City Council - Regular Meeting

Test test.

Am I right now? There you go. Good afternoon. This is the 05/12/2026 regular meeting of the Santa Barbara City Council. Would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge

allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic, it stands, one nation under God, indivisible liberty and justice for all.

Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

Certainly. Councilmember Friedman? Here. Councilmember Santamaria? Here. Councilmember Gutierrez?

Present.

Mayor Ross? Here. Mayor Potempsen? Here. Councilmember Harmon? Here. And Councilmember Jordan?

Here. Alrighty and have a ceremonial item.

This is item one national police week and peace officers memorial day.

National Police Week and Peace Officers Memorial Day, May 2026. Whereas in 1963, the United States Congress and president John f Kennedy proclaimed May 15 at Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which it falls is National Police Week. And as such, the Santa Barbara Police Department will celebrate the week of May 2026 as National Police Week. And whereas law enforcement officers take an oath to serve with integrity and courage, often placing themselves in harm's way to ensure the safety and security of others despite the numerous challenges they face. And whereas the dedicated members of the Santa Barbara Police Department play a critical role in protecting community members with professionalism, care, and compassion, and whereas National Police Week provides a chance for communities to honor the dedication of police officers, remember fallen officers, and show heartfelt appreciation for officers and their families.

And whereas on Peace Officers Memorial Day, we solemnly honor the bravery, service, and ultimate sacrifice of the following fallen officers whose steadfast commitment to protecting others will forever be remembered. Richard Williams, Ronald Wayne Scott, Clarence Jensen, Henry Evans, Thomas Gary, Dennis Huddle, and Gina Battaglia. Now, therefore, I, Randy Rouse, as mayor of the city of Santa Barbara, do hereby proclaim May 2026 to be National Police Week and Peace Officers Memorial Day in memory of those law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community and to honor those police officers presently serving the community. Chief, congratulations.

So I just wanna start by thanking the mayor and city council for recognizing this again this year. You know, I try to be prepared and I had comments prepared last week. And on Friday, it's all perspective. Right? And I am reminded about sometimes those smallest encounters and those most routine encounters can turn out to be the most deadly encounters.

And how fortunate we are to have the amazing men and women that we do in this department and in this community serving our community. The excellence, the dedication, and what they provide to our community is a challenge. And I've worked for other departments clearly to find the men and women that care more and show more professionalism in this community than those in our department. You know, in 2025, a hundred and forty one officers lost their lives in the line of duty across The United States. What we don't talk about is the hundred and eighty four, at least a hundred and eighty four each year that die by suicide.

And that is is also a really big issue with the trauma and the things that are experienced by those in uniform. I think, you know, the mayor and I were talking about the first responders conference and,

you know,

he sat through a partial day of that and hearing those stories and realizing all the stories that people don't know and don't hear and that trauma. But I just want to reflect and take a moment to say thank you, to say thank you to the men and women in our

department, professional staff, and sworn staff that are here every day and do their absolute very best to take care

of our community, and that dedication that we show to make sure that we are taking care of them as well. So, thank you for that, and I appreciate the time.

All right. Very well. Madam Minister, are there any changes to the agenda?

So, mayor and council, I just wanted to highlight, we, at the retreat the council had, I think, last month, we talked about making a change to the order of the agenda. I know the ad hoc committee revising the council handbook is still working on it. But for expediency stake, we'd start we'd like to start making a change to the agenda, where if an item is pulled off the consent calendar, it will be heard before general public comment, and not after. So, right now, pulled consent items come after general public comment. So, we would like to make a change, have the council make a change to hear pulled consent items before the general public comment session.

All right, very good. Do you need to have a vote on that, madam, administrator opinion? Okay, thank you. So, we'll do that, today. Very good, and with that, we will move on to the consent calendar. You have some items to read?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Item two, waiver a reading in full of ordinances and resolutions. Recommendation of the council waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions on the agenda and authorize reading by title only pursuant to city charter section five eleven. Unless otherwise requested by a member of the city council, this waiver shall not apply to emergency ordinances, which shall be read in full as required by section five eleven.

Item four, proposed amendment to the ordinance restricting parking of oversized vehicles. Ordinance introduction recommendation that council A, introduce and subsequently adopt by reading of title only an ordinance of the council of the city of Santa Barbara, amending section 10.44.220 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code to modify enforcement procedures for oversized vehicle parking violations. Item five, contract for construction of the Hope School District Crosswalk Safety Project Resolution Agreement. Recommendation Council B, adopt by reading of title only, a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara, amending resolution number 25,066, adopting the budget for fiscal year twenty twenty six to appropriate funds for the Highway Safety Improvements Program, Cycle 12, Hope District Crosswalk Safety Project. Item six, authorization to amend the legal services agreement with Colin Tunno, Highsmith, and Watley, P.

C, and appropriate available general fund reserves. Resolution agreement, Recommendation that council be adopt by reading of title only and resolution of the council of the city of Santa Barbara amending resolution number 25,066 adopting the budget for fiscal year twenty twenty six to appropriate funds for an increased litigation services agreement for the city's rent increase moratorium and rent stabilization ordinance for the in the amount of 400,000. And c, adopt by reading of title only, a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara approving the plan to replenish reserves as required by resolution number twenty three one two four, the policy is for reserves. And that is all for consent, mister mayor.

Alright. Thank you very much. Are there any items that need to be pulled by any member of the council for either separate vote or discussion? Ms. Van Buren.

Thank you, Mayor Rouse. Item four for, questions to staff, no separate vote needed.

Okay, very good. Any further,

Mr. Buren, I'll pull off, number six, please.

There we go. I'm 6. Okay. And miss Harmon?

No? Okay.

So these are old requests to speak then. Okay. That's why I

showed him.

Alright. Very good. Then I will entertain a motion for the balance of the consent calendar absent item four and item six. Second. Mary Moved by Jordan?

Second.

Mary Second by Snedden or Harmon? Who knows? Snedden. Ms. Snedden, thank

you. Yes,

I knew there was

a woman somewhere in my left.

All right.

Let me, state the motion. That's a motion by Councilmember Jordan, seconded by Mayor Tim Sneaden for the consent calendar accepting items four and six. Please go ahead and vote.

I pass unanimously. Thank you very much. With that, we'll move to the, poll consent items, item four, Ms. Santa Maria.

Thank you, mayor Rouse. I wanted to ask our, city administrator, miss McAdoo, if you could speak a little bit to to what we're seeing before us today. So this has already gone through ordinance committee. We got the recommendation from them to come to full counsel. But myself and our staff have gotten multiple calls over the last few months, specifically about oversized vehicles under the quarantine underpass. And so, I would just love to hear from you on how you can anticipate the passing of this ordinance, how it could help in situations like that.

Sure. Thank you, council member Santa Maria. I'm actually gonna ask senior assistant to the city administrator, Barbara Anderson, to share and probably also our city attorney, to share what this amendment helps us do from a staff perspective, and also the resources that we're continuing to provide to our unhoused community.

Thank you.

So, city attorney Doymus, would you like to start in terms of the amendment to the ordinance, and then I can speak to services being provided and how we respond to those requests?

Sure, honorable mayor, council member, Senator Maria. So, it's just one amendment to the ordinance. There was a previous change where we required the ordinance required multiple notices and the allowment of someone to move their vehicle within a certain amount of distance. And we realize as miss Anderson will go through shortly that caused significant health and safety impacts. The warnings were not heated.

There were congregations of large vehicles causing issues in terms of safety, terms of just the roads, because our streets are very narrow and the grid and the buildup of these large vehicles causing problems. And then just the congregation of these vehicles continuously and not moving really within an area, causing issues in terms of the discharge of waste, trash, accumulation, everything else, which Ms. Anderson will explain. So it's just one amendment, nothing else changes in the oversized vehicle ordinance. It just only allows for one warning.

Our enforcement team, police department will still provide services and information on services for those that are in house, but everything else remains the same. And so I'll turn it back to Ms. Anderson.

Thank you, Mayor Rouse and Council Member Santa Maria. So it has been and will continue to be unlawful to park an oversized vehicle on the streets of the city of Santa Barbara. That specifically exceeds 25 feet in length or 80 inches in width or 82 in height. So that stands as is. And there is still a warning period.

So, if law enforcement engages with an individual because they are illegally parked, there is a warning offered for those who are in oversized vehicles, And that warning also comes with information for the New Beginnings Safe Parking Program. So, they know who to outreach to, who to engage with. And we are in a position where we have significant resources available to be able to enroll individuals who are interested in programming services, and get them on the path to housing. So, that will continue to be the case, and that warning period still exists. If that individual in an oversized vehicle parks illegally in another area of the city, and doesn't partake in services or enroll in that program, they will receive a citation.

And then, they will have to proceed on addressing that fine. So, that is what we're proposing occurs with this ordinance change.

Thank you so much, miss Anderson. You speak a little bit more to what enforcement looks like out in the field with this proposed change?

Yes. It's just as I said. So, if an oversized vehicle is illegally parked, there's an engagement with parking enforcement officer or a patrol officer, and those individuals are notified that they're illegally parked and receive a warning with an informational brochure, both in English and Spanish, on the New Beginnings program. And I don't want to over speak, as the chief is here to provide any more detail. And again, if an officer, parking enforcement officer, or patrol officer engages with that vehicle in another location, you can actually look up the license plate number if they received a warning already, and then a citation would be issued subsequent to that. Any clarification to you on that piece? Okay.

Thank you both. Really Is appreciate outreach going to stay the same as is? Is there a decrease or increase in the outreach that is being done?

So, we are in a position where we have an extraordinary level of resources for outreach to vehicular homeless people experiencing vehicular homelessness. So, if folks are living in their vehicle, and are open and receptive to program enrollment, We actually have resources at the end of this year that are much more than we've had in any year prior. So, for the last eighteen months, New Beginnings has been a recipient of the Encampment Resolution Fund grant program through the county and city of Santa Barbara. Upwards of $7,900,000 have been awarded to us to address vehicular homelessness in six priority regions. In the city of Santa Barbara, but county wide.

The enrollment has been so successful that 56% of vehicles that were formally reported through the point in time count in the city of Santa Barbara have been eliminated. So, more than 50% of program enrollees have been placed in housing, and then additional individuals have been placed in interim housing. So, even more so, we wanted to move forward, knowing that we needed this enforcement mechanism tool to be shifted and adapted to what we're seeing in the field, But we still have the ability to respond at a level that, again, anyone who says yes to program enrollment, New Beginnings is able to support them.

Thank you so much. This is incredible work. Final question is around cleanup of the neighborhood. And so, for example, on the quarantine underpass with all of those oversized vehicles, there's all of this waste that is often there. And myself and staff are always getting calls about that. The funding that you mentioned that we have, couldn't that be used for neighborhood cleanup, or is that a separate line item?

Council Member Santa Maria, that's a great question. Our sustainability and resilience department, as many of you know, is well resourced. So, we have the ability to respond to reports of illegal dumping, small encampments that might pop up outside of areas that are impacted by those experiencing vehicular homelessness. We also have the ability to address excessive personal belongings, unintended personal belongings in the public right of way, all through that code enforcement team. So, that continually happens.

We actually pulled data as we went before the ordinance committee to demonstrate that in the past eight months of the reports received and responded to by sustainability resilience, 35% of those reports were based in a quarantined region. We will continue to respond. We will continue to prioritize that region. And we do appreciate when we get cooperation and voluntary compliance with folks that we're receiving reports about. We have a level of communication that we think is positive with some folks that are in these circumstances that we really want to support in accessing housing opportunities. So, we hope that will continue to be the case.

Thank you so much. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you, Mr. Thank Are you looking for a motion

on No, I am not. Not yet. Mr. Jordan has a comment.

Thank you, mister mayor. Just a couple of thoughts. I just looked at SB Connect in under parking. There's nothing specifically for oversized vehicles. There is one for seventy two hour. Is that something we can add to that and just, that we can steer people to, so we don't have to tell them to call the police or we don't have to worry about what to do. That that they'll they'll at least get documented as to where it's happening, and you can see trends. And if you see accidents, you can see trends, that kind of thing.

Council member Jordan through Mayor Rouse. I'm actually gonna challenge that a little bit. We're we're trying to actually, we want the community call our non emergency number. Because what happens with SP Connect is it's not monitored twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. So, we find is then the community with these particular type of things is more frustrated with us because they're not necessarily getting that immediate response. So we are encouraging folks to actually call our non emergency line so that we can make sure it's prioritized and we can address it. We now have a much more staff parking enforcement unit, so we're trying to make sure that we get to these in a more timely manner and can address them more appropriately than with just SP Connect.

Okay. How did you say you wanted those calls?

