UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:056 turns
I'm.
Roll call — called by City Clerk
Show transcript
For those of you who would like to hear all this event in English, we have some devices for you available. So please raise your hand and we can hand you one of these devices to do so. Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Rosen, our city attorney, a report from closed session?
Thank you Mayor. So for the closed session item read into the record this evening at 4.30 p.m., and attached to the agenda there is no reportable action.
Okay thank you. Okay at this point we will have public forum on anything that's not on our agenda this evening. You have three minutes and pertinent to this jurisdiction. Do we have any speakers?
Yes, thank you Madam Mayor. I do have two speaker slips for those of you on the Zub webinar please use raised hand icon and I will call on you our first in-person speakers John Roehner.
0:05 – 0:1612 turns
Hello, good evening. This is about a, I got three minutes, I've got it down to about one minute. Good evening Honorable Mayor, City Council members, city staff and all others in attendance. My name is John Rohner and I am the new, wanted to introduce myself as the new Public Affairs Manager for SoCalGas. I cover San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County. I like to say my coverage territory is Hearst Castle to Carpentaria or Rincon, I guess.
And I recently took over the role after Tim Mahoney retired about the middle of the year last year. And I wanted to say that SoCal Gas remains committed to supporting local governments and communities to provide safe, reliable and affordable energy delivery today ready for tomorrow. Please don't hesitate to reach out. I look forward to working with you and thank you very much for your time.
Nice to meet you. Thank you so much.
Our next in-person speaker is Maurice Fisher
That's a hard act to follow. He was quick, wasn't he? My name is Maurice Fisher with the Small Business Administration Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience. The reason I'm here is I touched base with your emergency manager last week. And we wanted to let everybody know that we're in the area versus for the storms that occurred December 16th through the 26 of 2020, 2025.
And I've sent some literature out to city council members as well as him and some other emergency managers as what SBA can do And we're here for the EIDL loans. So I'm used to talking in front of a bunch of cops instead of, they're right here but thank you for giving me this opportunity. With businesses that were affected, they can get up to $2 million in loan and it's low interest rates. For businesses it's up to 4%, and for non-profits it's 3.625%.
The deadline is November 6, 2026 and have the paperwork in by then. I'll be leaving some cards so if anybody needs to reach out to us feel free to do so. I will be in the area and I'll be able to answer any questions that you have and we'll get this all squared away. I was even shorter so there you go.
Thank you so much nice to meet you as well.
I have no further speakers for public forum
okay Okay, then we have amendments or adjustments to our agenda.
Thank you Madam Mayor. We have no amendments tonight but I can move right into CM updates and I passed the Public Works team. I see them coming up. I thought it would be good to give a short status report on the San Jose Creek multi-purpose trail The staff did give a report I think a month or six weeks ago. That was before construction started. The purpose of that was to remind everyone, the council, the community hey we're about to start this big project It's a project obviously we've been working on for years and construction was getting very close to starting.
And now construction has started, we're a couple weeks in earnest and various people have seen the activity out there. One of the first steps in the project is to clear and grub and remove some trees so this has been noticed. The team has received some feedback about that. We've heard feedback through various channels So we thought with the meeting tonight, we'd take the opportunity to give a brief staff report of what's going on. What can be expected? How to file concerns or complaints or ask questions etc., etc.
So I will turn it over to our Public Works team.
Thank you.
Good evening Madam Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Michael Winowitser, project manager for the San Jose Creek Multipurpose Path Project. I'm here to provide a brief update on the project and its environmental and mitigation requirements. First, I'd like our last update in December. I'll remind everyone of the scope of the project. There are two segments, the northern segment from Calle Real near Kellogg to the portion of the path between Armidos Park and Johnny D. Wallace Park pictured on the slide here as a southern segment and the southern segment additionally is from the South Kellogg Way down to the Tascadero Bikeway Construction has been a steady progress of clearing and grubbing on the tree removal work in the northern segment, which is preparing us for the construction of the path itself.
These window removals were approved by regulatory permitting agencies. At this time we've completed approximately 60% of tree removals. These trees include both upland trees around Calle Real and riparian habitat trees we see in our creeks. Wherever possible, we will work with our contractor to attempt to preserve trees. As mentioned in the last update all vegetation clearing is subject to permit mitigation requirements and a total of 2.8 acres will be restored for mitigation and over 300 new trees will take the place of those removed.
All these will be implemented in locations throughout the city of Goleta. Also due to recent and anticipated rain delays, the clearing and grubbing is expected to occur through mid-March. We are also coordinating with Caltrans in their Highway 217 bridge project and anticipate starting the work on the southern segment this spring. Overall this path will be instrumental in improving Goleta's active transportation network making walking and biking easier safer and more connected to our entire community We expect contractors will submit RFIs during construction regarding trees which may prove unsafe, have root system conflicts, tree health concerns or access concerns.
We may also be able to preserve trees which do not have these conflicts where they were once anticipated. Contractors continue to work with arborists on site to determine the necessity of each and every tree removal. I also wanna hone in on our mitigation. Here's just one example from our mitigation planting plan, which distinguishes between areas marked for enhancement versus reestablishment and you can also note that the path itself is identified by the bold gray line.
Enhancement areas in pink are those where no significant clearing has happened or will happen and additional flora will be added to improve the existing habitat And reestablishment areas identified in green are those where a significant clearing has taken place or will take place and plants, shrubs and trees will be restored. For example the location shown on the map you can expect over 100 new trees lining the channel by the end of the project In line with the theme of paths, I think a good way to think of the difference between enhancement and reestablishment would be fixing up your old shoes versus scrapping them for a brand new pair. You'll still be getting where you're going either way.
In that vein it should be noted that plant reestablishment takes time and we appreciate the public's patience as mitigation and regrowth will not be immediate. Again like new shoes it takes a bit of breaking in To reiterate, a major goal with this project is continued environmental stewardship which means ongoing and active monitoring and surveying in compliance with our regulatory permits.
Our contract monitors regularly and as needed, relocate wildlife to safe alternate habitats up or downstream. Observe and document nesting birds in other wildlife, flag and track protected trees, flag native vegetation and habitat to avoid, ensure implementation of best management practices like erosion control, dust control and more. We have completed and reported our surveys to regulatory agencies for nesting birds, wood rats, general biological resources, the California red-legged frog, the Coast Range newt, special status reptiles, protected trees, special status plants and bats.
We are doing everything in our power to safeguard the ecosystem you'll soon be walking along. Lastly, I'd like to remind the Council and the public of our project outreach hotlines and a web address listed on the screen. We encourage all questions and concerns about the project to be addressed to those hotlines that allow for a direct line of communication to our outreach team.
All emails are automatically added to the project distribution list, so they will receive email updates periodically throughout the project. We're actively working with the public and we've had 19 interactions to date with six different people so far including working with both HOAs off Dearborn Avenue to set up a public meeting. That concludes our project update. We'll now welcome any questions or comments you may have for us.
Thank you for that. Council Member Carioca?
Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I think when this project is complete and you have the new corridor and you have the new path and people are able to walk and bike through there finally after over 30 years of public process and community meetings and stakeholder groups, I mean, I think it's going to be a really wonderful thing. One thing I wanted to hone in on though and just have a couple questions Can staff, I appreciate that you're now working on setting up a public meeting for residents in the immediate area of the project area where the tree work is being done. I guess my first question is can you just kind of maybe talk a little bit about recent outreach that's been done up until now in terms of notifying the residents? Did a notice go out that tree work was preparing to begin?
I just want to have a sense of what noticing occurred up until now.
0:16 – 0:1810 turns
Councilmember Kariakou, yes all required noticing went out which includes the city when is it above and beyond that and we also issued press releases before this project went out. We had our meeting back in December to talk about it specifically here at council and then also our contractor is required to notify ahead of any construction so that is usually within a certain radius and they'll get flyers or something at their doorstep as well
okay And I definitely talked to some residents of the area that really felt like there was, it really came as a surprise to them just the amount of tree work that had been done. Is the tree work still ongoing? Is it almost done? Can I just get a sense of where things are at with the clearing and grubbing of trees and the surrounding bush?
Absolutely. So the clearing is projected for another probably three weeks, four weeks to be safe depending on our rain activity that has delayed it and it's about 60% of the way so we have about 40 percent more clearing to do.
Okay all right well I think that's it for me for right now but I'll look forward to having that community meeting and I appreciate you putting that together on such short notice
Council Member Reyes-Martin. Thank you, thank you for the update. Quick question. You mentioned a project email distribution list with updates. Can council be added to that distribution list if we're not already? I think it'd be helpful for us to have any of those updates as we get questions from the community.
Council Member Reyes-Martin absolutely we can include council on those updates
Great idea, okay. No other questions? Thank you for that update.
And Mayor I don't have any further announcements.
Okay great thank you so much both of you. Okay moving on to consent calendar
Yes, thank you Madam Mayor. Item A1 ratification of mayoral appointment of the Isla Vista Community Services District representative to the City of Galeta Library Advisory Commission. Item A2 acceptance of the December 2025 investment transaction report. Item a three fiscal year 2025-26 second quarter financial review item A4 annual comprehensive financial report for the year ended June 30th 2025. Item 5 temporary on street parking restrictions for the 2026
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled — click to expand
Isla Vista Deltopia event
Okay, any council wish to pull an item from consent? Not seeing any. Do we have any speakers?
I have no speaker slips. For those of you on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak to a consent item please use your raised hand icon and I will call on you. I'm seeing none Mayor.
Okay thank you then I'll entertain a motion.
I'd move to approve the consent calendar items A1 through A5. I'll second.
Okay thank you. Roll call vote.
Ayes have it Thank you Okay There you go I see we
seem to be having a problem with our vote tablet there. Apologies for that. Yeah, we had some extra
members.
No they're not. I think we'll skip the tablet from here on. Apologies for that.
Our
next item is Item B1, a proclamation of the City Council of the city of Goleta California proclaiming February 2026 as Black History Month in the city of Goleta
Thank you and I've asked Mayor Pro Tem Jennifer Smith to please present the proclamation.
So we will do the proclamation first and then we'll have some public comment, and so first I did just want to acknowledge for folks if they hadn't heard today the Reverend Jesse Jackson passed away and I just wanted to acknowledge that we're doing this proclamation and it's on this day so So the City of Goleta does proclaim that we have a proclamation of the City Council proclaiming February 26th as Black History Month in the city of Goleta.
Whereas, Black History Month is an annual observance in February dedicated to recognizing and celebrating the invaluable contributions and achievements of African Americans throughout the history of the United States And whereas the 2026 National Theme for Black History Month, a century of black history commemorations marks the 100 year legacy of Dr. Carter G Woodson's establishment of Negro History Week through the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, a milestone in promoting the study and public recognition of African American history And whereas Dr. Woodson's work laid the foundation for broadening public understanding that black history is American history and that the stories, struggles and achievements of African Americans must be preserved shared and celebrated.
And whereas local organizations play a vital role in sustaining black history, culture and civic engagement including Santa Barbara Black Culture House, the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Committee of Santa Barbara and Lompoc, Juneteenth Santa Barbara, Healing Justice Santa Barbara, Gateway Educational Services, the Santa Barbara branch of the NAACP, Santa Barbara City College Umoja Village, the UCSB Office of Black Student Development, the UCSB Multicultural Center and I am sure there are more.
Whereas Black History Month is not only an opportunity to recognize the unique struggles of black Americans, it also celebrates the accomplishments, integrity, talents, leaderships, determination and progress of the black community while honoring its resilience and commitment to creating new opportunities for future generations. Therefore be it resolved that on this 17th day of February 2026, that the City of Goleta officially recognizes and honors Black History Month 2026.
Embracing the theme a century of black history commemorations and encourages all Goleta residents to participate in learning celebrating and contributing to our collective Shall we do some photos first or comments first? We'll do some comments first and then we'll do some photos.
Take my glasses off so I can see. The Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council, distinguished guests and fellow Galetans. I stand before you today most proud, most humbled and deeply honored to receive this proclamation recognizing February 2026 as Black History Month in the city of Goleta. As a black American woman and a proud Galetan I thank the city for its continual annual observance of Black History Month.
Your recognition affirms that black history is not separate from American history, it is American history. It is woven into the fabric of this nation and into the story of this very community. The 2026 theme, a century of black history commemorations reminds us that for 100 years since Dr. Caterby Woodson established Negro History Week there has been a deliberate and determined effort to ensure that the stories struggles And triumphs of African-Americans are preserved and honored.
Dr. Woodson understood that knowledge of our history, strengthens our identity, our democracy and our shared humanity. Many of the opportunities and accomplishments that people of color enjoy today did not come easily. They were secured through courage Sacrifice, advocacy and collective action during the Civil Rights Movement and beyond. Those gains were achieved because people stood together in alliance across race, faith and community believing in justice and equality for all.
And we must continue that alliance. We must continue to build, to strengthen and to protect the principles of equity and opportunity that make our country stronger. The work is not finished, it is ongoing and it begins right here at the local level. Today I would also like to recognize two individuals whose contributions have proudly shaped our local community Dr. Horace McMillan whose insight sweat and steadfast determination Led to the founding of Goleta Valley Hospital, a lasting gift of health care and service to our community.
And Sojourner Kincaid Roll who for more than 40 years has championed black history, social justice in youth poetry. She launched the local Martin Luther King Jr Day celebration supported and worked with Healing Justice Santa Barbara and has mentored countless young creatives Ensuring that the next generation knows its history and finds its voice. Their lives remind us that black history is not only something we reflect upon, it is something that we actively create.
Thank you for not whitewashing We're sanitizing our contributions to this great country. I am so proud to be an American, a black American and I thank you all. The struggle continues. And thank you for remembering the legacy of the work of Reverend Jesse Jackson. We have to keep hope alive. Keep hope alive. Thank you.
Good evening City Council members. My name is Julius Abanese, I bring greetings from the Santa Barbara chapter of the NAACP. Our President, the able and incorrigible Connie Alexander could not be here this evening she sends her regards I was perusing Ebony Magazine this weekend and found myself in the May issue of 1979. I know in the proclamation
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 move to approve the consent calendar items A1 through A5. I'll second. Okay thank you. Roll call
Show transcript
0:28 – 0:3812 turns
there was a reference to the 100th anniversary of Negro History Week which is now Black History Month, but in May of 1979 that was the 25th anniversary of the ruling in Brown versus Board for Education And one of the stalwarts of the NAACP in the courtroom, Thurgood Marshall gave a speech at Howard University Law School as alma mater that year. During that speech he referenced a quote from John F Kennedy and then he went on to give some further remarks that I want to share with you.
Quoting from Kennedy, Kennedy said the following The great enemy of the truth is not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest but the myth persistent persuasive and unrealistic. Justice Marshall went on to say beware of the myth that everything is going to be all right Don't give in. I add that because it seems to me that what we need today is to refocus.
Back in the 30s and 40s, the only place we could go was to court. We knew then that the court was not the final solution. Many of us knew the final solution would have to be politics For no other reason than politics is cheaper than lawsuits. So now we have both, we have our legal arm and we have our political arm. Let's use them both and don't listen to the myth that the problems can be solved by either or that it has already been solved.
Take it from me, it has not been solved And so we thank you, our political leaders for standing in the gap for truth, for justice, for recognition of history as history, for recognition of the contribution of Africans to this country. And we want to send a message to friend and foe alike That we stand not only for Africans, we stand for our friends abroad and here.
Our Latin American friends who are being savagely brutalized in concentration camps or being terrorized by domestic terrorists who call themselves federal agents. We stand with our Venezuelan brothers and sisters and our Cuban brothers and sisters who are being slowly starved of resources. So thank you, we appreciate you and have a good evening.
Thank you so much.
Hello. I'm pleased to be here. I want to thank you for inviting Martin Luther King Jr. Committee. This is the first time that The Goleta City Council has recognized our organization. And I note that there were quite a few others that were listed, which was really nice to hear. I'm going to tell you a little bit about what Martin Luther King Committee does. We've been in the community for 18 years. I didn't come prepared with a speech Can you hear me now? Okay. We've been in the community almost two decades and we started with one day of recognition of Martin Luther King holiday, and then we expanded it to three. Now we're up to five. And at one point, we had six days of activities. I'm not going to talk a lot about our activities but I want to mention our essay and poetry awards program because some of you may have had children that have been involved in our program where we provide the students with a theme.
We pick a theme for the year. It takes us about three months to select the theme and it's generally a quote of Dr. King I'm going to try to remember the quote this year is, we need leaders not in love with money but in love with justice. We need leaders not in love with publicity but in love with humanity. And so our students wrote on that theme and you may have heard some of them do their readings, either at the Daly-Guerra Plaza where we have the young students read. And then we encourage the older students to read at the Arlington Theater because we want to give our students the opportunity to not only be encouraged but to feel the empowerment of speaking before a large audience.
So anyway, enough about Martin Luther King. I want to thank you again for your invitation and for recognition and look forward to next year. Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else want to speak? No? Picture time! Do we have any speakers?
I have no speakers. Those of you on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak to this item, please use the raised hand icon and I will call on you all. I'm seeing no public comment
Mayor.
Thank You. I'll be real brief. I just want to start by thanking the Mayor Pro Tem for acknowledging the passing of Jesse Jackson. I saw that news this morning and I found myself watching the 1984 speech to the Democratic National Convention And so many different parts of those remarks spoke to me, from the courage it took in a very divided and divisive time to openly speak not just about the struggle of black Americans but also those of other ethnicities.
