BodyCity Council
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 September 1, 2026

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.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:05 – 0:1822 turns

Roll call, called by City Clerk · 1 under review
Show transcript
Welcome everyone and to our Goleta City Council meeting of September the 1st, 2026. If you'll all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Ready begin. Thank you. We can have roll call. City Council? Council Member Reyes-Martin? Here. Council Member Curiaco? Here. Council Member Kasdan? Mayor Pro Tempore Smith? Here. And Mayor Parodi? Here,
not transcribed≈22s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈20s recited, not transcribed
ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response4:42

okay at this time I'd like the folks that are doing the translation to come up and introduce yourself.

PresenterHugo Santosmy colleague Regina And we're providing interpretation from English and SpanishProposedself-stated4:51

So good afternoon my name is Hugo Santos and I'm here with my colleague Regina And we're providing interpretation from English and Spanish. So if any one of you want to hear all these events in Spanish, we have some devices for you. to do so, so the only thing that you need to do is raise your hand and then we'll hand you one of these devices.

PresenterHugo Santosmy colleague Regina And we're providing interpretation from English and SpanishProposedself-stated5:33

Thank

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response5:33

you. Okay, at this time we'll have public forum on anything that's anyone that wishes to speak to anything that's not on our agenda this evening.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role5:45

Yes thank you Madam Mayor I do have two slips for public form for those of you in the Zoom webinar please use raised hand icon if you would like to speak to a non-agenda item. Our first speaker will be Carrie Maxwell all speakers will have three minutes.

CommentCarrie MaxwellProposedself-stated5:58

Thank you Good evening. My name is Carrie Maxwell and I live adjacent to Covington Way. I'm here to urge this council to uphold the Goleta Planning Commission's vote to deny the conditional use permit for Anthem Chapel. When most people think of a neighborhood church, they picture a modest, quiet building that blends into the local fabric. They think of a place that primarily serves the immediate community, hosts weekly service and respects the rhythm of a residential area.

What is being proposed here is completely different. This is not a traditional neighborhood church This is a massive, high-intensity regional event center. Anthem Chapel is proposing a 20,000 plus square foot multi-story complex with a 500 seat sanctuary and a two story education facility. On top of standard services their own application outlines an intense commercial grade operational schedule 26 weddings and 30 memorials annually alongside midweek programming in daily school operations on top of three services each Sunday This means heavy regional traffic flooding our quiet residential streets seven days a week. This extreme intensity of use directly violates the Gleta General Plan and the city's zoning code. First, it violates general plan policy LU1.6 which mandates that new developments must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

A traditional low-impact chapel fits that definition. A massive event venue drawing hundreds of vehicles from outside the area into a single family residential zone does not. Second, because this project acts as a regional draw rather than a local neighborhood church, its traffic demands are severe. The proposed 107 parking spaces are grossly inadequate for a 500 seat capacity violating general plan policy TE4.1 which requires safe traffic circulation and adequate infrastructure.

We have already experienced the reality of this heavy usage during past outdoor events where spillover parking blocked our driveways, local hydrants and emergency access routes. Finally, a traditional church respects the boundaries of its environment. This project forces a massive building footprint right against a nature preserve and critical monarch butterfly habitat. To make this heavy usage work, the applicant is explicitly asked to violate general plan policy CE1 by slashing the city's standard 100-foot ESHA buffer in half.

Under Goleta Municipal Code, a conditional use permit is a discretionary privilege not The code explicitly states a CUP cannot be granted if the project is detrimental to the public safety, health or general welfare of the neighborhood. Traditional churches enhance the neighborhood. This high intensity regional venue breaks our city codes and disrupts our community safety. Please protect our neighborhood, uphold the law and deny this appeal. Thank you.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role8:44

Our next speaker is Sylvia King. And last call for Zoom speakers. If you wish to speak to public forum please use raised hand icon.

CommentSylvia KingProposedself-stated8:54

Members of the Council, my name is Sylvia King. I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Anthem Chapel's permit. Understanding this development's impact requires real evidence—congregation size and growth potential and current use along the corridor mapped against this high-intensity facility's proposed schedule. The traffic safety analysis is supposed to show us what this project does to our streets before it's built.

Instead, because a church and a school don't fit the city's narrow study categories most of what's being proposed was never measured. Of the 20,066 square foot building only 6,512 square feet less than a third was measured against Monday through Friday staff commutes The preschool and daycare weren't measured against traffic either, just drop off and pick up counts then exempted entirely.

Assessing the applicant's peak usage evenings weekends and Sundays was not even considered. The parking count only considers adults in the 500 seat sanctuary a consolidation that skews the numbers before the analysis even starts. The adjacent 13,554 square foot education building where children attend Sunday school was left out entirely. 500 adults into 117 spaces is more than four people per car not counting a single child.

Every vehicle in that lot would need to be a full minivan just to fit. The overflow will spill into our neighborhood three times every Sunday. None of this evaluates the facility's true scale, a congregation with potential to grow to the thousands. Using Santa Barbara Unified School District records since 2023, the applicant has rented Goleta Valley Junior High's auditorium and library and cafeteria and a classroom capacity of 1,073.

At Christmas they moved to Dos Pueblos' Performing Arts Center and the gymnasium capacity 1,948. Los Caneros is an evacuation route through a very high fire hazard severity zone. The City's own 2022 Traffic Safety Study flags Cathedral Oaks and Los Caneros with priority safety concerns, yet this development's safety studies used weekday employee traffic only so three Sunday surges were never even evaluated.

These flawed reports are what let this project claim a categorical exemption from CEQA, skipping environmental review altogether. I'm asking you to weigh this project against the general plan and its impacts on the Los Canares Corridor and vote no for its size and scale in a neighborhood that already has two houses of worship and a public venue bordering a nature preserve.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response11:52

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role11:54

That is all the speakers for Public Forum Mayor.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response11:56

Okay, then we will close public comment and go to amendments or adjustments to our agenda. Madam

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed12:04

Mayor no changes but I can move into CM updates if you like and Janet if you'd queue it up I'm gonna start with something a little different a visual

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response12:16

oh we like visuals

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed12:18

I do Maybe it'll become a regular on my CM updates. All right, here it is. The coolest thing I saw this weekend. All right, here it is. Show it Shannon. Does everyone know what this is? So I was yes, yes. So I was riding my bike along from UCSB on the Oburn Trail which I do once or twice a week and I couldn't believe it but staring in front of me was the transitional section of our San Jose Creek multi-purpose trail that will connect the Obern Trail then go under Highway 217 and is a important component of the entire trail that's being built right now so This project is going at light speed. You might have noticed a lot of improvements are going on.

They've already completed at least the structural element of a bridge component off Kellogg that will go over the creek. They're working on the section that parallels Highway 217 and taking advantage of the fact that Caltrans had traffic control out there for two years, why they replaced a bridge so it was really It's fortuitous that they were able to do that. Of course, they're also working on the Cairo Real side which seems to be a trickier part of the whole project but yeah this popped up really fast so the picture on the left is the new bike path over the new bridge that they built on the Obern Trail and then you can see ahead there's going to be this hairpin turn that will bring people off the Obern Trail onto the San Jose Creek Trail and if you look at the picture on the right You come down that turn and you go through a tunnel that's already done, that goes under Highway 217.

And to remind the Council and the community, that was also very fortuitous. The project was almost killed as you might remember four years ago because Caltrans needed to replace that bridge and they said we can't wait for you City of Goleta and if we didn't get this tunnel under at the same time the bridge was built this project would not have happened And so we were able to have Caltrans add that tunnel as a change order to their bridge project, and you're looking at the tunnel right there that will take people to the other side of Highway 217 and then the bridge project. So that is the coolest thing I saw this weekend. I'll go out next weekend and see if I see something that can top that, and I'll have a new picture next week.

The ice rink? That was number two, Councilmember Caston. I will also mention some good news that we just received today. So there's a very important grant called the Reconnecting Community Program Grant that the City received about two years ago. We received notification that we were going to receive the grant $11.1 million dollars I believe for this San Jose Creek Trail and it's been a little bit of a struggle wrestle the money from the federal government after they said we received the grant but we just received note today from Caltrans that we do have a signed contract now for that money. We don't have cash in hand, but that's the most positive news we've heard yet.

So yeah it feels like $11.1 million is finally pretty certain that is coming the city's way to help complete And then I just have a couple announcements, Madam Mayor and Councilmembers. Coastal Cleanup Day and Creek Week are coming up very soon. There's many ways that the public can participate. The celebration this year runs from Saturday September 19th through Saturday September 26th coming up very soon.

You can sign up for Coastal Cleanup Day on the 19th by going to exploreecology.org The City is also doing a bulky item drop-off event for large, bulky waste items. There will be a San Jose Creek walking tour so maybe there's a chance to see the cool thing I saw over the weekend and there's going to be a Creek Week art contest. So full list of events for this entire week and details will be on our website soon.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response16:54

Great! Good news. Thank you. Okay moving on to consent calendar

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role17:02

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. That is item A1, approval of the City Council meeting minutes of July 21, 2026, the special city council meeting minutes of August 12th, 2026 and the city council meeting minutes of August 18th, 2026. Item A2 acceptance of the July 2026 check register. Item A3 acceptance of the July 2026 investment transaction report. Item A4, Approval of Plans Specifications Award of Construction Contract Budget Appropriation and Adoption of Categorical Exemption for the City Hall HVAC Replacement Project and Status of the Public Facilities and Building Maintenance Reserve. And Item A5, Temporary On-Street Parking Restrictions for the 2026 Isla Vista Halloween Events.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response17:45

Thank you.

Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response17:46

Council wish to pull any item from consent? I'm not seeing anyone, okay. Do we have any speakers for consent?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role17:57

Yes thank you Madam Mayor. I have no speaker slips but those of you on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak to the consent item or any consent item please use your raised hand icon and I will call on you. I'm seeing none mayor.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response18:10

Okay would like to make a motion to approve

consent calendar?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed18:15

I'll move to approve the consent calendar.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response18:18

Looking for second. We'll call vote.

Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 move to approve the consent calendar. Looking for second. We'll call vote. Council members, please lock in your votes.
Show transcript
Council members, please lock in your votes. Council member Reyes-Martin? Aye. Council member Curiaco? Aye. Council member Kasdan? Aye Mayor Pro Tempore Smith? Yes And mayor Parodi? Aye

Unanimous. Okay so we're looking to

move on to item B presentation.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role18:42

Yes thank you Madam Mayor that's item B1 proclamation of the City Council of the city of Goleta California declaring September 2026 as national preparedness month

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response18:51

And Mayor Pro Tem Smith will do the presentation.

0:19 – 0:2411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed19:11

All right, it's so wonderful to see our team here. I'll go ahead and read our proclamation. We'll probably do some photos and then we'll have any remarks. So I'm here today to proclaim this proclamation of the City Council of the city of Goleta declaring September 2026 as National Preparedness Month. Whereas National Preparedness Month highlights the opportunity for the whole community of the City of Goleta to prepare their homes, businesses and our community for any type of emergency including natural and human-caused disasters.

Whereas knowledge and preparation empower individuals to face unexpected challenges with confidence because disasters can strike without warning And whereas individual preparedness begins at home, including registering for ready SBC alerts which builds resilience reduces fear and strengthens community bonds that subsequently generates community resilience. And whereas the City of Goleta Emergency Services Division delivers numerous community education events including twice yearly Community Emergency Response Team, also known as CERT training.

Providing community members with the skills to become prepared at home and once confidence in their own household's readiness to support their neighbors during emergencies And whereas to meet the challenges of today and prepare for the obstacles of tomorrow, every household school business should review emergency plans, practice safety drills and support one another in readiness efforts.

So therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the city of Goleta does hereby proclaim September 2026 as National Preparedness Month in the city of Goleta. Approved the first day of September 2026 and signed by Mayor Paula Perotti. We'll do some photos first and then comments? Or comments first? We'll do comments first. We'll improvise.

CommentJace LevyProposedself-stated21:29

Madam Mayor and members of the Council, I'm Jace Levy. I'm the Emergency Services Manager here at the City of Goleta. Thank you for recognizing National Preparedness Month as we see time and time again disasters can strike communities without warning. In addition to preparing our public infrastructure, each of us can take individual action to be prepared as well.

Our public education programs including our community emergency response team trainings provide individuals the foundational elements to do precisely that, to prepare at home but what it also does is foster a community to help our neighbors and become advocates for emergency preparedness Ultimately, this built an interconnected web of resilience so that when a disaster occurs we are better prepared both individually in our households and as a community to meet the challenges ahead.

I want to thank some of the individuals behind me, some of our instructors from our CERT program. Mr. Bob Strojek, Mr. Anthony Rodriguez, Ms. Suzette Chaffee, Ms Janet Hagen, our neighboring cities' offices of emergency services from Carpinteria and Santa Barbara as well as UCSB and the wider county CERT collaborative for their support. Thank you again for this proclamation and we encourage residents to register for ReadySBC so we can alert you in case of an emergency.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed23:07

I think we give me a mic and there's no way I'm going to not say something. I would like to also recognize every single person who comes to assert class because they are reaching out to protect their families and their communities. And it's an extraordinary step that they take. I recognize all of our students.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response23:27

Thank you. Okay, next presentation please.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role24:23

I could ask for speakers on this item Mayor.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response24:26

Excuse me? I

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role24:27

could ask for public

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response24:27

speakers. Oh absolutely! I'm so sorry are there any public speakers?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role24:30

Thank you Madam Mayor. I have no speaker slips those of you on the zoom webinar who's to speak to this item please use raised hand icon and i will call on you. I am seeing none Madam Mayor.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response24:41

Thank you thank you so much for all that you do with the CERT program and keeping our community safe thank you

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role24:50

And that will take us to item B2, a proclamation of the City Council of the city of Goleta California recognizing September 2026 as Lemon Month.

0:25 – 0:3110 turns

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response25:19

I'm going to read the proclamation. Are we ready? Okay, a proclamation of the City Council of the city of Goleta, California recognizing September 2026 as Lemon Month. Whereas Santa Barbara's South Coast Chamber of Commerce from Goleta to Carpinteria will be holding the 33rd Goleta Lemon Festival on September 26th and 27th, 2026. at the Gersh Park in Goleta. And whereas, in an effort to celebrate the Goleta Lemon Festival, the community will honor Goleta's heritage the week leading up to that event. And whereas local shops and restaurants are encouraged to feature lemon-inspired menu items. I already see them out there, and lemony specials. And whereas community members are asked to wear their vintage Lemon Festival shirts, I have pulled mine out already, and merchandise or wear yellow to school and work.

Whereas the Lemon Festival will showcase more than 20 types of lemon food and merchandise, while benefiting dozens of local non-profits. Now therefore be it resolved that on this day, the first day of September, the City Council of the city of Goleta California does hereby proclaim September 1st through the 20 to the 30th, 2026 as Lemon Festival Month in the city of Goleta and approved on this first day of September signed by myself Mayor Paula Perotti. So yay!

Everybody come out to the lemon festival it's really a lot of fun especially the pie eating contest I think no but I was just thinking you should be doing it so would you like to say a few words? And then we'll do pictures

CommentTony VallejoProposedself-stated27:23

Then we'll do pictures, okay. I'm looking at Kelly because she's in charge and she's all right. All right thank you. Madam Mayor members of the council my name is Tony Vallejo this is like my seventh year doing this now or something. I am a CPA and proud chair of the Goleta Lemon Festival and I'm honored to be here once again on behalf of the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce to celebrate this beloved Goleta tradition.

The Goleta Lemon Festival continues to be one of the largest festivals on the south coast An event that captures the true zest of our community. There's not too many of them this time, don't worry. Courtney wouldn't let me get cleared away this time. True zest of our community year after year families friends and neighbors gather to celebrate Goleta's history culture and vibrant character and this year will be no exception. We're excited to welcome back favorite traditions like the pie eating contest that I'm told the mayor will be participating in Safety Street, lemon-inspired treats along with expanded activities for all ages, live music and performances from two stages. And of course the GledaFall Classic Car Show.

The Goleta Lemon Festival is the chamber's largest annual event and a ripe opportunity, just a couple for more than 40 local non-profit organizations who take part in making this festival possible. We are deeply grateful for the City of Goleta's continued partnership and we thank the city staff and police for their support in keeping the festival safe family friendly and welcoming for all And of course, none of this would be possible without our volunteers. The heart and soul of the Goleta Lemon Festival from the dedicated committee members some of only a couple are here we got a lot more than that on the committee not to mention the hundreds of students and adult volunteers they're the reason this event comes together each year so when you're there be nice to them their volunteers okay?

You always are We can't wait to see you at Gersh Park for another unforgettable Goleta Lemon Festival September 26th and 27th. Get ready for a weekend filled with fun, family and community pride. We'll see you all there!