The non emergency.

Non emergency number? Okay.

Not 911.

Yeah. I I know we've had a I know under the freeway overpass on South Sepuatous, you know, we're power washing there once a week and that like literally at 08:00 in the morning when I drive through there are some days of the week. There's actually parking spaces down there now for the first time in forever. And then another hot spot was, Quarantina between, Yananoli and Montecito Street, which is also like a multi block hub for, Marburg with big trash, I mean, literally. I go down there two days a week, early in the morning, and literally, if you can imagine, you know, oversized vehicles on each side, a trash truck coming at you in your car, one of us is backing up.

Because there just is not enough room on a 28 foot street. And I know we've pushed a lot of people along that were on quarantina, but they have just ended up going around the corner onto Yananoli, which is also a major street for Marburg, because they have their their full repair mechanic's repair yard there too. And so I get those questions just because people knew who I am. And I'm in that block a couple mornings a week. And so, I appreciate that that that's what you want to do, rather than push them towards SP Connect. Thank Yes.

And the goal with having this enforcement mechanism is to really have a mechanism to, encourage them into safe parking and other resources versus just moving the minimal amount.

Very good. Okay. Now, Ms. Henry, would you like to go ahead and make a motion on that item, please?

Sure. I'd like to, first off, thank you, Councilmember Jordan. I agree wholeheartedly, with what you mentioned. I'll move the staff recommendation on item four.

And may I have a second? Second. Second by Jordan. Thank you. The vote, please. Item four.

This is a motion for the staff recommendation for item four, motion by councilmember Santa Maria, second by councilmember Jordan. Please go ahead and vote.

Pass you to answer me. Thank you very much. We'll move on to item six. Mr. Jordan.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Really, my purpose is just to vote separately on this, but just a short comment. Just to express some appreciation that, we did follow the process to find a method to replenish the reserves in this particular ask. I don't really see a sustainable pathway forward for that though, particularly from that source as this, as what I, in my opinion, this need will grow for funding. So, I'm gonna continue not to support this item moving forward, which I think we also spoke about last time when we talked about this.

All right. Very good. Any further comments? Motion on item six.

So moved.

Moved by Santa Maria. Second. Second by Harman. May we have the vote, please?

This is a motion for the staff recommendation for item six, motion by Councilmember Santa Maria, seconded by Councilmember Harman. Please go ahead and vote.

Motion passes four three with Friedman, Rouse, and Jordan to send. Okay. Very good. And that completes the consent calendar. And with that, there were no, hands raised on consent, were there, Madam Clerk? I should have asked earlier, but

Mr. Mayor, there now is a hand raised. There was not earlier. We can let me call on this person.

Why you find out what that's about, please? Is this for general?

Female Molly Pearson. Molly Pearson, which item did you wish to speak on?

Female Item four.

Male Okay. That's already been passed and voted on. Do you have a comment on that?

I do and my hand has been raised and I also said at the start of the Zoom meeting I had a comment.

Well, sorry we missed you.

So go

ahead and read it. I understand that this ordinance amendment is intended to improve enforcement related to people living in cars and vans and trucks and RVs, but I'd like to point out that this also impacts local residents. The other is a camper van that we park on our property and we primarily use for fun vacation trips. But occasionally, we may need to use that van to run errands and park on the street. Sometimes there's construction activities also that that make it necessary to park on the street.

This ordinance makes it illegal for us to park our van on any city streets. It's our van is shorter than a lot of pickup trucks. It is taller. But these proposed changes make it even more likely that we will be cited if we ever do need to park our van temporarily on a city street. I was going to suggest that you consider changes to the ordinance that allow local residents to use and park their oversized vehicles on city streets just during the day, not overnight, and not for long periods of time.

There is section e of the ordinance that allows for a temporary permit. This really wouldn't address the situation that I'm suggesting. I know a lot of people have these camper vans, and it's just a shame that we'll be cited if we ever wanna park it on the street in our own town, on our own street. Yeah. So that's what I wanted to say. But unfortunately, you didn't see my hand raised, and now you've already voted on the item. Thank you for your consideration.

All right. Thank you. Okay. With that, we are going ahead and move on to general public comment. That's three minutes at the dais for anything that is not on today's agenda, but falls within the purview of this body. Start out with Mark Redmond.

Three chairs for the red, white, and blue. Everybody, I hope you got your primary ballots. There's a lot of races, governor, lieutenant governor, on and on and on, but you know, too many dimension. And vote because that's all you can do is pay taxes and vote. Now everyone says, I wear this because I'm an old spice man. I said, no. They gave me this for my birthday. I said, no, that goes in the trash. And I have been Santa Claus at both Paseo Nuevo and La Cumbra shopping mall, but not this year. I'm retiring.

I want to work for Megan Harman's district six. Bingo. I think he's going be our next mayor over there, Eric Friedman. My conscious tells me he's got the votes. Anyway, I do a podcast, and I wanted to tell you I have, my song on 58 that tells about what I stand for, and number 51 podcast, The Sun is Shining on State Street, from the coast to the corner block. Local jobs first. City stand up. Hear me say, keep the future bright for the young. And also in this song that, my friend from Kansas City, who's a great singer, composed with me. He says, Redmond for mayor, hip hip hooray.

I said, well, I don't know about that. Maybe, councilman, I am on the streets of Santa Barbara daily. I fixed the potholes. I'm going to get the roads paved. Better America, better for the city of Santa Barbara. I'm gonna work hard. This is I am a champion of all the other cities in America. I'm not here for the power or the fame. I'm here for the workers and the kids with a dream. Economy first. Let's get it right. Education also first. Clean up the streets and keep the sidewalks safe. I'll finish my I'll finish by telling you that Santa Barbarians, that Mark Redmond will never lie to you. I'm an honest man.

End of story.

Alright. Very good. Joanne Olenick.

I don't kiss the flag like trapped by wave. Thank

Good you,

afternoon, honorable mayor and members of the council. My name is Joanne Olenick, a citizen of Santa Barbara. I am here to speak in formal opposition to measure a twenty twenty six. I am deeply concerned that the voters of the city are not being provided the full truth regarding this measure. While you have presented this as modernization, the reality is a dismantling of fifty years of progressive public safeguards.

First, there is the issue of fiscal secrecy. The city is spending nearly $200,000 of taxpayer money pulled from general fund reserves to cover the city's mandated financial share of this election's cycle's expenditures. Second, essential records are being withheld until after ballots were mailed. Most disturbingly, when I requested these documents from the City Clerk, she's summoned law enforcement. A simple citizen quietly and politely requesting the truth from the very people who are supposed to work for them.

Third, the city's attorney's own analysis of the referendum confesses the truth. Removed is the baseline of progressivism in our city. The ordinance requirement for contracts lasting more than five years allowing these perpetual agreements to be passed by resolution in a single day, circumventing this voter's thirty day right to review. Fourth, this lack of transparency appears to be a borrowed strategy. Our city administrator comes to us from Hayward, California, where her time in office was marked by public outcry over the centralization of power at the expense of elected officials and the public.

To everyone else, we are not Hayward. Santa Barbara is a unique, historic, and progressive city that was built on transparency and careful stewardship of public land and contract extensions. Do not allow our unique character to be traded for a modernization playbook that silences the sacred voice of the people. Reject this misleading ballot referendum and vote no on Measure A twenty twenty six. Thank you.

Thank you. Barbara Conan Hirschberg? No glad you are.

Good afternoon, Mayor Rouse, City Council members, Barbara Cronin Hirschberg. For more than forty years, I have watched Santa Barbara thoughtfully invest in creating one of the finest bicycle networks in California. Today, the city of Santa Barbara boasts an extensive award winning system of approximately 91 miles of bikeways connecting neighborhoods, coastal routes, and downtown corridors for cyclists of all skill levels. Because our city already provides so many excellent options for bicycle transportation, I believe it is both reasonable and appropriate that the closed portion of State Street remain a true pedestrian promenade. State Street should prioritize pedestrian safety, accessibility, and community gathering over through traffic of any kind.

Pedestrian should not feel anxious simply crossing the street or stepping out of the storefront while watching the fast moving bicycles or e bikes approaching from either direction. The Promenade was envisioned as a public gathering place, a place for scrolling, dining, conversation, shopping, performances, and community events, not as a transportation corridor. Unfortunately, the current environment often feels unsafe and chaotic because enforcement of existing rules have proven inadequate. The rise of e bikes and motorized bikes has significantly changed the safety equation. Many riders travel at speeds far beyond those of traditional bicycles, creating dangerous situations for families, seniors, tourists, and people with mobility challenges.

From personal experience, I recently witnessed this problem firsthand while photographing the farmer's market. Several young boys rode past me on the sidewalk despite clear rules prohibiting riding in the market area. When I reminded them of the rule, they explained they couldn't ride in the street because of the market setup. What struck me most was that they were not using State Street simply to travel to a destination. They're using it as a stage for reckless riding and showing off to friends.

This behavior is becoming increasingly common and undermines the welcome pedestrian atmosphere the promenade was meant to create. Thank you.

Thank you. Mark, we're not clapping. Alright. Faiza Dean.

Hi. Where's the timer? Hi. I'm I'm Phaiga Dean. Long day. I'm at the court all day. I had to file a ex parte or something like that. Anyways, I gotta go back. But anyways, I've come here to I'm Faiza Dean. Again, I live here in the city of Santa Barbara.

I I wanna talk about some issues. Okay. First, I want to bring up Assembly Bill six twenty eight, the refrigerator amendment or whatever it is that came in effect 01/01/2026. I contacted code enforcement. I'm trying to understand the city organization.

They came out. I never got any feedback from them. I feel like I'm having a lot of issues with a certain group of people in the city of Santa Barbara. Okay, and so I want to ask the city to please increase the diversity within these organizations, because it's not about me getting my way, it's about how these different diverse groups have different standards, lifestyles, beliefs, cultures. And these things need to be there.

We need Asian, Hawaiian, Samoan, Africans, you know, and some people of American descendants of slavery. We cannot just have one particular group dominating. It's not okay, and I'll talk about that in another discussion. But we need to increase the diversity, so that we can have a better effect on the programs in play. Now, I want to talk about the moratorium.

The moratorium on the rent, relating to housing, you guys increased, okay, you, stopped in December. Well, for me under Section eight, let me tell you what happened to me. Alright? This moratorium, from what I see a little retaliation going on here, is that the owner tried to race to get something in to increase the rent, and the housing authority of the city of Santa Barbara is failing to do the reasonable test correctly. There's supposed to be a sixty day notice after the reasonableness test.

There's certain procedures that's supposed to happen. This owner was not supposed to get an increase for November. They've been paying him extra money since November 1. This is something you need to look at. It's a desperate impact against me as an American descendant of slavery and the only person that's on Section 8 in their unit. The diversity needs to be increased here. And that's what I'm going to say for today. Thank you.

Thank you. Andy Altmore.

Hello, council. My name is Andy. I've had the chance to speak to councilman Friedman and the mayor briefly, but I'm here to just vocalize the desire of me and my neighbors. I live at 82 Jennings over by the Trader Joe's on Milpus. We live on a street that was originally residential. The house is from, like, nineteen twenties. At some point during this time, it's been rezoned to manufacturing industrial,

which

has disallowed the use of the existing residential homes there. And under current zoning code, it disallows any modification, or addition to the homes. It also disincentivizes upkeep of the homes because they're a non compatible use. So if you wanted to convert it to a compatible use, most of them would need to be partially torn down or completely torn down. So my desire, and I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention, is during the 2030 revamp of the city ordinance, I forget what the exact term is for it, we're seeking to rezone the neighborhood basically to any other zone.

It could be manufacturing, commercial, residential, anything that allows the continued use of the existing homes. I just wanted to vocalize that and bring it to everyone's attention. That way it's familiar when it gets brought up again down the line. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, are there speakers online?

Yes, we have one raised hand. Molly Pearson. Molly Pearson, this is her general public comment. Go ahead.

Great, thank you. Can you hear me? Hopefully. I'd like to speak about State Street. I didn't have much time at the master plan meeting. I just want to emphasize this State Street is the street. It's critical biking infrastructure. If you change it to something else and you replace it with some other infrastructure, that's great. But right now, it's critical biking infrastructure. Closing this infrastructure has consequences.

For example, what we saw at the farmer's market last week. Don't get me wrong. I love the farmer's market, but bicycles need a place to go when it's shut down to bikes. And expecting them to walk bikes for three blocks is, it's just impractical and frankly, it's not fair. We don't ask that of other commuters.

