UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:01 – 0:084 turns
♪ Welcome to the Lompoc City Council meeting. Tuesday, July 21st, 2026. Roll call please.
Roll call, called by City Council
Show transcript
City Attorney reporting any action in closed session?
Thank you, Mayor. For the special meeting tonight that started at 515, the City Council met in closed session to discuss the one labor negotiation item on the agenda regarding the International Association of Firefighters, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management Supervisory and Confidential Employees and the Unrepresented Employees. The City Council gave direction to staff on that item but no reportable action was taken.
if you come in to be servant, you'll be a great servant but if you come in to be a leader, you'll be a poor leader. It is a servant that makes a better leader. And it's a servant that comes up here and take the hard hits. If you can take a hard hit, you can take somebody talking about you and you're still going to do the right thing? You're a servant. You're the greatest servant there'll ever be. And I applaud you young people.
Be a servant. It's easy to rock the boat if you're not in it But when you get in a boat, you try to steady it a little better. Are you with me? You ready to pray with me? I appreciate y'all. I love you too. Father, I want to thank you for this time for City of Lompoc, our first responders, our city manager. Thank you for our city attorney and for all the staff that comes here every twice A month to work out the issues, the challenges Lord that we have in our city. And I want to thank you Father.
You know, you remind us that we live in such a great place that we don't need air conditioning today. You reminded us it can get pretty hot and we need air and we know they won't last long. We hope not. The best place on the central coast. Don't tell everybody about Father, bless the meeting tonight. Bless our leaders. Bless our servant leaders. Lord, that the best possible outcome for our city and for the citizens.
Lord, you know the needs that we have. You see the struggles that we get. And Lord, oftentimes it's not the individual, it's the process Sometimes it's other people and other government agencies that we have to deal with to get our city in alignment for the betterment of its citizens. So, we ask for your wisdom, we ask for your presence. We want to say thank you so much for all that you do for us and I call you Father God For that very purpose, we are your children. And in your name I pray.
0:08 – 0:1613 turns
Please join me in pledge of allegiance. Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
City Manager Report.
Thank you, Mayor. I want to take a minute and remind everybody that July is the National Park and Rec Month. We have a lot of fun stuff on our calendar you guys can participate in. The theme this year is the power of the parks and recreation. Just wanted to let everybody know that we will be having free public swim next Tuesday, July 28th from 1-3pm. Also I'm excited to announce that the registration for the library's third annual edible book contest is now open. This creates a hands-on event that you can leverage, chefs from age 7 to 14 can put their literary work in some delicious looking edible masterpieces.
You'll have to go check this out. Entries will be judged strictly on creativity, visual presentation and not taste. And the contest will be at Ryan Park at 1030... what's the date? July 31st. Sorry I missed it somewhere. And judging will be at 1130. I also want to announce that we're doing our book challenge or summer reading program And we've got 360,000 minutes read and our goal is 400,000. I also wanted to share that the community input for a survey on the general fund update will again be open for the month of August. This is an opportunity for residents to share their input regarding what they love about Lompoc, things that can be improved, what they believe the future can look like. This will be for the 2050 general plan and it'll be going out in the August utility bills for a survey link And that's all I have, sir.
Any quick questions? Like the one you said, it's park month. Can you explain to us what's going on? I get a lot of calls about Beatty Park, River Park. What's going on with the grass is all dying.
Yeah we've had a lot of problems with our older system. Me and Mario sat down and got to be a pretty lengthy conversation so maybe I can have him give an update on that.
We're rolling into the next season that's going along Everything is dead. It doesn't make sense.
Yeah, so we've been having obviously some irrigation problems. Our systems in our parks are decades old. A lot of our wiring from valve to valve is buried deep and it's not into the conduit. So it's been like that for decades. So a lot of the gophers are eating our wires. We're in the process. The past week our park staff met with a couple reps And we're looking at wireless valve transmitters that will be hooked up to our irrigation clocks. So it would avoid some of those problems that were having as well, so we're getting proposals on that as well as the clock on the bottom part of 80. That will be replaced tomorrow.
And so the bottom half will be working and we'll be evaluating those bell boxes as well. And until we get this figured out, staff will be going around and watering those parks by hand through the valves and turning those on as well.
Good deal hopefully can get him greened up here I know a lot of sports seasons are starting It's fire season out here. Some of these parks would catch on fire if not careful, right? Anybody else have any other questions for the city manager? All right. Moving on. So this is for public comment on consent calendar.
Before we get to the consent calendar items, there are a number of recusals for the consent calendar items. So bear with me while I list them here. I'm going to go in order of the items on the consent calendar. Item No. 2 is approval and ratification Expenditures, Councilmember Starbuck is going to recuse himself with respect to check number 6640 on item number two. That's a check to the Lompoc Valley Chamber of Commerce which is a source of income to Councilmember Starbuck.
On consent calendar item number three Council Member Ball is going to recuse himself from that item because the Lompoc Unified School District is a source of income to Council Member Ball within the last 12 months. Consent Calendar Item Number 4 involves 112 North H Street, which is Lompoc Theatre. Council Member Starbuck owns property within 500 feet of the theatre and he therefore will recuse himself from Item Number Item number six involves 101 South B Street. Mayor Mosby owns property within 500 feet of 101 South B Street, and he will therefore recuse himself from that item. Now item number seven involves an opportunity zone within the city, and Mayor Mosby owns property within that opportunity zone. He will therefore recuse himself from that item as well.
And I believe those are all the recusals.
So I'll just read them into the record. Number one is the approval of minutes for April 21st, 2026. Number two is approval and ratification of expenditures for payroll June 19th, 2026 at $2.184 million. Another voucher from June 15 to 18, 2026 at 1.683 million. Another voucher register for June 22nd through 26th of 2026 of $1.714 million. Number three is approval of an independent contractor service agreement with Lompoc Unified School District for the school resource officer program. Number four is the approval of an encroachment license agreement with maintenance and removal covenant from the Lompoc Theater Project at 112 North H Street. Number five is approval of change order request to purchase order with WSP USA Incorporated for Landfill Gas Compliance and Air Toxic Hotspots Act.
Number six is adoption of resolution number 6835, princetoday 26 repealing resolution number 459097, removing a passenger loading zone and a 20-minute restricted parking zone at 101 South B Street. Number seven is adoption of resolution number 6836, princetodays 26 expressing support for the submittal of an opportunity zone 2.0 local authority recommendation form.
Anybody have any oral communications on those seven items? Seeing nobody rise for those, we will close. Anybody on phone or Teams over here?
Emily? There is no public comment via Teams or audio.
Okay. Very good to see that. We'll close oral communications. Bring it back to Council for a vote motion, vote, comment, discussion, deliberation. What do you guys got? Don't jump on it at once.
0:16 – 0:234 turns
I'll make a motion to accept consent calendar with all 700 of the recusals.
Okay, we got it first. You've got a second on that one? The motion on the table is to accept less the recused items. Second by Council Member Vegas. Go ahead and vote. Everybody vote? Yes, no? And that passes 5-0. Moving on to staff presentation announcements and requests. Do we have any of those? City Manager? None? OK. Which brings us to the basic oral communications. This is three minutes oral communications.
Good evening Mayor, City Council, Joyce Howerton. I thought I'd come tonight and take you to the woodshed. You know, I was at a city council meeting a couple weeks ago and I can't tell you how appalled I was. Appalled, embarrassed, angry. We had visitors from Solvang sitting here and we saw you Mayor Mosby berating staff Your staff that are trained, responsible people that were hired because they can do the job.
And in front of a room full of people you just went off and it was so embarrassing. I happen to have gone to the Solvang City Council a number of times and I would encourage you to go and watch because they're very civil, they're very respectful to everyone I would like to see civility and respect brought back to your interactions, not just with staff but with people in the community. With people that come to speak to you.
I'd also like to ask you to stop making your snide little comments about the Board of Supervisors. You may not like them, but guess what? We need them. They can do a lot for the City of Lompoc and every time you take a shot at them somebody's paying attention. So, you know rudeness isn't a friend maker. Please consider the example you're setting. I can guarantee there's at least one young person at home that's on a work project or is doing an assignment and they're watching this council meeting. Tonight, there's a lot of young people sitting here.
You should be their role models. You should be the ones to show them how to do it. That's our future. Do you want our future to see a bunch of elderly men sitting up there just muttering away? No. We want to put examples that we can be proud of. Anger, disrespect is not the image our community wants from you. The tone of recent City Council meetings feels outdated and unprofessional.
Guys, it's not 1950 anymore. You've got to up your game. You can and you should do better for Lompoc. Oh! And I heard about the meetings everywhere I go in town that's all anybody is talking about are these council meetings they finally made prime time so I guess we have a new photographer on the council. Apparently Mayor Mosby, you came into the meeting and took pictures of the people that had attended. That's really a great way to get more people to come to a council member to think the mayor is going to be taking their picture.
So I was seeking to counter that maybe everybody in the audience should take your picture and then finally what you would have something in common with the community.
Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Rene, and I'm a volunteer organizer with 805 UndocuFund here in Lompoc. I want to remind everyone in this room of something that happened just recently when our community learned that there was a proposal to remove City Mayor-Manager. People showed up. Residents filled this chamber because they believe such an important decision deserves transparency and public accountability.
Whether people agreed or disagreed with the city manager isn't the point. The point is that the people of Lompoc made it clear that decisions affecting the future of our city should never happen without the public paying attention. That meeting sent a message, not just to this council but to our entire community, that people at Lompoc are engaged, organized and watching.
For years too many residents felt their voices didn't matter. Today that's changing. At 805 UndocuFund our mission is to support immigrant families, but our work has always been about something bigger. Building civic participation we encourage people to know their rights, to know how local government works and to understand that democracy doesn't end on election day.
It continues every time someone attends a council meeting, speaks during public comment, volunteers in their neighborhood or holds elected officials accountable. Our coalition includes people from many different backgrounds and organizations. We don't agree on everything but we agree on this. Public office is a public trust. We're not here because we want conflict. We're here because we love Lompoc. We want a city where decisions are made openly, where every resident feels represented and where elected officials remember that they serve the people.
not the other way around. So let's be clear, we're not going anywhere. We will continue attending meetings. We will continue asking questions. We will continue organizing our neighbors. We will continue encouraging people to vote, to participate and to speak up respectfully when they believe something isn't right. This isn't about one meeting or one issue it's about building culture accountability that lasts long after today's headlines are forgotten. The people of Lompoc have found their voice, and that voice deserves to be heard. Thank you.
0:24 – 0:294 turns
We aren't going anywhere indeed. Good evening, I only have a few words tonight but I'd like to begin with some good news finally. For the first time in quite awhile, I want to recognize our mayor. Mayor after months of public pressure, multiple controversies, reduction in public services and more than seven community organizations calling for accountability it appears progress has finally been made towards cleaning up your properties. This is a picture that I got the other day.
Now don't worry, I'm not a stalker. I would just happen to be driving by. Now while I'm glad to see progress, accountability shouldn't only come after public pressure. Leadership means setting the example before someone has to ask. If we expect residents to follow city standards those standards should apply equally to everyone Especially those elected to lead our city.
