Quality of Life Committee Wed, Jul 1, 2026 · Quality of Life Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/991 == Executive Summary == The Quality of Life Committee met to discuss several key issues, including proposed changes to affordable housing fees, street closures around the Plaza, and updates on various city services. A significant portion of the meeting focused on Bill Number 2026-11, which proposes to increase the 'fee in lieu' that developers pay instead of building affordable housing units. This sparked a contentious debate among councilors about whether the increase would incentivize more affordable housing or deter development altogether, with concerns raised about the lack of economic analysis to support the change. Public comments were notably strong regarding the proposed permanent and seasonal street closures around the Plaza, with numerous residents expressing opposition due to concerns about negative impacts on local businesses, cultural erosion, and a perceived lack of justification. The committee also received updates on community services, including a successful Senior Prom and the Southside Teen Center expansion, as well as progress on the general plan update and Land Development Code revisions. A motion related to inclusionary zoning policy failed, indicating ongoing challenges in finding consensus on housing solutions. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda and consent agenda, with four items pulled for separate discussion. - Approved a $350,000 grant from the New Mexico Department of Health for a coordinated community response to violence (Item D). - A motion related to inclusionary zoning policy failed. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda — Passed (All in favor) - Motion to approve the consent agenda as amended — Passed (All in favor) - Motion to approve an unspecified item (likely related to the peer-certified program discussion) — Passed (Councilor Fagali: Yes, Councilor Barrett: Yes, Councilor Chavez: Yes, Councilor Cassett: Yes, Madam Chair: Yes) - Motion to approve Item D (Community Violence Grant Agreement) — Passed (Councilor Faggali: Yes, Councilor Barrett: Yes, Councilor Chavez: Yes, Councilor Casset: Yes, Madam Chair: Yes) - Motion related to inclusionary zoning policy — Failed (Councilors Faggali, Barrett, Chavez, Casset: No; Councilor Castro: Yes) == Public Comment == Public comments were primarily focused on two main topics. One commenter suggested staggering the implementation of a fee in lieu increase and collecting fees after project completion to ease the burden on developers. Several residents expressed strong opposition to the proposed street closures around the Plaza, citing concerns about a lack of clear rationale, negative impacts on local businesses, inequity (especially regarding bicycle exclusion), and the erosion of local heritage and culture, including the displacement of local music. == Topics == - Plaza Street Closures - Affordable Housing Fees - Homelessness Summit - Eviction Prevention Fund - Urban Alchemy Contract - General Plan Update - Land Development Code - Southside Teen Center - Digital User Platform - Senior Services - Library Programs == Full Transcript == The score is one zero at halftime. USA is up. "Are we live?" "Madam Chair, Councilor Chavez, we are live." Awesome. So, at 7:02, I would like to call to order the Quality of Life Committee. You're a little later than usual, but we are all excited for this conversation. "Can I get a roll call, please?" "Councilor Fagali," "Here." "Councilor Barrett," "Here." "Councilor Chavez," "Here." "Councilor Casset," "Here." I know it's confusing as the ones on the committee. Madam Chair, present. You have a quorum. Wonderful. So the next thing is going to be approval of the agenda. Do we have any changes? We have four items that were pulled: Item B, Item D, Item F, and Item G. Not we're just doing the regular agenda. But anyone want to make a motion? Move to approve. Second. All in here. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Awesome. So now we're moving on to roll of the consent agenda. We did have those four items. Move to approve as amended. Second. All in favor? All opposed. Wonderful. We have no presentations today. Public comment. Is anyone here from the public to make comments? Please come down to the podium and we will get you a timer. Two minutes on the clock. "Councilor Castro, can I ask a question?" "Of course." "Is this public comment for everything or just for the items that were not pulled?" "This is public comment in general." "So, will there be public comment on the items that were pulled separately?" "This is the opportunity for folks to give us their opinion on items that were pulled as well." "Great. Thank you." Sorry, Matt. I'm so sorry. The timer has not started. I apologize. I'll be under two minutes, so you all are good there. Thank you. Go right ahead. Okay. I'm here supporting the fee in lieu, but I have some credible ideas here. Moving the 65% to 30% AMI raises the fee sharply all at once. And I think that if you make a sharp change like that, that projects may want to develop elsewhere, stall, go to the county. They may be put off by that, and I want to make sure that we don't create that incentive or that problem. I know that the language has been struck, that there is a stagger in that has been pulled off of the current amendment or the current idea, and that idea was put there from a previous problem, and I just wanted the council to recognize that to consider it again. The second thing, I think this is more important, is possibly the most insightful thing you'll hear about this topic today, is that maybe we could collect the fees after completion. The developer costs are front-loaded. And so when you say, "In order for you to start the project, you need to pay these fees," they're all worried about their money. But when they're done, they know how much money they have, and they have all the incentive in the world to come up with these fees, and people will lend it to them. People will make sure it happens. And so it's just a timing issue and an ease on the developers for putting that fee later. And I know you have a lot of insights on how these real estate deals work and what makes sense for people. And I'm just saying, you know, the developers don't mind paying more when they have the money, but upfront they don't have the money as readily available to them. They have a lot of commitments to it. And it's a very stressful time for them to have extra fees. And you know, I paraphrased here, but that's what I'm saying. You know, you're going to get what you want. You're going to get affordable housing through this. So make it work as best as you can. That means staggering your implementations or shifting the fees from the front end to the back end, maybe on the certificate of occupancy. I'd encourage you to consider it at this time. Thank you. Thank you so much. We're just going to reset the clock. Give me one second. Refrain from saying your name until you do. Okay, go right ahead. Good evening, Chair, members of the committee. So, tonight you guys want to talk about traffic. Tonight, you want to talk about traffic. You want to close roads around the plaza. And the big question is why? What are we trying to solve? Is this for safety? Is this for congestion, traffic violence? I looked to see what the reasons were for wanting to do it. And the answer was because other cities are doing it. So I Googled some other cities. Dallas recently closed their downtown area because the World Cup was there. Paris had closed some streets because they had the Olympics there. I'm still struggling to understand what the rationale is. And I'm hoping that as you guys consider this action, we understand more from the public as to what's driving this. What do the downtown merchants say? Is there supposedly an increase in revenue? Last week, I went to a meeting, and it was a post-mortem meeting on the Guadalupe Street reconstruction. The business members that were there told us that they were leaving. You were about to see a string of vacancies. You were about to see a bunch of empty buildings. And if you don't believe me, you can ask another councilor here at the table. And you can ask the economic development team because they were there as well. When the Guadalupe Street reconstruction was first thought of, the residents and the businesses said, "Please don't do this. Please don't do this." And then they waited for the seven years for it to happen, and it was a nightmare. The crystal ball that the city has for making changes on roads isn't working and hasn't worked. And before you pile on another bad decision, I would seriously consider the impact to the residents. I also feel that it's not equitable. You're going to close the streets, traffic that should include bicycles. It's inequitable not to include bicycles in that closure. So, please have a good explanation for closing these streets with some data and some significant information for the public. Thank you. Thank you. Let that clock reset one more time. So sorry, give me just a couple seconds, and we'll get that together. Okay, go right ahead. Hi, good evening, Chair and Quality of Life Committee members. My name is Yetali Rea. I'm a housing justice organizer at Chainbreaker, and I live in District Three. Chainbreaker is an economic and environmental justice organization that works to expand access to resources for working families in Santa Fe, New Mexico. And we have over 800 dues-paying members, the majority of whom are low-income people of color. And we ask that you recommend the passing of the eviction prevention fund tonight so that we can keep the low-income people housed. Thank you. Thank you. Let us just reset that timer. All right. Go right ahead. Hello. Mayor, councilors, thank you for having this public hearing tonight. I'm not sure if I'm ready or you're ready to hear comments on the closure of the Plaza Streets. Is this the proper time? Well, I was born and raised in Santa Fe. I've been here my entire life. When I found out that they were looking at closing, or you all are looking at closing the streets around the plaza, it's shocking. It's shocking to hear that our council is looking at such a proposal. I was born and raised here, and to hear that there's a lot of traffic downtown, there's a lot of noise downtown. I visit the plaza a lot. I don't see that stuff. So, I don't know if that's coming from the merchants, if it's coming from the tourists that are coming into this town, but it's not coming from the locals. They're painting us out to be bad people. We are not bad people. That plaza belongs to the citizens of this community. This is public land, not district land. Our ancestors built those streets. Little by little, we're beginning to see the erosion of our heritage. I brought this to you guys before. We're losing our music. You very seldom find any local Northern New Mexico music in the plaza anymore. That's gone. Yeah, those logos here the other night, and half of Santa Fe is down there. That should tell you something. It should tell you what people are looking for. Locals don't go down there because they're working. They can't afford the prices, even restaurants down there. So, how can we be the bad guys here? Again, this is another piece of our heritage that's being torn apart, no different than the monument. Thank you so much. We appreciate your comments. And I would ask that you not approve the closure of the plaza. Anyone else in chambers like to come down and make any comments? One second. That timer is already up. Go right ahead. Hi. Still one zero. My name is John Romero. I'm from District Two. I was born and raised here. I've been cruising that plaza with my mom and dad for years since I was born. Hearing stories about my grandparents, my parents. You know, it's sad that we have our councilors from here even thinking about this. That's what gets me. Why is our plaza so gentrified? Why? It's our plaza, guys. Not yours, not the merchants. That's our plaza. You guys that are not from here, it's a box. It's a box. Let's make money. Let's let other people come here and let's whitewash our heritage, our tradition, our tradition. We don't have a Spanish band or ranchera band coming to the plaza this summer. Why? Why are you guys afraid of us to be in the plaza? Because that's what it seems like. And it's just a shame to see our councilors from here with Spanish last names falling for this and agreeing with this. Now, councilors from Indiana and whoever should not even be pushing this because this is, you don't know our plaza. You weren't born and raised here. You don't know what the plaza means to us locals. Was it means something? You guys, it's just money in a box and whatever the merchants say. That is disappointing. I'm more disappointed with my local councilor. It shouldn't even be an argument. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Anyone else in chambers like to come up and say a few words? With that, I think Marcella, is there anyone online? No, we normally don't take online comment. So, we're going to go ahead and move on to items pulled off the consent agenda. First one up, I believe, is Item B. Did you want to read that caption into the record, please? Thank you. Item B, request for approval of a budget amendment request (BAR) from the general fund to the community development fund to fund an existing contract with Urban Alchemy for street outreach and community-based public safety services. This item was pulled by Councilor Alma Castro and Councilor Jamie Casset. Councilor Casset, I will defer to you. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. I am, you know, happy to see this is funded. It's funded for six months. What happens after six months? Is this, I mean, is it six months and things are pulled, or do we have six months and then there's an option to renew if a better, you know, I understand that there's looking for a replacement plan, and if there's not a replacement plan in place, what happens at six months? Thank you, Chair Castro, Councilor Casset. This contract is in place for the next three fiscal years. Okay. So this is just funding for the next... This is funding for the next six months while we work to identify additional funding resources and also to identify our local funding resources if necessary. Okay, great. That was my only question. Thank you. Thank you so very much, and I appreciate the lengthy discussion that we had as well as some ideas at the summit. I mentioned a little bit about some to you in a different conversation about some of our requirements, in particular around state peer certification. Is there any way that we're going to be able to sort of hold this contractor to the same standards that we hold other providers and that I think that we all deserve at the state level? No, not without a contract amendment. So, that's something I would love to talk to my colleagues about and talk to you about if there is a way that we could potentially align some of these services with some of the best practices that we have at the state, and we know are working. I would really like to see that. I know this is a six-month contract, and if we can work on what the for the entire contract we would amend, wonderful. So, then we still have an opportunity potentially to amend that contract, is what I'm hearing. It's my understanding. Oh, sorry, Chair Castro. Thank you. It's my understanding, I would need to clarify with our city attorney's office, but we can do a contract amendment at any time throughout the life of a contract, and that can be to add more funds, that can be to decrease the funding amount, that can be to change things, but I think it depends on what is written in the contract and the terms of the contract. So, I would defer to Marcos on that. Thank you so much. So, I won't bring this up right now. I know that we aren't looking at an amendment, but I do have an interest in us looking into the level of service that the peer-certified program offers. Thank you so much. Any other comments on this issue? If we could get a motion to approve. Second. All in favor? Oh, no. We need a roll call because we pulled this off consent. I apologize. Marcela. Councilor Fagali. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Cassett. Yes. Madam Chair, yes. Motion passes. Wonderful. Thank you. Next item that was pulled is item D, request for approval of a grant agreement from the New Mexico Department of Health in the amount of $350,000 for a coordinated community response to community violence through June 30th, 2027. This was pulled by Councilor Elmac. See, I told you they were both going to be Sandy. This is, no, no worries. Is this ShotSpotter? Thank you, Chair Castro. This is an IGA with the Department of Health for one more year. This program was initially what funded the investment in ShotSpotter within the contracted deliverables. We will continue working with the police department to collect ShotSpotter data so that we can send grief response to neighborhoods in need. In addition to the other things outlined in the IGA, is the primary use of this funding to continue that contract, or that's just a small portion of this funding? There's no funding in this that supports further investment in ShotSpotter. This, the data analysis funded through this contract will support ensuring that we are using ShotSpotter for public health measures. And this might be a different question. If there's a way that we can coordinate what technologies we're using. I got a question from a constituent if we were using Flock. I don't believe we are, but I don't think we're all fully aware of all of the technology that we're using. If we could just get a quick report on what companies we're in contract with regarding our technology, that would be great. And I think I would probably be asking PD for that. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you, Chair Castro. That's the, the Community Services Division uses Verata Command for our facilities, and that's, and I know that we have worked with PD on ShotSpotter, but that's the extent of surveillance that Community Services is engaged with. Wonderful. Thank you so very much. Any other questions on this particular issue? Move to approve. Second. We could get a roll call. Councilor Faggali. Yes. Councilor Barrett. Yes. Councilor Chavez. Yes. Councilor Casset. Yes. Madam Chair. Motion passes. Thank you. We're on to item F. Next item pulled is item F, consideration of Bill Number 2026-11, adoption of Ordinance Number 2026, be decided 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 33, I'm sorry, 30% of the area median income instead of 65% when determining base fee amount. This item was pulled by Councilor Jamie Casset. Move to approve. Second. Councilor Casset. So, the reason that I pulled this item initially was, you know, based on the conversations last week around not seeing enough of an analysis on what we believe the impact for this to be. However, after our conversation that we just had at our, at our study session, which really led to this conversation around how do we just, for those who were not there, because everybody else here was, of really getting a lot of data, really actually setting some goals, and then moving forward with a housing summit, where we're really going to bring all the players to the table. And Mr. John's, your comments are the exact reason why we wanted to move forward in this fashion, is, you know, some of these ideas and these solutions that people may have when we come to the table and say, hey, here's what we're trying to do, here's some of the challenges that we're having, and how do we find some creative solutions. So, you know, for example, what you just stated around they have to frontload the cost of development, afterwards is where there is money flowing. So, is there a different way that we might be able to work on this? So, for that reason, at this point, you know, my, my recommendation would be to table this item indefinitely, although I don't know if we could actually even do that at a committee now that I'm thinking about it, until after the summit. And knowing that we'll be able to have this conversation in depth with the various actors in the community, come up with some of these really interesting ideas like Mr. John's just presented, as well as in context of our wider housing policy. So, that was the only reason I pulled it. Thank you. You, Councilor Travis, and I was going to say the same thing. We just had a very, I think, intentional, thoughtful conversation, and, you know, we, we had a discussion that if we're really going to put effort and thought and work into this, then let's do it right. And I think that postponing this until we have all of these conversations and do all of the work that we just decided to do would be the most appropriate thing to do right now. So, I agree with Councilor Casset on that would be the most appropriate next move for this item. Thank you so much. And I, I do just have a couple technical questions. I hear that we're probably going to get a lot of information, and so I want to make sure that if we do get any relevant information, we would still be able to potentially amend this and work on it. But also, Director, is there any changes? Sorry, Director Lamboy, is there any changes in the general plan that would address this or sunset this in any way if that were to be adopted? Chair Castro, thanks for the question. What the general plan is a policy document, and the policy document provides guidance on how we implement it in the code. And so right now, one of the major priorities for the community is affordable housing and providing those resources so we can construct affordable housing. So, this piece of legislation would open the door to a broader subset of, you know, to help finance a broader subset of affordable housing, like the Nova AIA project that we're partnering with the county on for that below 30% and 30 to 50% AMI population, which is what we lack the most. And so I think the intent of this ordinance is really to try to begin the process to capture those funds, and it's not necessarily going to change policy, but it will start the process to be able to have more funding available for that vulnerable, vulnerable population. So, ultimately, if we saw any negative effects of this, we would have to go back and do this process all over again. Chair Castro, there's always the opportunity to amend. You know, hindsight is always 20/20, and so we certainly can re-evaluate given the, the information that we're going to gain and the priorities that are established for the council. Thank you, Director. Director Chavez, when I was approached to be on this legislation, it was pitched to me, or we, the conversation we had was that it was a technical amendment because this was something that potentially was already part of our process. Will you explain that to me, please? Thank you, Chair Castro, members of the Quality of Life Committee. Yeah, it is indeed to correct a technical, I want to just reference that it's to correct a technical issue that had been going on for quite some time. We have in our ordinance that you are required to pay 65% of the, the 65% of the AMI. However, that's not what had been happening. What had been happening is that the prior director in this role had been doing it as an average. So, we had a developer come to us as a technical issue and ask us, he brought it to light. He brought it to our attention, and so this is why we are changing this fee. It is also to increase affordable housing development, which we saw is our need, and we have to do that each year to meet our goal of 110 units per year. Did I answer your question, Councilor Castro? I did. So, let me just parrot back a little bit to make sure that I understood. Potentially, we were already charging this fee to some developers. Is that what I'm understanding? We were, but not at the degree that of the 30% AMI. We were doing it as an average. So, what in your opinion, and I know that we can't get solid numbers, what would that increase look like for an average developer going from 60 to 30? To what it currently is? It would double the fee in lieu. So, that's pretty significant for a technical amendment. It is, but it also, many developers would not want to do it. They wouldn't want to pay that fee. So, what they would do is then put the units into production, which is ultimately what we want to meet our goals for affordable units. So, part of the calculation around this is that we do know that it is a little bit more pressure, and we are trying to get units on the ground as opposed to people paying the fee. Chair Castro, that's absolutely correct. Councilor Cassid, thank you, Madam Chair. My challenge that I've always stated with this is that that's not necessarily true. You're presenting this as very cut and dry, but the research really does show that finding the correct number is not as simple as being like, let's go from 30%. There really does have to be an analysis done because the other side of this puzzle that could happen, this, and again, this could be the right number, but I do not have the data to show me that it is. You do not have an economic analysis showing me. So, don't tell me. I understand what we're doing isn't working. I get that. But the other side of this equation is that we get no new units built, and we don't have anything telling us which way this is going to go. And, and to our point of what we were just, what Councilor Travis and I were just discussing, is we just had this conversation around, hey, let's really be strategic about this. Let's take a look at this. I think changing this and then potentially changing it again in four months and just, you know, doing this whiplash thing is really not, not an intelligent way to go about this because we may decide that there's something else that we want to be doing here. So, I think that we are all in agreement that what we're doing isn't working. So, I don't want to hear any numbers about our lack of affordable housing. I've heard them, and they're, they're so relevant, and we know them. They're there, but we also, the groundwork has not been done to definitively say that we can reasonably expect that if we make this change, the difference is going