People who take bikes and need to get to work or to a meeting need to get there. If we're going to take away this critical transportation infrastructure, even if it's only for a few hours, please just provide a safe alternative and provide signage so people know where to go. Bicycles and e mobility are an important part of our transportation future. Please utilize your capable transportation staff and come up with solutions that are safe and fair for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there further speakers online?

No, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, very good. We'll close public comment and we'll move on to council member committee assignments.

And Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry we do now have a raised hand.

Okay that will be it then. Okay. The final speaker.

Okay. Angelina Dedhamati. Angelina Dedhamati please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Good afternoon, mayor Rouse and council. I'm right I'm making public comment today after seeing a lengthy, agenda and items that are on it. I'm more concerned about the disrepair of the city of Santa Barbara. I'm deeply concerned of the state of the city of Santa Barbara and the reckless spending by staff approved by city administrators and supported by some of the council members. That doesn't seem to benefit any of the Santa Barbara taxpayers or residents.

More money has been sadly wasted while catering to special interest groups instead of fixing the simple necessities such as the roads, the deferred maintenance, and infrastructure that is much needed and long overdue. Placing the needs of housing or housing at transit, housing at placing the needs of housing and transient residents and those with mental health and drug use over our people in our community who are elderly, disabled, amongst those who are veterans. They do not have housing. They're shipped out all over the state, and I think it's just shocking to hear that 7,900,000 money dollars of taxpayer money and grants are allocated amongst a lot of other money to not just to the county of Santa Barbara to but to the, the city. And I think it's just sad that we're not placing our people in our communities that are struggling.

They're not getting housing, that are vets and elders, and there's a shortage. But we're bringing people in or there's people that I've talked to that are homeless that aren't from here that have been encouraged by unknown people. I'm sure if someone cared to look, they could figure out who's encouraging people to come from out of the area, relocate to Santa Barbara, and sponge off the taxpayers at no benefit to her for the taxpayers. Well, businesses are slowing down. People don't wanna come in to do business in Santa Barbara because of State Street closing, homeless all over. Homeless seem to be the ones that are taking over the city of Santa Barbara. Well, the locals and people who live here can't even get housing.

All right thank you very much. Are there Thank you. Are you I'm sorry are you done?

I just had one other comment to finish I apologize to close.

Go ahead.

Locals and the public deserve better from their the city staff and elected officials. There's a budget, and I think that this council hopefully will instruct our city administrator to do an audit and go through each department line by line and look at everything and look at the spending. I believe there's government and, penal code sections for fraud, abuse, and waste of taxpayer money. And I think that if there was a deep dive into the budget and into spending, I think that there's probably decades of abuse of reckless spending at no benefit to or for the city of Santa Barbara, the people who reside here. So I encourage mayor Rouse and council to instruct our city administrator to do a deep dive and to do it

Thank thank you. That that should address your time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there further speakers online?

No, mister.

All right. With that, we'll close public comment, and we'll move to committee assignment reports. Anyone? Ms. Snead?

Thank you, Mayor Rouse. Is it just committee or committee and engagements? Just committee?

Right. Performance engagements.

Okay.

So,

I attended this, the city update hour with city administrator Kelly McAdoo. Was a attended the Mission Canyon Association with supervisor Roy Lee and also chief males, and, our our firefighting staff was well in attendance. Historic landmarks commission heard several structure of merit designations At our sustainability council meeting, we discussed water rates, which we'll see in our budget presentations. At Kachuma Conservation Release Board, we approved the annual budget, which will also be included in our city budget for approval. I participated in the the record attending mayor's ride, attended the Riviera Association board meeting, neighborhood advisory council.

They heard the item of renaming the the street currently called Calle Cesar Chavez. Attended CERA Club meeting to meet candidates, participated in a blue economy industry mixer, and attended the PAL event fundraiser.

Very good. Mr. Friedman.

Thank you. Mister Mayor attended the sustainability committee meeting, the Cottage Hospital employee recognition dinner, the UCSB community engagement workshop, the police activities league annual awards banquet, Saint Francis Foundation annual awards, and also Bob and Karen Hughes constituents. They put on with our fire department a CPR training and wanted to give my appreciation to them. Bob had, when at the lawn bowling club, had gone into sudden cardiac arrest, and, our fire department came and gave CPR to him, and he was able to go to the hospital, and he's he's fine now. And so they worked with the fire department this weekend to do a CPR training for about 40 people that showed up.

So I wanna thank Bob and Karen for giving back and our fire department as well for putting on that training on, Saturday morning. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. None further? And we'll move on to item 10. If you'd read that in the record, please, madam clerk.

Item 10, subject of firm support and leveraging grant match funds for the Highway 101 Pedestrian Cyclist Bridge over crossing from the East side to the waterfront and the Castillo Undercrossing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvement Projects resolution. Recommendation that counsel a adopt by reading of title only a resolution of the council of the city of Santa Barbara. Amending resolution number 24,013 supporting the Highway 101 pedestrian and cycle bridge over crossing from the east side to the waterfront project and directing staff to apply for a grant to fund design, environmental review, and right of way phases. And B, adopt by reigning of title only a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara, amending resolution number 24,038, supporting the Castillo Street under crossing bicycle and pedestrian facility improvement project, and directing staff to apply for a grant to fund design, environmental review, right of way, and construction phases. Additionally, the title of the ordinance has been read.

If there is no objection from any council member present, further reading is waived pursuant to Santa Barbara City Charter Section five eleven and Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section two point zero four point zero four zero C.

All right. Very good. Ms. Grant or Mr. DeMore, are starting out?

I'll start out. Thank you, Mayor Rouse, members of the city council Brian DeMore, Public Works Director. I just wanted to give a quick intro to this item before handing it off to Jessica Grant. So, it sounded familiar, that reading, it should have, because six out of the seven members of council were on council two years ago when we brought the same items, for kind of the same reason, to apply for ATP grant, which we did, two years ago in a prior cycle. That cycle had much less funding.

There were state funding limitations at that time, and we were not successful in obtaining those grants at that time. But we wanted to come back to counsel, kind of reaffirm the support, before applying for this next cycle, which is in front of us. We considered putting it on consent, but some things have changed over the last couple of years, and we felt like it was important, to have at least a brief discussion with the counsel. A couple of things that have changed. The budget situation is a little bit different now than it was a couple of years ago.

So, we just wanted to make it clear that with this, it's just a 1% match that we're committing ourselves to. But even that 1%, given where we're at with our budget, it's significant enough to be worth, the conversation. I wanted to make clear, though, that those funds, would not be current funds, and they would not even be FY 'twenty seven funds. It wouldn't be until FY 'twenty eight and beyond that we would start to need to bring that match into those projects. So, it's not an immediate need that we would have.

And then, the other thing is just I wanted to mention State Street. That's a little bit different now than two years ago. I think we have a clearer picture of what that could look like. So, that's a project that's taking shape that will, we believe, will compete very well for ATP. One thing with these ATP, the Active Transportation Program, these grant cycles, it's highly competitive, and it's very involved.

There's probably, I would say, hundreds of hours of work that goes into each application. So, because we previously applied, they're ready to go with a little bit of a refresh, and we can submit. State Street isn't quite there for application, but we're going to be searching for every opportunity to locate funding. I don't think we have it locally to fund that entire project. I think that goes without saying.

But if we can find a source, ATP would be a good one for sure for State Street. So we definitely that's on our radar. It's a top priority of staff to get that funded. As you've heard, I think it was just last week it was in front of you. So I just wanted to make that clear. This isn't competing with State Street. Each cycle is kind of its own opportunity to go after funding. And there will be other cycles. This has been a well funded program by the state. What cycle number are we on now?

Cycle eight.

Cycle eight. And we've been very successful. I think we've kind of figured out have the criteria that's used for ranking the projects is pretty well defined. And we've been able to put application packages together that have been very successful. But with that, I just want to hand it over now to Jessica Grant, who will talk about the two projects in a little bit more detail.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Demore, and good afternoon, mayor and council. Jessica Grant, supervising transportation planner with the city. Yes, as far as first, the active transportation program cycle eight, there's $3.00 $9,000,000 available in the statewide component, which our city is eligible for.

But again, it's a very competitive grant process. But with that said, let's get into the projects. So, the first project is the Highway 101 pedestrian cyclist over crossing, connecting the East Side to the waterfront. The approximate connection on the East Side neighborhood would be at Canada and Pitos. And then as you go up onto the over crossing, it would land at Dwight Murphy Park with some support posts in the Santa Barbara Zoo property,

which

is also owned by the city of Santa Barbara. For background, the over crossing project was documented as early as 2006 with our pedestrian master plan. Then we received a few years ago an active transportation planning grant to look at that in more detail with the East Side neighborhood and to affirm, even though it was documented in 2006, East Side residents is this is still, a community need. Through that planning process, it was documented as a community need, as well as various safety enhancement projects throughout the Lower East Side neighborhood. We returned to council in 2024, and that's where we received approval to seek funding at that time for not only the over crossing, but the Lower East Side safety improvements.

The Lower East Side safety improvements fortunately did get funding through a couple of other grant sources. So, have removed that would be removed from the grant application. So, that's one difference. It's still the over crossing project as a NAIT. So, at issue here, why is an over crossing needed, is there's a mile and a quarter gap between overcrossings.

This is by far the largest gap in the city. Most of the overcrossings across Highway 101 are typically about half a mile. The areas, while there has been improvements to the lower part of Milpas, and of course, you know that's just started construction, is the Cabrillo Interchange. Both of those all have bike and pedestrian improvements associated with them. But at the end of the day, that's heavy vehicle volumes because they have on and off ramps in those areas.

And so really, it was a wish by the East Side residents to not have to have an over crossing that you're not competing with heavy vehicle volumes. And so that is, again, why we have applied and we had a planning effort for the over crossing. And why is this critical? It's because there's not a lot of open space in the East Side. So this is a time where we can have an over crossing to get to the waterfront area with the zoo, lots of recreation fields, of course, the whole entire waterfront.

It also gets the residents to jobs. Many jobs along the waterfront area exist, as well as a route to Santa Barbara City College. And again, staff is requesting that council firm support today and direct staff to apply for the grant funding. We are only requesting grant funding for the design, environmental, and right of way phases. With the volatile economic climate, and we're not sure until we go into final design what the final, final cost of the bridge would be.

And if you're over the cost in the active transportation program, the grant will not cover overages. And so, then, that would be an impact to city budgets. So we want to be very clear on our construction cost. Right now, we're ballparking it in the ballpark around $40,000,000 For the 1% match, we are requesting a match of $400,000 You have to match even though we're applying for just the design environmental right of way phases, you have to match based upon the total project cost. And so, that's where the $400,000 comes from.

This, again, would be spread over a few of the fiscal years, and with the earliest year, if we receive grant funding, in fiscal year twenty twenty eight. The next project we want to cover is the Castillo Street under crossing bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements project. All of our project titles have really long names, but this is a very, very critical biking and walking route, connecting the downtown to the waterfront and Lower West neighborhoods. So everything that you see in black lines, that is either existing bike infrastructure or infrastructure about to come online, for the example of Cliff Drive. We are in final design, and we'll be seeing you shortly in the fall for construction.

So, very exciting, but this gap in red remains. And so, that's what we're proposing, is to have, essentially, to get cyclists out of the very wet under crossing that is wet all different times of the year. It's because there is a very high groundwater table. There continues to be band aid approaches over the years. It's successful for a little while, only to have water continue to seep through.

We work closely with Caltrans for that. They have another programmed band aid approach, and we're trying to, again, coordinate, if we receive grant funding, this project with the next maintenance phase. There is one project scope change that we would like to add in for this grant application, and it's on Castillo, just south of the Castillo Montecito Intersection to Cabrillo Boulevard. This is just sort of a street mix, or cartoon sketch of what that would look like. This would be as if you're standing on Cabrillo Boulevard, looking up or north towards Castillo.

And so, starting on the left hand side, that would be adjacent to Pershing Park, where the existing sidewalk would remain. And then there would be a raised bike lane followed by a parkway on the West side. It would be tree bulb outs, similar to what you see on Wentworth in the Lower West. And then the vehicular traffic lanes would remain the same, and then a raised bike lane on the East side of the Castillo. Oh, for this project, we would like to seek design, environmental right of way, and construction with this.

The ballpark is 15,000,000, So, 1% match would be 150,000. That would be estimated, typically, when we have a match with construction. We wait closer to the construction phase to have that match. So, likely in fiscal year 2030, 2031, if we were to receive funding. Here is just a list of the community and stakeholders who supported both of these projects two years ago with the grant applications.

As part of this grant, we are only allowed to have 10 letters of support. The rest of all the actual resident support is documented via attachments in the grant application for those that have attended the webinars, in person meetings. And there has been a ton of meetings on both of these efforts. And with that, we have a paraphrased version of the recommendation. The recommendation is outlined in the staff report, but again, it's to request for your support today to seek the grant funding, and also approve the leverages.