I also recently learned that there are 36 flock safety cameras operating throughout our city. Public safety is incredibly important and I support efforts to reduce crime and keep our neighborhoods safe, but public safety should never come at the expense of people who live in our community. Residents deserve to know how these technologies are being used, how long information is retained and why there is a meaningful need for mass surveillance in Lompoc.
Every meeting we hear about another challenge facing our city. Too often it feels like we are moving backwards instead of forwards. Lompoc deserves leadership that is proactive instead of reactive. Leadership that solves problems before they become headlines and leadership that is willing to hold itself to the same standards it expects from the people who they represent.
Our community deserves better, and I hope we continue moving in that direction. Thank you
Hi, surprise. I'm Deanna Diaz. I live up the hill and I'm here to talk about Chick-fil-A. And I heard that we're having a Chick-fil-A coming here and I'm very concerned about how they love to have people wait on the street to eat at Chick-Fil-A You go and you wanna drive down the street and no, you can't. You have to change lanes because Chick-fil-A has cars so lined up that it's been an inconvenience in San Barbara. They had to have two drive through lanes. And they still end up with people out on the street waiting to go into Chick-fil-A. So it's a chronic problem wherever there is a Chick-fil-A and I guess people really love Chick-Fil-A, I mean it's delicious but I can't stomach it because they're anti LGBTQ plus and I just can't so I won't be eating there But I'm very concerned that they have not purchased enough property to manage their traffic flow, and that is not acceptable.
If they want the people to come in or just order and not come in then they need the property to do it on. And I'm not sure that they bought enough or have enough And apparently in Santa Maria's problem, we have problems with our drive throughs that we already have here. People line up on the street for McDonald's sometimes so there is a traffic flow problem there. In Albertson's parking lot, there are two drive-throughs that are a chronic problem. And that they back up traffic within it. I mean, it is private property so it's not really the city's problem but just observing historically speaking, they have traffic lined up in where people are trying to park, trying to drive through to get parking or Taco Bell. I wanna go to yogurt and I can't go through a certain way.
I have to go different way because I don't want to deal with the traffic. So what are we gonna do? Are we just going to let them come here and then our streets are their parking lot? That should be a no. So, we should look at their plans more carefully and make sure that we're going in the right direction so people can get their Chick-fil-A and not annoy the rest of us that want to just drive on the street.
Anybody else? Anything on phone or Teams?
There is one public comment via Teams. Speaker, with the last four of 8-1-1 zero you may speak your time is three minutes just as if you were in person there may be a little bit of a lag
0:29 – 0:3722 turns
Okay, I'm no longer muted. I hope you can hear me. This is Karen Hallenstein. I am calling in today because the Chief of Police and the police captain have decided to violate my civil rights in a variety of ways because I am so effective as an investigator and also an official complaint reporter About the death of Liliana Zuniga. I know that if anybody's been paying attention, they've heard me complain about the lack of transparency surrounding the death of Liliana Zuniga inside our police station in March of 2023. That's apparently coming to a head because they're now attacking me having me arrested actually for violating a restraining order that they've hefted upon me.
Now I'm not going to talk about that anymore because I had to sit through Joyce Howardson. Joyce, I've known you for 30 years and honestly honey when I was so young and I looked up to you I had absolutely no idea what you were really doing behind the scenes to stifle The building of homes in our community.
Excuse me, direct your stuff to the City
Council
not to speakers
okay? Sorry about that. Okay sorry about that. City Council I've got a complaint about Joyce Howerton because she sucked as a mayor. She sucked as a mayor so bad that she shoved Lompoc back about 20 years and her friends are the ones who own the Surf Development Corporation Which I have now done a lot of investigation about, and it is not transparent. And it's keeping a lid on our town.
And I'm probably preaching to the choir because I know that our city council and our mayor have been around for a long time like I have, like Joyce has. She's taking this opportunity, the fact that my civil rights are being violated to keep me out of that meeting. And it won't happen forever. God bless you all, thank you for being there doing the good work.
See ya soon!
There's no more public comment via Teams or audio.
Alright, come on down.
Howdy, Carl Jones. Update. The cars over there on Laurel, they actually belong to somebody. They leased the property. But there's a lot of people going around stealing from them. I got the numbers for the guys. I try to get a hold of them when I can but when I'm going to work at 3 in the morning and I see guys out there with toolboxes, all I do is yell at them.
Just, you know we do have a lot of crime. We got a lot of people just go around this city and they just think they can get away with anything because nothing's really being done against them. You know it's the truth. You call this type stuff in? Are you the landowner? No I'm not. Okay well the landlord is calling me. These are the types of responses you get.
This guy stormed out of his garage sitting in the freaking damn parking lot. Why are you calling the police? Who am I supposed to call? You know, these are the type of things that are happening within this city. We do need to do a little more concentration on public safety. This stuff's blatantly happening. I mean just last month I'm sitting over there in the shopping center and I got kids running up and down the sidewalk on these electric bicycles that go 45 mile-an-hour.
People are trying to dodge get out of their way I'm not myself, I just stand in the way because they let them hit me. But what's going on? We don't have the officers available or we're not patrolling well enough, do we need more officers? All this stuff comes to light that needs to happen cuz public safety is really failing. That's the only way I can say it. It's really failing and I know we need to figure this out, coming together as a council, as a community what have you.
But yeah there are a lot of issues that still need to be addressed. Thank you.
Anybody else? Seeing nobody else we'll close public oral communications. Council Appointment to Santa Barbara Continuum of Care, COC Board. Councilor
Raul? I'm happy to take that one if no one else is interested. All
right. Anybody have a discussion on that before we take a motion? Are you guys okay with all that discussion? Let's go ahead and make the motion up. Motion by Vegas, seconded by Starbuck to put Council Member Bohl on the COC. Right?
Yes. Correct.
Let's
go ahead and
vote. Passes 5-0. You made it. It was a battle but you got it. Number nine, public hearing on zone code text amendment 80.
I need to number eight have these external agencies. And I asked if we were approving that, and we said no. So I'd like to talk on that briefly if I can. Yeah, we did all these appointments
a while ago but...
Yeah well could I since this was on the
agenda? You've got a suggestion yeah what do you want to talk
about? I do so item 3 and item 10 the electrical utility joint powers agency in the California tank and the Associated Municipal Utilities Association. These agencies have significant discussion about financial decisions, and these decisions don't have the same transparency as discussions on the DS. So out of respect for Councilman Ball and his minions, representing concerns regarding my involvement.
I'm going to step down from this external agency representation. The backup is Councilman Ball who can fill the primary role at least in this area to address these concerns. And respect for those who are concerned about me making financial decisions that are not transparent Those two agencies do that, so I'll be stepping down from those.
It's through the city attorney. Is that something we could do at this time or do you want to agendize it
better? A council member can resign from one of those boards at any time and so the city clerk should mark that in our records what we... So in the interim Council Member Ball if he's listed as the backup he would serve in the interim until we appoint a new main representative if you wanted to agendize
0:37 – 0:4329 turns
Okay. Council Member Ball, you've got two more. It looks like it will be agendized in the future for the alternate. Is that what you're saying?
I think agenda is in the future for the main seat because Council Member Ball right now... Oh he's
already filling in anyways. All right.
Whatever the vacant one is, you can agendize it and you can move them around as you wish.
Thank you. There it is. Yes, Council Member Ball. So clarity, I'm not necessarily taking the lead role. We're going to come back
Do it again, but you're filling in because you're already signed up to fill in.
Sounds great.
Got it? Correct? City Attorney?
Yes that's correct.
Now Mr. Stones
Good evening Mayor, members of the Council. Last time the City of Lompoc amended language to the city code pertaining to accessory dwelling units abbreviated as ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, JADUs was in 2023. Since then the state has amended the government code regulations for ADUs multiple times In 2024, the city received communication for California Department of Housing and Community Development HCD indicating that our ADU ordinance is not in compliance with state regulations.
Therefore staff has referred to state regulations when reviewing proposed ADUs. The purpose of these amendments is to update the City's ADU ordinance to be compliant with the State Code Just to summarize some of the amendments as outlined in your packet. The amendments are changing the number of ADUs allowed per state code, clarification regarding ADUs and JADUs, strikeouts that are not needed any longer, adding a new section regarding the Starter Home Revitalization Act and updating code references.
This action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to public resources code 21080.17 and that concludes, oh well the recommendation would be to introduce by first reading with further reading waive the ordinance. That concludes my presentation thank you.
You guys have any questions for me as it progresses? Councilor Bridge?
My reading of this was that we are taking issue with the state on the parking requirements.
Yes, that is one of the items.
Has the city attorney weighed in on taking that position?
Yes, my office has been heavily involved in this.
And you feel we can, we have a defensible position?
Yes. There are other cities as well that have taken issue with HCD's interpretation on this parking issue and other issues that HCD did not raise with Lompoc and they are doing the same in making findings disagreeing with HCD on certain things.
So just so I have kind of a complete understanding We are basically saying that yes, we understand an ADU doesn't have to have parking. But if you take the parking out of service from the primary residence, that parking requirement still exists.
It's specific to a JADU. So if you have an existing garage and they convert it to a JADU, then you have to replace the parking so that the primary resident still has the parking or the application doesn't apply to regular ADUs. So just JADUs. Just JADUS? Yeah.
Okay. Thank
you.
Councillor Rubell. I'm just curious with City Attorney. I mean, I'm hearing some confidence about our standing with this issue Obviously things might not go our way at some court juncture. I'm not sure how all that works, but is there a fallback contingency compliance thing that we need to be concerned with in terms of if HCD says nope, the rules are the rules?
Yes. It's always possible for any issue for HCD to recommend to the Attorney General that come after the city of Lompoc in court if the Attorney General believes that we're doing something that's in violation of state law. But HCD wrote us a letter, I think it was in July 2024 and there were multiple things that they said our code needed to be updated on with respect to ADUs.
And we agreed with them on pretty much all of them except for this one about the parking And we are confident that state law is on our side on this and that HCD is reaching a little bit too much with respect to their reading of state law on this one parking AV issue.
Thank you for that clarity, and then how soon might we know which way it goes?
Well, assuming it gets adopted I'm going to contact HCD pretty much immediately and provide it to them. And they have a, I believe, a 60 day review period.
So in the event that something doesn't go our way we have time to make amendments and come into compliance? Yes,
they give us time to fix things.
Appreciate that. Thank you.
0:43 – 0:5520 turns
Any other questions? Did you want to carry on with your presentation or
are
you wrapped up? Okay. Let me open up to public comment and we'll see what's got. Anybody want to comment on this item? Item number nine, ADUs. Anybody on telephone teams?
There is no public comment via Teams or audio. All
right. We've got somebody awake here. Come on down.
So I know several of you and some of you on here are not in favor of the ADUs because of parking. But that is one of the key components that make the ADU and the junior ADUs more affordable, is not having to replace the parking. So you are going to impact the affordability of the ADUs when you remove the ability to have a junior ADU without having to replace the parking. You in essence will in some instances structurally prevent a junior ADU.
So those are generally done on a case-by-case basis. There is precedent, though I agree with the attorneys that some cities have implemented more restrictive items within the ordinance but ultimately HCD has, I guess, the final authority to determine that but there are areas I've seen in Santa Barbara they have some issues for high fire areas where there are certain parking requirements in high fire areas.
