MEETII\lG
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc .. Bohannan Husion
562
\
SANTA FE
ESTATES
'.'\
.-.... ~
.<
LEGEND land Use Alea Ca!culations

f~Ftar.PIqEcl6l;u"4aq _ GenEalCcrm-.£.lwl ~ #c'E~
s...af.P_ _ """"",
_ Miledl4e
_eu_ E.<islor<g_
0<.""lO
Property""'"
1{Fll.r~
100 'fur Klod P'~

S!m!II ..~* lJse(nJgflt~e<l,
JISiliI!il!Ill Hog>Don>tr_""W.~.~
~5 ~:umDc!'.sA'f~I~';,;.", ...
la",~~~i.1l:
Ver~ lcw!:rern4y:~,l.Q/1 l~~-=
':"r».
()plmSo:!3O!!I{?.ubiC. ... P;rya"k!

SOO'fe.• .AoodPlail :--;:--.~ P~<!rdRaus.
".:-..:...:-•.. RilaeTooo..<ar
fool""'' ' ' ' '
NORTHWEST MA STER LAND USE
QUADRANT P LAN
3 563
PHASING ANALYSIS·
PHASE 1 Phase 1
Phase 1 of the _ ~ includes the nathem neighboIlIood along RidgeIql Road, • _
'*'"g the ridge lIld the inear pari<. The neighborhood _

use ....
medium low densiIy housing wiIh • neig1borhool
part< at ils on. One &iIe Ililhin the mixed use .... CQlId be the location of anew &e _10 """" Ihis part of
Sonla Fa This Phase wi be served 011 of Ridgelop Road and wiD have an emer_ access _ Camino de los
MonlrJras.
The _ is for each phase of the _ QuadlanllO oland alone as a~. Thepan:ol_ ')(' in
the " " ' _ part of the site is _ by Santa Fe putJIiC SC:hooIs and CQlId be deYelaped "'''' phase
indepEsldenl of the ...._ of the development. This parcel can be accessed direclIy 011 of camino de los
lAonto¥as.
Description Acreage Dwelling Units Squa-e Feet OweIIing UnilsIi\cre
_-
""""""'"'
.....
.... "'" ...
---
2.10 10.... 0
IJ2
-
T.1O 15
_-
0
I_
.... ... I."
-----------------------------
'0.50
....,.... ....
~Con'merQaI ~_
211.!0 OS _.56
lmdu..
11.50 15 ....
I!!:ll!!l!!!!lI
~
lmdu..(n9d~
H9l~-""
PfIts and PIuas ....,
. . . . OensttResidenlial1-t2~ TOTAl. ".50 '99 10....
low 0ensiIJ Resideotiaf J. 7 dI:Iaac
Verylowo.rMtResidenlilll.I.)f!dftJ.~
PoIb _ _
Opea Spaoe(Publio~-1
PHASE 2 ./
/" .
..."1
i
Phase 2
Phase 2 adds a second nei~ and !he 'main street' mixed-use core. The purpose is 10 conlioue kl expand on
the diver&iIy of housing types and densities of the residential neighbatlood ..... and eno:lUl'IIge dev~l of
/ i mixed.... 10 create jobs so residenls can "ellld _ in dose proximity. This Phase will conned Ridgel<lp Road 10
Camino de los Monlol'as.
//.,j peseriPlion
CommIKiII
..__ Aa~__ OweIIing Units _.__ ....§9~ Feet
3.SO 0 JUDO
Dwelling Units/Acre
Q
{ :
! ..... "'" 1-'" 85
-._----.--------_.--.-.'.-
(I 12.13
----~------_.----
.....i.. i
~.
..,.
--------------------_._-------
13
~
10.90
.,/
i lowOensityResidenlill 1I11l
... ---'"
-
New Road· Paed
! -....,-""'----~._----
Toal Covoeo6an 2.50
Cunn1IOIy Con'merQaI
I TOTAL 38." ......
_UM I
ll5illalilll lmdUseCn9d_
~ H9tOaittResidentiai n-ailllllll;ft I
MedumOensiCy ResidenIRlIl·l1iWXt
lowOentittResicSeMal'3.1d&"-
VerylowDensilrResidenliall-!~
!
Opea Spaoe(Publio · - 1
Patblll.dPmas
PHASE 3 Phase 3
._eel'_. . .
Phase 3 canp1eles !he residential wiIh the addition of the Ihinl nei~.the~· .... below the ridge and
oonlinue. build-oul of the
The very low density residential pon:els T can be deveIq>ed at .., phase as ac<eS$ is oegotialed lhrough
deveIopnents to the easl.
DeSClip1io~ ..
3.50 ......
""'. "'" 9.GO 77
----------_.. _------_._--_._---_._._--'-----
3.10 52
8.51
".32
UediuraDensqR~s'~ IIh!: ~ ~~ ~ , ._~~_
towl>eftdyRcsidetltiel 13.4) 16 559
------------._--------------------------
NewRoad . _
""''''''_- Ul 5 ,."
roalCclnnclion
_ CalMulily ComneaoI
_ _dUM TOTAl. ..... 292 ..@
_ _ Use(,;ghl_
~ H9'DensittResidenlial:1U9~
~~L~ MeciumOensttResidenfial7.120l11ae
==-_._._~ l.a.0entittA:esidentia13-70:t.J;fW
""'lAIrOertsityRe$lden.tiall-]~
~.:-J
Opea...,. (1'-
PatsaclPlazas
·-1
NORTHWEST MASTER PHASING

QUADRANT P LAN
Design Workshop' Suby Bowden + Assoc. Bohonnon Huslon
564
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
WATER AVAILABILITY
--
Current Opportunities
Status
Water Budget presented Planned to aChieve an average 0.18 afy

to Public Works on 9/8/08 per home through applied conservation
measures
Resolution dedicating Water Reduction in projected water usage,

Rights to the NWQ executed beyond dedicated water; results in additional
on 1016/08 water for the city's affordable housing credit pool
Water Conservation Measures To achieve an average 0.15 afy per

included as part of proposed home through additional applied
Water Budget conservation measures including storm
water recapture and reuse and greywater
capture and reuse
565
,
To: Public Works Committee

Re: NW Quadrant Water Issues
Presented at the September 8, 2008 meeting of the Public Works Committee meeting.
Staff and consultants have been working with the Engineering Section of the Sangre de Cristo Water
Division on the site water budget for the NW Quadrant development.
The main reason for preparing a site water bUdget at this point in the process is to identify the new water
resources that will be needed to supply this project, which in turn is used to determine the number of water
rights that are necessary for the project. The resolution on the agenda this evening suggests that 131.9 afy
of existing, City owned, but un-dedicated water rights be allocated to this project to support the progressive
affordable housing priorities and other green construction initiatives.
The following summary provides the estimated water demand under 'standard' Water Division calculations:
Non-Residential (restaurants, commercial, office) 31.60 afy

Residential
Smallest lot size (556 units) 111.20 afy
Middle lot size (201 units) 50.25 afy
Largest lot size (18 units) 5.76 afy
Subtotal (775 units) 167.21 afy
Total 205.51 afy