And as Mr. DeMore mentioned, there are a few planning efforts going on. Mr. Damore mentioned the downtown State Street master plan effort that we do anticipate that to be a good candidate in the future for active transportation program funds. The other planning efforts that are underway are the waterfront adaptation plan.

And so, there's some active transportation related improvements with that effort. And so, that is continuing on with the effort, but it's basically the beachway being extended, so you're not having to go navigate in the parking lot to connect to the Mesa neighborhood. And the other larger planning effort you'll see in June, which is the Safe Streets for All action plan, there will be some infrastructure projects coming out of that. But the way that all of these planning efforts are lining up in timing, they will be offset, and so, we don't believe any of these efforts are competing against one another. And with that, that concludes our presentation.

Happy to answer any questions.

All right. Questions for staff?

We're going to Mayor, just a reminder, we're going to go to public comment per the change in protocol. Public comment first, and then do All right. Council questions and I forgot we

made that change. Very good. I don't have anybody in person for public comment. Any speakers online for this item?

Yes. We have one raised hand. Ian Bockey. Ian Bockey, please go ahead.

Hi, everyone. Thank you, mister mayor and council. Ian Bockey, chair of the Transportation Circulation Committee speaking on my own behalf. Just want to support staff's recommendation. Both of these projects are critical needs not just for the neighborhoods they're adjacent to but for the city as a whole as we work to implement the climate action plan and vision zero and finalize, you know, building a connected safe network, of bicycle facilities and connecting the Lower East Side to the waterfront and the Dwight Murphy Park renovation program. Please, support staff recommendation. Thank you

very much.

Alright. Further speakers online?

No, mister mayor.

Okay. And with that, we'll return to council questions. Mister Jordan. Or actually, Freeman was up first. Right? No. I guess mister Jordan. Having some electric fun today. Did you push your button?

I did.

I did, but it disappeared again. So, don't ask me.

It's on the yeah.

Thank you, mister mayor.

I'm keeping a secret.

So a hundred years ago, just in my history, Cal or Caltrans had like pages and pages of responsibility for slicing, half the well, more than half the city off from access to the coastline. I I just remember just talking about other projects and, you know, whether it's underpasses or overpasses or whatever else, and that we've we've always talked about their responsibility, and seems to me there's probably something buried somewhere. Or is there? I guess that's my question. Do they not have a direct role in remedying what they what they did when they put the freeway through the city anymore? Do they not anymore have a role in that?

Mayor Rouse, council member Jordan, I think at the time of construction of the freeway was probably the best time to address those needs. Of course, the city has grown up more since then. So there's more of a need now than there was then. I think what I would say to that is you know, we try our best to be strong partners with Caltrans. And we have maintenance agreements with them.

So things are spelled out as far as whose maintenance responsibility is for different items of infrastructure. The three over crossings that exist today, it's a mixed maintenance responsibility. Cities responsible for certain kind of everyday things, like graffiti abatement on certain components of it, and sweeping it. And this is the same with the vehicular under crossings and over crossings, as well. But the structure itself, the main aspect of that piece of infrastructure belongs to Caltrans.

With the city initiating this, I would say there's probably, about a 0% chance that Caltrans would accept the maintenance responsibility for this new structure. But, just that partnership that I'm talking about, this grant that we are contemplating applying for is actually administered through Caltrans. So, I think they would make an argument that they're funding the project.

Don't I remember the discussions on Cabrillo Underpass that they definitely had some skin in the game to correct that. And is the difference there because we had an existing street that they put a freeway over that was that was, cramped. And in this particular case, there's no, there's no nexus of a road that's already there. Is that the difference?

Well, I'm going to back up a little bit. Most of the answer that I just gave you had to do with pedestrian overcrossing. Right. So Castillo undercrossing is

No. I'm sorry. The Cabrillo. Wait.

I'm not sure.

The Cabrillo undercrossing.

Yes. Just think that days. They they were there were documents where they were on the hook whether they followed through or not with the role they played in, in, reducing, access under their overstructure that they put over an existing city street. Does it sound right?

The the short answer is, yes, they're on the hook. The with the Highway 101 HOV project, there's a few things going on. There's and when we look at designs now, and with recently, a few years ago adopted as Complete Streets at the state level. And so, when we're evaluating projects, it's to look at Complete Streets. And so, Complete Streets is not on the freeway itself, but on the interchanges.

And so, we worked really closely with them on pedestrian and bicycle safe facilities under the new built Cabrillo Interchange. And they were required as a mitigation. More from vehicle operations standpoint was to look at the Cabrillo Los Patos roundabout. But again, and through the lens for the city, again, we're always looking for complete streets. So, those had pedestrian and bike amenities.

And then, the second phase to that project, which they are also a mitigation through the coastal development permit for the freeway HOV project, was to see that piece through. So, that would be the replacement of UPRR bridge that would allow for pet and bike facilities where there's currently zero. So, anyway, all of those phases are funded. So, very excited for those connections happening.

And that so that 1.2 mile stretch, longest stretch in the city doesn't rise to the level of some of that stuff you just talked about,

you

know, particularly coastal access and Mhmm. Coastal access was there before. It's not there now. So that just time goes by, and the kind of the there's no nexus there anymore. Anymore.

Well, there there was, yeah. If you look at the old maps and before the the highway came in, it was also part of our street grid network. Right. Then then got obliterated with the the freeway. And it's the tale to tell the story of how highways can separate communities. And it happens all over our state and United States. And so we are trying to reconnect it with the high comfort facility.

Yep. Okay. Is the so before we're looking to further invest in the bridge, the overpass, the pedestrian bridge, is the zoo on board with our idea?

The yes. In the that would be the the short answer. Before we applied for the grant back in 2024, we had met with the executive director. And not only do we look at sort of the potential impacts, what you're seeing in the alignment had the least amount of impacts. There was, our larger team wanted to also analyze landing the bridge on the zoo parking lot side, which had a lot more impacts to parking.

So, this with the support posts that you see and the concept image was a removal of approximately five spaces that we could look once we go into the design phase, if we get grant funding to make up the difference of those spaces. There is a new executive director, part of the zoo, so we did meet with him to let him know about the project. And this will be ongoing discussions with the zoo as this project proceeds, if we get grant funding.

Okay. And then

I'm sorry. Councilmember Jordan, just

for a

stop, did the I think the at least the zoo executive director had mentioned to me that they the zoo has been talking about a workforce housing proposal that they would like to work on in partnership. I just was curious if that

Yes. Was brought up in the conversation. There's more layers to that, and that's early on. That's just something, the same story that we hear is how to retain your staff. And most of it, we're affected as a city organization too, where a lot of people have very long commutes, and so having affordable housing.

But that, it is a park zone property, so it's not as easy that that would take a vote of the people to have housing there. But it's something that the zoo is exploring. And so, for the layout, these both the projects could coexist together. And if there was housing, they would be in the school district that would be in the East Side. And so then, you have access to walk to school because, for all the kids that live in that area right now, there isn't busing to Cleveland.

And so you do, if you don't have a vehicle, then you're walking or biking. So that then provides a high comfort route to future families.

And then the 1%. I mean, historically, in my history, that's like a non starter. You've had to come back, multiple times on other projects in the city and raises up, raises up, raises up. You know, Cliff Drive was a great example, I think. I think we did three asks there and just had to crazily increase the amount of the match. So, how feasible is a $40,000,000 project with a 1% match?

Short answer is we don't know. I think without going in without a match is we would not advise. At least 1% gives us one point. And going higher than that, when we haven't gone into any final design or design, then we don't want to put the city on the hook because it is in the millions of a matching requirement for that. So, we'd scored with one point last time. We scored a 92. It's all about points for this particular grant. In any normal ATP cycle, there was a big budget cut the last cycle. We most likely would have been funded.

So, that's a winning score, usually?

We yes. Okay. That it was an excellent score. So, we hope to replicate that. But with every grant cycle, have new reviewers. During that time, like you said, for admission for the Cliff Drive project, because that took a couple of iterations, And we scored within, I think, one to two points from the original. The difference there was, again, the matching for that particular Thanks.

And then, question. I should almost overlay, start overlaying a waterfront climate adaptation map on everything you do down there. So I seem to remember the bird refuge almost becoming a circle around an island down there on the on the front. Does, did it, but does it not go, so I think, I remember it going right on, when I look at the map, that it goes right and makes a smaller land mass where the cemetery and Bellascarto are. But does it go left also, where, where you're planning on, on going on, on those projections?

I mean, in particular, what is, what does the parking lot for the zoo look like in forty to seventy five years from a Oh. Climate adaptation standpoint? Open, thought.

Great question.

I thought of one more

And I don't have the maps to show the line. Again, for this, you have to look at exiting from all different modes of travel from vehicle walking and biking. And so this actually, from an adaptation standpoint, provides another way to exit the waterfront

with My question is will it be underwater? Are we just building on something

will be showing it underwater Okay. At this location. There is, it does go over Lower Sycamore Creek, and that is also a planning effort underway to widen that creek. That's that's been a long time capital need, actually. And so this over crossing had already anticipated that two years ago when we were laying out the concept design. So it actually does span, a future widened creek.

Okay. Sorry. Had one more question. So I get the ramp on the ocean side. Mhmm. How do you get off the bridge on the inland side?

On the inland side, it would be similar to, like, switchbacks. I was only allowed eight slides for this presentation. I did have another slide showing that, but it's a switchback, similar to what you might I always think of like baseball stadiums, where you switch back to get to different levels. It's like that.

That still meets accessibility

It does.

Guidelines? Okay. All right. Thanks. Ms. Santa Maria.

Thank you, Mayor Rouse. A few questions on if we can pull up slide seven. Our community stakeholder support, does is that for I can let you get to it. I'll give you

a second. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. Well, I'll ask it while you're looking for the slide. But slide seven. Is this community stakeholder support for both of the projects listed or just for one of them?

These were all of them were joint except for the east side society was specific to the Lower East Side connectivity plan for the

So, they did support the Lower East Side connectivity plan? Yes. But they didn't support the Castillo?

Well, we were limited on 10. And so, there's more than 10 here for the record. There is a Safe Routes to School section, and so that's how we sneak in the schools on their support letters. And then, the rest is then would equal 10.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. A couple other questions about, well, a lot of it is the financing. The estimated cost of the project, 40,000,000, would that all be from the ATP grant? Or would that be are we searching for other sources?

Right now, we're only requesting the for design environmental right of way, which is ballpark probably right around $12,000,000 We'd still need to go out for funding for the construction phase, which could be from the active transportation program or another source that might come online. But most likely the active transportation program.

Okay. So, design and construction, you'd be applying to the same grant for these? Correct. Okay. If we apply for the grant, and we don't get it, do we get that 1% match back?

The 1% only kicks in if you receive grant funding. So, we do not have to pay anything up front. And typically, when we do match, you don't necessarily have to have it in one fiscal year. So, we can spread it across a few fiscal years.

Okay. As we know, our construction costs are very volatile right now, and in the coming years, may get worse. If we if the grant doesn't cover the complete cost of construction, do we have a plan on how to finance that delta?

So, right now, we're not proposing construction for the over crossing. But for Castillo, we were over the amount that we had requested, there's a few ways to handle that. One is to reduce some of the scope of the grant application, and another way is to leverage some other funding sources. We have done that successfully with some of our other ATP projects where we might get, like, for example, a traffic signal funded from the highway safety improvement program. So, that's typically how we make up some of those shortfalls. Female

Okay. So, if we have a shortfall, we're not expecting that to impact our general fund? That is the goal. Female Okay. That is the goal. We're just

not We do.

Correct. Okay. Got it. Let's talk a little bit about the zoo, and where it would land. I think council member Jordan brought up a good point about the the elevation of of the land there. And so, I I have similar questions to what council member Jordan brought up about, you know, whether it's underground or not. But also considering if the zoo is thinking about placing workforce housing there. Mhmm. Would those folks house there end up under under like, would it be under sea level? Are are they later gonna have to be relocated? Do we have any sense of of what of how feasible it would even be to to like if we wanted to not go with this project because we want to pursue housing. Like how feasible would that even be?

We understand in concept that the housing would be on a podium. So they would still retain, because parking is really important for the zoo, for the patrons to get there. And so it would be up higher. But again, I don't wanna speculate on anything because it's still very, very early on, in the process. And really early on in the process for this too. Again, this is just a concept that you're seeing before you, but there's lots of meetings, community meetings, hiring consultants to really evaluate this if we were to receive grant funding.

