City Council — August 18, 2026

Yeah.

Okay, welcome everyone. Welcome to the Goleta City Council meeting of August the 18th, 2026. If you'll all rise and join me in a pledge of allegiance. Ready? Thank you. Okay, if we can roll call City Council?

Hello. This is just to let you know that we have interpretation from English and Spanish, so I'm going to do this announcement first in Spanish and then in English. We have Spanish interpretation for all the discussion in this room. So if you want to hear all these presentation in Spanish, please raise your hand and I will hand you one of the devices that we have available for those of you who want to hear all these in Spanish.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay Mr. Rosen would you report us out from closed session August 12th meeting 2026?

Yes, thank you Mayor. So for the August 12th special meeting agenda the council had adjourned at 6 58 p.m.. That evening with no reportable

action

Correct mayor so for the closed session item read into the record this evening there's also no reportable action,

okay Thank you Okay So what we have at this time is public forum anybody that wishes to speak to anything? That's not on our agenda this evening

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have received five speaker slips and for any attendees on the Zoom webinar who wish to make public comment please use the raised hand feature and I will call upon you our first in-person speaker is Amy Bankoff followed by Amy Sanchez and you'll have three minutes thank you

Good evening Mayor and Council Members. Tonight I am asking you to use every lawful authority available to reconsider the approval of Goodland Guns next to Here We Go Preschool. Here we grow! I have supporting government records and documentation for the facts I'm presenting, and I'm submitting them for the public record. At your last meeting, members of this council acknowledged a problem with the zoning code and took responsibility for the oversight that created this situation. I sincerely appreciate that but fixing tomorrow's ordinance cannot substitute for addressing today's problem.

In 2021, Goodland Guns was burglarized. According to ATF, burglars cut through the wall and stole 11 firearms. The owner more recently said 13 were stolen and only seven were recovered. My point is this we know exactly how thieves defeated this dealer's physical security once There is also additional California DOJ data I am submitting tonight, AB 1191 records identifying that 32 crime guns traced to Goleta Guns between 2021 and 2024 have happened.

I want to be clear that this does not by itself establish wrongdoing by the dealer but together with the documented burglary history it is information I believe warrants serious review by the city California now requires firearms dealers to maintain reasonable controls, including controls designed to prevent firearm theft. So who independent of Goleta Guns has evaluated security at this new location? Have the walls and entry points been evaluated? Are the firearms independently secured? What prevents the type of breach that already occurred? There is an important comparison I'm asking the city attorney to examine. In New Jersey, the Attorney General brought an enforcement action against FSS Armory under that state's firearms industry public safety law after burglars broke into the store and stole firearms.

New Jersey alleged unreasonable security practice. The case resulted in a settlement requiring specific physical security improvements and four years of independent monitoring. I'm not saying that case determines what happens to California law here, but I'm saying another state already confronted the question we should be asking now. After firearms have already been stolen from a dealer, what constitutes reasonable security going forward?

Thank you. Thank you. Our

next in-person speaker is Amy Sanchez followed by Irene Russo.

Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Amy Sanchez and I'm a Goleta neighbor, a parent of an Elwood and Goleta junior high student and a protester of the proposed Goodland Guns location. My concern is about the land use compatibility perceived neighborhood safety and the long-term impact of placing a firearm retailer immediately adjacent to the preschool along a safe passage bike path.

Even if the City believes the current zoning code allows this use, I ask you to consider what it will actually feel like for the families who live here. Our neighborhood kids walk and ride their bikes along the bike path. Parents are going to have to explain to their children why there is a gun store next to their preschool and along the route they use every day.

Whether or not there is a measurable increase in crime or danger, perceived safety matters. Parents need to feel comfortable allowing their children to ride their bikes, walk to school and use our neighborhood spaces. Residents should not have to wonder whether a firearms retailer is going to change the character or feeling of safety in the place where they live.

I'm deeply concerned for the preschool itself. This isn't simply a neighborhood business, this is a facility serving young children. I want to know that the preschool can continue to operate successfully attract families and remain a valued part of the community without having to coexist with the use that many parents may find fundamentally incompatible with the child care environment The county has told residents that although it doesn't have jurisdiction over this property, it shares our concern and believes that this location is deeply flawed and inappropriate. They have specifically encouraged the city to determine whether a conditional use permit additional review or the strongest legally permissible conditions could apply So tonight, I'm asking the city not to simply tell us we can't do anything.