Site Water Budget (including 10% Line Loss) 226.06 afy
Staff recommends that the NW Quad Master Developer be required to install stormwater capture and reuse,
greywater capture and reuse and ultra-low flow plumbing and appliances in the development to lower the
site water budget for the project. The non-residential budget may be reduced by 10-20% if such mandates
are included in the Master Developer RFP.
Staff also recommends that the 280 units of Affordable Housing be designed and constructed to have a .18
afy/unit average site water budget, and that the City allocate 55.44 afy (50.40 afy + 10% Line Loss) of
existing, City-owned but un-dedicated water rights for this portion of the site water budget.
Staff also recommends that the 250 units of Workforce Housing be designed and constructed to have a .18
afy/unit average site water budget, and that the City allocate 49.50 afy (45.00 sfy + 10% Line Loss) of
existing, City-owned but un-dedicated water rights for this portion of the site water budget, and that the
Master Developer be required to reimburse the City $10,000 per unit for those water rights ($2.5M).
Staff finally recommends that approximately 13.20 afy (12.00 afy + 10% Line Loss) be ~lIocated to the
public amenities (landscaping, parks, pUblic or educational facilities) using the highest and best water
technology and practices.
These three amounts total 118.14 afy.
The NW Quad Master Developer will be responsible for the acquisition, transfer and permitting (under the
Water Right Transfer Ordinance or other applicable ordinance) for the balance of any water needed,
including for reduced site water budgets that are approved by the Engineering Section, if the requested
variance is approved (allowing the City, as Master Plan applicant, to move the water right obligation to the
Master Developer).
Harwood Consulting, PC: pwc { NW Quad Water Presentation: 20080908
566
I CITY OF SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
3
4
9
10
11 DESIGNATING WATER RIGHTS FOR THE CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT PROJECT.
12
13 WHEREAS, according to the city's Water Right Transfer Program, certain new
14 developments are required to transfer water rights to the city's Buckman well field offset water
IS right portfolio; and
16 WHEREAS, city staff has identified a 131.9 acre feet per year water right in its
I? Buckman well field offset water right portfolio that has been historically used by the city but
18 which has not been specifically allocated for a purpose; and
19 WHEREAS, 37% ofthe homes in the Northwest Quadrant Project will meet the Santa
20 Fe Homes Program requirements providing housing for homebuyers earning less than 120% of
21 the area median income and in addition, 33% of homes will be affordable to homebuyers earning
22 120% to 150% of the area median income providing much needed step up housing.
23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE
24 CITY OF SANTA FE that:
25 (I) Up to 118.l4 acre feet per year of the 131.9 acre feet per year of the city owned
567
1 water rights in the Buckman well field offset portfolio be designated for use in the Northwest
2 Quadrant project for public amenities (landscaping, parks, public or educational facilities except
3 those educational facilities owned, operated or under the authority of the Santa Fe public school
4 district) and for housing meeting the Santa Fe Homes Program requirements and step up housing
5 • housing for moderate income homebuyers who have at least one person employed full-time in
6 Santa Fe with a household income between 120% and 150% of area median income.
7 (2) The balance of the 131.9 acre feet per year not needed for the Northwest
8 Quadrant project, 13.76 acre feet per year, shal.l be designated to the city's affordable housing
9 credit pool.
10 (3) Each unit ofstep up housing described in paragraph (l) will pay a fee based upon
11 the market rate for acquisition of water rights up to $10,000 to the city for the water. Revenues
12 generated from the payment of this fee will be used to acquire additional water rights that may be
13 allocated to other affordable housing projects that produce homes meeting the Santa Fe Homes
14 Program requirements or as directed by the governing body for other affordable housing needs.
15 (4) The remainder of the city of Santa Fe's water rights portfolio, (the city's
16 reservoirs, the city's well field, the Buckman well field, the San Juan/Chama or Jicarilla rights)
17 which make up the city's water system shall not be allocated to a specific project.
18 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 6th day ofOctober, 2008.
19
20
22 ATfEST:
23
24
25
568
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Jp/caIjpmb/2008 res/water rights designated for NWQ with amendments
569
~~~~~:~~t~U;~~~~t~~sf;:'~;e~N -=-~_~ r ---~ _~!.====i~~~1-j/1~Q~--· ~
~~~~;yS;~a~~~~~i~~~~;*devices ~or resi=res E=-~=~~-~ __ -- ---- ~_~_~. _ ~I-~_ =~-=--_ .__ _ .
~~:~o~:~~~:~s~:~-~=~~:~~hc~~~~a\~~~;~~~en~~~;h~i~~~e) f -=-_§=_ ~ ==~=-:~t ~-===
;;~~~;!:/~~~~~~~~~ondJits may ~used E--~=l~==- _=---t---=~- ~~=~ ~=i~__-- -----J---=~+=__=~.==_
Dish~shers!9_.use no more than thirteen (13) gallons per 10ad_. L~___ -----1---- x - - - -.. -j-.. .- . -.-.--... ----~=r---------
High energy washing machine (uses less than 25 gallons per load) J__ .~ l.~~ ~ . __ ~~-----j-------_+_--~---
Toilets shall be either dual-flush models or be designed to use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush x ' i i
piOPo~s~ngsdevlceEon~tlonmeasJ:~~:~:::' --i==--:l=:=~]~~-==
~*:~:~::~~~~~:~~~~h~~~:~n~~~~~~~dence t:=- t-- --------j - ~ -- --t. 1+----,
;~~~~:~ndirri9.ation~g r---=- -~f -===t=~--=~ =- -~~ :=~--f -- E- ---~
co<?.~ers
Evaporative are prohibited; however compressed air conditioners are allowed~ ~_______ x ~-_
Storm water mgmt/rain barrellharvesti~ I==~ _-y __~~
Gray water, recap=r bathrooi faucets--:r::=er heads for 10~C~~~: -_._-=F.~~==- _x
ou""'OCr-
__
~_. _
I
~__==-.---=~ _~~
_
Proposed water using devices for commercial

Energy Star Appliances where applicable*
Low Flow faucets (to be motion activated)
~
-_.-_.--j-
Water heater.s shall have a recirculation syste1m and a ti~~ __
i
L_
==_.1 __--
=t _-1--
I
__~
C--~---- x
Ix_.
Indoor
__1X..j..:.x-=---_
~_--I
_
.__j ~~~----,---
--===
=:=:~~-c~
I I
I
Hot water pipes are insulated t L._=T _ I

*Toilets shall be either dual-flush models or be designed to use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush____ x
Solar hot water conduits may be used:J l=-_=r=
x _.
x
!
.____
---T-
-.--t"---_+_-
__._ ~~-=
_ ,
_
*Dishwashfs, where ~PPlicable, ;0 use no more than 13 gallo_ns per load
Proposed water savings devices/conservation measures for commercial

Storm Mgmt -Rain barrel/harvesting
I I
._ ~
-. - - -
.__~_+--
-- .-._-
x _
E---=I
I'~
Xeric Landscapes
Only drip or underground irrigation allowed
Non-native grasses are prohibited
- ----f----_ x
x
_~
.....Q
570
..::....:..:.~:...::.=--=--=...:.....:...::..:r~~~___=_;-~------+_---__+_In-d-o-o-r _j 1
Outdoor - - " - Page2-'
± ------- -----
.-'--=--'::....:....::--r-:-..::.:..:..c'--_--r""-'-----=--....:....:....:..r----'--=----=-----'--'--=-;-:-
EvapomtToo,ers I
Gray water recapture from bathroom faucets used for irrigation
prohibiteitever rPressed~,nersare aF~~-_~i ~-

----- x
x ± I~~~~~=-~--~_
Note: There is a preferred for non-water consuming businesses as follows: Business" me§ns a._
I
"Non-Wat~~~_~_nsuming ---=t---.-.---------l-3
I
business that does not use potable water in the manufacturing or provision of any products or services in the normal
course of business, except as required for bathroom facilities and drinking water for the -convenience of employees· and
customers of the business. Non-wat~..r:..£onslming businesses include, withoutlTmita1~~~~~~ following types of E.~_~lnesse~~_I::=___=_~=
------r-------------r-----
u_,_-=-==-
1. Dry goods retail establis~ __~ r .
.~- - ---.----L-- ----J-~._-----J-------,
~:~~:r~~;::c::veLm::t:s~s;- --~-___ ~_---=-I===:~=~==+--_= __ ~----~-=±_="=~==
~.---t=-m---_.-~ -
2 ___
5. Educ.ational facilities - - - - - - - - - ------1----------
1~~abriCatiOnfaCili::~~;; .t=-=~-- - -~---+-===-±-~--
-r-----
8. warehoCe and-storage facilitiet

and
Proposed water using devices for parks, streetscapes and open s p a c e .

.
-=---~---~~-- ,- _~-~-=---~t-
Indoor_ _ Outd_oor ._~t= _
_
=C:=r~~-'-L~ E~ ---1- =l- ~-=-~--~._--==--- -==-=---+=--=,
I Drip
Proposed water savings deVicer,conservation measures for parks, street~cap~~_~.!lE open space _ ± _
~~r~o~~~:t~~:~~--·----I---~ I (=---f -_--n--=f -·-F--- ~ --- .-------t l
6 571
---- I --
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
i--
=r
-± --J
-- i--
--
Current
Status
-
--1 - - -1 - - - - - -
Opportunities
~c- -- -- ~~
1st TIA Completed Five different traffic scenarios were presented
--- - -
May, 2008 Staff was asked to scale the scenarios back to three
------
---- 758 residential units
I -r-------
an-d add the proposed commercial square footage for analysis
2nd TIA Completed Three different traffic scenarios were presented

October, 2008 with the full build out including the commercial space
758 residential units Staff was asked to present options for restricting
- - - - - pius 70,000 square traffic through Casa Solana from Crucitas
feet of commercial
Options· Road
-=t=+--
Three scenarios were presented to the PWC
Network showing the pros and cons of different road networks
--
Presented to PWC All options will impact traffic from residents and visitors
on 10/27/08 outside of the NWQ.
572
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS:
SCENARIO· IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2013

Therefore, this altemative is considered a viable option for access to the Northwest Quadrant Development, with the fol-
Add an eastbound right-tum lane to the Eastbound Ridgetop Intersection, and a westbound right-tum
Add a left tum lane on the bridge for the Southbound direction at the Eastbound Ridgetop Intersection
Signalize and interconnect the ramp intersections as they become warranted.
3 ACCESSES: RIDGETOP ROAD, MONOTYAS, CALLE MEJIA

B The Calle Mejia access location is expected to experience storage blocking from the eastbound queues in the implemen-
tation year, which would make accessing SI. Francis Drive from Calle Mejia very difficult, if not impossible during the criti-
cal peak periods. Therefore, this altemative is not considered a viable option without significant measures that would be
outside the responsibility for the developer to construct for access to the Northwest Quadrant Development and should
not be considered until these measures are implemented.
c 2 ACCESSES: RIDGETOP ROAD, CALLE MEJIA

The Calle Mejia access location is expected to experience storage blocking from the eastbound queues in the implemen-
tation year, which would make accessing SI. Francis Drive from Calle Mejia very difficult, if not impossible during the criti-
cal peak periods. Therefore, this alternative is not considered a viable option without significant measures that would be
outside the responsibility for the developer to construct for access to the Northwest Quadrant Development and should
not be considered until these measures are implemented.
o 2 ACCESSES: RIDGETOP ROAD, MONTOYAS (R-OUT, L·IN)

mentation years with some mitigation measures implemented, and the Camino de los Montoyas & NM 599 intersection is
planned to be converted to agrade separated intersection in the future which would greatly enhance tralftc operations at
this location. Therefore, this altemative is considered a viable option for access to the Northwest Quadrant Development,
Provide a westbound right-tum lane to the Westbound Ridgetop Interchange location.
Allow right-tums from northbound Camino de los Montoyas and left-turns from southbound Camino de los
2 ACCESSES: RIDGETOP ROAD, MONTOYAS (FULL ACCESS)