Okay. Just a couple more questions. Would if, you know, if we approve this, and we go forward with the design, and later the construction of the over crossing, would that preclude us in the future from having workforce housing in that location? With the landing at that lot? Like, can they coexist?

It would actually land in Dwight Murphy

Oh, okay.

Park. And so, when Dwight Murphy renovation was underway, the landing area was to hook into their future parking lot area. So, it would not be impacting any housing.

Well, I don't think we know yet. I think the correct answer is that we haven't gotten into that level of detail with I the also just want to clarify that the charter doesn't apply in this because it's zoned for it, but it's not an actual dedicated park. So, I think there's a lot more that, so I just want to make sure that the council has accurate information, you know, there. And so, I just, I want to make sure that we're clear on what information is being provided to council. So, I think there's a lot of conversations about the zoo, and there is definitely an interest on, you know, having more conversations.

I've talked with the executive director a couple of times, and just where it would be located and how it would be located is, you know, we still have conversations to be had.

For just for clarification, Ms. McAtee, you're referring to where the housing would be located if they were to pursue that project? Okay. Do we know for sure that the landing of this over crossing would be at Dwight Murphy, or is that also still to be designed?

During the planning phase, it was evaluated. There was a few alignments evaluated. And again, the one that you see today was the preferred option, which was what we wrote the grant on. We do have and it's posted online on the project web page, as well as the feasibility analysis. So, there was a few other alignments that were in the zoo parking lot.

Okay. So, this proposal, this one is for landing at the zoo parking lot.

Correct.

Just to clarify. Okay. And

I think to if we were to receive the grant, could still be a continued discussion, again, because it's in concept. The concept is to have an over crossing. The where and how there's some flexibility. On the East side, it was less flexibility in where we could land in a right of way. So, we at least know that with high confidence of where that would begin. But on the waterfront side, there's a few scenarios. Yeah. I know

there were concerns from folks in that neighborhood about it potentially being a magnet for nuisance activities. How are we addressing that concern? I

think with any capital project that you see before you from any department, we have to worry about nuisance related issues. So it's nothing new, nor should it be ignored. It's very much in the planning process as we move forward.

Okay. Do we have any details? Just because I get questions from constituents from in that area. Is they have concerns about, you know, whatever it is that people would be doing in the over crossings. Just making sure that it's properly lit and all those things. Just curious about how much thought has been given into the the safety and the trying to dissuade nuisance from that area.

That's exactly it, Council Member San Marino, through the mayor. I'll provide one example. During the planning process, there's the Green Mobile Home Park, then the housing authority took over ownership of that. And so one thing that there's, as you mentioned, is lighting, having proper lighting. Again, we have to make this a high comfort facility.

So it has to be comfort for for everyone. But there's also, like, you don't wanna have a bunch of unintended traffic going through the mobile home park. So, again, it's how do you have a secure areas from the private property versus the the right of way.

So Have we done a traffic impact study for that area of how this would impact the the traffic of that neighborhood?

It's not in the sense from a you're looking more at a circulation study. It's actually like actually have less traffic because now you've whereas before, East Side residents would not feel maybe as comfortable going through Milpus or the Cabrillo Interchanges on walking or biking. And so And then now they, you know, they're taking their cars for basic trips that are very close. And so now you provide a high comfort facility where you're not necessitating a vehicle for every one of your trips. So Mhmm.

With that aspect, it's lower. Okay. Final question. Just humor me for a second.

Yeah. But, you know, these active transportation plan grant funds. Mhmm. Is there anything else that we could use it for on the East Side? Other improvements to safety, what could that potentially look like?

The short answer is we have had millions of dollars in the past decade dedicated for the East Side, specifically for safety, for safe routes to school. And it's continuing. There's, again, as part of this planning effort, were additional safety enhancements to Franklin, to Adelante, to Cleveland, to the East Side Library and Franklin Center. And so, that's really exciting that we have funding for that. Again, this, the Eastside neighborhood is one of the neighborhoods that has very high, rates for walking and biking.

We need to have the destinations, whether you're going to school, work, for everybody to arrive safely. So it has been on top of mine for a long time, and we're continuing to make progress. With funding, you can't cast an umbrella and fix everything in one day. It takes, know, it's we're a decade in into million dollars of infrastructure in the East Side.

Councilmember Maria, just or Santa Maria, just wanted to clarify your question. I think what maybe you're is, could we take, say, we were apply like, are there other high priority improvements on the East Side that could, you know, this $30,000,000 could be allocated to more spots across the East Side versus just this one sort of major bridge, if I'm understanding?

Yes, that was my question.

Yeah, so I think, you know, are there other pending improvements on the East Side, Or could the dollars be spread out further and have an impact in

the There East are already funded projects as far as for the needs. There's the Milpus Safe Crossings Project. So, that's been a long time need. That is funded. We just recently with the Milpus Highway Improvements Project, have had some additional operational, so a lot of complete streets related, projects.

So, to our knowledge in the efforts, and we're having the community meeting for design update tomorrow for the Lower East Side Safety Enhancements, which is also funded. There, from the transportation aspect, nothing additional more right in that area. There's some that will come out of the Safe Streets for All action plan on Nepal for some improvements. But nothing else other than just standard pavement maintenance and those types of items. If Mr. Damore, if you

want to Yeah. Add to I just want to make sure that it's clear. This Lower East Side Safety Enhancements Projects, that was part of this ATP project when we applied in the previous cycle. We were fortunate through SBCAG to get funding for that project, and that is moving forward. So those are those other things that we would otherwise maybe want to do with these funds, but we already have secured funding. So there's a lot going on throughout the East Side, not just this one big project.

Right. Yeah.

And that was we received about 8 and a half million dollars of construction funding for those improvements.

Thank you. Yeah, this is really helpful. I think it's that was sort of my question is, I know that we are already investing in other parts of the East Side and for the infrastructure, but sort of curious, do we have enough funding? I know that we are, you know, through other sources, but is there are there any of our current projects for safety or, you know, expanded access to pedestrians that are short funded right now that we may need to find additional funding? Like, will I guess what I'm trying to ask is, will we need this funding for other things on the East Side? Or do we have other fundings needed to cover costs like lighting, maintenance, you know, just improve safety?

So, short answer for the MELPUS crosswalk safety, that is already active transportation program approved. We're in the final design stage right now, doing all the cost estimates. And but again, if you go over, if there's shortfalls, you cannot go back and ask for additional funding through the program. We're continuing to, for that particular project, just as an example, at. So, again, there's a couple ways to address that is to remove some scope or seek other funding.

And we have we anticipated a little bit of a shortfall, so we did receive Measure A funding through Santa Barbara County Associations of Governments through their Measure A program.

Okay. Thank you so much. I'll reserve my comments, until after questions. Thank you, mayor.

Mister Freeman. Thank you, and thank you

to both of my colleagues for being so thorough. A lot of my questions were answered, but based on some of the answers, I need clarification on on some of this. The Castillo seems a little more straightforward. So but just in terms of the Castillo, is that coming from Measure C, the match? The 150,000 for that?

Council Member Friedman, it's to be determined. So, we mentioned earlier that these matching funds wouldn't come due this fiscal year or even next fiscal year. The earliest would be beginning in FY twenty eight. Measure C is probably the most likely source of that match funding. And just to kind of put in perspective, in the current fiscal year and proposed for next fiscal year, I think we have, is it over $2,000,000 of Measure C matching funds each year for ATP projects?

So, this would be far less than that. We believe we can fit that within the overall Measure C program.

So, both of them be covered. Trying to not duplicate questions here. So, the ongoing to the overpass, so the application for now is for the design. Correct? Correct. And we'd have to do another application for the construction? Correct. And so, the total construction is estimated at 40,000,000 to get us through design and through construction?

Yes. The total project cost is 40,000,000.

Since this is just for design, how much is the design? I think I heard 12,000,000?

Correct.

So, we commit to the design, then we're committing and we get it, then we're committing to the 12,000,000, correct? I just want to be sure because if we're going to commit to 12,000,000 now and then there's a bigger price tag later that we're unaware of, then that presents an issue because we've already spent $12,000,000

The only thing we would be committing to is a 1% match of the current total estimated project cost, which is $40,000,000 So, 1% of that is $400,000 So, we would be including that during this design phase. And then, when we go into construction, or when we finish the design phase, we'll have an updated cost estimate. We'll use that as the ask for the next cycle or some future cycle of ATP or some other funding source. And, we wouldn't be required to do any additional match at that point, unless maybe if the project cost went up, the 1% match would go up with that. But it's only the $400,000 that we're committing ourselves to.

So, the 400,000, if we were to get the design, that's not refundable then because that's part of the 12,000,000 to design.

Correct.

Okay. So that would be spent. Yep. So then that gets to the larger question, which I'll get into with some of the other issues with the zoo, is that we spend the 400,000, the state spends the other million or 11 and a half, but then that's a commitment we've pretty much made, so we would wanna go forward with with that, but we don't know what those costs are at at this time. We're estimating them to be, what, 28,000,000, but it could go up over time.

Okay. Yep. With the with the zoo, you've mentioned and thank you, miss McAdoo, a slight clarification. You had conversations with them, but, not sure who would be able to what is the zoo's take on this to the extent that you can? Are they supportive of this? Are they are they saying, hey. Can we get more time to work through this? Kind of where does the zoo fall on this? Because I don't want to put us in a position where they're working on something that we don't have that information right now, and this could potentially be a conflict with them.

Yeah. Council Member Friedman, the biggest concern that they have is loss of parking. They made that clear previously. They made it clear again when we met with them recently. So we heard that. And kind of both the zoo and city staff kind of walked away from that meeting, thankful that both projects are extremely early in concept. They're just ideas, basically, at this point. So we believe that as long as we're coordinating with each other, that if either one or both projects move forward, they can do so in a way that doesn't interfere with the other.

So the housing isn't near the area where the ramp comes down?

We haven't seen any specific proposal, but it could be very close to that location. And we just need to be working closely with them to figure out what plans that they have, and make sure that we're not impacting their ability to do what they would like to do there. Okay.

I'll save comments for that for later.

Yeah. Sorry. Just one other thing. I mean, other than that, about the parking, which we heard loud and clear, just generally, they were supportive of improving modes of transportation for community members, especially those who are underserved. And they believed that this would have a chance to match up well with what they're planning to do with the housing.

This is it's a larger issue now, but but it might not even it might be a moot point by the time this comes in. But I'm hearing that there might be a move to on the federal gas tax to suspend it. How does that affect our funding for our roads and infrastructure? And would that impact us in any way that there would be impacts here? Because we do get funding for infrastructure from the gas tax, don't we? Do we

Council Member Friedman, that's a really good question because I know we talk a lot about state gas tax. I'm not familiar with where the federal gas tax, how that sort of passes through. There's a good chance that some of it does pass through and it ends up with Caltrans. But I don't have the answer at my fingertips. And I'm not sure we have finance people in the room to answer that question.

Maybe in the future, if I offline just get Yeah. Information on that because I'm hearing that's coming potentially and that I just wanna see what the impacts are. And then I think those are all of oh, the last question you mentioned that it doesn't they don't compete. The projects aren't competing with each other. Can you explain how that works if they're in are they in the same cycles or are they different cycles? Because it seems these two are on the same cycle, right, that we're doing now. So, wouldn't they be competing against each other?

Yes. These two projects would be competing against each other for this cycle and whatever other applications that are submitted across the state. But that's the only two city projects. There still has not been a project defined for the State Street Master Plan effort. The call for projects is June 22. The plan, as far as I'm aware of, for State Street, it does not go back to return to council until August. So, it misses the cycle eight window. This particular grant source is held, typically every two years.

So, in the future, when we're looking at other infrastructure needs, State Street being one of them, there is the potential that there could be other city projects that these would compete with in the future.

Always, and we always go before mayor and city council to discuss what the projects are and to seek resolutions of support. Nothing that we've ever applied to. The first ingredient that we need to have is community support, and the second is mayor and council support. Without those, we do not apply for this, program.

And then my my last question, kind of in that line, is it gets to the point that council member Jordan raised with the Cliff Drive where the higher the match, the more competitive we become. And we lost out on Cliff Drive in the past because we didn't have a high enough match and had to come back. On the on the Castillo Underpass, that's a 150. And then on the the bridge, it's 400. What if we were to take some of the some of that 400 and put it towards a bridge, would it make it or the Castillo, would it make that a stronger application? And do we have any idea of how strong that Castillo underpass application is?

There great question. The we'd have to run the numbers. The there's again, it's based upon a rubric. So the next percentage match would be 5% for that. I'll just have our engineer do the quick calculations while

I'm Multiply by five.

And then the what was the second part? I just want to make sure.