CommentSylvia KingProposedself-stated30:19

Okay,

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response30:37

next presentation please.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role30:38

I could ask for public speakers on this one

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response30:40

as well? Public speakers. What's wrong with me tonight?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role30:43

Thank you, Mayor. I have no speaker slips. Those of you on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak to this item please use your raised hand icon and I will call on you. And I'm seeing none.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response30:53

Okay thank you. Then we'll move on.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role30:56

That'll take him to it is B3 a proclamation of the City Council of the city of Goleta California declaring September 2026 as library card sign up month.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response31:04

Luz Reyes-Martin council member please present this.

0:31 – 0:3916 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed31:16

All right, so happy to get to do this one. Thanks for being here. So I'm presenting a proclamation of the City Council of the city of Goleta California declaring September 2026 as library card sign up month. Whereas libraries are foundational to education, imagination and opportunity. Offering everything from early literacy programs to digital tools that support lifelong learning and personal growth.

And whereas libraries welcome all people serving as inclusive and accessible community hubs that connect individuals across cultures, generations and experiences. And whereas libraries curate collections and design programs that reflect the diversity of the populations they serve, ensuring equitable access to information technology and culture for all. And whereas libraries help individuals navigate life's challenges by providing trusted information digital access job search support and connections to essential services And whereas libraries contribute to thriving local economies by equipping job seekers, entrepreneurs, students and creators with tools and training to succeed.

And whereas in times of both crisis and calm, libraries and their staff remain steadfast in supporting and strengthening their communities. And whereas library resources help households save money, reduce waste and make sustainable choices all through the simple power of a shared public good. And whereas a library card offers a front row seat to everything the library offers from books and technology to lifelong learning and imagination.

And whereas libraries, librarians and library workers across the country are joining together to celebrate Library Card Sign-up Month under the theme A Library Card Hits All The Right Notes. Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Goleta California does hereby proclaim September 2026 as Library Cards Sign-Up Month in the city of Goleta.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed33:32

Thank you

CommentKim CrailProposedself-stated33:38

Thank you, Mayor and Council for this proclamation. My name is Kim Crail and I'm the Supervising Librarian for the Goleta Valley Library. Our City Librarian Elizabeth Saucedo truly wanted to be here this evening to accept this proclamation but unfortunately she's not feeling well so I have the honor of accepting it on her behalf. We all know that libraries hold an essential place in the lives of our community members.

Every day, the library staff see people of all ages visit our libraries to discover stories, learn new skills and stay informed, keep in touch with family and friends, strengthen their reading and technology abilities and connect with one another. A library card is a ticket to an entire universe of resources free accessible and open to everyone. We encourage every Goleta resident to visit your local library this month whether you already have a library card, want to sign up for one or simply want to explore our temporary space at GVL Express. We're open until 7.

Thank you for recognizing the power of libraries, the dedication of library workers and the tremendous potential of our community to grow and thrive. Happy National Library Card Sign-up Month!

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response34:57

And public comment. Do we have any public speakers?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role35:53

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have no speaker slips. Those of you who wish to speak to this item please use the raised hand icon and I will call on you. And I'm seeing none, mayor.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response36:04

All right, thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role36:07

That will take us to item C1, consideration of initiation of a general plan amendment for change in land use designation at the property located at 7979 Hollister Avenue from Open Space Active Recreation to Commercial Visitor Serving.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response36:23

Okay thank you this is a public hearing and so staff will make presentation we'll open the item and we'll take ex parte's from council I'll open the public hearing, staff presentation. Council will have questions. The applicant answering these questions will not count towards 15-minute allotments so the applicant has 15 minutes. Public testimony three minutes. Time for a rebuttal if there's any time left over before the 15 minutes is up. Staff responses if any more council questions of the applicant and staff, and then I'll close the public hearing and entertain deliberations.

And so we will start with... I'll open the item, and then we'll go around ex parte. Council Member Kariakal, let's start with you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed37:25

I spoke with the applicant Michael Johnson earlier this month and did not learn anything that was not already in the staff report or public record.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response37:36

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed37:38

I also spoke with the applicant and their agent more than a month ago, I forgot when it was two months ago maybe and I don't believe I learned anything new that's not part of

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response37:55

Okay, the applicant Mr. Johnson reached out to me via email and asked if I had any questions and this was a while ago and I responded that I didn't have any questions at this time. Mayor Pro Tem?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed38:10

Yes, I have no ex parte communications to report we did receive some information from staff by email which they'll address in their presentation this evening

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed38:22

Thank you. The applicant did reach out to me, so thank you for that outreach. Unfortunately it didn't work out with my schedule, so I didn't get a chance to meet in person, but thank you to staff for the very thorough report. Thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response38:34

Okay. We're ready to open the public

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed38:37

hearing. Great. Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers. We're going to give a presentation. Joining me online will be Elizabeth Yee, she is a consultant from Civic Solutions. She's been helping us with the application process associated with the Elwood Onshore facility decommissioning and the things that we've been working on so I'm gonna turn it over to her for the presentation and then at the end of the presentation I will conclude it and then we would ask you to hold your questions until the applicant is done, and then we can respond to questions whether it's the staff or the applicant at one time. So with that, I'm going to let Ms. Yee take the mic.

0:39 – 0:491 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed39:33

Thank you, Lisa. Good evening Mayor and City Council members. We are here today for the General Plan Amendment Initiation for 2005-001 at 7979 Hollister Avenue. The process as you may know for a GPA initiation is to allow for early public input, allow the city Council, the opportunity to deny the initiation of a general plan amendment allows for City Council to provide staff with additional direction in processing the amendment and in this initiation it doesn't mean that In order to initiate the general plan amendment, the request must be consistent with principles and goals of the general plan. It must not have the material effects on the community or the general plan. It must provide additional public benefit that the current land use cannot provide.

It must have public facilities availability to the site and or address it And the request must be, or must not be required under other rules and regulations. So in the request for a GPA initiation, the primary question in consideration for City Council is what is appropriate land use designation to guide and redevelop the redevelopment of Things to consider for the site, the coastal zone and the adjacent ESHA in which all regulations and policies both would apply regardless of land use exhumation. In addition to that, CEQA is applicable to all development and modifications to the site and will be included at a time of application for further development.

Highlighted in the blue is 7979 Hollister Avenue, also known as the Elwood onshore facility. The site is located on the northwest edge of the city and a site is the item of the request. The site is 4.46 acres with a existing oil processing facility on-site, which has been decommissioned since 2024. Remediation has not started as it is dependent on the final use for the actual site. The city has a preliminary abandonment plan from the applicants for that facility, which will eventually be modified to accommodate for the final use.

It is located to the east of the Sandpiper Golf Course, to the west of the Ritz-Carlton Bacarra's Resort and adjacent to the site but not directly on the site is Bell Creek and Esha. The applicant requested to modify the general plan land use map also known as Figure 2-1. The request is to amend the Open Space Active Recreational Land Use designation to the proposed visitor serving commercial land use and to subsequently amend the other applicable policies as determined necessary for the application. Applicant requests to modify figure 2-1 of the general plan, uh, to change the existing OSAR to BS to allow for specifically RV park and small scale hotel or motel and associated ancillary commercial uses to support the lodging.

Seen here is the parcel in the request as part of the land use figure 2-1 designation map. The site is adjacent to OSAR, which again is the Sandpiper Golf Course And the site adjacent to that with the visitor-serving commercial seen in red is Ritz Carlton. So, the current general plan and zoning designation OSAR or Open Space Active Recreation allows for public parks recreational activities and facilities both private and public along with a mix of passive and active recreational development options.

In the application request for the map amendment, applicant requests to modify figure 2-1 to change the land use designation from Open Space Active Recreation to Visitor Serving Commercial which would allow for the uses desired by the applicant to be on the site. But it also allows for all of the other visitor serving uses to also be applicable to the site.

The request is only going to be applicable So the description for the visitor serving zone under the land use designations for the general plan speaks to a range of low to moderate intensity which the existing development adjacent to there is all serving of visitors. Okay, so visitor-serving commercial land use allows for a variety of allowed uses and conditionally allowed uses. The main uses as requested by the applicant would include in the allowed uses the motel and hotel along with restaurant use And then also in the conditional uses, it would also include the recreational vehicle parks.

So as an alternative suggestion by staff we are suggesting a text amendment to modify table 2-4 to allow for additional uses in the OSAR general plan land use designation. It would be applicable to all The modification would allow for specifically adding three additional uses that includes the Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Next slide, please. Alternatively, if we were to initiate change to figure 2-1 to visitor serving it would allow for the applicant to propose new coastal lodging facilities at a lower cost point. It would also allow the consideration of change for the site from recreation to commercial uses and would also include all of the options in terms This is a change to the open space active recreation.

The applicant being able to propose a new RV coastal lodging facility and the motel hotel and associated commercial uses to. Go with the, uh, the hotel uses. And it would retain all of the existing open space active recreational uses. It would not change the overall land use designation of the specific property, but it would also be applicable to all open space agriculture, sorry, Open Space Active Recreational Properties which includes the four privately owned sites and city parts as well.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈37s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈29s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

0:49 – 0:544 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed49:19

So with that, so we do see there's a few options available to the City Council tonight. One if the council doesn't believe that any of the criteria are appropriate you know council doesn't need to well could retain the Open Space Active Recreation designation. If you believe that amending figure 2-1 is to study it, to initiate the study. You could adopt the resolution that we've provided as attachment one to the staff report and then if you feel that it's appropriate to amend table two dash four, you could adopt the attach, the resolution attached as table two, sorry, as attachment two. I will note that in the staff report we listed all of We included those uses that the applicant has requested as an option for you to consider, but the resolution does say just to initiate the RV park.

But if the council felt that the other uses would be appropriate, you could add that to the resolution that's attached is attachment too. But the recommendation is for... If you choose to go with Amending table initiating the request to table 2-4 it would be just for the RV park is what the resolution is set up for And I do want to just mention that this is an initiation request, you know We are you know, then the applicant would need to apply for a The general if you choose to initiate something to apply for that item and then submit the application, the development proposal to go with it. It would be subject to the full city review process with CEQA and Design Review Board and Planning Commission and then ultimately coming here to Council because it is a legislative act, and then possibly Coastal Commission depending where we are in our process with the LCP.

So tonight's action would be first of many but it would not be the ultimate decision so I think with that concludes staff presentation and will be happy to answer any questions And now I've got to figure out how to shift over to the applicant's presentation. Does the applicant have a presentation?

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response51:53

Yes.

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated52:12

Good evening. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Michael Johnson. I'm going to give a brief description of who I am and kind of what our vision is. And then I'll hand it over to Jay Ritterbeck to give our formal presentation. Michael Johnson, as I said and if we haven't had the pleasure of meeting. I moved here in 1998 to Freeman Place off of Cannon Green with my one-year-old pretty young at the time and subsequently raised our additional three kids a total of four through our local school system they all graduated from Goleta Valley DP And this area that we're talking about is somewhere dear to our heart.

We spent countless times as a family down there at Haskell's Beach, we saw the access change and it was very beautiful. That was a huge asset to our family. So from the prism of that I have a unique perspective on that site. And public parking and public access is really lacking. I mean, even last weekend we're giving parking tickets to the Bacara because there's just not enough parking down there to supply the need. And I'm requesting a change for to visitor serving Not because I don't have another use that is very commercial, very profitable in the existing uses but it limits my ability to open up our site to share with others.

So that is the backdrop of why I'm requesting this and been down there cleaning the site up from what was left. And then I have a good understanding of what's available down there and visitor serving will provide the best ability to share our site with

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response54:32

the community. Thank you.

0:54 – 1:091 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed54:38

Thank you Mayor, Councilmembers. Is this able to actually forward? So Jay Ritterbeck, lots of familiar faces. Good to be back. True North Land Use Consulting. I am the agent for Bell Canyon Recreation, the current owner and yes we basically are requesting this to again provide a more public access to this area and focusing in on glamping glamorous camping and having enough ancillary support around that with hotel concessions in order to be able to pay for the additional parking, the additional beach access, the additional public access to this area. So Michael as he said you know he wants to share this area it's a jewel and currently there's just not enough access to it okay please go ahead Just as Ms. Elizabeth said, a little less than 4 1⁄2 acres.

The whole site sits about 20 feet above sea level. We've been looking at sea rise, looking at the modeling. Basically the airport in downtown Old Town is going to be five feet underwater before any of that sea level rise touches this. So we've been talking to Coastal Commission about that, we've been talking to a number of other agencies to make sure that we're crossing all T's and dotting I's With the recent development at the Sandpiper, we've been in constant communication with them to make sure that we're partnering and that we're not going to be proposing anything that's going to be conflicting but really partnering with them as they're moving forward through the process with their application before the Coastal Commission.

So the site is 100% developed right now. It was an industrial site, oil and gas for a very long time. We think that the use that we are proposing is going to be much more compatible with the high-end luxury Bacara as well as Sandpiper Discussing and have been ready to come before you for over a year We've really been waiting for that abandonment plan to be adopted all the interested agencies, which there's alphabet soup That's really looking at. You know the number of agencies that are reviewing and have eyes on this project and this property You know working with them staffs been fantastic to be coordinating a lot of that And we really just want to put it put a nail in the coffin of the last remnant oil and gas within the city Go ahead So the site in 1990 when the county rezoned it to open space active recreation, it was also planned residential development.

So it was not totally envisioned. That was the Bacara. That was Sandpiper and this site. So it was rezoned. This one specifically to make it a nonconforming use so that the oil and gas could not expand, could not intensify. And it did its purpose. OSAR really did its job. As context, when I was working for the city with Ann Wells, I managed Jay Sheth, the consultant that oversaw the site for us. And really what...I was very familiar with the site and all the regulations which is why when I left the city and moved to Tennessee. That's when the applicant, he wanted to have the team together to put a project together that knew the site, knew the regulations, retained Padre who, that the state was using and he wanted to do it right and he wanted again, he wants to share the site with everybody Knowing that it's a complicated, very rich, it could potentially be a very rich jewel for the city if developed correctly.

When the pipeline ruptured in 2015, Aventico went bankrupt. It sat there for awhile and then the state had to come in because they basically walked away from all their obligations with All the wells, they didn't plug and abandon. They didn't clean anything. They just walked away. So the state came in. This is very familiar history for all of you I know but maybe not the audience. So the state plugged all the wells associated with Platform Holly. They halfway cleaned the EOF and at a certain point when there was, when the wells were done they left and the site was still not clean They, I think in 2023 they had an MOU with the city so there was not a lot of permitting. It was just to stay in and do what they needed to do and get out. They did a pretty good job.

In 2024 the applicant acquired the property through the bankruptcy and for the next year after acquiring it well actually 11 months it took him to finish cleaning everything. There is no H2S. There's no danger. So the immediate thing that Michael wanted to do was to make sure that the neighboring community was safe. So he spent a lot of money and time and effort to get the site safe, no H2S.

And all the tanks, all the pipes that he could get access to had been cleaned, they'd been purged, they've been air gapped. So it is basically a pile of cleaned metal sitting on the site waiting for us to get clear direction on what the next step would be. So, for the last year we've been wanting to get in front of you to pose the question and to the community What do you guys want to see? We want to share it. And we want to do something that is not just OSAR, which allow like I think Goleta or Swell Fitness now, Goleta Valley Fitness, that's OSAR right over there so you can do a pretty intense commercial activity on OSAR. It's not passive open space like you see elsewhere. So the amount of commercial activity that's allowed on OSAR itself It's pretty intense.

We're not wanting to maximize commercial activity on the site. Again, we want to get the public a new beach access. We want to get them amply parked. We want to work with the city because there is a huge right-of-way there. We want to work with Sandpiper who is also envisioning some additional parking down there. They dedicated a conservation easement How that could work with us, just getting a trail and getting people to the beach to enjoy that area.

I think we can advance to the next one. So really what is being envisioned is this glamping. multi-generational in the sense that we want this to be something that is viable, that can stay there. That gets a wide variety of economic income classes the ability to stay on site. So having a place where people can land, have support, get to the beach, having the public parking expanded and really being able It's going to be a high end in order to be compatible with the neighborhood. We know the expectation is going to be incredibly high, and we haven't been able to design anything because we don't know what that end use is going to of detail that was sufficient for all the agencies to be comfortable with it. But again, as Ms. Elizabeth said, we will be revising that once we have an end use that has been determined and to be appropriate for that location.

So we're looking forward to that. We expect that the visitor serving GPA initiation So when we look at what V.S. will allow, and the glamping and the small boutique hotel restaurant. There's jobs in tourism that are created. We've got the economic spillover for people that are coming to town that it's over $154 on average for a person to spend. It's a great opportunity for them to be able to do that. They're going to have the hotel and all of the campsites are subject to TOT which adds It also takes a little bit of that stress off of the housing stock that we're seeing a lot of the short-term visitors or short-term vacation rental in the neighborhoods. You now have, you would have more places for them to come Potentially relieving a little bit of that pressure on the residential neighborhoods.