I just realized that you're taking the affordability out of providing a junior ADU when you have to replace the parking, or you're completely going to restrict it from happening. Thank you.
Anybody who's ADUs? Anybody else rise? We'll close public comment. Anybody got a motion, question, statements we've got Council Member Hall?
So just real quick I kind of want to bring this back just for maybe a little perspective on the big picture of things that the state at some point is asking us to imagine building a lot of housing arena numbers are somewhat they're not all ADUs for sure but that plays a component in our pursuit of more housing how are we doing with ADU's up to this point in terms
I
know it's in the general plan annual report. I don't remember the number. In terms
of approval, no not that high.
Thank you for that. I guess just my own perspective is no one's going to appreciate not having enough There's a lot of people struggling to figure out how to deal with housing. And again, just putting it out there if we're getting 10 or 15 or 5 or 7 ADUs built every single year the amount of people impacted by this parking issue is pretty small at least at the moment so again I think let's wait and see what they say but You know, whatever we can do to make it affordable and actually make it happen seems to make more sense for the bigger picture of housing and Marina numbers all that pursuit.
We're way behind Santa Maria. Santa Maria has about 600 or so last year, I believe. And they're way ahead of us. But I think that plan is still by your office, right? That has the ADU map across... Yeah,
that is still being reviewed by the building division. I know they have some final cleanup items but we're really hoping that can go
out... I meant the map of the city. The ADU map for the city's by your office. Right across from your office. There's one on the wall there.
Oh, yes. People can go buy it. The GIS team created that.
Go buy it. You can see right across from me. It'll show you the addresses what's going on. And I know a lot of people are waiting for the pre-approved plans to come up. So people are on hold waiting for that one. All right. Anybody else have any other questions? Anybody want to make a motion? Councilor Vega, do you got a motion? I'll make the motion to accept.
Introduce the first reading with further reading waived. Correct?
Yes.
Number one, two and three. Is that good enough City Attorney? All right we got a first and a second. Who made the second on that one? Starbuck made a second let's go ahead and vote. And that passes 4-1, customer of all voting no. Doesn't like ADUs, come on! Come on! All right next item. Number 10 public hearing on amendments to general plan circulation element adoption resolution 6837 presidency 26 approving the general plan circulation element Contract planner, Lori Tamura. Come on down.
Good evening. Thank you Mayor. Lori Tamura with the Planning Department. We're presenting tonight the circulation element update. This document has been in the planning department now for about two years It actually was handed off when Brian Halverson left, took it over. This housing or the circulation element if we can go to the next slide please. I'm sorry.
Tonight we're going to just review the requirements for the general plan, present the circulation element update, have City Council discussion, public comment and adopt a resolution. You've seen this presentation a couple of times in regards to the general plan. It is a guiding document for the future of the city. It addresses physical developments such as general location, appropriate mix timing and extent of land uses and infrastructure needed to support such development. Updates to the general plan elements require community engagement and review by state and local agencies.
This is the current work program for the general plan. We have a number of items that are being updated right now. The circulation element, which we'll be discussing tonight, is the last of the elements in what we're calling phase one updates to the general plan. Those elements included the housing element, environmental justice, safety element and the circulation element.
The city did a update to the environmental document and it included an addendum from the 2010 EIR, and it analyzed all of those four elements. And that will be the document that we'll refer to as you make your motion to allow for that document to be certified and included in the resolution. So the circulation element was originally adopted in 2010 as part of the 2030 general plan.
The element was required to be updated because of some changes to state law and adoption of the multimodal plan, which was adopted originally in 2022 and was recently amended in March 17th on 2026. Additionally, the city is working on an update to the safety system approach plan and that will be coming before your City Council in the near future. The circulation element also includes updates to the new state laws, updates to roadway classifications, additional new information on transit programs that are part of the city, updated goals, policies and programs.
And the new reference to the amended streetscape multimodal improvement plan. We went through a number of reviews by the Planning Commission in July of 2025. The City Planning Commission met and had comments. We also had comments later on in the year to the point that it was recommended that we recirculate the environmental document and the general plan, so went through here Public comment period from September 17 to October 17th. No additional comments were received during that review period.
In November of 25, we had a Planning Commission meeting. We reviewed a number of edits and comments The staff brought forward a matrix that looked at how each one of the changes to the element was addressed and who made those recommended changes. There's also red line version of the document along with the clean copy provided. The planning commission has some additional comments so we went through another review and in May of 2005 or 2006, sorry the slide is wrong.
We, oh I'm sorry the City Council decided to remove We looked at some of the other items that we looked at including funding The STIP funds, Caltrans funding for the main roads going through the city and potential improvements that would be based on future development projects in and of themselves. The planning commission made a recommendation to approve the circulation element.
At the last meeting we did comb through all of the comments, there were still some additional edits that were provided so in your packet you have two versions One of them includes highlighted areas that were the changes that the city, the planning commission provided. And then there's a clean copy and that would be part of the resolution would be the clean copy if there are any additional changes those can be added by your City Council at this time.
And we look forward to working with you, and we recommend approval of the circulation element as presented by the Planning Commission. That's it.
0:55 – 1:007 turns
Any questions? Councillor Bridge.
You guys have done a great job on this, and I'm going to feel real guilty about what I'm going to say next. But I'd like to suggest a couple of minor changes on CERC 116 which is on page 111. Right now it reads while accommodating the quality of life for motorists, the city shall prioritize pedestrian. And I'd like to change that to the city shall balance pedestrian and bicycle access with safety and quality of service for motorists on minor arteries.
So, I'd like to see it...I told you last time we were up here, shalls get me real nervous so I'd like to see the word balanced added to that if possible and if everybody agrees. Which is on page 16, I believe. And I'd like to add the words at the end of that one that say, we're feasible and after consideration the impact on adjacent commercial uses and the availability of alternative parking. So right now it says the city shall reserve the right to limit on-street parking on certain roadways to pursue, we use the word complete streets which has I'm understanding a unique interpretation I would like those two changes to be implemented. Otherwise you guys have done a great job and
Kind of a big general question, you know we did make big amendments to the multimodal plan back in March so obviously that changes things. At the state level can you just walk me through what, you don't have to explain what those changes are I get that but how did that impact this circulation element and through the document there were
I want to make a comment on the multi-modal plan. We changed some of that wording to note it is only up to North Street as you adopted in the changes to the multi-modal plan so wherever there was a reference to all of H street being
So just forgive my ignorance, so the circulation plan does that entertain the idea of not just cars but obviously bicycles and pedestrians? Did we change the equation of pedestrian safety at all in the context of circulation because I felt like some of the arguments for parts of the multimodal was really addressing some of the pedestrian issues that existed on H Street specifically.
There are a number of policies here that talk about all modes of transportation, cars, buses, bikes and pedestrian. And also connectivity between neighborhoods so that wherever there's an opportunity for a pathway to be provided from a proposed neighborhood that it allows for both bike and pedestrians to make it to the main corridors. So there is a number of policies in the document that talk about pedestrian as part of the equation for transportation.
So do you feel pretty confident from the state's perspective that we've covered? Yeah. Okay, perfect. Just one quick question and again I don't think there's an issue it just was curious why the red line but 3.7 says the city shall require safe and effective connectivity for new development projects It was probably that particular provision was also discussed in the safety element
1:01 – 1:067 turns
I'm going to talk a little bit about secondary access and how that would be applied to new projects. There might be a case where there would not But it may not be fully a developed road. So the way the policy is written gives a little bit more flexibility, even though fire department and other agencies would love to have the two access points there maybe a case where other options need to be looked at.
Okay, so it's not necessarily lowering our standard for safety in terms of developments. This is for those one or two offs that doesn't really provide that type of access and that's...
It's a little bit more flexibility on a case-by-case basis. The priority, the preference is to have two access points in different directions and I think as projects come forward particularly with insurance possible issues You're probably going to see more and more projects having the two access points. But it was, the way it was written previously was more of a mandate and we left it a little open for flexibility.
Okay thank you for that clarity I appreciate it. Thank you.
And I think your discussion was the willows that's one project that has one way in and out correct? That was your big what do you do? Anybody else have any other questions before we come up to public comment? So now the others, we will open this up to public comment. General plan, circulation element.
Brandon Rich, Planning Commissioner. Thank you to Greg, Lori. The document has not been easy to work through. The changes the council made in regards to the developer improvements I would like to comment on that primarily and last month, at least a month I've had about three developers call inquiring about our opportunities in regards to comparison Santa Maria.
Currently they're looking comparative in the industrial zone primarily so they are very happy that Lompoc has removed those. In regards to I believe in one of our primary meetings we asked for that item to be removed. As you're discussing, not to throw anybody under the bus here. I'm Mr ball council member ball one of the primary issues with the exiting is we had twofold and it overlaps safety circulation is that the county and state have now moved in larger flood zones and earthquake zones But the council has also increased development zones so we can develop up onto the hill which requires some additional structural engineering but as a result of those potential developments. and current development, we don't have tertiary exits. And so we'll never be able to do that.
And so putting these asterisks of say in these elements are critical so we can continue to develop up the hill as science and technology develops for construction while maintaining our community Thank you. And so we have to have a balance here between what we do to develop and what we attack to develop. And in that, there's a lot of cycle that goes through as Lori can attest to that sometimes mandated 10 years back, 20, 15 years back. And most of those studies as we're developing them are absolutely uncredible. They're not accurate.
So we had our previous mayor here complaining to all of our council members. Most of the votes she made in the 90s don't hold any water today. They're false, they're inaccurate and they stop 1,000% development or lack of it. So we have to look at history and how it repeats ourselves through this process of a 2030-2050 cycle because have done something that no other council has done, no other person in this city has done. They look further out than anybody
has even desired to look. Your three minutes are up my friend.
1:06 – 1:129 turns
Nick Gonzales, resident of Lompoc. Yeah I attended many of the meetings it was a grueling task. I have to commend staff for being patient with all those community members that were just on them writing them and as I've always stated I'm gonna sing the same song as much as you can change shalls to shoulds you should and the reason is that those are the basis in the past for litigation We've been litigated in the past because that hard shell was not met.
And you'll see that within circulation as it rolls over to green gas emissions, you'll see that when you're developing your other expansions if we eventually get the expansions and so I believe it was really important. Now forgive me because I didn't look at the latest draft But I've also been speaking significantly about the expansion for the base. And so my concern, I've heard several of you talk about interacting with SB CAG. I heard that message has now resonated on a county level where we need to be. So I just want to be assured as a resident that we are taking those impacts in That circulation element, those numbers are not going to be there. They're going to go over thresholds of significance and trigger something else. So again we really need to take in consideration those potential impacts but staff in my opinion and our consultant did a really good job of listening to the public and going through changes and it was page by page by page by page.
And so I'm very happy with what I see here today. Thank you.
Carl Jones. Question, the older communities within this city do we have any plans of looking at upgrading? You know bringing the roads and lack thereof sidewalks you know into these plans in the future I mean Everybody talks about new construction, what about the old construction? What about these homes that were built in 1958 that have no sidewalks in front of them. Then you get a bunch of cars parked on there and you got no choice but your kids are running down the middle of the street because the city didn't put sidewalks in it.
At what point do we put into the plan to go ahead and upgrade too for the safety of the public? I could think of multiple roads within this City that leads to the main thorough ways. Yeah, there's a sidewalk on the main ones but to get to them you gotta go through multiple blocks where there is no choice but to walk in the middle of the road and some of those roads have speed limits of past 35 mile an hour, 40 mile an hour people speeding. And you have no choice but to walk down the middle of the road because cars are parked on the side of the roads so you either have to walk on somebody's uneven grass or in the middle So in all these plans, do we also think about the upgrade of the infrastructure of the older homes?
Just curious. Has anybody even thought about that? Thank you.
Anybody else? So quick answer is safe routes to school. Is that every two years, Mr. Dooling?
Generally, the active transportation program has a cycle every couple years. We have for the last 20 years gotten quite a few sidewalk infill grants through those programs. We've put in a lot of miles of sidewalk so far and we'll continue to work on that.
So every two years they keep doing what they can do with the money we got coming through. So it does happen. Anybody else? Anybody delaying a little bit while we see what's going on with our phone and our Teams thing here?
There is no public comment via Teams or audio.
Okay, there we go. Anybody else rising for this item? I see nobody else want to comment on circulation element. Bring it back to the council. Councilor Bridge?
I make a motion that we approve staff's recommendation with the two changes that I recommended.
Motion by Bridge, seconded by Starbuck. Any deliberations? You guys want to have any vote? Go ahead and vote. Vote away. Passes 5-0. You guys got those corrections? Yep we're good? Members good? All right thank you. Got a long one for that one yeah Councilman Riggio, do you have something to say here? Public hearing on a proposed adoption of resolution number 683826 modifying wastewater winter averaging circulation method for calculating
1:12 – 1:193 turns
Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. I'm Bob Cross bringing this item back. It was originally presented on April 21st, 2026. So this was originally presented on April 21st, 2026. Staff was directed to bring it back and send out notices for a public hearing dated July 21st so I'll give you some background. With the winter averaging for wastewater usage we use the city used to calculate a six-year winter average dropping the highest and lowest years with the conversion to our new finance system The system does not allow for that, so we switched to a four-year average but have been doing it manually since 2021.
So we're presenting a new method this year which the system allows to use the current year average only. If we read the meter, we either use January, February, March or March, February, April depending on what part of the month we read it. But the goal is to get the water usage for the winter months which because with less irrigation going on during those months most of the water's going through the sewer system so it's a way of determining again The impact on the sewer for each customer.
We do have a number of fixed costs in this system, so we've maintained a minimum of five units that applies to all customers and that would be maintained. And for customers who don't have a three-month winter average if they don't move in until March, for instance We would use the current average for residential. The current residential average is seven units, so we, for new customers they would be billed at seven units their first year and then the following year we would look at their winter average.
If there are leaks during those months if they report them to the city we will adjust So this isn't changing the rates per unit charge. Those have stayed in place since 2017. It's still $9.28 for residents, And industrial customers have always been billed based on their 12-month average as opposed to the winter average. And that will continue. So in this example, and the first line is a typo. I changed this a few times but if the customer's currently being billed for nine units not 16, their sewer bill would be 9 times 928 which is 8352 per month.
If their winter reads for January, February, March were five, seven and six units. Their winter average would drop to six units so their sewer charge for the next month from July through the following June would be 55-68 per month. That's how we calculate those averages. So the recommendation here tonight is The resolution is to adopt the resolution to begin calculating the winter average based on a new method or alternatively, to continue with the current. A few notes, there are 11,102 parcels we just received tonight. We received the 18th protest.
So if there were more than 50% of parcels protesting, you must deny any change because I want to say a couple benefits to the customers. We've done some sampling, some studies on 63% of customers, residential customers will either have no change or their usage would decrease about 40% would be about the same 23% would decrease and 27 well I think 10% go up one unit and 27% go by more than one unit but Again, those are customers they haven't been changed in a couple years. They have lower years dropping off. So benefits to the other benefits to customers is it's easier to understand for customers instead of having a four-year average. They're just looking at their one-year average and changes in their usage are reflected sooner essentially if they have a lower winter, they don't have to wait four years to realize that.
It's more of an accurate reading of what is going on. It's a different way of calculating the consumption. The rates are staying the same.
So if you had, say, a roommate that was using a lot of water then it would reflect so when the person moved out as opposed to waiting for multiple years for it to even out and likewise the other way if you're actually using more it will reflect it more faster?
Correct. Yeah, I just had a couple quick questions and let me know if you can help me with this. So I think on the fiscal impact on the staff report said 40% will see an increase 24% will see a decrease in 36% see no charge. I think you gave us more detail into that but We have a lot of. We have apartment complexes who count as one customer even though they may
1:20 – 1:2824 turns
And we've got 21% decrease and 42% are no change. So 63% are not increasing, essentially. 10% are going up one unit and then some of them newer customers last year started at seven but now they have a winter average where they've been using 10 to 15 units a month so those will be increasing to reflect their actual usage.
So again, I'm not just doubles in the details so for that 25%, 23% that's going up. Is that apartment complexes or individuals? Is that lower income, is that median? Do we have any idea about that? We just
know it's not. It could be both. It could be apartment complexes. It could be low-income. We don't track customers based on seniors are low-income so I don't have that data.
So most people aren't going to see a change but somebody will.
Right, about 27%.
And then the last one, it's a question I have was just on the commercial. So it says the average go up for those that residential counts they're going to see an increase in about 10 bucks for those that go up. But on commercial, it says that's gonna be an additional $102 a month. Can you talk to me about maybe scared commercial businesses? Who's getting that bill, because that's another hundred bucks a month in cost or overhead for what makes up commercial here.
There are a lot of different, I mean types of commercial. Hotels are commercial. Laundries are going, laundries they're already high but some if they have lower months during there that they'll go down. They have wider swings, laundries do typically. But a lot of the commercials are smaller increases. There's just a few that pull it up and down.
So a lot of the smaller businesses, if they're not necessarily going to see the $102k a month that might be a bigger operation hotel or laundry or something.
Right those are typically seeing you know a few units increase possibly.
Thank you for clarifying I didn't want to go out there and tell everyone their bill's gonna go through the roof if it's only gonna apply to a few people so thank you for clarifying.
I think it was also because in the commercial component your averaging vacancies As in many cases, you have the vacancy component that's in there over the six years. If a building has been empty for a couple of years then it completely skewed it where now you're lining up more directly so that was kind of one of the discussions we had earlier about that right? Right. So by doing this you take out of that variable a vacancy.
Council Member Bridge. Could you go back to the slide that has the multiple units, no minimum seven or five I believe it was? I think it might be before that.
This one?
Yeah. I'm a dummy, I don't get that first bullet. What does that mean?
So everyone is billed a minimum of five units regardless of what their water usage is. That goes to cover the infrastructure of the system being connected to the system. The billing process there's not a lot but there are fixed costs Thank you.
You said you don't track it by lower income or fixed income. So what do we tell our constituents? What to expect people on fixed income that you guys don't have them in as a factor, or how would we respond to someone like that because Your numbers are based on something else other than people. So maybe you could tell us how we can tell them what the benefit is to them?
Well, I think they need to look at their water usage. If their water portion of their bill is not high, they should be fine. If their water usage is significant Then there they could see an increase, but a lot of fixed income people. They don't have kids living in the household possibly they use less water so I would. I would think they're probably not going to see as high of an increase, but again they need to look at their water bill.
But you know, if you were selling this to someone that presentation is kind of poor. Okay? If I had to sell it to my constituents... So that's why I'm asking that question. I understand you're in the finance area but if I had to tell someone hey the reason we did this was because they told us it was better or worse or it covers vacancies, or it's easier, or it's an upgrade, or more modernized? I'd like a better answer. You know what I mean? It would be why would we tell them the reason we voted for it because you recommend it, or maybe you can give me a better answer. I don't know.
Well, I think that they are able to impact their rate faster. I think if they use less water As it is now, it's going to be four years before they see a change. So now if they use less water they're going to see that change the following year. I think that doing a one-year average, it's a lot easier to make an impact on your bill faster
I appreciate your answers. If someone asks me, I'd like to have a better answer to tell them why I went and voted for it or not. Thank you. Council Member
Bull. So just throwing it out there, forgive my ignorance on any of this but so last time we did any sort of rate adjustments was in 2017. This is obviously going to make up some gap that you see that we need to make sure that we're covering. It sounds like there's a rate study coming back next year Why wouldn't we look at this issue under that umbrella and maybe find a more equitable way to spread this cost?
So, we'll be able to have more data using this method. When we bring that back in the winter for next year, we'll have more data. We'll be able to look at whether we need to make adjustments or not. We will be able to have a better idea of predicting what our revenue is going to be under this method as opposed to looking at what year's gonna drop off, how many customers there were four years ago compared to now. It's going to give us more reliable information for when we bring that rate study back and maybe we will need to format them a little differently but...
It'll give us better information for when we do.
So, and again just plain devil's advocate the cost of that extra data that additional information is three-fourths of folks aren't going to see any change but a quarter of folks commercial or residential are gonna have to pay more before we get a rate study to see like how much we actually have to adjust. Just throwing it out there.
Councilor Bridge?
1:28 – 1:338 turns
Well, I would just like to comment because it gets lost in the noise. The easiest way to impact this is turn your sprinklers off in the winter. That's what it's designed for. That's why you pick those dates because that's non-consumptive and so I know I've talked to lots of people in the city and even though it's been known forever that that's where it's coming from, it gets lost.
I just would say one more time, turn your sprinklers off in the winter and you will lower your sewer bill next year.
And I would like to add back to your comment for customers that 27% who are seeing an increase would have seen an increase under the old method also. It just may have been a smaller increase but they would've seen an increase because probably if the four-year average number dropped off their entire number came on, they would've seen an increase.
You make a great point, and that's why we pay you the big bucks to be the smart math guy. So thank you. I think that's very clear. I just found it somewhat comical because it makes sense. Turn off your sprinklers, use less water, bill goes down, and then mayor is going to tell us to flush As often as we can to take more showers, I guess what I'm getting to is pushing for less water usage to see people's bills stay stable. But we're facing issues of not having enough revenue coming in for this utility and that's why I keep going back to this rate study and what we probably have to do next year.
This is just
for the winter months but yes. Thank you.
Yeah, you're right. I am trying to sell more water because we need more money at the plant. We're either going to make more money by selling more water or raise the rates. So take your pick. Get something out of it because it costs a certain amount of money to run the facility so people have been conserving so much actually gain short money. Correct? Anybody else will go to public comment on this item?
So I was not going to speak on this, but listening to these conversations it's kind of disgusting. And I cannot say I can't believe that I'm gonna agree with Vega like great job Vega like you are thinking of the people basically do you know what type of people live here in the city? Do you know like... So multi-family homes, right? Immigrants, farm workers, low income. Those are the people that are going to be affected.
So thank you Vega for bringing that up but turn off your sprinklers? Are you serious? We're talking about people money like food is The cost of food is higher, people are paying more. Your president is putting tariffs on everything. Come on! Let's think about this. We're talking about people. You're going to charge them more for water when they are already paying more for everything?
Let's think about it. Come up with a different type of... I don't know but thank you Vega.
Again, this isn't raising the rate. This is rate modifying the way they calculate it instead of a five-year averaging there's a one year averaging rate is not being raised.
It's too tall now. Diana Diaz again hi I'm not sure I understand this plan as a water consumer and I'm a very low water consumer. If I'm understanding correctly, it seems like the base minimum water that I'm going to be charged is five units whether or not I use them so then I should use more or something crazy like that. That's like punishing People who took to heart our drought issues and use less, and as less as possible. I planted a native California plant garden that we barely water and barely have to water so that we can conserve for the greater good. And now I'm hearing basically, we're going to be punished for that.
Is that what I'm hearing right? It's really confusing, and it doesn't sound good.
1:33 – 1:4514 turns
Carl Jones. I actually remember this way back in April, the whole conversation about it, the five units, this, that, and the other thing. So yeah. I want some clarification on the customer class. Is that based on house size? Bedrooms? Or is this based off the number of people inside of a house? Because if I'm a single guy that moves into a 2,500 square foot home who's got five bedrooms in it and you're going to base me off a class size. But I use less water than if it's a full house.
So that one there is just a little confused. I'd like a little clarification on the customer class sizes. What's this based at customer class? I understand you said it would be a minimum of seven units. You know, and so that one there just kind of confused me. It's like it was two different types of information there. What is a customer class? Is it a one-bedroom apartment compared to a five-bedroom home?
And then what is that five bedroom home full of people and I happen to be just decide I want to have a big giant house so I move in and then I got to get charged for the same amount as a full house or... That that's got me. So now I gotta wait till January through March to prove that I only use a tiny bit of water and then the average out, I understand that portion is actually pretty cool because wintertime you do use less less water.
And that three-month average over time is better than running through, you know, a real hot year and your drink of water every time you turn around. That's based on your average. But I would really like some clarification. What is the customer class size? What does that particularly mean? Thank you.
You're getting more and more creative on how to get a minimum amount of money out of the people. So you had the trash, and you took it from the tenants, and you gave it to the landlords, and you had an increase. And so then most landlords just pass that to the people. You used to not have a fixed meter charge, and now you have a fixed meter charge. Now you're having a fixed unit charge.
I used to joke five, six, seven, eight, nine years ago that eventually for many of our seniors that their utilities would eventually be almost as much as their mortgage. And we slowly but surely are moving in that direction. It's a challenge for a lot of people. You're all well aware of our socioeconomic makeup in this community, so I am more in favor of a more equitable, of actually paying for how you use And I, as an individual and also as someone who has lots of tenants and who speak with the tenants, I think it would be a more equitable situation. We actually pay for you use and you find a payment system across all your utilities not just this particular utility that actually charges you for what you use.
I can tell you there's places where we have one person in a one-bedroom and there's places where there's five people in a one bedroom. That's just the facts of the economics of some people, but to be charged the same for different usages doesn't seem quite right. So I will say again that people will allow this, but eventually the people will not. Thank you.
Anybody else? This is something that I wasn't going to speak on, because I don't really know much about the issue. But it really seems like we're missing the mark here. I don't understand it. One of the things that our community agrees upon is that we have people in our community that don't have socioeconomic means to be able to afford higher cost for things. I think that we need to recalculate. It's just not a good plan, right?
Can't treat this city like a business because that's not going to work when we have people from all different social backgrounds. I think we really need to re-examine it.
Anybody else? Anybody on the phone? Teams?
There is no public comment via teams or audio.
Seeing that, we will close public comment. Council Member Bull?
I was just going to say that the, and again Bob I apologize because I think there's a lot of intelligent things in this move. It can set us up gives a lot of data help us some people are gonna save. I guess the thing that I'm missing and I'm sorry to put it back on this but when we say fiscal impact you should think about like are we gonna break even or how is it gonna shake out? But even though it's a small cost potentially I don't get a sense of Is that 23% made up of fixed income people and seniors or people that just don't have the means, or that becomes a very big challenge for them when you and I might look at that as negligible?
Not knowing that type of fiscal impact does make me hesitant on this. I hope that makes sense. Is there anything you want to add to this where there's just no way to really do that or define that?
You know, we don't have the ability to pull that out as far as on the reports we get. As far as... I mean, I know the users, the ones who are seeing increase are typically not near the minimum. They're using more than the minimum already but it's a variety of, I don't know, you know, the housing structure, the residents, who lives where or where the low-income customers are. But again, I would say that people who are paying for their water by the number of units so if they're using a lot of, you know, a fair amount of water they're seeing, you know, they're paying for what they're using and this is a way of measuring what they're using as far as the sewer system And I appreciate all that. I guess the unknowns for me
and Uh, labeled as a single customer but maybe have 200 units. I guess in my mind I play it forward where well maybe there was you know somebody that was really conserving next door to them. Somebody who's just like leaving the water on all the time and it shook out a year or two later that the owners were paying more in their bill and they wound up passing that cost onto their tenants So again, that's where I think about well what if somebody is on a fixed income and they did everything they were supposed to do but they have the limitations of being a renter in a multi-unit place.
Could they face fiscal impact from this potentially?
Possibly. A lot of our larger customers do have a flat rate where they pay a certain amount per unit and that doesn't change so those may not be affected Yeah, I understand.
Thank you for filling me in as much as you could. Appreciate it.
So we've got to pay off this $105 million sewer plant, correct? That's the bottom line too is $105 million plus, so I think that people are getting a little confused that we're not changing the charge and it's based on per unit You have a five-unit minimum. You don't have a sewer meter, so you don't have a flow meter sitting on the sewer. You're using that number to be as fair as you can and limit it. It was five units before.
It's going to be five units now, so that's not going to be changed. Where it does align some people I've talked to is where they had a long water leak and we threw out one high but because it was high in year four, three, Now it's more accurate because it's following the water that's using. And in some people's cases with water going up, you have another member of the family happens so people are taking more baths there's more people there and that's why you're talking about some numbers going up and likewise summer going down because somebody is moving on to college or something But you're not charging individually more. It's the same as it's been since 2017, correct? So the rates are not going up on this amount of charging. It was five units before was the minimum, correct?
Five units of charge before is five units now so there's no change on that. What they're talking about is in order because there isn't a sewer meter You use the water meter to calculate and the reason why they use January, February or March is generally when it's raining and people aren't using water to landscape. So that's the best way they can calculate because most of that water then is used in the house showers toilets whatever. That's how they come up with that calculation using the winter rates for the calculation The reason why I'm saying right now because we're not in a drought, the river's running for almost three years. In times of plenty, go ahead and use a little more water. Enjoy a little bit of that renewable resource that's out there.
If you're not doing it during the calculation time of January, February, March, it won't affect your sewer bill. But it's a methodology that's used throughout California, correct?
A lot of California has gone to fixed rates, but a lot of them still use based on winter
averages. People don't put sewer meters on houses correct? Correct. And it's just one of those things you can't really do so that's why they have to use it to do the calculation and the rates have to be adjusted. The reason we haven't had to raise the rates is because Until recently, the sewer enterprise has been in pretty good shape. In fact I think April of last year they had 100% reserve. They had $13 million in the bank but they had a lot of projects and deferred maintenance that they were going to be using that money up on so that's why rates hadn't been raised for many years as it was covering its debt.
So with more growth than we have our water plant is running. Our wastewater, I think it's at 60% capacity? Correct? So we have room for growth, more people hook up on it. We won't have to raise the rates for a while too so we need to get more people hooked up using that resource that's out there. I mean if you've...I don't know if they do tours at the wastewater plant but it's a pretty phenomenal facility. It's one of the most expensive facilities the City of Lompoc has is the sewer plant.
It's very expensive to take care and process what happens when they flush that toilet. They got a great group of people out there that keep the water running clean I thank
1:45 – 1:5110 turns
you for the presentation. I understand what's going on here, but I can't support it because I can't explain it to my constituents or the people of the residence in days of conservation I don't know what the benefit was to people, to be honest with you. You conserve water and then you get another fee study where the rates are raised. The infrastructure costs are the infrastructure cost. As we all know this is election year and people that have no problem paying their utility bills will embrace any kind of change that benefits the city okay? So basically what we have to do is look in ourselves and see what was the reason I would vote for a change When they can't explain who's going to benefit from it. And why would I put somebody's fixed income in jeopardy and have to explain afterwards when they're only getting $700, maybe $1,500 a month to their family?
I just don't agree with them. So basically, I can't explain it. You guys can't explain it. You guys can only try and sell it. Because it's enterprise, it's bank, it's banking. We have money we have to spend, we conserve, you sell more water. None of that makes sense. All I know is when we get our bill there are people stressing out with the utility bill and right now with economics everything is going up And all we do is we present things that seem to have frosting on it, but then what comes in right after it is another fee study. Which means when's the last time utilities went down guys?
Everything is at a cost. But I think the timing of it right now is not good.
Council Member Ridge.
So I just want to be very clear in my mind You're not increasing the rates, you're not increasing the minimum. The only change we are making tonight that I can understand instead of averaging the use over five years or putting under one year. I am a proponent for that and the reason I'm a proponent for that is I can change what my bill is quickly. I've had many conversations with folks who go, how do I get my sewer bill lower?
And I have to go well it'll take you five years to get it lower. With this change if someone wants to make a change in their behavior because their bill's too high They can make that change within a year, not five years.
That's correct.
That's the only change we're making here, right? Putting the power back in the people's hands to change their rate, what they're having to pay. They don't have to wait five years to lower their bill. They can change it this year and I don't mean to be facetious and I'm sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings but the quickest way to do that and I've seen them around town is turn off your sprinklers in the winter.
You will use less water during that period when the averages are computed. They're computed, I believe, in December, January, February or?
Yeah we try to capture January, February, March usage.
OK. January, February, March. Turn your sprinklers off then if they're going. It rains during that period most lawns don't require it. I forget sometimes but I try to turn it off in the winter And it will make that change this year. I don't have to wait five years because I'm trying to conserve. This change has nothing to do with how much you pay on water. Correct. All this is our sewer bill, and we're trying to give a way for people to impact and lower their sewer bill.
I'm going to be in support of that. Council Member Bull?
So I definitely hear that. I guess a little pushback that I would have is that, oh my gosh how lucky it is for someone to have sprinklers. What about all the people that are in denser housing don't have the option to turn off their sprinklers or lower their consumption? They've already done that but they're just at the receiving end of that so one might Imagine that somebody that has sprinklers has the ability to really lower their bill because of consumption, but somebody that's on a fixed income and has no options of lowering their consumption might not. They actually might pay more. So that's again where I have a little bit of hesitation on this. And then, I mean, I guess it's how you say it, but if the staff report said 23% of people are going to pay more You're changing the way that you charge, so it's not accurate to say no one's bill is going to change.
I
would say... You didn't say that someone else did. No. So that's just something I want to be very clear of is that somebody is going to see the change and we have not been able to say who might benefit and who might not. Just so I don't get this wrong Mayor, you said something about $105 million. What is that? The sewer? Tell me about that. That was the bond debts to build the sewer plant. Yeah, so and again I may be a little bit ignorant but I guess as I zoom out and again no blame because the utility was in good shape and there's no need for any of these rate increases but then we use the justification to say well we need to do this thing because we still have this $105 million dollar thing that we still haven't figured out how to pay for it makes me go back and think like well Gosh, here we are again in the city of Lompoc having something that needs to be fixed.
Capital improvement! We have no money ever put aside. Just one other example. Hear me out. My little pea brain sometimes just thinks like well gosh man if we would've just had a 3%, 4% some moderate sort of rate increase over that time. We haven't increased any rates since 2017. I'm like, isn't that how other cities kind of do it? It's not as controversial. They don't wait a decade to make a change that has so much impact. They just have incremental change and then they put money aside and then they fix their things. I don't know maybe I'm ignorant but...
1:51 – 1:5712 turns
Now back to your first point though, I will say again the people who are seeing increases would have likely seen an increase anyway because their winter usage was higher. So under either method they're going to they're seeing a increase because they use more water and that's how we measure it so but as to say what the primary reason for doing this It's been in place ever since.
Playing devil's advocate, those five unit charges that we give whether somebody turns the water on or off. Is that helping us pay for $105 million sewer plant and how quickly might we be able to do that and pay it off?
It goes towards the fixed cost of the system, essentially. Using the first unit is the most expensive because to have one unit you have to have all the infrastructure in place. So as far... We mix the revenue. The revenue all goes... we don't count how much is paid by minimum and how much is above that but it's getting paid off. It will be paid off I think by 2029. Then we
might be able to lower rates,
right? Again that's part of the study. We'll see how the numbers look after this and we'll see.
Councilor Vega. Hey Bob when is the next rate study?
So we brought a rate study back in last January, February and we didn't continue it. There were some questions with it so we're going to be bringing that back with the water study probably hopefully February time frame? We're going to be starting up again with the end of this fiscal, last past fiscal year so we have finance numbers. So we'll be looking at that. I got
you. So the rates won't stay the same for five years as stated correct because subject to the rate study other choices and votes could take the place.
It's possible we could implement a type of fixed cost and lower variable cost to reduce the volatility, but we'll be working with our consultants on different ways of structuring the rates.
And I'm not against the averaging. Most people don't understand it or they do understand that if you average it goes lower. What I'm against is Thank you. So that doesn't fly for a lot of people. The conservation was just the big smoke and mirror thing, too. You have people here trying to restrict themselves and tell them to save water. What did they get for that?
They got a rate increase. You guys are talking about the sewer plant infrastructure. That's an old bill that's being paid with Enterprise. So basically, the enterprise is making more money as it should so that other people can spend the money somewhere else. It's not going directly toward that sewer plant. So that's a myth. All I'm saying is we just need to know why we're selling it, why we're doing it.
And to say that we're not going to get a rate increase in five years, that's baloney. That's not true. We get a rate increase every year just about if it's voted down. So I just want to be honest with the people. That's all.
I will say for me the main reason for doing it is it's simpler to build, it's simpler to calculate, and it's simpler to implement.
And see those are the answers that I wanted to hear not the smoke and mirrors about flushing toilets and turning off sprinklers and all that. That's all baloney. That doesn't even make sense and then as being repeated to me as if I didn't understand what that meant And I understood it perfectly. It's just that I can't tell my constituents and the residents who is going to get this increase, and you can't tell me, and none of you can tell me. You guys just say it's okay. It will go down. I don't think it has been explained or clarified because in general you have all the apartments, single family homes, everybody in one big bulk group And how you guys calculated the 27% increase.
I'm not sure if you were real clear about that, if you know who's going to get the increase or not Bob, or if you know. Some of that question mark stuff is kind of what people should know before we go into another process. People understand averaging means OK, if you average it out for a certain amount of time maybe we'll stabilize the rates for the month of the billing That's pretty clear. I get it, but to say for five years is not going to change. That's not true.
So if you guys could tell me who the who's gonna get the increase? That would be a different story, but it's not. It's not structured like that. So thank you. Councilor Bridge.
1:57 – 2:0329 turns
So the people that get an increase are the people who are using the water and have somehow been, over the averaging of five years, taken advantage of earlier years and use less water. That's pretty easy to understand. Tell me exactly
Mr. Bridge who is it?
There's no way to tell that because everybody uses a different... You're
exactly right you just answered it okay so when you come back at me with something vague Come back with me for something that I can understand.
There's nothing vague, but based on what you're stating and what I'm hearing perhaps Councilman Ball worrying and when I heard the angst my understanding was the average is seven units. That's what I think I heard. We have a base of five. You want something to campaign on? Let's make it a base of two units. It won't make a difference, but you'll have something to go tell your constituents.
Greg Stones would know this, when the current rules for apartment complexes and other commercial components you have separate meters. One for landscaping meter in his apartment right? So there's a housing meter and a lot of these big developments already have isolated landscape meters all right so they're already those guys don't much matter what he's talking about is a single family residence in the water usage that aligns most of people in apartments are The
complexity
of this is
they can't share
with us because it's confidential. People's utility bills are We treat everybody equally the same with their bills, correct? City attorney. We don't have isolation. And it's based on usage, correct?
Yes, based on usage.
Yeah, so it's not...
And the part about the customer class that the person asked about, that goes to classes are residential, commercial, industrial but that only comes into play if they weren't in the residence for January, February and March. The first year essentially they get billed the average after that we establish their winter average and the customers who are going up there people who use more water this past winter than they have in the past
or
I have the names of my desk but
I... Or it was a property that was actually vacant and is now occupied There's that rotational aspect that comes through as well. The rates are not increasing per unit. If you're using the minimum of five, you'll still be five and it's based on how many units you're using on a one-year averaging instead of the five year averaging.
It sounds so simple. So I guess just kick it on through, I guess. But correct me if I'm wrong. This is from your staff report. So over 2,000 households and again we could argue like oh well they're using more water and they've been getting a break up until this point no one knows that they're paying their water bill, they're paying all their bills, you're using their water. So over 2000 households are going to see their bill go up
Based on what we think, yes.
Because that's cloudy, although I would say sometimes like Lompoc benefits from in terms of our electric bill and the rates that we pay to bring power on. You know some of that is tied to median income and some of those things but that's another story. Also is this true or false? We are also removing this if we do this we're removing a previous cap of $28.01 on how much a wastewater bill can increase in a single year Are we removing the
cap? The cap was four units, so it was about $36.00 was the cap before and yes that's correct. Okay
thank you.
So the people's bills will be going up are people who are using more sewage correct?
Yes
All right, anybody else? I see nobody else is saying anything.
Mayor? Yes. We do have a housekeeping item on this we have to take care of before there's a motion and that's pursuant to Prop 218. This was a public hearing to take written protests of this proposed change and there's 11,102 parcels in the city if 50% plus one of those 11,102 parcels protested If there are less than 50% protests, then the council can choose whether or not to make the change.
So I want to confirm with City Clerk that city has received... First of all, that all the notices were mailed to the property owners and utility customers and that the city received 18 written protests?
That is correct.
And we receive zero tonight. So the total of 18 does not reach the 50% threshold level?
We actually received the 18th tonight. We had 17 before tonight, and I was handed one tonight.
Understood. Technically, I meant at the public hearing. So 18 before the public hearing, zero at the public hearing.
2:03 – 2:1022 turns
Correct.
OK. Housekeeping is taken care of. Any more questions? We're looking for a motion. Starbuck, what's your motion?
I'll go ahead and make the motion we accept Resolution 6836, parentheses 26.
Is that all you need along with everything else or what else, City Attorney?
That is sufficient, yes.
We've got a first by Starbucks, second by Bridge. Let's go ahead and vote. That passes 3-2. Up next, discussion of direction regarding adopting housing element sites inventory lists Planning Manager Greg Stones. You had a busy time this time, didn't you?
Yep. One moment. So at the June 2nd 2026 City Council requested a discussion regarding item specifically the inventory and map in our general plan housing element So a few things here in terms of discuss the process and the benefits of modifying the list and map. So the process would be to essentially come up with which items or which properties you want off the list.
We would, staff would have to work with the consultant to do an analysis to see if it's appropriate fit in terms of if there's any additional ones that will be put on the list versus ones being taken off the list. Contact HCD, which is the Department of Housing and Community Development to see if they agree. Then return to Planning Commission, then it would go to City Council. And if City Council agrees, then we would submit back to HCD. They would have a 60-day review time and then after HCD approves it, then I would come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption and then resubmit it to HCD.
And consultant mentioned this could potentially take up to six months. Now some of the benefits would be regarding the no net loss, excuse me, no net loss law. If the city approves a project at a lower density or for different income level than what was, what the inventory assumed, the city must replace the capacity elsewhere. Keeping the inventory updated can prevent deficits and adding extra sites to the inventory creates a safety net to prevent failing, falling out of compliance if the developer builds fewer units than expected That's one. The second benefit could be swapping its constrained sites for more viable sites increases the likelihood that housing actually gets built in the community, and the third point would be to removing a parcel from the inventory can protect the city against by rights statutory triggers created by Assembly Bill 1397 under California law if a site is Re-listed or reused across multiple housing element cycles without being developed, the City faces loss of local zoning control.
In other words, the City must allow any future housing development on that site to be approved by right assuming they also have at least 20% for low income housing. And here's the map from our adopted housing element showing the vacant and underutilized sites. That concludes my presentation, thank you all.
Just generally speaking, has HCD had some concerns about what we've done in the past?
No. I haven't heard anything. Right
now we're
good.
So as is do we feel pretty comfortable that we're doing the right thing by the state or HCD will modify our approach?
Well since I haven't heard anything I'm thinking we're good.
So in terms of potential RHNA numbers and Letting them know that we're open to housing, we're doing a pretty good job with that.
That I'm aware of.
Thank
you. One of the reasons for... Do you have anything else, Bill? No. So is that we did do some zone changes which can help our numbers. The last thing you want to do is get the state saying you're in violation and we're quite confident At least I am. Some of these things are not going to happen. I don't think anybody's tearing down the Grange Hall, the Half Century Club, the Elks Lodge and there's a couple other churches on this list.
Might happen might not but in other words to protect us we have two other parcels as you've mentioned here that potentially would bring another 114 dwelling units to town so I think it's important that we add Those on, I mean that would be logical correct?
Yeah that could help yes especially if you know one of the other sites gets developed with less than what was expected then we can point to hey we added these two.
And in the old cycles before the arena cycles they were pretty lackadaisical about it and people were putting plants together nothing was happening but i think this state has got a little more teeth in it now and they want to see people produce How often, you have to give an annual update correct?
Production. I mean the update in terms of how many homes are built is in the general plan annual report that's where we kind of indicate the progress of actually items that actually received a certificate of, sorry not certificate issued a building permit.
And year before last we had two single family residents last year we had 0. This year we're slated for a lot more, so I'm just
correct. And just for clarification also the last two years when we reported that we used certificate of occupancy but we found out just recently after the last one that was updated in this past February that we can actually use building permit issuance. So next year how we do that calculate that will be a little bit different and it'll actually show more because more items get We're getting down the pipe so we've got a lot of makeup work to do.
2:11 – 2:1930 turns
In going to the LAFCO meetings and see how the county and city of Goleta were able to put lands. It made it more favorable for annexation if they were in their arena plan. I believe it was Goleta's annexation, and then also the overriding consideration of prime agriculture was looked The other way when it was an arena plan. In the overriding consideration and need of development, so I have some suggestions on some of the properties that we've been looking at. We know one's moving through under Builders Remedy and we probably need to get that looked at as lining up for a project of the city and not one that lays in limbo with the county.
Anybody else has any other questions? Did you get the answer on that question I
had on 3rd Street? Yeah, for the 109 South 3rd Street. I did talk to the consultant today and he said it is, that site is counted towards ARENA. It's just that it's not on the vacant and new life styles inventory but it was in the housing element under the entitlement, entitled project so it is counted, it's just not on there. Not on our map.
We have the V Street one that's entitled, isn't it?
North V?
Yeah. Number 83 or something
like that. Now it's entitled. 84.
Number 84. The left long corner up there.
The 1275 North East Street. I might be confusing my sights though. What's that? Oh, 84. That had an entitlement but it's no longer valid. There was an entitlement on it but now it's not
valid anymore. So that's why it's on the map. Okay. Alright.
Anybody else? Councillor Boehme. Just a silly question, forgive my ignorance. Do city properties ever wind up in this context or is that a...
Yeah I believe there are some that are on L
Street there and stuff.
You
also have the old...
I think there's some in the downtown area and then the L Street one I believe. You have one
behind Baskin Robbins too, that old yard there.
Yes, I think so.
That one's on there.
Yeah, I don't remember off the top of my head the address but
they go on there.
And again, I don't want to mess with this map. I think that's fine but I am curious about you know every time I drive past D Street and Chestnut I think that the whole city yard where they park the buses used to have a lot of stuff happening and it's just sitting open land with some solar panels and bus parking now so just curious about that. Maybe I'll follow up with you so I can learn a little bit more about that. But for those city properties that are on this list, again the whole goal is to get some sort of housing and to move towards something.
How do they get city properties included if that might be a harder pathway to develop or offload? That
particular question I don't know off the top of my head. I think our consultant would probably know, and I can shoot him an email asking that.
I'll follow up with you. Thank you.
No other questions right now. Let me bring it to public comment.
So I want to speak on item 12 because while this isn't a vote on a specific housing project, it is a discussion that will shape Lompoc's future. The direction you give staff tonight will influence where housing can be built What kinds of housing become possible and ultimately who gets to continue calling Lompoc home? As a community organizer, I meet families every day who are struggling with the rising cost of housing. Working families, seniors, young adults and immigrant families are all facing the same reality. Finding stable affordable housing in Lompoc is becoming more difficult. Housing isn't just about buildings, it's about keeping families together. It's about allowing children to stay in their schools, workers to live in community they serve and giving people the opportunity build a future here.
As you discuss the housing element sites inventory, I ask that you remember the people behind every decision, every parcel and that list represents potential opportunities or missed opportunities for families who simply want a safe and affordable place to live. I also encourage you to keep this process transparent, community driven The people of Lompoc deserve to understand how these decisions are made and have a meaningful voice in shaping our city's future.
The choices you make tonight may not seem dramatic, but they will influence the Lompoc we leave to the next generation. Let's plan for a city that is thoughtful, inclusive, prepared for the future or ensuring that working families have the opportunity to continue living in the community they love. Thank you.
Anybody else? Anybody on phones or your teams, or...
There's no public comment via Teams or audio. All
right, seeing nobody else rise we'll close public comment and if I can, I mean, I think It's been a four-year project. Unfortunately, these guys left already but understanding how much public engagement you've had over at least four if not five years on this correct? It's been a long process. Tonight is an update that we're doing. This has been a long lengthy process to get where we need to go.
Without carrying it on much further my suggestion is that we add on the two parcels that were rezoned onto the list
Excuse me, the two parcels or three? Three
parcels. You know the two areas, one on both on Ocean Ave and one on East. The set on East and then set on West Ocean that's 114 more units actually give us some breathing room on some of those other You know, maybe questionable projects. The other thing is strategically aligning the Bodger property may be the recommendation in two approaches. One is the whole set of parcels and the other approach is those that are aligned under the builder's remedy aspect.
I mean if they're going to be built there are going to be our homes it gives us some leverage on argument about who would be qualified for the arena Who would get the housing is we know the projects really not a project without aligned with the city. They need our utilities are public service, please fire and everything on that so they should be our projects but we don't have them in the plan I can see what's going to happen. They're gonna say well you guys weren't even thinking about this so strategically these are the things that I was thinking that we needed to do.
So with that, I would make a motion to align it that way. So those three basic items and item number three divided in two portions. Does it make sense? East Ocean, West Ocean and Bodger divided into different bites of the apple.
2:19 – 2:2810 turns
Councilor Boehme. So I don't necessarily disagree with this at all, but doesn't this get into the bigger long-term argument of who's getting credit for the RHNA numbers? The county versus us and is that... Yeah, I
mean that I would have to look into it. I don't know what's involved with that portion of it Yeah, that I would have to look into. But I mean
if that's possible in all practical means, I think that totally makes sense. We're going to be responding to that. We're going to be putting utilities to that etc., so...
We can always say no and just get we get to the table. Just trying to put ourselves at the table like it should've been our project 70 years ago but anyhow If we don't do it, in watching what's going on at LAFCO, attending the last year and a half of LAFCO meetings I'm thinking that, and I talked with the city attorney about this as well, in lining us up and making sure instead of being last at the trough like we've been so many times that we try to get maybe in front of the trough this time.
So that would be my motion if I could make one here? Do we need a motion for these recommendations?
Yeah, if you're going to direct staff to get the process started to add these sites then yes.
I didn't get it, there we go. There was no pretty buttons. So motion by myself and seconded by Starbucks let's go ahead and vote. And that passes 5-0 Thank you, Mr. Stones. You get another one? Man! Oh no this is a city attorney. I was
going to do the presentation for him and then he can try it out. Oh okay. Sculpt The Stone Show huh? All right,
rolling stone.
So this is regarding a short presentation regarding the Santa Barbara County Association and Governments SB CAG. The 2025 to 26 regional growth forecast. On June 25, 2026, SBCAG approved the 2025-2060 Regional Growth Forecast Estimates. And as indicated in the attached report from SBCAG, the regional growth forecast provides long range estimates of population, households and employment through 2060 and these forecasts serve as technical Input to inform support, future long-range transportation planning, land use modeling, future housing related planning such as regional housing needs assessment RENA process. California Equality Act analysis and the development of the Regional Transportation Plan slash Sustainable Community Strategy document as required by Senate Bill SB 375.
So if you could go to PDF page 2 on there. So I'll kind of show some of the graphs that they provided in this document from SPCAG, specifically with Lompoc as you can see there. This is showing that the estimates forecast at Santa Barbara County will add approximately 75,460 residents between 25 and 2060. And that the population forecast also shows that for Lompoc, it's increasing by 11,790, about 27%, and the households by 4,640, about 33% in that range. May I borrow the better laser pointer please?
So right in there is where it shows for Lompoc. And if you could go to page 10. So this is also showing the various, yeah right there, the various growth between 25 and 60 for City of Lompoc right here. So on 25 they're projecting this population so these are population increases all the way up to 2060 The household data can be found on page 11. So this is the household data, here's Lompoc.
The employment data is from page 12. Yeah, a little further down. Right there. So right here this is the employment data increases. Then as noted by SBCAG the regional growth forecast document is a planning tool that reflects information at time of preparation Rather than a precise prediction of future conditions and that the forecast is monitored for consistency with other forecasts, an update is necessary to ensure it provides the most accurate assessment of future growth. That was indicated in the report. And of course piggybacking for us we have our upcoming general plan 2050 as part of that environmental document when it eventually comes out. I'll make sure we share it with them because we may come up different Lompoc specific stats.
So that concludes my presentation, thanks.
It's a great thank you for this I mean as the rep to SB CAG I thought it was important that the whole council see these numbers that are out there and my area of concern is that they're not recognizing what's going on at the base And we hear that there's 10,000 jobs coming seven, eight miles away from us. And even with the jobs that are in here it's not even showing that.
Likewise if you look at the household projection graph and you see where we are, if we accomplish what we're supposed to accomplish in ARENA in the next five years, we're gonna be at 2050 numbers already. Adding 2,400 homes on there. A little bit under there, somewhere between 45 and 50. So it's not really recognizing even what we're trying to move forward with nor the potential demand that's happening at the base.
And I brought that up to them and for some reason they don't want to hear it. But if people think there's a rental shortage right now If there's 10,000 jobs sitting out there where do you think those people are going to want to live? They're going to put so much pressure on us that if we're not allowed to plan for this Santa Maria says hey we can't take them. They need to annex another 1,000 acres just to meet the arena let alone with that Orcutts kind of in a quagmire what they're gonna do where they're gonna get more water from the Richards Ranch That means the pressure is going to be put on us. What are we going to do? My concern is because they're not recognizing The people at the base say it's going to happen. So that's my big concern, is that we need to address this.
Not only I think the document needs to be corrected and people say, well what's it matter what they say? What's it matter is when you go to try to do the growth, they look at the SPCAG document. The SPCAG says, well you're not growing. It says so in the document even though the demand to move and these documents become circular. When I found out SPCAG uses your document, you might use their document and we kind of go around and around. I know you were fighting for more numbers with them with the 2050 plan and they were kind of ignoring what you were saying I think you and I have opposite concerns on this.
The base is listed as a separate number, right?
2:28 – 2:346 turns
I think when we're looking at jobs, for example.
So the
base is there. I agree with the mayor that that's significantly underscoped based on what the base is saying. My concern is these numbers are going to roll right into the next arena cycle, and we have one of the highest gross rates planned. I think Santa Maria might be higher in number but not in percentage. Citizens that would be a fourth of our town That would be the equivalent of I don't know 25 30 Maybe longer
35 years.
Yeah, I Just don't believe these numbers and I'm concerned they're gonna roll into Marina and we'll just will be wanting high-rises in here because you're right they're coming and But that infill map that you just had up here a moment ago is a direct result of us trying to meet RHNA numbers. And that's why they put the Elks in and put Chirk parking lots, and I agree with everything you said there.
So I don't want to oppose what you're trying to do I think perhaps what we ought to do is put in a public request for information through the attorney and find out what the hell they built these on. There we could challenge the base assumptions. We could express serious concerns about the numbers without having to argue about whether we think they're too high or too low, we can just say we have serious concern that the numbers are valid and shouldn't be used as a basis in LAFCO's assessments. I think that would accomplish what you're trying to achieve And then we asked for the models, and we go look at what the models say. I know when I went through the last arena cycle and looked at the models, I found what I considered fatal flaws for Lompoc, and I was able to use that justification to change the assigned numbers in this spread.
So I really don't want to fight you on what you're trying to do because I agree with what you're trying to do. I've probably been burned by these kinds of things in a different manner than you have. So perhaps we express concern, we have a letter go out that says we don't agree with these numbers. We don't have to specify it. You think they should be higher and I think maybe lower and ask for the models. And then when we go to LAFCO, we can criticize the models if they were flawed.
That's where I'm at on that. Councilor
Buol. So I don't necessarily disagree with some of this, I think again a lot of this is hopefully smart speculation to a point but again somebody's probably got their interest in things can you go back there was like one of the first slides that had numbers on it bunch of black and white stuff that had page two sorry let's see maybe one before that Oh no, that's someone right there. So when I look at it again just here and Dean I'm going to ask you a question on this so when you're looking at numbers. So for me, I'm going to compare Lompoc and Santa Barbara City.
So it looks in layman's terms it looks like they're projecting that Santa Barbara is barely going to grow, right? Six percent versus 27% growth. And then when I get over to employment, I see the Santa Barbara City is They're going to grow by roughly 17,000 jobs. And Lompoc's going to grow by 2,350. So I guess again maybe that just goes back into that discussion like are we going to become, by those numbers, we're going to become even more of a bedroom community where everyone has to live here and we don't have enough room for them but they do get to work in Santa Barbara?
Dean would you agree with that right? No one knows the exact answer here. It just frustrates me looking at this saying we're going to basically have Compared to the amount of people that are going to move in over time, they're already locking in that we just won't have many jobs. That we will be a commuter town. So again however you guys want to push back on that I think it's fair and again that's just one little area where I'm drawing the contrast between a couple places. I think we're all saying relatively the same thing.
It seems a little skewed against us as far as the growth here, considering that if we're pushed to have this be the final number, we will have that amount of growth. Again I agree that the state might come back and say well your numbers, you're supposed If we could gain a little bit of clarity or get some of the source reasoning for some of this. I don't know, I'd be curious. It frustrates me that Santa Barbara City, yes they're hemmed in, they don't have a lot of room for growth but welcome to Lompoc.
They don't let us grow either but they're saying we're going to grow that much so I donno it just bugs me a little bit.
2:34 – 2:4313 turns
Well in conversation with county supervisors they would support us to have workforce housing for commuters to go down there and work in their jobs. They actually wanted to put a high-speed train out here so the people of Lompoc could get down there faster to go to work. My pushback is if we harvest the jobs that are in our valley, meaning those at the base, yeah sure they're commuting seven miles but growing up here that was...we were connected. So my objective is to connect us with them When you do the math and see what we should have been like the Bailey Corridor, and other arguments that we have in other expansion areas where we've tried to go. We would have been at these numbers a long time ago.
But we've been said no, and in 26 years we've had a negative population growth. According to the GAN report that we just recently filed, we had a negative population growth of 26 years. And a lot of this is because how they're aligning these documents up and how they're attacking us not allowing us to grow and expand. And what I'm trying to do is, I'm forecasting what I see and they hold against us. And if it's not in there you go, well, you weren't planning on this so therefore you can't have this.
So that's what I am trying to say. You know maybe let me take public comment. Do you guys have any more questions for Greg? We'll get public comment and I see Victor is already ready to go so we'll try to roll this up fast buddy. We'll get you home before you turn into a pumpkin okay? We'll get you there, buddy. Any other questions for Greg? Let me open it up for public comment on this.
Do we have them lining up on the phone over there for us yet now? We need the Jerry Lewis telethon going on here or something, right?
Nick Gonzalez, resident of Lompoc. That 2300 number, I don't know where they pulled that out. Council Member Ball was present. Supervisor Harmon was present. The colonel stood up in the room, and he didn't say if. He said it was happening. And point blank, we're getting 10,000 plus jobs by 2030. And so for the system of government to put out a number like that I'm just baffled. I'm taken aback. I am like whoa how?
We talk about needing to fulfill the needs of the community and being able to support our city and our city staff. This needs to be fixed. If you fail to fix this, there's no way we can fix this. You cannot do one without the other. This should be priority number one is to get all the legal documents from RINA to the SB CAG documents, to align with what we're being told is going to happen.
I bet you a million dollars right now on the spot that if you allow this to go down the pipe three, four or five years from now, this is gonna be the basis for the litigation or the turndown or the denial of annexations, of growth of additional transportation fund. You name it, this is going to be the guiding document because that's how the system works. And so I think that y'all have to get together, and whether it's writing a letter of protest, demanding complete evaluation of the model. Whatever it is that you need to do we absolutely need to ensure that the changes at Vandenberg are not only impacted there...
Think about the money multiplier impact that it's gonna have You're going to have the impact, even at Vandenberg Councilmember Ridge. But what's that overlap? 10,000 jobs at Vandenberg. How many more jobs are they going to make within this community? A typical money multiplier is five times, five-fold as a dollar goes through the economy. We can't even begin to fathom what potential impact this can be. So let's get this right and not let them do what they've done to us for the last 25 years.
Thank you.
Emails that still nobody on teams or phones are
there's no public comment via teams or audio.
I've seen nobody else rise from a close public comment bring it back to the council counselor bridge
I'm in violent agreement with what you said there. We have a large government agency saying that's going to happen. There is a contingency in the community that say we've been through this before, but my experience through the Las Arena process which is limited, no question about that, I don't have the depth of some of the other folks Until I could get the models and show the flaws, SPCAG was not listening.
The groups would meet and they had their consultants and their consultants had their ideas and they were right. So I am all for sending a letter of formal protest that this document is invalid, it isn't appropriate and I don't need to specify why I think that or what numbers I think are bad. And I think we should do a public request and get the models. Then we could immediately attack the base numbers, and we'd have some validity from the base.
And I think that feeds into where you're trying to go. And we can put aside whether I agree there's going to be 4,000 new houses or not. I think we need to set the stage for the LAFCO battle and not have a battle up here. So that would be my recommendation.
Yes, just remember we built out this wastewater plant anticipating this as well. So that was a plan that's why we are where we are with 60% capacity. That's including Vandenberg and the village and we're only at 60%. So we build a wastewater plant they could probably take at least 40,000 more people. We were anticipating this a long time
ago. I'm all for that. I am all for annexation And I'm willing to volunteer time to work on those models, but I don't think you're going to be hollering at a hole.
There's
a
reason why I feel there's a significant flaw that's why I brought this back. Council Member Ball?
Yeah so I don' necessarily disagree. I'm okay with us as a city sending some sort of protest letter but I guess my request and you guys can motion towards it however you want We can be right and get nothing. I would like to include some very general, like hey here's why your speculative numbers are so far off. We're not trying to pick a fight we're just saying here's what we're hearing on the ground this is the practical way it's shaking out on our side and then I don't mind you want to get the studies or get some more information I think ultimately we're looking for SPCAG to treat us equitably based upon the set of circumstances that we all know are happening in proximity to Lompoc. So again, I would just ask for us to kind of help them understand where we're coming from and then say how did you come up with these numbers?
We can certainly start with the base numbers. Let me finish there for a second.
2:43 – 2:5125 turns
So let me make this request, and strategically to go by with this as a motion. I think you can sit down. Anybody have questions for Mr. Stones? Anybody? Thank you for coordinating. I know it's a lot of good stuff to sit down and read, huh? Thank you. So making a motion that aligns with this, first we gather information from the base where they're recognizing their numbers that they have, supply this information with SPCAG Asking him directly about this document and other documents relating to the population and housing and jobs growth.
And how they came up with the model, and the numbers they did is maybe why they don't recognize what the base is saying. So with multiple... I don't think it'd be difficult to get something from the base. I've been singing this song pretty heavy, so maybe that we could recognize that again and asking. Maybe they have a justification saying we're not going to get hardly any growth but as first steps and then we can bring it back just to make a decision if there's more that we want to do to try to get them to make a change.
But they kept telling me, so anyhow, they kept telling me that they were getting what Mr. Stones was sending them and that's why they said they weren't going to grow up, then he showed me the email saying no this is what I showed them and they didn't want to recognize what he was saying so I don't get it if we're not gonna listen to...they're not gonna listen to our point...who are they listening to?
So anyhow that's my deal so you follow the multiple steps I'm looking for
I follow, yes.
Okay. I know it's long and lengthy what I'm asking for and again, I appreciate...I know Mr. Stone, at first I thought they were blaming him. And I said what did you do? Then he shows me an email that goes no, I was looking for 8000. I told him what was going on and anyhow. Well let's help you fight a little bit. Maybe I shouldn't say the word fight. Some people get sensitive about that but anyhow so there is my motion.
I
would second the motion with one addition that it includes a formal request for the electronic models. So that would be a public request for information. See if we can
get that, see if they have something. All right, are we good? There's a motion to second. Let's go ahead and vote. That passes 5-0. All right. You have something else, Mr. Brugge, Council Member Brugge? Okay. All right. Brings us on to written communications. Any written communications?
We received no written
communications. Very good. Oral communications is your last two minutes. Yell, scream at us as much as you want. No? OK. Anybody on the phone or Teams or whatever?
No additional public comment on Teams or audio.
I see nobody else there. We'll close oral communication, bring it out to council comments and meeting reports, et cetera, et cetera. Councilor Ball?
Nothing to report other than I'm just really impressed with Old Town Market. Seen the mayor there, several friends and neighbors. It's, I think it's the biggest and best it's been so far. So big props to the chamber for making such a fun event for families here in town.
Yeah, you kept getting pictures with me. I don't know what's going on with that. Be there next Friday.
Next time. Next Friday.
Heck yeah! Council Member Starbuck?
No report.
Council Member Vega?
Nothing to report. Council Member Bridge?
I just have one item for the City Manager. A general reminder that we were promised a schedule for the municipal update and perhaps we could get that at the next session. Otherwise, no report.
For what was that? I know what he wants. He wants a timeline on the media code update. So
we've had the municipal update on the schedule
for four years. Oh, I got you. That's all right, but I'll make sure we get that to take care of.
Okay, so my concern was we didn't get our, I don't know maybe everybody else did and I didn't. The future city council agenda items this time? Are we just throwing them out already or what? I don' t know maybe. No it's just a slip up?
Yeah I think it was.
Okay, so I'm going to make a, because we got 24 items on here and I'm going to start doing this so that we can get through some of these, but I'm going to ask that we bring it back for the council to bring back at the next meeting if you guys want to put together a staff report or not. If I can get two other people to support me, we're going to bring back a review and discussion of River Bend Park master plan in the soccer fields And we're bringing it back to the council to bring that.
So put that on the list if you guys want to partake with us, that'll be great too. Because I was going to be on July 21st and didn't happen. Just saying. That was June 17th. Do you guys think at the next meeting you can do the landfill fees? If not, I'll just bring it back. But I'd like to see those two things come back at the next meeting. And that one should be relatively easy.
You guys already have the stuff. We can go forward. Can you do those things? Do I need to get two other head nods?
I think we can get both of those on the next meeting. All
right. So I've got two other head nods that if you're not bringing them back, we're going to talk about them. All right? Starbucks, did I have you twice? All right, so that and then there's one other thing that I wanted to provide to the council. And it was something presented to me way back when and it's something that is a hot topic and unfortunately I don't have any ink in my... I'm only allowed little minimal ink in my printer. So I only printed one copy of this And I just, it's something that's been rumbling around a little bit. And I just wanted to get it out there and make it so it's public and to make it so the council can all get a copy of it as well. And it's actually a May 5th 2023 document. And this is shows plans that the county has on a masterful Homeless shelter that they want to put in our property.
So and it has a letter as well from the community service department And I just think that it should be put out in public and you guys should all see what else is also going on out there so I will provide that with the clerk and she can get copies to All of us and put it out there so the people can see this document And with that, anybody got anything else? We're going to adjourn. Thank you to our fill in Shannon Mars for the clerk tonight. Appreciate you stepping up and we'll adjourn to 630 August 4th 2026.
Hey, look who's out.