Talked openly about lesbian and gay rights. Openly spoke about respect not just for our Judeo-Christian heritage in this country but also Islam But the thing that really stayed with me was his description of America as not being a garment made of a single cloth, but that's more like a quilt. A quilt made of patches of different fabrics and different shapes and different sizes, but all bound together by a common thread of humanity and justice. And so I just – I was just reflecting on that when I heard the Mayor Pro Tem speak, and so I just wanted to make sure I shared that Happy Black History Month.
Thank you. Okay, moving on to our discussion item?
Yes, thank you Mayor. That is Item C1 consider adoption of an interim ordinance the ordinance senior mobile home park overlay and moratorium on conversion to all ages Park.
Thank You. Mr. Imhoff are you gonna start us off
Good evening Mayor, excuse me and Council. I'm going to pass it right off to Ms. Graham.
Thank you.
0:38 – 0:441 turns
Good evening Madam Mayor and council members yes I am here today to discuss an interim urgency ordinance and senior mobile home park overlay So a little background. Mobile home parks have historically been a source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the US and in California. Senior mobile home parks are a subset of that, and those are defined as mobile home parks where 80% of occupied spaces have one or more Occupant living there ages 55 or greater.
The City of Goleta has five mobile home parks within its jurisdiction and University Mobile Home Park, it's staffs understanding that it has operated and currently operates as a senior mobile home park as defined. So last fall, University Mobile Home Park was sold and came under new ownership. And soon after new rules and regulations were sent out to park residents.
And among other things one of the changes in the new parks rules and regulations was a change from senior mobile home park to an all ages park. Under state law mobile home park residency law in the civil code Rule changes in a park go into effect six months after notice is given to non-consenting homeowners. So backing up a little, if you recall we came to your council in mid-December with a status update on the park.
We touched on the notices that went out, a rent increase and this proposed change to an all ages park And your council provided direction to staff to work with the city attorney's office, do some research and return with a proposed potential urgency ordinance and senior mobile home park overlay which has brought us here to you tonight. So the interim urgency ordinance itself Considers that converting senior mobile home parks to all ages parks constitutes a current and immediate threat to the public health and safety and welfare of the community because it reduces the available accessible and affordable housing options for seniors, senior residents in the city.
The ordinance again formally defined senior mobile home parks as having 80% of spaces occupied by at least one person aged 55 or greater. It requires the park to have signage and documents that proactively identify the park as a senior mobile home park It contains an annual required certification process with the city to confirm and report on the age of occupants.
And the ordinance prohibits conversion of the park to all ages, and has provisions for violations by either the park owner or manager or the residents. So an interim urgency ordinance in general requires a four-fifths affirmative vote by your council. The one before you tonight would add a dash SHMP overlay to the zoning district's overlay map of the city. The proposed overlay as currently proposed applies citywide and it would be effective immediately upon that fourth, fifth vote. And would be in effect until either the urgency ordinance expires or the council adopts a permanent ordinance with that overlay.
So it's always hard to see maps at this scale, but this is a map of the zoning overlay districts in the city. And there's an arrow showing the important point here which is that the SHMP overlay district has been added and it's coincident with the city limits of Goleta. So, staff's recommendation as written in the staff report is to adopt on a four-fifths vote the urgency ordinance number 26 next in line entitled an Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the city of Goleta California adding chapter 17.22 to the Goleta Municipal Code to establish a senior mobile home park overlay district and moratorium prohibiting the conversion of senior mobile home parks to all ages parks Finding the ordinance categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and declaring the urgency thereof.
So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions you have.
0:44 – 0:518 turns
Council Member
Kasdan. Just for those in other mobile home parks, how does this city-wide overlay affect other parks? Do we have other senior mobile home parks or any other parks affected by this action?
Councilmember Kasdan through the mayor. We don't as far as staff is aware, but we want to allow for the possibility that we don't know everything or more importantly if a park were to convert or be created in the future as a senior mobile home park
In other words, if it were created in the future then it can't adjust itself otherwise. It's sort of locked-in in that capacity. Is that what you mean? Correct. Okay. That's it for right now. Thank you.
Any other questions from Council at this point? No? Then I'd like to go to the public
Yes Madam Mayor for those of you on the zoom webinar who wish to speak to this item please use raised hand icon. I do have four speaker slips for in-person speakers our first speaker will be Fred Sleeman all speakers will have three minutes
Madam Mayor, City Council members, city staff. My name is Fred Sleeman, President of the University Mobile Home Park Association. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents of University Mobile Home Park. I'd like to state the intent of the University Mobile Home Park as senior residents of the park is not to discriminate against any group in our community, however our purpose is to maintain the status of University Mobile Home Park as a Senior 55 plus age park University Mobile Home Park has always operated since its inception as a 55 plus age mobile home park.
The residents of University Mobile Home Park are grateful and appreciate your consideration when writing this interim urgency ordinance and senior mobile home park overlay and moratorium on the conversion to an all-age park, which clearly addresses the social economic and safety concerns of the senior residents of this park. Your leadership understanding and commitment to accomplish this endeavor is strongly supported and recognized not only by the current seniors of University Mobile Home Park but by all future senior residents.
We graciously thank you for your hard work to address our social, economic and safety concerns and are confident that this interim senior overlay will result in a permanent codified city ordinance designation of University Mobile Home Park as a Senior 55 plus age park Thank you for your attention in this matter.
My name is Ann Anderson. I am the president of the Golden State Manufactured Home Owners League, which is a statewide organization that supports manufactured homeowners. I also happen to live about five miles away and I just want to let you think about something. If you go into a store and you don't like the prices or you don't like the quality of the goods, or maybe the service isn't quite up to snuff, you can walk out the door and just go somewhere else.
When you own a home in a mobile home park And if you don't like the condition of the park or the rent raises going up every year, or the abusive management. You cannot just go to another mobile home park because you own your home Even if you happen to live in an airstream like my grandmother did back in the 50s and she could just put that behind her car and drive away with it. But nowadays, even if you do live in what we would call a trailer, you can't really move it.
So mobile home owners are captive consumers. And because of that, we heartily appreciate the efforts of city and county governments to write protective laws for us And I also want to mention that usually a park that's built for seniors is not really very conducive for younger people to live there with families. It may be that there is no place for children to play, there's no playground There's no swimming pool, there is no clubhouse.
The kids basically have to play in the streets and this is another reason why it's important to be able to preserve the senior housing communities that are built specifically for seniors and also would like to remind you that there is a ticking clock. As we know, we have six months from October to get at least a moratorium in place to help the residents of University Mobile Home Park. So on behalf of GSMOL, I would like to heartily thank you for this consideration and hope that everything will go well in the institution of this moratorium. Thank you.
0:51 – 0:588 turns
We're not going to do clapping or booing because that could make somebody else feel bad if they have a different opinion. So if you want to go like this maybe, but no booing and no clapping thank you appreciate it.
Our next in-person speaker is Lawrence Boehm
Okay, Honorable Mayor and City Council members Very glad to be here tonight to tell you our feelings about this It's the question is can you put a price on peace and serenity? That is the question we're dealing with tonight We have a very quiet beautiful Mobile home Park set up for seniors, many who have illnesses. Many have serious illnesses like cancer really need a quiet park that they can relax and heal in.
Um, we're one of the few islands of affordable housing in this whole area near the glitter coast. We've had to fight for our rights In protection, we've had to fight Daniel Guggenheim for two years. Now we have to protect our rights from Harmony. They are threatening a quiet affordable senior place to live for seniors by trying to convert our peaceful quiet community to a family park.
There is only one motive and that motive is money They care little for our park, being one of the last islands of peace for the elderly and low-cost senior citizens in Goleta. I'm asking the Mayor and City Council members to preserve our park as an oasis of serenity and preserve our park for seniors. I would like to thank you for your consideration And I want to especially thank James for his help on this.
So, I appreciate your vote on this. I just want to make a quick comment. I've been living in that area for 28 years now and this whole San Jose Creek Parkway As far as considering trees, there's a whole grove of eucalyptus trees behind the Boys and Girls Club. And I've seen yearly monarch butterflies wintering there so I hope we can preserve that for everybody.
Thank
you.
Our next in-person speaker is Joseph Tokanori
Yes, I'm Joseph Tucciaroni. Madam Mayor and ladies and gentlemen of the City Council, I just want to be one more voice in support of the possibility that this will become a senior home park, and I want to commend the City Council for taking quick action and appreciating that we are as seniors a needy group. Unfortunately, we've lost a lot of our skills and we can't sometimes see what's coming down the road.
And the one aspect of this ruling is affordability So, I would like to remind or I would like to mention that when all ages park is the concept brought by Harmony to us is basically to raise their values and basically make it less affordable for seniors. That's it. Thank you very much.
Our next in-person speaker is Holly Bonifar. On a face, excuse me. For those of you on the Zoom webinar please do use raised hand icon and I will call on you all.
Good evening Mayor Parodi, Mayor Pro Tempore Smith, Councilmember Martin, Reyes Martin, Stuart Crasden Uh, Kasdan. Pardon me. And my council member, Mr. Kariako. And thank you very much, Mr. Eimhoff and Lucy Graham for showing up and everybody else. We really appreciate you. That's the first thing I want to say. You would have thought in my lead Goleta class I would have learned how to fill out one of these so I apologize for that.
When Anne was speaking just a minute ago she is the president of the Golden State manufacturer owners, manufacturer, whatever it is that represents us for the state level. I am one of those captive people. My sister lives in the mobile home park and I was looking for affordable housing and found my place because my sister lives there. Since then, her husband has died. So she's a one income person now so that's one thing I want to mention but for myself, I was looking for an affordable way to get here because my parents are well, my dad died but my dad was 87, my mom is 85 and they live here and I lived here up until I was 11 years old.
So we moved to the East Coast and I'm back. So this is my only affordable housing and I am well over 55 But I bought the house in 2024 and I applied for a loan, and I did get that loan. So therefore, I have a mortgage now. And then the two things that the new property owners did was raise the rent while they wanted to raise it over 75%. which I'm a pilot and when I get home, I really need to sleep. So I was looking for a quiet place that was safe for me and I was able to replace my home but I now currently have a mortgage plus the increase in the rent. And I really would appreciate it if you would support us and you have supported us so far and we appreciate that. Thank you.
0:58 – 1:0615 turns
That concludes our in-person speakers. I'll now go into our first online speaker, Nick Yu. If you'll please unmute yourself, you will have three minutes. Nick Yu, are you there? Last call for Nick Yu And I think he may have stepped away from his computer. I have no more speakers for public comment for this item.
Okay, thank you. Back to council for questions or deliberation. Councilman Casta? Do you have a question?
Yeah, I did. I was going to ask the representative from Harmony to explain what is it that they're trying to get. What is it that is the problem? Presumably, it's not that they don't like seniors. What is it that they are hoping to get to explain?
And Nick, you did put his hand back up. Would you like him to try and speak again?
Sure. Yeah. If he's there.
Nick, if you'll unmute yourself.
I apologize are you there?
Yes thank you.
Okay sorry it dropped out as soon as i tried to unmute my mic there. Hello everyone my name is Nick Ubaldi. I'm a representative for the owners of University Mobile Home Park. As I'm sure the city is aware federal law prohibits age discrimination in housing unless a park meets every strict requirement for a senior only exemption Clear signage, marketing, rules showing intent, regular age verification and written policies. Courts insist that all must be satisfied. It's a very narrow exception.
University Park meets none. It dropped seniors-only plans months ago, had no age checks or policies, no signage or ads for seniors and now accepts all ages with no minimums in leases or rules. It is legally all ages. No court has ever allowed a city to force a lawful all-ages park to exclude families with children. Management and residents are negotiating right now to bring the park into full federal compliance, only the park owners can make those changes. This ordinance would disrupt those good faith talks and trigger strong expensive litigation that the City would likely lose. Why waste tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars on a losing fight?
Finally, this doesn't qualify as an urgency ordinance. An urgency ordinance requires a real current and immediate threat to public health safety or welfare to cram down an urgency measure without a normal process. There is no such emergency here. Opening to all ages doesn't displace any existing residents. Homes only turn over when a current owner sells, and then the park admits a qualified applicant regardless of age. There is no sudden danger, no crisis threatening lives, health or safety. It's a policy disagreement not an urgent threat. Passing it as urgency risks legal challenges on that ground alone. Please reject this ordinance and let negotiations proceed to a fair resolution for residents and the park as well. Thank you.
Thank you
very much for allowing me to speak.
I support the seniors and protecting their needs and their wishes as opposed to having an all-age park. And also in addition to that, I had suggested a year ago that we put a cap, 3% cap on rent increases For the seniors and for those who are disabled. And I want you to go back and consider that, because that is critical. And also how much land does Goleta have that's available for building?
That's a question I would like to have answered. Maybe not at this time, but if you would do research. And have you partnered with any of the billionaires in the area to do a joint development, especially addressing the needs of the seniors? That's another question that I have put before you. And that's all I want to say. You're doing a good job. Keep up the good work. Thank you.
And that concludes public comment for this item. Thank
you, Mayor.
Yeah I would have asked if he were here but I guess I so just a couple of observations that first It's not entirely clear to me what the big deal is as far as Harmony goes and why they are fighting this deliberately. I would ideally, I'd like to know, I assume as people have observed money is involved and I'm not clear what it is because really what motivates or affects Profits is rent control, you know that's what's the driving force. And so what I don't know is if it is because seniors tend to stay in place longer or is it as compared to all families for instance and therefore the seniors, the rent control impacts them more? Is it because there are fewer seniors who are looking as compared to all families Ideally, I would like to know what the rents are in all families parks versus senior parks.
How much of this is both affected by rent control? I raise this in part because I don't think the idea that we should exclude families because kids are noisy, because there's less serenity. I don't think that's legitimate to me, that I want to have a place that doesn't have peace and serenity. To me, that's not a reason to keep out families when they're to me as much of a need One other, just for the representative from the Mobile Home Association.
The rationale that we have for why there is rent control is precisely what you described. Other places in California, other housing are restricted on how much rent control can be used but mobile homes because of those conditions, because they're locked-in And people can't move. They're captive, have rent control and that's the rationale behind that. And I guess that's just those are my thoughts right now if that we're talking about restricting by age and this is not something that is adjusting or affecting the rent control ordinance I want You know, whether the facilities are created appropriate for seniors as opposed to all ages. That's, you know, that's for those people who want to rent to make that judgment.
Anyway, those are my observations.
1:06 – 1:163 turns
Just for clarification, are we ready for just deliberative thoughts or any other questions? I don't have questions but I can wait until there are questions. Okay then I'll proceed. I know we talked about this a bit at the December meeting as well so you know just I won't go on too long because we had a good discussion in December as well. Thank you to staff for working so diligently to bring this to us. As was mentioned, we are on the clock to consider something like this.
both written to us and come out here on a rainy night to share your comments directly with us. And as I said, in my comments in December, you know, I strongly believe that our seniors have earned retirement and also noting that folks that are 55 and up may still be working because we have such a high cost of living and other types of costs are rising like healthcare and other costs. And I think that those seniors deserve, you know, to enjoy that part of your life with dignity, with respect, with stable housing.
I think, you know, as been shared, seniors are often on a fixed income. We have seniors who have shared their stories that are veterans, that are disabled, that have other medical challenges. You're deserving of us considering something like this to protect your housing. This council has previously received presentations from the county and from other groups about seniors in our community and the unique challenges they face.
So we've heard that, you know aside from even just this particular issue. And I think that as a council, we have a responsibility to take action to support the continued well-being of seniors in Goleta. And so for that reason, as I stated in December where I was hoping that this urgency ordinance would come before us, I will support the urgency ordinance that's before us tonight.
Thank you. Thank
you. Council Member Carioca?
Thank you Madam Mayor and I also want to thank staff and I also want to thank all of the speakers I have the honor of being the representative on this council for the University Mobile Home Park. And there's a lot of responsibility that comes with that, and so I also think there is a responsibility when the representative of the park management comes forward and says things, I feel kind of a higher sense of responsibility to be able to respond and to give voice to a different opinion if I have one. And I really want to focus to start with on the notion that was put forward by the speaker about the lack of urgency And why is the city doing something when this clearly doesn't meet the definition as they see it of urgency?
Well, not that long ago. This city spent very little to no money on homelessness. Homelessness in this community wasn't recognized as the public health threat that we recognize it as today. Guests who represents over a third of the homeless population in the City of Goleta. Folks over 50, seniors. The city takes affirmative positive steps when it wants to accomplish affirmative positive goals When we want to eradicate homelessness among seniors and veterans, we spend money.
We provide public support to things like the Buena Tierra project which is also in my district. When the city had the opportunity to put millions of dollars forward to help make the Heritage Ridge Project happen so that there could be 102 units plus two manager units for both seniors and for families, and for families. The city did that. We approved a deed restricted development that prevents non-families and non people at risk of homelessness.
Now you could look at that as an exclusionary action if you want particularly if you had a profit motive to do it But I think, I would rather keep this positive. The city has the right when it can create rules that are legal that meets the legal test you can create policies that support the outcomes that you're trying to achieve And the outcome of looking out for seniors and preventing homelessness can be found throughout some of our most important documents. Our general plan, our housing element, our strategic plan to end homelessness.