Increased public access, fiscal responsibility in the sense that you're getting all of this on Bell Canyon Recreation's dime. Getting more beach access, you don't have to purchase, the city wouldn't have to purchase that. You would just reap the benefit amenities that Michael's wanting to provide to the public. And then obviously, the environmental benefits, in fact we know there's full CEQA. I did a lot of the CEQAs for the city. That's one of the things when he brought me on showing him all the things that he's gonna need to do and complying with CEQa. We're not going to be as part of, with VS, we wouldn't be requesting encroachment into the buffer, into a wetland Any kind of accommodations with the CUP where you can adjust some of the standards.

We want to do a constraints map first and work from there, so staying away from the ESHA and the ESHA buffer only things that are allowed in the buffer like a trail those things there are a number of things that are allowed to be in We would expect to use some of those, but they're in there. You guys are envisioning them there as well. So we think overall that VS allows us to program the site and get it to a scope to stay away from everything that we need to stay away from still have a scale of development that lets us really maximize that public benefit.

So here's the, this is the welcome currently to the site. That gate that is always closed again everything at the site right now cleaned out and certified hydrocarbon free APCD over a year ago issued that and there wasn't much fanfare but that was huge for the city all the residents believe a few of you actually live in I lived over there, that would have been a sigh of relief that finally we don't have to worry about. I think they called it a blev when that H2S So again, the full permitting path that is in front of us we're fully aware of.

Fully expect that whether regardless if it's the city having an LCP or whether it's the Coastal Commission, it really doesn't affect us when the process is going to be the process. We know what the potential is for so we're going in fully aware And, you know, eyes wide open knowing that there's a lot. There's a lot ahead of us. We can go to the next one. Here is the process honestly if and when you do initiate this tonight.

And we're asking for VS. When we first started talking to staff two years ago, the OSAR was an option that we discussed with them and it was quickly taken off the table because it was obvious to us that number 2 finding you couldn't make because that's a major impact. That's 250-300 acres that now allows all of this including Gersh Park. The Sandpiper, several other large parks.

We just didn't think RV Park was appropriate for those areas so that came off and this only applies to the four-and-a-half acres which is one-and-a half percent of OSAR currently in the city So the effect of what we are requesting is much less than doing something that's citywide. We don't agree with that. That's not what we asked for. We were surprised to see that as an option in there because we were requesting a GPA initiation to visitor serving.

That whole discussion and reso, that's not our project. That's not what we're here to ask for. And we would request that you reject everything but number one or I'm sorry item two which is the visitor serving request. So in the last minute so I would be derelict in my duty to not let my client know of other options if for some reason the GPA initiation, which that's pretty standard that the initiation is granted but we don't just want that. We want to know from the community what you would like to see, Should we be entertaining when we are designing out the eventual redevelopment of the site? The site will be redeveloped. And it's not going to, it can't go back to just a green space.

You know if that's what has to happen it's going to end up being private and that's not what Michael want. His heart is to share the site and he what he's asking for is the ability, the tools from the city to facilitate that so there's applicable state law with that includes density bonus that actually do apply to this site and actually makes him a lot more money as a developer or as a home builder. He's not a developer, he's not an oil and gas company, and he just wants to share the site. Thank you.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:09 – 1:1710 turns

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:09:38

Thank you. Okay. I guess we go to... I'm looking for Ms. Pazzi. Yes. I'm waiting for, I thought Ms. Pozzi was going to... No? All right, I was waiting for her. I thought she had something to say. Sorry. So I just have one quick question and I'll have more but my understanding is that we can't really discuss what's going to be there, the project. Am I correct or am I wrong? This is an initiation of a general plan amendment and my thoughts are We're kind of hearing somewhat what they would like to do, but we're not talking about that because in the past we haven't been...

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm confused on this part of it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:10:44

Mayor and Council you are correct that we can't really talk about any details. But we are! But they wanted to, I mean but you need some context in terms of what they are thinking about and then how do we if the city is interested in that how do you get there? So you know the basic question that we had that we put in the staff report is what should the appropriate land use designation be to guide the redevelopment of this site now that the EOF is no longer Functioning, no longer needed and is decommissioned. And I think Mr. Imhoff might wanna say something?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:11:25

Ms. Posse, I think you summarized that really completely inaccurately but Mayor and Council we are here tonight just to discuss the initiation of the general plan amendment not any specific project so it's important for you to understand what the range of uses is that's possible within any land use configuration that you initiate for study.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:11:47

But there's no guarantee what we're really talking about?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:11:50

That is correct

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:11:51

yeah okay got it okay So I guess I'll go to questions from council and then I might have a few more. Who's going to be first? Don't everybody jump in there. Council Member Kasdan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:12:17

For the applicants, I did have a question. So just in terms of the difference between the alternative two and the alternative three, you know obviously alternative three is a lot less opportunity for commercial returns. And so I mean I guess if the council approved that alternative, what does that imply for what you could do? Is it sufficient for you to be able to do the remediation on the land? That's a lot of equipment there. I guess I'm wondering your reaction is the implications of it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:13:13

Mayor, Council Member Kassin. Great question. The OSAR designation itself does allow us some redevelopment of the site. It also allows a lot of that equipment to stay, to be repurposed on-site for an adventure park of some sort, a lot of that facility or even a movie set to be used on temporary basis There's a lot of, there are uses to repurpose the site. It doesn't guarantee it's getting cleaned.

It definitely guarantees it's not going to be open to the public. Michael's wanting to do with the uses and the density that is allowed on OS AR. It's it's not I think it's a 20% of Floor area ratio on that so that doesn't leave a lot of actual site development That's possible in OS AR again without asking for special concessions So it's It's much more restrictive and again, more impactful to the whole city which is what we're trying to be a benefit to the city not impact to the whole city.

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated1:14:31

Maybe I'll address it specifically what I understood your question is why can't I do it if option three I don't know as if you told me today that option 3 was a proposal that would be able to be over the finish line. In order for me to do my project, I would have to believe that the community would come and support hotels and RV parks everywhere. What we are seeking is very specific.

willing to do a lot of things like development agreements, deed restrictions to narrowly tailor that. I just think that the visitor serving gives a little more direct ability to know what the city is passing and probably at a time frame that would meet our goals. We're not looking to do a major development. In fact, what we're trying to get after is be able to have as much land there for public amenities and I know we're not speaking about the specifics of the project But parking picnic areas, open free, um, restroom facilities kind of more of a destination for the community, which would compliment our, uh, visitor serving where people can vacation. You can vacation at a Ritz Carlton or private hotel, or you can vacation at our site, which would be more integrated with the community

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:16:23

Well, I understood that you prefer the visitor service. Sometimes people look at three options and think of the Goldilocks, what's the in-between sort of thing? And there's kind of a natural tendency to choose that. Yeah, just trying to get a sense Would that fundamentally be something that wouldn't allow you to go forward, or you would be using it for adventure parks playing among the derelict oil equipment?

1:17 – 1:2317 turns

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated1:17:05

So I'm going to speak to Adventure Park. That's not one of our uses. We are going to remove the oil equipment because the best use for any of my real economic would be to remove that equipment. I think Jay was speaking more on a theoretical basis, not on what That's not really an asset that I would leave to the community of just leaving that equipment where it's at. We've gotten cost estimates, it's going to go.

To the answer, yes we could get there but what design standards am I to build? It leaves a lot of questions about when I go meet with my architect and said, Great. We're going to present that where do I design to like there's the, there's no defining code. This is kind of a new hotel allowed in a OSAR zone. I don't know how That would be how I would be able to decipher that. I'm not advocating

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:18:20

for anything, I was just curious because it was a staff-generated

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated1:18:23

option. Absolutely not a deal killer, we see a lot of pitfalls in it and the true answer is no. We could work within that, we see better working with visitor serving.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:18:41

Okay, I did have a question also. Thank you. A question for staff as far as how this applies to other locations and or how it would be And you know, reined in.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:18:56

Yeah Mayor and Council Member Cason I think you're referring to alternative three which would be to amend the Open Space Active Recreation to allow RV parks and the answer is that as the applicant has stated it would apply citywide but we would suggest that there be a permit requirement included, a permit requirement for conditional use permit that would allow city discretion over where RV parks were allowed in OSAR So there would be a constraint and there would be a safeguard. Um, so that in effect, um, the city would only permit, um RV parks in open space active recreation where it was appropriate and where it could be appropriately conditioned.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:19:36

Okay. They're saying I would give enough control over something like that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:19:41

We think it, it would, it's one way to do this. It's probably not the only land use approach that could get you to that, but uh, it is one way too. essentially give you a middle ground option if that's what the council envisions for this site.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:19:55

And was that option that you had in mind also, did that include the sort of tents and yurts and so forth in addition to RVs?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:20:05

I think that's the intent. The intent would be that it would allow camping, glamping or RV parks and we would have to look at exactly what that definition included but right now open space active recreation doesn't include camping although some people might think that active recreation should include camping or RV parks. At least appropriately conditioned.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:20:27

Okay thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:20:32

Any other questions?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:20:39

I had a question for staff. I know sometimes in considering these issues one thought that always crosses my mind is if the city takes action to make a change and then The property goes up for sale. But it seems like in this case, as a practical matter the big elephant in the room is the cleanup of the site that appears to be would be a deterrent to that type of activity would be my I mean, I know we can't like wave a magic wand. But I understand that cleanup of this site or I'm sorry maybe I'm not using the right words but you know removing you know the oil infrastructure that's remaining is going to be a major project

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:21:28

yeah mayor and council members yes and what ever project, whether it's this applicant or if they were to sell it, that would be a condition of approval to have it remediated and the equipment removed. So I mean that's really something that would be considered at a future date in terms of the level of that happening and that's really going to be based on what the future use is There's gonna be a lot of agencies that are gonna have a say in the level of remediation, like the Central Coast Regional Water Board, the County Environmental Health, Coastal Commission, Fire Department. I mean there's gonna be a lot of input for whatever the future holds for this in terms of the remediation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:22:28

And just to add to Ms. Crossy's response, the reason why that's true is because existing policy in the land use element requires the remediation of the site as do the conditions of the permit that the county originally approved for the El Wodontor facility. Both of those things apply, both of those will carry forward to any future property owner so that regardless of who owns it and what is proposed Remediation the site would be required as Miss Prossy said as a condition of approval

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:23:00

That makes sense. Thank you for that clarification and then we received some public comment and You know, and I think there seemed to be an impression about you know or seem to be sort of implied that like the city of Almost like it seemed like maybe some of the general public thinks that the city of Goleta has ownership of the property. But my understanding when the property went up for bankruptcy sale, that the city did not seek to acquire the site is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:23:32

Mayor Pro Tempore, that's correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:23:33

Okay so the site as currently existing is under private property ownership and control okay thank you.

1:23 – 1:2912 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:23:48

My questions were answered. Thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:23:49

Okay, so we'll go to public comment on questions and

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:23:58

yes thank you mayor for those of you in the webinar please use a raised hand icon if you'd like to speak to this item I do have ten speaker slips our first speakers Michael Issa now speakers will have three minutes

PresenterMichael Iza10 residents who signed a letter in your packet that I emailedProposedself-stated1:24:16

Hello Mayor and Council, good evening. My name is Michael Iza. I live about two miles from Askills Beach and I am speaking tonight on behalf of 10 residents who signed a letter in your packet that I emailed. We're asking your vote for Alternative 1 and leave the current designation in place. There are three important reasons. First, the city's own general plan already gives direction for this property.

Policy LU 9.2 says that when the oil and gas processing ends, this land should be used for outdoor coastal recreation with only small structures. An RV park, a hotel resort is not that. And that policy is not addressed anywhere in tonight's staff report. Second, there's a contradiction in the applicant's own proposal. In attachment nine they marked up that same policy. They changed the label at the top and they left the outdoor recreation language sitting right there underneath it. They're asking you to approve something that contradicts itself on one single page.

Third, alternative three goes well beyond this one site. It would change what's allowed on open space active recreation properties across the city. We're talking Sandpiper, Gersh Park, our city parks and if you are told a use permit protects us, a use permit only decides how something gets built it does not decide whether it belongs there. I also understand the concern, if the owner does not clean up the site who will? But there are really two separate issues here that I think are important to understand. Cleaning up the contamination and deciding what this land should be ultimately become.

The contamination is a responsibility that came with the property. It sold for about $500,000 and the owner has said the cleanup runs four to 20 million It's so cheap because that liability came with it. That's the deal. Changing that designation tonight does not clean anything up. And you do not need more information to decide this. Everything you need is in your own general plan and in the applicant's own filing. Voting for alternative one costs the city nothing and keeps your options open. If circumstances change, this council could take it up again but once that designation changes and something gets built there no future council gets this land back. So our request is simple. Vote for alternative one, keep the 16th destination in place.

Please do not give up this coastal open space for another RV park or hotel. Thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:26:56

Thank you. You know what? No we're not going to have any clapping or booing because that's not fair to everyone because some people may be a little intimidated by clapping or booing and everybody has a voice here and they're free to say whatever they would like to say so thank you

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:27:16

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Our next speaker is Carson Iza.

CommentCarson IzaProposedself-stated1:27:26

Good evening. My name is Carson Iza. I'm 16 and I live about two miles from Haskell's Beach. I am asking you to vote for Alternative 1 and leave this land in open space. Haskells is our beach. It's where my family goes. The land you're talking about tonight is right next to it. In my whole life, it has been an oil plant behind a fence. The oil is gone now so the only question left is what that land becomes.

In 1990 before I was born and before this city existed, the county zoned out that land for recreation. The deal was simple. The oil plant could stay until the oil ran out. Then the land would go back to an open space, not a hotel, not an RV park. The oil ran out and I'm asking you to keep the deal. And please remember, you are deciding this for a very long time. If it gets built on, it does not come back, not in my lifetime.

Please vote for alternative one, thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:28:27

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:28:28

Our next speaker is Viggo Eckstein

CommentVigo EcksteinProposedself-stated1:28:37

Good evening. My name is Vigo Eckstein, I'm 16 and I currently attend Dos Pueblos High School on Hollister just past Sandpiper on the way down to Haskell's Beach there is an old oil plant behind a fence that is what you are voting on tonight. I want to talk about which right next to it is a lagoon. Bell Canyon Creek comes down and spreads out into a marsh before reaches the ocean The city's own report says this land sits right next to protected habitat.

State wildlife officials say that the lagoon has endangered fishnet and red-legged frogs, which are protected as well. Now picture an RV park, a hotel or glamping campsites next to that. Lights all night, cars, generators, trash, dogs. A short walk from where those animals live and breed. So here's my question. If the city already knows this land is protected habitat, how does putting any of that protect it? Please vote for alternative one and leave this land an open space. Thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:29:40

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:29:42

Our next speaker is Preston Coulahan will be followed by Liam Young.

1:29 – 1:357 turns

CommentPreston CoulahanProposedself-stated1:29:53

Good evening. My name is Preston Coulahan. I am 16 years old and I live in Goleta. I'm going to be honest with you. I do not want an RV park there. I have no use for an RV park, a hotel or glamping campsite. That is why I came tonight. And when I asked why is this even being talked about? The answer is that one property owner wants it. Nobody I know asks for that. I've not met a single person in Goleta who said that our coast needs an RV park and a hotel.

So that is my question for you. Why should one owner get to decide what happens to a beautiful piece of our coast? This city already made that decision a long time ago, this land is open space. That was decided for all of us not for one owner and land like this can come back two miles from here at UCSB they took a dead golf course and turned it into a wetland so this does not have to be an empty lot forever But none of that is possible if you change what this land is allowed to be.

Please vote for alternative one and leave this land as an open space. Thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:31:04

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:31:06

Our next speaker is Liam Young, followed by Ethan Whittle.

CommentLiam YoungProposedself-stated1:31:14

Good evening, Council. My name is Liam Young and I live in Goleta about one mile away from Haskell's Beach. I've never come to a council meeting before but tonight I had to say something. I want to ask a simple question. What does this community actually get from this? It's not housing, it's not just a park. It's not a trail or just beach access for our school. It is your words, a high-end paid overnight lodging on the last undeveloped piece of our coast.

We already have that right next door. The staff report says there is already a visitor serving commercial property about 300 feet to the west which I've personally worked out which is called the Bacara and I had to quit because You know, it's not the greatest place. Whatever Goleta is short of is not hotel rooms on this stretch of Hollister. They have 700 parking spaces available already.

What we would give up is permanent once the designation changes and something is built, land is not open space again in any of our young lifetimes. What we would get in return is tax revenue. I understand that the city needs revenue, I just do not think the last open piece of our coast is the thing to sell for it. Please vote for alternative one and leave the designation as it is so we can do something properly with it.

Thank you.

