Regular Governing Body Meeting - Last Wednesday Wed, Sep 30, 2026 · Governing Body https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/935-governing-body-sep-30-2026 == Executive Summary == The Governing Body's Regular Meeting on September 30, 2026, addressed a variety of community concerns and city operations, highlighted by extensive public comment on national and local issues. Key decisions included the unanimous approval of the agenda and consent agenda, as well as the ratification of two significant FAA grants totaling over $10 million for airport improvements. The Governing Body also unanimously approved several appointments to various city committees and boards. Significant portions of the meeting were dedicated to public input, with residents voicing strong opinions on topics ranging from the expansion of plutonium pit production at Los Alamos National Laboratory, immigration policies and the proposed Immigrant Protection Ordinance, and the controversial removal of the obelisk from the Plaza. The Governing Body also heard an appeal regarding a historic property addition, which ultimately passed with a split vote, and an appeal from a cannabis business owner facing a cease and desist order, which was withdrawn after the City Manager committed to direct assistance. Concerns were raised about the consistency and transparency of the Historic District Review Board's processes. == Key Decisions == - Approved the amended agenda and consent agenda (7-0). - Ratified a $122,976 FAA grant for an air traffic control tower siting study (7-0). - Ratified a $10,000,000 FAA grant for the terminal expansion project (7-0). - Approved all proposed appointments to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Mayor's Youth Advisory Board, Human Services Committee, and Arts Commission (unanimous). - Denied the appeal regarding the historic property addition's compliance with the 50% rule, finding the applicant demonstrated criteria for an exception (3-2). - Denied the appeal regarding the historic property addition's height restriction on a sloping site (4-1). == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the amended agenda — Passed (7-0). - Motion to approve the consent agenda — Passed (7-0). - Motion to enter executive session to discuss attorney-client privileged matters (Homewise vs. City of Santa Fe) and real property acquisition/disposal — Passed (7-0). - Motion to reconvene in open session after executive session — Passed (6-0). - Motion to approve an unspecified item related to immigration policy — Passed (5-0). - Motion to deny the appeal regarding the historic property addition's compliance with the 50% rule — Passed (3-2, Councilors Garcia and Mayor Garcia voted No). - Motion to deny the appeal regarding the historic property addition's height restriction on a sloping site — Passed (4-1, Mayor Garcia voted No). - Motion to suspend rules to extend the meeting beyond 11:30 PM — Passed (5-0). == Public Comment == Public comments covered a wide range of issues. Residents Peter Goodwin and Stuart Bluestone requested the city honor a 2006 agreement for continuous grading on Cerro Gordo Road. Steven Fox urged the Governing Body to invite UN Masters to Santa Fe. On immigration, Marcy Matasic advocated for ICE's removal, while another speaker expressed anti-immigrant sentiments, leading to a heated exchange. Other speakers emphasized immigrants' importance and concerns about linking police with federal immigration enforcement. Numerous individuals, including students and veterans, strongly opposed the expansion of plutonium pit production at LANL, citing environmental and health risks, and urged a resolution against it. Several speakers called for the restoration of the obelisk in the Plaza. Concerns were also raised about government transparency, Salvador Perez pool funding, slow sidewalk replacement, outdated meeting recordings, Ethics Board vacancies, and campaign finance rules. One speaker criticized council members for using cell phones during public comments. == Topics == - Municipal Court Operations - Business License & Zoning Issues - Cannabis Business Regulations - Staff Responsiveness & Communication - Justice System & Social Issues - Role Modeling & Public Service == Full Transcript == Good. Michael, can you please promote me? Salem? No. I went there for grad school. We don't get homecoming wings. We just get lots of studying. I'd like to call tonight's governing body to order for September 30, 2026. We will be led with a Pledge of Allegiance by Councilor Bustamante, Salute to the New Mexico Flag by Councilor Garcia, and Invocation and Remembrances by Councilor Cassutt. Please stand as you're able. Good evening, everybody. I've been struggling about what to say tonight because the news has been really heavy recently with a lot of what's happening in the justice system, the case coming out of Cornell. I've kind of struggled with the words because for me, I just feel all this anger building. I know that they kind of tag it as female rage to make it sound... Well, sometimes they're reclaiming that term, but it's something I've just really been struggling with and thinking about, how do we raise kids that are not going to perpetuate these patterns in our society? Councilor Chavez always speaks about this so beautifully around this understanding that when we're up here, we're role models, that we have a platform, that we have this visibility that I think we sometimes forget about. But it's really important that we think about, is this something... If my children were emulating my behaviors and the way that I'm dealing with conflict, with challenge, with hard situations, with hard decisions, with disagreement, would they do it in this way and would I be proud of them? So I just want to remind us of today and every day and members of the public that there are tough issues that we deal with. There's a lot of opinions. And the most important thing is that we come to the table with open hearts, open minds. It doesn't mean that we don't stand for our convictions, but we do that with respect and with a focus on how do we continue to move humanity forward as opposed to backwards. So, I just want to thank you all for being here today and thank everybody who's here today to watch and to participate. That's all. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilor. Remembrances? None. Let's take a moment to remember those in our community that are in need of support. Thank you, everybody. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Barrett? Here. Councilor Bustamante? Here. Councilor Cassutt? Here. Councilor Castro? Present. Councilor Chavez? Councilor Feghali? Here. Councilor Garcia? Here. Mayor Garcia? Present. Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you so much. Next up is approval of tonight's agenda. Are there any changes from staff? No changes from staff, but I just want to remind you that item 20.a will be postponed to the October 28 Governing Body agenda. That was 20.a as in apple? Correct. Okay. So that's a motion to approve as amended. Correct? Second. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? There are none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassutt? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Motion passed. Alright. Thank you. Next up is approval of consent agenda. Any items pulled, Madam City Clerk? No, ma'am. No items have been removed. Okay. Last opportunity for governing body members to pull an item. And if not, what's the will of the body? I move to approve. Second. We got a motion and a second. Any discussion? There are none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Mayor, Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassutt? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Next up, we've got presentations. Will you please read the first presentation into the record? Yes. The presentation will be the Municipal Court Update, and here to present is Judge Chad Chittum from Municipal Court. Good evening, everyone. Mr. Mayor, Councilors, thank you for having me here tonight. I'm here to give you a brief update on some of the happenings at the Municipal Court. The first thing I'd like to start with is some staff trainings that's been happening recently. In July, the court's program director and myself attended the national All Rise conference. That is a conference for treatment courts. As you are aware, the Santa Fe Municipal Court does have a treatment/drug court program that is certified through the Administrative Offices of the Courts, and they adopt the standards that are applied at the All Rise conference. So this conference was an opportunity for us to meet other judges, other program directors, talk about what success we're having, things that we need to work on, and the upcoming standards that would be needed to be met for the recertification. So our recertification process starts in November. I am confident, based on the conversations I've had, that we should be able to regain that or keep that certification going. I will keep you informed because I'm very proud of that accomplishment. A couple of our clerks did go to Las Vegas, Nevada, for a Tyler Munis training focusing on better understanding of the Munis program for our finance and HR departments and how we relate and do things with that platform, with those departments. Four of our language access specialists, that means they are certified to interpret in the Municipal Court, went to a symposium in Las Cruces. And therefore, going to that symposium, they get all their continuing education classes that they need for that recertification. Our other staff that are LAS certified have done that periodically on their own, but we were able to send four of them to the actual conference itself. Five of our clerks have went to the Municipal Court Clerks Conference in Ruidoso this year. And so I want to thank you all for the budget that you helped to approve and whatnot. We are absolutely using that budget to train staff, myself, and putting all that to good work. Next point I want to, or we want to bring up is, looking at the stats. You should be getting monthly stats from our court. Please, if you have any questions about those, I ask that you would reach out to us beforehand. I can present more information to you at these presentations. However, I do want to point out a couple of things on those stats. One of them is going to be our Erase class. You may recall our Erase class is for first-time offenders. It is a three-hour class. It is often used for first-time shoplifters, first-time careless driving charges. And this class is free at no cost to the defendant participant, and it goes over all kinds of things like substance abuse awareness, mindfulness, anger management, and traffic stuff. We also talk about self-advocacy. We also talk to them about Santa Fe Connect, showing them all the resources that are out there in Santa Fe City and County that one might need. It may not apply to them, but maybe it applies to a friend or a family member. Lastly, in that class, we do give general information about judgment. This is something that someone, a first-time offender, they complete a deferment. They can get everything wiped off their record. We find that is very important information to give someone to be able to go to the District Court and have their record expunged if they have complied with everything. One of the other things about the Erase class I'd like to bring to your attention is recently, I had a defense attorney reach out to me and say, "Judge, I have a client. They've got a charge." I was like, "Well, that charge is not in my court." "I know, but your class was so good for my other clients, and my client just come in and sit in that class." I said, "Absolutely." So we've kind of opened it up to people that are not even involved with our court because we find the information is helpful. I want to bring on the stats, our Score program. I talked a lot about the Score program starting up in July. It did start up. It is, I'll remind you, it is a 12-hour program or three-hour blocks for 18 to 25-year-olds. This class or program usually comes with 18 to 25-year-olds that have aggressive driving. They are racing on the streets, exhibition of speed, different charges like that. This program talks about, we talk about self-control, anger management, mindfulness, critical thinking, and social skills. We have guest speakers. We talk about driving and life skills, vocational resources, trauma, substance abuse, and community support. We do all these things in that four-hour block, or excuse me, the four, four three-hour block. I would like to point out on the stats with the Score program, our first month, I thought we were going to be a little bit slow. There were eight in July and August. We had 18. So I think I'm very excited that there, that is a need that the court is meeting with this program. Moving on to texting. This has been an ongoing, something that we've wanted to court for a while now. Court is now texting court reminders to all defendants, members of the public that are signing up for it. We ask them every time someone comes into the court, "Would you like us to sign you up for text reminders?" Haven't had anyone say no yet. But three days before their hearing for all hearings, they will get a text that reminds them of their court date. Municipal Court on October 10, I believe that's next Saturday, will be participating with the Santa Fe County and the First Judicial District courts in their reentry fair for formerly incarcerated adults. We're going to have a booth set up. How can we contribute as a Municipal Court to someone that has recently been incarcerated in the federal penitentiary? Well, a lot of times when people go into custody to the penitentiary and they come out, they believe everything's been taken care of. But for whatever reason, their Municipal Court fines and fees were still there, or maybe they even had a warrant still out in Municipal Court. We're going to have a couple of staff members there, talk to them, look at our system. If they owe money, we're going to set up a hearing. Let's come before the judge. Let's come before me. Let's talk about it. They got a warrant out for their arrest. Hey, let's talk to the judge. Maybe we can get it quashed today, but we're going to set up a hearing. And that is something that, again, it does happen, not frequently, but enough that I would want to participate in this, that I will have a defendant in front of me that says, "Well, Judge, I spent the last five years in prison, then I just got picked up off the street." And we want to try to eliminate that. I will give a shout out to Judge Lidgert at the District Court. He and I have been collaborating on how we can help solve that issue. And I think in the future, we're going to see more collaboration between the state courts and the Municipal Courts. So, my last part I'd like to talk about is the key performance indicators. There are three main key performance indicators for courts in general, and those are clearance rates. Like, cases coming in with cases being closed. What is that rate? Time to disposition. How long does it take a case once it's filed to when it is closed? Age of active, pending caseload. And it gives you a number of where we're at, how many active cases we have, how long have they been going on. Well, that is something I've been working with Full Court, our case management system, for some time now to get that information. They are having coding issues, and we're not able to get that just yet, but they are working on it, and I hope as soon as I have it, you're going to start seeing those on your stats. One of the APIs that we are having some success with in getting numbers for is the clearance rate. I want to tell you, in July, our clearance rates in July, we had 559 incoming new cases. For closing cases or closed cases or outgoing cases, there were 1,096 for a clearance rate of 196%. You may think, "Well, how can that be 196%?" Well, you may recall the last time I presented to you, or even at the budget hearings, one of the goals of the court is to clean up old cases. That's exactly what we're doing. We have cases from the late 90s to early 2000s. We started working on them. We're going to work our way up. Some of the cases that we're closing out from the early 2000s and the late 90s are old cases that had warrants on them for people's arrest for failing to appear because they owed some money. We're reviewing those cases. Do they have good identifiers? Meaning, will this case ever allow law enforcement, if they come in contact with law enforcement, to arrest them? A lot of them, the identifiers can be bad. They're missing information. We're closing out those cases. We are quashing those warrants. This is with the help of the city prosecutor. He's been very helpful in helping us address some of these outstanding cases. In addition, there could be a case where somebody's owed money, $25 from 2000, but we can't figure out what was the $25 for, right? Something's missing in the file. That is something we're closing and moving on, and that is something that judges do throughout the country: clean up that stuff. So this is, long story short, and I'm closing because I want to tell you about August: 586 incoming cases, 855 outgoing cases for 145%. Again, your Municipal Court is working. We're cleaning, we're working on cases that are before us now. We're also working on cases in the past to clean things up. That being said, that's really all I have at this point. Any questions? Thank you, Judge Chittum. Appreciate everything you're doing for our Municipal Court system. Any questions from the Governing Body? Councilor Chavez. I just have a comment, and I know I kind of highlighted it in a conversation earlier with Councilor Bustamante, but I think that Judge has done a fantastic job with programming. I'm big on root cause, right? Like, are we addressing the real issue when we see these individuals, when you see these individuals in front of you? I think that you have been very intentional in addressing root cause, which is only beneficial to our community. So I just have always appreciated your work, the information you bring around programming. That's truly how we help individuals kind of reroute their paths. The fact that our Municipal Courts are actually focused on that is amazing. I know you mentioned some unique things that we do that other municipalities don't do, and I think that again, just goes back to your intentionality. So I really appreciate your work, and I think everyone should know how different the approach is, and we're probably only going to see amazing things in the community because of it. So thank you. Yes. Any other questions, comments? Don't see any. Thank you, Judge. Thank you. Have a great evening. Next item on the agenda, please, Madam City Clerk. Next item is item 10, Action Items on the Discussion Agenda. 10.a. is a request for ratification of the City Manager's approval to accept the US Department of Transportation FAA Division Grant 70 in the total amount of $122,976 to conduct an air traffic control tower siting study. Also, a request for approval of a Budget Adjustment Request in the total amount of $122,976 to increase WIP design by $122,976 using US Department of Transportation funding for an air traffic control tower siting study. Here to answer any questions is the Airport Director, John Dickinson, and Paulette Ortiz, Grant Administrator. Mr. Dickinson, did you want to provide a presentation, or would you like to go directly to the Governing Body for? Okay. Any questions from Governing Body members? If not, what's the will of the body? Move to approve items 10.a. and 10.a.1. Second. Okay, so we've got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? There are none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Cassutt? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Next item, please. Next item is a request for ratification of the City Manager's approval to accept the US Department of Transportation FAA Division Grant 69 in the total amount of $10,000,000 for funding for the terminal expansion project, and a request for approval of a Budget Adjustment Request in the total amount of $10,000,000 to increase WIP construction by $9,000,000 and WIP design by $1,000,000 using US Department of Transportation funding for the terminal expansion project. John Dickinson, Airport Director, and Paulette Ortiz, Grant Administrator, are here to answer questions. Okay. Any presentation, Mr. Dickinson? Any questions or request for presentation? If not, what's the will of the body? Move to approve items 10.b. and 10.b.1. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? There are none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassutt? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Thank you. Next item, please. Next item is Matters from the City Manager. Mr. Mayor, Councilors, I just want to invite everybody tomorrow from 11:00 to 1:00 to the Convention Center. We'll be doing meet and greets with the new, the final two police chief candidates. So I just want to remind everybody about that tomorrow from 11:00 to 1:00. So please come out. Please leave your comments for me, and hopefully, it goes well tomorrow. That's all I have tonight, Mayor. Thank you. Next item is Matters from the City Attorney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Governing Body. I recommend that the Governing Body convene to executive session for the matters noticed in the agenda. Okay. So we've got a recommendation to go into executive session. What's the will of the body? Mr. Mayor, just for your, in accordance with the Open Meetings Act, NMSA 1978, Section 10-15-1, Subpart H.7, meetings subject to attorney-client privilege pertaining to threatened or pending legal, which the city may become participant, but not limited to Homewise versus City of Santa Fe. Do I have to do the case number? Just a part, and Subpart H.8, meetings for discussion of the purchase, acquisition, or disposal of real property or waiver, water rights by the city, by the city. And, make a motion that we enter executive session for these reasons. Second. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Mayor Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Cassutt? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Thank you. We stand in recess as we enter executive session. You'd like to return us back from executive session? Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Section 10-15-1.j, I move that the Governing Body reconvene in open session and state for the record that the matters discussed in the closed session were limited to those specified in the motion for closure. We got a motion and a second. Any discussion? There are none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Thank you. Next item on the agenda, please, Madam City Clerk. Next item on the agenda is Matters from the City Clerk. I just wanted to talk about the fishing derby that happened this weekend. I just want to give a huge shout-out to Javier Martinez, Constituent Services Manager. He's the reason this event happened and the reason for its success, along with many others. Additionally, I want to shout out Chris Peralta, Comms and Marketing Manager, for his role in the event planning and communications we put out about the event. A big thank you to Chris's team for their assistance in creating the lottery and pushing out the communication and sending out all the emails to the participants. So thank you, Erin Pulsipher, Jordan Buxton, and Sarah Head. Also, a big thank you to Lawrence Moss for taking the photos at the event. I also want to acknowledge and thank Javier Aguilar Morales, Desiree Dominguez, Daniel Brown, Michael Marchant, Erica Quintana, Xavier Vigil, and Peter Olson, all there to help on the day of the event. You guys made the event fun and easy for the event participants to get signed in, get the fishing equipment to the reservoir and back, and getting the fish bagged and on ice so the participants can take their fish home. We couldn't have done it without you guys, so thank you for your help. Another huge part of the success of that event is because of Transit. Andrew Baca, Transit Operation and Maintenance Division Director, Jose Saenz, Curtis, Horace, and the rest of the team. The role they played in that event was instrumental in their success. We couldn't have done it without them. You guys are rock stars, so thank you. Shout out to Jesse Roach and his team for their assistance in planning and helping the event. I'd also like to especially thank Jonathan Montoya, Alan Hook, Justine Francisco, Christine Chavez, and Mike Martinez. Their assistance was huge, and it was a pleasure to work alongside them. Jason Tapia and the fire team for providing the EMS and brush truck. Thank you. I'd also like to send gratitude to the Emergency Management team for their assistance in navigating through the weather and ensuring we take all the safety measures needed. So thank you, Kyle and Nick. We also want to thank the following for their educational information on the buses: Bill Schneider, Water Resources Manager, Lauren Reynolds, Water Resources Coordinator, and Ryan Ashcraft, the Park Ranger. Also, thank you to the Santa Fe Water Association for tabling, Fireshed Association for tabling, and thank you to New Mexico Game and Fish for stocking the reservoir. Also, we'd like to thank the ESD for the trash receptacle services. Last but not least, thank you, Mayor. Thank you for your support and showing up for the people in this community. The participants appreciated seeing you there as well as the City of Santa Fe team. Thank you. That's all I got, Mayor. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. Any, what's next on the agenda? Next on the agenda is Communications from the Governing Body. Okay. I'm going to far, way out to my far left. We'll go Councilor Bustamante. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to echo the City Clerk's thanks. I don't have that huge list, but thank you everyone who made that a success, and thank you to whomever for the weather to help allay, you know, fire risk causes. Yeah, everything I've heard about it is it was a great event, including from some children who were lucky to get selected. So, I'm glad that that went off. So thank you everyone who's involved. That's it. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to give a shout-out to the Public Works Department, Fire Department, those in Water and Utilities and Drainage and all that. Roads. I mean, there's been a lot of activity in the city this last week or so with all the rains. Especially thanks for helping out the Tierra Real community with some major issues that they're having with water drainage, and I guess there's a lot more to come. Also, just thanks to all the city departments as well. Wine and Chili was actually really nice. They went and helped out a little bit on Friday to greet people. And just nice to have things that are happening in our community that people go and attend and have fun at. So, kudos to everyone, and thank you so much. Councilor Chavez. Thank you. Yes, I wanted to shout out Public Works, Emergency Management, Fire, just emergency personnel, all other city staff that have been responding to the weather and the challenges that that's brought to our community. I feel like the city has been so responsive. They're working so hard. I talked to multiple city staff that are just super busy, but so excited and honored to show up for the community. I think it's just amazing that we have staff and individuals part of this team that care that much. So thank you all for everything you do. I wanted to shout out the Fight for Life Gala that occurred on Saturday. Fight for Life is an organization that does a lot of work in suicide prevention, support, supporting families that have lost members to suicide. And so I am just so glad that that organization keeps growing. Its impact keeps growing, and they're just bringing more and more awareness, which our community desperately needs. And today is my dad's birthday. My dad turned 77. Everyone that knows me knows that I'm madly in love with my father. My dad is the most amazing person on Earth, and I don't just say that because I'm his daughter, but he truly is. Everyone that knows him knows he's great, and everyone that knows me knows he's probably the best part of me. So, he is just an, as I say, an angel that walks this world, and we're so lucky to have him. He is the best grandfather that I could have ever dreamed to be taking care of my kiddos every day. The way he loves my kids is just the best thing to witness. So I want to wish my dad a happy birthday. Thank you for everything you do, everything you are. You make our world a better place. Thank you, Mayor. Councilor Barrett. Thank you. I just wanted to shout out my app, the Mayor's Youth Advisory Board. We have a couple students on our agenda tonight that will hopefully be confirmed. We have a whole new group of students. We had everybody go off to college, and I want to shout out our comms team who had an amazing comms campaign director Emery from Community Services. We're a tag team on that. We had 10 students. So we went from zero to 10 students the other night at the Teen Center. They have so many amazing ideas. I'm just excited for the work that we're going to do in the community, and we had students from Mandela, Santa Fe High, the Master's Program, Tierra Encantada, and probably I'm forgetting one here too. But, yeah, so I'm just excited for the future and the work we're going to do. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Feghali. Thank you, Mayor. I want to let everyone know in case folks aren't familiar with the way we do our agenda, the Hopewell Mann Stabilization Plan did pass on consent. So, I know I had several community members email me support for that. So that did pass already this evening. I wanted to remind folks, I think City Manager mentioned that we have the police chief's two finalists tomorrow at the Convention Center from 11:00 to 1:00. Everyone is welcome to go meet them and then give, I think, a written comment about how you feel, who you think we should select. So I will certainly be over there talking to them, and I encourage everyone to do that. And then we are still looking for Planning Commission members for Districts 3 and 4 and possibly maybe a BPAC member for District 3. So if you live in District 3 and you want to be on a committee, you got lots of options. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Castro. Thank you, Mayor. I'll try to be brief. I just want to obviously thank all the city staff that's doing an amazing job and also plug neighborhood associations. I did get a chance to meet with three different neighborhood associations this past two weeks, and I'm so excited that even though there are some difficulties, we are coming together to organize in our neighborhoods. So thank you so much. Thank you, Councilor. The only thing, I'll echo again all the support for the fishing derby staff and, most importantly, the folks that came out to participate. It definitely made getting up at 3:30 in the morning and being up at the reservoir at 5:00 in the morning all worth it. It definitely was an opportunity that will be remembered not only by those that participated, but as the Madam City Clerk said, by staff. I think it was a fun event. The city's table was right next to the Watershed and Fireshed table, so it was just an all-around opportunity where community came together. The community was able to utilize their space and make memories and, ultimately, for some folks, catch some fish. I think it is always great where we use these times and spaces to recreate but also educate. And so many thanks for everything you and your team did, and the fire loss was up there that we missed. I mean, even the Audubon came up. They walked up the road as well. So we'll have to see if this is something that we as a governing body are interested in doing again, but that was a request that was put out there. Are you doing it again? This was fun. So it was definitely a big lift, but we'll see. As well, shout out to Public Works. Nobody anticipates getting nearly six inches of rain in two and a half weeks, but it's upon us. And our team is definitely responding to the need, whether they are, you know, in Tierra Real pumping out. I mean, they've, I think this is the third time that they've been out there pumping and helping that community, or other areas of the city that are receiving the influx of water. We're here to help. So I just can't reiterate, if folks are having issues with flooding, and it's due to city infrastructure, reach out because we will get out there and help you. And then last night, just want to give a shout out to Chelsea. Last night, we had the Mayor's Excellence in Awards Ceremony. We were eight individuals. I think we awarded the youngest award ever, with a young person who I believe is 10 years old who runs the Makerspace for young folks. And it just shows that you don't have to be well-versed in the arts. You don't have to go to some prestigious school to be an artist. You can be a young person that's providing opportunities for artists in our community, and I'm just thankful for everybody that was recognized last night and thankful for the team. It was a fun event. And so with that, Yeah. I'm so sorry for that. Yeah. Is that okay? Absolutely. Absolutely. I just wanted to bring up the deadline for the city is seeking members for the Planning Commission, District 3, District 4. The deadline is October 7. To apply, you would submit a letter of interest to the Mayor and then a resume to Dan Esquivel. The information's on Facebook, and I imagine the website as well. But that deadline is approaching. So if you are interested in serving on Planning Commission, make sure that you apply. Thank you. Thank you for the reminder, Councilor. I appreciate that. With that, let's go to move on to the next item on the agenda, please, Madam City Clerk. Next item is 16, Introduction of Legislation. 16a is consideration of a resolution sponsored by Councilor Amanda Chavez. It's a resolution directing the City Manager to identify and apply for federal and state funding sources for water, wastewater, and other water-related projects, identify a state legislative priority list, and approve the application submitted to the New Mexico Water Trust Board. Okay. This is your opportunity, Councilor Chavez? I think it speaks for itself, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next item, please. 16b is consideration of a resolution. This is sponsored by Mayor Michael Garcia. It's a resolution establishing the City of Santa Fe's priorities for consideration by the New Mexico State Legislature during the 58th Legislature, State of New Mexico, First Session, 2027. Okay. I think this one speaks for itself as well. Thank you. Madam City Clerk? Mayor, is it the desire to move two petitions from the floor? I'd like to make a motion to move on to appointments if we can get that done, and then resume with our, and then we'll decide where we're at after that. Thank you. Second. Okay. So we've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam City Clerk. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Certainly, Mayor. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Motion passed. Alright. We'll move on to item 21, Appointments. Item 21a is Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Gary Schiffmiller, reappointment with the term ending June 2028. Approve. Second. Okay. We got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Mayor, Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Motion passed. Next item is 21b. This is the Mayor's Youth Advisory Board. Samara Elling, appointment with a term ending December 2028. Isabella Friday Santistevan, appointment with a term ending December 2028. And Eric Holmes, appointment, term ending December 2028. Move to approve. Second. Okay. We get a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Mayor, Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? I'm sorry. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Motion passed. Next item is 21c. This is the Human Services Committee, Tina Ruiz, appointment with the term ending March 2028. Move to approve. Second. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam City Clerk. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Mayor, Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Motion passed. 21d for the Arts Commission. Erin De Rosa, reappointment and appointment as Chair with the term ending October 2028. Hernan Gomez Chavez, reappointment with the term ending October 2028. Mayrah Udvardi, reappointment with the term ending October 2028. Karina Hean, reappointment with the term ending October 2028. Heidi Brandow, reappointment, term ending October 2028. And Elena Higgins, appointment ending, or term ending October 2028. Move to approve. Second. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? None, Madam City Clerk. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Mayor, Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Thank you. And so I know that our next item on the agenda is Petitions from the Floor. If it's possible before the Governing Body makes any actions, how many folks are here to speak for petitions from the floor? But with that being said, I want to acknowledge that I know we have a public hearing tonight, and a lot of folks want to speak to that. There's a different time to speak to that. This would be solely petitions from the floor. Okay? One, two, three, four, five. Okay. So with that being said, I'm open to having folks speak, but then per our rules, we also have to have an opportunity at 7:00. I just want to, instead of going into recess, having you all wait a half an hour, allow for folks to speak, and then anybody else at 7:00 afford them that opportunity. So with that being said, what's the will of the body? I move that we hear public comment now, and then if we, that doesn't go until 7:00, recess until 7:00, and then come back and hear other public comment. Second. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam City Clerk, can we get a vote on that motion? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. So this is the opportunity for any member of the public to provide two minutes of public comment. The way we'll do it is just stand at the podium. Everybody else stand in line. You'll have two minutes, and the timer will start. And once your two minutes is up, a chimer noise will go off, and that means wrap up your comments. So with that, the floor is yours, sir. Good evening, Mayor and Council members. My name is Peter Goodwin, and I have with me my associate, Stuart Bluestone. We're both neighbors of an issue on Cerro Gordo, which has come up to your attention several times in the past few weeks with our emails to all of you. I just wish to present with you two parts of the issue. I will do the precedent that happened with the Cerro Gordo grading, and Stuart will do the legal. We both have handouts which we'll give, if you wish, to you directly or to the City Clerk. Basically, an agreement was offered to us by the Public Works Committee, Public Works Department, Robert Romero, Director, in 2006 to solve an issue that was occurring as off-drainage stormwater pouring into our side lane off Cerro Gordo. And after a number of visits on-site, he proposed to us that if we, our neighborhood, would give the consent for allowing the lane to be used as a storm drainage runoff area, he would grade the road periodically, at least once a month or during major rainstorms. We agreed to that, and he actually did an emergency grading at the time. It was as bad as it is now, with ruts in the road, and worse now because the Cerro Gordo Road is hard surfaced, and we are getting more runoff from the tarmac that's on the road surface. Is that time for us? I'm sorry. That does mean your time has expired. So if you wouldn't mind wrapping up your comments, please. The request, Mayor, is that we submit to you our documentation. It's all in email form, attesting to the agreement that we've had with the city, and we'd like to ask if you could assign a staff member and maybe the City Attorney to address the issue with us. I can't have a back and forth. This public comment is just an opportunity for the public to address the Governing Body. So, and before the next person speaks, I do want to remind folks that if you are here to speak to an item that is on the agenda for later, that later will be the time to speak to that item. So I just want to remind folks, there is, because I do see folks lined up that might be speaking towards an ordinance and a public hearing. You're welcome to speak. I'm not opposed to if you want to speak to it and go on your merry way, but there will be a public hearing later as well. So just, again, I want to acknowledge that. Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councilors. My name is Stuart Bluestone. I was a licensed attorney for over 50 years when I let my license expire, and I've been in Santa Fe for 42 years. And I'm speaking as a neighbor with Mr. Goodwin where the city's improvements to Cerro Gordo have caused erosion on our little roadway that's off Cerro Gordo. And even though our road is private, there was an agreement by the city with Mr. Robert Romero as the Public Works Director in 2008, acknowledging that it was the runoff from what the city did on Main Cerro Gordo that has caused the erosion on our little private roadway off Cerro Gordo at 1330, 1400, 1402. And so there was an agreement, and there are emails that we have confirmed from Mr. Romero that are in the package that Mr. Goodwin referred to that we will give to you again tonight, and we've sent emails about this as well. And I want to just say that as a legal matter, there's no problem with the city accepting its responsibility for the damage that it caused with the improvements on Cerro Gordo to our little private roadway. So it's actually a responsibility of the city to repair the damage that it has caused and is continuing to cause. While we appreciate the rain, it also has bad side effects on our little roadway. And as soon as it's available to be graded, we would really appreciate the grading to occur and for the city to reach an agreement with us to set a precedent in writing for continuous grading, like once a month, which was the agreement in 2008, or after major storms like we've been having now. And I will pass out my own legal summary too about why this is just a correction of a public nuisance. I thank you for your time and attention, and I hope we can reach a resolution soon. Thank you. About 25 years ago, George Will Snow was the Deputy Director. Identify yourself. I know who you are, but for the record. Oh, I'm Steven Fox, founder of United Nations Santa Fe, a work in progress. I guess it goes back about 30 years. But my mother, the student's attention, and the President, Attorney General, there was an 83-year-old Buddhist monk. They met the Buddhist monk that was being, I'm not going to be executed. He'd already been tried in the trial for over some horrible, some political prisoner kind of stuff, like unfriendly manner from the Dalai Lama or singing cementing songs. Within 24 hours, a letter, he signed the letter and signed the letter. Some of the letters each from the Attorney General, and I'm sure the Chinese were mad on my, I'm paying for the express mail and the sentence in the Premier and in the Supreme Court. And that's a real public servant. I've been talking to you guys, some of you, for five years about writing letters to UN Masters, welcoming them to come to Santa Fe. You've ignored them. As far as I know, all my cash flows, they only written one that's about one, and that was from the Biden's UN Ambassador. That's pathetic. This is a man, and someone's suspicion been written, the Attorney General, this was being political news. I subsequently took on freeing some political prisoners. I got eight of them freed, and the story is all in the article that I gave you. So, you know, you have to take yourself seriously in this context and realize new and Santa Fe is real. It's not hypothetical. It's a work in progress. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Marcy Matasic, and we are the Santa Fe Raging Grannies. And we're counting on you to pass that bill that restricts ICE. But that's just a start. We want ICE out. We want ICE to hit the road and never come back. While fascist mercenaries roam our streets, hunt down people as if they're meat. A body hits the ground and before it cools, smearing off victim as a terrorist. Their approach is to kill you twice. Their bullets and again with blood attack. I can't throw the dice. Don't come back no more, no more, no more, no more. They let the road dice. And don't come back no more. They're grabbing good people while families stream. Terror takes over and haunts our dreams, and they need to accept schools out. Turning our cities into grim wars. Now the cold we remote their heat. We're counting on a unit we get the roads. I don't shun back no more, no more, no more, no more. Help the road. I don't come back no more. Shouting law enforcement at the break the law for pulling and scruples, he for shot and all. Marching bill that they spew the law saying, listen to us. I don't believe your eyes. Gotta shut down PHS right now. It's nothing but a rock mess. Get the road nice. Don't come back. Get the road nice. And don't you come back. Don't you come back. Don't you come back. Don't you come back. Don't you come back. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yep. You're good. You're good. Cathy Garcia, District 2 resident, on behalf of Chainbreaker Collective. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and Council, City staff, and City residents. Earlier this evening, the Governing Body unanimously approved the Hopewell Mann Neighborhood Stabilization Plan on consent agenda. Chainbreaker's over 800 dues-paying members want to underscore the importance of this milestone to the community and to the Council. Hopewell Mann Neighborhood Stabilization Plan lays out actionable steps across the next 10 years for minimizing the harms of gentrification starting in Santa Fe's lowest income neighborhood. This plan is not just the culmination of over a decade of community engagement and organizing. It is the roadmap for future organizing efforts, and it is this body's next major step forward in the fight against the harms of gentrification. After the closure of the College of Santa Fe, the parcel we now call Midtown was purchased by the city, and Chainbreaker members recognized that no matter what happened to the campus, the ripple effects of gentrification were sure to follow. So began Chainbreaker's campaign for development without displacement. This community organizing bore fruit in 2015 when this Governing Body unanimously approved the Residents' Bill of Rights, affirming the city's commitment to affordability, sustainability, equity, stability, and community control. This Governing Body again affirmed these ideals in 2023 when it approved the Midtown plans, further rooting the Residents' Bill of Rights in reality. This plan is the next major step forward in development without displacement. As we have since our founding in 2004, Chainbreaker stands ready to advance anti-displacement policies within the whole city. Together, we can realize the dream of a Santa Fe that houses everyone who considers this place their home. Mara Udvardi. Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. I am here to congratulate you on passing the Hopewell Mann Neighborhood Stabilization Plan. I'm speaking tonight as the lead author of the plan and as someone who worked in the Hopewell Mann neighborhood for six years. During that time, I saw firsthand the pressures of gentrification occurring alongside a profound lack of investment in the things long-time residents and businesses actually needed. Now as Managing Director of the Midtown Arts and Design Alliance, I work with many of the creative nonprofits that have operated within or near Hopewell Mann and similarly need more out of their built environments to serve their missions and their communities. I'm immensely grateful to Chainbreaker Collective for building the groundswell that made the urgent need for a protective plan like this visible and to Carly Venditti and her team at the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency for heeding that call and commissioning this effort. Over the course of this last year, Mass Design Group worked closely with Chainbreaker, who led countless community conversations, the Santa Fe Indigenous Center, and Ideas in Action, who helped ground our recommendations and lessons from cities across the country. I also want to thank the many city departments and advocacy organizations that helped shape an implementation strategy designed to ensure that this plan does not simply sit on a shelf. The plan's framework emerged from clear community demand for stronger policies, better access to an expansion of existing city programs, and targeted capital investments in the neighborhood's public realm and its existing and future residential and commercial buildings. The work ahead over the next ten years is substantial, but it is achievable. The plan creates real mechanisms for accountability, and its success will depend on the city continuing to work across departments rather than treating housing, economic development, and the public realm as separate problems. I'm excited to see Santa Fe model what a truly integrated approach to neighborhood stabilization can look like for the rest of the country. And I hope we remember that passing the plan is not the success we should ultimately measure. Ten years from now, success will be whether the people who call Hopewell Mann home today are still here and whether they have benefited from the investment that comes next. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Alright. So we're here for another round of pandering to the public. Is that what we're here to do tonight? Really? Pander to the public. Any ordinance you pass, any law you think you're going to pass is superseded by federal law. You guys got to understand that. The feds want to come in. They're welcome here. I welcome them. If they need a place to set up their operations, I'll let them set it up on my property, and then they can go out and do their operations. This needs to happen. I'm all about immigration. They want to be here legally? Great. Awesome. Legal immigration is beautiful. You've been here for longer than ten years, and you haven't done it right. Get the fuck out. We're done. You guys are passing and pandering laws to this community that ain't going to do a damn thing. Because when it comes to federal law, it trumps everything. And I'm sick and tired of the pandering. This has got to stop. Take care of the local people. Me grew here forty years plus. Start a business. Lost it because I can't compete with the illegals. You got to figure it out. If you ain't going to take care of your own, then fuck it. We don't need-- Please refrain from the foul language, sir. Please refrain. It happened. So don't speak. Spur. Sir, please refrain from foul language. You want to take my time? That's bullshit. I will speak how I-- Sir, if you keep violating the foul language rule, we will have you removed. There are rules here, sir. There are rules here, sir. If you keep violating, we will have you removed. You are interrupting me. You are taking my time. I don't care about your time because you don't care about mine. Sir, your time has expired. Okay. Thank you, sir. Sir, please. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. The next speaker, please. Next speaker, please. First, first of all, I've been behind that man before, and I want to apologize to this entire governing body and every immigrant in here. I've said it multiple times at multiple meetings. You are the foundation of our community. And without all of you, none of us locals would be able to live. So thank you for your service to our community, and thank you to the governing body for supporting these people. Second, I know that there's going to be, or I have good information that there is going to be some suggested amendments out of a city councilor tonight that cite interference between immigration and police. And before we have the conversation about what we're going to talk about tonight, I would like the governing body to know there are three cases in the Supreme Court that are upstanding and great that state that the municipalities are allowed to make these decisions. And my only opinion on this is that I am fearful that this amendment with this councilor is going to place not only our immigrants in danger by creating a liaison between police and immigration and fed, or I'm sorry, police and federal enforcement. They're going to place law enforcement agencies against each other, and that's never safe. And so I hope that when we are considering this upcoming amendment, you take that into consideration. As a city and a municipality, we're allowed to do what we want. Yes. Federal law always trumps us, but that doesn't mean we have to cooperate. So, so I'll ask that, please, audience, that the rules are we can't have clapping, any form of expression. If you want to support something, wave your hands. If you want to not support something, wave your hands, but we've got to make sure we're maintaining order in the, in the audience. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Eric. I'm a Santa Fe local. I'm an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I want to come up here today to speak on a couple of the issues at hand today. Primarily, I want to focus on supporting the Los Alamos Study Group resolution opposing expanded pit production at LANL. I don't believe that increasing nuclear bombs in the country that has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world is a good idea, especially when so many of our, so much of what our community needs is being ignored. We have some of the worst education in the world. We have extremely high drinking and drug problems in New Mexico. Health care is a huge issue, and we should be focusing on working people's needs rather than building up our nuclear arsenal to cause unknown harm to the rest of the world. And aside from that, I also want to speak on ICE. I think that we should not be having ICE in New Mexico at all. I think that what they're doing to this country is horrible at tearing up communities, some of our pillars of our communities. And what we've seen recently with ICE preying on people outside of the La Familia Medical Center is disgusting. And I just want to make it clear that New Mexicans don't want ICE in the, in the state at all. We don't want to just reduce them. We want them gone entirely. They're not making us safer, and we should be supporting our neighbors and our communities and our immigrants, especially. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Winston, Winston Delaurier. I live over in 87507. I'm also an organizer with the PSL. I'm relatively new to Santa Fe, but I've had family connections here and in New Mexico broadly for a long time. I often don't agree with the city government about a lot of things, but I have to give credit where credit is due. The fact that the, you know, attitude of the anti-immigrant bigots and their blood pressure is where it is is, you know, probably something worth commending the, the city for. So, and certainly, I think a reflection that they know that they're in a very small minority and that their hateful attitudes are rejected by the vast majority of working people and the people here. So thank you for that. I am also very here to support the resolution by the Los Alamos Study Group against more plutonium weapons production at Los Alamos. I, you know, to paraphrase someone who has a, as a communist, I, you know, don't really, I certainly rarely agree with, but, you know, Eisenhower once said, in the final analysis, every bomb and rocket and missile built is stealing food from those who are hungry and are not fed, stealing from those who do not have homes and could be, and could be housed with those resources. I also, you know, second the previous remarks about the need to protect our fellow workers, you know, regardless of their documented status. You know, workers have to look out for each other. That's the only way we'll ever get anywhere. It's the enemies of the working class that want to divide us and that look, and that look to take advantage of more vulnerable workers and exploit them. And one last thing I just want to quickly note. I hope that the council will take action to support the cafeteria workers in Santa Fe Public Schools, who have been dealing with some absurd shenanigans regarding their payroll. So thank you. Next speaker, please. Evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Greg Mello. I'm the director of the Los Alamos Study Group. I live in Albuquerque. We hope you will consider the draft resolution we have put before you. If it's not what you want, let's make it better. We can help. Some members of the governing body have said they have conflicts of interest. Well, we nearly all do to some extent, but we can still take a stand for what we think is right. Our purpose here is not to condemn but to dispel the clouds so that we can see the North Star and find our way home. Communities across the country are fighting to retain their sovereignty against huge corporate forces that would use local resources and talent for purposes that have nothing to do with what the people who live there want and need, especially for their children and for the young adults among them. I have a flyer over there for a protest tomorrow in Ypsilanti, Michigan. It says, "Stop the University of Michigan and Los Alamos Nuclear Data Center. No to nuclear weapons and imperialist war." As well it should. These young adults are justifiably angry. They think their future is being stolen, and they're right. This is happening in Santa Fe right now, and we want you to help stop it. That is your job. Some communities are fighting data centers. For Santa Fe, it's something even worse. A new factory for nuclear weapons where thousands of people are already working around the clock to expand the US arsenal. This violates treaties the City of Santa Fe has said it wants to protect. A nonbinding resolution like this is consequential despite what some of you may think because it points the way. It helps to uphold long-standing community values in the face of erosive outside forces, and it tells Congress you don't want this highly impactful factory. Passing this resolution won't lay anybody off. Those who want to stay at LANL will stay. Those who want to work there still can. Yet about a thousand people each year leave LANL because they find it's not for them. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Councilors. My name is Madison Figueroa. I'm currently a student at the University of New Mexico, and I serve as president of Albuquerque Students for Nuclear Disarmament. I am joined today by several other students. I ask that you please take the time to truly listen to them as they will inherit the decisions that you make. You have the power to put your council's intention on the record. What are your intentions? What hopes do you have for the capital of our state? Is it being closely tied to the institution that serves as the only manufacturer of nuclear weapon cores in the country? Let me remind you, there is no nuclear weapon without the core. I am not standing here today asking you to eradicate nuclear weapons, but I hope you understand that resolutions are important to making progress. Many New Mexicans are busy, and some are struggling. Students are studying and prioritizing the degrees they hope will help make the world a better place. They cannot be here tonight, but that does not mean that people aren't in opposition to nuclear weapons and their production. If the jobs you have to offer us are with this destructive entity, you have failed us. If the only way to obtain a stable future is to work for the labs, you have failed us. And if our capital's position is anything other than against weapons of mass destruction, you have failed us. The councils that came before you agreed that our capital should remain a city of peace. LANL's tentacles are slowly wrapping around this great city, and we beg you to fight back, explore other paths, and be the leaders we know you can be. Your own political ambitions should not drive this decision. Let your passion for this city and the people who live here drive this decision. Please use your position to give us a chance at a better future. Please don't let all of New Mexico be so closely tied to this production. Leave the past in the past and do better for your state. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Council. My name is Ella Katz. I'm a student at UNM and Vice President of Albuquerque Students For Nuclear Disarmament. Since there are so many voices here tonight from our group, I want to give you all a quick list of what I see as the most crucial reasons to adopt the Los Alamos Study Group's resolution against LANL's plutonium pit mission for you as individuals, for your constituents, and for the state as a whole. Number one: As the capital of New Mexico, Santa Fe sets precedents. It is a role model for the rest of our state and our moral heart and center. Where Santa Fe leads, the rest will follow. That means that it is up to you as leaders of this city to use this power to influence the future of New Mexico for all of us. Two: I believe that one of the best things about being New Mexican is that we have a deep sense of community and we want to see our people thrive. But one of the most crucial aspects to a sustainable and thriving community is diversity of opportunity. By standing by while the nuclear weapons industry in New Mexico swells ever larger, Santa Fe dramatically lessens its capacity for sustainable growth. A monoculture of plutonium pits takes with it our people, our innovation, and our resources. Three: The plutonium pit mission at LANL is only going to expand. As of now, LANL is mandated to create 30 new warhead cores per year. But under the Trump administration's new federal directives, by the end of 2028, this number is supposed to double to 60. Is this warmongering really something Santa Fe, the City of Peace, wants to sit by and passively allow without opposition? Four: Remember that there are different types of power. The nuclear weapons industry is powerful, and its economic prowess looms over New Mexico. This is true. But if our leaders sit by too timid or uninterested in fighting these existential threats, what does it mean for the rest of us? Sending a resolution opposing pit production is not the act that will end the nuclear weapons industry, but this is about shaping history, which you here sitting before me have the power to do. I am young, as are many of the people with me today, and I want you to hear us and to see us and to know our eyes are on you as it is our future. Ella, if you wouldn't mind wrapping up your comments, please. Thank you. Yep. Next speaker, please. Hello, Councilors. My name is Ari Rosner Salazar. I am a UNM student, a longtime New Mexican resident, and an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I am here on behalf of the Albuquerque Students for Nuclear Disarmament, and I am asking you to pass this resolution proposed by Los Alamos Study Group. As somebody from Albuquerque, I've always been prideful of my state capital. Santa Fe is known for its extensive history of arts, culture, and peace activism. Councilors, I would love for that to be the extent of my public comment today. However, as many others have stated today, we are also the one state in the world responsible for the production of nuclear pits. The production of nuclear pits directly enables the increase of nuclear weapons. Councilors, you are the one city council in the world responsible to protect our New Mexican community. Councilors, constituents of this city of arts, culture, and peace want their elected representatives to reflect that. As a UNM student, I am constantly thinking about my career and how I can best contribute to society, how I can serve my state and community. The nuclear weapons industry has long shaped New Mexico and its people. Because this is such a large industry, many New Mexicans seeking a collegiate degree are employed by LANL for pit production and for other aspects of this far-reaching, awful industry. Workers producing nuclear pits at LANL face higher rates of cancer and respiratory illnesses due to the radioactive nature of the material. By expanding this industry, the futures of young New Mexicans will be building the nuclear pits of weapons of mass destruction. Councilors, do you want your children to be their own gravediggers? I urge you to be on the right side of history. By passing this resolution, you commit to the young people of this state that their futures will not be defined by the follies of our past. On behalf of my peers, do not let this inhumane industry define the lives of your constituents. Please pass this resolution. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Councilors. My name is Maria Paez. I am a student at the University of New Mexico and speak now representing UNM LEAF, our Leaders for Environmental Action and Foresight. We support the resolution proposed by the Los Alamos Study Group opposing LANL's production of pits. New Mexico is considered a sacrifice zone by the federal government and private corporations. What we would call our Land of Enchantment, to many other parties, is a land of extraction. They define sacrifice zones as that which has been permanently damaged by environmental harm and is now unwanted or unusable. For the vast majority of New Mexicans and small communities, be they rural white communities or those on native reservation land, this is not the truth. New Mexico is thriving. It is a land of progress, forward movement, ancestral homelands, and a powerhouse of art and science both. It can no longer be that if that land is destroyed with continued nuclear development. We can all agree that New Mexico is a unique, special place to all of us. But in the words of Polagon Allen, it is also unique in the extreme in that it was the first place on the earth to be nuked. The waste from the production of pits and the precedent it sets of using or testing nuclear weapons will continue to harm not only our land, which we hold so sacred, but also the health and safety of future generations of New Mexicans and Santa Feans. The waste from this production will also continue to affect those vulnerable communities who may not all be here to speak for themselves today. And if that happens, I hope that at least we will be able to count Santa Fe among those who oppose nuclear native genocide. Please support this resolution to vocalize our opposition as New Mexicans for pit production. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Councilors. I'd like to support the other speakers speaking in favor of the Los Alamos Study Group resolution. I would like to add one brief point to that. I'm no Einstein, but Einstein was Einstein. And I hope everyone here has read the Russell-Einstein Manifesto written in the 1950s. Einstein and many other leading intellectuals of his time wrote about the need to move from nuclear bomb production to abolition or limiting first, obviously, then abolition of nuclear bombs. Please read their manifesto. Einstein, after all, was a really smart guy. And in a nutshell, Einstein and the rest are telling us that if we don't abolish nuclear weapons, they will abolish us. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Councilors. My name is Robert Laney, and I am a resident of the city here. Before I get into my remarks, I wanted to express my appreciation to all of you for the job that you do that we could not do without. We have to have people like you doing what you do. And the fact that you're willing to do this, and I assume nobody's getting wealthy on the salary that the taxpayers are paying you, the fact that you're willing to do this and be on the receiving end of angry and unreasoned remarks from time to time is a credit to yourself that you just don't walk out and quit. So I take my hat off to you for that, first of all. Secondly, what I would like to do is to discuss briefly, to propose and recommend a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons and to suggest that the Council consider a resolution on this subject, which I'm going to weigh. In the 81 years of the nuclear age, United States Congress has never passed a law that would specify the particular circumstances in which nuclear weapons may be used. Rather, Congress has left this decision entirely in the hands of the President to do or not do as he or she may deem appropriate in particular circumstances. This is not a healthy situation for the nation. I believe in the age of Trump, it is high time for Congress to take control of this situation and specify by law the particular circumstances that must exist in order for nuclear weapons to be used. I apologize, sir. Your time has expired. If you can wrap up your comment, please. Speed up. I believe that if Donald Trump has taught this nation anything, it is that no president can be trusted with such open, loose, and unbridled authority on the use of nuclear weapons. I'm sorry, sir, but we do have to have you wrap up. I just want to suggest that you pass a resolution to this effect and send it to the leaders of the Congress, send it to our delegation. Thank you. The next speaker, please. Good evening, Councilors. My name is Nahili Biffa. I'm a student at UNM and an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I'm here on behalf of Albuquerque Students For Disarmament, and it is with great concern and pride for my community that I urge you, Councilors, to pass this resolution proposed by the Los Alamos Study Group to object the expansion of the production of plutonium pits. The increase in activities at LANL raise numerous concerns. And as a longtime resident of New Mexico, I found myself growing up in a state that continuously struggles to meet the needs of its constituents in areas such as healthcare, education, safety, and transportation. And as representatives of the people, it is your duty to legislate in such a way that uplifts, enriches, and is reflective of our communities, and adopting this resolution is an active step in improving the futures for generations to come. While students in our state struggle to receive quality education, we are creating weapons of mass and grotesque destruction in our hometowns. While locals are priced out of their neighborhoods and struggle to scrape resources together for their families, landlords in this city decide to lease only to lab workers and give rent cuts. While our groundwater reaches critically low levels, New Mexicans are faced with a concerning lack of information, transparency, and honesty about the potential for chemical contamination and health issues that come with the nuclear industry. The history of nuclear issues in the state are lengthy and haunting, and our land and locals have time and time again suffered the consequences. I value my future, my community, and I would like to reject this trend, and you, Councilors, directly have the power to take a step in that direction. I urge you to pass this resolution. Thank you. Good evening, Councilors. My name is Bella Sanchez, and I'm a full-time student at the University of New Mexico. I am here on behalf of the Albuquerque Students for Nuclear Disarmament. When he was alive, my grandfather told me stories of growing up in Socorro. He spoke of people he knew who were lost and confused about what the United States was truly doing in regards to the nuclear arms race and in World War II. He talked about people who died from radiation and whose families never knew of the cause, people who felt the earth shake in ways they would never forget. The Trump administration's push to increase pit production from 30 pits per year to 60 and further 100 pits per year will be a repetition in the cycle of our governing bodies using our land to abuse our people. Furthering pit production is a dangerous problem, not only because it will drain our land of the water and resources we so desperately need, but it will do harm to our people too. The National Nuclear Security Administration proposes to increase LANL's pit production budget to $2,500,000,000 by 2027. As a state that ranked 48 for child poverty in 2025, as reported by New Mexico Voices for Children, and last for child literacy in the National Literacy Institute's 2023 study, don't we have more pressing matters to attend to than throwing money into pit production? Who do you think is worth protecting? So I ask you, councilors, do you want to be part of the history that continues to drain, pillage, abuse, and mislead? Is that something that you're proud of? Is that the world you want to leave to your grandchildren? Any decent person can take the time to listen to our plea and consider the real consequences of this problem. Today and every day, I simply ask that you please be decent. Make the decision about our nuclear future not only for yourself, not only for your descendants, not only for the next person who gets to sit in your chair, but for the people sitting outside in the rain, for the people who will never have the ability to be here today, the people whose families' livelihood, safety, and communities will suffer if the Trump administration's plan to increase pit production goes through. Do your part. Be decent. Next speaker, please. Hello. I am Matthew McDonald from Students for Nuclear at Albuquerque. I would like to begin by telling you a story. There's a specter that's high in the South, a specter forgotten by its creators. The victims still bear the scars. Some graves are still... Downwinders remember their children. Pits produce a city of the foothills, the majority being a mayor. Now this is specific. People have suffered as a result of the state of the debt. The current proposed expansion of port development threatens every last one of us. We have some of the oldest communities in America. We cannot abandon them for the same greed that's killed millions. By expanding pipe production, we're betraying every last human on Earth with the inaccurate mission of nuclear dominance. We have the power to stop this. Officials have told us that this expansion will help generate revenue and jobs for New Mexico without telling us the hidden costs. Beneficiaries of this expansion won't be New Mexicans. It will be lab workers from out of state, the Fins officials in the Pentagon, aerospace corporations, the very... and the very people kidnapping the people of the state. I will end this comment by directly addressing the pragmatic and fearful in this council. To the former, do you want to betray the people of the state for the sake of reelection, or will you take a stand and go down the right to say the history and give your legacy? And for those who fear retribution from Washington for voting for this resolution, I hear you. But if you want you and your families to live without fear of harm or persecution, you must fight. Keeping your heads down for common waters will ensure that we will never be safe, never be secure. And for those who stand with us, I thank you. Together, we can prove to this country that New Mexico stands for peace and its people. Next speaker, please. Hello. I hate public speaking, so bear with me. My name is Noreenisa Tushon, and I'm a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico. I'm here today to express my strong support for the resolution objecting to the expansion of nuclear weapons work in the production of plutonium warhead cores or pits at Los Alamos National Laboratory and opposing additional LANL facilities in Santa Fe. Decades ago, this city recognized that our moral identity is fundamentally incompatible with the advancement of weapons of mass destruction. The current trajectory of LANL poses several risks to our region, our environment, and global security, including escalating nuclear risks. The NNSA's mandate to double pit production targets at least 60 pits per year, backed by a staggering 90% budget increase, pushes our region dangerously deeper into the arms race. Environmental and public health threats. Plutonium pit manufacturing is inherently hazardous. It generates large volumes of transuranic and toxic wastes. Local strain. The explosive unchecked growth of LANL has severely impacted our housing. Many years of heavy federal spending on nuclear weapons have not brought equitable prosperity to Northern New Mexico. Instead, they have left a legacy of environmental contamination and heightened nuclear danger. I urge the City Council to adopt this resolution, reaffirm our commitment to peace as a moral obligation to New Mexico and our future generations to come. Thank you for your time. Good evening, Mayor, City Councilors. My name is Roberto Reval. I live here in Oga Pogue. I strongly urge you to support and pass the resolution to oppose pit production at LANL. I also want you to tell US Congress and US administration that New Mexico is not a nuclear sacrifice zone. Los Alamos built the first atomic bomb using uranium mined from indigenous lands, causing many cancers there. The US bombed New Mexico first, the Trinity site. We see the transportation and nuclear waste all over our highways throughout New Mexico. We see the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant being used to store all the nuclear waste around the country. We are not a nuclear sacrifice zone. Please pass this resolution. Tell Congress and the administration we are not a nuclear sacrifice zone. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Sharon Argenbright, and I have lived in Santa Fe County for more than thirty years along the Plutonium Trail. If there is a spill, I live downwind, but I'm not here for me. When was the last time that you took the drive to Los Alamos? Up the winding road, deep curves, no shoulders, two lanes, one up and one down. Cliffs on one side and a rock wall on the other. Not only thousands of employees drive the perilous trek, but we are being asked to ship uranium up the treacherous route by the ton and transport nuclear warheads down a two-lane treacherous road. How do you see this proposition panning out? Please do not enable this ill-conceived disillusionment. This body has already supported the goal of nuclear disarmament in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008. We do need the jobs. Yes. But can you envision clean energy jobs instead? And please send this resolution on to members of New Mexico congressional delegation, the governor, and the secretary of the Department of Energy, and the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which, by the way, are not supporting removing nuclear waste that has been on the plateau since the Cold War, stored in tents. You may have seen the billboards. Carry the barrels. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Marina Lenny. I'm a resident of Santa Fe, and I came out just to voice my support for the Los Alamos Study Group proposal. And, I also wanted to just make a comment about the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It sounds so benign. I mean, I think a lot of people don't realize what is behind that sort of innocent-sounding research institute. They're manufacturing death and destruction, and I'm just totally against it. I want to see the end of nuclear weapons in my lifetime, and I'm here to support anything that will achieve that goal. Thank you. Good evening. I stand before you as a student at the University of New Mexico and co-chair of its Young Democratic Socialists of America chapter. As a resident of New Mexico, I have heard many benefits of plutonium pit production, that it will boost the economy, that it can bring more jobs, and that the money can be used to lift everyone up. And yet the reality seems to be people priced out of their homes, thousands of Los Alamos employees congesting the roads in their daily commute, and apartments and businesses catering to a small group of highly specialized experts to the detriment of people who can never hope to afford their level of training and education. That is not the future I want for my home. I ask the city to adopt the proposed resolution and to be reminded of their duty to the people, the very same people who are suffering because of it. The people who face the potential of illness just from living near Los Alamos, the people who can't afford an apartment because the landlord caters to lab workers, the people who live in a land dying from pollution and radioactive waste. It is these people that form the bedrock of our entire state. Thank you for your time. Are there any other members of the public that would like to provide public comment tonight on anything? This is the opportunity for public comment on anything. Mister Garcia, something I've noticed that every time I've come up here... My name is Eric Fuentes. We've met before. Every time I've come up here, and I've been here six, seven, eight, nine times, all you people are on your cell phones. Are we... Are all of those constituents, even the ones that I'm opposing or for, are we all so unimportant? Is your cell phones the most important thing up here? Ignoring us? Not paying attention? Okay. Next. Mister Garcia, you've got an opportunity in front of you to change your legacy. The obelisk now, all you have to do is follow the law. That's all you have to do. It's not your responsibility. Follow the law. Put it back up. Be done with it. Let the communist, black socialist, just communist. That's all it is. Don't worry about that. Make your career... You want to be the guy who's known as Mister Weber 3.0? You want to be the guy that's known? That's helped Weber pursue this destruction of Santa Fe? Is this something you want to do? You've got the law on your side now. All you have to do is sit back and say, you know what? Let's just get this done. It's over with. Otherwise, you're violating the law. Are you okay with that? Thank you for your time. With this cell phone stuff, I would recommend, really, you guys should pay attention to the constituents. Get off your cell phones. Maybe lock them up somewhere before you come in here because we find it rude. Thank you very much for your time. Danny Katz, I'd like to opine on the obelisk situation. We all know it was taken down unlawfully, not by the will of the people, and I find it confusing to see city governance kowtowing to unlawful activity. I agree that Mayor Garcia, councilors, you have an opportunity to unify a deeply divided city by simply following the rule of law and then enrolling the community, and how can we add to this in such a way that we all feel good about it? I know that most of the people who are vying to remove the obelisk, who are cheering on its destruction, are into this diversity, equity, and inclusion. I don't think destroying statues is inclusive. I don't think taking something away from the majority Hispanic population of this city is inclusive. Surely, there's a way that we can honor the history of the city, honor the Hispanic population, and add to it so that everyone feels included. I know there's been a lot of talk about the money. We know that restoring it in its original plaza locale is our least expensive solution. We can always have Alan Weber chip in since he unilaterally helped the destruction. He was also funding Three Sisters along with School for Advanced Research and Santa Fe Community Foundation. Those organizations are flush enough that they can also chip in to restore the almost destroyed historic landmark and restore rule of law and unity to our beautiful city. Thank you so much. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and city councilors. Thank you for the opportunity. This past Sunday, there was a great article in the newspaper written by Colonel US Army Virgil V. Hill, in which he opined that basically what's going on, and this has to do with the monument, of course, is a show of political activism. Now, where are we getting this political activism from? We come up here openly. We tell you openly that we want the monument, the obelisk, to be put back up as it should, as it always was there, as it was approved by the New Mexico State Legislature way back in the territorial days. But it was significant. They were honoring our soldiers who turned back the Confederate Texans, sent them back to Texas with the remnants of their army, and we not only remained in the Union of the United States but stopped slavery. Now, those things are very important for what became the future of New Mexico and the whole country. In any case, so getting back to one of the points I'm making is where is this political activism coming from? For example, we know that the Native Americans can come and ask the mayor on a government-to-government basis to meet with them. Well, we never know what they met about. Again, we come up here and we tell you what we want. How about these other people that ask you to meet with them, with maybe yourself, the mayor, maybe some of our city councilors? We never know what they talked about. There should be a way to find out what the Native Americans and some of the other people that have come to see you talk about, what they ask you, like we're doing here personally now. So I hope you can pass a resolution and a regulation that Mr. Maestasco, if you could please wrap up with me. Meet privately with somebody that you can tell us what you met about. What was the topic? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next speaker, please. Hello. Hello, Mayor Garcia and members of the City Council. My name is Miriam Loyano. I live in Southside, and I represent Air Care. I am here today alongside residents from several neighborhoods on the South Side of Santa Fe, especially Veralde Valencia, Vista Verde, Tera Real, Riverside, Country Club, and more. At Health Care, we are developing Vecindades, a campaign focused on community, leadership, and organizing, and most important, ensure residents have a voice in the decisions that directly affect their families and communities. Through our house meetings, we have worked with residents from La Cienega to the April Road corridor. We have engaged with more than 20 communities and listened directly to more than 300 families. Residents have talked to us about streets, streetlights, parks, housing, and community spaces. But one thing we have heard more and more is that residents want to participate and want their voices to be taken into consideration. That is why our work doesn't end with listening. We are helping residents organize, identify community leaders and representatives, document their needs, and create channels of communication with the city. Through projects like Photovoice, residents show through their photographs and stories what it's really like to live in their communities. And we believe this has a direct connection to Hopewell's Midtown. We are a community experiencing investment, development, and transformation. We cannot talk only about what will be built. We will have to talk about who gets to participate in shaping the future. Thank you so much, and hopefully, you'll listen to our voices and especially for the campaign. Thank you. Mayor, members of the City Council, Sharon Argenbright, resident of Santa Fe County. For more than a year ago, our citizens put together, created a Santa Fe Rapid Response Network to counter... Sharon, did you already speak tonight? I did, but this is a different subject. No, no. This is still petitions from the floor. So you spoke from petitions from the floor. If you've spoken once during that time, you can only speak once. If there's another agenda item that allows for public comments, you're more than welcome to speak during that particular agenda item. But if you've spoken once during petitions from the floor, you're only allowed one opportunity. We don't... You don't get to speak multiple times on multiple different topics. There's one opportunity to speak from petitions from the floor. I'm a member of the Santa Fe Rapid Response. Understandable. I think you might be wanting to speak to the ordinance that is up for consideration a little later on, and that is... That will be an opportunity for you to speak at that particular agenda item. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak at petitions from the floor? Mayor, councilors, Virgil, I just dropped off a resolution... copies of the original resolutions in 1866, 1867, and then another resolution of 1867, 1868 concerning the Soldiers Monument. That will give you where all this came from, a little history. You now have an opportunity after six years to shine, because what we had now... You now know that the National Cemetery rejected the Soldiers Monument from being placed over there. Remnants of the Soldiers Monument are in the museum. Okay? You also have a study that was completed in December of last year, '25, that gave you all the options that you had. Now it's time for you to take action. Take action. No more putting it down the road. Let somebody else make the decision. It's your decision, and it's going to be your responsibility to do all this. So we are holding you accountable or doing... Well, actually, I shouldn't say we. You've got to be accountable to the court. The court is the one that mandated that you rebuild it. They are the ones that said it. Now there are no more excuses. You've got to follow the law, and that's all we're asking for. Then what? I'm going to ask for two things. I wish you would do two resolutions. One, to build the Soldiers... the obelisk itself, and then another one to build or replace that side that was destroyed. The reason I ask for two is because if you wait for you to decide on the side and what you're going to put on there, it's going to be another six years. So I ask that you do two resolutions, approve the one to build the obelisk now, and go out for an RFP. You have that feasibility study already done, so you know what to do. Thank you very much, and I hope you do the right thing. And finally, finally, show the people that you're able and capable to make difficult decisions. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to provide petitions from the floor? Seeing none, Madam City Clerk, are there any online? Yes, Mayor. There are some attendees with their hands up. We'll start with Stephanie Benonato. Thank you, Stephanie Benonato. I wish I had more time to speak about the obelisks because, again, there is the non-conforming... the statute or the ordinance about non-conforming structures that would prevail over everything that some of these supporters have said. However, I'd like to point out a few things, and that is, we, the pools, I was told by Tom, I'm sorry, I forget his last name right now, it just blanked out, that there was going to be some funding for Salvador Perez that was going to come in front of the council this evening, and I didn't see anything on the agenda. And I'm wondering how it can be a priority when it's taken over six months just to have a proposal and when something will actually happen there. I do appreciate that at least one out of five sidewalks on the 1100 Block of Don Cubero have been replaced, but two of them are being done by the city, as, because the residents want that. So I'm wondering when those will also occur. I'd like to point out to you that your archived meetings are very, very behind. There are no archived meetings posted for the Historic Board for 2025. We are three-quarters of the way through 2026. So finding past meetings to see what happened is impossible. And I'd also like to point out that you have vacancies both on the Ethics Board and on the Historic Design Review Board, both of which have been for some time, and it would be good to have those appointments filled. I went in front of the Ethics Board recently, and David... They found that David Montoya had violated several provisions of the code, the elections code. But I found that they were not following a precedent that is illegal presumptions that if you don't produce a document, then it doesn't support you. They said, and this is for all your information, excuse me, I just want to finish this up, that if you have a private vehicle, but you call it a campaign vehicle and you register it and pay for it and buy tires and fuses and lights, you can write that off as a campaign contribution. State law actually goes totally opposed to that. If you can please wrap it up. Well, I'm just wanting to ask that you look at the ethics campaign ordinance and that you help make it a little more specific, because political expenditure seemingly was something that the board got drowned in. Miss Benonato, if you could please wrap it up. I did. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Greg Corning. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Greg Corning. I'm the president of Veterans for Peace Chapter 55 in Santa Fe, the Joan Duffy Chapter. We call ourselves the Joan Duffy Chapter after a remarkable person who was a veteran, a co-founder of our chapter, and an outstanding advocate for peace. And it happened that during her service as a Navy nurse in Vietnam, she was exposed frequently to Agent Orange. This exposure is without a doubt the cause of the cancer which killed her at far too young an age. Such cancers have been scientifically linked to Agent Orange. Now, here's the point. Authorities during that era told us that Agent Orange posed no danger to humans as it was used in the field in Vietnam. Does this sound familiar? Authorities from Los Alamos National Laboratory, you have heard continually implied and said outright, we needn't worry. No significant dangers are engendered by the lab. So I... We should not have believed the authorities in 1968, and I do not think we should believe them now. The fact that they won't even clean up the toxic mess they have made in the past decades shows that our communities and our health are not on their list of concerns. So we can't expect them to properly manage the new poisons their plutonium manufacturing program is producing. I urge you to support Los Alamos Study Group's resolution and declare that the City of Santa Fe opposes any additional LANL facilities in the city and further that the City of Santa Fe is opposed to the expansion of nuclear weapons work and plutonium warhead core work at LANL. That's it. Mayor, no other hands are raised in the Zoom Room. Thank you. With that being said, we'll go ahead and move on to the next agenda item, please. Next agenda item is item 19. This is final action on legislation. This is a public hearing. 19a is consideration of Bill Number 2026-16, adoption of an ordinance sponsored by Mayor Michael Garcia, Councilor Paul Bustamante, Councilor Alma Castro, Councilor Elizabeth Barrett, and Councilor Pilar Faulkner. A bill prohibiting and regulating the use of city property for immigration enforcement purposes requiring notification of immigration enforcement and I-9 audits. And online, we have Public Works Director Sam Burnett. So this is a public hearing. Mr. Burnett, is there any presentation that you would like to provide for this item? No, Mayor. I have no presentation tonight, but I am here to answer any questions and support the process in any way that I can. Okay. I'll go ahead and offer it up if any of the sponsors of this proposal would like to speak before we go to public comment. Just thank you for all the hard work. Okay. Anybody? Seeing none, let's go ahead and move on the process to opening up the public hearing. Now is the opportunity for any member of the public that would like to speak to this particular item. It's the same process as public comment or petitions from the floor. Each individual will have two minutes to provide their public feedback. And once your two minutes is up, you will hear a chime, and I respectfully ask that you wrap up the comments at that time. Okay. Please, no comments from the audience. Will the first speaker go ahead and speak? In construction, Javier, if you want to wait and let him speak, and then you can do... Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Irvin. I have worked in construction for most of my life. I have contributed to the economy. My wife now has two jobs because I was injured at my previous job. My wife is currently the main provider for her family, and we're a family of six. The recent arrests have us scared because if one of us no longer are able to provide for our children, it will be very difficult for our family. Having safe spaces and time to make decisions about whether we can go to work, knowing that ICE could be present, will help prevent arrest and the separation of hardworking families. I ask you to vote yes on the ordinance. Next speaker, please. My name is Leticia. I'm a member of Somos Un Pueblo Unido and a mother of four children, two of whom are minors. We are a mixed-status family, like many other families who live here. I work in the restaurant industry, and I have lived in Santa Fe for 19 years. I support the ordinance. We are living through difficult times with the fear of even going to the grocery store or the doctor. Many times, my children go shopping instead so that they are the ones out in public because we're afraid that one day, we may not come home. The conversations at my dinner table are about what will happen if their parents are no longer there. We know that immigration authorities are already showing up at home, at some workplaces, and none of the families who are working there were notified that there would be an I-9 audit. Fortunately, no one was taken because they were able to hide. But if they had been warned, they could have avoided the risk of being detained. I ask you to vote yes on the ordinance. Hello. Good evening. I came from Somos Un Pueblo Unido. My name is Celeste, but I come to represent Irene's testimony, and I have her permission to read it. Hello. My name is Irene. I'm a mother of three children and a working woman. I have lived in Santa Fe for 22 years. I am one of the workers at the hotel where an I-9 audit began in May 2026. The workers at this hotel did not know what was happening at this time. Then in August 2026, the agents came back. The workers realized the immigration agents were arriving and entering the office. They were able to alert one another and quickly hide. One of the workers was able to take a photo and document. That is how we found out that former employees who had not worked there for four years had provided information. We are asking you to vote in favor of the ordinance. Thank you. Good evening. My name is David Boss. I live in Barrio. Mayor, if you could bring it up just a little higher. A little higher. Okay. Or, and feel free to put it on the podium arm. That might be better. Yes. I was the tallest guy ever used this thing. But I just wanted to be here tonight to thank you for bringing this forward and encourage you to pass it. You know, Santa Fe being a city that respects everybody's constitutional rights here, not just citizens, everybody's constitutional rights, has been something very important to me and makes me proud of this city. Our efforts started under Police Chief Denko and Chief Bev Lennon during the administration of Larry Delgado. And our policies have served us well, and it's improved public safety in the town. When I was Public Works Director, I can remember car accidents where the driver would just leave the scene because they didn't have a license and they didn't have insurance. Now, because of the work that Somos and the Governor and this city has done, that's not something that happens very much anymore. People have driver's licenses. They're productive members of our community living their lives. And I never thought I'd be in a country where people disappear off the streets as if we were Chile or Argentina in the 1980s. I never ever thought that we'd see that, and now we're seeing it. But states have rights too, and municipalities have rights too. And I want to encourage you to pass this and protect the rights of everyone in this community from this crazy secret police thing that's going on in our country right now. Thank you. All right. This ordinance is a waste of your time. Like I said, you are pandering to these poor people. They don't understand what pandering means. They don't care. They are here for one reason, because they think you're going to do something for them. You're not going to do nothing. This ordinance means nothing to federal agents. If federal agents wanted to come in this door right now, they could come in here and arrest all the illegals. It's that simple. Your laws mean nothing to federal agents. You guys are despicable. You will give our rights as citizens away. Locals, what you guys are doing is considered obstruction of justice because you are helping illegals obstruct justice. You guys want people to follow the laws? Well, follow the laws. Don't think, "Oh, I'm going to come up and I'm going to create this ordinance. I'm going to create this law that supersedes it." It doesn't. ICE will be here. They are coming, and they're going to come strong. And when they laugh in your face, Mayor, I'm going to laugh with them because you are a joke. This is our city, my city, the people's city, not yours, not the council because they don't care about the people. You guys want to pander. Quit pandering. Do not pass this ordinance. It is a waste of time, money, and effort. All you're going to do is put officers in danger because they're going to have to follow this ordinance. You're telling them not to listen to federal agents. Maybe the Feds should stop giving you money because it is the law. Follow the law. Next speaker, please. Mr. Mayor, Councilor, my name is Jonathan Glass. Thank you very much for bringing Bill 2616 forward. I'm here to encourage you all to support this bill so that ICE cannot stage its operations on city property and so that immigrant employees have as much notice as possible about enforcement operations at their places of work. Although the bill will hardly stop ICE in its tracks, it will serve as a crucial act of solidarity between the city and the unjustly targeted residents here. The bill will also align employers with employees by being sure they have the same info about impending immigration enforcement, including I-9 audits. So please vote in favor of Bill 202616 and protect the rights of all the city's residents. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Barbara Schroeder, and I'm a volunteer with the Santa Fe Rapid Response Hotline. And I'm here to urge you to vote for this bill. My very hardworking, honest, tax-paying neighbors deserve your protection from the reign of terror that Trump has unleashed. The illegal abductions, the imprisonments, destruction of families, deportations to strange countries, all because they're brown and poor and may not possess a piece of paper. Please do the just and ethical thing. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, City Councilors, my name is Elaine Sullivan. I'm 83 years of age, and I have learned in this time that many matters are so complex that there's not an easy right and wrong. But I do not feel that way about ICE terrorizing our community. My hope is that you will do everything that you lawfully can do to restrict the activities of ICE agents. They have demonstrated that they are ruthless. They are not held accountable. The federal government has a lot of money and intends to increase by 5,000 agents their ranks, and we have to protect ourselves and our residents. One of the byproducts of this ruthless activity by ICE agents is, I believe, it undermines the public's credibility and trust in our official legal law enforcement officers, and that puts everyone at risk. Please pass this ordinance, and thank you for considering it. Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. My name is Roberto Sanchez. I'm with Somos Un Pueblo Unido. And tonight, I'm going to read some statement that a member of our community, he doesn't feel safe to come to talk. So, sir, I just want to acknowledge that if you read his comment and the two minutes expire, that's the time. So if you want to provide a comment and give it to the City Clerk, we can enter it into the record because I don't want you to miss out on the opportunity if you have a comment on your own behalf. Okay. So I can do that. Okay. So if we can restart the clock, please. I'm a member of Somos Un Pueblo. I'm living here in Santa Fe. And, of course, I support the immigration, and I think everybody has civil rights. And, you guys, please, to support the I-9 ordinance because this helps not just immigrants, but mixed families. They have a citizen in their family. They, who will be supported for something that is forced to work with our, with another proper documentation. So please search your your reasons. Thank you. And if you have a minute 26, if you, minute 26 seconds left, if you want to read that. My name is Alan, and I'm a member of. Recently, at my workplace in the county, we had an I-9 audit, and families lost their jobs. And we didn't understand how serious this I-9 audit was until we came to Somos, and some of the, and says me and my coworkers and become a sick care because we do not know what information that was handed over. And what other information was provided to other immigration agents? Now we, now they have our private information. We asked our employers whether to make the communications they hand in to the ICE, and they, we don't have answers. So it could be any, any information, any sensitive information. I support this I-9 ordinance, so the employers are required to notify us 24 hours in advance. And so with that, we know what information they are going to provide to the I-9 audience. Thank you. Afternoon, everybody. My name is Marcela Gonzalez, and I'm a resident from Santa Fe, New Mexico. And I'm here to support the ordinance that is going to be explained now. So, I'm part of a family that is, like, immigrant. We are from Mexico. And my dad came in 1984 here. He was able to have a status, like, a legal status here, so that's why we came legally to this country. But I also think that we're not all criminals, and we deserve to be treated as humans. And, so my dad was an immigrant, and 26 years later, he came to Santa Fe, New Mexico, and brought arts and crafts from Mexico. So now we are probably contributing to this community. We have two shops, one in Santa Fe, one in Albuquerque with my brother, and I think we're giving a little bit from our country to this also country that has a big opportunity for everybody. So please support this ordinance and just have the rights for everybody that we deserve. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. My name is Edgar. I am a working father and a single dad to three daughters ages 2, 11, and 13. I have been living in Santa Fe for 25 years. I'm here in support of the ordinance. I'm living proof that taking my daughters to the doctor can cause fear, and I may be detained. Our children are living through these times of family separation. Places like La Clinica de la Familia, where I was detained, should be a safe haven for all families who go to the doctor. That day, taking my daughter to get her vaccines turned into a terrifying experience. Men wearing masks and vehicles surrounded us without caring that I was with my daughter. She was frightened, and she watched her father being detained. The emotional impact that these experiences leave on her children is lasting. Places that should be safe havens have instead become sources of constant fear. We should not have to go through what happened to me. I ask you to vote yes on the ordinance. Next speaker, please. And just a general reminder, if you would please silence your phones, that way it doesn't disrupt the speakers. Good afternoon. My name is Lizvette. I have three children, two of whom are 18, and we live in Santa Fe. Today, I'm here asking for your support in favor of the ordinance. I am one of those workers who has not worked at that place for five years. Yet when an I-9 audit was conducted there, they still provided my information. Thanks to a worker who was able to alert us, we are taking precautions to protect my family. It is not easy, but we have to keep moving forward. We are the providers for our children, responsible for all expenses that we have every day as a family of five. Of course, I am afraid that one day I may not make it home and that my children may not receive a kiss from their parents, like so many families who are here today living with fear. If employers give workers 24-hour notice, workers will have time to make decisions instead of continuing to work and potentially being detained at that moment. Vote yes on the ordinance. Good evening, Mayor, City Councilors. My name is Gabriela Ivana Escuzban. I'm a staff attorney at Somos Un Pueblo Unido. Even before the beginning of this year, states and local jurisdictions, including New Mexico, across the country have adopted a range of measures designed to protect their residents and to establish clear limits on the use of state and local resources and the conduct of state and local government officials and staff. These measures have addressed a variety of issues, including restricting the use of state and local property for private immigration detention, limiting or prohibiting local jurisdictions from entering into agreements such as 287G agreements, protecting resident sensitive personal information, establishing safeguards concerning civil immigration enforcement, and protected sensitive locations. These states include Colorado, Delaware, Washington, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and California. New Mexico, and in many respects, Santa Fe, has been part of this broader effort to ensure government policies protect the health, safety, welfare, and privacy of all of its residents. The City of Santa Fe is acting within its scope, its scope of its lawful municipal authority, as the city's memo states that the city is exercising its home rule authority to safeguard the health, welfare, and safety of all of its residents. This ordinance establishes clear parameters for the conduct of the city and its staff. It does not purport to regulate beyond the city's lawful authority; rather, it establishes rules governing the use of municipal resources and the conduct of municipal staff. We therefore encourage the city to continue its long history of protecting the health, safety, welfare, privacy, and dignity of all of its residents. Thank you. Mayor Garcia and City Councilors. Ivan Cornejo here, chair for the Immigration Committee. I had a short speech written. However, I'd rather read a testimonial for a community member that was afraid to show her face today. Good evening. My name is Adriana. I'm a member of Somos Un Pueblo Unido. Recently, I had an experience that no one should ever have to go through. I was detained by ICE. At the time, I was with my daughter-in-law and my one-month-old granddaughter was on oxygen. We were just getting into the car when we were surrounded by four vehicles and agents wearing masks. While I was inside of the car, they asked my daughter-in-law for identification. Everything happened so quickly. They pressured us and threatened us to break the window of the car where I was with a baby. Out of fear, I got out of the car and was detained. We were only going to the doctor. We're trying to protect ourselves by going out as little as possible and only doing what is absolutely necessary. The way we are being detained is just horrible. Please vote yes on the ordinance. I strongly believe that during this term, term of anxiety, fear, and uncertainty, I strongly believe that our community couldn't have a better governing body. So tonight is a night to walk the talk. I strongly believe in you guys, strong, caring leaders. So thank you. Thank you for your support tonight. I apologize. I did not say my name the last time. Naomi Boylan, District 4. I want to, first of all, thank you again. I've said thank you a lot about this resolution. And with our immigrant community and all this rain and working in the construction industry, I've had roofs collapsing every single day and phone calls. So just like our first responders, our immigrants have been responding to all of our homes. So without realizing it, our community is already working together. We just have some people who are attempting to divide us. And as long as we stand together, we will not be divided. I was recently invited to the American Irish Legislative Summit where I got to meet a lot of influential people. And, as a business representative, 25% of the Irish community in the 1800s immigrated to the United States. Some of our most intelligent and profound people were those immigrants that have established policy in the United States. Just because we're American doesn't make us right all the time. We're allowed to get feedback from other countries. And so I'm going to leave you with this as a fifth-generation immigrant who homesteaded land that said they couldn't homestead, and now they own thousands of acres and kept it in the family for hundreds of years. Oscar Wilde said, who is Irish, making a philosophical argument challenging authority will drive social progress. I'm not saying that we should be defying federal law. We all know that I support law enforcement. However, fundamentally, if we make it more complicated and more challenging, they're going to move somewhere else because it's going to be easier somewhere else. And after hearing everyone speak just a few minutes ago, as someone who has very strong opinions about our youth and their mental health in this community, I want you to take into account as you consider this vote, the children who are witnessing this. We are absolutely instilling a traumatic generation, a generation of post-traumatic stress disorder watching these families be ripped away. Thank you. Eric, is the microphone turned on? Is that light green? There we go. There we go. Thank you so much. Alright. My name is Eric. I'm a Santa Fe local. My family's been in Santa Fe for hundreds of years, and I want to say that I support this ordinance. I think that it's very funny that the U.S. government has a huge problem with immigration when a few hundred years ago, this place, Santa Fe, was still part of Mexico. So immigration wasn't a problem when, you know, all the Europeans are coming over here, but I think it's just very hypocritical the way that we're dealing with our immigrants these days because they make our communities stronger. A lot of people who support ICE say that they support them because they're making us safer. How does it make us safer if we have masked agents with guns that are tearing families apart, making people scared to go to the doctor to take care of their own health? If we want to be making people safer, we should be focusing on education, healthcare, and housing for working people. And as a native New Mexican, I just think that ICE has no place in this city, in this state, in this country. And while I support this ordinance, I think more has to be done to ensure that our immigrant communities are safe. Thank you for listening to me today. Go ahead. Winston Deloria, District 3. Already introduced myself. I wasn't planning on speaking twice, but some of what I heard kind of dragged it out of me. I want to make two quick points. We heard earlier a lot of talk about law. I think it's probably obvious to everyone here that wasn't about the law. No one gets that upset about law as an abstraction. You know, we have high-ranking and well-connected people close to the current administration that is carrying out these activities that are themselves, themselves did not immigrate legally, and in fact are open white nationalists. You know, shout out to Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. It's not about immigration status. It's not about documentation. This is an unabashed, now totally open, campaign of terrorism against poor and working people of particular national backgrounds. And the second point I want to make connected to this is that, you know, just to leave aside morality, to leave aside, you know, my own political principles for a second here. You just speak to the narrowest, most selfish self-interest of a legal Anglo middle class, you know, documented person in any place in modern history, whether that was America under Jim Crow, whether that was America during the years of slavery, whether that was, heck, whether that was Nazi Germany. Wherever you give free rein to a group of terrorist thugs, to a paramilitary organization to brutalize people of particular, of a particular background or a particular legal status, that doesn't stay there. You know, there was nowhere it was worse to be a free white poor person in America than in the South in slavery or under Jim Crow. An attack on particular scapegoats within the working class weakens us all and frees the state to further brutalize everyone. Thank you. Well, my name is Elaine Givando, and I worked for the city. I was a school counselor in the public school system here in Santa Fe. I've lived here for 50 years. I'd just like to talk about responsibility. There's something I don't understand. It's like there is an immigration issue in the United States, right? And I believe that the people that are here are here to work. Maybe you agree with me. And there's no focus on the employers, right? They're here because American business people want them here, and they haven't been properly given legal status because, traditionally, American corporations could hire them cheaper and treat them worse. And we have a Congress that needs to look at the immigration issue and work it out that we haven't done. And so I just want to thank you all so much for supporting the immigrants because it's like everybody's talking about the immigrants. This problem is not just about the immigrants. It's just an issue of legislation, so thank you so much. I'm proud of you all. I'm very proud of my city for bringing up this ordinance. Sharon Argenbright, citizen of Santa Fe County for over 30 years. I'm a nurse, retired Air Force. More than a year ago, our citizens put together, created a Santa Fe Rapid Response Network to counter ICE abductions. Reports of ICE sightings are reported to bilingual dispatchers. Dispatchers, confirmers go out and investigate the reports. Thousands of flyers have been distributed far and wide in the community and the surrounding areas. These little flyers have been grabbed up like no other flyer I have ever distributed. People want this, and they like this, and they appreciate it. We have warded off what has occurred in larger and smaller communities across the nation. Immigrants, people of color, citizens, and not citizens live in fear. We are not free. Please block out the places where ICE can enter: public parks, public buildings, our buildings. Please pass this resolution. And I would like to leave some of these flyers for you so you can share them with your neighbors and know how much your neighbors appreciate you for this. May I leave this here, Mayor? You can hand them to the City Clerk. Good evening, Mayor, City Councilors. My name is Jessica Namillagire. I am a constituent of District 1, and I am an immigration attorney with a local nonprofit, Contigo Immigrant Justice. My work is difficult. It has always been difficult, and I am here in full support of passing this ordinance. Every day, I talk to families. I represent families who very honestly ask me, "What is the risk? Am I at risk in Santa Fe?" And I have to answer honestly. The risk is never zero. And in passing this, passing this ordinance, it would only help strengthen the trust, rebuild trust in this community when it is so full of fear and panic at this moment in time. And I would love to be able to tell my clients, the families that I work with, who I sometimes have to deliver devastating news that they are not eligible for anything, that at least in Santa Fe, they are safer, they are less at risk, and this is why passing this ordinance is so incredibly imperative at this moment in time. Thank you. And I've been, I work as a dishwasher, so we provide a lot to this country. We file taxes. We're hard workers. And so it's really sad that we call this place our country too and to have people that are so against immigrants. It's very sad. And I wasn't prepared to speak today, but when I heard him, they really touched me. So I just wanted to say thank you. Good evening. My name is Roberto Rodal. Mayor Garcia, thank you very much for standing up to the threats of President Trump, who wants to sue our city for these policies. As we know, New Mexico, we, this was Mexico. This is Mexico. The US government imposed a border between our countries, and I don't accept the term of immigrants. We are all the same people just because a border doesn't separate immigrants and us. We are all brothers and sisters. I would strongly encourage you to support this ordinance. It follows the spirit of New Mexico House Bill 9, Immigrant Safety Act, that was passed earlier this year in the legislature. And, as I say, we're all one people. We have to support each other, love each other, and please support this ordinance and vote for it. Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience that would like to provide comment? I do not see any in the chamber. Madam City Clerk, are there any online? Yes, Mayor. There are hands raised in the Zoom room. We'll start with Stephanie Benonato. Thank you. Stephanie Benonato. I want to support the comments made by the lawyer from Somos un Pueblo Unido. I think that she's totally right on in terms of the legality of what the City Council is doing. I wish the Council could do more to protect immigrants in this community, perhaps even put out alerts like they did for flooded roads, alerts as to where ICE is on any given day. And I just have to say that, I, we are a community of immigrants. Immigrants are incredibly important to our well-being of the community. They are, as has been said, they are very hard workers. They contribute to the tax base, and they are people who contribute in other ways to the community. And I really don't like it when people refer to immigrants as illegal aliens. There are no such thing. People are people, and they are undocumented. And to me, to have to live in the kind of fear that the immigrant community is experiencing now, just reminds me of Nazi Germany and other places that the Nazis occupied, particularly in terms of being a Jew or being a Romani. Thank you. Okay. Bonnie H? Hi. My name is Bonnie Hughes. I've been a resident of Santa Fe County for 40 years. I'm speaking in support of Bill Number 2026-16. As we've heard from our brave neighbors who've come forward tonight, ICE has caused untold harm to our community and nation by separating families, detaining people, and deporting law-abiding people who contribute to our community and our nation. Please pass this ordinance to protect our immigrant brothers and sisters. Remember, the vast majority of us are immigrants or descended from immigrants. And for your information, Santa Fe County passed a very similar ordinance at the Board of County Commission meeting last night. Thank you very much. Valentin Lucas. Good evening, Councilors and Mayor. My name is Valentine Lucas. I am actually trying to speak on Item 20c. I don't know if this is the appropriate time to give comments. Sorry, Valentine. We are airing Item 19a, which is not the item you're speaking for. So we'll be at that item shortly. Alright. My apologies. I'll put my hand up again at that time. Thank you all. Mayor, there are no other hands raised in the Zoom room. Okay. Thank you. With that being said, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion of the item. I'll now turn to the Governing Body for any questions or comments. Councilor Garcia, then Councilor Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I applaud you all for being here. I think that it's very important to come and support causes that you are obviously very deeply involved in and that affect you day in and day out. It affects everyone, each one of us. I want to, first off, just ask a couple of questions to the City Attorney because, obviously, this is going to be a bill. This is going to be law. And when it passes this Governing Body, it's going to be something that we're going to have to stand behind. And so, I do feel like we should have this separate from the two, whether it be city property and the I-9 status because they seem to be two separate issues. However, if in fact that, we do pass this law, how does that disallow, to some testimony, the federal government or even the state government to overstep that law? Thank you, Councilor Garcia, members of the Governing Body. I think your question is, the question you're asking is, how would this ordinance prevent the federal government from using city property? Yes. I mean, that's what, that's what the ordinance is about. So if the federal government comes in and says, "We're doing an operation and we need a piece of property and we've identified a spot," do they have to ask to use it? This ordinance would prohibit the federal government from using city property, and that's a permissible restriction that the city can impose because the city has the ability to manage its own property just as a private citizen would be able to request a warrant from the federal government if they were to come to a house or a place of business. So I think this is one of the central purposes of this ordinance. The federal government has challenged that type of restriction in at least seven different jurisdictions and has not prevailed because the judiciary has recognized a local government's ability to manage its own property. So right now, there is ongoing litigation with the City of Albuquerque, from whom we've taken a lot of inspiration in this ordinance. And, and so that lawsuit is ongoing, but based off of the other jurisdictions where this issue has been decided, I believe that the City of Albuquerque will prevail. And for similar reasons, I think our ordinance would be defensible. Thank you for that. This does not say that immigration enforcement cannot happen in the city. It's just that they cannot operate off of city-owned property. Correct? That is correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. On the other question that I have in regards to the I-9 information, how does that currently work in regards to notifying an individual when information is sought about them or any specific individual that is employed? Is this just city employees? No. This, this would apply to any business in the City of Santa Fe. So, yeah, the I-9 process, I believe, the federal government has to give a business 72 hours' notice that they're going to do this type of inspection. And so, again, drawing from the example of the City of Albuquerque, this ordinance proposes to, when a business is notified, that then the business would in turn notify its own workers of this type of inspection, but it was 24 hours' notice for the workers. So it doesn't just apply to city employees. It would apply to businesses throughout the City of Santa Fe. Thank you. Is that already permissible by a business or a city to notify their employee once they are notified by INS services or, or the federal government? To my knowledge, the federal, the federal law that requires this notice does not impose any sort of restriction on sharing that information. I think this, the businesses have the right to convey that information to their workers. I think in the absence of this ordinance, some businesses might choose not to. Some might voluntarily choose to do so, and it sounds like there may have been some examples where people were notified in advance. Okay. Thank you. So in other words, we're passing something that is already kind of permissible when we're just taking a stance on that as a city, and that's what this kind of sounds like we're doing. Yes. Okay. Those are my questions about this whole bill. I may have you later if there are the discussion items, but I'll defer to my colleagues. Any other questions? Comments or, either or. Councilor, flip a coin. I just think of this, I'm happy to be able to be one of the sponsors of this bill. I think of this as a community health and safety bill. As a social worker, as somebody who works in the public schools, this is so, so important to me. You should feel safe to go to work. You should feel safe to go to school. You should feel safe to get medical care. It's so horrible and distressing to think that we've even had, you know, kids who are afraid to go to work, students who have not been going to school, people who cannot make a living, you know, for their family. It's hard enough out there already. With this on top of it all, I'm just really glad, you know, that we're able to move this forward because it's an extra layer of stress and trauma. As a mental health professional, folks have talked about trauma that these experiences stay with you, you know, forever, that people are going to need help, support, counseling to have, you know, I think of it as working with children from their perspective to have to experience masked people coming after your family with guns. I cannot imagine what a traumatic experience that must be for family. So that's what I think of first as a mental health professional. And I think somebody else said that, like, this next generation of the, These families that are going to have to work through this and experience this for their lives, we're thinking of you. And that's another reason why we knew we had to be brave and step up and do something. You guys have been brave. You're brave to come here and come speak here tonight. And we had to step up too and be brave because there have been these lawsuits. Cities are getting sued. And the federal government has made it pretty clear that they're going to take action. So I feel proud to be a sponsor of this. I feel proud that we're being brave and taking these steps. And I also want to shout out the immigration committee. I know it's come through them. All the lawyers, I know Allegra Love and many other lawyers for Somos who have stood up and done this very hard, underpaid work. So everybody who just keeps being brave and stepping up and doing the work, I'm proud of all of us. Thanks. Councilor Bustamante, thank you, Mayor. So, like Councilor Barrett, I'm happy to be a co-sponsor on this bill. I can't... Well, first off, thank you everybody who came up to speak. It was very brave of you to be here, to speak up for yourselves and your fellow citizens. But watching this little cutie here actually just reminds me really of one of the necessities why we need this bill, because no child should have to go to school, should have to go to the doctor, should have to go to bed at night wondering if they're not going to see their parents again. So, for that reason and many others, I'm happy to be a co-sponsor of this bill. Thank you. Any other comments? And I believe Councilor Castro did have to depart early, just for the record. Councilor Chavez. I just have comments. I just want to say thank you for having a voice. You community members are examples of how our community should function, in all honesty. The way you come together, the way you advocate, you are an example of how we as a whole community of Santa Fe could be more beautiful and could be stronger together. You are brave. You show up for each other. You are united in a very beautiful way. And so I just want to say, to witness who you are and to be neighbors of you, I am honored. I want to thank the sponsors for bringing this forward, like Councilor Barrett. Having worked in the schools for 20 years, this isn't a new problem. This isn't a new fear. It's a lot more than what it was, but the fact that I have worked with students in Santa Fe and families in Santa Fe, both fearful, but who have also experienced the trauma of this, and just the lasting impact it has. The fact that we do have students that can't take advantage of education and can't take advantage of socialization and can't take advantage of safety of their school because of this is heartbreaking and absolutely not okay. So I want to thank the people that put in the work, our advocates, our immigration community, and our community. You really are the core of this work and the beauty behind our whole community of Santa Fe. So thank you so much just for everything you are, everything you embody. You're people to look up to, and I thank you for that. Mr. Garcia? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have one last, I guess, kind of question just to ponder. This does not stop federal officers from performing their duties as federal agents within the city. Correct? Yes, that is correct. And so, again, by no means, I think that, as a governing body or representatives of the community, who pass laws, advocate for anyone breaking the law. I think that one of the biggest things that I've heard multiple times in the testimony is the fear that's instilled in the community, the fear that's instilled in people, those that are working, those that are here, contributing to our communities. And I do represent a very large number of those individuals in the city because of the South Side that we represent. And so, you know, by no means do I feel like with this, we're advocating for anyone to break the law. But I do feel that we are... that we do have to stand for individuals who are fearful of persecution. And so I think that is the most difficult part of this whole for me. And I'm going to support this because I really do feel that we're not advocating for individuals to break the law, but we are advocating for people to not be fearful of those that have to enforce the laws. Because with immigration law, there has to be enforcement. I really wish that we could get to a space where it can be identified of how to deal with this because it is a very, very big issue, not just here in New Mexico, but it's in every city and state and county in the United States of America. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments? I guess I'll just take a moment to thank our immigration committee. I know they've been hard at work for nearly, shish, almost two years now. And this policy is a result of their hard work. By no means do I want to take credit for this. This is our community work in action. This is our community working to ensure that their government is working to protect the residents of Santa Fe. You know, it's quite unfortunate that, whether it is individuals here locally or an individual at the highest level of office in our country that are taking actions to divide and put fear in our community. And that's not who we are as Santa Feans, and that's why we are standing in solidarity with the residents of Santa Fe. So, I just want to, again, recognize the leadership of, I call him Cherry Vaughn, Chair. I think he was here earlier. Thank you for your leadership, and look forward to working with everybody on these very critical social issues. So with that, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve. Second. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? 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 Chavez? Yes. Councilor Feghali? Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. Five. And we have the next item on the agenda, please. Next item on the agenda is item 20b. This is Appeal Number 2026-12776-APPL of Case Number 2026-12126-HDRB. Sparrow Otero LLC, an adjoining property owner, appeals the Historic District Review Board's 05/26/2026 decision granting a proposal to build a 3,470 square foot addition to a height of 24 feet and granting exceptions for the removal of historic material and to exceed 50% of the historic footprint of a significant structure at 515 Paseo De Peralta in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. And here to present is Assistant City Attorney Frank Ruybalid. Okay. So this is a public hearing. We are... Now is the time for any member of the governing body to disclose any pre-hearing communications regarding the merits of the appeal, and it's the opportunity for a governing body member to recuse themself. Mr. Mayor, I would like to recuse myself from this since these are family members of mine. Okay. Thank you, Councilor. With that, we'll move on to the next portion of it. So I am going to go over the process of this appeal hearing. We will first going to hear from the appellant. Wait. Hold on one second. Mayor, do you have the process chart? Okay. Okay. No. Okay. So we lost our quorum, so we're going to take a quick break. We can't... We can't... I can't research... We can't vote on a break or... But... So we'll take a moment while folks, I would say folks need to take a bio break, just get up, stretch. Now is the time to do so. For the record, we're going to take a quick five-minute break. Okay. So, we will resume our order of business. As I mentioned, I'm going to now go through the order of the hearing. We will start off with the Assistant City Attorney then providing a summary report. Then we will move to the appellant's agent, David Rash, for a statement and sworn testimony. Let me take two steps back. The Assistant City Attorney will have up to... So I'm going to make it equitable for both. It's, one is... Let's do the Assistant City Attorney up to 20 minutes. Then we'll go to the appellant's agent, David Rash, for their opening statement and sworn testimony for up to 20 minutes. Then we will, the appellant will have the ability to ask questions of staff. We'll allow for up to 10 of that. Then the applicant, architects, and property owners will provide an opening and sworn statement for up to 20 minutes. The applicant, if desired, has the ability to ask questions. I'm going to give it the same 10 minutes that the appellant had. And then we will move on to public sworn comment. We will have no more than three minutes per sworn public comment. We will then close the public hearing, move to the governing body for any questions. Well, we won't close the public hearing. We'll have any questions of the governing body. Then we move back to the appellant after the governing body has their questions for any final questions they might have for 10 minutes. Then the applicant, if there is any new evidence has arisen, they have the opportunity to ask questions for their 10 minutes. The Assistant City Attorney then has the ability to respond to the appellant and or applicant for 10 minutes. Appellant will be given the opportunity for a closing statement, five minutes. The applicant, a closing statement for five minutes. Then the Assistant City Attorney, closing statement for five minutes. We will then close the public hearing. At that moment, the governing body will then make any potential motions on how to move forward, and then the governing body will vote on the matter, vote and deliberate on the motion at hand. So with that, let's go ahead and move forward with the Assistant City Attorney for a potential presentation no more than 20 minutes. Thank you, Mayor and Councilors. May I, Madam Clerk, may I show my PowerPoint project on the screen, please? Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. This appeal of a project proposal that was approved by the Historic District Review Board in May involves a distinctive house that was built by a territorial governor in the 1800s. This house is in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. In fact, it's not very far from the City Hall Building there on the northeast part of the district. When you zoom in on that there, what you're looking at is the stretch of Paseo De Peralta between Washington and Otero Streets. And there's a Google Map view of it, and there is the property there right on the North Side of Paseo De Peralta, kind of an oddly configured lot. And you may notice, I'm looking at the Google Map screenshot here, is that this property, this zone is otherwise fairly moderately developed. It's an R-21 zone, but this lot, which is a third of an acre lot, only has one residential unit on it, and it could feasibly have up to six more residential units. It's a lot that some city planners may describe as underutilized. And it is... There's the house there. It's a significant house in the Downtown and East Side Historic District, meaning that it has the highest protected status that can be assigned to a house in the historic district. The house was commissioned by Samuel B. Axtell, who was congressman from California, who got an appointment as a territorial governor back in the 1800s and then later went on to become Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court. And this is... We're going to look at the footprint of the house because that's a pivotal issue here. If you'll take a look there at the area that's highlighted in green, that green area is the historic part of the house. It's on the southernmost part of the lot, whereas it's set back from the street, and the lot is quite steeply sloped. These areas here in red, you might see the word "removed" in there, but they haven't been removed yet. Those are non-contributing parts of the house. They did not deserve the significant status. They were not connected to Governor Axtell, and the Historic District Review Board approved those areas for demolition in a hearing earlier this year, and that is not a question for the Governing Body to decide tonight because that was never appealed. They were deemed to be non-contributing. There are structural problems with a couple of those structures there. Footprint under the Santa Fe City Code is the configuration of the area of ground covered by a structure, including all its parts. Exactly how that's calculated, the Land Use Director or the planner may wish to offer some more detail about that, but the existing historic footprint is 2,776 square feet. There's also an area there that I'm circling in red that is a non-contributing grade wall or retaining wall that is also a structural problem according to study event. And so you can see what the architect's plan for this area here. I'm going to reduce that a little bit, and I'm going to overlay the architect's floor plan there. That's what the architect's floor plan looks like for the historic part of the house, and that's how the addition will expand into the areas where the structures are that will be demolished. The first-floor footprint there, which I've highlighted in blue, is 2,254 feet. If you do the math, a new addition of 2,254 will be 81% of the historic footprint, and it is prohibited by the Santa Fe Historic Code to exceed 50% of the historic footprint on a contributing or a significant building, unless the project applicant and property owners apply for an exception. How the addition connects to the primary facade is important to point out. It's a 17-foot stretch there where that's the only corridor that connects to the significant part of the house. And we're going to take a look at that from the east elevation. So if we walked around to the right side of the house, we would see there on the south is the historic part. There on the north is the proposed addition. I'm highlighting in orange there the corridor that connects the addition to the historic, significant part of the house. I'm going to zoom in on that so we can see a little bit more detail. As you can see, the connecting corridor to the significant main house is four feet below the top of the parapet of the existing historic house, and it's set off 12 feet from the existing historic house, and that meets the objective of the Historic Code of showing a distinction between an addition to a significant or a contributing house because the Historic Code discourages an addition that is indistinguishable from the original house such that a false sense of historic development is created. Here, we're taking a look at the north facade of the historic house there, and that part that's highlighted in red is the part where the non-contributing bedroom addition attaches to the significant part of the house that will be demolished. And there that's highlighted in blue, that's where the addition will attach to the north facade. Under the Santa Fe City Code for a significant house, all of the facades are deemed to be primary facades, and there are restrictions on what can take place with respect to a primary facade. So as you can see, the proposed addition attaches to the historic house primarily at a location where a non-contributing addition attached to it and is now scheduled for demolition. The only part of the addition which will connect to the historic, original house is that purple part there that's highlighted. That's the only part that will be disturbed on the primary facade of that historic house that is not already occupied by that one. So we're going to look at the general design standards for all historic districts, which are found in Santa Fe City Code 14-4.6 subsection E. There is a subsection regarding building addition, size, and location. Building additions are not permitted to primary facades. Building additions have to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any primary facade. Building additions shall not exceed 50% of the square footage of the building's historic footprint nor exceed 50% of the length of the primary facade, but a property owner can apply for exceptions to these rules. And the property owner and the architects did apply for these exceptions, and those were heard by the Historic Board on May 26. The exception criteria is found in subsection B, and there are different exception criteria for height exceptions and for design exceptions. This was solely a design standard exception. The approval criteria, and some of these slides are paraphrased. I've tried to, I've done some language, but some of those are exact. Like, for example, does the exception damage the character of the district? The first criteria. Second criteria, is it required to prevent a hardship to the applicant for an entry to the public welfare? And the third criteria is, well, I put, I highlighted the word "and" there to show you that the project applicant has to fulfill all three of these criteria, not just one, but all three have to be closely demonstrated. C, that it strengthens the unique heterogeneous character of the city by adding a full range of design options to ensure that residents can continue to reside within the court. An objective of the Historic District Code that we try to make the historic districts as livable as possible so that people aren't encouraged to move out of the historic district because their house is not fully functional. And after the Historic Board heard this case, they adopted these findings of fact and conclusions of law. And in upholding, in granting the exceptions for exceeding 50% of the historic footprint, the H Board found that the existing single-family structure, it's the only living unit on this third-acre lot where the density is 21 units per acre. A lot is under you. Over a thousand feet of the structure on this property are non-contributing. The historic residents are structurally unsound, approved for demolition. The addition will replace those, and importantly, a lot of the addition will be between two structures that are going to be demolished, so it will infill an area that I would never saw anyway. The additional living space will allow the owners to age in place, and the second dwelling unit will create another space for tenants consistently with the medium density of the neighborhood. With respect to the exception for being an addition on a primary facade, the additions at the rear of the structure, the H Board found, opposite the street, it replaces non-contributing massings. Most of the original north facade will remain intact. Structural integrity of the existing, some existing structures there and the retaining wall is compromised, unusable to the property owners, and demolition has been approved for those structures, and the replacement by an addition that is not connected to the main house would limit the owner's use of the addition. You can build an addition to a house that's set off in the main house at 10 or 12 feet, and you don't run afoul of the code by not connecting it to the main house, but in which case the owners have to go outside to go to the accessory. We're going to again look at the footprint that I showed you. That's the first-floor footprint. And since height was an issue in this case, that was discretionally allowed by the Historic Board without an exception, and that is something that the appellants filed a complaint about. There is the second floor. You can see the second floor has a considerably smaller footprint than the first floor, but it's not part of the footprint because it doesn't touch the ground. So the second-floor massing is considerably smaller than the first-floor massing. It's 1,220 square feet. Total square feet of living space in the addition is about 3,400, 3,470 something, I think. The height was calculated by this formula. There's the proposed south elevation. You see the historic significant house there in the foreground and the additions in the back. I'll leave it to the architects to show some 3D renderings of this, but this is looking straight on, not necessarily from the street level. You see that the house was measured at 24 feet, and it is measured from the bottom of the facade, the front facade where the facade meets the grade. And there's five feet below the facade where the stairway meets the grade, but the H Board and the planners did not consider that five feet because it does not meet the definition or the height calculation criteria found in the Historic Code. And the height calculation is from the bottom of the facade, which meets the grade, and the stairs actually extend below the facade and are not considered part of the facade. So with respect to height, pitch, scale, massing, floor setbacks, and actually, let me back up a little bit and tell you that the streetscape height limitation of this area is 23 feet. The Historic Board approved 24 feet, and we'll show you how the Historic Board arrived at that. The height measurement met this criteria here found at 14-4.6 F two Roman numeral three A. Height will be the vertical distance measured between the highest part of the structure and the existing grade at the midpoint of the street-facing facade, excluding rooftop fixtures, yard walls, and fences, which were not an issue with this property. There is a standard regarding building additions that reads a maximum height of building additions to significant landmark structures shall be at least six inches lower than a parapet or equivalent brush feature of the existing adjacent connecting facade. And I believe the planners and the architects tried to fulfill this, and that's why I showed you that the connecting corridor to the historic building is four feet lower and set back 12 feet from the significant historic building. That is intended to fulfill the objective of this section of the code. But most importantly, since this structure is on a sloped lot, this is the criteria that applies here. This is what we call expressionary allowance by the Historic Board. The HDRB may increase the allowable height for those buildings and additions located on the sloping site where the difference in the natural grade along the structure's foundation exceeds two feet. This is a far more steeply sloped than that. In no case of the height of the facade exceed four feet above the allowable height of the applicable streetscape. The increase in height should be constructed only in the form of setbacks from the street. The H Board found that this was a sloping size that qualified for the treatment under this particular provision of the code, and they allowed one extra foot, 24-foot deep instead of the 23-foot restriction. And the 24-foot part was set back from the footprint of the addition and set back, by the way, from the north primary facade of the restored structure. So in making your decision tonight, and actually, before I get to the decision tree, I'm going to say that if you decide that the Historic District Review Board made an error in applying that discretionary allowance to a slope spot, Mr. Martinez and I have discussed this, it would have to go back to the H Board to see whether or not the project proposal and project council want to seek them out. And they would have to make their exception pitch to the Historic Board. And then, also, there was a third exception that the Historic Board approved, which was for reconstructing some stairs on the south facade, reconfiguring them according to a historic configuration of the stairs. There was a set of stairs that was removed from there at some unknown time that architects plan to rebuild. The applicants did not feel that that was not part of the appeal potential. So your decision, Governing Body, would be to ask two questions with respect to the exceptions. The applicants conclusively demonstrated all three criteria for exceptions to the historic district standards for building an addition to a primary facade and for prohibiting an addition exceeding 50% of the building's footprint. If you answer all three of those questions, yes, well, let's see. Oh, I should have modified this. If you answer all three of those questions, yes, then you deny the appeal rather than grant the appeal because the applicants have proven those exceptions. If you find that the applicants did not prove those exceptions, any one of them, then the appeal has to be granted because that then does not meet the spirit and the letter of the historic district. So I'm sorry about that mistake if you answer yes to all those in the appeal. Are we supposed to be seeing a presentation? Oh, okay. I'm just sorry. Or cancel. Yeah, I, there are some presentations where I have approved that. And, also, I would like to note the presence of the Land Use Director, Heather Lamboy. Also, the planner who recommended the approval of this project, that's Amanda Romero. And I thank you very much for your attention here today. You have the floor for up to 20 minutes. Mayor, before they begin, would you like me to swear them in? Yes, please. Okay. If you'll both raise your right hand and state your names. 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. It's the, it's the presentation. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and members of the Governing Body. I'm Max Schuler. This is Lily. We live on Otero Street, right next door to 515 Paseo De Peralta. We love Santa Fe. We love our neighborhood, and we appreciate the work that this council does. We are not here to criticize our neighbors or this project. We're here because we believe the project is missing several key steps that city code requires. Tonight, we'll talk you through four issues. Number one, height exception for significant building needed. Per code, additions to significant buildings must be lower than the historic structure. This addition is higher than it. The board never voted on the exception it requires. Number two, overall height exception needed. Measured from grade, as the code requires, the building is 29 feet high, not 24. The board never voted on the streetscape height exception that 29 feet requires. The 50%, this is number three, the 50% rule needs to be reevaluated. The footprint calculation accepted by staff and voted on by the board counted detached and non-contributing structures, and the exception criteria were not reviewed in the May 26 final hearing. Number four, status downgrade needs to be evaluated. Per code definitions, the project has the hallmarks of a contributing building, yet the board made no finding on whether the property preserves its significant status as code requires. At the end, we will recommend you remand this case to the board so that it can complete these four items. We are not asking you to take the board's place. We are asking that these procedural issues be rectified. Our attorney, Charlie Henry, helped us prepare this appeal. He's been called away to care for a sick family member, so I'll present. We also asked David Rasch to review how code was applied here. David has dedicated 40 years to preservation and has lived in Santa Fe since 1992. He worked for the City of Santa Fe's Land Use Department from 2003 to 2018 and managed its historic preservation division for 13 years. David has overseen 1,500 cases before the Historic District's Review Board, and he is certified to teach Santa Fe preservation ordinances through the Santa Fe Association of Realtors. I'll turn it over to David. Thank you. Evening, Mayor Garcia and councilors. Thank you for allowing us to bring this appeal to you tonight. I wanted to start with an introduction to how I'm going to present those four items. The Santa Fe Historic Ordinance is one of the five oldest in the country. It was initially adopted on October 30, 1957. And it started as a very qualitative ordinance. But because it's a mature ordinance, more than 50 years old, it's had revisions over time. And a lot of the revisions have a lot of quantitative things: six-inch lower rule, 10-foot setback rule, 50% footprint rule. These are all very complicated things. And for my time working at the city, it's hard to get everything when you're looking at an application. But now that I've retired from city work, I really have a perspective on the ordinance and Santa Fe's historic districts. And they're very important to Santa Fe. But sometimes the ordinance is just hard to comprehend by staff, by the applicant, by the board. And I think this case really shows that, and I'm hoping to show that to you quickly. So first discussion item is significant building height exception needed. We already looked at this definition with the City Attorney. Any additions to a significant building must be at least six inches lower. Here's an example of the west elevation. In every one of my slides, the addition is colored salmon. The rest of the building is the historic building. So here we're looking at the west, the east elevation of this building. And the red line shows the historic parapet of that significant building. And the addition is eight feet above that. But the blue line shows the addition where it attaches to the north primary elevation of the structure. And in this case, we believe a height exception is required because the addition has to be six inches lower than the adjacent roof feature. Now the problem here is the east elevation has a parapet that's about four feet higher than the sloping roof. It's a shed roof to the north. Same thing with the west elevation. There, it's about four feet higher and where the north elevation shed roof attaches to the addition. So our complaint here is that the addition is not six inches lower than the shed roof on the north elevation. An exception is required. And when I zoom in, you can see that the pink area is the parapet height above the shed roof on the east and west elevation. But that shed roof, which is going to hold solar panels as you can see in this drawing, slopes down to the north where it is four feet 11 inches lower. And that exception that we're stating is the six inches lower is where the north elevation roof is, or in half, four feet 11 inches lower. And looking at this drawing as well, the addition is actually not even six inches lower than the shed roof on that north elevation. So that does need an exception. That attachment is not six inches lower than the shed roof on the north elevation. Question one, is this addition six inches lower than the significant building? Now I go on to item two. Oh, before I get there, conflicting provisions. In the code, it clearly says if there's more restrictive provisions, the most restrictive shall apply. In this case, we believe it is the six inches lower than the shed roof on the north elevation. But in addition, I'll go on to the overall height exception that is needed that was also not heard. We already went through the six-inch one. Now we're looking at overall height. Now the, the problem with this, the, the code and the overall height, many people don't realize our R-1 underlying zoning district allows 24 feet. In the historic districts, the height ordinance is very specific. Every property, every property can have a different maximum allowable height because it's described in the ordinance how that comes forward. First of all, the streetscape has to be defined. And in this case, the PZR, the preliminary zoning worksheet, clearly states this is an owner lot, two street frontages, two sides. So the streetscape is not a linear street along Paseo, it's two street frontages along Paseo and along the, the Loma. Also, once you define that streetscape, you have to define what buildings are going to be averaged to the maximum allowable height. And I highlight here institutional structures are excluded from that height calculation. So first, we describe the applicable streetscape. Then we describe the applicable buildings to be averaged for the maximum allowable height. And this is the height calculation done by staff where they come up with 23 feet as the maximum allowable height. Now I need you to look closely at this drawing because this is not the appropriate height calculation for this property. Where it says Paseo De Peralta 515, there's a star. And if you look very closely, there's a line drawn on Paseo De Peralta, 600 feet to the northwest and 600 feet to the southeast. That is the applicable streetscape for a linear street frontage. Loma is not included in this. And you can see the Scottish Rite Temple is included. So with this height calculation, we get a maximum of a height of 23 feet. If we provide the proper streetscape and the appropriate buildings and average them, we get a maximum height of 17 feet one inch. The incorrect streetscape and buildings were applied to this height calculation. And here in historic districts, we are, the City Attorney already showed you this, existing grade or finished grade, which is very more restrictive, midpoint of the street facing facade. Here again, the salmon is the addition and the yellow is the historic building. Another error occurred here. The height was measured from finished floor. Finished floor is a building permit issue. As we saw in the definition of measurement of height, it's from the grade. It's outside of the building. So that five feet that is from finished floor down to grade has to be included. So we measure the overall height of this project as 29 feet, not what the applicant suggested. So finally, when you look at the overall height exception, if you use the height calculation that was provided to the applicant, 23 feet is the maximum allowable height, plus four for slope. I'm going to talk briefly about slope. If you have a slope up to the north, this intent of the code of adding four feet of slope is if the building steps up the hill, you can get more height. Because clearly, the grade is different. But this project is not stepping up. It's clearly one level as the finished floor. So it doesn't even include the slope to step up with. So either way, if you use the staff provided height calculation plus four feet or the proper corner lot calculation plus four feet, both are less than 29 feet, the proposed. So a height exception is required. Question two, is the proposed building exceeding maximum allowable height? Third question, a 50% rule. We believe it does need to be readdressed. This is one of those restrictions. Building additions shall not exceed 50% of the square footage of the historic footprint. When we look at how this was applied, the significant building has certain square footages and those non-contributing structures were added to the historic footprint. They were approved for demolition. They're non-contributing. If they were to be added to the square footage allowance, those four structures would need an exception to be demolished. No exception was applied for. They were demolished because they're non-contributing. They cannot be added. The maximum allowable square footage of the building, so the historic house is 1,560 square feet. Therefore, the maximum allowable square footage of the addition is 780, and we have over 2,000 square feet in this addition. Clearly, it is not 50% of the historic footprint, and you can see that clearly here. Blue is the historic footprint. The pink or salmon is the proposed addition. It is not 81% of the footprint. It is 145% of the footprint. We believe the math was incorrectly arrived at here. Finally, when we look at the exception criteria for this third point, we already went over what those are. Again, as I worked with applicants, other staff members, these criteria are very difficult to understand and then conclusively demonstrate. But I want to just point to one of them because I have limited time. So for exception criteria number one, "Do not damage the character of the district." The applicant's response to this talked about the building's addition, and staff made a finding that the addition doesn't damage the historic building. That's not the historic district. Then in the findings made by the H Board, they said that it does not damage the character of the district because it's R-21 and it can have much more structure on it. That's a zoning issue. Also, again, not talking about the historic district. We believe the applicant did not address the intent of that criterion. How does this not damage the character of the district? And the applicant's responses and the H Board's responses did not work for meeting this criteria. As mentioned by the City Attorney, all three must be met. We believe at least the first one isn't met at all. Now, also conclusively demonstrated, finding a fact that the board estimate and staff recommend is that they conclusively demonstrated that they met all three criteria. All we see in the record is staff says it met it and it didn't damage the character of the building. And then the other response from the board was it met it, and it's not what R-21 allows. Neither conclusively demonstrated why it does not damage the character of the district. That was not acceptable. Third question: Is the 50% exception approval in need of reevaluation? Now I go to the last point. Status downgrade needs to be evaluated. The historic status of a property with a significant structure shall be retained in preserving. The proposed alteration will cause a property to lose its significant status. The application shall be denied. When we look at the height of additions in the age code, the significant versus contributing have very different restrictive standards. Most restrictive is significant structures at least six inches lower. We've shown you that it is not. Contributing structures can add no more than one additional story. That is what this application proposes: one additional story. So is this a contributing building or a significant building? Last question: Is this two-story addition causing a historic status downgrade? We believe it is. There are some additional considerations for remand that are not really part of our appeal, but since the City Attorney brought up one of them in his memo that says staff must do this, the 10-foot rule. Here's an excellent example. The salmon-colored rectangle is what an approvable addition would be in terms of setback from the east and west elevations and the square footage of half of the historic structure. It is clearly compliant, that rectangle. But if you look closely at the addition, both sides of that pink rectangle have additions. They are within the 10-foot setback. So even though the board did not even see a 10-foot setback exception, we believe one is required. Now finally, looking at the historic districts. They're about 20% of Santa Fe. There are five historic districts. Downtown and Eastside Historic District is the most significant. The oldest buildings are in this district. But when you look at how many structures are in the historic districts, there are 6,721, and 336 of them are significant. So a lot of other structures besides this one have the same restrictive standards of six inches lower than the historic building and 50% of the footprint. I think that's it for now. Okay. Were you going to relinquish the remaining two minutes just so I make sure? Okay. Let's go ahead and move on to... Right now, it is the appellant of desired questions of staff and applicants directed through the presiding officers. And I said ten minutes. That's... This is what... This isn't typically the process we go through. So I'm just going off of what Mr. Ruybalid provided. So we typically then go to the applicant. Correct? Mayor, that's correct. I mean, there's an applicant. This is a unique circumstance in that the appellant is a party other than the applicant, and so the property owners are here to represent the project. Okay. So... But on my procedure, after the appellant and the agent presented, then the procedure that I went through, the appellant has the ability to ask questions of staff and applicants for ten minutes. So it's typically... We go directly to the next body, which is the applicant. And so based off of what I read earlier saying that this was going to be the process, I'm going to have to follow it. So are there any questions from the appellant at this moment? There will be an opportunity to ask any additional questions later on. I just want to... Okay. So then with that being said, let's go to the applicant, DNC Architects and Property Owners, the Feghalis. And this is up to a twenty-minute presentation. And Madam City Clerk, you'll have to swear these for... And all of the presenters and ends as well. Thank you. If you'll please raise your right hand and state your names. 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. If you can make sure the mic is turned on, please. Just to... Oh, yes. There we go. Thank you. Thank you for your time tonight. I'm Rebecca Wood, one of the architects working on this project. I'd like to very briefly walk through the project goals and how we arrived at the proposed design and then address some of the dimensional questions raised in the appeal. Just to recap the timeline of this project, we've been working with staff for over a year and met multiple times with the H Board, including with the subcommittee. And so the design that we arrived upon was very much a result of these conversations, and we appreciate all that back and forth. We start with the historic house at 515 Paseo De Peralta. This photo is from 1915, but I'm sure you recognize it. It's not much changed. It's a prominent historic building downtown, and the owner's love for this house was the driver of the entire project. At its core, this is a preservation project. The client's goal is to renovate the historic house, which is in structural disrepair, and to add an addition that will allow accessibility and aging in place. The proposed upgrades include making all entrances wheelchair accessible, modernizing building systems, and adding an ADU that can serve as a caretaker suite. Recap of the site with Paseo to the south. The design of the addition aims to provide these upgrades and additional space while maintaining the visual dominance of the significant historic house. To achieve this, the addition is partly buried in the sloped site. Oh, some of the graphics are missing. I'll go back to the slide which depicts the sloped and stepped nature of the neighborhood. The house massing also steps with the addition stepping up the hill. The second story exits at grade to the north, so it's actually fully buried. The downstairs is underground along the north facade. As part of our subcommittee back and forth, we studied the characteristics of the neighborhood as part of the response of how this will fit into the district. And this is just part of the analysis identifying the layered retaining walls and fences and the two-story houses stepping up the hill. The proposed design is depicted here, and you can see if my mouse is visible. The slope of the grade and the way that the historic house is elevated above the street is such that the addition is visually concealed behind it. Here's a view straight on. It's essentially invisible. More historic and existing views. And then, again, back here, you see the massing of the addition. The bulk of the addition is separated from the historic house by a 12-foot gap bridged only by a single low connector. This maintains the clarity of new versus old and protects the primary reading of the historic house. It's worth noting, and I think Frank touched on this, that if the bridge were to be removed, the mass of the standalone addition wouldn't require any dimensional exceptions. What triggers these is the fact that it's an addition. I believe something like a six-inch separation would allow it to not be considered an addition. And this isn't about zoning, but R-21 would allow a much larger standalone building on the site. However, a separate building would make accessibility difficult, which is one of the main goals of this project. Working with the H Board subcommittee and with planning staff, we studied several massing options before arriving at the proposed consolidated plan, where instead of having buildings scattered across the site, we consolidated all of the various programmatic elements into one building addition and tucked it behind the historic house. This view from the east shows more clearly the height difference where we have this bridge that's much lower and very distinct. It's set back about eight feet from the corner, which is why you can't see it from the oblique views. And then the higher portion of the addition is set back that 12 feet from the historic house. Next, I'd like to address some of the height and area issues identified in the appeal. The following diagrams will explain our approach, which was based on interpretations from staff and conversations with them over the past year. The dimensional issues in the appeal essentially raised the question of code interpretation, where the appellant interprets differently from staff. Issue number one was that the proposed design is not in compliance with the requirement that the addition be six inches lower than the historic facade. In conversations with staff, the intention of this section of the code was to create a separation between the existing and the new. And we were advised that by lowering this bridge element, from setting it back from the corners and having it visually distinct, that satisfied the requirement and that the four-foot lower height met the six-inch lower requirement. The portion of the taller structure that's set back, because it is set back, is not subject to that height restriction. Issue two concerned the overall height of the addition. This is a question of the base point. Our understanding from discussing with staff was that the height of new construction is measured from its adjacent grade, not from grade elsewhere on the site. And so the grade next to the addition is at its lowest point level with the finished floor inside. At its highest point, it's about 12 feet higher than that, but we're measuring from the lowest point, and that's where we got the 24 feet. I'll flip through quickly some views, and we can return to these if there are questions. Here's the elevation just of the addition, showing the adjacent grade level with the finished floor level and the maximum height topping out at 24 feet from that. View from the east showing some of those same things. I believe this was in the first presentation, a view of the north facade of the historic house showing the light touch of the addition. Finally, the north elevation of the addition showing how it steps up the hill. My section didn't appear, but you can see how the massing is actually engaging with the upper grade, and the downstairs is completely buried. This was on purpose, both to respond to the neighborhood step site, but also to make sure that the new mass was as concealed as possible behind the house. Regarding the area, code says that we need to look at the historic footprint versus the proposed new area. This is the historic existing footprint, and so this was the number that we used as directed by staff. The end calculation was that once the approved for demolition portions were removed, the net new area compared to the historic footprint was 81%, which does exceed the requirement of 50%, but we received an exception for this. I will leave it here and will give up the rest of my time. Thank you. Now is the time for the applicant, if desired. Any questions of staff and the appellant? I think we set up to ten minutes for these ones. So this is the appellant or the applicant if they have any questions of staff or the appellant. If none, I'm not seeing anybody rushing up. Well, this is the question portion, but there was time remaining. So no, this would be a question. Oh, okay. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Go ahead. We, David, it's nice to see you in this room. We've worked with David for many years. David does not... He had a different interpretation of the code. We worked with current city staff. We've worked with them for a year and a half on this project. We've enjoyed it. They're thorough, they're diligent. I think different leadership has a different way of interpreting code, and Chapter 14 has been rewritten recently. I wanted to just make that point, and you want to address that, David. What was the question, just for the record? I guess if I was to frame it as a question, why does David feel as though it's appropriate for him to reinterpret the current code in terms of how current staff is interpreting it? Eric Garcia, Councilors. Our team is not interpreting code. We are reading black and white sentences: six inches lower than the adjacent roof feature, which is the shed roof, 50% of this historic square footage. Those four things were not considered historic. That's why they were approved without exception to be demolished. We are reading factual words. We are not interpreting them at all. Any further questions from the applicant? Okay. Hearing none, we will now move towards comments from the public. Are there any members of the public that would like to provide any comment on this? I do not see anybody in chamber. How about online, Madam City Clerk? Mayor, one hand is raised in the Zoom room. Stephanie Benonato. Miss Benonato, I need to swear you in. Okay. Please 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 agree with David Rasch that he is not interpreting the code. He is reading the code. For example, it says the addition has to be six inches lower than the... higher than the roofline or the parapet even. Again, it's not the connection, it's the whole addition. Clearly, the addition is well over six... it's not below the existing historic structure. I also want to point out, and I did give you a written comment here, but the creation of the subcommittee to help redesign this building was arbitrary, capricious, and not in keeping with the code. This is not a process that is normally followed by the H Board. It was suggested by Ms. Lamboy, and I've never heard any staff member suggest it before, nor have I ever heard such a subcommittee being used for a single residential structure. The code says it's up to the applicant to come up with their own design. I think it creates a conflict of interest because you have some board members saying, "Oh, this is great," and you are pressuring the other part of the board to say yes. Again, we talked about the six inches, and I believe that again they erred in how they measured it. It is from finished grade, and I believe it is from the existing house's finished grade, not the finished grade of the addition. As far as I can tell, the four-foot discretionary height for slope, the board normally gives that one. It's sloping away from the house so that the addition is... the second story reads like a first story, and you can't see the second story because it's set down. In this case, straight on you might not be able to see that addition, but from either side, you can clearly see the addition. It definitely exceeds the 50% rule, and you don't count those structures that are being knocked down. You count the 1,580 square foot significant building. I have to say that in, and I said October, but it was April 2025, the board denied the application because they did not meet the criteria for getting an exception to the 50% rule. In particular, they had not shown hardship. I agree with Mr. Rasch's characterization about not damaging the district. Whether you can add on more to a certain lot is not about damaging the district. If you look at this lot, the slope and the setback of the existing building makes it virtually impossible to add on much more than what they are adding on now. There was no conclusive proof of hardship or injury to the public. Aging in place is not a hardship. It is a universal human condition, and you can't conclusively prove that you're going to age in place. You could die tomorrow. You can't conclusively prove that you're going to hire a caregiver because you're not... Miss Benannatto, if you can please wrap up your comment. Okay. I just want to also say that it's not making it more livable because they have said that the front house is not private enough to live in and that they want to use that 1,580 square feet to entertain guests. If you look at the floor plan, it's two living rooms, a dining room, a study, and a room that is... Miss Benonato, please, please wrap up your comments. I'm trying to. It is not... you've been going on for a minute. So I think you said three minutes. So I... I'm sorry, but I thought I can't hear... I don't see a clock. I can't hear a beep. So if I could just finish my sentence. Sure. Absolutely. It... it is not... They're not living in the front house according to what they testified to in May. Over and over, they said that that was going to be for entertaining guests and that they were going to live in the addition. So I think there's a disconnect between what they're saying tonight. Okay. Thank you, Miss Benonato. I afforded you time to wrap up the sentence. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Are there any other public comment online, please? There are no other attendees in this room who have their hand up. Okay. We will then move on to the Governing Body for any questions of staff, any of the party's witnesses, and the public. So everybody? Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have some questions for Attorney Ruybalid. Can you, in your observation of the explanation of the height exception, tell us how that was looked at in regards to the six inches lower? The appellant is saying it's six inches from the contributing building or the significant building, right? But they're utilizing the height of the shed. Is that what I heard? Well, Mayor Garcia and Councilor Garcia, what I saw, the diagram that the appellant was showing was that the place where the addition meets the historic north facade is six inches lower than the sloped roof. There's a sloped roof within a set of parapets that has solar collectors on it. The applicable revision of the code that the appellants are resting on specifically reads, "Maximum height of building additions to significant landmark structures, they'll be at least six inches lower than the parapet or equivalent roof feature of the existing adjacent connecting facade." So that... And you see in many, many houses in the historic districts, Mayor and Councilor, there's a parapet and there's a sloped roof or sometimes there's even a curb roof or a roof with a ridge, a ridge roof inside the parapet that nobody receives. What this provision of the code reads is that that measurement is taken from the parapet, not from the sloped roof inside the parapet. It is pretty clear that the runway or the corridor that meets the existing historic house is four feet below the parapet on the historic significant house. Okay. So in other words, was that taken into consideration by the board? Well, they went based upon the roof, not the parapet. Well, I don't know that the H Board considered that because on a sloped lot... And it doesn't read sloping away from the street or sloping up from the street. It says, "A sloping site where the difference in the natural grade along the structure's foundation exceeds two feet, the HDRB may increase the allowable height for proposed buildings and additions, no more than four feet above the allowable height." In this case here, one foot above the allowable height. I think the H Board considered this provision regarding sloping lots to be the controlling provision. In regards to the 50% rule and the 81%, was that something also... What was the justification for that? Well, there's... I'd have to look, but I don't think there's actually a definition in the code of historic footprint. But interestingly enough, there is a definition of historic structure. Nothing in this footprint calculation indicates that you only count the part of a structure that is specially protected by contributing or significant. Sometimes there are non-historic additions to a significant or contributing structure. But in this case here, all the additions were historic. They weren't significant or contributing. They were all in place on this structure prior to, I think, the mid-1950s. So everything, the shed, the additional garage, the two bedroom additions are all historic structures under the code and count as part of the historic footprint. Nothing excludes... limits historic footprint to the contributing or significant part of the structure of the model. It's attached. Does that have any... What does that mean? What does that... How does that contribute to this rule? Well, I mean, obviously, it's an attached, it's not an accessory. I heard accessory dwelling unit at some point, but it's not an accessory dwelling unit. It's an addition because it's attached to the main structure. Mhm. That that has no significance in the ruling of 50% rule. There are... there were detached structures as well. You know, like the shed. The shed isn't connected to either the significant original structure or the non-contributing historic additions. It was a freestanding. Like, that shed may have been in place before even the bedroom additions, but it counts as part of the footprint because I have the definition of footprint. And then the definition, does it show the calculation? No. I put that footprint in my PowerPoint project. That is the definition of footprint that I put here: "The configuration of the area of ground covered by a structure including all its parts." So, apparently, you know, disconnected or freestanding structures are considered part of the historic footprint if the freestanding structures are historic. And then the last thing that I have is the setback issue. The two sides are not within the allowable setback parameters. Is that correct? Well, and I, there is in the packets that I submitted. Let's see if that comes up on the screen. There's part of every historic board packet, something called a preliminary zoning review, and that is this right here. You can see it up on the screen there. Preliminary zoning review is by somebody outside of the historic. Right there in the middle, you see the grid above the yellow line. You see overlay districts, escarpment, floodplain, other proposed setbacks: front, 27 feet; rear, five and three and a half inches; left side, 10 feet, four inches; right side, eight feet. Required setbacks: front, seven feet; rear, five feet; left side, five feet 10 inches; right side, seven feet. All of the setbacks are within what the preliminary zoning reviewer told them. That's what the setbacks are. When as presented, it's within those parameters. It is. They are. Yes. Okay. I'll cede the floor to my colleagues. And just for the record, that preliminary zoning review was page 50 in the what that looks like. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Bustamante. Thank you, Mayor. I'm not sure if this would be for the City Attorney or for Director Lamboy. Should this have to go back to the H Board, for example, for a height exception? At that point, there are an additional six criteria to be met. Is that correct? Mayor Garcia, Councilor Bustamante, there are two sets of exceptions. One is relative to height, and those are six criteria. The other one set is relative to design, and those are three criteria. And that's the one that we're talking about here in the 50% rule, the three. That would be criteria. That's design. Okay. So there's a lot of talk about quantitative, right? Six inches here, four feet here. Yet all of the exceptions from my reading here and looking at tight exceptions in our other discussions seem very qualitative. For example, "does not damage the character of the district." Well, who decides that? Do we have a definition of what character is in our code? Is that clearly defined, or is that a qualitative issue? Mayor, Councilor Bustamante, that is a qualitative issue, but judged by the H Board on the basis that the opinion of the board was that the structure status would not be damaged by the proposed addition, and that being part of the district is also applicable. So in this particular case, it was the H Board's opinion that all three exception criteria were met. Yes. They made a finding. Okay. Thank you, Director. Thank you, Mayor. Any other questions? I've got a couple. I just want to make sure I nail down this whole 50% rule. In the map shown by the applicant, and it would look similar to some of the maps we've seen. Can the applicant pull up their map? Their end of presentation, please. Which map are you? It was towards the end of the presentation that was showing the square footage. And I think on the map you shared with us, there was showing the square footage of 2,776 feet. So this is this is the existing footprint? Okay. But there was a map. I remember you saying this is what staff... Is that the is that the map there? Yes. So this is this is the diagram of the existing footprint, including all existing historic structures. Perfect. And so with that, thank you for sharing that because I'm going to cross-reference it with the map shown in the appellant's presentation where it shows one, two, three, four structures that they're saying they're non-contributing. And two of these are detached, which I have some concern over just because, again, reading what it says in regards to the 50% rule, which is, you know, section 14-4-6 subsection E2C, it reads, "Building additions shall not exceed 50% of the square footage of the building's historic footprint." The building's historic footprint is the keyword here. Now I don't think, just by reading this, these detached locations would be existing footprint because they're not even within the footprint, so we can scratch that immediately. Then you get to these other two locations that are existing additions, but so they're not existing historic footprint from my understanding. Correct? The historic footprint does not include these additions. It should not. Mayor Garcia, the additions which were historic were considered all part of the overall significant status when this building was designated. The board made an exception to allow them to remove those additions, and so they're all historic fabric and considered part of the existing historic footprint. To the site or to the building? To the building. So an exist... And I can't go back to other cases, but let me, can you help me understand why a non-attached building would be allowed to be part of a footprint of one building? Mayor Garcia, with reference to the code that Mr. Ruybalid, the definition of footprint and its parts is included in that, and that shed structure was historic. And in fact, in the historic analysis, it may actually predate the additions themselves, but it'd be concurrent with this construction of the original house. Okay. So something that was even potentially older than the existing footprint, H Board is saying, go ahead and demo it. Or that... Was that... That to me is quite concerning in itself, that H Board would not take that into consideration. Mayor Garcia, I believe there was some discussion about it, but the Historic District's Review Board found that it was appropriate to demolish that structure. And so was that part of the facts and findings that they considered that? Mayor, I would have to go back and look at the minutes and the findings themselves. Because I'm trying to... I I skimmed through the facts and findings, and I think what I'm what I'm having some pause for concern here is the... There's not really justification in regards to why there are variances issued. Just saying, sure, we'll issue the variance. Well, in these instances, it's the responsibility of the applicants to provide the evidence why a waiver should be produced. It's not the opposite side of the law where it's like, it's, well, it's granted. Prove to us why it's not granted. It is should be crystal clear why a variance was granted. And even in the facts and finding, it's... There's very little information to justify a variance. So, I mean, this is where I think I'm in favor of sending this back to H Board just because they didn't send us enough information. They're they're just saying, we approved these variances. We're good. Mayor... Now in the instance that there's being appealed, we have to be able to justify why they did what they did, right? Because they're not here in front of us. Sorry, Director Lamboy. Go ahead. Oh, thank you, Mayor. So there were three cases, and there's only one case that has been appealed, and that is for the construction of the new addition. But there was originally a case to consider the historic status of the structure, and the board found that it needed to be designated as significant. There was a case for demolition of the ex... So once the status was established, the applicant made a request for demolition. And it was with that case where those findings were made or the demolition of the additions in that shed structure. And then this is the case that deals with the new construction. And so those findings would actually be housed in a separate case, which I can send you the findings from that particular case. That, I think it should should always follow the record, especially since this is... In the instance... I mean... And and I'm just looking at it from the holistic perspective. What happens when somebody doesn't want to develop something that requires any variances? They're just asking for demo of these structures. Because the process is asking for not only demo of structures but also building of structures that require variances, we that should follow along and be part of the approval processes by H Board that it... This... Because it's like you're building a ball and it gets bigger as it goes. And I don't see that that was a... At least the record is not showing me that H Board considered that and validated that through their facts and findings. If if it was there, I'd be... I think this is where I'm paused for concern. I think they need to provide us with more info. I'm just seeing a lack of info from them, from from H Board to be able to confirm that they have... That that their decision-making process as to why they felt it should be approved, the variance should be approved. That helps me get to a conclusion. Well, they thought X, Y, and Z, so this is how they got there. Well, I don't know how they thought X, Y, and Z, so I have no idea how they got there. They're just saying we gave the variance. And this is... I use this 50% as an example because you need to truly justify and understand, you know, if you're going to build bigger than the footprint allowed, how did H Board allow for that? We we... I think we've confirmed that they've allowed for the demo of historic facilities, but I'm not understanding how they allowed for a variance for a bigger facility to be built in the existing footprint. Even if it was the 81%, right? Because that still is above the 50% allowable. So I think that is my concern. So that... No other questions. Thank you, Director. Councilor Chavez. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. And Director Lamboy, I might need you. I want to make sure I understand this, and I think this is where I get confused. So there are three different cases. The status of the building historic, right, and all of the features, including the non-contributing features or were what were determined as non-contributing and allowed for demolition in the second case. Correct? However... But then in the third case, those buildings count towards the footprint exception. Mayor, Councilor Chavez, the the the historic status included all the historic fabric, the significant status. So then the demolition request came, and the board acted to allow for all of the additions to be demolished. And then the third is based on the historic footprint. And so the historic... The... All these structures are historic. And so the analysis was based on the historic footprint of the structure as it was designated as a significant structure. Okay. I think it's hard to follow, but, you know, I think this is some of the concern we've talked about with HDRB, right? It's very confusing when there's quantitative data and and the code's not followed, but then we've seen many cases where cases have been denied. And we're not supposed to bring that up. Sorry. But, based on qualitative data. So it's just... It's very interesting to me. That whole sequence of cases is also confusing in the approval process and what has been approved in what way. It's very inconsistent, and hard to follow. I agree with Mayor Garcia. I too don't think that there's enough information in front of us for us... Like, for me to make a decision because a lot of it just doesn't make sense. It it just doesn't. I feel like it's all over the place even going back, like I said, from the sequence of cases and how they were approved. But I, again, I think that we often kind of see this pattern with HGRB, which is just a larger issue. So I do think that it would probably be best that this case goes back, with maybe more clear information from HGRB as to why exceptions are being made. So that would be my recommendation. Thank you. Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, again, in the historic district standards, it says on item C, "Building building additions shall not exceed 50% of the square footage of the building's historic footprint nor 50..." nor exceed 50% of the historic length of the primary facade. And so, I mean, that was taken back to the question. All of the buildings previous to the demolition were taken into consideration as the footprint. Mayor, Councilor Garcia, that is correct. So then the current proposal from their findings did not exceed the 50%, or it did exceed the 50% and they made an exception? Mayor, Councilor Garcia, they, there was an exception granted because it did exceed 50%. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I, this, again, the whole protocol around Historic District Review Board is definitely very involved, and there's a lot there to be done. And I, I mean, I'm citing, going on the side of my other colleagues here, remanding back. I'm headed. Thank you. Any other questions from governing body members? Sure. Now is your time, Councilor. It's not a question. Again, it's just a comment about the whole process. People who have been architects and lawyers who have been doing this for many years and used to work for the city are talking about how opaque and subjective it is. I don't, from our perspective, it's difficult too because people, there's so much confusion amongst the people who have been working in this field for a long time. But it's, I know we're working on some potential legislation right now for more clarity because it's very confusing. So I just want to put that out there too. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor. Any other questions? If not, we will then move to, and there could be an opportunity. We can always go back. We have not closed the public hearing yet. Now it's time for the appellant. If any new evidence has arisen, you have ten minutes to ask any additional questions to staff, any of the applicant's witnesses. Okay. Now we will move on to the applicant. If any new evidence has arisen during the questioning, it's your opportunity to ask any additional questions of staff or the appellant's witnesses. Ten minutes. This is for the applicant. Sure. Let's just make sure the mic is on. Good. I wanted to just point out something as we discuss this issue of square footage. If we didn't have this connector that's set back, that is set back from the primary facade, and we, as described by us, is four feet lower than the parapet. Let me see if you can see my cursor right there. If, I just want to make sure we're answering. This is a question portion because there will be a closing statement from you. So, I was trying to actually address some questions that you had raised, that this governing board had raised. Sure. Uh-huh. So I'm trying to, and I'm using this as an opportunity to answer some questions. If this, this addition did, this connector didn't exist, this entire addition would be completely legal. What's really at issue right here is the nature of this addition piece. Right? And we feel as though we've gone through a very long process. I'll make comments at the end, but we feel as though this, the ruling that the board made with the land use office was appropriate and correct to this, what we're doing here. Related to comments that have been made, related to the historic nature and degradation of the neighborhood by this, our client is going to tremendous lengths to preserve a historic building on the site. I mean, it's extraordinary that they're even doing this to the extent that they're doing it. And so this entire project is designed to provide them with the amenity they need without damaging that old historic building. Okay. Let's go and move on to this Assistant City Attorney for any responses to the appellant and or applicant submitted evidence. You've got ten minutes for that. Some of the questions that you have raised, the Mayor and Councilors, I would ask you to consider that when we submitted the combined packet to the board, I know there's 185 pages in there, and I'm certainly not going to fault you. I'm not, you know, reading every single one of those in detail, but you may see that there are findings of fact and conclusions of law that the Historic District Review Board adopted after it made its decision. And those findings of fact and conclusions of law start on page, start on page nine. And I would like to turn first to, and if those are appearing up there on the screen, I am going to show you, there's a paragraph there that reads, "Two cases on this property were presented to the board in 2025." So these cases were submitted a year ago and over a year ago, almost a year ago, over a year ago. In August 2025, the board voted to retain the significant status of the main resident, excluding the Northwest addition, et cetera, et cetera. The appeal deadline for that, an aggrieved property owner could have filed an appeal on that, and the appeal deadline for that lapsed in October. October 2025, and case number 202511354, the board voted to approve the demolition of the two non-contributing additions, two non-contributing detached structures, small yard wall, retaining wall, and some other architectural elements. The appeal deadline for that lapsed in December, and nobody appealed it. There is a reason we did not submit those packets to you is because under the code, you don't have the authority to consider or to reconsider a land use board decision if the aggrieved parties haven't submitted an appeal. I submit to you that you're not at liberty to overturn either the significant status designation or the demolition. But just to put your mind at ease, you're wondering, and I think that's a legitimate question, why did the governing body agree that the property owners could demolish such an ancient structure like the shed? And also in the packet that was submitted to you, there is a report from, and I'm putting that up on the screen, Lukini Trujillo's structural engineers. These structural engineers, in anticipation of the fact that these property owners would present to the Historic District Review Board a demolition application, went and took a look at these structures and specifically wrote that the garage structure and the shed structure have substandard engineering or substandard construction, and they are shifting, and they are deteriorating, and they are structurally unsafe. Now when the H Board considers a demolition application as it did in 2025, there's a reason the H Board considers demolition and only demolition, and there's a reason why the H Board considers status review and only status review. And it is because many people come to the H Board, and they say, "I want to demolish these structures and build something else. And here's what I want to build. I have these plans to do this." Or, "I would like you to designate my building non-contributing because I want to add this and this and look how great it's going to look." The H Board used to be motivated by that, and you know what happens? A new addition never gets built. So the H Board hears all these pledges and anticipations and promises from people. And for whatever reason, maybe their life plan changes, maybe they run out of money, maybe they decide to move away, maybe they find it just more, you know, more cost-effective to sell the house and let somebody else take care of those additions. Having an addition built to your house is a headache, and some people may decide it's just not worth the headache. So the H Board considers each of those cases individually, not influenced by any other case. And in the demolition case, they consider this report from these structural engineers, which is found at page 125 of your packet, that some of those structures are, that they're about to fall down. They're structurally unsafe. I would also point out to you that in the Historic District Review Board's findings back in the conclusion of law, again, I'm going back to page nine of the packet. You will see that the, that the H Board took three different votes on the exceptions. You can see that there are findings of fact, and then the first exception is for an addition on a primary facade, and that's found on page 11. And the H Board spells out its responses to each of those three criteria specifically for addition on a primary facade. But the exception criteria for an addition on a primary facade and for an addition exceeding 50% of a historic footprint may be different. So the H Board breaks out the criteria for the addition exceeding 50% of the historic footprint, and that's on page 12. And that, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law, that's page four of the findings of fact and conclusions of law that are uploaded to your packet. Now, also, there was an exception sought for removal of historic material on the south facade, but that's not on appeal. So we didn't make an issue of that. The appellants didn't make an issue with that, but the historic board set out specific exception criteria for that third exception for removal of historic material and alteration of architectural features on the south side. And then after all that, you'll see section 23, which is page 14, which carries over to page 15. The H Board specifically wrote, "The height of the proposed addition will be 24 feet, which exceeds by one foot the maximum allowable height, but it's freescape, which is 23 feet. The board finds that this is a sloping site with a difference in the natural grade along the structure's foundation exceeds two feet. Per SFCC section 14-4.6f22f, the board grants a one-foot increase in the allowable height of the addition, finds that the increase in height would be constructed in the form of a building setback from the street, which is specifically one of the requirements for that discretionary allowance, which does not need a height exception." And that is a discretionary allowance, the H Board, and grant on a sloped, on a sloped lot. So, that is, those are some of the things that I have to consider. And also, so you also see that the H Board, and I'm going back to section, addition on a, let's see. Going back to page one of the findings of fact of the conclusions of law, which is page nine of your packet, where they voted to retain the significant status of the main residence that was in August 2025, there are a number of things that the H Board considers. For example, is the original historic or significant footprint of the house in its original configuration? This house has been added on to, no doubt, but the original structure that was commissioned by Governor Axtell remains. That still has, no part of it has been removed. We encounter this all the time in historic preservation. Go out to a historic house or if it's been demolished. Oh, did you, did you get a, did you get a demolition application? Did you get an approval for that? Oh, no. They told us we didn't need that. So we find out that historic footprints, part of the footprint disappears. That has never happened at this house. This house has the original footprint that Governor Axtell commissioned back in the 1800s. Does the house have the original roofline? That's the sort of question they ask. Does it have the original window openings? For example, the windows might have been changed, but if the new windows went into the existing openings, that is something that the H Board considers as part of the historic integrity of the house and one of the reasons this house is still considered significant. And, and I, and I, and I'll stop there. But the idea is that there are very specific things that the H Board looks at, and I can answer questions all night about this, just exactly how the H Board makes it. For example, the portal of this house has never been enclosed. Many people like to close the portal. That's never been done on this. So, again, the H-Board goes into a lot of detail in making these decisions and makes the decisions one at a time because at any time, the applicant may decide this isn't worth it. Now we got the approval to demolish all these, but it might be worth keeping this site, right? And I want to let you know that all of the sections of this house that the H-Board approved for demolition are still there. They haven't been demolished yet, so they're still part of the historic footprint. All of those additions are more than 50 years old. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Thank you for pointing out some of this information, Assistant City Attorney. It does raise additional questions from my end because I'm looking at the notice of appeal submitted. This is for my colleagues. If you're looking at the revised combined files, that is, the 185-page document, this is page 7 of 185. On here, it lists three exceptions, just to pick, exception required, etc. And then following that is the findings in fact. That being said, there were three. It says that the board grants all three exceptions requested. So how many exceptions were requested? Three. And the applicant or the appellant confirms that? Three. Okay. So with that being said, and this is just out of curiosity, why were the facts and findings signed on September 22? Well, Your Honor, we, let's just say we've had a great backlog. We've had a backlog of minutes for a long time. We didn't have any minutes because we didn't have a stenographer. So in order to draft findings of fact and conclusions of law, we have to go back and find the YouTube, and we have to do a transcript from, say, the YouTube relay. And there were a couple of vacancies in the Historic Preservation Division. There was a vacancy in the City Attorney's Office. I was covering for another vacancy for a long time, and we just got behind. Okay. We're starting to get... You're good. That's perfect. Thank you. But I can tell you, we go back and we listen to the... Okay. And we take notes. We take paper. Understandable. So I guess the follow-up is to the appellant. Have you had the opportunity to review these facts and findings? Because given that they were signed on the 22nd, have they been made public? I mean, this is nearly a week ago. So I'm just wanting to confirm if you've had the opportunity to review these, because it does, in here, have some justification as to why HDRB felt they had the justification needed to approve these variances. Mayor Garcia, Councilors, the findings of fact and conclusions of law were submitted to the public after the deadline of the appeal. So we had no opportunity to put in our appeal any examination of those findings and conclusions. We do have problems with the findings and conclusions, but they were submitted to us after the appeal deadline to revise our appeal. Okay. So that's problematic for me because you don't have enough teeth to provide a proper argument in regards to an appeal. So that's... And this is no fault to staff. I completely understand. As Assistant City Attorney, we need to build the capacity to be able to provide this information in a more expedited manner. Mr. Rasch, what are... And I don't mean to put you on the spot, but if you can speak to any of the concerns you have with these findings, this would be helpful because this is actually what's needed during a proper appeal in regards to being able to have a solid argument one way or the other. And so I'll just ask a question. What are your concerns regarding the findings that were approved by HDRB? Mayor Garcia, Councilors, significant buildings require an addition to be six inches lower than the significant building. The north elevation has a shed roof. We are not attaching additions to the east primary elevation where there's a parapet or the west elevation where there's a parapet. We are attaching this addition to a shed roof north elevation. It is not six inches lower. Incorrect streetscape was used. It's not a one-street frontage. It's a two-street frontage. It includes the Scottish Rite Temple institutional building. Maximum allowable height allowed is not correct. The 50% footprint rule. The historic footprint is the significant building. If the two additions that are historic and the two freestanding additions, not part of a building's footprint, were considered part of the historic footprint, the H-Board would have had to grant an exception to demolish historic material. The exception to grant historic material removal was just for the front stairs. So these two additions and the two freestanding structures cannot be considered part of the historic footprint. They are not. And finally, the exception criteria. The applicant did not address the intent of the criteria. They never talked about the district and its character. And the staff's recommendation that they met inclusively says it was about the addition not destroying the character of the significant building. And then the H-Board, in their findings, said they met the exception criteria, that it doesn't equal the lot coverage it could with R-21. Neither entity talked about the character of the district. Thank you. Thank you. Since I opened it up for questions, happy to go back to any of my colleagues. If not, we can proceed to Councilor Chavez. Well, I have mostly comments. So should we save that, or is that...? Yeah. This is just questions, and then we'll go back to comments and deliberations later. If seeing none, let's go ahead and continue to proceed, which is the appellant has a closing statement for five minutes. Thank you, Mayor and Councilors. Thank you, David. We focus on four issues. I just want to comment. We've talked a lot about the three exceptions. We believe five exceptions are needed. And, to sum up, none of the issues we raised today asks you to judge the design or to rule against our neighbors. Each one is a step that the code requires and was not properly considered. That's why we'd like to recommend a remand. It respects the board's expertise, gives the applicants a full and fair hearing, and will give the neighborhood confidence in the final result. Questions and motions proposed by the City Attorney in the memo dated September 25, last Friday close of business, do not correspond to the core issues we raise in our appeal. So I'd like to read our proposed motion. It's page one of the handout. Proposed motion: I move to remand case number 202612126HDRB to the Historic Districts Review Board without deciding the merits of the appeal so that the board may complete the following steps required by code. Number one, significant building height exception. Determine whether the building is... the addition is at least six inches lower than the historic structure. And if an exception is requested, vote on it. Number two. Overall height exception. Measure the height from the grade at the midpoint of the street-facing facade as code requires, and if an exception is required, vote on it. Number three, 50% rule. Recalculate the historic footprint without the detached non-contributing structures, and evaluate the exception criteria based on that figure. Number four, significant status. Make a finding on whether a two-story addition to a one-story significant building is consistent with preservation of its historic status. The HDRB's 05/26/2026 approval has stayed until the board issues a new decision on remand, and no permits shall issue in the meantime. That's the text of the proposed motion, and we respectfully ask the Governing Body to adopt this motion. Thank you so much for your time and your service to the city, and we're happy to answer any further questions. Yeah, it's your time. Oh, Mayor Garcia, Councilors, we did some research using AI, I'll admit it, for the last 20 years of H-Board cases. Never before has the H-Board seen an exception to exceed the maximum allowable height or an addition on a significant historic building and a 50% footprint exception. This is the first time in 20 years. It is unprecedented. Significant residence. Thank you. You yield your time. And next up is the applicant for a closing statement, for five minutes. Thank you for this opportunity. I wanted to just start out by addressing those two points that are just recently raised. The addition, the code is written so that the addition does not overwhelm a historic structure. We've pulled it away 12 feet as a narrow connect. So I want to move on to my statement, which is really about the nature of interpretation when it comes to planning of cities and the design of buildings within a city is not a formulaic task. The City of Santa Fe's Land Development Code Chapter 14 and Chapter 14.4, the Historic District Code, require thoughtful interpretation by city staff and each board members. As an architect, I can assure you that this is a long and at times arduous process that entails multiple meetings, site visits, presentations, and hearings. We've been at this for about a year and a half. The arc of this project extends over 1.5 with five public presentations, H-Board, and many, many more reviews by the city as the staff. Roads require interpretation. It's not black and white. I think we will all agree. There's a lot of subtleties in terms of interpretation in the conversation we've had. It has been a tremendous pleasure to work with the qualified and professional staff at Land Use and Planning and Historic Preservation. These guys know what they're doing. We've worked with them. We've gone through a lot of detail. We've looked at the letter of the code and the spirit of the code. The design for this building has evolved based on guidance by city staff and the H-Board and their thoughtful interpretation of the code. As architects, this is a process that we accept, and we work with it. It's not an easy process, which should not be construed in any way to be frivolous or arbitrary. This is... I mean, there's lots of meetings. It's a year and a half, longer than that actually, of meetings. Our client... This is a tremendous burden on our client. We've all been engaged in this stuff. The objections by the appellant are, in our opinion, narrow misinterpretations of the letter of the code to serve the interest of an individual. Chapter 14 of the City Land Development Code is by definition civic in nature, and their interpretations of the code by city staff, the rulings of the H-Board are to serve the public good and the fabric of the city we love. I mean, just the point that somehow we're destroying the character of the city or that neighborhood by preserving this building, moving the addition to the back so it's minimal. It's buried in the hillside. Most of this addition is buried in the hillside. Our clients invited their neighbors on multiple occasions to their home to review the project and the consideration. The design of the building, massing structure were viewed on-site in some detail with the neighbors and myself during the summer of 2025. Late objections by the appellant after a year and a half diligent process with city staff is shocking and disheartening for us and our clients and is, quite frankly, disrespectful to city staff, to the process. And we recommend that they are dismissed. As previously stated, the design for this building has evolved based on guidance from city staff and their thoughtful interpretation of the build. As architects, this is a process we accept and we work. It's not an easy process, and like I said before, should not be construed with the list or arbitrary. As design professionals, we need to function with the firm belief that the rulings and interpretations by staff, governing bodies, and the public hearing process will provide us with the solidity to move with design and the client's interests forward. Thank you. Next up is the assistant city attorney for a closing statement. Five minutes. Mayor and councilors, thank you very much for your attention tonight and for giving me the opportunity to find many of the nuances of the Historic District Review Board. I would like to address this issue about the streetscape, because I know that with the streetscape height calculation, it's something that's quite frequently the subject of a lot of debate. And what I would ask is that you consider the streetscape according to the appellants, the way they describe it as being on a corner, a corner where there's an intersection there, the Burro Alley intersection. The code reads, and that's 14-4.6, F, it's F1 subsection 3C: "If the proposed building yard wall or fence fronts more than one street, the streetscape on each street front, which is common as provision one above, in this subsection above shall be considered." Now, section one above reads: "If the streetscape is truncated by an intersecting block or visual intrusion before 600 feet is measured, streetscape shall include all those buildings on the intersecting or intruding street." So it's 600 feet. Now, the streetscape that the land use, that was part of that diagram that we showed you, was based on this subsection A of that same subsection. If the project of that same section under 14.4.6, "If the project is located on a street that extends linearly with no interruptions or truncations, the streetscape shall include all buildings, yard walls, and fences on both sides of the street on the proposed building yard wall fence to be located for a distance of 600 feet." So at 600 feet, whether it's a straight street or whether there's an intersecting street, either way, any way you look at it, that Scottish Rite building is going to be included in the streetscape. Now, there's some discussion as to whether or not institutional buildings should be excluded from the streetscape. Well, that's what the streetscape height calculation reads: institutional buildings are excluded. That Scottish Rite Temple is 70 feet high, so it adds five feet to the streetscape height calculation. But institutional building is defined in the code, and it reads: "Institutional building, a building used for governmental, religious, educational, public healthcare, and similar purposes, but does not include clinics and medical costs." Now, the planners don't just go in and make this decision in a vacuum. They consult with the City Attorney's Office, consult with the Land Use Director, and we could not conclude that the Scottish Rite Temple was a governmental, religious, educational, public health, fair, similar purpose building. I know the Masons and the Scottish Rite and the Shriners, they all have a requirement. Members have a belief in the supreme being, but they're not a church. It's not a religious building. It's a fraternal organization, and fraternal organizations aren't included in the definition of institutional building. So, therefore, Scottish Rite Temple was justifiably included in the streetscape population. It was brought up, and I tell you what, we have done a lot. We tried to move mountains to catch up on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and it's embarrassing that we got so far behind due to a bunch of circumstances, which all seem to conveniently once. But I would ask the governing body to consider that on page 77 of the package, you will see a letter that DNCA Architects wrote to the Historic District Review Board that's dated March 16, 2026. And this was submitted to the H-Board, and it was uploaded to Civic Clerk the week before the H-Board hearing. So the public had access to this, and you will see that the project applicants have specifically spelled out exception criteria. They knew they would have to prove an exception and to actually update. I think it's the... That's the first letter from the... So at page 51, there's a letter from the project now. And that's dated May 21, 2026. And specifically, on page one, they refer to exception one, which is about the removal of historic materials on the South elevation. Not an issue tonight. On page, there's exception two on page 53, and exception criteria on page 55, and you will find that everything the H-Board considered to be findings of fact or the exception criteria are drawn from these letters. So these letters were available to the appellant long ago. It doesn't matter that the findings of fact are dated more recently. And if I'm out of time... Yes, sir. I thank you very much. I'll do your... As an aside, the day after Labor Day this year, I've been with the city for five years, assigned to the Historic District Board the entire five years, and hope I'm... Well, thank you so much. Thank you for your service to the City of Santa Fe. Next step in the process is to close the public hearing. So before I close it, one last call from governing body members because once we close it, we'd have to vote to reopen the hearing. If not, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing, and next up is governing body. Motion seconds. Any deliberations? That was the time where we moved to that portion of the meeting. We just... Can we discuss first or do we make a motion? We don't have to make a motion. We can discuss. I can speak because I don't... Yeah. Yeah. Councilor Cassutt. I do want to thank Assistant City Attorney. I think you added some clarification. I also just want to be transparent, and I don't know how transparent we have to be because it's just clear that there's some systems that need improvement, and staff is working very hard to do that. But it is a process. And so this does become difficult because I have been very vocal about my feelings on HDRB and improvements and inconsistencies, and there's just a lot of things there that are concerning to me. And so I'm in a place where I'm like, do I send it back to the board, which I originally thought? But at the same time, because of the deficiencies that I think are present, that's hard to be confident to do. At the end, at the same time, I really do feel for the applicant. I feel like the applicant has put in the time and the work and the thoughtfulness and are attempting to contribute. And so I almost feel like I'm further from which way I want to go than I was earlier. And a lot of it is because our internal systems and a lot of our own functioning needs a lot of work. And so it really does... I feel empathy for both sides because of that, because I think the process itself is what's making this difficult, which is outside of both parties. Right? And that's really difficult. So, yeah, I'm interested to hear if anyone else has any discussion points around this now because I think it's become a little more difficult for me. I just... This process is so arduous. I can't even imagine. A year and a half of this, and we are here now. I actually kind of feel frustrated about how long this process takes, and we tell folks, "Okay, you have to go through this process. If you do this application, now you have to apply separately. Now you have to apply separately. Now you have to attend this meeting." I don't know a lot of people who have the time and the money on their hands to go through this process. It's totally overwhelming. And so I can't imagine sending it back when we said, "Go to HDRB." They go to HDRB. Right? They jumped through all the hoops. They've done through all the thing. To send it back after a year and a half, I... That's, I don't know. I just think that they've done their due diligence. They've done every single thing that we have asked them to do. They've taken years, you know, money. Like, I just can't imagine asking them to go back again. Thanks. May I, it's going to be 11:00 PM here. Two minutes. I just want to remind you. When our pumpkin... Oh, no. I know. But it's 11:30 when our pumpkin... Right? Just... My thought was we can get through this and then suspend the rules to get to the next one. My... Is it 11:30 or 11:00, Marcos? Okay. Hold on one second. We'll pause. We've got a rule where we can't go beyond 11:30, I think. But... Or 11:00. Okay. So it's 11:30. Let's make sure we keep note of that. Okay. Thank you, Madam City Clerk, for the heads up. Councilor Bustamante or Councilor Garcia? Councilor Garcia? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right. So I think what we need to really kind of focus on right now is what are our options because we have the option to deny the appeal. We have the option to approve the appeal. They've also presented us with a third option. So what do these all three mean? I think that we got to kind of take a look at that, approval. I know that we had a slide of what the approval and DNA health process was, and I know we're not reopening the public portion of this, but that may help us get to a better decision. What's that? No. This is different. This is to remand the case back to the HDRB. That's the third option. Because... So what we're talking about tonight is the appellant brought forth the case to either grant, deny, or... Yes. And so for my colleagues in the first item in the packet, it's a 16-page document. It's on page 11 of 16 that shows you the motions I think you're referencing, Councilor. You want to deny it, but then it gives you the options if you want to grant it. And then as you mentioned, there's a third option as presented. So if we deny it, what happens to the City Attorney? If you deny the appeal, then basically, barring an appeal to the District Court, the applicants are able to move forward with the approvals granted by the HTRB. Okay. And if we approve the appeal? You approve the appeal as particularly in the form that the appellants have asked you to do, it goes back to the HTRB for further findings, further development to the factual record. Okay. But that's different than the remand of the case. It does that same. It is the same. Yeah. Yeah. It would be... It's the same. Okay. Except for the third one kind of gives a little more stipulations in regards to, you know, certain actions, you know, that they take. It... There's... Lays it out a little more clear. So Councilor Bustamante has a question. Councilor. Thank you, Mayor. So I mean, I just want to point out that in two of the proposals for motions that we have, the motions are looking at whether or not the applicants have conclusively demonstrated that they comply with the three criteria or an exception to build an addition. And so I, you know, that seems to be the heart of what we're looking at here. Were those three exception criteria met? Am I incorrect in this? I mean, I... That's ultimately our job, Councilor, to make sure to... We've been using this word a lot tonight. Our... Is it our interpretation that the criteria were met or not? Right. Okay. So I mean, I don't know if that helps limit our focus, Councilor Garcia. I think that it does, and I think that, in regards to the questions of the height, does the rule change when an addition is attached to the significant building? Does... I mean, these are all things that have been brought up in regards to the height. Are we using the detached shed versus the significant building, the current building? These are all things that we're all having questions about, and it doesn't seem to us that they were explained, and the exceptions were taken into that consideration based upon what the code states. In my mind, we've gone over it ad nauseam. Our city staff, and that's their job and their profession, has gone over that, and they have affirmed that. And the HDRB board, which does exactly this, I mean, there's hundreds of pages, and their conclusion, I mean, for me, there's not... I don't know. I just feel like they've gone through the process. What else is it? I mean, I know it can be interpreted many different ways, and it is subjective. But, I mean, if our city staff has gone over that and confirmed that to us, I don't have any more questions about it on my end. I don't think that it hasn't been studied enough, but I know it's always up for interpretation. Right, the spirit. I don't know. A spirit, you can interpret that many different ways. The spirit of the landscape and the history, this is all, again, very subjective to me. And it's not... I'm a social worker. I'm not an architect. So, you know, this is from a layperson's perspective, but I do feel like we have all the information to make a decision. Thanks. And I guess I'll just make a comment regarding process because we've got the appellant in front of us. We've got an applicant in front of us. We have staff in front of us. Who we don't have in front of us is HDRB. And time and time again, these cases are brought forward because of a decision that HDRB made. They should be the body before us justifying why they made a decision one way or the other. And I think that's what's so frustrating is that part of the process is missing. So for those of you that are working on HDRB, that needs to change. They need to be here at 11:00 midnight with us because it's their decision that has us in this position, and they need to be able to provide that clarification as to why that body made the decision that they did. Because to your point, Councilor Barrett, I have full faith and confidence in staff, but staff is not the decider. HDRB is the decider. And when we don't have the decider in front of us, that's what causes me concern, especially in cases like this. So I think, again, a plug for you all working on this. It needs to change. So... Streamlining the process. I don't know if I can just read a quick thing because we have been working with different groups, including groups of architects. It said, "Santa Fe's historic district's ordinance is a messy amalgam of a 1957 style mandate overlaid with eccentric preservation protections and draconian height limits added in the 1990s. Its stated purpose remains to protect tourism and property values. Prescriptive requirements conflate historical styles with preservation and preservation with restricted growth." Okay. Let's hold because we're going down a rabbit hole of speaking just somebody else's words, and that's kind of the matter in front of us right now. So, yes. I did write down what you said earlier because that is a very important... I was speaking to the matter. Sorry. Sorry, Councilor Barrett. Didn't mean to cut you off. Councilor Garcia. This one is tough because I think there's a lot of the findings and facts of this whole case. And I know that it's gone through the process, but to send it back to the Historic District Review Board for a whole another lengthy process is going to be tough. So I guess, you're asking for a motion. Is that what it sounds like? The floor is open for anybody to make a motion. Nobody care to take it. I move to deny the appeal on the grounds that the applicants have conclusively demonstrated that they comply with the three criteria for an exception to build an addition exceeding 50% of the historic footprint of a significant building. The facts supporting the exception criteria are: a) the existing single-family structure is the only living unit on a 0.3344-acre lot in a neighborhood where the density is 21 units per acre, meaning that the lot is underutilized; b) the garage shed and retaining wall between the two buildings are structurally unsound, approved for demolition, and the addition will replace the garage and shed, infill the area between the two buildings, and replace the defective retaining wall; and c) the additional living space will allow the owners to age in place, and the addition will contain an accessory dwelling unit consistent with the medium density of the neighborhood. Second. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? There are none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Barrett? Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. And I've got to vote because we've got to have a quorum. Yep. So Councilor Castro's on. She jumped back on? Yeah. Okay. Councilor Castro? Motion passed. Okay. For the record, I would have voted no. There's two more motions that need to be made. Oh, wait, wait, wait. How long has Councilor Castro been on? Because I have pause for concern if somebody's jumping on who did not participate in this whole public hearing. No worries. Yeah. No worries. I was watching, but I would be fine with conceding my vote. Mayor, that's fine. When did you jump into the meeting for the record? I jumped back on the Zoom once all of the presentations were finished, and we came back on for comment. And yet you didn't participate in any of the hearing. Is this... Totally understandable. I... So I watched the whole hearing, but I'm happy to not vote. That's totally fine. What's the City Attorney's recommendation? I think because we did... The public didn't know that Councilor Castro was on, but probably the better practice is to have the Mayor vote in this one. I'll withdraw my vote. I would say for any of us, if we're virtual and we jump back on, we've got to make sure... Especially for the Clerk because we've got to notice when somebody leaves, when somebody's present. So... Would you like me to retake the roll call vote, or you want to vote? I... According to the City Attorney's recommendation, you would have to vote because she went through her vote, and we need to... We need five votes for this. Okay. Mayor Garcia? No. Motion passed. And there's other motions that need to be made. Am I correct? There were three separate motions. Moved to deny the appeal on the grounds that the applicants have conclusively demonstrated that they comply with the criteria for an exception to build an addition in a significant building where all facades are primary. The facts supporting the exception criteria are: the addition is at the rear of the structure on the side opposite of the street. It replaces non-contributing units of the residence, and most of the original north facade will remain intact. The structural integrity of the existing shed garage rear retaining wall is compromised and are unusable to the property owners, and demolition has been approved by HDRB for the structures to the north of the residence. And for them to be replaced by an addition that does not connect to the house would limit the owner's use of the addition. Okay. So we've got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? There are none. Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Garcia? On this one, I'm going to say no. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Mayor Garcia? No. Motion passed. I move to deny the appeal on the grounds that the project application is regulated by SFCC 14-4.6 F2, which permits the HDRB to approve an addition at the height exceeding the streetscape height restriction on a sloping site. Second. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Mayor. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Mayor Garcia? No. Motion passed. Okay. So that concludes this case, and I would like to entertain a motion that we suspend our rules to go beyond 11:30 if the Governing Body is so inclined. Second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Madam City Clerk, can we get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mayor. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Barrett? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. And Mayor Garcia? Oh, Councilor Castro? Sorry. Councilor Castro? Yes. Mayor, Councilor Feghali might be coming back as well. Okay. Yeah. We've got to alert her. Did you call me? No, I didn't. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilor Chavez? Yes. Okay. Motion passed. Okay. So let's... Is Councilor Feghali in the building, or is she going to jump online with us? We can alert her. We're looking for her right now. Okay. Let's take a quick two minutes and allow for the next case to move forward. Okay. Madam City Clerk, can we go to the next item, please? Yes, Mayor. Item 20c is an appeal of the Finance Committee's issuance of a cease and desist order to close Betty Nugz Cannabis, located at 1228 Parkway Drive, Suite D, Greenlight Multifactor LLC. Francisco Romero, owner. Code enforcement case number 2026-006062. Violations of Santa Fe City Code Section 18-1.4a and Section 14-5.3g4b. Okay. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. So now is the time for any disclosure of any pre-hearing communications regarding the merits of the appeal, recusal if a member of the Governing Body cannot be fair and impartial. Sure. So, again, this was brought to the Finance Committee, and we've already heard this. How does that work in terms of bringing back now to the Governing Body? Mr. Mayor, members of the Governing Body, I think we're... I don't think that that is a problem. I think what this disclosure portion is meant to address is other extra ex parte communications aside from ones you would have made in your official capacity. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So any recusals? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and run through the order of today's hearing. We will first hear from the appellant, Mr. Romero, for an opening statement for up to ten minutes. Then the Assistant City Attorney, providing any response statement for up to ten minutes. Then we will move to the public comment portion for no more than three minutes per person. Then the Governing Body will have the ability to ask any questions of parties, to anyone that has testified. Then we will... After the questions from the Governing Body, we will move to the appellant, Mr. Romero, for a closing statement of five minutes, and the Assistant City Attorney will give a closing statement of five minutes. Then we will close the public hearing. The Governing Body will then have any discussions, deliberations, any motions to be made, and then further discussions, deliberations, and then a vote will be made on any motions made. So with that being said, let's go ahead and start off with Mr. Romero. And I'm sorry to click. Do we have to swear in Mr. Romero? Mr. Romero, please raise your right hand and state your name. 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. The floor is yours, Mr. Romero, for up to ten minutes. Absolutely. I'm not sure the mic is on. Can you hear me now? Cool. Yes, sir. Thank you. As we said, my name is Francisco Romero. I appeared before the Finance Committee. I appreciate you all allowing me to voice my opinion and my transparency. I came with legal counsel last time that was extremely ill-prepared. That's neither here nor there, but I'm representing myself right now, and I just want to give a history and some transparency to what's going on. Thank you, Mayor and Councilors, members of the Governing Body. Just to give you a bit of history, I have a cannabis dispensary. I started out in Santa Fe County about three years ago, roughly. I started a cannabis business doing delivery, catering to mostly medical patients, people who can't drive, people who have cancer, ailments. I moved from the county to the city roughly two years ago. So this kind of begins in August 2024. I have an LLC I currently own, Greenlight Multifactor, Betty Nuggs. I own 100% of the business currently. As of approximately two months ago, I was awarded 100% of the business. It was a 50/50 partnership with me and my ex-wife previously, but now I'm 100% owner of that business. That said, April 24, a zoning request or approval of a retail cannabis location was submitted at 1228 Parkway Drive. There was back and forth, mostly between Dan Esquivel over at the city, where he stated there was a Montessori school that didn't meet the requirements, that was within 300 feet. My due diligence that I did before I got the lease of that place was I took a look at your city portal for registered business licenses. I think that's a bit of a hang-up for maybe some of the processes with zoning in the City of Santa Fe, whereas I believe they used Google because there was no registered business license for that Montessori school. I did a tour there because I wanted to take my baby girl there. I have a seven-year-old baby girl, and they were open and functional. When I looked at the business portal, they didn't have a business license, and they never had a business license until December 1, 2025, five months after I applied for my retail business license with the City of Santa Fe. At the time, I was basically just in charge of running the store. My partner was a COO, so she did most of the compliance. She did all of the compliance and all of the licensing and regulation stuff. So, whatever she submitted to the City of Santa Fe, there was an altered document. There was something falsified. To that, I can't speak. All I can say is now I have 100% of the business, so it's what I have to work with now. Just to note, in what you have in your packet there, I went back and forth a little bit with the city. My ex-wife went back and forth with the city. Whatever that result was, there were two cannabis dispensaries closer to the school, one of the schools in question, substantially than me. There's a zoning approval verification letter for Love for Life Dispensary that was well within 300 feet of La Petite School. There was also Canafe. Canafe, as the city ordinance currently reads, it says 300 feet property line to property line. Canafe, it was the owner of Tortilla Flats. He owned Canafe. He's got that lot there. It's even closer. He was almost connected property line to property line. There was one lot in between them. But how these two places can be fully approved by the City of Santa Fe Zoning Department, and me as a local, how I can get an extremely hard time, is beyond me. So I just wanted to note that. In September 2018, I started receiving, about September 2024, that's when some of the... that's when divorce began. Shortly after my divorce began, I got probably a dozen anonymous phone calls to the city and the state. It's only anonymous if you do it once, but I won't discuss who that anonymous person was. I got seven inspections by the CCD Cannabis Control Division in an 18-month period, where they typically do one per year. Every inspection from the CCD was passed. No problems, no issues, a couple of things with labeling, but no findings of anything for a failed inspection. The manner that the Zoning Department showed up to my place of business for enforcement or inspection was borderline harassing. They came in with four, four people, five people on two occasions. They didn't announce themselves. They mocked my budtenders. They laughed. I wasn't typically there when they arrived, so there was a waiting period where they were just sitting there, kind of waiting around for me. One of my drivers documented that she, or told me that she was followed by the Zoning Department in one of my vehicles or my business vehicles. I advised her to take legal counsel if she felt threatened. I have a couple of people that were retired military who have PTSD who, literally, when the Zoning Department came in there on one occasion, they were there to cause problems. One of which grabbed a taser because he thought they were going to rob us. This is the aggression and the seemingly personal issue that the Zoning Department approached my business on more than one occasion, and I have cameras in my place, so everything's recorded all the time. So this, in my opinion, was unacceptable in the way that they handled their business. So after I started getting anonymous calls and visits from the Zoning Department, Jason Sena was the guy manning those efforts. I reached out to legal counsel, got some legal advice. They said, "Look, just move whatever it is that your partner did. Just move locations and secure all, satisfy the city ordinance, get them off of your back." Great. So I proceeded to find another location. I did find another location. I worked diligently to get a zoning verification letter before I signed the lease for that spot. Now, zoning, between Dan and Jason, has kind of made it the prerogative to have no communication with me whatsoever. I call it ghosted. I submitted a zoning verification letter. There's a five to seven business day period in which I literally get nothing. The first zoning verification letter was sent in March, so it's been a while with no response. All that to say, I'm trying to be conscious of the time. I tried to comply, but maybe it's a personal issue with zoning and me. There's been a history for a long time. I'm being told to comply, but I'm not being allowed to comply. So fast forward to now, my hands are up with the business. I have my retail brand in process to be sold. I don't want to ask for retail from the council. I don't want to reapply for my retail license at all. I'm going to keep it to the manufacturing that I originally intended to do and was approved for this location. My dad is one of my investors. I have another woman who's an investor. They're going to take my brand. They're going to take the Zephyrono location, the new retail location that I had secured, and they're going to run with that. They're going to do their thing. I'm going to do my thing. But now I'm at a crossroads with, do they also get ghosted with this city? The problem here is, Ms. Cauley has explained to me that the cease and desist is not really on the table. It's more, can I get approval for renewing my manufacturing license? And then a question for me is, now that I'm getting rid of the retail brand, letting zoning take the win on putting me out of business, now what happens to the investors? Do they also get ghosted in the same manner? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Romero. Next up is the Assistant City Attorney for up to ten minutes for a responding statement. Thank you, City Councilors. I'm just pulling up my presentation. Sorry, one moment. It's not the correct view on my screen. Hey, Tia, are you able to help me set up the presentation? The view on my screen is not the view that I need in order to give the presentation. Thank you. You have to share your screen again. Thank you for your patience. Let's restart the timer so you get your ten minutes. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mayor Garcia and the Governing Body. I am Natalie Cauley, Assistant City Attorney. Before I started, I'll say Councilor Feghali shared with me that she had a presentation, and appeals start at 11:15. So I'm honored that my first presentation to you is starting at that time. I will also note before I begin that Mr. Romero did not share the documents with me that he shared with you, so I have not had the opportunity to see them. So I'm not able to respond to what's in them, but that's okay. Thank you. So in my presentation tonight, I'll be starting with the relevant law that applies to these proceedings. A portion of my presentation also touches on the relevant dates at issue in this case. But for the sake of time, I'm going to save that information for any questions that might arise from the Governing Body, and instead, I'm going to jump to the relief requested by the appellant and why this is not actually the proper procedure to obtain what he is looking for. So I first want to review why we're here because it's my understanding this actually might be one of the first hearings, or the first hearing, that the Governing Body has had on this sort of issue. So Chapter 18, which governs business licenses, allows the city to deny or revoke a business license. So Part A of the ordinance on the screen, you can see, allows denial of a license outright, and Part B allows a license to be revoked after it's already been granted. And it can be revoked if a business owner violates a regulation or the Governing Body determines that public welfare is served by revoking the license. I've omitted Part C of the ordinance because it pertains to licenses for special police and detectives. Section 18-1.7 covers the initial procedures that the city must follow to revoke a business license. So in order to revoke a license, the city must first send a notice of violation, which in this case was sent on July 15. And that notice must specify the provisions of code that were not complied with. If the business owner does not comply within 15 days, then they appear before the Finance Committee. So Code Section, excuse me, 18-1.8 covers the subsequent procedures. So if the person fails to show cause why the business should not be closed, the Finance Committee issues a cease and desist order closing the business and preventing the business owner from conducting any business until the provisions of city code have been complied with. This final highlighted portion on the screen is very important and relevant here, that the business owner is only prevented from conducting business until they comply with the terms of city code. So I'll come back to that when we discuss Greenlight's and Mr. Romero's specific request. At times, I'll probably refer to Greenlight, which is the name of the business, or to Mr. Romero directly. In this ordinance, I omitted letters B and C, which just detail the scheduling in front of the Finance Committee and those procedures, which allow the business owner to have counsel and present evidence at the Finance Committee. Subsection D allows the business owner to appeal the Finance Committee's decision to the Governing Body. Again, I've just submitted portions that deal with scheduling and what the appeal is required to say. The other provision of city code that I want to touch on quickly is Chapter 14 within the cannabis use standards. I'm providing this information really just for context as to the original violation by Greenlight. In their appeal petition, as you've read, they don't contest this actual standard, but I still want to touch on this quickly so that you have the context for the original violation. Chapter 14 provides standards for cannabis businesses, and one of them is that they cannot exist within 300 feet of schools. In 2024, Greenlight applied for a zoning verification letter for their location at 1228 Parkway Drive. A zoning verification letter is necessary so that the business can then turn around and apply to either the city or the state for a cannabis license. The letter that was issued in August 2024, that's Attachment C in the packet that's been provided to you and was provided to the Finance Committee, stated that the business was within 300 feet of a school, and thus retail sales were not permitted. As you read in Jason Senna's memo to the Finance Committee, a doctored version or a falsified version of this same letter was then submitted back to the city in 2025, which resulted in a retail cannabis license being granted to the business. We don't need to get into the specifics of what happened there, who doctored the letter, who submitted it to the city in order to decide the arguments that are actually being presented in the appeal petition. Again, I've outlined the relevant dates in my presentation. I can certainly return to these if the Governing Body members have questions during the question portion of the hearing. But for now, I'm just going to skip to the requested relief because I think that resolves the issue before the body today. This is the relief requested in the appeal petition. Unfortunately, these reliefs are really not appropriate at this stage. They either misunderstand the cease and desist order or they're not the proper procedural avenue to obtain these remedies. As Mr. Romero stated, I explained this to him last week, but he stated he still wanted to go forward with the appeal hearing. So I'm going to go through each of these requests and quickly explain why this is not the proper avenue. The first two requests for relief can be bundled together. They essentially ask that the cease and desist order be narrowed to only prevent retail sales and not other business on the property. Based on what the appellant has said today, he wants the order to be narrowed so that he can pursue a license for light manufacturing. Just so it's clear, it may not have been clear from his presentation, he does not currently have a license for light manufacturing. There was a license in 2024 to 2025 that expired, and he has not applied for renewal. So currently, there is no license that applies to the property. But the issue with these requests for relief is that the cease and desist order does not prevent him from applying for a license. The order does not operate to prevent any business in perpetuity on the premises of the property. The language in the order only prevents business until Greenlight complies with the provisions of city code that it's been accused of violating. So, specifically, the provisions for obtaining a business license and for the cannabis use standards. I wanted to bring up the text of the cease and desist order so you can see what I'm referring to. I will note that this might not be of consequence, but I shared a version of my presentation a few hours ago with all of you. And I wanted to make sure you were aware that this slide and the next one are not on that version of the presentation, but I wanted to add the actual language of the cease and desist order so you can see exactly what I'm talking about. So, specifically, you can see that the order instructs the business to cease and desist all operations until it complies with these specific provisions of city code. So if Mr. Romero in the business submits a new application for a business license, which, as I said, Greenlight has not submitted that application, but if they were to submit a new application for a business license and that application abides by the business license standards and abides by the cannabis use standards, then the cease and desist order would end. It would not operate to prevent the renewal of the license. That's not to say that the license would necessarily be granted. The city may still consider the past, the city staff, that is, may still consider the past history of unlawful conduct in denying the new license. But if that takes place, if the license is denied, then Greenlight, Mr. Romero, would be able to follow the procedures in city code to appeal the denial of the license. So that entails coming back before the Governing Body, and then the Governing Body is able to actually consider the issue of the denial of a license. But since that denial has not happened yet, there's no actual ripe issue for the Governing Body to decide today. Again, requests for relief three and five can also be bundled together. They ask that Greenlight be permitted to apply for zoning verifications, licenses, and other approvals for light manufacturing at the property. So, again, the cease and desist order does not bar Greenlight from submitting these applications. As I stated, he might be denied a new business license based on the events that have been discussed in the packet. But the order itself, the cease and desist order that's at issue in this hearing, would not cause that denial. Again, if he's denied the business license, then he can appeal that denial, and we would be back here to discuss that denial. But for now, we're just discussing the cease and desist order that prevents retail sales at the property. The final request that I want to discuss is that the city departments be directed to consider applications for light manufacturing without considering the past retail sales that were unlawful. So, again, such direction is really not appropriate in the appeal of the cease and desist order for the retail sales. This relief can be requested if the city denies the light manufacturing license, and then Greenlight follows the appeal procedures in city code to contest that denial. That's my presentation. As I said, I told Mr. Romero all of this last week, and he still wanted to go forward with the appeal hearing. These are the potential motions that can be made in this case. If you wish to deny the appeal, of course, you would select the first option. If you wish to accept the appeal, you can select the second option, but you should specify the specific relief that you want to provide. So there's one example on the screen of what that relief could be based on the request in the appeal petition, but you could modify that relief based on your preference. That's all I have to discuss, and I'll leave this slide up for the body's reference. Thank you so much, Assistant City Attorney Cauley. We will now then go to any sworn public comment for individuals for up to three minutes. Is there anybody in the chamber? Not seeing anybody. How about anybody online? Valentine Lucas. We'll need to throw Mr. Lucas in. Mr. Lucas, if you would please state your name. Sure. Good evening, councilors and Mayor. My name is Valentine Lucas. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Yes. Thank you. So, again, good evening, everyone. I'm fairly new to the state, moved down from Washington state about 18 months ago. I am a longtime cannabis professional. I was in medical up there before there was a recreational industry and have been in it since 2013. On that basis, while I can't speak to any zoning issues or other sort of local things, having known Francisco now since I moved down, I can state that he has operated a business that has been tailored towards providing medical benefit to patients and the public in a way that is pretty unusual. And I think that should probably be taken into consideration. Additionally, I know that he's made very productive connections with people throughout the state and across different sectors of the industry in what is a nascent industry in a way that's, again, fairly unusual and is exactly the kind of basis for a craft industry that I think the state would like as well. And in terms of the cannabis aspect, while I don't know the city and zoning aspect, he's made it really obvious that the business is there to serve people more than anything else and is, like, compliance is difficult in this regulatory environment, and he's really gone to great lengths to fit into that in a way that allows him to serve both medical and recreational patients. And, again, I think in a young industry that has a lot of incentives that maybe are not ideal, he's been running a really, really good business, and it just is maybe worth reevaluating. Mr. Lucas, your time is expired. If you can please wrap up your statement. Sure. I just think Cisco is a really good licensee in both compliance to the cannabis law and also in terms of what he can offer a young industry in the city and the state, and the way that he's been pursuing it. And thank you, Mr. Lucas. Your time has expired. Yep. Madam City Clerk, is there any other online public comment? Yes, Mayor. Erica? Yes. Hello. My name is Erica Zweifler, and I have been a resident of Santa Fe. Erica, can you hold on one second? Yes. I need to swear you in, ma'am. If you'll please state your full name. Erika Marie Zweifler. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Yes, I'm Erica Zweifler. It's way past my bedtime. I'm 72. I am here just basically because the issue on right now, it looks like it's in flux or sounds like it's in flux. So I can't speak to that as much as the fact that I worked in that neighborhood for over 10 years. I've worked there. I've shopped there. I've eaten there. It's a huge, productive, growing neighborhood, that whole area there, and it's just a darn shame because that was like my hood. I'm retired now from the business, but I still shop, eat. Now I can go to shows there, all kinds of beautiful things happening in that hood. But the thing about Francisco and his staff is they are just beautiful. I'm a medical patient. I don't know what I'd do without him and his products. The products that he's been bringing in are some of the highest quality, and, yeah, I'm picky. I came from California before now, but I've been here for years. But I'm back and forth and testing different medical products. I've been a recreational user for years. But I'm a little confused when you're talking about retail sales, and I'm a medical patient. It's not really retail. I don't know where that definition is there. But I just really believe he has so much to offer to the industry, just like Valentin was saying. I really, he sounds like he has more of a background in actually the production than I do, but I, he's just been wonderful. His staff has been wonderful. He's always there. He's always offering us everything he's got. It's all heart, and he's there to serve. I know about that school over there. It is flooded most of the time, even when there isn't rain there. It's a shame that he's been kind of... The zoning is odd there, and it has to do with we don't have our cannabis industry together and figuring it out, and that kind of zoning and this and that. I could understand, but it's just... It's a hard neighborhood there, and he's made it very, very, very welcome, easy, and now he's had to move his business. I just think it's a shame that you all and the city cannot work with a local person, and they let all these other companies come in and overrun the locals. There was another local business, a cannabis business right around the corner. Same issue, same 300 feet. They were granted the license, but then they're put out of business by some of the other corporations. Excuse me. Or can you tell me? Yeah, I was going to say if you can't wrap your system up, so much for even, I mean... I want to give a shout-out to the grannies and all the other stuff you guys were doing was just amazing. I've been here from the beginning. So I just shout out to what you all do and hope you can come to a reasonable decision around this. Thank you, Erica. Any other public comment online, Madam City Clerk? No other hands are raised in the Zoom room, ma'am. With that being said, we will go ahead and close the public comment portion of this hearing. We will now move on to the governing body portion where there could be any questions of any parties that have testified to this particular matter. Councilor Chavez and then Councilor Feghali. Yes, I... So I appreciate the motion, but I feel like this is inappropriate practice with what is here because this isn't this... And City Attorney, I know you said you communicated to the applicant, but this should... I feel like this shouldn't be on the agenda. So if this isn't a proper process, whether the applicant wanted to move forward or not, there's no, like, there's no such thing as an appeal right now. So I'm really confused how this got on the agenda because this, like, this is not going to get the applicant anywhere. Thank you, Councilor Chavez. Maybe Natalie will want to supplement what I have to say. But I think the point that Natalie was trying to make was that the relief he's seeking is not available in this appeal. The appeal is proper. He filed a timely appeal, but what he's asking for is not something that the governing body can really grant because the governing body can only really grant the appeal or deny it, but it can't guarantee, for example, specific relief that he was requesting. So I think it was just in terms of these five or six different types of relief he was requesting. That's really not at issue because, for example, he hasn't applied for... He doesn't have a pending manufacturing license here right now. So there isn't a way to narrow it in the way that he was asking for. The appeal itself was proper. It was done in a timely way. This governing body can reconsider what the Finance Committee did, but it can really only grant the appeal or deny it. It can't do the kind of fine-tuning or particular relief that he was requesting. I think what's confusing is I... And maybe Mr. Merwad will want to come up. But there's not an ask of an appeal to the decision. It seems like the focus is just the relief. So that's why I think it feels very confusing. So I guess I would ask what is being appealed because I am completely unaware... Unclear as to what that is. Based on what I have in front of me from Mr. Romero, there is no decision to make on an appeal. I know there was an appeal that was submitted, but I don't know what's being appealed based on what we heard from Mr. Romero. Does that make sense? So I don't know, Mr. Romero, if you can clarify. Hold on one second. You have to use the microphone. Cease and desist is here in its while, and it's active for the reason that I'm not being allowed to apply for a license because the precursor to that is zoning verification. So if I'm being disallowed by excommunication, then the cease and desist is well in place and in order. So maybe... So my reasoning is, yeah, I need this narrowed, or I... Aside from guidance needed, I need this cease and desist narrowed so I can actually apply because right now, I can't even apply. I tried. I got no way. Thank you. So then I guess I'll go back to city staff. And what we heard from you was that with the cease and desist, the license can be applied for as long as everything is addressed. Correct? That's correct. And there seemed to be a misunderstanding with city staff, which I was able to clarify in the last week, that they do need to respond to Mr. Romero's request for zoning verification letters, but he has not submitted a request for a new license. I just informed him in the last few days that he needs to submit that request, and he told me that that was news to him, that he had not submitted a request. So he was thinking that he wasn't getting a response from the city because of the cease and desist, which makes sense if he wasn't receiving a response, which it sounds like he wasn't receiving a response based on the conversation you had with the city. Correct? Or with some city? My understanding. I have not reviewed the email, so I don't know when he sought the zoning verification letter and how long the delay has been. But I did inform them, as I said, that they need to respond to him as promptly as they can. Thank you. Mr. Romero, when did you start reaching out to the city to start the process to apply for the license again or just to address the cease and desist? So when... Before the cease and desist, when zoning came in and said you cannot do retail operation, I did my best to comply by getting a new location. Well, I got a new location in March. So now that's been, what, nine months, however long since March. Way before there was a cease and desist, they never responded. I show up in person. I email. I phone call. Nobody ever responded. The EDAC had this on their agenda to... Should we approve Greenlight's new location? Trying to comply. Yes or no? The Economic Development Committee approved Greenlight for the new Zaffirano location, but again, ghosted by zoning. So I have no choice. I have no path forward. It's just another local business that zoning gets a win with to put out of business. So I'm hands tied. There's no path forward. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Romero. Director Lamboy did just raise this for me that the original zoning verification letter from 2024 that was issued is still valid. So Mr. Romero has a zoning verification letter for the 1228 Parkway Drive address that he can submit for a renewed license for light manufacturing. He has not submitted that renewal, though. It sounds like... And I know that we don't have staff here to verify all of this, and I don't see it in the communication. That's why I'm just saying that. But it sounds like maybe he tried to reapply or start a process under a new address, and that would be a possibility, correct, using his LLC? That's correct. And... Yes. So there... Exactly. There are two separate processes. There's the one for 1228 Parkway, which at any point, he can apply for renewal. He hasn't yet. There is a separate address. I don't know the specific address that he applied for a zoning verification letter, and I've informed staff that they need to respond to that request. So it seems like as a city, we're just delayed maybe in the process and guidance. I don't know if anyone... So that's why I'm like, this seems like an inappropriate place to be because it sounds like there's been a miscommunication perhaps or a delay in communication, which means all that needs to occur. And it sounds like you've informed the specific city staff, they need to respond to Mr. Romero so he can move forward with applying for a license. And that's the real solution to this whole thing. Exactly. I've informed them that the only authority that they have is the denial of the license because then Mr. Romero has a due process, a procedural way to appeal that denial, but they can't delay or deny a zoning verification letter because there's no means in city code for him to appeal that denial. And, Mr. Romero, that's... My concern is just because there's nothing to appeal because there's nothing stopping you from moving forward. I know there was because you weren't getting a response. However, in reality, you have a right to apply for a business license, and it sounds like those internal conversations have occurred. If your license would be denied, then we'd come here and that... Or what we... You'd go to Finance. Right? Or... Yes. And then that... If there was a denial, then you could appeal that denial, and that would be a more appropriate place for this conversation. Am I clear on that? That's correct. So how do we move forward? Mr. Romero, Mayor Pro Tem, can I say something real quick or no? Yeah. And then, Pat has some questions after you. Yeah. So I think what I would like to do is if you can put this at my house because it's all my staff, and then I could have Mr. Romero and Heather sitting behind you, we can sit down with staff. You can apply for your business license. We can... I can make sure that it's processed and walk my staff through the process and make sure you get what you need. So everybody reports to me. So it's more of a, I'm... This is my side of the house. So if I can make sure at least we get your response and we work through the process, and then if something gets denied, then we as the staff can work with you to move forward. I appreciate that because I feel like right now with the animosity between Zoning Dan and Jason Serna, it's a problem. Okay. So me and Director Lamboy will work with you directly. That'd be great. The other thing too is now, I need to finalize selling my brand to two people so they can do what they're going to do. The caveat, though, they're not going to... If they're going to get ghosted by zoning the way I have at this new location that I had attained on Zephyrano, that... It's a no-go for them either. Okay. Well, that can... I can be addressed as well, at least. It will make sure staff is responding and at least being appropriate through the process. Thank you so much. And I can do all of that with that. Director Landbauer, is that okay? Me and you will work with Mr. Romero to get us at least some response and give him some guidance. Yes, Manager Moya. I was just looking through our system to see whether I could find an application, but I would like to express my apologies if there was a disconnect, and would be happy to respond as quickly as I can to Mr. Romero. Though I don't... Mr. Romero, I'm going to give you my card after this meeting's over, and you can reach out to my... That'd be great. My person that basically runs my life, and she will schedule an appointment. She'll make sure that you're put in place. I'll put everybody in the room, and we'll get you clear guidance moving forward. I can't promise you we won't hit hiccups along the road, but at least you will get a proper staff responding to you in a timely manner, and they'll include me on all the emails, and we'll get you at least guidance so we can move forward through this process. Thank you so much. Yeah. I know you stepped out, but I'm trying to jump in to help the process, and I will be involved until the... We get some resolve of this. So it's my understanding, Kathleen Feghali had a, I have my apologies. I know you as Pat. So, okay. My one question is in the cease and desist, it says, "Until you've complied with the terms of business license and cannabis establishments." If for some reason the business did not want to continue to do cannabis, would that still be able to get through the cease and desist letter? I'm just a little concerned about how it's worded. If he's not complying with cannabis establishments because he is no longer a cannabis establishment, does that part just go away? Exactly. I think that part would just not be relevant to the new business, and so he would be complying with it because he wouldn't be contravening what the statute says. Thank you. Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Mister Mayor. And I had similar issues, and obviously, we already hashed this out at Finance. However, I do understand and realize that we always should try to err on the side of working with individuals. And I'll go back to the question in regards to the motion for tonight: Do we even entertain this? Obviously, there already has been a ruling, and there's been a request for an appeal on that ruling. So we think we still have to say approve or deny. But I'll just go from my perspective in regards to the fact that this establishment that we're talking at Parkway, 12, whatever Parkway is, 1228, can only operate as a light manufacturing. Correct? Yes. Okay. And so that being said, the license is currently being run as a retail. There was a retail license. That was what was affected by the cease and desist order. Right. The retail license also would have naturally expired about two weeks ago, so there's no active license. There's no, not a license anymore because it was, that's the reason for the appeal. Okay. Just getting my ducks in a row on this. That's where my confusion lied with her. It was because I took the paperwork that I had in my OneDrive and did what I thought was a renewal with the City of Santa Fe, my yearly city business license. Now, apparently, that renewal was a whole new license. It was to be a whole new license. What was originated as manufacturing. So that's why I didn't even realize because I didn't do any of the compliance. I didn't do any of the licensing personally. That's why I didn't know there was life. I was detached from that process. Okay. So again, just going forward, I hope that we can get all this clarified and help Mister Romero through this process, and he can get a compliance. Thank you. So I, yeah, go ahead, Councilor. I was just going to say, I still don't think that these motions are appropriate, but I'm not the, that's all you, City Attorney Martinez. That was the question I was going to ask. We could make a, those are just suggested motions. We can make a motion for no action. Correct? I think because there's an appeal that's been filed, you would have to either approve or deny it. I think it sounds to me like, well, one option would be Mister Romero could withdraw his appeal, and that would end it. I don't know if he wants to do that. Otherwise, you could deny this appeal, given the factual background or the sort of assertions that staff has made that they will work to answer Mister Romero's applications when he does or review a zoning letter, issue whatever is necessary that would normally be afforded to anyone near the code. So I think we're, if the Governing Body chose to deny this appeal, the city's, it is my understanding that the city staff is directed to work with them nonetheless to ensure that he has any rights that he, that a normal person would have under oath. Right. Well, and then given the grounds that what Mister Romero is seeking couldn't even be accommodated. So I think, let me ask you this question, Mister Romero. Are you confident in what you've heard from the City Manager in regards to being able to get some guidance given to you in regards to how you would appropriately move forward with next steps? Yes. And I don't mind pulling back my appeal here at this public forum with the help of you, the City Manager. Is that correct? Well, because I've, I've sent you an email. I've sent you several emails, and I, and I never got any response out of those either. So here with you, Mister Mayor and Council, and your support, this is why I came today. I knew there was potentially no decision to be made. I had to be heard. My lawyer really did a bad job last time. I didn't speak. I had to be heard, and I appreciate the support. I don't mind withdrawing my appeal and continuing with what a local should get, which is support by his, his councilors. I appreciate that. Any other questions from Governing Body members? So with that being said, I mean, how, how do we move forward? Because I, I just heard you said you'd want to drop it. I don't know what a formal process. I don't, I know I'm not the one that makes motions, but however you need me to do that. And I was going to seek the guidance from the City Attorney on how somebody would formally withdraw an appeal if that were to be the case. Mister Romero, may I just get your confirmation that you're, you are withdrawing your appeal? And then I think we can say that the Governing Body doesn't need to take action because there's nothing before it. You don't need to move or deny anything. Otherwise, I would recommend that you deny the appeal knowing that the City Manager is committed to working with you. Yes. I, I would withdraw my appeal, and forever grateful to the City Manager and the Council for hearing me. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So given that there is no more hearing in front of us, given this appeal has been withdrawn, next item on the agenda, which is, I think, nothing. So with that being said, we stand adjourned.