Regular Finance Committee Meeting - Last Monday
Mon, Jul 27, 2026 · Finance Committee
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/954-finance-jul-27-2026

== Executive Summary ==
The Finance Committee met on 07/27/2026, addressing significant changes to the Santa Fe Homes Program and discussing extensive plans for the Santa Fe Plaza. Key decisions included advancing Bill Number 2026-11, which revises the fee-in-lieu calculation for affordable housing developers to use 30% of the Area Median Income, a substantial increase aimed at making the fees more effective in funding new affordable units. This bill also includes an amendment to simplify payment plan options for developers, allowing for more flexibility in fee payment.

Another major topic was Resolution 2026-TBD, concerning the closure of streets around the Santa Fe Plaza. After considerable debate, particularly regarding emergency vehicle access and public safety, the committee approved a seasonal closure of the Plaza from Memorial Day to October 31st/Dia de los Muertos, with Lincoln Avenue and Palace Avenue permanently closed during this period. An amendment was also passed to keep one lane of San Francisco Street open. The committee also requested reports on allocated funds for Plaza beautification and Fort Marcy Park improvements.

== Key Decisions ==
- Bill Number 2026-11, amending the Santa Fe Homes Program to revise the fee-in-lieu calculation for affordable housing developers to use 30% of the Area Median Income, was passed to the Governing Body as amended.
- Resolution 2026-TBD, concerning the closure of streets around the Santa Fe Plaza, was passed as amended. This includes seasonal closure from Memorial Day to October 31st/Dia de los Muertos, permanent closure of Lincoln Avenue and Palace Avenue during this period, and keeping one lane of San Francisco Street open.

== Motions & Votes ==
- Motion to table an amendment regarding discretionary power — Passed unanimously (4-0)
- Motion to table the entire item related to the amendment regarding discretionary power — Passed unanimously (4-0)
- Motion to approve Amendment A (full Plaza closure with delayed start to Memorial Day 2027, coordination with advisory committees, ADA parking, drop-off/pickup study, designated vehicle use days, business access) to the Plaza closure resolution — Passed unanimously (4-0)
- Motion to approve an amendment to the Plaza Street Closures resolution to leave one road open — Passed (3-1)
- Motion to approve a third amendment to the Plaza Street Closures resolution for seasonal closure from Memorial Day to October 31st/Dia de los Muertos, and permanent closure of Lincoln and Palace Avenues during this period — Passed unanimously (4-0)
- Main motion on Plaza Street Closures as amended to leave one road open — Passed unanimously (4-0)
- Motion to remove Bill Number 2026-11 (Santa Fe Homes Program) from the table — Passed unanimously (4-0)
- Main motion on Bill Number 2026-11 (Santa Fe Homes Program) to pass to the Governing Body as amended — Passed unanimously (4-0)

== Public Comment ==
Two public comments were received regarding the Santa Fe Plaza. Chandler Moore advocated for reduced motor vehicle traffic and increased pedestrian-friendliness, sharing an anecdote about local support for a less congested Plaza. Jeffrey Haynes submitted a written comment expressing sadness over traffic congestion and noise on San Francisco Street, urging for pedestrian-focused streets around the Plaza. Public comments also highlighted the potential for the Plaza closure to foster nightlife, family-friendly events, and revitalize the city center.

== Topics ==
- Plaza Traffic Reduction
- Affordable Housing Fees
- Affordable Housing Policy
- Park Improvements
- Back to School Bash
- Bonding for Projects

== Full Transcript ==
We're going to have a little entertainment from Councilor Castro as we wait, kind of like intermission or elevator music. All right. We're live on YouTube. Okay. We're back. Okay. Is there anyone else in chambers? Madam Chair, we have one more. Next.

Hello, I'm Chandler Moore. I'm a resident in Santa Fe, involved in a couple of different nonprofits. I'm happy to speak with you today, so thanks for allowing public comments. So good evening, Chair and members of the Finance Committee. I have a whole outline of things that I was going to say. But actually, about an hour ago, something funny happened, and I think it kind of illustrates the story maybe better than the rest of the stuff that I had prepared. Because I went to go get a haircut, and I walked into Great Clips, and I was like, "Give me the Mayor Mike Garcia." So they cut my hair, and this is what that looks like if you ask for it at the hair cuttery. Right?

But when I was talking to the stylist, I said, "Hey, I'm going in, and I'm going to try to do public comments at the Finance Committee. I'm going to try to also speak at City Council in support of this Resolution 2026 that is essentially reducing the amount of motor vehicle traffic in the Plaza. And so what do you think about that?" She's like, "Well, I'm from here my whole life, and I've been reading about this actually online, and I think it's a good idea." And I was like, "Why?" And so she started talking about how when she grew up, when she was a kid, people used the Plaza a lot more. When she was a child, it was a place people go and hang out, and it's changed. And so I said, "What's changed? Why would you use it less? And why would you not take your kids there?" And she said, "Because everything's gotten so big, all grown up. The whole city has." And it feels that way. I said, "Well, what if it was just less congested? And what if it was just a little less busy with cars and with all the motion and the motors and the noise?" Like, that'd be great. So I think that's kind of an answer that maybe you haven't heard from a lot of people all over the city. It would be nice if things in the Plaza were a little more calmed down, and maybe that's something to talk to your constituents about. Thank you.

Right. It doesn't look like there's anybody else. Anyone online?

Madam Chair, there are no members present online, but we do have a written comment that was submitted by Mr. Jeffrey Haynes, and I can read that into the record. It says, "I live in the Railyard. I am sad to see car traffic congestion on San Francisco Street. Every fourth vehicle has the sound system blaring and the loud muffler waiting for a brief moment to gun the engine and impress who? This is such a degradation of the Plaza's beauty. Please make the Plaza and the streets surrounding its cafes for pedestrians. Come into the 21st century. The Plaza is a gem in Santa Fe. Let's make it complete."

Okay. All right. Next item. God forbid.

Madam Chair, we will be moving on to discussion items for this evening for the items that were pulled, and we will be starting with item 7X. It is a consideration of Bill Number 2026-11, adoption of Ordinance Number 2026-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Michael Garcia, Councilor Alma Castro, Councilor Pilar Faulkner, and Councilor Lee Garcia. A bill relating to the Santa Fe Homes Program and requirements for rental units, amending Section 26-1.22 to make certain technical changes to clarify the calculation of fees paid in lieu of providing on-site affordable units, to amend the fee in lieu calculation to use 30% of the area median income instead of 65% when determining the base fee amount. And this evening, we have Fabiola Chavez, the Affordable Housing Director. Thank you, Fabiola. You want to give us a little brief?

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Faulkner, members of the Finance Committee. I'm sorry. Let me just jump in here for a second. Give me just a moment. Wow, bro. Bridge. Can we get IT up to the podium, please? All right. It's okay. Yeah. I don't. Nice. Thank you, IT. Thank you. Let's do it.

Chair Faulkner, thank you for having me today. I'm really excited to bring this motion forward. And at to go, I see the microphone's on in the back. The mic's on in the back. This is awesome. Chair Faulkner, I'm so sorry. And then IT, if you want in a few minutes, I'm going to have you activate Sherry Boucher, our national housing consultant that's also going to present on the numbers of this analysis that we've completed. So as you know, we are proposing a change to the fee in lieu calculation. This is going to go from a 65% area median income to 30% area median income. This first slide that I'm showing on the screen, let me just do it in presenter mode. So it'll be better. How's that? Okay. Perfect.

This is the 30 area median, I'm sorry, the 65% area median income. So we started off as what we currently have as the fee in lieu. Just know that each of these unit counts will change depending on the unit composition. So we are, the way we calculate this is a gap. So it's a gap from the fair market rents that's published by HUD and then minus the affordable housing units. So it depends on the composition of the development. So, like, a three-bedroom composition is going to be quite higher than a one-bedroom composition and so on. So this particular project we analyzed was a 139 unit count with 54 one-bedroom units, 67 two-bedroom units, and then 18 three-bedroom units. You can see that the affordable housing set aside at 15% is about 21 units. Right? Because we can't do 20.85 units. So we round that up to 21. So in theory, if this was a project that wanted to give us the units, the amount of the units that they would have to set aside as affordable would be 21. So our gap in this analysis is under the B unit. The monthly category is what the developer would pay on a monthly basis if we decided to do that. Usually, the way we pay this fee in lieu would be to collect it at the time that they pull permits. So that's when we collect the fee. In this particular case, you will see that this developer would pay about $15,833 or $22.39 per unit. We all know that that's not the correct amount to put another unit in production, so we're very behind the national average.