CommentEthan WhittleProposed1:32:41

This property goes back to Kate Bell, the Den family, the cactus that originally started all this oil, the Barnsdall Rio Grande Station. An attacked historical site in a Japanese submarine. I mean, this is the Barnsdall Rio Grande. This is why we're redoing the gas station, okay? Vinoco quit claim their deed but because of all the hydrogen sulfide, all of the pollution and all the poor oversight for the wells and unmanaged wells they still maintain the ownership. And you had a receiver who was a member former member of the Vinoco board who sold the property All right, it was just not the right use. It's a nine to $50 million cleanup from where I read and nobody knows who knows what's down there?

Nobody knows it you got a creek right next to it. You got an Esha buffer right next to it. Nobody notes Okay, what's under the pad? All right. Time is a resource and even paid time by this staff of our city is wasted on this on land speculation for profit next door posting hey What do you guys want to do with the property it doesn't matter all right the agent This is an industry in style insider Giving us a big trust me bro Okay. I don't trust it, right? It hasn't even been decommed and they listed the property for a million dollars with Morehart so they're just trying to bump it up.

If he listed the property then where's the good intention? The changes for the consideration they deal with Esha buffers other mobile home parks the Kenwood Village Creek buffer zoning changes to high density everything We're just changing zoning rules to satisfy people. This is ridiculous. Consideration is earned and not bought. What would Chris Potter say? I look at him, I play golf with him and he looks down that iconic hole of Hole 10.

You want to see a bunch of air streams and fire pits? If he painted that, he'd paint it out. The only leverage the city's residents have is to demand the cleanup and you're their voice. If you do not, how do we have faith in you? Say no, do not process the GPA. Come back when you earn the trust and you clean it up. You're trying to astroturf a project while actively going after a store owner who has a valid lease in another area of the city. It's ridiculous!

He's holding us hostage, that's not goodwill. You're allowing them to sell it to you right now when you shouldn't even be considering him selling it to you. This is a procedural matter and you're now complicit because you're asking questions and you're allowing him to sell it to you they aren't going to clean it up If they don't, the city and staff profited. You made oil revenue. The state made oil revenue. The State Lands Commission kicked it back to you. It's your responsibility.

Goleta is not high end. That's restrictive. That means money is access.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:35:40

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:35:42

Our next speaker is Oliver Crusha, and that'll be followed by Karen Lovelace.

1:35 – 1:424 turns

CommentOliver CrosshawProposedself-stated1:35:48

Good evening, my name is Oliver Crosshaw. I was born and raised in Goleta and I'm a wildland firefighter in Los Padres Forest as long as I can remember me and my brothers have boogie boarded and spent most summer days at Haskell's and tonight I'm asking you to read the recommendation tonight carefully because the staff is not recommending what the applicant asked for they're out recommending something much bigger The applicant asked for you to change one four and a half acre lot. Staff is recommending that you allow RV parks on every open space and active recreational property in Goleta, Sandpiper, Gersh Park, our city parks, and where does it end? So ask yourselves this if that item was alone on your agenda tonight all by itself with no applicant attached to it would any of you have voted for it?

You may be told that the use permit protects us, but it does not. The permit does not tell us how something gets built. It does not decide whether it belongs there at all. Once RV parks are on that list, the question is settled for every one of those properties. I'm asking you not to rewrite the rules for the whole city to solve one owner's problem on just one lot. Please vote alternative 1 and leave the designation as it is. Thank you. Have a nice evening.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:37:01

Our next in-person speaker is Karen Lovelace, followed by Richard Foster. And a last call for those of you on the Zoom webinar if you wish to speak to this item please use raised hand icon. Go ahead Karen thank you.

CommentOliver CrushaProposed1:37:11

Hi good evening when Bell Canyon Recreation LLC acquired the property for $460,000 it was at that time Santa Barbara County tax valuation of the property was 4.18 million they got it for $460,000. 4.45 acres of land with a 5,000 square foot building on it openly marketed as beachfront access. It's a fire sale price, $460,000 not because the oil stopped but because the property sold with a significant remediation responsibility.

The requirements for mitigation and restoration were well known as they're in the lease documents from the early 1960s They need to bring the property they bought two years ago into zoning compliance by removing the oil processing equipment. Where is this city council's willingness to enforce past promises made to citizens of this county? City staff went after a few old town small business owners of food establishments for minor code violations. Why hasn't the staff brought the same zeal to the Venico site?

The even bigger question is why would the city council even consider surrendering Increasingly rare open space in Goleta to developers. A rezone puts valuation in the developer's pocket without any benefit to the citizens of Goleta, since when is the city's goal to enrich land speculators by rezoning open space? Stop paving over what's left of Goleta's vanishing open space and do you no longer have a desire to protect the natural habitat and wetlands on rare and sensitive Goleta land? One with the only other at-grade beach access in Goleta besides Haskell's.

Let's not pretend this is just a procedural vote after staff puts together an 85 page agenda item. This GPA initiation is nothing more than a $460,000 bet that the Goleta City Council is willing to decide that all the work put into writing Goleta's general plan and zoning laws were a waste of time And that zoning is something to be changed at the request of a wealthy land developer. Developers apparently believe it's a safe bet, as it happened recently less than a mile away on Viajero for proposed battery storage facility. Our staff, the City Council and Bell Canyon Recreation LLC wasting everybody's time here tonight? I pose this question because this oceanfront parcel is currently listed for sale by the Morehart Group as commercial Not open space for $1 million.

I can send a screenshot of that. I'll do that in an email. Thank you.

CommentRichard FosterProposedself-stated1:40:02

Morning Councilmembers, I'm Richard Foster. You know have you ever wondered why people dislike government suspect politicians and distrust big business? Well if you want to know all you have to do is look at the Veneco property in the 1960s our state happily wrote an oil lease took 20% off the top of the cream for themselves and then promising that when oil production ceased it would be returned open space by mitigation Yet, they did nothing to see that the metal jungle was removed from the site. Beneco itself took the money and oil and profits and walked away and left the mess for somebody else.

The current owners got the property cheap due to the estimated cost of cleanup. Mitigation came with the property. It's not something to look to in the future when we know what we want to do with the property. The agreement was it's to be mitigated now! Not when they get around to it. Not when you get around to voting some change. When I read the staff's conclusion that this meets and conforms to the general goals of our city's plan, or a general plan where there is some additional benefit to the community. I have no idea who they think our community is or what they are.

The subject tonight should probably be more along the lines of how do you have a condemnation proceeding against this parcel because they failed to clean up the site, remove the metal things? It was promised it wasn't done, it's not dependent on this And the speculation that they might sell the property is reinforced by the fact, yes I saw it online. They're currently selling the property for a million bucks through Morehart Compass. So really they're probably wasting everybody's time here. This is a quick flip and slip and makes money walk away from it unless they can get what they want out of you.

If they do walk away from it, fine. The city can take it over. The city can take it over if we can find $50 million for a bicycle path or $120 million for Project Connect in Old Town. I'm sure even if we have to tap the JPA again, we could take it, we could clean it up and we could do whatever we wanted long term for this space but at least it would be mitigated first and foremost.

I would tell you to ask the property owners to bring this thing into mitigation agreement as soon as possible, saying that well if somebody else buys it that'll be a condition. The condition is there already. Let's get together and force the condition. It's been clean for a year, let's tell them to start removing this stuff if they wanna move forward with anything.

There's an old saying that if you're playing poker and you don't know who the sucker of the table is, it's you. They're trying to push something through here for their own benefit, not for the benefit for the city. And they're doing two things at once. They're trying to sell a property as commercial listing it as commercial when in fact it's not zoned that way. They're telling you one thing who knows what they would do in the future? They've already shown you can't actually fully trust what they have to say.

1:42 – 1:487 turns

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:42:53

Okay. Our last speaker is Maria Gennadini and our last call for you zoom speakers use raise hand icon if you wish to speak to this item

CommentMario GennardiniProposedself-stated1:43:04

Mayor, Council. My name is Mario Gennardini. I'm born and raised in Santa Barbara. I've seen a lot of heartbreaking things in my life. I was 13 when the 69 oil spill happened and saw them at a very impressionable age. They're throwing straw and taking the whole top foot of soil away and sand away and taking birds down to the bird refuge and cleaning stuff up there. And then my mom lived on Bradford. I've been out in Goleta for a long, long time After Bacara was built, I saw the sea rookery at Naples.

They called it seals because of the rookery there and as the traffic from Haskells to Bacara and their dogs especially they kept chasing them off the beach where that rookery hardly exists anymore. The 421 oil piers, you know it's nice they did the habitat for the pelicans and they got chased out and the cormorants take in. That's kind of a local joke. It's a good thought. And the pier stubs, there was more than 200 swallowness on those piers when they took them down and nobody gave a thought to that.

Right now is so the gas processing facility what's there right now is a bird refuge. I go by there pretty much every day. I'm down at the beach all the time. There was, I counted over 20 geese there, blue heron, grady grits, bunch of small ones The habitat that is in that area right now, if you have trails, you start getting trails with people coming through with their dogs. That's going away.

So the thing is it's such an isolated sanctuary right now that we really need to figure out how to preserve this. It sounds like that option one may be a path if we have to go down to that selection. Yes, we do want the facility out but How we go about, you know, basically preserving what's there right now and the wildlife there right now is just to me is one of the most important things. Because that stuff's going away, we gotta preserve it. We really do so thank you.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:45:17

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:45:19

And that concludes public comment for this item Mayor.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:45:21

Okay thank you I will close the public testimony and I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:45:39

had a question for the applicant's representative. You were speaking earlier and you talked about a few public benefits associated with the action that we're contemplating, and you specifically said not at public expense. Can you kind of relist what those benefits were That the community members would get through this action, not the future project from this action that would not be a taxpayer expense.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:46:11

If the action, thank you Mayor, Council Member Kariaki. If the GPA initiation is initiated what it would do is allow and positive comments and direction is actually given we've heard the public we really haven't heard you guys as far as what you'd like to see but what we're wanting to do is increase public parking partnering with Sandpiper and the city using the road right of way out in front of ours of the site as well as using some of our site if necessary to have additional parking, to have a trail.

Sandpiper dedicated a conservation easement so us doing all the work for paving, striping, Possibly partnering with the city, with bridge construction. Or even using our easement that we have across Sandpiper. There's some possibility if it's only private there's options. If it's open to the public there's other options partnering with Sandpiper but what we're wanting to do is use our site the area that is immediately around it as a partnership and getting more public access implemented in there.

The benefit to the city is, it's the access, it' s the parking and none of its on City's time. And it's also making the site available to all of the city of Goleta with restaurant, some parking on-site. There's just opening the site itself, camping areas, picnic day areas. There are other facilities on site that again if given direction we will design... We actually don't have a plan designed out because we don't know what to design too so it gives us that ability integrate public benefit.

That's what we're wanting to do. Do we have a rebuttal later?

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:48 – 1:5713 turns

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:48:32

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:48:35

did have a question with respect to the, I saw you shaking your head vigorously when a number of the speakers said that the property was being listed currently as for sale. Is that... Disagree? Is there some source of confusion? I

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated1:48:57

have never listed the property for sale. I purchased it and if anybody has posted it for sale, I'm into it well over the asking price that was indicated and that's not...I mean, it's not being actively marketed. I intend to develop this and I hope to develop it with visitors serving so I can give more back. Because there's plenty of, and this is not a plea to allow me to make money. There's plenty of opportunity for that with my current existing uses but this will allow me to dedicate more and significant amount for public access.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:49:44

So you're saying that there is adequate opportunity to make enough money to fully remediate the site under the current zoning?

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated1:49:54

Absolutely. We have very clean water results and they're publicly available through the GeoTracker. There will be remediation costs, and that's done solely as a Brownsfield property through Regional Water Quality, and we're working directly with them. We have five monitoring wells that we test annually voluntarily. We've done a significant amount of research and investigation, and we're working with the top-end environmental consultants that the state used

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:50:31

So I guess I'm confused on this. Is there a ton of equipment, a ton of industrial machinery and so forth there? Is there a mandate to have to remove it?

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated1:50:47

There is a conditional use permit that says when the equipment is no longer needed, it needs to be removed. Immediately after buying the property, even before it was clean, we submitted a de minimis waiver to the Coastal Commission to remove the equipment. Our purpose or our desire is that would have already been gone. If it was not in the coastal zone, we believe that we got a permit and it would be gone It's...

We need a coastal development permit to remove that. That requires an end use, and that's why we're here because if we choose an end use, we're gonna build it out like it's kind of... That train will start. And if I'm going to build not what I think is the best for the community things go on a train and you can't spend years trying to figure out okay, that would be a better off. So we're here now to see if we can't have an end use that will allow us to do our vision, to share with the community. If that doesn't happen, we will proceed with one of our other options and equipment will be removed as part of that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:52:06

But possibly not all of it. There are bunkers there's Sellers of concrete like if we're doing sports courts, those can be repurposed on-site not demoed the problem with going and restoring the entire site now Before there's an end use is that that's subject to CEQA? There is no exemption for Restoring the site so we would what take it down to absolutely nothing at Greenfield and then go through CEQa again with something so it's to have to go through not know and it's and it also says remove, remove it. The condition is Condition 32 of the land use permit and conditional use permit to remove it a piece of equipment like these these bunkers when we might actually be able to repurpose them for what we are envisioning that makes no sense either but we would have we would have to do that as part of CEQA so just not knowing what the end uses We're in this it's not chicken and egg.

It's, it's worse than that. the ultimate zoning would be and he wants to provide the most benefit to the city, OSAR gets us close but not quite to the amenities that he's wanting to provide. So it's this is what you guys need like giving him and giving us guidance on what you would

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:53:34

like. So there so it's not... What is the cost? I've seen different estimates for the expected remediation costs. What are those supposed to be? I realize it can vary depending on what you're going to ultimately do, but what are we talking about?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:53:54

That is, I think the million dollar question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:53:58

Multi-million.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:53:59

Yeah, I mean we've gotten estimates and I think the applicant probably want to speak to this. There was a very large estimate that Padre did when it was in state lands control. I'm not sure what all they were looking at And it maybe even included, you know the cleanup of the site when it was an active oil and gas facility to one that the applicant provided us within the last year. That is much less than that closer to just a million dollars but again as the applicant team has spoken about you know that's really going to depend on what the final uses of the property which will have a bearing on How much needs to be removed and how much remediation needs to happen. And those agencies that I mentioned will all have a say in that, and we'll evaluate it based on what the end use is.

And I don't know if the applicant's team has more to say to that.

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated1:55:04

Some of the numbers that are floating out there are high and they came from Padre, our consultant during the litigation between state lands and Vinico when there was no access to any real information. So as part of that litigation they were instructed to determine the worst case scenario not knowing anything if I believe five or six feet of the entire soil needed to be removed It was, that's why it came in significantly high on that $22 million.

Our cost estimate to become compliant with the City of Goleta's Conditional Use Permit Section 32, With a 30% contingency came in around $1.3 million, that needs to be refined based on what our final use will be. That assumed a commercial use similar to the RV hotel. If we were to put it back to a park It would be closer to 600,000 to 700,000 to remove that equipment. And that does not account for any scrap value. That's just kind of the cost to shear it up and ship it to a standard industry or similar recycling facility.

So to get to where we need is not as earth shattering of a number as 22 million. When we go to visitor serving or a residential use, regional water quality would require different amounts of tests to issue us a clean closure. They're the one, they're an environmental group that would dictate that and we expect that there'll be some cost associated with that but we can't get in and do the data gap Testing until the equipment is removed, and that was part of our abandonment plan. So we're kind of in that in-between phase, and if you guys give us a direction to visitor serving, we are ready to proceed. If you say no, pick a use that is already allowed in OSAR, we're ready to proceed. That's what we have been waiting for, and I hope that we can do visitor serving because What I envision there is a lot better in that direction than what I can do on the alternative.

1:57 – 2:0413 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:57:56

Sorry I just want to add, I did look at the Padre report from 2021 and they had two estimates. They were looking at either 8 feet cleaning down 8 feet or cleaning down 12 feet so I think those are some of the reasons why that number could have been as large as it is

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response1:58:16

But wasn't there, my understanding is to even purchase this property. Maybe I have it wrong but I remember the discussion about a bond. You had to secure a bond and it was something like 9 million. Do I have that right? I remember talking to Senator Lamone about that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:58:36

I don't know if they had to secure a bond, but they did provide a letter of credit with the change-of-owner request. And they provided a letter of credit for $2 million which is more than what the most recent Padre estimate was. Okay so I have the nine million wrong probably.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:58:57

It wasn't a bond?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:59:01

Mayor and Council, there is a requirement, a state requirement that went into effect shortly before the applicant acquired the site that requires a deposit for remediation of the site. And I think that's a requirement of CalGem and I don't know the status of that now. I believe that was disputed between the property owner and CalGEM and that may still be the case.