E The Ridgetop Road Interchange access location is expected to operate at acceptable LOS in both the current and imple-
mentation years with no mitigation measures required. This altemative is considered a viable option for access to the
o h.. p a:~!;.~., In!~~!:":>C'~:,:'n
:::::) rigi"ti :',!, ,. ~~:! in :!'"';"~IS":!Cli::::-r1

QUADRANT P LAN OPEN HOUSE
Design Workshop . Suby Bowden + Assoc . Bohonnon Husion
573
,0
TRAFfiC IMPACT ANALYSIS DRAFT OCTOBER 2008
SCENARIO· IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2013 RESIDENTIAL + COMMERCIAL

Therefore. this altemative is considered a viable option for access to the Northwest Quadrant Development, with the fol-
Add an eastbound right-tum lane to the Eastbound Ridgetop Intersection, and a westbound right-tum
Add a left tum lane on the bridge for the Southbound direction at the Eastbound Ridgetop Intersection
Signalize and interconnect the ramp intersections as they become warranted.
Add a right tum lane for the Northbound direction at the Eastbound Ridgetop Intersection.
o 2 ACCESSES: RIDGETOP ROAD, MONTOYAS (FULL-IN, R-OUT)

The Ridgelop Road Interchange access location is expected to operate at acceptable LOS in both the current and imple-
mentation years with some mitigation measures implemented. and the Camino de los Montoyas & NM 599 intersection is
planned to be converted to a grade separated intersection in the future which would greatly enhance traffIC operations at
this location. Theretore, this alternative is considered a viable option for access to the Northwest Quadrant Development,
Provide a westbound right-tum lane to the Westbound Ridgetop Interchange location.
Allow right-turns from northbound Camino de los Montoyas and left-turns from southbound Camino de los
Add a right turn lane for the Northbound direction at the Eastbound Ridgetop Intersection.
E 2 ACCESSES: RIDGETOP ROAD, MONTOYAS (FULL ACCESS)

mentation years with no mitigation measures required. This alternative is considered a viable option for access to the
Provide 8 stop controned T-intersection at the proposed access location with Camino de los Montoyas

QUADRANT P LAN PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Design Workshop . Suby Bowden + Assoc. . Bohannon Huslon
574
II
TRAFFIC
OPTIONS· ROAD NETWORK
1 NM 599 RESTRICTED INTERSECTION FROM NWQ TO MONTOYAS (Scenario D)
PRO CON
Easy to implement. Easier for drivers to ignore and sml tum right from
NORTHWEST Montoyas into the NWQ.
Maintains historic access from Montoyas into town
QUADRANT using Crucilas or other roads in Casa Solana. Will need enforcement to discourage improper
turns.
Provides direct access for emergency vehicles to
Casa Solana and surrounding areas. If the right in is allowed in the future, traffIC will
increase into Casa Solana -estimated to be 53
Provides multiple ingress and egress points to and additional cars in the pm.
from the NWQ (Ridgetop, 599, Montoyas, Buck-
man, Paseo de VISIas and Crucitas.
Allows access to Buckman.
CUL·DE·SAC ON CRUCITAS EAST + SOUTH OF ORTIZ DOG PARK

2 PRO CON
Keeps NWQ and other city I county traffic coming It is unknown how traffic will flow from Paseo de
from Montoyas/599 out of Casa Solana. Vistas or Buckman to SI. Francis.
Households north and west of the dog park would Design that would still allow for emergency vehicle
still have access to the Dog Park via Buckman or access is unknown.
Paseo de VlSlas.
Unclear effect on emergency responders in the
area that have traditionally used Crucitas to qUickly
get to 599.
Residents in Santa Fe would have to access the
transfer station using alternative routes.
Access to the 25-acre school district property from
Crucitas/Montoyas would be compromised.
CUL·DE·SAC ON MONTOYAS SOUTH OF RIDGE

3 PRO CON
Keeps NWQ traffic out of Casa Solana Loss of access for emergency workers in Casa
Solana directly to 599 from Montoyas.
Allows access to school district property from
Montoyas Design that would still allow for emergency vehicle
access is unknown.
Casa Solana Residents could get to Buckman,
then 599 TraffIC could sml now from Buckman to Crucitas
throug hCasa Solana.
Increases traffic from NWQ to 599 and Ridgetop.
NORTHWEST MASTER ROAD NETWORK OPTIONS

QUADRANT p'··t A N PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Design Workshop . Suby Bowden + Assoc. . Bohannon Huston
575
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan sustainabilily matrix DRAFT September.2007
Guiding Principles Goals Guideline

\-----
Preserving and enhancing existing natural Preserve Existing Natural Resources: Preserve Cultural Resources: Meet or exceed city and state
resources and site elements will dictate requirements for mitigating archaeological sites and cultural resources.
community form and identity. Incorporate educational information and/or protection plans for cultural
----1-----.---.----. ··--·--·------i~;~~r~:~~:t~~::eo~:~os:a~r::~~::t least 50% of land a-reafor-open-
~-----_..-...-.-.----..-.---- I ~t~C;~~:~~i~~:n~~:~~~ites-for-deveiopmenltOpres-erve existingmajor

I Idrainage arroyos, 100 yr. FEMA flood zones, natural resources and
--------- -+--. . . . . . Iexisting vegetation_~~_~...9!ea!~!_ext~I!!~~~~..: .__
I ILand Based Development: Use natural topography as a driver for the
___.. -..-------.----------------.----------1---------- ..-.-.------.-.- .. _ . ... _. ~ design of the development. . _________________. .__,
i ICompact Development: Achieve average minimum densities to meet or
I lexceed: 6 units per acre for detached/semi-detached; 10 units for town
-.------------------------------J- --------. i ~~~~~~:~~t~ ;;~;u~~:~~~~~imize disturbed area of siteifsite ·i5-----