So if I go on to the next slide, I will show you the proposed change of the calculation to 30%. In this category, we did the same project description, a 139-unit development with the composition of one-bedrooms at 54 units and two-bedroom units, 67 count, and three-bedroom with 18 count. Nothing changes in the affordable units. If they wanted to provide the affordable units, they would still do that at 21 units. And then you'll see the fee unit composition did change, and this is because it's based on that 30% of the area median income versus the 65. You will see the monthly amount in the next column and then the project fee. So, usually, what we do here, what we would do here is collect that $1,004,002.92 upfront when they come in, any developers, and they want to pull permits. We would collect the fee at that time. You can see here that the unit count per unit is to compensate for not having the units in service as affordable is only $48,167. There's no way that we would be able to develop a three-bedroom at $48,167. So you can see here it is very, very clear that we're still below what really is needed to replace these units.

So, Leon, I'm going to ask you if you can add Sherry Boucher. So, Councilor Cassette asked that we do a deep dive in the analysis, and I'm very fortunate enough to have a very well-renowned affordable housing national expert alongside of me, Sherry Boucher. She is with Innovative Housing and Community Solutions. She's worked 20 years in affordable housing. She's also worked for a think tank, and she's also worked with many municipalities throughout the country to help them draft policies and procedures that would help their affordable housing program. So, Leon, is Sherry available?

He is on the show. On the video feed right now. Yes.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you so much for your time this evening. It's an honor to be here, and thank you, Director Chavez, for the opportunity. What I really would love to cover with you all is moving on, oh, well, did you all want me to share a little more? I know Fabiola gave you a little bit about my background, but 21 years of affordable housing experience, community development experience. And I'm really passionate about housing, really passionate about innovative solutions for communities, and previously worked for a think tank where we thought outside the box to increase housing production for communities, and now I have the pleasure of establishing Innovative Housing Community Solutions where I help communities and consult with communities to assist with their programs. So it's again, an honor to be here today. And what I'd love to run through is a quick comparison that we did of other communities for you all as you look at this potential increase in your fee structure, and how that compares with the national objective or the national comparison. So, I cannot see the slides, but I'm hoping it's on the bar chart. If it is on the bar chart.

Oh, okay. Good. There it is, Sherry. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Director Chavez. So as you can see, we looked at quite a few communities all over the US, and we wanted to look at potentially comparable unit, communities as well. Denver, a lot of Colorado cities that we felt like were comparable. And then also we wanted to take a look at, we got some great suggestions from councilors, included Aspen, Colorado in there and Boulder and Broomfield. But you can see our proposed change here is still significantly low, even the lowest comparison that we saw. Broomfield again is the lowest and at around 106 per unit, and still, this example that we have or that Director Chavez showed us with $448,000 per unit is still significantly below the lowest of the comparison that we did nationwide.

And what I wanted to do on the next slide, please, where we can talk a little more about the specifics of different communities. So Broomfield, Colorado, they initiated their, taking a deeper look at their revised changes. They recently updated their fee structure in 2022, and since that time, they've experienced significant growth in housing production, and they even expect 6,000 new housing units in the next five years. Additionally, and they updated the council, their council in 2025 with their projections. But what we found in that presentation that we researched is that in 2021 to 2024, they had 287 affordable units. And since that time, just in one year's time in 2025, they were able to achieve 483 units. So we can see a significant increase in housing production and also in affordable housing production after they implemented those changes in 2022.

And then the second, just other community that we wanted to highlight. And again, these are the two lowest fee structures that we found in our assessments when we pulled a few national examples. Boulder, Colorado, which has some similar characteristics to our community here in Santa Fe, but Boulder updated their fee structure in 2024, and they established this public-facing dashboard, which I thought was a really neat idea. They have a goal of in 2035, achieving 15% of their units as permanently affordable. At this time, their dashboard shows that they've created 4,326 units.

This is affordable units. They specifically track permanently affordable units with this dashboard, and that takes them to 8.9%. So they're making good headway on their goal that they hope to achieve by 2035. So what we found is both communities reported positive development impacts after implementing revised fee structures. As we mentioned below, the fee structures that both Boulder and Broomfield implemented are significantly higher than what's proposed here. So we do feel that we do not anticipate any negative impacts to the development growth here in Santa Fe with these proposed changes since they are significantly below the national averages and also significantly below even the lowest that we see in communities in your neighboring state, Colorado. So, with that, that is all I have to share with you all tonight, and thank you again so much for your time and honored to be here. Thank you so much.

Now, can we get a motion on the legislation?

Move to approve.

Second.

Roll call. Counselor Castro. We don't know what. Are you going to move an amendment? We have amendments. Sorry, everybody. We have Amendment A. Yes, and I think I'm carrying that. So Amendment A is sponsored by Councilor Cassatt, Councilor Garcia, and myself. And what it basically does is it says that the developer has from the time they start the process until they get occupancy documents, they can pay the fee in lieu throughout that time. So it kind of makes payment of the fee in lieu more flexible, which we thought would be a good idea. So that's the long and short of it.

Councilor Garcia.

Thank you, Councilor, Chairwoman Faulkner. I joined this amendment to work and help to solidify more of a transparent and ability for individuals that are wanting to develop into the city, the options as explained by Chairwoman Faulkner, in regards to listening to some community members that have come forth. I'd like to ask a question in regards to what is the current process now? Because if, in fact, a developer were to come in with a proposal and in order to get off the ground, jumping from the 48, what was it? 60 to 630. However, the jump in the payment dollar amount was pretty significant. So, if you can explain to us a little about how that works currently, what we're doing here with this amendment, and how you as the director, working in your department, plan on moving forward one way or the other, whether this is passed or if it continues the old way.

Okay. Thank you for that question, Councilor Lee Garcia, Madam Chair. These are great questions. We tackle these on a daily basis in the affordable housing department. So what happens currently is a developer will come forward and give us a proposal of a particular project, and they will provide the composition. We give them a proposal, and then they come back probably two years later and say, "Hey, now I'm ready to pay my permits, and I need my fee agreement." What we do is we draft that agreement for the current fee as determined by the fair market rate rents that HUD publishes on an annual basis. And so those fees increase year to year because the fair market rates increase by HUD, so the fee increases then as well. Then we also ask for a check to be provided for the fee in lieu at that time. And then from that point, we record the document. It's recorded at the county. Anytime that a city employee needs to inspect that property, they will be able to identify, "Hey, did this developer pay the fee, or did they put the units into service?"

The way it would work currently, that's the current way it works. And now if we increase the fee, there's a few administrative things that we need to do. So you will see me again come and propose the new fee structure and also provide the fair market rates for 2026 because we're still working off of fair market rates from 2025 because we knew that this proposal was coming forward. So we want to tackle all of those changes at once. What will happen is the same realm that I just discussed. They're going to have a proposal first, and then in two years, once that project comes to fruition, that's when they would pay the fee. Now I know that there's discussion currently being had of probably a potential spreading out that payment so they can pay it by the time certificate of occupancy comes around. I ask the committee, Finance Committee, and Madam Chair for you to really evaluate that process. And the reason being is because it is going to cause more administrative burden within my department. So what this means is that we will have to invoice developers on a monthly, quarterly basis to collect their fee. This will also create more burden for the cashier's office because that office will also have to process the payments. So because this fee is still under the national average and we're not seeing that it is proposing any type of slowdown in any development areas that we've just presented, we would ask that it stay the same just because of the administrative burden that it would cause for staff. Thank you.

So I just want to read out the area where it says in this amendment, under line six of page five, it starts and it says, "Developers who choose to pay the fee in lieu may work with the Office of Affordable Housing to develop a payment plan as long as the total payment is received by the city no later than at the point at which the developer applies for a certificate of occupancy, unless it is determined by the Office of Affordable Housing that a later payment date is feasible and beneficial to the Santa Fe Homes program." So, basically, this allows them to maybe not even front-load the money and pay at the end. And how does that affect our processes if that were to happen?

Well, it wouldn't necessarily if they were making one payment at the end of their certificate of occupancy, then it wouldn't. But let's say they would have to make monthly or quarterly payments, whatever they would choose, then that would cause the burden for the employees.

