The Public Works Committee deliberates during Monday's meeting
The contentious ordinance amendment that would change the Santa Fe Building Code to allow rentals of casitas and primary residences to separate parties took one step closer to passage Monday night.
Three members of the Public Works Committee who are all listed as sponsors of the proposal voted to recommend its passage while two other councilors refused to vote—achieving less consensus than its previous stop before the Planning Commission, which earned unanimous approval.
Councilors Roman Abeyta and Joanne Vigil Coppler moved and seconded approval, respectively, while Michael Harris and Renee Villarreal abstained. Peter Ives, the committee chair, then voted to move the measure along.
The ordinance—which also formalizes rules for additional parking for so-called "accessory dwelling units" that would be necessary should the amendment be approved—is set to appear before the Finance Committee on Monday April 29, and before City Council a month later, during its scheduled meeting on May 29.
Monday's vote provided some insight into how the governing body might react as a whole when it hears the proposed ordinance next month.
Villarreal asked for a change to increase a minimum time frame for casita rentals from 30 days to 90, but other committee members did not agree. Abeyta moved to approve without her amendment, citing concerns about conflicting ordinances already on the books.
"Are we having an impact on the short-term rental ordinance by having this gap between 30 days and 90 days?" Abeyta asked. "I understand and agree with the intent, but we need more information."
Villarreal said she would not vote in the matter, noting that she wanted to find the rental time frame that was most appropriate.
Harris declined to vote, he said, out of skepticism regarding some of the language in the Fiscal Impact Report, an analysis that accompanied the proposal, specifically the claim in that report that approval would "create an immediate supply of additional housing options throughout the City." Harris called the claim "ridiculous."
"My abstention is based on the lack of information in the FIR," Harris said. "Particularly the use of the word 'immediate.' I'd like to quantify that."
The matter was not scheduled to be a public hearing, but Ives allowed several speakers to take the podium for two minutes each to present their thoughts. One commenter, Karen Heldmeyer, a former city councilor, said that she was grateful to Ives that he had opened up the floor for comment, but wished the meeting would have been advertised as a public hearing.
"I know a lot of people who have a lot of things to say, who would have come and said them had they known it would have been allowed," Heldmeyer said.
Monday's meeting was a far less raucous affair compared to the Planning Commission meeting that took place earlier this month. That meeting, which packed the City Council Chambers and left some attendees leaning on walls or sitting on the floor, lasted until almost midnight. This one was more subdued, and the period where the casita ordinance was discussed only took an hour, and featured only eight speakers.