Igreater than .33 acres by platting a building envelope and installing
Iconstruction fencing along the perimeter of the envelope (see figure xx-
__ ._ __. . (X). . ~ .... .. _
_. " ... T~soil Reuse: Sa~_.!.~.soil_ dulj,n_9 construction andreu~E:l, _
~~~~:i~~;~~~:~tp~~~i~~ti~~~:~~~i~:~~~:~o~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~:~:.~~es~
______.____________________
--+
____
I _.
1 ._______
._.
m ..
IEnvironmental Assessment: Conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site
.
,:I:~e;osr:~~~:~~natd::~~~a~:::~::.mentsof required, the~_~~~vid~~__

----1 ~ Erosion Control: Install erosion control fencing to prevent erosion from
1 site construction. Implement EPA's Best Management Practices for
---------------------- J 'I
---
erosion and sedimentation control during construction.
-----------_ ... _._~--.--_ .._--;-_.-.-._---------. -.---.--.
IProtect the Night Sky: Lighting standards meet Illuminating Engineering
Society of North Am.erica (IESNA) standards and .t.he City'S. and the
I New Mexico Night Sky Ordinance.
I
Enhance Existing Natural Resources: ---- Revegetate Disturbed Areas:-Develop -a-i-evegetatlonand--rese-eding
. program with native plants to restore post-development disturbed areas
~
and minimize erosion .
.- - - Provide Wildlife Corridors and Habitat: Enhance existing drainageways
With native planting for wildlife habitat. Provide contiguous areas of
open space habitat for free movement of wildlife. Increase the number
Iand distribution of indicator species through habitat enhancement.
Resource Management: Resource Management Plan: Dedicate open space areas to a

conservation trust for preservation and management. Develop an urban
wildlife management plan to protect the flora and fauna of the site for
_ _ _ _-+I""e:..:..:nvironmental benefits and aesthetic enjoyment.
Natural Resource Education: Develop resident handbooks and user guides that inform them about
their environment.
Education Program: Provide educational signage and/or instructional I

programs to educate the public about natural resources.
576
, ...
Plants: Provide a list of permitted and prohibited species and cultivars
I(see figure xx-xx).
- -
Public Space: Preserve major amounts of open-space IOpen Space Area: The area of contiguous open space-with trail
Providing public space and access with an
integrated trail system will bring value to the and parkland and include an interconnecting trail system iconnections as a percentage of the entire development meets or
entire City and contribute to a high quality of life exceeds 50%.
Nu.niMol!L ..._----- - - -
Quality of Public Space: Provide a range of different active and passive
open space zones that meets the City's park dedication requirements at
a minimum: natural preserve, enhanced open space, pocket parks,
community parks and plazas (see figure xx-xx).
-_. __._- --
Access to Public Space:
._----- . -~--_.- ~. __. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------
Pedestrian + Bike Trail System: Provide an interconnected trail system
and improv the existing system that connects to pUblic spaces,
Iconnects the communities within the Northwest Quadrant, and connects
! to major trail systems on the perimeter of the property (see figure xx-
----~-.----._-~ ---F---··---------------·--------~X).-.-. .------.--------.-.---.--~

Limit Block Perimeters: Block perimeters should not exceed 1000 ft
----------------------.. . .----. ------·---·-·--·----~--l~~::;'~~~;h~'le~g;:,~;:1:;~;\S~:.'~::"b~~:de"';'"': b;oyOi,,;--

and horses. Post signs and provide barriers to prevent the use of ATVs
and motorized vehicles on the trail system.
577
~ )"
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan sustainability matrix DRAFT September.2007
~
Parks: ark Size: .5 acres of park space per 200 units or .5 acres of park
1------___ __.___________ spac~r 100 residents -whichever is grea~~:- .
Park Location: all residents should be within 1/4 mile walking radius of a
1----:------ -.---- --.--- j park connected by a trail s~~"!1.:-___________ I
Sustainable and green building implementation Green Building: Construct a minimum of 80% of Funding Sources: Provide information on, and assistance in, obtaining
will minimize the community's impact to the buildings in each phase that follow the Build Green grants and funding to help subsidize green building.
environment and enhance residents' sense of Santa Fe (gold/silver) standards and are Energy Star
pride in their community. certified.
_____________ ~ ._.u ~ _ . _
Energy conservation and gellcla"'luli YVIII IIIQr\'C II-IIC'I~Y 1II\.1C'fJC'IIUC'II\ooC. VllllLC CIICI~Y Cllll",lClll UC~I~II, II Q~~IVw VVIQI '-"W~:)I~::j1I. '-'Irwin .... UllUIlI~ LV IIICl"-'!;;; Ul'l;; ~lwC;H'C';)l t..l~w VI
the community less reliant on the grid and incorporate sustainable features that will make the ipassive solar heating and cooling (see figure xx-xx).
I
contribute to a sustainable community identify. development independent from, or at least less reliant
~~XiS~_9 high energ_~ co:~~ming technologies.
I
__ 'I'_~. . ~_
Passive Solar Mitigation: Select drought tolerant trees and plants that
are appropriate to the site's soils and microclimate and locate to provide
shading in the summer and allow for heat gain in the winter (see figure
lxx-xx) .
..
I
578
15
!Renewable Energy: Utilize solar preheat, ground source heat pump and
other energy efficient strategies for at least 10% of building energy use.
------- -+- I - - - - - . - - - - -...-------.-.....----.----
Green Energy: Subscribe to centralized electric systems with at least
1 . I .... . . 90% renewable energy s o u r c e s . ._ _.._ _.
Energy Efficiency: Percent reduction of energy Efficient Lighing: Install flourescent or LED lights for 80% of all interior
consumption per capita in btu/ day from baseline lights. Install daylight sensors or timers on all outdoor lighting.
--.-- ---1-----_....._.._._.._._-------------. I .-.--. . ----.----,
Minimize Light Pollution: Minimize light pollution on all exterior fixtures
by following Santa Fe's Night Skys Ordinance.
I
--.----.
f - -...... - . - - - - - - - - - - - - -
......._ __
--
_._.____
t----- . - .-.
I --.--
__ _ ..
-----·-----------·----·-·-~ppliances:Install high=efffCTency Energy Star-Rated a:pp~ances-a·nd--·
-----.--~-.-
..
1;lectrical equipment to reduce energy needs and meet the required
ener y budget. -.. _- -- -------
Energy BUdget: Establish an energy budget for the project for less than
IASHRAE 90.1 or loca~~:erg~ codes - whicheve.r i~ more ~~ing_~~t~_

Reduce heat island effect: No net increase of localized IGreen Roofs: Use Energy Star-compliant and high-emissive roofing
ambient air temperatures pre and post development. land/or, install a "green" (vegetated) roof for at least 50 percent of the
lI !roof area; or a combination of high-albedo and vegetated roof covering
.-- -. . . .--.-- --1----..----.---.. -.-.-.. -.- -··-··-------·-·-·----f~~:~~c;~~~Lt~~[a~~f :~~~lant5tiaaelreest·o shade5-0%·OfT,ardscape
-..----. .---t.----.-.. ----..-.- -. -.--.-.------.---.-... .. -..-J§~~----.------- . - . - - . - - - - - -....-..--.-...---.-----

IHardscape Material Selection: Use Iight-colored/high-albedo materials
Iand/or an open-grid pavement with a minimum Solar Reflective Index of
~ ._~. ._I~=='I30 =~'';""=P':~_~

I
...._.. __. __.___ I _._ _.

A water conservation and reuse strategy will fwater Conservation: Target water use of 0.15 acre- lFixtu~~s: I.nstall ",:,ater-conserving fixtures with the following minimum
ensure the project's viability and sustainability I feet per home per year ,specifications: tOilets - 1.6 gallons per flush; showerheads - 2.0 gpm;
long-term. J Ikitchen faucets - 2.0 gpm; bathroom faucets - 2.0 gpm .
. .._ _- ._--_.
,
__
._-_._~-- _._. __... _-_ .. _._---_ ... _ - _ . _ - - - - - - - ._---------~--_._-_. .. _-------_ ..._--_. __._-_._
.. _-_._--_ .. _.-... _-------------,
,Appliances: Install Energy Star Rated front-loaded washing machines
land dishwashers with a maximum water use of (check LEED)
I
~ 579
h
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan sustainabillty matrix DRAFT September.2007
Irrigation Water: Use at least 80% of water for irrigation from non-
Ipotable source (rain water catchment, effluent, or recycled gray water)
I I
_____L ~-- _
,Irrigation System: Install drip irrigation systems with rain sensing
Icontrols.
I ----- --f- -·----1 Plant material: Use drought tolerant plants (see planTlisi-;n appendix)
i llimit cool season turf area to 600 sf maximum per dwelling unit, in fringe
i !public open space areas install drought tolerant plants so once
: lestablished within 5 years there is no permanent irrigation.
_______________________1 ~---- . . ._. _
'I !Non-Potable Water for Toilet Flushing: Use centrally collected rain
_ iwater from roofs for building sewage conveyance with a potable backup
____ ~- _ __. .. ~see figl!.!:.e xx-xx).______ _
iWater Collection (On-Lot): Collect or allow infiltration IWater Catchment: Install drain pipes from all building downspouts to
~---- J~~t_~~as~o% of rainwater t~~~~~~~~_~

_________ J~~~t~til~t~I~;:;~~e:~:~~~;o::-~:)~anks for::_~~:_~_~:_:~~~~_~_I~:igation _
i IWater Harvesting: Provide swales and use permaculture techniques to
- icollect water and allow for infiltration in landscape areas (see figure xx-
- ---- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------- - -----------~~~-'-------------------._----------~------
iPermeable Materials: Minimize the amount of paving. When paving is
Ineeded, install permeable materials for at least 65% of lot if lot is equal
_ lor greater than .25 acres. Use permeable paving materials for at least
i i50% of lot if lot size is
less than .25 acres (check LEED) (see figure xx-
_____ _ J_____________________________ Ixx). _ _ _
i IComparison of post-development stormwater runoff conditions with
, Ipredevelopment conditions.
----ISurlace Water Management (Public Areas): - ,'permeable Materials: Minimize the amount of paving used on a site.
I When paving is necessary, use water-permeable materials in 50
_.________ ----1 I
-----tP:~~~~ ~~e~~_.r_e_o:_~alkWayS and in 50_pe_rc_e~~m_o_re_~:~av_e_d _ _
Passive Stormwater Management: Stormwater should be handled
wherever possible, as "green infrastructure" as a means of minimizing
the cost of underground L!tilities. Methods include water harvesting
Iswales, check dams, curb cuts, tree wells, etc (see figures xx-xx).
IWater harvested in this way should be used to create green areas
IW;th;' the pcoje,!.
..........
~
580
/7
I I:~orm Water Discharge Rate: Post development peak discharge rate
___ ... . ~-----.. __ , __,__.. __. ~~ei~;~~~/~~~~rt~:~s~~~~~~d;/S~~;~~:~e:~an ~: __

Construction Waste Management: Limit construction Waste Reduction: Encourage creative methods of limiting solid waste
'I
waste sent to landfill to max. 2.5 Ibs/sf of construction. Idisposal resulting from future development.
1---.-----. --------~ReCyCling: Reduce by 50% lhe-average--lbS(200'6--- IRecycling Prclgram:ProViderecylingEin-;108Ii hou'sehOidsand connect

.
_____.__________ ._ . . ;~~~~~~e~.I~~h::;:r~~f~:a~~~/~~~~~~:~: W?~~__J:he city-wide _rec~~~:=_:~::~ ... . _

Community Recycling Center: Locate and design a well-marked central
collection and storage area for recycled materials with easy access for
collection vehicles.
Organic Mateiiaicomposting: Pro-vide-recycle-binsfOr"ce-ntral compost
Icollection and/or composting bins for individual organic matter
_____________. . ~ lcollection. _ _ _ _
Wastewater Management: Reduce infrastructure costs IAlternative Wastewater Treatment Plant: Manage and treat wastewater
by 30% through on-site treatment. on site in constructed wetlands (innovative wastewater) to enhance
Inative landscape areas and reduce infrastructure costs.
----- --------------- .--------- -----.+__ ------ -- -------- --- -- ---.I-r.::::;.-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..- . - - - - - - - - . -
Treated Effluent: Install separate marked (purple) treated effluent lines
and use treated effluent from an on-site treatment center for irrigating
1-·--------_·__··_----------_·_--.._------_·_·_--- .--.-------------.---------...-...---- I public open space landsE~J?!J.~~~!~_. . ___
Integrating alternative transportation means will Access to multi-modal transportation systems Bus stop locations: Locate highest densities proximate to public
provide opportunities to reduce automobile trips (shared car, bus, public transportation) transportation. Locate bus stops so 80% of residents are within a 1/4
and to create a sense of place through a mile walking distance along public trails of public transit service.
connected, walkable community.
----.---------------- --------1 Provide sas y accesSloStops:lntegrate-iocaiion-o{s-ioj:ls--afon-gthe trail

Isystem.
....... 581
~
IS'
Goals Guideline
Creating a 'destination' in the NWQ community

will connect it to the rest of Santa Fe and
enhance the cultural richness and economic
yj1aillY~e_~QmmY]1itv.L.......- _
Road and trail networks and other community IConnectivity

forms that promote connectivity between
neighborhoods and people will promote a sense
of community and create a place where people
......
~
582
; D
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan sustainabillty matrix DRAFT September.2007
Encourage a reduction of vehicle trips per day from national average
throuah the construction and use of the trail svstem.
~ 583
"l_,
Guiding Principles Goals Guideline

The long term success of the community IMaintain Affordable Housing Stock Affordable Housing: Ensure long-term affordability for affordable
depends on its financial feasibility and long-term housing -component (maintenance & operations) by partnering with an
economic viability. experienced property management provider to manage and maintain
I Iaffordability.
Offset project costs and maintain affordability through innovative
I I funding techniques and ossibl a land lease.
Encourage economic generators The project must be financially successful for the developer. If not,
there is no reason to proceed with development. The plan should seek
to minimize (or at least mitigate and anticipate risk) to insure the long-
term financial success of the project.
Mixed-use neighborhood centers within IMixed Use Centers Mixed-Use: Provide opportunities for mixed-use development over time
walkable distance to residences will enhance as a feature of the neighborhood.
sense of place, create a cohesive and safe
community, allow residents to meet daily
shopping needs with fewer automobile trips, and
contribute to the economic viability of the
t".
All aspects of the community should be linked with a
network of walking trails.
The plan should seek to help build community by the

creation of clearly defined, walkable neighborhoods.
Quality construction and aesthetically pleasing

buildings that harmonize with the natural setting
will maximize the economic value of the
Developers can be encouraged to develop Fast-track and streamline approvals for sustainable
sustalnably by providing up-front cost savings development housing (affordable and market alike) to
and Incentives. offset green building costs with cost savings from faster
approvals.
.... 584
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan sustalnability matrix DRAFT September.2007
'''Right sizing" infrastructure for utilities and Capital investment should be minimized by "right sizing"
transportation through conservation and infrastructure and through techniques such as water
alternative development strategies will minimize conservation (which minimizes the piping requirements
impacts to the environment as well as enhancing for both water supply and sewerage). Water harvesting
the financial feasibility of the development by Ifrom .rooftops, r~a?~ays, and parki~g should also be
minimizing capital investment. conSidered to minimize the cost of Infrastructure and
water demand. The plan should be developed
according to a water bUdget that guides decisions about
landscape irrigation. Water reuse for irrigation purposes
should also be considered.
-------.---. -1---._----_ .._ ----.---.--..- ------..- ---- ·..--·---· --···..·---·_-· --··1
The road network should be designed in such as way as
to minimize pedestrian/automobile conflicts.
Guiding principles_._.__ . . jGOalS _. . . ,iGU;de';ne . ....._.._...__. . _

Design guidelines will create a framework for an I Identify the spiritual and emotional needs of the Involve an artist on the design team for the community park.
artful neighborhood landscape that harmonizes I community Use public process Involve local residents in Commission art as part of the infrastructure for lighting on 'main street',
with neighboring land uses and reflects the design. I'pedestrian crosswalks, playgrounds, bus stop shelters and benches
form, color, culture, history, art, and quirkiness along the linear 'ridgetop park'.
of Santa Fe. This framework will ensure the I
development of a unique community that I i
belongs in its setting, attracts new residents, I i
enhances community pride, and has lasting
..a.~~.f....l::!-o..!U'-____.a...n..n~J _ _.._,_.
I '
._.__ " _ ~ ., .__._._.._.._.,._..__.
I .. . .. . "._._ . _
IHonor the history of the land and the existing IProvide a promotory along the 'ridgetop park' that echos the 'Cross of
archaeology. Ithe Martyrs' off of Paseo de Peralta but that is rooted in the history and
Iculture present on the Northwest Quadrant piece of land.
1------------ -.----- - - IThoroughlY understand the cultural systems-·and------toeSignentrY· signage for each neighbOrhoodlhatrefiectsthe character--
J
ymbOIS relevant to the project location and integrate land materials of that neighborhood. Each neighborhood will be distinct
cultural design elements. in its combination of form, color, materiality and how it engages the
_________ .____________ _ . ~existing lands~~J?.~ . _
Allow business signage along 'main street' and in the live/work areas to
____________. .___________ reflect the individual.i!Y and na!.LJ~e of the_~~i0es~...!here. ---,----j
Thoroughly understand the environmental systems at Work with an artist as part of the team to reveal natural processes at
'I
work in the project location. work in the public space (water harvesting, erosion, wind, sun, etc.).
1---------------_·_------_·- I ---.----- ! ------------.--------------.-.-----.---.-----.-------,
,Utilize timeless design principles from other periods in '
traditional
. or original ways. - . .--.-.---.--------------.--. I
Investigate artistic ways of dealing with snow storage,
snow loading, monsoon rains, temperature change
I I(freeze/thaw), sun angles, etc. I . . _
'Document forms that have been traditionally associated
with similar artistic intent . I
Determine the project theme(s) and conceptualize
variations of elements within the theme(s) that will add
I Iinterest -----
Analyze materials selection for their sensory properties
as well as their technical capabilities I
Script the movement of users through the space to -------tProvide iconic architecture at key entry points and areas of high visibility
determine kev locations for direction and cues Ito
serve as markers and draw people in . 585
.....
Build library of materials for the project Survey use of
materials in surrounding community. Require mock-ups
of siqnificant details/materials
586
t-.>
.......... - .
'. ",
"
"" ".
SANTA FE
ESTATES
LEGEND
'bs)Cl'Pii.G~:l~, Reaealion I Ope<! Space Are~ Br.:ycJe System
s......
~SlJ..,
""""_~ ~'Sc.r.e~atJli,;.+Prr~2) _Bi(.pfCOlf,elU;O£
".:-,.,~_".;. Pldt>and~
___ ?!tytieP.c~
O<• .-..ge
"-'YUo<~
IDGT_, Trails
'Iap'
Public T",nsportalion Syslem
SilI!IIIIiI 8uldq
:.-. ,_... ~~.:;--., tOO "nrRood F'lHI "~4
......... ReqonaItIl""~;
500 rea: flood Pdin
NOR'rHWEST MASTER TRANSPORTATION + OPEN SPACE FRAMEWORK

QUADRANT P LAN
587
PRO FORMA SUMMARY I 28.December.2007

SCENARIO: C
REVENUES:

Less: Commissions ($13,187,672\
Total Revenues _••> $266,671,397
EXPENSES:
Land $5,840,000


Streets $4,897,300

Total Project Costs •••> $265,105,648
PROJECT CASH FLOW (10 Years): $1,565,749


588
NORTHWEST QUADRANT PROJECT I I I I _J _J i~0/2008
EXPENSES BY SQUARE FOOT comparison of 12/28~07 pro-forma and 12/1/08) I I . ,
Total Project Square Footage for Residential: 31107210~--- -.==:~===
Affordable Units
soft costs
sq foot $$
62
317,400 total square footage 280 units
1133 average square footage per home ~ __ j _===
homelandscaping
infrastructure
2
33 1
.
I
~
I
+== -J I
i . _
~~~dn;~~~e 51'~~ --=] C-----~
Total Cost:
Workforce Units
soft costs
207.31
62
I [
284,350 total square
Cri_ .
footag~
~
250 units
.--t.
r
'----------.
±===:-=~=-
-~----l V$=--'~
-----==-- ----==t=--._._
Total Cost: 242.311--- I
30
I-- IHigh-End Condos
soft costs
infrastructure
62
33
3000 square feet per home
[ I ,
+-------t-----
120,000 total square footage--- units
I
. ----1
f----
__ ~~d costs +- 200 __ ~ £-I---=:~=-:--J--===----I------I------------