Please tell us what you've actually evaluated and if the city truly has no authority to change this particular outcome then please commit to changing our ordinances so that another preschool in Goleta never finds itself in this position. A 25-year lease option is a very long time. This isn't just about what happens when the store opens it's about what our neighborhood and our children's neighborhood will look like and feel like for the next generation Thank you for your support. You've already shown on this matter and now I ask you to show your leadership. Thank you. Thank you.

Speaking next, Irene Russo followed by Mary Nashimoto.

I support what they are asking. The gun shop is definitely dangerous. Anyway, I'm a 40-year resident of the city of Goleta and I raised my son here... Excuse me can you just move

the mic down just a little bit? Sure.

I want to hear you thank you. I raised my son here since he was a baby. He is now a local teacher for the school district and a coach. Sadly he cannot live in unaffordable Goleta with his family He has to commute from Ventura. I am here to speak of the density housing project with a bonus next to my house, three stories 41 feet high and 59 units 22 which are supposed to be affordable.

Ha ha ha! I know you're wondering why I'm coming before the city, before the Planning Commission. I went to the Planning Commission for the last event which was Elwood Station Storage. I presented a petition of 35 names of residents that were opposed and it got thrown in the trash so I just gave up. So I'm here. My issues are the proximity to a mobile home park that has been here since the 50s. Traffic that has been recorded by the owner Wynn of El Toro stores is perfect and not affected by 373 more daily trips of cars as recorded by the TRW traffic study on Hollister Avenue When I asked for the traffic report, I was given a 2025 study 1.5 years old and it stated that there was no problem with traffic so and there will be no problem with traffic even though there's 373 more cars There is no housing.

Oh, so the city once considered 7190 Hollister Avenue and the owner was eager to build senior housing a much-needed land use plan. Stewart Cassin thought it would be too much traffic How does 7360 differ in traffic patterns and density? There is no housing close to 7190 as opposed to 7360 Hollister, development of 59 townhouses being built over directly on top of our park. There is a traffic light at 7190 Hollister but none at our intersection. It is a desperate attempt for me every day to cross my street without getting hit.

This is a case of environmental injustice. When I asked for the transportation plan that the city is presenting, I received an April 2025 plan. This plan is 18 months old and it doesn't record what's going on now But the traffic in that plan got a C rating, not great but not deadly. So an important question I have is how can the city designate 7360 Hollister for high density residential housing but there's an Altura storage sign in front? How can the city turn Patricia Bragg's property into a storage and then into high-density housing? Thank you

Speaking next, Mary Nashimoto followed by Melissa Fontaine.

Hello Mayor and City Council members. My name is Mary Nishimoto. As a 20-year resident in the Elwood School neighborhood, I'm very heartened by the statements you each made before you went into closed session on August 12th. Thank you for declaring your commitment to do better for this city in response to Goodland Guns receiving approval to move into our neighborhood without prior notification.

I'm going to read a short version of my comment letter that you all received earlier today. Foremost, I continue to stand with many resident neighbors and business owners who want Goodland guns out of 7443 Hollister. Can the council work with us on this? I also look forward to City Council actions to eliminate loopholes and specify new permit conditions in the city code to minimize the risk of attracting Firearm dealers, retailers and manufacturers in our city in the future.

Might the council also enact as soon as possible stringent physical and operating security measures on the premises of any operating firearms selling business to mitigate the risk of theft and potential harm to the public? We need assurance that theft from structural and security breaches such as the one that happened in 2021 when Goodland Guns apparently was not aware it was regularized until days to weeks afterwards, and authorities were unable to recover all stolen weapons as prevented are prevented in the fullest extent possible. In the future other cities have adopted a number of specific zoning and robust theft prevention measures that include but are not limited to requiring a conditional use permit for all firearms businesses Requiring a firearms business to put into place specific structural defenses and use robust 24-7 alarm and video theft prevention systems require our firearms businesses to carry a minimum of $1 million commercial liability insurance to ensure that the business and its insurer adopt the financial risk for city government.