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated1:59:25

That is still the case. Both parties, both CalGEM and us are letting it sit on ice for the time being. We are in active negotiations with them for a settlement agreement We believe strongly that this bonding requirement does not apply to us for very specific legal reasons, one of which is that there's no right to operate because there's nothing to operate. It was previously decommissioned and no oil was coming in or out and we have no mineral rights whatsoever.

That has been our position from day one when we purchased this. And we've been in negotiations and talks with them from 30 days after we purchased, and our last communication with them was in April.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:00:31

I did have one this further so the 1.4 or 1.6 whichever is that 8 feet 12 feet or no feet in a sense for the remediation what does that imply?

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated2:00:47

So what that has included in it is the removal of the injection well, it also does a petrol fix soil remediation, which is injecting a product around the perimeter of the property to make sure that no oil or gas if it existed would migrate off. And that would be important when you're doing any disturbing of any large concrete Right now, the soils tests that are available in the GeoTracker that we do voluntarily annually are coming back extremely clean. I think we've got two wells that have any reportable amounts of items that would be a reportable action down from 20,000 parts per million and these are now under 50.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:01:42

So is it so that this stuff that remains? after like stuff underground and so forth. I mean, in other words is there a difference between the 1.4, 1.6 and 22? The nature of the cleanup in part that it's just a different animal?

CommentMichael JohnsonProposedself-stated2:02:04

They made the assumption because they had no soils tests that all the soil needed to be removed because of their uncertainty Now we're pretty certain that there's not any significant amount of plumes underground because that would be detected in one of the five monitoring wells.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:02:28

Okay, I think we kind of ventured out of deliberation and that's what I had said. Thank you. We are now discussion again so deliberating anybody want to go first?

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:02:48

Yes, I wanted to thank the applicant for their presentation and staff For their report this evening. I know a lot of time and energy has gone into it And I also wanted to thank The public for being here and for those of you who are at your first meeting welcome I You know, I think You know, really the challenge is all these years ago. The big question here is this cleanup question and how it's going to happen. You know, what was not anticipated years ago was that an oil company was going to go bankrupt and leave this facility in its current state.

So for the community, that's a frustrating situation. And what we currently see right now is this I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. You know did purchase this property knowing all these constraints. And so I think you know from everything we've heard from the from the public. I'm not, you know, we don't have the community We have this historical promise to the public for the nature of the use in the future.

It's hard for me to think about anything that's more important to this community than the general plan and this general part of our community, and so I'd be inclined not to take any action this evening.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:04:55

Thank you. Council Member Carriaco?

2:05 – 2:103 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:05:00

I think I'll be brief. We got some really good letters in addition to the public testimony here, and the two that stood out for me were the letter from Lisa Stratton and the letter from Wayne Ferrin. For those in the audience that don't know who those individuals are, they are gems in this community. And you can read their comments online. I won't paraphrase them. I won't quote them. I'll just say that I found them very compelling.

And these types of situations where someone is trying to initiate a general plan amendment, what they're basically asking us to do is not to do something but to think about doing something. And so oftentimes depending upon what the change in zoning from Two is I can be inclined to at least give them the opportunity to make their case, to make their argument. To give them the benefit of the doubt if they want to spend the money to try and make an argument for why this city should do something. I'm usually fairly persuaded by that argument.

I am not persuaded by that argument here. And I think it was who was it? It was Preston who spoke and just said, no use for this property. I don't know anyone who's for it. I don't know anyone who wants this. That impressed me but then he brought up the West Campus open space and what was done to that property, the former Ocean Meadows golf course. I know a lot of people that live in that neighborhood that really wish they could still play golf at Ocean Meadows But the community benefit, the restoration that's occurred there, the public access that's been created there.

You know I think I'm willing to be patient with our general plan goal of eventually getting to a place where this is open space or eventually this is a recreation space. I can't tell you that I have a really clear vision in mind of exactly how that's going to happen and exactly when that's going to happen But I think it's a vision worth waiting for. So, I will be supporting option one.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:07:19

Thank you. I also want to thank all the public comment and new folks that are here tonight, it's great to see broad input from different parts of our community. You know, I think something just to get us back focused, you know, I think we can broadly agree that we would all love to see that infrastructure gone and for there to be public access and preservation of that open space. But that's not the question we have before us tonight. The question that's before Council is whether we support the initiation of a change to our general plan, and we have to consider that divorced from an actual project that's before us that we could hold anyone to.

And then we don't know if that potential project has, you know, broad community support or not. We've heard some comment tonight but that is not being kind of vetted through a process so we've got to focus on the question of whether we support initiation of a general plan amendment and what I know about Residents in my district and residents that I know throughout the city is to Councilmember or Mayor Pro Tem Smith how much they want this council and really every council to do, to the extent possible, preserve and hold up that general plan. There are times where we are under immense pressure from the state or from other factors to have to do that, or to have to consider that.

And this is an example of one where we don't. It's really up to our discretion and what we know about our general plan in our community. I have to support and uphold our general plan, and I can't get to saying that the applicant should continue down a process When I don't feel like we should be considering a change to the general plan to visitor services. And I also would not support adding that use to our existing OR, open space active recreation and having that be something that's possible throughout the city.

I recognize staff offered that up as another alternative but I can't support that either So I will also be supporting alternative or option one.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:10:00

Thank you. Yeah, so this been

2:10 – 2:164 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:10:08

Very surprising and illuminating. You know, when I first was reading the report and talking to members of the public what I didn't want was to end up in the same place that we are now and see rusting industrial equipment just sit there year after year And I was afraid that what we were comparing is sort of a straw man. Would you like to have it perfectly restored and beautiful, or would you like You know, a hotel or something like that.

Not would you like to have rusting equipment versus a hotel but what I discovered is what I thought was the old estimates of restoration 20 million 40 million or something like that is inaccurate and that in fact The current zoning seems to allow for the removal of that equipment and so forth. So I don't have, well we can't when it comes to a general plan amendment, we can't really ask about the specific project.

But I have no idea what sort of projects you have in mind right now under the current zoning. So I can't really say, oh, a hotel and so forth would be an improvement since other than the oil equipment playground That actually does sound like I would really like it when I was a kid. But you know, I don't have a vision for what would happen under the current zoning and Shocking to me, that includes removal of all of that equipment which is I did not anticipate that we could have it under the current. So I guess what I would like to see really echoing my colleagues is that we hold off and I don't know if there's the potential, you know, under that the current zoning for some sort of public-private partnership that we can work with you guys and see if there are some things that are, you know, there are definitely outside groups.

Land trust, we saw what happened in Elwood Mesa where a portion of it was dedicated for commercial use. The remainder in environmental restoration but to talk to you and see what makes sense, what works out. And so that's where I'm coming from right now and it's a lot more hopeful than I ever did. We drive by, I mean everyone drives by Firehouse 10 all the time and sees year after year the sign there. And I was fearful that we would be talking about that here but it's Very encouraging that that is not the outcome that we're looking at.

So I look forward to everyone working together for a beneficial purpose and see what we can do to help you and for you to generate something beneficial for the neighborhood, the community in the region so thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:13:53

Well first I'd like to echo a lot of...I'm not going to go into everything my colleagues because I agree with them but I do want to thank everyone for your letters for showing up tonight and talking, even though I wouldn't let you clap. But thank you for understanding. So this is a project that as was said by Mayor Pro Tem Smith the applicant went in full well knowing what the parameters were so whether he had something else in mind and was hopeful my fear is that there seems to be a lot of risk here that I'm as a council member, as your mayor, am not willing to take right now. We have the authority to say yay or nay to this general plan amendment and we'd be making decisions for future generations to come and I just not prepared to do that this evening it just doesn't set well the one thing that really is troubling is the reference that you kept referring to is for parking We want parking lots there.

I know you're looking at it as a community benefit, access parking. I don't look at that as a community benefit. To be honest with you, it's beautiful. If we could get rid of all the equipment, it could be really something beautiful and who knows if some wealthy person comes along and says I want to donate all this money and make it into something spectacular for the community? It happens, it does happen so I won't be supporting a change to our general plan. So at this time I'm going to close the public hearing and if someone would like to entertain a motion, I've closed the public comment right now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:15:57

And Madam Mayor, even though it seems like the council's consensus is to not take an action we recommend that a vote still be taken. So the vote there's option one on page 14 of the staff report and the maker of the motion should make a motion not to initiate a change to the general plan.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:16:16

Okay got it thank you for that who would like to make that motion?

2:16 – 2:226 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:16:23

I move that we don't make a change to the general plan at this time.

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated2:16:28

And Council Member Kasdan, so just to clarify for the record, so that would include alternative one to decline to initiate processing the requested general plan amendment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:16:38

Yeah.

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated2:16:38

Okay thank you. I'll second that.

Roll-call vote Passed 5–0
Show transcript
Council members, if you would please lock in your votes. Council Member Raes-Martin? Aye. Council Member Curiaco? Aye. Council Member Kasdan? Aye Mayor Pro Tempore Smith? Yes And Mayor Parodi? Aye
ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:16:59

Ayes have it Okay Thank You everyone let's take a break Lost control

CommentSylvia KingProposed · by introduction2:17:30

You Yeah. Thank you. you

2:25 – 2:445 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:25:03

Thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:27:39

Okay, let's bring this meeting back to order.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role2:27:41

That'll take us to item D1 Firearm and Ammunition Retail Sales Study Session.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:27:48

Okay thank you. Ms. Wells are you presenting?

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated2:28:02

Yes All right. Good evening Mayor and Council Members, and welcome to the public attending this meeting. I'm Ann Wills, Advanced Planning Manager, and I'm accompanied by Peter Imhoff, the Planning and Environmental Review Department Director. And tonight we will be presenting you with some options for possible firearm and ammunition retail sales regulations.

And the community input that we receive tonight and the written comments and council feedback will help guide staff as to whether and how to change the city's approach to the regulations of firearm retail sales. The city attorney, and the city manager, and the finance department staff are also here to provide us with support as needed. We did receive four comment letters that are posted with the staff report online.

Three of them were in support of a regulatory approach and one commenter opposed additional regulations, I just wanted to flag that. Okay, for the agenda tonight it should look familiar. It starts with a staff presentation and we'll run through the whole thing and then we'll have council questions and then public comment and then we'll ask for feedback from you on a series of questions that are included in the presentation.

So let's start first with the existing... Whoa I missed a slide. Skipped a slide. I will. So I just wanted to touch on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it protects the right to keep and bear firearms, and that's kind of the backdrop for tonight that we'll be reminding you of as we go through the presentation. And also wanted to flag that there are Federal and state laws that retailers have to comply with, and they're pretty extensive. Permits, licenses, background checks, interviews before they ever even come here for a business license for retail use.

And under the way we have looked at the Second Amendment and also looking at other jurisdictions, local regulations are allowed but they can't unreasonably interfere with the Second Amendment rights. So and we'll help kind of guide you in on that as we proceed. And we did look at a number of jurisdictions and their regulations, and we noted that some jurisdictions not many have regulations in zoning but some have regulations in zoning more often in business licenses in the business license chapter of their municipal code and some in both.

Okay for our existing regulations We have safe storage of firearms in residents, and that's in Title IX public peace and welfare of the Municipal Code. We also have unlawful firearm discharges in city parks and beaches, and that is in Title XII street sidewalks and public places of the Municipal Code. And from a zoning perspective, firearm retailers are treated as general retail.

And that is allowed in four commercial zone districts, regional commercial, community commercial Old Town and general commercial in Title 17. And you know from a big picture perspective they fall kind of along the Kyrie Al corridor and then also along the Hollister corridor and kind of these linear strips So kind of to summarize, as long as a firearm retailer is located in a commercial zone district where general retail is allowed and they get a business license the use is permitted by right.

So that's kind of why we're here. We're seeking your input on some options for ways to regulate these uses. So the first kind of question that we have is where should we put the regulations? We could put additional regulations and we will kind of talk about those specific regulations and what we are talking about here on separate slides. This is the big picture, it's going to have to change depending on input that we get from you on the information in the other slides but we could focus them, the revisions in Title V business licenses and add requirements there We could put standards like buffers and licensing for operations, security requirements and all of those things similar to the way we treat tobacco retailers and their licensing requirements.

Alternatively, we could just focus in on Title 17 zoning and put the standards there Especially if we're talking about changing zone districts or permit requirements, then we're now talking zoning amendments. And then we could do a combination of both so really set the expectation from the business license perspective and also from a zoning perspective. And so the question here is which locations, if any, is desired for the new regulations? If that's where we're headed.

Okay from I mentioned that the zoning districts right now they're allowed in for commercial zones and an option to approach just lumping it in with general retail would be to possibly we could change. The location of which zones that they're allowed in could be another commercial districts. There's only two other commercial districts, visitor serving and intersection commercial but that's an option.

And we could change to industrial districts where retail is presently only permitted as an accessory use to the primary use like manufacturing And those districts include service industrial and general industrials, mostly in Old Town. But there's also the airport flight path that limits some buildings there. And then along Aero Camino are kind of the two main areas that pop out.

Changing the zones though would require More likely trigger a general plan amendment and more environmental review. So we would also have to evaluate carefully the second amendment and any possible conflicts there. So we'll be asking you about if you prefer to maintain our existing zone and build in other regulations or if you want us to shift to different zones?

So there's a lot of talk about sensitive uses and not talking about buffers on this slide, but we first would need to know what sensitive uses. And on the slide you can see we list out that family daycares, schools The community center, parks, youth centers, residentially, zone parcels and anything else that might be considered. I think there's been some discussions about general assembly like churches, gyms, athletic clubs, martial arts and dance studios, the Goleta branch post office, libraries, city hall, bike paths, beaches, beach parking lots. Those are some things that we've heard discussed. But what you see on the screen in those lists are kind of the sensitive uses that were used for other like tobacco, cannabis, adult-oriented businesses so if we're not making a recommendation there but we're just giving you what's already in our municipal code and so that you have that So we are looking for, you know, which sensitive uses are you looking at and if there's a priority there so that we know what's kind of the most important thing in case we're having problems with too many overlapping buffers for sensitive uses and not leaving any space left for firearm retail uses.

There's the slide. We already covered that one so we can skip past it. Okay, so sensitive uses and now the buffers. I think I mentioned that we already have some buffers in our municipal code. So just as examples, they're very different legal standards so the bar is not the same for our retail sales as they are for cannabis, tobacco or adult oriented business but cannabis has 600 feet from the Goleta Community Center and then K through 12 schools, and then 100 feet from residential zones. That's where we landed with the cannabis storefront. And for tobacco it's 1,000 feet from schools including the daycares.

And adult-oriented business a thousand feet from schools, daycares, community assembly, and parks, and then 600 to 1000 feet depending on the circumstance from residential zones. So we want to know from you, like what are your desired buffers? You know maybe it doesn't have to be exact but give us a sense so that we can start working with the mapping and the land uses and see where there's constraints.

So for the separation of use standards, an option would be to consider a firearm retail use separation requirement between storefronts. And we could consider a separation requirement that's similar to cannabis retail which is 600 feet between storefronts and then adult businesses which are 1,000 feet between storefronts, something in that range. So we're looking for your feedback on whether or not you're interested in the separation standard and if so, kind of the size of that standard. And then also is it higher or lower priority than sensitive use buffers? If something had to give, is it more important to have storefront separation with bigger buffers or bigger standards or larger sensitive use buffers?

And then other possible requirements. So if we move forward with crafting new regulations, we're going to address a bunch of other requirements that aren't listed here of course and we wanted to just list some things out in case you had Particular direction on something or maybe there's something that's not on the screen that you have that you think is important for us to be sure to address, but hours of operation, fencing, nonconforming uses, discharge restrictions, firearms and ammunition retail as an accessory use. We kind of touched on that in the other slide.

And I just mentioned that non-conforming uses, and I wanted to point out that right now we have provisions for non-conforming uses in Title 1736. And that's for the termination of non-conforming uses so we already have regulations for that and I just wanted to flag it. Before I had mentioned that a lot of cities include regulations in their business licenses and we don't have any particular chapter for firearm dealer business licenses in our municipal code. That would be in Title V.

There are for other types of business licenses, not a lot but there's some and we could add That would include a lot of detail like procedures for the application and specific requirements and compliance with federal and state requirements and denials, revocations and operation and suspensions. You can see the list on the screen and that's where safety and security requirements could go.

And some of those things are already in our business license. There's requirements that we expect from the applicants and some are not, so we would work closely with the business license folks and finance and develop these together so that they're consistent with each other. So we're just looking for feedback on you, if there's anything in particular here. If you did want to include regulations in Title V of the Municipal Code.

And that brings us to council questions and I'm going to keep running through these slides just to, then we'll take public comment. And then we'll get your feedback and to kind of facilitate the feedback there's just one slide here that includes all the questions if that's helpful we can go back through them one by one if you prefer. And I did want to cover the next steps now so we don't have to do it later but If you know depending on what you tell us to do tonight, we'll kind of drive the next steps. And if we need to return with a general plan amendment initiation, let's say change zones and then we have to go back and make changes to land use plan map in the general plan. Then we'll come back to you for an initiation.