~~t~::t:1,::::ents th~~f:::rma-=- =- --4=~==F--+---=t-=---=-[-==::-::_:=-=-
... 589
....
NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN 08/18/2008
-
THREE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURES
MASTER DEVELOPER MODEL ..

Overhead and Profit is 12% of hard costs 19,293,292.00
Developer Fee is 5% of Revenues(WF&MARKET) 12,003,353.00
Net Projected Cash Flow 1,565,749.00
Land is sold for $5M
Total Grand Total: 32,862,394.00
PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT MODEL (Non-Profit - Land is Sold)

No Overhead and Profit 0.00
Net Projected Cash Flow 20,859,041.00
Land is sold for$5M
Grand Total: 32,862,394.00
PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT MODEL (Non-Profit-Land Lease)

No Overhead and Profit 0.00
Net Projected Cash Flow [ I +.:1 1,859.,041.00
Land is leased for an average of $140 per month
generates approximately $800,000 in income annually
-
Income used to fund a land lease entity and a
conservation trust for management of open space/trails
Grand Total: 23,862,394.00
590
~,
DRAFT
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
Northwest Quadrant
Tables of Contents
Article
1. Definitions
2. Property Subject to Declaration

2.1 Initial Property and General Declaration
2.2 Additional Property
2.3 Withdrawal of Property
2.4 Reserved Open Space
3. Association
3.1 Maintenance of Common Areas
3.2 Maintenance Plan
3.3 No Obligation to Maintain Certain Areas
3.4 No Obligation to Maintain Dedicated Areas
3.5 Manager
3.6 Solid Waste Removal
3.7 Property for Common Use
3.8 Rules and Regulations
3.9 Enforcement of Rules and Regulations
3.10 Enforcement of Water Restrictive Covenants
3.11 Availability of Books, Records and other Documents
3.12 Implied Rights
3.13 Board of Directors and Officers
3.14 City Requirements
4. Membership and Voting

4.1 Membership
4.2 Joint Ownership
4.3 Voting Interests
4.4 Right to Vote
4.5 Members' Rights
4.6 Transfer of Membership
4.7 Reserved Declarant Rights
5. Assessments
5.1 Creation of Assessment Rights
5.2 Covenants with Respect to Assessments
5.3 Lien for Assessments; Foreclosure
5.4 Perfection of Liens
5.5 Declarant's Exemption from Assessments
5.6 Computation of Annual Assessments; Annual Budget
591
5.7 Delivery of Budget to Owners
5.8 Failure to Adopt Budget
5.9 Amendments to Budget
5.10 Fees Upon Sale of Lot or Condominium Unit
5.11 Due Dates
5.12 Special Assessments
5.13 Parcel Assessments
5.14 Certificates
5.15 Surplus Monies
5.16 Billing and Collection Procedures
5.17 Deficiencies
5.18 Common Expenses Resulting from Misconduct
6. Insurance
6.1 Scope Coverage
6.2 Payment of Premiums
6.3 Payment of Insurance Proceeds
6.4 Repair and Replacement of Damaged or Destroyed Property
6.5 Insurance to be Obtained by Owners
7. Common Areas
7.1 Non-Exclusive Easement
7.2 Assignment
7.3 Limitations
8. Use Restrictions
8.1 Residential Structures
8.2 Accessory and Detached Structures
8.3 Single Family Residential Use
8.4 Businesses
8.5 Office for Declarant
8.6 Nuisances; Unlawful Use
8.7 Insurance
8.8 Time Sharing
8.9 Short-Tenn Rentals
8.10 Camping
8.11 Temporary Structures
8.12 Lodging Establishments
8.13 Garage Conversions
8,14 Vehicle Parking
8.15 Recreational Vehicles and Equipment
8.16 Construction Materials
8.17 Clothes Lines and Wood Piles
8.18 Outdoor Fires
8.19 No Obstructions to Drainage
8.20 Signage
592
8.21 Rentals
8.22 Temporary Occupancy and Buildings
8.23 Landscaping
8.24 Structure Repair
8.25 Machinery and Equipment
8.26 Pets
8.27 Discharge of Explosives
8.28 Hunting and Firearms
8.29 Garbage
8.30 Safe Condition
8.31 Water Conservation; Cisterns
9. Architectural and Landscape Control

9.1 Architectural Review Committee
9.2 Approval by Architectural Review Committee
9.3 Design Guidelines
9.4 Subjective Factors
9.5 Fees
9.6 Delegation
9.7 Address of Architectural Review Committee
9.8 Time Limits for Approval or Disapproval
9.9 Owner's Cooperation
9.10 Restrictions on Certain Changes
9.11 Non-Liability for Approval of Drawings and Specifications
9.12 Inspection and Recording of Approval
9.13 Additional Powers of Architectural Review Committee
9.14 Declarant's Exception
10. Rights of Mortgagees

11.1 Consent of Mortgagees
11.2 Percentage Required
11.3 Timely Response
11. Easements
12.1 Easements in Favor of Dec1arant and Association
12.2 Easements for Maintenance Association
12. Term and Termination
13. Amendment
13.1 Amendment
13.2 Limitations
13.3 Recording
593
14. General Provisions
14.1 Enforcement
14.2 Notices
14.3 Invalidity
594
Outline of Agreement between the City of Santa Fe and the Santa Fe Public Schools
November 18, 2008
.:. The City of Santa Fe will purchase 15 acres (Parcel B) located within the NWQ
for $840,000 with a closing date no later than March, 2009;
.:. The City of Santa Fe will reserve 10 acres adjacent to School District owned
property near Buckman Road for the construction of a school. This land will be
set aside for 10 years;
.:. The City of Santa Fe will allocate fifteen (15) dwelling units to Parcel A (25
acres) in the Master Plan. No affordable housing requirements will be imposed
on this site and the School District will be free to select their own developer
and/or buyer to build these homes in accordance with the Master Plan.
595
596
Planning Commission Study Session 4.December.2008
Lessons Learned from Tierra Contenta
Tierra Contenta Northwest Quadrant

Issue Lessons Learned Strategy
Unit Mix - 40% affordable is a maximum - 37% affordable housing according to SF

Homes program
- greater range of product pricing (37% AH,
33% step-up (120-150%AMI), 30% market
rate (+150% AMI))
Unit Count - on average, unit counts 20% less - escarpment ordinance mapping should not
than originally planned for limit heights
(implications to pro fonna) - smaller homes planned for as an
alternative to larger home sizes at TC
Water - lawsuit over availability - water designated by resolution for

affordable housing and step-up housing
- reduction in water budget for subsequent
phases can be accommodated based on
proven reductions in prior phases
Up-front - pUblic amenities were slow to be - public amenities will be included as part of
Amenities realized up-front infrastructure financing and
construction
Commercial in - commercial was slow to be realized - commercial will be marketed up-front

Phase 1 and commercial focused more on - looking at discounting commercial for first
community services than traditional 5 years to encourage occupancy
commercial/retail - mixed-use zoning
- views and location advantageous
HOA - no organized HOA to enforce - HOA for entire development

covenants and maintain
streetscapes and common areas
Grants & -limited advantage taken to access -Obtaining any and all available grants and
Subsidies money through grants and subsidies subsidies will be made a responsibility of
the master development team
597
Variances
(presented at ENN meeting August 28, 2007 and updated December 4, 2008)
Escarpment Ordinance and Hillside Ordinance Variances:

Request for right to build the Ridgetop Road within parts of the Escarpment - Ridgetop Over1ay (exceeding
the 1000 sq. ft. limit), with staff review of Master Plan maps and sectional studies to determine whether the
road requires additional vegetation, or lowering of road elevation. or berming adjacent to the roadway.
Request for right to build a structure or feature at the intersection of the two ridge tops (wiUlin the
escarpment) of no more than 4000 sq.ft , not to exceed the fourteen foot height limit of the ordinance.
Request for individual City streets within the developable area to exceed the 1000 sq.ft. Terrain
Management ordinance limit, on a case-by-case basis. (Up to 1,000 square feet of 30% slope can be
disturbed for access or utilities without a variance, as per SFCC 14-8.2(D)(1)(b)(iii).)
Wastewater Variances:
Request that in the NWQ the lien for the lift station maintenance contract be placed on the lift station, or the
city would carry the lien, not the houses. This is due to the NWQ being a dominantly affordable community,
and liens on houses hinder the ability for the homebuyer to acquire loans.
No sewer lines allowed in arroyos, but under trails is acceptable if 12 feet wide, with a 20 ft. easement.
Street Section Variances:

Request for right to locate bike lanes for the collector street through the 'main street' mixed use area in the
Linear Park along the ridgetop and not on the street.
Permeable paving on residential streets and parking lots with slopes less than 5%.
Building Materials Variances:

Pumice, Rammed Earth and Fly ash Block as materials for building construction.
Street Trees:
Street trees adjacent to open space areas in the NWQ are requested to be informal in pattern, and not
formal.
Permitting:
Request expedited systems for permitting for the NWQ.
Block Length
Request variance for minimum block dimension of at least one boundary to be reduced to 500 feet (from
600 feet).
598
NORTHWEST QUADRANT PROJECT I 1210112008
!
FINANCING MECHANISMS
'---'--+-- . _._---- .,.,. ._--~
1----
I ------_.- ...__ ..
FRONT END - DEVELOPER FINANCING i BACK END - HOMEBUYER FINANCING
.
INFRASTRUCTURE Conventional Banks
General Obligation Bonds .._.- NMMFA
GR Bonds Mortgage Saver Program
Developer Contributions Hero Program
State Funding ~-_.
Mortgage Booster Program
TIF (tax increment financing) Santa Fe Community Housing Trust (DPA)
I PID (public improvement district) Homewise (DPA & lending)
! SAD (special assessment district) .-
Federal Funding
Impact Fees
-_._-_. .----.---f--
-
Grants .-
FRONT END - DEVELOPER FINANCING GREEN BUILDING - FINANCING MECHANISMS

SINGLE FAMILY HOMES --------
Enterprise Green Communities Initiative
Conventional Banks _... State of NM Tax Credit Program
Federal Home Loan Bank in Dallas ---_._._._-_._--_. . _ . _ . - ..
Los Alamos National Bank Green Lending Program
_
.
~
-
_
.
_
.
_
-
_
Enterprise Community Loan Fund NMMFA (pending green building program)
Mercy Loan Fund Foundations
Grants
FRONT END - DEVELOPER FINANCING
,. ---- . _ - - - - ------_·-1-
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS , -_of
NMMFA 1-
1- .- ._------+
Tax Exempt Bond Financing I
-I'
I
Housing Trust Fund

Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Build It _.~
-._.- _.__.....___._1.
--~---+-
Federal L ---·---t
i
,
HUD 202 !
HUD 811 r--- -·------··---1-
x01
_..
Low Income Housing Tax Credit I
~
=:>
~
~
~ 599
MINUTES OF
CITY OF SANTA FE
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
June 12, 2008

A study session of the City of Santa Fe Planning Commission was called to order
by Chair Estevan Gonzales at approximately 12:00 p.m. on this date at 120 South
Federal Place, Third Floor, Room 326, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
A. ROLLCALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT:

Angela Schackel Bordegaray Shayna lewis
Signe UrKieIl Gloria lopez
Matthew O'Reilly John Salazar
Bonifacio Armijo
Estevan Gonzales, Chair
Ken Hughes, VICe Chair
STAFF PRESENT: COUNCILORS PRESENT:
Tamara Baer, Planning Manager Chris CaJvert
Kelley Brennan, Assistant City Attorney
Frank Katz, City Attorney
Wendy Blackwell, Director Technical Review Division
Donna Wynant, Senior Planner
Tony Raeker, Senior Planner
Patrick Nicholson, Neighborhood Planner
John Romero. Traffic Engineer
TedSwisabe
Yolanda Cortez, Building Penoit Division Director
Lucas Cruse, SFMPO Senior Planner
lee DePietero, Manager Special Projects, Housing
Greg Smith, Director Current Planning
lou Baker, Senior Planner
Denise Cox, Stenographer
OTHERS PRESENT:
Rick Martinez, Neighborhood
Cheryl Smith, Calle Mejia
Nicole de Jurenev, Vice President C8sa Solana
Claudia Hom, Design Workshop, Team member
Suby Bowden, NWQ Team Member
Kyle Harwood, Harwood Consulting, PC
B. STUDY ITEM
1. Presentation and discussion of the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan.
(Director, Office of Affordable Housing, Kathy McCormick, Housing Special
600
Projects Manager, Lee DePietro, Master Planner, Claudia Meyer-Horn,
Design Workshop and Architect, Suby Bowden, Suby Bowden &
Associates)
Ms. McCormick explained that Jack Hiatt suggested this meeting on the Northwest
Quadrant. She said this is a cutting edge project that the neighborhoods are very
passionate about. This is an opportunity to have a study session with the intention of
submitting the plan for review in the next two weeks. She introduced those that have
been involved in developing the project. They received input from staff and the
community. There are various project goals and principles, but the key was to make this
a place for people who can live in Santa Fe and work in Santa Fe with the intention
based around the affordable housing aspect. She said this community supports
affordable housing more than any other community she has ever worked with. This
project will have mixed income levels with 37% of the project entry level homes, 33%
step up martet homes and then 30% market rate units. This wiD be a sustainable
development, exceeding the green codes with cutting edge water use and catchment
techniques. They wanted to change how government interacted with the public, so they
worted with a homework group consisting of 40 members from the community who were
interested in this project. The intent was to figure out how make this the best project
with what were the most important elements. The intent was not for everyone to support
or agree on the project. The design team took the information and applied their
knowledge and expertiee to provide multiple goals. This project is in cooperation with
the Santa Fe Public Schools and they continue to work with the school district
participation. Some of the principles they paid attention to were connectivity, IiveIwork
opportunities and neighborhood retail space. From the development you can look down
into the City with the ability to see different features of Santa Fe. The topography steps
down in the non-traditional plaza area and the community will be able to haY8 some
events there. The commercial space flexes so it can change from IiveIwort to work only
over time. This is designed according to the cascading density concept. Sixty percent
of the site will be single family homes. She pointed out some of the features including
the pedestrian trails, bicycle connections and parking garage. There will be some lI11aH
convenience uses where the bus stop is. There is the strong possibility of a Fire Station
in this area.
Kyle Harwood, water consultant, stated that he has been working on the water rescuce
issues for the northwest quadrant Most AK:8nt1y he has been working on the site water
budget for this project. He is trying to come up with a realistic and progrB88ive site water
budget knowing how homes use water in Santa Fe and the reasonabfe. low numbers
that are possible for water use. The estimated need is 200 acre feet of water which is a
significant amount of water, but the city utilities deIiwr 10,000-12,000 aae feet per year
to all the customers. They are also looking at hOW to maximize storrnwater captured and
how to use grey water. With regards to the grey water they have been looking at
whether water could be discharged to the river. The idea of treating the water and
reusing it are being explored although there are reasons that this is not typically done
because the facilities 8re not popular in neighborhoods and it does require maintenance
and expense. They continue to explore ways to re-use water. This is part of the
process of sorting out some of the components of the site water budget. The master
plan will be turned over to the private sector. so they are trying to plan out as many of
the guideposts that the developer will need to follow as possible.
City of santa Fe 2
Plaming Cclmmi8eion Study SSlIion. June 12, 2008
601
Mr. Harwood then reviewed the compliance issues specifically the requirement that aU
new construction offset the new water demand by creating savings in the existing
system. This program continues to run today despite premature estimates of its demise.
The Council in 2005 passed an ordinance called the water rights transfer ordinance.
There were some amendments done in 2006 and now a new re-vamped ordinance is
being proposed. New projecta have a number of requirements to comply with regarding
water resources. There is a new proposal to pledge some of the city's existing water
resources to this project so that when the project is proposed to the master developer
there is some certainty that the lofty goals can be met within the financial constraints.
The resolution introduced over a year ago identified that the City has acquired a water
right portfolio. He pointed out that the City typically does not pay for water rights that are
heki in aggr&gate and dedicate them to various projects. The City has had this particutar
water right for over 15 years. It is a discreet water right and has never been dedicated
for a particular use, so staff is asking Council to dedicate this to the project. This water
right would be committed to the most affordable end of the housing mix. The developer
would comply with the regular rule for the martel rate housing and some of the water
right couki possibly be used for the stsp up housing.
Chair Gonzales asked for a definition of step up homes.
Ms. McCormick said these are units that are priced for aomeone earning 100-150% of
the area median income. It picks up where the santa Fe Homes Program drops off
which would mean units priced from approximately $175,()()().4()(),OOO. The intent is that
it is for people that have bought their first home and are looking to step up.
Mr. Harwood explained that it is atypical for the City to commit water for anything other
than the most affordable. Homes would contribute $10,000 back into the fund for
replacement rights which would support approximately 4 homes. Water rights cost
between $15,000-20,000 an aae foot. They would be cordributing a pretty tremendous
amount of money on an aaa foot basis to the I8pIaoement water. The rationale for this
proposal is that applying the straight water support to this project could mitigate the
concern the master developer has about developing.
Mr. Harwood addressed some Of the concerns he has heard at the meetings with this
project. One concern is the proposal for such a large development with the uncertainty
of supply and continuing drought He said the long range water supply plan and
transmi88ion and distribution master plan anticipate a 1-2% demographic growth in the
region. This assumption goes into the plan and is supported by statistical information.
This seems like an appropriate number given demographic changes in the antS. Plans
do not identify where that growth will be, although this project is weH within the service
area. The plans all contemplate this kind of potential development. The Buckman direct
diversion coming on line in 2010 will provide a more reliable water supply for a longer
period of time. The main issue that has come up is proposal of a new development with
the other realities.
Councilor Calvert commented that if the Council supports any kind of growth it will serve
the whole community. He said it should be targeted in that respect, as they will not
support just any growth.
City of Santa Fe 3
Planning Cclmmi88ion Study Session: June 12, 2008
602
Commissioner O'Reilly thought it would be better for the City to use its bargaining power
to get all the water rights required at a lower rate and sell them to the master developer
rather than finding rights on their own.
Councilor Calvert stated that they are actively pursuing water rights acquisition. In terms
of this project they are trying to get reassurances that there are certain things taken care
of to entice developers to bid on this project. He said if they have to go out and get their
own water it could be difficult. This gives the reassurance while the City is continuing to
look for water.
Mr. Harwood stated that in 2005 staff looked at that issue. The challenge is that the City
is ill equipped to be a major player in this market as there are more procurement rules
and the City has difficulty with acting nimbly in the martet and taking risks. The nature
of water rights is that there is no adjudication. A developer is better suited to spend
money on that venture.
Claudia Meyer-Hom reviewed the site plan. They hope to aeate this energetic mix of
homes with a connection to downtown. The target is 758 homes. This project will be
interconnected with bicycle and pedestrian trails as well as the open space. They are
proposing a new bus route. This area is within two miles of the plaza. Stormwater will
be used for landscaping and they will have swales in the roadway to re-establish the
arroyos. They will be doing infiltration with penneable surface8 and it will not shunted off
or diverted elsewhere. They are placing the homes to make sure to get good solar
orientation and make sure the homes are solar ready. The roof has aU the comedions
to place solar when it is feasible to happen. Green materials. local mateI iaIs and
alternative materials will be used. They will be asking for some variances to what can
be used for the main building component for the quadrant. The project will exceed the
green code.
Chair Gonzales believes that energy generation is very important. He referred to a