And so currently, do we have the ability to maybe break this up? I mean, in this amendment, it's directing your office to come up with a payment plan or chosen. Now, what does that look like? Because I was, you know, can you do this from an administrative perspective? Or I mean, obviously, if this is put in there, you'll have to. And so if that is the will of the body, then that's what it is. However, we want to try to make sure that the amount is the amount because that's what this is changing. And so I just kind of want to make sure that we are being smart and making sure that we can do this without trying to complicate the world, so to speak. Your response, please.

Councilor Lee Garcia, Madam Chair Faulkner, members of the Finance Committee, I agree. It could cause some burden, and it possibly could not. If they come, if a developer comes up at the end of their certificate of occupancy and they have the full payment, we'll definitely take the full payment. But, ultimately, Councilor Lee Garcia, what we're doing is if you really think about it, we're creating a loan program for the developer without charging a fee or an interest rate. And so I will do whatever this committee decides to do, but I'm just, you know, I just want to make sure that we're understanding the full gamut of what we're proposing here.

Okay. I don't know if anybody has any other questions, and I can cede the floor for now. I may have a couple more. Thanks.

Councilor Castro?

I do. Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you, Director. As I'm reading this, I wonder because it says that we can potentially receive that fee at a later date, would we be able to, and you mentioned that the fees continuously go up. Would there be a benefit to maybe charging the fee later in the process where the fee is increased?

Absolutely, Councilor Castro, Madam Chair Faulkner, members of the Finance Committee, you are absolutely right. Because if they pay later, then the new fee structure for that year is implemented. So in theory, it could be even higher at the time that the certificate of occupancy came to fruition. And for me, that's a benefit. I think that we need as much money as we can to build these units, but I do want to sort of put that into the space and make sure we understand that it does potentially offer a little bit of wiggle room. It could also allow for us to charge a higher fee. I have another question regarding the process. In the process, and thank you so much, Councilor Garcia, for asking about that. It feels like you have a negotiating sort of lever that you can pull to do something similar already.

Yes, Councilor Castro, Madam Chair Faulkner, and members of the Finance Committee, you are absolutely right. We do have that ability to kind of work with developers. We haven't seen that happen where that's come up. So, but we do have the ability administratively to do that if it needed to be done. Sorry. So I'm going to cede the floor. Just to be clear, I am very conflicted now. I was not a big fan of this amendment, and now I feel like we can get a little bit more money. So I am on the fence right now. You're gearing up.

Yeah. Thank you, Councilor. Or thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilor Castro, for asking that because now I'm kind of in the same boat. But I do have concerns because I don't want the city to get into, basically, becoming a bank, right, and having this loan structure. That said, I'm saying this now so that it's not a surprise later. I also don't want us to get into that business with the affordable housing trust funds either, which is something that you have proposed previously. I just don't see that we have that bandwidth regardless of whether it's for that or this, to implement that sort of loan-type program.

Councilor Bustamante, Madam Chair Faulkner, members of the Finance Committee, you're absolutely correct. It would create some burden. But listen, I am in full support of increasing this fee, so I will do whatever this committee asks. I'm also increasing my staff. So I have just proposed two new hires. So we're going to have three project managers in the affordable housing department, and then we're going to have two administrators, and we'll also have one contract admin. So we're going to have quite a bit of staff. I don't know what it's going to do to the cashier's office, but we can, you know, we can explore that. And like I said, I'll do whatever the will of this committee is.

Right. Thank you, Director. Thank you, Chair. Any other comments before the Chair takes? Just one last, maybe not question, but I guess it could be a question. I think that one of the, you know, obviously, increasing the fee here is what we're talking about in the overall proposal. And I just would like to not make it as complicated as need be. Personally, I don't like complications because, you know, if you can, if you can come forward with a, with a more direct, "Here's what it is." And I know that part of the whole discussion over the many years has been, "We don't have any things being built. It's just going to hinder that." Many people don't like the apartments, which is rental. This is what we're talking about, rental units. And yet you still need units to be built. And so, you know, even though I have been, I was on this amendment, I have questions in regards to how is it being administered. And I'm not in your shoes. You're the professional in this field. We have Ms. Boucher here who just came in and supported. I would like to, maybe, is Ms. Boucher still online?

Yes. Thank you for sticking around. I would just like your thoughts on this overall proposal and this amendment and how it would affect the overall units being provided versus units being paid for.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Councilor Garcia, members of the committee. That's such a great question. I did see in our research that there are quite a few communities that defer fee to CFO, which I think would be pretty reasonable and could be an internal policy opportunity for the Office of Affordable Housing to discuss that with developers who need that flexibility. And that also could be an internal policy that they develop through their administrative procedures, which Director Travis mentioned would have to come before the committees and the governing body for approval after this change. So those are the procedures that govern the day-to-day for this Santa Fe Homes program and would need to be updated after this potential change goes through for the 30%. So this could be reflected in the administrative procedures and wouldn't need to really be hashed out here on the floor today. We really could get a lot more feedback from all of our councilors and see how that could be reflected in the administrative procedures. And, like you said, we could keep it pretty simple here today, pretty clean as far as potential approval, and then hash out how that structure, how that deferral would reflect in the administrative procedures. I hope that makes sense, but happy to answer any questions.

Good. Thank you. My question, and that was for Director Chavez. So if this passes here, when there is a specific payment plan that would be provided, does that have to come back to this Finance Committee to have an approval for?

No, Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia, no. It does not have to come to this body. Those can be changed through our administrative procedures. And going back to this amendment, it just kind of lays out that there is an option, which there already is an option administratively. It's just emphasizing it from the will of the committee. Correct?

Absolutely. You're correct.

Okay. I think I'm good. Thanks, Chairwoman. Anybody else?

I would just like to discuss a procedural strategy if possible. So I have a couple of questions as Chair.

Yes. Then we'll dive into that. Yes. Okay. So when you testified earlier, you said that it would be hard for the administration to manage this, like your department and maybe the cashier's office. But then you also have testified that we can do this through policy process and not ordinance process. So I'm honestly a little confused. Either it's going to be cumbersome or it's not going to be cumbersome. So which one is it? Because if we're saying let's not pass this amendment because it's going to be cumbersome, but we'll do it in policy because it isn't going to be cumbersome, that's a little confusing to me. And I love you, and I know how hard you work, but it is, like, I'm kind of confused. Either it's cumbersome or it's not cumbersome. It can't be both. Gotcha. Does that make sense?

Yep. Absolutely. Chair Faulkner, members of the Finance Committee, what I'm trying to convey, and I apologize if I haven't done that correctly, what I'm trying to convey is that the administrative procedures, if we did have a developer that came to the Affordable Housing Department and said, "Hey, I cannot pay this fee upfront. Is there anything you can do?" We would definitely look into helping them and maybe doing a quarterly payment plan, whatever that is. So we would do it if we needed to. Ultimately, Chair Faulkner, I think it would, in my opinion, be burdensome because then we would become a collector if we didn't get the payments. And that means that city staff would have to collect on the payments. You'd have to call. We'd have to try to get the developer to come in and pay if he chose not to. So it is a little bit of administrative burden when you're asking, "Let's give developers a 0% interest rate and have them make payments." It would be a little bit burdensome for us. But as I mentioned, I am willing to do whatever the will of this committee is.