These are not new concepts and if the developers that came in from out of our area and acquired this park knew something about Goleta, they would know that these things were priorities for this community. For this community and we don't just do it by passing laws. We put money where our mouth is. We put our policies where our mouth is. We put our values where our mouth is And so this notion that it's not urgent to look out for seniors, to look out for trying to prevent the amount of homelessness in our community from increasing.
I just have a fundamental disagreement with that viewpoint. So you know, that's what I wanted to say in response to Mr. Ubaldi. I guess the last thing that I'll say is this. I appreciated the comment about The first thing I want to talk about is A lot of things that you have, they have the ability to create a lot of hoops that you have to jump through to be able to sell. To be able to exercise your right to no longer even live in the park and that can have financial consequences that can make it more likely that someone could go from a homeowner to homeless and we don't want that as a community.
They can't just leave. You know we've been hearing from seniors who don't live in these kinds of communities that don't live in a university mobile home park. We've had residents who live one of them lives in my district and Patterson Place he came and spoke to our council a couple weeks ago. He's afraid that he won't be able to afford the rent in his apartment anymore because the cost of relocating and being able to pay the deposit would force him to not be able to live here anymore There is a issue there that needs to be addressed as well. We can't address it through this item, but we can do what we can to make sure that at least in one part of our city there's one place you could go as a senior and have a reasonable opportunity to be able to live affordably and to be able to live within your means when you're a pensioner or when you're living on a fixed income.
Seniors over the age of 55 As I understand it, make up 27% of the city's population. I might be a little bit off there. Our general plan and our housing element identify seniors as a vulnerable population and our documents prioritize the protection of affordable senior housing. We have deed restrictions on existing affordable units that are going to be expiring in future years. You can look that up in our housing element We will not have as much affordable housing from our existing stock in a few years compared to what we have now. We're acting to replace that but we need to be more additive, not less additive and now we see outside interests moving into Gleta and the South Coast generally buying up senior mobile home parks like this one that provides some of the last remaining affordable housing dedicated to seniors.
How can we not act to protect our seniors? I'll be supporting the urgency ordinance And I would just say in closing that if the park can come to some kind of agreement with the residents, the way they did on the rent increase that they negotiated. More power to you. I hope perhaps you can come to some kind of agreement and maybe in 45 days we don't have to do this again.
I'm not gonna hold out a lot of hope but maybe there's hope. I'll stop there, thank you.
1:16 – 1:259 turns
Yes, thank you. I support the comments of my fellow council members so I won't repeat those thoughts. To Council Member Kasdan's point, the proposed recommendation today would maintain the status quo. I don't see this as a radical step that we're maintaining what has long existed in Goleta. Senior housing is a value locally and statewide We're acting to preserve that.
The purchaser of the park had the opportunity to purchase or invest in other parks that were not age restricted, and that was a choice. So with that I express my support for the urgency ordinance.
Thank you and I'm going to go. And usually I don't prepare comments written comments like I have said this evening but I wanted you to hear from how I'm feeling and I had time this afternoon to put some thoughts down on paper so I just want to say that as I prepare to vote whether to keep or remove age restrictions on our current senior mobile home park, I want to share the consideration guiding my decision So I'm trying to look at it from all possibilities and then tell you where I landed.
First, we must acknowledge the reality of California's housing crisis. Across our state from Los Angeles to Sacramento communities are struggling with affordability and limited supply. Mobile home parks are one of the few remaining affordability and limited supply mobile home parks If we remove the senior restriction, we may modestly increase housing access for families and younger residents who are also facing high rents and the displacement pressures.
Expanding eligibility may make better use of scarce housing in constraint market maybe At the same time, we must weigh the unique housing needs of our older adults. Senior mobile home parks have long provided as we've heard relatively stable lower cost options for residents living with fixed incomes such as many live on social security or pensions. Many current residents chose this community specifically because it is age restricted They relied on that expectation when making major financial and life decisions.
Changing course could affect that sense of stability, safety and long-term planning. For some this park is not just housing it's their retirement plan and support network. Property rights and economic vitality also matter Park owner has interest in maintaining a financially sustainable operation. If restrictions limit occupancy or reduce market demand, that could affect long-term maintenance or reinvestment.
On the other hand, predictable rules and stable tenant base can also support long term viability. Ultimately my responsibility is to balance three core public interests expanding housing opportunity Protecting our seniors and ensuring lawful, fiscally responsible governance. I'm listening carefully and I have been listening to residents on all sides. My vote will reflect not only housing theory but the lived realities of the people who call this place their home and broader needs of our city's future. So with that, I weighed everything out and spent a long time thinking about this. And I've decided I will be supporting this ordinance.
I'll say this. When I was campaigning at one point, I went to a house, a door in an apartment and I was talking to one of the residents there and asking her what are the things that are important to you? What are the things that matter? And she started breaking down and crying and said Because of the cost of housing, she was like a slave. She said that all she could do was just pay for her housing and she was nervous about what was going to happen to her if there were rent increases.
There is a limited supply, very limited, of affordable housing and it's a challenge across the board. My son has a couple of friends who live in mobile home parks in my area, and they're not well off. So when I look at this, the question is what are the impacts? The residents who are there now would not be affected by, 10 year, except to the extent that some of their neighbors who might move in if we didn't adopt this might not be young or excuse me, might not be older. Uh, they might have be affected by, um, you know, less serenity more noise and to me and weighing the alternatives I, you know, I don't see why we would want to have a preference for particular group because they don't want other people who are different than them or other people who there have different behaviors that they don't like, why we would say will allow you to exclude them.
Anyway, if this were about the rent control that's a different conversation. This is a question of who we feel comfortable living next to and I can't support this one but anyway let's get to it.
I'm happy to make the motion if we're ready for one.
And I just make one last comment you know, I appreciate that we all have the right and ability to speak our mind and I know that councilmember cousin is very deliberate in his positions. It thinks negatively about families or children. That is not what I have heard at all in any of the conversations I've heard. It is about protecting and preserving a senior community for the residents who have been there, so we can disagree and that's fine but I just needed to have at least said that.
Thank
you.
And I'll just second that emotion and I canvas the neighborhood when this issue first came up The rent control and what kind of a rent increase was being proposed before we got to the current issue. I canvassed the neighborhood, and I think they were expecting me to only want to talk about rent control but the petition that I passed around and was asking the residents about was actually about the 55 and over. And I didn't hear one resident Say that they supported changing it to an all ages park. And I also did not hear one resident say anything bad about children and families, it was just this is our housing, this is our chance, this is our home. We wanna be able to stay in our home.
And so that's what I'm supporting. Are we ready for a motion? Okay, okay. I move that we adopt on a four fits vote urgency ordinance number 26 next in line. Entitled an urgency ordinance of the City Council of the city of Goleta, California. Adding chapter 17.22 to the Goleta Municipal Code to establish a senior mobile home park overlay district and moratorium prohibiting the conversion of senior mobile home parks to all ages parks finding the ordinance categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and declaring the urgency thereof.
Do I have a second?
1:25 – 1:2811 turns
I'll second.
And just a quick question, the U is that a typo? Because I didn't read the U after the 26 next in line there's a U. Is that a typo?
Council Member Kariakou, that's it. The U is there to reflect the urgency status
but
the motion captures...
Okay. I amend my motion to add the U after the underline. Okay. I don't want to give anyone any ammunition oh you didn't actually do it right.
Okay. Roll call vote please.
Do we have a second?
Yes, second.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–1
Show transcript
It's 4-1. Yes. I just have it. Okay thank you everyone um thank you staff and i think we'll take a five minute break
You
1:35 – 1:506 turns
you Thank you.
We're
going to bring this meeting back to order.
That'll be item C2 general government department priority setting workshop fiscal year 2026-27 annual work program.
Madam Mayor, our assistant city manager Jaime Valdez is gonna kick us off on the first half and then I will jump in for this.
All right, good evening Madam Mayor and members of council. Before you this evening is the 26-27 annual work program for the general government. This includes the city manager's office which is composed also of the City Clerk's Office, HR and Community Relations so... There it is okay You'll start to see this, we're the first of the work programs that are coming before council for next fiscal year. We'll follow the same format just so that it's consistent something that you've seen before but also too so as the other departments come up you have some level of the same information presented in a similar way obviously the topics and the themes will be slightly different but this is a general set up you've seen in past years.
It might be hard to see on the screen here but in your packets you'll have a general government department structure obviously we have the city council at the very top who appoints the city attorney and the city manager and then the city managers rest of the department falls beneath him as well as he oversees obviously The planning department, finance and public works. That's just more for illustrative purposes.
Fiscal year 25-26 we still have a little bit of time left in the year but so far we're very excited to share some of the most recent accomplishments and milestones that the department has been able to deliver. The big one most recently was the FIFA World Cup team base camp host city agreement you might recall Council had this in January, a special city council meeting and then announcements were made I believe middle of last week or slightly before that with Team Austria coming to our area. So we're excited to report on that.
The council also passed a public art policy which we developed in-house, implemented Spanish simulcasts of city council meetings on City of Goleta's Channel 19 and Zoom We also evaluated citywide enterprise content management. So this is a new system we're looking forward to for following years to implement across the city. Also, we held our first ever 4th of July drone show in Goleta graciously hosted at Dos Pueblos High School. We also announced and supported the announcement of the library capital campaign which we had a ground breaking last Thursday for the construction site. This mostly focuses on helping to raise capital for the improvements inside the building.
Also we are developing a retired annuitant employment policy and this is becoming more and more of a pressing need for agencies up and down the state trying to mitigate risk for the city, and then also trying to ensure we have qualified people available to help provide services for the city. Lastly, we reviewed and implemented a defined contribution plan at Plan 457B in addition to the 401A.
We're looking forward to doing some additional steps in terms of the vendor that will help support this and the retirement accounts for our employees but this was a big step to move in that direction. So generally speaking for fiscal year 26-27, you may have heard this line already but continued support of the delivery of big six CIP projects. Those are the six identified most recently probably in the last year or so must do, must complete either due to timing of grants requirements or just in terms of need We also have a renegotiation of major contracts. The more details is in your staff report, but this includes our animal services contract. Also our contract with the Sheriff's Office will be up for renewal and possible renegotiation. We plan to pursue that obviously, the renegotiation part.
Modernization of processes and investment in technology. You'll see this more and more. You'll be getting more emails, more encouragement to take cybersecurity classes, just all those things inherent in the behavior of the user but also in the infrastructure that we have for our IT here at City Hall and used across all the platforms. We also have a number of huge milestone anniversaries and events planned for fiscal year 26-27 one The city's 25th anniversary and the 100th anniversary of the Goleta Community Center. So that along with a number of other events, we're planning on doing obviously the Goleta Train Depot ribbon cutting as well and hopefully by the end of next fiscal year also the ribbon cutting for the library.
So I'll start briefly with the City Clerk's Division those were obviously the highlights for the department as a whole The Clerks Division's been busy. We're rolling out what I call the Citywide Enterprise Content Management System. This has helped to ensure and improve contract management workflows, all this done with the goal of improving efficiency and ensuring best practices for tracking records management, all the things that can and do come as a Public Records Act request. I'm trying to streamline those things as well.
Launched an automated records request program. This is also being done to facilitate service for the community, for private entities but also too to try to reduce the amount of work and burden placed on some of our staff to fill these requests. Also a coordinated appreciation event for all our city boards and commissions. This is sometimes something that is not We've always done, but we wanted to make an effort for next fiscal year to do something to really show how much we appreciate the time and energy that so many of our residents and community members dedicate to our boards and commissions. Last one is update the Citywide Records Retention Program.
The last official adoption of it was back in 2013, so we are well overdue to go revisit this and see obviously what's changed during that time. Obviously technology has changed quite a bit but ultimately we want to make sure that we have a transparent system, that we have the appropriate records archived and just like anything including people's garages you need to clear things out eventually that either aren't necessary to keep on to or If they're able to be digitized and save space is something we want to do.
Community Relations has been also very busy this year and will be for next fiscal year. I mentioned a number of events, the Train Depot ribbon cutting, train station kiosks that are currently being installed at the site. These will be opportunities to provide content either through historical Displays or announcements, communications to the public. We're looking for additional partnerships for the 2027 4th of July drone show and fundraising campaign trying to go a little bigger and better this year.
The 25th anniversary celebration 100 years for the community center really looking to reimagine the coffee and community events just to make sure that we're delivering what the council wants and what the original intents were I'd like to welcome you all There's some elections coming up in the fall, so that will be important as well. We'll be working towards the ribbon cutting for the library and then a new one that we just recently were made aware of is There is a new Department of Justice Title II recommendation of the Americans with Disability Act related to website accessibility, and we need to make sure that our website is compliant by June 30th, 2027. I believe it's the last day to do it. Depending on the size of each agency, certain cities, smaller cities have a little extra time But this is something that, again, cities are dealing with up and down the state.
So we'll have to be in compliance as well. The last two, I can't believe we're, I'm saying this out loud, the San Jose Creek project ribbon cutting. A lot of these projects Council and the public knows have been on the books for quite some time. And it's gonna be a year of a lotta ribbon cuttings which is something that I think a lotta folks are looking forward to.
New photography for city outreach and promotions, as you might have seen. We do tend to recycle a lot of images and promotional materials. We're looking at updating them obviously the City has changed over the years more up-to-date more higher resolution photos images videos so that we can use them in and save on costs for like doing a video every single time we want to do something for outreach That will be an endeavor of itself, but again it is something that we can use for the coming years.
HR risk management very important not always talked about but we do want to shed some light on some of the items we're working on for fiscal year 26-27 this includes reviewing current health plan and look at proposals for alternative and comparable plan options as many of you know Healthcare insurance premiums continue to rise with double-digit increases percentage wise each year, and we want to make sure that we're doing as much as we can to help kind of shoulder some of that burden on the employees in terms of healthcare plans. And then looking at other methods to maybe even try to do that that could benefit our employees and still keep our costs down and maintain fiscal responsibility.
We're also looking to coordinate and implement actions identified in the city's access plan. This was originally called a DEI plan, this acronym came up from within the group organically looked more towards what could the city be doing to encourage more people to take for example positions of leadership or influence and more and more of it came down to having access for everyone to be able to pursue these kinds of items.
We're still working on that one to finish it out, but we think we're pretty close to getting to the finish line. Another item is begin strategizing and preparation already for the next contract negotiations with SEIU. That'll be here before you know it, and so we wanna start getting ready for that process as well. And this is probably one of the areas we want to focus the most time on and this is where I'll turn it over to Robert to present on the City Manager's Office 26-27 projects.
1:50 – 2:051 turns
Thank you Jaime, and Mayor and Council Members will have plenty of time for questions and of course public comment as well. I know there are members of the public here that want to weigh in on this item So in addition to the three divisions that Mr. Valdez just highlighted, community relations, human resources and the city clerk, the core of the City Manager's Office there's five of us myself, Mr. Valdez are our two do-everything people Shannon and Blake analysts project managers a little bit of everything and then my executive assistant the newest member of our team Victoria Balda so We're a team of five that works collaboratively to get all these items done for the Council and the community.
So in the same kind of format that was just shared, we have a list of items that we did prioritize and I'm happy to explain the thinking behind the priorities or take questions on that if there are questions about our rationale as we prioritize these items. And it was a group effort of the five I mentioned And this is items that we believe we can get to in the next fiscal year, and then I'll turn to the next slide. I would like to highlight some of these just like Mr. Valdez did. I think it's important to hit some of these. We don't want to go into details of the status of each one but I'll make some comments rather quickly. We've certainly acknowledged the big six capital projects that are going on. You had a report on one of them today, the San Jose Creek multipurpose trail So that obviously takes a lot of our time and Public Works' time as well, a lot of other departments as well.
Number two is one that is slow moving. You don't hear about it a lot but the Council did set in motion for us to pursue through LAFCO changing the sphere of influence into locations potentially more and those conversations have started. We did report back at an initial meeting With our county counterparts did occur, there's another one set. And there will be an item that comes before this council in a month or maybe six weeks to take some action to keep moving on that it will be slow moving and we'll certainly take all of that fiscal year these items just don't move that quickly.
Number three is housing legislation that we were asked to pursue, to propose some changes and shop around an idea to our Assemblymember. To take this on and we have been working on this. We've reported back a little bit here and there, but it continues and we've made quite a bit of progress the language has been tinkered with we've shopped it to various people had several meetings.
We had a meeting with a person who represented a group whose Who's very suspicious of these things. So we've really been going on and doing these things this could kind of fizzle but on the other hand it's on our list, it was a high priority and it could really gain momentum into fiscal year 26-27 The latest meeting I had that was very promising, I was up at a conference in Napa. As you know, I ran into the executive director of Cal Cities, Carolyn Coleman, had about a half hour meeting with her and she heard the whole pitch. We have our pitches down on this by the way.
And she was somewhat promising and she did acknowledge that there are a couple assembly members or possibly senators who are doing similar type in the same bucket of pro-city when it comes to how we follow housing and housing laws. And so her idea was that maybe, you know they get bundled together at some point. So anyway just wanted to note that work is going on and we'll keep reporting back to council and hopefully it gains the momentum and then it will be in 2627.
A big one number four renegotiate or extend the sheriff contract. It expires June 2027 That's a long ways out, but it will take us time to negotiate that. The negotiations four years ago took almost two years. It's our hope they don't take that long. I do not want to spend that much time on this item, but it's very important. It is a very large part of the city's budget and there's a lot going on. I won't go into detail, but that's gonna take a fair amount of time next fiscal year.
I'll skip over five. Probably won't be too involved, but some of our staff will. This is a citywide effort and it is a requirement that we have these as part of our emergency operation plan. You've heard a little bit about this effort to update our fees for our landscaping and lighting fund, our street lighting fund. We have bundled those together with solid waste rates and storm drain assessments and hired a consultant And that also is being led by our finance department and our public works department. This will take some oversight by our office, at least the street lighting effort is a Prop 218 effort which does require a very prescriptive process in which those rates are proposed to be raised so there is a fair amount of work there for all of them.
Renegotiate the MOU for Fire Station 10. I don't need to go into a lot of detail here, but just remind the Council it actually expires this March. It was a ten-year MOU for a variety of reasons. It is not in a form to be extended yet. Partly the change in leadership at the County and other priorities getting in the way. It will essentially roll over as is for a year and in that year we are working and will step up Our work to renegotiate that MOU based on direction from the ad hoc committee.
Library capital campaign very successful so far and then skipping over the next one, the animal services contract are lined up with the sheriff's contract so that's nice but we do have to renegotiate that contract as well with And then number 10 is new and I will make some comments on it. It's not a new project, been talked about a lot but I will certainly give my rationale for adding it to the list and this is initiate feasibility and cost estimate for replacement of the Lake Los Caneros footbridge but if you skip to the next slide, it'll make a little more sense as I go into the next table.
So the next table is the list of, and again in continuing in priority order, of items that we don't believe we would be able to get to in fiscal year 26-27. They are on the list and as I said put some thought into how they should be prioritized. And yeah, I'll comment on 11 and 10, the item you just saw kind of together They're both public works projects and the obvious question, well why do these even appear on the City Manager's priority list?
They undoubtedly will be on the Public Works' list at some point. But I did feel that both of these for different reasons but somewhat related need that extra kind of incubation from our office They have some similarities. They're both bridges. The similarities probably end there. One is very large and complex. They're both complex, but they do have differences. One is an existing bridge that needs to be replaced. One is a grand vision that this council has for a very cool bike ped overpass over Highway 101 But I'll say the similarities are that these are the type of projects that, yeah, if they don't get that kind of nurturing at the beginning, they'll never make the list. Right? They're always going to be on Public Works's list. They're always going to be on the CIP.
But if they don't get that extra consciousness of let's do this, they're not going to get And so on number 10, on number 11 for example I've made this comment to several people. It's a saying that you've probably heard when is the best time to plant a tree 20 years ago? When is the second best time to plant a tree today? It's the same thing with this project we should have started it 20 years ago because it takes 20 years to build a bike ped overpass over highway 101 they're complex expensive projects and we need partners But the second best time is to start today, but if we don't start 20 years is going to go by. So I put it there and I've kind of put it back and forth. I did have it on the previous table at one point, but something positive has come up on this project that I'll disclose now.
So recently SBCAG staff has approached us and indicated that they believe Highway 101 between Winchester and Fairview is ripe for a corridor study. And there are planning grants available to do these corridor studies, and they want to help facilitate the city in putting an application together that Caltrans and SBK think positively of. And if that's the case we would potentially get some grant money, and it would put Caltrans and SBK kind of more in the lead role And out of a study like that, they would certainly look at capacity. They would look at safety. They would look at all kinds of things.
But that was positive. You might say, well, you know, why did you move it down in the list? My thinking was, well, if that happens, great. It probably will move over to Public Works' work plan. One of the criteria we often use when we prioritize if we get other people's money to do things, it usually goes up the priority list. And that would be the case here. So that's kind of exciting but because of that I moved it down. to make room for the feasibility study for the other footbridge. And the comment I'll make there, it's not as big, it's not as hard but it is one of those projects I hear about a lot since I've been here. I hear about it from the community, I hear about it from you all and I went back and went into the history of the files when it was closed down, I found the report That was actually done, that deemed it unsafe.
It was that report that led to the closure. I've now looked at that and it also has a group of citizens out there who are forming themselves into an entity that they say can raise money for it. And so those reasons are what kind of inspired me to just not wait around but to add this to the list. We would have to find some money to get it going and it would just be that first step I think to get a really good estimate together, in all the conversations that I've had about that project, the estimates of replacement are all over the place.
And so they're guesses and so the next step is really to put pen to paper Have a structural engineering firm or civil engineering firm, or a firm that knows how to work in wetlands. Do a little bit more of a conceptual design and put a better estimate together because we can't even really have a conversation about this project if we don't know how much it's gonna cost. But it's undoubtedly gonna be a different bridge than the original bridge. It's gonna need to be wider. There's ADA standards and by the way, it's much more difficult to work in a wetland than it was 30 years ago.
For lots of good reasons. So those are my long-winded comments on those. One is the highest priority of the list we can't get to, one's the lowest priority and of course the Council this is your priority list and to mix it up as you see fit. The next there's three here that are new, 12, 14 and 15. So I'll make comments on those and also make comments on 13 and then the rest all have been there before.
So, revenue enhancement options. I put high on this list but it did not quite make the other list based on information that is available to me. I will just comment and this is in no way to persuade the council to do one way or the other but I always think it's interesting we always ask this question when elections are coming up what's everyone else doing? I have recently been in meetings with all the city managers from the county and it is interesting to note that four out of eight cities are looking at tax measures for either June or November.
Santa Barbara is looking at either a property transfer tax or a TOT, Santa Maria is looking at a sales tax they just don't know the size, Lompoc is looking at a half-cent sales tax and Carpinteria is looking at a quarter cent sales tax as you all know the County Is absolutely not looking at a sales tax for November, that made the news. But interesting I just wanted to get that out there as you have your conversation about this item but it's not on our list for this year unless the council were to direct us otherwise.
And then 14 and 15 are both new and my approach was to spend the entire year listening to You all. And when themes came up from two or more of you of a longer kind of endeavor, I wrote it down on a cocktail napkin and eventually made this list. So 14 and 15 are ones that have yeah, have swam around a little bit. And they've come up in open session a little bit potentially closed session. I mean not closed session but just private conversations And so I have put those on the list, won't go into detail about either of them now.
And you can see where they're placed. And then like I said, the other ones have been there for a while. I will mention number 13 because it's a little bit higher in the priority and that is because some work even though this is in the same essential place it was last year, it hasn't moved. Some work has occurred on this. We had some educational meetings and there has been a series of meetings with two members of the school board Those meetings were kind of two by twos to make sure that lines of communication are just generally open between us and Goleta Union School District, but the focus for the most part was also on this Mott project. So I just wanted to mention that although like I said it appears essentially in the same place that it appeared in last year's list.
So those are all my comments we can now close our presentation. We knew the council would probably want to focus on this slide in the previous slide and so we're happy to take questions and after you hear from the public We can go from there. Thank you.
2:05 – 2:2217 turns
Sort of got the colorful slide and the not-colorful slide. Some people would say above the line, below the line in terms of what you can get to and what you can't get to. Here it's like okay, the colorful ones we can get too. I don't have a lot of comments on this slide other than I want to offer my full throated support for the inclusion of number 10. I've been hearing a lot about that for a long time And I think it's important that What was the phrase that you put, just a little bit of care and attention? Inconvenient. Okay.
Whatever you said I liked it and I would say that's a good approach. I think I like this slide. You know, I could probably quibble on the order. I'm not sure, you know, I think LAFCO, the item, that'll kind of keep moving. I am not sure how intensive that is going to be over the next fiscal year or there will probably be a lot of hurry up and wait on that one. We can go to the next slide.
I think number 11 is really important because I personally advocated at SBCAG for the reallocation of the funding that was set aside for what was essentially only at an initial design stage for the 101 over crossing to have that help get us over the finish line with Project Connect. And I just think it's so important as we look to eventually needing to go back to the voters for Measure A that we keep faith with our voters and follow through on that promise.
It was either an overcrossing for bikes and pedestrians or it was a full-on car overcrossing. So I think there's some opportunities for some additional care and feeding on that one. But I'm excited to hear that there's the possibility of a corridor study. So, I like having that there. 12, I would be fine with that being a little bit lower down the list. I like 13 where it is.
Number 14, I want to talk about number 14 for a minute. I see number 14 as being the logical extension of the tenant protections that we started a number of years ago and have been on our work plan. And I feel like we've taken those types of tenant protections as far as they can go, but I think even in some of the discussion on the previous item at public comments that we've received at previous council meetings from people phone calls to my office, I really do feel like this needs to be a priority and I don't know how we go about getting it the incubation or the care and feeding, or whatever the metaphors are that it needs. But I really do feel like this is something that's out there. This is something where people are hurting. We have a local example of a jurisdiction moving on this.
You know, I would be interested in creation of a rent stabilization ordinance. And I'm also interested in getting more information specifically about a rent cap and the inventory of properties. Because I feel like unless we have a really clear sense of the inventory of housing in our community through a rental registry, which is what I was searching for earlier, we're not going to really have an understanding How many mom and pops are out there?
Are they keeping rents affordable by design, affordable by aging? So I really would like to see this move up if possible. Wherever it ends up on the list, I just want to make sure that in this next fiscal year we're moving on that because I do feel much like with the The footbridge, I hear about it a lot. And it's something that directly affects people's quality of life and I just think it's time. And so however we go about making that move up the list, and I'm very open to different ideas in terms of how would we accomplish the goal? We don't need to get into all the details but something that's fair but something that helps keep people housed I'm very happy to see number 15 on here. Thank you.
This is something I hear about all the time in my district, all the time and I'm encouraged that we're going to have a second vehicle out there checking parking and I think that'll help but ultimately we have to have some kind of a mechanism for our neighborhoods for people to be able to park on the street and have a reasonable expectation that all the parking won't be taken up by just extra cars that are being stored out there.
And then I think the rest of the list is exactly where I'd like it, so I'll stop there.
Council Member Kasdan?
So first for- Is your mic on? Oh
thank you.
For the city manager Oh actually, I also would know for the Know Your District we all could benefit from that. I remember because originally when we were doing my coffee and community it was initially at Slotico which turns out not to be in my district and then also...I never know which ones are in Councilmember Smith's and which ones are in mine because it sort of So this will be a valuable educational thing. As far as the new photos, I don't know. I kind of like having me not age so you know I'd like to not rush into updating that.
But could you clarify for the City Manager, it's very exciting that corridor study. Could you tell me what it is that they would be doing? Because one of our CIP things has been evaluating the safety on Hollister and all of the crossings and so forth. This so meshes with some of our greatest needs in addition to the 101 Overcross.
Yeah, thank you Council Member Kasdan and Mayor and council members I probably can't go into too much detail about what it would entail. Actually there's probably people in this room right now who probably know better than I do but I don't think we should go down that rabbit hole right now But as it was explained by the Executive Director of SB CAG to the Mayor and I over lunch one day, you know these corridor studies they have planning grants for these corridor studies. And I have to imagine they isolate a certain section of the highway and the focus is certainly on that section and probably does start with operational and capacity issues for the section, but undoubtedly spills over to safety issues and the overpasses and how you convey people, you know, over the freeway.
And so she didn't go much beyond that. She did was hopeful. She also indicated that although the grants are competitive, there is a certain equity lens that is looked through in terms of like, you know, whose turn is it to get a grant? It felt like her point was this area is ripe for one based on safety and operational deficiencies.
So when is this for explicitly or you know limited for the 101 or like Hollister and the parallel?
Councilmember Kasdan, great question I think that's still open for discussion and I think as we meet and decide how to put forth the best application for the planning grant money. We will explore the idea of the corridor expanding in kind of a south and north direction because of the knowledge that the arterials, Cathedral Oaks for example, that feed into 101 are such an integral part of the operation of 101 in
Okay. Well, I look forward to finding out more about it. I wanted a couple more to pick up on. Would you like to talk about when it comes to you? Talk about the group that's forming? So with Lake Los Carneros, there is kind of a community group that is forming. They're working with the Santa Barbara Foundation and Council Member Reyes-Martin and I have been supporting them in participating And they are in the process of submitting their application to Santa Barbara Foundation, and which they've already gotten feedback from the foundation about what their application needs.
It would be, they would serve as a fiscal sponsor of the Santa Barbara Foundation which is really good. And they want to support Lake Los Carneros and especially the footbridge and initiate fundraising to help support our progress. So that meshes nicely, and that's great. And there's real enthusiasm by Another one, similarly that is pretty cool news. So this is with respect to the MOT and that we were all as the city manager mentioned having meetings with different groups that could provide us, the mayor and I were the subcommittee And having group meetings with different groups who could give us really more than anything advice on how best to proceed. And we met with a host of different non-profits and consultants.
And in the midst of that, Mayor explained better it, they were at a mayor's and city manager's meeting? Is that it? In Lompoc, and I guess it was Supervisor Capp said, that's interesting you're pursuing that. Have you talked to this other group, the Central Coast Aquatics? They were also trying to do that. So it turns out there was a non-profit that was also seeking the same goal and Which potentially takes the burden off of our hands. And so where it stands right now is that at some point in like March or April, we can have them come and present what they want and the council can then talk to them about what their capacity is for fundraising, what their plans are because they wanted They were looking avaricely at some of the adjoining property by the city.
Council Member Kasdan, did you mention... I mean people are looking at us like what are they talking about?
MOT, explaining what MOT is. And what
the idea was so just briefly.
You're right.
Yeah
nobody's
swimming in
the Yeah, so what it is is that the Goleta Union School District owns a property next to our community center and that property they use as a bus depot for taking the kids to school. It's not a perfect location for them and it would be a really good location for something for recreation and other benefits Children of the area, got the Boys and Girls Club, Rainbow School, Community Center right in the heart of Old Town.
And what we've been talking about is finding a property for them that would serve as an alternative to their bus depot. And then us getting the bus depot and using that for an aquatic center, a pool. And so this non-profit group would help us in that endeavor to get to that point so that we would have in Goleta a public pool which we have none of right now.
So this is just a taste of the opportunities. She might be on the line, but the nonprofit group I initially was going to suggest that they talk to present to us in some ways tonight. She said, well I can call in on a satellite phone or something like that. You know? All right it's okay. I don't know if she's on a cruise or fighting behind the lines against Russia in Ukraine but But in any case, there'll be an opportunity for everyone to find out the specifics, to vote on it and hear the opportunities if we set up a meeting in March or April, something like that.
I'll ask a couple more things. It's interesting that Council Member Carriaco mentioned with the street parking, the challenge in Old Town is that individual owners might have lots of cars that they're parking on the street. In the west side, the issue that's come up is that the university and Isla Vista parking has spilled over so the problem is that either You're banned from having a car by some UCSB sites or they charge you for parking and it's much cheaper to simply park your car in Goleta for free.
And so, they're getting some of the homeowners are getting squeezed out and they can't find parking because it's being taken by UCSB or IV students. And so, I find that compelling. The last thing I was going to talk about, and maybe I'll pause and come back to this is that the rent control question. And I handed out for those, well I guess since I'm on a roll, I handed out something which is an alternative. And sympathetic to concerns about high cost of housing I don't think rent control is a very effective tool in addressing it. And what I am proposing is that there's a better tool to get there. Rent control isn't targeted, it applies to everyone.
And the people who get the benefit primarily are those people who stay in place, who don't move. But they might be well off, they might not be well off. It's just universally applied and the only people who really benefit are if you stay in place. That tends to harm people who move around especially younger people. Councilmember
2:22 – 2:2912 turns
Kasdan, I think we can have this conversation when we move into the whole idea of rent control. I don't know if we need to go into details right now.
Well what I'm saying is that I don' t think we should do rent control. Okay well then that's
what you can say.
Yeah, I don't think we should do rent control and instead there is an alternative that I've handed out which is kind of a revenue enhancement. Now the goal isn't to generate revenue. The goal is to produce funds for affordable housing or to encourage people to provide affordable housing. But unlike rent control, it's targeted the premise and I'll be brief as much as possible of the premises essentially
that point of order for process was this made available to members? The public is we're talking about a document and I just want make sure that if the public has access to the document David
The premise is that new housing provides inclusionary housing and older housing does not. Why shouldn't they provide some sort of equivalent to what new housing provides? Why should they have lower costs in essence than new housing. New housing has to provide deed restricted housing, a certain percent based on an ordinance and the premise I have here is that if we think it's appropriate for housing to have some sort of contribution to affordable housing, everyone should have that requirement. Okay I'll stop there and happy to talk more as you can tell.
Thank you. I wanted to, well first of all just acknowledge all the different sort of divisions within the city manager's office and all the incredible work that's going on it's not always that's observable by the public. So I just wanted to acknowledge that. And also, I do wanna just really reaffirm the importance of renegotiating the MOU for Fire Station 10. It's something I continue to hear a lot about from our residents and that's gonna be a really important priority in the coming year I'm also thrilled to hear about this potential corridor study or grant opportunity, and I look forward to receiving more information on it.
I think that'll be a good catalyst to get more information. And I think really highlights the regional... We are the city of Goleta And our residents, you know bear the impacts but are over crossings also serve. You know, Isla Vista and other communities. So to the extent that the 101 corridor has those regional impacts it's really good to hear that SBCAG potentially recognizes the importance there all around so both for our residents and regionally.
Let's see, I do think we will need to address the question of revenue enhancement. I'm not sure this fall is the time. But I do see that question, I think we will need to revisit that at some point. Although you know to the extent of that needs to happen in a year where there's a scheduled election I know there might be need to be some lead time down the line, but so I sort of support it being on the long range project.
But I think we can come back to that. I would support Councilmember Kariakos request to move up number 14 you know we continue to receive comments from the public about the possibility of some kind of rent stabilization ordinance. And I think it just, we've heard comments this evening, we've received comments at other meetings and it's very timely and we're gonna receive more information in the coming fiscal year in terms of what City of Santa Barbara is doing So, I think it's an important time to act.
I agree that I think the question of a registry is an important first step if that's something that sort of easier you know first step you know that maybe that's kind of a sub concept that could be moved up But I would also support moving that concept up. Let's see. I have some concerns in terms of where we are sort of budget wise, in terms of ongoing discussions on the MOT site and sort of where we're at in terms of our commitments to staff up the train station and other sort of ongoing commitments.
So I wanna acknowledge the important work and discussions that have happened, but I'm supportive of that sort of staying on the long range plan. So those are just some of my preliminary thoughts. Thank you.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith was that in regards to number 13 or just generally speaking?
I'm sorry in regards to number 13. Okay
thank you.
Council Member Reyes-Martin. Thank you. One quick question going back to community relations, I think this is the right department. Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall on a previous work plan that we had the kind of revamping of City Assist in particular for it to be mobile friendly?
Yeah so we're actually looking at that one through Neighborhood Services since they do all of City Assist.
2:29 – 2:361 turns
Thank you for clarifying that. And so then looking at the colorful chart, very supportive of everything that's on here and just want to take a moment to acknowledge there is a lot here. There is a lot of really consequential really big projects and of course I'm very happy the initiation of the feasibility and cost estimate for the Lake Los Carneros footbridge. And as Council Member Kasdan mentioned, I think there's some momentum and enthusiasm to really help the city get that going.
So it's exciting to have that here and just keep it moving along. So I would not change anything on this list. And so then going to the next list You know, it seems like there's a handful of these that already have kind of some work that's happening. So I won't really quibble on what number they're on. It sounds like there's some work and information that might come back to us about The over crossing project which is exciting. It sounds like there may be some presentation coming to us about potentially something at the MOT site, although I agree with Councilmember or Mayor Pro Tem Smith that we've had a full on discussion about At least in a while, about what kind of opportunity there would be with that site. What's the priority for council?
If it's something whether that's a public pool or some other public use I think of course that will require a lot of analysis from staff on what it will take to do that, and I say that as someone who my very first job as a 15 year old was at My City's Pool. They're wonderful and they're a really big function of any city so we'd wanna kind of of course assess that. So it sounds like that kind of is gonna come so we'll learn more about that.
I would actually like to move up The street parking permit program. And so maybe that's, you know right behind the over crossing and the MOT in terms of getting more information about them. And I say that because this is also one that I think we I've heard a lot about from different parts of the community and I would say you know we had a lot of public comment that was emailed us to us tonight from residents in that That part of the city with Gersh Park and those neighborhoods asking us to consider a permanent kind of resident parking permit program for those neighborhoods.
I think they've continued to be impacted by parking, and we hear anecdotally that it's from the University or Isla Vista. And I think some proof of that anecdotal information is When the city does implement the temporary street parking programs for Deltopia and Halloween, which are parking permits for residents, you see that there's a very big change in the parking congestion on those streets. So I think there's some there there, and I think they've been asking for more information about how this could work. You know, I have limited knowledge about how these programs get started but I know there's a lot of input and I think most of the time even a vote of those neighborhoods to implement something like this. And so I think in order to be responsive to that that's also one where It's And so there's more impact.
So the solution in other neighborhoods might look different, but I think in that neighborhood might be a good pilot to really the neighborhood around Gersh Park might be a good pilot to really think through how more traditional street parking program permit part program might work. A little bit on number 12 I know we've heard a little bit about what other cities are doing. And I guess my question would be like, do we need to make kind of definitive decision about whether or not we are going to pursue something for either of the upcoming ballots? If we do need to make a decision and I think that does.
necessarily need to stay, you know higher up. I will say I am not convinced that that is something that I'm supportive of in this next fiscal year so from my perspective I would move that one way down and then maybe swap that with the street parking permit program On rent control and or this question on 14, I would say like I'm not necessarily ready to say that that's the solution. I would want to really both have some information from staff about the measures that we have already taken and how those have have gone and kind of get a recap of all that.
You know Council Member Kazdin has some ideas, others with some time might also have ideas of what is needed and what we can implement so I think it's appropriate where it is now and like with other things it might It might move up as new information becomes available to us. I think we'll of course be watching really carefully what happens in neighboring jurisdictions and hopefully we can learn from those, that process.
And then I think the others, I don't think I would change any of these others. Those are my comments for now.
2:36 – 2:432 turns
And Madam Mayor, if I could respond to one of Councilmember Reyes-Martin's kind of question comment and I'll respond specifically to the comment but then also make it will segue to a more general comment about how these two tables operate. So the question was about specifically revenue enhancements or putting a tax measure and you know is the action today kind of an action thumbs up or thumbs down are we moving towards something in November yes So by virtue of if the council were to leave it on this table, that is direction to staff do not pursue a tax measure for this November.
And you could move it anywhere on this table and that would still have the same effect. More generally I would just like to remind the council that is also generally how the two tables do operate. We don't kind of work on things. We don't do well, staff is not successful when we're kind of working on things. We're either working on something or we're not working on something and that's the reason we prioritize so if it's on this list yes we can we heard we're hearing comments about moving some of these items around but if it's on this list what's being proposed here is that this would not be worked on in fiscal year 26-27 So thought, you know, it can be there for this conversation a year from now.
But again, it's either we're working on it or we're not working on it. I know that takes discipline and that's hard sometimes but even bringing a presentation to the council does take work.
Okay. I think it's my turn. So what we're saying, I think what I'm hearing is that the colorful green and blue chart of projects, it sounds like everybody's pretty in support of leaving that as-is. And that's an awful lot. That's all I'm saying. I agree. That's a lot. I get worried when we put that much on our staff And as far as the next list, you know I will just briefly say The 101 over crossing has been a project in the works, but has never gone very far since before we were even a city.
And I worked on that with a few other people in the county and it's changed over the years. It's become like no, it's just about cars and pedestrians and bikes Then it became, no, it's just about bikes and peds. There is a need. I see it and I especially see it because we're growing and there's a lot more housing being proposed and students and pedestrians are in need to get across the freeway instead of running across the freeway which has happened and with not very much success they don't make it.
That's something that, you know, I think it's good where it is because we don't know if this study, this grant is going to come forward and may cover that and that would be excellent along with some other things. So I think it's fine where it is. I'm anxious to hear a little bit more about the group that's coming in but I don't think that's something that's going to happen immediately.
But I think there's some conversations that are worthy of really hearing from the folks that are proposing an aquatic center and what they have in mind. As far as rent control, you know, I don't think it's a bad idea to just see where the city of Santa Barbara goes and how things work with them and be watching them. And also I like the idea of a registry When we met with the mayor from Alameda, city manager and myself. And they have a gigantic rent control department but it's manned by its own department and its own legal so we could ease into it but it's a big deal. It's not gonna happen overnight and I think we have the perfect opportunity right now to watch and see what happens with Santa Barbara Street parking is an issue. I'm starting to get more emails, especially from the Phelps area and Scripps area.
And what it is that it is true the university first year of college you cannot bring your car to school Well, they still are. They're just parking it in the neighborhoods and then getting on their bike or hopping a bus and going to campus. So it's happening. And I sympathize. And we're growing again. And that's something that we really need to at least start looking at maybe phasing it in or looking how we could do it.
I don't know about another tax initiative, you know. Unless—I'm struggling with continually asking people for money. I know we need more money and but I'm not in favor of doing that right now so let's see is there anything else I'm forgetting? A TOT tax, I remember asking Luke Rio our finance director about that. Where the money you know all the proceeds from that tax would go to roads and maybe that would pass, I don't know but I don't know if the timing is right for me to put something like that on the ballot. And I'm really very excited to hear about, going back to the colorful slide, number 10 because people really love that footbridge and that loop that it provides for people that walk in. It's great to hear that there's a group out there that's really interested.
I heard rumors about it awhile ago so that's great to hear it moving and doing well. I think that's it for me. Did I miss anything? I just hesitate to put anything more on this colorful slide because it is a lot.
2:43 – 2:569 turns
We're going Yeah, there's a multitude of things that could be done. I know before Measure B was done there was a whole study conducted by the finance department that looked at all various options that led to the council decision on a sales tax in Measure B. The three that have come to my attention more recently are a parcel tax which is I think part of what Councilmember Kasdan passed out today doing some type of different business tax And then the third is the TOT. And I would say based on what I know and my experience and what some of the other cities have done recently, out of those three if we ever get to that point, the TOT would certainly be the easiest lift.
Okay. I just wanted to clarify that I would support moving number 14 to the current fiscal year because I think as soon as any other local jurisdiction takes action in the upcoming fiscal year, that attention will come to the City of Goleta. So I think that's coming from the community one way or the other so I just wanted to clarify that.
I appreciate hearing that but I'm wondering if there is anything on The other list, the colorful list that you could take off. I know that's a hard one right? This is what we always have to ask ourselves like what has to go off this list so that we can put that on it or do you think that could go on it and not take anything off? Three things.
Yeah. And I mean you know and I mean number 14 could even be modified to the cons to a subconcept of a registry but I guess what I'm saying is I think this work is coming one way or the other to our staff. So I think we need to, I think it's coming. And actually and I think it would be in the second half of the fiscal year or towards the end of the fiscal year so you know in that sense I don't think it would have You know, I think there would be breathing room.
But things are percolating. So you know it's hard sort of without getting additional input, it's sort of hard to say okay, you know, you know, for the assessment rates or I don't know. You know, I don't have as much information on some of these other items but that obviously if we have contracts those are sort of finite. I recognize that those are finite I think that work is coming and would benefit us to give our staff breathing room to be able to accommodate that work.
Council Member Kessler?
Yeah, so first as far as the MOT and that's the Aquatic Center question hopefully that when we meet with the non-profit, it would be kind of turnkey. That they would be raising the money and that it wouldn't be a burden for the city manager's office or the City of Goleta. Some of that is you'll get an opportunity to talk to them. We'll all discuss it and see how reasonable and feasible it sounds but that was my hope and dream
While I definitely hear you and respect that comment, even talking to them on working
Oh no, this wasn't directed at you. It was directed at Councilmember Smith who was concerned about are there potential costs associated? You know how much of a burden would this be for the city and it was just sort of a reassurance that if hopefully that this is not going to be that kind of thing but with regard to cost my understanding is a registry It's hideously expensive. It's a very labor intensive thing, so before we talk about going forward with anything I guess I'd like to hear from ultimately the staff of what sort of cost that implies because if we're talking about major costs it means that we're not doing something else. That either we are gonna start charging an extra sum, a lot of cities have a special tax that funds the rent control or the rent control board and the registry, which is ironic I have to say.
But I don't think there's anything inevitable about us choosing rent control down the road so I don't think there's any reason that we have to be precipitous in going forward and not being able to see what happens with Santa Barbara and not doing our analysis a proper understanding of things. So there's, I don't see an urgency question and... I guess the last thing is I do think that with regards to the parking permits that it is something that the Deputy City Manager for instance has done some previous research on and one of the challenges comes up is you need to have additional enforcement of that. And so, that means essentially that you're going to have to charge people for that additional enforcement and do you want to have full cost recovery?
In which case it becomes a challenge for areas that are less well off Or do you want to have, under what conditions is there a subsidy? So it is going to be we might need a consultant or something like that to really understand it. Because the choice that we make, we have to live with in some ways and it can be tricky. That's my thoughts.
Thanks. My list of things I suddenly want to say keeps growing. Let's see, I think if you want to do a thought experiment on whether or not we need a parking permit program drive through Hollister after 11 o'clock at night and see how many people figured out how to back in Engle Park And those cars are there until the morning. And then they're gone, because they're people that live in the neighborhood north of Hollister primarily. There's not enough parking and so they're parked there. And it's been a tremendous benefit because those same cars were the cars that we're having to or choosing I should say to park in the red or choosing to partially block driveways And so adding 19 spaces there at least helped those 19 cars that were lucky enough to get one of those spots in any given night.
So I mean, I think the evidence is there that something needs to be done and what I hear consistently from residents is they want to be able to count on at least one car being able to be out on the street if they have to because Council Member Reyes-Martin mentioned it, many of the homes in that area do not have dedicated parking. They don't have a garage they can park in and many of the homes there are on the smaller side and so they need places to store things and so it just becomes really challenging. On the MOT site, the property that's owned by the school district, it's starting to sound a little presumptuous Directing the city manager to go work with a group of people to put a pool there And I at least that's how it's sounding to me, and I think if it's starting to sound that way It's probably starting to sound that way to other people and so I think The way it's written is perfect If we want to talk to a nonprofit group that has some ideas for what could happen there?
And one of those ideas is a pool great. I think there would be a lot of community support for a pool. I also in cognizant of A survey we did a number of years ago where we asked what should be a priority for the city, and an aquatic center was one of the lowest things. That could have changed. It could have been a one-off survey. But I just don't want to put the cart before the horse when it comes to what is the future use of that property if we acquire it?
I can think of lots of things. The satellite library would be a great thing to have too. In terms of promoting literacy in Old Town and in the larger area. So I think there's a lot of things that can be done at the MOT site. I'll also add, and I'm happy this is agendized so I can talk about it because I'm not part of the subcommittee of council. That's the MOT subcommittee. Has anyone talked to City College about property they may own that could potentially help us in getting to yes with the school district? The Wake Center off Turnpike. Is there property there that the school district could use to store, maintain, work on buses that could be a substitute property?
I've had that mentioned to me as a possibility. Someone at the city who's brown-acted or sort of brown-acted to talk about that ought to talk to Jonathan Abboud at City College about that. On rent control, again, I'm not married to it being called rent control. I think rent stabilization is fine. I support what Mayor Pro Tem Smith said Perhaps you start with the rental registry.
And in terms of like really getting into the weeds of discussion of how rent control does or doesn't work and rent stabilization does or doesn't work, and a rental registry and how expensive or hideously expensive it would be, most rental registries I'm familiar with, it's a small fee per property 20 bucks a property, 30 bucks a property. That doesn't sound hideously expensive to me when owning a piece of property is your business. I think that is a de minimis expense so I just kind of wanted to put my perspective on those statements.
I support moving 14 above the line and if you want to call it rent stabilization, If you want to call it a rental registry exploration. And when I think about the justification, the city manager's office we've been able to put more resources in that department over time. We have more analysts in that department than we used to. We reclassified the assistant to the executive assistant position as a management analyst there is more capacity to do more complex work in that department than there used to be.
I'm not naive enough to think that necessarily means we can add one or two more items to the pretty colorful slide. But I think if we're already opening the door and saying 11 is going to kind of get worked on, and I think I heard that earlier that there's some things happening at SBCAG That's not on the colored slide, but it's being worked on. I feel the same way about 14. So I would try and get 14 over the finish line in terms of over-the-line.
I don't know if we need three council members for that to be consensus, but I would hope that we could at least get the ball rolling. Yeah, I appreciate what Mayor Pro Tem Smith said It likely being something happening later in the fiscal year. I think that's necessarily true because we still have to see how the process in Santa Barbara plays out, but we have experience doing this. We went through this process on tenant protections. The direction from council at that time from a prior council was to basically monitor what was happening in Santa Barbara and see what was appropriate for Galeta based on what happened. That process is still in progress and I think doing something similar here makes sense. And I think that can be done with minimal, my viewpoint is that could be done with minimal time and probably later in the year.
And, I agree, I think Mayor Pro Tem Smith was spot on when she said this is something we're going to be hearing about and responding to and getting questioned about Whether it's number 10 on our work plan or number 15 on our work plan. I just think it is and I just think it's time.
2:57 – 3:049 turns
Okay, well we haven't heard from the public yet so I'd like to go to public speakers.
Yes, thank you Madam Mayor. I do have two speaker slips and one hand raised. Those of you on the Zoom webinar please use the raised hand icon and I will call on you our first in-person speaker, Jacinda Huang. Please make your way to the podium all speakers we'll have three minutes.
Good evening Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. I would like to speak in regards to item 15 which you all touched based on We live in the First University
Village.
So we live here in the First University Village area that you had touched base on, Armstrong, Phelps, Scripps Crescent and I would like to thank Councilmember I did submit some photos. Unfortunately, I realized it was after the deadline that show same time of day when UCSB is in session and when they're not and it's significant difference. My son comes home from school at City College and he has nowhere to Cars are half blocking our driveways. The corners, it's such low visibility.
We have students trying to bike to school and it's so dangerous with the safety concerns and then there's trash in our neighborhood from the students as well as them locking up their bikes to the lamppost because that's how they're getting to and from Isla Vista As you mentioned, there's a permit program established already for Adultopia at Halloween and we would just like for you to consider implementing that year-round if possible.
You know, just to restore safe and accessible streets for our neighborhood. And I think it was mentioned by Councilmember Reyes Martinez, we would love to be the pilot program if that's an option. And regarding enforcement Word spreads quickly amongst them. I mean, if you start ticketing them they will let their friends know and they will stop parking fairly soon.
So thank you for considering and for your time. Thank you.
Our next in-person speaker is Joy McBride
I'm also wanting to speak about line item 15 about the parking. I'm also a resident in the first university homeowners association, and we've been seeing as was mentioned huge impact. There's additional things. We've got speeding on the street because when students are trying to find parking they'll zip up and down the streets looking for parking. They're parking in front of fire hydrants quite often.
In the case of an actual fire, that would be a real big problem. They're parking on corners and visibility is difficult. We're trying as homeowners to drive slowly but this is impacting our neighborhood. Also on trash day it's difficult to find a place for our trash cans. They have to be on the street. We've got cars parked in front of our houses for students that are white. UCSB is building more and more housing. They have huge, as you all know, undertaking going on right now. That's just going to keep further impacting our streets. Word-of-mouth? Yep, students come park. They just finished a new thing. We're waiting for more students to come park on our street.
So that's one thing. Eighteen years ago I came to Foreign Council and said we need to get permit parking for Halloween. And I was told it couldn't be done, and you guys figured out how to do it. You figured out for Deltopia. So I'm confident that you guys can figure this one out for us. In addition, because we're in HOA, signage can be put on lampposts. That would cut down on expenses for the city.
All those permits that are sent out to us for Deltopia and for Halloween, that could Those funds could be now used to put signage up. City of Santa Barbara did it down for residents near the city college and so we know it can be done. I also have proof, pictures if you want to really know what it looks like go before when school is in session and then during the holidays or going summer and all of a sudden the cars are gone during that time.
So thank you. Appreciate the consideration. We're moving to
our online speakers. Our first online speaker is Bill Woodbridge. Please unmute yourself, you have three minutes.
Hi Mayor and Council Members. I really, really appreciate James Kiriakou's efforts on behalf of Item 14. I urge you to move that way up. This is not a matter of niceties or prettiness this is a matter of helping people that live in your city Santa Barbara passed a rent freeze as of December 16th until they can establish a rent control ordinance. They reaffirmed that rent freeze couple weeks ago, you could do the same thing until you establish a rent ordinance and a cap Four people in only two buildings where I live at Patterson Place moved out just in the last 10 days because the rents are getting too high.
I will have to do the same this May if my rent goes up another ten percent. We don't have time to wait for the new buildings like Willow Springs' new project to be completed, that's three years away. That's three years too long We need something done now. We needed something done five years ago. We don't have time to wait a long time to see how the Santa Barbara issue works out, we need something done now.
My rent is more than my fixed income It's gonna go up another 10% in June, at which time I will have to make the decision of whether to move out of the city or out of the county or out of the state. It's just too much, 10% every year is too much. It should be a maximum of 5%. The ordinance in Santa Barbara does not affect single family residences or condos, you could do the same. You could almost copy and paste their ordinance.
I urge you to do that. Time is of the essence. A lot of people are suffering. This is a critical issue, much more so than a lot of the items above number 14. Please move number 14 up in your priorities. Thank you.
3:05 – 3:107 turns
Thank you, Madam Mayor. When I made the comment earlier that I could summarize what we heard... Yeah, I'm not sure I can do it
now.
So what I did hear was move number 12 down to say 15. By doing that by nature would move those three up so I did hear that but then since then Yeah, there's been a conversation about how high to move up rent control and how high to move up street parking permit program. So I do think we need some direction on that. And I'll just add and remind the Council that yeah, on the other list if you could share it, Jaime.
I honestly do not think starting on rent control is an easy task. It is a hard task and it will take a lot of My office's time, it'll also take a lot of time from the planning department and the housing department. So it is a heavy lift. Again we can't kind of work on something. We either are working on something or we're waiting for it to become a priority. So items would have to be removed from the list otherwise all of them will suffer.
Thank you. I think my comment is that, you know, the next fiscal year we'll be here before you know it and so I think this list also helps inform what you're hearing from council in terms of things that we're interested in looking at and there's of course always a possibility that some capacity I do want to just continue to say that for number 15, you know, I would even want to move that to 11. We have a very willing community.
And I used to live on Mills Way, so I've experienced it myself and I've seen that it has gotten worse. And I do think there is some urgency to that one. I know you would love to have it tomorrow but for soon with all the housing that is being built by UCSB, I know that was noted by one of the public commenters we want them I think that is one we should definitely keep an eye on. And I would move that one to 11. It's really hard to look at that top 10, those are things that I absolutely don't want to move.
I think with the expanded capacity in the department that has led to having ten things on this list rather than five or six. And you know, the other thing that we haven't touched on is there are a lot of urgent priorities that come up that are completely unanticipated. Knowing that this is your capacity and some things are going to come up that we are all going to ask you to kind of drop everything and work on, is also a reality. Some of the accomplishments that were noted, the FIFA and some of these other things were completely unanticipated. We didn't know that was going to happen We have a team that is willing to jump in and do it. And so, that I think is going to happen with who knows what coming up. But I did want to share that you know I think we're also looking at not just these next fiscal year but I'll just continue to say I think 15 is really important.
Council Member Kariyako?
Can we go back to the colorful slide? So it's going to kill me to do this, because I'm on LAFCO. But if I'm basically being told we have no capacity and the only way to get something onto 1 through 10 is to take something off 1 through 10, I will very begrudgingly suggest we remove LAFCO sphere of influence boundary change. And it kills me because it's something I've been working on for multiple years in terms of thinking about it and how to accomplish it.
And we have a representative on LAFCO now, which is not a guarantee. But it's hard for me to hear residents talking about losing their housing and not prioritize it. So if something has to go, you know, and there's consensus I'll say to LAFCO.
Are you saying take number two, Lafco Sphere of Influence and put rent control on the colorful chart?
3:10 – 3:156 turns
Rent stabilization. And in particular the rental registry as a start.
I could support that recommendation.
Council Member Kastan.
I would not support that. I think let's wait and see what happens in Santa Barbara and do some thought in the meantime. started in motion. We can't really, it's hard for us to kind of say we're not going to talk to LAFCO when they meet when you know it is you know we don't have that option in a way it seems to me so I don't know that we can drop that. I just think that the The burden of the rent control is going to rebound, not just in the city manager's office The city manager said, but in planning and if you look at this will come up when we talk about the work plan for planning. But if we look at their list of long range projects, you'll see none of them were completed in last year. So in that list and the idea that add a significant burden on top of that means you know they're going to be severely challenged just to do the basic uh...
sort of fundamental work that their mandate so i don't think we should be pursuing that at this time and we can reconnoiter and see where we are as uh... santa barbara moves ahead uh... and We've agreed to push the revenue enhancement off. As I said, I think there's a better alternative if that's a revenue enhancement that's a better alternative to then rent control which I don't think is effective. I appreciate the sentiment. I appreciate people wanting to do something but I don't think it works. So anyway, so I do think that 12 drops we've already agreed the revenue enhancement drops and you know and then we push up the parking etc., so that's it.
Well I could support definitely moving the street parking permit program, mainly because I think we do have something in place with Deltopia and Halloween. But also maybe if we phase it in, I'm not only worried about the university and their cars We have, you know and this is going to be coming so maybe that's something we need to be thinking about. Do it in phases where we know there's problems and then see how the rest of the city does because we have a lot of housing that's being built and the parking isn't really gonna be sufficient for some of those housing.
So it's gonna get worse instead of better. We're growing worth what 32,000 now? We're growing It's the parking is gonna become more and more of a problem. So rent control is a problem too, I'm just not ready to... I don't think planning is ready to take this on right now. That's where I'm coming from. I'd be happy with moving the MOT down because it's just a conversation.
There's nothing really, it's a little bit It's not advanced. It's just a conversation and I'd be willing to move even number 11 down the 101 crossing as much as I would like to see that, but if it happens it's going to be a grant and it's not going to be with us involved in doing it actually. It's going to be funded by SBCAG or Caltrans and it's a start so I could see moving As much as I hate saying move that down, I could see moving that down.
Does that help at all?
Madam Mayor so I am hearing consensus on yeah two moves one move number 12 revenue enhancements down to 15 and I think I'm hearing consensus that 15 would go up and become the new number 11 everything else would adjust accordingly. I'm not necessarily hearing consensus on item 14.
3:15 – 3:2011 turns
I want to speak to keeping LAFCO at number two, and I can imagine how much that pains Councilmember Kuriakou. But we have to keep that on there. That was such a big part of the conversation and everything we heard from dozens and hundreds of residents during all those housing element meetings about The impact that the city is going to see from development outside of the city limits within the county, and it's one of the only ways that we will have any kind of say in how those impacts impact Goleta. And so there was just so much conversation and deliberative process that got us to starting on that path It takes a lot of time, but it does require time of staff to keep that moving.
So I can't support moving that off this list because I think we will lose that momentum and the work that's happened now and it's a long-term effort. And that housing is coming and we hear all the time residents concerned about the impact that that's going to have so I can't take that off of this list.
Yeah, I think some of the analysis too is a question of like the timing in my sort of what's happening this coming fiscal year or future fiscal years. So you know, I think that was a thought in terms of thinking about that. I don't want to muddle it. I would support keeping 11, number 11 and then the next one to be parking right next to it and maybe it doesn't matter because it's just sort of a long range list.
And if we don't have consensus to move 14, you know above the line so to speak then I would, I guess I would. So if it were like 11, the over crossing question 12, the parking and then I'd ask that still that the rent option be next in line. We're really, jurisdictions are really limited State law already limits what local jurisdictions can do, so a lot of what exists in communities like New York and Los Angeles were actually prohibited under state law from undertaking. So it's a very narrow lens of even options that we can take under state law.
So I do think that limits the work to some degree in terms of the state law options. But just some thoughts on the list. Council Member
Kerrio. I don't wanna muddle things either, so I'll just say I support what Mayor Pro Tem Smith said. When I heard our city manager talking earlier about the LAFCO item, what I heard was it was not necessarily gonna be the heaviest lift for his office. I think the planning department is a different department. The City Manager's Office isn't doing the pre-zoning. The City Manager's Office isn't doing A lot of the other changes that go into setting the stage for a sphere of influence, I thought that perhaps you just temporarily drop it down for one year and we could try to get it back up next year. But it doesn't sound like we have consensus. I'll just let it go. Moving it up to 13 works for me, I guess, for now.
And I support the other changes that were recommended. Yeah, I guess let's move street parking. permit program up. I appreciate the comments. I don't really want to see Gleda 101 over crossing drop very far so yeah, I would drop the revenue enhancement options down as well and slightly move up the rental one and move up the street parking one as was discussed earlier.
Mayor and Council, I would actually request. It sounds like we have consensus. I think it would be helpful to take a motion on the work plan that was a practice we sought to institute consistently last year with those proposed changes which I can read into the record if I understand them correctly.
Thank you.
I'm sure I
have them
correct.
So the new 11 would remain the same, the 101 over crossing project. The new 12 would be permit parking The new 13 would be rent control, rent stabilization. That's what I
heard. Okay. So
maybe there wasn't consensus there. I apologize. Council Member Katz and I did hear that from Council Member Smith.
3:20 – 3:2716 turns
You would want to suggest that they don't put in the time
for it? No. We need to hear from... I can talk to you offline on this, I'm not going to subject...
In other words, it's not going to affect the opportunity for them to have a... To present their plan to us. No!
Absolutely not. So
then it doesn't really matter.
Okay. Okay, fine.
Yes. Rent Control 13, Mod Acquisition 14 and then Tax Measure or the Revenue Enhancements 15, everything else the same. So yes, I think as the City Attorney said a motion to approve the city manager's work plan as amended.
I can do it. So, I move that the council discuss work priorities and adopt the annual work program for fiscal year 2026-27 for the general government department.
As amended?
As
amended. Okay. Roll call vote.
Roll-call vote 2–0 move that the council discuss work priorities and adopt the annual work program for fiscal year 2026-27 for the general government departmen · 2 under review
Show transcript
With the provision that we heard, that the meeting associated with the MOT is going forward at like April or something like that. That's fine. Okay good. No no this is having the nonprofit present to us. In that case aye. Mayor Pro Tempore Smith?
Yes.
And Mayor Parodi?
Aye. Ayes have it. Okay, break I need a break
Yeah. Good morning. Yeah.
3:30 – 3:507 turns
Okay, let's bring this meeting back to
order.
Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council. Tonight Public Works will be presenting on the updated Draft Development Impact Fee Nexus Study. This update reflects current facility inventories, updated construction and land costs, service population data and capital improvements needed to maintain our existing service standards. It provides the technical and legal foundation required by state law.
What you have before you this evening is the draft framework based on that analysis. Staff is seeking your feedback and policy direction. The Council ultimately determines the fee levels to be adopted, and tonight's discussion will help guide you to that decision. With that, I'd like to introduce the team that will walk you through the nexus study tonight. You have myself, Nina Buolna, the Public Works Director, Carlos Villareal with Urban Economics, Jim Dankowicz with DKS and Gerald Kamadi who's a Project Manager.
Next slide please. The city's development impact fee program was originally established at the incorporation based on the county's nexus study. In 2019, the city completed its own comprehensive nexus study and adopted a new DIF ordinance. Development impact fees are charged pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act. Their purpose is to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share towards the public facilities required to serve growth.
Rather than shifting the cost to existing residents, DIFs apply to new residential and commercial development that increases demand on city infrastructure. The City currently collects DIFs for Public Administration, Fire Facilities, Library, Parks & Recreation, Storm Drain, Transportation, Bicycle Pedestrian Facilities and Affordable Housing. State law requires that each fee be supported by a nexus study demonstrating the relationship between development, its impacts and the cost of the facilities needed to serve it.
A fire facility fee update is not included in this presentation and will be brought forward separately prior to adoption. Now I'm going to turn the presentation over to Carlos.
Thank you. Carlos Villarreal with Urban Economics. I'm going to start with a little bit of Impact Fee 101 so that we're all on the same page. So what is a development impact fee? Impact fees fund public facilities that are required to serve demand generated by new development. They are one-time charge for capital facilities, and most importantly they are not an ongoing funding source for operations and maintenance or rehab. They're not a special tax or a special assessment, and because of that they're not subject to the onerous Prop 218 approval requirements.
In California, it's the Mitigation Fee Act in Government Code 66000 that lays out how a local agency would calculate and implement a development impact fee. A Nexus study demonstrates the relationship between new development and the facilities needed to serve that development. And the Nexus study needs to make several key findings. First we need to demonstrate the new development creates the need for facilities. That new development will benefit from the use of the fee revenue, and that the fees are roughly proportional to new development share at facility costs. We also need to make some housekeeping findings such as documenting the purpose of the fee and how the city intends to use the fee revenue.
Next slide please. So I'm gonna discuss all of the impact fees included in our study except for the transportation fees. Jim will discuss the transportation fees in some later slides, but for all of the non-transportation fees we reviewed the existing fee program and took into account any legislative changes. We updated the land use scenario and that included updating the base year to 2025, updating the build out land use projection to build out or approximately the year 2050 Updated the corresponding population and employment estimates.
We also updated the existing asset inventories, and were able to recalibrate the existing level of service for all of the facilities. And finally a structural change is that we converted the residential fees to a fee per square foot as opposed to a flat fee per dwelling unit to comply with changes from the state but this would incentivize smaller units because they would pay a proportionally smaller fee.
Next slide, please. So this next flowchart just kind of gives a rough overview of how we calculate a fee. We start by identifying existing development in the city. We take a look at the existing facility inventories that allows us to calculate an existing facility standard. A common example here could be park acres per 1,000 residents. From there, we can use that facility standard and the cost to build new parks to construct the fee schedule. Then we describe the eligible uses of the fee revenue. And then if the City Council chooses to adopt the fee, then the fee would become implemented and the city would start to collect fee revenue and then program that revenue to eligible capacity expanding projects that benefit new development.
In the next slide, I'll go through a little bit of the math so you can see how this actually works. So in the case of libraries we start with an existing service population and this includes residents and a weighted amount of workers. The idea being that someone who works in the city demands library facilities at a different amount than someone who lives here might have their children here.
From there, we would take a look at the existing facilities currently providing service. Currently the City owns a replacement cost of roughly $15.9 million in library facilities. We can then calculate the facility standard. We first calculated in terms of buildings and collections, but then it gets boiled down to a cost per capita. In this case it would be $424 of replacement costs of library facilities per capita today.
From there we can calculate the fee schedule. We first add 5% for fee program administration and this would include the non-capital costs of administering the fee programs such as staff's time, city attorney's time, CIP programming et cetera. We add that 5% to the cost per capita and then multiply it by an estimate of residents per dwelling unit. In this case, based on the latest American Community Survey data, a single family unit has about 2.95 residents per unit. That gives us the total fee of $1,316 per dwelling unit.
From there to comply with AB 602, the state directive to calculate residential fees per square foot. We divide the fee per average size dwelling unit by an assumption of the average square feet per unit to get a fee per square foot which becomes the fee schedule. And then from there assuming the City Council adopts the fees, the free revenue collected would get programmed to eligible capacity expanding library facilities projects.
Next slide please. And so now I just wanted to run through some of the overarching assumptions used in the study. This slide lays out the growth projections through build-out for residential, the numbers are expressed in terms of dwelling units both existing and at build-out based on the assumptions here we're contemplating about a 20% increase in residential dwelling units. The non-residential projections are expressed in terms of thousands of square feet of non-residential space So you can see there, it's a little over 4 million additional non-residential square feet projected through buildout which represents about a 23% increase.
Next slide please. And from here I'll hand it over to Jim Dankowicz to discuss the transportation diff process.