It was what if a higher match and if we were to take some funding, but you kind of just answered it because you'd have to take all the funding to get to that.

Correct. And then, as far as for we did receive the scores from the last cycle. We did meet with the state representatives for a debrief of our grant applications. The Lower East Side Overcrossing scored higher than the Castillo project, mainly because it was more transformative. That's one of the categories when you're applying for those multimillion dollar projects. And so, we still anticipate that project to score higher.

Okay. Thank you. Ms. Snedden.

Thank you, Mayor Rouse. I know it's questions first, but, Ms. Grant, you're always so excellent at applying for grant applications and getting them. And so I think that's why it's important questions about, like, well, what happens if we get it? Because it's you're so successful at getting these grants. I have some questions on slide three to start with. I'm a little bit confused just because the next one. The red lines there aren't where the overpass would be. The overpass would be over by Dwight Murphy. Is that

That's correct. The purpose with this is just to show when before we landed on an over crossing project in the Lower East Side Safety Improvements, we had the planning effort to analyze. So, that was just the boundary area. I'm trying to circle with the mouse that you see was the boundary area of focus where And then it was also to point out where the crossings were approximately with the existing over crossings.

Okay. So the red red arrows right there.

That represents, so this one represents Kisik. So that was an overpass when the freeway was widened in that probably about fifteen years ago. And then the other red arrows is just showing that another way to get to the waterfront is to go through the roundabout, and then then you go into the Lower East side that way. Okay. Again, and that's volume wise for traffic, it's about 18,000 vehicles that are in that daily. And then, Cabrillo Interchange. And there's some infrastructure, and then no infrastructure. So,

is a those two red lines then show projects that were completed already.

It just shows where the connections are. Milpus, there's the one on one operational improvements that are just about complete. And then the Kasik Under crossing was completed, again, fifteen, about fifteen years ago. The Cabrillo Interchange, that's under construction right now.

Female Okay. So, I guess my question is, because a lot has happened Mhmm. Female those two red lines, which have improved connectivity through there. Not to be simplistic, but why not just continue that red line down to the waterfront, since it's already got you past underneath the freeway, and we already have the roundabout, and they're already and then it does get pretty difficult past there on bikes or ped to then get to the waterfront. So I'm just is an alternate project possibly connecting through to the waterfront enhancing that passageway there?

Doctor.

Councilmember Sneaden, if I could just jump in quickly, kind of clarify. The, the purpose of this slide that we're looking at is really to show like if you were somebody who lived in that Lower East Side area where it says plan area, and you were traveling by foot or on bike, and you wanted to get to Dwight Murphy or the zoo or some waterfront destinations, you would have the choice of going all the way west to Milpas or Kasik. That's those two red lines to the left, or traveling all the way east, which is a long ways to get to Cabrillo and go under, and then come all the way back around. It's to show just how long of a distance it is, because of that gap. There's no other option if you're not, if you're, if you're on foot or bike.

I see.

And we are also, we've, we've been making upgrades to Milpus. We just, completed some work there. So we are looking at those other opportunities because people will continue to use those other corridors. Milpas and Cabrillo will continue to be used. But that gap will exist. And there's demand. I think there would be demand to shorten that distance.

Okay. Thank you for explaining Because when I was looking at this slide, it looks like on the slide figure, like Dwight Murphy then is so close to those red lines. And then I was wondering if on Milpus all the way to Cabrillo Ballfield, if there were these raised bike lanes, or more safety going into that connection, if that would meet the need. But it sounds like

not. For some, it may be enough. I mean, some people today are probably making that long route. But it's at one point what is it? 1.25? That's a long gap. And it's also forcing people to have to cross the freeway with traffic. Right. Which is never the most comfortable.

Right. Unless it was like a raised bike path or something, which is a new favorite thing, now that I've learned about

them yesterday.

Yeah, okay. Okay, so that helps with that question. So it would be instead of, like a person in the plan area would choose the closer option to go up and over, but there's also an added length with the ramping and the switch backing. I mean, it's not 1.2 miles, but there's some added distance there, too. Yeah, okay.

And then you don't have to go back to it, but for slide two, the sort of image of what it would look like, and I remember talking about this at the time, it wouldn't have to look like that, right? Some of us didn't think it was beautiful. And so, it could look different.

Yes. It could look different, I think, for one of the interests was to span the highway and UPRR right of ways. So, a steel trust type of bridge allows for that. But there are other concepts, and that was also analyzed during the planning effort. We'd still need to go through design review, all of that. We could end up with a different bridge.

Okay.

Okay. And then, so would you so, that did confuse me with this. So, this plan area and all of this, even though it has the red lines on it, we are it is project one is the overpass. That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

Sorry. It's limited on slides.

It's all good.

But we did have some more to show. Okay.

It's all good. So, then project two, I'm completely in support of. I mean, is just so incredibly dangerous in its current state, and it just continues to be for all kinds of reasons that we know about. But I had questions about slide six. I think I just don't understand the graphic. I just wanted to understand that a little better.

So, you have

It's to me about the car on the left there that's both on the raised part and not.

Yes. So, it's always hard on these very simplistic images to show exactly what you mean. So, that would represent a parked vehicle on the left hand side, just as you have parking right now adjacent to Pershing Park. But intermixed in that would be trees. So those would be like park well. So you'd maybe park three vehicles, then you have a tree well, park a few more vehicles, tree well, that type of thing.

Okay. And I remember this at the time when we talked about it before, that there was some concern about losing some parking spaces by needing to pull over in that area. And is that part resolved, or that would come out in the design?

That would come out in the design of how many tree wells we would want to have. We don't wanna touch any of the trees on Pershing Park. Right. Okay. So, but we would have to create a new parkway so some of the parkway trees would then be removed, and then we'd replace with new trees in these I don't know how best to describe it, but a tree Tree wells. Tree tree curb extension type of thing. And so, would be as part of the design process

Female of what to do what types of trees. Okay. So, this isn't a card that's expected to park half up, half down? Female Okay. That's No. Thank you. Okay. I just wasn't sure The about

street mix is not as sophisticated. Yeah. We're showing those graphics. And so, if we do get design monies, and then we'd have better updated visuals as the design comes along of what that would look like. Again, and a visual that's existing today would be like on Wentworth Street right next to Parque De Los Ninos. It's similar.

Okay. And then I guess, clearly, connectivity to the coastal area is priority for the East Side that's been sort of largely cut off in that area. And I guess the question is, and this came up before when we heard it before, this is sort of a large constructed overpass, and then the ramp around. And, you know, now that some time has passed, are there alternate projects that might be considered, or is it this project that would be submitted, or could it be a project? I don't even know what it would be, but it's just an open ended question, if there's anything there.

We had this conversation a couple of years ago, and then for the planning efforts. And again, at the time was to move forward with that, because there was such a big budget cut at the last cycle. We wanted to continue with the community's wishes to apply for those grant applications again. So, we do want to represent that that's still a community need. There are other needs in the East Side, but that's a good story that those are funded. So nothing in addition to that that is on our radar.

Okay. So then along Milpus there, the bicycle safety along the whole corridor that's already addressed? The

north of the roundabout for crossings that that is funded. And for lighting along the corridor as well.

So I guess that's what I'm coming back to on slide three is that south of the roundabout is it seems to me very dangerous and complicated in terms of bicycle and pedestrian safety. And so, I guess that's my question for our counsel too, if a priority to I understand it would still be separated from the rest of East Side, which still needs to be addressed. So Yeah. South of

the roundabout, there's been improvements over time. Right there with ATP funding, there used to be no sidewalk in front of Tri County Produce. Or as you wrapped around, Cryo Puerto Vallarta, there was sidewalk missing there. And so, that, came in as a critical safe routes to Cleveland School, and that was funded and constructed. We recently just put in a raised bike lane from Houtache to Kisik, for a northbound movement with the Milpas 101 operational improvements.

That was again mitigation more operationally. So, we don't have backup on the highway. So, that was done. But again, we always look with the complete streets lens. We'd like to do sort of a sister project. It's already in our capital program. Would take a lot more work and design. There's a lot of utilities on the West Side Of Milpus to have a raised lane in the future so that that is a recorded need that you have adopted through the capital plan program, the last capital program cycle.

Got it. Okay. So, I just want to confirm my understanding, because I think I had a little bit of a different understanding coming into today's meeting. So I want to make sure I understand. Applying for this doesn't commit us to the funds. If we get the grant, then we would be committed to $400,000 for the design portion. So that would be the commitment if we got the grant, which you're actually very We good at would then be committed to $400,000 but that wouldn't be this coming year or next fiscal year. Female No. Okay. Because I did not understand that before.

And then, it would not compete with grant cycles for State Street Master Plan, even though these are separate things. I just want to make sure I

understand think could, is what I understood. If we had to come back for the construction of this over crossing in a same grant cycle where we were coming back for State Street improvements. So, the future construction dollars would

But we could then decide which one to put forward at that time and toggle them or somehow work that through. Okay. So, they don't necessarily compete

Well, it would be a counsel choice at that point

Okay.

About which one you would like to proceed with. Okay.

And then, my other sort of concern is that these two might compete with each other, project one and project two. And I think that the scoring might make project two higher scoring, but project one is such a constant need in terms of I would think in terms of a vision zero project two, because there are currently accidents there and injuries there. And project two is improving something that doesn't yet exist. So, guess if you could help me with that, that competing between project one and two.

Yeah. Just for the record, just for on the presentation today, project one is the over crossing. Project two is the Castillo Yes. Under crossing. And we don't we're at the mercy of whoever's reviewing the applications of project. The over crossing with the Lower East Side Safety Enhancements did score higher than Castillo last time.

So, it's more likely this time.

More likely, but it's just speculation on

our Unless end. We only put one project forward is what I'm asking. I mean, okay. I got it. Thank you. You're not recommending that.

At the end of the day, even with the appropriations, that requires another action by mayor and council. So, at any time, that could be halted at that phase. And say, we're successful in obtaining the grant, mayor and council could decide at that time to not appropriate the grant. Today, we're just asking, can we apply for the grant, see how we score, and go from there?

I think what applies for both grants. Female if they're in competition. Like, is there a benefit in just going for one project at this time? Or are they competing against each other? Yeah.

And you have two there are two people that review your grant. And they would be different. So, we have Female Okay. So, different reviewers. So, they're not on somebody's desk seeing both City of Santa Barbara applications.

That's very helpful. Thank you. So,

we have another question, Ms. Santoran?

Yeah, just one follow-up. Thank you, Mayor Rouse. I'm not sure if I'm getting too ahead of myself, so please tell me if I am. But do we know what are the anticipated neighborhood impacts would be at time of construction? Would we be closing streets? Would we be closing off, like, the Salinas entry into the freeway? Or is there any impact like that that we could foresee in the neighborhood?

Council Member Santa Maria, that's a really great question. And it's good you're asking that early on, because it's important to evaluate and consider those impacts in the design process. This one will be interesting, especially on the North side, on the East Side landing area, because it is a pretty congested residential area, and there's not a lot of staging area. Hopefully, when we haven't had these conversations with Caltrans, but there could be times when there's lane closures and we're working from the freeway side. It's a bit early right now to say with this truss design.

Hopefully, like the actual bridge installation kinda goes fast, but the foundation work is usually what takes a while, and that's using heavy, usually drilling equipment. Yeah, we would expect there would be some closures in that immediate area of the neighborhood. But we would be able to work with the residents, and get the detour plans out in advance, so people were aware.

Okay, thank you.

Council members, Santa Maria that would also all be documented in the environmental review for the And

what's the anticipated construction timeline? So, if we get if we appropriate our matching funds in fiscal year 'twenty eight, we would start construction roughly when?

It's pretty early to tell, but they're telling me the same number that I was going to give you, which is about two years. That's typical for a bridge project of this.

It would start construction in two years or it

would No, take sorry. Two The duration of the construction phase would be approximately two years. Okay. I think we're probably more like four years to get to construction if we got if we received the the grant funding for design.

Why four years and not two? Just because of the

Just because it always seems to take that long. Environmental review process, There's just a lot of review. Delivering any project, I I like to tell people, delivering any project in California and in Santa Barbara is always an accomplishment no matter how big or small it is. Right. So, we should celebrate.

Well, you all. I really appreciate all your thoroughness. Thank you, mayor.

Miss Harmon?

Thank you, mister mayor. Just one question, and I'm gonna ask for a little bit of leeway from our city attorney here. But it came to my mind when we were talking about the design of the overpass and how it's truly not set in stone. We're gonna be going out to do the work. It's really conceptual more than anything else.

And I'm it also stood out to me that we're missing the window to apply for any ATP monies for State Street. If conceptual is okay for this phase, can we not apply for an ATP grant using the drawings that we've already created under the State Street Master Plan, so we don't have to wait two more years, and then two more years after that to see any of the money? If this funds design, can we go forth with what we have?

Short answer, it could. Part of the application and if you were to print out these applications, they they end up being, very, very thick. There's the the actual application, which is a lot of narrative, and then there's all the attachments. The only thing that I would caution is the outreach and plan has not been adopted. So it will not rank as strong without having an adopted plan.

But you could still take that risk and apply for grant funding.

If the two projects don't compete against one another, would there be any harm in doing this third one? If they're not competing against one another anyway? And we can take this offline, but I just

I think we mean, I I think think Let us I think what maybe let us have a conversation about that. Okay. Female Because I think we could bring this back to have a resolution if, you know, there's still time before the June 22 date. I just also want like, staff workload and preparing three grant applications is significant. So, I think that's that might be one of the trade offs.

And so, I but I think we can have I mean, what I might suggest today, since we do have the budget presentation, is maybe just to continue this item, because given and let us come back with response around this concept of, could we do, you know, could we do a third application around the State Street? What are you know, just letting our team evaluate that a little bit more, and come back with recommendations. Because I think we still have a couple meetings between now and, the June 22 deadline.

Mr. Doyemichele? Yes, and Leeway is right, but I

think we kind of reached that limit.

You've reached the end of my route.

Correct. So, I think following Ms. McAfeeux's suggestion either we focus on what's the recommendation in these two projects and whether to apply or if you want to table it and come back with a more robust potentially three that's fine. But don't I would just caution no more discussion on State Street because that's not on the agenda. So, we should really focus on that. Thank you.

You. Understood. Well, I'll just make some very brief comments, and I'm interested to hear what my colleagues are on this. On the 2nd Castillo Street under crossing, I'm fully in support. I think it's critical for so many reasons.

So, certainly, we have to move forward with that. On Highway 101, I mean, I'm really torn here in some ways. I think, I'm not going to talk about State Street, but we have so many things that we are trying to do that are big, that are profound, and I just, it's worrisome to me that we really didn't have very many folks here to tell us that they continue to be really, really excited about this project. I am a little bit concerned that I'm more confused now than I was coming into this meeting about where the zoo actually is and what the zoo wants to see here. So, I guess I'll say I'm open to being convinced by my colleagues.

You know, I think there's something to be said for going forth and seeing what we get, and if we get it, we can maybe do some additional outreach at that time to see whether it's appropriate to accept the money is, I guess, sort of where I'm at, but I'm feeling like there's maybe more question marks than I anticipated on that one. But, yeah, my preference would be to table it to come back so we can consider, the third in addition.

Alrighty. Just a couple of quick questions. Does this, do any of these landings or structure involve any kind of eminent domain or easement achievement that, we don't have currently?

There is one easement cleanup on for the Lower East Side of a triangular piece by Caltrans that was supposed to go back to the city that didn't. So that would be worked out in the process. Caltrans is aware of it. It's sort of a remnant.

Is that part of the SB-one project, or is that separate?

It was supposed to be completed and done when they widened in the vicinity of Sycamore Creek, and it wasn't. And so, it's more of a paperwork issue with that.

But are we confident of the status of that? Because I know we had some controversies about Creek Hunter Crossing further downstream in the Carpenter area, with Caltrans, I don't know if that's, that was an SBK thing. And then in terms of the landing on the ocean side, or the zoo side, I was kinda confused, I thought this was one of the original drawings, but is that actually zoo property that the landing is on, on Slide 2?

That is City Of Santa Barbara

It's all City Of Santa Barbara

But I know. It's leased by the zoo, but it's City Of Santa Barbara No,

get that. But is that on the zoo parking lot?

Yes. Okay.

Because that was a conversation I had back when Rich Block was still the director, and that was a big caution for him, in terms of the project. So, just

And it's come the support posts on zoo property, landing Dwight Murphy Park.

Right. And the Dwight Murphy Park thing, I think you addressed this briefly earlier, because it is obvious, your project in process. Does that go over to the Los Ninos, or just lands on Los Ninos? Is that the street that's right there?

It lands adjacent to that, in that parking lot.

On the Dwight Murphy side,

or on that?

On the Dwight Murphy side.

So it goes over Los Ninos then?

It goes over the creek, and then there's sort of a shoulder area that exists now, right next to the railroad tracks. And it lands there, and matches up with the parking lot for Dwight Murphy. Okay. And then your closest, once you're in there, he would go past the parking lot for a very short distance, and then you're on the Los Ninos Drive.

All right. Okay. I'm not picturing perfectly, but that's quite right. All right. With that, we will, return back to counsel for your comments and deliberations on this. Anybody? We're looking for a, an action item here. That would be item. What's that? Ms. Sneady.

You have to look. Thank you,

Mary Ross.

Well, I'm inclined to support both of these. I'm also inclined to support a third grant proposal that should not be named at this moment. And because those are three different types of projects, one is taking care and they all connect to the waterfront, and I think that's what's key about these. And one, the Castillo under I mean, however many times we need to do it to make that a safe crossing. It is so used, and it's so dangerous.

And I think, completely in support of that one. I think in terms of the, crossing from the plan area as described over, I'm not entirely convinced that this very, large over crossing is the answer, but I think through this design process we might be getting to the answer. So, I'm inclined to support that also. I'm convinced that the funding is not in our immediate fiscal year, but is out in future years, and I think you were very convincing about how it will not compete with other transformational opportunities that we're also hoping to be supporting. So I'd be inclined for those today, but I also am it's a little bit eerie how there's no public comment in support or against.

And so those are my comments. I'm inclined to support this, move forward, as was already discussed. But also, if any of my colleagues were interested in tabling it, I would support that also.

Mr. Jordan. Thank

you, Mr. Mayor. I'm almost the same place, but not so. I'm concerned about the zoo. Every moment you had to further explain where you were at the zoo made me less confident than the answers you gave me.

We shouldn't be moving forward unless they say yes right now to whatever your conceptual plan is, and they don't sound like they've said yes to a conceptual plan. They've just agreed to meet with you and keep bringing up the same concern. And I don't see that we've offered a concern that, or a response to that concern that takes it away. So, for that reason, and all the other things in the world that can't be spoken about that are potentially coming in terms of set aside match dollars. I would be more in favor of just reprioritizing the the pedestrian bridge to a lower status than both the Castillo Under crossing and those other things I can't mention.

We should be saving for those other things right now. We should, we should not be waiting to save to them till we have a idea of what they are. They will cert, anything in the future that will line up as a potential ATP or other funding that requires a match, it should not be addressed in real time. We should be saving in advance of those. And I personally for me, those pretty much, just have my utmost priority, in my mind to get out in front of because they bleed off and and improve the entire rest of the city.

The the That mile and a quarter is, I don't I don't know, it's unfortunate. It's also not a really good description because half of that mile and a quarter is a lagoon and a zoo, And you're not going through the lagoon and the zoo in that mile and a quarter. So it's really like, whatever, three quarters of a mile or a mile that we're missing a connection over the freeway because that's where that's where you actually see residential to somewhere to go to the coast. There's no way you're going over the lagoon, and no way you're going over the bridge property to get to the coast. So I don't have an answer for for that one.

That's why it's sitting there for decades. But, I would prefer to, to push that one a little bit down the road, and concentrate on the Castillo project and the other issues we have that we're not talking about. Thank you, mister mayor.

Mister Friedman.

Thank you, mister mayor. So the Castillo project, I I think we can go forward with that one today, because one, it'll give you the time to do that. I don't think I'm not hearing any objections to that. So the more time you have to get that application prepared, the better. In regards to the over the bridge, I'm not prepared to support it at this time, and I I appreciate going through this process.

For me, the if we go forward with it and we obtain the grant, which has been said today, you're very successful in getting these grants. It's a great thing. But we will commit to $12,000,000, 400,000 from us, but also for the design plus 11 and a half or so from the state. It's all taxpayer money. And to me, if we're gonna commit 400,000 plus the state funding, then there's an obligation to take it all the way through to the end.

I don't I don't foresee doing that and then saying, oh, we don't like it now. So we're gonna stop. That's that's a big commitment, and you gotta see it to the end, and there are unknown costs at that point. Another almost by that time, it'll be close to 30,000,000. Don't know where that's gonna come from.

There's also in the out years, there's going to be a lot more pressure on measure c than there is right now, especially if we're going to construction on that project, looking for new grants and we're gonna need perhaps additional funding. The pressure is that thing that should not be named today, there's also other things like fire stations that we need to look at, other infrastructure needs, and we need to be sure that we're planning for those adequately and this could come up and compete. The construction one that we need to go after could compete against some of those, not all of them, but some of them. And that would put us in a very difficult situation if we're applying for two transformational projects against each other. And then there's the zoo.

I'm at the same position as my colleagues that we need more of a firm commitment from the zoo. And the loss of parking, it's a big deal for the zoo because it's one of the

most

visited destinations in the city. It's educational. There's summer camps there. Tourists come there. The community comes there. And any loss of parking, they they're packed on the weekends, every weekend. And any loss of parking impacts them. And with the revamp of Dwight Murphy Field, especially with the accessible playground, there's going to be more pressure on that park because people are going to be to that park for itself. So you could wind up with a situation that we haven't studied yet is if the zoo parking lot is full and people start parking in Dwight Murphy to go to the zoo, how does that create accessibility to Dwight Murphy Field? And especially the the new accessible playground.

So, those are just some that that came up. So I right now, I I agree that that that one should be tabled, come back, have stronger conversations with the zoo, understand what their project is. I I'm still unclear if they are looking at housing. Could it this project impact it or not? It's still unclear in my head from the conversations today.

It's actually less clear than when I started. I think there's there could be a conflict between the bridge and the housing, but I'm not sure yet. So I don't wanna make a $400,000 commitment from here, 11,000,000 plus from the state, and then 40,000,000 in total before we have the questions with the zoo up there. So I would be supporting moving the item b forward today and then tabling or whatever we wanna do on the on the bridge, and that's where

I am.

City attorney, please. I just wanna say thank

you, honorable mayor. I just wanna say something. In your deliberations, you can mention State Street. I mean, you're figuring out if you're figuring out your priorities and what you want to do in terms of your thought process, it's quite okay. We're not just not voting on it today. That's awesome. Just like making

formally known as. Miss Santa Maria.

Thank you, Mayor Rouse. Before I go into my comments, I just wanted to ask one quick clarifying question. I know council member Friedman mentioned, you know, we have to take care of our fire stations, for example. That doesn't qualify for these grants because this is active transportation Correct. Plan.

Okay. I just wanted to The matching dollars

are potentially From Measure C.

Okay. Potentially coming from Measure C. So, that's and any future matching dollars would also potentially come from Measure C. And so, that's, I think, where the pressure points that Councilmember Friedman was identifying.

I just wanted to make sure I was hearing that correctly. Okay. First of all, thank you to our staff. You have done incredible work. And I remember when this first came up, and I was not on the council at the time. And I heard a bit of both, of, you know, residents for it, some residents that had some concerns with it. I don't think any project is perfect, so of course, you're gonna have some concerns. But I really don't wanna lose sight of the sometimes lack of equity that the East Side faces. And as we've noted, the East Side has the longest longest commute to get to the waterfront. They are cut off the most from the waterfront.

And despite recent investments in the East Side, the East Side historically has been neglected and historically has not had the investments it requires. On that note, and thank you, Mr. Doymas, for giving me permission to say State Street. But on that note, as we discuss these grants and the potential of them going to other things, I've been going back and forth a lot on this item because my inclination is,

well, there are

a lot of other smaller projects that need to be accomplished on the East Side, and we could maybe use these funds for them. I'm, at the same time, very grateful to see that staff has already done an incredible job in getting most of those projects funded. I continue to wonder if putting all of this money into one project is the best decision for the East Side versus splitting it up into smaller projects and spreading it out more equally across the district. That being said, I understand that a lot of our transportation, you know, pedestrian safety, all of those are already funded, which is a good problem to have. And at and and with with that, I I really want to highlight that as we are thinking through on applying for for this grant.

And I think we're all in agreement. Castillo Underpass is is needed. It's a safety concern. No more Band Aid solutions for Castillo that that needs to get done. But my understanding also is that the, over crossing actually scored higher than the Castillo. I'm getting nods from staff. Okay. Yes. So it it scored higher. We're likely to get that funding, it sounds like.

And I have very serious concerns about us as a council in setting or giving direction to essentially prioritize investment on State Street versus investment on the East Side. I don't think these should be pitted against each other. But, if we are to say we will not invest in this over crossing and we will not invest in improving equity on the East Side, and instead we want to apply for that grant to go to State Street. It's just sending a very clear message to East Side residents that the priority is State Street. And that is personally as a district representative of that area, I I do not feel comfortable at all in in making that trade off or sending that message to constituents because for a long time what they've been asking for is investments that the community needs.

That being said, I echo the concerns that my colleagues have that there it's it's really eerie that there isn't a single commenter here. So I am inclined to support this project. At the same time, if folks wanted to table it, I would be open to that if we could get some community outreach just to refresh memories and just to get a temperature check from the community because we I just wanna make sure that this is truly what people want. And hopefully, that would give us time to speak to the zoo. I I would I would love to to really see a world where we are able to complete this project and, you know, the zoo's proposed housing project together.

We don't have to make them conflict with each other. I think it'd be beautiful to make them work together, especially if it's workforce housing and providing a way for children to access the schools and then everybody from the Lower East Side neighborhood being able to access the zoo and and and the waterfront. So I I I say this I I just I wanna be very clear that for me, equity is at the forefront for this for this grant cycle. We have already committed to, you know, whatever we're doing with State Street. I won't say much else about that.

But I would not feel comfortable trading off an equity investment on the East Side for an investment in State Street. Those are separate projects, and I trust our staff to be able to identify funding sources for that. So, thank you to our staff. I will be supporting this, but if we don't have a majority council that is willing to support this, as mayor pro temps Nedden said, I too would be in favor of tabling to continue the discussions and come back. I would just look to staff to tell us how long could we realistically table it before the cycle closes. Thank you.

Thank you, mister mayor. Thank you, staff for this site. I agree with my colleague, Wendy Santa Maria, that this is something that, the people of the East Side definitely need to be reminded about because this is something that I feel like they will take extremely seriously when it comes to addressing the equity issue of how the city treats that specific district. And, I also just feel like it's needed as well, just having grown up there with friends and family and such and making it very difficult to get to the beach from from there. I I know for a fact that through the Santa Barbara Maritime Museum, they have a camp where they take the kids to the museum, and they teach them about history of the harbor and and boating and such.

And they've regularly told me how when they are taking these kids to the beach, there are some of them who admit to them that they've never been to the beach even though they live just within a quarter mile of it. So, I find this extremely important, and, I will be supporting it as well. Thanks.

Miss Harmon?

Thank you, mister mayor. I just wanna be very clear. I was in no way suggesting that we should prioritize one area of the city over another, simply given that the applications do not compete against one another, that we should throw in a third. And so, given that, I would suggest that we table this for now, and then it returns, ideally with information on whether we can have a third proposal and some additional stakeholder outreach just confirming where everyone is, and then we take the vote at the next available.

Does the count just Council Member Harmon, thank you. Does the council want to take a vote on the on item B, is the Castillo Under crossing? Or do you want to just table everything and bring it back?

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a shot at a motion, if you're ready.

I was gonna make a comment.

I would like, be happy to let you do that, but I think Miss McAdoo is trying to get us to get a motion out there. I'm ready when you are.

Well, quickly, you know, we have a ton of activity in that area with the Dwight Murphy construction, the Tri County construction that's pending, including all those outbuildings that go down towards the park. We have the Cabrillo Under Crossing, which will be constructed, hopefully done by 2028. That's the whole goal. We've got a lot of stuff going on in the area. We don't even know what it's going to look like. I mean, we kind of have some ideas, what the, how it's going to function, how people are going to adjust to them. So, my take away from all this is more of working on the infrastructure we have, rather than creating infrastructure. And that's why the Castillo Street Underpass thing looks like the more feasible thing to do. And per, I think Mr. Friedman made that suggestion.

I think this is a, it's a bridge that I originally thought was an interesting idea. Now I watched Galita go through the same thing with their Storkbridge, and they've decided to focus on their street surface improvements with their roundabouts and their Hollister Avenue improvements. And I really do think that that was the correct decision because these are big fanciful projects. But you yield and bang for your buck wise, is the demand there, or are we trying to create a demand? I don't really know, we don't know.

We can only guess at it. But a firm commitment to doing something, particularly with the Casique and Lopez Underpass areas, and making those as safe as possible. The Castillo Underpass area, I think those are priorities that are very reachable and whatnot. And as we sit around, and even though it's a lot of chicken and egg with the funding, we're talking about funding at a time when we don't have a lot of funding. Painted ourselves into a corner, we really have a responsibility to square all that away.

I think first, before we commit to these larger projects. As I, having worked with SB CAG on the finish of SB one e, the north, I realized that the funding we set out to get, at the end of the day, usually isn't going to be enough, given what's going on with product construction and things. So we're talking about a $40,000,000 project, I don't know, I don't know about that, but it could really grow and we'd be into a commitment like Eric said, if we're gonna do this, we gotta do it. Well, what if we get to a point where we're committed to it and now it's a $6,065,000,000 dollar project. And what, how long is that gonna take to amortize?

And what does that really mean to the rest of the city that still has projects on the ground, part of our current infrastructure that really needs improvement. So, I once again, I think I could back something along the lines of looking at the steel project, and not necessarily the other one. And I know, as far as tabling goes, know you have a certain amount of timeline you're up against as well. You've done a lot of work on this grant, and it's not like you can put it off forever. So, I think that that's something that this council will need to know as they make, as we make our decision and deliberation. So, Mr. Jordan, you were gonna make a motion. Am I gonna come back to you?

You bet. So I'm working off the staff report, not that screen. So I you'll just have to extrapolate. But, I'd, move that we, delete recommendation a, which refers to the resolution for the Highway 101 pedestrian bridge. Adopt b, which refers to the Castillo Under Crossing.

And adopt C with the change in the language that removes the A section, which is the matching $100,000, again for the bridge overpass. And then also direct staff to review that a, the the pedestrian bicyclist overpass, based on council comments and address the issues on what I heard was the zoo outreach match ready, abilities for that and return to counsel when appropriate with an update.

Okay, there's a motion. Do I have a second Second. Or a Second by Freeman. Okay. That's the motion on the floor. Ms. Santa Maria.

Yeah. Question to the motion. Are we suggesting that we direct staff to come back with a potential third proposal? Is that did you include that in there?

I'm is that just just struggling for words to talk about what to defer it down the road. This project doesn't go away. It sits on the books forever. So, I'm just saying we take the pedestrian bridge and move it on down the road a little bit. Let them continue to work on mainly you were you were the most comments on on that. The outreach and the stuff like that. And when they accomplish that and are ready to come back and talk about it, have a better commitment from the zoo. Talk about match funding and how that fits in with the overall economic picture of the city. That when that time is ripe, that they come back and make another presentation.

Just a point of clarification for staff. Yeah. The third proposal Ms. San Maria just referred to, the timeline isn't very realistic for that in this grant cycle. Am I correct about that? I mean, you could do it, but it's not shovel The ready

deadline is June 22. We do have outreach for the Lower East Side for design update on the safety enhancements, and we were going to update the East Side community about the over crossing. So, the webinar is tomorrow, and next week is the in person meeting. Because of limited council dates, just check out the way today was the day for council, but we do have meetings planned for that. And then, we have a couple touch points towards the May for the Castillo Under Crossing.

But even now, these grants, it's regurgitation from two years ago, but there's still a heavy lift. Still looking at weekend and evening work from now until June 22.

And then before you start, get Ms. Sanamaria, the city attorney's got a comment? Well, I just was saying,

Honorable Mary, thank you. In terms of the third proposal, if we're talking about State Street, you know, it's not on the agenda. So I think, one, if you're approving one but you want more outreach or more information on the second one, and then you bring the third one by not saying Stacy because it's not on the agenda here. Bring it in terms of like

Thank you.

Comparing priorities and stuff like that and staff to come through without that. So that just it should be a little bit nuanced in that way just for Brown Act.

I did say something like that. Okay. We'll go with that. Okay. Just want to have it clear for the record.

Yeah, we'll repeat the motion before we go forward. And miss Ann Marie, are you still on your comment?

Very brief comment. If I could offer a friendly amendment, I think instead of removing a of the over crossing, we would table it. We don't want to remove that recommendation completely, but we want to table it until staff can come back with the additional information, which and I'm deferring to you all on that timeline.

Yeah, we'll need to talk internally internally about that. And then, I also want to talk with the staff team about the possibility of a potential third application, and whether that's feasible for this grant. So, we know what the deadlines are, and we can come back, you know, as needed to report on that.

Thank you. I want to be very clear. I'm acutely aware of the workload that I would require to take on an additional third one. I am personally not suggesting that we take on a third one if my colleagues want to explore a third proposal, that's up to you all. But I personally would not want to put that on staff. I know that you've already done work on this. So, that's not part of what I was suggesting, but I was curious if that was part of the motion. Thank you.

So, it sounds like you just want a word change, because I do have to take away the recommendation A, because we're not doing that. But if you're saying and I said we would have staff bring it back

when appropriate. Yeah.

Just So, if you want to use if somebody has a different phrase over there they want to use that doesn't say remove it?

Yeah. So, I just I think it's just table the resolution for item A. Okay. And direct staff to return with a discussion of, you know, outreach around item A, as well as alternate proposals that could be submitted for this grant cycle.

Okay. So, before Ms. Nedden, the maker of the motion, are you good with that? Yeah. Okay. Second.

She's going to make me say it, too.

Yeah, I'm good with that.

Male You're not taking notes? Ms. Nedden.

Female Thank you. So, I would be in favor of just passing all of staff recommendation today. I think I am uneasy that we didn't have any public comment, but there was robust outreach at the time. And I think I mean, unless when you're at these meetings, if people, you know, have completely reversed course, then that would be worth hearing about. But I think anything like you said, it's regurgitating what's already been, and you're already on path to turn this in.

So, anything short of that would be or anything diverging from that would be an additional workload is, I think, what I'm understanding. So, like, what it's been through the public process, it's been through all of the public outreach, which was robust. It has all of the support, and really, this would just be confirming that it's still on people's mind and that they are still supportive. But I'm not seeing that then you would then change what the proposal is. There wouldn't be time for that.

Yeah, I think if there was significant concerns that come out of the community outreach, then obviously we'd want to take a different path. But yes, I agree with your comments, Counselor Morriston.

Okay. And so then, really, I don't see any third application or not application as part of this conversation, because that's a separate conversation of can we get that in this grant cycle? Because this one, we're not asking for additional much additional workload. Is that confirmed that this application is ready to go? You're just needing confirmation from city council that you can submit it. Is that

Councilmember Sneaden, it's not ready to go like we couldn't submit it tomorrow, but it's certainly because we've submitted previously. It's just refreshing it. Still a pretty big effort, just to But, submit these a new one, a brand new one, would probably be several times more effort involved. Okay.

That's very helpful. So, I'll reiterate that I would be prepared to pass all of them today, but if we want to, since there are these convenient public outreach times, but not with the intention of like completely revamping the project. This would just be, you know, confirmation that this is what we have already heard from the public, then tabling it until I think a date certain would be important on this one, or in time to prepare it, because it's still enough.

Sorry. In time for the grant application. We'll make sure to bring the discussion back. So, I think that's clear. We don't want to lose the opportunity for the to put the application in and to give counsel the opportunity to weigh on that. So, absolutely. But I just I want to give I want to have an opportunity to talk with staff about the timeline before we commit to a date to bring it back.

Okay. So, if the maker of the motion is amenable to saying tabling as opposed to deleting, yeah. Okay. And then, in time for this current grant cycle. I think because tabling can sound like way off. So, tabling to return in time for the June 22 grant cycle.

I'm going to make sure that's your words, not me telling staff.

Well, also, the city administrators also just made it clear that she needs to be able to defer with staff to get

That's, that signed I think we can definitely bring it back. And whether it will either be, we can do two grant, we can do three grant applications, or at this point, we only recommend two, but we will absolutely come back with a discussion with counsel before the grant deadline.

Okay. So, we have a motion

on the floor. You want to hear it again?

I think we're going to have to,

yeah.

Right. So, based on the recommendations on the front page of the staff report, we would table A, which has to do with the resolution regarding the overpass bridge, and direct staff to return to council in time for the current cycle with additional information on outreach, financial match funding status, given the dynamics all over the city, and better information from the zoo as to accepting the design as it stands right now. A yes or no. For b, direct staff to adopt b, which is the resolution for the Castillo underpassing. And for C, to adopt C, remove the, A part of C that has to do with approve the matches now for the overpass bridge.

Okay. The seconder?

Timothy Yes.

Timothy

Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Ms. Sneaden.

I'm sorry. That's remove, or in that, see also table and return to counsel in time for the grant cycle.

All right. I'll go to table rather than remove. One would have to come back with the other, though. So, yep.

Thank you.