Yeah. So in my discussions with the administration, I was told that there was already a policy move to do it this way, that we don't have to have this amendment because you guys have already talked with the administration as a team, and you're going to implement what this amendment is calling for. That's what I heard from the administration today. Yes. So then you're already prepared to do the work because on a policy level, right, like, you guys already made this decision. The one place that I will caution everyone, and I'm not, I don't tend to be a specialized legislator in that I like to drill down into nitty-gritty deep weed details because I think we need some flexibility from one administration to the next and one council to the next. But what I will say is it's okay to trust policy if you're thinking about right now. If you're thinking about right now on some of these issues where you have an administration that's willing to do this, this is perfectly fine. Let's let it be done by policy. But as we have seen, administrations have very different opinions, and an administration can change every four years. So if we just do it by policy, then in three years, we could have a different mayor, and they could be like, "Nope. We don't want to do it this way," and boom. We're right back to, hold on, we're right back to where we were before. And so in some cases, it is a good idea to do things by law because that ensures it's going to be a trickier process to change the will of the council through ordinance than it is through the will of council has nothing to do with policy on the administrative side. And I thank Councilor Garcia for asking the question. This policy could be changed without any communication to the governing body. Right? So, yeah. So this is where I caution the members of the committee and the council. If you want something to have a longer-lasting effect, it has to be done by law. And so in this case, the administration has already said that they can do this. You've had that conversation. The argument that it's too cumbersome, I'm not saying it's not going to be cumbersome, but if the administration has already agreed to do this by policy, then the argument that says that this amendment is difficult because it's going to make you do something is a little off course because it's also saying we've already agreed to do it. It's like it can't be burdensome in this space and not in this space. It either is or it isn't. So I have concerns that we're saying it's burdensome in relationship to this amendment, but this amendment is only putting into law what the administration is already willing to do by policy. So then it isn't burdensome in this space because if it's not burdensome for policy, it isn't going to be burdensome for law. You're doing the same work. And so that's kind of one of the red flags for me is that we've agreed to do it, but this amendment's a bridge too far, but the amendment's only asking for what the policy is already saying it's going to do. And so I, again, it's nothing, you're fabulous. This is not, you're only the poor person who had to get up and testify today. This is not about you. You're amazing. No, I know. A hundred percent. Heart filling. But there are some, like, circular logic things that are happening where I'm kind of like, what the, I don't understand. You can or can't do it. And so I think I'm leaning towards, like, if we can do it by policy, then we can do it by law, especially something where we want to protect affordable housing. We want to protect, we want to get more funds into the system, not less funds. And so this would really set us up for a place where we can really make sure this is protected and not something that can change at the whim of a mayor. We have a great mayor on these issues right now. We have had mayors who are terrible on these issues. I don't feel comfortable as a city councilor leaving it up to an administration who could change on a whim. The other question I had is, sorry, I'll get it. Go ahead. The other question I had is calling this a loan isn't exactly right. We're not loaning developers money and then trying to collect interest on it. We are providing them a payment opportunity that's more flexible. A loan is like, I give you, amazing staff person, a $100,000. I'm going to collect on it with interest. We're not giving anyone money. We're just allowing a payment process for a program to be handled in a different way. And some of the developers I care about the most are the small developers, right? Not the titans, not the massive developers who can go to court endlessly, who can handle hundreds of thousands of dollars of postponement fees in their interest on their loans. But there are smaller developers who might need a little help, and we have some of those in Santa Fe. And so saying it's a loan program doesn't exactly ring true because we're not lending people money. We're just giving them a payment option on money they would have had to pay us anyway. Does that make sense?

It does, Chair. So, Chair Faulkner, I want to address your remarks and your questions. So when I say it's a loan program, I, I'm seventeen years former banker, so I think of it like a signature note, right? And you could give somebody the ability to make payments. And when you're having somebody come in on a multiple month or a multiple year to make their payment, and then having to collect on it if they don't make it becomes an administrative burden on the department. So that's what I mean by that. So I apologize. I don't mean that it's an interest-bearing note, but I just mean that in terms of collection, we would have to collect, right? And so if they didn't make a payment when they said they would, staff, somebody's going to have to pick up the phone and follow up. The other question that you mentioned was, it's not going to be burdensome, but it could, is we will, like I said, do whatever the will of this committee. I just want to make sure that we're not offering a payment plan to every single developer, because if everybody did that and we saw on their balance sheet and their financial statements that they're cash flowing and that why couldn't they make the payment? And so I just want to make sure that we're not offering everybody this payment plan, but yet they're cash flowing and their projections show that, you know, they're a 1.15 debt service coverage ratio or higher. I don't want to have to offer this payment plan to everybody because some developers, the big ones, a lot of them do with their cash flows. We can see that, and we are asking for those documents now because the mayor has asked for transparency. So I just want to make sure that, you know, we're giving a payment plan to those developers that really need it.

Well, and I think in either case, you have discretion. Even with this amendment, you have discretion on how the payment plan works out.

As long as it's, Chair Faulkner, as long as it's indicated in the amendment that the director has the option, I think that would be fine because we would analyze, we do underwriting now. So we never did underwriting before. We're underwriting deals right now.

So currently, you have the discretion under the existing law. Correct?

The amendment just says, instead of paying in the beginning, you can pay throughout. Nothing in the amendment says that you would not have discretion. And, generally, in New Mexico, if it's left out, it's left out with intent. So by not contemplating your discretion, we're saying you have the discretion. So nothing in the amendment is taking anything away from your ability to have discretion because it exists in the law already, and this amendment does not remove that discretion. Does that make sense? Yes.

Thank you, Chair Faulkner, for clarifying that. I know that we've looked at Chapter 26, and unlike Chapter 14, Chapter 14 clearly indicates that the director has discretion. However, Chapter 26, which governs the affordable housing, does not. I think because we have not contemplated your discretion, you will have discretion because that's the practice. That's the standard practice currently, is that you have discretion. Anyway, I've taken up enough time. Okay, I won't be selfish.

Kelsey Garcia: Thank you, staff. Thank you, Chairwoman Faulkner. Just back to what this amendment does, it does not state that at the discretion of the director. And so that's what I would prefer. I know that we don't have Counselor Cassette here because she's on this. I wouldn't—well, I think, how do we go forward with this? Because I think that that wording would need to be put in there. I would really prefer that, because I do see—I'll just go back into my comment on this in regards to, you know, when back to what we hear from the community: "Why are these departments getting built everywhere?" And so it's their right to build. Obviously, they're building all within the rules for the most part, every time, unless there are variances or things that go through the process and everything, public process. And so in regards to this, the way this is written, it does state that they have full right to do this however they choose and could possibly say, "We don't respect the decision of the director or whoever's making the city manager or the mayor," because it doesn't say at the discretion of city staff. So I think that needs to be added in there. I would like to have that in there if we're going to fully support this amendment. I am on this amendment and would ask for that to happen. And so I would like to see how we proceed with that.

I think, sure. Yeah, I have two suggestions. And Palmer, we might need you for this. If you are able to add language to this amendment currently, because we need this in writing, is that the question? Is that something you can do at this time? And if you cannot, the suggestion would be to wait until the governing body to move the amendment with the additions.

Gotta say it on the mic. Sorry. It doesn't necessarily have to be legislative staff that does it. We just need to do it and then maybe—no? You don't need it. It's an amendment on an amendment.

Hi everyone. I'm going to say probably no right now, but I can also try and get in touch with my supervisor and see. I don't have a lot of experience drafting amendments myself, to be honest. And, but I, yeah, that's questionable. So, Counselor Garcia, those would be my suggestions that maybe we let Palmer check in with the team, and if not, potentially move it to a governing body. So, my recommendation would be to table this for the moment, see if we can get that information. And then, it looks like Director Lamboy has something to say.

Thank you, Chair Faulkner, Counselor Garcia, and Counselor Castro. I would like to say that it's not going to be very complicated, just a couple of words that would have to be added. So I'm not sure that legislative services would have trouble. There's a model in Chapter 14 that could be added to Chapter 26 if it needs to go there. We also might already have it covered under Chapter 14, depending upon what portion of the ordinance we're discussing.

So, Director Lamboy, are you volunteering to draft that while we table it, and we can move on to the next item to give you time to type in three words as an amendment?

Yes, Chair Parker, I'd be happy to do so. Five words.

Well, second the motion to table this until after our next meeting. Get a second? No, that was—oh, the motion, I made the second. Got you. Can we get a roll call?

Certainly, Madam Chair. Counselor Castro? Yes. Counselor Garcia? Yes. Counselor Bustamante? Yes. And Counselor Faulkner? Yes.

And then I think we might also have to—we haven't—we haven't—we had a motion on the amendment. We also probably have to table the actual whole item because we have to table both.

Whole item? Yes. Okay. Obviously, we need to table so we can have this so we can vote on the amendment and then on the item. So I'll just send the whole item. We had to postpone the amendment, postpone the thing. But if you guys are fine, we're fine. But we made a motion on the amendment. For sure. We did not make a motion on the amendment. Alright. Okay, we're good. Thank you. Next. Appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Our next agenda this evening is 7Y. That is consideration of Resolution Number 2026-TBD, sponsored by Counselor Patricia Begali and Counselor Almo Castro, a resolution amending Resolution Numbers 2014-49 and 2016-80 to close the street surrounding Plaza Park annually from Memorial Day to October 31 or later, and to close Lincoln Avenue and Palace Avenue next to Plaza Park permanently. And this evening, we have Sam Burnett, our Public Works Director. Okay, Sam, why don't you go ahead? Unless the committee wants to make a motion before the presentation. We don't have several amendments to move, so I think we should wait on moving anything until after presentations.

Chair, counselors, good evening. Pleasure to be here. I do not have a presentation for this this evening. Public Works really is here, you know, a staff representation for this to support the council as you all work through this, and happy to help any way I can. Sadly, not with a presentation, though.

We do have a presentation that I'd like Chief Oudakirk to present the safety statistics and whatnot.

Chair, as a sponsor, I could give a little bit of context on some of the work that we've done up until now as Oudakirk comes up to the podium.

Okay. Yeah. So I just—we did, for the public and for folks who are interested, we did present to Public Safety, and we have an amendment in the packet that actually delays this. So I want everyone to take that into consideration. Are we ready, Chief?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Yes. So what I have is just some stats and information, factual things as you guys work through this whole process. So in the amendment, it talks about going by the International Fire Code. The International Fire Code is a massive document and has a lot of stuff in it. And so many people don't know what everything in that document is. So I pulled a couple pieces of information that would pertain to the plaza closure and the International Fire Code. And so that's mostly—that has to do with apparatus getting to certain locations within proximity of fire hydrants and buildings that are certain heights and sprinkler systems and things like that. So within here has a lot of that information. And so we want to make sure that as you work through the process, that you know that we always want to make sure that we can get the help to where the person that needs it. And if there is a fire on the plaza, that's what the International Fire Code is mostly based on, that we can have access to the location, and the fire trucks can be within the proper distances to be able to put a fire out or to rescue someone that's inside.

Perfect. Thank you so much, Chief. And I do want to underscore, when you say equipment, we're talking about fire engines, ambulances. What do we need to have in that space?

Apparatus. Yeah. So when we're talking International Fire Code, we're talking about fire apparatus, fire engines, ladder trucks, the big pieces of equipment. Right? Most of our calls on the plaza when we're down there—we pulled some call data for the last year up until recent—and the majority of those calls are medical calls. And so we need ambulances also to be in proximity. Right? We don't want to delay any care to anyone, especially those that are having any kind of heart problems, chest pain, someone that's gone unconscious for some kind of reason, which can be a lot of different situations, cardiac arrest, those kind of things. Minutes matter in those situations, and having our equipment nearby also matters too. And so we want to make sure that there would be kind of an emergency access for us to get to certain parts of the plaza. And especially when we're looking at one-way roads and we're having to go around big circles, we'd like to be able to have, you know, get the people the help they need. And International Fire Code dictates fire apparatus. And so that's when we're looking at making sure that we, if we need to put our big ladder truck up, we have the width necessary to put the outriggers out to stabilize the ladder so it can go up in the air. And so those are looking at buildings that are about 30 feet in height or larger. And so in here has all that data, and I just want to make sure that you guys had it as you're working through it. So the decisions you're making, you're informed with what's required of that fire code.

Thank you, Chief Oudakirk. Chairwoman Faulkner stepped away for a minute. So, I'd like to give this opportunity to the sponsor to elaborate a little bit more on where this all started. Obviously, you gave a presentation to the Public Safety Committee, and there have been some changes or not changes, but things that have been evolving from the beginning. So if you can elaborate on those things for the moment, and then we'll go into questions from committee members.

Thank you, Chair Chavez—sorry, Chair Garcia as of right now. And thank you, Chief. So, yes, this initiative started in particular around events happening downtown. So for the last, I would say, about six months, if not longer, we've discussed that we have significant large events in the city of Santa Fe. Over 300 when I talk to staff. We're looking at one every weekend. Large events from Zozobra to Wine and Chili to, you know, Summer Bash that we're going to have at Swan Park. So this isn't something that I personally—and I won't speak for Counselor Figalli—but I'm not thinking about this as solely the plaza. But because it is one of our main event centers in District 1, we're also having a lot of conversations. Sorry, Chief, to bring you into the other conversations of Fort Marcy Park and what events look like in the city of Santa Fe, what the outdoor capacity, and what our policies are relating to outdoor capacity in the city of Santa Fe. We were fortunate enough to, through tourism, buy two counters that tell us how many people are in a given area, and we're going to be able to use that data in a really advanced and interesting way when it comes to being able to offer more concerts. Lenzing 360 has done some amazing work downtown, and yet there are some safety concerns with having a large amount of people down on the plaza. So this piece of legislation, which isn't an addendum—and I want to, we heard the presentation historical review at Public Safety, so I encourage people to go look at that. It was very in-depth. But this is an addendum to two resolutions in 2013 and 2016 to attempt to create more of a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly space on the plaza and to encourage more events during specific times.

So, one misnomer I do want folks to understand is this says permanent closure, but it's a permanent closure from a specific time, which is Memorial Day through October 31, though we were going to talk about some timing in some of the amendments. So, this is not a year-round closure. I want to make sure that folks understand that, and there are a lot of permitted uses for through traffic. I hope to leverage this resolution to create a third space and a good community space for everyone in Santa Fe downtown.

It is going to take some resources. And so, we did hear some commentary today about the things that we're asking for having a large price tag. So, Chief Oudekerk, we have talked about different types of barriers, and I think that the sponsors and my understanding is public safety would prefer to have removable bollards. Is that correct? Yes, it is.

Madam Chair, Councilor Castro, so in the International Fire Code, I'll just state what's kind of in there. So, if it's going to be a barrier that will need to be manned, if it's not electronic, it will need to be manned. If it's a manual, someone will have to be there to be able to move it. Now, if it's an electric or electronic system, we would need access to that system to move or drop those bollards down or however that process works. There are different styles, and so we would need access to that system to be able to remove those as we come up to the barrier to get our apparatus in a proper placement.

And so, there was some alluding in public comment as well that this initially wasn't a public safety bill. And part of the planning process and why we went to public safety is we realized that the largest price tag and some of the most technically difficult aspects of closing a street or doing any event really is that public safety access and making sure that we are taking care of all of the emergency services we need. So, one thing I will say is throughout this process, potentially, some of the comments were correct that we didn't realize what a big impact this was going to be. It is a positive impact to the point that we are creating systems and investing in things that we want, which is nightlife potentially in the City of Santa Fe, family-friendly events in the center of town that many of us feel we gave up a long time ago, generations ago potentially. And we're coming back to the city center, which is the center of commerce as we heard some folks say.

So, I want to commend all of public safety, in particular, Chief Oudekerk, for working with us to try to create this third space downtown. I know that Councilor Garcia did take a step out, but I don't know if any other councilors had questions for me.

I don't have any questions. Councilor Bustamante?

Nothing at this time, Chair. Thank you.

I know we have some amendments. I would move to approve the entire piece of legislation.

Second.

Okay. So, let's move on to Amendment A. So, Amendment A is this big, beefy one that we've been talking about, which is going to do quite a few things. Let me pull up the language so we don't miss anything. But there were concerns about making sure that we had, and let me read how it will change. Directing the City Manager to coordinate with appropriate city advisory committees, community groups, and staff to amend. So, the first part of this amendment talks about who we're going to coordinate with, which is going to be, and we say, groups like public safety, groups like these user groups that want to do a cruise line. So, they're going to be a part of this conversation from the get-go if this amendment passes.

It is also amending to say that to Plaza Park permanently to designate a minimum of six Americans with Disability Act parking spaces to assist with the feasibility of designating a drop-off and pickup area and specifying that the closure will begin on Memorial Day in 2027. So, this is a delayed start to give us plenty of time to plan and make sure that we have the appropriate funding. We will be able to look into the future for not only capital improvement money, but also for next year's general fund money, and we are able to also create ADA access to a place that traditionally isn't particularly ADA accessible.

Now, when we look into the actual meat of the amendment, we are going to be working with these groups to make sure that by February, we have designated a day because that's when staff tends to start scheduling into the next year, a day when we know that there will be through traffic for these designated vehicle use days. We also are making sure that there is full access for any loading and unloading of businesses. So, that basically is Amendment A.

Move to approve.

Second.

Any discussion on the amendment? I think Councilor Bustamante, anything?

Not on this one. Councilor Garcia.

Thank you, Chair Faulkner. So, in the amendment, it does have item five, which was on line 24 of page four that says designated cruise nights, which will permit for streets surrounding the plaza to be open to vehicular traffic. The during the designated cruise nights was crossed out.

Yes, we can predate it in number seven because that's where it gave the actual days that we were going to designate. So, it was redundant.

Okay. So, I then so that so then that is taken out, and then it says identify dates on which through traffic will be permitted, which shall include weekends whenever possible and no later than April 1. So, you just you just the date just moved.