Importantly, a firearms business must carry the costs of these measures and prove they meet stringent baselines specified in the City Code without exemption to obtain or maintain a local business permit. Last but not least the council can follow other California cities, it can confine firearms to specific zones and establish buffer radii to separate firearms businesses from sensitive areas like what we have here adjacent to Goodland guns, a daycare preschool facility, the bike and pedestrian path and a large high-density multifamily zoning district Can neighbors and businesses who agree with my comments please stand or raise your hand on Zoom?

I know all of you appreciate that we will have more conversations with you all, and opportunities for meaningful public engagement. We rely on you all to do your utmost to alleviate our worries and protect us from increased risk of harm From Goodland Guns, moving into our neighborhood and from firearm business operations in Goleta in the future. Thank you. Thank you.

Speaking next, Melissa Fontaine followed by John Fusier.

Good evening mayor and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm deeply grateful for your leadership and for the work you do to make Toledo a wonderful place to live with my family. I'm here to ask you to please find a safer, more appropriate location for Goodland Guns, one that is not directly next to a preschool and a residential neighborhood.

I understand that Goodland Guns has the right to exist as a business, and I think we can all agree that this is not an appropriate location for this business. The store violates the spirit of community commercial zoning and needs to be relocated for the safety of our community. I am respectfully but urgently asking you to do everything within your authority, to relocate Goodland Guns to a safer and more appropriate location immediately.

So far this year 695 children 695 children have died from firearms in the United States. This could happen anywhere, and two mass shootings have already happened to Goleta. Your community is counting on you to do the right thing and keep our communities safe. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Speaking next, John Fusier followed by Kyle Ashby.

Good evening, Council. My name is John Fusier. I moved to Elwood in 2019. My daughter attended preschool at that exact location under the previous owner. I know that site is a place for young children not a gun store. I'm also a local business owner my wife and I operate four locations across Santa Barbara County. I've signed many commercial leases myself and I've dealt with the city before.

To me this is not a guns issue it's a location issue And it's a compatible use question that anyone, gun owner or not would answer the same way. This site sits feet from a preschool play yard on a class one bike path at a children's bus stop. A gun store in the strip mall across the street would raise no objection for me here next to a preschool. It's just not okay.

What upsets me most is that the city didn't see this as a problem in the first place It is so obviously the wrong location. This owner actually leased a site in an industrial zone for this business and the city blocked him from opening there, essentially pushing him next door to a preschool instead. That's a city-made problem. We've since learned that members of this council were just as blindsided by this as we were.

And yet in the time since our neighborhood met at Santa Barbara Shores Park, the city spent its energy producing a Q&A trying to justify how this tremendous oversight occurred and almost none of that time telling residents what it actually plans to do about it. Explaining the process is not the same as fixing the problem. Fixing the code is necessary but it only protects the future.

This business needs to be out of that location pressure the landlord, facilitate a lease break, cover the relocation costs if that's what it takes. We don't care how you get it done just that you get it done thank you.

Thank you.

Speaking next Kyle Ashby followed by Mark Preston.

Hi my name is Kyle Ashby I'm a longtime resident of Galena as well as a Galena business owner and I like John understand business and zoning regulations in the city of Goleta. I'd like to take a minute to read a bit from the City of Goleta's general plan and coastal land use plan. Community commercial, which is the exact zoning of this location designates relatively small commercial centers meant to supply everyday convenience goods and services to nearby residential neighborhoods The core purpose is to satisfy daily routine needs like retail and local services.

Traffic control discourages large-scale operations or heavy commercial draws that pull large traffic volumes from outside the area. Allowed uses, permits, general retail shops, offices and local serving commercial activities. So as a business owner who is looking for the size of my market I did some simple math There's 26,500 residents of Goleta over 18. Those individuals could buy guns if they'd like.

So let's divide up the two miles around 7443 Hollister. That's about 6,650 18-year old citizens of Goleta, a fourth of Goleta's population. There's some facts online that say in California, 8.1% of California residents are gun owners. So what does that mean in Goleta? 540 possible gun owners in the Elwood neighborhood. Google and these same sites where I pulled the last fact state that one-third of gun owners buy one gun and one set of a round of ammunition. The other two-thirds buy repeated sets of ammunition.

So what does that mean for Gilliland Guns? That's about 350 Elwood residents that might buy a gun. ammunition and be their customers. What does that mean? That's five percent of the Elwood community, five percents might be their customers you failed 95% of the Elwood community and 95% of all of Goleta will never ever set foot on this property. You can ask anyone here We all used the 7-Eleven, as crappy as it was. We all used the 7-Eleven.

That is an error of huge regard that violates zoning rules in your general plan. This site has to be moved and has to be moved immediately. Thank

you.

Our last in person speaker's Mark Preston and then we'll move toward two speakers on Zoom.

Good evening. I'm here to say thank you for an issue not related to guns. My wife and I worked with a bunch of people on the section of Cambridge right by Marbury, below Berkeley. It was in terrible condition. We did our best. We spoke to the gentleman who's now in charge of your traffic, et cetera. You got the job done. It looks much better. You patched it up. It was an excellent compromise. It's probably good for another two or three years now. Let's just make sure it gets on the cycle in the future, but thank you.

Somebody should occasionally come up and say thank you when you do good things. So once again, thank you.

Thank you.

Speaking next Scott Cooper and Scott please remember to unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes. Thank you

Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay, I thank the Mayor and City Council for this opportunity to speak. My name is Scott Cooper and I'm a longtime resident of the Elwood area. In my comments today I'd like to emphasize the process used to relocate good land guns to 7443 Hollister. I would like to preface my comments by noting that this issue is not about Second Amendment rights but rather about the court-established authority of local jurisdictions to regulate the sale of firearms and ammunition, including where, how and when guns can be sold.

I think that there are many questions about the logic and process used by the city to approve this relocation. As an educator, I think we can always learn from our mistakes The city's decision chain proceeds from classifying guns as sporting goods to qualifying sporting goods as general retail items, to the sale of general retail items in areas some commercial.

Nowhere in the city's municipal code are firearms explicitly classified in writing as sporting goods or as general retail items. However other parts of the city's code Such as those dealing with the safe gun storage ordinance and especially firearms business license, as well as numerous state statutes do recognize firearms as a separate distinctive category requiring additional restrictions. Further, a firearm store would violate both the spirit and the letter of the zoning code 4743443 Hollister that is community commercial which is designed to serve And be compatible with its surrounding neighborhood.

Given these problems, I urge the city to re-examine the decision to relocate Leda Guns to 7443 Hollister and to develop and approve an ordinance that defines firearms as a separate distinctive category and that provides further restrictions on the location and hours of operation for firearms so as to protect children in the general public. In its most recent newsletter, California Attorney General Bonta noted that firearms are the leading cause of mortality for children.

So given the groundswell of neighborhood opposition and their obvious concern, I think this is a real test of the City Council's responsiveness to address community concerns. Thank you.

Speaking next, Darcy Bradley followed by Carol Gemberling-Stewart and you'll have three minutes. Thank you.

Good evening Mayor and City Council members my name is Darcy Bradley and I live in the Ellwood neighborhood. The permitting of Goodland guns at 7443 Hollister Avenue was a serious failure of judgment and process Many of you, Mayor and City Council members have acknowledged that publicly. But now I am asking you to state clearly what concrete actions you are taking to pursue every legal avenue to reverse this decision.

Our community deserves transparency, not sympathy and vague assurances. This permitting choice violated both common sense and the intent of our planning statutes and zoning ordinances. It threatens the viability of the child care business located immediately next door. It places a high volume of firearms and ammunition directly along our state-funded Safe Route to School, the only safe passage connecting most Elwood families to Elwood Elementary and middle and high school bus stops.

And this permitting decision disregards the basic reality that a firearm retailer does not primarily serve the nearby residents or provide an everyday service as a community commercial designation requires. This decision endangers children, undermines local businesses and erodes trust in the city's planning process. It must be reversed. I expect to hear how you will make this a priority and what specific steps you are taking to correct this mistake and safeguard the integrity of our community's planning process. Thank you.

Thank you. Our

next speaker is Carol Stewart and you'll have three minutes

Yes, thank you so much Mayor and City Council for this important topic about Goodland guns. We've heard a great deal about the zoning we've heard about the gun store break-ins but have we heard from our community's children? They don't get to vote, but I'm gonna try to advocate for them. First of all, having a gun store next to a preschool, having children walk by a school, walk by a gun store on their way to and from Elwood School is unconscionable that they have to have that visible on their way to and from school let alone the fears that they might experience just watching the news in all of the school shootings.

If you look for as a nurse practitioner And as a young nurse having taken care of many children with gun, who have been shot accidentally sometimes by siblings. Sometimes just by themselves not understanding how guns work and the fact that it is the leading cause of death, homicide, suicide and accidental deaths. And the fact that there are 4.6 million unsecured guns in our nation's homes Our statistics we should be listening to. Now obviously, we can't get rid of guns the world is filled with guns unfortunately but we can look at the proximity, the availability and the visibility of schools and advocate for our children.

We have to think about what they are thinking imagine Your grandchild or your child and how they feel knowing that when they go to school, that they're vulnerable and then to have to walk by gun shops. We need to be smarter in the way that we advocate for our children, the way we place guns in their proximity and how we secure them. And we need to be aware that we are the ones that advocate for the children who cannot vote and cannot attend these meetings. So please thank you for reconsidering your actions with regards to this gun shop.

And our last speaker is Chris Zwicky. Excuse me, I have three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I didn't prepare remarks and wasn't planning to speak but was inspired by some of the others today. I agree with a lot of the other speakers in terms of their opposition to Goodland Guns location specifically but today I just wanted to share one story as a parent And in particular related to what the last speaker just said, to give voice to what children say. My oldest daughter came to my room last night crying because she was upset about her younger sister going to Elwood Elementary and now she's not going to be going there anymore and talking about what she's gonna say to her every day in case she doesn't come home. This was not a conversation that we had before. This is a conversation because of Goodland Guns.

That we can argue about whether anyone is actually at greater risk or not, but there's real psychological harm to children who believe that there is. And so I ask you to think about all the other kids that may be going to their parents crying scared worried about this regardless of what Statistics and everything else says. And that is, there's a direct harm to many people in the community, adults and kids regardless of the number of people served by the business.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mayor that concludes our list of public speakers

Okay, I'm going to close the public comment at this point. And just for those that may not know, this is not on the agenda so we're not able to speak to it this evening but we are gonna be having a meeting where folks can come and we will answer questions as best we can. Do you know the date on that or we just aren't quite certain? It'll be next month.

Sure Madam Mayor, no we are certain. So the next regular council meeting is in two weeks, it's September 1st And it is our intention to have an item on the agenda for the council's consideration. It will be a discussion item, like other items that are typically on our agenda and we don't have the exact title but the topic will be an item to review the zoning for firearms in the City of Goleta And staff will present an overview of what exists now, possible options for the council to consider putting more restrictions, changing the zone, et cetera.

We're certainly looking at what other cities are doing. Several of the speakers mentioned examples of other cities and restrictions that they have so all that's being worked on and the intention is to have a report before the council for September

1st. Thank you everyone. Next item. Yes, that takes us

to amendments and adjustments.

Amendments or adjustments?

Nothing additional Mayor but I have two short announcements. So just mentioning the damn dinner that occurred earlier this week. I wasn't able to attend unfortunately but I did see a video that was produced looked like a lot of fun. Beautiful day great turnout we estimated 400 people And thanks to the Goleta Valley Historic Society and everyone else who helped out to make it a successful event.

And then coming up next is a summertime edition of Coffee in Community. This will be in District 4, Councilmember Kasdan's district. It'll be held at Ringside Cafe located at Ice in Paradise and so we're saying hey beat the heat and join us for iced coffee On Saturday, August 29th from 9 to 11 with Councilmember Kasdan. Mayor Pierotti will also be there. Our Chief of Police Services Jarrett Morris will be there as well so bring your family to Ice and Paradise for coffee and community on August 29th.

Thank you okay moving on to consent calendar

Thank you, Mayor. That is item A-1, mayoral appointment of city council member to the Santa Barbara County Continuum of Care Board of Directors. Item A-2, acceptance of the June 2026 check register. Item A-3, authorization to advertise bids for the Elwood Mesa Trail Erosion Repair Project. Item a-4, Public Works Professional Design Services amendments with Kimley Horn and Associates Inc., Unico Engineering Inc., and Grant Budget Appropriation for the Office of Traffic and Safety Grant A five, development impact fee program update.

A six, authorization to advertise for construction bids for the pickleball entry slash waiting area at the Goleta Community Center project. A seven, approval of a professional services agreement with Corporation for Supportive Housing to update the homelessness strategic plan. Item A8, approval of general services agreement with Ingram Library Services LLC for library material services. And item A9, award of professional design services agreement for the Stowe House Southeast Porch and Window Renovation Design CIP project number 9135. Thank

you. Council wish to pull any items from consent?

Yes, A7.

Council Member Kasdan, which

one?

A7 A7, okay. Any other? Okay. Okay, could you read that into and we'll discuss that now? Yes.

Thank you Mayor. That is item A7 approval of a professional services agreement with Corporation for Supportive Housing to update the homelessness strategic plan.

Okay thank you. Council Member Gadsden.

Yeah so I think a couple of points I wanted to make. So the first one is just to understand, to appreciate the purpose of a strategic plan and to think of it in a sense as that it helps you define the destination where you're going not necessarily the map around it. Right now, in the last strategic plan we defined four goals. That was increasing access to critical services for the homeless so providing them services, reducing the impacts of homelessness on the community, prevent at-risk individuals from becoming homeless prevention and increasing the supply of different forms of housing Those are good goals and I can't imagine, I don't know what goals we would replace, we would drop or otherwise that we found deficient so far.

So even if the area around, if the environment has changed it doesn't mean we're getting rid of those goals and so while it's important and valuable to understand the environment and understand the situation that we face are in as times change, it doesn't mean the proper response is to redo the strategic plan unless we're dissatisfied in a sense with those strategic goals.

You know, in a sense you could think of it as unwrapping a present. The present is not changing. The wrapping is changing and if we have a new strategic plan where they just adjust the discussion that accompanies the goals, we're not really getting any further. So that's the first I want just to point that out. The second is one of the goals was performance measures and what's really important is to recognize that you don't...the design of the performance measures is almost irrelevant unless you have good data that you can rely on What we have, point in time is a single snapshot. So it's completely irrelevant for the purposes of performance measures. It comes once a year so we can't rely on it. The HMIS data is the data of people who are already in the system.

That's helpful, but it doesn't tell us about all the people who are not in the system and a lot of what's going on now, a lot of the reason, the justification for saying we need to redo this strategic plan is because there's this huge cohort of vehicular homeless who are not in the system. So you can't really, it's inappropriate to draw conclusions from the knowledge we have of those who are in the system, to draw conclusions about the people who are not in the system. We don't know their motivation. The people who are not in the system have—we don't know anything about them. So before you go ahead and think about what sort of performance measures or how we're going to do this or all these, you'll have to figure out how you're going to capture accurate information about those people and moreover, have some sort of plan to be able to repeat it in the future to see if you're making progress.

A third point with this is also on performance measures there was this acronym of SMART, you know what was it that are specific and measurable There is no alternative. There's no one who's promoting vague and poorly measured and irrelevant performance measures. What really comes up often, and this is the reason I'm mentioning it's not just to mock the term smart goals although that's fun but that often when people are talking about performance measures what they distinguish are things like outputs and outcomes.

Output measures are things like how many miles of stream we restore or if it's social security, the number of phones that are answered when people call up. Or it might be the number of jobs that people are placed in. That differs from outcomes so that's very measurable. So it's good. It has some valuable information, but that's different than outcome measures which is the ultimate thing we care about and part of the problem is that outcome measures are really challenging to come up with good output measures. They may not in other words be smart performance measures because you have to try and figure out what is the consequence of our intervention in terms of the outcome?

An example of the problems with that is if we had performance measures that were talking The, we'll go to job training again. How many people? Let's say here is a hypothetical program to put people in jobs and if we said how effective is this program and we were measuring numbers of people placed you might be encouraging them exclusively to focus on those who are all they need is help with their resume and not waste a ton of time on those who need a lot of work Or if you're saying, you know, you can imagine if you say for the police how many tickets do you issue? Well that might not achieve the goal that you have in mind. If the goal is justice, you know helping the community giving a quota on how many tickets can produce the opposite goal.

So it's important to recognize those so-called smart goals might not be the type of goal you really want. That SMART is like a trade name I think or something, but when you're looking at outcome measures they're messy and you have to do things to compensate. Last point I wanted to make with this and honestly I don't know what people will make of this is in this the last thing is an allocating resources and figuring out with uh... uh... resources and so forth it's important to recognize this the homeless plan is for the city of goleta is not for neighborhood services and the problem is that neighborhood services entirely essentially focuses on the services that or focuses on outreach and those elements.

For the most part, not 100%, we do have the contracts with those different entities for a few spaces interim housing but for the most part housing is done elsewhere. Housing is done in the planning department or the county so a major portion of what the to achieve the strategic plan is not under the purview of neighborhood services. What does that mean? It means that in order to satisfy, achieve the goals that we have for homelessness There needs to be better coordination, especially with our own planning department. That means meeting regularly. It means they have to incorporate some of the goals associated with homelessness in their work plan. That means that when we discuss allocating resources that there's got to be some consideration In I guess I would say, I assume you're still hell-bent on doing this but I would say one thing is before you go too far down the road if you don't want to get just garbage from people, you need to have the data for them to work on and think of additional sort of questions.

Unless you are dissatisfied with the goals that we have, think of other things that they would be accomplishing Those are my points. Thank

you.

Councilmember Kariakou?

Thank you. I mean, so we're agendized to either approve some money towards a professional services agreement or not and I appreciate the context and the philosophy of the prior speaker. On page 2 of the report, I think there's an important discussion point that maybe got lost in what we just heard The City of Goleta has seen a 50% decrease in overall homelessness over the past two years according to the 2025 point-in-time count.

Now, you could have been forgiven from believing from the last comment that that was actually a bad thing or that it doesn't matter. It may not be a perfect measure But it's the measure we got. It's the federal standard, they measure it everywhere. If your point in time count goes up that's bad if it goes down that's good. There are other things that we can look at in terms of homelessness from the standpoint of better defining success and I agree that it's not a perfect metric but I would caution anyone from saying it's a metric that should just be tossed aside, discounted, not considered, doesn't matter, et cetera.

It's what the federal government measures. It's what the federal government expects and a lot of things come or don't come to the city based on that kind of performance so I just don't want that to get lost here. Absolutely there is other data that matters Absolutely the number of vehicular homeless has gone up. I think that's an argument for shifting gears so to speak with our strategic plan because that requires a whole different set of strategies and it's great that we have a national model of a community partner in New Beginnings, and New Beginnings has been the recipient of significant millions of dollars in significant federal support in order to make an impact on folks living in their vehicles through things like their safe parking program.

But let's not, I would just say let's not throw out the lesson and throw out what I think is hard to argue isn't a success Because we think there are other better measures also. I think that housing production is an important aspect of preventing homelessness, if you have more homes you have more opportunity to put people in them. So I'll just kind of put that out there too.

Maybe we should be measuring our housing production if we want to start really parsing this but I think For me, what I'm taking from this report, this four-page report is that the good thing is homelessness is going down. There have been other years it's gone up. We thought we were doing really good things. We've done Buena Tierra and we didn't immediately see the kind of change in our numbers that we would have liked. And it doesn't mean that Buena Tierra at that time wasn't already succeeding. I would argue it is succeeding and has been But sometimes measures take time to catch up.

And the thing about a movie, there was kind of a comment made about a snapshot in time. Well when you look at 20 years of point-in-time counts or five years of point-in time counts that's five different pictures and when you string those pictures together it starts to become a movie. It starts to become a story that you can see. So I would just urge people to look at all the point-and-time counts and see where we are now And just acknowledge that at least on this one measure, which is an important measure if the federal government across multiple jurisdictions of very different political philosophies have agreed on is the measure.

I think it's okay to acknowledge that that is going well and that we have much further ways to go on preventing vehicular homelessness and helping people who are vehicularly homeless to get themselves into a better situation. That's all I'll say about that.

I'm going to jump in because if I'm not mistaken, several months ago we agreed to do another update on the strategic plan. Can someone from staff tell me typically how often strategic plans are updated or will this one, this particular strategic plan, I know we've discussed it and it's in the report carry any more things that we've learned that were not addressed in the past strategic plan?

I think I can answer that. This item and most items are typically a five year window. Sometimes you can go eight to 10 sometimes you go two to three, generally rule of thumb is about five and that part of that is the reevaluation situation and how it's progressed, regressed or otherwise. But typically it's about five years.