project in Henderson. Nevada, where they partnered with a Spanish Company to have
concentratl!ld solar that is off the grid. He noted that SFCC has partner8d with Santa Fe
Prep to do some sort of pilot. He asked what the goal is for energy generation to power
the homes in this community. He also wanted to know if they are working with the
community colleges.
Ms. Hom stated that they have not yet reached out to those entities, but have
researched the potential to use portions of the land for larger energy generation that can
be resold.
Chair Gonzales thought they should have a specific goal.
Ms. Bowden said in addition to the passive solar, they will be providing the sloped roofs
for photovoltaic or collectors. This would be an extensive initial cost for an affordable
community. They have compiled a long list of sources for green funding. One of these
is the Enterprise Foundation which provides low cost or no COIIt flat plate collector
programs. The developer can apply to these programs for green funding. PNM
alternative rates will be purchased.
Cily of Santa Fe 4
Planning Commission SIudy Ses8ion: June 12, 2OD8
603
Councilor Calvert asked if there will be some sort of performance requirement which will
dictate if they have to have solar. He said as the code gets more restrictive it may
require measures such as solar.
Ms. McCormick said they researched the photovoltaic. She said they acknowledge that
the developer will be looking at state and federal rebates along with the foundation
dollars. She was confident that they will get 801118 dollars. Another idea they had is
doing an off the grid neighborhood with people committed to doing a pilot.
Commissioner Armijo asked if all the homes will have pitched roofs.
Ms. Bowden explained that all the rooftops are either a flat roof with a deck or a shed
roof so they can apply integrated solar systems.
Commissioner Armijo said of the 758 homes how many are mixed use.
Ms. Bowden stated that there are 758 units, but they are phasing the units in. When
there is full connectivity the Iivelwork will fill in. This number includes the livelwork.
Ms. Blackwell asked Ms. Hom to point out the ridgetop, foothills and 1QO-year floodplain.
Ms. Hom pointed out the FEMA flood zones, ridgetop and escarpment.
Ms. Blackwell commented that the concept of ,.vegetating along the arroyos can be
controve1sial with some people. There are laws that will have to be followed before any
kind of WOf1( will be done in the arroyos.
Commissioner Bordegaray asked where the access points will be exactly.
Ms. McCormick explained that the entire phase one will be accessed off of Ridgetop. In
the second phase they would request the connection to Montoya to support the
commercial development. The third phase would contain the second connection.
Ms. McCormick showed the possible school sites; either a 25 acre site or a 15 acre site.
These were never designated as school sites. Staff has been talking about the 7-15
acre site for a school requested. She said the school distrid is intlHeateeI in a land trade
of 15 acres adjacent to a site they own off of Buckman. In concept this would capture
the anticipated development in the county and AIdea as well as this project. The school
district would participate in how the land is used.
John Romero reviewed the three access points and showed how they looked at different
combinations of Ridgetop, Montoyas and Calle Mejia. They found that the Ridgetop
interchange could operationally handle aU the traffic with re-striping and nHignalization.
Until something is done to fix Alamo, Calle Mejia is not a feasible connection. They
found that Montoyas would function as is. This adds traffic to the casa Solana
neighborhood. so they have shown what the before and after volumes would be within
Casa Solana. He said eventually Ridgetop will have to be signalized.
Ms. McCormick said the design team will argue that as many access points as possible
would be PlefemKl. They do recognize that Mejia is not realistic due to the
City of santa Fe 5
Planning Commission Study 8ession: .knt 12. 2008
604
improvements that need to be done. She said they will present the options to the City
Council.
Commissioner Hughes asked how many cars park in the lot for the bus to Los Alamos.
Mr. Romero was not sure.
Commissioner Hughes asked if the objection is the number of cars.
Mr. Romero explained that there are operational failures at the intersection. No more
than two cars can stack.
Commissioner Hughes asked if they could reserve Calle Mejia for a bus only lane. He
commented that it is quite a bit farther to drive the other way.
Ms. Bowden stated that it would be expensive to upgrade the road.
Ms. Smith stated that for her neighborhood there will be 8000 extra cars a day that will
be 20 feet from their front doors.
Ms. DePietro reviewed the pro forma. She said this continues to change 88 they learn
more about the project. She said currently it is a break even situation. CurrenUy, it has
no commercial included. The build out will be 7·10 years. She said the biggest drivers
are the engineering and earthwork. They have been in discussion with financing the
project particularty regarding the infrastructure costs. There are different financial
scenarios being proposed and studied.
Chair Gonzales asked if there will be a homeowners association. He urged them to

consider this as he lives in Tierra Content which does not have this and it is a problem.
The concept is to keep it affordable and the people in the step up are just as concerned
as those in the affordable units in keeping the area dean. He said Councilors are
fighting to get money to clean the area up. He said that needs to be given consideration
as TI8mI Contenta has suffered without it.
Councilor calvert asked what the incentive to the developer is.
Ms. DePietro explained that there is a 5% developer fee which is low.
Ms. McConnick said it will probably have to be a non-profil, although there are several
interested parties. They have run the pro forma and there is a lot of negotiating room.
She is encouraged people are interested.
Chair Gonzales thought it would be a mistake to limit this to non-profits.
Ms. McConnick said they are not limiting it at all. She expects a non-profit may form in
response. She does not know that there is a non-profit in town that could handle this.
Commissioner BordegafBY asked for a comparison to Stapleton in Austin.
Ms. McCannick said Stapleton is much larger.
City of Santa Fe 6
PIanni1g Commission Study Session: .b1e 12. 2008
605
Ms. Bowden reviewed the variance list presented at the ENN. There are currently 23
variances proposed. The zoning proposed will have limited uses that will be submitted.
There are escarpment variances, they are asking for the right to build the ridgetop road
crossing over and down to the north bowl which will be exceeding the 1000 square limit.
They will try to limit where the crossings occur and the visibility. They are asking for the
right to build a structure or feature at one point; this will be an identifying feature for the
northwest quadrant. The next variance will be to build the Calle Mejia connection
following the ridge. There will be individual city streets that exceed the 1000 square feet
and three locations where they are crossing arroyos, so they want to evaluate these on a
case by case basis. There will be wastewater variances due to the gravity feed and
necessary lift stations. There are three contracts for lift stations and a maintenance
contract. There will be a request that the lien be on the lift stations, not on the homes
as is normally the case. The other option would be for the City to carry the lien so as not
to hinder homeowner's ability to acquire loans. There will be no sewer lines in the
arroyos but on trails. Another issue is allowing treated effluent water in the natural
zones. Stormwater does require one parcel providing the stormwater or grey water to
the area, so they will negotiate how to handle the leases. Street sections requested are
the urban lane and alley residential. There are bike lanes along the entire length of the
ridge. There will be another variance for a permeable pavement request. There will be
a building material variance. Depending on the status of a proposed ordinance, there
may be a variance to allow outdoor art in the area in the livelwork area. She said they
would like to request an expedited process for the affordable homes.
Chair Gonzales asked what the next steps are.
Ms. McCormick said this will all be wrapped up and then the City will be signing an
agreement with the school and then there will be an expedited review. They hope to be
in front of the Planning Commission at the end of August.
Chair Gonzales thanked staff for the lunch and presentation as well as the consultants.
C. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further matters to come before the Commission, and the
Commission having completed its agenda, this meeting was adjourned at 2:00
p.m.
Approved by:
(~ t--
ESteVi~'--\+-les-----
Ctlair
SUbm~,bY:
! '
City of Santa Fe 7
Planning Commission Study Session: June 12, 2008
606

Northwest Quadrant Documents, City of Santa Fe

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Northwest Quadrant Documents, City of Santa Fe

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NORTHWEST QUADRANT REPORT

CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

Exhibit 1: Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 5

Exhibit 2: Updated Memoranda 14

Exhibit 3: General Plan Amendment Resolution 19

Exhibit 4: Rezoning Bill 28

Exhibit 7: Applicant's Statement of Appeal of PC decision re Escarpment Variance.....161

Exhibit 8: Applicant's Statement of Appeal of PC decision re Terrain Management

Exhibit 9: Updated Pro Forma, 6/15/09 173

FROM: Tamara Baer, Manager, Current Planning Divisio

The Planning Commission on 6/18/09 recommended denial of Case #M 2009-05 (Northwest

The Planning Commission recommended denial of the Rezoning since:

Northwest Quadrant - City Council: September 30, 2009 Page 20f3

Exhibit 2: Updated Memoranda:

Exhibit 3: General Plan Amendment Resolution

Exhibit 4: Rezoning Bill

Exhibit 6: Applicant's Statement of Appeal of General Plan Amendment and Rezoning

Exhibit 7: Applicant's Appeal of PC decision re Escarpment Variance

Exhibit 8: Applicant's Appeal of PC decision re Terrain Management Variance

Exhibit 9: Updated Pro Forma, 6/15/09

Exhibit 10: City Council Committee and Planning Commission Minutes:

Northwest Quadrant - City Council: September 30, 2009 Page 30'3

Case #M 2009-05 - Northwest Quadrant General Plan Amendment

Applicant - The City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development Department

(a) A pre-application conference [Section 14-3.5(B)(1)];

The General Plan and Future Land Use Map Amendment

The General Plan and Future Land Use Map Amendment

2 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-_

11 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR

12 THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT PARCELS COMPRISING 542.421 ACRES

13 MORE OR LESS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF NM 599 AND WEST OF

16 FE COUNTY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO (NORTHWEST QUADRANT

17 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. M 2009-05).

19 WHEREAS, the City of Santa Fe Housing and Community Development

20 Department has submitted an application to amend the General Plan Future

22 approximately 121.30 acres in a mix of Very Low Density Residential (1-3

25 Residential (12-29 dwelling units per acre), Neighborhood Center, and

3 hereto and incorporated by reference; and

4 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3-19-9 NMSA 1978, the General Plan

5 may be amended, extended or supplemented; and

8 WHEREAS, the General Plan amendment action with respect to the

9 subject property affected by this Resolution is subject to conditions of approval

12 summarizing the City of Santa Fe Development Review Team technical

14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY

17 Master Plan Maps [EXHIBIT A] attached hereto.

18 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _ day of _

22 DAVID COSS, MAYOR

4 YOLANDA Y. VIGIL, CITY CLERK

9 FRANK ATZ, CITY ATTORNEY

NOR THW EST MAS TER

NORTHWESTIMASTER PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE

~ 10 Hq>ognIphy lQI Prqlosed Fir. Station

............ I 500 V_FloodPlain + i.JlndmeIll Slructure

... CIITIJ FooIhilIs Sub<islrict

Condition Department Staff

Condition Department Staff

2 BILL NO. 2009-.1' I

11 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE;

12 CHANGING THE CLASSIFICATION FROM R-1 (RESIDENTIAL, 1 DWELLING UNIT

13 PER ACRE) TO PRC (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY); AND PROVIDING

14 AN EFFECTIVE DATE WITH RESPECT TO A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND

15 COMPRISING 542.421 ACRES MORE OR LESS LOCATED SOUTH OF NM 599 AND

18 COUNTY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO (NOR'rHWEST QUADRANT REZONING - CASE

21 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE: