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.0:01 – 0:0710 turns
you Thank you.
Thank you.
Roll call, called by City Clerk
Show transcript
Let's see, next we'll have the introduction of our Spanish interpreters
Good evening I have a brief bilingual announcement. So just letting you know that we are providing simultaneous interpretation between Spanish and English for today's meeting. So if you'd like to follow along in Spanish, if you'd like to participate in Spanish I have some listening devices available for you to do so. You can raise your hand if you'd like one or you can come up to me. I'll be in the room next door for the entirety of the meeting. So with that thank you. Gracias.
Great thank you. Let's see next. Do we have a report from closed session?
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. So for the three items read into the record earlier this evening for a closed session there is no reportable action.
Thank you. Let's see next is our public forum. This is an opportunity for members of the public for you to make comment on any item that's not on tonight's agenda. Do we have any speaker slips for public forum?
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tempore-Smith. I've not received any speaker slips. If any attendees on the Zoom webinar wish to make public comments please use the raised hand feature and I will call upon you. And Mayor Pro Tem, I'm seeing none.
Okay we'll go ahead and close our public forum. Do we have any amendments or adjustments to tonight's agenda?
No mayor, Madam Mayor Pro Temp. We're going to start with kind of a conclusion to our participation in the World Cup this year. So with that, I'll invite our Assistant City Manager to come up and make a few remarks
0:07 – 0:1414 turns
Good evening, Madam Mayor Pro Tem and Council. As you know the last match was this weekend for the finals and although Team Austria did not make it to the finals they did show up and showed out. They made it to the knockout round and unfortunately weren't able to get past Spain who is the eventual champions but they did have a great stay while they were here I was fortunate Get to know some of the coaches and met a couple of the players. Very kind, very thoughtful and they just were very impressed and actually very kind of tickled that Goleta showed so much support including the banners.
The community training event, and just in general they felt like they got a really warm reception. And they were very inspired to come back again whether it's independently or as a team in the future. In getting to know some of the coaches I did ask for a solid, I asked for a favor and I asked them if they would be willing to sign a team jersey which they did and a Live Work Play soccer ball And they did as well. So I just got that put together. Hopefully, I'll talk to Debra about maybe putting it in the hall somewhere just kind of a nice little like you know historical reminder of their presence here and we just told him we wish them well and hopefully you know they can come back again so that's all bring them up Jaime we gotta see him yeah It's a 2XL because I bought it for me, so it barely fits in the frame.
But they signed this as an official jersey and on the back you can't see it but it does say Goodland. They thought that was pretty funny. The last one is a soccer ball with the same signature. So that was cool. They also left some swag, so I put that in the case and we'll figure out where to put it at City Hall so people can come check it out.
Great, thank you. Yeah I do wanna just, you know, I think... You know, I know this opportunity came up rather sort of unexpectedly. It wasn't something that as a city we were initially planning to address so I wanted to thank City staff for all of the hard work and working on this in such a relatively short time frame
Yeah, I'd be remiss not to say thanks to obviously Mr. Nisbet for the initial talks with all the different parties but also too to Blake Markham who is our kind of boots on the ground liaison with Visit Santa Barbara UCSB and others so he's the one that helped come up with the kind of creative ideas on watch parties as well as Shannon Kern so just want to make sure he got some credit for that as well
Let's see.
Oh, I was just going to say you know in four years if we have the good fortune to do this again perhaps we can get jerseys for our superfan Mayor Pro Tem and Council Member Reyes-Martin. I know they were especially enthused for this year's World Cup and there's also other World Cups on the horizon that aren't four years away and perhaps others want to talk about that.
Yeah, I just wanted to also I'm glad we have this opportunity to again thank staff and everyone who played a role in the ongoing partnership but also the community watch parties were so wonderful. I can't tell you how many folks I heard from of how appreciative they were That there was a real family friendly kind of casual way to experience the World Cup and so many young kids who got to experience it maybe for the first time that they really remember.
And have now become super fans and had a great time kind of following all the different teams, so what a great community. A community event and a way to bring people together. And I agree with Council Member Kiriakou, the Women's World Cup is next summer and Team USA is really good. And I think that we have another opportunity to kind of keep this going and keep up the love for soccer and community. So thank you to everyone who participated in all the community events.
Maybe next time Jaime can get like seven or eight jerseys.
And then just a couple more announcements, Mayor Pro Tem. Our next community event is coming up Saturday August 15th. That's the Dam Dinner. So just to plug for that we hope you can join us for Goleta's Dam Dinner at the scenic Lake Los Caneros. From 4 o'clock to 7 o'clock, bring your own picnic dinner and beverages or purchase food there. There is that opportunity to purchase from a food truck. Enjoy live bluegrass music courtesy of the Salt Martians. Very family-friendly event. There'll be face painters, Kona ice and the Goleta Valley book van will be there as well.
New this year, Cycling Without Age will be at the event to give a ride to anyone who might need it. And there will be a bike valet. So for more information, see the city's website again August 15th four o'clock to seven o'clock the damn dinner and then a reminder that next month there is no council meeting August 4th so after the meeting tonight the next council meeting will be August 18th.
That is it.
Thank you for that update let's see next we have our consent calendar
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. That takes us to item A1, approval of the City Council meeting minutes of June 16th, 2026. Item A2, acceptance of the May 2026 check register. A3, acceptance of the May 2026 investment transaction report. A4, acceptance of the June 2026 investment transaction report. A5, authorization to purchase new restroom building for Stowe Grove Park.
A6, amendments to the provisions of library management services between the city of Goleta and the cities of Buelton and Solvang amending staffing positions. A7, proposed capital improvement program grant opportunities. A8, public works general services and professional services amendments with SCA of California LLC, Dewberry Engineers Inc., and budget appropriation.
Galeta Community Center Skylight Project, excuse me. Reject all bids and authorize new notice inviting bids in budget transfer from fund 217 to CIP number 9127. And item A10, resolution approving execution of grant funds from the California Ocean Protection Council through the Senate Bill 1 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grant Program.
Thank you. Do council members have any
items that they'd like to pull?
Council Member Reyes-Martin.
Thank you, I would like to pull A7 and A10 just for a quick comment.
0:14 – 0:1915 turns
Anything else from others? No? Okay.
We'll start with A7 and A10. So, A7 is the Proposed Capital Improvement Program Grant Opportunities and I really just wanted to commend staff for being so diligent in pursuing these grant opportunities. Was really excited to see this work. I think it's great to give some daylight to it so that you know the public also sees how diligent their city staff is in pursuing These opportunities to help fund some really important projects. I hope that you know maybe the public doesn't always go through everything that's in the consent agenda but if you do look at this item, the proposed applications could include some projects that are really a lot of them focused on school locations high visibility crosswalks South La Paterra bicycle and pedestrian improvements A lot of projects that I know I've heard a lot of interest about and support for, so I'm just really glad that we're pursuing this.
And good luck! I know we've had good luck and so I hope that continues. And then on A10, again just wanted to highlight this. It's really a phenomenal achievement and I'm glad that Ms. Murray has joined us online but also for the public this is a $550,000 grant to help support our sea level rise vulnerability analysis and adaptation plan Another really just phenomenal opportunity for us as a city and a really significant grant. So thank you to staff for pursuing this, and congratulations on getting these funds!
And I don't know if Ms. Murray since you're here if there's anything you want to say about it?
The only thing I would add is that, you know, this will be a multi-year project and we anticipate having a lot of public involvement and workshops and great end products that'll help our city be more prepared in the face of climate change and be more resilient and adaptable. So thank you for your support Council.
Great, thank you. That's all I had. Council
Member Iacobo?
I just wanted to add that the timing of this is really important because we're also in the middle of our local coastal plan, developing that for the first time. So this is an incredibly well-timed grant and an incredibly well-timed effort. And the other thing I want to say, I represent the city on BEACON which is a regional board that works on issues that affect our coastline and beaches.
And we were just talking on Friday about Santa Barbara's planning effort, the City of Santa Barbara's planning effort towards their own sea level adaptation plan. And they're pretty far along in their process. They've been doing a lot of stakeholder meetings. Sea level rise can understandably be a cause for great concern But I don't want to lose the lesson, which is that there's a lot of opportunity that can be created if you do these kinds of plans the right way in terms of being able to reimagine infrastructure, create new opportunities for public access, bike paths, walking paths. There's a lot of good things that can come out of a C plan So thank you to everyone that's working on this.
Any other comments from Council? Let's see, do we have any public comment for items A7 or A10?
Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. If any public members wish to make public comment on the consent calendar please use the raised hand feature and I will call upon you. And Mayor Pro Tem, I'm seeing none.
Okay. All right, let's see. Can we go ahead and include all items in the consent motion?
Correct, Mayor Pro Tem.
Wonderful. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar? Okay. We have a motion for approval. Do I have a second? I'll second. And we have second and we'll have a roll call vote.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 motion for approval. Do I have a second? I'll second. And we have second and we'll have a roll call
Show transcript
Okay that passes thank you everyone
We'll move on to our next item which is a special presentation
yes thank you that's Item B1 Ocean Nails and Spa Business Recognition Award
Thank you, well we have a special presentation this evening. I understand we'll have let's see a brief update from our staff first and then a presentation by Councilmember Reyes-Martin so we'll just wait a moment here while our staff presentation gets loaded
0:19 – 0:255 turns
Thank you Council, Mayor Pro Tem and council members. My name is Shannon Kern assistant to the City Manager and I will just be introducing this item while we deal with our technical issues. So every Every quarter, we present a business recognition to a business in the city of Goleta. We started this a couple years ago when the City Council approved the guidelines and so just a little bit about the program it is intended to highlight exceptional Goleta businesses for their notable achievements and unique contributions to the community there's a couple different factors that different businesses can be nominated for And this quarter, which is for quarter four of fiscal year 25-26 we will be recognizing Ocean Nails and Spa.
So you'll see a couple photos on the slide here. And so just a little bit about Ocean Nails and Spa they're being selected for recognition in honor of its status as a woman owned business and it's long standing presence in the city of Goleta Kathy and Hai Lee have served the Goleta community for 17 years, providing consistent and high-quality nail service to local residents. We do encourage any businesses or people to nominate other businesses. We try to do this four times a year.
And it's open to, you can self-nominate. You know, you can come from anyone and they are accepted on a rolling basis so we keep the as more come in Use that for the next recognition next quarter. And so with that, I think I'll pass it off to Council Member Reyes-Martin who will be presenting the certificate. So if we could have the business owners come up and accept the award?
Yeah no, that's okay. This is exciting.
It's so nice to
meet you! Well, I'm so proud to get to present you with this recognition. And I just wanted to add that not only are you a woman owned business, but you're a family business and you give so much to the community. I'm a Kellogg parent and I know that you've always supported the PTA at Kellogg and I'm sure you support other wonderful community causes as well. So thank you so much and I'm so proud to get to present this Business Recognition Award to Ocean Nails & Spa, and as was mentioned for your success as a woman-owned business and longevity in the city awarded on this 21st day of July 2026. Congratulations!
We'll do a few photos. Wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much for being oh yes please please just make sure your microphone is on
hello Good evening Mayor Pro Tem and the council's members. We just want to say thank you, the city manager office staff, council members and mayor and the greater Santa Barbara Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and Santa Barbara South Court Chamber of Commerce for this recognition we truly are honored This recognition model that we can put into work, not just because of ourselves but because our dedicated team of staff and it reflects the trust and support from our local community. And this recognition motivates us to keep raising the bar not for just ourselves but for the team and organization that we are proud to be a part of.
And thank you again for this honor, and we are grateful and excited for what we can achieve together. And we're looking forward to continue to demonstrate excellence in both service delivery and community contribution in many more years. Thank you very much.
0:25 – 0:3116 turns
Thank you so much for being here and on behalf of Mayor Paula Perotti, I know she wanted to be here this evening. So I will send my congratulations to you on her behalf. Okay thank you so much. Okay
we will move on to our next item.
Thank You mayor Pro Tem that is item C1 public hearing for a street lighting benefit assessment for fiscal year 2026-2027
Okay, thank you. So this is a public hearing and so our process here is to typically let's see begin with a staff presentation. We'll then take council questions if we have any then any public comment on the item. If there's any staff responses or more council questions Then we'll close the public testimony, we'll go into deliberation and close the public hearing and make our votes in deliberations from there.
So let's see I understand we have some of our finance staff here this evening to present the item. And they'll get their presentation loaded and ready to go.
Yeah, thank you. So good evening Council. I'm gonna actually turn it over to my colleague here Tony Gonzalez our accounting manager who's going to give a brief update here on the Goleta street lighting benefit assessment for this upcoming fiscal year.
Good evening. Today we'll be presenting two direct charges, the first one up tonight is the Goleta Street Lighting Benefit Assessment for 26-27. A little background, the assessment was created in 1990 to help service the County Service Area 3 to help fund the operation maintenance and servicing of the street lights. We took it over in 2002 upon city incorporation.
A notice of public hearing does go out preceding today, with this report is also an engineering report that describes the services provided as well as making the statement that the proceeds do not exceed the benefit. And this is along with the next item to put direct charges on the 26-27 tax bill. So when you see property taxes, there's all those other charges below that. That's what this is.
So a company will be a resolution to establish the assessment itself. A little quick review on the math, the benefit factor Pre-parcel, there's a benefit factor per category type of land use that is essentially multiplied by $24. So here's just a brief overview when you multiply the rate times the parcel type. You can see from last year it went from 311,000 to 310.
The underlying mathematics is if the parcel Council members, thank you for joining us today.
I see none. Do we have any public comment?
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I've not received any speaker slips and if any attendees on the Zoom webinar wish to make public comment please use the raised hand feature and I will call upon you. Mayor Pro Tem, I'm seeing none.
Okay. Let's see if there is no other comments, we'll go ahead and close the public testimony portion of the hearing and then we'll move into Council deliberations. Do we have any motions or comments from Council?
I don't have any further comments but I'm happy to make the motion unless there are any other questions for me. Then I move that we A, receive and file the final engineer's report for street lighting benefit assessment district fiscal year 2026-27. And B adopt resolution number 26 next in line entitled a resolution of the City Council of the city of Goleta California establishing an assessment charge for the city of Goleta Street Lighting Benefit Assessment for fiscal year 2026 27 And C, authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the County of Santa Barbara Office of the Auditor-Controller to place direct charges on the 2026-27 secured tax bills.
Thank you do I have a second?
I'll second.
Okay motion and a second we'll do a roll call vote of Council
Roll-call vote Passed 3–0 motion and a second we'll do a roll call vote of Council yes thank you council members please do lock in your votes will call vote beginning
Show transcript
Okay, the motion carries. So
we'll move on to our next item which is also a public hearing.
Yes thank you that is Item C2 Public Hearing To Establish The Tax Rate For Goleta Library Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2026-2027
0:31 – 0:3614 turns
Okay, great. And so this is also a public hearing so we'll undergo the same format in terms of our staff report, public comment and then council deliberations and that same process. So we will start with our staff report.
Hello again. Today this one is the library special tax rate that we'll be discussing. Thank you very much. But a slight difference compared to the previous item is this one, there is an adjustment based on a consumer price index 3.2%. And this is the same percentage as we had seen when we took the user fees in April. So we're using the same percentage. Notice of public hearing also went out as well. These would be on the same agreement as with the streetlight assessment and this resolution would be to establish the new tax rates, as opposed to the street light which is essentially the same tax rate.
The math in this case, if we visualize a 3.2% taking the same parcels you can see the change in the various land use rate types. In this case there is typically a noticeable increase, in this case from $395,000 to $407,000. Primarily it's the 3. 2%, but again factor in minor changes because of the land use changes or however parcels may change. And with its own benefit factor, that's what influences the difference in each parcel.
And similarly there is just a resolution to enter into an agreement and establish the tax rate.
Great thank you for that report do we have any council questions? I see none let's see do we have any comment public comments
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I don't have any speaker slips and if any attendees wish to make public comment on this item please use the raised hand feature and I will call upon you. Mayor Pro Tem, I'm seeing none.
Okay thank you. Any other questions or any other comments? Okay, we will go ahead and close the public testimony portion of the hearing. We'll move to deliberations. Do we have any deliberations or motions?
Happy to make a motion if there's no deliberations.
Please.
I'll move that we adopt resolution number 26 next in line entitled A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Goleta California Establishing The Goleta Library Special Parcel Tax Rates For Fiscal Year 2026-2027 and authorize the City Manager to enter an agreement with the County of Santa Barbara Office of the Auditor-Controller, to place direct charges on the 2026-2027 Secured Tax Bills.
Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay we'll do a roll call vote at the Council.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 · 1 under review
Show transcript
And the motion carries. Wonderful, thank you to our finance staff for bringing those items forward today. Okay
we will move to our next public hearing.
Yes thank you that is item C3, 2026 development impact fee program update.
Great, thank you. So this is another public hearing. So once again we will have a staff presentation. We will then go to council questions. Following the council questions we will take public speakers testimony and comments Then we'll do follow-up to see if there's any more staff responses, council questions. We'll then close the public testimony and move into deliberations and vote from there.
So let's see, we have a large group here with us today for this item. Ms. Buolna, would you like to start us off?
Mayor Pro Tem Smith. I think we need maybe a minute or two to set up the presentation. Oh, yes. Thank you.
0:36 – 0:547 turns
And Mayor Pro Tem, just to make one note on the record as well, this is a continued public hearing from the May 19th meeting so at that time the council had directed it to come back tonight And it remains open from that meeting.
Yes, thank you for that clarification.
We can go ahead and get started if everyone's ready.
Let's go!
Good evening Madam Mayor, Pro Tem and City Council. Tonight Public Works is presenting the 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Report and Proposed Development Impact Fees or DIF. With that I would like to introduce the team that will be walking you through the DIF program update. Myself Nina Buolna your Public Works Director Bob Spencer and Carlos Villarreal with Urban Economics Jim Dankowicz With DKS and Gerald Kamadi, our contract project manager.
As a reminder, this item was continued from May 19th, 2026 City Council meeting. Following the continuance, the city republished notice of the proposed fee update on June 18th, 2026 and June 25th, 2026 consistent with AB 602 public review requirements. The revised nexus study and supporting documents have been available on the city's website since June 18, 2026.
The NEXUS study establishes the maximum justified amounts. The City Council may adopt those fees or lower fees as a matter of policy. Under Municipal Code Section 17.70.070, the City Council may also revise the categories of beneficial projects eligible for development impact fee reductions or waivers. Any reductions in the adopted fees or expansion of fee reductions and waivers would reduce development impact fee revenue. Any resulting funding needs would need to be addressed through other available funding sources subject to future City Council appropriation.
Staff recommends adopting the transportation fee and library fee as presented in the NEXUS study. The transportation fee is based on a defined list of transportation improvements with each project assigned a growth-related share through the NEXUS study methodology. The maximum justified library fee is already lower than the city's current adopted library fee. If City Council elects to reduce development impact fees as a matter of policy, staff recommends maintaining the transportation fee and library fee as the amounts presented in the NEXUS study.
Okay. The City's Development Impact Fee Program was established at incorporation using the County's Nexus Study. In 2019, the city adopted its own Nexus Study and Development Impact Fee Ordinance. Development impact fees are authorized under the Mitigation Fee Act and ensure new development pays its proportionate share of public facilities needed to serve growth The fees apply to new residential and commercial development. The City currently collects the development fees as you can see laid out in this slide.
State law requires that each fee be supported by a nexus study demonstrating the relationship between the new development, the needs for public facilities and the cost of providing those facilities. Development impact fees have helped fund projects such as Johnny D Wallace Park, the San Jose Creek multi-use path project and Project Connect. The fire facility's fee is not included in this update and will be brought forward separately.
At this point I will turn the presentation over to Bob Spencer
Great. Thanks very much, Nina. Hope everybody can hear me okay? So what is a development impact fee? We reviewed this when the hearing was first initiated in June. Fees can only be used for capital facilities. You should think of it as a one-time charge and not a source of funding for ongoing operations or maintenance. It is also not a special tax or special assessment, or subject to Prop 218 approval requirements. Thanks.
So our job is to make sure that there's what's called an adequate nexus between the fee and new development paying the fee. That's to demonstrate that there's a need for the fee, number two, that they'll be benefits received by development from the use of fee revenue, and three, that there is rough proportionality between the amount of the fee charged on a development project and the share of a capital project that that fee would fund.
We've identified and documented these findings in the report along with identifying the purpose of the fee, and includes a CIP showing the use of fee revenue. So for all fees except transportation, the fees are based on a base year of 2024 I believe and build out land use projections for population employment. The fees are driven by the city's existing inventory of capital facilities from which we derive a level of service. So for all but the transportation fee, you can think of the maximum justified fee as a reflection of what we would need, what the city would need to charge if it wanted to continue expanding its facilities at the same ratio as they currently exist to new developments. So a simple example with expanding them at the same level Park acres per thousand.
Now that's a it's a policy decision on your part, whether to do that or not. And finally in addition we're showing the residential fee per square foot because of recent legislation requiring the fee to be imposed per square foot. The transportation fee, by contrast that my colleague Mr. Dankiewicz will review for you is based on an adopted level of service that comes out in the city's general plan circulation element And so that is why as Nina referred to, that's a specific project list designed to comply with or maintain the city's level of service as adopted in the general plan. So that.
You think of that in a different category as the other fees and why there's, according to staff recommendation, less flexibility because you want to complete that capital project list to achieve that level of service. Whereas for the other fees, there's flexibility in what sort of level of service the city wants to plan for in the future through its capital improvement program.
I think I turn it over to, oh no we got changes here since the council workshop in February. We have added a five year capital improvement plan to document more clearly where the fee revenues would be used. We've refined the transportation deficiency analysis, which Jim can expand upon. We've got average costs for roundabout and traffic signal locations. We've updated the library population and this results in the fee going down slightly because we're Acknowledging the fact that the library serves a broader area than just the city because it's part of the county library system.
We've also updated bike and ped facility inventories, and we've refined the allocation of one of the transportation projects, the Goleta Freeway Crossing, refined it by allocating costs between the transportation fee and the bike and ped fee. Next slide. Here we have growth projections. The residential growth is going to be concentrated in multifamily and townhome type of development, as opposed to single-family detached.
The nonresidential development will be the greatest increase will be an office in medical, as you can see in this chart. So, but overall about a 20-25% growth increment for the city from now. These are through build out. All right, Jim?
Sure. Mayor Pro Tem Smith, members of the council, Jim Damkosch at DKS and I'll be discussing the transportation portion of the fee update. And some of this may sound familiar, but there's six basic steps. Step one is that you need to update your baseline. What does that mean? That means traffic counts, making sure all the traffic conditions are current and empirically based. It also means updating your land use and in this case it's not only the city's land use but all your surrounding Neighboring jurisdictions as well. We did that through permit data and then also while you're doing that, you also want to update your growth and Bob just mentioned the growth for the city but we also do that for your neighboring jurisdictions as well. That growth comes in at step three but moving on to step two after we have the accounts and existing land use We identify existing deficiencies based on traffic that's out there today, based on existing development not future development.
So that establishes the baseline and make no mistake there are some facilities out there today that are not operating within your general plan level service standard Those are identified because the fair share calculation for those facilities are different from if the growth is the actual culprit of a deficiency in the future. So with that, we go to step three. That's when we use that future land use. We plug that into the travel demand model which provides a travel forecast for the future in that way we now can identify the future roadway deficiencies caused by future development and again, we base that on your general plan level of service standards that have been established In step five, we determine what improvements will remedy the future deficiencies and what can be effectively done for those existing deficiencies that future development make worse.
We can't fix the problem but we can fix the increment of new growth and the degradation of that level service based on that. And that gets into the fair share, and that's a very important step. What is the fair share to future development? That is the responsibility of the City of Goleta. We also look at what the fair share would be for your neighboring jurisdictions if they were required to pay which they are not but it's good information.
And then the final step is to update the traffic impact fee to establish the highest maximum fee so you can't go over that but you can certainly come under it. So why do we make updates? Well, there's legislative updates that we want to be kept up-to-date on. Nina mentioned one, AB602 which now requires residential uses to be expressed in square feet versus number of units.
It also changed the noticing requirements which we have addressed as part of this update SB 99 exempts ADUs, accessory dwelling units that are 750 feet in square footage or lower. So no fees are charged to them. ADUs that have more than 750 square feet are charged a nominal fee based on the relative number of, the amount of square footage relative to the single family dwelling unit they're attached to.
AB 358 is very new, and that's giving discounts to residential development that are within VMT-efficient zones or areas within the city. And there are specific criteria that determine that. AB 1600 which drives the, that's the Mitigation Fee Act requires eight year updates anyway to take into account changes in land use assumptions, analysis tools always get updated And then to address the change of infrastructure costs and inflation.
So in terms of the current fees, those are based on work that was done back in 2015 with the city traffic model. That was the last update for that. The update for the fees occurred in 2019. There's trip generation manual changes and addition changes and of course construction costs as they were back in 2019 which has changed. So what did we do? Again, citywide traffic counts that's occurred in 2024 over 100 intersections over 50 roadways all counted. This is a great resource not only for the city but for the development community because those counts get shared reducing their costs and other jurisdictions that would like to see that data it's always great to have real data.
We perform the travel model update up to a 2024 baseline We used base data on permit data from all the local jurisdictions and then also updated the land use forecast using specific plans. I want to start by saying thank you to all of That was done by M&S engineers, one of our partners on this. And then the fair share of the improvement cost in new development and that's a big step. Next slide.
So here is a map and there are 32 locations that were found to be deficient. 15 of those are existing deficiencies and 17 were future deficiencies and it's very important to keep those two separate. I will say there was roughly nine new deficiencies that were not identified back in 2019, and the rest were reconfirmed to be future or existing deficiencies from that prior analysis.
It's spread all over the city, which makes a lot of sense. We had another graphic that showed where the future residential development is going to be and it's indeed spread over the city so it's fairly even distribution of growth and the implications of that growth. So in terms of fair share, this is very important. So there's three scenarios that can happen. Scenario A, that is a location where the blue bar represents existing or traffic being generated by existing development.
And so that's really not at play. That's already here, you can't charge fees to existing development. The green bar is the increment of traffic associated with new development and in this case when you combine existing plus new there's not enough trips to generate a problem. So any facility that falls under scenario A doesn't even show up in this. It's excluded it's not part of the issue Scenario B is an example where the blue is existing trips and from existing growth, but the facility has not exceeded the level of service standard yet.
But when you add the increment of new trips from new development it does go over. And this is an example where yes, this is a future deficiency that must be remedied based on improvements identified. Scenario C is the example where based on existing trips from existing development, it already exceeds the threshold. This is an existing deficiency and you can't use developer fees to remedy that deficiency but you can use developer fees to charge to the increment of new growth and new trips that make that problem worse so I just want to clarify that. So that's scenario C.
Next slide. And so why is this important? Well, this is just a map of the landscape that the City of Goleta has to deal with. So you're the purple areas but the yellow is the county. You see the orange areas are county as well. Those are county rezones that were once all ag for the most part and now we'll have significant residential development associated with them.
The city of Santa Barbara is in the green The airport area, there's growth there. There's growth in the east side and then obviously you have UCSB And that's a big contributor. So you see the percentage of, and this is associated with only growth, not what's out there today, only growth. So about 65%, and it's the city's responsibility but 6% is UCSB based on their projections for long range development plan. 6% is the City of Santa Barbara with their growth around the airport and east, and then you see the county with 23% approximately. And what does that mean in dollars and cents? That's about $65 million.
The City of Santa Barbara and UCSB is about 19 million each. So with that I will pass it back to Bob.
0:54 – 1:006 turns
»» Great. Thanks Jim. This slide gives a very high-level summary of the results of the analysis. This is for each of the six fee categories that we looked at. The fees that the city inherited from the county listed in the first column, and then upon incorporation. And then we have the, or I should say prior to when the city adopted its own fees in 2019 which is when the city first adopted its own impact fee schedule. So the county fees were what the city was charging up until 2019. Then we have the current fee schedule that came out of the 2019 nexus study that we completed Now with this five-year update, we have a new maximum justified amount which is in the final column. And you can see the total across all fees is shown in the bar chart.
If you add them all up, you can see the trend from $21,000 For the county fee schedule prior to the city's first nexus study. 31,000 is the current fee schedule based on that Nexus study and then 55,000 would be the maximum justified fee based on the current Nexus study before you tonight. Next slide. So what's driving the large increases? The main thing is between 2019 and now we've had some significant inflation tied with the COVID epidemic. And across all categories of consumer and capital goods, you all may have experienced the rapid levels of inflation over the last five years. So that's been one primary driver.
We've also got a Revisions to the transportation deficiency list and refining the projects, the allocation to deficiencies. We have a more accurate inventory of existing facilities that's been a major change from From the 2019 study, where we just weren't able to capture because of some gaps in the city's asset inventory. We weren't able to capture all the city's existing capital facilities inventory and as I mentioned at the outside it's that existing facilities inventory outside of transportation that drives the maximum justified fee for the other fee categories so.
And I should mention both land and construction costs have increased since 2019, not just construction due to inflation. So any questions? That's the end of our presentation. Happy to address any questions and answer any issues that the council may want to bring up for us. Appreciate it.
Wonderful. Thank you for that informative presentation. Let's see, I will move to council questions. Councilmember Kasdan?
Thank you. So first one question I wasn't sure about is with especially the transportation we're focusing on level of service How does vehicle miles traveled fit into that? What is the, do we only focus on level of service or can you clarify?
Yes great question. So AB 1600 or the Mitigation Fee Act is mutually exclusive from SB 743 which was the legislation that created VMT as the key metric for CEQA so they are distinctly separate and different A lot of agencies like the old days where, you know, your metric for CEQA was the same metric that was used for your fee programs which was level of service.
So they've attempted to work VMT in. I can tell you it's very problematic and very difficult and showing a strong nexus is very difficult. So a lot of folks use VMT as a weight. Which really, it's just you're using a trip-based LOS based structure but you're weighting some of the land use categories by average trip length. And what that ultimately does, it reduces the fee for retail because trips are typically shorter but it redistributes that burden to all the other categories. And some find that's worth their while but so to answer your question VMT is not really incorporated into this fee program and it doesn't have to be.
Okay as I thought you know when I've heard in the past well okay that clear And then just especially with the traffic, transportation fee. We have from our general plan obligations for certain levels of service. If we were to not charge the amount that's specified there, we would in essence have to make it up with taxes from somewhere else with a general fund or something else because we have that level of service that we are obligated to provide. Is that correct?
Councilmember Kasin, that's correct.
1:00 – 1:0513 turns
Okay and likewise as far as the... The other fees, we may not be obligated to legally or based on our general plan but it would be a policy decision that where we've decided that we are going to either reduce the service level of the amount of parks or bike and pedestrian spaces et cetera. Either we intentionally are saying we're providing less of that for future residents Or we're making it up with taxes from somewhere else.
That's correct
Okay, those are my questions
Thank You councilmember Kiriakou,
thank you Let me kind of pick up where council member cast and left off because I think it's bigger than just kind of having to accept Reductions if these things don't happen right When you have growth, you have cumulative impacts of growth. When you put people in places, you create needs for more access to child care, more access to bus service, more access to roads, more access to parks, more access to public safety.
So it's I mean, I appreciate the focus on transportation but it's much bigger than that right? you're increasing, when you put more people in an area, you're increasing the expectations and the demand. Perhaps that's the better word. The demand for more services. And so if we don't collect these fees, we're being put behind the proverbial eight ball in terms of our ability to meet that future demand.
Is that kind of a good way of looking at it? A good way I corrected myself. That's a good way to
look at it yes.
Okay. And then for the county, can we go back to the slide that had the fair share and it had the different areas with the map? That one. Can someone repeat again for the record if we're rounding up to 23% for the county particularly for those rezone areas what was the blue book dollar value associated with the fair share $65 million? So forgive me, I'm going to be a little bit glib. Do they pay cash or check?
They don't pay at all.
Okay. Right. And the reason they don't pay if I understand it is because it's their understanding belief interpretation of the law that they don't have to pay and they can't make developers pay? Do I have that basically correct?
Council Member Kariyaka, the way I understand it is that there's no nexus for us to implement our DFIs to other jurisdictions. So in essence we can't collect?
That's basically an unfunded mandate. There is a increased demand created by forces happening outside our city that we are then being mandated to deal with. Okay. And then can you confirm something for me? DIF can be used for projects. DIF can be used for improvements. Where does pavement rehabilitation fall into that schema? You know, we hear a lot from constituents about the need to repave our roads and improve our roads.
Where does DIF fall into that realm?
Council Member Kiriakou, the pavement program doesn't meet the criteria for DIV funds. However if you're ever doing a project where you're adding capacity and there is pavement, there's a nexus there but it's not a... There's no nexus for that.
Okay thank you. And then just kind of shifting gears here a little bit I want to talk a little bit about you know the impact of this on our Our partners because we need in order to meet our housing element goals and our responsibilities and accountabilities, we do need developers to partner. We don't build housing ourselves. We need people to build the affordable housing that's needed to meet our requirements.
So if hypothetically a developer were to come forward and say I figured out a way to do 100% affordable housing project, deed restricted I've got a piece of property. I want to do 100% affordable housing, capital A affordable. How would that work from a development fee perspective given we have a beneficial projects policy?
1:05 – 1:1314 turns
Councilmember Kariakou can help answer that. As Ms. Welna mentioned, our code already has language that says the City Council has the right by resolution to set beneficial projects that are eligible for a waiver reduction in fees so that is attached with The agenda item this evening. There are existing sections of that resolution from 2022 that already carve out some housing projects, some projects created by qualifying nonprofits for a full 100% diff reduction but it is of course within the purview of the City Council as a body should it wish to revisit that and decide if there are categories of projects or affordable housing projects where there would be a process and procedure Thank you very much.
So what I guess I'm trying to get out with a little bit more clarity is to what extent would it be an elective decision, a policy decision to apply the ordinance versus you meet these criteria. You know going into the process if I do this then I will not have to pay that?
I think Councilmember Kuriakou, with respect to the latter, our policy or the council's policy on beneficial projects can be specific about what eligibility criteria could provide ‑‑ what notice can be provided to developers regarding eligibility criteria on a reduction waiver. And I don't know if that's answering your question or not, but we've got our per-director Mr. Imhoff here to talk about it.
I'm
desperately
seeking
a yes no answer
and I know those aren't always possible. Good evening Mayor Pro Tem and Council Member Carioca to answer your question. I think that our city attorney really did answer in substance exactly how this would work but right now under the operative beneficial projects resolution which is 2268 adopted in 22 it is fairly formulaic so the category that would apply most likely to the scenario that you proposed, a 100% affordable housing project would be that the developer would likely be a nonprofit. And in that instance, the nonprofit developer would be eligible for a diff reduction and they would know that in advance going into the project. So there would be complete clarity on all sides. Um, and uh, And that's the way that resolution works now, as Mr Rosen indicated and as is indicated in the staff report.
If the council would like to revisit that beneficial projects resolution then the planning department can bring back a separate item at a future date to consider that, and we would appreciate from the council tonight any specific direction that you have on topics or categories that you would like us to analyze and present to you if you'd like to look at other categories that are not presently in that resolution. And if the council acts tonight to adopt the development impact fees as presented, then that resolution 2268 would remain in effect until such time as the council acts to amend that resolution. Which is attached, as you saw, to the staff report as attachment three.
Yeah thank you for that. I think one of the challenges that we're facing and this has kind of been brought, this is really being brought into sharp relief for me by some of the projects that are in their early stages beginning to go through public process We're seeing a pattern of developers trying to utilize newer state legislation and different tactics and strategies to try and reduce their obligations or lose their obligations under our inclusionary housing ordinance. So what I'm really interested in working through hopefully tonight, staff can bring it back is for us to find a way to try and provide a carrot, if possible, to developers to not take that approach. And to follow our inclusionary housing ordinance because I think it's a pretty good one.
And it really does provide a diversity of housing options so that we can maintain a diverse community if developers follow it. Including above moderate housing, so-called workforce housing. So I'm hoping that we can kind of figure out a way to get there tonight and that's part of where I was coming from with this question is what if someone really wants Go affordable.
Okay, and and certainly the issue around the inclusionary Ordinance is a real one and we're looking at that and we will probably be bringing back to council through the Planning Commission Some suggested revisions and looking at our inclusionary housing ordinance but that really operates separately and in parallel to our The inclusionary ordinance requires typically for profit developers to provide a certain percentage of below market rate housing as part of their for profit housing development and that would not necessarily implicate it. Again, it would be distinct from the obligation to pay development impact fees.
In that scenario, where would the beneficial projects policy create some opportunity? Either as is or if it were slightly modified.
So as is, again it operates kind of formulaically and if a particular developer meets criteria in the Beneficial Projects Ordinance for example is a non-profit developer then the developer would be entitled to a reduction or waiver of development impact fees which would reduce costs for that development and would mean that the city would then have to carry That might
be a topic I want to bring back at a future time if there's support from council. Because I do think it doesn't make sense, particularly for smaller developments to partner with the nonprofit just to try and make that all work and all the things that go into So I'm just wondering if maybe there's a way to amend that policy going forward. I don't want to get too far off agenda here, but there might be a way for us to incentivize developers that are considering trying to utilize state law to get around some of our requirements if we could incentivize them through an amended beneficial projects category. Projects of a certain size would probably make the most sense, you know, maybe 50 units and under or 60 units and under something like that then that might make some sense.
We get the affordable housing that we were counting on and yeah, we don't spend some money down the road on some other things.
That's an interesting idea and that's something that we can look at and see if there is a link between those two when we bring it back. Thank you, I've gone on long enough, thank you.
1:13 – 1:2220 turns
Thank you, let's see Council Member Reyes-Martin?
Thank you. Before I get to some other questions I had, I just wanted to give concurrence to that. I think it's really important to bring that ordinance back to take a look at what's there now and where we might want to at least have a discussion about making some updates or changes and I think all the reasons Councilmember Kuriakow pointed out are good ones to revisit that so I would support that coming back to council.
And then a couple of questions, some of these might be more clarification. But as I was reading the report one thing I wanted to just kind of highlight is if someone's just looking at the categories that public administration won On first glance might make someone think that oh, that's like some administrative fee or some like overhead fee for staff. And so it's not and so I felt like that was really important actually had some comments from folks just out in the community who I think made that assumption. And so I'm really glad that that's really fleshed out if you do take the time to read through kind of the 93 page kind of main report, but it's really a feed to help fund or look at what we need to do on public facilities and I think the list that is in the report of all the public facilities is also really important to highlight.
We're not just talking about maybe the ones Top of mind, like the community center or even City Hall. But we are talking about the train depot which is going to come online but Rancho La Patera and Stowe House and the historic Train Depot there, Stowe Grove Park so it's really important to kind of recognize the full breadth of public facilities that we have And on that note, maybe for clarification, the Boys and Girls Club. So the city owns the building?
Is that correct? They see the building square footage is included on
our table. Yeah, so my understanding is that the land is owned by the city and the building itself is owned by the city but it's through a lease? Let me go back and confirm that, but that's my understanding from several years ago.
And so does that mean that we, the city is responsible for anything happening to the building or does the lease kind of cover what everyone's
responsible for? I would be totally guessing at this point but I think it functions kind of like our other facilities do where there's a certain amount that's expected of the city maybe for the grounds and the outside and then any kind of changes on the inside would be limited to the tenant at the time. But I can try to get that.
That makes sense, kind of like with Stowe House and what the others were. Yeah but I
can
certainly
check
that. Yeah I was just curious about that one for clarification. And then on the Stowe Grove Park, I know that on this table we do include the square foot or the building area for the caretakers residence and I assume this is the existing restroom building so I mean they're not big numbers but just to note You know, I know that you always have to pick a point in time and at this point in time those do still exist.
But that will change so would then that get updated the next time we do a DIF study?
Councilmember Reyes-Martin every time we do a DIF study we do an inventory and see what our current assets are.
Okay, thank you. And then I had a question about the storm drain fee. I'm just less familiar with the work that that would entail so I don't know if anyone could even really high level just how are our storm drains impacted by new development and what are some of the things that those fees would pay for?
Council Member Reyes-Martin, we have a list of the proposed projects for the storm drain fee. And the storm drain fee is based on an existing asset of our facilities so based on that and our growth, we developed the cost to increase those facilities to accommodate new development.
And it's like increasing capacity? That's correct. Okay thank you. I think those are my questions for now.
Great, thank you. I have a few questions and then I'll pass it back to Council Member Kasdan. Let's see so my question was in relation to accessory dwelling units. I understand based on state law there's certain provisions and limits in terms of fees that can be charged to ADUs. I guess I was wondering In sort of looking at the various incentives and disincentives that you know if we passive a fee package that applies to, you know, I don't you know multifamily housing.
You know, certainly it appears that there's an incentive for ADUs because of reduced fees. But what I was wondering is, I know some other jurisdictions are seeing some unusual situations where – I guess you might say where there's many ADUs or, you know, some of these kind situations that have arisen. So I don't know in terms of our ordinance, you know, I know our local ordinance is different from other jurisdictions but I'm thinking I'm originally from San Diego and so there's been sort of these situations where maybe what had been like single family home You end up in a situation where there's like 10, 80 youths that are being proposed under their ordinance.
So I just was speculating and wondering do we have any... Like I'm not even sure if that would be possible under our ordinance. I don't know. I guess I'm just trying to kind of think ahead Are we, is there I guess we're not seeing it even under our current fee structure. But I guess if there could be sort of some unintended consequences of if you start highly disincentivizing making a 10 unit apartment and then other people are trying to find kind of creative ways to avoid those fees through the use of ADUs.
Mayor Pro Tem, I don't think that there's that kind of gamesmanship really. I mean there is a lot of effort to maximize number of units on site so we will get ADUs proposed but you have to have a primary unit before you can have an accessory unit. So this is again just applied formulaically and I believe that our current resolution 2268 does conform to current state law So that if an ADU is proposed, which is accessory to a primary dwelling unit and it is 750 square feet or below then it is simply exempt from development impact fees. It doesn't have to pay. If it's above that then it has to pay the proportionate amount above that.
But it's straightforward, and the ADU laws are complex. And as you're probably aware we've had to revise our ADU ordinance virtually every year for the past five or six years to comply with revisions to state law but we're keeping pace with that and we apply the law as it's written to any given project. It's an even playing field as far as developers are concerned in their ability to propose ADUs in the context of other development.
Okay, thank you yeah you know and I know our local ordinances is different from other jurisdictions. I was just sort of trying to think ahead this theoretical sort of unintended consequences related to certain incentives and disincentives as it relates to fees I think that's my question for now. Council Member Kasdan?
Yeah, a couple of things. First, Council Member Reyes-Martin brought up the stormwater fee. We also have state law that is establishing our responsibility to do that. So in other words, right? This is reflective of a mandate from the state.
So Council Member Kasdan those are two tracks. Oh they're separate? Yeah this is based on our existing assets and what we need to do to improve those assets for new development so there are two different tracks.
Okay. The state mandates are just that's not the new development, it's independent of them? That's correct. The other question I had was as far as beneficial uses again right now could you perhaps review for those who didn't read the report some the public not us Some of the beneficial uses, ADUs, childcare. There's a whole range of things that we've already gone ahead and essentially either made 100% reduced or partial reduced.
1:22 – 1:3112 turns
And Council Member Kasdan, before Mr. Imhoff jumps in we are wondering maybe it's possible for the city team to share that document on the screen to show it is within the agenda packet? I don't know how easy that is but I think we can certainly summarize the specifics and the operative sections that talk about who receives automatically 100% diff reduction Right,
and I'm happy to walk through those. And for members of the public or anybody looking at it before we get it up on screen, it is attachment three to the staff report. It's the resolution 22-68 that was adopted by the council in, I believe December of 2022. And the list is not a long one and I can walk through it but it is there for your reference So the first category is ADUs. This is in section two, and I'm just looking down at the resolution now so as stated ADUs with a floor area of 750 square feet or less are not subject to ADUs and then above 750 square feet there's a cap of $5,000 per ADU with reference to the state law. In the next section, all projects by qualifying non-profit organizations as defined receive a 100% development impact fee reduction up to the first 15,000 square feet of a project.
So that's a limitation and that means that for larger 100% affordable development projects they would not be a full waiver of fees and that's something that the council may wish to look at Then in the next section, all qualifying non-profit special care homes, residential care facilities, assisted living, supportive housing, transitional housing, special needs housing, childcare facilities, family daycares or daycares as defined shall receive 100% development impact fee reductions.
And there is more detail here as to how those beneficial project reductions would work which I won't go into And then diff reductions, there's a provision that requests for diff reductions have to be made prior to the time of the approval of the project or building permit issuance. So that's really it. Those are the categories right there.
Well and you had described 100% diff reductions for the non-profits but there was also diff reductions even for for profit daycare and some others? As I
recall? Correct. Yes, so for-profit special care homes, residential care facilities, et cetera, those are also they will receive an 85% development impact fee reduction that is correct.
Okay. So I guess you know we've that's our policy essentially been to target those You know, not just every blanket but to target it to where it's going to have an impact. Where it's going to have the biggest effect and that makes sense to me. I would just, first of all, I concur on the idea of bringing back a beneficial uses discussion or new report or amending the previous one And along those same lines, whether it's the 100% affordable.
But something like, as I recall we provided for Heritage Ridge. Didn't we waive fees in a distinctive way to enable? So things, to go to Council Member Kuriakow's report, ways that we are able to use the DIF fees to motivate, to encourage the provision either of greater numbers of affordable units or rather than let's say moderate or just low to where they go to very low, or something like that. Any of those things where we are using the potential of the DIF fees to generate in essence more public benefit.
I would also explore another area. I gather the state categorizes or calls ADUs NOAs, Naturally Occurring Affordable Units, I think if I got that right? And if there are other categories that we might think of in addition to ADUs, I think a single room occupancy which is something and I don't imagine we're gonna see an explosion of single room occupancy places but To the extent that there exists some kinds of Units that might fall under that rubric. That would be something to explore and then one other thing, and it's something that the public has brought up before some of the letters have brought up the notion that are DIFs discouraging housing? Are DIFs causing us not to get the housing that we otherwise would get?
And just two observations. One is that I believe and you can elaborate That for this round of RHNA, we explicitly asked people are you going to build if we include this, rezone and include this? And they affirmed. They did not say well depending if you lower your diff fees. They said they would be going forward with development is that correct?
Yeah that's a factor that HCD looked at was on the readiness of a landowner or developer to actually develop a site.
But I guess what I would also suggest we look at is some of the leftover units from the last round of RENA to the extent that there were some that were infill units where we know they're infill like on top of shopping centers and things like that. There was some 600 or so units, areas that were zoned residential eligible And that over an extended period of time have not gone forward. To think about whether those units might be ones that we would consider reducing impact fees as a way to motivate and under that same category, we might also think about adaptive reuse as a type of purpose where we know it's expensive, they know it's more costly We might this is a category there are categories of development where we think it's not just rezoning farmland but their infill where we know it's less likely to be developed without our support.
So to look at that as a consideration for the beneficial uses as well in the future
If there's concurrence by the council we can certainly evaluate those categories when we bring it back and we would look at certain things like a number of possible units that could be affected, i.e., total sum of DIFs that the city would be waiving for different categories et cetera.
Okay
thanks.
Council Member Kuriako?
I wasn't gonna say more but I was gonna try and talk about adaptive reviews a little later. I'll just talk about it now real quick First of all, I'll give my concurrence for including adaptive reuse as something to look at for the beneficial projects category going forward as a beneficial use in and of itself. And I just want to briefly explain why we have a big debate in this city constantly about what does it mean to keep Goleta country?
And I think for me, one of the things that's really special about Goleta is how we have over time adaptively reused some of our buildings. I think about two in particular. One is Santa Cruz Market which was once Earl Lovington's aircraft carrier, aircraft hangar excuse me. Aircraft carriers are a little bigger and the other is the former post office building which is now a restaurant Old Town Domingos And I think there's real value in preserving what's been done before and finding new and different ways to utilize that space, and better utilize that space. And so I think that's an important consideration that really needs more discussion generally at the city but I think the beneficial projects policy is a really good a way to start that conversation.
1:32 – 1:3714 turns
Yes.
I just wanted to answer Council Member Reyes-Martin's question about the Boys and Girls Club, so I found the lease. We own the whole entire property and the building in terms of maintenance they're required to maintain the building envelope which includes the building itself and the improvements therein we're responsible for everything to get to the site.
Thank you.
Can I add something to that? They've expressed interest for years in trying to acquire the building because they want to make improvements to us. They've talked about adding a second story, adding public beneficial uses to it. There have been reasons why it maybe didn't make sense in the past for us to consider or give that a lot of consideration but I think In the future, that's something that we really ought to think about is whether or not it makes sense to have a partnership with them.
Stowe House is an example of a place where the community was able to do a lot of fundraising despite the fact that we owned everything. It might be harder for a nonprofit like them to be able to have a big capital campaign for a building they don't own. Just something for us to think about for the future since it came up in question.
Thank you. Let's see. I guess I have one more question of our planning director. I guess I can see the intersection between inclusionary and then the public benefit, right? I understand within the inclusionary ordinance there is this question of in lieu fees so I guess If the council were to deliberate this issue or to waive more fees, then you're not collecting fees in lieu. Is that correct?
So yeah, the in-lieu fees are distinct from the development impact fees that you're considering tonight. But under the inclusionary ordinance as it's framed now there is an option under certain conditions specifically where it's not feasible to build units below market rate units on site where a developer can propose to pay fees instead of or in lieu of building those units on site?
I
see that is distinct and that is something that we would likely revisit in some form if and when we bring the inclusionary ordinance back through Planning Commission to Council for consideration or revisions. And that is by the way on our work program this year to do, and we are taking steps including conversations with HCD to move that
forward. If the council We're wanting to bring back the beneficial use question. Do you see sequencing-wise that it would make more sense, and since it's something that you're already working on, to bring the inclusionary items first? In terms of sequencing?
I had not thought about them really in the same breath because they are slightly different from each other. Okay. Bringing back the inclusionary ordinance revisions is a priority, high priority for us now and a priority that council gave us so we're moving on that. And we're going to do that as quickly as we can but the beneficial projects item is also not something that should take vast We've done that previously, so hopefully we can do it in roughly the same time frame. Perhaps not on the same council agenda but if there is an intersection between them, we'll evaluate that. We'll analyze that and bring that back in a way that allows the Council to think about the intersection if there is one.
Okay. Wonderful, thank you.
And Mayor Patel I have one thing to add. I think what Mr. Imhoff said is absolutely right also from a procedural standpoint the council's beneficial policy as a resolution it's easier to move forward whereas the inclusionary ordinance will go through planning commission and and go through multiple hearings and so as a policy and as a resolution the council can revisit it in the near future and revisit it again at a subsequent date relatively easily
Great, thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Any other questions from council? Okay next we will move to public speakers and public comment.
Yes thank you Mayor Pro Tem I've not received any speaker slips and if any attendees on the zoom webinar wishes to make public comment please use the raised hand feature and i will call upon you And Mayor Pro Tem, I'm seeing one hand raised. Amy Steinfeld followed by Rachel Murphy. Beginning with Amy Steinfeld you'll have three minutes and please remember to unmute yourself. Thank you.
1:37 – 1:426 turns
Good evening honorable council members. I'm a land use attorney with the Brownstein firm and I'm speaking on behalf of my clients and as a board member of the Chamber of Commerce in opposition to the proposed diffs. First, the proposed fees are dramatically out of step with every neighboring jurisdiction Goleta already has the highest development impact fees in the region.
Under this proposal, fees for a typical 1500 square foot single family home would increase to nearly $89,000 and at 1,000 square foot commercial project would face more than $130,000 in fees. Those amounts far exceed those of Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, Santa Maria and other nearby cities. Second these increases will make housing and commercial development significantly more difficult to build Higher fees increase upfront costs without increasing revenue, making many infill and housing projects economically infeasible.
At a time when California is facing a housing crisis and cities are struggling to meet RENA obligations, Goleta should be reducing barriers to housing production not adding new ones. If Goleta adopts the maximum fees set forth in its updates it will ensure that developers will be unable to make housing pencil and Goleta's next housing element will fall out of compliance yet again Third, the NEXUS study contains serious legal and policy concerns. The proposed fees are driven largely by Goleta's existing inventories of parks, open spaces, trails and infrastructure. New development should pay its fair share of impacts but it should not be required to buy into decades of public investments at full replacement value. Similarly, the transportation program allocates a large percentage of project costs to new including regional improvements and projects that address existing traffic deficiencies.
Under the Mitigation Fee Act and constitutional nexus and proportionality requirements new development can't be charged to solve existing problems or to subsidize facilities that primarily serve the broader region. Finally other cities are moving in the opposite direction. Lompoc recently reduced its impact fees after recognizing they were discouraging development Goleta should learn from that example rather than risking the loss of housing, jobs, new investments and property and sales tax revenue.
Excessive fees do not generate revenue. They eliminate the projects that would have paid for them. Rather than shifting these costs onto new residents or developers, Goleta City government should continue to reuse its resources it has at its disposal and seek state and grant funding for its public infrastructure and encourage new investment into Goleta that will result in new tax revenue. We respectfully request that the council reject the draft update and direct staff to revise the NEXUS study and repair a housing feasibility analysis so that the public can fully understand the real world impacts of these proposed fees. Thank you.
Thank you.
And our next speaker is Rachel Murphy. You'll have three minutes.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, thank you.
Good evening Mayor Pro Tem and Council Members. My name is Rachel Murphy and I am the Public Policy Coordinator for the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce. Our chamber remains concerned about the proposed development impact fee increases, and we strongly recommend that council reconsiders the scale of these fee adjustments to protect housing feasibility in our community and meet the City's regional housing needs allocation goals.
Our chamber represents hundreds of businesses across the South Coast, and we have consistently heard from our Goleta business members that the lack of housing for the local workforce remains a huge challenge. While we recognize the importance of infrastructure, adopting the maximum justified fees risks making housing projects financially impossible. Goleta is already one of the most expensive jurisdictions in the county to build housing projects and the proposed fees would worsen that disparity.
While we recognize that the Nexus Study identifies the maximum fee levels that the City may legally justify, adopting the maximum is ultimately a policy decision not a legal requirement. The City has the choice to balance infrastructure funding needs alongside housing production and long-term community goals. The City has previously recognized that more housing stock for residents of all income levels is needed to address the local housing crisis and meet the City's RHNA goals.
For these reasons, the Chamber respectfully asks that the Council consider the following options before adopting the proposed development impact fees. Number one, conduct a housing feasibility analysis. Number two, consider lower residential rates. Number three, explore alternative funding sources and lastly direct staff to revise the nexus study to include proportionate and economically viable fees.
Overall, the city's economic vitality depends on both investment and the ability to increase housing opportunities. Goleta's community needs a development impact fee program that balances both. Thank you.
1:42 – 1:5314 turns
Do we have any more speakers?
Mayor Pro Tem and Council, we have no further public speakers.
Great, thank you. Let's see do we have any responses from staff or our consultants on any of the public comments?
I think we can have Jim Denkowich field a portion of the questions and Bob Spencer.
Okay
sure.
Just find an
open mic. Yeah, I'll go first. This is specific to the comments regarding the transportation fee and the inclusion of regional facilities. It's completely within the purview of the City of Goleta or any other city to include state-owned, Caltrans owned facilities as part of their fee programs. Many counties have a regional fee that is administered by the regional agency This case, if we were to use SB CAG as an example would have a regional fee. They would take care of that but developers would still be paying that fee.
There is no such regional fee in Santa Barbara County, so it's completely within the purview to include state facilities. Those facilities go through the same fair share assessment, so through trips are removed and only trips that are associated with new development that we trace back to their source that are using that facility are part of the equation. So it's completely within the Mitigation Fee Act.
Also again the existing deficiency, that's a common misconception. We're not solving existing deficiencies. We're merely charging new development for their share of making an existing deficiency worse. It's a big difference so it's kind of a non-issue.
Thank you. I didn't know if our consultant online had any further comment?
Oh thank you. I think the main comment to address would be the one on economic impact concerns. Before I do that, though, I'd like to reinforce Jim's comment that the funding of new facilities does not in any way address existing deficiencies or for example any sort of rehabilitation or deferred maintenance cost associated with a capital project And as demonstrated or documented in the CIP, in the last chapter of the report, the CIP for the facility categories other than transportation. Well it includes transportation chapters to complete list but those projects in the final chapter there's a clear allocation of a share of costs to new development if anything less than 100% of the project Is associated with growth. So I also want to reinforce Jim's comment that that's the case with regards to the amount of the maximum justified fee again, that is simply the maximum amount that you could adopt tonight.
And anything below that, other than transportation would simply mean that you'd have less revenue for new projects. But again a policy decision on your part whether to do that and whether to simply have a lower level of capital overall capital funding or find as I think one of the council members referenced In comments, find other revenues to replace those of which you know there could be grant funds. There could be other sources other than city funds to replace those but the main comment that I heard was regarding Uh, economic development concerns.
And what we've done is taken a look at the city's fees relative to or the maximum justified fees current and maximum relative to other cities as a proxy for development concerns. We have not done any kind of detailed economic impact assessment for real estate projects in Goleta and the impact that higher fees might have on those projects. The level of impact of an increased cost on development depends very much on market conditions, and those conditions cycle with the real estate cycle so—and with different real estate products, housing, commercial, et cetera.
So that would take some additional analysis to look at the impact on projects specifically in Goleta. We do have, though, that comparison of fees with other cities if the council is interested in viewing it.
Great. Thank you. Let's see. I'll move to any follow-up questions from Council. Council Member Kiriakou?
I don't have any questions, but if we don't have questions, I'm ready to make comments. And I'm happy to wait for other people to have questions.
Yeah, let me just check in. Any further questions? Okay. If there's no other further questions, I am going to close the public testimony portion of the hearing and will move into council deliberation. I might recommend, I guess I'm sort of wondering, I guess we could do it all together. I don't know if it makes sense to sort of discuss kind of the fees more broadly and then it does sound like we have interest in the beneficial projects piece so I don't know if we may want to start kind of with a broader question and then move into the beneficial project piece.
So do we have any sort of, Comments or other deliberation sort of, I guess more broadly kind of on the proposed fee schedule. Council Member Kuriako.
Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. You're doing a great job tonight. Thank you for pen shedding. So before I make those comments, I just want to respond a little bit to some of the things that we heard in public comment. And I very much appreciate hearing from folks that are helping to facilitate increasing access to housing and affordable housing. I think whether we agree on everything or not they are ultimately our partners in trying to solve shared problems.
I do have to take issue with a couple of things I heard. First of all is this notion that meeting our area's transportation and other service needs is an unfair burden on developers, and I think it's important to remind the commenters of things that were in the staff report, one of which is that these improvements actually benefit everyone including the people that will The next thing I'll say is, you know, all you have to do is look out our window here at City Hall or look around town.
You know, I can think of a lot of development and a lot of housing development that's happened in recent years. One of the challenges that we're trying to address is the need for more affordable housing and more housing for people of all incomes. And so I don't want us to lose sight of that. Regarding the comment about our proposed scale being kind of out-of-whack or not aligned with the rest of the region, Goleta is not the same as Santa Barbara. Goleta is not the same as Santa Maria. Goleta is not the same as Carpinteria.
For one thing, they don't pay millions of dollars every year to the county just for the right to exist. I don't see Lompoc sending $8 million a year to the county just because. That's money that could be used for other things. That could be used for transportation improvements, for library improvements, for additional affordable housing, creating an affordable housing trust fund. There is a lot of things we can do with that money but we don't have that money because it goes elsewhere so I would remind some of the commenters you can't give what you ain't got and The state has removed tools that cities used to have. The city of Goleta used to have a redevelopment agency, we could've done current and future transportation improvements and community investment in economic development if we had a redevelopment agency but Governor Brown got rid of it.
Governor Newsom vetoed a version of bringing it back so we don't have those tools We're doing the best we can with the tools that we have. There's a lot of things that people that live in Goleta expect. They want safe roads, they want to not sit in traffic, they want housing, they want good libraries, they want services, they demand services and we have an obligation as their elected representatives to provide those services to them And this is an area where we need our development partners to really be partners with us.
And I think we can talk about the beneficial projects resolution later, but that is a tool that is helping development right now. One example I'll give is the medical office building that is at Santa Felicia and Stork. There's, I think 20 or $30,000 worth of development impact fees being waived because of our beneficial projects policy, because they're putting in a child care center.
You're going to have medical offices and then you'll have child care for the employees that work there or people that live in the surrounding area. That's a beneficial project so what do we do? We help make it pencil. We provide a benefit because they are providing And there's other examples of that and there will be other examples of that. So I don't think what we're talking about doing is punishing development or trying to stop development. There seems to be plenty of development happening, and I'm sure there's going to be a lot more coming in the future.
And we need to be doing everything we can to make sure that that development benefits all of the people of our community and is done in a way that's responsible, is done in impact and harm the quality of life of our residents. So I'll just stop there.
1:53 – 1:593 turns
Thank you, Council Member Reyes-Martin.
Thank you all that was very well delineated Council Member Kariyako. You know I think we've had quite a lot of time to get get to the item tonight and I do want to appreciate all of the staff work that has gone into being We're going to be talking about a proposed increase on fees. You know, read through the material and listen to staff and experts. And the public comment that you know has been also very detailed in their arguments for why either they would Ask the council not to go with the maximum or go with something different. And so we're tasked with kind of weighing all of that and you know, I will say that I completely agree with part of what I think Council Member Kazin was saying with regards to the transportation fee.
That those impacts as a city, we were going to have to address. We don't really have a lot It doesn't feel to me like we have a lot of choice in not making those improvements when transportation is impacted by development. So I appreciate that, you know, the staff report suggested, you know, to the extent that Council wants to go with anything different than what's justified, that the transportation and I agree also with the library fee are ones that we should go with. I agree with that. And I think with the others You know, I know that it was brought up that we could consider a lower level of service.
No one wants to consider that. That's a really hard pill to swallow as well. To Councilmember Kiriakou's point, we have residents who have very high expectations of their city and what we mean by live work play. It means that our parks are safe, well-maintained. That we are providing excellent recreational facilities. That our library is well cared for. That our public facilities including earlier tonight we were talking about how great all of these facilities are like the Stow House. How many people in our community go and enjoy Stow House and Rancho La Patera Historic Train Depot, and the community center. We just had all the World Cup events there. I mean these are facilities that everyone benefits from, that everyone utilizes, and that we have a responsibility to maintain.
And I think it is really important to underscore you know that because we have revenue neutrality agreement, we're starting off with less money to be able to do those things And that's, you know, an unfortunate reality. But it puts more pressure on being able to deliver for our residents so I appreciate all the work that has gone into it. I shared where I am for sure on the transportation and library fee.
But we have really important obligations and high expectations from residents to deliver on those obligations.
Thank you. I'm just going to jump in briefly and then I'll turn to Councilmember Kasdan. You know, I think I concur with many of those comments. As it relates to, you know one of the different things that we're operating in now is this sort of whole new world as it relates to our housing element. And so to the extent that fees have any potential to deter future development It raises the prospect of future in the next Rena cycle, more buy right housing potentially and other potential difficult outcomes that we know our community doesn't appreciate.
So that is one concern and also just sort of the practical I just wanted to make an observation that what's being proposed is a significant change. I didn't know I'd be interested in hearing Council comments If there would be interest in the council, for example to phase in a fee over let's say I don't know you know three to five year period. You know with certain set increments that just from a business and planning perspective I'll go to Councilmember Kasdan and then Kiriakou.
1:59 – 2:053 turns
If there are lower DIF fees, that we provide lower DIF fees it doesn't invariably lead to increased affordable units. There's no, they're not connected. If we lower the costs they're still going to produce something based on the market. The market conditions a private or for profit developer is going to produce what makes the most profit for their units Not a, it won't change what they do simply because we reduce the dip fees. If we reduce the dip fees their profit increases but we don't generate more affordable units as a result.
If we want more affordable units therefore what we need to do is via the beneficial uses to target that incentive if that's our goal target that, not simply universally reduce the diff fees because the only thing that'll do is give them more profit. If we're afraid... So my point would be both for the affordable units and for if there are areas or types of construction or not types of construction but of I'm going to If we have identified areas where they're less likely to go forward, that would be one where we say okay, diff fees should be considered as a reduction when we go through the beneficial uses. We consider it there but just a blanket universal reduction in fees across the board not just in transportation but I don't see any justification in any of these areas parks etc., just saying we're going to reduce fees In order to what?
Simply lower costs for the developers and the hope that they do what. If our goal is to ensure everything goes forward, if our goal is to get affordable units then we want to target it where it have an impact not just blanket lower cost so in short I think it's, did that make sense? Okay. So in short, I support the idea of going forward with what we have here and coming back with the beneficial uses in which we consider how to reduce or waive fees as appropriate but I don't see a rationale for just blanket reductions in particular fees because we don't think We can reduce the service level for parks.
Okay, thank you.
Council Member Kiriakou.
Thank you Madam Mayor Pro Tem. I've really enjoyed this discussion and I think everyone's making some really good points. And I see the logic and the reasoning behind what Council Member Kasdan is saying The only thing I would add to it is where more of the fear comes in on my part is what's the tipping point between a developer saying, I'm going to go forward with a project versus not going forward with a project.
And developers are very finicky and very fickle and they just get set on certain things and when the cost per unit that they're anticipating gets to a certain point, they can lose interest. They can move on to other things and so I think it's less for me the fear is not so much that they won't make as much profit. I think my fear is more that housing element site that we're counting on doesn't go forward and gets kind of stuck in limbo and then were the ones that are being left held accountable Again, we're not responsible for development. We're not builders, we're not developers but the state chooses to hold us accountable if development doesn't happen and so I'm probably ultimately a little bit more persuaded by our Mayor Pro Tem and her argument about the concerns for the arena implications in our ability to execute in this arena cycle.
So for me I'm interested in two possibilities. One would be a phase-in. I think that's an approach that has some merit, not for the transportation and library fees. And I'm kind of debating whether or not I would add the parks fees to that as well. But I'm certainly open to a phase-in for the others. I would also be open to some kind of flat percentage across the board reduction in those non-library, non-transportation fees and I'm pretty flexible on the amount. It could be 10%, it could be 20%.
I'm pretty flexible on that but I do think it's important that we show our partners that we hear you, we appreciate your concerns I hope you appreciate and hear our concerns as well because we're the ones that are accountable. Not just for housing happening, but for providing the services that our community counts on and that our citizens rely on and our residents rely on. So I would say I'm open to a phase in on the non-transportation parks library fees.
And I'm open to, and I would support a flat percentage reduction for transportation and library. And I'll just throw out 20%.
2:05 – 2:1218 turns
Mayor Pro Tem and Council Member Kuriakow, I just want to make sure I heard you correctly in that last statement because I think you've said it two different ways. In a previous statement, you acknowledged staff's recommendation to not make reductions to the transportation category and the library category In the last statement you just made, I thought I heard you say that you're open to a reduction for those two categories.
No, no, I do not want to touch those categories. Thank you.
Okay thank you. Let's see. I'll go to Councilmember Kasdan and then Councilmember Reyes-Martin. Councilmember Kasdan?
I forgot what I was going to say.
All right. Hold that thought, and we can come back if it comes to you. Councilmember Reyes-Martin?
Thank you. So I'll respond to the suggestion that we have on hand. So, I agree with going with the staff recommendation on library transportation And parks. Is that kind of what I heard? Those three? And then my question on the remaining ones, maybe this is a staff question about just what's more of an administrative burden going with like let's say the suggestion was a 20% flat reduction on those versus some structured phase-in. I would think that just starting off with a flat is probably easier to implement, but maybe you tell me does it, maybe it doesn't matter?
Council Member Reyes-Martin will do whatever
counts.
That's the
right answer!
I can add a thought to that, though. Certainly in this simple explanation doing some administratively doing something once is easier than having to keep track and do it for three years in a row but not much. But I will add another consideration to the phase-in and that is you then have another factor And so that adds another dynamic to the planning staff who's doing their best to fairly process a project and keep it on a timeline, and a clock that's going to change the development impact fee at a moment in time.
So I'd be open to the flat, and so that I'm clear. You're talking about a 20% reduction from what's the justified amount? Got it. Okay, I wanted to make sure I understood that. A
20% reduction in the proposed increase.
Correct. So I could be open to, I know it's not worded as a motion just yet but I want to give, I think I could support that.
Council Member Kasdan.
Yeah, so what we're talking about then is the public administration fee that you had talked about before as far as maintaining our facilities, the bike and pedestrian master plan implementation and the stormwater fee. Those are the three that we're discussing as just arbitrarily reducing the amount by 20%. I mean, I was asking did I miss any there? Is that the three that... Maybe
we can have staff put up the categories but I believe yeah take fire and housing in lieu out. No that's out because that's handled separately. There were six categories and so let's put those categories up but the three categories that I just heard from Councilmember Cariocao and then supported by Councilmember Reyes-Martin were the two that staff recommended transportation and library, and then added to that was parks. And then if I'm not mistaken the other three categories are exactly as you stated, Council Member Kastan, storm drain, bike and ped, and public administration facilities. And if they could put those up that would confirm that.
I mean, I guess I don't see the rationale for just arbitrarily reducing something without any, you know, just choosing a number and reducing it. I understand we want to be sympathetic to folks out there, but I think it comes through our expansion of the beneficial uses. I think it comes from looking at those categories where development is less likely to go forward without our assistance or areas that we want to promote like ADUs and so forth We have to remember our goals and I guess just an arbitrary reduction, just as a goodwill gesture. I understand it but I don't see the sort of intellectual basis for it if you will especially You made Council Member Reyes-Martin, you made a passionate or I don't know what passionate. That might be a little strong but a strong justification for public administration so I guess I'm convinced and bike and pedestrian to the extent that we know for instance that when we look at our Our network right now, there's gaps.
And we have areas of that are... We have a portion of a bike and pedestrian route that's safe and so forth, and then there'll be a big gap. And if we need to, we want to enable the residents who come in, we wanna enable our residents who live here to have a complete route that's gonna be safe then You know, I would think we don't want to just set. You know it's 20 percent so I don't wanna overdo the you know make this more dramatic than it needs to be but I think it's to the extent that we used a methodology to justify the fees that we have there.
To me that makes sense to stick to rather than just reducing it for the sake of it. Thanks.
2:12 – 2:189 turns
Thank you.
Council Member Reyes-Martin.
Thank you, and I can appreciate that. You know, I think at the end of the day these are still a policy question and discretionary for us. And I appreciate all of the comments that have been made. The reduction on those three categories for me more palatable is that we are still talking about a pretty large significant increase to what we have right now, particularly in those three categories.
If you look at public admin across all the categories within that category, it's over 150% increase. Storm drain, it varies but some of them are 125% increase and the bike ped they're all well over 200% increase. I think even with that 20% reduction, we are still significantly increasing to match what our facilities need and what we need as a city. So that makes it more palatable to me to do that reduction on those three categories but I think all your points are well stated Council Member
Caston. Council Member Kuriakou.
I was gonna say more but I'll just say ditto.
I would support that proposal as well. So, we will kind of hold on that broader question and then move to It felt like I heard from Council that there was consensus on bringing back the beneficial projects, but I'm sensing that our staff probably wants some direction on some of the items to be considered or included.
Yeah, yeah, that would be great and we've received some already. So I took pretty good notes and I wrote down four categories that I heard. I might have taken a little bit of liberty, so I'll read my notes back I'm going I'm doing my best, as I heard comments from all four council members. So one category was projects that provide a higher level of affordable housing. So I won't go into more detail. Staff would have to kind of dig into the weeds on that but that was, I generally heard that I think from all four.
Related and this is where the conversation got between the intersection between this exemption for beneficial use and our in-lieu fee So I don't know if I necessarily heard this, but maybe this is what I thought I was hearing. Was that for example, if right now a project can build affordable units on site or in certain scenarios as your planning director pointed out they can pay an in lieu fee?
A category could be for example, I think this was what I was starting to hear, was that if they chose to put them all on site which is the preferred method then maybe they would get a waiver of the fees for the affordable unit or something like And so I'm seeing head nods on that. And then I did hear, I wrote this a little differently than Councilmember Kasdan stated it but the state law requires a waiver for ADUs under 750 square feet. So what I heard was why limit it to ADUs? Anything under 750 square feet But the council might want to talk about that. But that's what I thought I was hearing, if someone were to build a unit center. And then adaptive reuse was discussed by both Council Member Carioca and Council Member Kasdan. And I wrote a note down converting non-residential to residential but we get what adaptive reuse means so that's pretty good direction but I'm happy to hear anything additional from council.
Let's see, I'll start with Council Member Kasdan and then Council Member Kiriakou.
I don't know how sort of broad the language can be from your purposes, so to speak. But to the extent that we have – as we know in the last cycle there was a bunch of places that didn't – that were residential like we had talked about on top I'm going to start with a couple of things. First, I want to say thank you very much for There really is a case for that they won't go forward like adaptive reuse, the equivalent.
Then for you guys to look at those circumstances and say that these are infill units we want to encourage something like that. Is that specific enough for you? Is that okay? I'm giving you a hard launch.
2:18 – 2:2417 turns
Give our best effort to it.
We can certainly work with that and look at it. I think the question will be exactly how we define that category within the housing element, there is a whole list of the housing element and housing law make the distinction between vacant sites and underutilized sites so we could look at underutilized sites but that's a long list. The more categories of exception we have The more the risk of kind of the exception swallowing the rule, but we'll look at that. We'll do some analysis and we'll bring it back and give you some options to consider. That's fine.
Thank
you.
Councilmember Kiriakou.
Yeah, I think for me, I'm thinking like true adaptive reuse not development of non-vacant sites. I think trying to come up with ways to further utilize non-vacant sites is a good project for us for the next housing element to come up with some policies and procedures for how to get there. I will just note for the record that two of the sites Some stakeholders referred to as fake sites or not real, not serious are under active consideration for development. So I think that's kind of interesting.
But getting back to the question here, yeah, I think for me the ADU question, I really would prefer it to be ADU, not just anything under that square footage, I think what we're ultimately talking about If we have it broader as just heavily incentivizing studios, I'm not sure that's the place I'm willing to go yet. I feel like that's got to be a much broader community conversation.
But I think other than that, I think City Manager had it exactly right from my perspective.
Yes, and I'll just comment to that. I would I would share that concern. I don't think I would support just sort of like a blanket like 715. But like I think I think that just kind of gets we get a little too far out. And and I also think it's important that we Yeah, just be kind of mindful about exceptions as well. And again it could be exceptions or reductions I think is an important note that even there might be things that we support but they have impact so maybe we support a reduction but not A full waiver kind of thing.
So I agree with sort of the cautious approach, but the other items I would be supportive of sort of with a generally narrow lens.
And Mayor Pro Tem and Council, I also wanted to note and Mr. Imhoff referred to this as well you know we are in that process of updating recently updating our ADU ordinance essentially annually. I think with the direction we're hearing from council it gives us an opportunity to also just check and ensure the numbering with the statute is correct if there's anything else that's relevant associated with ADU law so I would say that's an added benefit of where it looks like the council may be headed in terms of asking city staff to look at ADUs specifically
Great, okay. All right let's see I'm trying to think about how we can craft a motion here or I would be...
Mayor Pro Tem could I ask a clarifying question of the council first just for the record? I wanted to be sure, we did see the different fees up on the screen. Yes. I saw a couple of references throughout and so I think just for the record and to be clear. So what I heard for what I expect the motion will be from a member is to go with the legally justified maximum for the categories of library parks and recreation in transportation facility fees And then I also wanted to confirm for the 20% reduction, I wanted to list the categories I have in my notes and confirm also with staff that that's correct. So the categories where council is considering a potential motion for a 20% reduction, I have public administration faculty fees, fire facilities.
Okay so there's no fire facilities. Storm drain faculty fees And there was a reference on one slide to housing projects and I'm just wondering if that is a defined category that needs to be included.
Mr. Rosen, it was bicycle and
pedestrian category. Yeah, so page one and two of the staff report have kind of a good summary. So my understanding that the 20% reduction would be proposed for the public administration facilities fee, the storm drain facilities fee and the bicycle and pedestrian facilities fee reduced from the maximum justified?
Okay, thank you for that clarification.
And Mayor Pro Tem just for the record now for the public so those other two fees the housing in lieu fee the council has previously given us direction to take a look at that fee that came up during the planning's work plan and the fire fee is also a slightly different animal that's being looked at essentially we do have a fire fee and that we accepted the county's fire fee and that's in collaboration with the county so that's why that's a different category
Thank you for that clarification.
And Mayor Pro Tem, I'm sorry to make this more difficult with another comment. The last thing I wanted to note is to the extent there's an anticipated motion with both the legally justified maximum for categories and then a 20% reduction in several other categories. I would ask council to consider as part of that motion A recommendation that staff return with an item on consent as just a receive and file. That includes those final numbers for each of those categories, so it's clear how that impacts each category.
I'm taking notes.
2:24 – 2:288 turns
Okay. All right.
Okay. I will take a crack at a motion. As we have done, continue a public hearing from May 19th, 2026 and adopt Council Resolution Number 26 next in line entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta California approving the 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Report and updated development impact fees pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act.
For the legally justified maximum for parks and recreation fees, transportation fees and library fees. And with a 20% reduction from the legally justified maximum for storm drain, bicycle and pedestrian and public administration facilities fees. And find that the resolution to be exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. And I recommend that staff bring back on consent a report to receive and file.
I kind of blinked
out for a second. Did I actually specify the Mitigation Fee Act?
You did.
Okay. You did, Council Member Kuriakou, and I believe that captures sort of what we had in mind and I would note to a point Mr. Nisbet raised, the direction we received separately on the beneficial policy can be effectuated just based on the discussion this evening.
Is there is there a second? Okay. Council Member Kasdan seconds. We'll take a roll call vote at the council
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0
Show transcript
All right, the motion carries. Well thank you to staff and our consultants. I know there was so much work done on this item so thank you very much and thank you to the public and everybody for your comments and input. Let's see should we take a five minute recess? Five minute recess. Oh,
2:32 – 2:496 turns
You.
Okay, bringing this meeting back to order. Let's see next we have a discussion item. Discussion and action item.
Yes thank you that takes us to D1 Goleta Valley Library capital campaign update with recognition and naming considerations
Great so we have our staff here
to present this item. Good evening Mayor Pro Tem and members of the council tonight we're excited to talk to you give you a little update on our capital campaign for the library interior project as well as our plans for our recognition wall And some naming considerations that we have. I get so excited about this project, I could talk for hours. So no, we don't want to do that. So I told Elizabeth and I, I'm sorry, Ms. Salcedo and I will be tag teaming on this. So we'll go ahead and I will let Ms. Salcedo kick us off.
Thank you, Ms. Plower. Good evening Madam Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Council. First of all thank you so much for the opportunity to present this update it's really a joy for us to bring this forth to council into the community this evening. So as you know in September we received council authorization to pursue the launch of a capital campaign which is titled writing the next chapter appropriately so and to raise funds for the interior design upgrades and furnishings at Goleta Valley Library The construction that's currently underway is funded by grant funds that are allowable only for infrastructure. So just as a brief recap, the purpose of the capital campaign is to fund the furnishings and interior design.
We did a thorough evaluation among staff of several possible campaign structures, and we entered into a fiscal sponsorship agreement with the Santa Barbara Foundation in January of 2026 just weeks before the launch of the campaign and the groundbreaking in the second week of February. So it was a very exciting February for our division. In addition to that, we really wanted to make sure that the structure of the campaign allowed for options for the giving mechanism for whatever was most comfortable to our community members.
And so staff also developed three additional donation avenues. Our friends at the Goleta Valley Library remain incredibly supportive of the campaign, of the project and of our library's future. I want to start by thanking all of you for being here today. We're going to be talking about how we can make the most of this opportunity. And so we're very pleased to provide you with a capital campaign update this evening. As I mentioned, the campaign launched in February with a goal of $1.7 million.
This is what was determined was the total figure needed to bring those community aspirations to life for the interior design. Prior to the launch of the campaign, we did receive a number of significant donations such as 550 Thank you. So we did receive some milestone donations from the John C. Muthoon Foundation for $550,000, the Friends who contributed $175,000 to the interior design not counting their donations to the infrastructure project as well and many other gifts from the community so all that said the campaign launched at 45% already committed of that 1.7 million dollar goal And so in the five months since the launch of our campaign in February, as I mentioned, the avenues for giving have been very smooth and steady.
And the influx of generosity and support for the undertaking that we have right now with this once-in-a-generation opportunity has been truly remarkable. And so at the writing of this report, the campaign had reached nearly two-thirds, 65.94% of our goal of 1.7 million having received commitments for $1,121,022.95 which is incredible. We also recently passed the halfway mark of the campaign timeline, so in terms of timing We're just past that halfway mark of the 10-month campaign but already at two thirds of the mark towards our fiscal goal, which is really a testament to the generosity of our community and all those supporters who are invested in what that next chapter means for Goleta Valley Library.
We have continued to receive donations from individuals as well as foundations and organizations. A notable donation that did come in since our last update to council was a $50,000 pledge from Sarah Miller McCune who is incredibly active in the philanthropic space in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. And we had the pleasure of sharing this project with her for consideration. She was very interested in funding the upgrades completely for the community room and the gallery Which is where we not only hold our story times and bring community members together, there's that healthy exchange of ideas and viewpoints that public libraries really strive to provide as a gathering point for their communities. And so we're very thankful to Sarah Miller-McCune for her incredible generosity in making sure that room continues to thrive and function in that purpose.
So as I mentioned, we are very pleased to share we're ahead of schedule. And so looking to that second half of the campaign before us from July through December, we anticipate a very second strong half for the campaign and a significant reason for that confidence is really due to what will be sharing next which is our donor recognition wall. So as early as last September when we first brought this concept before council for consideration We began to receive questions and really excited inquiries from community members and patrons, and from staff who wanted to know if there would be an opportunity for them to participate in a really meaningful and lasting way towards the campaign. Something in the form of a donor recognition program. And so given the generosity of this local area, so many locations and facilities around Do have very beautiful donor recognition walls.
And so we knew that if we were to do something like that, we wanted it to be extremely special representing not only the spirit of Goleta and its local charm and heritage but also the spirit of what the community values about their library and also something that would pay testament to that incredible support we've received And so we're very pleased to be able to share in just a moment the artwork of what that donor recognition wall will look like.
We've been working with a very talented artist team who our architectural project team connected us with, and so they came very strongly recommended and we've been so pleased with their talent and their creativity in helping us to bring this idea to life. And so I'm very pleased to share with you now the artwork for our donor wall. And so this is the first public sharing of our artwork for the donor recognition wall at 500 North Fairview, and I'd love to tell you a little bit about this because a lot of heart has really gone into it from all parties involved.
And so as I mentioned, we wanted it to represent the Goleta heritage. So you'll see lots of eucalyptus leaves and flowers, butterflies that are both basking in the sun and flying and resting. So we have that really treasured symbol of Goleta, the monarch butterfly. We also have our campaign name writing the next chapter. And so as long as this donor wall is viewed and appreciated, it will always really capture the generosity of this specific moment in time when our community came together and provided support for all that the library was seeking to do for its future. To make that strong and accessible and enjoyable for all so they could feel welcome.
And of course there is a row of books at the bottom of the design which represent the The incredible support that the community shares for their public library. We have an avid community of readers who value access to information and books, who delight in literacy, who really want to boost the literacy and the lifelong And so we do have books, of course featured prominently in the design. I also wanted to mention the light that's emanating from the books in the center and so the light coming from the book is really intended to symbolize the way that the books will open the doors and shine the light on what it can do for you as a reader, as a member of the library We wanted to show that The library in and of itself is an entity that shines a light, creates a bright future but the support of our community of patrons really helps us to make that a reality.
And so the future is very bright at our library because of that support and how it enables us to bring our mission to life. And I wanted to mention a few other pieces of the donor wall. So we talked a little bit about the design, which as I mentioned focuses on not only the themes of Goleta and the library but also has a very strong integration with the building itself.
And so the architectural and artist team are just a prime example of why we remain so grateful for experts in their craft, because they were able to create a donor wall that aligned with the geometry and the actual structure of the library. So I'll go to the next slide which talks a little bit about the position of the donor wall on the library itself. And so as you can see, pretty much immediately the color scheme is very unanimous throughout the building itself with the green of the roof and the yellow of the trim. And then also the greens and yellows in that design where the colorful books and flowers and ribbon at the top really pop and invite you into that space. And the light almost does look like a beacon. And so we wanted the consistency of the design to be complementary to the architecture itself And our artist team has done just that.
They've created something that feels consistent, that blends the structure of the building with really the fluid movement of a library that's always adapting and evolving, inviting you in. We also were so excited to share this this evening because there were so many options for where this donor wall could go. And so the team and I discussed whether it would be most beneficial to have a plaque on the inside of the library. We talked about lobby walls, we talked about bookshelves, we talked about so many different options and when the architectural team suggested something on this corner of the library it was sort of an aha moment because this is something you'll be able to see from Fairview.
It's also exterior so it welcomes you right into the space It's something that is highly visible and prominent, and will be very eye-catching. You can see it very visibly. We also had in-depth conversations about which wall to put it on outside. You'll notice there's a natural break in the ramp. I'm going to start by thanking the Council for their support of this project.
be painted upon the wall for their names to be recognized. We didn't want it to be somewhere where it sort of felt tucked away and hidden, we wanted it to feel that it was prominent and that you could have a very relaxing moment and stand and observe. And we didn't want it to feel sort of a congested space so we're excited not only for the wall to be up and for the donors to be recognized in perpetuity on the wall but also for our visitors to be able to stand and enjoy in a comfortable relaxing space.
One last note on mechanics of what the fabrication of the wall looks like. It is, as you can see, quite prominent in size so it's 5 feet tall and 8 feet wide composed of hand-painted 8 inch porcelain tiles. And so this is something that will be hand-painted. The art was designed by an artist team and the tiles will be hand painted, glazed, double fired, and professionally installed. So we had to focus in our conversations with the tile artists and the project team about durability and making sure that it wouldn't be susceptible to the elements fading And so this is a type of fabrication that is extremely durable and will be able to stand up to the bright sunlight that it will receive on that wall for many years.
Lastly, I wanted to just share in terms of our next steps. This is the first public sharing of the artwork with Council this evening with our community members and so from here we will be rolling out a press release on August 10 that will share the placement of names and opportunities to provide gifts at various tiers and sort of what those different placements of names and opportunities We anticipate that there will be excitement from patrons in the community. And we just wanted to share that the next round of information will be coming very soon with the specifics.
2:50 – 2:558 turns
Great, thank you for that presentation. Do we have questions from council? Council Member Reyes-Martin.
Thank you. Oh my gosh I could cry, it's beautiful! They just captured Goleta so beautifully with all the elements in that art piece and one thing that I actually immediately thought of how lovely also another tie-in is... You may know this but this type Thank you so much. And yet it feels very much like Alita to do a recognition walk like this. So that's just beautiful and lovely, and kudos for just having the idea to kind of let the artists come up with something to represent us, and it's beautiful and it's just really wonderful.
additional unplanned or unanticipated thing that we get to look forward to. And just thank you for the update, it's wonderful.
Thank you. Councilmember Kasdan?
Thank you could you go back to the previous picture So, well first I was just curious where the names of donors might go. Did you have some ideas? Because I was looking are you going to name the butterflies? Are they going to be in the books? Where were you thinking of or is it UC? In the books? Councilmember
Kasdan, that'll all be released in specifics. We'll share some details as you can see in the bottom book the John C. Muthoon Foundation has the base book that's because of that $550,000 contribution You'll see the Friends of the Goleta Valley Library. That is just an example This rendering Again, our first release the exact locations of the butterflies, the exact location of all the leaves will be contingent on the funding that we do receive. The exact location of the books on the funding that we do receive but the larger donors will go on the bindings of the books. We will be selling the butterflies. We've looked at putting the names on the butterflies We're working with the project team right now to decide if we feel that that is a good place, whether or not we feel that the donors' names would be easily readable.
Or if it would be easier to read it if it was placed under the butterfly or next to the butterfly on the tile to be more clear. We're working with the artist's team right now to decipher that. The artist is coming up with sample tiles with us which is why we wanted to share this with you see if we had any input or comments from you before she comes up with the rest of those sample tiles and then we'll be looking at selling some of the blank tiles, the butterfly tiles, potentially the flowers and leaves as well.
That's what we'll be looking to potentially sell and that will all be released in our press release on the 10th of August. So, we're really excited about that and we're right now looking at our base as being on the wall at $1,000 at our minimum but we have received contributions already You know, even down to a quarter. And Ms. Sacedo and I have a plan to recognize everybody that has contributed even down to that quarter. So not on this wall but we have a way to recognize those individuals because we do believe strongly that every penny counts towards this and we do believe that everybody deserves that recognition so we do have a plan um and we'll share that plan as that unfolds but for this wall it would be a minimum of a thousand If we can make that number squeak down, we will.
But we need to get to that $1.7 million. It's looking at a thousand dollars right now.
Well it does look like in the books themselves and those titles there is a lot of space.
That would be for the big ones. I'll tell you who to write the check out too. We do have quite a few big ones right now. And then if you'd like to continue talking about The Wall, we're happy to. We also have another big item to talk about in this staff report as well.
It really is, I echo Council Member Reyes-Martin. It's beautiful. It really is lovely. And it's just...I mean, it's not only pretty but it also is...it just fits the library just kind of an inspirational sort of thing. It's a really nice and so yeah that's all. I just really like it.
2:55 – 3:038 turns
Yes, did you want to continue with the other portions of your presentation?
I would love to. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Smith. Before we move on to that next item, I would like to share that Ms. Salcedo had given much credit to the artists that we've been working on but Ms. Salcedo had also provided artists with a rendering that was not as detailed Thank you. Right before you this evening, we do have another recommendation and that is a consideration that we don't take lightly.
It is a recommendation from staff that we did also take to the Library Advisory Commission and that is in light of the very generous donation that we did receive earlier this year actually that came to us in December. And that is the $550,000 donation to the children's section of the interior of the library The capital campaign for the library, but the children's section. Sorry my words aren't working tonight and that was from the John C. Mathune Foundation as part of that donation they had inquired about naming rights And so we had asked, we had talked to them about this. They'd said that their donation would not be contingent on naming rights but they had asked us to consider that. In working with this foundation and working with the individuals, we've learned more that this group has actually contributed to the library through The Friends for numerous years to the children's programming.
The last few years, this group has given to the library 30,000 dollars through the friends organizations for children's programming. So multiple years prior to this campaign ever launching so the library has been a very special place in their hearts even prior to this campaign and we do feel in working with them they've actually been a very Thank you. Deciding on what numbers look good on a recognition wall. What is too high, what is too little? Because this is not something that a librarian or a director of neighborhood services does every day. I don't know if you knew that or not. So we don't do this every day so seeking her Her advice has been very helpful.
But aside from that, we just do feel that the recognition of what the John C. Muthoon Foundation has done for the Goleta Library interior project is significant enough to warrant the recommendation to consider naming the children's section. I would like to also recognize that prior to the library closing, the children's section had a room named after it, the Jake Boisel Room.
We did lose the Jake Boiselle room with the library renovation because the space needed to be consumed for the upgraded building standards for the electrical room. So we actually lost that room, so we did have to sit across the table and tell Mrs. Boiselle that we were losing the room. The hardest conversation I've ever had in my life. But we did promise Mrs. Boies L. We would make it good, and we have done that so we have the Jake boys all reading nook that will be in the far corner of the library.
Mrs. Boys L has been with us side by side as we have developed that space. We have taken it to a point where she says, you don't need to talk to me anymore. I'm good. I am happy with where you have taken it and I'm just ecstatic. So that space will remain the Jake Boyzell Nook. We have some surprises in place that she's aware of but were surprises for the community and we're really excited about that. So we will still have the Jake Boyzell Nook The John C. Muthoon Foundation is very aware of that and they have absolutely no problem, the surprise was actually Susan's idea.
Susan Torrey's idea to do this surprise and the Jake Boisel reading nook. So they're all about community, and the recommendation was from the family to name the children section of the library the Doris Methune's Enchanted Words & Wonders Library Or the Doris Methune's Enchanted Pathways to Discovery. So those were the two different options that the family came up with and the Library Advisory Commission did not have names in front of them, they just had the concept of it being named and so we're here to ask you for that recommendation to consider naming the children section of the library.
after the Methune Foundation. And then our last recommendation is to appropriate all of the funds that we've received in-house, to date, to the library campaign so we can start spending that money and then to also correct an appropriation that we had made prior to starting the campaign that we had appropriated to the project for furniture and fixtures to the campaign so we can start spending it out of the appropriate funds. And that's all we have! We're available for any questions.
Thank you so much. Let's see, we'll go to Council Member questions and comments. Council Member Kasdan?
Yeah I just wanted to commend you for that whole Jake Boyzell sort of thing. I'm very happy that you navigated that one well and so I appreciate that. As far as the question you're asking, they're both good. They're both charming and I don't know that I really... Not sure. I'd really have to ponder it.
Council Member Reyes-Martin.
So are you asking us for kind of an opinion between those two? Is that kind of what you're hoping to get from
us? Council Member Lutz-Reyes-Martin. Our first question is, is the council supportive of naming? And then if you have an opinion, you can give us an opinion and we'll take that opinion. If you don't have an opinion, you want to turn it over to staff, we'll go back to the John C. Mathune Foundation family and ask them if they have a preference or we can even take it back to the Library Advisory Commission and ask them. They have a meeting coming up or we'll make a determination because they are both cute
Yes, so I fully support renaming it. I think they've been so generous and clearly from what you also shared they have been for some time. So that's lovely. I love that they took this approach to naming it and it's not just the name. I think that's kind of more typical but this is such a lovely way to kind of make it a little more whimsical Which I think is very fitting. They're both lovely, I think I'm partial to words and wonders.
Is that alliteration? But they're both wonderful and I support staff kind of working maybe working with the family that's probably the best way to see if they have a preference one way or the other but they're both great.
3:03 – 3:1014 turns
Let's see. I want to any other questions before we go to public comment on this item?
I'll just say I support naming and words and wonders has a nice alliteration, I agree.
I support naming as well. I could go either way, but I could support words and wonders. The other one has fewer letters like it might be more practical. But I like either one. Okay do we have any public comment on this item?
Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. If any attendees on the Zoom webinar wish to make public comment please use the raised hand feature and I will call upon you. Mayor Pro Tem I'm seeing none.
Okay. All right, well we'll go into our deliberations. Thank you to staff for this wonderful update. Any other final thoughts or comments?
I don't have final comments, but I'm happy to make a motion if we're ready.
Okay maybe my only final comment is I think this is a good example of I know we have our public arts commission sort of coming and so you know I think this is an example of work that they could be involved in the future So just as kind of a separate observation, that we had just done some interviews not too long ago. And so we're still working on getting that up and running but I think this is an example of the potential that's out there.
All right, we'll go to a motion.
So I move that we A, receive the presentation on the update of the Goleta Valley Library Capital Campaign writing the next chapter and B, approve the proposed donor recognition design concept acknowledging the contributions towards the interior project and authorize staff to proceed with the final fabrication and installation location consistent with the approved concept and applicable city policies.
And C, authorize staff to work with the Mithun Foundation on the naming of the children's portion of the Goleta Valley Library in recognition of these significant financial contribution from the John C. Mithun Foundation and D, approve the revenue and expense budget appropriations and budget appropriation transfers in Fund 101 and Fund 236 of all donated funds received to date from fiscal year 2025-2026 and fiscal year 2026-2027 through the library capital campaign to be used for contracts and services associated to the interior project as described in the fiscal impact section.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0
Show transcript
Okay, motion carries. Wonderful, thank you so much for your hard work. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right that brings us to our next item.
And Mayor Pro Tem and Council I do have an announcement on this item D3. Oh yes.
We have D2 first. My apologies. We're jumping the gun. So we'll start with D2 and then go to D3
Yes, item D2 designation of the City Council delegates for the Cal Cities annual conference.
Let's see. Mr. Shannon? Ms. Kern? Just a moment while we have a switch out of our staff here.
Good evening Council and Mayor Burton. I will be presenting on our item tonight which is the designation of the City Council voting delegate an alternate for the 2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference in General Assembly. So as a reminder this year's conference takes place from September 23rd through the 25th at the Anaheim Convention Center and the General Assembly is scheduled for Friday of the conference which is September 25th, and this is the General Assembly just as a reminder is an annual opportunity for cities across California to participate in the shaping of Cal Cities policies And so each city, each member city receives one vote on the resolutions that are presented every year that come before the assembly. And so delegating our voting representative which has to be done by City Council action is just allows Goleta to participate in the voting.
And so at this time, Council Member Reyes-Martin and Council Member Kuriako are registered to attend the conference. You do have to be registered for the conference to be able to be a voting member. You do not need to be registered for the full conference. You could register for a single day on Friday but that is a requirement to be voting delegate And so because of this, staff recommends appointing Councilmember Reyes-Martin as a voting delegate and Councilmember Kuriakou as the alternate.
As I said, this has to be done by formal City Council action and then once approved we will submit the form that is required through Cal Cities which I believe was included in the attachment of the staff report. And I did want to highlight that as an alternative, the City Council could designate someone else or inverse the recommendation. So it's up to the City Council to decide that and with that, I can pull up one moment and I'll pull up the recommendation on the screen so you can see it.
3:10 – 3:1519 turns
Great, do we have any comments from council? Okay. Do we have any public comment on this item? Oh, I'm sorry. Council Member Kuriako, I am sorry.
I am happy to support the staff recommendation. I'm already serving on the resolutions committee for the conference and along with our city manager co-presenting on something so I'll have my hands full.
Thank you. Now we'll go to public comment.
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. If any attendees on the webinar wish to make public comment please use the raised hand feature and I will call upon you. Mayor Pro Tem, I'm seeing none.
Okay. All right. I will accept a motion.
So moved.
You don't have
to read this one, right? I'm comfortable.
Do I have a second?
A roll call vote.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. You don't have to read this one, right? I'm comfortable. Do I have a second? A roll call
Show transcript
Okay motion carries. Thank you to our council members for representing us. Thank You Ms. Kern. Thank you. Okay and then on the final item we have an update from our City Attorney
Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. Yes, our clerks team has confirmed for item D3 the appointment of the City Council member to the Santa Barbara County Continuum of Care Board of Directors that it's actually a mayoral appointment that's then ratified by the council and so with the mayor's excused absence tonight staff would just ask for consent from the council to bring this back at the regular August 18th meeting.
Okay I think we would approve
Sounds good. Thank you.
Okay.
I'm comfortable without thank you
okay all right next we have council comments and standing committee reports Councilmember Kiriakou
thank you yeah we had a Economic Development Committee meeting on July 14th we received an update on the Pride of Place grants program for Old Town and lots of great progress being made, whether it's murals or improvements, programs for businesses. Lots of great things happening there. And then we also provided some general guidelines and direction for how the funding for the committee should be allocated going forward.
And then I also, let's see, on June 26th Mayor Pro Tem Smith and I attended a meeting with the County of Santa Barbara on the proposed sphere of influence changes. That process is moving forward and I believe our application is either at LAFCO or will be at LAFCO in the near future. And then that will subsequently be heard by LAFCO which will be fun for me because I'm on LAFCO.
And then on July 17th I attended, as I mentioned earlier, the beacon meeting and heard a presentation on sea level rise adaptation plans. Lots of good information to share that I look forward to comparing and contrasting as we start going forward with our plans. That's it for me.
Thank you. I do have a few comments. It's been a busy few weeks since our last meeting first, I wanted to acknowledge our July 4th drones show celebration. And what an incredible gathering. And I do also want to acknowledge, I know Mayor Pro Tem unfortunately was not well enough to attend and I know she really wanted to be there and just wanted to acknowledge that but what an effort from staff or you know our volunteers the community it was just a really incredible event and I know we learn there's always lessons learned every year But it was a really wonderful gathering, and I wanted to thank the community for their support of that event. On June 18th, there was also the Fiesta Ranchera event, always a lot of fun at the Stowe House.
On June 30th, I welcomed a Brownie troop here at City Hall for a visit, a site visit. So if folks out there have scout troops or other children's groups who want to visit, I know the mayor is open to those opportunities and in my role supporting the mayor And let's see, I attended a celebration of the Dalai Lama's 91st birthday. And it was really a wonderful interfaith gathering which in these times is always really wonderful to see that unity and support of that.
And on June 19th, I attended the Cal Cities Channel Islands dinner in Ventura and got to connect with some of our regional colleagues from Ventura County, Northern Santa Barbara County and other folks from across the region. That's all I have anyone else? Okay let's see City Attorney no report okay alright this meeting is adjourned do we need a vote for adjournment no okay all right this meeting is adjourned thank you