Yep. The first version on five was a little open. It didn't have any specificity to it. And so, seven does designate the dates and that it's through traffic and weekends whenever possible.

Thank you.

Great. Any further discussion? We got a vote on this one. Councilor Castro?

Yes.

Councilor Garcia?

Yes.

Councilor Bustamante?

Yes.

Councilor Faulkner?

Yes.

Amendment A passes. Okay. This is going to be interesting. Amendment B, please. Would you like me to read Amendment B?

I do not.

Okay. Let me pull that up. Or someone on the dais. Directing the City Manager to coordinate with appropriate, so all of this is the same. Councilor Faulkner, I think the change is that one street is open on this one. Is that correct?

Yes, that's sponsored by Councilor Garcia and myself. So that, yes, I didn't see my name on there, but I had agreed to be on that to make sure that one street, which is San Francisco Street, be open. So, this is where this gets a little tricky. We just passed Amendment A. If we pass this, it's considered a substitute because it has all the same everything. Only the difference is the intent changes because it doesn't close the plaza altogether. It makes sure that one lane on San Francisco Street remains open. So, if we pass this, it substitutes Amendment A.

Would this actually, to your point, this changes the intent of the legislation. That's why it's a substitute. So, it would substitute the entire bill?

No, it would only, it would substitute, well, I guess it would substitute. It would change the intent of the legislation. The intent would be to partially, like, instead of closing the whole thing, it would close. It'd be a compromise. So, you would leave one lane of San Francisco Street open for emergency vehicles and for any other vehicle that wants to use it throughout the day. So, this is a substitute, which we can do. We can do substitute legislation.

Sure. Yeah. It's just to be clear, it's a substitute of the legislation that would change the intent of the legislation. But it does hold all the same things that the legislation and the amendment has other than the one difference is that one lane of San Francisco Street would remain open year-round.

Year-round. Any other discussion? Councilor Bustamante.

Thank you, Chair. So, if I'm understanding this amendment correctly, then would this go along with what Chief Oudekerk was sort of explaining? Basically, giving, with this, does this allow for the city to have time to implement a full closure at a future date with those bollards in place? So, does it, does this give us time to look at implementing something like that? I'm seeing a shaking head here.

There would be no reason to have bollards because one lane would be permanently. And that's the big change is that this would be open year-round. It would actually change, my concern here is that I don't know that there's room for events in this closure because it is permanently open year-round.

Chair, councilors, a few things to consider. One, that even leaving one lane open, I do believe that there would still be a required investment in some sort of barriers between traffic and whatever portion of the plaza was closed. I do believe it would relieve the requirement of somebody manning the bollards because there would be a lane open, and so that that would disappear. Another thing to remember as well is that the plaza, all traffic on the plaza is closed for specific events, and I believe that would still be possible and something that would take place in the future even if the council were to vote on this. I think Spanish Market over this last weekend is a great example of that. All of San Francisco Street and surrounding areas are closed for that event. And I believe that would continue to happen for major events on the plaza as well.

Mr. Garcia.

Thank you, Chair Faulkner. Are you done?

No, I'm not. Okay. All right. So, I, I, so I guess I just want to go back a bit to Chief Oudekerk. So, the the plan as proposed without this amendment presents concerns for your department. Is that just safe to say?

Yeah, that's just, Madam Chair, Councilor Bustamante. Yeah, we just want to make sure that we have access to emergencies during whatever's happening. Right? And so, we have four hydrants on the plaza, or pretty close to the plaza, three directly on the plaza, and one kitty-corner, Lincoln and Palace. That's at the Museum of Art. It's on that side of the plaza. All the rest are on the plaza side itself. The other three corners are all right there. And so, we want to make sure we have access to those hydrants on that inside and that we're able to connect to have a water supply in case there is a fire. Like was mentioned in public safety, the Saint Catherine's fire is made up of a lot of different kind of building, building types and different types of construction, and we see those types on the plaza. And they, they are a big challenge for the fire department, especially when all the buildings are right next to each other and so close. And so, there's not great fire breaks between each one of them a lot of times. And so, we want to make sure that we have access to the to that water supply, which sits within there. And but we'll, we'll support the council's decision, and we'll do the best we can with what we can do.

Yeah. Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Chair. Also, Garcia.

Thank you, Chairwoman Faulkner. I guess my question would be in regards to events. So, it would still, the the the piece of San Francisco Street that is always shut down for events is typically right before you get to that's not Water Street. It's no. Right, San Francisco? Yeah. Well, San Francisco is the street and then oh, Don Gaspar. And then it also closed down right before you get to the Old Santa Fe Trail right right in front of the, so those streets would typically always be closed down anyway for events. Correct?

Correct. And that's usually done. And so, from my perspective, if we were to adopt this amendment, it still would just, or events require us to close down those streets for events, which is back to what I'm, I was hearing during a, during the Public Safety Committee's discussion over whether staffing seems to be the biggest issue of having to close down the street and open the street.

And so I think that if this is to pass, it doesn't really change a whole lot in regards to closing down the street and opening the street. My concern, back to originally, in regards to this proposal, is it's becoming a safety versus safety issue. Pedestrian safety being run by vehicular traffic versus individuals who are enjoying our complete downtown area. This poses a public safety risk for individuals who could be experiencing some sort of medical episode or in need of some kind of help. And so I think that's kind of, with these statistics that you've brought forward, is where I'm kind of going with this.

Taking aside, obviously, the individuals who want to cruise the plaza, it is what it is. But from a safety perspective, access to that very square, which is always closed down anyway for events, correct? Correct, Madam Chair, Councilor Garcia. So just so the council kind of understands what we do for events, when there's a closure on the plaza and there's going to be tents set up and there's booths and things like that, our fire marshal office comes in and they do those inspections, right? They make sure that everything is in a proper place, that we can still have access for our big trucks for those events for the most part, right? And so they make sure that we have that access.

Now, for our large events, like this weekend, Spanish Market, we know we're going to have large amounts of people on the plaza. We put people on the plaza specifically for medical needs and those things. So we're right there. We're, you know, we're either on the other side of the plaza from that person, we're really close. We're hundreds of feet away, right? We're right there. And so we had six people on the plaza this weekend for the entire market, and we ended up with a number of medical issues or medical emergencies on the plaza during this weekend, and they were able to have access immediately.

And so for every single, like Councilor Castro said, we have a lot of events, and it's not feasible for us to staff the plaza for every single closure for every single event. But for the big events, when we have large crowds, Pancakes on the Plaza, Spanish Market, Indian Market, all our big markets, we staff them with extra personnel to make sure that we can cover the needs of the city and the citizens that are enjoying our plaza. Thank you.

And I'll just speak to the reasoning that I'm on this amendment is because I feel, as you know, I just kind of wrote this down, in 2013, there was legislation that came forward that closed streets on the plaza. And then in 2016, another closure. And then in 2020, I believe there was an attempt to do this, and then it failed. And then now it's back at the governing body again. And so it just seems to me that little by little, with this current proposal, it permanently closes Lincoln, permanently closes Palace or Old Santa Fe Trail. Palace is already permanently closed, not Washington. Old Santa Fe Trail. Old Santa Fe Trail, and that just leaves the San Francisco Corridor, which goes straight up and down. And, you know, from my perspective, I believe this is a compromise. I think that what's to close San Francisco Street all the way from the street all the way to the cathedral, because after people walk, and that's what sounds like kind of in the future will happen because of the historical. And that's not to take away from what, you know, the plaza has been in many different factions over many, many years, decades, and even centuries. And so that's just kind of where I'm at with this. I think it is a compromise. I know it does change the full intent of it, but that's where my thoughts lie. So thank you so much.

Mr. Garcia, I have just one question. Councilor, I'll get to you. So if I understand you correctly, Acting Chief, if when there's big events, you guys have it covered because you're on location. But on a daily basis, you have to call someone from Station 1, 3, or 4, and they have to get to the location. If there's barricades, then likely everyone will stop at the barricades. Some guys will jump out and try to get the barricades down. Other guys will jump out with a gurney and as much stuff they can carry and try to get to the person who's injured or in trouble. That is correct. Yeah, they're going to look at the situation, and they're going to grab what they need and go to that person that needs help. If it's a fire, they're going to figure out how to get to the barricade, whether they can get it down or not. They'll do whatever it needs to do to get to the fire if it's a fire, right? So if they need to destroy that barricade to get there faster, they will. Because in fire, seconds matter. And it shows in history that every second matters in these fires, especially with all the modern equipment, modern fuel loads that are inside these buildings, and all these plastics and things like that. It creates a huge amount of hazardous materials in there. And so the quicker we can get there, the quicker we put it out, the less hazardous materials we'll have in the area, and the safer the public will be in the area. We don't want anyone breathing in that kind of smoke. That's what usually kills people is the superheated hot gases that are unbusted materials that are inside these structures.

Okay. And then how many incidents have you responded to where a vehicle has struck a person walking on San Francisco Street? On the plaza, Madam Chair, on the plaza, we have not responded to any motor vehicle accidents at all, whether it's pedestrian versus vehicle, vehicle versus vehicle, vehicle versus object. We haven't been down on the plaza for quite some time. So we only pulled data for the last year or so, and we haven't been on the plaza since then. Around vehicle, around motor vehicle accidents. Yes. So most of what you're responding to is like heart attacks, people passing out from elevation sickness, dehydration, food allergies, a range of no vehicle involved incidences. That is correct, Madam Chair. If you look at the stats, I think that most of our call volume goes around falls and unconscious people that fall unconscious for some reason or unknown problems, which the caller, the person calling 911, can't describe accurately enough what's really going on to this person. They see there's a problem, and they don't know what actually happened. It could be someone that's having a cardiac arrest and fell down, and that becomes a fall call, right? It just depends on how the information is taken at the dispatch center. So, but the majority of our calls on the plaza are medical emergencies or fire alarm and smoke checks. And so that's where we're spending our time on the plaza doing.

Yeah. And like, one of my concerns and why I want this lane left open is I had a heart attack. And I can assure you, in a heart attack, stopping a vehicle, trying to assess what you can take out of the ambulance that will be helpful, and you don't know why you're going, so you don't know exactly what you're supposed to be taking. And running those like five to ten seconds literally can make or break someone's life. Like, someone could die in those ten seconds. And that's why, like, leaving the one lane open, I've, that's why I support this amendment. It's like, okay, we can get people there. And it's not even just lowering the barriers. It's also like there's a crowd, and the crowd's going to be watching. And how do we move the crowd so the vehicles can get through? Like, there's a lot in play around these where in instances where seconds matter. So, okay.

Councilor Castro: Thank you, Chair. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chief Outterkirk. I appreciate that. I do think it's a tiny bit misrepresented in the sense that we've had these discussions. We had this discussion at Public Safety. We are building an infrastructure of what we want for public events and large spaces. Mentioned the counter. We were talking about, and obviously, this is something that we want to work on throughout the year, but was working with Chief both Valdez and Outterkirk. And I do want to come back to the crash analysis because not everything comes through fire. A lot of it comes through PD, and we did get those numbers already. And to Councilor Garcia's point, part of the reason that we don't have fatalities on the plaza is because we chose to close off three of these streets as of 2013. And so there isn't a lot of interaction necessarily unless there's a problem like we have seen, for example, with people running through barriers and the barriers not being there during large events because they are very cumbersome. We had a large conversation about the types of barriers that we currently have versus the types that we would like to see. The current barriers that we have, you have to bring in with a trailer. They are extremely cumbersome. We also currently, in the 76 days that we are closing that street to traffic throughout the year, so putting into context that we're going to be doing this anyway, we're moving giant planters in front of these trucks. This isn't particularly the best way that we're going to be wanting our emergency vehicles to have access. And so I completely understand the impetus to keep one lane open. Ultimately, if we have a better plan for the entire plaza with automation, with having staff on the plaza, because that was one of the requests. And again, please go back and look at the Public Safety meeting. But one human being should not be the one that is regulating all of the code enforcement down on these plaza, not only events, but also just on the daily. And I hesitate to say that our staff isn't doing everything they can. We haven't given them the infrastructure, the department, or the resources to enforce our codes actively. We also have chosen to go with private security as opposed to PD, and that, in my opinion, is not the right direction. That's why we're working with tourism to have an additional bike team on the plaza so that we're able to really regulate a lot of these things. But one thing that Chief Outterkirk was able to say in that meeting was if there's a large event and there are crowds, they have a presence on the plaza regardless. That if we want to allow for vehicle access, yes, emergency vehicles have priority in the original language and resolution along with loading zones and all the other needs that not only businesses, but local folks wanted. One thing I am concerned about is that vehicles are extraordinarily dangerous when you have a lot of pedestrians. I personally have been in protests where cars are driving towards us, and they really have no concern for anyone's life. And so when you have vehicles and pedestrians in a very tight corridor where there's a lot going on, it could potentially cause even more trouble. And I don't know, Chief, if you've had any experience with getting a truck through large crowds, whether it's vehicles or people, but what are some of the strategies that you're using if you do need to move people?

Madam Chair, Councilor Castro, yes. We have had to put large vehicles through heavy traffic before with a lot of people. For instance, this July 4th, at the end of the event, the event was finished, and we had some brush fires on the South side of town. And so we needed our vehicles to go from one location to another location, and so we use the help that's there. We use PD. We use some of the event staff, and we use some of our own people to help move people out of the way and move them off to the side. And that vehicle goes through with their lights on, so everyone knows that they're trying to make their way to an emergency.

And they slowly make their way as safely as possible until they can get to a road that's clear, and then they can move down the road more efficiently. So I would venture to say that regardless of what large event it is or what large fire it is, we're going to need personnel to help us get through these crowds, to move equipment, to make sure that people are safe. This legislation, in my opinion, if we do potentially create a third space downtown, is going to help us allocate resources, is going to help us create a better strategy, and really use this event space for the entire city in a much better way. I will cede the floor, I guess, Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Castro. Chairwoman Faulkner stepped away for a second. Councilor Bustamante, any thoughts?

Thank you, Chair. Just thoughts, basically. I mean, I'm inclined to go with this only because of the emergency access, but this does essentially invalidate the proposal. Leaving one lane open is almost no different than what it is now. And so I think this isn't more than just a substitute. And I do want to pose that some of the issues that I haven't been super vocal about but have been part of the concerns, not only for merchants and folks that are selling on the plaza, for example, carts, is the double parking that folks are actively double parking on lanes that should be actively moving. So regulation and code enforcement really is at the core of this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Councilor Faulkner. I mean, Councilor Castro. Faulkner walking back in. Welcome back. I have some questions if you... I guess I'm still chairing. So still chairing. Finish. You know, great discussion, great collaboration. I do see the issues. I feel that there aren't a lot of events on the plaza. However, I don't see that it's an exuberant amount of events that call for a permanent—not a permanent—a full closure of seasonal full closure of all streets on the plaza, including making other streets permanent. I will say that on Lincoln, that street is currently a seasonally closed street. However, we can't drive through that because there's an obstruction in the way. And so that goes to us looking at things that are in code, not in code. I do see that. Also, we're permanently going and closing three streets on the plaza with one being seasonal, which is half. And so I think that's where my biggest—and I think this is starting to go back into the overall discussion of whether we support the full legislation or not. And so I'll just go back to stating that on San Francisco Street, it's just that one place from Don Gaspar to Old Santa Fe Trail, which I don't see an issue with closing that street. And I think just for future thoughts, one of the obstacles for many people who want to utilize the plaza for whatever events that they're having is that they have to ask for a permit to close the street. And I think that process is difficult and costly for some. And so that's something that maybe needs to be looked at in the future. But putting up a barrier and closing the street down, I think that's pretty simple to do. And so I don't see the reasoning for closing all of it. And then I guess that's where I feel that if this is to pass, that we at least have one road, one way open, and that's the reason why I'm on this additional amendment. So I will cede the floor for the moment.

Okay. Councilor Castro wanted to respond to that, I believe. I have another procedural suggestion. So, Chair, if you have questions on the actual legislation, we should do that first. So my concern is that, though we potentially in this committee are a majority of the governing body, we are missing a member and there's only four of us. Actually, we'd really like to have this conversation with the rest of our members at governing body and potentially move this forward without the amendment and move the amendment at governing body. Do we consider that friendly?

I no. I'm just in general. We have a committee process for a reason. And generally, that's why we—if five of us voted in a particular way, it would die here. But again, we can take the vote if someone wants to make a motion, but I would suggest that we include the rest of our colleagues in the conversation.

Motion to approve.

Second.

This is on the amendment. Correct?

Yes.

Can we get a roll call, please?