Thanks, Carl. So Jim Damkiewicz with DKS and so transportation fees are done a bit differently they're subject to the same Mitigation Fee Act requirements you know need in the purpose for the fee the use of the revenue and proportionality but the methodology is somewhat unique for transportation and that's evolved as the Mitigation Fee Act has evolved in terms of unique models that are used for transportation and the standard of practice for legal defensibility.
So with that said, what you see here is kind of the circle of life for a traffic impact fee. It's step one is everything that Carlos described which are the land use projections of your general plan. Step two for traffic, you need traffic counts to establish what is the baseline and what is operating well now versus not Operating well now based on existing conditions. And then step three is that analysis tool I mentioned, which is a travel demand model. That is the key tool for traffic impact fees. And so those land use inputs and growth projections and planned growth is input into the travel demand model, and it generates what the future traffic conditions will be. And based on that, which is step four, we identify The infrastructure that based on those projected growth in traffic will not operate to city standards relative to the general plan.
And so we identify improvements in step five, we cost those improvements and we do the fair share. So what is the fair share to new development actually contributing to the deficiencies that are identified? And all that goes into step six which is your traffic impact fee. And so I'll discuss next slide a bit More so, you know why do we update the traffic fees? As Carlos said there's new legislation.
AB 602 was passed SB 99 which dealt with accessory dwelling units excuse me and then more recently AB 358 which identified discounts for VMT efficient residential housing. In terms of updates the Mitigation Fee Act also requires updates every eight years it says five but It's really five to eight years, but eight years is really the max. And then obviously you want to update your land use assumptions relative to your general plan and any modifications to that general plan. Last but not least, you want to account for construction costs and those have been changing significantly over time.
And so just to give a frame of reference, the last time the fees were updated were in 2019. The growth projections doesn't reflect some of the changes that have been made to the general plan since then. The traffic model was the previous update model and then obviously there's the trip generation manual. There were two additions beyond where we were last time and then we were basing it on 2019 construction costs. Next slide.
So what did we do? So real quick, it was quite an effort. Citywide traffic counts this was done in May of 2024. This entailed over 100 intersection counts and over 40 roadway segment counts to really establish a solid baseline. We used those traffic counts to update the travel demand model to reflect 2024 conditions and that included the land use updates that Carlos mentioned We also validated that baseline model to state and federal criteria. That's very important because you need a validated model for defensibility.
Once the model was found to be healthy and working properly, we plugged in the forecast and ran the travel demand model. So it is always land use, land use, land use. as good or accurate as the land use assumptions that go into it. So we looked at the city's general plan build out and update resolutions, but more importantly there's all these areas outside the city's jurisdiction that has gone through quite a few changes. That includes the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Santa Barbara with a number of significant rezones.
Obviously enrollment projections K-12, UCSB's long range development plan expectations for housing and student growth And then also all the various specific plans that affect the modeling domain. So in terms of using the model, we use counts to identify the baseline conditions as I mentioned. We used a 2050 travel forecast to establish what the future year conditions will look like on the city's infrastructure.
And based on what we find, there will be deficiencies or were deficiencies roughly over 30. And those entailed either new roadways or expanded roadways. They entailed intersection improvements such as channelization, added left turn lanes, added exclusive right turn lanes and then we also looked at control type and I'll pass it over to Nina to talk about what that entails.
As a Vision Zero City, staff is recommending that roundabouts be evaluated first because they offer measurable safety and operational benefits. Roundabouts reduce conflict points, slow vehicle speeds and significantly reduce crash severity. A standard four-leg signalized intersection has 32 vehicle conflict points while a roundabout reduces that to eight. National data shows roundabouts reduce injury crashes by more than 70% and fatal crashes by more than 90%. These outcomes are achieved through design, not enforcement and aligned directly with the city's adopted safety goals for all users.
Roundabouts increase capacity without adding travel lanes which is critical as traffic volumes grow. For example at Project Connect those two roundabouts that we're putting in will be at a level of service A using 20-30 volumes And prior to that, when they were intersections they were at a level of service D and C. And that was all done without widening the corridor.
Staff recognizes that roundabouts are not appropriate in every location and that cost is a legitimate consideration. Both roundabout and signalized intersection alternatives were evaluated in the study. The roundabout configurations are currently reflected in the DIF program, while the roundabouts may be higher initial construction costs they generally result in lower long-term operations and maintenance costs due to the reduced pavement area and the absence of signal equipment.
If Council prefers signalized intersections at any location, that direction can be provided and associated cost adjustments can be evaluated accordingly. We also have Sergeant Rivas here to address any operational issues and Kimley Horn is available for technical design questions related to roundabouts. And I'm going to pass it over to Jim.
So once the improvements have been identified, they are costed that we have shown from M&S. They were in charge of all the planning level cost estimates for the improvements and once those costs are established you then establish the fair share. Again you use a travel demand model to perform that and next slide is just an example so The bar in blue, you can think of these as three separate locations so location A.
The blue bar represents the amount of traffic from existing development and for a given location that bar across the top that's your theoretical threshold or your level service standard if traffic exceeds that the facility is considered deficient And a improvement would need to be identified. So in location A or example A, you have existing traffic with the blue but then that added increment of green traffic is the traffic that is resulting from new or future plan development.
For location A even combining those two together in the future, that intersection does not trigger the threshold so therefore there is no deficiency and that project is not included as part of the fee program. Location B in the middle, you can see that existing traffic today is greater but it's still not triggering the threshold. So existing development isn't causing the problem at this location but when you add the increment of trips associated with new development, it goes over the threshold and that intersection or roadway is considered deficient. In that example, the fair share, 100% of the improvement cost would be the starting point For establishing the fair share. So that's pretty significant, 100% of the improvement cost.
The third item or the third potential outcome is location C where you can see based on existing traffic by itself it's an existing deficiency and you can't charge new development to fix problems that growth has already Your existing land use has already caused. Very important in terms of legal defensibility to make sure you understand what's an existing deficiency versus what is a future deficiency when it comes to fair share.
And why is fair share so important for Goleta? I do a lot of these all over the state, and you guys have a very challenging environment primarily because you're surrounded by islands of other jurisdictions. Kind of hard to see, but you see the City of Goleta, the big green polygon right in the middle. That's the city of Santa Barbara, the airport and the airport specific plan.
You have UCSB obviously below that which is its own entity creating traffic that it generates and then you have the county Which is yellow, but what's also the county is the brown that is just east of 217 and south of Hollister. Those are zones that are associated with the county rezone and those were previously ag and now they're residential. And so this was not the case in the previous update. You also see a bit of that north of Cathedral Oaks west of Stork That's your Glen Annie golf course and that's being rezoned to residential as well. So you have a lot of issues with respect to other jurisdictions, and you can see just holistically over 30 deficient locations, they're not all concentrated in one area. They span throughout the city but holistically about 62% or I should say 64%, is your city's own traffic.
But the county contributes 23% of that And City of Santa Barbara is approximately 7% and UCSB approximately 5%. Now those percentages vary depending on the exact location for a given deficiency. For instance, near those county rezones there's deficient locations along Hollister Avenue that are directly significantly impacted by those developments and the fair share for those projects are significantly swayed towards the county but the problem is you can't charge You can only charge your own residents a fee. So that's the issue that the city deals with and I'll pass it back to Carlos.
3:50 – 3:554 turns
Thanks, Jim. So we wanted to give you a sense of the magnitude of the change compared to the maximum justified amounts and we've been using the term maximum justified a lot and I just want to emphasize that this is the maximum justified amount that the Nexus study supports. This is not a recommended amount or the amount your council necessarily needs to adopt. Again, it's the maximum justified amount from the study.
Another thing I wanted to point out about this slide is that for comparison purposes we're comparing your existing fees which are charged as a flat rate per dwelling unit to the fee for the average size dwelling unit in this case it's 927 square feet. This slide is for all residential units except for single family so think multifamily apartments or condos. This is the fee that would apply to those types of units So you see we have the table demonstrating the maximum justified fee compared to your existing fee. And then we've also put that into the context of the county's fee schedule before incorporation in the bar chart, or the current bar is the bar in the middle on the bar chart and then the maximum justified fee from our draft study would be the third bar in the bar chart.
Clearly this represents quite a significant increase compared to what the city currently charges. Next slide please. And so wanted to give you some context for why we're seeing such a large increase because I'm sure there will be some questions. The factors driving the changes to the fees are, you know, there's a few of them. The first would be what Jim just went through. There's a completely revised and recalibrated transportation deficiency and project cost analysis to address the deficiencies. We have updated and in a couple cases in terms of storm drain and bike and ped, have a much more accurate and better inventory of existing facilities to identify that existing level of service compared to what was done in 2019. And that has resulted in a higher level of service than we could demonstrate in the prior study.
Then the third factor would be just overall increased construction costs and land acquisition costs since 2019 We all know that costs have escalated since COVID, and then there's uncertainty around tariffs for raw materials. So having fresh costs in the model results in higher fees. Next slide please. And I won't belabor this slide. This is a little bit of a more granular explanation going category by category what has changed since the last update. But again, the three points I made in the prior slide are applicable in this case as well.
Next slide please. So then we wanted to give you a sense of what this fee program, if you adopt the maximum amount would generate in terms of fee revenue so again we're kind of comparing the county's fee schedule to the current implemented fee schedule to the maximum justified fee schedule in this slide taking a look at the projected revenue. If we're just taking a look at your current fee schedule through build-out, this would generate a maximum amount of about $313.5 million compared to $564 million if your council were to adopt the maximum justified fee.
To give you a little bit more context though I should note that this projection of fee revenue is if all development between now and build out paid the full fee schedule. The city already provides discounts for beneficial land uses such as non-profit special care or nonprofit Childcare, so to give a little bit more context since 2019 about 15% of the fees that could have been generated have been discounted or waived. So if you know just to give you a little bit of sense of what might happen here as well and another note is if we were to assume that all low and very low units in the housing element had the fees waived just to kind of bookend the discussion that would result in a waiver of about 53 and a half million dollars through build out So again, just trying to give you a little bit of context for what these maximum justified revenues might look like.
Next slide please. So yeah, just to finalize the presentation here we are here to listen and receive any feedback from your council. We'll take that feedback and finalize the report and come up with some recommendations. And then I think we're set for or we're slated for a public hearing to consider adoption on April 7th if all goes according to plan. And with that happy to get any feedback y'all might have for us.
Thank you. So first, just as to clarify these none of these are new fees. These are all these fees or existing fees that have been adjusted for inflation and the new development, new conditions that are or new development that's coming but we haven't proposed any new fees this. These are what we have already had on the books
Yeah, the categories you currently charge them. Yes.
Okay and could you explain the affordable housing diff?
3:56 – 4:0322 turns
No it's not, thank you. I was loud enough though right? Okay so it's a laundry list of conditions that if they're met then a development can be considered VMT efficient. If it is considered VMT efficient we use a SanDAG down in San Diego study of smart growth They looked at trip generation estimates of suburban development and then the same type of land uses in more urban developments. And so there was a range of less trip making as a result of development being juxtaposed to complementary land uses, and that's the idea.
Yeah, it's kind of curious because I don't see the nexus in a sense between VMT, Efficient Vehicle Miles Traveled and affordable housing that you could have. But is the money that's raised dedicated? In other words put into some sort of special fund for affordable housing?
If I may, were you asking about the affordable housing fee that wasn't included as part of this update
that you described early in the presentation. It wasn't in the ladder tables.
Yeah, 358. I don't believe there's a provision that the discount is put back into a fund for providing affordable housing. It's just a discount from the fee.
Okay. Let's see... Well first, just a comment. So for instance previously when I had heard about Fairview and Hollister for instance it was always or excuse me not Fairview Cannon Green and Hollister it was always with the idea that there was this was a traffic light that was coming and this is the first time I've seen any reference to oh it's a circle now It's, you know obviously Vision Zero does not exclusively require traffic circles. It's an option and we didn't vote exclusively for that so my observation is this is exactly the sort of thing that a committee would be helpful for or a commission where people to get these things and be able to react. You don't have to really comment that more But I would like to know right now as far as these, how binding are these proposals as far as traffic circles and other things?
This is what people the developments are being charged for in order to accomplish that. Is it that we are able to deviate or adjust depending upon things down the road? How does that work if we're charging people for a particular type of project?
Council Member Kasdan, this was a recommendation so we've developed both scenarios. So if the option of council doesn't wanna move to roundabouts, we have a signal cost associated with it.
So is it the case that for essentially for all of those hundreds and hundreds of circles, which is how it seemed. And by the way I don't have anything against traffic circles. I think as a traffic calming device it probably is pretty good. It just seems they were sort of breeding or something. But you know, how much is that? So for each of those traffic circles do you have a comparable set of alternatives?
We have a signal cost for each traffic.
Okay so each one where there's a circle you have a signal option. That's
correct.
Is the circle the most expensive?
It's more expensive than an intersection yes.
So in other words we have sort of the here's what the maximum it would cost us In order to accomplish these things and in theory if the public and others didn't like it, we could go with something else. And the developers would presumably be thrilled to pay less.
That's correct. It's up to the council.
Okay. Clarify for me what happens with the development that goes on outside of city limits, the counties Glen Annie and others. You said they're not responsible for paying us any DIF fees?
So those land use decisions, and we did reflect all those county rezones and work with the county very closely to identify what was the most plausible residential development that would go in there in terms of type and number of units. So when you add that land use in, what it does is it creates new deficiencies. New deficiencies on city of Goleta's infrastructure. So the Glen Annie golf course for instance we identified an improvement at Cathedral Oaks and Glen Annie.
And that was needed because that intersection went deficient as a result of that new development. Same when you go over to the county rezones east of 217, so Hollister at Sumida Gardens, Hollister at St. Joseph's depending on where they want their primary access all the way down to Patterson. So that's adding new deficiencies to your list that those costs go into the fee. And so that's how they affect your fee program They increase the cost of the capital improvements because there's more of them.
But they're not, are they expected to contribute? To offset, to mitigate the impacts of their
development? Legally you can't charge a fee but I know that Anita can speak to this working closely with the county to try to go through the entitlement process for conditions of approval that are outside the fee that will address the deficiencies. And I'll pass it over
to Nina. To chime in to what Jim's saying, we have been working closely with the county to see what the developments will do to our roads but there is no nexus for us to
get
a fee from them or
4:03 – 4:0916 turns
I mean because as far as I understand, we're in no position to affect the density of the development as long as they are adhering to the objective design standards. That means that if they have a thousand units planned, we're getting a thousand units and that means the impacts of that thousand units at Glen Annie for instance are not going to be simply absorbed you're saying by the city?
That sucks. How did you guys treat bonus density when it came to, you don't know whether a developer is going to opt for that? Did you, and so all of the numbers that we have as far as future density could be significantly higher than the rezone.
Again, we just worked with the county on a number of units. Density bonuses were not factored in.
So in none of these cases including within the city did we assume that they were going to take advantage of bonus density?
No. We assumed that whatever development was zoned and planned would occur via the general plan
So in other words, it's whatever the zone density is to the extent that the developer might opt to use the bonus density laws to exceed that. That isn't incorporated and in the numbers that you have?
To my knowledge. The city was obviously an integral part of those land-use inputs and I'm not sure if they were reflected in that assumption or not.
Yeah. No, I mean it's hard for us to know what a developer will choose to do so I understand that It's a challenge, but I guess it does go to say that for instance the Chamber of Commerce sent us a letter saying our numbers are high. Will this have an impact? But in fact to the extent that some of the developers are going to pursue bonus density they're in fact getting a kind of discount because we're not incorporating the impact of those additional units in terms of the impacts on our transportation and other services.
Okay. That's it for now. Thank you.
zone there, then they would pay potentially less. If for some reason...
Within the city
you're talking about? Yes. If they choose bonus density and for some reason get approved for a number of units that's more than the zone allows, again, the fees are square foot based and they pay based on what is actually built not what is theoretically put into the model.
Thank you. I had a question about the library assumptions. I know our situation is a little bit unique in terms of the fact that our library is serving a regional area beyond just city residents, so I didn't know if that's something we're allowed to consider in this analysis or not?
We did not assume that the library served a greater service population. And likewise, we also didn't assume that the library would be ‑‑ that Goleta residents would be served outside because they could go to libraries outside of the city. We basically considered it a wash and considered that city residents would use the library. You know, to be quite clear, there's really no way to ascertain the number of county residents that are using the library. It's different compared to something like police. I know we're not including a specific police fee, but where you have call data and you can tell where the demand is coming from, libraries are hard to quantify in that way so for those reasons we considered it awash and assumed city residents were the main benefit from the library facilities.
That's interesting. I guess I question that choice a little bit, because I think how we're positioned is pretty unique. Our library in that we sort of have like a legal obligation to serve regionally and then particularly as it relates to Isla Vista and how Isla Vista is sort of an island and Eastern Goleta Valley.
Yeah, I would just add i mean right now as it stands the city is the operator of his own for. And we do by contract work with built in and solving. So again forecasting out is that always going to be. The relationship, I don't know. And there's been talks about Isla Vista trying to pursue its own version of his own. So there are a lot of permutations that could exist.
It kind of goes to the point earlier about the density bonus question is trying to best guess what's going to happen in the future. So I don't know if there are multiple models that could be used for sensitivity analysis, but these are really good questions that we'll follow up with.
You know, we could take a look at it and assume a larger service population. That would demonstrate a lower level of service per person and a lower fee. But you know, to the extent there is other cities and areas that are certainly receiving service as of today, that is something that we could factor into the model.
And I will add one additional comment to the positive, I believe. So the comment was made earlier on transportation fees that we have no way of charging projects outside the city limits. Libraries, I believe we actually would do potentially benefit from that. So to the extent the county does charge a library fee in Zone 4 in an incorporated areas, they are bound to use that money in zone 4. Well we manage zone 4 and so they would have no other use for that money than someday give it to us to put into the library that serves both constituents and in fact on the current library remodel, the county did allocate some of their gifts to us I'm going to go ahead and get started.
4:10 – 4:2118 turns
Way back to all the cityhood discussions. Our narrow boundaries create some challenges and then I guess the other question in terms of the library, didn't know if there was like a presumption in terms of the value if it was based on our remodel not the existing conditions?
It was based on the current estimated replacement cost, but is the remodel fully funded as of today or there's still an outstanding balance on that?
It's close enough to call fully funded. As I recall from the last presentation, it was about $400,000 but by the time we get to our draft budget for the council by June, I believe we'll probably have that gap
funded. Yeah, the remodel itself, the actual structural improvements are fully funded. This is in regards We're going to be looking at a number of things.
Tension here. I think this is very enlightening sort of in terms of just all the things that have changed in the last six years and the increasing costs But I'm also sort of sensitive That the maximums shown do show some pretty significant increases, so Anyway, I guess in terms of if we were to make a adjustments. You know, is it are we justified to just say well let's look at you know 75% across the board or do we need to really kind of go deeper into an analysis of like well we really think there's going to be 50% of the roundabouts created and so that might adjust the fees or or is it sort of within our broader discretion to say we're gonna I don't know, go within percentages here.
It can be done a number of ways. Of the fees, the transportation fee is the only fee that's driven by a defined project list so if you wanted to reduce the transportation fee or adjust the roundabout versus signal scenarios, that one you should I'm going to go ahead and get started.
Thank you. And then the one other question I had was, it was mentioned that a number of that's factored into a lot of the analysis is like the estimated people per dwelling unit and there's a broader... I didn't know if, and I don't recall exactly where City of Goleta stands but we know generally that on the South Coast we do have some issues with crowding I mean, we know that there's landlords renting units by the bed. And so I didn't know if sort of that the unique circumstances of our community is factored in there.
So we looked at the latest available American Community Survey data for the city of Goleta For single family versus all other residential units and took the average across all units reported in the data. And so, you know to the extent that some of that overcrowding is not reported when someone gets the survey, you know it's kind of difficult to capture that but we are using the latest data that's available for the city.
Okay, great. Thank you. I think I heard like the general reference to the name of the survey but it's inclusive of this city data.
It's city specific.
Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. Those are my questions for now.
Thank you, I think this is a really great report and I'm glad we're having this conversation. I think it's so important for us to think about, I think especially in light of the revenue neutrality agreement and not having the appropriate amount of funding to keep up with capital needs and infrastructure needs. This is another tool to get some of those funds Really important work that frankly our residents expect from us. So I'm glad to have this conversation and look forward to the future and how we decide exactly where we land on some of these.
My question or you know, some of my comments are also about the I'm going to start with a couple of things. First, I want to say thank you so much for the opportunity improvements that happen with roundabouts. I will say, I also recall a fantastic presentation from Ms. Glazer about the improvements to traffic signals that also significantly will increase safety or add more safety to different parts of the city. So I'm hesitant to and help me understand if I'm reading this right. I'm hesitant to say that It would be roundabouts as the default when we're looking at this because I think it's a, for me it seems like it should be more case by case and we evaluate it depending on where we're talking about. And that has to take into consideration that particular location what the cost will be allow for public input in that surrounding area.
And I completely agree with roundabouts being part of those options when we're doing projects like this, but I hesitate to say from the beginning that that should be the default when I think it should be evaluated as they come up.
Council Member Reyes-Martin, thank you for the question. We're looking at it from the perspective of safety and capacity. So as we get more development outside the city and we don't have the ability to widen from two lanes to three lanes, we'll increase capacity by 50% by incorporating roundabouts so that's another reason why we're recommending it first. And we're recommending it at intersections that will be signalized now So that weren't signalized before. And the only roundabouts we're recommending at major intersections where we're doing major increases like adding lanes, so that was the recommendation.
This is something we can always look back case by case and give a recommendation It's a suggestion by staff and a recommendation, but it's not set in stone. Council has the ultimate authority so we can go back and review specific intersections and provide recommendations.
Yeah, I think and I'd love to hear from the rest of Council too. And we did get some public comment again like I fully believe that they should be evaluated as one of the options and if we're gonna do that anyway then I guess maybe then I question why we need to have it as a policy at this stage. If you hear maybe from all of us that is something we want to evaluate when the time comes but I think if we say Yes, roundabouts first or roundabouts as the default. It kind of already makes the decision for us or at least that's how I read it.
So I'm just kind of sharing my thoughts on that at this point but thank you. I appreciate that response.
And if I can just underscore that comment and also the question from Councilmember Kasdan. I mean, I think the answer was clear but I'll ask it another way just to make it more clear. So hearing the comments from Councilmember Reyes-Martin and Councilmember Kasdan asked it kind of more directly are we kind of legally the way the laws are written for this locked in if your fee is based on a specific project? And I'm hearing the conversation that sounds like no We can have an estimate and then the solution to the impact, the challenge can be worked out later.
But it would be nice to get clarification on that whether we have a policy issue that a roundabout is better or signals better again that's an issue for this council to discuss but from the law surrounding DIFs are you locked into a solution when you approve the DIFs? Or is the solution one that can be worked out later when the time is right?
Yeah, you're not locked in. Basically what we're trying to do is establish the maximum allowable fee and you can assume that as Nina pointed out on a capital cost typically it's more expensive for a roundabout but if you factor in life cycle costs, maintenance costs, the cost of lighting and all that, the roundabouts actually become more cost effective. But, you know we only look at capital costs as part of a fee program and so we need to establish the maximum allowable fee. That's our job and the city can't charge more than that but you can certainly charge less. So as long as you're charging less than the maximum allowable fee you can implement any type of control type you'd like yeah
I'm going to jump in here because I want to piggyback on what you said. I have nothing against roundabouts, I think that actually the one that we have is working perfectly. I do have concerns about double lane roundabouts but I guess what I'm concerned about is something When we went to Cathedral Oaks and Glen Annie with the county, and we were discussing the extra traffic and the kids and how can we make it safer at that intersection in the neighborhood.
There was a conversation of putting around about there.
Oh,
4:21 – 4:3427 turns
I don't usually do that. Sorry okay so I'll go back to a conversation we had when we were looking at intersection of Cathedral Oaks and Glen Annie in the discussion with the Glen Annie development and how could we deal with extra traffic in that intersection, mostly because of the school and the kids. And there was mention of a roundabout at that intersection and one of the county's public works engineers said I would never put around about this close to a school when there's kids going through it.
So I feel like we absolutely have to make that decision of whether, you know maybe we need to hear from other experts because I'm not against roundabouts but that just set in my head like are we doing the right thing at that particular intersection.
Yeah it's a great point to make. I just want to clarify at that location we are not recommending around about we're adding right turn channelization
It makes me feel a lot better that they're
going to be evaluating. Yeah, it's not across the board but for many locations mainly single lane roundabouts where it's currently stop controlled that's where we're making that recommendation to be considered alongside a signal either or.
And then my other question is about UCSB and projections You have here on slide 49, UCSB Long-Range Development Plan projections. You're looking at the old long range development plan?
The
one that expired this year? Or are you thinking there's going to be a new long range development plan?
Great question. It's based on the The old one that expired. So if they update that...
We're not going to. We just met with the Chancellor and there's no plans of updating the Long Range Development Plan. Okay, all right so you would go from the past? And enrollment could go up and there could be more cars but we have yeah okay okay I think that's it for me a lot of my questions have been asked and answered. Council Member Kariakou
Thank you. So that concern about roundabouts and how close they are to the school, I'll just point out we're putting in a roundabout right now really close to St. Raphael's School.
Yeah it's my
concern. And from what I can tell there's some really good pedestrian enhancements that are going along with that roundabout There is the ability in a couple places between the two roundabouts to cross the street where it was never previously safe to do it before and there's pedestrian islands to protect. So I feel, I appreciate the sensitivity of wanting to protect children but I don't think we can simultaneously say We can't do a roundabout because we have to protect children, but by the way, roundabouts are 90% less fatal.
But you don't have the volume at that intersection that you have at Cathedral Oaks and Glen Annie. There's thousands of students. I'm not talking an elementary school.
No, I hear that. And I'll just remind everyone because I think in the conversations about housing it gets really easy to focus on Glen Annie And a city, a population bigger than the City of Guadalupe is going in an Eastern Goleta on our border. And I think that gets completely lost in the discussion. There is a massive amount of housing and that's not counting Georgie. That's just counting Caird and St. Athanasius.
There is so much housing going in over there and it does not get talked about. And one of the reasons why The traffic studies and some of the report I think we just heard is not as bad. You mentioned St. Joseph's a little bit, you mentioned Hollister and Patterson. They did not mention Hollister and Ward. Why do they not mention Hollister and Ward? Because of the roundabout.
The sad thing about the roundabout is it was supposed to really improve traffic. It was supposed to really improve circulation in that area based on the assumptions of those areas staying as agriculture. Because that was the planning that we were relying on. That's what the county told us they were going to do. So now what the roundabout is doing is basically, we're investing a bunch of money in what is essentially mitigation for county housing.
Now I recognize we have a housing crisis in this county. But that's why the work that Ms. Welna is doing, what that work she's doing with the county collaboratively to try and get things in the conditions of approval is so important. I can't underline that enough. In terms of getting back to the issue of fees though, I think Council Member Reyes-Martin brings up a good point about the revenue neutrality agreement I'll throw in the loss of redevelopment agencies. That's another source of funding for infrastructure, for community projects that's been lost.
Our Mayor Pro Tem was talking about the libraries and her larger point that I heard which is how do we make sure we're getting our fair share generally but in particular when it comes to libraries? It's a complicated thing and I think the honest answer You never really get your fair share because development at the end of the day doesn't really pay for itself. The property tax, the sales tax even without RNA just it doesn't pay for itself and so you have to have other solutions. So I don't necessarily have the same concern about starting from a place of roundabouts But we'll see. I think it's a very fair model, it's not the most that you could charge for a fee.
It provides a baseline. We don't lose any jurisdiction as a city in terms of what we ultimately approve on capital projects. We can decide if roundabout doesn't make sense at Glen Annie and Cathedral Oaks but maybe does at Hollister and Fairview in the future. These are the kinds of policy questions that we'll have and there will be plenty of opportunity for public dialogue and process there.
But what I did want to ask about is how do In an environment where uniquely there's so much of a county land use happening adjacent to city jurisdictions and using city roads, relying on city infrastructure. There was a comment letter about you don't have to charge the maximum. And I guess I would just ask rhetorically and staff can answer if they want Given the unique situation that we have where we don't get full tax capture because of RNA, we don't get the opportunity that we had at the founding of our city to have redevelopment to help pay for important community infrastructure projects particularly in underserved blighted lower economic areas.
Why wouldn't we try and get as much of our fair share as we can when it comes to dealing with the actual regional cumulative impacts of growth on our city, whether it's parks, recreation, city services, libraries, you name it. I just appreciated the comment letter. You know, and maybe I can make an argument in some limited circumstances why I would agree with it. But I guess for me the final kind of nail in the coffin against the argument of maybe doing a little bit less is that we do have a beneficial projects program.
If a developer is providing affordable housing, if a developer is providing child care on site then we give them a break on their fee and so they will pay less. So I do feel like what's being proposed here is fair. In fact, I want to go back to something I brought up six years ago in 2019 which was could we have a development impact fee for child care? And at that time, the process was too far down the road. We were being asked to approve something that had started before and so I backed off but now we're here and I want to ask what would be required to do what County of Santa Cruz, what City of San Carlos, City of County of Santa Cruz, Millbrae and you know a lot of other communities are starting to do Santa Cruz has been doing this since the 80s, in charge of development impact fee to help fund childcare infrastructure and the provision of licensed spaces.
The more development happens, the mayor pointed out how much growth is happening, those people moving here have children and they need places for their children to go. And it impacts the city negatively much like when it comes to affordable housing as Council Member Kasdan pointed out there is a need for that service that is increased And the city has to figure out from a quality of life standpoint and doing the right thing standpoint, how do we make sure that happens? So would there be a new nexus study required? Would that have to be an independent effort?
Because that's something I would be interested in seeing happen. It doesn't have to happen immediately but that is a road I would like us to start going down. Pardon the pun.
Sure. A child care impact fee would require a new nexus study. It's a bit of a different beast than the impact fees we're talking about today where we're dealing with facilities, but yeah, it would require a nexus study and a hearing in front of your council.
At the appropriate time I'll ask for concurrence to have that be something that staff considers an appropriate place within the appropriate department work plan.
Council Member Kariyaka, I just want to add to that. We have to do the update to the affordable housing fee so that might be a good time to add this in
to that. Yeah, I think those dovetail together nicely and maybe there's some efficiencies. I would agree with that. Maybe there are some efficiencies there. It looks like you saw several heads nodding.
Oh,
good.
Okay great. I'll shut up now.
Councilman McPherson?
Yeah, just quick. First, I wanted to concur with the observation that by charging sort of the full amount we're in a position to be able to provide subsidies or incentives to developers to provide certain things. And I think we've done that on multiple occasions on Heritage Ridge for instance. The availability of having those DIF fees allowed us to provide an incentive to support affordable housing. So, you know, it's really helpful to us to be able to be in that position where we can encourage whatever it might be. Maybe it's child care, maybe it's affordable housing, et cetera.
Regarding, so we're not all the building that goes on in Glen Annie and the South Patterson Ag Block area. We'll get the burdens it will impact our infrastructure and we will get no fees to compensate. Will you or do you have estimates of what those fees would otherwise be? Can we be in a position to be able to say, here's what you should be paying. I am curious to see how that juxtaposes with our revenue neutrality for instance.
You don't have to give it to me now, that's fine. But it would be helpful for us in the future to just have a sense of here are the – here is what the burden you're creating that's uncompensated for, et cetera.
No, it's a great question and we know exactly how much that is. So we calculated the fair share as if they would be subject to the city's fee what would they actually pay?
Yeah I think we would find that very
interesting. We can bring you that number.
Thank you and one last observation to the mayor's point even if you're using the old LRDP, I believe the university has made clear its some plans for increased growth. And so even if it's not in the LRDP they've already this year was a record number of students who were admitted or at least yeah who were admitted. So we would have at least some estimate of how much more their burden is going to be
4:34 – 4:4016 turns
That's exactly why fees are updated every five to eight years. As that information comes to light, we would definitely update our growth assumptions to be congruent with those new growth projections by UCSB.
Yes, thank you. I appreciate the comments both from Councilmember Reyes-Martin and from Councilmember Kiriakou which I'm sort of generally supportive of this idea that we need We have some unique qualities as a city that we need to consider when thinking about these fees. The one thing, though, that is on my mind is how everything in the planning world has changed in terms of cities now face consequences as the housing element process unfolds.
There's an analysis now where There's the potential for increased by right. developments if not enough housing has been created during the process. And that's a change from how things used to be, so I don't know it might it's you know my last understanding from our planning staff is they felt pretty I think confident that we would be sort of that what was actually planned in the current housing element would actually unfold But it may be that some of that information might be helpful for our next conversation, because that is a change sort of from the assumptions that we used to have. Thank
you. Council Member Kariakou.
Just quickly jump in. I think that point's really well taken Mayor Pro Tem. The only thing I'll add is I think this is where having an inclusionary housing program helps us An expectation that these developments that are supposed to be coming down the pike will have affordable housing is helpful from the standpoint of the beneficial projects ordinance or I forget if it's an ordinance.
provides a vehicle to mitigate some of that. And I think that probably, I mean, I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing that's helpful if we're saying hey, we'll give you a break if you're doing affordable and then you give them a break on the affordable? Just a thought.
Yes, thank you Madam Mayor. I have no speaker slips for those of you on the zoom webinar who wish to speak to this item please use raised hand icon and i will call on you. I'm seeing none there.
Thank you okay um this is just a presentation so there's no motion needed on this one okay Thank you.
Are we done? I just wanted to say that the National Weather Service put out a severe thunderstorm warning until 11 o'clock right now, so please get home safely. We just heard a lot of lightning and thunder outside.
Pardon to interrupt but I just want to confirm that there are no comments from Council for adjustments regarding the fee. Just the
mention of having the ability to talk with the community and the council on the roundabout situation.
Okay, thank you.
Do we have any comments from council?
Were there any standing committee reports?
We had a housing homelessness committee meeting. Yes, I'm trying to remember what we talked about. Oh the strategic plan will be coming for discussion. Yes it is.
I was just curious to know if there was any important updates from any committees, but if not that's fine.
Do you wanna report on the public safety? The Deltopia item came to council tonight and then we started talking about e-bike possible solution so we'll keep talking about that. And they're
gonna be coming back with the whole presentation on the new laws regarding e-bikes and maybe making a video at some point for parents to understand what all the new laws are. Do you have any comments? No. Okay, the meeting adjourned.