to be more units built. And that's really challenging. And Councilor Cassutt, to your point around, if we see a mistake here, we can change it. It's going to take a number of years and potentially some damage is going to be done before we really recognize what's happening. We have a lot of resources at our disposal. The article in the New Mexican today had two housing experts that both spoke against this as this kind of point of concern that we could just completely slow down production. So I just, I think again, maybe this is the right number. It could be, but there is nothing here that gives me the confidence to be able to vote that I can reasonably expect that assuming all variables stay the same, which they never do, that this will actually lead to developers building more units as opposed to saying, "We're done with Santa Fe right now. See you later." Madam Chair, Chair Cassutt, as mentioned, we just went through a very intensive study session. And through that study session, we did have statistics presented to us there. We, when we look at the AMI person, don't shake your head. No, Councilor Cassutt, we did, we just were in this study session together. We agreed that we were in a deficit of 2,600 units, a deficit when we look at the 60% AMI below. When you look at the 30% AMI, it's over 1,000 units. So that is stats. That's not me making up anything. That's data that Director Chavez has presented to us tonight. So it clearly shows, I want to make sure that we're keeping to quorum. I know we're all very passionate. It clearly shows that we are in a major deficit. So when we actually look at, we get to the numbers, such an increase with this proposal, let's say we have a developer proposing a 100-unit complex, 15% would be 15 units. And with the current average rate of fee, that would be a fee of roughly $135,000. Now, if we look at with this proposal, it would raise the fee generated to $240,000. So that's an increase of $105,000. To me, to the developers I've talked to, that is not a significant jump that is going to make a project unpencilable. Now, further on, let's look at our single-family homes that are for sale. The 20% requirement, that is when a developer must develop 20% of their development to be affordable. Somehow that's working. We're seeing the trend. It's working. We're not seeing developers opting out of that. They're actually developing the homes. So what we're hearing from right now is developers saying, "Don't take my profit." Understandable. But what my job is to do is fight for the residents of Santa Fe and say, "Don't take my affordable housing away. If you're going to opt out of developing affordable housing, then you're going to pay us an equitable return so we can actually develop that housing and actually try to somewhat address that 1,000-plus deficit we're in for that 30% AMI stratosphere." So we can either sit and wait and talk to developers who are saying, "Don't touch my bottom line. Don't hit my profit margins," or we can actually work and try to start bringing in more resources. And as I always mentioned, those resources are leveraged three to one, and we can actually start developing the housing that are going to keep people here in Santa Fe. Thank you, Mayor. Because we're never going to hear from a developer that supports this, plain and simple. Councilor Travis, definitely Councilor Cassutt, go right ahead. Again, the data that was about the deficit, again, what we're doing isn't working. I don't think that there's any misunderstanding there. But it was, I think, former Commissioner Harry Montoya who wrote a really wonderful op-ed that basically put down the numbers and was like, "Hey, this isn't going to work," and said, "However much percent of zero is still zero." So we keep talking about wanting to be a data-driven governing body, that we want to make data-driven policy. So why are we afraid of getting the analysis? And the people that spoke in the New Mexican, that was a housing economist, not a developer. And that was an affordable housing advocate, not a developer. And so, I mean, again, we are, what I'm saying is that this very well might be the number. It could be the number, but I would really like us to do the analysis to say, "Hey, this number is going to work. We can expect XYZ." Maybe we can ask for more. I don't know. We haven't done an analysis yet. Maybe we can't. I'm not sure. We haven't done an analysis yet. So until there are numbers, I don't feel like there is information here for me to make an educated decision. And nobody is able to say to me, I know we don't have enough housing. I understand that. That's not a secret. That's not something that anybody has ever debated. We are not getting enough affordable units. Not something anyone has ever debated. The question mark is, is this the policy that's going to get us where we want to go? And there are people out there who can do the math, who can do the analyses, who can do the projections and say, "This number looks great. Go for it." Or they can say, "You could probably ask for a little bit more." Or they say, "No, you can't." Or maybe they say, "Hey, guess what? A lot of inclusionary zoning policies have these complex or more flexible methods by which they can work with developers, and they're getting better results because at the end of the day, we do want to get as much affordability as we can. And I think that it is worth it to do the work in order to do that." So, thank you, Director Lim. Thank you. Chair Castro, just one point, one fact data, just a very small thing that I did. I was looking at the construction cost index to see what kind of change over time there is or has been. And the increase because of COVID and because of supply chain problems has, it's been astronomical. So a related data point was the consumer price index. So in 2021, if I just use a round number, if you wanted to buy something for $100,000 today, in order to have that purchasing power, that would require $128,000. So that's just a small data piece that we need to consider when we're constructing something or providing affordable housing and the resource, financial resources that we'll take. Director Travis, did you have something to add? Councilor Chavez, thank you. I also want to stress along with, and I think there is, I won't speak for everyone, but I could tell there's some frustration. We know the numbers. So it's not helpful to stress numbers that we know and we believe in and believe are a crisis. We know that. I also think, whoa, mind-boggling that we're going to paint a picture of us versus developers who are going to drive our housing. Horrible move to do as a leadership. Let me just say that. Like they're sabotaging our city and implying that is horrible. So I, like that's very frustrating because we just had a conversation that they're key stakeholders that need to be at our table, but we just had leadership state out loud that it's us versus them. So I want to be very clear that I'm not part of that us because we all need to sit at the table collaboratively and work to address this issue. That was really unfortunate. So we know the facts. We know it's a crisis. However, we just collaboratively came up with a plan of getting key people at the table to have a solution that everyone can agree upon and that actually solves the problem. Like let's solve the problem in a real way with real data, with the people that are part of the picture to create a solution. And I don't think that there's any harm in that, and it definitely doesn't mean that anyone here or anyone doing the work does not believe in fixing the housing crisis. So implying that is completely inaccurate and very unfortunate that that was caught on camera. So sorry, that's very frustrating. And it just works against what we're trying to do. We just said we want to get people at a table, give them the resources they need to help us make a decision, and then we have something that just occurred like now, which just puts us on this like us versus them. Like that's not how this city's going to get better. It really isn't. Creates division, which we already have. It's so inappropriate. So yes, I don't think this is the right time. I don't think we have the key players. I don't think we have the right data. Does that mean I don't care about affordable housing? Absolutely not. Implying that in any way is completely false and inaccurate and is just trying to stir a pot. And I think that goes for everybody up here. So I just want to stress that. So no, I will not be supporting this now, but I absolutely will support how we move together in a united way to solve this problem in a sustainable way where everyone understands the goal and is contributing the right way based on data, not based on someone's opinion. That's why we have division in the city. So it's always based on someone's opinion and not on data that's pointing us in the right direction. That is the issue. That is our historical issue. We have people coming in that think that they have the answer because they're who they are, where they come from. That's not how it works. There is true need tied to true numbers that we can make real decisions based on. And I think that's how we have to move. So we don't have that right now. Will we get there? Yes. As a group, we peacefully and collaboratively and cooperatively came to a decision of, hey, let's work together and let's bring more people to the table to work together because we want to support our community and our staff in coming to a solid solution. That's what we already did. So us voting against this or waiting to postpone that is not leaving it without solution. All it's doing is saying, "Hey, we have a really solid plan so that we could really come to solutions around this and around other aspects that are really going to make a difference for our community." Thank you. Thank you. And I just want to defer to members of the committee. Do any members of the committee have more comments? Councilor Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to, hearing the conversation, to give a little bit of historical. So I signed on to this initially because when I was appointed to the Planning Commission back in 2018, it was something that I saw coming forward. And what I saw was just an overabundance of building, and just about everyone was paying the fee in lieu of. Okay, so at that time, I believe we needed to have units being built, and they were being built. But we didn't see most of the developers coming in and providing units. And so fast forward to about 2021, when I began to, I was elected to the governing body, there was a development that was built in District 3, and they were providing the units. And I said, "Well, why are you providing the units? You could have paid the fee in lieu because it's actually a really nice apartment complex, to be honest with you." I know we have this stigma or this, the community says, "We're building so many apartments. Why are we building so many apartments?" At the end of the day, they are places for people to live. Now you can go with a conversation about affordability. Nobody can afford them. And so I think that's what this conversation is really about. I believe that having the people at the table for the conversation not only would include nonprofit organizations, I think for-profit organizations also should be included in a lot of these conversations as well. This place is desirable for people to build. They're going to build. They're going to find a way how to build, and they'll be able to charge the rates that they want to charge. And so I think that building our stock of more attainable units where people can actually afford to live there is really important for me. So I supported this for that reason. I believe that it's not an enormous jump, but it puts us in the direction of really having that conversation over, "Do we want money for the affordable, for the trust fund?" We do. We also need units because if we don't have places for people to live, it doesn't matter how much money we have. We just are giving people rental assistance. And so that's my take on this. I think that we do have the data, and even if we don't, it's a little more what we've been seeing over the last eight years in regards to how many units of multifamily or single-family housing is being built because of their ability to charge what they can charge. And so we still need to have some stock where people have the ability to attain to stay in a one-bedroom apartment that they can actually afford based upon what they're making in this city. And that's the difficult thing here because at the end of the day, when somebody has their own property, they do build, they can charge what they can charge, and that's part of capitalist society. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Faulkner. Yeah, I think since I was on the Planning Commission, and actually that's when Councilor Garcia and I started working together, I have such a no-fee-in-lieu, and I've had to do a lot of research and learn a lot about it. It's way more complicated than people realize. Most cities need some kind of fee-in-lieu program, but I support this legislation because I do see that we do need to bump it up. We should bump it up. The formula is so out of whack. We are getting screwed. That's the only word I can think of to describe it. I talked to a developer during one of the Planning Commission meetings, and I said to the developer, "How many units did you buy out of?" And the developer said, "33." And I said, "Indefinitely?" And he said, "Yes." And so I asked staff, "How many units did we get as a city?" And staff said, "13." And I said, "Indefinitely?" And they said, "No, for one year." That is insane. That developers are getting 33 units indefinitely. And I think it came in, and I could be wrong, it seems to be like $400,000 or something, but we were only getting 13 units for one year. And so I signed on this legislation because I am not a fan of FIL. I'm definitely not a fan of how the city's getting screwed right now, but I also think we could have bumped it up a little bit. To me, I would do a lot more, but I did support and I do support this legislation because I think the adjustment is a good and necessary adjustment, and it's about time. Councilor Forgi. Thank you. I agree with Councilor Garcia that we need units. We need places for people to live. And I agree with Councilor Cassett and Councilor Javis that we don't know that this will result in anything being built. This might result in developers just opting not to build here. And I agree that we had this meeting where we are looking forward to having this summit where we will be talking to people, getting many ideas together in the same room at the same time to have one conversation about how we end up with more units and more affordable units, and preferably units that are affordable for more than one year or more than 10 years, even, which is currently our requirement for these apartments that are being built, these rental units that are being built. So, I'm not sure the protocol here, but I think what happens if I withdraw my second? You, I would probably go through. Well, then we would have to either get a second from someone else, or we could potentially do the vote, and if it doesn't pass, then we do a different motion. Thank you. Would you like to withdraw your second? Oh, Mayor, go right ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to. We keep coming forward with this notion that there's no data. There is absolutely data. Folks just are making the choice to ignore it. And if we look at the data from the inception, since 2016 to 2023, of the fee-in-lieu program, the city collected $2.8 million in fee. And if you look at it as an average of the fee, just as of right now, the average fee is $9,000. It was much less throughout a lot of those years. But let's just take it on that high-end spectrum. $9,000 per average. That would mean that the city received $2.8 million in fee, but it meant that we lost 311 units, more than likely more because I'm taking a higher average. And so the data is there. The data is showing that units were built, as Councilor Garcia mentioned. The data here shows to me over nearly 2,300 units were built, but over 300 units were not built. That means more than likely 300 individuals, 300 families had to leave Santa Fe because of the cost of living. And we are again using the data based off of the information presented tonight, showing that there are at minimum over, what was it, 1,400 units, something like that, that are needed for that 30% AMI. Raising the fee will help us achieve what's needed. Now, this is just the beginning of a long-lasting process. I think we've all agreed the fee-in-lieu program needs to be completely reworked. But while we rework this, because we have no idea how long this is going to take, we say we're going to wait until we get to the summit, and then we're going to draft legislation, and before you know it, it's this time next year. Well, we need to ensure that we are bringing in the resources or getting the units on board to ensure that families are not leaving Santa Fe. Now, again, I think it was mentioned, one of the folks in the commentary in the New Mexican article was a CDC member. Well, that CDC member is also a developer, and the developers have driven this conversation. And this is not an us versus them. This is a "we" conversation. As I've said all along, this is a "we have to get this done together." This is happening in the for-sale market. Developers are developing the 20% required development. For some reason, this 15% is just unachievable. And so, the fee is being paid. I find that very hard to believe. A higher percentage. We're not hearing the complaints, concerns, non-development. Correct me if I'm wrong. Is development, has the data. And we've got. Point of order, because I'm, I'm sorry. I know this was pulled by Councilor Cassett. I'm pretty sure she got her questions answered. I don't think anyone asked any additional questions. And I feel like this is very much kind of a shaming thing at this point. It was referred. So just for decorum, I think that it would be important that we sort of take the temperature of the room, and we've kind of ventured outside of the questions around this legislation. So I just want to bring us back as one of the sponsors on this legislation. I went and talked to a few folks who were developers, in particular the person who sort of caught this issue and asked the question, "Would you not develop if this fee were to be implemented?" The answer was, "Probably we would continue to develop." And so, my concern is, and so I'm trying to let them get themselves together so I can ask a question. I apologize. My question is, Director, is there a sense that development might stop if this piece of legislation came through? Chair Castro, thank you for the question. Members of the committee, no, I have not yet heard anything that this would slow down development. I do want to make, I just want to make one thing clear to the committee. We need to make a decision on this, and it's because there's a technical issue. I understand that there's a lot of emotion in this, and I apologize, Member Chavez, if I disrespected you in any way. That is never my intent. You didn't disrespect. I'll be very clear, did not disrespect any of us in any way during this discussion. So please know that. Thank you. You've been very helpful. I'm a native New Mexican, seventh generation. I really care about this community. I came back to this community because I wanted to make some big changes. I wanted to do things so differently than what the prior director had done. Not that she was wrong in what she did. I don't want to, you know, please don't take that into account. I think Alexandria Lad was phenomenal at what she was doing at the time. But as you know, I was gone for 14 years from New Mexico. I decided to come back because I knew there was so much work here to do, and I really wanted to make a difference in the community that helped raise me and my daughter. As a single mother coming back to this community, I know, and you all know, that this is needed. We need affordable housing. Our people need to live in Santa Fe if they choose to. But I want to make sure that I reel you guys back in, that this is a technical issue, and we really need to resolve that because if this doesn't get resolved tonight, we're going to have bigger problems on our hands later down the line if I'm being completely transparent. Thank you, Director. Councilor Cassett. Thank you so much. Just a couple things. I don't appreciate being told that I've been ignoring data because the other piece of the data that's not being told is before we had a fee-in-lieu, nothing was being built, and there was a challenge there. So, we can't cherry-pick our data. What I'm saying is we have the past of our data. That's very, very apparent. What we don't have is data projecting this into the future. So, a couple things. One, Dr. Chavez, you're saying that if we don't fix this, we have a problem on our hands. But right now, what you're also telling me is that we're not taking it to the average, we're changing it. So there is a jump in fees. So you can't tell me that we're trying to just fix it to what we're doing and then also saying in the same note that we're going to be changing it. So what is it that is happening right now? And what, you know, so, and because it's not this, you're telling me it's an average, and if that's the case, and we need to get to where we are right at this moment, okay. But this is a change, correct? Yes, it is a change, Councilor Cassett. It's a change because there was a developer that came to our attention and brought this forward that we were not calculating the fee correctly. And so we collaboratively discussed the need for more funding. I need more capital so that I can push more affordable units. And so with that, we decided that 30% was the percentage that needed to be invoked. And then also, and also that was a discussion internal with executive staff. Also, I would like to remind you that when I look at analysis, when I'm looking at underwriting a multifamily housing development program project, I'm looking at cash flow. I'm looking at DCR, debt service coverage ratios. When you're looking at those cash flows that these multifamily housing developers are receiving in cash every year, the cash tends to be over almost a million dollars a year, and they're having these developments for 30 years. So they're cash flowing, and they're not paying a substantial fee. And so I think it's prudent for us, and this is just my opinion, Councilor Cassett. Like, I only know what I know because of the cities that I've worked in in affordable housing in the past. So I'm only trying to convince you because of what I know and the limited information that I know. But I know that they are cash flowing. They wouldn't be doing this if they didn't cash flow. And so we're only asking them to come to us with one year's worth of their cash flow to put into our developments so that we can create affordable housing. For me, it's not that substantial. And mind you, I did train in at least development to be a developer. So I understand the mechanisms and the financial remnants of what it is to develop. And again, this goes back to what Councilor Chavez was referring, is we just had this conversation of, you know, because I'm hearing back and forth, "Well, my developer said," "Well, when I spoke with some people, they, you know, developers, some activists, they were saying this is really actually going to hurt the housing market." When you look at, and it was not a member of the CDC I was referring to, but the Pew Housing Policy Director, Alex Horowitz, saying data from other cities that have passed stringent inclusionary zoning policies have shown they act as a tax on new housing production, which Horowitz says decreases overall affordability and can have especially negative consequences for the people on the lowest rungs on the economic ladder. There's research showing that inclusionary zoning increases overall housing for all of us by 2%. And again, this goes back to, okay, we know what we want. We just had this really wonderful collaborative conversation around, "Let's sit down. Let's set our goals. Let's get the data that we need." I don't need to see data that this doesn't work anymore because I'm not arguing that this doesn't work. What we're doing is not working. That is, I mean, that is so clear. It has been clear for a very long time. The question is, what are we going to do that is going to work? And there are strategies, there are analyses that can be done, and they don't take that long. And all I'm saying is that if we feel that this is supported by data, then go get the data, then go do the analysis, and great, and then it'll come back and it'll say, "Great, this is going to work really well," and then we can move it forward. But until then, I am not making a decision based on information. I'm making a decision based on feels. I have a number of people who say, "Oh, my developer that I spoke with said it was fine." I have other developers who are like, "This is absolutely going to hell." Then great. Let's get everybody to the table. Let's get the experts in the room. We have them in our state who study policy, housing policy in New Mexico, who understand our markets, and we can have these conversations and create smart policy that actually, that we can reasonably expect. We can't ensure or we know anything to be perfectly honest. The world is too unpredictable. But we can reasonably expect that we're going to get the outcome that we want to see. And that's it. And I will stop. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I do, I need to call a question, folks. Can I just add one more thing? I'm so sorry. Sure, Director. Go right ahead. Madam Chair, thank you, Councilor Castro. Councilor Casset. I understand what you're saying. I just want to make sure that we all understand that the housing market is fluid. Everybody is not going to see the stats the same exact way. It's always constantly changing. And so what's wrong if we make this change and we make it tonight and you agree and then we come back after the summit and there's a different implementation? Is there anything wrong with that? What would be the wrong in doing that? This could be our opportunity to do a pilot program right now and see how it goes. Would there be a problem in doing that? I don't know. And I'm not saying that I'm close-minded and I'm staying close to what we could collaborate at the summit, but we could make some changes then, too. But this is our chance. Dr. Chavez, the amount of times that you have said, "I don't know," is what I'm concerned about. And that's where I, again, I understand, I understand that the passion and I appreciate it. I really do. But I think that we can actually make an educated decision here. I don't think it's going to take too long. I don't think we're going to miss too many opportunities. Thank you. I just want to confirm. Do we need to withdraw a second? No. Okay. Then can we please have a vote? Councilor Faggali. No. Councilor Barrett. No. No, I just think we need some more information. Thanks. Councilor Chavez. No. Councilor Casset. No. Councilor Castro. Yes. The motion fails. So, just to be clear, that motion did not pass. It will continue on to finance at this point. The next item on our agenda that was pulled. Next item on the agenda is item G, reconsideration, I'm sorry, consideration of Resolution Number 2026 to be decided, a resolution amending Resolution Number 2014-49 and 2016-80 to close the streets surrounding Santa Fe Park annually, surrounding Plaza Park annually from Memorial Day to October 31st or later, and to close Lincoln Avenue and Palace Avenue next to Plaza Park permanently. This was pulled by Councilor Jamie Casset. Wonderful. And so I want to hear from you, Councilor. I want to, yeah, I was going to say if I will give the opportunity to sponsors to give a brief overview. There were some questions and so I wanted to address that. Councilor Faggali, would you like to go first or do you want me to go first? I'm happy to go first. Thank you. So this, this resolution is a minor change. Actually, speaking of minor changes, currently we have a resolution that closes, let me get my mental bearings, closes Palace Avenue permanently. We have had Lincoln Avenue in this existing resolution closed seasonally from Memorial Day to October 31st or later, and San Vay Trail from the same dates, Memorial Day to October 31st or later. Lincoln has not been open since the pandemic, so far as I know. So, it has essentially been closed permanently for the past six years. All that this resolution is doing is adding closure of San West San Francisco Street, San Francisco Street, to this same seasonal closure and making the closure of Lincoln official, which it has been unofficially closed since it does say or later as determined by the city manager. The city manager has apparently decided that or later is indefinite in that case. And so this is just making the closures that we do every week for the summer, which we did last weekend, which we did Monday night for the concert, making that all the time for safety purposes, for the purposes of drivers knowing if the street is open. So it should actually improve traffic because, for instance, Monday earlier in the day, that street was closed. There was not an event happening at that time. There was no real way for anyone to know if the street was open or not until you get there and, "Oh, it's closed now. You have to detour." So, I understand that there are some people are angry. There is still in the resolution the ability to have cruise nights. That is a thing that was important to a lot of people in the community. We heard that. We put it in the resolution. But I've heard from plenty of city staff that that street is unsafe in the summer months. There are people walking around. There are families who have their children who, you know, sometimes kids run into the street and they do not want accidents to happen. We have a lot of people who park there when they are not allowed to park there. And so it's a, it is a resolution I've heard a lot about. I've heard from Councilor Castro and I were at a neighborhood, downtown merchants meeting where people were strongly in favor of this. I don't think it's analogous to the construction on Guadalupe, which is its own beast and an entirely different situation. So that is why I brought it and that is the, yeah, if you'd like to add anything else, Councilor Castro, the co-chair. Thank you so much, Councilor Faggali. And yes, so I actually was approached by city staff about this resolution in particular. There was an event that happened on the plaza where we had motorcycles driving onto the actual plaza and our staff asked folks to please be respectful of that space and they refused and actually became violent towards our staff. My, you know, I also grew up in this community my whole life, born here all my life and here for seven generations, and my sister was actually hit on the plaza on this street during a Fiesta's event. And we ended up in the hospital after instead of being at Fiesta, we were in the hospital. I've seen many near misses. I've known lots of folks who have gotten hit, not just on this street, but in other places in the plaza. Because sometimes we do have tourists that aren't paying attention. Sometimes we have drivers that are not paying attention. And in this case, it was somebody that was from here, hit by somebody that was from here, and they were elderly, and so it ended up being a really difficult situation for their caretakers, for their kids, for their family. These are the things that we want to prevent. And in the couple of years that I've been sitting on this dais, we've had a lot of conversations about preventing loss of life in different areas from public service to, you know, having security here, first responders, to making sure that we are allowing for folks who are living outside to have safe places. If we could prevent the injury or death of just one person because we are a tiny bit inconvenienced because we're not used to something, I think that that is a fair analysis. In this case, I really advocated for us to be able to have a cruise line, to have car shows, to have traditional uses and that. Thank you so much, Councilor Faggali, for hearing that. We have no interest in not creating a walkable community space on the plaza. As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons that we're working so hard to make sure that we have free accessible transit and ADA compliance not only in District 1, but in the entire city. Thank you, Councilor Casset. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. This was actually helpful in me trying to get my brain around the proposal. Plus, Director Burnett was able to send me a map, which was helpful. I also spoke to city staff who were very much in favor of this. And that was actually a pretty important one for me. They were talking about safety, but also city cost for constantly having to close the streets during the summer. The one thing I want to make sure, and I believe that this is the case, is that West San Francisco does reopen again during the holidays when the lights are up because that's something that I know, I mean, that a lot of people do. It's cold. Not much. This will go through October. It might go through Dia de los Muertos, you know, depending on the city manager and when that event falls different years and a few other things. But yes, the intention is to definitely have it open for the Christmas lights. Okay. And we could designate city events. The reason that we said cultural and city events is so that we have the leeway if there are new ones that are coming up in the future that we can also address that with this legislation. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. And then the other thing that you already took care of was to make sure the designated cruise nights. I know that's been like every time we've had this conversation. It's funny, I get very a mix of opinions of people saying, "You can never close this," and then people saying, "Oh, if you close this and do cruise nights and this will actually, you know, increase use." I will say, I mean, I grew up here. I don't get to claim the local moniker. Moved here when I was nine months old, so almost there. But I have spoken to a number of people who grew up in this community, who are locals in this community, and a lot of them hate this and a lot of them love it. And so, sounds about right for what we do. But I wanted to just make sure that one, those cruise nights, and I think that we're going to have to talk about how we get those planned. We've been having this conversation around city events and how do we do this. So I want to include this into that city event conversation. But two, that during the winter months, that ability to still drive by and see the lights would still be there. So thank you. Councillor Barrett: I just love the sustainability factor of this. I love more walking, I love more biking. I know there's been a lot of talk about this recently with other issues, but I just think it really adds to livability too. It really adds to people coming out, to interacting, to talk, like more communal group gatherings. So there's so much about livability, sustainability that I really love about this. Thanks. Any other comments? There's not a motion on the move to approve. Second. We're to get a roll call, please. Councillor Fagali: Yes. Councillor Barrett: Yes. Councillor Chavez: Yes. Councillor Casset: Yes. Madam Chair: Yes. Motion passes. Thank you so much. I think that concludes the consent agenda. We're moving on to matters from staff. Do we have any matters from staff tonight? See, Director Emmery has a big smile. So the quorum is that you can't speak in the chambers. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Director Emmery, go ahead. Go right ahead. Thank you, Chair Castro. Always a lot of stuff happening in community services. Just want to report back to everyone that we had about 150 people attend Senior Prom, myself included. Got a couple of good dances in and I chose my outfit very well if I do say so myself. The Senior Scene was released today, so that is available for anyone. And for those of you who don't know, that is a quarterly, or monthly, it is a monthly magazine that our Senior Services division puts out that informs our elder community of what is happening throughout the community. So it's really super important for keeping our elders engaged. Today this week, I signed the construction documents for the Southside Teen Center expansion. So we are, I am very excited and I know everyone else shares in that excitement. The Teen Center expansion will include a kitchen expansion, the addition of walk-in coolers, and a dance studio. These are really crucial and critical pieces that are missing with the current makeup of the Teen Center and just more opportunities for our kids is always something that I'm very excited about. Our library division distributed about 300 pride-friendly books during our Pride Parade this last weekend. And we have many, many things happening with our libraries division all the time. So please make sure you're checking socials and the website. That's all. Thank you so much. Director, also for the homelessness summit this week, you did a lot of, all of you. Yeah. Director Lambo: Let me amend my statement also. Yes, that happened. And huge, huge thank you to, actually, this is a great opportunity. Thank you for bringing that up. I really wanted to thank council for their attendance. We had all counselors coming throughout the day and I really, really appreciate that investment in the amount of work that went into the summit planning and the opportunity for you all to hear directly not only from our community members who are doing the work, but also from our constituents. So I really appreciate all of you making the time to attend. So thank you for reminding, I had blocked it out actually temporarily, so thank you for that. Thank you so much, Director Lambo. Thank you, Chair Castro. So with reference to everything planning and land use, we have remobilized on the general plan update and will be meeting with our community partners to start with the engagement of those partners with their different constituencies this summer. We will also be out getting feedback from the community regarding our priorities and feedbacks and the mission and the vision. So we'll be starting that in July, late July, and really try to get good feedback from the community. We also are updating our digital user platform, the City Smart website, so that people can select a parcel and understand what building permits may have been issued since 1999, as well as a lot of other data. So it's an iterative process and so we just really are trying to continue to update that. Also, I heard with the housing dashboard that was brought up during our summit, we will add that piece. I haven't brainstormed it yet, but just to respond to those and have that data easily accessible, we'll put something on there and figure out what it is that we need to put there and then re-engage with the council to determine whether that's enough, whether that's what was envisioned, or whether we need to make changes. So we'll start working on that. So, and with the reference to the land development code, we've had visioning sessions with the Historic Districts Review Board and the Planning Commission on Phase 2 updates and priorities. We're also going to have another visioning session with the Archaeological Review Committee July 9th. So we are proceeding forward with assessing where we are and assessing what the priorities are right now in conversations with the City Attorney's office and trying to identify a strategy. There are some procedural processes that we can fix and also maybe identifying things that can, more items that can be administrative. Increasing the number of lots that aren't administrative, like right now everything three lots and over has to go to the Planning Commission, which is ridiculous. We don't want, that's not encouraging infill development when there's a huge investment that has to be made. So there's some easy fixes to the code that can help address some of the comments we've received from the community as well as this governing body. So there's a lot going on, but having fun doing it. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Matters from the committee. I will go ahead and start with Councillor Kazit. I have no matters today. Well, I guess I, I thought that we had a really great, we had a really great planning session today. I feel a little discouraged after this governing, or this, you know, committee meeting. It brought me down from my excitement a little bit, but I still think that there's a lot of really good momentum there. Thank you, Councillor Chavez. You know what? I'm going to skip because I have a feeling I won't say anything productive right now. So, I thank you. I will pass for now. You know, it's right there. So, just a little push and who knows what I'll say. Councillor Barrett. Well, you know me. I always like to try to keep it positive. Glass half full. Give the shoutouts to who deserves the shoutouts and let me just shout out Sandy Emory and all her staff, which your whole staff altogether, your team, who put, I was very impressed by that homeless summit. So all the providers that you got in the room, like that are doing the work in our community, this thankless work, this work that does not get supported enough or paid enough. I just want to shout out those people that the opening remarks by the Lifelink, that, you know, that was very impactful for me and I, you know, to get goodwill from the community with all these projects, you need those impactful kind of speakers. And the breakout session was great with Chainbreaker that I was able to attend. So just the pulling together of the community, the attendance. I think there was maybe over 500 people who attended. I think, I don't know. Maybe I could be, I could be inflating that. Maybe I should ask, I should ask about data. That was with my eyes. That could be, correct me if I'm wrong. I also want to be data. Please tell me. No one stopper. But I can't because you guys are doing such an amazing job. When I just see all these strong, amazing, brave women in this room and I just think we're going to get a lot accomplished together in our time together and these amazing minds, these intelligent women and I'm just really impressed with all of you. So, I'm going to leave here with goodwill for all and thank you for all you do. Councillor Piggali: Thank you, Councillor Barrett for bringing us back up. I want to shout out constituent services and the clerk's office for the amazing Pride events over the weekend. The parade went really well. Everything on the plaza went great. And then we had the Disability Pride flag raising this morning, another great event. So yeah, I think we're doing a lot of great things to bring our community together. And I will leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you so much. Matters from the chair. Also, just really grateful for this body. We may not always agree, but I think we've always been really respectful of each other and we're able to do the work. And I, sorry, I know I take things personally. If anybody wants to hear rancheras, please just give me a call. I am a mariachi as my day job and I would be happy to put you in contact with more Spanish language music. Actually, we'll be playing on the 17th, Revital Spaces. So with that, we will adjourn until July 22nd. Thank you so much.