Councilor Castro? No. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. That motion passes.

The third amendment. Actually, we have a third amendment. Amendments to the board. We have Amendment C, and this is sponsored by Councilor Cassatt. It is amending Resolution Number 2014-49 and 2016-80 to close the street surrounding Park Plaza annually from Memorial Day to October 31 or the day after the Dia de los Muertos celebration on the plaza, whichever comes later, and to close Lincoln Avenue and Palace Avenue next to Park Plaza permanently.

Move to approve.

Okay. Any discussion? Can we get a roll call, please?

Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. That motion passes.

Okay. On to our next item. The main motion. Okay. Good Lord. I'm not with it today. No. Go. Day. On to the—it's been a long day. Okay. On to the main motion. So going back to the main motion that was sponsored, motion by Councilor Castro and seconded by Councilor Faulkner. Are we ready for a roll call?

Yes. I'm going to withdraw my motion.

Okay. Going back. Do we have a motion on the—do we have a second for that withdrawal?

No. I'm just withdrawing my motion. You don't have to withdraw a second.

There's no. Right. Motion to approve as amended. Do you have a second?

Second.

This is on the overall—this is on the main, so we amended it. So now it would be one lane open. Everything else the same. I'll second for discussion or for to move on to the—actually, no. I won't second it. Sorry. So we have no vote on the main motion. On the main motion? Yes. Okay. Second on the—on the—okay. Jeez, Lord. This is getting crazy. Okay. So to be clear, we have amended the main motion to leave one street open, but all else stays the same. That's what we're voting on right now is that change and to the—it's a—it's called a substitute piece of legislation. So if it changes the intent in any way that's significant, it's a substitute piece of legislation. So we're basically just saying everything else stays the same. Only one lane stays open. That's all we're saying. Everybody good? Okay. Any discussion? Roll call.

Councilor Castro? No. Councilor Garcia? No. I'm going to vote yes. This is—I'm going to amend my vote too. Yes.

Okay. Just to reiterate, we're voting on the main motion. It was motion by Councilor Faulkner to approve, seconded by Councilor Garcia. Councilor Castro amended to vote yes. Councilor Garcia, let's get clarification again. What does this vote mean? Yes or no mean? If this piece of legislation does not pass, it would not get voted on at governing body. And it would not include the one lane open. But it's still going to governing body because it passed a committee. But we have a—we have substituted it. So if we fail it here, it does not go to governing. So what we're voting on again is that we have a substitute. It's simple. All that changed is if you voted for the amendment, amend the amendment that leaves one lane open, you change the original piece of legislation to reflect that one lane will be left open. I get that. The thing is is that it's been amended, so it has to go forward if we want that amendment. If you don't vote for the main motion to reflect the amendment, it doesn't forward.

I request we call the vote.

Okay. Councilor Castro. Yes. I just—I just want to clarify from my office that the main motion is to pass the bill. Yeah. Yes. Okay. As amended. Yes. Just making sure that's okay. Great. The concern, Palmer, is that the intent of the legislation has changed. Okay. I just—and I want to relay this for my supervisor that we do not really have substitutes like that, so to speak. But so we're just motioning for the bill to pass to the next as amended? As amended. Correct. Okay. Great. Thank you. Great. Okay. And now I'll call the vote. Everybody's clear. Yes. Okay. Okay. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. That motion passes. Thank you.

Okay. We are returning to Item 7X. Would you like me to read the caption again or start where we were at where we left off?

You can read the caption again.

Okay. Item 7X is consideration of Bill Number 2026-11, adoption of Ordinance Number 2026-TBD, sponsored by Mayor Michael Garcia, Councilor Alma Castro, Councilor Pilar Faulkner, and Councilor Lee Garcia, a bill relating to the Santa Fe Homes Program and requirements for rental units, amending Section 26-1.22 to make certain technical changes, to clarify the calculation of fees paid in lieu of providing on-site affordable units, to amend the fee in lieu calculation to use 30% of the area median income instead of 65% when determining the base fee amount. Now for clarification, where we left off, I need to confirm that the motion for the fee in lieu bill is going to use governing body procedural rule 4C5 lay on the table, and that the bill and the related amendment will be taken up on Wednesday, governing body 7/29 meeting. Is that correct? Perfect. Does everyone understand what that means? We need a motion to remove it off the table then. Yes. So I believe so. Is that right, Palmer?

Well, so I read the motion. We went back. We did the lay on the table motion when we left off. We were asking for clarification. Now we need a motion to remove it from the table? Help.

Yes. Yes. If we want to take this up, we need to motion to take it off the table.

Okay. This is my first rodeo on this. We—no, it's okay. Apparently, it's everyone's first rodeo tonight. But if we don't take it off the table, it—it stays—it would just stay here. We didn't get a time certain. We literally would keep it here. Right. So we needed a motion to remove off the table.

So moved.

Second.

Okay. Oh, please. Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. Motion passes. So then we're on to—we're discussing the amendment. Okay. Motion on the amendment. Well, this would be the amendment that doesn't include with discretion from the director because, apparently, we can't make that happen tonight. And I would say I think the director has some input.

Thank you. Chair Faulkner, members of the Finance Committee, we have come up with an option to simplify the text substantially, but there was concern that the caption may have to change. I'm not sure that's the case, but we do need to vet it with our legislative services team. So that's why I'm reporting back that this may be best to go check everything body with an amendment. I have emailed some draft language to you all that simplifies that paragraph, and it's just, as a preview, and then it may be changed. Developers who choose to pay the fee in lieu may propose a payment plan, which must be approved by the director of affordable housing so long as the total payment is received by the city prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Just keeping it simple. So we can consider that at governing body, but if you have comments, they're in your inbox. So I do want to correct one thing. We can consider that today. We don't—I mean, I'm not saying we don't go to governing body. I just want the committee to be clear. There's nothing in our rules or anything that says we cannot contemplate it today.

So if we choose to move it forward to the governing body, we can do so, or we can keep it here, but we don't have to move it forward unless it's the will of the committee. I tried as long as we have it in writing. That's all. We do have it in writing. So it's up to the committee. Again, I think I would feel comfortable moving this forward at the governing body with the input of the rest of the committee, the governing body. Further discussion on this item, Councilor Bustamante?

So we would be essentially moving forward with that recommendation for discussion. Would we be correct? We would be moving forward the original legislation without the amendment, but the amendment would be available for discussion at the governing body. Someone could move that amendment. Yeah. Alright. Thank you, Chair. Councilor Garcia.

No. So in other words, the amendment would be taken up at the governing body. Correct. If someone moved it on. Okay. So move to approve. Second. Is that on the amendment or the? We have not made a move. We have not made a move. So move to approve on the original. Second. Can we get a roll call? Councilor Castro? Yes. Councilor Garcia? Yes. Councilor Bustamante? Yes. Councilor Faulkner? Yes. That motion passes. This has been an adventurous night. Next item. Our next item is matters from staff. Anything from staff other than you need to see a therapist tomorrow morning? Yes. I would like to bill that to the city. Yeah. We all should. We have matters from the committee next.

Matters from the committee. Councilor Bustamante, Councilor Castro, Councilor Garcia. Alright. Okay. Councilor Castro. I do want to ask for a quick report. I was going to talk a little bit about the money that we got for improvements on the plaza. So if maybe we could get a report on that $1,000,000 that potentially is going to beautification on the plaza. Also, if we could get a report back for the $5,000,000 that's going to Fort Marcy for park improvements. And there was one more thing that I had concerns, but I'm sure I will email you. Thank you, Director. So we're making a motion on your paint, just kidding. What are we making a motion on now? Matters from the Chair is next. Back to school bash, back to school bash, back to school bash, back to school bash. You guys are going to hear it until you do it.

Councilor Faulkner, can we go back to Councilor Castro's items to list again? Madam Chair, Castro, so just the report for the $1,000,000 beautification for the plaza and $5,000,000 for park improvements. Yes. And then I heard rumors of a bond for Swan Park Splash Pad and MRC and the rail yard and streets. All things bonding. Okay. In general. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Back to school bash. I want to thank the support of the councilors. I know Councilor Bustamante contacted me, and he's willing to volunteer, which is amazing. Councilor Garcia is going to be schlepping a whole bunch of stuff on Friday and on Saturday. And so just everybody come out. It's shaping up to be huge and incredibly fun. And so, I hope everybody can make it. Next meeting is Monday, 08/10/2026. Okay. We're adjourned. Good work, everybody.