Regular Governing Body Meeting - Last Wednesday Wed, Jul 29, 2026 · Governing Body https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/933-governing-body-jul-29-2026 == Executive Summary == The Governing Body meeting on July 29, 2026, was marked by significant public debate and several key decisions. A major point of contention was the proposed closure of streets around Plaza Park, leading to extensive public comment both for and against the measure. After much discussion and several amendments, the Governing Body ultimately voted to defeat a permanent closure of Lincoln Avenue but passed a one-year pilot program for street closures around Plaza Park, starting Memorial Day 2027. The meeting also saw the approval of several contracts, including significant funding for youth services, park maintenance, and senior housing. Other notable actions included the unanimous approval of an appeal for a height exception for a mixed-use dental office and residential project at 911 Roybal Street, overturning a decision by the Historic Design Review Board. The Governing Body also passed an ordinance allowing limited fishing events in the city's watershed, following a tie-breaking vote by the Mayor. The meeting concluded with discussions on various community initiatives and a commitment to balancing tradition with change in the city. == Key Decisions == - Approved Reading Quest contract as part of CYC grants. - Approved Santa Fe Public Schools Adelante Program professional services contract for $216,000 through 06/30/2029. - Approved Brailliard Park Conservancy professional services contract for $460,000 over four years. - Approved Interfaith Community Shelters grant agreement for $350,000 through 12/31/2026. - Approved Santa Fe Film and Digital Media Council appointments. - Defeated Amendment E, preventing permanent closure of Lincoln Avenue. - Passed Amendment F, establishing a one-year pilot program for Plaza street closures from Memorial Day 2027 to 12/31/2027. - Passed an ordinance (Bill Number 2026-12) allowing specific, limited fishing events in the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed with Governing Body approval. - Granted the appeal for a height exception for the project at 911 Roybal Street. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to re-add Item 9V (Marriott case findings) and pull from consent for staff changes — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to move Item 9Y (plaza closure resolution) from consent to after public comment — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to approve Reading Quest contract — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to approve Santa Fe Public Schools Adelante Program professional services contract — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to approve Brailliard Park Conservancy professional services contract — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to approve Interfaith Community Shelters grant agreement — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to enter Executive Session to discuss attorney-client privileged matters — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to reconvene in open session — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to postpone the AC Marriott Hotel Appeal Findings to the 08/12/2026 meeting — Passed unanimously (8-0). - Motion to approve Santa Fe Film and Digital Media Council appointments — Passed unanimously. - Motion to defeat Amendment E (Lincoln Avenue permanent closure) — Defeated (5-2). - Motion to pass Amendment F (one-year pilot program for Plaza street closures) — Passed (6-2). - Motion to pass Bill Number 2026-12 (Limited Fishing Events in Watershed) — Passed (5-4, Mayor casting tie-breaking vote). - Motion to grant the appeal for the height exception for the project at 911 Roybal Street — Passed unanimously (7-0). - Motion to suspend rules and continue the meeting past 11:30 PM — Passed (6-0, with one councilor's vote not recorded). == Public Comment == Public comments were primarily focused on the proposed Plaza street closures, with strong arguments both for and against. Opponents cited concerns about emergency access, business disruption, impact on individuals with limited mobility, and the erosion of the plaza's equitable nature. Supporters emphasized improved pedestrian/cyclist safety, enhanced community experience, and economic benefits. Other public comments addressed the Midtown District Project, tenant protections and housing safety at Sangre Cristo Apartments, the need for Santa Fe to be an "ICE-free zone," and general city issues like homelessness, water scarcity, and staffing shortages. During the discussion on the fishing events ordinance, a representative from the Santa Fe Watershed Association urged delaying the vote due to concerns about the watershed's critical role and lack of feasibility studies. For the 911 Roybal Street appeal, public comments were divided, with neighbors opposing due to view obstruction and others supporting the project for its community benefits and the applicant's dedication. == Topics == - Plaza Street Closures - Warehouse 21 Redevelopment - Historic District Review Board Appeal - City Office Space Shortage - Public Parking in Rail Yard - Disability Pride Month - New School Year Reflection - Community Remembrances - Governing Body Conduct == Full Transcript == I would like to call tonight's governing body meeting to order. Everybody in the audience, please silence. We will start off with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilor Barrett, salute to the New Mexico flag led by Councilor Lee Garcia, and invocation of remembrance is led by Councilor Chavez. Please stand as you are able. Good evening, everyone. Before we begin tonight's meeting, I invite us to pause for a moment of reflection. Across our city, families are preparing for a new school year. Backpacks are being filled, teachers are preparing classrooms, school staff are getting ready to welcome students, and young people are wondering what this year will hold. As they prepare for a new beginning, they are also watching us. They are watching how adults disagree. They are watching whether we listen before we speak, whether we choose to respect over division, and whether we remember that serving our community is more important than serving ourselves. July is Disability Pride Month, a reminder that every person brings unique strengths, perspectives, and gifts to our community. Our differences do not diminish us. They enrich us. A truly strong city is one where every person is seen, valued, included, and given the opportunity to contribute. As elected leaders, may we remember that public service is both an honor and a responsibility. May we lead with humility when we are challenged, courage when difficult decisions must be made, compassion for those who are struggling, and wisdom to seek understanding before judgment. May our conversations reflect respect. May our decisions reflect integrity, and may we never lose sight of the fact that the work we do here shapes the city our children and future generations will inherit. When this meeting comes to an end, may those watching us, especially the young people of Santa Fe, leave believing that leadership is defined not by winning an argument, but by serving others with integrity, compassion, and grace. May we be the example we hope they choose to follow. Thank you. Are there any remembrances from governing body members? Councilor Faulkner. I'd just like to remember Brother John, who passed away. Yesterday was his birthday. So happy birthday, John. Any others? Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mayor. I want to keep a remembrance of a very special uncle of mine, Larry. Passed away a few weeks ago, and we laid him to rest last weekend. I'd like to also give a remembrance, and then kind of a shout-out, but and a remembrance for Noe Morales Elias, an individual in our community who passed away kind of unexpectedly. May he rest in peace, and may his family find and those who have helped him while he was here. He was an immigrant. And to Ed Siri for being so kind in helping him and his family who is not here to grieve for him. Thank you very much. Any others? Okay. Let's take a moment to keep those in our thoughts who around our community are in need and support. Thank you, everybody. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Barrett? Here. Councilor Bustamante? Here. Councilor Cassette? Here. Councilor Castro? Absent. Councilor Chavez? Here. Councilor Faulkner? Here. Councilor Figalli? Here. Councilor Garcia? Here. Mayor Garcia? Present. Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you. Next up is approval of the agendas or any changes from staff. Yes, Mayor. Item 9V is removed by staff. So it will not be part of. Okay. Move as amended. Second. Okay. So we got a motion as amended. Any discussion? I have, can we move item 9Y to after public comment, please? 9Y. That is I on my agenda, just because I know sometimes there's discrepancies, and I wanted to clarify this. The agenda I printed out off of online is request for approval of a liquor hearing officer's recommendation. Oh, and it's fine with Y. I have it as Y. Y? Yes. I have a resolution amending Resolution Numbers 2014-49 and 2016-80 to close the street surrounding the plaza annually from Memorial Day to October 31 or later and close Lincoln Avenue and Palace Avenue. I don't on the one I'm looking at, it is Y. But, on the public-facing platform, it is 9Y. Right. So just so we're clarifying, it's the resolution around the plaza closure after after public comment. Gotcha. Okay. Wanted to make sure we're crystal clear. Okay. So there's another proposed amendment. You got. Can I move to amend the agenda to have that item, the plaza closing resolution, whichever number that is, to after public comments? So let me back up because we have a motion to approve first. Yeah. I'll withdraw my motion. So you were trying to see. So there's going to be two amendments to whoever approves the agenda. Just FYI. Right. It's amended. Yeah. Any other potential changes from governing body members? Okay. Hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Casette? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figalli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Motion passed. Great. Next up is approval of the consent agenda. Any items pulled from the call earlier, Madam City Clerk? Yes. Item 9Y, or this is the plaza, the plaza closure resolution, or sorry, legislation has been removed from the consent agenda by Councilor Figalli. Approve as amended. Second. One, one more second. We got one more that needs to be removed because staff has some changes, and that that was shared. Hold on one second. It is the approval of the facts and binding of the Marriott case. 9D and that 9V as in Victor, which has already been removed from the agenda or postponed. 9B is minutes. 9B is minutes. No. 9V as in Victor. Yes. Sorry. And so was your, Madam City Clerk, your original request to remove 9V from the agenda in general? That was what was reported to me to remove 9V altogether, which is the findings of facts. Wait. Wait. Wait. So before we get ahead of ourselves, we're we need to confirm because I thought there was just, Mr. City Attorney, there were some changes that need to be made by staff before it got approved tonight, not removed entirely. Okay. I'm okay if it needed to be removed entirely, but I just want to be sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the governing body. It was my understanding that this would be pulled from consent so that any changes could be directed to staff. Okay. So, but not pulled, not removed from the agenda. Gotcha. So I think we, yeah. We go ahead. May I make a suggestion to table this item until later? Well, we're doing consent right now. So, all right. So I think we need to back up, back up two steps to the approval of the agenda because we removed it completely, but it needs to be just pulled from consent. So and we get a motion to revisit item six, approval of the agenda. Second. Okay. So now we need to place back, make a motion to place back item 9V on the agenda. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Motion to reconsider. Yes. So let's take a vote on motion to reconsider item six. Sorry. I apologize, audience. You're getting a lesson in civic civic process. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassette? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figualli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. So we'll, I'll make a motion to add back nine, item 9V to the agenda. It. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, can we get a roll call vote? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Cassette? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figalli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Now any other changes? No, Marjorie. Just 9Y and 9B. No. No. No. So we're still on the agenda. So, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. Second. Roll call vote, please. Sorry. Mayor, point of clarification, that was moved to approve as amended. Right? Move to approve as amended. Correct. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassette? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Thank you. Now back to consent. Items 9Y and 9V are requested to be removed by staff. Any other changes from governing body members? Move to approve as amended. Second. Okay. We got a motion and a second. 9Y. No. No. X was we amended X to be moved later on in the agenda. It stays on the agenda. It just moves to after public hearing. 9Y does. Why? It's the the plaza resolution goes to after. Okay. Any other consent items? Yeah. Hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassette? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Got through the hard stuff. Next up is presentations. Madam, so to quickly read the presentation into the record, please. Yes, Mayor. Eight is presentations. 8A is the development of city offices and community spaces at 1614 Paseo De Peralta. And here to present is Public Works Director Sam Burnett. Hey, Mr. Burnett. The floor is yours. Thank you, sir. Good evening, Mayor, Councilors. I'm I'm pleased to be here tonight to provide an informational update regarding the city's plans for 1614 Paseo De Peralta, formerly Warehouse 21. The city occupies a prominent location in the heart of the city's rail yard property, a facility that has been underutilized for many years. Under the leadership of Mayor Garcia, City Manager Moya, a decision has been made to return this important property to active, public use. Facilities Management Division is pleased to be moving in that direction. Our team has evaluated the building, developed an initial space plan, confirmed that it can accommodate the proposed functions, secured funding to begin design, and is currently contracting with Woven Architecture to begin those architectural services. As we worked through the building's potential, it became really clear to us that this is more than just a simple renovation project. It's an opportunity to address several important city and community needs through a single investment in public property. The city continues to experience a significant shortage of functional office and operational space. Several related departments currently operate for multiple locations, including leased office space. This creates ongoing lease costs, makes coordination more difficult, and can make city services less convenient for the public to access. Our plan is to redevelop 1614 as a city-operated community and economic opportunity center. The building would bring together economic development, arts and culture, film, and community services into a single city-owned location. This would allow us to reduce our dependence on leases, improve coordination among related functions, and make several public-facing services more accessible. Just as importantly, we do not envision 1614 simply as an office building. The facility will preserve flexible public space that can support cultural programming, community activities, and major events like the folk art market. The goal is to meet the city's operational needs while preserving the building's public character and ability to support culture and community life in the city's rail yard. Over the years, the city has given up numerous parking spaces to accommodate various developments within the rail yard, and from time to time, parking can be scarce. Directly adjacent to 1614 is Parcel B1, which is one of the few remaining undeveloped city-owned parcels in the rail yard. Staff believes this represents a good opportunity to provide additional public parking that supports 1614 operations, surrounding businesses, cultural events, and the railyard as a whole. As a result, we intend to work with the Railyard Community Corporation to remove Parcel B1 from their leasehold premises. Finally, today's presentation is really informational only. Public Works Facilities Management will continue to advance the design work and will return to the governing body with future actions as appropriate. I want to thank Mayor Garcia and City Manager Moya for providing the direction needed to move this long-underused city asset forward. I also want to recognize the Facilities Management team, particularly Tim Farrell and the staff who worked through the operational planning necessary to turn that direction into a viable project. Finally, this is an important opportunity to reinvest in city property, reduce dependence on leased space, expand community use, and strengthen the city's long-term stewardship of our railyard property. With that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you very much for your time. Are there any questions from governing body members? Councilor Figalli: Thank you, Mayor. Director Burnett, the adjacent parcel, is the plan to then pave it and turn it into official parking, or what is the idea with that? Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Figalli, it's a great question. We are still in a very preliminary phase as we coordinate with Woven to start the design process. But one of the initial conversations we had was, one, if we do move city offices into that building during the daytime, it could have an impact on parking in the railyard. Additionally, asking staff to park in the railyard garage and walk all the way down to 1614, especially in the winter, could be a tall ask. So, yes, turning that parking lot, that parcel, into an additional parking lot that has an intended use during operational hours for city staff, and then evenings, weekends, is open to the public. I think you may have noticed, during the Farmer's Market, I think it already is largely a parking lot, and so to help offset that demand during active hours. Another piece of what we talked about, and this is still very conceptual, is this community space we talked about on the first floor. We have some preliminary visions of putting in garage doors on the first floor that could open out into that parking lot so we could create indoor-outdoor space. So as entities come to us looking for a space for their community events, we can create this multi-use parking and active event space, which would maximize the functionality of that building in the future. We've had this conversation with other people. We would absolutely focus on not just creating a parking lot, but ensure we're paying attention to things like drainage, landscaping, and try and create something that benefits the property beyond just the utilitarian parking purpose, but adds aesthetics and function to the general area as well. So maybe not entirely paved? Not entirely paved, but definitely focused on parking and active use first. And this community space on the first floor, would this be in the current plan a city-run community space, or would it be leased out? What is it? Mr. Mayor, Councilor, great question. Right now, our plan is to make this a city-operated facility. And would that impact the community gallery at the Convention Center? Mr. Mayor, Councilor, at the moment, the plan is no. The community gallery would stay in place at the offices for the Arts and Culture team, which has grown considerably and been moved into this larger, I forget the name of the new department, I'm sorry, moved into Development. Thank you. Moved into that department. So they're all housed together. They have the appropriate type and amount of office space and have a more functional operating environment. Thank you. Councilor Chavez. Could we get an update on the results of the RFP for this property that was out May 2024? There is a lot. I'm pretty sure it's posted on the website still, our city website. So I'm just wondering what the results were then, what caused us to pivot. So there was an RFP initiated in May 2024. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councilor. I was not directly involved in the RFP process, and I have not been in any official conversations about how specifically it ended, but my understanding, and part of why we chose to move forward with this project, my understanding was that the end result of that RFP is that no respondent was selected and that the future of the building remained uncertain. Could we have an idea of who responded? I'm just curious because the whole, when the RFP went out, it was for community development, right, which I think is really powerful. What we grew up with, with that property, was really beneficial for youth and was really beneficial to the community. So I'm really curious about who went out for bid for that RFP and why nobody was selected. Because if we had community members going out willing to build something that could benefit our community, I'm not sure why it came to a halt. I would like to know that. I think that is a very important piece. Does anyone, any staff, have any information on that, or is that something we'd have to dig into? Mayor, Councilor, I did have a few conversations with community members that I could share. My understanding is that at least one organization believed that that RFP had been awarded to them and then didn't hear back from the city, but that was an anecdotal conversation with that organization. Thank you. So I think we might need to backtrack a little bit. I would recommend anyway, just because I think this space represented a space of community gathering. The city put it out there as a potential opportunity to revive Warehouse 21 as I knew it, to be that same type of space. And there was, I'm looking at multiple emails of that RFP being sent out and that communication existing on our website. If it can be given to the community, I really think we need to justify why that didn't occur before we move on to plans, in my opinion. I think there's nobody that knows our community better than our community partners. So if we had community partners that were interested in developing this space, developing this space, and investing and building something that could benefit the community, we really need to dig into that before we move forward. But that's just my two cents. So if we could dig into that and get a report, that would be really wonderful. Thank you. Councilor Garcia. No? Any questions on this side? Yep. Councilor Cassett. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Can we have the presentation taken down so I can see you? Ah, there you are. Thank you. I had similar questions along the same lines as Councilor Chavez, as I remember the RFP going out and never heard back about that. So this was a bit of a shock to me because last time we had had a conversation around this parcel, I remember meeting to discuss where we wanted to move with this, and we had put out an RFP for it. And again, that was two years ago, so my memory is a little bit fuzzy. So I also would like to get a follow-up on what happened there. I do know that one of the challenges is that this building, if I recall correctly, there are some large structural challenges within the building or maybe something with the infrastructure, can be difficult to overcome. Can you tell me a little more about that? And if we were to take this on, what would this cost the city, or have we gotten there? Mr. Mayor, Councilor, thank you. It's a great question. I wouldn't necessarily characterize them as, well, regarding challenges, I think the conversation around challenges that has come up to date, I think were related to the intentions of respondents to the RFP and costs associated with, one, dealing with deferred maintenance in the building, and then two, being able to modify the building in a way that met the anticipated needs of those organizations. I think the building presents both challenges and opportunities when it comes to redevelopment. Having gone through a fairly robust preliminary space planning and layout exercise with the Facilities Management team, we feel like it presents some great opportunities for us to modify for our uses and to leave the first floor largely intact in its current configuration to provide opportunities for community uses. We have begun to do some very preliminary budgetary, create some very preliminary budgetary numbers for the project. But until we get a little farther into more detailed plans, I think it's probably best to wait and talk about funding once we know more specifically about what we're doing. But we feel like it's very much in line with the types of remodels we've taken in other facilities to accommodate city staff. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I'm guessing that this would replace Marcy Street offices. Correct? Absolutely. Mr. Mayor, Councilor Cassett, one of the, yep. Focused on one of the primary focuses is on reducing as much lease space as possible. So Marcy Street has Economic Development and Community Services Admin teams. They would be moved in. We also have lease space for the film team, and they would be moved in as well. So it worked out very nicely for us because when we, one of our objectives has really been to look at ways we can take advantage of existing city-owned property to reduce our reliance and costs associated with leased space. Okay. Thank you. And the other place that I know that we were back at Market, not Market Street, that's the grocery store, Market Station. Correct? Correct. Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Councilor Cassett. And are those offices, are we at capacity with what we've moved in there? So Market Station, we, Monday was the date that the IT team officially began operations at Market Station. We're really happy that that project is complete, and we're happy with that transition. There is another space in Market Station that the city owns that's lovingly referred to as The Boneyard. That was my next question. Thank you for going there already. I'm curious what's happening with The Boneyard because I know that's something that's been... The Boneyard is a more complicated lift for the city right now because it's a completely undeveloped shell. There's no electrical, mechanical, and more design, larger investment into infrastructure before you can even build out the shell and start developing offices. So, definitely on our list of opportunities for use in the future. But right now, due to cost and timing, we felt like 1614 presented a better opportunity to us than The Boneyard. Okay. Thank you. And then I know that there's been a lot of conversations around a government services building on Midtown. So I'm curious about, and this has been some of the conversations around renovations at City Hall and some of our other buildings. And if we're going to move a large portion of city operations to Midtown and whether or not we've decided whether or not we're going to move a large portion of city operations to Midtown, I know there was a lot of discussion. But there's been almost some hesitation in investing in other city offices until that decision and plan has moved forward. So, where are we with those conversations? Is that DOA? I mean, where are we with this? Mr. Mayor, Councilor Cassett, thank you very much for this question. I'm really happy to be able to report that after working with the Mayor Next item on the agenda is 10. This is action items discussion agenda. 10a is a request for approval of a professional services contract with Reading Quest to deliver services to address the Children and Youth Commission priority area of education and career readiness in the total amount of $255,000 through June 30, 2029. Here to answer questions is Youth and Family Services Program Manager Sierra Vigil Trujillo. Miss Trujillo, the floor is yours. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, City Councilors. This contract is with Reading Quest. It's part of the CYC multi-year grants. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any. Are there any questions from governing body members? Yes, Councilor Castro. I do have some general questions about CYC. Is this an appropriate time to ask them? Sure. I mean, this is specifically for this item, but if it's outside of this item, I would caution us. Okay. So, yeah, I will ask those questions offline to Director Emery. Thank you, Councilor. Sure. Councilor Figalli. Thank you. I see that you have a lot of items on the agenda today. Can you just tell us why these few are on discussion instead of consent? Is there a reason for that? Yes, Councilor Figalli. This is, we were waiting for the last signatures on this one and the next item as well. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Figuelli? We haven't made a motion. Alright, sorry. Yes, sorry. It was slow to the body. Again, we got a motion and a second. Now can we get a roll call vote, please? Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Motion passed. Next item, please. Next item is 10b. This is a request for approval of a professional services contract with Santa Fe Public Schools Adelante Program to deliver services to address the Children and Youth Commission priority area of physical, mental health, and well-being in the total amount of $216,000 through June 30, 2029. Here to answer questions is the Youth and Family Services Program Manager, Sierra Vigil Trujillo. Move to approve. Second. We got a motion and a second, Miss Vigil Trujillo. Would you like to speak to this item at all? Just to reiterate, this is the same group of contracts as the previous item and for the same reasons. Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you. Next item, please. Madam City Clerk. Next item is 10c. This is a request for approval of a professional services contract with the Brailliard Park Conservancy in the total amount of $460,000 including NMGRT for horticulture care and educational programming at Santa Fe Railyard Park with a term of four years. Here to answer questions is Interim Facilities Division Director, Tim Farrell. Thank you, Mr. Farrell. Move to approve. Second. We've got a motion and a second. Mr. Farrell, the floor is yours in case you want to provide any additional information. Good evening. Yes, thank you. Tim Farrell, current Interim Facilities Director and also wearing my Property Development Manager hat for the Midtown Redevelopment and the Railyard. Here to discuss the proposed four-year renewal, the professional service contract with the Railyard Park Conservancy, or RPC, for their horticultural and educational programming, which they've provided at the park since 2008. These services are primarily provided through their Yard Master volunteer program and supplement the city's Park and Open Space Division work at the Railyard. The educational portion examples are kids sing-along days and sand play days and the goat graze days at the park. Andrew Garcia from Parks and I meet monthly with the RPC to review and discuss issues. RPC provides Parks with quarterly horticultural plans for review and approval and provides us with annual reports on their financial condition, accomplishments, and goals for the coming season. Glad to elaborate on any of these points. Also here today is Izzy Barr, the Executive Director of the RPC, if the Councilors and Mayor would like to get more eloquent explanations. Thank you, Mr. Farrell. Any other questions or comments from governing body members? Amy. Yep, Councilor Cassett. Thank you so much. I just want to say thank you to this group because this has been some of the most fun that we've been able to have with the kids, especially in the summer with the sand play. It's perfect. The goat grazing days are just really wonderful. So, you know, we're always talking about needing more activities for kids and this group has always really delivered. I've been a beneficiary for the last, well, son's turning eight soon, so however many summers that's been that I've been taking him there. So, really, thank you so much. This is wonderful work. Really appreciate it. We don't have enough spaces for kids in this community as we well know, and we talk about all the time. But this really does make the Railyard very kid-friendly and have some great activities. So thank you. Yeah, Councilor Garcia. Can Councilors and I just bear with me? Sure. Yeah. Asa, thank you so much. We've seen you out at the park, and the feedback is so important to us because we are primarily a community, we're a community-based group. We're an environmental group, conservation group. So hearing back from the community how much our work means is very important. So thank you. I'm happy to answer any other questions. Thank you. Councilor Garcia. Thank you. So $460,000 over four years, it says including NMGRT. Are we utilizing any other grant funding that's coming, or how much of this is just coming out of the GRT funds? This is funded through the Railyard annual operating budget on their service and from our service contract. Okay. Thank you. No other comments or questions? Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Motion passed. Thank you. Next item is 10d. This is a request for approval of a grant agreement with Interfaith Community Shelters for Senior Bridge Housing for homelessness services in the total amount of $350,000 through December 31, 2026. Here to answer questions is the Youth and Family Services Program Manager, Kristen Woods. Motion to approve. Second. We had a motion and a second, Miss Woods. I don't know if you have any information you would like to provide, or I'm happy to move towards a vote. Sure. Councilor Castro. Thank you, Mayor. Miss Woods, we did have a conversation, and Director Emery as well, about potential discretionary funds, sometimes that Council had to support some of this work. This would be one of the things that I'd be really interested in supporting potentially through community services if there is any need for additional funds. With that, thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Cassett. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Miss Woods. Good to see you. If I am recalling correctly our previous conversations, this is where we are looking at how we are getting some more of the senior population to the Richards Avenue. Correct? So this motel program eventually transitions into Richards Avenue. I'm sorry, the Richards Micro Community. Am I recalling that correctly? Mayor Garcia, Councilor Cassett. Yes, that's correct. Right now, the timeline that we're looking at for Richards Avenue is this winter. Okay. So that was actually my next question as I see this go through December 31, and that's good to hear that Richards Avenue, we think, or Richards Micro Community. We really do need a name for it because I confuse it with the Crossing and all the things. But that it will be ready by the time this contract ends. That's what we're expecting. Mayor Garcia, Councilor Cassett. Yes, that's correct. That's what we're aiming for is being ready by this winter. Okay. Wonderful. And I'm also curious about any of the conversations that you may have had with the residents who are in this program that, you know, is right now being run by Interfaith and the transition that they are expecting. Have those conversations already taken place? Mayor Garcia, Councilor Cassett. I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding your question. I have some great information on kind of the successes that this program has found so far. Yeah, my concern is more that I actually met with an individual that is one of the recipients of this program. And when we made this shift for Richards, apparently, a lot of these residents weren't aware that they were going to be moving. And so they found out about it in the paper and there was a lot of concern there. I know that we've talked about, you know, with the Richards Micro Community and the individuals moving in, that there was going to be some of that outreach. So I was curious if that outreach has happened and if that conversation for that transition has occurred yet. And are you guys in charge of it? Is this something that Interfaith is supposed to do? You know, whose responsibility is it to have these conversations with individuals that, you know, the hotel program is going to be ending, but we do have another solution, and we have another place that we, you know, are going to be able to welcome you and provide you a safe, stable place to live. And so I want to make sure that those conversations are occurring. So I'm happy to speak to that. We, as Solvary, Youth and Families Division Director, we have been primarily working through Interfaith to communicate the plans to their clients directly. However, through our process with the Summit, we have been convening a lived experience cohort. And actually one of those members is currently housed at the Senior Bridge Program. So I, as of a week ago, had a conversation with her and we recognize that there is perhaps a need for us to have more direct communication with clients to make sure that there's full transparency about the plans and what the city is envisioning. So we are actively looking to speak with the clients directly and sort of figure out the right mechanism that's appropriate to do so. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Leah. I really appreciate that. I'm guessing it's the same individual that we've both spoken with. So, very glad that you guys are working with her and working to make sure that's being communicated well. So thank you so much. No further questions. Thank you, Councilor. Any other questions? Seeing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Motion passed. Next item, please. We will move on to item 11. This is matters from the City Manager. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I thought we were going to go back to the previous item, but I will speak. I just want to thank the Community Services. They're still here. They got the pool open today. They got the slide, so I got pictures. So I want to thank them very much. The slide is working. I know it's been out of service for a couple weeks due to the drainage issue. I also want to thank everybody, my staff specifically, that put together this meeting that we're putting on with the county tomorrow. So, remind everybody, we have the meeting tomorrow with the county on July 30. I think we're really prepared, and we really hope that we can get some great information out of that meeting tomorrow. But I want to thank the staff specifically because we put a lot of work into preparing these agendas for tomorrow's meeting. And with that, I don't have anything else. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a quick question. Has Mr. Rubalete made his way in? If the governing body returns to that item, I'm wondering if I can just try to answer any questions you have regarding the findings of facts and conclusions of law. I believe Mr. Rubalete's on his way, but I don't want to hold up the city business. We also have an executive session up next. Okay, we can just keep it on the table if it's the will of the body. I'm going to move it in accordance with open... Wait, wait, wait. We got it. Next item. Next item is matters from the City Attorney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the governing body. I recommend that the governing body recuse to executive session to discuss the matters as noticed in the agenda. I move in accordance with the Open Meetings Act, NMSA 1978, Section 10-15-1, subpart H7, meeting subject to attorney-client privilege pertaining to threatened or pending litigation in which the city is or may become a participant, and subpart H8, meeting to discuss purchase, acquisition, or disposal of real property or water rights by the city. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Can we get a roll call vote, please, Madam City Clerk? Yes. Councilor Cassell? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Travis? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Motion passed. Okay, we stand in recess for executive session. Are you going to send me a separate link? Yes, ma'am. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. City Clerk? I move that pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1J, 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. Speak to the store. A motion and a second. Any discussion? There are none, Madam City Clerk. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Travis? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassell? Yes. Motion passed. Next item, please. Mr. Mayor, is there a desire to remove item for the findings of facts off the table? So moved. Second. Okay, so there's a motion to remove item U that's listed on the agenda off the table. Any discussion? If none, may I get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Travis? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassell? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Motion passed. Okay, can you read into the record this item, please? Yes, Mayor. Let me get there. Okay, this item is a request for approval of written findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting the 06/25/2020 decision by the governing body to deny an appeal by the Old Santa Fe Association, Appeal Number 2020-28-APPL, of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a development plan for a four-story, 150-room Marriott Hotel at 1001, 1101, and 1103 Cerrillos Road. And here to answer questions is Assistant City Attorney Frank Rubalete. Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. In response to a hearing that took place here in a special governing body meeting on 06/25/2020 regarding the development plan for the AC Marriott Hotel, I wrote up a set of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and they were posted to the governing body's website, Civic Clerk. Subsequently, I heard from the project applicant who had some requested modifications. It's really not consistent with our protocol to hear from the project applicant on findings of fact and conclusions of law, and some of her suggestions I disregarded. However, there were some modifications that I felt it was necessary to make. In the findings and conclusions, under Roman numeral II, Findings of Fact, there is a subsection 12. Subsection C read, "The development serves the public interest through the provision of," sorry, "we needed residential," or sorry, "we needed housing." I felt it more accurate for it to read, "of lodging for travelers." And subsection D under 12, Roman numeral II, "The residential use and any associated buildings are compatible with and adaptable to building structures, etc." I felt that the better term instead of "residential use" was "hospitality use." So I replaced "residential" with "hospitality." It was brought to my attention that one of the civil engineers for Tierra West Engineering, Ron Bohannan, I had misspelled his last name. It is B-O-H-A-N-N-A-N. I corrected that in two places under Roman numeral II, subsection C, item number 24 and item number 27. And it also, I thought it was important to note that per the condition expressed by Councilor Cassell that became part of the vote when the governing body voted on this matter, it was important to recognize that if the Department of Transportation did not issue a letter reading that the traffic impact analysis comported with state traffic control standards, there would be a section in here which read that a new traffic impact analysis must be performed. In this case, remanded to the Planning Commission for its review, which I subsequently added at Roman numeral III, subsection 4F. Four had sections A through E, so I added that subsection F. And then, Mayor Garcia brought to my attention that the traffic impact analysis and letter from the New Mexico Department of Transportation staff should read that the TIA comports with state access management standards rather than state traffic control standards. This "traffic control" seemed to imply, you know, putting out traffic cones and redirecting traffic through, say, a detour. So I will make the change to that subsection E of number four under Roman numeral III so that it reads, "The development plan is made conditional upon and the applicant agrees to obtain a review by the New Mexico Department of Transportation of the development's traffic impact analysis, TIA, and letter from NMDOT staff reading that the TIA comports with state access management standards." And then, I try to avoid having one line of a document carry over to another page, so I did a little bit of reformatting so that the signatures are all on the last page and the identification of the persons who signed are all on the last page. So those are the changes that Mr. Martinez and I—I sent these to Mr. Martinez, and I believe he's in agreement with them. To Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Rubalete, for that. Rubalete? I can't think of it. Rubalete. Rubalete. Rubalete. Rubalete. Rubalete. Yes. Never get it right. Sorry. All the changes that you just explained verbally, are those reflected in the document that's provided here? No, those would be changes to the document that was uploaded to Civic Clerk. Okay. You have an old version before these changes were made. Okay. So then, it looks like we're here to approve it. So without those changes, do we need to get those changes in writing, or can they be uploaded so we can have them? Well, Mayor Garcia and Councilor Garcia, if you approve those changes by a vote tonight, they know that they'd be adopted with those changes. I will make the changes, and they'll be uploaded to Civic Clerk again. How is that? If I may, Mr. Garcia, members of the governing body. So I believe Mr. Rubalete went through all of the changes that he would propose be made. So I'm guessing it would probably be the better practice to bring this back next time so that you have it in writing and can read it and review it. We need a motion to table it until... We have to postpone it to the next meeting. So, what date? I'm going to make a motion to postpone this item to the August 12th meeting that will reflect the proposed changes in writing, and that way we can have them all available for the public and ourselves. Second. You got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Councilor Cassell. Oh, sorry, that's an old hand. I had the same problem that I wanted to see in writing. So sorry about that. Forgot to lower my hand. I'm good. Let's vote. Anybody else? Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Certainly, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassell? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Travis? Yes. Motion passed. Mayor Garcia, of course. Thank you. Thank you. Next item, please, Madam City Clerk. We will move on to matters... Oh, I'm, yeah. Matters from the City Clerk, and I have nothing to report today, so we'll move on to communications from the governing body. Yeah, start Councilor Faulkner, and then we'll go Councilor Garcia this way. Again, Back to School Bash Saturday. It's going to be awesome. Tons and tons of giveaways by way of gifts and scholarships. So we have snowboards that come with ski lessons. We have art supplies that come with art lessons. We have musical instruments that come with music lessons. It's going to be pretty fun, and every kid who comes will surely get something. It's free food, lots of entertainment, a ton of partners. And so, I just want to also thank city staff. City Clerk's office has been amazing. Police and Fire have been amazing. The City Manager's office has been amazing. And I'd like to thank my partner in crime, Lee Garcia. He's been amazing as well. And I'd like to thank Roland Jones, who's been amazing, and JP Guarnillo, who's been amazing. So it's going to be super, super fun. Everything is free. We're going to have DJs from Boxcar there. We're going to have a cumbia concert at six. Just, there's so much going on. It's going to be super fun. I encourage everyone to come. And I encourage councilors to volunteer. And I have to—I have to thank you, Councilor Eric and Bustamante, because they have agreed to volunteer at one of the most important stations, and so thank you guys so, so much. Councilor Castro. And I got—you took one of my events, and I'm only going second. But, yes, Santa Fe Cumbiero, August 1st, is going to be huge at the Swan Park. And also, at the same time, Thelma and Louise is going to be at the Rail Yard, so we're going to have to figure out which one to go to. So thank you, Lenzic 360 and Councilor Faulkner, for all the free events. Councilor Bustamante. Nothing at this time. Thank you. Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to my counterpart. All of those involved with this planning out this—this, what's turned out to be a ginormous undertaking in an event, and it couldn't happen without all the partners, city, administration, everyone. Thank you to my counterpart for pushing so hard and everyone else involved with it. She already named just about everyone, but come on down and let's have a party. Councilor Chaffetz. Thank you. I want to shout out to Councilor Faulkner, Roland Jones, and JP Granio because they have been, I think, the big force behind a lot of this work, and then everyone that followed, which is a lot of city departments, a lot of private partners, community partners, everyone that makes that event possible. And these events are really important because it's not easy preparing for school. It's expensive. It costs families a lot of money after having the expense of just getting through the summer with kids, which is also very expensive. So these are the kind of events that really help our community thrive and help our community feel supported as we transition through all the different seasons of the year. So thank you to you all for being mindful of the community. I want to wish all educators, or everyone in education, good luck. I believe school starts back for most professionals in education next week, and students follow. Good luck to students. Good luck to educators. I hope you all find great success this year. I wish you all the best. Thank you for doing such a selfless job. It's really, really difficult to be an educator. And congrats to parents who got through the summer, which is also not very easy to do. I have three at home, and I have to say it's amazing how difficult summers are. So it just reminds me of how much our school systems do for us and do for our community. So, good luck to everybody, and that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Barrett. I just want to second what Councilor Chavez said. May the force be with you, all of us, in public, private, any kind of education. Here we go again. And I did this in Quality of Life, but just a shout-out to the City of Santa Fe Summer Program that was so amazing for my daughter. I know I think 500 kids get to go to the city camp. We really are trying to work on expanding that. And the Teen Center, where I know my teen loves to hang out, free food, video games, fun. Those are both amazing programs. And also, just wanted to shout out the Bike Santa Fe Bike Valet that has been going on all summer, I think, with the Lensic events and some other events. So that's been an amazing addition to our community, so shout out. Councilor Figali. Nothing from me. Thanks. Councilor Cassett. Thank you, Mayor. I also, I think kudos are just not even enough for the Back to School Bash and all the work that Councilor Faulkner and JP and Councilor Garcia and Roland and all the community partners put into it. I'm sad because I'm always out of town this weekend, and so I never get to be there. But please, everybody who is in town, please go. They really put so much effort into this, and it's always one of the things that I've always been really impressed, Councilor Faulkner and Councilor Chavez as well. You guys are just so good at these community events and really getting the community together. So, here's another great one that you guys are pulling off. So thank you all so much for that. I also wanted to thank the summer program. We also had a very successful summer there. It really is, it's a godsend. I mean, it's affordable. It's so hard to get through the summer. It's really fun. They get to do such wonderful things. We're using the Travis Center and all of the different, you know, field trips to Albuquerque. So I'm with Councilor Barrett. Anything we can do to expand this, I really would love to focus on that. I know that there are partnerships with the schools that have to be worked out. It's not as easy as it seems, but maybe if we start now, we could get another school site up and running for next year, maybe two. We could go for pretty impressive goals. And then congratulations to everybody who is getting ready for the school year. Good luck. It's always fun. Somehow parents make it through the next week and a half where a lot of us don't have camps anymore. So that's going to be a little bit of a push, but looking forward to the school year to start again. And then I just wanted to actually shout out, Chief City Manager. We always get to talk about, you know, the wonderful compliments that we get from staff. And Councilor Chavez and I got one today from a community partner who was, you know, having an issue and was able to come and meet with you, I think, maybe yesterday or earlier today, and have that problem solved. So she was very, very grateful. So thank you so much for all of your work. I know that we don't have as long with you as we would like. And I was, you know, discussing this with the Mayor the other day is, you know, we have about five-ish months left with you. And so I'm really grateful for all of the work that you've done. And I really, you know, hope that when we do have a permanent city manager coming in, I would love for them to have that overlap with you because I just really appreciate the way that you've approached this job. So, I know the city manager hiring process is a really heavy lift. Councilor or Mayor Grissy, excuse me. Please let me know, you know, how we can be of help there, because you've been wonderful. And I know I don't have to say goodbye yet, but I just was really, really grateful to hear from a constituent, because it's always wonderful to hear the great work that our staff are doing. And I don't think the city manager gets nearly the compliments as they always deserve. So, kudos to you, Chief City Manager. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilor. And as I always tell Brian, it's staying 2026 forever. So we'll have those conversations soon enough. But I guess, in the spirit of events, just want to make sure folks, if you would like to attend, I encourage you to come and join in on the fun, August 7th. There will be a hip-hop show hosted by Lensic 360 and Rashawn Ahmad. There will be national hip-hop acts. You've got Souls of Mischief, Brother Ali, as well as Slum Village. But your Mayor will also be DJing the event. So please come and visit. I'll be spinning on the ones and twos that evening, and come and join in on the fun. Other than that, just want to give a 100th birthday shout-out to my great aunt. She's turned 100 this weekend, so shout-out to her. Her name is, for the record, Nellie Valdez. So, with that, we can go towards introduction to legislation. Mayor, if you can look at your phone real quick, I'll give you one more event that we forgot. National Night Out on August 4th at Franklin Miles Park. So please come out. Police and fire will be there. Other community services will be there. So not only are we doing the event in District 3, we're going to do National Night Out on Tuesday night. And so that's a big event starting out the school year. So just a fun family, another event on Tuesday night. Thank you for that reminder. With that, now can we turn to the next item, please? Introduction. Yes, Mayor. 16A is consideration of Bill Number 2026-13 and adoption of an ordinance sponsored by Councilor Alma Castro and Councilor Paul Bustamante. It's a bill amending the City of Santa Fe's Public Campaign Finance Code, Chapter 9-3, SFCC 1987, to increase the amount of funding available for publicly financed candidates for municipal office, increasing the funding amounts for City Council, Municipal Judge, and Mayoral candidates, repealing Section 9-3.12 SFCC 1987, Qualified Small Contributions, and repealing Section 9-3.13 SFCC 1987, Additional Reports of Qualified Small Contributions, Additional Matching Payments from the Fund. Councilor Castro. Thank you so much, Mayor, and thank you, Ms. Cardenas. This was really important because we haven't looked at public finance in quite a while. And in particular, it was very cumbersome for the City Clerk's office to do multiple reporting, and so we've consolidated some of that reporting so it's easier both for candidates and it's easier for the City Clerk's office. Nothing for me but the other sponsor. Councilor Bustamante. No, I think Councilor Castro said it all. Thank you. Okay. Next item, please. Next item is consideration of a resolution. This is sponsored by Councilor Paul Bustamante and Councilor Patricia Figali. It's a resolution adopting the City of Santa Fe's Regional Annual Transit Service Plan for Fiscal Year 2027, accepting the North Central Regional Transit District's Fiscal Year 2027 proposed funding of regional services provided by the City of Santa Fe, and $1,421,890 and approving the submission of the city's Regional Annual Transit Service Plan for Fiscal Year 2027 to the NCRTD's Board of Directors for approval. Councilor Bustamante. I think it kind of speaks for itself. Thank you, ma'am. Councilor Figali. That's it. Thank you. Okay. With that, we've gone through our evening portion of the agenda. Would we, I'll entertain a motion to move towards appointments. So moved. Second. Okay. May I get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Figali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Next item. Next item is Item 21. This is appointments. These are appointments to the Santa Fe Film and Digital Media Council. Gaye Dillingham, reappointment with the term ending March 2028. Robert Dennis with the reappointment term ending March 2028. Diana Taylor, reappointment with the term ending March 2028. Jason Ordaz, reappointment with the term ending March 2028. Dr. Elizabeth Stommer, reappointment with the term ending March 2028. James Wysong, reappointment with the term ending March 2028. Alessandra Durbin Kaul with the reappointment with term ending March 2028. Aynen Harrison Thompson, appointment with term ending March 2027. Zaid Zarafi, appointment with the term ending March 2027. Michael Garfield, appointment with the term ending March 2027. Judy Bell, appointment, term ending March 2027. Lucia Ricardelli Fassi, appointment, term ending March 2027. And Shannon Hughes, appointment, term ending March 2027. To approve. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figali? Yes. Motion passed. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. I think we've completed everything we can complete right now that is not a public hearing. I'd like for us to be efficient. And for anybody that is wanting to provide public comment at the moment, can you please raise your hand? Okay. So I think we have sufficient folks to get us to our typical 7:00 hour, and then we'll just continue to roll on to public comment. So with that, if it's okay with the governing body, I'd like to entertain a motion to move directly to public comment. Motion to move directly to public comment. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Mayor, none. Madam City Clerk, may I get a roll call vote, please? Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassett? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Now it's time for petitions from the floor. Just as a reminder for everybody, you have two minutes. There will be a timer on the board. Music will play once your time is up. I would politely ask that once you hear that chime, please wrap up your comments. Also, please, I ask that you please identify yourself as well as if you feel comfortable, your district that you live in, or if you live in the county or anywhere else, feel free to state so. So with that, I know we've got a lot of folks in the room. I want to be respectful towards everybody that's participating in this process. Just a reminder, we don't applaud folks' comments. We don't boo folks' comments. If you agree or disagree, just I would say use your jazz hands. Just wave your hands, and it's a quiet way of expressing your feelings. But we want to make sure that everybody is respectful of one another. So with that, let's go ahead and start. We got the two minutes up. My name is Catherine Rivera, resident of District 1. I wanted to talk about the closure of the plaza tonight, but I also wanted to start off with the Marriott hotel appeal. And just for the record, to let everyone know, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been any letter or acknowledgment from the NMDOT about the traffic data. And as it as to the best of my knowledge, that means the project continues to be stalled. That leads me to the plaza. I have not heard anything really compelling, no compelling arguments to close the plaza. The plaza works for everyone. It works for everyone needing access, emergency access and delivery vehicles, and it works for limited mobility folks where vans and distant drop-off points are problematic. It works for building owners of this historic site who require proof of emergency response to keep their insurance and not to mention, to save our most historic buildings. It works for business owners who rely on their most profitable repeat customers, local loyal customers, to return to them easily. It works for families, families whose elders ask them to drive them around the plaza, and of the sick and dying who ask to be driven around during their final days. So why disrupt what is working? Why would we put sand in those gears? Why would we become exclusionary? The plaza works today because it is equitable and inclusive to all modes of transportation and all modes of mobility. It is most equitable today as it is. It represents what Santa Fe claims to be, inclusive, not exclusionary, not discriminatory, and not marginalizing. I ask you to vote no on closing Lincoln and West San Francisco Streets. By voting no, you are voting to keep the plaza equitable and inclusive to everyone in all modes of transportation. Vote to keep the plaza open. Vote to keep the plaza working, maintaining emergency access for everyone who owns, sells, works, visits, and the locals who cherish. This is our best chance at a best future. Thank you. One second. I just want to make sure because I didn't hear music playing, and I want to make sure that okay. Thank you, Councilor Fagali. So if I can have IT bring up the speaker on the screen as well as if I can have the chime sound go off when the speaker's time has expired, that would be helpful. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Mayor and Councilors, my name is Jim Heath. I'm here tonight to just give you a heads up about something I'm going to be proposing with respect to the Midtown District project. I'll be meeting next week with the group that is managing, with the idea that I'm proposing to put a 1,000 square foot amphitheater in that space. There's five acres, essentially three to five acres, available out of the 40 that are still available. I know it would be necessary to amend the master plan that was approved by the last group, last council, but nevertheless, I'm going to try and convince the managing group there that that project is something that would be great for that area. It would be fashioned after the old Palo Solari amphitheater that we tried to get over many years and couldn't. This is something that I've been working on for a number of years, and I propose to develop it. I propose to finance it. I propose that the town will own it. It will be a community project. I will receive no compensation for it. It's something I'll do on my own. And if I can convince the group next week to at least entertain the idea, then I'll come back at a future council meeting and provide some kind of more definitive specific proposal to you. Thank you very much. Let's go ahead and wait till the timer resets for you. Feel free to hand it to the city clerk, sir, and show okay. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead, please. Mr. Mayor and Councilors, I'm here today to encourage you all to vote yes on oh, I'm sorry. My name is Mac Bogrod. I'm a small business owner here in town, a parent, cyclist. Today, I'm here to speak on Resolution 2026 to support closing the plaza, you know, temporarily throughout the year without any amendments to that resolution. I I I came in today not knowing what to talk about, but knowing that this was really important for the city both to understand and respect the culture that has been here for hundreds and hundreds of years, and also, you know, being in 2026 and how do we want to move forward. I am a Navy veteran. I served ten years on a submarine. Actually, that one, that's in the showcase over there, USS Santa Fe. And something that really struck me with this whole idea of, like, having the car culture and Santa Fe and the cycling culture, it's really important to work together. On on a submarine, there's about 12 different divisions that run the submarine safely, and we really take pride in what we do. And it's really important that we work together to make that submarine run well safely, stay on mission, all those sorts of things. So I believe, approving this resolution will help support the community, the pedestrians, the cyclists, the business owners. And also, you know, it sounds like there's going to be some designated days and times to have, you know, the car culture come in through the plaza and have that space. So I am a big proponent of sharing that space as a community, coming together to support the mission of community, which is safety, primarily. Right? And I just worry about sometimes my little 4.5 year old. Cars are scary, and I take them to school on a bike every day. So being able to have more spaces that are cyclist friendly, mean a lot to me. Thank you. Hello. I am Cody Potter. I'm a partner of the Five and Dime on East San Francisco Street, not West San Francisco Street. Go ahead, Cody. Because I IT, can we the timer keeps popping on and off, and I'm going to go ahead. You all all the councilors and the mayor received the letter that I had written. So And, Mr. Potter, if you could just pull the mic a little more. Just because the folks online won't be able to hear you. I I I wrote a letter two weeks ago addressed to the mayor and delivered it to the council members also. That's a lot more eloquent than I can speak, so I'm going to let that speak for itself. We are opposed to closing East San Francisco Street. We've been in business for thirty years, close to thirty years, and I'm a lifelong resident born five blocks from here, and I've never had a problem on San Francisco Street walking, cycling, or anything. I don't believe that a seasonal closure is necessary. The special events currently close the streets as they are, which is perfectly fine, and I hope that we continue doing what we have been doing. And, that's about it. I'm just opposed to it. Thank you. Go ahead. My name is Desiree Velarde. I'm a Chainbreaker member, and a resident of the Sangre Cristo Apartments and Committee. We, last week, gave the management a letter. The residents at the Sangre Cristo Apartments have been displaced due to a fire. Some of us are traveling back into, to Vegas and back to Santa Fe. The people that were impacted by the fire are disabled, elderly, have kids, and pets. They all live on Pitts Creek Homes. Our time where we are currently staying for the time being is running out. We had given five demands to the owners and management, requesting safety and health information on our units. We believe that these demands are reasonable. Although we have not heard back from management, we look forward to speaking with them and working with them. We also believe that the city of Santa Fe have duties to the residents to make sure the apartments at Sanbrillo Apartments are safe for us to turn. We urge you guys to strengthen the rental protection. That's it. Thank you. Hi. My name is Italia. Just be translating for a community member. Hello. I'm a resident of District 2, and I'm a chamber member. As my fellow committee member just pointed out, we also believe that the city of Santa Fe has an obligation to us. Residents who pay, who rent apartments and homes to ensure that the units meet the health and safety standards. And we appreciate the city's commitment to strengthen the tenant protections. The limited federal protections are under attack, and we lack sufficient protection at the local level. We urge the council members for their commitment to incorporate more local protections and support, and we especially urge no to retaliation. Rights on paper mean nothing when tenants face real risks for speaking out. Municipal enforcement of health and safety standards and offer right to organize where other levels of governments have failed. Don't fail us too. Tenants across Santa Fe are already organizing and working to exercise their rights on their own, and stronger policies protecting tenants will not solve the housing crisis, but the city council has tools at his disposal. Thank you. Can you tell me when I should go? Okay. I could go. I'm Melinda Hall, and I'm a resident of the county of Santa Fe. And I'm also a member of Indivisible Santa Fe. I'm on the steering committee. I feel very strongly about protecting our friends and neighbors. I feel very strongly that we should create a law in the city to prevent ICE raids, ICE staging raids in the city using city owned property like parks, parking garages, and parking lots. This has been done in 11 cities so far in Albuquerque and Denver. They have adopted this as they have made it a law, and I feel like it's time for us to do this now. I just wanted to get on public record tonight stating this may be for the first time, and hopefully, it will come before you, and we can take a vote on that. Thank you. Hi. I'm Elizabeth MacMan Herrera. Born in Colombia. I came here with my parents, and it took us thirteen years to get citizenship. It was no easy deal, and we came in a time when it was much easier to do. But I want to tell you about what's happening to our immigrants now, and these last two years. In 2025, over 30 people around 30 to 31 died in ICE custody, reaching a two decade high. In 2026, at least 19 to 22 people have died in custody. As of mid July, putting the year on pace to match or break the previous year's record. As of early April, the agency continues to hold over 60,000 immigrants in detention. Will they make it out alive? These stats were taken from the National Immigration Project. As a clinically trained family and child therapist of over thirty five years, now retired, it's clear to me that the trauma of losing a parent and family members violently, often unexpectedly, as they are kidnapped off the streets in our community reverberates, creates depression and anxiety across families for many generations. But you don't need to hear that from me. You probably all know that. In Santa Fe, many families and children are in hiding, avoiding going outdoors to play or to public places. Children are missing school. Many immigrant adults bravely go to work wondering, will I strike where will I strike next next? I think they're so brave. So many people in Santa Fe have done so much to organize. It's been amazing. It's it's heartwarming because it's across all of Santa Fe, all, all ethnic groups and all classes. Some of us created SAFER, started a year ago to protect our immigrant families, and many other people are doing things for our immigrant families today. I understand that you have begun to talk about ice free zones. I really think that's fantastic. I hope you continue to move that along as quickly as possible. So when and how soon will that happen, and when will you talk to us about that? Elizabeth, your time has expired. Thank you all for listening. Have a good evening. Okay, and just a quick request for IT in the back. If we can have the music play, just because it is helpful with the speaker to help wrap up their comments. Hi, I'm Barbara Schroeder. I'm a member of SAFER, the Santa Fe Rapid Response Hotline. And I'm here today to urge you to please act on making Santa Fe an ICE-free zone, to outlaw ICE from using your parks, garages, buildings. Residents of Santa Fe need your protection from these unlawful abductions. They do not need your complicity, so please act now. Thank you. Amber Espino Trujillo, District 4. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and councilors. With so many things needing fixing in Santa Fe, I choose the one issue that isn't broken. I have seen no data, and you are blaming longtime— I'm sorry, Ms. Trujillo. Testing this. Speak into the mic a little bit more. Thank you. Again, are you— Yes. Okay. With so many things needing fixing in Santa Fe, why choose the one issue that isn't broken? I've seen no data, and you are blaming longtime employees for requesting this. You are each supposed to be a representative of the people, not tourists, not your own private businesses. What are you going to pay for bollards? Could be used to have additional staff work the events. I believe that if you ask staff if they want to work an event and get out of the office, many would be interested in comp time or an additional day off during the week. You have thousands of unhoused individuals and no real solution. You won't support those that can bring a solution, and you give millions to those who leave homeless on the streets every single night. I counted nine people on the street driving here. You continue to allow building without water to support it. Water rights on paper do not constitute actual water. Just ask our Pueblos who are hauling water because not enough water is flowing downstream to them, or the fish that are dying in the streams they used to live in. Potholes that were repaired weeks ago are back because they are not patched, they are repaired. They are because they are being patched, not repaired. Sorry. The issue you have is a lack of staffing for the parks, for the streets, for the events. Barbara has needed and requested support for the events for over 20 years. 20 years. I know the last administration wasted money, so you are at a deficit. But I think of all the people you could put back to work if you stop throwing money towards non-issues. Please do not close the streets around the Plaza. This is the one place where I can still come and feel the presence of my 16 generations. Stop using contractors. Put the people of Santa Fe back to work. Thank you for listening. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. I urge you to reject this resolution to permanently close West San Francisco Street through the Plaza to vehicular traffic. If this measure passes, the message that many residents will hear is simple: if you drive a car, ride a motorcycle, you are no longer welcome in one of Santa Fe's most treasured public spaces. The Plaza belongs to everyone, not just pedestrians and bicyclists, but also working families, seniors, people with disabilities, local residents, and visitors who experience our city from behind the wheel. This proposal creates an unnecessary division between members of our community. It sends the message that one way of accessing the Plaza is acceptable while another is not. We should be bringing people together, not separating them based on how they choose to travel. Where does this thinking end? What's next? Separate water fountains for pedestrians and bicyclists? Different ones for people who drive cars or ride motorcycles? That comparison may sound extreme, but it illustrates the danger of sending a message that one group of citizens is more welcome than another in a public space that belongs to all of us. If public safety is truly the reason for this proposal, then the public deserves to see objective data and statistics proving that keeping the street open creates a significant safety hazard. Policy decisions that permanently change access to our historic Plaza should be based on evidence, not assumption or personal preference. The Plaza is the heart of Santa Fe. It should remain welcoming and accessible to everyone regardless of how they arrive. I respectfully ask you to vote no on this resolution and preserve the Plaza that truly belongs to all of us. Ronald Storhill, District 4. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. Hold on one second. Okay. Just want to make sure that chime wasn't going off on you. My name is Tony Gurlich from District 2, former BPAC member and a member of the board of Bike Santa Fe and a retired educator here in town. And I speak in favor of not closing the Plaza, but closing it to vehicular traffic and opening it up to pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair folks, etcetera, etcetera. And in looking at some examples of where this has worked, one story comes to mind, and that's the story of this town in España, Pontevedra, España. In 1990, they were faced with a similar question at a beautiful downtown Plaza, and they had proposed closing it all to vehicular traffic. There was opposition initially from the business community. Many people thought, "Wait a second. We're so used to getting around in our cars. You're taking that away." Very similar comments to it. The mayor of that town, Francisco Flores, said it was tough, but what it took was vision and courage to do so. Since 1990, there's been way over 300 cities and towns, big cities and small cities in Europe that have closed their downtowns, and over two dozen small towns in the United States that have done the same: Burlington, Charlottesville, Boulder, Iowa City, Tempe, Arizona, Bentonville, Arkansas, and more. Further research shows the following: the MIT Sustainable Cities Lab showed that increased retail and restaurant revenues occurred when the downtown core was open to pedestrians and bicyclists and anyone else. So there's other research. Tax returns went up. Infrastructure costs went down. Pollution went down. All of this is solid data. Thanks very much. Appreciate it. Alright. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, City Councilors. My name is Phil Lucero, and I'm the president of Bike Santa Fe. I'm here to speak in support of Resolution 2026 to reduce traffic on the Plaza. I do take issue with the amendment passed at the Finance Committee on Monday, I believe, Amendment B in particular. But having grown up in Santa Fe, my favorite memories of the Plaza aren't about driving through it. They're about being on it, usually by bike and often by foot. They're about live music, gathering with family and friends, and enjoying the unique character that makes the Plaza special. That's why I support making it more walkable and bikeable. Cities around the world have found that when people become the priority, communities are safer, healthier, and local businesses thrive because visitors slow down and spend more time exploring. Unfortunately, the amendment to keep one lane of West San Francisco Street open undermines the purpose of this resolution entirely. Instead of creating a safer, quieter, people-oriented Plaza, it preserves vehicle traffic in the heart of this space. A single open lane is likely to produce bumper-to-bumper congestion with more idling, more noise, more air pollution, and more conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Rather than achieving the benefits of the pedestrian Plaza, it risks trading the worst of both worlds. I've also heard the concerns about emergency response times in previous committee meetings. Emergency services already respond effectively during the many festivals, markets, parades, and community events when the Plaza is fully closed to traffic. Clearly, our first responders are well-equipped to operate under these conditions as they do throughout the year. I don't believe emergency access is a compelling reason to weaken this proposal when we have real-world examples showing that full closures can be managed safely. I also think about this issue through the eyes of a parent. Every time I walk downtown with my kids, I'm consistently aware of where cars are coming from and whether drivers are paying attention. The entrance to the Plaza on West San Francisco Street, especially in front of Haagen-Dazs, is one of the busiest and most uncomfortable pedestrian and vehicle choke points in the entire downtown area. So I just want to finish by saying I do support this resolution, but not with Amendment B, which is to close one lane. Thank you. Hi there. Ramon Martinez. I'm a father, homeowner, District 1. I am in full support of the resolution to close temporarily the section of the Plaza. I wanted to thank Council Member Fogali and Council Member Castro for their leadership on this resolution. I also think they've done a really great job listening to the community and listening to stakeholders, and so I don't think any of the amendments are really necessary. I also feel that way because I sat here during the Public Safety Committee a couple days ago and watched as the council members fielded question after question and really intense questioning around the resolution from the Public Safety Committee. And I saw the Interim Fire Chief, Scott Oetekirk, cool as a cucumber, respond that him and his department were ready for any of the issues that came up. So I have full confidence in Interim Chief. I myself spent a lot of time down in the Plaza with my family, with my two small, with my young children. I spent a lot of time there with my in-laws, with friends and family, and I see lots of my neighbors who live here in Santa Fe, and I see lots of my family who live here in Santa Fe, and I see lots of folks from my daughter's daycare who live here in Santa Fe. So when I go downtown and I spend time at the Plaza, I see I see people who live here enjoying the Plaza. Most of it's closed, and I see those same people having a fantastic time when it's entirely closed. Some of our best memories are being downtown when Santa Fe, when San Francisco was closed, looking down the end of the street and seeing the sunset. I mean, there's nothing like it. I've spoken with a lot of those people, and they've just impromptu told me that the best thing about Santa Fe is being on the Plaza in the summertime when it's closed, being able to walk, feeling safe. We've stood on that corner when the stop sign, when it's not closed, and we've felt that danger and that fear. So, thank you very much. Pass the resolution as is. Hello. I'm David Buzelle with Nonviolent Santa Fe. A growing number of cities and counties around the country are establishing so-called "No ICE," "ICE-free zones," either by executive order or council resolution. These ICE-free zones restrict the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to use public lands and facilities such as parks, parking lots, and garages for staging ICE activity. We put ICE on notice that the local jurisdiction will not stand for arbitrary and unlawful ICE activity. They also clarify guidelines for municipal employees regarding how to interact with ICE and what to do when they have to. A few of the cities and counties that have codified policies surrounding interactions with ICE include Alameda County, California; Asheville, North Carolina; Aurora, Illinois; Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; San Francisco, California; Santa Fe County; Worcester, Mass. The city of Santa Fe is not on this list. The city has been considering legislation for over three months. I have referred Mayor Garcia to sample legislation, and the jurisdictions that I have just mentioned provide numerous other examples of legislation Santa Fe could be based on. Unfortunately, the legislation appears to be pending still. Certainly, compared to other areas around the country, ICE activity in Santa Fe is low. That makes now the ideal time to finalize and pass legislation declaring an ICE-free zone in Santa Fe. I have no doubt that the mayor and the city council are fully invested in doing all they can to make Santa Fe safe and supportive for all members of the community, especially those who are the most vulnerable. But now is the time to act, not to delay. Now is the time to take the initiative so that we are prepared when ICE activity escalates. Now is the time to show Santa Fe residents what leadership is and to move us towards a more just community. In my mind, this is a specific problem with a specific solution. I hope to hear Mayor Garcia and City Council make a public commitment to finalizing and passing legislation immediately. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, councilors. Gary Roybal, four-generation resident, District 1. I oppose your resolution to close the Plaza off for vehicle traffic. We have a paramount issue here, and it's safety. You need to know that anytime that you impede any emergency equipment or slow them down in any fashion or form, you will be violating federal, state, county legislation, and rules and laws. I ask you to really look at what you're going to be doing here, as I believe if you do close this down and you do have something catastrophic happen like a fire or someone needs medical attention immediately, it will be on your hands. Those people are here. You're here to protect their livelihood. That is your job. You guys are wasting our time with this thing. Don't you have anything bigger to do? I mean, my goodness. This is a sin. Hate to say it. Thank you. Oh, come on. Anybody in the audience, any folks that are on board with me, raise your hand. Hi. My name is Elizabeth West, and I live in the South Capitol. And I'm here for, well, there's so many things I've heard that are wonderful that I'd love to say, "Yeah, check that. Check that. Consider that. Oh, let's make a compromise," etcetera. But today, I'm just here for one little thing that I've been wanting to bring up for under many administrations. So here you are with me. I think there should be three stop signs at the eastern end of Johnson Street as it comes into Grant because I've seen some pretty interesting near-hits there and confused visitors from other places. Maybe they're not from other places. They're just from across the road. I just think that's a good idea. And I'm not sure that you have, do you have jurisdiction over traffic and design and what happens in the city? I'm sorry, Ms. West. We can't have a dialogue back and forth. If I'm inappropriate, great. I'll be inappropriate. I'm just saying I'd love to see a stop sign there. Three of them. Thank you. Hello, Mayor and councilors. My name is Leonardo Rosatos, and I'm the owner of the Plaza Cafe downtown, a local business that has been serving locals and tourists for over a hundred years. I'm here today to support making the Plaza more pedestrian-friendly by closing San Francisco Street and Old Santa Fe Trail to cars during the summer. I respect Santa Fe's cruising tradition and know it means a lot to many families. But in recent years, cruising has become something very different. Now it's mostly very loud engine revving, very loud stereos, and behavior that can be disruptive for residents, visitors, and businesses. Closing the streets to cars in the busy season does not erase cruising culture. It simply recognizes that most of the time, the Plaza is full of people walking, and we need to put safety, reasonable noise, and quality of life first. Cities all over the world have made their historic centers easier to walk in while still allowing emergency vehicles in when needed using simple tools like removable barriers and marked emergency lanes. We can do the same here. We already have cruise nights, car shows, and special events when car culture can be welcomed and celebrated. Those can continue, while the Plaza is mainly for people on foot during the summer. This is not about locals versus tourists. A safer, walkable Plaza is better for both. Locals get a calmer place to gather with kids and elders. Tourists get the kind of historic, world-class, lively square they expect and stay longer to support local businesses like mine. When people feel comfortable walking and staying on the Plaza, they visit more shops and restaurants, and that is good for the local economy. We already close these streets often for markets and festivals. Making that closure consistent from Memorial Day through Halloween matches how we use the Plaza now and gives everyone clear expectations. I ask you to vote to close San Francisco Street and Old Santa Fe Trail during the summer and help move the Plaza toward a future that respects our traditions and makes everyday life better for everyone. Thank you for your time. My name is Aurora Martinez, District 2. Yes, it's me again. I'm asking you not to approve the Plaza Street closure resolution as written. I do support Amendment B, so I will state that. I have a speech that I wrote, but I saw two other really important topics that came up tonight that were way more important than what we have here, the closure of the street. And I'll tell you why. Not because it's not important to us as a people, as a community, but because that money that is going to go to close this should be going to those issues. Those topics, ICE, taking care of our renters, I think that's important. So I deviated because those things are important. This isn't, because right now, we actually have an equitable working solution that has been working since COVID. There's nothing wrong with it. It's working. So back to what I was getting at. We still haven't seen Plaza-specific safety evidence, crash data, or near-miss reports. What has been presented is quite misleading, but not Plaza-specific either, which we heard at the Public Safety Committee meeting last week. And at the Finance Committee meeting Monday night, it stated that when San Francisco Street is barricaded for events, extra fire personnel must be stationed inside the Plaza. That's added staffing. If that setup is extended from occasional events to months at a time, daily basis, the city needs to explain the impact on emergency coverage across the city and on the budget. The resolution never required full staff reports from fire or police. This is extremely important for the public to view. I do ask that you please take all the cultural information, very important, because this is the oldest capital in America. We are still here. We still exist. We want to be seen. We want to be a part of the community, but you're excluding some of it. Thank you. No, no, no. Claps, please, audience. Good evening, Mayor. Sorry. Mayor, council members. I also have a speech written. Oh, I'm sorry. Sean Noonan, District 4. It's saddening that we're actually here to talk about a resolution to close the street. Like, here we are. Didn't know we were going to talk about ICE zones either when I showed up, but I mean, those are topics we should really be considering. However, I'll get back to this. So I urge the City Council to postpone or deny this resolution as drafted. I support pedestrian safety, a vibrant Plaza, a thoughtful multimodal transportation plan. However, I oppose this resolution in its current form because the record does not justify the scale of the action being proposed. Of the three amendments proposed, Amendment B is frankly the most equitable. Cruising around La Paz is not simply traffic circulation. For many Santa Feans, it is a long-standing cultural tradition that generations of families have participated in. As written, this resolution would change that tradition from something residents can participate in freely into something allowed only when the city permits it to happen. That is a significant cultural shift. So I'm going to give you kind of an absurd example on the other hand. So if the city proposed closing trails to pedestrian cyclists and then only allowing access during city-designated times, I don't believe the council would accept that resolution. The traditional vehicle access to the Plaza deserves the same level of respect and careful analysis before it is restricted. I'm also concerned about the safety justification because it is incomplete. The crash data presented so far does not show a clear site-specific pattern of supporting closing a particular segment of West San Francisco Street. The public has not been given underlying crash data. Public Safety meeting, there was a spreadsheet. However, supporting data is not there. We just have a summary. And by looking at it, it's not pedestrian-related. Anyhow, I think a better use of our resources would be to first address known infrastructure issues around the Plaza. Mr. Noonan, if you could please wrap up your comment. Mayor, including sidewalk repairs and ADA accessibility as mentioned at the last Public Safety meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Alright. You guys are supposed to be the pillars of our community. You are failing us miserably. You sat up this evening and said, "We are here to listen to our people. We work for our people." No, you don't. You work for the tourists. You work for the special interests. You don't give a damn about us. I am here to tell you that the culture of cruising has been around a long time. I'm talking long. You're bringing in goats, horses, everything on carts. That was considered a trail, a cruise. So you've got to deal with that. So loud noises. I've been basing downtown since 1994, and I'll continue to base downtown. So there's that. You guys want to take away our freedoms of expression, of our freedoms of being who we are. Local Santa Fe people. You talked about Warehouse 21. That was the teen youth center when we were teenagers. That's where we got together, where we hung out, where we had shows, where we had concerts, where we learned how to DJ, where we learned how to do light shows, where we learned how to print T-shirts. What happened to that? You guys took it away. It's disgusting. Two, Santa Fe is a sanctuary city, which is disgusting. Three, federal law will stomp all over any law you guys pass, so it's a waste of time. Bring up those amendments. Federal law trumps state or city laws. So you're going to tell them not to use public facilities that are paid for by tax dollars? That's ridiculous. You guys are losing our culture, our city, and it is sad that you don't care, that it is just about business as usual. In this town, it's not what you know. It's... Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Can we have this gentleman escorted out, please? It's a to-do list, sir. I've let you go. I've let you speak your time. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Have a good night, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Molly Gray. I am a District 1 resident. And I wanted to thank both Councilor Castro and Councilor Fagali for putting forward the resolution to close West San Francisco Street during the summer months. This is exactly why I voted for both of you because I really wanted to see this sort of legislation come up. And it's really exciting to me to see the city start to become more pedestrian and bike-friendly. I visit the Plaza all the time, and I know that I've had my fair share of near misses that I definitely haven't reported. And it would just be wonderful to see the community that we can all build together by passing this resolution exactly as passed. When I had questions about this resolution, I emailed Councilor Fagali, and she immediately answered my questions. Clearly, she had already thought through all of the issues that would come up with this legislation. So the idea of having cruise nights to celebrate our cruising culture and having a shuttle system to transport people who have mobility issues is something I fully support, and I really want everybody to be able to access the Plaza, including those of us on foot and on bike. Thank you for your time. Good evening. My name is Elise Gutierrez, and I'm a... One second. Let him restart the timer, please. Thank you. Okay. Hi. I'm Elise Gutierrez. I'm a resident in District 1, and I serve as the chair of the Mayor's Youth Advisory Board currently. First, I would like to thank the councilors for the opportunity for us to speak tonight. I think that the motion you guys put forward earlier to allow public comment before a vote says a lot about the council's commitment to hearing us out. So thank you for that. But tonight, I'm not here to talk about the road closure itself. Instead, I'd like to speak about the importance of leadership and more importantly, listening. As someone who has served in many leadership roles, just like you all on the dais, one of the first lessons I had to learn was listening. Sometimes it can be difficult to hear opinions we don't agree with or appreciate, but as leaders, it is our responsibility to listen anyways. The people we serve are the reason we are here. They place their trust in us because they believe we would act in the best interest of our entire community. I also wanted to take a moment to thank each of the councilors. You do not have an easy job. No one enjoys being told that their idea or proposal needs to change or even be set aside. Yet time and again, you listen to us and consider all the different perspectives and make difficult decisions. That willingness to listen is something I truly appreciate, so thank you. One quote that I always think about when leading is, "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand. They listen with the intent to reply." Tonight, I encourage each of you to listen with the intent to understand what we are saying, not simply to respond in a way that supports your own position. Our community deserves leaders who are willing to hear each and every voice, even when those voices challenge us. So thank you so much. Hello? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Good evening, Mayor and fellow council members. My name is Manny Marquez, Yavez Romero. I live in District 2. I recently relocated from District 4 in the Via Vista area. I do support some of my fellow committee members, Juan Trujillo, Paul Lopez back there, Trujillo Chavez, and Mr. Roybal in voting no on this moratorium. I believe that the Plaza should remain traditionally open to the people on nights, in the absence of special events like Spanish Market and artists that are that have their art there. In other terms, it should be free to the car to access for the for the people driving by, in a traditional sense. And in my past leadership and education and all that, I think I support Elise as well from St. Mike's, living between and Santa Fe High. Just moving forward, this is a big topic in the city. I've been seeing a lot of things on it on Google and my email and stuff like that, and also just everywhere else. My team got out yesterday, but got a check coming in tomorrow. So I also do, obviously, I work security for SHIMO, community events and venue security in Albuquerque currently. It's gig employment, but I do support my fellow committee members and other people of the community in voting no on this moratorium. Thank you. Mr. Marquez, you left a T-shirt there at the podium. Hi. My name is Linda Garcia Grisham. My family has been here since the 1500s. A little closer to the mic, Miss Garcia Grisham. Just that way the folks can hear you. Been here since the 1500s. We are Garcia Street. I disagree that tourism is bad. I think it's done a lot for us. However, our people that live here deserve to enjoy the Plaza and ride around. I ride around the Plaza three times a week. I think we should be able to do that. Some of us don't have the opportunity to get out and walk around and do all that stuff. But I feel that closing that off is an insult to the local people here. I asked people to come with me tonight, and they said, "Why? They don't care. They're gonna do whatever they want anyway." That's really sad. You know, it's really disturbing to think that your city does not care about you. I saw a merchant here that said he's for it. That's good. Everybody has an opinion. But we love tourists, but we love our we love our Plaza. It's the heart of Santa Fe. That's where we grew up. I was looking at a picture today where I was in high school, and it was right in front of the Plaza. It was really nice. It's all different now. We've all accepted that. But do we have to accept closing everything off and making our people feel like they're not wanted here and they're not comfortable here? I think not. So I'm opposed to that totally. And that's what I came here to say. But I have to say also that I am opposed to a four-story building of mankind in Santa Fe. It's opening the door for everybody else to start going up and up. We have water problems. We are very fortunate that we have clean... Miss Miss Garcia Grisham. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Liesl Faust, and I live in District 2. I grew up here in Santa Fe. I'm here to support the closing of the Plaza to vehicular traffic during the busiest seasons. First of all, I want to thank Councilors Fagali and Castro for your work to make our public spaces safer for bikers and pedestrians. I appreciate you guys and all of the stuff that you do for that. Right now, it doesn't always feel safe. I bike and walk on the Plaza regularly, and throughout my life have had multiple close calls with cars and moments where I've genuinely feared for my safety. I just think a car-free Plaza during the busiest times would let people actually enjoy that space instead of watching over their shoulder and making sure that they can truly just, yeah. I'm asking for you to support this measure. Thank you. Hello, Mayor. One second. Let the timer reset for you, sir. There you go. Hello, Mayor, councilors. I spoke here, I think, in January. My name is Eddie Romero. I'm from District 2. I spoke here in January, and a lot of my speech was directed at the fact that this whole resolution is an assault on our heritage. You can call it public safety. You can call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day, we're destroying our heritage. I don't expect you to understand that because you're not local people. Well, if you are, you sure don't behave like a local. Answer please. Let me tell you please. We talked about public safety as the vehicle for getting this resolution through. I don't see it. A lot of our professionals don't see it. Our former fire chief said there was no problem. There was a problem with blocking access to fire trucks. We've yelled at you. We've told you that gentleman just yelled at you. What are you guys doing? Don't tell me it's public vehicle. We're not that ignorant. I was in the Plaza this weekend for Spanish Fiesta. I didn't see people taking pictures of the cathedral. And if they do, they're taking pictures of red lights and crosswalks, and that's the reason to close the Plaza. It almost seems to me that this lady just kinda spoke to it. The locals do not feel comfortable coming before you. I don't. I'm here because I have to. Let me tell you, I hate being here. I remember councils where you could come up, I mean, you could come over here, and they would listen. This resolution is being spearheaded by councilors. Mr. Romero, can you please wrap up your comment? Promise. It's not coming from the locals. It's an election promise. Mr. Romero, can you please wrap up your comment? Thank you very much. Hi, Mr. Mayor and Councilor. My name is Siobhan Porter. I am a business owner on the Plaza on the side that's currently closed. And I'm really just here to maybe make the point that the closure on my side has been pretty straightforward and easy. It's been in place for many, many years. I regularly call the cops, call emergency services, get my things delivered. I am able to do business on that side of the Plaza very easily. I'm not here tonight really to talk about the economics of it at all. I think it is a community question. And the one thing that I would underscore is I also grew up in the Plaza. I don't have a huge heritage here, but I do really appreciate how people come together. And today, I spend a lot of time there, like, seven days a week. Small things happen. We helped a guy whose motorcycle fell over today to lift it up and get him on the road again. And to me, I think that question of community is the biggest question, and so important and can take so many different shapes. And I'm really just here to underscore the logistics is not the problem. So thank you for that. Good evening. My name is Anna Maria Gonzales. I am in... You hear me now? My name is Anna Maria Gonzales, and I am from Councilor Castro's district. Thank you all for stepping up and being the people that you are and helping our city grow and live in a time when there are certainly differences. There are always growing pains. There have been since the first time Europeans sat on this on this Earth. There have always been changes and different views of how things should be done. However, I believe that La Via Real De Santa Fe is a very, very, very unique place in that there are generations and generations of people who were born here, have lived here, have welcomed people from other places, and have made this a community that people from all across the country are wanting to be a part of. They didn't come because our streets were open or closed. They came because of the people, our cultures, our fiestas, whether that's a Santa Fe Fiesta or a fiesta throughout the state, whether it's a celebration of Dia de los Muertos. All of those, I'm encompassing them as one, not the Santa Fe Fiesta, but all the times that we come together, a church bazaar, a neighborhood gathering, a barbecue. However, I know that people flock here to live and to visit because of the rich history and culture. My sister said it this afternoon in a meeting with Mayor Garcia, "We are a living museum." And as a living museum, each person is a part of that mix. I have my feet and my legs and the capacity to come and go as I please. I walked here this afternoon, but a lot of people don't. And I have been in use of the drop-offs and pickups, but it still takes an extra forty minutes for me to park, get back, and leave somebody at the corner that I may not feel comfortable leaving. Also, young adults, the only way they feel part of the mix. They don't have money for galleries. They do do a restaurant, but they will do a small drive-by. And for me, that makes my day when I'm able to take a quick spin around the Plaza. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Gonzales. No on the closure. Hello. I'm Chandler Moore. I'm a resident in District 1, Santa Fe. So hello, Council, and Mr. Mayor. Thank you for letting us all speak and being patient. There's a lot of people tonight. I think you're doing a really great job. I'm actually going to also voice support for the resolution to reduce, not close, right, but reduce the amount of vehicular traffic, specifically motorized traffic on the plaza that we've been talking about. I liked what Councilor Chavez said in her invocation where she was reminding everybody that a good way to live and a good way to lead is to respect each other and to put the community before yourself. So if we're talking about what everyone can enjoy, not just one person, not a really small group of people, but everybody, their families, their children, that would be a place that feels safe. Right? And as everybody has kind of talked and put their views out about this issue, it's great people are talking. But what best serves the community overall? Not just the people that want the convenience of driving through the one street that they can go through easily, look out the window and see the plaza, but to be a part of it. Right? Be a part of the community. And that's a special thing that we've got here. So my vote and pretty much everyone I've talked to and a lot of who's spoken tonight is to have that ability as pedestrians. And I would say yes, and I hope that you say yes too. Thank you. Where is it? It's on, sir. You got a minute 54, 53, 52. We'll take my time there. Mayor and city councilors, here we are again. Again, our history, culture, and traditions are being attacked. Not a way they took away the Soldiers' Monument, and then they took away Don Diego de Vargas, and then they tried to move the Fiestas into the railyard one time. Okay? Also, you don't know that because you weren't here at that time, but that's what happened. I am the president of, and I'm here to speak. 98% of those members have said that they don't want those streets closed, the street closed. That's a lot of members, 350 members. There was an individual here from the Plaza Cafe that said, you know, he wants it closed. Of course, he wants it closed. That means that he could put more tables there on the streets and make more money. Right now, right now for Fiestas, please don't clap. Right now for Fiestas, he already took away from the Fiesta Council areas for booths. So, yes, he wants it closed, but that's because it's a monetary item for him. Closing the roads again, you are, if you do that, once again, you are against our history, culture, and our tradition. When are you going to stop doing this? This has to stop. Again, look at everything that we lost already. They're still not up there. Soldiers' Monument's not there. The Vargas is not there. Now you want to close our roads? Darn it. Please. Please listen to the people, the local people here. Okay? And that's, I thank you for listening to me, but you got to change. You got to do something different. Please don't approve this thing. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm John Romero from District 2. You know, to me, this is all smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors. This is a battle between the rich and the poor, unfortunately. This is, sad to say, the white versus the brown. It is. This is pretty much suppression of the locals and giving the tourists and the part-time residents what they want. That's got to, I mean, you guys are saying we got to coexist? How is this going to coexist? It's not. You're pretty much saying locals, you know what? You could come, but you could come to our whitewashed stuff that we have going on in the plaza. Are we going to show up for that? No. I need a word with, with the Lensic people. We have no there. We have no perfection. None of that. You don't know who that is. I know. And we don't have that. You know what I mean? It's like you guys are saying coexist. However, you're saying, you know what? Only when we want to and how we want it and how they want it. I held veterans who are 65 years and above that have, they can't feel their feet. They have Agent Orange. They cannot walk that. They cannot. I have to supply wheelchairs. I have to supply four-wheel walkers. Do you think they're going to walk up San Francisco Street, that hill? No. We have to drop them off. My dad is a veteran. We have to drop them off at the corner. Same with my mom. Are you guys okay with that? I'm not. You guys need a shout out. I'm just saying, I heard a quote. I respect those thieves that steal from you straight up and the politicians that steal from you with a smile. Protection of the police. Thank you. Please in the back, I'm, we'll ask one last time. If you continue to clap, we'll have to ask, have you escorted out? I asked when we started this process to give everybody due respect. My name is Sarakamone Prepossary. I live in District 3. As someone who invests a lot in thinking about quality of life as a civic leader in this city, I commend you all to be thinking about the future. And if we can provide a more walkable city, it not only increases the livability and the quality of life in every space possible. I do trust that you all will think through the accommodations that is needed to be able to serve all of us, those with disabilities, and provide us with a future where the culture of this place could be honored wholeheartedly. But, I just want to commend you all to be thinking about the sustainability, thinking about the impact of carbon dioxide in our community and thinking about into the future about the well-being of this place. Hi. My name is Joseph Romero. My, my brother and my dad. Joseph, I'm so sorry. Could you just speak into the mic? Oh, District 2, Joseph Romero. I just recently moved back from Hawaii, and I see a lot of what's going on here. I, I applied over there. They've gone, the simple things in life have been taken away. Santa Fe is built on respect, love. Whoever's been born here knows that we love everyone that comes here, tourists, no matter what. I see, I've heard a lot of people talk about bicycles, about emergency. What about our culture? I grew up in Santa Fe. My grandparents grew up in Santa Fe. My dad, my mom lives three blocks, was born three blocks away from here. My dad was, lived three blocks up the road. To come to Santa Fe and know it's not your hometown anymore is very, very sad. I wake up every, I came back to Santa Fe to be home. This place is not home no more. It's, it's been, it's been stripped. You get, I mean, I see the plaza being half of it taken away. Now it's going to be taken away completely. What about my kids? What about my grandkids? It, it's going to be a myth to them all. My grandparents, my dad was able to drive around, but it's going to be nothing anymore. I believe that you guys are making a big mistake. I think the plaza should stay open. It shouldn't be part-time. It should be full-time. My grandparents used to take us driving and, and whatever around, but now you guys want to take it away. Half of you guys here are born and raised here. How can you look yourself in the mirror and say, I made the right decision? Thank you for your time. I just, I vote for not closing the plaza. Thank you. Evening, Mayor, and counselors. Thank you for all that you're doing. What we need to do is to support, oh, my name is Doris McBride. I'm from Santa Fe, the first baby born here on New Year's Day at 12:15 in the morning in 1954. So this is my city. I love it. I have wonderful memories here, beautiful pictures in the plaza, and it just breaks my heart to see how everything is getting destroyed. My mother was 94. She went to be with the Lord on Mother's Day, and she couldn't walk, but we would drive her to the plaza, and she would just love to talk about all the memories there. We have so many beautiful memories here. We are so grateful for everything being in Santa Fe, and we need to rebuild it the right way. Our history is our history, and we need to live in peace and harmony, love one another, and forgive one another, and move on and do what's right. Thank you. God bless you all. Are there any other members of the public that would like to provide comment? And if not, Madam City Clerk, are there any individuals online? Yes, Mayor. Stephanie Benonato. Miss Benonato, you're able to speak. She has two handles. I'll try the other one. Miss Beninato? Yeah. Thank you so much. I'm sorry. I just have one thing to say or two things to say about the Marriott. I would find it almost indefensible to make a finding of fact that we need more hotel space, which is what the amendment is going to be. And I wonder if you're going to put in a finding of fact that certain city councilors and the mayor went to the Secretary of Transportation and discussed the possibility of a letter before it was actually issued. I think that's very improper. As for the closing of the plaza, we're talking about one block for a part of the year. And I have gone to the plaza for over 50 years almost every day. Initially, we just ran errands, go meet our friends, maybe find something to eat. But now I work on the plaza, and I can tell you it's not even just a safety issue, it's a health issue. Since COVID, cruising has changed dramatically. It has become very, very, very loud. It is deafening on the plaza and around the plaza. And it's not poor people cruising the plaza. It's people with big expensive trucks, who have big, you know, mufflers, who have, can afford the price of gas, and they go around and around and around. It's not about just seeing the plaza. And as far as I'm concerned as a historian, the cruising grew out of the El Paseo. That is when girls with their dueñas, their chaperones, would go in one direction around the plaza walking, and boys would go in the other, and they would make eyes at each other and pass notes, and then it became into cars. And that used to happen in the seventies, eighties, and nineties. You'd see cars with girls in it, cars with boys in it, but now what you mostly see are males in very big trucks making a lot of noise and it's really a health issue for me working on the plaza. I'm outside. I can hardly, I no one can hear me. I can't hear them, and it has become not tolerable. And it has nothing to do with trying to cancel anybody's culture. And I think the xenophobia, racism that was brought up tonight is sad. I'm a brown-skinned person who is low, less than median income, so I don't fit the stereotype. Until your time is expired. That some people have expressed. Thank you. We'll move on to Rick Martinez. Good evening, councilors and Mayor. I have just a couple of things I want to say. One is, when you look at New Mexico, we are New Mexico. We're not Europe, and we're not some of these other bigger cities that we have no, no plazas closed in Santa Fe at all. Taos is open. Vegas is open. Even Old Town is open for traffic. You know, I can't figure that out. Also, if we want to close San Francisco Street, which I don't mind, but it's, it's doesn't, it's the point is that from from 5:00 to, to, say, 10:00, that's where we get the most of the noise. We could use loggers to have, to hire somebody, sit there at the intersection of San Francisco and, and close it just for that, that minute of time and then open it up. The mornings are real peaceful. There's traffic stuff that in the mornings. So I think that is a really important, way to look at the, the, this thing. And the other thing, when you close the traffic, it adds, it moves traffic to other parts of the street. You know? And that makes the noise around. Some of these other restaurants that are on, on, Sage Shelby and, in, Lincoln Street and, Washington Street pulls all that traffic to there. One last thing is that we invested in, in these, noise, cameras. I don't know if they call cameras, and we have license plate meters. You could set those up in the past and send out citations to the people or warrants not to do that, and then we realize that there is, there is no signage in there that we have ignored this in the city that we must obey. So put those signs up. Maybe that will help and have more police officers in the Plaza. Let's bring back Seastow again. We can't bring it back, but bring somebody back with the name Seastow to be like that. Thank you. Mayor, there are no other hands raised in the Zoom room. With that being said, let's go ahead and move on to the next item on the agenda, please. Next item on the agenda is consideration of a resolution. This is sponsored by Councilor Patricia Fageli and Councilor Alma Castro. It's a resolution amending resolution numbers 2014-49 and 2016-80 to close the streets surrounding Plaza Park annually from Memorial Day to October 31 or later, and to close Lincoln Avenue and Palace Avenue next to Plaza Park permanently. Mr. Mayor, before we dig into this, could I call for the 10-minute rule? Sure. And here is Public Works Director Sam Burnett for questions. The item was pulled by whom? I'll go ahead and defer. Councilor Figali, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mayor. Clearly, we've heard a lot of discussion about this, and I thank everyone who came to speak. We are listening to everyone's concerns. We clearly, in this, like so many things, cannot please everyone. So I think we're trying to do the best that we can, to do the best that we can for our city and for So, essentially, to get rid of an amendment, you have to move to remove said amendment. So if Amendment C wanted to go, we can make a motion to move Amendment C. By the way, I'm not actually making that motion. And then we would have to vote on whether or not that amendment goes. So once an amendment is attached, yes, that means it travels with it and it's already passed. However, the amendment can be taken off through a motion and a vote. So you don't need an amendment to amend the amendment because then we're just getting into Russian nesting dolls of amendments, and we can go really far down a rabbit hole. You can simply remove an amendment. And then if there was part of that language that you liked, you can propose an amendment to make sure that that goes on there, without the piece that you didn't like, which is why, and we didn't do this with Amendment A, and I'm now thinking about what we should have done better for the future. It's often recommended that if you have an amendment that's dealing with separate pieces, or multiple parts of a resolution, putting them in separately, while it is a bit of a pain, is usually a better practice for scenarios potentially such as this, where there are pieces of Amendment A that I believe people are in favor of, but not all of it. So, yeah, so essentially, that's where we are. You can take off an amendment, and that would just simply remove it and go back to the original. If there was nothing else attached to it, then those would stay attached. So in this scenario, say we removed Amendment C, Amendment A and B would still be there. Say we removed Amendment B, A and C would still be there, and so on and so forth. Does that make sense now? Councilor Kat Chavez, you have a comment. We have the whole Finance Committee here. So I'm just wondering, you took the vote in C in a sequence, right, in an order. So my understanding, I wasn't there. If you voted on A and it was approved, then you had a second discussion on B. So you acknowledge the differences and the comparison between Amendment B and A, which would mean that Amendment B now takes precedent in regards to amendments with those changes. So in my understanding in reading this, our current resolution status is with changes B and C adopted. But I would like, I think the discussion that makes sense because we have Finance here, is that interpretation accurate? Because that's how I'm understanding it. I understand it. Well, go ahead. So I'm just going to go Councilor Castro, Councilor Feagali, Councilor Bustamante, Councilor Garcia, oh, Faulkner. Sorry. Sorry. I apologize. Just since you were the Finance team on board, happy to let you speak your mind. Sorry. Just, there was some quick discussion about that change. And though we don't necessarily have the concept of a friendly or unfriendly amendment, that also sort of came up, that this legislation drastically changes the intent of the legislation and whether or not that was permissible. And I did have a quick question for the legislative team because there was some discussion from the office about substitution bills and how we don't have substitution bills and if the content of the bill is changed, whether or not that was permissible. So I think there were some questions and confusions. It was not a unanimous vote, just for context. So I'll go Councilor Bustamante, Councilor Faulkner, then Mercy might have some context for that. Sure. But let me go to the councilors first. Councilor Bustamante. I just want to add, if you did watch that meeting, there was a lot of confusion going on as to what amendment was taking precedence or even what particular thing we were voting on at the time. So, I would agree with what Councilor Castro just said. Thank you. Councilor Faulkner. Yeah. I would say that I think we were clear as a team of what we were, I mean, we didn't agree. It was not unanimous. But there was definitely a discussion around the fact that A passed, but then B came into play. And the only difference between A and B is that B asks for only one lane for one lane to be open. That's the only difference. They're identical other than that one thing. And so, I can tell you that it was my understanding that it has been, I mean, again, I can only reference what I do for a living. If an amendment passes, but then an amendment comes after that that passes, that changes what's happening in the resolution. The last amendment to pass is the one withstanding. And so, I would say where the confusion came in on the Finance Committee was the fee in lieu of discussion because we were then trying to amend an amendment on that point. That's where we all got confused. It was not on this issue. It was on amending the fee in lieu of amendment. That confused everybody for a while. Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would actually defer to our legal counsel to give us some guidance on this because it sounds like we all have some different ideas as to which one supersedes which and which one can move forward. Yes. Thank you, Councilor Garcia. Again, not to beat a dead horse, but the procedural rules say that any amendments move to the governing body. So I think I've heard two ways of hearing how the amendments are described. One would be that it's almost like when a first amendment passes, the text changes with that amendment, and then the second amendment passes, it's a further or a subsequent change to the text. But neither of those are fully adopted yet. In other words, there's no final action until the governing body votes on it. So consistent with the language here, it says, "any amendments move to the governing body." That would mean that even if there's more than one, I think it's, I think the best way to disentangle this knot is to consider the amendments. And if there's a contradictory subsequent amendment, I would recommend that that not be approved after one that says something opposite to it. So, but ultimately, I can only say that the language and the procedural rules, I don't think, contemplate this many amendments with, especially that are potentially contradictory. And so I think it would be best to just sequentially perhaps vote on these amendments. And if you are in favor of an amendment that does one thing, that closes the lane, that you not vote, of course, this is your choice, and one would then open it. So, I think it requires some decision-making before voting. Claire, that's the question for clarity, if that's okay. Could I would like to motion to remove one of the amendments. Could I move forward with that? I want to then discuss that because I feel like that would probably be the easiest solution right now. Like, I so I motion to remove Amendment A. Hold on. Before I still have the funds. That was thank you. Master Chavez. I, then from my understanding, is that those these items, again, are attached to this legislation. Even though they're contradictory, we still have to discuss the legislation as amended. And my question is kind of the same. Is it, can those amendments be reconsidered at this level? I think it's important, it's vital that they be considered by you because I think they're, they've moved forward as recommendations. The, the Finance Committee is not a committee that takes final action. So they have approved these amendments to move forward to this body, this complete governing body. And now I think you, the governing body, needs to weigh in on which, which amendment it wants to support. Councilor Chavis' point, can we remove an amendment at this juncture? It would be faster. Okay. I think, yes, to that point, that's probably the, as the City Attorney mentioned, the easiest way to untangle this, but we have to have a better plan for the future because the way we've been working in practice, as Councilor Cassett mentioned, is things attach, and there will be a time when amendments are contradictory in the future. There will be. This is not going to be the last time. And I think we need to figure out, as these amendments are being considered at the committee level, when there are moments that an amendment contradicts with another, that the committees address it at the committee level and address it there because bringing it to this level is, yeah. Yes. Councilor Cassett, then Councilor Barrett. Thank you, Mayor. You know, thinking back to this conversation, this was '21. We did actually contemplate this concept that there might be, that there might be contradictory amendments, or that an amendment might, so say Quality of Life passed one and Finance passed another, they're contradicting each other. I don't believe, unless they removed the amendment, that that then it would come to the governing body essentially for a discussion. But I also do want to point out that even if an amendment fails at a committee, it can still come to the governing body unless it was, you know, five members of a committee voted against it. So, while we, you know, we wanted to attach amendments because there were often these times where we would vote on them and then we'd have to go through the whole discussion again, which we're going to do today. You know, but, you know, we wanted to try to simplify it if it was something that would easily be streamlined. A situation like this, I don't think, is ever going to be streamlined because, you know, there's two opposing ideas that we're going to have to deal with. So, I think I forgot the actual thing I was going to make that was going to suggest how we make this easier. So I'll come back to myself if I, or I'll ask to come back to myself if I remember that. But, to the point, I think we're just going to have to debate these two concepts. I mean, it's a simple idea. You know, we're debating at this juncture. Do we want one lane of San Francisco to remain open or not? And then based on that, we're going to have to remove either A or B. And I think that's probably the same. Would like to be, hold on. Hold on one second. Councilor Barrett had been waiting patiently. Sorry. Thanks, guys. I was just going to say there was a lot of confusion about this, and I had talked to Councilor Bustamante about it. So I did go back and rewatch Finance. And I just want to say that Councilor Castro did try in the moment to say that this amendment is essentially making the resolution null and void. She did try to voice that because I did go back, and she did bring that up publicly and almost voted against her own resolution because that amendment was making that null and void. So I just want to say that she did bring that up in committee. Thanks. Okay. So with that being said, I think that, hold on. I think the best way to do this is just to go over what the amendment list is right now. A through what do we got? F now? And what the original intention is of each of these amendments. That way, we all can clearly understand what the intention is around the amendment. That way, each governing body member can get wrap their head around, do I want to support this? Do I not want to support this? Because as the City Attorney mentioned, if you do not agree with what an amendment is trying to do, then you should not vote for it. But more importantly, if there's an amendment in this instance where we've got contradictory amendments, pay attention to which amendment you would rather support. If they're in complete conflict, you're going to have to understand, in this instance, Amendment A and Amendment B. Do you support more Amendment A or Amendment B will make that decision? Because I think, at least, my amendments won't be contradictory. As they're written, they're written that way because it's got to incorporate language that potentially would be pulled out, but we'll get there in a moment, and you'll truly understand what I'm trying to capture with my amendments and so on and forth with each of the respective amendments. Is that okay? We do get an amendment overview, and then I say we can then move forward. Do we want to discuss amendment? I think we've spoken about this at length. We understand where folks stand. Amendments are now into play where folks ultimately would support or not support the legislation based on amendments that would be adopted. Is that okay with the folks? So with that, Amendment A, who are the sponsors of? So are we going to take the path of removing an amendment rather than voting on each one? I would say we vote on each one just because it's gotten so tangled up. It's essentially Amendment A and Amendment B are the ones that are in conflict. Amendment C does not conflict with anything. My three amendments, right now, the way they're written, yes, but the intention of them, we can minimize my language to where it would not be in conflict. Absolutely. I just have a suggestion. If we are going to move each amendment, maybe we give an explanation as we're moving them? So we're not going to move amendments right now. What we're going to do is say, "Amendment A, this is what we're hoping to do. Amendment B, this is what we're hoping to do." My suggestion is to hold that until we actually move the amendments just to save time. I think we move amendments. You're going to get in the process of where we're only able to speak specifically to an amendment. I'd rather have folks have a holistic perspective on each amendment. That way, they can make an educated decision, in particular, on Amendment A and B, how they would like to move forward with those particular amendments. If we make a motion to consider an amendment, per Robert's Rules, we can only talk to that amendment. And I think it's not fair to not consider each package. So with that, Amendment A sponsors, I don't know who wants to go first, but Amendment A, the floor is yours. My amendment speaks for itself. Okay, but what is it? Can you help not only educate the governing body, but I'll defer to my fellow sponsors, Sponsor Faulkner, Garcia, or Cassette. Okay, Councilor Cassette, I see your hand up. Sorry. Thank you, Mayor. I'm happy to speak to Amendment A. I'm going to pull it up because it was quite comprehensive. So this did a few things. First and foremost, it provided a minimum of six ADA parking spaces around the plaza. It's assessing the feasibility of designating a drop-off pickup area, specifying the closure will begin on Memorial Day in 2027, as well as directing the city manager to coordinate with the appropriate city advisory community groups and staff to designate days that would be open for through traffic, which shall include weekends whenever possible, no later than April 1. So we essentially wanted to make sure that those dates are set by April 1, 2027, and by April 1 every year after because that's when we're planning the park. So I'm sorry, let me back up. So first and foremost, it's going to designate a minimum of six ADA parking spaces within 100 feet of the plaza. Then we also wanted to assess the feasibility of designating a drop-off pickup area that is accessible for ADA purposes. So those are two. It delays the implementation of this resolution until next year. So it wouldn't start until Memorial Day of 2027. And then identifying the dates for when through traffic would be permitted, essentially identifying dates that there would be events for cruising, that we could actually do cruise events and really get the community there. We want that to include weekends whenever possible. We know that it's a busy, busy season, and that those dates need to be established by April 1 of every single year and available to the public so that individuals know when that is going to happen. There is also one that has to do with requirements for obstructions and loading zones, as well as international fire code regulations that all the closures are consistent with what's in our city code. And then, yeah, I already covered that one. I believe that covers all of it. Councilors Faulkner or Garcia, did I miss anything? Are you two of the? You speak to that. No, you covered everything well, Councilor Cassette. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Faulkner. She's perfect. Great. Okay, so that was Amendment A. Amendment B, Amendment B sponsors. Oh, so we've got Faulkner, Garcia, and myself on Amendment B. I can start off. So in Amendment B, everything that was in A was contemplated, but our intent was to have, at the very minimum, San Francisco Street to be open year-round. And that is really the only difference, which would allow the access to the plaza for all vehicle traffic on San Francisco Street, one lane. But it actually, what it did is, go ahead. In the resolution, both lanes of San Francisco Street were going to be closed. This, we viewed as a compromise because we would close one street. Since that street really isn't used anyway because you can't turn on Washington off of it, then we would leave one street open for vehicle access. And one of my biggest concerns was in talking to the fire department and the police department, there are not a lot of incidents of vehicles hitting people on that street. There's almost none. There's a lot of incidents in the plaza that the first responders have to get to the people who are injured. And you can say that it's safe because during events, it's safe. During events, the fire department has a completely different protocol that they use for big events that they do not employ on a daily basis on the plaza. My understanding was that although with EMS, they can get to people pretty fast. If there was a fire, getting to some of the fire hydrants that they would need to get to would be very difficult if they didn't have this lane. The other concern that was brought up is that if these both lanes were closed, then on a daily basis, if they had to use one lane to get to someone or put out a fire or whatever it is, there might be tents, a lot of pedestrians. So it seemed to me, like, on top of some historic and traditional uses being taken away, in my view, one bite at a time, also, there was a public safety issue. And I trust our chiefs, and it was that's one of the reasons the one lane being open. That was a big part of why I wanted to propose it is that the fire department had said that there is some risk that if there's a fire, they can't get access to the right hydrants if that is totally closed. And then also they have trouble getting to people on the plaza who are injured, not related to any traffic hitting people. Okay, so that was Amendment B. Big difference, I guess, just is that same as A, but Amendment B asks to keep one lane of San Francisco Street open. Amendment C, Councilor Cassette. Thank you, Mayor. This came from conversation with one of our community members who spoke today. The language right now says October 31 or later and leaves that quite vague. And so there was this concern that that vague language would allow, essentially, a city manager to creep the day that the streets reopen further and further away, and it would essentially lead to a year-round closure as opposed to the split closure. So this amendment specifies that it will, it will, the streets will reopen on October 31 or right after the Dia de los Muertos celebration, whichever comes later because that's always either the last weekend in October or the first weekend in November. And I didn't want to put us in a situation where, you know, we open the streets on Thursday, and then they're just closing them again on Friday. But it does not allow for the or later date to be contemplated. It is a set date. And after that, you know, we're just looking at closures for special events. So that's what Amendment C does. Thank you. Okay, now Amendment D, which is my amendment, and I'm reviewing it. And I don't think this one is valid. I mean, I'm not seeing the intention. I'll have to come back and re- so let me put D on hold right now. Amendment E. My intention with Amendment E is to change the proposed resolution, which the proposed resolution is to keep Lincoln Avenue closed permanently. Her previous resolutions that Lincoln Avenue is to close seasonally. I would like to maintain the seasonal closure of Lincoln Avenue, not a permanent closure. So that is the intention of Amendment E is to maintain a seasonal closure of Lincoln and then get back to off-season opening of Lincoln. Amendment F, and I'm looking at this one. Amendment F is to essentially put a one-year pilot on this. And I would introduce this should Amendment B fail and Amendment A get adopted where the plaza is closed for a seasonal measure, that it would be under only a one-year temporary pilot process. So only in 2027 would San Francisco Street be closed if Amendment A passes. My intention around this is to truly understand what the results are, and we can come back and revisit if the governing body wants to continue to potentially close San Francisco Street. But, again, this would only be introduced should Amendment A pass. I would not introduce this if Amendment B passes. Now I believe, and I'm trying to quickly review Amendment D, and I, and I, and I, my intention around this amendment, and I don't see it in here because there was a proposed drop-off zone or the plaza, the loading zone area. Can you tell me where that is, Councilor Faulkner? Oh, golly. Sorry. I'm the right document. It's number four on. Oh, yes. Yes, it is. It is. So that is in Amendment D. I'm going to be back on Amendment D. Amendment D would not have the space on Palace between San Francisco, I mean, Washington and Lincoln, right in front of the Palace of the Governors. What's proposed right now that that would be a loading zone, unloading and unloading zone for plaza vendors and Palace of the Governor vendors and prohibit vehicular traffic, pedicab operations, walking tours, and bicycle tours. What I don't want is that area to become a new loading zone. And the reason being is there is a reason that governing bodies of the past have closed that off, and we have to minimize as much, not only vehicular, but any traffic in that space. And a perfect example is just last month. There was somebody doing an unknown loading something, and it damaged one of the main vigas, a big, big viga on the Palace of the Governors. If you go look at it today, it's still damaged. It's on the west part of the Palace, and this big viga is pointed sideways because somebody who was unloading damaged it. And so that's what I want to prevent. And so that is the intention around Amendment D is that space should not become a designated loading zone because we get drivers that are in a rush, and accidents happen. And I do not want an accident happening with the Palace of the Governors. So that is the intention around Amendment D. So now we've heard kind of what the intentions around the amendments. Now I think probably the most fair process, and I'm opening it, I'll open it up to the governing body members to discuss how we want to move forward with this, but I think the most fair process is just to go one by one by one. If folks want to vote on, and I'll leave it up to sponsors, how they want to, given that their the major conflict is Amendment A and B. However folks want to address this, I'm open to comment from the governing body, but I would say you've got to vote one or the other. And it's the decision of the governing body to make sure you're voting for one or for the other. But with that, I'll go to Councilor Garcia. And then what I'm going to do is I'm just going to go down the line and let everybody give their input on how we want to work through the amendment process. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Do we have to technically remove A and B since they were voted forward, or do we just call that as we're back at the original proposal and now all introducing our new amendments? Well, the thing is that we're all going to put our input in as to how we want to go forward with these amendments, but those two are attached. They are attached by a vote and a recommendation. So, counsel, what we can do, I think the most fair process, and I'll say this is probably the most fair process, is that a vote be made to remove both A and B. They're both off the table. They're not attached anymore. Then a vote is taken to reattach them. And you vote if you want one, and you vote for the other one if you want the other one. That's again, given that they are attached, this is the legal way to undo it is we vote to remove them. That was my question. Vote to remove A and B because they're conflicting. Because Amendment C is not conflicting with anything. Correct me if I'm wrong. So Amendment C is fine. It's Amendment A and B, which has been adopted by the committees. We remove them. We've got a resolution at that moment, would not be contradictory, and then you can I think those events and those days that it is open can actually be a really wonderful opportunity to really pull people together. So I do see this as a compromise. I think that it does negate the entire purpose of it. If one lane on West San Francisco is or on San Francisco, excuse me, is still open, that does really change the entire feeling of that. So that's why I don't see that as a compromise, but thank you, Councilor Garcia. I always appreciate that you bring up that conversation. Thank you, Mayor. Any other comments? As a parent, I would have to say quite the opposite, just solely because I do not want my kid getting in the habit of, "Hey, the road's closed. I can go play in the road." And then once the road becomes open, "Hey, I can go play in the road," and accidents happen. And so I look at it from the same stance. I think the comments were made earlier on in this debate process of, "This will help folks from standing in the middle of the road." It won't. I mean, it's the same thing that when people go to New York, what do you do? You stand in awe, but there are laws, and you have to ensure that you're abiding by the laws. And I think by having difference open, close, open, close, it creates a process where you just create confusion. And so I will say that I do not support removing this amendment. I think this is what would ultimately potentially have me supporting this proposal, should I have the opportunity to vote on it. But I wholeheartedly do not support removing Amendment B. Any other comments? All right. We should just get this done. So everyone, you're welcome, Santa Fe. These are the people making decisions for you. No other comments? Councilor Barrett. Well, if we could rewind a little bit, maybe I would, oh, this wasn't my resolution, but maybe I would rename it "Opening Up the Plaza as a Community Space" because I don't see it as a closure. For me, I see it as an opening. If you were just here, like I was at Spanish Market with my entire extended family, who also, not me, but they go back generations, I would see it coming together with neighbors, friends, bumping into people you know, eating elote, going to get an ice cream. I see it as opening and people coming together. When we have these 75, I'm going to call them openings, Pride, Disability Pride, Indian Market, whatever you name it, people come. It's a different feeling. Children are running around. You're bumping into your friends. Or if you'll step back, please. So for me, I don't see it as closing. I see it as totally opening up, like people said, to children, to older folks. So that is the lens in which I see it, and I just see unlimited potential for the future when we are open to the community and more vendors are there, and we have all these economic opportunities. Go local, go different. That's what we say. These are our local businesses, and we can bring in even more temporary local businesses. I mean, in my mind, the idea is bringing in food, bringing in all these other vendors that we do for all of our local celebrations. I just see it adding. And I have kids too. We know as parents, our kids are constantly on electronics. What are we trying to do? We know the data is there. Get them off. Get them socializing. Get them interacting with others. I know I'm on that text chain for Raising Santa Fe. And would you let your kid go to the plaza? Of course, I want to take those electronics away and let kids socialize. We know after the pandemic, when everything was shut down, what happened? Social skills went down. This is community gathering, talking, and interacting. I think it's good for your mental health. I think it's good for your physical health. I realize that we have, I work with children with disabilities. I realize that people, we need to make this ADA compliant. In all of these resolutions, we have ADA accessible drop-off points. We're adding more ADA parking. So I do feel like this is inclusive. And I know too, we can do a much better job with our sidewalks, with our roads, making them ADA accessible. I know that, and I agree with that. But I'm just saying, I think of this as opening up. If you went to any of our amazing festivities this summer, the concerts, everything, bringing community together, for me, I see it as an opening. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor. I have a, yes, Councilor Chapas. Thank you. I have a, I'm in between a little bit, but I do see the true compromise being that we have to try it both ways, and we've tried it with the road open. I like the idea of a pilot. Just so you know, my interest is there. I do believe in exploring what the plaza can be as a community gathering place. I am from Santa Fe. I go back generations. I grew up on the plaza, but I didn't grow up driving on the plaza. Those aren't the memories I have. I also will state as a person who was born and raised and whose parents were born and raised that the plaza closure does not define my culture. My culture is my family. My culture is the memories I make with my family. My culture is the stories that they've shared. My culture is how we've enjoyed the spaces of Santa Fe together. No road closure will ever impact my culture because it's defined by the memories I make with the people that have made me me. And I just want to encourage people to reflect on really what matters when it comes to your culture. That's your culture. I grew up on the plaza with my family. Now I get to take my kids. Now I have great-nieces and another great-niece or nephew on the way. And when I look at the plaza, it's not driving through in a car in separate vehicles. It's when we're standing there together listening to music and exploring. And it is going to be different. That's something we just can't, whether that road's open or closed, Santa Fe is going to be different. We're evolving. It's completely outside of this council. There's nothing we can do about it. It's going to happen. But I will challenge people to really reflect on what makes your culture your culture because when I think about it, that street has nothing to do with what makes me me and what's made my family who we are and what has made us strong and respectful to the people that we surround ourselves with and how we serve people. A lot of the people I see out there follow me on social media, and they see that I am absolutely in love and adore my parents. They are my culture. They are good people. They show up for people. They support people. They respect different opinions in the most respectful way. That's what defines me. But getting back to this specifically, the only way we're going to know if it has this detrimental impact is if we do it because we have no data. There's been a lot of conversations. It's like you're making a decision based on zero data. Well, the only way to have the data is to do it and collect the data. So I really want to thank Mayor Garcia because I think it's your amendment that brings the pilot forward. I think that's the best true compromise because we're going to have how it looked before and how it looked after, and we're going to be able to make a decision that's supported by true data that where we could actually create, gather staff input because now they're going to have to function in both ways and truly figure out what works best for Santa Fe community members, staff as a whole. So I think I support this, but I am going to support the pilot because I think that's the only fair thing to do to really assess whether this is going to be a positive thing or not. Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments? I don't see Councilor Caset's hand up. With that, can we get a roll call vote, please, Madam City Clerk? Yes, sir, and the Mayor. To clarify the vote, the motion is to remove Amendment B. Okay. Correct. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Caset? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Travis? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? No. Councilor Figali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? No. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. So we've now addressed the conflict. We can now move on to additional amendments. No. C has been attached. A is still attached. Amendment D, just as a recap, that amendment, and it will have to be, Marcy, just looking at you because it has language that if some of these amendments were to be included. So essentially what, and I don't know how we're, how we do this because the amendment in the packet covers a lot, but I just want for the governing body's sake. Here, which, which one are you talking about? This is Amendment D as in dog. Thank you. Mm-hmm. So this is the incorporation of a loading and unloading zone, and I'm looking at the original resolution. This is item four, designate Palace Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and Washington Avenue exclusively as a loading and unloading zone for plaza vendors and Palace of the Governor vendors and prohibit vehicular traffic, pedicab operations, walking tours, and bicycle tours from operating within this area. So that is the intention around D. And as I mentioned, we should only allow that load, unload that we do now, and I don't want any big trucks, any type of vehicles in there. And I want to keep that building as pristine as possible. Yes, Councilor Fagali. If I could speak to how that original language happened, that was just to designate that it would only be used for loading and not additionally for the tours and the pedicabs, not that it would have additional loading or unloading. It's currently designated as the loading for the stage and for the Palace of the Governors. So it was never the intention to have bigger vehicles there. It was just to have not other vehicles there. Hopefully, that clarifies. Gotcha. But the way it reads, and it could be interpreted, is that that becomes the drop-off zone, especially with what just passed, where are the merchants around the plaza supposed to get their shipments? I mean, just this past Saturday, we had folks complaining because the plaza was closed, and they could not even gain access all the way down to Grant to the plaza. And so I want to ensure that we don't create a position where that becomes the designated shipment site. And so, kind of clarification, Mayor, are we waiting for another written amendment for D, or can we move this one now as it's stated? So the way it's stated, it has the additional language around the access, additional accessibility, spaces, et cetera, because I wanted to make sure if an amendment pulled that language out, we incorporated that space, that language. But it would, it wouldn't change anything in Amendment A. So if we moved it, it would still keep everything intact. Right. So it's not in conflict, I guess, to that point. Okay. So with that, then I'll make a motion to move forward with Amendment D. Second. May I have a question? Sure. Councilor Cassette. I'm curious right now. So Palace is already closed. How is that access permitted currently when people are using it to load for, like, this for the stage? Because I think the intention, well, I don't know. You tell me, Mayor, but is the intention to not allow any loading or to not have any additional loading beyond what is already happening for, like, events and music on the plaza or other times that I believe they must have had to receive a permit or permission in order to access that in the first place? Correct? And so will that process still be there? From my understanding, it's going to be the status quo. I mean, so the musicians aren't plaza vendors or Palace of the Governor's vendors. They're musicians. Okay. So it'll still be what's happening. So if this, if this amendment goes through, the intention that what is currently happening will continue to happen. Correct. Because this is additional language that's been proposed to be added, not taken away, or it's proposed additional language. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Okay. Any other comments, questions? Hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Cassette? Yes. Councilor Castro? Councilor Travis? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Motion passed. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. So now on to Amendment E. The intention around this is item number two, which states, "Amend Resolution 2016-80 to establish that Lincoln Avenue along Park Plaza Park shall remain closed to vehicular traffic permanently." And so I guess I'm going to ask a question to the original sponsors. What is the intention around closing this road permanently? So my understanding is a seasonal closure. Are you talking about East Lincoln? Lincoln. Lincoln. This proposes to close Lincoln permanently. It puts it in the position where Palace is now. Palace is not permanently closed. I don't even think Palace has that designation. I think Palace is designated as continuous. This now gives it an elevated status of it's permanently closed. So what is the intention around closing Lincoln permanently? Mayor, Lincoln has been closed since 2020, to my understanding, full-time, and I've heard most people have enjoyed that as well as the vendors. And so the intention is to keep it the way that it has been for the past six years. And additionally, I would say that we have had some concern around equity for vendors and space, in particular, seating space. So I think that we do, as part of this conversation, need to look at how we want to use our downtown space and how we're going to make it more equitable. I would also say that there was some concern about Lincoln not having emergency access, and I did walk down there today. There is quite a bit of access on that street. Okay. So thank you both, Councilors, for that clarity. And so to give some context, Lincoln was closed because we had a thing called the pandemic. And the pandemic allowed for outdoor dining, and the outdoor dining establishment process established some spaces. And for clarity, the previous administration did not enforce the law. Now, the way the rules should have been enforced since 2020, since outdoor dining, since that permanent, or, you know, closure since 2020, should have opened. It didn't. And, you know, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll say this. The main reason probably was because of the Plaza Cafe and their outdoor dining space. One of the, you know, part of the conversation I had with the Plaza Cafe owners was that they needed to prepare for that road to be open because the previous administration made the decision to not enforce, but I'm not the previous administration. I am somebody who is going to follow the process and the will of the governing bodies of the past. And so they're well aware. The Plaza Cafe is well aware that, and this was a conversation prior to this resolution, that that road was going to be opened up in November. Now there's also been neighboring businesses that have expressed concerns. I mean, we have a person in the audience right now who has expressed concern about that space. Now, when it comes to the equity, my concern is that we are now closing down a street because of a business, and we typically do not do that because it would violate the state's anti-donation clause. And so because of that, and this is why I had the conversation with the Plaza Cafe restaurant, and this is why we actually allowed them to continue with the footprint that they did, is that we went through the process with fire to ensure that when this road would be scheduled to be open in November, that the business, that the lease agreement we signed with them would be in full compliance with any vehicular traffic or emergency access that would be required or that outdoor dining space to continue operation post street opening. And so it's my position that that business has been well informed. That's the only business that is out in the street. You know, I think we, it worked perfectly in the past where those roads opened and closed, opened and closed, and I would like for us to get back to a process where we, if we're going to close roads, we're going to close them seasonally and not permanently. And I think that's my concern with this proposal right here, here, is that it closes it not continuously, such as the Palace of the Governors, it closes it permanently. And it puts us in a very slippery slope where if we now allow businesses to take over spaces, then there is precedent that the city is going to close roads. So with that, I will move forward with Amendment E. Second. Sure. Councilor. Councilor Cassette. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I, I, I do agree with this amendment, and it is challenging, I know, with, with what's happened with, some of the little parklets. And, I will say I do really enjoy, you know, seeing the little parklets everywhere, and, and I think it's, brings a lot of vibrancy to the downtown. It is something we're going to need to look at in terms of how that policy gets, gets stated. But more so, you know, to the point around compromise that, and, and to, you know, Councilor Garcia's and Councilor Chavez's points around, like, how do we find the middle? And, you know, Councilor Chavez, you were very right, and, you know, we've tried this open, we've tried this closed. I think, this allowing more, more accessibility when it is open will be helpful for how we assess moving this forward. So, I, I do agree with this one. Thank you, Mayor, for bringing it forward. I, I appreciate this one. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Chavez, and then so that is a hand up over here, Councilor. Thank you, Mayor. I, sorry. I have to say I agree as well. I also respect the fact that there's systems in place, so we follow them. And I think that it's really important even if it makes people unhappy that you follow a system. And that is what promotes equity, and that's what takes opinion and the humans out of decisions because there's systems in place to follow. So I think this promotes equity. I think it helps us align more with our process and how we work with vendors and how we allow extra space and how we do those things. I think this is a good amendment. I support this amendment. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Faulkner. No. I support this amendment as well. Councilor Castro. And I just had a sort of a clarifying question. So is this going to align with the time the other streets are open, and so it will also close from June to October or November? Correct. Thank you. It just reverts back to the original policy. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Councilor Fagali. Thank you. So my intention in putting this in was to make reality align with our rules. So that is why I put it in the resolution. This has been closed, and I think it's a good thing. And I would like to keep it closed, and that I would like for that to align with our resolution. So that was why I added it to the resolution. It was not to make, you know, yes. That was, it was to make it clear that this was intentional and not something that just happened. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor. And just on that point, the rules are that it was to open, and the rules were not enforced by the previous administration. That was why I was changing the rules. Thank you. Gotcha. Okay. I don't see any other hands, comments. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? No. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassette? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Last one. This is Amendment F. This is adding an additional "Be it further resolved." It states that the closures of the streets surrounding the Plaza Park will begin on Memorial Day in 2027 and sunset on 12/31/2027. So with that, I think it's pretty straightforward. Move motion to move forward. Second. But I'd just like to note that I believe Councilor Garcia and I are also sponsors on this. Yes. Councilor Faulkner and Councilor Lee Garcia are co-sponsors. We're all three bringing this forward. Any discussion? Councilor Cassette. Thank you, Mayor. I, I agree. I, I like the idea of, of piloting. As Councilor Travis mentioned, you know, we can really compare and contrast. I'm curious if there would be appetite from the Council, the governing body, to make it a two-year pilot. I know the first time year that things happen, sometimes there's, you know, just things are different. And, and as you get into the, the motion of things as people understand what's happening. So, I really like the idea of a pilot. I'm curious, though, if two years would be a better time to really compare and contrast these things open and close, open and close. So that's what I'd be interested in. If there is not appetite from the rest of the governing body, I, I still will support this because I do, think that the idea of pilot, piloting something, seeing how it worked, and then coming back and adjusting is important. So thank you, Mayor, and would love to hear from my colleagues. Thank you, Councilor. Any comments? Not seeing any hands up or feedback. Hi. May I, yes. Yes, absolutely. I'm so sorry. May I just because I'm trying to track. I, I understand that we kept Amendment A in place, and we've kept Amendment C in place, and we adopted Amendment E, which, which seasonally opens Lincoln, right, and closes it, actually. But does A and E, I think A and E conflict in this way. Do they? I think we voted that E would supersede for Lincoln. Okay. Okay. So my understanding. So we're going to, we're amending Amendment A with Amendment E. Is that what we're doing? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Got it. Yep. Okay. Any other comments? Seeing none, can we get a roll call vote, please, Madam Chair? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Travis? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Figuelli? No. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassette? Yes. Councilor Castro? No. Motion passed. So we now have a very amended proposal. Move to approve. It's at, yeah. Okay. As amended? Sorry. Move to approve as amended. Second. Okay. Any discussion on the now amended resolution? I could do this when I explain my vote, but I think this might be more appropriate. Sure. I'll go to Councilor Cassette. Yeah. Go ahead. I appreciate. I just want to follow up on Councilor Chavez's comments. This has been a very interesting process to co-sponsor this resolution. I feel very strongly that our culture and our belief systems come with us. I've heard on several occasions from community members throughout this process, they want people in this community who have grown up in this community to take up roles of leadership, to stand up and do the difficult work that all of us on this dais do. And then when we do do that, we're highly criticized and told that we no longer are acting on behalf of our culture and our community or in the best interest of our city. So one thing that I will like to say strongly is that I appreciate and admire every single person on this dais for all of the hard work that they do and for putting Santa Fe first. Every single one of us wants the best for this city in all of our different aspects from all of the different walks of life. And so I am proud to say I'm a Santa Feina. I have gone. I have learned. I have done things in the world, and I have come back to be a leader in this community because I believe in this community regardless of what this vote is. I'm really, really proud of us. Thank you. Councilor, sorry, Councilor Cassett and then Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Councilor Castro, for that. I really, I really truly appreciate you expressing that. And I agree that everybody on this dais, even when we disagree, we are all really trying to do the best for this community. I know I get a lot of the comments around, you know, you're doing it for the tourists. I don't hear from the tourists. The tourists don't call me. The tourists don't email me. I don't hear from them. They maybe ask me for directions when it looks like I'm somebody who knows where I'm going. Other than that, they don't talk to me. So who I speak with are the people that live in this community. A lot of people who I grew up with in this community, I hear from them quite a bit. So thank you for that. But that was not my point. My point was to ask a procedural question that I almost am terrified to ask because I'm not sure I'm going to like the answer. I believe we have changed the caption tonight. Do we have an issue with noticing or not because we have a resolution? So, Marcos, I would refer to you on this one, whether or not we're able to take the final vote tonight, or because we have amended it so heavily and we've changed the caption, we now have to wait because we no longer have the proper notice for the public of what we're actually voting on. Councilor Kassett, members of the governing body, thank you for the question. Fortunately, I had the opportunity to have this discussion with Marcy earlier in the week. And I think, looking at what the state law requires with respect to notice, it's more stringent for ordinances than it is for resolutions, which are generally expressions of the will and policy of the governing body. So I don't believe that there is a notice requirement that would require delaying action on this. Wonderful. Very glad to hear it. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mayor. Councilor, Councilor Garcia, and then Councilor Bustamante. Oops, sorry, Faulkner. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do appreciate, obviously, as I stated earlier before we got into this discussion, I don't think it's anyone against another. I think it's more of a different perspective. And like I said earlier, I mean, it's difficult to see your city change in ways that you don't recognize it. I do think that change is inevitable. Change is obviously inevitable. We wouldn't be carrying smartphones and tablets and pads and using AI, and now we don't want data centers and whatnot. And so this is the polarizing part of all of this. And so, digging into the information and the data is important. Every amendment that was proposed, obviously, I tried to get to a yes on the resolution, and I won't be supporting the overall resolution for that reason that I don't, again, I feel like there's the intent for closing the plaza to vehicular traffic is more for events because we have so many events. But there's not as many events overall during the rest of the time. This is not an event that it should be closed, and that's my perspective. And so, I do appreciate all the work that has been done. And thank you, Councilor Figalian, Councilor Castro. You were brave in doing this. Obviously, it's hard to do this because sometimes people won't, they won't agree with you. And so, I do commend you guys for doing that. I disagree with it, but that's what we're here to do. So, the events obviously are what are causing us to close the plaza to vehicular traffic. The rest of the time, I think that it works just fine. And so I am glad that the amendments passed. I'm glad that the pilot also passed because it does allow us to kind of study what works and doesn't work. And who knows in the future? I may support it. Just don't quote me on that, but thank you all for the hard work. Appreciate it. Councilor Faulkner. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to concur a lot of what my colleagues have said. Change is inevitable. I do have empathy for how it does feel like some of our traditional heritage things are being taken away over a slow period of time. And growing up in Northern New Mexico, some of the things that are part of my culture come from traditions that are hundreds of years old. And for that reason, I'm always going to try to protect as much of our heritage as we can. What I will say, and I've said this to people out and about on the streets when I have heard comments about my fellow councilors that they don't care about community, that they're not from here, so they don't understand it. I always say that everyone on this dais is doing the best they can for how they view the moving forward as a city of Santa Fe. And so, I echo Councilor Garcia's comments in that it took a lot of bravery for Councilors Castro and Fagali or Faulkner, depending on what they call it. He alluded it to Mayor. So, it takes a lot of courage to bring up a controversial issue. And I'd also like to say that this council, at least right now, are all very respectful of each other. We all get along really well, and we are finding a lot of spaces where we're doing some good stuff even when we don't agree. And so, I'm proud of us for that. And so I just want to say good work tonight. It was confusing for all of us, not just here, but in finance. I'll be having nightmares about amendments for, like, forever. And I would like to say if we can please address the amendment situation so it's not confusing. But anyway, I'm going to not support this also for the reasons I mentioned. Councilor Bustamante. Thank you, Mayor. I just again, concur also with my colleagues up here. Thank you, Councilor Chavez. I really resonated with me what you had to say. And just kind of to that point, I want to bring up something. Well, first, thank you everyone who came out to speak, and especially you brave souls who are still here with us through all of that. But one of the things that I think people forget is that we hear from so many people about an issue, not just the ones who come to speak. And we received a lot of comment on this, both in email, phone calls, person to person. And one thing I want to reiterate is that we're up here. All of us were represent, we're either voted or, you know, elected or appointed to represent our district, and that means all voices in that district. And, as Councilor Garcia said, sometimes it's going to go one way, sometimes it's going to go the other. So I just kind of wanted to remind people of that and ourselves that, you know, we get a lot of input on these issues. And we have to balance that with constituent needs across the board. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Councilor Chavis. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say you are what makes Santa Fe beautiful. You are the diversity, and that is an opinion, and that is in belief, and that is just how you exist in this little town that is growing a lot. But you are the beauty and the color of Santa Fe that makes us shine. And I just thank you for having voice and strong opinion and passion about your beliefs because that's just part of how we should be, that we should practice advocacy. We should be strong in what we believe to be true. And I also want to say just what a great council, and I will say this. We are to be an example of difference and respect at the same time. This topic would not have looked like this before. And I'm not going to just blame an administration, but there was just tension overall. And I feel like a lot of the systems that have been created with the administration, with the staff, I have to shout out the city attorney's office. You all really are putting a path in place for unity so that when we come up here, we can have discussions that don't turn into poor examples of leadership. So you are really setting the stage for us to do that, but every single one of us have very different beliefs. I came into this today knowing how most of my colleagues would vote. And that understanding came with zero ill opinion of any of these individuals up here because I know how much they care about human beings. I know how much time they invest in the city. And I know some of them do that while having kids and jobs and partners and really huge responsibilities to carry, but which means they leave themselves completely behind that list. And that says a lot about a person. So I'm just honored to be here with you. I'm honored that we made a really tough decision while being an example because that's what I asked for in my invocation. I said, we have little humans looking at us. Let's try to be examples of what leadership is and how we should treat one another. And I think we did an excellent job, so I just want to thank you all. Very honored that we went through this very confusing process together, but we did it. And so thank you for being here, and thank you for serving with me. Any other comments? I guess, although I more than likely probably won't get my opportunity to vote my first time tonight, I will say that I would not support this. But there's one thing I did learn is that, on the more humorous note, that there's a haircut named after me at Great Clips. Stand up, Chandler. I guess I'm going to have to start charging them for that. But, on a more serious note, I definitely understand the sentiment where, you know, a lot of our community feels like whether it's culture, whether it's traditions, whether it's practice, whether it is just a habit is being taken away from folks. And I think that is where, you know, I want to ensure that folks still have faith and confidence in their government and that we are going to hear them out. And I think a perfect example is by this pilot. We heard folks, they want to try this. We heard folks, they don't want this. And so however this moves forward, I want to ensure that the public continues to reach out. The public continues to give us their feedback whether they're in support or opposed to whatever it is before, whether it's road closures or, you know, the land use case that's coming up here. Yeah. We still got a lot of work to do tonight, folks. Don't forget we got a land use case ahead of us. But we, this is the sausage being made. And the reason why that phrase is used because it's not always beautiful, but there is a product, and we're going to address it, and we'll move forward, and we'll get it done. And so with that, I don't see any other comments, so I will ask for a roll call vote, please. Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Faulkner. No. Councilor Figalli. Yes. Councilor Garcia. No. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Bustamante. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Councilor Castro. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Motion passed. Thank you. Darn it. I thought I was going to get a vote, but next time. Mayor, can I make a quick comment? Sure. Sure. I just want to know, last year, we were on the plaza. I would like to invite them to come back. Next item on the agenda, please. Madam City Clerk. We're moving to item 18. This is public comment on bills. This is first public comment. No action. 18A is consideration of Bill Number 2026-14 and adoption of an ordinance sponsored by Councilor Jamie Cassatt and Councilor Patricia Figalli. It's a bill amending Section 14-7.9 SFCC 1987 to clarify a park impact fee exemption as it relates to certain construction permits. This is the opportunity for the public to provide their first comment on this bill. Is there anybody from the audience that would like to speak up on this? Seeing none in chamber, Madam City Clerk, is there anybody online? Mayor, no hands are raised in the Zoom room. Okay. Let's move on to the next item, please. Next item is 19. This is final action on legislation. This is a public hearing. 19a is consideration of Bill Number 2026-12 and adoption of an ordinance sponsored by Councilor Paul Bustamante and Mayor Michael Garcia. It's a bill specifying that specific and limited fishing events on city-owned property in the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed may be approved by the governing body. And here to present is Water Resources Coordinator, Alan Hook. Mr. Hook, we can let's do the public hearing, and then we'll do the once the public hearing is done, we'll move to the motions. Mr. Hook, the floor is yours. Oh, there's a mic. Can you hear me? No? How about now? And feel free to put it on the ledge. It's it's a how's that work? There you go. Okay. Honorable Mayor, Councilors. So this is a bill for a proposal to amend our existing city code. So right now in Chapter 25, 1.9 section, talks about Santa Fe River Watershed and prohibited uses, which include trespassing, biking, hiking, camping, fishing, which will be addressed in this amendment, hunting, picnicking, grazing of domestic livestock, and unauthorized shooting within the Santa Fe Watershed are forbidden. So the bill specifically would address, and let me pull up the language here, that the portion of the first portion I just read off would state, "Except for specific and limited fishing events on city-owned property in the watershed and approved at a governing body meeting," which would require, for example, resolution. So that is the action being proposed tonight with this bill, and I stand for any other questions from the council. Okay. So we'll hold off on questions at the moment, Mr. Hook. This would be so present. Well, no. Let's just go to public comment because it can then get into. So that was the opportunity for the public to comment on this proposed bill. Please step up, and individuals will have two minutes. Please state your name. And once the two minutes is up, just like public commentary, the chime will go off. Just push the button, I think. Oh, here we go. Can you here we go. Good evening, Mr. Mayor Garcia and Councilors. My name is Maury Hensley. I'm the Executive Director of the Santa Fe Watershed Association. I am here at 9:55 PM to ask you to delay your vote to amend City Code 25-1.9, fishing events in the municipal watershed. The Santa Fe Municipal Watershed is the landscape that provides up to 60% of our city's drinking water, the cleanest, cheapest, most accessible, most reliable, and most fragile part of our water supply. It is the city's utmost responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage this vital resource. Indeed, the city has been a leader in collaborative efforts to manage the watershed over the last few decades. People from around the country look to the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed for inspiration about collaborative forest management and everything that can be achieved through partnership. The proposal to change this city code flies in the face of this shining legacy of partnership. There is no feasibility study, risk assessment, or incorporation of any partner feedback, even after numerous conversations with the bill's sponsors. There is no language that mandates a collaborative process for hypothetical future events, let alone scientific guidelines, safety protections, or emergency plans. While this might seem like a minor code change, there are significant environmental and political risks that every member of this body should be aware of before voting on this measure. The Fishing Derby, the impetus of this code change, is itself a beloved community event, and I am eager to support community conversations about the best options for its future given our current climate realities. Such conversation should be transparent and inclusive. This resolution is neither. I implore you to delay this vote and take the necessary time to consider the full complexity of the municipal watershed and work collaboratively to find the path forward. The Watershed Association and our partners are committed to supporting you in this process. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Councilors, my name is Eitan Krasilovsky. I also live in District 1, and I'm a Chief Program Officer for the Forest Stewards Guild, where for the past 20 years, I've supported sustainable and progressive management of the watershed. I've burned in the watershed. I've raised, you know, several million dollars to try to protect the watersheds. I'm heavily invested in it. I also am a firm believer in equitable access to outdoor recreation, and so I'm a proponent of the fishing derby as well. But, like you just heard from the Executive Director of the Watershed Association, I feel that there's a way to navigate this challenge of not having water in the river while still providing outdoor recreation opportunities like the fishing derby event. And so I urge you to delay this amendment to allow for adequate evaluation, planning, and dialogue, and consultation with subject matter experts, so that this process can unfold in a reasonable way with enough time for evaluation. Thank you. Mr. Mayor and Council, thank you for hearing me. My name is David Hernandez. I actually live in the county. I'm here representing Nature Conservancy of New Mexico. Nature Conservancy in New Mexico has a verb is next to the watershed that we're discussing. We are not opposed to the fishing derby. We're not opposed to the action that are being sought here. We are posted. Group of watershed have not been included in the process, and the safeguards that are needed have not been discussed. I think it's a rush. I understand the reason to rush it. I mean, at the deal, that protecting the watershed is far more important than rushing this one. Again, we're not opposed to the Derby. We think it's a great event. And if it could be done safely, we would be in favor. Are there any other members of the public in chambers that would like to speak to this proposal? Not seeing any. Is there any online, Madam City Clerk? Yes, Mayor. Stephanie Benonato. Stephanie Benonato. I too appreciate having the fishing derby. But in terms of how it operated, it was always in the in the river in the actual town and was, the space was very defined. And I appreciate that these representatives from different, the watershed, the conservation group have come forward to raise issues about process and sustainability and protection of the watershed that may not really be addressed in this ordinance. So that I too would ask that you postpone and look at the process and how where the location of the Derby and how it unfolds is more specific. Thank you. Are there any other comments, Madam? No, ma'am. No other hands are raised in the Zoom room. Okay. With that being said, I'll turn it over to governing body, Councilor Bustamante. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to point out again that the change to this ordinance does not actually allow for the or I'm sorry. It allows for the Derby. This isn't to have the Derby. We still need a separate resolution for any event that we want to have up there. And I feel like we're getting ahead of ourselves because that would be the time to talk to our partners to see how we can arrange these sort of events safely and to their satisfaction. You know, the Mayor and I, for example, spoke to Tesuque Pueblo. They gave us a list of items that they would like to see before approving something like this. And those have been passed on the city manager, and we're working on addressing those items. So, I just want to point out again, though, that this change to this ordinance only allows for the possibility of the event. It does not allow for the event itself. Thank you, Mayor. Councilor Castro. Thank you so much, Mayor. And thank you to the sponsors for doing the due diligence of reaching out to stakeholders and community members because I know that you have done that. I do agree that the slippery slope is a concern here. And in particular, because we have a watershed association that we have not reached out to or gotten approval from, I do feel that this is a little bit hasty. What are some of the other uses? I know that fishing derby has been discussed, but this is not just for the fishing derby. What are some of the other uses that might be considered? Councilor Castro, Mayor Garcia, there are none. This this is only allows the change in this ordinance only allows for limited fishing derbies to be had up there on city-owned property. We are not nothing in this allows for hiking, for, you know, mountain bike, motorbiking, mountain biking, anything like that. This only allows for limited fishing events. And just to highlight, when we say limited, we're not meaning exclusive. So, you know, things that have been discussed and how to plan this, basically having a lottery. Like, for example, this will be for children, and it will be and and whatever chaperone that they have. So, there is nothing else in in this language that allows for any other type of event. And who might be managing that program? If we have permits, would that be our internal staff that would be providing those and regulating the space? Yes. That would be internal staff, in discussion, for example, with the utilities department or water department. They have volunteered, for example, their staff to be on hand to make sure, you know, that it's a very limited area that people have access to, and that staff would be on hand to make sure that people stay within that area. Thank you. Do we have the opinion of the Forest Service or any other user groups up there? Excuse me. We had a recent meeting, and I don't want to necessarily speak for the Forest Service. I mean, I think we could reach out to them and get a So I think that that's where the next step, as Councilor Bustamante mentioned, this just would allow for a potential, and the next step is to actually begin to plan and prepare. I don't, we don't want to put the cart before the horse, so to speak, but there, as Councilor Bustamante mentioned, this would be very limited, very coordinated, and we would work collectively with our partners. And hopefully, our partners would want to participate. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Hook, the Forest Service said if we do this, they would like to table at the event. Yes. So the local district ranger's office is fully staffed for their seasonal recreational workers, which is great. I mean, that's good news. They did offer that they would potentially be able to provide staff to say, you know, hey, we are supportive of recreation. But that's about as far as they would go, again, as long as it's on city-owned property and that nobody is going onto Forest Service administered lands. No, and fully understood, Mayor. I guess my concern is because this is so specific to this derby and not other uses, just that if we think we're going to add one more event to our roster, that we should add capacity. Thank you. No further questions. Understandable. Councilor Cassett. Thank you so much, Mayor. So I will admit that I did not realize the complexities behind this until I received emails from our partners. And, you know, I did let it sail through committee, not understanding some of this. So I really do want to thank our community partners for reaching out because I'm now going to learn things, which is always a wonderful side effect of being a member of this governing body. One of my questions is, Councilor Bustamante, you said that it wouldn't allow for anything other than the fishing derby, which may be true while those of us who are in this memory are sitting in this seat. But my concern is that when I'm looking at this ordinance, I know there's always that conversation about how we have to write for ourselves, but we also have to try as best we can to convey our ideas to future individuals who may sit in the seat, kind of similar to the conversations around the amendment process today. Obviously, that was not written to a place that it conveyed the purpose to future individuals who'd be sitting here. So all I'm seeing is that, except for specific and limited fishing events on city-owned property in the watershed and approved at a governing body meeting. So I'm not seeing that it's only for the fishing derby and that there aren't other specific and limited fishing events that others could add on to, or that it encapsulates the concern that some of these community partners are bringing up to make sure that, you know, that it meets these marks. And so I would, I would agree at this point. I'm not, you know, I think that finding where that balance is, but, you know, basically putting those safeguards in so that in 15 years, if somebody else is looking at this, and none of us are here anymore, although I think that there was a previous council served for, like, 25 years. So, hey, it happens. But that they would be able to discern what the intention was and what those guardrails should be. And so that's my concern is that it is a very simple line, and I understand the intention that is here at this moment with this governing body. But I don't see how that is relayed into the future and that, you know, those guardrails are put up. So I would be in favor of postponing this to work with some of those community partners. I know myself, I now need to learn more. And that's on me that, you know, there was a lot going on with Fanu and Plaza Park, and this seemed really simple. So, I know myself at this juncture, I am now understanding that there is more to this than I was aware of. So, those are just my thoughts around this. You know, that I would like to hear what are some of the stipulations that those community partners would like to see in something that would be directing both us if we are going to be having an event, but also looking at what the specifications are for, you know, future events that a governing body may pass and what are the things that we need to make sure that they are looking for. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor. It's okay, Councilor Bustamante. There are guardrails in this, Councilor Cassett, given that as Councilor Bustamante mentioned, the big, big change is that it would allow for specific fishing limited fishing events. The big, big guardrail is that it has to come back before a governing body for any approval. So this is not a blanket approval of anything, just saying that the city will now consider specific and limited fishing events under the condition it's approved by a governing body. So should this pass tonight, Councilor Bustamante and I'd welcome anybody else that'd like to work with us on this, we would, we would have to bring forward an additional resolution that would outline a lot of the specifics regarding the event. And that is where the actual meat around a proposed fishing event would be, not in this proposal before us. It would be in a forthcoming resolution, whether it's for a fishing derby. And I'll be honest, what Councilor Bustamante and I are looking at it having is a specific kid fishing derby to help provide the opportunity that's been lost by the lack of water in our river. Nothing else beyond that. No additional events. We're not planning on having a kid day and a parent day. This is solely for kids, and the proposal would have to come back before the governing body for approval. We can pass this. Councilor Bustamante and I can work on a proposal, and it might not meet the merits of our partners of the governing body, and it goes nowhere. And so we have to take it step by step to ensure that there are these potential options for us. And so, so I hope that helps to clarify that, you know, we, we want to do our due diligence. I have full faith and confidence in the city team that we would handle this with the utmost priority, respect, to ensure that the watershed is protected at the highest level. Because I, I, I'm starting to get a sense, and I hope this is not the sentiments, not, and I'm not speaking from the governing body, but I'm getting a sense that, but, but some, some, some folks are feeling like they can't trust city staff with protecting our watershed, which should not be the case. We want to ensure that we are creating options. This, that's all this does, is create an option. If this passes tonight, this does not allow for a fishing derby to happen. I want to make that crystal clear. The approval for a fishing derby or a specific and limited fishing event would be conducted through a forthcoming resolution as required in this proposed change. So yes. Councilor Chavez. Thank you. Yeah, I just, I am able to have consistent conversations with our great public works and utilities leaders and staff, and I will say that the plan to collaborate is there. The willingness to collaborate on the actual event is there. They're aware of all the partners that need to be part of that planning process. They're excited about collaborating. They're excited about the opportunities that may come when they put their minds together. So I trust that this being the first move is the initiation of that true processing collaboration that will come with actually bringing an event forward. But I think that this is a necessary starting point to have those discussions and to just really initiate that process and explore what this could look like. So I'm in support of this. I think that I have full confidence in staff. I've heard them speak of this. I've heard their willingness to want to move forward and truly collaborate with partners that we heard from tonight, but more partners. So, yeah, our staff, like the Mayor said, has shown, like, you know, true commitment to making sure this is done right. So I'm completely confident with them in our public utilities. Councilor Figuelli. Thank you, Mayor. I don't want to sound like I don't have full faith in our staff, but this is our watershed, and this is where we get a lot of our drinking water. And this is a very important part of our landscape in our community. And having heard from a lot of our community partners about their concerns, I, I don't think we're, we're there yet. And I understand that this would have to come back to governing body to for an approval for a specific event. But like Councilor Cassett said, that, that could be in 10 years. And, and those folks wouldn't have had the, the, the comments that we've had. And they, then they, you know, might not be in the same position to take the same precautions. So I, I think this is a little underbaked at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments? Motion to approve. Second. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing, hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Figuelli? No. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? No. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassett? No. And I'd like to explain my vote. Councilor Castro? No. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Mayor, we have a tie. I vote yes. How was that quick? That's a vote. Motion passed. Okay. Councilor Cassett, you'd like to explain your vote? Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. I, I, I, I think I agree with exactly what Councilor Figuelli said that I feel this is underbaked in the sense that I don't want to give the impression. I, I actually, you know, very much our water staff is some of our very impressive staff, but we don't know when they're going to be here. So what I would have loved to see, and maybe we can work on this and bring this back at another time, is just some more specifications within that ordinance of what we would want to make sure was, you know, what, you know, T's were crossed and I's were dotted before an event moved forward. So, you know, I'm happy for the team that'll be working on it at this juncture. My concern really is for, for the future and, you know, wanting to make sure when that resolution does come forward that those community partners are at the table to make sure that those concerns are at least discussed and that we can understand them. So thank you. Councilor? Madam City Clerk? Final item on the agenda? Final item on the agenda is a public hearing. This is for land use cases, appeals, and other items required to have a public hearing. 20A is appeal number 2026-12102-APPL of case number 2026-11903-HDRB. Property owner Claudia Alquan, DDS, appeals the Historic District's Review Board's 03/10/2026 decision denying a request for an exception to build a mixed-use structure to a height of 24 feet where the maximum allowable height is 14 foot 1 inch at 911 Roybal Street in the West Side of Guadalupe Historic District. And here to present is Assistant City Attorney Frank Rubelid. Councilor Garcia, I guess you're leading pro tem. Before we start. The Mayor's here. He just, Mayor, I did need to recuse myself from this case. I do have a personal relationship with the applicant. So I will be recusing myself from this case. Okay. And that's perfect timing because I was going to start off the hearing by, if any members of the governing body would like to disclose any pre-hearing communications regarding the merits of the appeal, recusal of a member, or if the member cannot be fair and impartial. So sounds like Councilor Cassett, you would like to recuse yourself from this matter. Yes, please. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you. I'm just going to go through the whole process quickly. We're going to go through the hearing. We're going to have a summary of a staff report, then we're going to have an opening statement and sworn witness testimony by the appellant, if desired. Questions of staff from the appellant. The public is allowed sworn public comment. The governing body would then be allowed questions of staff, parties, witnesses, and the public. Anyone testifying to facts outside of the record must be sworn. Then the appellant, if new evidence has arisen during the questioning, this is their opportunity to ask additional questions of staff or applicants' witnesses. The assistant city attorney then has the opportunity to provide responses to the appellant and/or applicant submitted evidence and/or testimony. Then we move on to the appellant's closing statement. This is followed by the assistant attorney's closing statement. I then would close the public hearing. The governing body then would consider a motion whether to grant or to deny the appeal, and then the governing body takes action. We do have the ability to enter into executive session should the governing body want to. So with that, we will first start off with the summary of staff report for up to 15 minutes. Mayor Garcia and councilors, the appellant is the owner of a vacant lot at 911 Roybal Street, which is on the corner of Roybal Street and Saint Francis Drive. It's in the West Side Guadalupe Historic District. It's largely residential. Just to give you an idea of the property that we're talking about here, as you know, Santa Fe has these five historic districts. To give you your bearings there, that's the loop of Paseo De Peralta, and this is all the way on the west side of the West Side Guadalupe Historic District. Zooming in there, you see we're on Saint Francis Drive between Agua Fria Street and West Alameda. You might note that the West Side Guadalupe Historic District covers about half the block on the west side of Saint Francis, as well as the entire area to the east side. There's Saint Francis Drive. There's Roybal Street about a block to the east. There's Ambrosio Street a block to the east. Saint Francis Drive, and the property that we're talking about there, I'm highlighting in yellow. This is an old historic district map, and that gray rectangle you see there is a house that was on this property that has since been demolished. It was demolished by the property owner back in 2016. So that property is now a vacant lot. I'm going to zoom in on it a little bit so you can see how it rests with respect to the rest of the streetscape here. The applicant has submitted to the Historic District Review Board a project proposal to build a mixed-use structure on the lot at a height of 24 feet. She wants to move her dental clinic from its existing location farther down Saint Francis Drive and also have a residence upstairs so her mother and other family could care for her children while she operates her clinic. The architect, Mr. J.J. Shapiro, submitted this lot plan here, or site plan, and the structure is entirely on the north side, the north half of that property. As you can see, there are parking places entirely on the south side of the property, and the entrance into the parking area is off of Roybal Street to the south. Then there's a landscaped area south and east, showing you how that site plan fits in that lot line. What I'm doing here is I'm highlighting in turquoise the footprint of the structure that the applicant or appellant proposes. As you can see, the structure does sit very close to Saint Francis Drive compared to the other structures on that streetscape there. Most of the other structures are single story. Now there are some double-story or some two-story structures on that streetscape in that vicinity. As you can see, the house that is immediately north of this proposed structure is at 111 South Saint Francis. It is a single-story, single-family residence. The structure that has the big parking lot that is two buildings to the north is, I think that's 109 South Saint Francis Drive. As you can see, it is set back from Saint Francis about 40 or 50 feet, I would estimate. We'll talk some more about those there. This setback for the proposed structure that Dr. Kwan is seeking approval for, the setback from the lot line is just about 10 feet, although the lot line is set back from Saint Francis Drive, probably because there's an additional right-of-way there. This is the architect's elevation drawing of the westernmost facade. This is the facade that would look out over Saint Francis Drive. Her clinic is called Riverwalk Dental, and what she proposes is for the family to occupy the upstairs there and look after her kids while she operates a dental clinic on the ground floor. The Historic District Review Board did not have any problem with the mixed use of this structure, the fact that part of it is commercial and part of it is residential, because it is in a C-4 zone, and I believe there are a lot of mixed uses of residential and commercial structures in that zone. The problem the Historic District Review Board had was that the structure is proposed to be 24 feet high, and the height restriction for that structure is 14 feet and one inch, and I'll show you how we arrive at that. The height restrictions in the historic districts are set forth by 14-4.6(f)(2). It reads, "If a proposed building has a parapet, the facade shall not exceed two feet of the average of the height of the facades in the streetscape." But there is nothing in the historic district code that reads somebody can build a structure that is just as high as the next building on the streetscape. It doesn't work that way. The land use staff has to calculate the average of the height of the facades and add two feet, and I'm going to show you how the land use staff did that. Here's a streetscape height calculation. There's a map where the heights of various buildings on the streetscape are listed, and that streetscape includes frontage on both Saint Francis Drive as well as Roybal Street. So the land use staff took these 14 structures there that are circled in blue. As you can see at the bottom there, they've added up the heights of all those structures, and they have arrived at 168.5 feet and divided that by 14. The result of that is 12 feet one inch, but adding the two feet that is allowed under code section 14-4.6(f)(2), they've arrived at a height restriction of 14 feet and one inch. So that's how technical that calculation is. This is a building that has a parapet. It's a flat-roofed structure, and the parapet is a firewall that is linear with the walls that goes up past the flat roof and that shields HVAC equipment and skylights and that sort of thing behind the parapet. So that is a height restriction that doesn't apply to structures with pitched roofs or shed roofs or different kinds of roofs. This is a flat-roofed, parapeted structure. When the land use department is calculating the streetscape, there are some buildings that are included in that calculation and some buildings that are excluded under the code. 14-4.6(f)(1) reads that when determining the streetscape, there are certain buildings that are omitted from the streetscape, and among them are multi-unit residential structures, buildings with a non-historic multiple stories. There are a number of those in this vicinity here. We're going to look back at the neighborhood. The appellant draws your attention to 109 South Saint Francis Street and mentioned that to the historic board and showed photos. As you can see, that is a multi-family structure. A multi-unit residential structure is excluded from the streetscape under that section of the code. Then down here, which is immediately to the east of 911 Roybal, 901 Roybal has a second story, but that is a non-historic second story. According to land use records, that building was constructed in 1948. That second story was added sometime in the seventies, and the entire structure had a complete remodel and redesign, changed out the windows, changed the roofs. So that is non-historic and not part of the streetscape. The appellant also pointed out 208 Ambrosio Street, which is on that block, one block east of Saint Francis Drive. That has no frontage on either Roybal or Saint Francis Drive, so that's excluded from the streetscape. It doesn't have our frontage right at the intersection of Ambrosio or Roybal. It's back three buildings, and it's also a multi-family unit. According to the county assessor's office, there are at least two living units on that lot there. So those are excluded from the streetscape. One of the ways that the historic board and land use staff tries to get a very graphic and physical portrayal of what the height of a proposed structure will be, they require the property owner to put story poles. These story poles are PVC pipes that are set up on end, and the actual height of the structure has to be noted on the story poles. Here, these story poles are 24 feet high, and those are at the corners of the massing that would include the second story. Board Chair Cecilia Rios expressed in the H-Board hearing in March that that structure would tower over the building that is immediately to the north, which is a low, one-story, single-family residence. There was a previous application that was approved by the H-Board, and that was submitted in 2017. But it was never built because of, maybe, labor shortages and supply chain shortages. The applicant also lost her father in that period, and then there were shutdowns due to COVID. The structure never got going. This is, and the same architect, J.J. Shapiro, he submitted this lot there, or this floor plan for the first floor. His design criteria, which was part of his site plan, indicated that the ground floor would be 1,661 square feet, and the second floor would be 441 square feet. Although the Historic District Review Board approved the height exception for this, it did insist, well, let's say there, the turquoise area is the footprint of the second story and how it would rest on the ground floor. The H-Board insisted that the site plan or the floor plan be reversed so that the second story massing was set back from Saint Francis Drive. Mr. Shapiro at that hearing agreed, according to the minutes, that he would reverse the floor plan so that the second story massing is on the east part of the lot, the easternmost side of the lot. Now in this current application that was denied by the H-Board on March 10, 2026, Mr. Shapiro submitted this floor plan. As you can see, he submitted a summary of design features. The ground floor is 1,904 square feet, so he added about 240 square feet to the ground floor. Most of that is attributable to a garage, which I'll show you in a minute, that was not part of the original 2017 project application. The second floor nearly doubled or more than doubled in size to 892 square feet from 441. So he added about 450 square feet to the second floor. The new garage, you can see if you look on the lower right-hand corner, you see the stairs. The garage is immediately to the right of the stairs, and that adds up to most of the additional floor plan. Highlighted in turquoise is the floor plan of the second floor and where it would rest on the ground floor. As you can see, all the way to the west of the structure, contrary to the H Board's determination back in 2017, that would be approved only if the floor plan was reversed so that the second story was set back from Saint Francis. And, to compare the elevations, the 2017 proposal, there is the south elevation. That's from Mr. Shapiro's elevation plans. The second-floor massing is highlighted in turquoise there. Compare that to the 2026 proposal, again, from Mr. Shapiro's elevation drawings. That's the second-story massing as it has been submitted in this new proposal, more than doubling the size of the original second-floor massing that was presented in 2017. Under the historic district codes, the historic district code, a project applicant can ask for an exception for height, but height is very strictly regulated throughout Santa Fe. In the historic district's code, a design exception requires only three criteria, but a height exception has six criteria, and the project applicant must prove them all. And, as you can see, according to this section of the code, exceptions are project-specific and do not apply to the subject property in perpetuity. Meaning, the fact that it was granted once nine years ago, doesn't mean that it is going to be granted again. And in order to approve an exception, the H Board must make findings of fact that the applicant inclusively demonstrated that the requested exceptions comply with all six of the criteria listed, meaning it is the applicant's burden of proof. Approve all six of those exceptions, and those exceptions are under Santa Fe City code 4-414-4.6d3. The height excess must not damage the character of the streetscape, prevents a hardship to the applicant or an injury to the public welfare, strengthens the unique heterogeneous character of the city by providing a full range of design options to ensure that residents can continue to reside in the historic districts. The departure from the code must be due to conditions peculiar to the land or structure involved, not applicable to other lands or structures on the streetscape. Special conditions are not caused by the applicant, and also, it provides the least negative impact of the general purposes, the historic district code. And the general purposes of the historic district code are the continued existence and preservation of historic areas and buildings, the continued construction of buildings in Santa Fe historic styles, and general harmony as to architectural style, form, color, height, proportion, texture, and material between buildings and historic design, and those of more modern design. Those are found at Santa Fe City code 14-4.6a1. And the H Board then drew up these findings of facts and conclusions of law, that actually the staff and the city attorney's office imposes those based on the record made at the H Board hearing in March 2026. The H Board then later approves them. The H Board did find that the exception would damage the character of the streetscape because the height proposed exceeds what's allowed by more than 70%. It would damage the character of this historic residential district. They, and I'm just going through four of the six reasons that the H Board decided not to grant this exception. Granting the exception would not strengthen the unique, heterogeneous character of the city to ensure that residents can continue to reside within the historic district because, according to the applicant, she lives within walking distance of this location. So she already lives in that historic district. There are not special conditions or circumstances peculiar to this land because the board found that the lot is a similar configuration to other lots on the streetscape. In fact, it's the same size or larger than many other lots on the streetscape. And then also, the H Board felt that it would not provide the least negative impact with respect to the purposes, general purposes of that historic district's code because it's right in an entrance to this residential historic district and would set a disproportionate, unharmonious precedence for the streetscape. And I have drafted, I have copies of this decision tree, which, and I've given a copy to the Cullen's agent, and I'll pass copies of this around if you need a copy to hold in your hand. And thank you very much for your attention. It's been brought to my attention that Mr. Casper, who I listed on your process chart, will not be making the presentation for you. That will be made by Mr. Luis Fuarte. And sir, I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name, and you'll probably have to spell that for the record. But also present tonight is Amanda Romero, who was the planner that originally submitted the memo to the H Board, as well as the land use director, Heather Lamboy. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you, Assistant City Attorney Rubalit. We will now move on to the appellant, Dr. Claudia Quan, or agent Tom Jasper, for an opening statement and sworn witness testimony, and you are provided for up to 20 minutes. Hello? Good evening, Mr. Maher and councilors. Thank you so much for your time. My name is Claudia Quan. I'm the appellant in this matter. And thank you for allowing me to present this appeal. With your permission, I would like Eric Etoarte to present this briefing on my behalf. He has worked closely with me throughout the construction project and the appeal process. Okay. The floor is yours, Mr. Etorte. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the governing body. This appeal concerns the Historic Board's denial of a height exception for the proposed mixed-use dental office and residential project at 911 Roybal Street. We respectfully request that the governing body reverse the Historic Board's decision and approve the requested height exception. Our grounds for that request are summarized on the next slide. So, so hold on one second. Oh, there we go. And just to delineate, I'm going to refer to the Historic District Board as the board and the Historic Preservation Division as staff, just so it doesn't get confused. We also have a couple handouts for your guys' convenience, some appendixes and also the slideshow that if you want to follow along with. I'll wait till those are passed out to continue. Okay, I'll continue now. This appeal is heard de novo, and our presentation addresses three issues. First, whether the board properly applied Chapter 14. Each height exception criterion contains specific components that must be considered in determining whether the criterion has been satisfied. The board's findings do not fully address those components. Second, whether the board's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. And third, whether the evidence demonstrates that all six height exception criteria are satisfied. If you want, you can take a look at Appendix A at your convenience. That provides a detailed component-by-component analysis, identifying the evidence in the record that demonstrates how each of the six height exception criteria have been satisfied. Today, we'll focus on the board's five stated findings and the evidence in the record that directly addresses those findings. There are six criteria. However, the board stayed silent on number five. They didn't accept it. They didn't deny it. They made no comment on it. So quickly, I'll give you a quick background. Dr. Kwan owns this C4 zoned property at 911 Roybal Street. Her parents gifted it to her back in 2014 with the vision of developing a practice and a mixed-use dental office and a residence. This project also has an important history because in 2017, the board did approve a height exception for a two-story mixed-use project in this same property. After delays caused by the passing of Dr. Kwan's father, and then the COVID pandemic, and we had another child, we weren't able to get the project done, so we revised it and we resubmitted it. In 2026, Historic Broad Historic Preservation Division staff reviewed the revised design and recommended approval of the height exception, but the board denied it. That difference is important to this appeal. So next up here, you do see the streetscape. Before discussing the height exception criteria, it's important to understand the setting of this project. This project is located along Saint Francis Drive, which is Santa Fe's, one of Santa Fe's main principal transportation corridors, and it's zoned for C4 commercial. As this aerial view shows, the surrounding area is not exclusively residential. It's not. It includes commercial properties, an apartment building, and both one and two-story residences. Importantly, there are three existing two-story buildings in close proximity to the project site. These buildings establish that two-story development is already part of the surrounding neighborhood context. This context is particularly relevant because the board concluded that the proposed height would damage the character of the area. So next, this slide compares the Historic Board's review of this project in 2017 with its current review in 2026. Both applications involve the same property, the same mixed-use concept, and were evaluated under the same six height exception criteria in Chapter 14. There was one important design change. The second floor increased from 449 square feet to 994 square feet and was relocated from the east side back to the west side. However, the overall building height increased by only two inches from 23'10" to 24 feet now. In 2026, after reviewing the revised design, the Historic Preservation Division staff found that all six height exception criteria were satisfied and recommended approval. Nevertheless, the board reached the opposite conclusion. That raises an important question. What substantial evidence in the 2026 record supports a different result under the same ordinance? So this, go backwards. This next slide up here, this is the action letter from the board, and it discusses the five criteria that were not met to their satisfaction. They made no finding at all on criteria five, like I said earlier. As we will show, there's another important issue with these findings. Chapter 14 requires the board's decision to identify the important facts supporting its conclusions and provide a full explanation of why these facts led to their decision. Instead, these findings largely state the board's conclusions without identifying the specific facts supporting them. We will address the requirement on the next slide. So this is a quote from Chapter 14, Section 14-2.8h. Written record finding of facts applies to every land use board on every approval or disapproval. Approval or disapproval of an application request or other item shall be accompanied by a written statement of the important facts on which the decision is based, including the pertinent provisions of Chapter 14 and a full explanation of why those specific facts led to the decision made. We've received no facts outside of the action letter, which basically, it just, it, it uses the same language except in the negative. So the same language that's written on Chapter 14 and uses that same verbiage just says, did not meet this. Did not meet that. It gave no full explanation or details on why they reached that decision. So this summary chart is taken from Appendix A, which you guys have. It provides a more detailed analysis of each of the six height exception criteria and the supporting evidence in the record. As the chart shows, staff found that all six criteria satisfied and recommended approval. The board again reached the opposite conclusion on only five of the criteria and made no finding on criterion number five. Appendix A then examines each criterion component by component and identifies the evidence in the record demonstrating that all six height exception criteria are satisfied. Now we'll focus on the board's five stated findings and compare each one with the evidence in the record. The board's first finding was that the proposed height would damage the character of the district, but the record contains substantial evidence to the contrary. The board approved a 23 foot, 10 inch, two-story building on the same property in 2017, and staff again recommended approval for the revised 24-foot design in 2026. The surrounding context is also important. There are three nearby two-story buildings, and the proposed design was developed collaboratively, closely with staff to ensure historic compatibility. There are lots of concessions made. There are lots of changes made to make sure that we fit staff's recommendation. Finally, the board emphasized that the proposed height exceeds the normal height limit by more than 70%, but that's the baseline from which the exception is requested. Chapter 14 expressly provides a height exception process when the required criteria are satisfied. For these reasons, we respectfully submit that the record does not support the board's finding that the proposed height would damage the character of the district. Next two slides that we have here are going to show physical neighborhood context supporting that conclusion. So this photograph here is we're on the west side of Saint Francis facing the property. It provides physical context for the board's character finding. The project site is shown here along with three existing two-story buildings immediately surrounding the site. These are not distant examples. They are part of the immediate streetscape and neighborhood context in which the proposed building will be viewed. The next slide provides a closer comparison of these buildings with the proposed design. So here we can directly compare the proposed buildings with the three nearby two-story buildings. The proposed 911 Roybal Building is shown at the bottom lower right corner. When viewed side by side, the proposed building is consistent with the existing two-story scale and massing already present in the immediate neighborhood. This physical context is important when evaluating the board's conclusion that the proposed height would damage the character of the district. We respectfully submit that these photographs together with staff's recommendation provide strong evidence that it would not. The board's second finding was that denying the height exception would not create a hardship to the applicant or an injury to the public welfare. Chapter 14 uses the word "or." Therefore, either hardship to the applicant or injury to the public welfare is sufficient to satisfy this criteria. Here, the record demonstrates hardship. The property is constrained by required setbacks in its configuration, limiting the ground floor area available for permitted mixed-use project. The second floor allows the dental office and residents to be accommodated while maintaining the required setbacks and providing adequate parking. Two-story configuration also has a public welfare benefit. It concentrates the building footprint rather than spreading the proposed mixed-use program across more of the site, thereby preserving setbacks, parking, and open area. Most importantly, staff considered this criterion and expressly found it satisfied. We therefore submit that the record demonstrates that criterion two has been met. The board's third finding was that the height exception would not strengthen the unique heterogeneous character of Santa Fe. Criterion three specifically speaks to providing a full range of design options so that residents can continue to live within historic districts. This project does exactly that. It combines a permitted dental office with a residence on the same property, allowing Doctor Kwon to both work and reside within the historic district. Design also reflects the mixed character of this particular location, commercially zoned property along Saint Francis Drive immediately adjoining a residential neighborhood. Again, staff reviewed the specific design and found that criterion three was satisfied. We respectfully submit that the mixed-use design is consistent with the very heterogeneous character and range of design options contemplated by Chapter 14. And actually, I'd like to switch your attention over to Appendix A. It's page six. And this is the verbiage taken from Chapter 14 on criterion three, which states, "strengthens the heterogeneous character of the city." I want to go, I believe this one is really important, so I want to go step by step through the three different criterion. And I want to prove to you how we have satisfied these and how we are maintaining the heterogeneous character of Santa Fe. So first criterion component, strengthens the city's heterogeneous character. Immediate area mixes Northern New Mexico, territorial, Southwest Pueblo, and contemporary styles. These are all different buildings in the surrounding area, and they're all representative of those different styles. The criterion says, "achieved by providing a full range of design options." The supporting fact, contemporary Southwest Pueblo approach draws on traditional massing materials and proportions without imitating adjacent structures, adding to the range rather than duplicating it. The last criterion component, so residents can continue to reside within historic districts. The limited second-floor component supports a mixed-use live-work configuration, which is consistent with Santa Fe's historic pattern of residential and professional uses coexisting in one structure. So now I'd like to go back to the PowerPoint. So the board's fourth finding concerns whether there are special conditions peculiar to this property that are not generally applicable to other properties in the related streetscape. There are two components to this criteria, and the record addresses both. First, this property has an unusual combination of conditions. It is a C4 commercial property with dual frontage on Saint Francis Drive and Roybal Street, located at the interface between a major commercial corridor and a residential neighborhood. Second, that combination of conditions is not generally shared by other properties in the related streetscape. I don't think there's another property on that entire neighborhood that has two dual frontage roads. This is important because we are not claiming that any one characteristic, such as being a corner lot, is unique by itself. It's a combination of these conditions on this particular property that makes it very distinctive than any other property in this area. Staff evaluated these conditions, and they found that all four of them were satisfied. We respectfully submit that the record demonstrates that both components of criterion four have been met. Now this one is not on the slide, and the reason being is because the historic board didn't provide any explanation on criterion number five. They didn't support it or they didn't deny it. So I want to just cover it, and I want to prove to you how even though they didn't cover it, we still made sure to make sure all the criterion had been satisfied. So there's two linked elements to criterion five. The title for this is "special conditions not resulting from the applicant's own actions." The criterion component says, "special conditions or circumstances exist at the site," and the supporting facts to that, site size, lot configuration, zoning designation, and applicable development standards, the same physical conditions cited under criterion four, predate this application and were already the basis for the 2017 height exception. And the second part of this criterion component, "and those conditions are not the result of the applicant's own action." Applicant here has not increased the intensity of use beyond what zoning permits. Second-floor component is a measured response to preexisting site constraints, not a condition that the applicant created. Nothing about the project's design manufactures the need for review. Okay. And now the board's fifth finding, which is criterion number six, was that the proposed height exception would not provide the least negative impact. The record demonstrates otherwise. First, the design was developed collaboratively with staff specifically to achieve compatibility with the historic district, and staff concluded that this criterion was satisfied. Second, the two-story configuration concentrates the proposed mixed-use program within a smaller building footprint, preserving setbacks, parking, and open area rather than spreading more development across the site. That chime meant that the 20 minutes is up. So if, sorry. I was done with this last slide. Is one more minute or Yes. Thirty seconds? One, one, one minute, but please wrap it up. Third, the second floor is located towards Saint Francis Drive and away from the neighboring residence, reducing the height and massing impact on the adjoining residential properties. So this is the reason the second floor is on the west side so that it's not closer to the residence property. And the surrounding context includes existing two-story buildings, including one approximately the same height as the proposed 24-foot building. Taken together, the record demonstrates that the proposed design minimizes the negative impacts of the height exception while accommodating the proposed mixed-use project. Staff also found the same six criteria unsatisfying. And I don't really have to speak, but I just want to visually put up these next two slides. That way you can see that this is our proposition. We have proposed to build this. And currently, for the last 10 years, this is what we are dealing with and have been dealing with. So, I know that doesn't weigh into the high criterion, but I wanted you to be able to see that. And on this last slide, I just wanted to show that all the green names, we've talked to neighbors, we've talked to neighbors in the neighborhood who are very close to this, to this lot. And they've all, the ones in green are all the neighbors we've talked to who have expressed that they want this building to be built, that they approve this. There's been one neighbor that we found who is in, who does not want this to be built, and that's in the red. But, anyway, I just wanted to thank you for your time and your consideration. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mister Etorte. But, there will be plenty of opportunities. So the next step in the process is, should you have any questions of staff, now is the time and allowed, I, I, I would say up to 10 minutes if you have questions of staff. To, you, you could, sorry? So, so cross-examine city staff. Cross-examine city staff? It's, I, I don't think, you don't have to do it. That, because we worked with staff, and staff was in favor of our project. They were the ones who approved it to be, they recommended approval that the board approve this. So, no, I, I have no questions. Okay. Thank you. So then the next step is, sworn public comment. So thank you, Mister Etorte. So, thank you. Right now, we'll, if there aren't any members of the public that would like to speak to this item, please step up. And, oh, okay. Hold, hold on one second, ma'am. What, what we'll do is we'll have to have you step up. We'll have to have you sworn in, and then you'll be able to provide, you'll be given two minutes to, to, present your case, and then I have to go to the next person. If you'll please raise your right hand and state your name. It's Alicia Searle. 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. Thank you. Thank you so much for staying up for this. I am the resident of 111 South Saint Francis. I am the only, what they still consider, you might want to speak a little more about that, 30 original house. It's 900 square feet. It is everything that the city wants this place to look like. The reason we're having issues is this property is my wall. You'll see it in a couple of those pictures. There's a wall there. That's my wall that they are going to be 10 feet from. And now I have pictures of a building 24 feet high against my one wall and all my windows, which means I have no view. I have no light. And the city basically said, and why they told them they couldn't do it, is that you have to have a step-down height control. Buildings must step closer to property lines. It's 10 feet to my property line. You have to be 14 feet. That is why they came up with that. That is why the historic district came up with that. That whole side of that building that they're putting up is against my property. Take a look. And it's not right. I mean, no one came to me. No one here came and talked to me. Now the historic board listened to me. All I'm asking is if they want to do this, go back to what the board said. Redo the property in your mind at 14 feet. Add it anywhere else, but don't do it right against my property line. I am what you guys all want to have. It's this great little house that is still authentic. There are pictures of it. But do this, I won't have that anymore. I won't have anything. I have no light. I have no view. The other people that are going to speak or want to speak, they have properties behind. Yes. There could be two-story. They're all multipurpose, multi-use. They're Airbnbs. They're not retail. None of them. And they're my neighbors. I think they're great people. I think the people that want to do this are great people, but not the way they're going about it. Steven Navarez. I live on property. Hold on one second. We need to get you sworn in. And if there are multiple folks that want to speak to this, it might be more efficient if we can have everybody sworn in at one time. Hold on one second. Anybody else in the audience that wants to speak to this? I know everybody's tired. Everybody wants to sit down, but what we'll do is we'll get you sworn in, and then you can go back and sit down, and we can let you get good. If you all please raise your right hand and state your name. 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? Thank you. Okay. And so with that, not everyone, you all don't have to wait in line. I know, again, it's late. If you want to sit down, feel free to sit down. But if anybody else stands up to speak and you've not yet been sworn in, we do have to swear you in. So go ahead, sir. I apologize. Hi. I'm Steven Navarez. I'm the owner of Property 208 Ambrosio. And subject to what you just heard, I am the only one that lives there full time, and I don't rent my property or multi-time. So I don't know what she's talking about. She is my neighbor, and I want you to look at the pictures you have in there. I don't have time. Look at your pictures. See that walled property, and there's less than one foot. She has no windows to this. It doesn't block anything. I want to make it personal. I came here in 1998 on the same criteria, three-time rejection by a historical society. We understand why it's there. I don't have to tell you. Luckily, the partners that were with you in 1998, absolutely. I didn't have to hire lawyers because I had Carl Summers, and he says, "Don't spend my money." You're here. You're local. You've been here. My brother bought it in '78. I took it over '98. I've added a property. My other brother owns the empty lot next to Jason to 210 would be the address. We are personal. We are human. I've heard you say that all night tonight. I live there. I'm the only one who's got a view blocked. This lady can look out all her backyard looks and she gets to look at my 23-story building. She looks to the south where the building's going to be built. Can't see anything. There's a wall. So I hear you, but let's make it a little more personal. When we want to use the historical board, we got all these rules, which none of us understand. There are no correlations because everybody changes. We'll look at the properties with people in question. See if a carport or an advanced other store building or a barbecue unit with housing and more roofing is going to apply. Nobody asked. Come on. These people bought this property. They live in the work. Can we keep it real? Hi. My name is Jennifer Navarez. That was my husband. I live at 208 Ambrosio Street. I am a teacher, and I run a nonprofit called Community Learning Network. And we were founded on the wisdom of elders who said well-being is nourished by being accountable to a people in a place. And our community, Guadalupe District, is fantastic. I just wanted to add a couple notes that you talked about the streetscape and being out of harmony with the buildings nearby. As they showed in the photos, the design is very harmonious. But if you turn on Roybal Street, right there on that corner moving in towards the neighborhood, and instead of looking left to the building that would be built there, you look to the right. That is a dilapidated, beat-up old house that has never been occupied since I lived there, except on occasion by vagrants, drug dealers, rats, and a lot of weeds. There are literally boards that are falling down, stuck up against the wall. So for us in the neighborhood to make that turn and to see this building come into being there is not out of harmony. It's actually beautifying an area that desperately needs it. The other thing we talked about, Councilor Cassett mentioned, a safe and stable housing for all of us. I love the live-work, and I want to add in conclusion that in our neighborhood right now, not only do we have three two-story buildings on our block, we have another two-story building across the street. We have now five Airbnbs on our block. So for my husband and I, we don't Airbnb. It is listed as a multi-unit dwelling because there's an old part and a new part, but we need inhabitants who are there at night. And I have personally went into that lot and recovered my stolen propane tank out of my barbecue grill inside my gated patio because it is often Miss Nepal itself. Would you please wrap up? So that's all. I'm done. I do have pictures of the lot. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Kirtley Spear, and I am the homeowner that has an adjoining wall. So I am right next to the lot. My address is 901 Roybal. It was up on the screen. I have a two-story house, and I am directly affected by this build of this structure on Roybal and Saint Francis. We share a wall with this empty lot in question. We obviously live in the Old Guadalupe neighborhood. I am very much in favor of a multi-use dental and living space being on the second floor. In fact, when we bought in this neighborhood six years ago, we were, the seller explained to us that the plan was to have a multi-use dental building. I was excited then, and I'm thrilled now. I am all for the 24-foot height. I have humans living above in a dental place that makes their building safer, and it makes my building safer. We in the Guadalupe neighborhood have dealt with homeless living in the lot, stealing from us, including mail theft. We are proactive in keeping our neighborhood safe by collectively calling the police, graffiti abatement, and cleaning the lot ourselves. We give our blessings to Dr. Claudia Wong and her team that she got to build her dream structure. We're asking their historic review board to reconsider and approve this building. Having a multi-use business is good for Saint Francis Corridor and the Old Guadalupe neighborhood. Personally, it's much safer for me. Thank you. Jasper, I wanted to comment on the size of the second floor. The original design was, I believe, 450 square feet. That included a spiral staircase, which was about 55 square feet. So the living area of that original design was less than 400 square feet. Imagine living there long term, two adults, with a spiral staircase. My wife and I, Adelusia, who will be living there if the project is approved and it's built, live currently in a 900 square foot arrangement. We watch Mateo, the young child of Claudia, and also Lily comes there, and we provide a safe place for them to be while Claudia works. So the 900 square feet we're living in now would be a little bit less than 900 square feet after you subtract the stairwell, which is more conventional, easier to go up and down. There's a dumbwaiter so you can have groceries taken up and down. Can you imagine going up the spiral staircase with a carton of 24 bottles of water? It's just a safer environment, and I wanted to explain why it's larger today in the design than what it was. Hello, Mr. Mayor and Councilors. I am the daughter of Dr. Quan, and I think the office should be built because I want a safe place to go after school where my mom and baby brother will be. Next, I would also like to see a beautiful building instead of trash and homeless. Last, I want my mom to have an amazing dental office to work at. Thank you. Oh, Lily Duarte. Red Oakley, District 3. Good evening, Mayor and City Councilors. Thank you for this opportunity. I respectfully ask that you approve Dr. Claudia Quan's plans for her future dental office. I have known Claudia since she was in elementary school. Actually, Claudia is like a second daughter to me, and it has brought me so much joy and pride to watch her grow into an amazing mother and an accomplished professional. She has worked tirelessly to achieve her dreams of building a dentist, of being a, becoming a dentist, and is committed to giving back to our community that supported her. She has chosen to build her dental practice here at home, investing in our community and providing much-needed dental care. Allowing Dr. Quan to utilize the second story of her building would benefit her young family by allowing her babies to remain nearby under the care of her grandparents while she treats patients. This arrangement would help her successfully balance the responsibilities of being both a dedicated dentist and a devoted mother. I remember taking my children to Dr. Pick when they were young for orthodontist care, and I was always impressed by the family-oriented atmosphere when you walked in there. Dr. Pick's mother, they had a section in the back where she would care for her two children. And whilst Dr. Pick tended to her patients, that experience showed me that supporting working mothers benefits not only their families, but also the communities they serve. Dr. Quan's proposal reflects those same values of family values, of dedication, community. By approving her plans, you will be supporting a talented local professional who has chosen to come back to our city and raise her family and give back to our community. Dr. Quan has earned this opportunity, and I have every confidence that her practice will be tremendous to our community. I respectfully urge you to approve Dr. Quan's plans. Thank you. Before we have our next speaker, I just want to bring to the attention of the governing body. We have 10 minutes before we sunset. So I would like to move that we suspend our rules to go past the hour of 10:30. Alright. 11:30. I'm so sorry. Second. Okay. So we have a motion to suspend our rules. Any discussion? There are none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Councilor Frigali? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. I apologize, sir. We have a rule where we have to get our business done by 11:30 unless we suspend our rules, and we want to get this done. So feel free. The floor is yours. Thank you for your time and consideration. A little past my bedtime. Just a little closer to the mic, please. I'm Jake Schpire. I'm the architect for this project. I've been a practicing architect for approximately fifty years. I've lived here for sixty-five years, on and off, since I graduated from college. This is the first time I've had this situation. I've worked earnestly with the staff to develop this project, and I've done numerous other projects in the historic district. Not once has it been turned down when I had staff. This is the only one in my fifty years of practice that has been turned down. So the other thing that I might bring up is in streetscape, you're isolated by just looking at the elevation. Look at the State Capitol. It's a huge building, but it has plants, mature trees around it. What's and what I've met all the criteria of the building department of setbacks, there is another requirement for landscaping along the street. When you plant the trees, we could plant non-deciduous trees that are green, that stay green all year. So when you're driving down Saint Francis, you won't have a two-story looking building. I hope you take that into consideration and undo the misfortune that was placed on my clients and vote for approval of this project. Thank you. Good evening, Mister Mayor and Councilors. I am Adalicia Quan. I'm Claudia Quan, Doctor Quan's mother. And I just wanted to tell you a little bit of the backstory because Claudia was 12 years old when we moved to Santa Fe. When she finished dental school, we thought she was going to stay in Colorado, but our family has lived in the historic district for twenty-six years. Claudia loves Santa Fe. We love Santa Fe, and we would never do anything to harm the beauty of the historic district. So when Claudia told us that she was going to come back and have her practice here, my late husband, Doctor Raul Kwan, and I, we spent our savings, our retirement savings, to buy this lot. So this lot, buying this lot or purchasing this lot, was an act of love, of effort, but mostly of hope because we had so much faith in Claudia that we didn't care about putting all this money into this lot that, you know, had this shack, and we had to go through the board to demolish it. I mean, we've been dealing with this since 2014. It's been more than ten years since, you know, we bought the lot for Claudia. And she has turned out to be even more wonderful and an amazing dentist. She'll see patients on Christmas Eve. She'll see patients on New Year's Day. I mean, she's just so dedicated. During the pandemic, she would go to patients' houses. Like this little girl needed treatment, and she couldn't have her at the offices were closed. She went and did a dentist house call. And then she would take, like, somebody needed, let's say, a night guard, and I was there with her when she would go to a house and deliver that. So she's very dedicated, and I'm just so sorry that she has to go through all this when all we wanted was for her to fulfill her dream and have her office and for us to be able to help care for the children, my grandchildren, that you all already met. And thank you so much for this opportunity, and I hope you approve this. And I know it's late. Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience that would like to provide testimony? And if not, Madam City Clerk, can we go to any participants online, please? Yes, Mayor. Jordan Young. Mister Young, are you there? I need to swear you in. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry, Miss Young. Please raise your right hand and state your name. Jordan Young. 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? Yes. Thank you. On a point of process, it feels like this case is a perfect example of how urgent land use reform is for our city. HDRB appeals should not be governing body issues. We should be creating incentives for local businesses and services like Doctor Kwan's to be in neighborhoods close to the people that they serve. Councilors should not be evaluating design floor plans of female-owned businesses providing vital medical services, and HDRB should not be in a position to block a project that city staff approved on the very edge of the historic district. HGRB has operated under no real national standards, and their policies cause us to alienate and lose families and businesses such as Claudia Kwon's medical practice. I am so tired of land use decisions being completely blind to issues of culture, families, neighborhoods, livability, and sustainability, let alone our own city staff's decisions. The future is here, and our land use policies cutting off height coupled with our one house per acre zoning almost guarantees unsustainable sprawl, car dependency, traffic, and less livable, less affordable neighborhoods. Vacancy is bad, and neglect is bad. As we recently saw with the fires over at St. Catharines, there are multiple multi-unit residential structures throughout the historic district. A lack of consideration for the actual people involved, the benefits to the community, and the future of our city fully highlight the ridiculousness of these semi-judicial, semi-governing entities like HDRB, which weaponize words like historic preservation to make sure that our community doesn't change. HGRB appeals do not belong at governing body. HGRB and its stifling of the communities that it supposedly protects needs to be seriously evaluated. What goals do we have? What are we preserving? Who is it for? What are values here? Expired. People or height? It is so beyond time that we reform land use. Miss Young, your time is expired. Led by a no term. Other people went over. I'm almost finished. Thank you, Mary Garcia. You no. I've tried to get you to wrap up. Is there a next speaker? Stephanie Benonato. Stephanie Benonato. May I swear you in, please? Oh, yes. Go ahead. Please raise your right hand and state your name. Stephanie Benonato. 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? Yes. Thank you. So I just want to point out that all of the witnesses who just spoke did not actually address the criterion or criteria for the H board approval. And you have this with the Marriott Hotel where there was a lot of communities upset about it, but you looked at the criteria for that zoning. This is in a historic overlay zone. It is C4, but it's historic overlay. The three how the three buildings that are two stories, there's probably a hundred buildings that are one story. And again, I think that the board looked at hardship, and there is no hardship here. The Quans already all live together a few blocks from this building. The grandparents of the girl who spoke is already taking care of them. There's no hardship that you have to be able to run upstairs to see your daughter after school. That doesn't constitute a hardship. It doesn't constitute having a dental office. It does not mean that somehow you should also necessarily have a place to live. It's not the dentist living there. It's one of her relatives. And I do believe the board went through this pretty thoroughly about why they were not approving it. And, let's see. I think also the placement on the lot with the second story so close to the street is part of the problem. This is about setbacks. This is a normal zoning requirement. This is not actually unique to this lot. And I don't believe that the this whole thing of collaborating with the staff seems really improper. The staff is supposed to look at your application and review it to see if it complies with the criterion. They are not supposed to be collaborating and designing it with you. And at the board are the professionals that you appointed. They are not they're volunteers. Yes. They're not being paid, but they are the professionals that you're supposed to be relying on their judgment about whether the criterion were met or not. And whether something was approved in 2017 does not mean that another design will be approved later, seven years later or six years later. And I'm sorry. Time has expired. I just have one more thing to say, Mayor, and that is that whole thing that Miss Searles brought up about the 14 feet, you cannot go straight up 24 feet when you're that close to the next lot line. There has to be some Miss Benonato. Thank you. Mayor, no other hands are raised in the Zoom room. Thank you. With that, next step in the process is, we go to the governing body for any questions of staff, parties, witnesses, and the public, or anybody that's testified to this matter. So are there any questions from governing body members to staff, parties, witnesses, or anybody that testified from the public? Not seeing any. Councilor Cassette's not in. So then we'll go ahead and move towards the appellant. If any new evidence has arisen during questioning, this is your opportunity to ask additional questions of staff or any of the applicant's witnesses, and I will be willing to grant five minutes for this if there are any additional questions that might have arisen. You just have to say it until the I don't have any additional. I don't have any additional question. Okay. We then go to the Assistant City Attorney and or staff. Any responses to the appellant and or applicant submitted evidence? Excuse me, Mister Mayor. I believe Absolutely. Sure. My wife tells me that somebody on the phone said that my wife lives with her daughter. I didn't hear that. I mean, if if and that's that's not true. I just wanted to correct that for the record. We live together. She does not live with her daughter. Okay. Any other questions or upper anything? No? Okay. So then we move to the Assistant City Attorney and or staff, responses to the appellant, and or applicant submitted evidence and or testimony. And all same five minutes. May I inquire of Mister Shapiro? Sure. Mister Shapiro? Shapiro. Can I ask you, you were the architect on this similar project in 2017? Is that correct? Yes. I was the original architect. Did you have the same objective in 2017 to provide a live-work structure where the doctor wants parents to look after their children upstairs and practice? Absolutely. What you presented to the Historic District Review Board then, the upstairs was at a 441-foot configuration. Is that correct? Right. And the basement had, I'm sorry, the ground floor had 1,661 square feet. Right. Okay. Is that right? Do you agree that the site configuration constrains the buildable footprint? Do you understand, Mister said that? Yeah. But a dental clinic has to have treatment rooms and have a sterile innovation area, has to have an equipment room, it has to have a reception area. Right? Does it have to have a garage? Yes. And the the plan that you submitted to the H board increased the ground floor by almost 240 feet. Right? Isn't that correct? Over the 2017 project. Right? And what? Why is it? Mhm. The resident. And tell the resident. And was Doctor Kwan, was she okay with the project that you submitted to the H board in 2017? She supported that then? Yes. So the 04/1941 square feet on the upper floor she submitted in 2017. At that time, Doctor Quan had one child. Is that right? Okay. So now that second floor, you've increased by about 450 square feet. Is that correct? And are you saying that each additional child requires an additional 450 square feet? Well, no, I'm just asking you. I mean, you're an architect, right? Do you need an additional 450 square feet for one additional child? We're often even a couple of them out. You need to be safe. I would do so. Okay. But your proposal is for 892 square feet. Is that right? Okay. I asked you once more how big your house is. Well, it's larger, but, Mr. Shapiro, let me that much for a bit? No, we don't. We don't. All right? But let me ask you, Mr. Shapiro, when the H board back in 2017 asked you to flip the floor plan so that the second story now is east, you agreed to that, didn't you? Did you tell the H board? Yes, you do. Okay, I understand. It's nine years. Okay. All right. Thank you. Those are all the questions. Thank you very much. I apologize. We can't that they can provide a comment because we're about to go into a closing statement, and that would be an opportunity. So are you, Mr. Rubalid? You've finished with the time allotted? Okay. So then we'll go ahead and move to the appellant for a five-minute closing statement. So I'd like to address some of those questions the attorney brought up. Yes, sir. To have children live, to reside in a 400 square foot area, that's very difficult. Do you have any children? Because you would understand the hardships of containing children inside a 400 square foot area. So, yes, I believe, and if anyone else has children, I believe you can attest to this, that, yes, more room is a lot wiser. It's a lot safer, actually, too. And, yes, we were asked by the board to move the top story over to the East Side. But after, again, working closely with the staff, professional staff, we found that it actually is less intrusive to those people if our two-story building was further away from them and closer to Saint Francis Street. Nobody lives on Saint Francis Street. It's a main traffic corridor, and nobody's really doing a whole lot of sightseeing off of that road. So I don't think the public welfare has been hindered in any way by this. As a matter of fact, every single thing we did was to try and satisfy everyone around us. I'd also like to make a comment about the neighbor next door on Saint Francis, the small building. If you've ever been there, her cinder block wall masses over her windows. So I'm pretty sure she can't see out of her windows as it is. And her cinder block wall is about a foot lower than her entire house. You know, so I don't think the relevancy there is applicable. We're not going to be taking away her sun because the sun comes from the West and East, and we're on the South Side. So that's not even a relevant situation either. And for the lady online commenting that the mother lives with us, she doesn't. She lives with her husband in a separate place. And yes, they are renting. And yes, they do plan on moving upstairs to watch our children and to be stewards of the land in the evening time. And they're not going to live there forever. We will probably eventually move in there while Claudia continues her practice. So I would just like to say that all the evidence, it shows. And another thing is, you know, the city attorney did bring up things about positions and this and that. But what we're actually debating here is the height exception, not the placement of where the building's going to be, not the placement of the second story floor. It's the height exception of 14 feet, two inches. That's all we're talking about. We're not talking about East or West Side or what concessions were given. And so I would just like to clarify that, you know, we did work with staff, and in terms of the word collaboratively, that means we went to staff, and they denied what we had. So we asked them, well, how could we make this better? And they gave us examples. We followed those examples. We came back to them, and that's when they approved it. So that's collaboration. We're not sitting there having them design our building for us. No, we're not. But yes, we do have to go with them, and when they approve it, then we move forward. If they don't approve something, then we alter it. So that way it fits the character of the district. Other than that, you know, I think we've, I think we've shown all the facts and all the evidence that support these six criteria being met. And if anyone else has any other questions for me, I'd be glad to answer. Thank you, Mr. Itorte. Next up is a closing statement from the assistant city attorney. We'll allot the same five minutes. Mayor and councilors, thank you very much for your attention here tonight. I wanted to just reassure everybody that we have great respect for Dr. Kwan and her dental practice, and I have great respect for Mr. Shapiro. I've seen a number of his designs for the H board. In fact, the board chair, Cecilia Rios, specifically told Mr. Shapiro, "Mr. Shapiro, you're an experienced architect. You know how to fit a structure into a constrained lot and to accomplish everything that you need to accomplish." And he did that in 2017. And he submitted a structure that had about a 1,660 square foot footprint and a 441 square foot upstairs so that Dr. Kwan's parents could look after her kids. And perhaps he had drawn the conclusion that because it was approved in 2017, he could expand this structure and give it back to the H board, and it would be an automatic rubber stamp approval. And what is critical is that if you look at the minutes of the 2017 project, the H board specifically asked Mr. Shapiro, who was present at that hearing, "And you reversed the floor plan so that the two-story massing is on the east side of the lot rather than being right on Saint Francis." And he had no objection to it. He said, "Sure." He seemed very, you know, prepared to do that. In fact, the board action letter that went out specifically said that he would submit, and that's in your packet, that he could submit that redrawn design to the staff for approval. And, apparently, he did not do that. Now, project proposal lapses after three years, and if no work is done on a project. And I question, as did the H board question, why he is now insistent on putting the second, the two-story massing right on Saint Francis. And as you can see, it abuts Saint Francis in a way that no other structure on that streetscape does. It is just 10 feet back from the lot line, and it's 70% higher than the height restriction. And a number of the other considerations that were brought up ignores the fact that we don't necessarily need this to allow the Laquan family to continue living in the historic district because she already lives on West San Francisco Street. She doesn't necessarily need to start a new dental practice because she already has one. She's located at, I believe it's at 1533 South Saint Francis. I appreciate the work she does. I appreciate dentists. You know, my parents were absolutely insistent that I see a dentist regularly, and I still do. But I don't know that the problems that the neighbors cited, like the homeless and the trash accumulating on that lot, has to be resolved by a structure that is 24 feet high, that exceeds the height restrictions by 70%, and that it can't be resolved by something smaller, by something that has a second-story massing setback from Saint Francis, or just a simple residence or a dental clinic without a second story. So, I ask you to consider that the H board, that there is evidence specifically to support the H board, and I think probably the most persuasive evidence is a story polls that show you just how high the structure will be compared to the other mostly one-story buildings on that streetscape. Again, I thank you for your attention, Mayor and councilors. Yeah. Thank you. At this time, I will go ahead and move to close the public hearing. Just a heads up, if we for of witnesses, we would have to open the public hearing. With that being said, let's go ahead and move on to deliberation with the governing body. This is the opportunity for governing body members to make a motion and or second whether to grant or deny the requested appeal. I'd like to make a motion that we grant, we grant appeal 2020-612102. Second. Okay. So we've got a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Can I ask for a clarification, please? Absolutely, Councilor Figalli. Councilor Faulkner, would that include the supporting the fact supporting exception criteria stated in the staff report? Indeed. Thank you. Any other questions from governing body members? Seeing and hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Certainly. Mayor, Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. And I'd like to explain my vote. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. And I'd like to explain my vote. Councilor Figuelli? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. And so we've got two governing body members to explain their votes. First, Councilor Castro, then Councilor Faulkner. Thank you very much. I just want to know, I did get a little emotional today. This meeting was very intense, and in particular, trying to bring locals back to our space. So thank you so much to everyone who has done the due diligence and hard work of trying to stay in this community. Thank you. Councilor Faulkner. I would just like to note that it is no secret that the HCRB board, I'm not a fan, and there is legislation being drafted to kind of address some of the issues we face again and again and again with arbitrary and capricious decision-making. So that's why I voted for this appeal. Okay. With that, we stand adjourned.