And we wanted to flag that general plan amendments take a little more time, they're more procedurally involved and then there's environmental review that's included. So we would try to do everything we can to find solutions to general plan amendments because our primary objective with the general plan is to keep it the way it is and only change it if we absolutely have to. So we'll do what we can there But if there are general plan amendments or Title 17 changes that don't drive general plan amendments, we first would go to the Planning Commission and then we would return to the City Council for final action.

For Title 5 changes to the business license requirement, that we would return to you. We wouldn't go to the Planning Commission for that. And of course we will be updating the business license application as I mentioned earlier. So that concludes the staff presentation and we will go back to council comments or questions

2:44 – 2:4913 turns

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:44:43

Okay, so I think we could go to a council now and then I'm really looking forward to hearing from the public with ideas and suggestions that this is your opportunity as well as ours to come up with some ideas. And then staff will come back at the next meeting I believe with options and we'll move from there. So Council Member Kasdan?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:45:07

Yeah, I was unclear the separation of uses standards that you had there. Separation between businesses? Is that like businesses or what? I didn't follow what that means. Is that just no two gun shops next to each other? Is that what it means?

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated2:45:24

That's correct. So yeah keeping them apart from each other.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:45:28

Okay but it's not so whatever the store is they can be next to another store doesn't have to be separated. Thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:45:38

Any other questions?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:45:42

Actually one more.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:45:44

Okay, Council Member Haslund?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:45:46

Yeah I guess with some of them for instance the cannabis standard that you had 600 feet around K through 12 community center and 100 feet around residential zones When is it sort of, do you have a sense of when it's too broad? You know that you're excluding too much. And are there other cities for instance that have adopted a standard like that and so we're comfortable or has there been a kind of vetting already that among that list they're all going to be Second amendment sufficient, so to speak.

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated2:46:35

All right, so I won't answer the second amendment sufficient question. I'll let the city attorney answer that if it's needed because I think that's still a gray area but I will say that not a lot of cities have adopted buffer regulations but the ones that have, it does seem like 500 feet, 600 feet Sometimes 1,000 feet is common. But I want to note that it really depends on the layout of your city. Like we're a very rectangular shaped city around the 101 corridor from a kind of land use perspective so you have like Hollister and Kyrielle and commercial along Hollister and Kyrielle and then residential and a lot of uses mixed in. So when you start buffering you get a lot of overlap And some cities might have huge blocks, you know big areas of commercial and so buffers might not necessarily overlap into those uses.

So we have to do that spatial analysis in order to answer your question but just keep that in mind when we're talking about buffers. That's why we're hoping to get like this one is the most important for each of you it would be good to get that sense.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:47:52

Okay thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:47:56

Council Member Reyes-Martin.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:47:59

Thank you. More maybe a process question because I want to understand what you need from us tonight and then a little bit of what the next steps are. So if I'm understanding correctly, what you want from council is the bigger picture kind of policy direction on some of these questions and then depending on what that is, then staff will determine kind of how to get there and then it goes to Planning Commission Which I think would be really valuable and they've expressed an interest in wanting to, you know, be part of that.

And I think that's really helpful because they can really drill down onto like just the mechanics of how it would work within for the pieces that are part of the title 17. So I think that's good. And I agree, I think it's hard for me to visualize how buffers would work and I wasn't part of the council the last time this was discussed with some of these other uses so I guess my question is is it helpful on a question like for example of the buffers to give like a range? So that then when staff is looking at the actual map and how it works out, I would imagine or think it might be helpful for the Planning Commission or whichever body at that point to kind of have the data to show like here's what it looks like with a 600 foot buffer. Here's what it looks like with 1,000.

Am I kind of following well there? Is that helpful? Or do you want like a single number?

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated2:49:45

What you said about giving us ranges and what's more important going down through the questions that we ask, that's exactly what we're looking for. Thank you.

2:49 – 2:5512 turns

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:49:58

Council Member Carioca.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:50:00

Thank you Madam Mayor. I saw some examples of sensitive uses in large family daycare was mentioned, child care centers were mentioned What about small family daycare? Because right now in California, you can do a small family daycare I believe by right. And so you can basically run one out of an apartment. You can run one out of your home if you have a landlord they can't prohibit you from doing that and so my question is are we contemplating a consideration You know, if someone's doing small family daycare having a buffer or having some kind of restrictions on gun sales nearby.

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated2:50:49

It's a good question we kind of grappled with this for the cannabis retail buffers and we don't have the locational information for the small family daycares. We do have some for the large and because they get business license issued, so we don't include the small.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:51:10

Okay, I would suggest that be something that's looked at and I would suggest talking to Santa Barbara County Children's Resource and Referral and the Santa Barbara County Child Care Planning Council. Thank you.

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated2:51:22

And we do and they actually give us their list and then we compare it to our business licenses so that we can kind of make sure that because they change year-to-year. The

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:51:31

vocations

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated2:51:32

change.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:51:33

And a lot of times after three or four years when their own children get older, they stop doing that as their business and they move on to something else. Just the nature of that work. Conditional use permits in commercial zones, in community commercial, old town, some of these zones, what would be the standard land use or business purpose that would then rise to the level of requiring a conditional use permit? Are there any types of businesses that would require one, or is it largely ministerial?

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated2:52:13

So right now it's ‑‑ there's no planning permit. We just issued the business license. If we were to consider a conditional use permit for example, we would have to have objective Findings and there's some challenges with that. And I don't know if the City Attorney wants to elaborate, but you know if you give us instruction to look at a conditional use permit for example we'll just have to proceed very carefully to make sure that the findings are manageable and that it's not perceived as a restriction on the Second Amendment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:52:47

I mean, I think one of the challenges that we've seen in the public discussion about this issue hasn't just been about the allowability of a particular use but about the requirements for noticing and the requirements for active public participation. And so conditional use permit process is one tool that allows you to get to that public process. That's why I was asking about it.

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated2:53:15

Councilmember Kariakou, we are aware of some cities that have some process whether it's called the CUP or I believe it's Oxnard that's called a special use permit where there is notice and findings. I believe it goes to the Planning Commission as Ms. Weld noted it's distinguishable from sort of a CUP that folks are more used to seeing in terms of the standards that apply to it because there are second amendment constraints That's a local agency can't meaningfully constrain the ability of folks to acquire firearms. So it's distinguishable from maybe a CUP under different land use context, but there are examples of cities that have moved forward with processes that are distinguishable but equivalent in terms of public process and entitlement review.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:54:00

Thank you. And one of the reasons why I ask about that is if you create conditional use permit requirements for firearms in some zones but not others, that can be looked at as a planning tool to try and encourage those types of businesses to go to those types of zones if they want to operate that way in the city. One of the things I've lamented in this entire community conversation is that we've been so focused on where shouldn't the guns be and keeping them away from children which is important And I agree.

But we also need to be honest with ourselves as a community and say, as long as you're going to allow people to sell guns as a business, you need to find a way to plan as a community for where that type of business should be. And I feel like picking some examples where you would require a conditional use permit and then other land uses where you would have a less restrictive process and less hoops to jump through would be one way to try and get to that. So for example, if you didn't require a CUP in industrial but you do required in community commercial That's a way to kind of get back at the old planning concepts used to have going back to the 20s and 30s where you're trying to keep children and families away from heavy industry, heavy automotive type uses as sort of a way to make things safer.

So thank you. I think that's it for me right now. I may ask a couple more questions later.

2:55 – 3:0012 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:55:35

Maybe picking up on that because I understand where you're going, Councilmember Kiriakou. So maybe this is a question for our City Attorney but what I'm hearing is with the CUP process if we have designated an area where the use is allowed, a CUP in this instance would have to have objective findings So it's not discretionary in the way that maybe a planning commission or the public might be used to with a different type of CUP.

I ask that because I wouldn't want the expectation that allowing certain zones to have a CUP gives them an avenue to deny it. If the business owner has met those objective standards, am I understanding that right? So isn't the better question where do we as a community feel it's appropriate for those uses to be and then just focus there?

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated2:56:39

Council Member Reyes-Martin, I think it's accurate to say to your point that it does look distinguishable maybe in terms of how the CUP would operate than a different land use entitlement. In that the findings often and where we have examples from other cities that have gone through this are more narrow and often do have an objective component so even though the entitlement is discretionary the lens with which The administrative officer, whoever it is that's looking at it, is more narrow than maybe a different type of standard conditional use permit where it is more of an up or down vote.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:57:21

Thank you. And so then my other question, because I agree that one of the kind of consistent pieces of public feedback we've gotten is about noticing and so it's been a good also opportunity to just talk to the public about how that works, that there are specific instances where noticing is required and ones where it's not. So is there another avenue other than a CUP or in addition to a CUP to have a noticing requirement? Can that, can a noticing requirement be included as part of a business license or a different process? Do we have an example of that?

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated2:58:08

It's a good question and we do have somebody from the finance team

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated2:58:13

here. Oh, I can jump in Miss Wells. It might take our finance director a couple minutes to get up there. So my understanding is we do have that noticing requirement for short term vacation rentals where there's a noticing provision but the requirements themselves live, I believe in title five so there is the possibility, there's always the possibility of sort of additional notice regardless of what the approval or entitlement looks like and I think that's sort of a comparable And just to kind of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:58:45

close my questions for now. That's not to say I don't think we should consider a CUP, I just wanted to make that clear. It's just more if we're looking at particular zones, I think my first question is is this a zone where we would want, we would think as appropriate and then should we also do a CUP? It's kind of the way I'm thinking about it, but I'd like to hear the rest of council when we get to deliberations. Thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response2:59:14

Mayor Pro Tem Smith?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:59:16

Yes, thank you. So the daycare discussion just triggered my thinking so if there was a situation I guess I'm thinking about Because if they're in homes, those can change year to year. So from a zoning perspective, if you had a buffer, you could have a situation where the store was conforming with current zoning but then depending on where the daycare lands it could become non-conforming in a year or two, is that correct?

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated2:59:57

That's correct. We discussed that during cannabis to where we were, um, we were showing buffers in the workshops from daycares and then that topic came up and then ultimately it was removed for other reasons too. But yeah, that is a challenge with the day cares because they move

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:00:15

Okay, thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:00:18

Council Member Kasich?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:00:19

Yeah just a thought with respect to cannabis since that had 100 foot distance from residential zones I would assume that would capture than any in-house sort of the family daycare since they're in homes so anything that's protecting homes would protect the in-house daycare That's all. Thank you.

3:00 – 3:066 turns

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:00:52

We're all, I don't know if I saw that in the report. We'd be looking at not only public schools but private schools. What about schools, preschools? Often churches have preschools. I want to make sure that we're looking at those preschools as well and then after school care and different facilities. Churches, you know somebody suggested somebody had to spoke speaking to said something about libraries I mean you can throw out all these ideas skies the limit right but ultimately you're gonna come back and say Which of these ideas really work?

Based on where it's a area. Where are the areas that they are allowed, you know We need to leave those open we can't Discontinue having all the space around Goleta closed off. So that wouldn't work. Are we able to, looking at the 1,000 foot buffer, are you considering changing the rules for cannabis or no? Leaving that just as is, the 600, we're just talking about the gun shops.

That was in front, if we

CommentAnn WillsProposedself-stated3:02:26

choose to do that. Firearm retail only not

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:02:28

changing anything else. Okay that's what I thought but I wanted to make sure. Okay I'd really like to hear from the public because this is really about you helping us and then staffs gonna gather all this and come back with their magic that they always do. And so if we have any speakers?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role3:02:50

Yes, thank you Madam Mayor. I have five speaker slips. Those of you on the Zoom webinar please use raised hand icon if you wish to speak to this item. Our first in-person speaker will be Peg Duffy. Please make your way to the podium all speakers will have three minutes

CommentPeg DuffyProposedself-stated3:03:13

for letting me speak tonight. My name is Peg Duffy, I live a couple blocks away from where the gun shop is. I sent a letter that was thought to have caught some attention from the last meeting that you all had with a lot of questions. I spoke to Robert last Thursday who answered some And I was aware that this meeting today was for ideas to help, not let this happen again in the area that it's in. Because my end result of this is that to our community, Elwood, Elwood Shores, um, the whole community there within the safe bike path from Albertsons to Allwood.

What does this gun shop do for our community? What does it bring to our community? Is it a benefit? I myself think not. I look at it in the end result that there's a business next door that's going to close, which will then have people unemployed. Which will also have parents looking for a new place to have their children taken care of. It seems like there was a lot of fall through the cracks with this whole thing.

How that happened, I'm not 100% sure. When somebody has a property that they're leasing and then they're told they can't do retail there, they didn't want to change to meet the retail code in the industrial area where they did have the lease. Now it is My question is, is there any kind of manufacturing of guns or fixing guns or somebody brings a gun in and can you adjust it? Or to me that is kind of an industrial site not a retail site although he is selling I would imagine ammunition because once you have a gun you need ammo.

And that's the stuff that you have to replace not necessarily the gun I also was wondering how long, there's all these different things. People are saying it's a 25 year lease, it's a five year lease. Do we know what the lease is on the building for this particular gun shop? You know, I'm all for somebody having a small business where it's been dropped is not the right place. I thank you for that and I hope we find some solutions that will help our city because this is nothing that is beneficial to my community, to our community as a whole where it's located. Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role3:06:33

Next speaker is Dan Ashton

3:06 – 3:134 turns

CommentDan AshtonProposedself-stated3:06:49

Good evening. My name is Dan Ashton, I'm a neighbor. I've been a citizen of Goleta for over 20 years and I have owned and operated Goodland Guns as a successful business since 2013. I want to express how grateful I am to the supporters who are standing with me in this attack against my business and also future firearm retailers in this state especially the city.

I've been next to a preschool for 13 years already People seem to think I'm new and I'm bringing guns to the city. They're already here, they've been here for generations and my store has been here for over a decade. Further regulation against firearm dealers in Goleta is a knee-jerk reaction. More regulation is only going to sue those complaining and attempt to save your seats in political office.

There's already more regulation in this state against firearm dealers than any other state as you stated. We're in this predicament because of the conflicting nature of overreaching regulations in our zoning, building and fire codes. The question that I'd really like answered is why was my business held to a different standard than the 11 other businesses I pointed out to city staff?

I have public record documents in hand that show I was the only business that was asked to do the requirements to get my business license at the industrial site. Of that requirement, it conveniently protects the city by stating it is not all inclusive and a guide only. This allows city staff to weaponize those requirements. Not one but two licensed architects were unable to meet this cherry pick list.

Let me repeat, 11 other businesses were issued a business license without a site plan. All 11 of these businesses had occupancy group changes just like the one I was proposing at the industrial site at 7443 Hollister Avenue. Shame on the Director, the City Manager and the City Attorney. You all received my emails, you all have the evidence of prejudice yet you stonewalled my application and my business license at that industrial site.

During this year-long process, you couldn't even give me a required written administrative decision so I could properly appeal. When I went to the City Hall to appeal the administrative decision, I was told that it was not official and it would take two months to get one. To date, I still haven't gotten one. Peter Imhoff repeatedly deferred me to city staff when staff were incorrect. Robert Nisbet deferred me to Peter Imhoff. The city attorney gave no response.

This is a circular failure and the exact reason those positions exist in the first place. Because of their incompetence, my business has had to suffer for the last year-and-a-half, two years trying to relocate. The public backlash right now shouldn't be about a firearms business. It should be an alarm ringing to the depths of incompetence this city has shown during the application process of my business license at the industrial site.

Putting a conditional use permit requirement on a firearms business in a predominantly liberal town is a thinly veiled ban. It will ensure no new gun stores ever open in the city again. I want to close, if you'll allow me more time with the case in point. In 2022, the city issued a business license for preschool at 7433 Hollister right next door to a 7-Eleven that sells tobacco and alcohol. Regulations currently on the books explicitly prohibit a school from opening within 600 feet excuse me 1,000 feet of a store selling these products. The law was on the books and it should have prevented that location from ever becoming a preschool yet the city ignored its own laws if the city won't even enforce zoning regulations it already has passing more regulation is clearly not the answer thank you

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:10:27

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role3:10:29

Our next speaker is Becky Davis.

CommentBecky DavisProposedself-stated3:10:41

Hi, I'm Becky Davis. My husband and I owned a gun store here long before Goleta became a city. We've been here for over 55 years. We've been running the gun store for 40 years. You zoned me out of business literally. You said if I did manufacturing, I couldn't do retail. And if I did retail, I couldn't do manufacturing. Go find a landlord that might let you be there and then we'll tell you whether we will allow you to be there or not. All of this happened about two decades ago.

