Governing Body Wed, Jan 15, 2025 · Governing Body https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/182 == Executive Summary == The Santa Fe City Council meeting covered a range of topics, with significant discussion and decisions made regarding homelessness initiatives and historic property designations. The council voted to postpone a decision on purchasing additional pallet shelters for two weeks to allow for more public engagement and transparency regarding potential locations. This decision came after extensive debate about the deployment of existing shelters, funding allocation, and the importance of community involvement in site selection. Another major focus was an appeal concerning the historic designation of a property at 718 Old Santa Fe Trail. After hearing detailed presentations and public comments, the council ultimately decided to uphold the "significant" designation for the main apartment building but granted the appeal for two casitas on the property, designating them as "non-contributing." This decision reflected a balance between historic preservation and the property owner's financial burden and desire to renovate. == Key Decisions == - Approved Amendment Number One to Intergovernmental Services Agreement with New Mexico Aging and Long-Term Services Department to adjust the scope of work for the Senior Companion and Care Companion Programs (unanimous, Councilor Michael Garcia recused). - Postponed the Budget Amendment Resolution (BAR) for $2 million for non-congregate sheltering solutions for two weeks to allow for public notification and community engagement regarding potential city site locations (Passed 5-2). - Denied an appeal regarding enforcement action against Mr. G's Auto Sales, based on the appeal not conforming to city procedural rules (vote not specified, but accepted City Attorney's recommendation). - Voted not to appeal a judge's decision in the case of Union Protectiva de Santa Fe versus Mayor Alan Weber and the City of Santa Fe (vote not specified). - Approved Resolution 2025 TBA (Fireworks Ordinance Amendment) (Passed 7-1). - Approved Bill 2024 (Fiber Texas LLC Franchise) (Passed 7-1). - Denied the appeal regarding the historic designation of the main apartment building at 718 Old Santa Fe Trail, maintaining its "significant" status (Passed 5-2). - Granted the appeal regarding the historic designation of Casita 1 and Casita 2 at 718 Old Santa Fe Trail, designating both as "non-contributing" (Passed 7-0). - Approved reappointments for Chanelle Delgado, Richard Lindell, Danielle Silva, and Diane Conlin to the Children and Youth Commission (Passed 7-0). - Approved Landon Kessler's appointment to the Mayor's Youth Advisory Board (Passed 7-0). == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve Amendment Number One to Intergovernmental Services Agreement with New Mexico Aging and Long-Term Services Department — Passed unanimously (Councilor Michael Garcia recused). - Motion to postpone the Budget Amendment Resolution (BAR) for $2 million for non-congregate sheltering solutions for two weeks — Passed 5-2 (Yes votes: Councilor Michael Garcia, Councilor Castro, Councilor Chavez, Councilor Faulkner, Councilor Lee Garcia; No votes: Councilor Romero Worth, Mayor Weber). - Motion to deny appeal regarding enforcement action against Mr. G's Auto Sales — Passed (vote not specified). - Motion to move "Petitions from the Floor" before "Matters from the City Attorney" — Passed (vote not specified). - Motion to not appeal the judge's decision in the case of Union Protectiva de Santa Fe versus Mayor Alan Weber and the City of Santa Fe — Passed (vote not specified). - Motion to approve Resolution 2025 TBA (Fireworks Ordinance Amendment) — Passed 7-1. - Motion to approve Bill 2024 (Fiber Texas LLC Franchise) — Passed 7-1. - Motion to deny the appeal regarding the historic designation of the main apartment building at 718 Old Santa Fe Trail — Passed 5-2 (Yes: Councilor Romero Worth, Councilor Chavez, Councilor Lee Garcia, Councilor Michael Garcia, Mayor Weber; No: Councilor Faulkner, Councilor Castro). - Motion to grant the appeal regarding the historic designation of Casita 1 and Casita 2 at 718 Old Santa Fe Trail, designating both as "non-contributing" — Passed 7-0 (Yes: Councilor Castro, Councilor Chavez, Councilor Faulkner, Councilor Lee Garcia, Councilor Michael Garcia, Councilor Romero Worth, Mayor Weber). - Motion to approve reappointments for Chanelle Delgado, Richard Lindell, Danielle Silva, and Diane Conlin to the Children and Youth Commission — Passed 7-0 (Yes: Councilor Chavez, Councilor Faulkner, Councilor Lee Garcia, Councilor Michael Garcia, Councilor Romero-Worth, Councilor Castro, Mayor Weber). - Motion to approve Landon Kessler's appointment to the Mayor's Youth Advisory Board — Passed 7-0 (Yes: Councilor Faulkner, Councilor Lee Garcia, Councilor Michael Garcia, Councilor Romero-Worth, Councilor Castro, Councilor Chavez, Mayor Weber). == Public Comment == Public comments touched on several themes. There was strong support for the pallet shelter program but significant concern about the lack of transparency regarding potential sites and the need for community engagement *before* decisions are made. Citizens also raised concerns about the proposed Los Pinos development, alleging ethical violations and questioning the sale of open space. Other comments included requests for more art shows in Cathedral Park, frustration over the permitting process for pallet houses, and an 80-year-old woman being held responsible for snowplow damage. During the historic property appeal, public comments highlighted the financial burden on property owners, the importance of family history, and debates over the thoroughness and criteria used by the Historic Design Review Board. == Topics == - Non-Congregate Homeless Sheltering - Historic Preservation Appeal - Budget Amendment Resolution (BAR) - Historic Property Maintenance - Senior Companion Program - Children and Youth Commission Appointments - Mayor's Youth Advisory Board Appointment - Meeting Opening Procedures - Agenda Approval - Councilor Recusal == Full Transcript == Madam Clerk, that's a yes. We're good to go. Yes, we are live. Thank you very much. In that case, I will call this meeting to order. It is 5:07 PM on the 15th of January, and we'll begin with a Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilor Lindell, a salute to the New Mexico flag led by Councilor Romero-Wirth, and then invocation and remembrances that Councilor Lee Garcia will start. So please rise and participate. Good evening, everyone. We want to start this, um, with just first off, uh, well, Heavenly Father, we thank you for all the blessings that you give us each and every day. Uh, we thank you for the opportunity to be here to work for the countless, um, issues that are in our community. We always ask that you, um, give us wisdom, thought process to dive into the, um, the many issues that are facing our communities. Um, we thank you for all, again, all the blessings in our lives. We pray. Amen. Um, I will have one remembrance, and I, I did mention this, uh, the time that of his passing, um, a dear uncle of mine who was my padrino, his name was Jimmy Dominguez. Um, he was a, uh, Vietnam War veteran, originally from the small community of Taos, New Mexico, and, uh, the eldest, uh, sibling of my mother's side of the family, um, passed away a couple months now, actually November. And, uh, we'll be having the services, uh, coming up this weekend in San Manuel, Arizona, where he, uh, was a resident of, of that community for probably the better part of six years. Um, and so just, uh, peace and love to all the family, uh, all those who loved him dearly. Uh, just a great person. Thank you. Thank you. Are there others who wish to be remembered? I just, um, take a second to acknowledge that the fires in California continue to rage. They are horrific, horrendous, catastrophic. Proud that our firefighters from here in Santa Fe are leading the New Mexico effort to bring that under control, but the damage is unimaginable. And so please, let's keep that community in our hearts, even as we remember those here in Santa Fe who are suffering from the cold, suffering from being unhoused and outdoors, people experiencing illness, challenges in their lives. We want to be a community of compassion and keep them in our hearts as well. So please take a minute and let's bow. Thanks, everybody. Madam Clerk, could you call the roll, please? I'm sorry. Pass it. Um, it's not here tonight. She's excused. Excused. Councilor Castro? Present. Councilor Chavez? Here. Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Lee Garcia? Here. Councilor Michael Garcia? Present. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero-Wirth? Mayor Weber? Present. And are there changes to the agenda, uh, Madam Clerk, that we need to make at this time? There are no changes to the agenda. Move to approve. Second. A motion and a second. Is there a discussion of the agenda? Could you call the roll, Madam Clerk? Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero-Wirth? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. And are there items taken off of the consent agenda? Madam, yes, item W has been pulled from the consent agenda. By whom? By both Councilors Michael Garcia and Councilor Lee Garcia. So we will take that off of consent. Any other? Mr. Mayor, no, I'd like to remove item P for a matter of recusal. Yes, sir. So P as in Paul. Yes, sir. Thank you. We've got that. I thought in the email we got there were two items, item 10U and 10W that were removed. Yes, there were two items removed, and Councilor Lee Garcia asked to not remove item U. So we have, uh, two items now still removed, one for purposes of recusal, the other, uh, to discuss. Uh, any others? Approve as amended. Second. And a second to approve the consent agenda as amended. Is there any more discussion? Madam Clerk, could you call the roll? Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Lindell? Councilor Romero-Wirth? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. So, Madam Clerk, if you would then, uh, take us to the first item on the agenda for us to bring, uh, to take up. I believe it's the last request from Councilor Garcia about the item he wanted to recuse himself. Item 8P, request for approval of Amendment Number One to Intergovernmental Services Agreement, Item Number 24-0555, with New Mexico Aging and Long-Term Services Department to adjust scope of work, reducing 2.25 volunteer service years from the Senior Companion Program and allocating 2.25 volunteer service years to the Care Companion Program. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to recuse myself from this item as I work for the federal agency that operates the Senior Companion Program. Thank you. Um, we'll come get you some of. So Councilor Garcia is, uh, stepping outside. Um, I'd entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. There's a motion to approve this item, and there is a second. Is there discussion? There's no discussion. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll? Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Yes. Councilor Romero-Wirth? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. If you would indicate to Councilor Garcia he's welcome to rejoin us and then take us to the next item, please, Madam Clerk. 8W, request for approval of a budget amendment resolution, BAR, in the total amount of $2 million from general fund balance to construction work in progress for site planning, development, or purchasing of a building or property for non-congregate sheltering solutions. And here to present is Henry Hammond-Paul, Community Health and Services Department Director, and Julie Sanchez, Youth and Family Services Division Director. I'll entertain a motion, then I'll turn it over to. Move to approve. There's a motion and a second. Uh, Councilor Garcia, which of you would like to go first? I'll let Mr. Um, Councilor Lee Garcia, do you want to, uh, and we haven't discussed, we haven't opened up with anything from, uh, Mr. Hammond-Paul explaining what it is, but the public, maybe we'll do that first, and then we'll go to questions and comments from the two councilors who pulled it. Director, do you want to, uh, introduce this item so people watching and listening know what we're discussing? Mr. Mayor, councilors, thank you for, uh, the opportunity to discuss this item. So this specific item is with regard to $2 million that was, uh, uh, allocated, um, a few years ago, uh, in the budget to purchase a building, uh, for the purpose of supporting, uh, non-congregate housing options for the unhoused. Uh, the history here is that there were a handful of attempts, um, to purchase buildings that fell through. Uh, so we are requesting to move these funds into the fiscal year to, uh, use them for construction, um, of non-congregate housing, uh, facilities for the unhoused. Okay. And I'm sure that will prompt the questions from our two councilors as well as other members of the governing body. Um, Councilor Lee Garcia, uh, I'll turn the floor over to you for your questions. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, um, Director Hammond-Paul, for being here once again. Um, I asked, uh, many, many of the questions in our finance, um, meeting a couple of days ago. Um, and I, um, I still, um, you know, based upon, um, I would love to know more of the details, um, regarding what, what specifically it'll be used for now, um, and how it's going to be used. Uh, $2 million out of our general fund, um, money that was, uh, was the $2 million initially in our general fund? I think you answered that on in finance. The finance director, he was here for that. Um, Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, sorry, I'm not sure I understand the. So the, the $2 million was part of our general fund money that we approved in 2023, correct? Uh, that predates my time here, but I believe that's correct. And so we're asking to move that money from, um, fiscal year 23 to our fiscal year 25 budget, correct? Uh, Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, that, that's correct. Um, the, um, the intent initially, now I think you just mentioned that, um, we had appropriated this for build, um, build a building that would be possible non, non-congregate shelter. Um, and I'm still going back to questions in regarding initial amounts that we had appropriated to purchase up to, I think, 100 shelter pallet shelter homes, um, which my understanding is, is that we did not purchase the total amount that was approved back then. Mr. Mayor, uh, Councilor Garcia, uh, there was an original contract to purchase, um, up to 100 units, and we procured 40, and we have 11 deployed and 29, um, ready to be deployed in storage. Um, of the 29, we currently have 10 that are in operation. Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, uh, we have 11. So 47. Um, the, um, the 11 that are in operation, those are being, um, run currently by, I believe, the Christ Lutheran, um, organization. Uh, Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, they are being, um, there's, there's two pieces to the puzzle there. One is the site host, and the other is the operator. Um, so Christ Lutheran Church is the site host. They provide the land, but these are not just, um, placed in a location and then kind of left, uh, to, to be used how they want. We have an operator, which is the LifeLink, and they have, uh, case managers and wraparound services for individuals who are, uh, being housed in these facilities. Thank you. Um, just a little background, maybe for those that are listening, um, what is the, um, how are they working, and what are we looking to do with more? Because obviously, we're appropriating $2 million, um, the intent is to put up more, um, and if we're purchasing an additional, say, 40, so 60, um, pallet homes, um, what is the step process, and how do they work? Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, thank you for the question. Um, so I can speak a little bit towards the, uh, success of the, uh, pallet at Christ Lutheran Church. Um, and, and, you know, for maybe stating, um, uh, stating at, at the risk of being kind of too, too obvious, right? Homelessness is complex. Uh, it's a, it's a function of a lot of different things in our society: lack of housing, lack of, um, uh, mental and behavioral health services, the influx of drugs into communities. Uh, so it's a complex, uh, beast, so to speak. Um, and what these models, like the pallet shelter community at Christ Lutheran Church, do is they provide individuals a non-congregate place to be where they can receive personalized services. So the, the, the complexities of a congregate shelter is that you have everybody all together, and there are benefits to that in terms of savings on space, um, but in terms of having all the populations together, you'll have, uh, sometimes people who are addicts next to people who are trying to be sober. So it creates, um, difficulties in people, uh, kind of getting back on their feet, if you will. So at the Christ Lutheran model, what we do is, um, we have, uh, created individual spaces for people to be, getting them inside, giving them, um, opportunities to seek counseling services, get access to other types of benefits that will help get them back on their feet. Uh, the model at Christ Lutheran, by, by many measures, has, has been a success in that, um, there are 10 units that are have people living in them. One unit is an office space, so that's the 11. Um, of those, and there's more than 10 people living because there's some couples, but, uh, of the occupants who have been part of that program, four have moved on to permanent housing, and one is currently in the pipeline for permanent housing. So, uh, that is, compared to many, many other models, a remarkable success. I'm not sure if that answered your question. Yeah, I, I'm, in a nutshell, it's taking somebody who doesn't have a home, putting them in a shelter that they can stabilize and get the resources and eventually move them into a stable situation, so to speak, through services. So, um, and, and that, I'm, you know, I think we need a tremendous amount more of that in our community. Um, what, uh, I think some of the, the things that I'm, I'm more concerned about is the appropriation of $2 million, and, um, we're not buying $2 million worth of pallet homes because that's only 60 more. Um, I know some are single, um, occupancy, some are more than dual or family, family occupancy, and then some are, um, Mayor: Councilor Garcia, as I understand the question, that is a correct articulation of the types of units we are looking to procure. That being said, purchasing the 60 units, and I'm looking at it from a monetary perspective, I don't believe that that is going to eat up a big part of the $2 million. I'm not against buying the homes. The one thing that I am kind of concerned about is we already have 30 units that we could deploy, as we have done it a couple of years ago. Having an unclear vision as to where they will be, and who is going to be the site host, and who is going to be the service providers for the wraparound services. So, with that, I think that in our discussion there were a couple of RFPs out there, which I know we can't speak to at this point, according to our past practices. I believe City Attorney Macer could probably chime in on that. We can't discuss who is in the running for RFPs on this. Mayor: Councilor Garcia, the contents of the proposal can't be discussed in open session, but I think each of the councilors can have access to those if you want to see them before the contract is approved. Okay, I'm really interested in how this is going to work and where they're going to be. I'm not opposed to supporting a model that will work. I just have a continued not knowing why we didn't utilize these funds then, and I understand that it was for one reason and we're changing gears. Do we currently have the money to purchase the additional units, just the units? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, I think we have some of the money, but not all of it. I want to contextualize that with what these funds will contribute to. So, just to kind of level set on some of this, there are the units. For instance, a 12-square-foot sleeper unit costs $26,000, but that's only part of it. You have to have a heater for it, an installation kit, door locks; they add cost. So, those, they're not, it's not a Tough Shed, so to speak. These are dignified living quarters for individuals, and that's part of it, right? Because that's providing dignified services for people to be, helps them get where they need to go. So, to actually procure what we are saying is 100 living units total, in addition to the auxiliary units for washing, dryers, washer and dryers, bathroom services, community rooms, is considerably, it's, I would frame it in two ways. This is going to provide around 150 beds for the community. To find 150 beds in another means is incredibly expensive. If you tried to build 150 units from the ground up, it would be orders of magnitude more than the costs of these units. So, they're cost-effective and cost-saving compared to an alternative. So, a large chunk of this money is going to be used for purchasing physical units, but in addition, it's just like any other type of construction. There are costs associated with standing them up, construction costs to grade land, prepare the land, and make it so that they can be hooked up to sewer and water and electricity. So, those are one-time costs to build. Is it my understanding that these homes will be positioned on city-owned property? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, we have currently an RFP that is under procurement. I might be using the wrong word there, so I apologize, and conveniently the City Attorney left to correct me. We have an RFQ. So, the RFP is for an operator. We, and I want to say this as clearly as I can, which is that these are not unmanaged or unsupervised or unsupported facilities. These are managed by an operator who is trained in a similar way to what we see at the Christ Lutheran Church pilot. These are very well-managed. People are given the support services that they need to get back on their feet. So, we have an RFP out for an operator to operate on two city sites, or up to two city sites. Then we have an RFQ that is also under procurement for a community, a private entity, not the city, to host their own site. So, one of these would be set up on non-city land, and then two would be, or up to two, would be set up on city-owned property. Thank you. RFP is Request for Proposal, and RFQ is Request for Qualifications. So, in that, once the operator is chosen, what are the continuing costs on it? Is it going to be the city responsible for continuing costs, or does that go into the operator's budget? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, great question. So, first off, per the RFP, it will result in a contract with the provider where they will, and part of this is they propose a budget. This will, assuming it meets the thresholds to go either to City Manager approval, I don't have the exact figures, but I understand that there's a threshold when things go to governing body. I believe it's $200,000 for a contract. That's correct. Thank you, sir. So, assuming that it goes above $200,000 for operating costs, that would come to governing body for approval, the contract for those services. In terms of the costs, I would say that big problems need big solutions, and there's not a cheap way to get folks back on their feet. That said, the Youth and Family Services Division is incredibly competent in finding ways to stack funding to support these kind of efforts. So, some funding will likely come from the Youth and Family Services Division and my department for operating costs. Some will come from other grant sources. We're going to mix what we can to make this work. I guess I mean, I still, there's some areas where, without knowing who's going to be awarded the RFP, and not specifically knowing exactly which sites, or the community knows which sites they are, that's where I'm still having a little bit of issues with just appropriating $2 million and go for it type of thing. So, being that they're on city-owned property, I think it's even more important for us to really, really know and have that information. That's where my holdup is. So, if this can work and work without issues, one last question I'll have for you is, whoever is the operator, do they provide the security for each site? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, they provide supervision of the site. Depending on the population that's living there, it will warrant different types of supervision and services. So, it just depends on who, because as I mentioned during, I believe, Quality of Life and the Finance Committee, the strength of this model is that we can tailor these units to meet specific subpopulation needs. So, for instance, we may identify that we need to have units that are specifically for families, people with children who are unhoused. Some may be sober facilities, some may be for veterans. So, the operator, depending on the population and the risks associated with those populations, will have different supervision processes. Okay, there's another thing that kind of puts me in the not knowing what's going where and how it's going to operate. Those are my main questions. I feel that, you know, we did purchase enough of these in the first round, and just questioning why they're not already up. Has it been because we haven't found operators? My initial inclination and recollection was that we were looking for partners who had already had facilities that could provide the amenities for the individuals that are there. This sounds like it's going to be standalone without, as an example, Christ Lutheran, it's on their site, they have a brick and mortar building, they have an operations budget, they're a partner. This seems to be something that's going to be kind of standalone without attached to an organization. Have we had trouble with organizations not able to accommodate another 10 or another 20 units? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, I'm not 100% sure I understand the question. If you could rephrase it, please. So, initially we bought, we purchased 40 units. 11 of those are up, 10 for individuals, one which is a supervisor on the site. However, that was the intent, from my understanding, was to be partnering with the churches, with nonprofit organizations that already had the capacity and the wherewithal to put them up and to help run them. This is moving away from that and putting them on city-owned property with an operator, which we don't know who that is, and having to provide the additional hygiene units and laundry units and support in that fashion. So, my question was, is that have we had, obviously we've had problems finding other partners that can put another 10 units in one of their open spaces on their property? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, I'd like to kind of speak to that in maybe two or three ways. One, the reason that only 11 units were deployed at the beginning was because it was a pilot program, and we wanted to understand the capacity for success. I believe, having seen the successes from the program at Christ Lutheran, supported by the LifeLink, my team and I feel very, very confident in betting on this model as a means of supporting the community. It's cost-effective and it is dignified for individuals. That's one reason why there's only 11 deployed. We wanted to make sure it worked before we doubled down. The second reason, or to the second part of your question, and I think if I would use this as a call to action, which is that this is an all-hands-on-deck situation, and we want to see community partners step up and take on a shared responsibility with the city to support all of our neighbors here. We've had some remarkable moments of groups coming together to support all of our neighbors. The Interfaith Leadership Alliance, the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross have all been integrally involved in coming to the table. I welcome any organization that wants to step up and support or host these sites to reach out and work with us to make this happen. Thank you. All these organizations that you just named, they're amazing, and that's what their mission is. Again, back to my concern, now we've got one site operating with 11, which has been successful. On the sites that are kind of being targeted, how many units, more or less, are estimated to be on each site? Mayor: Councilor Garcia, if I understand the question, it's how many units will be on subsequent sites. We, part of the model is keeping things small and manageable. I think it is documented nationally that sometimes having too much presence in one location can cause challenges. This model is intended to keep things again, small and manageable. So, we are going to cap the number of units and make sure that no site has more than 30 or 35 units, I believe. Okay, now we're getting somewhere. So, possibly three units at 30 units a piece. So, back to my concern in regards to, I don't know who's going to be running these, and once that money is moved over, will we have any say in any of that? But, on the one hand, if 30 units prove to be difficult to manage, that poses a big problem for our communities. On the other hand, if you see the positive come out of them and they do follow the same model of what's happened at the previous pilot program. program, then I think it's great. Let's do some more. I'll leave my concerns at that and the questions that I had, and I'll allow my colleague here to ask questions. Thank you, Counselor. Mayor: Counselor Michael, you're the other individual who asked this be removed, so you have the floor. Counselor Michael: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, I do want to say I 100% support the Safe Outdoor Space Micro Community program, and I've seen it be successful firsthand. The one space we have is in District 2, and there were some initial concerns, and I think what ultimately helped to add to the success of that is the community engagement component, not only the support services provided but the community engagement. So I do want to thank Christ Lutheran for that. I do have some concerns regarding the proposal in front of us on a couple fronts. One is, in the FI, there's not really a breakdown of how the $2 million is planned to be expended. It's basically saying, "Well, we're going to spend it on X, Y, and Z," and in this case, it's asking to spend it on progress for site planning, development, or purchase of a building or property or non-congregate shelter solutions, and very open, very, very open. And so to dive deeper into the details, I brought up my concern during the Quality of Life Committee around some of the appropriations that have been made in the past regarding the pallet shelter purchases. So the initial 40 pallet shelters were purchased with ARPA funds, am I correct in that? Director: I need to double-check on that. I don't believe they were 100% purchased with ARPA funds. I believe, well, because it doesn't only include the 40 units, there was also the hygiene unit and the laundry units, and I believe some of that $750,000 that I believe you'll be getting to next was used to cover the cost of those additional units. But to the best of my knowledge, I can double-check on that piece with my team, but I believe they were partially purchased with ARPA funds. Counselor Michael: The first 40 were, and then as you were alluding to, during the one-time funding appropriations we did in the summer, we appropriated $812,000 for additional pallet shelters and, as you mentioned, some hygiene units. How have we expended those resources? Director: Mr. Mayor, Counselor Garcia, also to clarify that these funds are not only being used for purchasing of units, but there are auxiliary costs to standing the units up, including, for instance, putting ADA-compliant ramps, implementing, they're putting in spine infrastructure like water and electrical. So there are additional costs not only to... Counselor Michael: Stop you there, Director Paul Homan. We haven't done any of that, so those costs should not have been incurred for any location because we only have the one location. So back to the question of the one-time funding expenditure we made last summer for nearly a million dollars, how has that been allocated thus far? Director: I believe about $150,000 of it has been allocated, and it was to pay for ADA ramps, some of the additional units, but it hasn't all been expended. Counselor Michael: So $100,000 was for ADA ramps at the pallet shelter micro-community at Christ Lutheran? Director: I can get a full accounting of that if you'd like to see that and follow up if that's what you like, but it would also include the additional units that were mentioned before, the auxiliary units. Counselor Michael: So $100,000 was used for ADA ramps and hygiene units? Director: Hygiene units and the cost of a hygiene unit again. Counselor Michael: Well, I guess the point I'm trying to make is even if you, let's say $100,000, we take that away from what was allocated, you're still leaving over half a million dollars for pallet shelters, and then you're coming to us now for another $2 million allocation without a justification and breakdown on how it's going to be spent. And I understand that there are the infrastructure needs that come along with it, but we should have an estimation in regards to it's going to cost X amount for this, it's going to cost X amount for this, and this is why we're requesting the full $2 million. And so when we even get down to the more micro level, when we look at, you know, you mentioned 120 square foot unit at $26,000, have we done the research to really understand the needs of our community, to understand we have X amount of families that need these units, we have X amount of folks that they might be standalone and are only occupied by one person, we need X amount that are occupied by two people? Because I feel we need to really have that justification for expenditure when we're investing in these type of resources for the community, because the last thing I'd want for us to do is go and spend a lot of money on one type of unit that is not necessarily the needs of the community. And so have we done that initial assessment to determine the types of units we actually need? Director: Mr. Mayor, Counselor Garcia, yes, we have. And I think there is demonstrated need in the community for these types of units. There are, we have a growing number of unhoused people in this city. There is very evident need for big, bold, and yes, sometimes costly investments from the city to make to support our residents. So that, I mean, yeah, let me pause there. Counselor Michael: That sounds great, but I'm a person who relies on the data. I'm all for big, bold ideas, but at the end of the day, it's the data that drives the decisions in my opinion. So to pivot, because money is one thing, that's now roughly $3 million in investment that would be made in less than a year. And so I'm respectfully requesting a breakdown of how we're actually going to allocate that versus just... Director: Mr. Mayor, Counselor Garcia, 40 20-foot units at $26,938 is $1,77,000 for 40 20-foot square foot units. Those in addition would have heaters, so we would need 40 heaters for those units. That's $879 times 40 is $35,160. In addition to the heaters, there is an installation kit for each 40 units that is $830 per unit, so that is $33,200. There are digital door locks for these units at $186 per item times 40, that is $7,440. And so I have the list that I can send you if you'd like, but it quickly adds up. Counselor Michael: Great, I'm glad you have that list, but that should have been part of the FI, and if you could please add that to the packet material, because that's ultimately how we account for the expenditure of the taxpayer dollars. So to step back to the conversation that was had during the Quality of Life Committee last week, it was asked by one of my colleagues around a feasibility study, and I believe, I don't remember if it was yourself or Miss Sanchez, that had mentioned that a feasibility study had been conducted in the past. Can we talk a little more about that? What did that feasibility study cover? Director: I'll have to circle back on that with you and make sure I get the correct information from Director Sanchez. Counselor Michael: So you're not aware of a feasibility study that was conducted regarding safe outdoor spaces? Director: I'm aware of the study that was conducted. I'm not 100% sure of the question that you're asking about it. Counselor Michael: Just the question is, what is the topic cover of that feasibility study? Director: Mr. Mayor, Counselor Garcia, I believe the topic of the feasibility study was looking at city-owned land that could be used for not only micro-communities but multiple types of non-congregate shelter operations. Counselor Michael: Okay, and is that feasibility study public? Director: I don't believe it's complete yet. I believe it's still being amended, and it's commissioned, if I'm not mistaken, by the Office of Affordable Housing. Counselor Michael: So what do you mean it's still being amended? Director: I believe the team that is doing that is still working on items in that study. Counselor Michael: Okay, but then I don't believe it was... Director: Sorry, sorry, sorry, go ahead. Counselor Michael: No, I just don't, I don't believe it was presented yet to governing body, but I'm not sure on that one. Okay, and so with, because you said it would pertain to city-owned property for potential safe outdoor spaces, can you provide some of those locations for the public in this study? Director: Yes, I don't have that information in front of me, the specific locations, but we can follow up, and I believe if you, we can request that from the department. Counselor Michael: Well, and more so for the public to be aware, because I think as I mentioned early on, one of the big reasons that Christ Lutheran, from my perspective, was successful was the community engagement on the front end. Director Paul Homan, you weren't on board with us when we had the debacle of the proposal for Midtown Campus being a safe outdoor space site. And again, in my opinion, that was due to lack of community engagement. That was a matter where a decision was made by city administration that we were going to set up a site. We alerted the public, the public became aware, and they fought back against it, and it ultimately failed. And this is a major concern I have with this proposal is the lack of community engagement, because the community is not well aware of the locations of these potential safe outdoor spaces. The public needs to be well aware of where the city is planning on placing these locations, and I have not seen any type of engagement regarding that matter. All I've seen right now is a proposal in front of us for $2 million to set these up. What happens in the instance where if this were to get approved tonight and one of the locations becomes a great concern for residents, what restitution do residents have? Because ultimately, the council has approved the money. We don't really have a say once the money is allocated tonight. I don't really feel that's fair for residents to not really have a say in one, how their ultimately their taxpayer dollar is allocated based on proposals, two, you know, what type of initiatives are being placed in their respective communities. So can you explain to me what's the plan for community engagement? Because I foresee challenges. As you saw with what happened with a, I don't know if it was a rumor, if there was truth to it, but what happened when there was concern from community regarding relocation of pets to the old detention facility? This place was packed up. We had people peeping in from the windows. There wasn't the capacity to watch the proceedings. And those are the type of concerns folks will bring when there are issues like this that they're not engaged in. And so that's my concern of why are we not giving the public well advanced notice of the proposed locations of these safe outdoor spaces? Director: Mr. Mayor, Counselor Garcia, I think there were a couple questions in there. I'll answer the two that I was able to identify. So the first is, I think you mentioned that the governing body won't have the ability to review things, but the contract for the operator will go to governing body assuming it meets the financial thresholds that require governing body approval, so that will go in front of you all. And then the second, with regard to community engagement, which I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly how important that is. And to that effect, we have a Community Advisory Board that is constituted of both individuals from service providers in the community, community organizations, folks who are currently running the facility at Christ Lutheran, who is developing, who are developing a community engagement plan to make sure that that will guide any site selection process that happens so that communities will have a wholehearted opportunity to engage on how these sites work, the risks associated with anything, the benefits to the community. So that is very much integrated into this work. And again, in 100% agreement, the success of any initiatives like this depend on by and from the community. So we could not put a greater emphasis on the importance of community engagement, because we don't want to see... and something up like this without community engagement, only to have it fail. We want to see this succeed. But we're going through motions right now without any community engagement. So we're... **Councilor Garcia:** To yield the floor for one second. **Councilor:** Sure. Is it okay? Yeah, yeah. **Councilor:** So what I'm hearing is it sounds like there's a sense that there's not enough transparency in this process. And so, wondering if we can come up with something that would allow the transparency that we're asking for. I know in my district, I get questions about this stuff a lot. And I know that you have a wealth of knowledge with what you're doing with this program, but I think it's difficult for the council to follow suit because we don't know that wealth of knowledge. And so then we can't explain it to our constituents, and we can't... I know for me, it's difficult to decide how to vote when I'm getting pieces of the puzzle but not the whole puzzle solved. Does that resonate with Councilor Garcia? Okay, so that seems to be the issue. And I think we've done a really good job of making that clear that transparency is an issue. So then, could we move on to how do we solve that? **Councilor:** Sure. Well, and I guess that's a great question, Director Hammond Paul. I mean, would it be possible to issue a press release with the identified city site locations where there might be taped outdoor spaces located? And "might" is the word. We're not saying we're going to do it, but just beginning to alert the public and then come back to this topic for final approval. Because I think that's the gap I'm seeing here is the community engagement needs to happen on the front end, not after we've already approved a contract to go out for an operator. Because what happens in the instance, and I'm not saying this is going to happen, but what happens in the instance where there are no feasible city-owned sites, whereas we've entered into a contract with an operator? And I don't want us to be in that position. So what I'd like for us to do is postpone this item for two weeks, and we issue a notice to the public that we're looking at the identified city location sites. The public then becomes well aware for two weeks, and we can come back to this topic because I think we owe it to the public to make them well aware of how the city is planning on moving forward with city-owned property. So with that, I'll make that motion. Motion to postpone for two weeks. **Councilor:** Second. **Councilor:** There's a motion to postpone. We have a motion on the floor, though. We have a motion. Motion to postpone supersedes stuff. Okay, I think we can discuss this. However, it is a motion up for discussion. I'm going to ask for the 10-minute rule, please. **Councilor:** Okay, we'll try to go around the room when we do this. Interesting, Councilor, that when it came to me, it was 10 minutes, but when other councilors, it wasn't imposed. So I'll make note of that. But excuse me, you spoke for much more than 10 minutes. And what I'm saying is, I'm saying that going forward, we're all going to do 10 minutes. Going forward, we're all going to do 10 minutes. You got your chance. So did Lee. I want to try to speak to the issue that Councilor Garcia was going toward in his discussion. And I think some of it, I'd like to back up a little bit because it's a very emotional subject, obviously. My recollection of the process that we've used successfully in the past first dates back to two town hall meetings that Councilor Michael Garcia recommended and that we did, and that were very successful and helpful with bringing the idea of pallet shelters to Santa Fe. We had not had any education previously. We hadn't even seen what they might look like. And thanks to those two town hall meetings, we had really constructive dialogue around what the pallet communities could do, what they could look like. We had a model over at the convention center. People walked in and looked at them. Based on that, we adopted a resolution as a governing body saying that we supported this as an approach to addressing the problem of individuals who are unhoused in our community. And we went on record as saying we thought that was a viable solution that made a lot of sense. We're not the only community in the United States to have pallet communities. Am I right about that, Director Hammond Paul? **Councilor:** Mr. Mayor, point of order. The motion on the floor is to postpone until our January 29th meeting. **Councilor:** Councilor, I'm fully aware what the motion is. I'm describing why I don't support it. And I think in order to get at that, we need to untangle some of the issues you raised around community engagement and whether or not we're following our own processes. So please bear with me. So other communities have these kinds of shelters, right, Mr. Mayor? **Councilor:** Many communities across the U.S. have these types of programs to address homelessness, including Albuquerque, Los Angeles, Portland, Denver. **Councilor:** And with them come community agreements. Am I correct, Mr. Mayor? **Councilor:** I believe many of them do have community agreements, including our own. The Christ Lutheran Church part of our RFP in the past was to say anybody who wanted to locate the physical facility or be the operator would have to agree to a community agreement that would meet the test of the community around it, being assured that there would be ample protections and safeguards for that community. And in fact, that's what we're seeing at the one that exists here now, the pilot. The process we used in locating that one that is by all accounts, I think, successful, and that Councilor Garcia, Michael Garcia, said he supported, was we issued an RFP. When the RFP came back, we had a site and an operator. And once we had a site and we had an operator, then we had the basis for community engagement. Until you have a site or an operator, you really don't have any specificity about what community engagement would look like. It's simply speculation or perhaps fearmongering. And so what we have done to succeed in that instance was issue an RFP. We had a successful bid from LifeLink and from the church. With the award of the RFP, we began the community engagement process, which led to the church and LifeLink and the city and a community agreement all being put into place before the pallet community was constructed. So that is, as I understand it, the process we're using here. There's an RFP, there's an RFQ. We don't know what the responses will be. And in the absence of a response, we don't have a community engagement process. Now, we have, to your point, Director, ongoing dialogues with all parts of our community around our strategy for homelessness. I know that there was a really well-attended gathering at the Christ Lutheran Church, excuse me, Christ Lutheran Church. I think Councilor Garcia was at that meeting, and other members of the governing body. And it is an ongoing part of our community engagement to talk about why these particular facilities represent an important tool for addressing homelessness. We... Councilor Garcia asked if there were if there had been some sort of an assessment to make sure that the pallet shelters would be occupied, if I understand it correctly. And I, since I instituted, I think I do. **Councilor:** No, just give me a minute. I would like... **Councilor:** There's a motion and a second. **Councilor:** Yeah, I'm speaking to the motion. We're discussing. **Councilor:** Point, point of order here, folks. As a parliamentarian, a motion to postpone is debatable under Robert's Rules. That's what we're doing now. We're debating the motion to postpone. And I believe the mayor is making his case for why he thinks we should not postpone. And it is what's happening here is totally acceptable. I just like to make sure that it is directed towards the motion to... **Councilor:** I appreciate your concern. I am addressing why I feel that we have all the information we need to proceed with a process we've used in the past. We're all going to get a chance to discuss it, right? I would have, I thought, I would think that we would have that opportunity discussed before the mayor. Can we just all be a little more respectful to each other? We're doing work of the people. I'm trying my best to explain. There's no finger-pointing. What I'm saying is the tone is hostile. We're doing the work of the people. It's not personal to any individual councilor, but we're doing the work of the people. We set an example for the people. And the tone that we're taking as a council right now is despicable in my opinion. So let's all try to be respectful and remember that we are teaching children and other human beings how leaders behave. So thank you for that. I'm trying to remember where I was. Okay, so the question that Councilor Michael Garcia raised was, do we really know that the people who are unhoused would be good fits for the community, these pallet shelters? And part of what we've done over the last six years is to be a partner with the Built for Zero movement. And the Built for Zero movement verification... **Councilor:** Mr. Mayor, my question was not if they would be good fits. It's if we were purchasing the correct amount of units based off the need. **Councilor:** I withdraw my comment regarding what Councilor Garcia said. I think it's important for us to remember that as participants in the Built for Zero movement, we have gone out and done and worked with three different outreach groups to get a by-name list. And Director Paul, I believe that those by-name lists exist, and they are the basis for the individuals who would be housed at these pallet shelter communities. That's how the list was used for the church location. So we have what, about 500 people on that list? Is that correct, Mr. Mayor? **Councilor:** Yes, sir. **Councilor:** So we have about 500 folks. We have a proposal in front of us to allocate the money that already exists. We're just repurposing it. It's not new money. We're repurposing old money that was going to, we thought and we hoped, be used to acquire a building that would become a shelter. And unfortunately, every effort that was made to find a facility that would be available for purchase was disrupted by other factors. Other people bought the building, other people intervened, or the building was taken off the market. So we are now pivoting toward a different strategy, which says we have a successful model with the pallet communities. We have RFPs, RFQs on the street. We haven't gotten them completed yet. And just as we hadn't had them completed before we got the response from Christ Lutheran Church, we didn't go out and do more community engagement in theory. We did have presentations to the governing body about what pallet shelters looked like and how they worked. We had visitors from Colorado come down and make a presentation. I think this simply follows the process we've used in the past. There's nothing unusual or different about it. And for that reason, I oppose postponing this vote. I think we need to make a reallocation of the money so it can be used to address homelessness in Santa Fe, which we're hearing from all kinds of folks is of paramount concern. Since we sat down and started this discussion, I received an email from Jeffrey Posa supporting this measure because of his experience in his business. He seeks more of these pallet shelters run well with community engagement. So that's my take on this motion. Yes, Councilor. **Councilor:** Thank you, Mayor. So I feel like it would be great for us as a governing body to notice that we have colleagues up here that need more information. I understand that there's more information needed. And I get it. What's complicated to the community is that we have 29 pallet shelters that are unused right now, right? So when we're spending money on more, it leaves a lot of questions because it's like, well, how are the 29 going to be used? How is that money going to be spent? So I have colleagues sitting next to me that are basically just saying, can we have more information? to share with the community because that's a really confusing picture. We have 29 unused shelters. Yes, we do have a successful model, but we have not done anything with that successful model with the shelters that we have unused right now. And I don't think that it is a horrible thing. The money is there. I don't think it is a horrible thing for us to respect the opinion of our colleagues up here to say that makes sense. Our community probably has the same questions and the same need for information, and postponing it a few weeks or so is not going to hurt anyone, especially because we've had 29 shelters sitting there unused anyway. So I don't see the harm as us as a group being okay. I can't make anyone vote a certain way, but when we have 29 unused shelters sitting there, postponing to get more information so that we all can vote confidently one way or another will not harm anything. And so why this is so heated is really confusing for me because if there's no urgency, I could see if we had all of these shelters up and we had waitlists and all of that was in place, we would be like, "Yeah, we don't have time for more information. We have to move." But we have 29 unused shelters without a plan, and we are not respecting the fact that we have colleagues that require more information. And I think that we've offered you some really good details to our concerns or issues so you could gather that information. I think you probably know who to contact to get clarity on some of the questions and requests so that when we come together, a lot of questions will be answered and all of us will feel more confident on a vote. And I think that's where that's what the point is, and I think it's harmless. I would like more information as I've heard the questions from my colleagues. I know our community members would as well. As was stated, this is a very sensitive topic. So we get questions, we get support, and then we get those who aren't very supportive. The more information we have, the easier it is for us to just create something successful that helps the unhoused. So I feel like if we have 29 shelters that aren't being used right now, postponing it for a little bit to get this information for everyone that's up here and for our community, like I said, is very harmless. So I think postponing is something that I'm in agreement with. And I am sorry to the public that we couldn't simplify this point like that and just move forward in supporting the fact that we want to be as knowledgeable as possible when we're serving our community and making big decisions. Sometimes we have to delay things a little bit so we have that information for you all. But I apologize for how that went, but I am in support. I think that postponing, and I know, Director, that puts extra work on you, but I appreciate you being willing to support us through those difficult conversations we have to have with our constituents. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to recognize Councilor Mayworth and then Councilor, and then I'll come over to you, Councilor Castro. Mayor: Thank you, Mayor. So I hear loud and clear that I think everybody's interested in more information. I just think it's a question of when is that information, when do we have that information, when is it ready to come forward? So what's happening tonight, and to be clear, this is a budget address. This is a budget adjustment resolution, a BAR. We do this all the time. We move money from one place to another because we're changing what we're how we budgeted it to something new. I think we have a resolution that we passed. I believe the Mayor cited to it: "Safe sleeping spaces as a shelter option for those who are experiencing homelessness in Santa Fe and for whom standard shelter options are not feasible, identifying an appropriate best practices and data-driven approach to sheltering this population and directing the city manager to enter into or bring the governing body contracts for structures, sites for the structures, landowners willing to provide an area for the structures, and operator and operators capable of providing round-the-clock support services and 24/7 supervision." We did pass that in '23, and I think what's happening here is that, yes, we do have some shelters that we've purchased with other funds that aren't used yet. We have another opportunity under the contract we have, which, and we haven't even talked about when that contract expires, to fill it out. We've purchased 40. We now have a funding source that we thought was going to be used for something else that we can now switch over to this and purchase the remaining 60 that would get us to the 100 that we initially thought we needed. So I think we're taking advantage of a funding opportunity. There are, as we've heard, an RFP and an RFA on RFA, right? Or an RFQ? RFQ, sorry. We were talking about RFAs earlier today at the Community Development Commission. Those things are on the street right now. When they when an award is given, I think you know that that information's going to come forward, that there is community engagement. We and we know that we need the community engagement for these things to be successful. And in fact, the resolution that we passed in '23 specifically calls out that the city manager, that the city manager shall direct staff to accomplish the following tasks, and the third one is, "Work with the service provider to develop a good neighbor agreement between the service provider and neighbors of the safe outdoor space. The agreement shall include but not be limited to terms about cooperation, communication protocols, standards for tenancy, and dispute resolution." That was that was done at the at the shelter at the at Christ Lutheran that's in District 2. It's been successful. I think we know that it's been successful, and we're going to and by resolution, we've dictated that that happened. So I I hear that we all want more information. I don't think we need to hold this up in order to get more information, and I think that we will have the community engagement and the conversations that everybody is looking for as as these things are ready to be stood up in the community. All we're doing here is moving some money that's become available because it wasn't used for the original purpose over so that we can continue to be successful in this. And I think more information can be provided about how exactly that will be spent, and I I just see no reason to delay this BAR. And there's a and at the same time, we can be requesting more information, which I think we've already experienced with the one we have is an important piece of being successful in this. So I I think maybe we're being a little premature with the concern that this is somehow just going to be done without any community engagement or the good neighbor agreements that are so crucial for its success. Thank you, Mayor. You, and Councilor Funner. So just hearing all my colleagues, it does appear to me, I personally, I don't know where did the money that made this happen, where did the $2 million come from? That's a that's a question I I don't know the answer to. There's a lot of questions I don't know the answer to, and it's not that I don't support this. I support this 100%, but I will tell you, it's really hard in this climate to expect our constituents to go along with. We represent them. We're serving at the will of our constituents in our districts and throughout the whole city. And then to expect us as councilors to tell our constituents, "I don't know where the money came from. I don't know where the sites are. I don't know where any." I like, I honestly don't know these things. So I have empathy for wanting to make this happen faster, but I also there's a practicality and a pragmatism about how do you tell the people that you represent that you can vote for something where you don't have all the an you don't have answers to any of their questions? And this is a con feel it is to me an important issue because one of the number one things we face as leaders in the city and in the state and in the country and in the world is that the public no longer trusts government. And so if if we are doing the business of the people and we don't have answers to explain to the people what we're doing, how we're doing it, and why we're doing it, then we are we are only perpetuating a continual lack of trust in government. And I personally ran for office to try to give trust back to the people. And so this is is where this gets complicated for me personally is that I cannot sell this, and I cannot tell my community that I I I I I do not want to stop this from happening, but I also want the people to know what is happening. And there's the if we do not communicate with the people, if we do not act transparently, if we do not give them the information we can give them, they will come up with their own ideas about what is happening, and those ideas will based in fear because they know they don't have they're they know they're not being given the answers that they they kind of know there's something there, but they're not being given the answers to tell them either they're wrong about what's happening or they're right about what's happening. And so for me, this is a bigger issue than just this scenario. It is about the fact that our people don't trust us, and that the only way to build trust again is to give people information. And as leaders, if we don't have it, there's we cannot give it to the people. You, Councilor, Councilor Castro. Similar sentiment. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for all the great questions from my colleagues. I have sort of done a little bit of research on my end, and I will say that a lot of constituents did reach out, and I've had to have one-on-one conversations in particular around our contract with Pallet Homes. Do you mind, Director Hammond Paul, telling me a little bit more about this up to 100 agreement? Are we in a contract where we have to buy a certain amount, or is that just because of our perceived need at the time that we needed up to 100? I believe it's the latter. So at this point, we are under no obligation to buy any more Pallet Homes from Power. I I think it's up to 100. Yeah. Okay. And so I do want to echo the sentiments of it's difficult to talk to our constituents not knowing what we're going to do with the ones in storage. We as a body were given before Alex Lad left, she said there was a list of city properties that could potentially be good for this. I would love to see the list of those city properties and where we think, but I also want to be cautious in giving information that can be inaccurate or isn't fully fleshed out. We saw what happened in this chamber when folks got information that was inaccurate about the youth detention facility, and I think that it's really important that we are clear with our community about what the possibilities are. Did look up on the S3 site, and it talks about the neighborhood agreements, so I would love for them to possibly give us a presentation about what that neighborhood agreement looks like and how well it's working. And those are all the questions. Thank you. I see the floor. Thank you. Other questions or comments about the motion to Councilor Linda? The mo we're discussing the motion to postpone for two weeks. Councilor Lindell. Do we have a time frame on the price point of these shelters? I know that we talked about this in, I believe, Finance. The price of these shelters has gone up, but we have the opportunity to purchase them at the same price that we did before. Can you speak to that? Mr. Mayor, Councilor, that that's correct. I believe with our contract in place, we're able they they raised their prices, I believe, either by 15 or 20%, and we are able to purchase them at the previously quoted price. Do we have a time frame on now? I I can follow up on that with information for you. It's really important to because 20% said the cost on them on the additional units was what, 1.7 thereabout. I mean, 20% is quite a lot more money. So, if we have an urgency on price, that makes quite a lot of difference because I really don't think that anybody up here doesn't think that this is a good project and that we've had success with it and we've done good work with it. So, that's a real consideration because we're talking about $2 million. That's really all I have, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you, Counselor. Mr. Mayor, Counselor Lee Garcia. Councilor Lee Garcia: See, everybody gets a bite at the apple, sir. You do on this motion. I didn't get a... Mayor: Yeah, it's your turn. Councilor Lee Garcia: I just have one question in regards to that. When the contract is expiring, Mr. Mayor? Councilor Garcia: I can follow up with that. I believe it's expiring soon. I think, yeah. Councilor Lee Garcia: Soon would be within the next two weeks. And that's again, I'm on board with saving the money, but without that information, I'm still in favor of postponing for two weeks. Mayor: Very good. Any other comments? Let's call for the vote on the motion to postpone for two weeks. Councilor Michael Garcia. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes, and I'd like to explain my vote. Mayor: Councilor Lindell. Councilor Romero Worth. Councilor Romero Worth: No. Mayor: Councilor Castro. Councilor Castro: Yes. Mayor: Councilor Chavez. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Mayor: Councilor Faulkner. Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Explain my vote. Mayor: Councilor Lee Garcia. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Mayor: Mayor Weber. Mayor Weber: No, and I would like also to explain my vote. Motion passes. Very good. Councilor Michael Garcia, you get to explain your vote, sir. Councilor Michael Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the city has the responsibility to inform the public in regards to the city-owned property that might potentially become safe outdoor space sites. There's nothing that prevents the city from being a good neighbor and identifying these spaces. The public actually has the right to have this information and for us to, in my opinion, hide behind an RFP and not be transparent with the public, it's very unfortunate. And so I just wish we do the right thing and inform the public. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Counselor. And I believe Councilor Faulkner, you wanted to explain your vote. Councilor Faulkner: I first, I want to start with Director, I think you're doing a great job and this is no reflection at all about my confidence in you as a leader. This is more about one of my core values is transparency as a leader. And if I don't have the answers, then my constituents don't have the answers. And like I said earlier, there needs to be trust rebuilt between community and leadership. And so this is a broader issue for me in that transparency is so important to me that it doesn't matter what the issue is, if the community doesn't have the answers or at a minimum, as city councilors, if we don't even know what the answers are, to me, that's problematic. Thank you. Councilor: I just, I want to support our director and our staff. I think we're all committed, as Councilor Lindell said, to finding solutions to people in our community who are unhoused. I think we know that the pallet shelter program is extremely successful here and elsewhere. And the $2 million bar is, as Councilor Mayor Worth suggested, it's a pretty standard process of moving the money to where we need to have it so we can use it. At the same time, I think ongoing discussions about how we are addressing homelessness in Santa Fe and the 10-point very comprehensive plan that Director Hammond Paul put together and is executing is really important for everyone to understand and to learn about. And I think the department is doing an outstanding job of coming up with a really multifaceted approach to address what is, as the Director said, a really complex problem. And being part of the Build for Zero movement has served us very well. The fact that we have a by-name list is absolutely critically important. So we're not talking about the homeless, we're talking about individuals who need to be sheltered. And these pallet shelters can provide, assuming we're able to move forward with this proposal in a timely way, as the Director said, something close to 100, 130, 150 new places for people to live and to be sheltered and move on from that to permanent housing. All the stories in the paper we've seen about the people who are sheltered now at Christ Lutheran celebrate what a great success that is. And I support moving rapidly toward more of those communities so we have more people safely sheltered and off the street. We'll take this back up in two weeks. Thank you, Mr. Hammond Paul. Mayor: Madam Clerk, can you take us to the next item on the agenda? Clerk: Next item is, excuse me, 11A, recommendation to deny appeal number 2024-the director decision not to take enforcement action against Mr. G's Auto Sales LLC, aka Mr. G's Proto, located at 7617 Baca Lane. And here to present is Assistant City Attorney Rebecca Mik Herman. Mayor: Entertain a motion before we get the presentation. Wait a minute, this is an appeal. No, I don't think, no, this is not an... This is a recommendation to deny the appeal. I don't think we do a motion on the front end, do counselors? I think we do because it's not a public hearing. Oh, okay. We can wait if you'd like to wait. Councilor: Quick question. Why is this not a public hearing? Attorney: Good question, Mayor. Counselor, thanks for the question. So this is a denial of appeal because it didn't conform with the city's rules. So if it were to be, so if the council decides to not agree with the denial, then a hearing would actually be held at the Planning Commission. I believe it would go to a hearing at an appeal at the Planning Commission. So that's, so right now, the land use director looked at the proposed appeal, determined it didn't conform with the city's rules for an appeal. And then our rules say it goes to the city attorney's office. The city attorney's office reviews the land use director's determination, and in this case, we agreed with it. And then we have to bring it to the city council for discussion. If the city council agrees, then the appeal is denied. If it's not, it goes to Planning Commission. In this case, because it was an appeal to the land use director, pardon, it would be to the Board of Adjustment. So the land use, whichever land use board has jurisdiction. So in this case, it's the Board of Adjustment. Councilor: For the sake of having the discussion, I make a motion to deny. Councilor: Second. Mayor: The motion is to accept the recommendation to deny. But let's get the presentation because I think the question that was just asked by Councilor Michael Garcia about why this is here in the form that it is in will be fully explained by the presentation you're going to make. Councilor Lindell: The motion, we're given an option of two motions here in our packet. And the second, the second motion, it's to set the appeal for a public hearing, which Garcia just said, and that it would be before the governing body, not before what was the body that you just said, Mayor Weber? Attorney: Councilor Lindell, I apologize. That's the typo from me. I wrote that. It's, it would be the Board of Adjustment rather than the governing body. This is an appeal of a land use director decision. And so most of those go to the Board of Adjustment with a few exceptions. Development plans, terrain management, those specifically go to Planning Commission. Otherwise, these don't go to governing body. So this, the, even if this did go to a public hearing in front of the Board of Adjustment, there would be no option to appeal to the governing body after that. It would be, that would be a final decision. The only option would be to appeal to District Court. So there's, there's no going back to governing body. I apologize for the confusion. Board of Adjustment. Councilor: Okay, so that motion would be a corrected motion would be set the appeal for a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. Councilor Lindell: Mr. Mayor. Attorney: Councilor Lindell, that's correct. Councilor Lindell: Thank you. Councilor Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Garcia's recommendation was to deny the appeal, which in this case, it would be appealed to District Court. Attorney: Mr. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, that's correct. So if you were to, if the governing body were to vote to deny the appeal today, that would be a final decision by the city. And so then the appellant's option would be to appeal that decision to District Court. Mayor: So let's, let's, before we look at options, let's go into what the case is about and make sure everybody has the same platform of understanding and information so we can, once we get to discussing the motion, we'll have a full understanding as will the public who are watching and listening. So go ahead if you want to walk us through this case, please. Attorney: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of City Council. I'm here tonight to offer a recommendation to deny an appeal based on that appeal's non-conformity with the code. First, I'll give a brief summary of what we're doing. When someone files a land use appeal, the code requires that the land use director review the appeal for compliance with the code's procedural requirements as those requirements are described in Section 14-3.17 of the Land Development Code. That's the appeal section. Procedural requirements need to be met include whether there was a final action as that term is defined in the code, whether the appeal was filed on time, whether the appeal states a valid basis for appeal, and whether the appellant has standing to appeal the action. So there's not a determination being made on the planal merits of the appeal, just whether it conforms to the code, it meets those basic procedural requirements. Appeals are submitted to the land use director. If the director determines that an appeal does not conform to the requirements of Section 14-3.17, the city's code dictates the director refer that determination to the CAO for review, the attorney's office. The city attorney's office agrees with the director that the appeal does not meet the procedural requirements set forth in the code. The city attorney is then required to prepare a written recommendation for discussion by the governing body, and I did that in a memo that was uploaded to Civic Clerk. If the governing body accepts the city attorney recommendation, that's the final decision, which the code states can then be appealed to District Court. If the governing body disagrees with the city attorney recommendation, the case will be scheduled for an appeal hearing at a land use before the Board of Adjustment, as we discussed earlier. At an appeal hearing, both parties would have an opportunity to present arguments and present evidence. In this case, there would be two parties that would have that opportunity, the appellant, in this case, the appellant, which is the business owner. Tonight, we are recommending that the governing body deny the appeal because it does not conform to the code, specifically because there was no final action in this instance as that term is defined in the code. Section 14-3.17 A1A of the code states, "Only final actions may be appealed." The code includes a list of actions that are specifically not final action. And the that list includes that a decision, quote, "a decision not to take enforcement action is not final action." So therefore, a decision not to take an enforcement action is not final action and is not appealable. Here, the appellant specifically states in the first page of their Exhibit A to their petition, which is also available on Civic Clerk, that the appeal is of a decision by former Land Use Director Jason Cluke in which Mr. Cluke, quote, "declined to take any enforcement action against Mr. G's Auto Sales, aka Mr. G's Proto." Because the code prohibits appeals of decisions not to take an enforcement action, an appeal is not available to the appellant at this time. The appeal does not conform to the code, and denial without a public hearing is recommended at this time. I suggested the two options for motions in the memo to the governing body. They are as follows: one, I move to accept. the recommendation of the City Attorney's office, deny the appeal without a public hearing. That decision is then final and may be appealed to District Court. Or, I move to reject the recommendation of the City Attorney's office and set the appeal for a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Santa Fe City Code. So that concludes my prepared statement, and I stand for questions should the governing body have any for me at this time. Mayor: I have one clarification question, and then I'll turn to my colleagues. If you could just, what you read was very dense prose. So if you could unpack it for us. If I understand what you said correctly, the then Land Use Director chose not to take action. A decision not to take action under our code is not appealable simply because there is no appeal against a decision not to act. And therefore, the request to appeal is not permitted under our code because there was no action taken. Do I have that logic flow basically correct? Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, that's exactly correct. Mayor: Are there questions about this case for anybody who'd like to try to unpack it themselves? No. We have a motion from Councilor Lee Garcia, and seconded, that would, I understand correctly, would accept the recommendation of the City Attorney's office. Speaker: That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Mayor: Any no further questions, no further comment. Madam Clerk, could you call the roll? Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero Worth? Councilor Romero Worth: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro? Councilor Castro: Yes, and I would like to explain my vote. Clerk: Councilor Chavez? Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia? Mayor Weber? Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: The motion passes. Mayor: We have two individuals who want to explain their votes. I'll start with you, Councilor. Councilor: Thank you, Mayor. My only reasoning is I think that this should have a public hearing. Thank you. Mayor: Yes, Councilor. Councilor: Thank you. I also think this has a public hearing, but it is really important to me to support staff, and I generally take the recommendations, and under our code, that's why I made that decision. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you for being here. Madam Clerk, can you take us to the next item? Clerk: Item 12, Matters from the City Manager. Mayor: Mr. Randall, you have the floor. City Manager: Mr. Mayor, governing body, thank you. I just wanted to, two things. One, give a shout out to Nathan Miller, who is our Santa Fe Fire Department Wildland Superintendent, who, as the Mayor mentioned earlier, has led our team of five along with a vehicle and the command vehicle to the California fires. But even more importantly, he oversees the state effort, which included 26 individuals, five trucks, and the command vehicle. He is the person in charge right now. They are deployed working on the Palisades fire, and we should be very proud of what our fire department is doing. Second, I just wanted to mention also that the Senior Olympics are happening right now in Santa Fe, and there are 473 senior athletes participating in this. And I think it's not only great that we have this activity in our state, but I think we ought to be very proud that it's being hosted this year in Santa Fe. With that, that's it. Thank you. Mayor: What's next, Madam Clerk? Clerk: Item 13, Matters from the City Attorney. City Attorney: Madam City Attorney, Councilors, thank you. First off, Happy New Year. And I did want to let you know that FOIA Manager Katherine Garcia G's estimate for the numbers of FOIA that we would receive in 2024 was only 24 off. It was 10,824. So a very close number for her estimate. I think it is going well with the crash reports online. We now have about a month's worth of those up. But I would like to recommend that we go to an executive session to discuss a few different things. And I'm switching back to my agenda. Or right, I can read the City Manager's. Thank you. But I do recommend, Madam City. Mayor: Before you do, can we just take a moment? It's been called to my attention that we're 10 minutes away from our usual petitions from the floor. I'm wondering if we would like to do that in 10 minutes before we go into executive session. Perhaps we could take a 10-minute break, come back at 7:00 on the dot, go to petitions from the floor, then come back to you, Madam City Attorney. City Attorney: Sounds wonderful, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Mayor: Okay, very well. We'll stand in recess for 10 minutes. [10-minute recess] Mayor: It is 7:01 by my clock, and we try our very, very best to go to petitions from the floor. I'd entertain a motion that we change our agenda so that we now go to petitions from the floor before we go to Matters from the City Attorney. Councilor: So moved. Councilor: Second. Mayor: Everybody agree? Councilor: Third. Mayor: Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on the agenda change, please? Clerk: Councilor Romero Worth? Councilor Romero Worth: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Castro? Councilor Chavez? Councilor Chavez: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Lee Garcia? Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Michael Garcia? Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Clerk: Councilor Lindell? Mayor Weber? Mayor Weber: Yes. Clerk: Motion passes. Mayor: Thank you. So with that, Madam Clerk, I think we need to go to petitions from the floor. We'll entertain people here in the chamber first. The City Clerk will keep clock for us, and when two minutes have expired, we'll politely express that to whoever's speaking. There are hearings at the end of our evening, so if you wanted to speak about those, please wait until those are on the agenda for your testimony. But if there is something not public, a matter that is a public hearing, this would be the time to come forward and introduce yourself and talk with the governing body about whatever you would like to address. Two minutes. Speaker: Sorry, I haven't seen the agenda. I don't know if this is pertaining to something that is on the agenda later. My name is Chris Distler. Mayor: Make sure you speak right into the mic, please. Or if you tell us, well, you can lift it up too, sir. Chris Distler: I'm just going to read it. My name's Chris. I've been asked to speak for my friend Helen W., 1115 Morning Drive, District 3, who is unable to attend due to a health incident. And this is Helen's transcript. Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. I am the past Area Development Committee Chair for the Tesmos Lindos HOA. I am retired from a career in the civil engineering side of the land development business. I wrote the original application for the South Meadows Open Space. I am intimate with the details of this case. Mr. Mayor, Councilors, I respectfully request that your Planning Commission meeting tomorrow evening either entirely exclude the hearing for, or at least forbid any approvals for the proposed Los Pinos development. And I'll briefly tell you why. Your Planning Commission is not adequately knowledgeable in the facts of the case. Frankly, with due respect, neither are you. The history, this history is rife with ethics and Sunshine Rule violations on the part of the county and later the city. This land was purchased with a voter-approved bond in 1999 to the tune of a million dollars. Everyone in the city and county paid for it over the course of 20 years from 2000 to 2020. After COVID struck, the developer drove around Southwest Santa Fe looking for land to develop. He immediately texted a county employee looking to strike a deal on our open space acreage. We have records of that via the Information Act. Subsequently, secret and unannounced closed-door meetings were held with the County Commission between that body and the developer to negotiate a sale of our open space. This was unethical. We have records. The developer repeatedly told falsehoods about the land itself, a vibrant, healthy, virgin example of high country desert, full of wildlife. Mayor: Sir, your two minutes is up. Maybe you can get to the end before, if, excuse me one second, sir. It's close. If you could get to the end real quick, please. Chris Distler: You said it was a dirt lot. When this land was purchased for open space, the mandate was clear: open space, natural, in perpetuity. The City Attorney later ignored the mandate and declared that the language in the document was not adequate to prevent a sale. This was unethical. Everything from inaccurate traffic counts to inadequate drainage calculations to minimizing the real danger from the yet-to-be-decommissioned radioactive adjacent Everline Thermodynamics building have been put forth by the developer and his agents. The developer has been bamboozling all of you, has been resting on his laurels with you while intimidating all of the public. I implore you to not make any approvals in this case until after all the details have come into full light. There are many more issues and problems with this case. In the interest of time, thank you. I can see. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Okay, thank you. Elizabeth West: My name is Elizabeth West. Mayor: Let's wait one second while the Clerk resets the clock to make sure you get your full time. Go ahead, you have the floor. Elizabeth West: Thank you very much. It's very nice of you. My name is Elizabeth West, and am I supposed to say where I live? Yeah, in the South Capital, Santa Fe. I'm glad to be here, glad to be back. I've been on a travel, and I'm sort of disoriented, although friends of mine say, "Aren't you often?" But then it's kind of a funny day today. So one of my first of two comments is, we're asking for a lot of transparency, and you hear that from the public, and you have responded in various ways this evening. And I had to have a chuckle. It was very transparent. There was some hefty stuff going on. I'm over 80 now. It doesn't surprise me. I still respect each and every one of you for the good work that you do. So I think tonight is an example of transparency. It's also the day after the Wolf Full Moon, to which I referred in a note that I hope you all got. I didn't refer to the wolf part, but I referred to Benjamin Franklin. I referred to a good movie called Mike. And so I want to clarify that I find the website in navigating around it has gotten a little more complicated for me. And you know, I'm only a little bit over 80, so I'm hoping you did receive it because I thank you. Okay, then I don't need to say anymore. But do go see the movie at least. And good luck. I guess since it's not on the agenda, I'm allowed to say I recommend not appealing. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you for your help. Speaker: I just want, I'm here to speak for the, about the obelisk. I'm kind of curious why there's no plan B. You know, right now, there's no venue for the public to even address the concerns for a plan B as to what's going to happen next or how it goes. You know, that should be there. I don't know if you guys are consulting your, your campaign donors or your gallery owners on Canyon Road. I can't figure that out. You know, and I think the public deserves better on how this obelisk goes, moves forward. But involve the public. The public has been involved in this issue for a while. Officers have been taking up their resolutions and not really consulting the public. You might be consulting your paid donors, but we don't, I don't know that. But I just really feel that this obelisk should be more open, more white, so that the public can have a better opinion of what really goes on there. You don't have venue there yet, and I hope you guys put a venue there so that the public will have a chance to weigh in because I have ideas too. A lot of people have ideas, but you guys are the ones that the only ideas you want to hear. So I thank you. Thank you very much. Holly Stalls: Yes, hi. My name is Holly Stalls, and I live right by your restaurant, Castro's, right around the corner. Anyway, my, my counselor is Jamie Cassett, and I had a conversation with her last night. This is just to kind of give you a heads up that we're hoping to redo a resolution to increase the shows, number of shows in Cathedral Park for artists and for art shows. So I represent the Northern New Mexico Fine Arts and Crafts Guild that has been doing shows for 25 years in Cathedral Park. And recently, there's been other art organizations that want to share in those number of shows. And so right now, we need more shows. if all the artists can have a chance to show. We have been doing four shows there, so SWA is one of them, and then there's just a couple others. Anyway, we just wanted to put that out so maybe it can be on the agenda, hopefully, because we do have to get our applications out. The first show is May, and then we do two shows in September. We could, usually we try to do one application for all the shows, but if this gets really, and I talked to Randy about this, and Mayor, thank you for letting me give you just a heads up because we've been doing the shows and we're trying to, hopefully, Arts and Culture is writing a resolution. I don't know the whole process, but we really need it to be pretty quick to solve this issue. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the council chamber who wishes to speak on a matter not a public hearing? If not, Madam Clerk, can you identify the people in the Zoom room who want to bring something to the council's or the governing body's attention? Give them each two minutes. Yes, Stephanie Beninato has her hand raised. I'm going to allow her to talk. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Great. I wanted to just say about the pallet houses that my understanding is that it's a permitted use and that that agreement comes from the operator and is not really negotiated with the neighbors. It's just given to the neighbors sort of after the fact. I just want to remind Council about that part, and I still think it's there. However, I wanted to thank Melanie from Risk Management who came out this morning and looked at the sidewalk and curb at 614 Pojoaque de Peralta, which is owned by an 80-year-old woman who has been told by the City of Santa Fe that she's supposed to pay for the damage from the snowplow. Even though apparently the neighbor's property also has some damage, she's the only one who has a hearing on Friday in front of Steven Ross. She just asked me to go to the hearing with her, but I'm unable to attend, and so I may ask Mr. Ross for a continuance. However, I'm outraged just on my own because there's hardly any damage apparently to the curb. It's not her fault that the city's running the snowplow into it, and yet there are people who take out their sidewalks, who allow them to degrade to the point where they no longer exist, and I've reported some of these sidewalks because of the danger to pedestrians for almost eight years, and nothing happens. But you take action against an 80-year-old woman who isn't doing any damage at all and is actually trying to maintain the property and maintain a business in that location. I'm also asking, but I do want to thank Melanie for coming out so quickly, taking photos, and being willing to report back to whoever she's supposed to be reporting back to. I also appreciate that Aaron McCurdy got back to me about having to refer my request to authority to settle in the tort claim, nuisance claim I have against the city, to refer it to a committee. I will be following up to make sure that that really does occur because again, I think it's malfeasance to go on with this with extensive discovery. It is wasting taxpayer time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Someone else in the Zoom room? Is there anyone else who wishes to raise their hand in the Zoom room? I do not see anyone, Mayor. Right. Anyone else here one last time? If you've made it down to City Hall and you want to address something not on a public hearing, now would be the time to come forward. Okay, Madam Clerk, I think we have completed the petitions from the floor, so we'll go back to the regular order of business, which would return us to Matters from the City Attorney. Yes, Mayor, thank you, Mayor, Counselors. I was going to recommend that we go into executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act sections, subparts H2 and 7 of Section 10151, limited personnel matters and attorney-client privilege discussion of pending and threatened litigation, in particular the status of the administrative investigation of Utilities Department Director John Duplissey and the City Manager selection process, and the case Un Pueblo de Santa Fe versus Mayor Alan Weber and the City of Santa Fe. Counselor Mayor Worth, I move that we enter into executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act Section 10-151, subparts H2 and 7, as the City Attorney has stated. There's a motion and a second to go into an executive session for the items listed. Is there any discussion? Could you call the roll, Madam Clerk? Counselor Castro? Yes. Counselor Chavez? Yes. Counselor Faulkner? Yes. Counselor Lee Garcia? Yes. Counselor Michael Garcia? Yes. Counselor Lindell? Counselor Romero Worth? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Thank you. We will be in executive session. I hope we'll be back for those of you who are waiting for items later on the agenda. We'll endeavor to be as swift as possible to come back into session here. Thank you. If Counselor Mayor Worth is almost ready, I will return us to our proceeding and ask that she make a motion. Start again. Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act Section 10-5-1 J, I move that the governing body reconvene in open session and state for the record that the matters discussed in the closed session were limited to those specified in the motion for closure. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Very good. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll on the motion? Counselor Chavez? Yes. Counselor Faulkner? Counselor Lee Garcia? Yes. Counselor Michael Garcia? Yes. Counselor Lindell? Counselor Romero Worth? Yes. Counselor Castro? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Thank you. So, Madam City Attorney, under 14a, what is your advice for the disposition of that item? Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion on that item. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to direct the City Attorney to not appeal the judge's decision in, excuse me, the Union Protectiva de Santa Fe versus Mayor Alan Weber in his official capacity and City of Santa Fe defendants case. Second. Okay. I wouldn't mind having my question answered by the City Attorney in terms of, generally speaking, if the sensibility is not to file an appeal, certainly we can vote on this motion, but we could also have just simply ignored this item, I believe. Is that correct, Counselor? Because there is no official city opinion on this case, I don't think you need to vote on whether to appeal, but if you wanted to appeal, you would need to. Okay. So there's a motion and a second to formally make the assertion that we are not going to appeal. Is there any discussion? Very good. Madam Clerk, could you call the roll? Faulkner? Counselor Lee Garcia? Yes. Counselor Michael Garcia? Yes. Counselor Lindell? Counselor Romero Worth? Yes. Counselor Castro? Yes. Counselor Chavez? Mayor Weber? Yes. With that, Madam Clerk, could you take us to the next item? Next item is Matters from the City Clerk. I just have three items. Happy New Year to everyone. We have hired a Constituent Services Manager who will be starting January 21st. We're very excited. He is an internal candidate who is moving over, Javetta Martinez. We also have a Constituent Services Specialist who will be joining us in the beginning of February. Yes, those are the things I wanted to update the Council on. Very good. Thank you. Next item then, Madam Clerk, Communications from the Governing Body. Very well. Let me begin. Counselor Castro, with you. So I just wanted to thank everyone for a very successful event for the Santa Fe Public Schools Bilingual Ed program. Thank you, Counselor Lindell, for being there, and we will look forward to the next annual celebration. Thank you. Yes, just have some personal shout-outs. I want to wish my daughter a happy birthday, January 25th. I'm doing it now just so I catch it before Lena turns nine years old. She is a year and a half advanced in math. She is the most perfect human being, the most responsible human being in our house. She remembers appointments and she makes sure that she leaves notes everywhere so we all have a successful day. So happy birthday to Lena and her wonderful self. I also want to congratulate my son who made the seventh-grade basketball team. He was chosen 12 out of 35 boys who tried out for Milagro's seventh-grade team, and he made it and is just beyond happy. So they are having a pretty positive month this month, so I just want to shout both of them out. Nice. Thank you, Counselor Garcia. Nothing much, just echo Randy's sentiments around the Senior Olympics. It's been a great couple days having folks here in the community, and I actually volunteered this afternoon with the washer event, or as folks call it, washa. Never had I ever played that. It's a very tough game, very competitive, I learned, and folks were having a great time. So thank you to the convention staff and everybody that made that event so successful for them. Thank you, Mayor. I don't really have anything tonight. It's a Happy New Year, and the event on the Plaza for New Year's Eve was just terrific. Thanks to everybody that had a fingerprint on that and our Kanes for just another amazing event put on by volunteers. Thank you. Mr. Faulkner. The La Posada in District 3 was amazing, and I want to thank all the community members, JPO and G, for all the work that they did. We also had a successful toy drive, and in part, the City of Santa Fe. Then I just want to remind everyone that the legislative session has started, and there are going to be a lot of laws addressing or proposed legislation addressing competency and crime and behavioral health and medical services. So this session is going to be packed, and if you care about any of those issues, I urge everyone to participate. Thank you. Counselor Mayor Worth. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to give a shout-out to the Santa Fe Police Department who showed up last night at a crime neighborhood meeting organized by former City Counselor Rosemary Romero. Chief Joy, Deputy Chief Grundler, Sergeant Lopez, Captain Barnett, both of the neighborhood watch program, came out and met with a really well-attended meeting of that neighborhood association, helping to advise about some of the things that have been going on in their neighborhood and how to best protect themselves. I just want to thank the Police Department for showing up and for being really great representatives of the work that they do, and I just want to notice them. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Lee Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Echo the words from my colleagues, Counselor Faulkner as well, in regards to all the activity that's been happening down in District 3. Thank you to the city for their partnership with the Teen Center, all the staff at the Teen Center. It was amazing to see the enthusiasm of young all the way to elderly that attended. So that's it. Happy New Year to everyone, and that's all I have, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. I'd like to mention a couple of things. First, we're approaching Martin Luther King Day, and for me, that is personal. I was blessed to have Dr. King deliver a sermon at my boyhood temple in St. Louis, and that's the kind of thing you never forget. His sermon on agape love of each other as human beings and the impact of his presence and his message of the things that really connect us to each other and moral imperative that we share is something that still I remember vividly. There's a photograph etched in my memory of that experience, and we will be celebrating here on the 20th at the Roundhouse. I hope everybody who feels that they're connected to the issues of human rights and equality and dignity and moral issues of our time. time will come to celebrate Dr. King's birthday. Also connected to that, in a slight way, was a meeting that I was able to host today with a delegation from the government of Mexico. The Minister of Foreign Affairs came to City Hall with his team, and we talked about what Mexico and New Mexico share. He shared with me that the new president of Mexico is talking about a policy that she embraces of "New Mexican humanity." I joked with him that what he meant was "New Mexican Humanity," and he promised to take that message back to the president. But it was a very important reminder of just how close Mexico and New Mexico are connected in so many different ways. And I have to say, I was completely impressed with the sense of character of the minister and his team, their commitment to relations with Santa Fe and with New Mexico, and their deep, deep ties to this community. It was a tremendous honor for me to be able to host that delegation, and I just want to call to our community's attention the fact that we are on the radar screen at the highest levels of the government of Mexico, and I think that's a good thing. I think that that's where we want to be. With that, Madam Clerk, can you take us to the next item on the agenda? Item 17: Introduction of Legislation. 17A: Consideration of Resolution Number 2025 TBA, sponsored by Councilor Amanda Chavez, a resolution authorizing representatives and agents of the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration, Appropriation ID Number 13321, New Mexico Department of Transportation, Control Number C5243321, to acquire rights-of-way or and to plan, design, and construct a pedestrian underpass on St. Michael's Drive. And here is Public Works Director Regina Wheeler. So, Councilor Chavez, as you're just introducing this legislation, do you want to say something about it? Or turn it over to Director Wheeler to add anything more that she would like to, despite what's shared or what's shared in the caption? Mayor Weber, Council, introduction is just comment by sponsors. Yeah, there could be a staff presentation at first public comment, but this actually doesn't have that because it's just a resolution. I think the caption speaks. Thank you. Very good. Next item, please. 17B: Consideration of Resolution 2025 TBA, sponsored by Councilor Amanda Chavez, a resolution authorizing representatives and agents for New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration, Appropriation ID Number G3165, New Mexico Department of Transportation, Control Number C55C5223165, to plan, design, construct, landscape, and make Phase One improvements to medians on arterial and collector roads for the City of Santa Fe in Santa Fe County. Again, Councilor Chavez. Thank you, Mayor. Again, I think the caption speaks for it. Thank you. Thank you. Then we'll go to the next item, Madam Clerk. 17C: Consideration of Resolution 2025 TBA, sponsored by Mayor Alan Weber, a resolution accepting a grant from the Kalinda Beautification Program, administered by the New Mexico Department of Transportation, entering into a grant agreement for a total amount of $95,000, term ending June 30th, 2025, identifying the City Manager or City Manager Designee as the signatory for the agreement. And I'm going to follow my colleague's lead and say the caption speaks for itself. So, take us to the next item, Madam Clerk. We've completed petitions from the floor, so let's move on. Item 20: Final Action on Legislation, Public Hearing. 20A: Consideration of Bill 2024-12, adoption of Ordinance Number 202. This has to change. 2025 TBA, sponsored by Councilor Signe Lindell, a bill amending SFCC 1987 Section 12-3, pertaining to the public display of fireworks, recognizing the Fire Department will apply the International Fire Code to the public display of fireworks, making other terms consistent with the International Fire Code, and providing for governing body approval of public fireworks display permits without legislation. So, let me turn to you, Councilor Lindell, and then this is a public hearing, but I would not have a problem if you wanted to introduce this before we go to a public hearing and a motion and discussion among the councilors. You can make a motion. You can also, if you'd like, explain the ordinance before we open it up for public hearing. Start to approve. Second. So, Marshall Gigo is also here if you have technical questions on this, but this allows us to expedite putting together in a legal way to do our fireworks displays without having to every time bring separate legislation. So, it's just expediting our process. Thank you. With that, and because it is a public hearing, I would open the podium or anybody who is in the Zoom room who would like to address this bill as a matter of a public hearing. Now would be the time to come forward and testify. No hurry, take your time. Elizabeth West again, and I totally think this is excellent. Thank you, Councilor Lindell and everybody. This is an obvious yes to me. Thank you to the Fire Marshal and his crew also, by the way. Thank you. Anyone else in the chambers who wishes to speak? Anyone on the Zoom with a hand up, Madam Clerk? Councilor, there's one hand raised for Stephanie Beninato. She can now speak if we can have the timer. Sorry, Stephanie Beninato. I echo Elizabeth West's remarks that it seems obvious that this is a more efficient way to deal with firework displays. Thank you. Thank you. Any other hands up? Don't see any other hands. Very good. Is there a discussion among the governing body? There are no hands up here either. Madam Clerk, we have a motion and we have a second, and we have had public testimony. Would you please call the roll? Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Yes. Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Castro? No. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. I just want to thank you, Fire Marshal Gigo. Your pleasure to work with on this. Thank you for being here in case. Appreciate it. Would you take us to the next item, please? Item 20B: Consideration of Bill 2024-the Fiber Texas LLC, a non-exclusive franchise to operate a telecommunications network within the City of Santa Fe, the right of use City public rights-of-way to provide telecommunication service within the city, and fixing the terms and conditions thereof. And here is Project Administrator Sean Moody. For our last item, I'd entertain a motion and then ask Mr. Moody to say a few words about it and then have a public testimony. Second. I hear a motion to approve and I hear a second. Mr. Moody, do you want to, for the benefit of people who aren't familiar with how this works, why we do this, what it actually provides for, maybe you could brief everyone on the way in which we handle non-exclusive franchises like this. Thank you. Thank you all for having us and for considering this. This will be the seventh application since 2018, and the first six were a small handful of providers, including Contel, which built out a network for the Santa Fe Public School system. This applicant has bought that network from Contel, is operating now under Contel's franchisees, is applying for another, and their ambition and plan is to build out a complete fiber network for all of the city neighborhoods in a Phase Six. Thank you. Are there questions? Well, first, let's go to the public. Is there anyone here in the room or on the Zoom, in the Zoom room, who would like to address this item before we go to questions from the governing body? Any hands up, Madam Clerk? There is one hand up in the Zoom room, Stephanie Beninato. I am allowing you to speak. Thank you. Stephanie Beninato. My concern is that we have a lot of wires up in the air, and I think it makes them more vulnerable. I would hope that perhaps this company would consider burying their wires, their cables. Right now, on my alley, there's a cable hanging down to about five feet. It's rolled up, but there's a part of it that's hanging down. There's another one that's probably at seven feet. They don't seem like, you know, that there's a safety issue in a sense with them. And again, we have probably three or four utilities already on our alley, and I don't know how many more can really be accommodated and welcomed really on those lines. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else with the testimony on this item? Anyone on the governing body with a question for Mr. Moody? We have a motion and we have a second. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Castro? Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. Next item, Madam Clerk. We move to other public hearing matters. Item 21A: Request for approval of the 2023-2024 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report for submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as a condition to the City of Santa Fe's Community Development Block Grant. Move to approve. Again, there's a motion. There's a second. I don't know if Director Nelson is with us. Not with us on Zoom. Don't know the answer to that question. It doesn't appear she's in the Zoom room, does it? No, Mayor, it does not. Are, if there are questions, we could lay this. If there aren't, you can vote on it. We have a motion and a second. Could you call the roll? Is there any public comment? Good point. I apologize. I was looking at my colleagues first. This is a public hearing, and if there are people who would like to testify on this item, I know we got some correspondence on it, but I don't know if anybody is in the room here or on Zoom who would like to speak to it. If you're here, please come forward. If you're on the Zoom, please raise your hand. There is no one in the Zoom room with their hand raised. In that case, I will ask the Clerk to call the roll. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you. Next item, please, Madam Clerk. Item 21A: Appeal Number 2024-839 DAPL of Case Number 2024-25 BO decisions regarding the historic status of structures at 718 Old Santa Fe Trail. One, maintaining the significant status of an apartment building at 718 Old Santa Fe Trail, and two, designating the status of two casitas on the property as contributing. And it should be Assistant City Attorney Frank Rubidoux. Thank you. Let me go through the process, and then we will embark. First, if there is anyone on the governing body who believes they have wittingly or unwittingly had pre-hearing communications regarding the merits of this case and they need to recuse themselves, now would be the time to do so. If not, we'll then begin with the staff presentation, followed, and I'm hoping that will be about a 10-minute presentation, followed by the appellant or the appellant's agent with an opening statement and sworn testimony up to 20 minutes. Then we can have a sworn public comment, of course, and then the governing body will have the opportunity to ask questions of staff or the appellant or witnesses and the public. And we'll go, as has been suggested in the past, around the dais so that each person gets a turn. And then we will go to a closing comment. We close the public hearing, closing comments from staff and/or the appellant, close the public hearing, entertain dialogue among the governing body members, and then a motion and a vote. With that, we'll turn it over to the staff to make a presentation. Mayor, Councilor, Frank is on his way downstairs. He was watching upstairs, and we sped up faster than he anticipated, but he's on his way downstairs. Okay. Here any second, sir. Very good, sir. You have the floor for a staff report. We're hoping you can summarize the staff report within 10 minutes, but take whatever time you believe is necessary within those limits. No pressure, but this is a test. Frank, I'm an assistant attorney. Frank, if you could speak really close and directly into the microphone for everyone's ability to hear you clearly. Okay, thank you. We can't see, and is my PowerPoint appearing? No. My PowerPoint, and everybody, I'm not sure everybody here in the auditorium can see it because it's not feeding on those screens up there for some reason, and I wonder if it's feeding at home at the same time. As soon as they're available for everybody, we'll begin, but I'd suggest some technology training for presentations. Okay, fantastic. Okay, are you ready to go, sir? Yes, thank you, Mayor. All right, you have the... Thank you, Mayor Weber and counselors. My name is Frank Rubet. I'm an assistant City Attorney, and I represent the Historic Preservation Division and hearings before the Historic District Review Board. You're all aware that the Historic District Review Board reviews projects for new construction and modification of structures in these five historic districts here. And those five historic districts, but the H-Board also has another role, which is to review not plans to build or renovate, but to decide whether structures in the historic district qualify for a designation as a specially protected building. And there are two categories: significant and contributing. There was a review by the H-Board on March 12th, 2024, for a property here in the southwest corner, downtown and East Side Historic District. And that property is at 718 Old Santa Fe Trail. It's the subject of tonight's appeal. The yellow area is the downtown and East Side Historic District. This property closely abuts the Don Gaspar Area Historic District, but for the purposes of a status review, where the board is deciding whether a structure is specially protected, it doesn't matter where the property is. It doesn't matter which district it's in. The definitions of contributing, significant, and non-contributing are all the same. I'm going to zoom in on that property a little bit. There's a bird's-eye view that shows that there are no two structures alike in that district. There are a lot of historic structures in that district. The lots are all fairly irregular. And there were four buildings that the H-Board looked at in the hearing in March 2024. There was a set of apartments, that's a row of three apartments that was originally a single-family dwelling that was expanded by the property owner between 1907 and 1945. And then there's a casita, that's Casita 1, across the parking area to the south there. And there's Casita 2 immediately adjacent and to the south of Casita 1. There was a shed there at West and immediately adjacent to Casita 1, which isn't the subject of the appeal tonight because the H-Board decided that that was a non-contributing structure, and the appellants have no reason to challenge that designation. There's some undeveloped property that's part of this cluster of lots that abuts off to the west there. There are no structures there. That was not the subject of an H-Board review. So we're talking about designations of specially protected structures, and you'll find that there are two, the most restrictive being a significant structure. And there are several elements of a significant structure. A significant structure, all of these structures have to be 50 years old or older just to qualify for H-Board review. But it's a structure that embodies distinctive characteristics, and it has to maintain a high level of historic integrity. But what is significant with respect to this hearing and with respect to the H-Board's designation is that a significant structure can be designated as significant for its association with events or persons that are important on a local, regional, national, or global level. So an association with historic persons or an association with historic events is something the H-Board considers when deciding whether a structure deserves a significant designation. There are contributing structures. This is a lesser level of restriction. And a contributing structure again has to be 50 years old or older. It helps to establish and maintain the character of that historic district. A contributing structure may not have particular distinction in itself, but it adds to the historic architectural design quality significant for the district. It may have had minor alterations, but it still has to have historic integrity. There's no definition in the code of historic integrity, but we think of these historic buildings as they're either authentically historic or not. So historic integrity is kind of a way of talking about historic authenticity. And then a non-contributing structure is it can be a structure less than 50 years old, but the H-Board really doesn't review them if they're less than 50 years old unless there's some question about the age of the structure, or does not exhibit sufficient historic integrity to establish and maintain the character of the district. So before the Historic District Review Board reviewed these structures, they appeared on the official building historic status map. And this is a map that is developed from a variety of sources. These structures were the main apartments that are like three units. The H-Board referred to them as the main building, but they are a row of apartments. They had a significant status, as you can see. They are colored yellow according to the legend there in the lower right corner. You see yellow is significant. Casita 2 also had a significant designation, but we have to acknowledge that upon reviewing the historic documents, we could not figure out how Casita 2 got a significant designation. That was kind of a mystery to us. Probably the apartments were designated significant going way back to the original filing of the downtown and East Side Historic District with the Department of the Interior when these were originally, when this historic district was originally designated. Casita 1 had no designation. It was not surveyed. It was called non-surveyed, which is not the same thing as non-contributing. Non-contributing is a specific decision that the board makes to give a designation of non-contributing. Non-surveyed means it had never been designated before. It was a result of the H-Board's hearing on March 12th, 2024. This is what the map should look like once it's amended, but it won't be amended until after this hearing and until after the H-Board reviews it again if necessary. Casita 1 and Casita 2 became contributing. Casita 1 moved from non-status to contributing, so it was kind of an upgrade. But Casita 2 was moved from significant to contributing, which is sort of a downgrade. As you can see, the apartments retain their significant status and are still colored yellow. As I mentioned earlier, with respect to the definition of a significant structure, a significant structure can be made significant because of its association with events or persons that are important on a local, regional, national, or global level. And this property was owned during its formative years by this distinguished gentleman here, Benino Muniz, who lived from 1872 to 1945, and lived almost all his life in Santa Fe. And his great-granddaughter is Emily Rivera, who's the applicant here today. So we're proud to see that there's a family connection here that has been maintained for many generations. Mr. Muniz acquired the property in 1907 with his wife, Inez. And Benino and Inez Muniz acquired a single structure on that property, but added to that structure, added two units that became the second and third apartment unit. There may have been some division inside in the interior, which really isn't an issue before, usually isn't an issue before the H-Board. And also, during Mr. Muniz's lifetime, the two casitas were added to that cluster of lots there. And Mr. Muniz, when he was a boy, was an altar boy at the time of Archbishop Lamy at the Cathedral. And when he became a young man and graduated from high school, he went to work as a union typesetter, working for the New Mexican Printing Company. Now, that's just a picture of some typesetters doing work, not necessarily at the New Mexican Printing Company or depicting Mr. Muniz. It just shows the kind of labor-intensive trade the typesetters engaged in. And he remained a typesetter for long enough that he would become the chair of the local International Typographical Union shop. It was at one time a very influential union. And he, after working as a typesetter for some time, he transitioned over to the editorial side, writing and editing. And he started working for this publication, which was an offshoot of the New Mexican. It's a Spanish language edition of the New Mexican called El Mexicano. And he was the editor-in-chief of El Mexicano for almost 20 years. And this publication didn't just publish English language translations of articles in the New Mexican. It had a staff of writers and editors that developed stories and editorials and columns of interest to the Spanish-speaking community in Santa Fe and throughout the region. Mr. Muniz was very, very interested in entertainment and theatrics, and he became a board member of the Santa Fe Fiesta and also a board member of the Spanish Colonial Arts Foundation. And at one time, in the 1928 Santa Fe Fiesta, Mr. Muniz actually arranged a reenactment of Pancho Villa's 1916 raid at the village of, at the Battle of Columbus. And according to the historic inventory that was authored in 2024 by a gentleman that does a lot of historic inventories, John Murphy, almost 350 people participated in that reenactment. And Mr. Muniz was not himself a musician, but he organized this band, 14-piece band here, which played traditional Spanish folk songs, Los Viejos Alegres. I hope I'm pronouncing that right, the happy villagers, Los Viejos Alegres. And this band was so popular, it toured around the Western United States, going as far as St. Louis. And probably because of Mr. Muniz's interest in the entertainment industry, his three daughters all migrated to California at one time. One returned to the property and lived with Inez Muniz, who survived for 40 years after Mr. Muniz passed away in 1945. And she remained on the property with Inez Muniz until 1985. But in an effort to provide for his daughters, Mr. Muniz divided up some of the lots, and the lots became divided. At one time, there were five different owners. And as you can see, the two casitas were on the blue area of that lot. As I understand the historic cultural property inventory authored in 2024, the daughter that owned that lived in California passed away, and her heirs then did, I don't know if they ever came back to Santa Fe, but they did nothing to manage those properties, and they sat unoccupied, and they fell into disrepair. And we'll see some photos of these buildings. This is the apartment building on the north end of that cluster of lots there. This is the south elevation. This is the older part of the apartment building, some parts of which were built in the 1800s. This is a part closest to Old Santa Fe Trail. This is the east end of that structure that looks out over Old Santa Fe Trail. And then this is the west end into the structure. And as you can see, the west end is newer than the east end. But because the newer part of this apartment complex was built over 50 years ago, it takes on a historic significance of its own right. There's a section of the code that reads that more or less simply because a building is not in its original footprint doesn't mean it's not historic. The transitional phases of a building can take on historic significance if they're more than 50 years old. This is Casita 1, as you can... We see deterioration here that's apparent on the north facade. This is the facade that looks out toward the apartments, and the deterioration is especially evident. This is the back part of Casita 1, the south elevation. The adobe is crumbling and adobe has sloughed off. It looks like somebody tried to place a tarp there, maybe to get moisture out. If you go into Casita 1, you see that the roof has been breached and there are roots and other vegetative material growing through the roof. Although, it pretty clearly looks like there's some good carpentry in the interior, but this structure will need substantial renovation for it to be habitable. Here's Casita 2, in structurally better condition than Casita 1. As you can see, this is the east end that faces Old Santa Fe Trail. The stucco has sloughed off a bit, and then this is the back of Casita 2. It's hard to see because that property abuts the property to the south in close proximity. I think that's 728 Old Santa Fe Trail. But again, structurally, Casita 2 appears to be sound, but that will need renovations. These two Casitas have been unoccupied for decades. However, there are tenants living in all three of the apartments. So this is the decision you have to make tonight. Actually, we're going to ask you to make three decisions. One with respect to the apartments, and there are two questions you have to ask with respect to the apartments, unless you answer question number one. If you answer that yes, the question is, "Is the apartment building a significant structure according to the definition that's set forth there in the law block?" And if your answer is yes, then you deny the appeal and you maintain the Historic District Review Board's designation of those apartments as significant. On the other hand, if you answer question one no, then you have to ask question two, "Is the apartment building a contributing structure according to the definition set forth in the block?" So if you find that it is a contributing structure, that would be a grant of the appeal. So you grant the appeal and designate the apartments as contributing. And going back to question two, if your answer to that question is no, it's not contributing, then you grant the appeal and designate the apartments non-contributing. With respect to the two Casitas, we would ask that you cast one vote for each of the Casitas. That is typically the way the Historic District Review Board does multiple buildings, so that there's no question later on, so that the record doesn't become confused. You ask one question for each Casita, that is, "Is Casita 1 or Casita 2 a contributing structure according to the definition set forth there?" That's also in the syllabus attached to the City Attorney's memo. If your answer is yes, then you deny the appeal and designate the Casita contributing. On the other hand, with respect to question one, if you answer that question no, it's not contributing, then you grant the appeal and designate the Casita non-contributing. But according to the basics of appellate procedure, you would not have the option to upgrade the Casitas to significant because that would more or less punish the appellants for bringing this appeal, which we don't do in appellate procedure. So, I would like to introduce to the governing body, this is Mr. Paul Durant, who was the planner who made the presentation to the Historic District Review Board. And we're also accompanied tonight by Historic Preservation Director Gary McInnis, and we are available to answer any questions you have. Thank you very much for your attention here. Thank you. We'll turn now to the appellant and offer you an opportunity to make a presentation as well, or the appellant's representative. Where are you? Yes, please raise your right hand and state your name and address. My name is Lisa Martinez, and my address is 3201 Calle Safrano Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Thank you. You have the floor. Thank you, Mayor Weber, Mayor O'Connell, Lindell, and members of the governing body. Please bear with me, I'm getting over a cold and my voice isn't the greatest, but I thank you so much for the opportunity to present the following appeal on behalf of my client, Ms. Emily Rivera. And this is in response to the determination of the Historic Districts Review Board regarding the historic status designations of the three structures at 718 Old Santa Fe Trail that Mr. Ruble gave us a thorough presentation on. Thank you, Mr. Ruble, for that. We certainly appreciate all the efforts of the City Land Use Department, the Historic Preservation Division, and the City Attorney's Office to afford us this opportunity. Per procedures for appeals from Resolution 2011-24, the relief requested is reversal of the final action or a remand for hearing by the Historic Districts Review Board for the main residential structure, or the three apartments that were described, and also for Casitas 1 and 2. The action taken by the Historic Design Review Board for status review and primary facade designations is as follows, and as was described, again, the main residential structure has been designated as significant with all the facades designated as primary, therefore requiring preservation. Casita 1 has been designated as contributing with the north facade as primary, and Casita 2 has also been designated as contributing with the north facade as primary. Again, the tool shed is not an issue here. It was designated as non-contributing, and so we gladly accept the historic designation of that particular structure. I'd like to describe for just a second here, hardship that's placed on the current owner based on the designations that were imposed by the HDRB. Ms. Emily Rivera will provide a separate presentation pertaining to her family history on the property, which I believe is extremely important. And she will also provide an overview of her future family plans for the property as well. In brief, she'll discuss the importance of preserving the main residential structure for use as her own family residence in the future, and the Casitas as rentals, which we know in this community can provide affordable housing for Santa Fe residents, which is extremely important. The outcome of the governing body's decision, whether or not the buildings will have their designations downgraded, will determine whether or not the Rivera family will have the financial means to be able to undertake the necessary restoration and repairs to the two Casitas that are needed to make them structurally stable and in compliance with current building codes. Designations of significant and contributing historic status place additional requirements on the structures for restoration and preservation of all historic materials. The degraded adobe walls that you saw in the photos, as well as the caved-in roof members and the rotten and cracked wooden doors and windows, are in very poor state of repair and will add significant cost to the owners to be able to repair and or replace those. The applicant and the owner does not currently live on the property, but plans to do so in the future. Currently, however, she is burdened by the need for continuous monitoring of the property, especially with the two Casitas that are not inhabited and in a poor state of repair, as you saw in the photos. Mr. Rivera will further describe the issues behind the current state of disrepair. And of course, we know that the rental tenants in the main residential structure are not responsible for any of the property management, so that falls on Ms. Rivera to take care of. The basis for our appeal includes six items that have been pretty thoroughly described in my own appeal letter, as well as the memorandum that Frank Ruble put together. However, if I could just briefly go over these, I'd like to provide a little bit of a justification from our perspective. So, we feel that the HDRB application, in terms of a full analysis, was not necessarily in conformity with the Land Development Code review and approval procedures and application completeness. The board didn't have any floor plans or any elevations that would have illustrated the essential information that's needed for a complete and informed historic status review. I'm coming at this from my own recent experience with presentations before the Historic Design Review Board for historic status as well as primary facade designations. In those instances, and over my time as Land Use Director and working with the HDRB, we were always required to submit floor plans and elevations and photographs for the submittal in order for the board to properly assess the request. I'm not quite sure why this wasn't the case in this particular instance. I wasn't involved with the project at that point in time, but it seems like there had been operating procedures in place since the time I was at the city that designated all of these items that needed to be presented. So, I'm not quite sure if maybe the presentation was prematurely placed on the board agenda and the public hearing, which limited the board's ability to thoroughly understand the property. There was a member of the public who testified at the hearing that all facades of the main structure were not provided to enable a determination as to the correct historic status. He said that without this information, it could not be determined if the main structure should be listed as significant with all facades designated as primary, or contributing with designation of some facades as primary. The second argument that we placed in our appeal had to do with the definition or a discussion about the number of facades that are present for each of the four structures in the application. The application record and public hearing did not include any discussion of the public visibility of any facades and how they do or do not comply with the Land Use Code. And that's important to support the public good and the outward harmonious appearance of the historic districts. The City Attorney's Office has provided an analysis of emphasis, an analysis of evidence that supports the HDRB's decision, stating that public visibility is not an element of any definition HDRB had to consider in determining status or primary facade designations. But again, in my experience in working with the HDRB, maybe I sat through way too many public hearings and meetings, but public visibility was always such a critical part of that discussion, and it seemed to lead so many of the discussions in terms of determining status and determining primary facades. But this wasn't necessarily the case in the discussion for this particular project. We fully understand that the property sits up on a bluff, and so the larger apartment building, the main residential structure, is closest to Old Santa Fe Trail and is clearly the most visible. The two Casitas are set further back, and from Old Santa Fe Trail, you don't really see them. It's not until you start driving up the driveway that they will become visible. So I think that plays a very important role in these designations of both status and in designations of primary facades as well. The third argument in our appeal states that the HPD staff and HDRB members did not define or discuss character-defining features of the facades in each of the structures in the application. And so, again, an assessment of these doors and windows and other character-defining architectural features such as building massing, brick parapet coping, and deep window reveals was not provided in any of the recommendations by staff of primary facades. And so, when staff was questioned by the board, regarding the recommended statuses, the response was that the recommendations were considered only from the poor physical state of repair only. There wasn't a specific discussion about the HCPI reports or the inventories of windows, doors, chimneys, porches, and additions. Fourth, the HPD did not follow the advice and recommendations of their professional staff, professional consultants who completed the historic cultural properties inventory forms, nor information in the HPD files for this property when discussing and voting on the historic statuses of the structures. These reports are extremely important. We rely on them because these are our technical experts on so many historic preservation issues, and I think that there's been a significant number of reports attached to the structure, especially the current 2024 version, which speaks to their own recommendations for the statuses that they thought were most appropriate. But strangely enough, those recommendations were not followed, and staff had similar recommendations that matched some of the comments in those reports, and those were not followed either. In March 2021, there was a city planning department report that was issued on the state of historic preservation in Santa Fe, and one of the things that they said was that it was really important to discuss the significant value of the historic cultural property. These inventory forms assure a uniform product and provide a level of consistency in the review and designation of historic status. So it was disappointing that the board did not again take these into consideration in their assessments and the designations that they ultimately voted on. Our fifth argument had to do with an assumption that was made by the board that the three residential structures in the application comprised a historic compound. This is not in conformity with the land use code with regard to historic districts and historic compounds. I know that it appears as a compound because you have these three and four structures on the property, but in truth, as was described by Mr. Rubel, there are five separate parcels in this area, and therefore it can't be considered a compound. It's not a family compound that was formally approved as a study that was done a few years back. I think there were 100 properties that were evaluated across the city as family compounds. This was not one of them. It was not anything that was approved by the city council, and so therefore that didn't really play into this discussion, yet it was part of the approval process that the board went through, and we think that was inappropriate. Our final argument had to do with the fact that there is a seven-member Historic Design Review Board, and only four members were present at the hearing. The chair is not eligible to vote, so technically there were only three members that were present. And while I completely understand that there's a city resolution that does not require a majority of a committee to cast a vote in favor of a motion for a motion to pass, considering the historic status of the structures on this property, the differing recommendations of staff and consultants on the potential burden that historic status can impose upon a property, if there was a more complete board presence, that could have provided the applicant with a more robust discussion and ultimately a greater opportunity for a more desirable outcome for the applicant. We thank you in advance for your consideration to grant the appeal to reverse the board's decision and downgrade the designation of the main residential structure, the apartment building, from significant to either contributing or non-contributing. And this is per recommendation from the 2007 Historical Cultural Properties Inventory designation. And we would also request the downgrade of the status of the two casitas from contributing to non-contributing, per the staff's recommendation and also from the 2024 HCPI recommendation. In closing, I'd like to quote Mr. Tom McIntosh's recommendation from his 2007 report. He said, "I do not believe that 718 Old Santa Fe Trail is contributing to the historic district or significant and potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because of the diminished architectural integrity caused by multiple contributing and non-contributing alterations and additions." And so with that, I would stand for any questions and request that Ms. Rivera be provided with an opportunity to present her position as a family member who wants to continue to live on this property and preserve it for future generations. That'd be fine. We welcome her testimony. Thank you. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Emily Rivera, 4709 15th Avenue Northeast, Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Sorry, I'm a little nervous. I don't often speak. So, I just want to thank you for allowing us to bring the appeal, and I just appreciate the opportunity. I also want to thank everything that the City Attorney and the Historic Preservation Division Department has done, from Paul and Gary Machino, and even the Historic Board, because they allowed me the opportunity to share our rich family history with them, and that's pretty important. I think that I do believe my family was pretty important in Santa Fe, and Benina Monise was my great-great-grandfather, care of this property, and it's finally back in our family's care, custody, and control. One thing that I think is important, and that didn't get a lot of attention when we had our review meeting, was the status of why those two casitas fell in such far disrepair. What happened is my great-grandfather passed away in 1945. When that happened, my great-aunt took over management of the property. She then passed away in 1985. At that point, the care of the property fell to my mom in California. She moved back here in 1988 with myself, and we lived on the property and tried our best to take care of it. But for the next 20 years, there was infighting amongst the family: who owned what, which tract belonged to whom, who was responsible. And what happened is there was division. So for the next 40 years, 40 years, it didn't get settled. I was 10 years old when this started, so for most of my childhood and adult life, I thought we were going to lose the whole property. We'd never retain this. So I feel really blessed that I have this opportunity, but at the same token, it is a burden because there's 40 years of disrepair, particularly in the two casitas and the way they stand today, and not through the fault of my family. At that point, we only owned two-thirds of the main house, and we owned none of Casita 1 and 2 until 2018. My mom was able to then purchase from the infighting family members the remaining tracts and retain full ownership. Unfortunately, my mom passed away in 2022 and never was able to see the full title transfers into her. I settled that in 2023. So 40 years of this happening, and now it's here, and I'm grateful because this is our family legacy, but I only have so much means. Lisa spoke a little bit about that. We're prepared to do this. My husband and I, thankfully, are a little better off than some of my past generations. My mom was very humble. She worked at Connie's Food Town in the cheese department, and then she worked at Whole Foods Market in the cheese department. She didn't have a lot of means to do the things that the property needed to have done. She did her best, but she couldn't do it all. I'm grateful we own a home in Rio Rancho, and our last son is graduating from high school in May. We're about to be empty nesters. We're prepared to sell our home, use everything that we have there to restore the property. Again, that probably won't be enough. My main priority is the main house. That's my family home. The other two casitas were built later with my great-aunt, and they were always intended to be little rental houses on the property. They were never really occupied by family for much time, maybe distant relatives, cousins, this tia, that tio, they lived there, but we didn't really occupy those little casitas. They were always just accessible, low-income rentals for family members or neighborhood friends. And I don't feel the same sentiment or attachment to them, nor do I think, and that wasn't really talked about, that they represent what I believe we all feel Santa Fe is. When I look at the main house, I see the portal that overlooks Old Santa Fe Trail. I remember the stories my grandmother telling me of the ice truck coming down when it was a dirt road. All those things represent the main structure, while the two other casitas are way in the back. One is just a gray stucco front that you see just the top of with not even a window showing. So I just, I wonder, I question why they went to such an extreme direction on all the structures. I just don't feel like we got a real thorough analysis of each one uniquely on its own. It felt like they took everything as a whole. And I don't feel like that was incredibly fair for us, because we're going to do everything we can to bring it back to life, but there's a limit. And I want to retain it. I want to retain it for the long term. We're not looking to turn it around and develop it and sell it to a big commercial conglomerate. We're looking to keep this and have it around for another 100 years, but I need to be met in the middle a little bit, some sort of grace and understanding that maybe it just needs another look. Maybe it wasn't thoroughly looked at each uniquely, each casita, each structure for what was and was not significant. I do recognize many things about the main house being significant, and I think if my great-grandfather was here today, he would agree with me on that. And I think that he would be furious that anybody would tell us to do something different with the other structures because he knew the intended purpose. I'm very lucky that I know my family's oral history and that I'm that person that can carry it forward, but I do feel like I'd love some consideration to try to do that reasonably and to keep it for the long term so that we can come back here and do the work that needs to be done without so much burden on us. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. At this time, I will open the floor to any public members who would like to be sworn and testify, either who are here in the room or who are on Zoom. Madam Clerk, anyone wants to come forward now would be the time to do that. We need to swear you in. You state your name and address for the record. Yes, Elizabeth West, 318 Sen Street in the South Capitol area, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under penalties of perjury? Yes. Very good. The clerk will start the clock, and you have the floor. And I have a half an hour. Okay. Do you have slot? I do. No, I actually was sort of curious about this. It's in my neighborhood, and those of you who know me a little bit are going to be a little surprised. I almost always want to agree with the H-Board, but I think in this case that the requests that have been put forward, including John Murphy's recommendations, Hickey report, I carry a lot of weight, and I appreciate what the descendant was saying about her family. Now, I realize we really can't go with just emotional stuff, of course, but it does figure in, I admit. And since I've walked the neighborhood and I've occasionally wondered what the heck is going on. here is such a nice location. Couldn't something be done with part of it? So I happened to find myself in agreement and therefore in support of what they're trying to do here. And so, sorry, H-Board, I disagree with you this time, and I really have a lot of respect for the work that they do. One last moment, if I have a little bit of time. I remember years ago, several years ago, Mayor Weber, and I do not remember the date, I do not remember the discussion, but a sort of complicated H-Board thing came in front of you and all of you who were there then. And there was a lot of discussion. You really put your heart into it. Some of you were the people there, some of you weren't. But the Mayor said at one point, "You know, I think we don't know enough about this. The presentation hasn't really done it for us. I think we should send it back to the H-Board." And I like to bring that up because, Mayor Weber, there are a lot of times where people say he doesn't like preservation. And this is one last sentence, okay? But you did it then, and I remember it here today. You don't need to pass it back to them. I think a decision, a unanimous one, would be great. This time, they're wrong, and I would like to give support to what you all have done. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the chamber tonight who would like to testify? Now is the time to step up to the microphone. And if not, Madam Clerk, is there anyone on the Zoom, in the Zoom room, who would like to speak on this and be sworn? Yes, there are three members of the public, or four, with their hands raised. I will start with Stephanie Beninato. I will swear you in, and then we'll start the timer. Hold on. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, please state your name and address for the record. Stephanie Beninato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under penalties of perjury? I do. You may speak. Thank you. I was at that board meeting, and it seems to me that the board actually did look at each of the buildings individually, and that there was enough of a record. I don't know if they had a floor plan, but there was no interior change. This is a status review case, slightly different than if you're asking to actually make changes to the building. I think that you need to look at the criteria for both significant and contributing, rather than looking at financial hardship or what the family might have intended the casitas for, because they're going to be used for the actual intended purpose, which will be rentals, which will give the owner money to keep improving and/or maintaining what they've had. And I understand that it's a sad situation because I've seen a house in the R Plaza fall down over 40 years because of infighting, but that is not something that should change the status. And it's really a misconception that because you have the status, that you can't get any changes. Certainly, you can replace windows that are no longer operational, doors that are falling apart, roofs, plumbing, electric, all that the board would allow. So it's not like going to prevent that. It's just that it will look the same as what it looked historically. And it can be done, and it can be done in a way that is not breaking the bank. Also, the whole thing, if the board has four people in the meeting, it's a quorum. And if three of the people voted, then a majority of the quorum did vote for this. And if the applicant thought more people were needed, then I think it was on the applicant to ask to postpone the case until more people could be there. And in terms of a member of the public talking about significant or how many facades are significant, again, we don't know who that person is. You should have that record. You should be able to look at it. I heard the owner herself say that she would like the board to actually look at these more clearly, and that seemed to be also her agent's problem, that they didn't think that the board had looked at it clearly. I, you have the record. My memory is that they did. I do think that it's important to maintain these statuses, and the history of the original owner is what contributes to making it significant, but what the family does after that does not necessarily dictate what happens. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. I just want to say, I hope you support the board. Thank you. Thank you. Back to the board. Thank you for your testimony. Do we have another hand up? We do. David Rous. I'm going to allow you to talk. I'm going to swear you in, and then we'll start the timer for two minutes. Will you please unmute, Mr. Rous? Thank you. State your name and address for the record, please. Yes, my name is David Rous. My address is 21 Alcor Road, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. You may speak. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Weber and City Council members. Thank you for allowing us to present this appeal tonight. I know it's very late. And also, Mayor Weber, I am envious of your experience with Dr. King. I know you will cherish that for the rest of your life. A magnificent man. I've been working with Lisa Martinez on this appeal, and I echo her sentiments about the incomplete packet submittals regarding the scaled floor plans and the photographs and assessments of what materials are historic or not, and what their degree of repair is. Also, the incomplete procedures that were followed. We don't understand why a 2023 HCPI form was required and an H-Board hearing required when there was already one in the HPD files from 2007, where the H-Board had already done status reviews, and the applicant was required to pay for another HCPI form. The board did not actually discuss the complex differences between the four HCPI forms that are in the HPD files: 1996, 1982, 2007, and 2023. And all of those have very significant differences which were not discussed. And I am kind of not understanding why the board didn't mention why the state-certified professional consultants' recommendations were not even discussed or considered. They just did not discuss a lot of the things that are typical with status reviews. But finally, I wanted to say something about the incomplete records. The interesting thing is, when we wrote this appeal, we dated it at the beginning of May. And at that time, for the appeal deadline, we only had the Zoom recording available to us to write the appeal. There were no minutes, no findings of fact, and conclusions of law available for the appellant to review. And more so, the findings of fact and conclusions of law were actually not dated until after we submitted our appeal request. And the minutes are still not available on the city's website. There are no H-Board minutes available on the city's website past September of 2020. So we have yet to be given a full set of the minutes of the March 12th, 2024 case, and we don't know when those minutes were approved, but they certainly were not available to us by the deadline of the appeal. And the last point I want to make is the minutes and the findings of fact and conclusions of law do not record the public testimony and the board discussion regarding family compounds and their significant reliance upon that ordinance for their action. That testimony and discussion is only accessed on the Zoom recording. We do not understand why those are not in the minutes or the findings of fact and conclusions of law when they are clearly in the Zoom recording. And the board placed a lot of emphasis on the family compound. And as stated earlier, family compounds are not legal on the city H-Board yet because those compounds have never been approved by the governing body. And the ordinance states that the ordinance is not in effect until 30 days after the compound map is approved. Thank you, sir. Your time has expired. Thank you very much, Mayor. Thank you for your testimony. Madam Clerk, next person is Dylan Crouch. I'm going to allow you to talk, and I will swear you in. If you will state your name and address for the record. Hi. I'm Dylan Crouch, 718 Old Santa Fe Trail, Apartment 1. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. You may speak. So, I'm a tenant in the oldest part of the house on 718 Old Santa Fe Trail. And I won't bog you down with all of the law stuff because I don't know it. But I came back from LA to Santa Fe. I'm a native of Santa Fe, about four years ago. When I moved into the property, my initial, or my, the landlord at the time was Emily's mom, Paula. And really, I just want to attest to the, it's been inspiring seeing her family begin to revitalize the property and just the love, care, and dedication that they have toward it. And also, it's, you know, it's, I know that they're trying to maintain the, the, the respect to the culture and what it, what it means to Santa Fe. I saw Paula work, the little lady working, you know, outside in her hands. I remember the debacle of trying to get, you know, the different plots and the family and everything together. And yeah, I just want to emphasize that I, and then, and then I've seen firsthand just the struggle of that they've had to go through to take care of the property in the loving way that they want to do so. Yeah, I guess I just wanted to input that. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone else with their hand up? Yes, Mayor. H. Leeloy. I'm going to allow you to speak. And if, yes, hi. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Sure. Leeloy, and that's 718 Old Santa Fe Trail. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. You may speak. Yes, so I am also a resident of the location. Yeah, it's been a wonderful, wonderful time living there. Paula, Emily's mother, was my first landlord. And I could see how much dedication and time she's been putting into the property. I've been hearing, you know, I've heard how easy it is to handwave, "Oh, yes, just because it's historic, you are able to build and renovate and do all these things." I mean, the house, the casitas are literally falling apart, and all they want to do is try to fix it. And they've been trying to fix it for years, and there's been obstacles and obstacles. You know, Emily's been trying to do the right thing. Their family's trying to keep it in the family, which is, which has been wonderful. And everybody, as far as I know, the opportunities I've, I've, the time that I've spent with them, you know, they, they've been doing their best to, to, to try to maintain the place. But yeah, just, just constant obstacles. So the will's there. The means can be there. It's just we would like the path to be a little bit more clear because we love living here. And it's wonderful that there's opportunities like this. This is affordable housing here in Santa Fe for, for folks like me and folks like Dylan. And it could be future folks too, that want to live here, that want to work here, but they find it so difficult because they keep getting priced out. And so if we get those, those casitas turned around, it'd be great to offer some more affordable housing for, for new tenants as well. So, appreciate everything that, that Emily's been doing. And yeah, hope the, the decision can be changed. Thank you. Thank you for testifying. Do we have others with their hand up, Madam Clerk? I do not see anyone else in the Zoom room with their hand raised. Okay, if that's the case, then I would now welcome the opportunity for members of the governing body to Ask questions either of staff or of the witnesses. I think we'll take, in this instance, if you want to raise a question, just raise your hand and I'll follow on in the order you see me. I'm recognizing Councilor Lindell. So I'm on page 5 of 10673 in our, I think this is the, these are the basis for appeal, and I'm in number four. Ms. Martinez, could I ask you a couple of questions about this? So I thought that the six issues that you brought forward were meaningful. Typically, on these kinds of appeals, you know, it's a high bar to go against the review board. But what I see here in number four is the HPD staff recommended the following: maintain significant status, no change for the main residential structure, and non-contributing historic status for the two casitas. Non-contributing. I can't go through and find anywhere that I can understand why the H Board wasn't able to or didn't find it appropriate to follow the recommendations of the staff. Maybe you're not the person I should ask. Maybe I'm just saying that the six items that you brought forward had meaning to me. Mayor Weber, Councilwoman Lindell, my name is Paul Duran. I'm the archaeologist and senior planner for the Historic Preservation Division. This was my case, and I had the pleasure of working with Mrs. Riva. In order to move forward with a status review for any property within the historic districts, we need an HCPI form. We have an authority here in Santa Fe, Mr. John Murphy, who does, as a historian, generally many historical cultural property inventory forms in the Santa Fe historic districts. He did an extensive evaluation of the property, and he, that's what we use for status. We don't request floor plans, we don't request elevations because they're not doing a remodel, renovation, or so forth. We request a current, up-to-date HCPI form on the property recommended for status. So we received that. I made a site visit with the owners, walked the property prior to the hearing. Members of the board, Chair Rios, members of the board, we walked the property. I shared with them my recommendations as staff. Staff doesn't go, and it wasn't just my recommendation as a lone planner, it was something that staff came together about. We discussed it, talked it, wrote up the plan, and moved it forward and came to the recommendation of significant status for the main property and downgrading the status for Casita 1 or downgrading the status for Casita 2 from significant to non-contributing, and recommending non-contributing status for Casita 1 and non-contributing status for the tool. During the site visit with the board members, there was an open dialogue and communication between staff and the board members and how unique and special this property is, how these structures are special, and how could Mr. Murphy come to the conclusion of making this significant structure, 718 Old Santa Fe Trail, and downgrading it to contributing when it's such a significant structure on Old Santa Fe Trail? And how could, and trying to understand the dynamic of the structures in themselves, yes, they are in repair, they're in need of repair, and the board made a conscious effort walking the site. They reviewed all the structures on the property. They asked questions. They were very thorough. So they knew what they were talking about during the board hearing and an open discussion between the board members, and they came to the determination of the significant status for 718, the main residential house, and contributing status for Casita 1 and Casita 2 after walking the property and so forth. So I stand for questions. Ma'am, that was a good answer. However, I'm going to still go back to the front part of your answer, which was staff recommended significant status for the main apartment building and also recommended non-contributing for the two casitas. As I previously said, I think that the six points that are made, they're all meaningful to me. You know, the forum, the votes weren't unanimous. So you had, I can't see it in my packet right this moment, but you had on some of those votes, I believe, maybe three people making the decision. And I think that so in the appeal item number four is particularly meaningful to me. And I think with that, Mayor, I will yield the floor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duran. I think there will be time for discussion. Let's use this period for, as you did with Mr. Duran, asking very specific questions. And then when we get to dialogue, we can open up conversation on that basis. Does anyone have other questions they'd like to pursue at this time of either the staff, the applicant, or any of the witnesses, the appellant? Councilor Lee Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can you speak, I think maybe Mr. Duran, can you speak to the HCPI form? And I'd like more clarification on that. I don't know who would be the best. And again, it's significance in this, two, number four, where it says the HDRB did not follow the advice recommendations of the staff for the professional consultants who completed 2024 Historic Cultural Properties Inventory. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Garcia, thank you for asking that question. And I think this question comes up fairly often. The historian, Mr. Murphy, is a hired contractor working for the property owners and knows exactly what the property owners are looking for, doing, not judging what his recommendations are. However, that is taken into consideration. So when the HCPI form is completed, and this extensive HCPI form, Mr. Murphy did a fabulous job. The wealth and depth of history in here is quite extensive. Staff also reviews it, the historic, the entire Historic Preservation Division. And we as staff members, all the professionals in our own right, review it, and we come up with our determination. And then the board, a quasi-judicial body, all professionals in their own right, living in the historic districts, that have reviewed and know the historic districts and the code, walking the site, may have a different interpretation or so forth on a given recommendation by staff or the historian. And in this case, staff didn't agree with the historian, and the board did not agree with the historian or staff. And sometimes it just goes that way. Thank you. So that's where it says, in contrast, HDRB must apply the definitions as such. So that's what we are being asked tonight to, for us to make our own determination in regards to the criterion that was put set forth this case. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Garcia, as Assistant City Attorney Rubal shared, the board goes off of the code. They won't go outside of what the code states. So they're looking at the properties under significant, contributing, and non-contributing status. So they're reviewing every case, every structure in the historic districts by the code. So by definition, if the property meets 50 years or older, has character-defining features, and it has integrity, then it meets the code for the historic districts. If it doesn't, then they won't move forward on making something contributing if additions or so forth have developed that property. So as Mr. Rubal shared, he shared you the significant definition, the contributing definition, and non-contributing definition. And really, we have to go back to the code and make the determination of what the code states and if these structures meet the code, and which they do, in which the board made the motion. Thank you. I'll yield the floor for now. Thank you. Other questions? Councilor Faulkner, you have the floor. So on the structure that's listed as significant status, is my understanding that in that case, then all primary facades are to be considered? That that's what makes it different than the, the, Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman Faulkner, yes, ma'am. So on a significant structure, all the facades are primary. On a contributing structure, the board designates a primary facade. And in this case, I believe it's the north facade for Casita 1 and Casita 2 were designated as primary. And the primary facade is generally the facade with the most character-defining elements to that, to that facade, given like on 718, on the main structure, that southern facade has the most character-defining elements such as the red brick coping, the recessed windows, divided light windows, and so forth. So it has a presence of streetscape, has a presence of that downtown and East Side historic district design standards. And so that's usually the facade that they designate. So on the building that's considered significant, how many of the facades are considered primary or public facing or can be seen easily by the community? Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman Faulkner, it, they, it would be the East facade and the South facade that would be publicly visible. And what, what's the, is there differences between each facade? Like, does one have more character than the other? Great question. In this case, the board designated this structure to be significant, giving that it has substantial history, an individual having substantial history to the, the history of Santa Fe, Mr. Benino M. Munise, and the territorial architectural design style. So given that, they, they did, they made the motion to designate it as significant given on those, on the historical attributes. And that, that, I don't mean to interrupt you, but the historical attributes as far as where it comes to the, the family, that's not a facade. So I, I feel like I'm struggling with this because I feel like you have the family coming back to their historical home, and that has significance and could have value for the community. And so unless I can be convinced that the other three facades outside of the one that's most significantly character that we want to maintain, I would feel that this, this, this structure could be downgraded to contributing. So I'm trying to wrap my head around what other than the history of the family, which the family's coming back, is, makes those other three facades so great that this family isn't going to be able to do what they need to do to come back to their historical home. Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman Faulkner, that is right. And significant status would give the most preservation for this structure, and that's why that status was given by the board. But I'm not convinced that that status is the right status, especially because the historian and the staff and then the board couldn't quite agree on some things. To me, that means that it's still up for interpretation. And so I think that the family coming back has significant historical value. And I, I, I keep hearing that the history of the family is really what made this, this structure important because I ask about the other three facades, and I'm not getting an answer about what makes them so unique that they, this building could not be a contributing status. Like, I haven't heard a descriptive, like when I asked the question, we lean back to, well, the historical value of the family. And it's like, but the family's coming back to this structure. So that's, that's significant historically. Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman Faulkner, that's a great point. I, and I can't speak on behalf of the board other than the motion that they made to make that structure significant. So the board made a determination that it met the code for a significant structure in the historic downtown and East Side historic district. That it met all the qualification to be designated as significant. If significant is a very high standard to meet within the historic districts. And to have a structure, your family, your family home to be a significant structure in the downtown and East Side historic district is a pretty awesome thing to have. So just that alone just shows you how significant you and your family are to downtown, to, to, to the historic districts. What I would offer, and I'm not being hard on you as staff, this is just, My position on this, but it would offer, is if we cannot find a way for this family to be able to return to their ancestral home, then we're failing the history of this, that unique history. And I wouldn't want to see this property be bought by someone, honestly, out of state or not from Santa Fe, because we couldn't find a middle ground so that this family could return to their ancestral home. I mean, this is a critical part of Santa Fe. Gentrification is pushing Santa Feans out of their ancestral homes every day. And in this case, I find it fascinating that the family's returning to this unique property, and it's being made difficult for them to be able to make it work so they can return to their home. And that's significant to me. And I still don't understand, again, I go back to the facades. If they're not, if you can't explain to me how they are unique enough that we can't make it a contributing structure, then I'm not going to. Mayor: I think Councilwoman Worth, you had your hand up. Councilwoman Worth: Okay, so to that last question, the primary residence is designated significant, means that all the facades are, what's the word I'm looking for, primary. And if that is true, then all of them have something that's worth saving. Mr. Mayor: Councilwoman Worth Romero Worth, that is correct. I would like to just share, to the council members and Mr. Mayor, given that the facades are designated primary, or a structure is designated contributing or significant, does not mean they can't live in the structure. Does not mean they can't repair it, remodel it. They just have to apply for an exception. And exceptions are given at every board hearing. They can come with an exception. We're going to do an addition to a primary facade. Board reviews it, approves it, and it moves on. It doesn't prevent them, because the board's goal is preservation and protection of these historic structures. So there's, it doesn't prevent the homeowners from living in there or doing any work on the property. Councilwoman Worth: Okay. And I don't see in the criteria for determining contributing or significant, hardship playing a role. There's no reference to hardship in the definitions. Mr. Mayor: Councilwoman Romero Worth, no, ma'am. Councilwoman Worth: And what's the role of visibility? I think we've had this in front of us before, where whether it's visible or not from the street isn't really a factor in its status designation. Mr. Mayor: Councilwoman Romero Worth, that is correct. The board reviews the character defining elements of a structure. They take the whole structure or one facade. And so the casitas, they have the contributing, for the contributing status, just for instance, the age. They meet the 50-year mark. They're older than 50 years. They're almost 100 years old. They're made out of Adobe Block and Vega wood and Vega construction materials. And the defining elements for those structures happen to be the north facade. They had the recess doors and windows. They had the divided light windows. And so the board made that determination, being that that was the most character defining element, not that it was facing the streetscape, but that was the most character defining. Councilwoman Worth: Okay. And this conversation about it being a compound or not being a compound, what's the relevance of that? Mr. Mayor: Councilwoman Romero Worth, I don't believe there is any relevance. Councilwoman Worth: Okay. And what, and this may be for the city attorney's office, in terms of whether we make a decision tonight or we send it back to the H-Board. What can we send it back to the H-Board? I think there's a question for the city attorney's office. Is it an option for this case to go back to the H-Board from this governing body? City Attorney: I, that would just not be consistent with any procedure I've ever seen. Now, it is, we have determined, I discussed with Boss and with Mr. Durant, that if the governing body changes the designation of significant structure to contributing, the staff will have to make recommendations to the H-Board as to which facades would be designated primary. But the decision, what status should be assigned to these buildings, I think it is the appellant's right to take it to the governing body and have the governing body make the decision. The decision is yours now. Councilwoman Worth: That's what I wondered. And these, this, this idea that there were only three members there, can you speak to that from a legal perspective? City Attorney: We, and Romero Worth, that is an issue that does come up frequently because sometimes there are vacancies on the H-Board. It's just not possible for everybody to attend. We would love to have seven members in attendance every H-Board meeting. But our research, this is something we've actually done a lot of research on, the ordinance that creates the Historic District Review Board simply reads that you have to have a quorum and the decision has to be made by a majority of members voting. Does not indicate that a majority has to vote yes or no, or your can't be split. It just means that a majority of quorum, which is four, has to render the decision. And so we're in that situation fairly frequently where a project passes by one vote with only three. Mayor: And Councilwoman, I just want to add that there were four members present. One was the chair and she did not vote. So there was four members present, which meets the quorum. And then the ordinance that, or the, the governing aspect of the voting says that a majority of those present has to be in, majorities has to favor. So three out of four. And unlike this governing body, the chair is prohibited from voting except to break a tie. Councilwoman Worth: Right. And then this idea that the, that there apparently wasn't discussion of the facades that are present for each of the four structures in the application. I mean, they, there was a determination on this because of the way they designated the structure. There was, yeah, I, I guess so for significant, they're all, they're all important. And on the contributing, at least one of them is correct. Mr. Mayor: Correct. And typically the Historic District Review Board, if they designate a structure significant, they don't identify primary facades because all of facades are protected. But there is a discussion in the record when the two casitas were designated contributing, there is discussion about architectural elements that made certain facades primary. Councilwoman Worth: And this issue about the minutes, that's, do we, but we had a Zoom, there Zoom, so that's a, that's pretty. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mayor Weber and counselor, that has been an issue that we've discussed a lot. You know, we don't have a stenographer anymore that does the minutes for the board meetings. But so all we have is Zoom. All we have is Zoom. Yes, I try to take extensive notes, but I'm not a transcriptionist. Councilwoman Worth: Okay. And then just one other question, this on, on number four that Council Lindell was, was focusing on, this reference to the current professional consultant, that is Mr. Murphy. He is the consultant that authored the most recent historic inventory. There are actually four historic inventories. Yeah, I see that. Okay, thank you. Mayor: Other questions from the council? Governor, can I take a minute, Mr. Durant, and speak with you for a second? First, it's great to see you again, Mr. Mayor. It's a pleasure. Yes, sir. Whenever you appear in front of any body, whether it's the county or this body, I am always very, very impressed with your, your whole approach to the work you do. And it's the city's very lucky to have you on this in your role. So thank you. I think the, I want to go back to some of the conversation that preceded me, because I think we're all sort of wrestling with the issue on a number of different dimensions. One is, I go back to what we heard from City Attorney, which was a pretty simple definition that we are asked to consider in this, this case. It was a structure located in a historic district that is approximately 50 years old or older, embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, and retains a high level of historic integrity. And it may be deemed significant for the association with events or persons who are of importance. And we certainly got a full and fascinating briefing on that. None of that refers to the condition of the facades or the visibility of the facades or the structure itself in a very specific way. Those criteria don't in this instance seem even to rise to the surface. Is that correct? Mr. Mayor: That is correct. Mayor: So when Council Faulkner, to her credit, is saying, what about the facades make them significant? The answer is, for this case at least, we're looking at a different criterion, which has to do the historic significance of the remarkable individual who was the forbear who occupied and and brought these structures into being. Mr. Mayor: That is correct. With some additional, just to add to that, so this property, this structure was given significant status in 1984 when the Santa Fe Historic District was created. This was one of the supporting structures as a significant structure that helped provide that the National Register of Historic Places for the designation for the historic district, given the territorial architectural design. So given that it's been designated as a significant structure for over 40 years now, it's been relatively upkept. The structure itself was built over 100 years ago, and it's still, we, we heard from two of the public in the public comments, two people that currently live there today, which is amazing. And so given that, and then we have the historical background. So we have the integrity of the structure, being that it's a territorial design in the downtown and east side, which is in the design standards. Then we have the historical background, which just supports the significant status. That's, and then when the board members went out to the site visit, they were able to see the condition of the structure and the property and and render that determination at the hearing. Mayor: But if the significance is based on history, why, what is the, what importance of a site visit? Mr. Mayor: I believe it's also in, for the significant status, it's 50 years or older. We know that. Then it has, pardon me, Mr. Mayor. It's okay. And that it embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, which this structure does show the red brick coping, the recess doors and windows, the, the presence. It has an Old Santa Fe Trail. When you're driving, whether you're driving south or or north, you see that property and you know you're, you're headed downtown. You're headed to the Roundhouse. So it has a very strong significant presence, which embodies that streetscape. And so I think the board members take all that into consideration when they review these kind of structures. Mayor: One last question, and then I'll, I'll yield the floor. I don't want to overdo more than 10 minutes either. Council Lindell asked the question I wanted to ask, and I want to, if you could come back to it one more time. I know it's a, maybe not an easy question, but staff was recommending one thing, which was, I get it correct, that the, the main structure would be significant and the casitas would be non-contributing. And I'm interested from the staff point of view, I know that's not ultimately where the board ended up, but how did the staff end up there? Mr. Mayor: Well, staff, in communication with the property owners and with the HCPI form from Mr. Murphy, walked the property, discussed the property, reviewed the structural integrity, and brought it back for staff review. We had a discussion, and I presented my case before staff that the main house is significant. It has all the, all the defining elements for that significance. Casita one and Casita two, they have fallen in such disrepair that I cannot recommend contributing status. And then for the tool shed, that's perfect. Thank you. You answered my question as you often do with great clarity. Thank you. Mayor: Other comments or questions from the members of the governing body? If, if not, I beg your pardon. Did I miss something? If there aren't any other questions, I would now have an opportunity for the appellant to make a concluding comment briefly, maybe three to five minutes, whether it's the representative or the owner, you can decide. Mr. Mayor and councilors, members of the governing body, again, thank you for the opportunity to present this appeal. I have felt, in reviewing a significant amount of information related to this case and to this appeal, that there should have been significant value placed by the HDRB members on staff recommendations, as well as the information contained in the historic cultural property inventories forms. This was one of those properties where there was a significant amount of information, four different reports that were presented, that had great, great information contained within them, great value. And that's why I think that our professional consultants provided the recommendations that they did, which were for lower statuses than ultimately what was recommended and approved by the board. I also appreciated Mr. Duran's response in terms of how staff came to their own recommendations, and it was based on all the important things that should happen: review of those inventory forms, a site visit, review of what was actually there, what's on the property, and what you can and cannot see. Staff works really hard at providing those recommendations and providing their reports, and there's a lot of value in that. And so I found it surprisingly that the board did not take that information into consideration. Councilwoman Faulkner, you also made a very great point about historic significance of the people who lived on the property. And I realize that that does play a role in these assessments, but I also think that the structures themselves should have a higher value and higher assessment. Even in the case of the main building, the apartment building, it is significant because of where it sits, because of some of the character-defining architectural features, especially on the east side and on the south. I don't necessarily agree with the west and the north sides being designated as primary because there just isn't much there. But if that's what has to go with a significant designation, then I guess it means all four. But actually, my recommendation was for a downgrade to contributing or non-contributing because of those two facades that, in my opinion, do not have those architectural features. So again, we'd appreciate any consideration that you would give us, and we thank you for the good discussion. I think it's been a great conversation, great comments made by council members, and so we appreciate that very much. And with that, I'll let the project owner make the final statement. Thanks again. I just wanted to say one last thing in closing. Forty years. I waited 40 years for a family to have control of this property. Forty years it's gone under disrepair. We haven't been able to touch it and do a thing. Mr. Duran said there's nothing that prevents from living there and being on the property and doing all of these things. But I think you all know, with a significant status on the main building, that is not easy. Every single thing that we do on the exterior needs to go up for exception and review. Every window, every door, every glass pane, every color treatment, every paint. And that's hard on a family. And then we've got the other two casitas that are falling down. They said there was a robust discussion of all the facades designated Casita 2 north side as primary, and that is about three feet from the south side of Casita 1. I'm sorry, you can't hardly see it. You have to bend down and look up like this. It just, to me, it just doesn't feel logical. It also doesn't feel like it's welcoming us back to do the good work that we want to do. I don't want to take away from the history. I respect my ancestors. I want to embrace it. I just want a chance to do it reasonably and to tackle it in a way that makes sense for us. So with that, I thank you. Thank you very much. A closing comment from either the City Attorney's Office or staff? You'd like to summarize your thoughts on this case? Mayor Weber and councilors, thank you for this opportunity. I would like to pass along to you that after representing the Historic Preservation Division before the Historic District Review Board for three and a half years, I've never seen the Historic District Review Board tell the owner of a property that is uninhabitable, "Sorry, you just have to leave the property the way it is." I've never seen that happen. A very astute member of the Historic District Review Board once said, "We're not creating relics to place in a museum. We want people to live in these historic structures." A historic structure that sits unoccupied is going to deteriorate. The historic structure where people live is going to be maintained. The exception criteria, there are some additional proof elements of proof that the applicant has to make before the board, but I see the Historic District Review Board grant exceptions all the time, especially for properties that are uninhabitable or that there's some configuration of the property that makes it impractical by today's standards. I've seen them approve the change out of windows that are inoperable, that are deteriorated beyond repair, don't meet fire code. Reviews are pretty routinely granted. And I believe that in this situation, I don't know that it would be any more expensive or any more costly for a property, for an applicant, for a property owner applying for a remodel or a renovation, to remodel or renovate a contributing or significant structure than it would be to remodel a non-contributing structure. I don't know that there's any difference in the costs whatsoever. The only difference is in the proof that has to be made before the Historic District Review Board, and they are very reasonable, leveled people. I would ask you to consider that there were four historic inventories, not just one. The most recent one was the most extensive. But what you'll find about the historic inventories is that they're not written in the perspective of the city code. You don't see references to the city code in any of those historic inventories. The frame of reference of the historian writing those inventories may be drawn from work with the Department of the Interior, with the National Park Service, with the State Historic Preservation Officer, or with other cities. The H-Board has to review the city code and apply the city code. The city code may be much more restrictive with respect to buildings in these historic districts than Department of Interior standards or National Park standards. And I would also ask you to consider that the floor plans, the H-Board typically doesn't consider what the proposal is to remodel a structure when they make a decision with respect to the status, only because it's surprising how frequently somebody pitches a project proposal to the H-Board, the H-Board approves it, there's a permit issued, and for whatever reason, that project is never constructed. Maybe the applicant runs out of money, maybe changes in the applicant's life circumstances affect their ability to remodel property. So for the H-Board to consider what the project or what the renovations may be is something that may lead them to a conclusion that turns out to be the wrong conclusion after circumstances change, make that renovation practical and possible. Mayor Weber and councilors, I thank you very much for your attention and for your interest in these very important issues. Your questions are very probing and very informed based on city code. Thank you. Mr. Duran: Mr. Mayor, council members, I'd just like to share, the Historic Preservation Division works only under the code. We read the code, we look at the code, we apply the code, and we fight for the code. Sometimes we sink by the code. However, we walk that fine line of following the code, and the Historic District Review Board does the same exact thing. So we're not, we didn't do anything outside of the code. We just followed the code, and we are here today for that. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to close the public hearing now. And anybody who wants to ask questions that they didn't get a chance to ask, we'd have to reopen the public hearing. That said, with the public hearing completed, I'd entertain a motion and then discussion. So for the first case, appeal number 2024-8309, for the apartments, I move to deny the appeal and have the apartments remain with the designation of significant. Second. There's a motion and there's a second. I would welcome any, most, we really did adhere to our process of asking questions rather than making statements, but this is the time where if somebody wants to make a statement about why they view this issue one way or the other, this would be the time to do that. Councilor Lindell, you have the floor. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilor Chavez. I'm going to support this because I'm going to, on these votes, I'm going to support what the staff recommendations were, and that's what the staff recommendation was, and that's what the prior status was. So appreciate you being clear about that. Thank you. Any other comments about this motion, which has been made and seconded? If not, we'll take these one at a time. We'll take a vote on the first motion. Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Councilor Castro? Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Fulmer? Explain the vote. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Mayor Weber? Yes. And Councilor Faulkner? In the language that tells us what significant is or criteria for that, it says we may consider it significant. It doesn't say we shall. So there's, to me, that means if we feel as a council that we don't agree with the H-Board, that's what the process is for. Thank you. I'd entertain a second motion on the second item before us here. Move, or on appeal number 224-8309, case number 2024-7892 HDRB for Casita 1 and Casita 2, move to grant the appeal designating both Casitas non-contributing. Second. There's a motion before us that would, if I heard you correctly, uphold the, and they would then be designated as non-contributing. Is there discussion on that motion? Yes. Just really quickly, I do want to acknowledge that as much as our historic grid is wonderful and we want to preserve our buildings, that it can be very costly to replace windows and doors in certain aspects, and we don't want to limit the amount of families that can stay in our community and continue to maintain those properties. And that's why I will be voting yes on this motion. Any other comments? I'm going to support this motion very much on the same basis that Councilor Lindell indicated, which I am convinced that the staff evaluation was very thoughtful, very thorough. That doesn't mean that the board is required to follow it, but I have a tremendous respect for the way in which the staff went about their work in this instance, and I think their recommendation carries a great deal of weight with me as well. And I'd be able to vote supportive of this for that reason. Any other comments? Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll? Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia? Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia? Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero Worth? Yes. Mayor Weber? Yes. Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you all for being here tonight and for your very, very thoughtful presentations and testimony. And I think the dialogue and the conversation was really very, very thorough and thoughtful, and I appreciate everybody's participation. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, can you take us to the next item? Item 22A, appointments to Children and Youth Commission. The following four are reappointed: Chanelle Delgado, reappointment, term ending 1/2028. Richard Lindell, reappointment, term ending 01/2028. Danielle Silva, appointment, term ending 01/2028. Diane Conlin, appointment, term ending 01/2028. To approve. Second. There's a motion and a second to approve these appointments. Is there discussion? Madam Clerk, could you call the roll please? Mayor: Councilor Chavez? Councilor Faulkner: Yes. Councilor Lee Garcia: Yes. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romer-Worth: Yes. Councilor Castro? Mayor Weber: Yes. Thank you. And the next item please, 22B, appointment to the Mayor's Youth Advisory Board. One appointment, Landon Kessler, term ending 12/2026. Approve. Second. Motion, second. Is there a discussion on this appointment? Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on this appointment? Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Lee Garcia: Hi. Councilor Michael Garcia: Yes. Councilor Lindell? Councilor Romero-Worth? Councilor Castro: Yes. Councilor Chavez: Yes. Mayor Weber: Yes. It's approved. Thank you. And I believe that completes our agenda and we are adjourned. Thank you everybody.