One decade ago, we were literally zoned out of business. I'm advising you to one, take advantage of the knowledge that's in front of you. I am more than willing to explain to you what it takes to get a federal firearms license and what it takes to get a California firearms license. There's over five different licenses required before I can even become a California firearms dealer. I more than happy to go through that with you and educate any of you, your zoning staff, your legal staff, the council because you seem to be trying to go into a zone that really, and no pun intended about the zoning but you aren't staying in your lane. If you try and outlaw gun businesses through some backward legislation about buffer zones or additional requirements or whatever we will call the Firearms Policy Coalition and we will bring a lawsuit against the city.

You seem to be very afraid of having lawsuits brought against you, but I'm getting really tired of this. You guys cost me $1.5 million. I have lived with dirt floors in buildings that I had to build in Montana relocating my business and running at half time. And what you don't understand is that more than half of the organic farmers in Santa Barbara buy from me I was the only dealer in the entire state that was supplying lead-free ammo when it was first required.

I was so involved in that, we were listed on the back of the mammal hunting brochure for that year on where you could get the ammo. My customers include the LAPD, the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department, the Ventura County Sheriff's Office. I'm one of the good guys and instead, I'm treated as if I'm a pornographer or child pornographer rather than a legitimate gun dealer who makes better quality ammo and sells it to law enforcement community and legal hunting community. I'd like you to reconsider staying in your lane please.

Thank you.

3:13 – 3:1911 turns

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role3:13:07

Our next speaker is Mary Nishimoto

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed3:13:16

Hello everyone, City Council, Mayor. I appreciate that there's a real mindset here to do some problem solving and I have sent out a letter to all of you that comments on all of these questions In that letter there are a number of things but I want to emphasize a few things in that. First, I think what is urgently needed is that the City Council must take decisive actions to require any firearms selling business Stringent physical and operational security measures in place as soon as possible to maximally, as established by precedent, lawfully mitigating the clear and present risk of theft and potential harm to the public by having this retailer in place.

And you know, the goal I heard is to make things safer and we want to do that as soon as possible. Secondly The City Council should establish an emergency ordinance that designates firearms retail as a distinct commercial category separate from general retail and then to examine buffers. Last and importantly, I urge the City Council to designate any existing firearms retailer within that buffer that are established if that's what this council wants to do as non-conforming use. The other thing too is that Let's see, I'm losing track. The thing that has been mentioned by Dan Ashton is that the industrial zone was not made available to him or it was going to be very difficult for him to do and maybe the council might consider whether there can be an exemption to make that happen for firearms retail.

And let's see Yeah I just really think the city can take time well but has to think quickly on being creative with this to do some to do that problem solving. And I think there's been a lot of good things that have been shared with the council through public comments. Thank you. Thank you.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role3:16:00

Our last and final speaker, Melissa Fontaine. A last call for those of you on the Zoom webinar if you wish to speak to this item please use the raised hand icon.

PresenterJay RitterbeckProposed · by introduction3:16:11

Hello mayor council members and staff I've lived in Goleta for 18 years and i thank you for your leadership and your work on this issue especially Ann as a lead writer on that long report my husband is a hunter I don't think this is about the second amendment I was a business owner in Goleta small business owner And I feel for Dan because it is not easy. And as long as we're allowed to sell guns in this country, this man needs a place to be able to sell them and I would love if we could just find that location for him and then we could avoid all these conversations about zoning.

If we don't go in that direction, then these are my recommendations. I ask for your support that maximizes the safety and well-being of our community which includes maximum buffers such as 1,000 feet, includes updating zoning in a way that serves the neighborhood but that's not my top recommendation. My top recommendation is we just find this business a better location.

I'd also ask you to consider the financial support that he needs to make this change. This situation happened and he should not incur the financial cost of this. The preschool has reduced in attendance by half since this issue has come to light. They're likely going to go out of business, which is a terrible loss for our community. I'm asking that you act on this immediately. Like we make a motion tonight. So I don't know how government works exactly but I need to ask you for your advice on how to keep our community safe and how business owners can have a business.

We have formed a coalition it is the Elwood Elwood Community Coalition, there's 68 neighbors who have signed on in the last week and many of them were at the Elwood Elementary PTA meeting. Many of them are probably like putting their kids to bed right now as I would like to be and that could all go away if we just find a more appropriate location for this business.

Thank you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role3:18:16

Okay, we'll now move to our Zoom speakers. We do have one hand up, Christy Zawiecki. If you please unmute yourself, you will have three minutes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:18:25

Hi, can everybody hear me okay?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role3:18:26

Yes we

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:18:26

can.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role3:18:27

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:18:27

Okay great um thank you for taking the time to review this uh I wanted to read a statement from the principal of the Elwood Elementary School. Um I chatted with him about this and just wanted to make sure that the Elwood Elementary School um principal And the community was represented here. So, the principal of Elwood Elementary School has stated that the safety of Elwood students is his number one priority. The principal of Elwood Elementary School supports the resolution issued by the Goleta Union School Board urging safe location standards for firearm retailers near schools and youth serving spaces.

So I just wanted to make sure that you heard that. And I was gonna read a statement for my daughter as well, but I will not tonight. So anyways thank you for your time. That's it.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:19:25

Thank you. Would you like to speak? Could you come up to the microphone and state your name and then later you can fill out a slip.

3:19 – 3:2612 turns

CommentEmily ZachariasProposedself-stated3:19:38

I'm Emily Zacharias, I'm on the Goleta Union School Board. Thank you, I apologize for not filling out a card. I didn't know if I was going to speak tonight but I've been listening and I just wanted to add my two cents and I appreciate the caller or the Zoom person representing Ned. who is one of our principals. We recently passed this resolution, our school board unanimously passed a resolution that in a nutshell talks about the safety of our students to and from school and just having buffer zones with firearms retail. And I just wanted to read here that let's see.

That our board urges these jurisdictions including the City of Santa Barbara, the City of Goleta and the County of Santa Barbara to consider a minimum separation of 1,000 feet and to establish processes that provide appropriate public notice and consideration of nearby youth serving uses when firearm retail locations are proposed. We were asking the community members, property owners, firearm retailers involved in this current matter to explore lawful and practical options for a location that appropriately separates firearm retail activity from child care facilities and other youth-serving spaces. But I don't know about this preschool. I've heard it might not make it. It might have to go out of business. My daughter went to this preschool here we grow.

They have a few locations. It's really upsetting so if they end up Going under, having to relocate. Where does that leave us with buffers? Because Elwood is actually more than 1,000 feet so if we're talking about 1,00 feet buffers I don't think it would encapsulate our school. So that's something to consider. I know the county just passed a moratorium on any new retailers applying for these licenses so I think that's kind of a way to start there as we look at the policy moving forward and how we wanna Solve this issue.

It's a really tricky one and I don't necessarily think it's fair for a business owner who went through the lawful process to be put out, but this is something going forward that we're gonna have to address and as a school district, as a representative, we're here to work with you guys to keep our community safe and make sure we're all following the laws. Thank you.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:21:50

Thank you so much. Any other speakers on Zoom?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role3:21:54

No, I have no more hands up.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:21:56

Okay, I'm just going to jump in here before. I just want to make a few comments unless you have more questions.

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated3:22:04

Mayor, just to be clear so the public comment portion is closed? Yes. Okay thank you.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:22:09

I just want to say, I want to play a council member Kyle Richards. He was so good at on this hand, I see it this way on this hand, so I won't be able to do it as well as he does but I do want to say that on this hand I understand the concern of the public and Public safety is our number one priority in the city of Goleta, it always has been. So we want families to feel secure and safe in their residential area that they live in. On the other hand, we also realize businesses need to thrive and whether you like guns or don't like guns, They have a right to sell guns. It's legal, and so we're not saying you can't sell. We're just saying where might be a more appropriate thank-you place where you can succeed and be welcomed and do a good job? And we want you to be successful.

There's also a third hand, if I had one. It's we have to also look at the federal law. We have to see what we can and can't do. So I think you were right, Becky Davis. You know, we will absolutely look into that. And then we also have the county. I know the county discussed it today, I don't know what the final outcome of all that was but I would hope that we look at not following everything they're proposing but be somewhat on the same page so it's more of a regional idea I think it works when we all kind of work together regionally. So, I don't know what they came up with so I'm not gonna comment on that but I think we would like to collaborate with the county and so I guess the next step here is you heard from us, you've heard some ideas from us and you will be coming back with proposed ordinance, is that correct?

And then we go from there, right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:24:44

Madam Mayor, I don't know if we have heard from you yet. We are wanting to hear from you on the questions that were posed in the PowerPoint and we can put those back up and would like to get more specific direction but in terms of next steps, if the changes that are being contemplated are through Chapter 17 and it sounds like they will be and that's one of the first questions actually then the next step is to go to the Planning Commission

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:25:13

Okay, so I guess my question is that would take no. What would take longer? What was the not titles. It was if we went to oh, I'm getting confused now on Title 17 would then go to the Planning Commission, which is a good idea because then it's another opportunity for the public to Speak to this item right? But if it was title 5 Then it would be faster because it would be code

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:25:44

Mayor that's correct So title 17 is the zoning ordinance and that by law has to go back through the planning commission before it comes to the council so we need a Planning Commission recommendation. That's not the case of with Title V, which contains the business

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:25:57

regulations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:26:01

But the natural place if we're talking about spatial regulation buffers, the natural place to do that would be in our zoning

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:26:10

code. And I know I haven't heard from all of you about doing an urgency ordinance? So that's something else the county was looking at today. I don't know how they landed on that.

3:26 – 3:408 turns

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated3:26:27

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, just to step in, Ms. Wells did some quick analysis sort of of what happened at the county so I think she could speak to just what she, what the county did today but my understanding is they gave broad direction regarding buffers and changes they would like to see including the possibility of a new CEP requirement study to further study yeah study two Let me back up. Subject to study by city staff, spatial mapping et cetera and my understanding is the County Board of Supervisors by a four-fifths vote which is required for an urgency ordinance passed a moratorium that would temporarily prohibit the ability for a firearm retail seller to obtain any sort of county approval over the time the moratorium is in place.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:27:15

Okay got it all right thank you Oh, I'm seeing everybody wants to talk. Council Member Kasdan?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:27:24

Thank you. So first the reason I thought of the word appropriate is because that was the first thing I was going to say also that we didn't consider this when we did Title 17, when we were talking about this. Nobody suggested any of this for both us and others. It just never came up before. Nobody considered what makes sense? Where should we thought of, you know, we've zoned where you can have a 7-11 or, you know, preschool but we didn't really think about or talk about guns And so without being hostile or critical, it's reasonable for us to say are there certain locations that make more sense than others? Are there certain areas where we should have it as opposed to where it's less appropriate.

So in that context, we're not trying to eliminate guns or anything of that sort. It's really just finding where fits best And so with that in mind, I let's see. Here is the list I mean one part of why this came up as it did is because the proposed gun store was in a location that to a lot of people seemed inappropriate next to a preschool, on a class 1 bike lane in a residential neighborhood didn't seem like it fit.

And it was so when we think of you know where does it make sense for instance the general commercial areas CG I guess it is The regional commercial and general commercial make sense in a way that community commercial does not. Community commercial to me is neighborhood serving. It is something for that neighborhood and a gun store makes less sense than it does for an area, a broader area.

I also, it's reasonable to say there are certain sensitive uses like K-12 preschool community center youth serving where you might say the buffer makes sense. Having said that I realize you have to map all of these things and figure out what are the implications for each of these proposals, and so forth. And then the other thing is, kind of uh... standards that you can apply and for instance it you know to me uh... the cannabis standard adding in what you have for cannabis adding in preschools as well seemed like that that could be fine too that might uh... have a similar effect you know at least for me when your mapping these things those two made some sort of sense And I guess we're not agendized to talk about it at the moment, but to follow up on Ms.

Fontaine's comments and the owner, I would like to see us work with the owner if it's possible to locate in that other location. I don't know what the issues are exactly, what the problem is, but if there's a way of supporting that, it seems like it would be in everyone's interest to do so. to enable him to move to that other location which sounded on its face to suit, to be more suited than where it went. So those are my thoughts.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:31:14

Mayor Pro Tem?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:31:16

Yes, thank you. And I wanted to thank all of the members of the public for their comments and to the preliminary question that came in. I mean really, I think what the city has discovered is there is this regulatory gap. Firearms are heavily regulated in many different ways like possession near schools But most jurisdictions, at least from the preliminary information we've learned, most jurisdictions in California don't address this as a zoning matter. And that's true of most jurisdictions in Santa Barbara County.

So this has brought that to light. And I want to acknowledge that the owner went through the lawful process to get where we are today. In terms of moving forward, so first of all, I think both, I think moving forward in zoning Make sense in title 17. I do also think it's worth looking at some of the business license items as well And I think that's where it makes sense. I always think about a future If 10 20 years from now, there's an entirely new council and an entirely new staff You know if they're kind of going through the usual procedures and the usual checklists you know we want things to be where it makes sense as opposed to sort of I don't know.

It seems to be working with our existing structure, at least preliminarily makes sense to me. The zones I agree with Councilmember Kasdan on the commercial question. And it, I think the industrial question is is an interesting one you know my understanding is that Is that within there's like the accessory use quite there's this question about what's what's allowed as an accessory use versus a primary you so I'm not 100% convinced and industrial could change but I'm open to it so that might be worth some additional study.

You know, I think we have to consider a situation where You know, I know in a lot of industrial areas you think about like parking and these other issues that may be lacking in an industrial zone. May not be appropriate but it's maybe worth exploring. I think in terms of sensitive uses, I do think we need to include the consideration of churches and the current rules as it relates to either the adult businesses or cannabis are maybe some combination. I'm sort of open, to using those as a guide, but it's a little bit hard to say where it lands without sort of seeing a map. But I think both of those serve as a good guide and we know that cannabis was done most recently.

I do think there's some practical concerns when we start talking about buffering and as it relates to Second Amendment considerations. that there might be some practical challenges there, particularly as it relates to residential areas or the home-based daycares. So I do think the cannabis ordinance may be useful as a guide in that process but again, it's just, it's a little bit hard to know sort of without seeing the map I think a separation standard would also be appropriate, but I think it's a lower priority than the appropriate zoning and the buffers.

But I do think it's worth considering I would be open in terms of other considerations. I mean, I do think we may want to consider a moratorium while we consider these items. And I think in terms of the business license piece, I think the questions regarding security would be at least for me a primary thing to consider. So those are my preliminary thoughts.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:36:38

Thank you. Thank you, I'll run down a little bit of my list. I agree with my colleagues about it seems like the community commercial is the one where there's most opportunity for being incompatible so I agree with that and then looking at buffers would be kind of my next biggest priority. I do think looking at what was done with cannabis as a starting point makes sense to me. I guess it would be the Planning Commission to look at what 1,000 foot buffer would look like. My guess is that just with what was talked about the constraints Boundaries might make that infeasible, but I'd like to check that. And then that minimum for me being the 600.

I do also like that with cannabis there was also this consideration for a certain number of feet from residential zones so I would like the Applying Commission to look at that too and If it's 100, it seems like maybe that was where they landed on that. So I like the way that they took a little bit of a hybrid approach with that. In terms of the sensitive uses, I think my first priority is and I see that it's listed here as K-12 but I'm really thinking about 0-12 so daycare all the way up to high school.

And I agree with my colleague about churches. And then, I also do support what was shared in the staff report about the business license piece because I do think this noticing piece if we can accomplish that through The business license process, I think that does respond to one of the most consistent pieces of public feedback we've gotten. And then maybe lastly, I don't know if I answered all the questions on here but I also agree with Councilmember Kasdan about Stating my support for working with the business owner to find a way for them, a different location. I do support that and I agree that they followed the lawful process that we had in place and I think it would be appropriate to try to be part of the solution as we've heard from residents expressing that as well.

Thank you. Oh, and I guess question. Because you brought up the, I know that the moratorium was brought up at the county. My concern with that would be that that's in conflict with what I just said about trying to find a solution for relocation. So I don't know if my thinking around that is correct but I did have that thought.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:40:05

Mr. Rosen do you want to comment on that?

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated3:40:09

Sure, Mayor, and it's a good question Council Member Reyes-Martin. I think a moratorium under the zoning code and government code 65858 is based around limiting uses specifically while the city studies them so I think the council does have options. The county's moratorium was broad in prohibiting expressly permits associated with relocation, new firearm retailers.

I think the city if it's of interest of the council can look more narrowly at uses and potentially new uses as a potential option for moratorium.

3:40 – 3:466 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:40:53

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have some responses for questions to Council as well but before we do, we had some public comments both from folks that are associated with the business and own the business and also people that are concerned about the neighborhood near the Goodland Guns location. And I just wanted to ask a question of staff because some things were said about staff My understanding, and perhaps you can elaborate on this, is that at the point where Goodland Guns made the decision to move away from the lease that they had in Old Town and the industrial area which I believe is on South Kellogg.

To move very rapidly towards the other location where they are now. The only thing that was left on the city checklist for them to accomplish was to get a building permit So they were a building permit away from being able to go forward. And for whatever reason, they elected not to go through that process. I just wanted to know could staff talk to that or if that was something I read incorrectly give it a chance to kind of get some clarity on that because I don't want to say anything that's not true but that was my understanding. Can you just talk a little bit about that? And the reason why I'm asking is because I think better understanding how the experience was in the industrial zone is helpful to me to understand What changes we might need to make to allow gun stores and licensed gun retail to happen in the industrial zone.

Because, to me, I think we can't just find all these safe harbors where no guns here, no guns here and not come up with a safe harbor where guns are okay there. And to me industrial seems to make the most sense.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:42:40

Yeah, Mayor and Council Member Kiyoko I can address that and your understanding is broadly correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:42:45

I'm sorry can you repeat that because there's been a lot of information out there about all the things the city did to make this impossible?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:42:52

Yeah so your understanding is correct in the issue in an industrial zone is that retail is not a primary use manufacturing is the primary use in industrial zones So in the case of Gunland Guns, locating there they did propose a manufacturing use which would have required a building permit as identified by the city's building official. There was a lengthy correspondence with the applicant back and forth and the applicant disagreed with the building officials interpretation of the building code and the requirements and elected not to pursue and complete a building permit application with a set of plans that met the building officials requirements. So there was an impasse that was reached there and the applicant didn't pursue it, and looked for a different location but the broader issue with respect to industrial land use designations is again the one that retail is not a principally permitted use now under the general plan so we would have to look at that but if the city, if the council's inclined I'd like to start by saying thank you And C, there are other examples.

So retail uses are allowed as accessory uses to manufacturing and there are examples, notable examples in for example the IBP zone, the business park zone where there are breweries or other uses that have a retail component that is accessory to the main manufacturing component. And that may be something that the city wants to expand or look at as kind of a more formal permitted use. But as it stands now, any business that wants to have a retail facing shop front associated with their manufacturing use has to establish that primary manufacturing use first.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:45:07

That's really helpful because I think to be fair if there are unnecessary steps that the city has self-imposed based on a premise of what industrial should be, maybe this is a good opportunity to reimagine what industrial should And I can think of South Old Town, south of Hollister. I can also think of Vero Camino. I think there are some places in the city where there are some folks not just with gun retail but wine and other things might see some benefit and might be drawn to opportunities in Old Town and the area if we were to take another look at industrial. So this will kind of go into my questions for council responses. Yes, I'm interested in figuring out ways to make it not as onerous in the industrial zones So that would be something I'm interested in.

I didn't hear a lot of, a lot of that from council. I heard a little bit from some colleagues

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:46:14

and if I may add Council Member Kiriakou there are some other considerations in certain industrial zones for example where as in the case of South Kellogg there is an airport overlay that imposes certain special restrictions on hazardous materials including ammunition Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the public.

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:46 – 3:5211 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:46:54

But moving into the questions for council, yeah. I mean, I do agree that community commercial is the really challenging zone here because we have just from a planning perspective we have a state of California that is really pushing housing and pushing a lot of different land use changes into the city. And it's putting us into a position where residential neighborhoods are creeping up where they never used to be, and existing residential uses are getting residential neighborhoods are getting more impacted than they ever were before. And so community commercial is a zone that I do have some concerns whether or not as child care needs, housing needs and other needs grow you know if we want to keep Goleta country gun stores is kind of a challenging kind of point of separation there.

How do we how do we square that? How do we make that work? So I'm interested in, yeah, revisiting community commercial for new regulations. And I'm interested in industrial figuring out a way to remove some barriers to make it so that there would be, that would be a place where it makes sense. In terms of maintaining existing zones, I think generally, I'm generally in alignment with my colleagues and their comments on that Sensitive uses to prioritize if any, yeah I agree churches would be a sensitive use.

We've already talked about daycares and family daycares. Are there desired buffer distances? I do agree cannabis is, you know, how that was administered is probably a pretty good starting point in terms of how buffer distances would work. I don't know if I'm prepared to say that's a higher or lower priority than sensitive use buffers but if you made me choose, I would probably choose sensitive use buffers.

Are there other specific use standards to focus on? Don't think I have anything for you on that one right now. Operational requirements to focus on for business licenses, yes public noticing. I agree with Council Member Reyes-Martin and others who have spoken on that and I don't think I have any additional feedback at this time.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:49:20

I'm going to jump in real quick.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:49:24

And I also share the concerns about a moratorium right now, just based on trying to focus on putting the right things in the right places.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:49:37

I'm not going to add anything to this list because I think you've gotten a lot of information that I agree with. The one thing I'm struggling with is the separation, I'm not sure why you would do, even when we did cannabis I always thought 600 feet didn't seem. So I like the idea of having a map that shows what 600 feet would look like versus 1,000. I'm not sure I have a high priority towards 600 feet but I would like to take a look at it.

I can't think of anything else that was mentioned here. I like the idea of the business license, you know, notifying being able to do it that way, let the public know what's happening. Yeah, I agree with everything that's pretty much been said and I have full confidence that the staff will come back with great options and we'll be able to move this forward.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:50:47

Madam Mayor, just one point of clarification on the moratorium. I got confused when you said you support it. Do you support not doing it?

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:50:55

No, I support

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:50:56

doing it. Or doing it okay.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:50:58

Didn't we have a couple others that said yeah there was...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:51:01

I thought Reyes-Martin showed concern and then I heard Councilmember Cariocco support Councilmember Reyes Martin's concern with moving ahead with the moratorium so I guess we definitely need clarification on that one because That's different than this other direction we can get without a vote. But if you want to move ahead with the urgency, that would be more specific direction for us to come back at a future meeting soon.

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated3:51:28

Thank you Mr. Nisbett. Yes so just tack on to that for the moratorium I'm happy to answer any questions from the council if there is further deliberations about sort of what the standard or what the requirements would be but It would be direction and we would request if it's not consensus that there be a vote on whether or not to bring a moratorium back. And then at that time, we would notice the moratorium at a future meeting and it would require forth this vote and certain

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:51:54

findings. I would support bringing it back just because I'm concerned. I know the county has heard mention, I don't know if it's true of someone that's looking for to put in a gun store or gun shop so if they're doing it and we're not what does that mean for Goleta?

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:52 – 3:5811 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:52:24

So given some of the additional feedback I've heard from my colleagues, what I captured from the staff report was that if we do consider removing some barriers in that industrial zone, that path is a general plan amendment potentially. And that path is longer than the Title 17 issue. Given that, I think that does make me consider the moratorium more just because then we're talking about a much longer process than maybe absent that.

But I would want to our city attorney's point you know if a moratorium comes back to us for consideration at a future meeting I wouldn't want it to preclude an effort to try to facilitate or assist in whatever appropriate way the current business owner from being able to find a different location. So that was something that I would want to make sure is part of that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:53:31

Yeah, just to I want to make sure also that the you know there is the broader. So the first thing the reason I did this was to concur about reviewing. I didn't include industrial and considering those opportunities they're not because I didn't agree but just because I didn't really think about it so I support the broader idea but I also want to concur with others in terms of any moratorium to make sure it's on new businesses, not relocating businesses. And if there is a way of working with the land or the business owner without, you know, not necessarily hold general plan amendment to get there but just on more administrative stuff I'd be interested And finally, I also support the idea of sort of a business license level notification process.

So but I think yeah and you know I think thank you for the work on this in such an expeditious way. It's really quick turnaround and it's a really good comprehensive product so.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:54:52

I wanted to clarify that my interest in the moratorium would be for new use only.

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated3:55:00

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I do think I had suggested a vote but I think we've heard enough consensus from the body to bring back a moratorium since at that time The moratorium ordinance, and I was just going to give a little bit of context of what that would include. So it would require under government code 65858 a four-fifths vote as I mentioned earlier, and that would be to adopt sort of temporary standards. And we've heard from the council regarding sort of new firearm uses, and at the time it was brought back For consideration by the council, it would require legislative findings about a current and immediate threat to the public health and safety and welfare.

And we did see and we heard a little bit from the dais about the county's moratorium which included A set of specific findings associated with a lack of firearm-specific standards in the county, sensitive use and public safety concerns including firearm mortality rates as well as security and theft concerns that the county wants to investigate while the moratorium was in place. So I think we've heard sufficient sort of consensus from the body to bring that back It came back, the council would need to vote and approve the moratorium ordinance by a four-fifths vote.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response3:56:19

Thank you. Council Member Cariago?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:56:21

Yeah thank you I just need some clarification so nothing about what's being proposed right now would prohibit or preclude any existing gun stores that wanted to relocate to another site that would not preclude them from getting a building permit or other ministerial or planning actions that they would need if they wanted to move their business. And there's more than one gun shop in Goleta, right? Correct. I think there's kind of this perception that there's just the one but no, there's another one too.

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated3:57:02

Correct. The moratorium does not require sort of a prohibition on every category of activity in terms of what the council is regulating so what I've heard from the dais tonight is specific to concerns about I want to start by saying thank you for the opportunity to be here. Standards remaining in place and prohibiting new firearm retail dealers from receiving city approvals.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:57:48

And there wasn't any support for a conditional use permit being explored, right? I don't remember hearing anyone talking about CUPs.

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated3:57:56

Yeah I believe yeah it might be worth the council deliberating on that. I do think of that as separate from the moratorium piece.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:58:07

No it absolutely is, I'm just trying to make sure I'm recapping in my mind like what are the things that you're coming back with? So okay so it sounds like no CUP.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:58:17

I can summarize Council if you'd like what I heard

3:58 – 4:037 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:58:25

Just for curiosity, maybe I'm forgetting but wasn't there a notification associated with the business license?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:58:31

Yes and I'll go through my summary on what I heard on

CommentSylvia KingProposed · by introduction3:58:35

consensus.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:58:39

Okay what I heard in terms of consensus from Council was supporting the idea that some of the work we're going to do is going to live in Chapter 17 and recognizing that other portions will live in Chapter 5 And there was consensus that that would include potentially conditions, higher levels of conditions about security and items like that. But anything spatial related would go in Chapter 17 and there's an acknowledgment then that goes back to the Planning Commission.

The highest all the sensitive uses that were kind of given as examples and numerous council members said use cannabis as a guide as a starting point Seemed to be supported and several council members said that schools, including preschools zero on up were the highest priority. Several council members said to add churches to the examples that were shown. There was consensus to isolate community commercial so that gun stores cannot be located in that zone.

separately from the other commercial zones. Consideration of allowing the use in industrial zone, recognizing that might take longer. There seem to be concurrence and support to evaluate that. There was, I don't know if it was consensus but I did hear at least one council member said to try to include residential zones and have a buffer recognizing that that buffer might be a lower number. It was Council Member Reyes-Martin when she saw that it's only 100 feet from cannabis and so if there's consent, if I don' t hear otherwise that was in my notes The security measures in Title V.

in terms of kind of shooting for buffers that were possibly as high as possible to maybe start with 1,000. See if that works based on the sensitive uses that the council thought were important and then at least one council member said you know maybe 600 would be a minimum but again I think there was recognition that this is an interim approach. The Planning Commission can work with staff and see what works given the sensitive uses that were identified And I think that was kind of a summary of what I heard.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response4:01:27

Did you mention when you said schools, did you mention private schools as well?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:01:34

I didn't, but yes. I saw staff nod their heads that they were not distinguishing any difference between private schools and public schools. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:01:45

Council Member Reyes-Martin? Just to maybe we could talk a little bit about the CUP question. So I think for me the way that I'm thinking about it is so many of the things that I've heard from the public about considerations they want us to think about I see as can be achieved through more specific objective standards, through a noticing requirement and the buffers and all of that.

Planning Commission wants to take that up to talk about that process. But I do think it's really important to continue to communicate to the public The limitations on that so people understand that doesn't mean the planning commission would be able to just deny something if they do in fact meet those objective standards. But if I think the planning commission feels like it's still I would want them to have that discussion. And it's possible that's what happened in Oxnard where it's not called a conditional use permit, it's called something else. So I guess that's my only input on that. That's a little lower on the priority for me but I won't say that it's like an absolute no.

4:03 – 4:1114 turns

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated4:03:27

Mayor and Councilmembers, I did want to follow up to that point as well. And the really good conversation by both Councilmember Kariakou and Councilmember Reyes-Martin. I also wanted to emphasize with that Oxnard example in the special use permit there are conditions of approval that attach to that entitlement so although there are more limited findings in that instance there is another avenue as part of that Entitlement process that provides an added component. So certainly something as we're hearing from the dais I'm sure staff will continue to investigate.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response4:04:17

Okay, so I guess we have council comment.

CommentSylvia KingProposed · by introduction4:04:23

Do

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response4:04:27

we have to make a motion? Yes, a motion yes okay. Oh no mayor

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated4:04:34

were

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response4:04:34

all set with the direction. Council comments yeah Oh, there you go. Council Member Ray has more to say.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:04:49

Thank you. It's been a busy, a very busy couple weeks. So Mayor Perotti and I have met we had the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee meeting. A huge thank you on his way out to our Police Chief Morris and your whole team for being there to provide a lot of great updates. We had a really good discussion about I'm going to try to stop saying e-bikes, but motorcycles truly. We've got to get out of the issues that are the problem are not actually e-bikes for the most part.

But we had a really good conversation about that and how to keep our community safe in some things the school district is doing. Some important work the mayor is leading with our regional partners. I think there's more to come on that but you know for the public to know we are really taking it really seriously and working with our partners to try to address some of the challenges and at the end of the day, really just keep Keep our youth in particular safe We also councilmember Kiriakou and I met with The energy green issues subcommittee had some great updates And our EV charging program here at City Hall, some other programmatic updates. The great success we've had with the heat pump permit fee waiver program which was really great I guess we've had a lot of residents that have taken us up on that so that's great and a discussion on future topics I attended the Pacific Pride Festival over the weekend, which was great fun.

And then I also attended a really informative meeting that was hosted by the Coastal Housing Coalition that was focused on housing here in Goleta and they shared some really good data for consideration. We got to hear from Some employers like Cottage Hospital about their challenges with housing, with their employees. And a really robust Q&A so that was valuable event to attend and we had some city staff there too so it was good to hear.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:07:14

Yeah I just wanted to, we had a coffee and community Mayor Perotti and I attended along with City Manager Nisbett, Chief of Police Garrett Morris excuse me. And our Planning and Public Works Director Peter Imhoff And I appreciate everyone showing up, the public showing up and they were terrific. It was a great opportunity for people to ask questions, hear about what's going on. Oh, the airport director Chris Hastert was there as well.

And so it was a great opportunity. And you know, when I think of when we want to do public engagement and reach out and go to people where they are and give answers to questions that are of most concern to Oh, Kelly Hoover was there too. But anyway this it was great. And so thanks for all the staff who worked on it and members of the public who attended

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response4:08:29

I think they really appreciated that there are not timed three minutes. They can just talk about their concerns and ask their questions, and it's a really informal setting so I think it's working. They seem to like our

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:08:44

folks.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response4:08:46

Mayor Pro Tem Smith?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:08:47

Yes, I just wanted to make a brief comment that you know I received one inquiry about state regulation applicable to our high fire hazard zones that I think are just imminently about to be finally approved. And those apply to what's, there's been some news items about it in terms of zone zero Rules and in any case so that's pending and I think there's more information to come but we do. have designated high fire zones in the city.

My understanding is as currently written that those rules will immediately apply to any new construction and then over time be implemented for current residents, but it is something we're monitoring and hopefully we're gonna be learning more from our state. And our fire officials and so forth about how that'll be implemented. But just for, it does impact our community and it's percolating but it is the state regulatory agencies that are taking that action. So just FYI.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response4:10:14

Okay I'm not seeing anybody else. Oh sorry Council Member Kerrioca.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:10:19

Thank you Madam Mayor We all forgot to mention the Pride Festival. Oh, I didn't hear that. So yes, I attended the Pride Festival as did Councilmember Reyes-Martin and Mayor Pro Tem Smith was there as well. Sorry, I didn't hear you. And then the mayor and I attended the rip and cutting for community creative suites in Old Town. I think 12 new businesses that all just went into Old Town Almost all women owned.

Young women owned in a number of cases, and all person of color owned. And some really cool vibrant businesses, and I'm really looking forward to seeing how they fit in and enhance the neighborhood.

4:11 – 4:113 turns

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response4:11:04

All right. Mr. Rosen, do you have anything to report?

Commentso that would includeProposedself-stated4:11:08

I do, Mayor. I just wanted to note that the City of Goleta joined the cities of Fullerton, Costa Mesa, In a filed amicus brief in the case Perdomo v. Mullin, and that's a central district of California federal case that deals with immigration-related enforcement stops and the Fourth Amendment so that was filed with the court last week.

ElectedJennifer SmithMayor, District 3Proposed · by roll-call response4:11:32

All right thank you. Okay with that meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone